Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 64 references

The light-by-light contribution to the muon g-2 within the nonlocal chiral quark model with vector and axial-vector mesons

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Including vector and axial-vector mesons leaves the muon g-2 hadronic light-by-light term at $(157\pm10.6)\times10^{-11}$.

desk verdict The vector-meson dressing calculation is solid and the effect is tiny, but the headline total is not yet a complete prediction: the error bar is internally inconsistent, the strange sector is imported from an older model, and the negative pion loop is missing. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13588 v1 pith:ECITPNE5 submitted 2025-04-18 hep-ph

A.E. Radzhabov , A.S. Zhevlakov This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords muong-2hadroniclight-by-lightnonlocalchiralquarkmodelvectormesondressingaxial-vectormesonsanomalousmagneticmomentlooprho-omegatransition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper extends a nonlocal chiral quark model to include vector and axial-vector mesons and computes the hadronic light-by-light contribution to the muon's anomalous magnetic moment. It reports a total of $a_\mu^{\mathrm{HLbL}}=(157\pm10.6)\times10^{-11}$, close to the $(168\pm12.5)\times10^{-11}$ obtained earlier without spin-1 mesons. The new effect, the dressing of internal photon lines by vector-meson transitions, is tiny: at the preferred parameter point it contributes about $-2.9\times10^{-11}$, with two- and three-exchange terms below $0.1\times10^{-11}$. If this result holds, the model's hadronic light-by-light prediction is stable under adding spin-1 mesons, and the remaining Standard Model discrepancy with the measured muon anomaly must be accounted for by other hadronic pieces, chiefly hadronic vacuum polarization.

What carries the argument

The calculation rests on gauge-invariant nonlocal vertices generated by a path-ordered exponential phase factor attached to each quark field, which produces quark-antiquark-photon and meson-quark-antiquark-photon vertices with any number of photons. In the vector sector, every photon-quark vertex is dressed by a transverse $\rho(\omega)\to\gamma$ transition encoded in the function $C_{\gamma V}(q^2)$ together with the transverse projector; since $C_{\gamma V}(0)=0$, the vector mesons appear only on internal lines, and the light-by-light amplitude receives at most three vector-meson exchanges. The four-rank polarization tensor is built from the quark box plus the nonlocal multiphoton vertices, and the muon anomaly is extracted with the standard projection formula reduced to a three-dimensional integral. A local limit with constituent quark mass $m_Q=300$ MeV serves as a cross-check, recovering the expected combinatorial coefficients $-3$, $3$, and $-1$ for one-, two-, and three-exchange diagrams.

What would settle it

Recompute the strange quark loop and the $\eta$, $\eta'$, $f_0(980)$, and $a_0(980)$ exchange contributions with the vector- and axial-vector-dressed vertices used elsewhere in this paper; if that block shifts by more than about five units, the quoted $157\pm10.6$ is no longer the model's answer. Alternatively, a lattice or dispersion measurement of the hadronic light-by-light contribution below about $135\times10^{-11}$ with an uncertainty below $5$ would exclude the central value at more than two standard deviations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that, in the nonlocal chiral quark model with scalar-pseudoscalar and vector-axial-vector channels, the hadronic light-by-light contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment is $a_\mu^{\mathrm{HLbL}}=(157\pm10.6)\times10^{-11}$. The non-strange quark loop alone is about $96\times10^{-11}$; adding the $\pi$, $\sigma$, $a_1$, and $f_1$ exchange contributions gives an SU(2) value of $150\pm9.6$ at the preferred dynamical mass $m_d=310$ MeV, where both the $\rho$ and $a_1$ masses can be reproduced. The strange-particle pieces ($\eta$, $\eta'$, $f_0(980)$, $a_0(980)$, and the strange quark loop) are added from the earlier model without spin-1 mesons. The genuinely new ingredient, the dressing of internal photons by $\rho(\omega)\to\gamma$ transitions, contributes only $-2.9$, $0.09$, and $0.001$ (in units of $10^{-11}$) for one, two, and three vector-meson exchanges at that point.

Load-bearing premise

The final total assumes that the strange-quark and strange-meson contributions ($\eta$, $\eta'$, $f_0(980)$, $a_0(980)$, strange loop) computed in the model without vector and axial-vector mesons stay essentially unchanged when spin-1 mesons are introduced, and can simply be added on.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the quoted total is right, the earlier scalar-pseudoscalar estimate of $168\times10^{-11}$ was already within about one standard deviation of the extended-model value, so the nonlocal framework is stable under this extension.
  • Vector-meson dressing of internal photons is a sub-3-unit effect, so future calculations in the same model can safely keep only the quark loop and one-vector-meson corrections.
  • Including the axial-vector mesons $a_1$ and $f_1$ does not destabilize the sum; near $m_d=310$ MeV the total is nearly independent of the ratio $G_2/G_1$.
  • The central value $157\times10^{-11}$ is larger than recent lattice and dispersive determinations; if the newer lattice-based hadronic vacuum polarization is used, the residual gap to experiment narrows no matter which light-by-light value is adopted.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: recomputing the strange-sector contributions inside the extended model is the immediate test; a shift of even a few units in that block would move the quoted total outside its error bar.
  • Editorial inference: the rapid convergence of the one-, two-, and three-exchange series suggests that truncating at one vector-meson exchange is safe for other observables in this model, such as hadronic vacuum polarization.
  • Editorial inference: the larger central value compared with lattice and dispersive results points to the missing pion-loop contribution, a $1/N_c$ correction expected to be negative, as the most likely single mechanism to bring the prediction down; calculating that loop in the nonlocal framework would be decisive.
  • Editorial inference: the local-limit cross-check, in which all vector-meson exchanges combine to minus the quark loop, could be turned into a general consistency condition for any nonlocal model with vector mesons.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper computes the hadronic light-by-light (HLbL) contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment in the nonlocal chiral quark model extended with vector and axial-vector mesons. The main new effect, the dressing of internal photon lines by intermediate ρ(ω) exchanges, is found to be tiny: at md = 310 MeV the one-, two-, and three-vector-meson-exchange contributions are -2.9, 0.09, and 0.001 (in units of 10^-11), respectively. The non-strange quark loop is reported as (96±9.1)×10^-11 in Section V (the abstract quotes 96±15.4), the SU(2) total including meson exchanges is 150±9.6, and adding strange-particle contributions from Ref. [28] gives the final result a_mu^HLbL = (157±10.6)×10^-11 in Eq. (16). The result is compared with lattice, dispersive, DSE, and AdS/QCD determinations in Fig. 9.

Significance. If the quoted result survives closer scrutiny, the paper's main message is that extending the nonlocal quark model to spin-1 mesons leaves the HLbL value essentially unchanged and that the vector-meson dressing of internal photons is negligible, in contrast to the large reduction found in the early ENJL estimate. The numerical procedure is supported by useful cross-checks in Appendix B, including local limits and comparisons with VMD and ENJL dressings, and the authors explicitly identify the main formal limitation (the missing pion loop). However, the central value in Eq. (16) is not a complete model prediction: the strange-sector contributions are imported from the model without vector mesons, and the pion-loop contribution is omitted and acknowledged to be negative. The paper is therefore a valuable model study with conditional impact on the current g-2 discussion.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V, after Fig. 8] The final total in Eq. (16) is obtained by adding the strange-particle contributions (η, η′, f0(980), a0(980), and the strange quark loop) from the model without spin-1 mesons [28] under the assumption that they "will not change much" after introducing vector–axial-vector fields. This is an uncomputed assumption: the paper does not recompute these diagrams in the V-AV model or estimate the associated uncertainty. Since these contributions amount to roughly 7×10^-11, a moderate relative change would shift the central value of Eq. (16) by more than the quoted ±10.6 uncertainty. The total should either be recomputed in the extended model or presented with an explicit caveat and an appropriate uncertainty.
  2. [Section VI, final paragraphs] The paper explicitly states that the mean-field calculation does not include the pion-loop contribution, a subleading 1/Nc term, and that this contribution is known to be negative [7,53]. Because the pion loop can plausibly shift the result by tens of 10^-11, the value 157±10.6 in Eq. (16) is not a complete model prediction and the comparison with lattice and dispersive values in Fig. 9 is incomplete. The authors acknowledge this limitation in the text, but the abstract and Section V present Eq. (16) without this caveat. An estimate of the pion-loop contribution, or at least a quantitative bound, is needed before the total can be meaningfully compared with other determinations.
  3. [Abstract and Section V] The abstract quotes the non-strange quark loop as (96±15.4)×10^-11, while Section V reports 96±9.1 for the same quantity at md = 310 MeV. The error 15.4 does not appear anywhere in the body of the paper; the text instead gives 105±9.1 for the range-averaged loop and 96±9.1 for the chosen point. This inconsistency makes the error budget of the headline numbers internally untraceable and must be corrected.
  4. [Section V, uncertainty derivation] The quoted uncertainties for the central values at md = 310 MeV (9.1 for the loop, 9.6 for the SU(2) total) appear to be inherited from the range-averaging procedure over md from 200 to 350 MeV rather than derived at the chosen point. At md = 310 MeV the spread between the G2/G1 = -0.08 and -0.14 curves is about 3 units for the quark loop, so the origin of the ±9.1 error bar is unclear. The paper should state explicitly how each error quoted in Eq. (16) and in the preceding values is computed.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Fig. 8 discussion] In the sentence "the contributions to the ratio of −0.08 from quark loops and mesons are 99 and 51," the phrase "the ratio of −0.08" should likely read "the parameter set with G2/G1 = −0.08"; please rephrase for clarity.
  2. [Appendix B] In the sentence "the value of the vector meson correction will be small if Λ ∼ 1 GeV," the word "if" should likely be "for"; please check the intended meaning.
  3. [Section II, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) is typeset in a way that is hard to read, with the coupling constants and field terms not cleanly separated; please re-typeset to improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the HLbL value is computed from parameters fixed to meson observables, with only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation for the strange-sector input.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained in the required sense. Model parameters (md, G1, G2, f) are fixed by the gap equation and by meson masses in the authors' earlier work [29], not by the muon g-2 value; the paper never fits the target quantity. Section IV evaluates the four-rank polarization tensor from the model vertices, and the vector-meson dressing contributions (-2.9, 0.09, 0.001 at md=310 MeV, Section V and Figs. 5-7) are computed outputs, not fitted inputs. The only self-referential input is the strange-particle contribution (eta, eta', f0(980), a0(980), strange quark loop), which is imported from [28] without recomputation: 'we can assume that the strange-particle contribution will not change much after the introduction of vector–axial-vector fields, and add to our estimate the strange-particle contribution in model without spin-1 mesons [28].' This is an explicitly flagged assumption and a self-citation, and it enters the quoted total (16) at roughly the 7x10^-11 level, but it is not a constructional identity: the new claims (small vector dressing, non-strange loop 96±9.1) do not reduce to it. The paper also openly states in Section VI that the mean-field calculation omits the pion-loop (1/Nc) contribution, known to be negative [7,53]; that is a limitation on completeness, not circularity, since no parameter was adjusted to absorb it. An internal inconsistency in the quoted uncertainty (abstract says 96±15.4, Section V says 96±9.1) is a traceability issue rather than circular reasoning. Overall, no predicted quantity is equivalent by definition to an input, and the central new results stand independently of the borrowed strange-sector numbers.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central value depends on parameters fitted to meson masses and on the carry-over of strange-particle results from the earlier model without vector mesons. The calculation is a model prediction, not a parameter-free derivation.

free parameters (4)
  • md (dynamical quark mass) = 310 MeV (central value)
    The central value is chosen at md=310 MeV because at this point the model can describe both the rho and a1 meson masses; the allowed range from fixing G2 with the rho mass is 293-354 MeV (Section V).
  • G1 (pseudoscalar-scalar coupling) = Not stated numerically; enters via the gap equation
    Fitted to pion observables and used to determine md through the gap equation (Eq. 4).
  • G2 (vector-axial coupling) = Not stated numerically; ratio G2/G1 between -0.08 and -0.14
    Fitted to the rho meson mass; the ratio range is used to set the shaded bands in Figs. 4-8 (Section V).
  • Nonlocal form factor width Lambda = Not explicitly given in this paper
    The Gaussian form factor f(x) has a parameter fitted to mesonic observables (footnote 6, Section II).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The nonlocal chiral quark model with a Gaussian form factor and parameters fitted to meson observables adequately approximates low-energy QCD for this calculation.
    The entire calculation is performed in this effective model; its validity is assumed (Section II).
  • domain assumption The leading-order 1/Nc (mean-field) approximation is used; pion-loop and other subleading 1/Nc corrections are neglected.
    Explicitly stated in Section VI: 'the mean-field calculations in the quark model do not include the pion loop contribution, which is known to give a negative contribution.'
  • ad hoc to paper Strange-particle contributions from the model without vector mesons [28] remain unchanged in the vector-axial-vector model.
    Section V: 'we can assume that the strange-particle contribution will not change much after the introduction of vector-axial-vector fields, and add to our estimate the strange-particle contribution in model without spin-1 mesons [28].'
  • domain assumption Only one vector meson can attach at a nonlocal quark vertex, so at most three vector meson exchanges contribute to the LbL tensor.
    Section IV: 'from the third term in Eq. (9), only one vector meson can interact with a quark-antiquark pair and external electromagnetic fields at the point of interaction.'

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The light-by-light contribution to the muon g-2 within the nonlocal chiral quark model with vector and axial-vector mesons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ECITPNE5

@misc{pith2026250413588,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The light-by-light contribution to the muon g-2 within the nonlocal chiral quark model with vector and axial-vector mesons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ECITPNE5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13588}
}
read the original abstract

The hadronic light-by-light contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment is calculated in the framework of a nonlocal quark model with scalar-pseudoscalar and vector-axial-vector channels. The effect of the dressing of internal photons by vector mesons is found to be tiny. As a result, the contribution from the non-strange quark loop is a_{\mu}^{HLbL,Loop}=( 96+-15.4)x10^{-11}. The total value, including meson exchanges and the contribution of strange particles, is a_{\mu}^{HLbL}=( 157+-10.6)x10^{-11}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.13588 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Photon-quark vertices: the usual local one ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The full quark–antiquark–(n)photon vertices: with nonlocal vertex ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The box diagram and the diagrams with nonlocal multiphoton interaction vertices represent the gauge invariant set of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (in units 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (in units 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (in units 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (in units 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (in units 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (in units 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Ratio of additional vertex with vector meson exchange with respect to VMD result [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. (in units 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. (in units 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    Hoferichter, P

    M. Hoferichter, P. Stoffer, and M. Zillinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 061902 (2025), arXiv:2412.00190 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    X. Fan, T. G. Myers, B. A. D. Sukra, and G. Gabrielse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 071801 (2023), arXiv:2209.13084 [physics.atom-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  3. [2]

    in an identical way. In Fig. 10, the behavior of the additional dressed function related to the VMD result is shown for the ENJL model and F (Q2),f (Q/ √ 2)F (Q2) for the nonlocal model, for a set with md = 310 MeV. One can see that the VMD, ENJL, and nonlocal models produce the same sign of the correction, and the result of the nonlocal model is suppress...

    work page

  4. [3]

    D. P. Aguillard et al. (Muon g-2), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 161802 (2023), arXiv:2308.06230 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [4]

    Hanneke, S

    D. Hanneke, S. Fogwell, and G. Gabrielse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 120801 (2008), arXiv:0801.1134 [physics.atom-ph]

    arXiv 2008

  6. [5]

    R. H. Parker, C. Yu, W. Zhong, B. Estey, and H. M¨ uller, Science 360, 191 (2018), arXiv:1812.04130 [physics.atom-ph]

    arXiv 2018

  7. [6]

    P. Mohr, D. Newell, B. Taylor, and E. Tiesinga 10.48550/ARXIV.2409.03787 (2024), arXiv:2409.03787 [hep-ph]

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.03787 2024

  8. [7]

    Aoyama et al

    T. Aoyama et al. , Phys. Rept. 887, 1 (2020), arXiv:2006.04822 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 64 references
  1. [8]

    Morel, Z

    L. Morel, Z. Yao, P. Clad´ e, and S. Guellati-Kh´ elifa, Nature588, 61 (2020)

    2020

  2. [9]

    Boccaletti, S

    A. Boccaletti, S. Borsanyi, M. Davier, Z. Fodor, F. Frech, A. Gerardin, D. Giusti, A. Y. Kotov, L. Lellouch, T. Lippert, A. Lupo, B. Malaescu, S. Mutzel, A. Portelli, A. Risch, M. Sjo, F. Stokes, K. K. Szabo, B. C. Toth, G. Wang, and Z. Zhang 10.48550/ARXIV.2407.10913 (2024), ...

    2024 doi arXiv

  3. [10]

    Colangelo et al

    G. Colangelo et al. , arXiv:2203.15810 [hep-ph] (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Aubin, T

    C. Aubin, T. Blum, M. Golterman, and S. Peris, in 39th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (arXiv, 2022) arXiv:2211.12057 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Borsanyi et al

    S. Borsanyi et al. , Nature 593, 51 (2021), arXiv:2002.12347 [hep-lat]. 13 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10−3 10−2 10−1 100 101 1/3 -2/3 3 1+2+3 -local limit aLbL,had µ M2 V /M2 ρ FIG. 12. (in units 10 −11) The LbL contribution from diagrams with additional vector meson vertices to th...

    2021 arXiv

  6. [13]

    G. Wang, T. Draper, K.-F. Liu, and Y.-B. Yang (chiQCD), (2022), arXiv:2204.01280 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Blum et al

    T. Blum et al. 10.48550/ARXIV.2301.08696 (2023), arXiv:2301.08696 [hep-lat]

    2023 doi arXiv

  8. [15]

    Lehner and A

    C. Lehner and A. S. Meyer, Phys. Rev. D 101, 074515 (2020), arXiv:2003.04177 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [16]

    C` eet al

    M. C` eet al. , (2022), arXiv:2206.06582 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. (Fermilab Lattice, HPQCD,, MILC), Phys. Rev. D 107, 114514 (2023), arXiv:2301.08274 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Alexandrou et al

    C. Alexandrou et al. , (2022), arXiv:2206.15084 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Bijnens, E

    J. Bijnens, E. Pallante, and J. Prades, Nucl. Phys. B 474, 379 (1996)

    1996

  13. [20]

    F. V. Ignatov et al. (CMD-3), Phys. Rev. D 109, 112002 (2024), arXiv:2302.08834 [hep-ex]

    2024

  14. [21]

    Knecht and A

    M. Knecht and A. Nyffeler, Phys. Rev. D65, 073034 (2002)

    2002

  15. [22]

    Hayakawa, T

    M. Hayakawa, T. Kinoshita, and A. I. Sanda, Phys. Rev. D 54, 3137 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9601310 [hep-ph]

    1996 arXiv

  16. [23]

    E.-H. Chao, R. J. Hudspith, A. G´ erardin, J. R. Green, and H. B. Meyer, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 664 (2022), arXiv:2204.08844 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [24]

    White paper

    and (BMWc) [25], phenomenological estimations :“White paper” 2020 [7], dispersive formalism (HSZ2025)[26], “Glasgow consensus” [46], DSE&BSE studies [30], AdS/QCD result for different models [27]. In the current approach, the QCD asymptotics are automatically fulfilled by diag...

    2020

  18. [25]

    Jegerlehner and A

    F. Jegerlehner and A. Nyffeler, Phys. Rept. 477, 1 (2009), arXiv:0902.3360 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  19. [26]

    T. Blum, N. Christ, M. Hayakawa, T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, C. Jung, C. Lehner, and C. Tu, arXiv:2304.04423 [hep-lat] (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Fodor, A

    Z. Fodor, A. Gerardin, L. Lellouch, K. K. Szabo, B. C. Toth, and C. Zimmermann 10.48550/ARXIV.2411.11719 (2024), arXiv:2411.11719 [hep-lat]

    2024 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    Leutgeb, J

    J. Leutgeb, J. Mager, and A. Rebhan 10.48550/ARXIV.2411.10432 (2024), arXiv:2411.10432 [hep-ph]

    2024 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    A. E. Dorokhov, A. E. Radzhabov, and A. S. Zhevlakov, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 417 (2015), arXiv:1502.04487 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A. E. Radzhabov, A. S. Zhevlakov, A. P. Martynenko, and F. A. Martynenko, Phys. Rev. D 108, 014033 (2023), arXiv:2301.12641 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Goecke, C

    T. Goecke, C. S. Fischer, and R. Williams, Phys. Rev. D 87, 034013 (2013), arXiv:1210.1759 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  25. [33]

    A. E. Dorokhov and L. Tomio, Phys. Rev. D 62, 014016 (2000)

    2000

  26. [34]

    M. K. Volkov, Sov. J. Part. Nucl. 17, 186 (1986)

    1986

  27. [35]

    U. G. Meissner, Phys. Rept. 161, 213 (1988)

    1988

  28. [36]

    B. S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev. 125, 2189 (1962)

    1962

  29. [37]

    Mandelstam, Annals Phys

    S. Mandelstam, Annals Phys. 19, 1 (1962)

    1962

  30. [38]

    Terning, Phys

    J. Terning, Phys. Rev. D44, 887 (1991)

    1991

  31. [39]

    J. S. Ball and T.-W. Chiu, Phys. Rev. D22, 2542 (1980)

    1980

  32. [40]

    R. S. Plant and M. C. Birse, Nucl. Phys. A 628, 607 (1998)

    1998

  33. [41]

    A. E. Dorokhov and W. Broniowski, Eur. Phys. J. C 32, 79 (2003), hep-ph/0305037

    2003 arXiv

  34. [42]

    S. J. Brodsky and J. D. Sullivan, Phys. Rev. 156, 1644 (1967)

    1967

  35. [43]

    Dorokhov, A

    A. Dorokhov, A. Radzhabov, and A. Zhevlakov, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 2227 (2012), arXiv:1204.3729 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Jegerlehner, The Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Muon , Vol

    F. Jegerlehner, The Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Muon , Vol. 274 (Springer, Cham, 2017) pp. 1–693

    2017

  37. [45]

    Colangelo, M

    G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, M. Procura, and P. Stoffer, J. High Energy Phys. 2015 (09), 074, arXiv:1506.01386 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Colangelo, M

    G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, M. Procura, and P. Stoffer, J. High Energy Phys. 2017 (04), 161, arXiv:1702.07347 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Dorokhov, A

    A. Dorokhov, A. Radzhabov, and A. Zhevlakov, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1702 (2011), arXiv:1103.2042 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Prades, E

    J. Prades, E. de Rafael, and A. Vainshtein, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 20, 303 (2009), arXiv:0901.0306 [hep-ph]. 14

    2009 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Danilkin, C

    I. Danilkin, C. F. Redmer, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 107, 20 (2019), arXiv:1901.10346 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Nedelko, A

    S. Nedelko, A. Nikolskii, and V. Voronin, J. Phys. G 49, 035003 (2022), arXiv:2109.00949 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Bijnens, N

    J. Bijnens, N. Hermansson-Truedsson, and A. Rodr´ ıguez-S´ anchez, JHEP03, 094, arXiv:2411.09578 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    Leutgeb and A

    J. Leutgeb and A. Rebhan, Phys. Rev. D 101, 114015 (2020), arXiv:1912.01596 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Cappiello, O

    L. Cappiello, O. Cat` a, G. D’Ambrosio, D. Greynat, and A. Iyer, Phys. Rev. D 102, 016009 (2020), arXiv:1912.02779 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    S. Wu, C. Shen, and H. Song, (2021), arXiv:2104.13250 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Miramontes, A

    A. Miramontes, A. Bashir, K. Raya, and P. Roig, Phys. Rev. D 105, 074013 (2022), arXiv:2112.13916 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Radzhabov, D

    A. Radzhabov, D. Blaschke, M. Buballa, and M. Volkov, Phys. Rev. D 83, 116004 (2011), arXiv:1012.0664 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Hayakawa 10.48550/ARXIV.2501.16547 (2025), arXiv:2501.16547 [hep-ph]

    M. Hayakawa 10.48550/ARXIV.2501.16547 (2025), arXiv:2501.16547 [hep-ph]

    2025 doi arXiv

  50. [58]

    Asmussen, E.-H

    N. Asmussen, E.-H. Chao, A. G´ erardin, J. R. Green, R. J. Hudspith, H. B. Meyer, and A. Nyffeler, Journal of High Energy Physics 2023, 10.48550/ARXIV.2210.12263 (2022), arXiv:2210.12263 [hep-lat]

    2022 doi arXiv

  51. [59]

    E.-H. Chao, R. J. Hudspith, A. G´ erardin, J. R. Green, H. B. Meyer, and K. Ottnad, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 651 (2021), arXiv:2104.02632 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Bernard, A

    V. Bernard, A. H. Blin, B. Hiller, Y. P. Ivanov, A. A. Osipov, and U.-G. Meissner, Annals Phys. 249, 499 (1996)

    1996

  53. [61]

    Grozin, Comput

    A. Grozin, Comput. Phys. Commun. 283, 108590 (2023), arXiv:2207.01351 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Bijnens, E

    J. Bijnens, E. Pallante, and J. Prades, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1447 (1995)

    1995

  55. [63]

    Bijnens and J

    J. Bijnens and J. Prades, Z. Phys. C 64, 475 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9403233

    1994 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Maris and P

    P. Maris and P. C. Tandy, Phys. Rev. C 61, 045202 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/9910033

    2000 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.