Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 8 cited by

This paper computes the nuclear-structure correction to 10C superallowed beta decay with quantum Monte Carlo wave functions and chiral EFT operators, and finds it agrees with both the traditional survey value and the recent no-core shell mo

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 22:26 UTC pith:ICOKVPS5

load-bearing objection First QMC calculation of δ_NS in 10C, technically solid and transparent, but the 'good agreement' with prior results is carried by an arbitrary LEC band. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2509.07310 v2 pith:ICOKVPS5 submitted 2025-09-09 nucl-th

Quantum Monte Carlo calculation of δ_(rm NS) in ¹⁰C using an effective field theory approach

Garrett B. King , Joseph Carlson , Abraham R. Flores , Stefano Gandolfi , Emanuele Mereghetti , Saori Pastore , Maria Piarulli , Robert B. Wiringa This is my paper
classification nucl-th
keywords superallowed beta decaynuclear-structure radiative correctionsV_ud extractionchiral effective field theoryquantum Monte CarloGreen's function Monte Carlocarbon-10 decayCKM unitarity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish that the nuclear-structure-dependent radiative correction to the superallowed beta decay of carbon-10 can be computed from first principles with quantum Monte Carlo wave functions and chiral effective field theory operators, and that the result agrees with the two existing determinations. If correct, it provides an independent, ab initio cross-check of the correction that feeds the most precise determination of the CKM matrix element V_ud, whose first-row unitarity is currently in tension with the Standard Model. The calculation splits the correction into an energy-independent piece carried by magnetic, tensor, spin-orbit, contact, and O(alpha^2) two-body operators, plus a smaller energy-dependent piece. Across four nuclear Hamiltonians, the QMC results give a long-range contribution of -(4.06 to 4.43) x 10^-3 and, once the unknown contact couplings are assigned an arbitrary range, a full delta_bar_NS compatible with the survey value -4.0(5) x 10^-3 and the NCSM value -4.22(32) x 10^-3. The largest remaining uncertainty is not the many-body method but two undetermined low-energy constants.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the nuclear-structure-dependent radiative correction delta_bar_NS for 10C -> 10B* can be evaluated using chiral EFT two-body current operators and quantum Monte Carlo (VMC and GFMC) wave functions, and that the resulting correction is consistent with the standard survey value and the more recent dispersive no-core shell model calculation. Concretely, the GFMC magnetic-plus-spin-orbit part of delta_NS^(0) sits in the range -[4.06,4.43] x 10^-3, roughly 40 percent larger in magnitude than the delta_NS,B = -3.06(35) x 10^-3 used in the traditional survey, with the difference attributed to many-body correlations in the GFMC wave functions. The energy-dependent p

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the EFT decomposition of the radiative correction into an energy-independent piece delta_NS^(0) and an energy-dependent piece delta_NS^E, with the isospin structure separated into spectator-proton and spectator-neutron contributions. Each piece is a sum over nuclear matrix elements of two-body transition operators labelled Fermi, Gamow-Teller, tensor, and spin-orbit, defined through radial functions h(r) such as the ~1/r magnetic and spin-orbit pieces, the delta-function contact terms carrying the two unknown LECs g_V1^NN and g_V2^NN, and the logarithmic O(alpha^2) Fermi term. The many-body matrix elements and their radial densities C(r) are computed with variation

Load-bearing premise

Two short-range coupling constants in the nuclear operator are not known from experiment or QCD; the paper arbitrarily sets them to plus or minus one in dimensionless form, and this choice drives the largest uncertainty in the final correction to V_ud.

What would settle it

Measure the charge radius of 10B*(0+;1) and check the paper's claimed linear correlations with M_F^E and M_F^+, and/or compute the two contact couplings g_V1^NN and g_V2^NN on the lattice: if the true LECs land outside the +/- (1/m_N)(2F_pi)^-2 band, the central values and error bars of delta_bar_NS and V_ud shift by more than the quoted ranges.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • The long-range magnetic-plus-spin-orbit part of delta_NS^(0) comes out at -[4.06,4.43] x 10^-3 in GFMC, about 40 percent larger in magnitude than the survey's delta_NS,B, so the difference is attributed to many-body correlations rather than to physics missing from the EFT.
  • With the arbitrary contact-LEC range included, EFT+QMC, the traditional survey analysis, and the NCSM dispersion calculation all agree on delta_bar_NS within errors, removing a reason to suspect a large nuclear-structure error in V_ud extraction.
  • The 10C-only extraction of V_ud from EFT+QMC falls between 0.97336 and 0.97355, compatible with the survey-based (0.97318) and NCSM-based (0.97317) values within the experimental error; the theory error from the unknown LECs is larger than the spread from the four Hamiltonians.
  • Because the spin-independent matrix elements M_F^E and M_F^+ correlate strongly with the charge radius of 10B*, a measured radius of the 0+ daughter would directly reduce the model dependence of the energy-dependent correction.
  • The corrected spin-orbit operator and the non-negligible L^CM term change the operator set of Ref. [48]; these changes matter most in systems where the LS and L^CM contributions do not cancel.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the two contact LECs were determined from lattice QCD or from modeled two-nucleon weak amplitudes, the dominant uncertainty in this approach would drop, likely making EFT+QMC competitive with or more precise than the dispersive NCSM evaluation.
  • The strong empirical correlation between radius and the spin-independent matrix elements suggests a cheap experimental route: measuring the charge radius of the short-lived 10B* 0+ state would pin down the model dependence of the largest energy-dependent term without waiting for a full QCD calculation of the LECs.
  • The sensitivity of the spin-dependent matrix elements to OPE correlations, and the nodal densities that drive GFMC changes, warn that calculations in heavier superallowed emitters need wave functions that reproduce spin-isospin correlations, not just energies and radii.
  • Clarifying how pion-range contributions depend on the definition of the isospin limit, as the paper notes, is a prerequisite for consistently separating delta_C from delta_bar_NS at higher chiral orders; until that is settled, the current delta_C input is taken from the survey analysis rather than computed in the same framework.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents the first QMC calculation of the nuclear-structure-dependent radiative correction \bar{\delta}_{NS} for the superallowed 10C→10B* decay, using the EFT formalism of Refs. [48,49]. The authors evaluate the relevant two-body operator matrix elements (magnetic, tensor, spin-orbit, contact, and O(α^2) Fermi) with VMC and GFMC wave functions generated from four Hamiltonians: AV18+UX, AV18+IL7, NV2+3-Ia, and NV2+3-Ia*. They benchmark the Fermi matrix element (M_F = 7.07), analyze the transition densities, and study the role of OPE correlations. The GFMC long-range magnetic-plus-spin-orbit contribution is -[4.06,4.43]×10^{-3} (Eq. (34)); the O(α^2) two-body contribution is -[0.21,0.40]×10^{-3} (Eq. (37)); and the energy-dependent term is +[0.97,1.17]×10^{-3} (Eq. (39)). Adding an arbitrary dimensional-analysis range for the unknown contact LECs (Eq. (A14) with \tilde{g}=±1) makes the total \bar{\delta}_{NS} compatible with the Hardy-Towner and NCSM values, and leads to the V_ud extractions in Eqs. (46)–(49).

Significance. If the underlying EFT derivation is accepted, this is a useful independent many-body evaluation of \bar{\delta}_{NS}. The paper is careful in its operator definitions, provides a transparent decomposition of uncertainties, corrects a sign in the spin-orbit operator, restores the L_CM term, and includes a simple Fermi-matrix-element sanity check. The radial-density analysis and the correlation study in Sec. V are valuable diagnostics. The main limitation is structural rather than mathematical: the two contact LECs are undetermined, and the quoted agreement with previous evaluations is obtained by adding an arbitrary LEC band to the calculated central values. The authors are transparent about this, but the abstract's "good agreement" language goes beyond what the LEC-free calculation supports. The work is nonetheless a meaningful first step in benchmarking QMC against existing shell-model and dispersive results, provided the claims are recalibrated.

major comments (2)
  1. [§VI, Table V, Abstract] The claim of "good agreement" is not supported by the LEC-independent part of the calculation. Summing the GFMC entries in Table V (mag+LS, O(α²), and δ_E^NS) without the contact-LEC term gives δ_NS central values of approximately −3.3 to −3.7×10^{-3} across the four interactions. These lie 0.55–0.93×10^{-3} above the NCSM value −4.22(32)×10^{-3} (Eq. (36)), i.e., about 2σ, and 0.3–0.7×10^{-3} from the Hardy–Towner value −4.0(5)×10^{-3} (Eq. (35)). The ±(0.48–0.77)×10^{-3} band from Eq. (A14) with \tilde{g}=±1 is an arbitrary dimensional-analysis prior; it only widens the error bars and does not move the central values toward the comparison targets. The abstract and the conclusion ("very good agreement" with Ref. [50]) should be revised to state that the results are compatible only after including this prior, and the LEC-free comparison should be displayed separately.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A18)] The O(α^2) three-body transition operator is not evaluated. Because the O(α^2) two-body contribution is already −[0.21,0.40]×10^{-3} (Eq. (37)), an uncomputed three-body term of comparable size would enter at the quoted precision. The manuscript should either compute/estimate this contribution or explicitly identify it as a missing piece in the uncertainty budget. As written, "which we have not evaluated" leaves a known omission that is not reflected in the error bars.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (7) and Eq. (A4)] The tensor operator definition in Eq. (7) contains a typo: S^(jk)(r̂) = 3 r̂·σ^(j) r̂·σ^(k) − σ^(i)·σ^(j) should read − σ^(j)·σ^(k), as in Eq. (A4).
  2. [Sec. V.A] The text says the L_CM term is "actually non-negligible" in relation to Ref. [48], but later states that the LS matrix element is negligible because of a cancellation between L and L_CM. Please clarify that the individual contributions are non-negligible while their sum is small.
  3. [Eq. (A13)] The regulator is written as R_S = 0.8 fm^{-1}, but the Gaussian in Eq. (A13) requires R_S to have dimensions of length. This is presumably a typo for R_S = 0.8 fm; since the contact matrix elements M_CT depend on R_S, this should be corrected.
  4. [Eqs. (33), (46)–(49)] The error labeled σ_{g_NN_V} in Eqs. (46)–(49) is the width of an assumed LEC range, not a determined uncertainty. The manuscript should explicitly state this is a prior and that the central values would shift if the LECs were found to lie outside the assumed ±1 range.
  5. [Sec. VI, Eq. (44)] In the sentence following Eq. (44), "the first error" and "the second error" are clear, but the notation (56)gV(87)µ could be made more explicit by saying "the first error is from g_V and the second from the scale µ."

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central δ_NS calculation is not fitted to the 10C decay data; the EFT operators come from independent prior derivations, and the arbitrary LEC band is an honest uncertainty, not a self-referential fit.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (i) adopt EFT two-body operators from Refs. [48,49] (Sec. II); (ii) compute their nuclear matrix elements with VMC/GFMC for four Hamiltonians (Secs. III–V); (iii) combine them with external inputs (g_V, phase-space factors, t, δ_C) to form δ_NS and extract V_ud; (iv) compare with Hardy-Towner [45] and NCSM [50]. No step uses the 10C beta-decay data or the comparison values as an input to fix the calculation. The two LECs g_V1^NN and g_V2^NN are explicitly not fitted: Eq. (A14) sets dimensionless couplings to ±1, and Table V labels this as 'arbitrary values.' The resulting error band widens the uncertainty until overlap with Refs. [45,50] occurs, so the claimed 'good agreement' is an overlap of an a priori LEC range with external results, not a prediction forced by construction. That is an underdetermination/correctness concern, not a circular reduction. The self-citations to Refs. [48,49] (authors overlap with Gandolfi and Mereghetti) provide the operator formalism, but those are published, independent derivations already applied to 14O, and the present paper corrects a sign error in the spin-orbit operator and adds the L_CM term, demonstrating that the cited result is not being used as an unexamined black box. The V_ud comparison shares δ_C and t with Ref. [45], but the paper states this assumption explicitly and it does not feed back into the δ_NS result. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its inputs by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central quantities are matrix elements of operators derived in prior work by overlapping authors; the genuinely new inputs are the QMC wave functions and the four Hamiltonians, which are from previous publications. No new particles or forces are introduced. The main ledger entries are the two undetermined contact LECs and the regulator choices, all of which are explicitly acknowledged in the text.

free parameters (3)
  • g_V1^NN, g_V2^NN (contact LECs) = Not fitted; set to +/-(1/m_N)(2F_pi)^-2, i.e., g_tilde = +/-1
    Enter the short-range contact operators in Eq. (A10); the paper uses the dimensional-analysis estimate (Eq. A14) and the resulting range dominates the error budget of delta_NS and V_ud (Table V).
  • R_S (regulator for contact delta functions) = 0.8 fm^-1 (as printed; presumably fm)
    Gaussian regulator width in Eq. (A13) chosen by hand; for AV18 it is admitted to be inconsistent with the potential's short-range dynamics (Appendix A).
  • Lambda (cutoff for O(alpha^2) log operator) = R_A^-1 = (1.2 A^1/3)^-1
    Chosen in Eq. (A15); the paper states the Lambda dependence cancels with the treatment of the Fermi function, so it is a scheme choice rather than a fitted value.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The two-body chiral EFT operators of Refs [48,49] form the complete set of O(alpha epsilon_chi) and O(alpha Q/M_pi) contributions to delta_NS.
    Used throughout Section II; the present paper corrects a sign and adds the L_CM term, but assumes no other missing operators at this order.
  • domain assumption The mixed-estimate GFMC formula (Eq. 21) gives accurate off-diagonal matrix elements for operators that do not commute with the Hamiltonian.
    Section III; Eq. (19) is explicitly stated to be approximate for non-commuting operators.
  • ad hoc to paper The three-body O(alpha^2) transition operator in Eq. (A18) is negligible.
    Appendix A.1 states 'which we have not evaluated'; its omission is assumed to be numerically irrelevant without a quantitative estimate.
  • domain assumption The isospin-breaking correction delta_C from Ref [45] can be combined with the EFT-calculated delta_NS.
    Section VI, used in Eqs. (41)-(45); the paper concedes delta_C should ideally be computed with the same many-body method and interactions.
  • domain assumption Setting the isospin limit with M_pi = M_pi0 in the two-body weak currents and potentials.
    Appendix A.3; the paper notes the pion-range contributions depend on this definition and could change under a different isospin limit.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23047 in / 17812 out tokens · 190439 ms · 2026-08-04T22:26:16.398453+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Monte Carlo calculation of $\delta_{\rm NS}$ in $^{10}$C using an effective field theory approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ICOKVPS5

@misc{pith2026250907310,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Monte Carlo calculation of $\delta_\rm NS$ in $^10$C using an effective field theory approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ICOKVPS5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07310}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We compute radiative corrections to the superallowed $\beta$ decay of $^{10}{\rm C}$ in an effective field theory approach using nuclear matrix elements obtained from quantum Monte Carlo calculations. These corrections are an important ingredient in the extraction of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Masakawa quark mixing matrix element $V_{ud}$, and the role of this work is to illuminate the uncertainties arising from nuclear structure. Our results provide good agreement with both the traditional extraction of $V_{ud}$, as well as with a more recent evaluation performed using the no-core shell model and a dispersion formalism. The dominant uncertainty in this approach is the presence of two unknown low-energy constants that enter into the relevant nuclear matrix elements. Future determinations of these low-energy constants -- either from QCD or modeling them with two nucleon amplitudes -- would improve the precision of the extraction in this formalism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07310 by Abraham R. Flores, Emanuele Mereghetti, Garrett B. King, Joseph Carlson, Maria Piarulli, Robert B. Wiringa, Saori Pastore, Stefano Gandolfi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Comparison of the matrix elements obtained with the Ia interaction (filled symbols) vs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Normalized operator densities according to Eq. (24) computed with VMC using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Comparison of the matrix elements obtained with the Ia interaction (filled symbols) vs Ia* [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 8 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Nuclear Charge Radius of $^9$Be from Muonic Atom Spectroscopy Using a Microcalorimeter

    nucl-ex 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Muonic X-ray spectroscopy with a microcalorimeter yields r_c(9Be)=2.5506(51) fm, 2.4× more precise than and 2.3σ above the electron-scattering value.

  2. Pion $\beta$ decay and $\tau\to\pi\pi\nu_\tau$ beyond leading logarithms

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 7.0

    Pion β decay and τ→ππν short-distance radiative corrections are matched at NLL accuracy with evanescent-scheme dependence cancelled, giving Δ_RC^{πℓ}=0.03403(11) and a τ-HVP isospin-breaking shift of −0.07(4)×10^-10.

  3. Quantum Monte Carlo calculation of $\delta_C$ in the superallowed beta decay of $^{10}$C

    nucl-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Ab initio QMC calculations yield δ_C ≈ 0.15–0.25% for ¹⁰C superallowed beta decay, consistent across phenomenological and chiral interactions within 34–65% relative uncertainties.

  4. Computational schemes for the Magnus expansion of the in-medium similarity renormalization group

    nucl-th 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    The hunter-gatherer scheme for the Magnus expansion in IMSRG(3) approximations introduces differences of up to 7 MeV in ground-state energies and 0.5 MeV in excitation energies compared to standard IMSRG(2) methods.

  5. Recent Progress in Ab-Initio Nuclear Theory for Precision Physics Searches in Muonic Atoms and Superallowed $\beta$ Decays

    nucl-th 2026-07 accept novelty 2.0

    Ab initio nuclear theory for two-photon exchange in muonic atoms and the γW box in superallowed β decays shares one hadronic tensor, with recent light-nuclei results impacting charge radii, the helium isotope shift, and Vud.

  6. The Role of Ab Initio Beta-Decay Calculations in Light Nuclei for Probes of Physics Beyond the Standard Model

    nucl-th 2026-01 conditional novelty 2.0

    A status report showing ab initio beta-decay corrections now reach the 1e-4 level needed for precision Standard-Model tests, with key uncertainties from undetermined EFT low-energy constants.

  7. The Role of Ab Initio Beta-Decay Calculations in Light Nuclei for Probes of Physics Beyond the Standard Model

    nucl-th 2026-01 conditional novelty 2.0

    A review of ab initio computations of beta-decay corrections in light nuclei, concluding that current NCSM/SA-NCSM/QMC calculations can provide quantified uncertainties at a level relevant to precision Vud extraction ...

  8. Future directions in nuclear $\beta$ decay at FRIB and beyond

    nucl-th 2026-07 unverdicted

    A community white paper summarizing the current state and future directions of nuclear beta-decay studies at FRIB, with no new quantitative result.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 7 Pith papers · 13 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Operators contributing to the energy-independent correctionδ (0) NS 28

  2. [2]

    Operators contributing to the energy-dependent correction δE NS 29

  3. [3]

    inner radiative corrections

    Pion-range contributions to δE NS 30 References31 I. INTRODUCTION In the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics, charged-current interactions are mediated by the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa (CKM) quark mixing matrix [1, 2], which is predicted to be unitary. By independently measuring the individual CKM elements, the unitarity of the CKM matrix can be teste...

    2020

  4. [4]

    Operators contributing to the energy-independent correctionδ (0) NS AtO(α), ¯δNS receives contributions from magnetic, contact and spin-orbit operators. The radial functions are hmag GT,p(r) = 4hmag T,p (r) = gA 3mN 1 +κ p r ,(A8) hmag GT,n(r) = 4hmag T,n (r) = gA 3mN κn r ,(A9) hCT GT,p(r) =− 4π 3 (gNN V1 +g NN V2 )δRS (r), hCT GT,n(r) =− 4π 3 (gNN V1 −g...

  5. [5]

    HereM π =M π0, andZ π is determined from the pion mass splitting M 2 π± −M 2 π0 = 2e2F 2 π Zπ,(A20) implyingZ π ∼0.8

    Operators contributing to the energy-dependent correction δE NS The energy-dependent correction receives the following contributions hE F,p(r) =− r 2RA , hE F,n(r) = 0, hEπ GT,p(r) =−h Eπ GT,n(r) = g2 AZπ 3 e−Mπr 72MπRA 12 + 12Mπr−M 2 πr2 , hmeπ GT,p(r) =−h meπ GT,n(r) = g2 AZπ 3 e−Mπr 72MπRA 15−21M πr+M 2 πr2 , hEπ T,p(r) =−h Eπ T,n(r) = g2 AZπ 3 e−Mπr 7...

  6. [6]

    Pion-range contributions to δE NS The matrix elements of the pion-range operators that contribute toδ E NS are given in Table VI. The largest matrix element,M Eπ GT,p, entersδ E NS multiplied by the prefactor− √ 2αRAE0 ∼ 30 Model Method M Eπ GT,p M Eπ GT,n M meπ GT,p M meπ GT,n NV2+3-Ia VMC −0.048 0.014 0.013 −1.4·10 −3 GFMC −0.053 0.018 0.016 −1.5×10 −3 ...

  7. [7]

    Cabibbo, Phys

    N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett.10, 531 (1963)

    1963

  8. [8]

    Kobayashi and T

    M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys.49, 652 (1973)

    1973

  9. [9]

    Czarnecki, W

    A. Czarnecki, W. J. Marciano, and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D70, 093006 (2004), hep- ph/0406324

    arXiv 2004

  10. [10]

    I. S. Towner and J. C. Hardy, Rept. Prog. Phys.73, 046301 (2010)

    2010

  11. [11]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    Hocker, H

    A. Hocker, H. Lacker, S. Laplace, and F. Le Diberder, Eur. Phys. J. C21, 225 (2001), hep-ph/0104062

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  13. [13]

    Bona et al

    M. Bona et al. (UTfit), JHEP07, 028 (2005), hep-ph/0501199

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  14. [14]

    Gorchtein and C

    M. Gorchtein and C. Y. Seng, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.74, 23 (2024), 2311.00044

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Cirigliano, W

    V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, E. Mereghetti, and O. Tomalak, Phys. Rev. D108, 053003 (2023), 2306.03138

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    R. W. Pattie, Jr. et al., Science360, 627 (2018), 1707.01817

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    F. M. Gonzalez et al. (UCNτ), Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 162501 (2021), 2106.10375

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Measurement of the Free Neutron Lifetime in a Magneto-Gravitational Trap with In Situ Detection

    R. Musedinovic et al., Phys. Rev. C111, 045501 (2025), 2409.05560

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    M¨ arkisch et al., Phys

    B. M¨ arkisch et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 242501 (2019), 1812.04666. 31

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    A. T. Yue, M. S. Dewey, D. M. Gilliam, G. L. Greene, A. B. Laptev, J. S. Nico, W. M. Snow, and F. E. Wietfeldt, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 222501 (2013), 1309.2623

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [21]

    Improved determination of the $\beta$-$\overline{\nu}_e$ angular correlation coefficient $a$ in free neutron decay with the $a$SPECT spectrometer

    M. Beck et al., Phys. Rev. C101, 055506 (2020), 1908.04785

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    Aoki et al

    Y. Aoki et al. (Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)) (2024), 2411.04268

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    C. Y. Seng, M. Gorchtein, and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Phys. Rev. D100, 013001 (2019), 1812.03352

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    C.-Y. Seng, M. Gorchtein, H. H. Patel, and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 241804 (2018), 1807.10197

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [25]

    C.-Y. Seng, X. Feng, M. Gorchtein, and L.-C. Jin, Phys. Rev. D101, 111301 (2020), 2003.11264

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    Czarnecki, W

    A. Czarnecki, W. J. Marciano, and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D100, 073008 (2019), 1907.06737

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    Electroweak axial structure functions and improved extraction of the $V_{ud}$ CKM matrix element

    K. Shiells, P. G. Blunden, and W. Melnitchouk, Phys. Rev. D104, 033003 (2021), 2012.01580

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Standard Model $\mathcal{O}(\alpha)$ renormalization of $g_A$ and its impact on new physics searches

    L. Hayen, Phys. Rev. D103, 113001 (2021), 2010.07262

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    Carrasco, P

    N. Carrasco, P. Lami, V. Lubicz, L. Riggio, S. Simula, and C. Tarantino, Phys. Rev. D93, 114512 (2016), 1602.04113

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  30. [30]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. (Fermilab Lattice, MILC), Phys. Rev. D99, 114509 (2019), 1809.02827

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  31. [31]

    Bazavov et al., Phys

    A. Bazavov et al., Phys. Rev. D87, 073012 (2013), 1212.4993

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  32. [32]

    P. A. Boyle et al. (RBC/UKQCD), JHEP06, 164 (2015), 1504.01692

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  33. [33]

    Cirigliano, A

    V. Cirigliano, A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, and M. Moulson, Phys. Lett. B838, 137748 (2023), 2208.11707

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Belfatto, R

    B. Belfatto, R. Beradze, and Z. Berezhiani, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 149 (2020), 1906.02714

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    Grossman, E

    Y. Grossman, E. Passemar, and S. Schacht, JHEP07, 068 (2020), 1911.07821

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    Crivellin and M

    A. Crivellin and M. Hoferichter, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 111801 (2020), 2002.07184

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  37. [37]

    Kirk, Phys

    M. Kirk, Phys. Rev. D103, 035004 (2021), 2008.03261

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    Crivellin, F

    A. Crivellin, F. Kirk, C. A. Manzari, and M. Montull, JHEP12, 166 (2020), 2008.01113

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  39. [39]

    A. K. Alok, A. Dighe, S. Gangal, and J. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D108, 113005 (2023), 2108.05614

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    Crivellin, M

    A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, M. Kirk, C. A. Manzari, and L. Schnell, JHEP10, 221 (2021), 2107.13569

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    Crivellin, M

    A. Crivellin, M. Kirk, T. Kitahara, and F. Mescia, JHEP03, 234 (2023), 2212.06862

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    Belfatto and Z

    B. Belfatto and Z. Berezhiani, JHEP10, 079 (2021), 2103.05549. 32

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    Belfatto and S

    B. Belfatto and S. Trifinopoulos, Phys. Rev. D108, 035022 (2023), 2302.14097

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    Asymmetry in flavour changing electromagnetic transitions of vector-like quarks

    S. Balaji, JHEP05, 015 (2022), 2110.05473

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  45. [45]

    S. Q. Dinh and H. M. Tran, Nucl. Phys. B997, 116384 (2023), 2303.14913

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    G. C. Branco, J. T. Penedo, P. M. F. Pereira, M. N. Rebelo, and J. I. Silva-Marcos, JHEP 07, 099 (2021), 2103.13409

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  47. [47]

    Crivellin, M

    A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, and C. A. Manzari, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 071801 (2021), 2102.02825

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    Gonz´ alez-Alonso and J

    M. Gonz´ alez-Alonso and J. Martin Camalich, JHEP12, 052 (2016), 1605.07114

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  49. [49]

    Falkowski, M

    A. Falkowski, M. Gonz´ alez-Alonso, and K. Mimouni, JHEP08, 123 (2017), 1706.03783

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  50. [50]

    Cirigliano, W

    V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, E. Mereghetti, and T. Tong, JHEP03, 033 (2024), 2311.00021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    J. C. Hardy and I. S. Towner, Phys. Rev. C102, 045501 (2020)

    2020

  52. [52]

    Gorchtein, Phys

    M. Gorchtein, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 042503 (2019), 1812.04229

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  53. [53]

    Dispersive formalism for the nuclear structure correction $\delta_\mathrm{NS}$ to the $\beta$ decay rate

    C.-Y. Seng and M. Gorchtein, Phys. Rev. C107, 035503 (2023), 2211.10214

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  54. [54]

    Cirigliano, W

    V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, S. Gandolfi, M. Hoferichter, and E. Mereghetti, Phys. Rev. C110, 055502 (2024), 2405.18464

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Cirigliano, W

    V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, S. Gandolfi, M. Hoferichter, and E. Mereghetti, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 211801 (2024), 2405.18469

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    Gennari, M

    M. Gennari, M. Drissi, M. Gorchtein, P. Navratil, and C.-Y. Seng, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 012501 (2025), 2405.19281

    arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Engel and J

    J. Engel and J. Men´ endez, Rept. Prog. Phys.80, 046301 (2017), 1610.06548

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  58. [58]

    I. S. Towner, Nucl. Phys. A540, 478 (1992)

    1992

  59. [59]

    Carlson, S

    J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, F. Pederiva, S. C. Pieper, R. Schiavilla, K. E. Schmidt, and R. B. Wiringa, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1067 (2015), 1412.3081

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  60. [60]

    Gandolfi, D

    S. Gandolfi, D. Lonardoni, A. Lovato, and M. Piarulli, Front. in Phys.8, 117 (2020), 2001.01374

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  61. [61]

    G. B. King and S. Pastore, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.74, 343 (2024), 2402.06602

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    B. S. Pudliner, V. R. Pandharipande, J. Carlson, S. C. Pieper, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev.C56, 1720 (1997), nucl-th/9705009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  63. [63]

    Pervin, S

    M. Pervin, S. C. Pieper, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C76, 064319 (2007), 0710.1265

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  64. [64]

    R. B. Wiringa, V. G. J. Stoks, and R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev.C51, 38 (1995), nucl-th/9408016. 33

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  65. [65]

    R. B. Wiringa, R. Schiavilla, S. C. Pieper, and J. Carlson, Phys. Rev. C89, 024305 (2014), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.89.024305

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.89.024305 2014

  66. [66]

    Piarulli, L

    M. Piarulli, L. Girlanda, R. Schiavilla, R. Navarro P´ erez, J. E. Amaro, and E. Ruiz Arriola, Phys. Rev.C91, 024003 (2015), 1412.6446

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  67. [67]

    Piarulli, L

    M. Piarulli, L. Girlanda, R. Schiavilla, A. Kievsky, A. Lovato, L. E. Marcucci, S. C. Pieper, M. Viviani, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev.C94, 054007 (2016), 1606.06335

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  68. [68]

    Piarulli et al., Phys

    M. Piarulli et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 052503 (2018), 1707.02883

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  69. [69]

    Baroni et al., Phys

    A. Baroni et al., Phys. Rev.C98, 044003 (2018), 1806.10245

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  70. [70]

    V. G. J. Stoks, R. A. M. Klomp, M. C. M. Rentmeester, and J. J. de Swart, Phys. Rev.C48, 792 (1993)

    1993

  71. [71]

    H. W. Hammer, S. K¨ onig, and U. van Kolck, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 025004 (2020), 1906.12122

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  72. [72]

    Weinberg, Nucl

    S. Weinberg, Nucl. Phys. B363, 3 (1991)

    1991

  73. [73]

    van Kolck, Phys

    U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev.C49, 2932 (1994)

    1994

  74. [74]

    Epelbaum, A

    E. Epelbaum, A. Nogga, W. Gloeckle, H. Kamada, U. G. Meissner, and H. Witala, Phys. Rev.C66, 064001 (2002), nucl-th/0208023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  75. [75]

    Fujita and H

    J. Fujita and H. Miyazawa, Prog. Theor. Phys.17, 360 (1957)

    1957

  76. [76]

    Piarulli and I

    M. Piarulli and I. Tews, Front. in Phys.7, 245 (2020), 2002.00032

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  77. [77]

    Navarro P´ erez, J

    R. Navarro P´ erez, J. E. Amaro, and E. Ruiz Arriola, Phys. Rev.C88, 064002 (2013), [Erra- tum: Phys. Rev.C91,no.2,029901(2015)], 1310.2536

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  78. [78]

    Navarro P´ erez, J

    R. Navarro P´ erez, J. E. Amaro, and E. Ruiz Arriola, Phys. Rev. C89, 024004 (2014), 1310.6972

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  79. [79]

    Navarro Perez, J

    R. Navarro Perez, J. E. Amaro, and E. Ruiz Arriola, Phys. Rev. C89, 064006 (2014), 1404.0314

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  80. [80]

    J. M. Bub, M. Piarulli, R. J. Furnstahl, S. Pastore, and D. R. Phillips, Phys. Rev. C111, 034005 (2025), 2408.02480

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.