Arxiv:1704.06046V2 [Hep-Ph] 8 May 2017 the Region of (Very) Low Momenta

Electromagnetic decays of the neutral pion

Esther Weil,1, ∗ Gernot Eichmann,1, 2, † Christian S. Fischer,1, 3, ‡ and Richard Williams1, § 1Institut fürTheoretische Physik, Justus-Liebig UniversitätGießen, 35392 Gießen, Germany 2CFTP, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal 3HIC for FAIR Gießen, 35392 Gießen, Germany We complement studies of the neutral pion transition form factor π0 → γ(∗)γ(∗) with calculations for the electromagnetic decay widths of the processes π0 → e+e−, π0 → e+e−γ and π0 → e+e−e+e−. Their common feature is that the singly- or doubly-virtual transition form factor serves as a vital input that is tested in the non-perturbative low-momentum region of QCD. We determine this form factor from a well-established and symmetry-preserving truncation of the Dyson-Schwinger equations. Our results for the three- and four-body decays match results of previous theoretical calculations and experimental measurements. For the rare decay we employ a numerical method to calculate the process directly by deforming integration contours, which in principle can be generalized to arbitrary integrals as long as the analytic structure of the integrands are known. Our result for the rare decay is in agreement with dispersive calculations but still leaves a 2σ discrepancy between theory and experiment.

PACS numbers: 12.38.Lg, 13.20.Cz, 13.40.Gp

I. INTRODUCTION corresponding results for the rare decay of the pion into an electron-positron pair. We conclude in sectionV. Over the last years, low-energy electromagnetic pro-

cesses in the meson sector have seen continuous inter- 0 ∗ ∗ est both in the theoretical and experimental physics II. TRANSITION FORM FACTOR π → γ γ communities. Electromagnetic decays of the pion are particularly interesting because they combine the non- A. Kinematics and definitions perturbative physics of dynamical mass generation and the associated generation of (pseudo-) Goldstone bosons We begin by defining the transition current and the with the Abelian anomaly and its perturbative elements, kinematic regions of interest. The π0 → γγ transition thus creating an interesting laboratory for theoretical ap- matrix element is given by proaches to non-perturbative QCD. Moreover, the rare F (Q2,Q02) decay π0 → e+e− poses a puzzle since theoretical esti- µν 0 2 µναβ 0α β Λ (Q, Q ) = e 2 ε Q Q , (1) mates show a discrepancy with the experimental result 4π fπ 0 from the KTeV E799-II experiment at Fermilab [1,2] of where Q and Q are the photon momenta, fπ ≈ 92 MeV is 2 similar magnitude as the muon g-2. the pion’s electroweak decay constant, and e = 4παem In this work we focus on electromagnetic decays of the squared electromagnetic charge. The pseudoscalar pseudoscalar mesons such as the rare decay π0 → e+e−, transition is described by a single scalar function, the 0 + − the Dalitz decay π → e e γ and double Dalitz decay transition form factor F (Q2,Q02), and the convention of 0 + − + − π → e e e e using a well explored combination of prefactors is such that F (0, 0) = 1 in the chiral limit due Dyson-Schwinger and Bethe-Salpeter equations. All cal- to the Abelian anomaly. 0 (∗) (∗) culations involve the π → γ γ transition form factor In the following it is useful to work with the average (TFF) with one or two off-shell photons, thus testing it in photon momentum Σ and the pion momentum ∆,

arXiv:1704.06046v2 [hep-ph] 8 May 2017 the region of (very) low momenta. The present work com- Q + Q0 plements a recent evaluation of the TFF at large space- Σ = , ∆ = Q − Q0 , (2) like momenta, see Ref [3]. 2 2 2 The paper is organised as follows. In the next sec- with ∆ = −mπ for an on-shell pion. The process then tion we give a short introduction to the details of our depends on two Lorentz invariants, calculations and discuss features of the resulting TFF. 2 02 2 In sectionIII we then give results for the leptonic three- Q + Q 2 ∆ η+ = = Σ + , (3) and four-body decays of the neutral pion and compare 2 4 with the experimental values. In sectionIV we discuss Q2 − Q02 ω = = Σ · ∆ , (4) 2 2 02 or vice versa: {Q ,Q } = η+ ± ω, with the third invari- ∗ e-mail: [email protected] ant ﬁxed when the pion is on-shell: † e-mail: [email protected] 2 2 ‡ e-mail: [email protected] ∆ m η = Q · Q0 = Σ2 − = η + π . (5) § e-mail: [email protected] − 4 + 2 2

B. Triangle diagram

In the impulse approximation, the transition form factor π0 → γ(∗)γ(∗) is displayed in Fig.2 and given by

Z d4k Λµν = 2e2 Tr S(k )Γ (k, ∆) S(k ) (2π)4 + π − µ ν 0 × Γ (r−, −Q) S(k + Σ) Γ (r+,Q ) . (7)

The photon momenta were deﬁned in the previous subsection. In addition, k is the loop momentum and ∆ Σ ∆ k = k ± , r = k + ± , (8) ± 2 ± 2 4 FIG. 1. Kinematic domains in Q2 and Q02 including the are the internal quark momenta and the relative mo- 2 02 symmetric (red line) and asymmetric limits (Q , Q axes). menta appearing in the quark-photon vertices, respec- The area with |ω| < η+ corresponds to space-like momentum tively. The trace in Eq. (7) is over Dirac indices only1 transfer. In the timelike region we show the relevant domains and the factor 2 in front of the integral stems from the for the Dalitz and double Dalitz decays and the dotted lines exchange of the photons. indicate the vector-meson pole locations (not to scale). All ingredients in Eq. (7) are determined from numerical solutions of their Dyson-Schwinger and Bethe- Salpeter equations. The renormalized quark propagator Note that the TFF is symmetric in Q2 and Q02 so it can is given by only depend on ω quadratically. 2 2 −ip/ + M(p ) For practical calculations it is convenient to introduce S(p) = Zf (p ) (9) the alternative variables p2 + M 2(p2)

2 2 with non-perturbative dressing functions Zf (p ) and 2 ∆ Σ · ∆ σ = Σ , t = ,Z = Σˆ · ∆ˆ = √ (6) M(p2). The renormalization-group invariant quark mass 4 2 σt

2 where t = −mπ/4 when the pion is on-shell and a hat denotes a normalized four-vector. We will refer to those in sectionIV and AppendixA. In the physical processes we study in this work the TFF is tested in both space-like and time-like regions as shown in Fig.1. The time-like region, where either Q2 < 0 or Q02 < 0, contains the physical singularities such as the vector-meson poles in the complex plane of Q2 and Q02. For dilepton decays this region is kinematically 2 02 2 restricted such that Q ,Q ≥ −mπ. The double Dalitz decay π → 2e+2e− is constrained to the light blue shaded FIG. 2. The transition form factor given by Eq. (7). The + − area below η+ < 0, whilst the Dalitz decay π → e e γ non-perturbative input is the Bethe-Salpeter amplitude Γπ of probes the asymmetric time-like form factor, given by the the pion (grey circle), the dressed quark propagators (straight dark blue lines along the Q2,Q02 axes. These decays are lines) and the dressed quark-photon vertices Γν (blue circles). discussed in sectionIII. The space-like region with both photon virtualities positive, Q2 > 0 and Q02 > 0, is free of any physical singularities. The region that is relevant for the rare decay 0 + − π → e e , discussed in sectionIV, is the doubly-virtual 1 2 02 All quantities are color-diagonal and thus the color trace is 3. or symmetric limit (red line in Fig.1) when Q = Q viz. The flavor matrix of the π0 amplitude is diag (1, −1) and that ω = 0. Direct experimental measurements of the space- of the quark-photon vertex is diag (qu, qd), so the flavor trace 2 2 like TFF are available in the singly-virtual or asymmetric is qu − qd = 1/3. Since the overall normalization of the pion limit with one of Q2,Q02 vanishing [4–7]. amplitude is determined by the canonical Bethe-Salpeter norm, which follows from demanding unit residue at the pion pole in In addition, very different kinematic regions to these the qq¯ scattering matrix, a different color-flavor normalization can be tested where the pion is ‘off-shell’ corresponding to can always be absorbed by the dressing functions in Eq. (10). 2 2 2 space-like momentum transfer ∆ > 0. This and various Our choice above is such that f1(k ) = B(k )/fπ in the chiral 2 2 2 applications are discussed in [3]. limit, with B(k ) = M(k )/Zf (k ). 3

2 function M(p ) encodes eﬀects of dynamical mass gener- 1.01.0 ation due to the dynamical breaking of chiral symmetry. ( , ´ ) The Dirac structure of the pseudoscalar Bethe-Salpeter 0.80.8 asym amplitude Γπ is given by ܨ ܳҍ ܳ ҍ 0.60.6 sym Γπ(k, ∆) = f1 + f2 i∆/ + f3 k · ∆ ik/ + f4 k,/ ∆/ γ5, (10) 0.40.4

2 2 2 0.20.2 where the fi are functions of k and k·∆ with ∆ = −mπ ﬁxed. µ 0.00.0 The non-perturbative quark-photon vertex Γ de- 0.00.0 0.20.2 0.40.4 0.60.6 0.80.8 1.01.0 scribes the coupling of a dressed quark to a photon and [[ ]] is dominated by QCD corrections. It can be decomposed ߟΕ ܩܸ݁ҍ into twelve tensor structures, FIG. 3. On-shell transitionߟ formΕ ܩ݁ factorܸҍ in the symmetric limit 2 02 2 02 12 (η+ = Q = Q ) and asymmetric limit (η+ = Q /2, Q = 0) µ X 2 2 µ for moderate space-like values η+ > 0. Γ (p, Q) = λi(p , p · Q, Q ) τi (p, Q) (11) i=1

µ with basis components τi (p, Q) and Lorentz-invariant dressing functions λi; see App. B of Ref. [8] for details. small timelike momenta. In practice it turns out that a The argument p denotes the average momentum of the straightforward calculation is only possible in restricted two quark legs and Q is the incoming photon momentum. kinematic regions. As explained in AppendixA, this is Due to electromagnetic gauge invariance the vertex can due to the singularities of the quark propagator in the in- be split into a transverse and non-transverse part, where tegrand, whose nearest singularities correspond to a scale the latter is the Ball-Chiu vertex [9] and determined by m ∼ 0.5 GeV. The symmetric limit is accessible for all the vector Ward-Takahashi identity. We obtain a numer- p η+ > 0, whereas in the asymmetric limit one is limited ical solution of the quark-photon vertex from its inho- 2 2 to Qmax ≈ 4 GeV , which is also the domain covered in mogeneous Bethe-Salpeter equation; see [10–15]. As dis- the calculation of Ref. [12]. In addition, also small time- cussed in detail in [8, 10, 16], the transverse part of the like momenta of the order Q2, Q02 −m2 are accessible vertex contains poles in the time-like momentum region & p directly; cf. Fig.9 in the appendix. corresponding to vector-meson states. Thus, the underlying physics of vector-meson dominance is automatically To determine the TFF in the full spacelike domain, contained in the numerical representation of the vertex we employ the strategy introduced in Ref. [3]: we cal- without the need for further adjustments. culate the form factor for an off-shell pion with ∆2 > 0 In this work we restrict ourselves to the rainbow-ladder and extrapolate to the on-shell point using the lowest- approach as reviewed in [8]. We use the Maris-Tandy lying vector-meson pole as a constraint. This allows us model, Eq. (10) of Ref. [17] with parameters Λ = 0.74 to determine the TFF for all space-like momenta, and in GeV and η = 1.85±0.2 (the parameters ω and D therein the regions that are accessible by direct calculation and are related to the above via ωD = Λ3 and ω = Λ/η). extrapolation we have checked that the results of both The variation of η changes the shape of the quark-gluon methods are in perfect agreement. interaction in the infrared, cf. Fig. 3.13 in Ref. [8], and we use it in the following to estimate our theoretical er- In Fig.3 we show the on-shell transition form factor 2 02 ror. This construction, with the same respective kernel in F (Q ,Q ) as a function of the variable η+, Eq. (3). The the Bethe-Salpeter equation for the pseudoscalar mesons plot reveals that the TFF is essentially a function of η+, and the one for the quark-photon vertex, preserves chi- which is larger in the asymmetric limit and smaller in the ral symmetry and has the merit of producing reliable symmetric limit, and this behavior persists up to asymp- results in the pseudoscalar and vector-meson sector as totically large η+ [3]. Moreover, in the chiral limit the well as for nucleon and ∆ baryons. Our input current- Abelian anomaly entails F (0, 0) = 1 and our numerical result at the physical pion mass is F (0, 0) = 0.996, which quark mass is mq = 3.57 MeV at a renormalization point µ = 19 GeV; the resulting pion mass and pion decay con- provides an important consistency check: replacing both dressed quark-photon vertices by bare ones would only stant are mπ0 = 135.0(2) MeV and fπ0 = 92.4(2) MeV. give F (0, 0) ≈ 0.29; and even a Ball-Chiu vertex, which guarantees charge conservation in the pion’s electromag- C. Result for the transition form factor netic form factor, produces F (0, 0) ≈ 0.86 only. The transverse structure of the vertex is therefore crucial for a quantitative description of the π0 → γγ transition. With the ingredients described above we are able to determine the π0 → γγ transition form factor in the We finally provide a fit function that accurately rep- spacelike domain Q2 > 0 and Q02 > 0 as well as for resents our results in the spacelike region. Abbreviating 4

FIG. 4. The tree-level contributions to the (a) single Dalitz decay, (b) double Dalitz decay and (c) rare decay of the neutral pion. The yellow circle denotes the pion transition form factor F (Q2,Q02), see Eq. (1).

2 w = η+/mv and z = ω/η+, the TFF is described by and implements two vector-meson poles; an analogous form was recently employed to fit lattice results for the A(w) + w(1 − z2) B (w) (1 + B (w)z2) F (Q2,Q02) = 1 2 . TFF [20]. Our fit is practically indistinguishable from (1 + w)2 − w2z2 the LMD+V parametrization at low Q2, i.e., in the mo- (12) mentum range shown in Fig.3. Also at large Q2 the fits The denominator implements the lowest-lying vector- in the symmetric limit are almost identical and in the meson pole at wz = ±(1 + w), which corresponds to asymmetric limit they are at least qualitatively similar. 2 2 02 2 Q = −mv and Q = −mv with mv = 0.77 GeV. The However, the behavior in between (0 < |z| < 1) differs functions in the numerator ensure that the TFF asymp- substantially: at large η+ the LMD+V form factor devel- totically approaches a monopole behavior both in the ops a sharp peak very close to |z| = 1, with a turnover to symmetric (z = 0) and asymmetric limit (z = ±1); they reach the asymmetric point z = 1 followed by the vector- are given by meson poles at |z| > 1. By comparison, our fit varies monotonously from z = 0 to z = 1 and is therefore bet- 2 3 a0 + ξ (a1 b1 w + a2 b2 w + a3 b3 w ) ter suited for applications where the TFF is tested in the A(w) = 2 3 , 1 + b1 w + b2 w + b3 w whole spacelike domain. 2 (13) ci ei w Bi(w) = 2 1 + di w + ei w III. THREE- AND FOUR-BODY DECAYS with fit parameters a0 = 0.996 and

a1 = 0.735 , b1 = 0.089 , In this subsection we discuss our results for the three- and four-body decays of pseudoscalar mesons shown in a2 = 1.214 , b2 = 0.133 , Fig.4(a-b). The Dalitz decay of the neutral pion into a3 = 1.547 , b3 = 0.0002 , (14) a photon and an electron-positron pair has the largest c1 = 0.384 , c2 = 0.430 , branching ratio B(π0 → e+e−γ) = (1.174 ± 0.035)% [21] d1 = 2.010 , d2 = 0.024 , after that of the two-photon decay. The neutral pion also e1 = 1.540 , e2 = 0.00005 . decays into two dilepton pairs with a branching ratio of B(π0 → e+e−e+e−) = (3.34 ± 0.16) × 10−5 [21]. Both This fit provides the input for our calculations of the var- 0 decays depend on the transition form factor discussed ious π decays. The value ξ = 1.0 ± 0.1 reflects our com- above as the only non-trivial input. bined theoretical uncertainty from varying the parameter η = 1.85 ± 0.2 in the effective interaction as well as the uncertainty in the determination of the TFF away from 0 + − the symmetric limit. These are also the error estimates A. Dalitz Decay: π → e e γ that we quote in the following results. Let us finally briefly comment on alternative fit func- The leading-order Feynman diagram for the three- tions available in the literature (see, e.g., Appendix B of body decay of the neutral pion is shown in Fig.4(a). Ref. [18] for a discussion). The simplest vector-meson The decay rate is easily calculated and given by 2 02 dominance (VMD) parametrization FVMD(Q ,Q ) = 2 2 2 2 2 6 3 Z mπ 2 1/[(1 + w) − w z ] does not reproduce the monopole e mπ dx F (Q , 0) Γπ0→e+e−γ = 3 2 behavior in the symmetric limit z = 0 but instead ap- 6(4π) 4m2 x 4π fπ 2 proaches a dipole at large Q . Its refined version based r 2 2 3 on lowest-meson dominance, the LMD+V model [19], re- 4m 2m x × 1 − 1 + 1 − 2 , (15) produces both the symmetric and the asymmetric limits x x mπ 5

0 + − + − where m is the electron mass, mπ the pion mass, and B. Four-body decay: π → e e e e x = −Q2 is the momentum squared of the virtual photon which evaluates the form factor in the timelike region. We now proceed with the four-body decay of the neu- Due to the kinematics of the three-body decay the TFF tral pion into two electron-positron pairs. The decay rate is probed in the asymmetric region of one photon on-shell is given by and one off-shell and time-like. The leading contribution to the integral in Eq. (15) comes from the lower end of Z the integral. In this region the calculated TFF can in 1 1 2 Γπ0→2e+2e− = 2 dΦ4 |M| , (17) general be described by a simple linear fit with respect (2!) 2mπ 2 02 to η+ = (Q + Q )/2, 2 02 2 F (Q ,Q ) = 0.996 − 3.55(10) η+ , (16) where |M| is the squared and spin-summed matrix element and the symmetry factor in front accounts for the which is also used in the four-body decay below. The two pairs of identical final-state particles. dΦ is the four- TFF is shown in Fig.5, where the asymmetric limit re- 4 2 dimensional phase space measure whose detailed deriva- quired for the three-body decay, F (Q , 0), is represented tion is given in AppendixB. Because the amplitude M by either one of the dark blue lines. with all initial and final particles on-shell depends on five Employing the PDG values for m and αem in Eq. (15), independent variables, dΦ4 involves five non-trivial inte- our calculated decay width is Γπ→e+e−γ = 9.11(4) × grations. 10−11 GeV. Since the theoretical uncertainty in Eq. (16) affects this number only at the sub-per-mille level, the Fig.4(b) shows the possible diagrams, D1 and D2, error bar in the decay rate comes from the model depen- where exchange of two leptons (anti-leptons) introduces a relative minus sign between the two contributions. dence of mπ and fπ which enter in Eq. (15). In TableI we compare our result with the PDG and the result of a cal- Squaring these we obtain culation using an effective theory [22]. Within the quoted errors all results are in good agreement. This is to be ex- 2 2 2 ∗ |M| = |D1| + |D2| + 2Re[D1D2] . (18) pected because the TFF – as the only non-perturbative input – is probed in the kinematic region governed by the anomaly. Since any reasonable construction obeys As discussed in Refs. [22, 24], the first two terms are equal this constraint, the discriminative potential of the Dalitz and can thus be combined. It follows that the decay rate decay with regard to different non-perturbative input is can be decomposed into very limited. (direct) (indirect) −11 Γπ0→2e+2e− = Γπ0→2e+2e− + Γπ0→2e+2e− , (19) Collaboration Γπ0→e+e−γ [10 GeV] PDG [21] 9.06(18) Terschlüsenet al. [22] 9.26 where the first (direct) contribution comes from the two Hoferichter et al. [23] 9.065 squared magnitudes and the second (indirect or interfer- Our result 9.11(4) ence) term comes from the cross-terms. Abbreviating Gµν = (ip + m) γµ (ip − m) γν , the in- TABLE I. Result for the Dalitz decay. ij /i /j tegrand for the direct contribution is given by

µν 0 αβ 0 2 2 4 Λ (Q, Q )Λ (Q, Q ) µα νβ |D1| +|D2| = 2e Tr G Tr G , Q4 Q04 34 12

where Λµν (Q, Q0) is the π0 → γγ transition current de- ﬁned in Eq. (1). Because in this case the integrand only 0 depends on the pairwise sums Q = −(p1 + p2) and Q = p3 + p4, the ﬁve-dimensional phase-space integral

−13 Collaboration Γπ0→2e+2e− [10 GeV] PDG [21] 2.58(12) Terschl¨usenet al. [22] 2.68 FIG. 5. Transition form factor shown in the region relevant Escribano et al. [24] 2.62 for the three and four-body decays. The singly-virtual form Our result 2.63(1) factor for the three-body decay, for which either Q2 = 0 or Q02 = 0, is indicated by the heavy blue lines. TABLE II. Result for the double Dalitz decay. 6 dΦ4 can be reduced to just two integrations, namely is certainly the most interesting decay due to a discrep-

2 √ 2 ancy between the KTeV experimental result and theoret- (mπ −2m) (mπ − x) 8 Z Z ical calculations [1,2, 26–29] of the order of 2 σ. Using (direct) e Γπ0→2e+2e− = 5 3 dx dy the elaborate reanalysis of radiative corrections [27, 28] 36 (2π) mπ 4m2 4m2 to the experimental result of the KTeV collaboration [1] 3/2 (close to the value given in PDG [21]) one arrives at an p p (x + y − m2 )2 × x − 4m2 y − 4m2 π − 1 extracted experimental value for the branching ratio of 4xy B(π0 → e+e−) = (6.87 ± 0.36) × 10−8, which is consid- 2 2 erably smaller than the decays considered above. 2m2 2m2 F (Q2,Q0 ) × 1 + 1 + . (20) To lowest order in QED the process is described by 2 x y 4π fπ the one-loop graph in Fig.4(c), which again includes 2 02 2 the transition form factor F (Q ,Q ) as the only non- Here we used the shorthands x = −Q2 and y = −Q0 for perturbative input. Defining t = ∆2/4 as in Eq. (6), the the two photon virtualities, where x, y > 0 are timelike corresponding normalized branching ratio is given by and restricted by the thresholds for the two two-body decays. The direct contribution constitutes the largest 0 + − 2 B(π → e e ) m αem 2 fraction of the decay rate. R = 0 = 2 β(t0) |A(t0)| , In contrast, the interference term depends on all pos- B(π → γγ) πmπ sible four-vector combinations of electron and positron (23) pairs. Consequently, the phase-space integral cannot be p 2 further reduced and its integrand is given by where β(t) = 1 + m /t stems from the two-body phase-space integration and B(π0 → γγ) = 0.988. The µν 0 αβ 0 ∗ 4 Λ (Q, Q )Λ (K,K ) µβ να scalar amplitude A(t) can be viewed as the pseudoscalar Re[D1D ] = e Tr G G , 2 Q2 Q02 K2 K02 32 14 form factor of the electron due to the two-photon cou- 0 0 pling, which must be evaluated at the on-shell pion point where Q = −(p1 +p2), Q = p3 +p4 and K = −(p2 +p3), 2 t0 = −mπ/4. K = p1 +p4 are the possible momenta of the virtual photons. To perform the five-dimensional integral we used various methods, ranging from tensor-product quadra- A. A(t) with dispersive input ture with a combination of Gauss-Legendre and double exponential rules, to 5-dimensional adaptive cubature as For arbitrary t the amplitude A(t) can be defined from well as standard Monte-Carlo methods [25]; all agreed the matrix element for the π0 → e+e− decay: perfectly. For the direct and indirect contributions to the decay Z 4 µν 0 d Σ µ ν Λ (Q, Q ) rate we obtain Λ(p+) γ S(p + Σ) γ Λ(p−) (24) (2π)4 Q2 Q02 (direct) −13 Γπ0→2e+2e− = 2.66(1) × 10 GeV, (21) A(t) 2im αem = 2 Λ(p+) γ5 Λ(p−) , (25) (indirect) −13 (4π) πfπ Γπ0→2e+2e− = −0.03 × 10 GeV. (22) The sum of these values gives our final result, shown in where Λµν (Q, Q0) is the π0 → γγ transition current from Eq. (1) and Λ(p ) = 1 (1 + p /(im)) is the positive- TableII together with the value from experiment and ± 2 /± other theoretical calculations. In Ref. [22] the authors energy projector of the lepton. The kinematics are as use an extension of chiral perturbation theory to calcu- discussed in Sec.IIA; in particular, the averaged photon late the form factor, whereas in Ref. [24] a data driven momentum Σ becomes the loop momentum and there- approach is employed, which is based on the use of ratio- fore the variables in Eq. (6) take the values σ > 0 and nal approximants applied to the experimental data of the Z ∈ [−1, 1]. As a consequence, the photon virtualities Q2 0 0 π , η and η transition form factors in the space-like re- and Q02 are tested at complex values close to the sym- gion. All results are compatible with experiment within metric limit as shown in Fig.6. In principle the integral the quoted error. As with the Dalitz decay, the phase- depends on the pion momentum ∆ and the average lep- space restriction of the virtual photons to time-like mo- ton momentum p, but since the electron and the positron menta between 4m2 and m2 entails that the sensitivity 2 2 2 π are on-shell with momenta p± = (p ± ∆/2) = −m only to the details of the TFF beyond that dictated by the t remains as an independent variable. anomaly is rather small and deviates from its nominal Taking traces yields the following expression for A(t): value of 1 by no more than 3%. 1 Z (Σ · ∆)2 − Σ2∆2 F (Q2,Q02) A(t) = d4Σ . (26) 2π2t (p + Σ)2 + m2 Q2 Q02 IV. RARE DECAY: π0 → e+e− This integral has poles in the integration domain (which Finally we consider the two-body decay of the neu- we discuss in more detail in Sec.IVB) and thus cannot tral pion into one electron-positron pair. For the π0 this be naively integrated except for the unphysical point t = 7

0 + − −8 ’ Collaboration B(π → e e ) [10 ] Experiment [1, 27, 28] 6.87(36) Dorokhov et al. [2, 26] 6.23(9) ܳ ҍ Husek et al. [35](THS) 6.14(8) symߟΕ Masjuan et al. [29] 6.23(5) Our result (DR) 6.21(3) Our result (direct) 6.22(3)

TABLE III. Our result for the rare decay, obtained either ܳҍ asym Im with the dispersion relation (DR) or directly from the contour deformation, compared to other theoretical calculations ߱ and experiment (after removing the ﬁnal state radiative corrections).

Re which is however only valid to leading order in an ex- pansion in the electron mass. At the point t = 0 FIG. 6. Relevant kinematic domain of the߱ transition form the transition form factor in both cases is evaluated factor in the π0 → e+e− decay. The parabola starting at in the symmetric limit of equal photon momenta, and 2 η+ = −mπ/4 is the region that is sampled in the integral. due to Q2 = 4m2x it is mainly probed at very low Q2 of the order of the electron mass. Implementing our result for F (Q2,Q02), we extract the same value ∆2/4 = 0. A standard way to circumvent the problem A(0) = −21.85(2) from both formulas above, where the uses dispersive methods (see e.g. [30, 31] ). In that case error comes from varying the ξ parameter in Eq. (13). the imaginary part of the amplitude along its cut at t < 0 With Eqs. (27–28) one then arrives at the on-shell value is given by A(t0) = 10.07(4) − 17.45(1) i, which corresponds to a branching ratio of π ln γ(t) Im ALO(t) = F (0, 0) , (27) + − −8 2β(t) B(π → e e ) = 6.21(3) × 10 . (31) with γ(t) = (1 − β(t))/(1 + β(t)), which follows from Our result is compared to other approaches in Ta- cutting the two photon lines. The imaginary part gives bleIII. Whereas our calculation represents a top-down the well-known unitary bound for the branching ratio approach using a well-tested model for the underlying 2 2 through the inequality |A(t0)| ≥ |ImA(t0)| : quark-gluon interaction, Refs. [2, 26] use a phenomeno- logical parametrization of the transition form factor that 2 2 mαem ln γ(t0) is adapted to reproduce experimental data from CLEO R ≥ = 4.75 × 10−8. mπ 2β(t0) together with additional high-energy QCD constraints. A generalization of LMD+V is the two-hadron satura- Using a once-subtracted dispersion relation one then ob- tion model (THS) of Ref. [35]. The more recent Ref. [29] tains the real part of the amplitude via employs a data-driven approach via PadéTheory and ln2 γ(t) + 1 π2 + 4 Li (−γ(t)) Canterbury approximants. All four theoretical results Re A(t) = A(0) + 3 2 , (28) 4β(t) are in agreement with each other, thus showing consistency between different approaches. Again, it appears where Li2(z) is the dilogarithm or Spence function. In that the decay rate is not overly sensitive to different particular, this implies Re A(t0) = A(0) + 31.92(2) so representations of the form factor as long as the QCD that the only unknown left is the constant A(0). constraints are satisfied (as guaranteed in all three ap- In fact, t = 0 is the only point where Eq. (26) can be proaches). However, we would like to point out that integrated directly to yield all three calculations rely on dispersion relations and ∞ " # the Mellin-Barnes representation. Thus the only number 4 Z r 1 3 A(0) = dx (x − 2) 1 + − x + F (Q2,Q2) , that influences the final result is the constant A(0). Al- 3 x 2 though a priori one would deem the dispersive approach 0 reliable for this process, it still remains to be checked via (29) a direct calculation. where we temporarily abbreviated x = Q2/(4m2). A similar formula can be derived using a Mellin-Barnes representation [32–34], B. Direct calculation of A(t) ∞ 5 3 Z d The integrand in Eq. (26) has poles for vanishing de- A(0) ≈ − + dx ln(4x) F (Q2,Q2), (30) 4 2 dx nominators, i.e., if either of the photons or the interme- 0 diate lepton go on-shell. Depending on the value of t, 8 this may prohibit a straightforward Euclidean integra- Im tion. Specifically, for t ∈ C one can draw a kinematically ߪ safe region in the complex t plane where such an integra- 0.01 tion is possible, and a forbidden region where the poles enter in the integration domain and the integration would (3) (2) produce a wrong result. The latter case would usually be ݐ interpreted as a failure of the Wick rotation; however, as (4) 0.00 we demonstrate below, the Euclidean expression Eq. (26) (1) is still valid if the poles are treated correctly. Problems of this kind are frequent in Euclidean bound-state calculations and pose limitations, e.g., in computing excited hadrons or form factors for time-like or large space-like -0.01 ߪࡏ arguments [8] and thus it is desirable to find a general ߪް method to deal with them. -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 In the case of Eq. (26) it is the unfortunate combina- Re tion of all three external momenta being on-shell that complicates the situation. The analysis in AppendixA FIG. 7. Sketch of the overlappingߪ branch cuts in the integrand 2 shows that the lepton poles lead to a narrow parabola of A(t), i.e., the complex σ plane, for t = (−1 + i) mπ/4 and m = 40 MeV. The cut σl (solid, red) is generated by (Im t)2 < 4m2Re (−t) , (32) the lepton pole and the cut σγ (dashed, blue) by the photon poles; the latter opens at σ = t but the former does not. around the negative (time-like) t axis which is kinemati- The dotted line shows a possible integration path avoiding all 2 cally safe, whereas the photon poles admit a straightfor- singularities. The units are in GeV . ward integration only for real and positive t. Taken in combination, the integration is only possible for t = 0, which leads to the result for A(0) quoted above. After performing all angular integrations, the condi- To analyze the situation for general t, we write the 2 tions Q2 Q0 = 0 and −1 < a < 1 produce poles and cuts integral in hyperspherical variables defined by in the complex σ plane which are visualized in Fig.7. In principle, the σ integration goes from zero to infinity but 2 Σ · ∆ p · Σ σ = Σ ,Z = √ ,Y = √ √ √ , the ‘naive’ Euclidean’ integration path σ ∈ R would 2 σt i σ t + m2 1 − Z2 + cross a singularity, hence causing the problems described above. The vanishing denominator for the photons pro- cf. Eq. (6), where the√ process becomes particularly√ simple in the frame ∆ = 2 t [0, 0, 0, 1], p = i t + m2 [0, 0, 1, 0] duces a cut along and ± p 2 2 √ √ σγ (Z) = t (Z ± i 1 − Z ) ,  2 2  √1 − Z √1 − Y sin ψ √  1 − Z2 1 − Y 2 cos ψ  with −1 < Z < 1, which describes a circle with radius |t|. Σ = σ  √  . (33)  1 − Z2 Y  The circle opens at σ = t since in this case the remaining Z (1 − Z2) factor in the the denominator of Eq. (34) can- cels with the numerator. On the other hand, the lepton The innermost ψ integration is trivial and thus the inte- denominator leads to a cut gral A(t) takes the form r !2 m2 p Z ∞ Z 1 2 3/2 2 02 σ±(Z) = (t + m2) Z2 − ± i 1 − Z2 , 2 2 (1 − Z ) F (Q ,Q ) l t + m2 A(t) = − dσ σ dZ 2 2 π 0 −1 (σ − t) + 4σt (1 − Z ) Z 1 1 which does not open at σ = t as this would correspond × dY √ √ √ . (34) 2 2 to a = 0 in Eq. (35). Instead, it never crosses the arc −1 σ − t + 2i σ t + m 1 − Z Y that passes through σ = −t as shown in Fig.7. The denominator under the dZ integral is equal to Q2 Q02 We solve the problem by exploiting Cauchy’s theorem whereas the second denominator corresponds to the lep- in finding an integration contour that connects σ = 0 and ton pole. The integration in Y can be performed analyt- σ → ∞ but never crosses any singularity. Such a possible ically: path is shown in Fig.7: (1) it departs from the origin in the direction opposite to t, (2) then navigates between Z 1 1 a + 1 the cuts until it reaches the point σ = t, (3) returns to dY = ln , (35) the positive real axis at a value σ > |t|, (4) and from there −1 a + Y a − 1 proceeds to the numerical cutoff at σ → ∞. This strategy for all a ∈ C except −1 < a < 1, in which case the ensures that for each σ along the path the integrand in logarithm develops a branch cut. Z is free of any singularities. 9

corresponding branching ratio

B(π0 → e+e−) = 6.22(3) × 10−8 , (36)

nicely agrees with the result in Eq. (31) obtained via dispersion relations. We have thus established a fast and efficient numerical method to calculate Euclidean integrals, which is appli- cable even in cases where a naive Wick rotation fails. It can be generalized to arbitrary integrals as long as the singularity structure of the integrand is known, which is not restricted to real poles but accommodates complex poles or cuts as well. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this demon- strates that both Euclidean and Minkowski descriptions are completely equivalent as long as the singularities in the integrand are treated correctly: the correct Euclidean expression, such as Eq. (34), is the one that connects zero with infinity without crossing any singularities. Exploratory calculations using contour deformations have been performed, e.g., in determining quark, gluon and ghost propagators in the complex plane [36–40]. In those cases the singularity structure of the integrands is usually less intertwined. In turn, one has to deal with integral equations and thus self-consistent problems where the singularities that are dynamically generated by the integration enter again into the integrand and must be ac- counted for as well. In addition to other methods to cal- FIG. 8. Result for A(t) in the complex t plane. The units for t are GeV2 and A(t) is dimensionless. The on-shell pion culate propagators in the complex plane [41–44], or a di- 2 2 rect inclusion of residues as done for example in Ref. [45], point is t0 = −mπ/4 ≈ −0.005 GeV . contour deformation methods may become an attractive tool for overcoming several long-standing obstacles in the Dyson-Schwinger/Bethe-Salpeter approach, e.g., the calculation of (highly) excited states, form factors at time- like or large spacelike momentum transfer, or the treat- In practice, however, the problem is made worse by the ment of genuine resonances. small lepton mass m mπ: in that case both cuts essentially describe the same circle but open on opposite sides, σ = t and σ = −t, so that the path along segment (2) proceeds along a narrow ridge between the two cuts. As a V. CONCLUSIONS consequence, the integrand in Z is sharply peaked which requires an enormous number of grid points to obtain sta- In this work we determined the branching ratios of ble results. To this end we have optimized the procedure various leptonic decays of the neutral pion. The common so that path (2) is always equally spaced between the central element in these calculations is the pion transition cuts, thus minimizing the numerical error. In addition, form factor. We calculated its momentum dependence in we implement an adaptive integration in −1 < Z < 1 a Dyson-Schwinger and Bethe-Salpeter framework em- that accumulates the grid points according to the near- ploying an underlying quark-gluon interaction that has est singularities in the complex Z plane, which are deter- been successful elsewhere in describing a range of differ- ± ± ent static and dynamic meson and baryon properties, see mined by solving σγ (Z) and σl (Z) for Z. In that way we gain a factor of ∼ 103 in CPU time while maintaining e.g. [8, 46] for reviews. The resulting form factor dy- the same numerical accuracy. namically generates vector meson dominance and can be shown to comply with the perturbative scaling behav- As a result, we are in principle able to determine A(t) ior at large space-like momenta in the symmetric limit, in the whole complex plane, which is shown in Fig.8 whereas the coefficient of the scaling limit is modified in in the momentum region relevant for the π0 → e+e− the asymmetric limit [3]. decay. The real part is sharply peaked at the origin t = 0, Due to the kinematic constraints imposed by Dalitz whereas the imaginary part develops the expected branch decays – as is well-known – only a very small range of cut on the timelike axis. The resulting on-shell value is time-like momenta around the zero-momentum limit con- A(t0) = 10.10(3)−17.45(1) i, where the error reflects the trolled by the anomaly is probed. Consequently, our re- uncertainty in the TFF discussed below Eq. (14). The sults for these pion decays very much resemble those of 10 other theoretical approaches that use, e.g., vector me- Because the imaginary part of qµ can only come from µ son dominance models for the form factor supplemented the external momenta pi , this imposes restrictions on with constraints from the anomaly. The results are sub- the domain of the external Lorentz invariants. sequently compatible with experiment. We specifically consider the transition matrix element For the rare decay the form factor is probed in the in Eq. (7), where the quark momenta in the loop are space-like region and we have been able to confirm the- given by k ± ∆/2 and k + Σ. The dressing functions of oretical calculations using dispersion relations, however the quark propagator in Eq. (9), through a direct calculation using contour deformations. 0 + − Z (p2) Z (p2) M(p2) Thus our result for the rare decay π → e e still leaves f and f , a 2σ discrepancy between theory and experiment. p2 + M 2(p2) p2 + M 2(p2) develop a certain singularity structure in the complex VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS plane. In a rainbow-ladder truncation the nearest singularities are complex conjugate poles with a typical con- We thank R. Alkofer, S. Leupold, A. Szczepaniak and tour mass mp ∼ 0.5 GeV for light quarks (see [47] for a M. T. Hansen for enlightening discussions. This work detailed investigation). The loop momentum k is always was supported by the DFG collaborative research cen- real and thus one arrives at the conditions tre TR 16, the BMBF grant 05H15RGKBA, the DFG 2 ∆ 2 2 2 Project No. FI 970/11-1, the FCT Investigator Grant Im < mp and (Im Σ) < mp . (A3) IF/00898/2015, the GSI Helmholtzzentrum fuer Schweri- 2 onenforschung, and by the Helmholtz International Cen- In general these restrictions depend on the chosen ter for FAIR. frame for Σ and ∆. The components of Σ and ∆ can be arranged arbitrarily as long as the Lorentz invariants defined in Eqs. (3–6), Σ2 = σ = η +m2 /4, ∆2 = −m2 and Appendix A: Singularity restrictions + π π Σ · ∆ = ω, remain unchanged. For any possible choice, however, one can find a linear combination Σ + α ∆ that Here we return to the problem mentioned in Sec- has a four-component only, with an arbitrary parameter tionIIC, namely, to find the kinematic regions where a α ∈ R. The general arrangement satisfying these con- Euclidean integral with singularities in the integrand can straints is be calculated directly without any contour deformations. For generality, consider a Lorentz-invariant integral  0   0  Z Z 1  0  1  0  4 4 2 ∆ =  p 2 2 , Σ =  p 2 2  I(p1, . . . pn) = d k1 d k2 . . . f(q ) ... (A1) N  −i σmπ + ω  N  iα σmπ + ω  2 ω − αmπ σ + αω µ It depends on a collection of external momenta pi and µ p 2 2 one integrates over the loop momenta kj . The integrand with N = σ + 2αω − α mπ. consists of Lorentz-invariant functions such as f(q2), Take for example the pion’s rest frame, which corre- where qµ is a linear combination of the external and loop sponds to α → ∞: momenta. The loop momenta kµ are always real; how- j  0    ever, if an external momentum is time-like (p2 < 0) it will  0  0 i 0 inject imaginary components into qµ, which is therefore a 0   √  0     q 2  √ µ ∆ = , Σ = ω = σ  2  . complex four-vector. Splitting q into its real and imag-  0   2 + σ  1 − Z mπ   0   inary parts, where A, B ∈ R and e , e are Euclidean imπ ω Z µ µ im unit vectors, yields: π 0 2 2 2 0 If σ > 0 and Z ∈ [−1, 1], Σ is real and the imaginary part qµ = A eµ + iB eµ ⇒ q = A − B + 2iAB (e · e ) . only comes from ∆, so the resulting condition mπ < 2mp Because e · e0 ∈ [−1, 1], the Lorentz invariant q2 is tested is always satisfied. However, the situation is different 2 2 inside a parabola (A ± iB) with apex −B on the real in the quadrant η+ > 0, |ω| < η+ shown in Fig.1, be- axis; for B = 0 it becomes the positive real axis. In cause in this case Z is imaginary. Here both ∆ and Σ other words, if qµ has imaginary components then q2 is have imaginary four-components and the resulting condi- sampled inside a complex parabola. tion becomes |ω| < mπmp, which defines a narrow strip Now, if f(q2) has singularities in the complex plane, around the symmetric limit ω = 0. the corresponding parabola passing through the first sin- The arbitrariness of α can be exploited to optimize gularity (e.g., a real pole, complex conjugate poles, or the the frame, i.e. to reach kinematic regions for the form 2 2 onset of a cut) defines the ‘contour mass’ q = −mp. The factor that are not accessible in the pion rest frame. The kinematically safe region is then subject to the restriction resulting domains are plotted in Fig.9 for different values 2 2 2 2 2 of α. The leftmost plot shows α = 0 and the rightmost −B > −mp ⇔ [Im q] = B < mp . (A2) plot α = 8; for α → ∞ one recovers the pion rest frame. 11

ߟΕ 0 -1 -2 0 2 -2 0 2 -2 0 2 -2 0 2 -2 0 2

߱ ߱ ߱ ߱ 2 ߱ FIG. 9. Kinematically accessible regions in the (ω, η+) plane for diﬀerent frames; the units are in GeV . From left to right: 2 02 α = 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, 8. The (blue) triangles are merely drawn for guidance and show the spacelike domain (Q > 0, Q > 0).

For example, with α = 0 the momentum Σ is the one with N = p−(t + m2) + 4α2t. In this case the maximal with a four-component only, whereas ∆ has an imaginary domains correspond to the limits α = 0 or α → ∞ and three-component and, for σ > 0, leads to the condition one arrives at the condition (Im t)2 < 4m2 Re (−t) from the lepton pole and t > 0 from the photon poles, which m2 are quoted in Eq. (32). Although in principle these re- ω2 < (4m2 − m2 ) η + π . (A4) p π + 4 gions are disjoint, the analysis of Eq. (34) shows that the point t = 0 contains an integrable singularity and thus For the singly-virtual form factor F (Q2, 0) the optimal A(0) is well-deﬁned if m > 0. choice is α = 1/2 (second plot in Fig.9). In that case it is the photon momentum Q = Σ + ∆/2 that has a four- Appendix B: Four-body phase space component (resembling the Breit frame in elastic√ form factor calculations). The denominator N = η+ + ω is always real if η+ > 0 and |ω| < η+, and therefore In this appendix we work out the four-body phase- 0 + − + − the three-components of Σ and ∆ are imaginary. The space integral dΦ4 that enters in the π → e e e e resulting condition is decay of Eq. (17). The decay width of a particle with momentum P and mass M decaying into n daughter par- 4 2 mπ 2 2 ticles with momenta pi and masses mi is given by mπ η+ + + ω < 4mp (η+ + ω) . (A5) 4 Z 1 1 2 Γ(P → pi) = dΦn |M| , (B1) This region crosses the line η+ = ω at S 2M 2 Q2 ε √ with S the symmetry factor, |M| the spin summed and η = ω = = 4m2 1 − + 1 − ε ≈ 8m2 , (A6) squared matrix element, and dΦ the phase-space inte- + 2 p 2 p n gral for an n-particle ﬁnal state given by 2 2 with ε = m /(4m ). Hence, in the asymmetric limit the n ! n π p X Y d3p form factor can be calculated up to Q2 ≈ 16 m2 ≈ dΦ = (2π)4δ4 P − p i . (B2) max p n i (2π)3 2E 4 GeV2 without crossing any quark singularities. i=1 i=1 i As a second example we consider the integral A(t) in Following Ref. [48], we rewrite the integration in terms 0 + − Eq. (26) which describes the π → e e decay. In that of invariant mass variables. For n = 4 one obtains case the external momenta are ∆ and p, with Lorentz in- 2 2 2 2 1 π ds ds ds ds ds variants ∆ = 4t, p = −(t + m ) and p · ∆ = 0, whereas dΦ = 12 34 124 134 14 (B3) 4 8 2 p Σ is the real loop momentum. The internal photon mo- (2π) 32M −∆(4) menta are Σ ± ∆/2 and the lepton momentum is Σ + p, where, for degenerate decay products with m = m, the so the singularity conditions become i two- and three-particle Mandelstam variables read 2 2 2 ∆ 2 2 sij = −(pi + pj) = 2m − 2pi · pj , Im < 0 and (Im p) < m , (A7) (B4) 2 2 2 sijk = −(pi + pj + pk) = sij + sik + sjk − 3m where m is the lepton mass. The analogous arrangement and the four-dimensional Gram determinant ∆(4) con- in the general frame is tains all possible dot products of four-vectors:

 2   0   0  −m p1 · p2 p1 · p3 p1 · p4 1 0 1 0  p · p −m2 p · p p · p  ∆ =  √ √ , p =  √ √  , ∆ = det  1 2 2 3 2 4  . (B5)  2   2  (4)  2  N  −2i t t + m  N  2iα t t + m  p1 · p3 p2 · p3 −m p3 · p4 2   4αt −(t + m ) 2 p1 · p4 p2 · p4 p3 · p4 −m 12

2 2 In contrast to [24, 48, 49] we employ a Euclidean sig- with c = s124 − m and d = s134 − m . nature, however with sij and sijk deﬁned such that they The regions of the s124 and s134 integrations are + − have the same meaning in Minkowski and Euclidean con- bounded by the surfaces satisfying s14 = s14, which is ventions. To work with the invariant mass variables of fulﬁlled when either of the G functions in Eq. (B7) van- Eq. (B3), one replaces the pi ·pj in the Gram determinant ishes G(s124, s34, s12) = 0 or G(s134, s12, s34) = 0. Solv- according to Eq. (B4) together with ing G(u, v, w) = 0 for u yields √ X 2 2 2 2 2p 2 sij = −(M + 8m ) . (B6) ± w − v + M + 2m v − 4m λ(v, w, M ) s14 = ± √ i

± The physical region of integration is bounded by the and thus determines the integration boundaries s124 and ± surface ∆(4) = 0. Following the derivation of Refs. [24, s134 as functions of the two dilepton invariant masses s12 49, 50], we impose this relation on the invariant mass and s34. 2 variables and begin by solving ∆(4) = 0 for s14. It yields Finally, s34 and s12 range from the threshold at 4m √ 2 2 to (M − s12) and (M − 2m) , respectively; here the p ordering is arbitrary and could also be exchanged. b ± 2 G(s124, s34, s12) G(s134, s12, s34) s± = , (B7) A valuable check when rewriting the phase space in- 14 λ(s , s ,M 2) 12 34 tegral in different coordinates is the massless limit. For massless daughter particles the n-body phase space is where λ(u, v, w) = u2 + v2 + w2 − 2uv − 2uw − 2vw is the given by Källenfunction, the G functions are given by 1 M 2n−4 G(u, v, w) = m2(w − M 2)2 Φ = . (B8) n 2 (4π)2n−3 Γ(n) Γ(n − 1) + v (u − m2)2 − (u + m2)(w + M 2) + wM 2 + uv , Integrating over the phase space volume only, as given and b is the coefficient of −8∆(4) linear in s14: in Eq. (B3) with the borders as suggested for m = 0, reproduces the limit exactly as it should.

b = G(s124, s34, s12) + G(s134, s12, s34) The ﬁnal decay rate for the decay of the neutral pion 2 (M = mπ) into two dileptons (m = me) is then given by + M cd − (c + d)(s12 d + s34 c)

2 √ 2 + + + (mπ −2me) (mπ − s12) s124 s134 s14 1 Z Z Z Z Z |M|2 Γ 0 + − = ds ds ds ds ds . (B9) π →2e 2e 16 6 3 12 34 124 134 14 p 2 π mπ −∆(4) 4m2 4m2 − − − e e s124 s134 s14

REFERENCES

[1] E. Abouzaid et al. (KTeV), Phys. Rev. D75, 012004 R. Alkofer, and C. S. Fischer, Prog. Part. Nucl. (2007), arXiv:hep-ex/0610072 [hep-ex]. Phys. 91, 1 (2016), arXiv:1606.09602 [hep-ph]. [2] A. E. Dorokhov and M. A. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D75, [9] J. S. Ball and T.-W. Chiu, Phys. Rev. D22, 2542 (1980). 114007 (2007), arXiv:0704.3498 [hep-ph]. [10] P. Maris and P. C. Tandy, Phys. Rev. C61, 045202 [3] G. Eichmann, C. Fischer, E. Weil, and R. Williams, (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/9910033 [nucl-th]. (2017), arXiv:1704.05774 [hep-ph]. [11] P. Maris and P. C. Tandy, Nucl. Phys. A663, 401 (2000), [4] H. J. Behrend et al. (CELLO), Z. Phys. C49, 401 (1991). arXiv:nucl-th/9908045 [nucl-th]. [5] J. Gronberg et al. (CLEO), Phys. Rev. D57, 33 (1998), [12] P. Maris and P. C. Tandy, Phys. Rev. C65, 045211 arXiv:hep-ex/9707031 [hep-ex]. (2002), arXiv:nucl-th/0201017 [nucl-th]. [6] B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D80, 052002 [13] M. S. Bhagwat and P. Maris, Phys. Rev. C77, 025203 (2009), arXiv:0905.4778 [hep-ex]. (2008), arXiv:nucl-th/0612069 [nucl-th]. [7] S. Uehara et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D86, 092007 (2012), [14] T. Goecke, C. S. Fischer, and R. Williams, arXiv:1205.3249 [hep-ex]. Phys. Rev. D83, 094006 (2011), [Erratum: Phys. [8] G. Eichmann, H. Sanchis-Alepuz, R. Williams, Rev.D86,099901(2012)], arXiv:1012.3886 [hep-ph]. 13

[15] G. Eichmann, Phys. Rev. D84, 014014 (2011), [33] A. E. Dorokhov and M. A. Ivanov, JETP Lett. 87, 531 arXiv:1104.4505 [hep-ph]. (2008), arXiv:0803.4493 [hep-ph]. [16] T. Goecke, C. S. Fischer, and R. Williams, Phys. Rev. [34] A. E. Dorokhov, M. A. Ivanov, and S. G. Kovalenko, D87, 034013 (2013), arXiv:1210.1759 [hep-ph]. Phys. Lett. B677, 145 (2009), arXiv:0903.4249 [hep-ph]. [17] P. Maris and P. C. Tandy, Phys. Rev. C60, 055214 [35] T. Husek and S. Leupold, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 586 (2015), (1999), arXiv:nucl-th/9905056 [nucl-th]. arXiv:1507.00478 [hep-ph]. [18] A. Nyffeler, Phys. Rev. D94, 053006 (2016), [36] P. Maris, Phys. Rev. D52, 6087 (1995), arXiv:hep- arXiv:1602.03398 [hep-ph]. ph/9508323 [hep-ph]. [19] M. Knecht and A. Nyffeler, Eur. Phys. J. C21, 659 [37] R. Alkofer, W. Detmold, C. S. Fischer, and P. Maris, (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0106034 [hep-ph]. Phys. Rev. D70, 014014 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0309077 [20] A. Gerardin, H. B. Meyer, and A. Nyffeler, Phys. Rev. [hep-ph]. D94, 074507 (2016), arXiv:1607.08174 [hep-lat]. [38] G. Eichmann, Ph.D. thesis, Graz U. (2009), [21] C. Patrignani et al., Chin. Phys. C, 40, 100001 (2016). arXiv:0909.0703 [hep-ph]. [22] C. Terschlüsen, B. Strandberg, S. Leupold, and [39] S. Strauss, C. S. Fischer, and C. Kellermann, Phys. Rev. F. Eichstädt, Eur. Phys. J. A49, 116 (2013), Lett. 109, 252001 (2012), arXiv:1208.6239 [hep-ph]. arXiv:1305.1181 [hep-ph]. [40] A. Windisch, M. Q. Huber, and R. Alkofer, Phys. Rev. [23] M. Hoferichter, B. Kubis, S. Leupold, F. Niecknig, D87, 065005 (2013), arXiv:1212.2175 [hep-ph]. and S. P. Schneider, Eur. Phys. J. C74, 3180 (2014), [41] C. S. Fischer, P. Watson, and W. Cassing, Phys. Rev. arXiv:1410.4691 [hep-ph]. D72, 094025 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0509213 [hep-ph]. [24] R. Escribano and S. Gonzàlez-Sol´ıs, (2015), [42] C. S. Fischer, D. Nickel, and R. Williams, Eur. Phys. J. arXiv:1511.04916 [hep-ph]. C60, 47 (2009), arXiv:0807.3486 [hep-ph]. [25] T. Hahn, Comput. Phys. Commun. 168, 78 (2005), [43] A. Krassnigg, PoS CONFINEMENT8, 075 (2008), arXiv:hep-ph/0404043 [hep-ph]. arXiv:0812.3073 [nucl-th]. [26] A. E. Dorokhov, JETP Lett. 91, 163 (2010), [44] E. Rojas, B. El-Bennich, and J. P. B. C. de Melo, Phys. arXiv:0912.5278 [hep-ph]. Rev. D90, 074025 (2014), arXiv:1407.3598 [nucl-th]. [27] P. Vasko and J. Novotny, JHEP 10, 122 (2011), [45] M. Oettel, M. Pichowsky, and L. von Smekal, Eur. Phys. arXiv:1106.5956 [hep-ph]. J. A8, 251 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/9909082 [nucl-th]. [28] T. Husek, K. Kampf, and J. Novotny, Eur. Phys. J. C74, [46] P. Maris and C. D. Roberts, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E12, 297 3010 (2014), arXiv:1405.6927 [hep-ph]. (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0301049 [nucl-th]. [29] P. Masjuan and P. Sanchez-Puertas, (2015), [47] A. Windisch, (2016), arXiv:1612.06002 [hep-ph]. arXiv:1504.07001 [hep-ph]. [48] E. Byckling and K. Kajantie, Particle Kinematics (Uni- [30] L. Bergstrom, E. Masso, L. Ametller, and A. Bramon, versity of Jyvaskyla, Finland, 1971). Physics Letters B 126, 8117 (19839). [49] P. Nyborg, H. S. Song, W. Kernan, and R. H. Good, [31] J. F. Donoghue (1996) arXiv:hep-ph/9607351 [hep-ph]. Phys. Rev. 140, B914 (1965). [32] H. Ghaderi, Master’s thesis, Uppsala University (2013). [50] N. Byers and C. N. Yang, Reviews of Modern Physics 36, 595 (1964).