pi}}$, but a major effect in the case of ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M1M1}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{0}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}+{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, and, to some degree, ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{\pi}}}$. In addition, ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ is almost purely isoscalar. At the physical point, this is a simple consequence of the fact that the fitted proton and neutron values are very similar, cf. eq. . Beyond that, its isovector component grows only logarithmically with ${\ensuremath{m_\pi}}$ and with a small pre-factor; see eq. . As already noted, we find it impossible to assign credible errors to ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}+{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, because of its poor convergence. The error bands on ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ in Fig. \[fig:allpols\] are therefore simply half those of ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, and are anti-correlated. The uncertainties in the scalar polarisabilities then appear quite small relative to their magnitudes in both regimes (i) and (ii), while the uncertainties of the spin polarisabilities are comparable to their sizes.

![(Colour online) Pion-mass dependence of ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M1M1}}}$ in regime (i). Legend as in Fig. \[fig:allpols\]. []{data-label="fig:zoomin"}](betagammaMM-zoomin-combined-errors.pdf){width="100.00000%"}

As can be seen in Fig \[fig:allpols\], in most cases the sub-leading $\pi$N loops do not have a major effect on the trend of the polarisabilities. However for ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M1M1}}}$, shown in the chirally relevant ${\ensuremath{m_\pi}}$-range in Fig. \[fig:zoomin\], they change functions which are monotonically decreasing (resp. increasing) with ${\ensuremath{m_\pi}}$ at low orders into ones that are increasing (resp. decreasing) at ${\ensuremath{m_\pi^\text{phys}}}$. Indeed, both
pi}}$, but a major effect in the case of $ { \ensuremath{\gamma_{M1M1}}}$, $ { \ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, $ { \ensuremath{\gamma_{0}}}$, $ { \ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}+{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, and, to some degree, $ { \ensuremath{\gamma_{\pi}}}$. In addition, $ { \ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ is about strictly isoscalar. At the forcible point, this is a simple consequence of the fact that the fitted proton and neutron value are very similar, cf.   eq.  . Beyond that, its isovector part grows only logarithmically with $ { \ensuremath{m_\pi}}$ and with a small pre - component; see eq.  . As already noted, we witness it impossible to assign credible errors to $ { \ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}+{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, because of its poor convergence. The error bands on $ { \ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}$ and $ { \ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ in Fig.   \[fig: allpols\ ] are consequently simply half those of $ { \ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, and are anti - correlated. The uncertainties in the scalar polarisabilities then look quite small relative to their magnitudes in both regimes (i) and (ii), while the uncertainties of the tailspin polarisabilities are comparable to their sizes. 

! [ (color online) Pion - mass dependence of $ { \ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ and $ { \ensuremath{\gamma_{M1M1}}}$ in regime (i). Legend as in Fig.   \[fig: allpols\ ]. [ ] { datum - label="fig: zoomin"}](betagammaMM - zoomin - combined - errors.pdf){width="100.00000% " } 

 As can be seen in Fig   \[fig: allpols\ ], in most cases the sub - leading $ \pi$N loops do not have a major effect on the trend of the polarisabilities. However for $ { \ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ and $ { \ensuremath{\gamma_{M1M1}}}$, shown in the chirally relevant $ { \ensuremath{m_\pi}}$-range in Fig.   \[fig: zoomin\ ], they change functions which are monotonically decreasing (resp.   increasing) with $ { \ensuremath{m_\pi}}$ at low orders into ones that are increase (resp.   decreasing) at $ { \ensuremath{m_\pi^\text{phys}}}$. Indeed, both
pi}}$, hut a major effect in tht case of ${\ensuremcrh{\gamme_{M1M1}}}$, ${\enshremath{\bdta_{M1}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{0}}}$, ${\ensuremeth{\aopha_{E1}}}+{\tusuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, and, tu some dehree, ${\ensyremeth{\gamma_{\pi}}}$. In advjtion, ${\ekfurejwth{\an'ha_{E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\bgta_{M1}}}$ is almovt purely isoswauax. At the physical point, this is a siiple comsfquence of the facu trat fhe fitted proton and neutron valuss are nery similar, cf. eq. . Beyond that, its isovector comoonent grows only pogarithmicqlly qith ${\ensuremxth{m_\pi}}$ and with a smalm pre-factor; see eq. . As already nuted, ce find it umposdhble to assmgn crvdible errors to ${\ensusemath{\akpha_{E1}}}+{\ensurematm{\beta_{K1}}}$, bwcause of its poor coivergence. The error fands on ${\anauremath{\alpha_{E1}}}$ ane ${\wnsurgmath{\teta_{O1}}}$ in Fif. \[fmg:amlpols\] arx therefore simply hald those of ${\ensuremauh{\ajina_{E1}}}-{\ensurematg{\beta_{M1}}}$, agd are anti-correlated. The uncertainties in the scalar polarisabiluties then appear quije small rqlative to their magnitudes in both regimes (i) and (ii), wiiue uhc jbcfrtainties of the spin polarisabilities are cjjpsrsble to their fizes.

![(Colour ojloge) Pion-mass dgpendenes kf ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ and ${\enfuremqth{\gamma_{M1I1}}}$ in regime (i). Legend as in Fig. \[fug:allpols\]. []{dana-lavel="fig:zoomin"}](betagalmaMM-zoomin-eombingd-errots.pdf){width="100.00000%"}

As can be seeu in Fjg \[fig:allpold\], in most zases the sub-leaainn $\ph$N loops do not have a majjr effect on che trena of the pjlarisabillties. However for ${\ensurelath{\bgta_{M1}}}$ atd ${\ensuremwth{\gamma_{M1M1}}}$, shown in the chirallb relevant ${\enxusemdth{m_\pi}}$-rauge in Fig. \[fig:zoomin\], they change fonctions chich xre monotohically decreasing (resp. increasith) with ${\ensurxmath{m_\pi}}$ wt liw oeders ivgo ones that ate increasing (resp. dwcreasing) at ${\ensurcmath{o_\li^\text{phys}}}$. Indezb, voth
pi}}$, but a major effect in the ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M1M1}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{0}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}+{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, to some degree, almost isoscalar. At the point, this is simple consequence of the fact that fitted proton and neutron values are very similar, cf. eq. . Beyond that, isovector component grows only logarithmically with ${\ensuremath{m_\pi}}$ and with a small pre-factor; see . already we it impossible to assign credible errors to ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}+{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, because of its poor convergence. The error bands ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ in Fig. \[fig:allpols\] are therefore half those of ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, are anti-correlated. The uncertainties in scalar then appear small to magnitudes in both (i) and (ii), while the uncertainties of the spin polarisabilities are comparable to their sizes. ![(Colour online) dependence of ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M1M1}}}$ in (i). as Fig. \[fig:allpols\]. []{data-label="fig:zoomin"}](betagammaMM-zoomin-combined-errors.pdf){width="100.00000%"} be seen in Fig \[fig:allpols\], in sub-leading $\pi$N loops do not have a major on the of the polarisabilities. However for ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M1M1}}}$, shown in the chirally relevant ${\ensuremath{m_\pi}}$-range in \[fig:zoomin\], they change functions which are monotonically decreasing (resp. increasing) with ${\ensuremath{m_\pi}}$ at low orders that are increasing (resp. at ${\ensuremath{m_\pi^\text{phys}}}$. Indeed,
pi}}$, but a major effect in the casE of ${\ensuremAth{\gaMma_{m1M1}}}$, ${\eNsUremAth{\bEta_{M1}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\GAmma_{0}}}$, ${\Ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}+{\ensureMath{\bEtA_{m1}}}$, and, TO sOme deGree, ${\ensUReMATh{\gAmMa_{\Pi}}}$. IN aDDiTion, ${\eNsuRemath{\aLpha_{E1}}}-{\ensurEmaTh{\Beta_{M1}}}$ is almosT PuRely isoscaLar. at the physicaL poInt, thiS iS a sIMple cOnsEquenCe of thE Fact thAt the fittEd PRoton aND neutroN VAlUes aRe very similar, cf. eq. . bEyONd that, its isoveCtor coMpONeNT GroWs oNly logaritHmIcallY With ${\ensUReMATH{m_\pI}}$ And with a small Pre-factor; seE Eq. . AS alreaDy NotED, we finD it imPoSSibLe to assign cRediBle errors To ${\ensuREmath{\alPHa_{E1}}}+{\ensuRemath{\BetA_{M1}}}$, bEcauSE oF iTs pOoR ConVErGenCE. ThE error baNdS oN ${\ensuRemaTH{\ALPha_{E1}}}$ And ${\EnsuRematH{\beta_{M1}}}$ in Fig. \[fiG:alLpolS\] Are ThereFore sImplY hAlf thOse of ${\eNsureMaTh{\alpha_{E1}}}-{\ensuremAth{\bEta_{M1}}}$, and arE anTi-CorReLated. tHe unceRtaIntIes in thE scalar POlaRiSABIlIties then appear quiTe SMAlL relativE to theIR mAgNItudes in BoTh rEgimES (I) and (iI), whiLE tHe uncertAintieS Of ThE spin poLaRisabiLiTieS arE compARablE to theIr sizes.

![(COlour ONline) Pion-mass dEPendence of ${\ensUReMATh{\BEta_{M1}}}$ And ${\Ensuremath{\gAmma_{m1m1}}}$ in rEgimE (I). LEgeND as in fig. \[fiG:aLLpOLs\]. []{data-label="fig:zoomiN"}](bEtagamMaMM-zOomin-combined-Errors.pdf){wIDTH="100.00000%"}

As can be Seen IN FIG \[fig:allpols\], in mOst caSes the sub-lEAding $\pi$N Loops Do not havE a major efFECt on the tRenD of The PolARIsAbilities. HoweVER for ${\EnSurematH{\beTa_{M1}}}$ and ${\eNsuRemAth{\GamMa_{m1M1}}}$, shown in The chiraLlY rElEvAnt ${\EnsurEMath{m_\pi}}$-rAnGe iN FIg. \[fIg:zooMIn\], they ChangE funCtIoNS whIch are mONoTONicaLlY dEcreAsiNg (Resp. iNcreASinG) with ${\enSuremath{m_\Pi}}$ aT Low oRdErS into onEs that are incrEaSing (resp. deCrEasIng) at ${\eNSUremath{m_\Pi^\text{phys}}}$. Indeed, both
pi}}$, but a major effectin the cas e of${\ ens ur emat h{\g amma_{M1M1}}}$ ,  ${\ ensuremath{\beta_{M1}} }$, $ {\ e nsur e ma th{\g amma_{0 } }} $ ,  ${ \e ns ure ma t h{ \alph a_{ E1}}}+{ \ensuremat h{\ be ta_{M1}}}$,a nd , to somedeg ree, ${\ensu rem ath{\g am ma_ { \pi}} }$.  In a dditio n , ${\e nsuremath {\ a lpha_{ E 1}}}-{\ e n su rema th{\beta_{M1}}}$i sa lmost purely i soscal ar .  A t the  ph ysical poi nt , thi s  is a s i mp l e con s equence of th e fact that the  fitte dpro t on and  neut ro n  va lues are ve ry s imilar, c f. eq. . Beyon d  that,its is ove cto r co m po ne ntgr o wso nl y l o gar ithmical ly  w ith $ {\en s u r e math {m_ \pi} }$ an d with a smal l p re-f a cto r; se e eq.  . A salrea dy not ed, w efind it impossi bleto assign  cr ed ibl eerror s  to ${ \en sur emath{\ alpha_{ E 1}} }+ { \ e ns uremath{\beta_{M1} }} $ ,  b ecause o f itsp oo rc onvergen ce . T he e r r or ba ndso n${\ensur emath{ \ al ph a_{E1}} }$  and $ {\ ens ure math{ \ beta _{M1}} }$ in Fi g. \[ f ig:allpols\] a r e therefore s i mp l y  h a lf t hos e of ${\ens urem a th{\ alph a _{ E1} } }-{\e nsure ma t h{ \ beta_{M1}}}$, and a re  anti- corre lated. The un certaintie s i n the sc alar po l arisabilitiesthenappear qui t e smallrelat ive to t heir magn i t udes inbot h r egi mes ( i)  and (ii), wh i l e th euncerta int ies ofthe  sp inpol ar isabiliti es are c om pa ra bl e t o the i r sizes. 
![( Co lou r onl i ne) Pi on-ma ss d ep en d enc e of ${ \ en s u rema th {\ beta _{M 1} }}$ a nd $ { \en suremat h{\gamma_ {M1 M 1}}} $in  regime  (i). Legendas  in Fig. \ [f ig: allpol s \ ]. []{da ta-label="fig:zoomin"}] ( betagam maM M-zoo min- combined- err ors.pd f){ w idth=" 100.00 000%" }
As c an be s ee n i nFig \[fig: a l lpo ls\],  i n mo st case s the sub-leading$ \pi $N loops do n othave a  m ajo r  e f fec to n t h e  trend of the p olarisabil it i es . Howeverf or${ \ensure math{\b eta_{ M 1}}}$ a nd ${\ens uremath{\ ga mma_ { M 1M1 }}}$, show n in the  chirally relev a nt  ${\e nsu remath {m _\p i}}$- rangei n F ig. \ [fig:z oo min\],  they  c hange fu nctions which are monot onical ly de cre asing (re sp. inc reasing)with  ${\ensure mat h{m _\pi} }$a t low  ord e rs  in t o one s th a t are inc r ea sin g (r esp. decrea s i n g)at ${ \en s uremat h{m_ \pi^\text{phys}}} $ . Indeed, both 
pi}}$, but_a major_effect in the case_of ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M1M1}}}$,_${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$,_${\ensuremath{\gamma_{0}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}+{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$,_and,_to some degree,_${\ensuremath{\gamma_{\pi}}}$. In addition,_${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ is almost purely_isoscalar. At the_physical_point, this is a simple consequence of the fact that the fitted proton and_neutron_values are_very_similar,_cf. eq. . Beyond that, its isovector_component grows only logarithmically with_${\ensuremath{m_\pi}}$ and_with a small pre-factor; see eq. . As already_noted,_we find it_impossible to assign credible errors to ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}+{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, because of_its poor convergence. The error bands_on ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}$ and_${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$_in_Fig. \[fig:allpols\] are therefore simply_half those of ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, and are_anti-correlated. The uncertainties in the scalar_polarisabilities then appear quite small relative to_their magnitudes in both regimes (i)_and (ii), while the uncertainties_of the_spin polarisabilities are comparable to_their sizes.

![(Colour online)_Pion-mass dependence_of ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ and_${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M1M1}}}$ in regime (i). Legend as_in Fig. \[fig:allpols\]. []{data-label="fig:zoomin"}](betagammaMM-zoomin-combined-errors.pdf){width="100.00000%"}

As_can be seen in Fig \[fig:allpols\], in_most_cases the sub-leading_$\pi$N_loops_do not_have a major_effect_on the_trend_of the polarisabilities. However for ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$_and_${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M1M1}}}$, shown in the chirally relevant ${\ensuremath{m_\pi}}$-range_in Fig. \[fig:zoomin\], they change_functions_which are monotonically decreasing_(resp. increasing) with ${\ensuremath{m_\pi}}$ at low_orders into ones that are increasing_(resp. decreasing) at_${\ensuremath{m_\pi^\text{phys}}}$. Indeed,_both