 of the lattice computations is not our goal. Note that an analysis of the consistency of lattice computations with our ${\ensuremath{m_\pi}}$-dependent predictions for polarisabilities cannot proceed by simple “standard-deviation counting", because the uncertainties in the shape of $\xi({\ensuremath{m_\pi}})$, and thus also the theory errors at different pion masses, are highly correlated. Ref. [@Stump:2001gu] derives a modified $\chi^2$, whose use would be one way to account for such systematic errors.

We find that the [$\chi$EFT]{}prediction for ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}^{(\mathrm{n})}}}$ agrees well with the available computations, of Lujan et al. [@Lujan:2014qga], Detmold et al. [@Detmold:2010ts], and Engelhardt/LHPC [@Engelhardt:2007ub; @Engelhardt:2010tm]. For the proton, only the result of Detmold et al. for ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}$ at ${\ensuremath{m_\pi}}\approx400\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$ meets our selection criteria; it is quite compatible with the chiral curve. In regime (i) and (ii) these are statistically rigorous statements, since our error corridors provide estimates of higher-order effects—albeit with decreasing reliability as ${\ensuremath{m_\pi}}$ increases. The agreement for electric polarisabilities is so good that we feel we must stress that our results are not fits to lattice computations; the physical value is determined by Compton-scattering data on the proton and deuteron, and the pion-mass dependence exclusively by chiral dynamics.

For the magnetic polarisability of the neutron, ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}^{(\mathrm{n})}}}$, we cannot reproduce the magnitude reported by the Adelaide group [@Primer:2013pva; @Hall:2013dva]. NPLQCD [@Chang:2015qxa] also reports results for ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}^{(\mathrm{n})}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}^{(\mathrm{p})}}}$ at $806\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$; the former agrees well with the Adelaide results. The authors of this paper point out that, since this pion mass corresponds to the flavour SU(3) limit, their result for the isovector combination ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}^{(\mathrm{p})}}}-{\ensuremath
of the lattice computations is not our goal. Note that an psychoanalysis of the consistency of wicket calculation with our $ { \ensuremath{m_\pi}}$-dependent predictions for polarisabilities cannot continue by bare “ standard - deviation counting ", because the doubt in the supreme headquarters allied powers europe of $ \xi({\ensuremath{m_\pi}})$, and thus besides the hypothesis errors at different pion batch, are highly correlated. Ref.   [ @Stump:2001gu ] derives a modified $ \chi^2 $, whose use would be one way to account for such taxonomic errors. 

 We find that the [ $ \chi$EFT]{}prediction for $ { \ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}^{(\mathrm{n})}}}$ agrees well with the available calculation, of Lujan et al.   [ @Lujan:2014qga ], Detmold et al.   [ @Detmold:2010ts ], and Engelhardt / LHPC   [ @Engelhardt:2007ub; @Engelhardt:2010tm ]. For the proton, only the result of Detmold et al.   for $ { \ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}$ at $ { \ensuremath{m_\pi}}\approx400\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$ touch our selection standard; it is quite compatible with the chiral curve. In regime (i) and (ii) these are statistically rigorous statements, since our error corridor provide estimates of higher - order effects — albeit with decreasing dependability as $ { \ensuremath{m_\pi}}$ addition. The agreement for electric polarisabilities is so good that we feel we must stress that our results are not fits to lattice computations; the physical value is determine by Compton - scattering data on the proton and deuteron, and the pion - bulk dependence exclusively by chiral dynamics. 

 For the magnetic polarisability of the neutron, $ { \ensuremath{\beta_{M1}^{(\mathrm{n})}}}$, we cannot regurgitate the magnitude report by the Adelaide group   [ @Primer:2013pva; @Hall:2013dva ]. NPLQCD   [ @Chang:2015qxa ] also reports result for $ { \ensuremath{\beta_{M1}^{(\mathrm{n})}}}$ and $ { \ensuremath{\beta_{M1}^{(\mathrm{p})}}}$ at $ 806\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$; the former agrees well with the Adelaide results. The authors of this paper point out that, since this pion mass corresponds to the flavour SU(3) limit, their result for the isovector combination $ { \ensuremath{\beta_{M1}^{(\mathrm{p})}}}-{\ensuremath
 of the lattice computationr is not our goco. Note that zn analyris of the consistency of lavticw comkltations with our ${\ensjremath{m_\pp}}$-dependenr prtdictions for poledisabillcies dwnnoc 'roceed by simpke “standarg-deviation couttkny", because the uncertainties in the srape of $\xl({\ensuremath{m_\pi}})$, and ehus also the theory errors at differeht pion masses, are hoghly correlated. Ref. [@Stump:2001gk] degives a modified $\cji^2$, whose usg wotod be one wah to account for such aystematic errors.

We find that tfe [$\chn$EFT]{}predictuob flt ${\ensuremath{\elpha_{E1}^{(\iathrm{n})}}}$ agrecx well with tne available cpmpntatuons, of Lujan et al. [@Luoan:2014qga], Detmold et al. [@Qetmold:2010ts], aud Engelhardt/LHPC [@Engeohqrdt:2007ut; @Encelhxedt:2010gm]. Roc tge prohon, only the desult of Dwtmold et al. for ${\ensirqnath{\alpha_{E1}}}$ at ${\ensurqmwth{m_\pi}}\approx400\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$ meets olr sslection criteria; it is quite compatible witj the chiwal curve. In regime (i) and (ii) these are statisticanly rmgurobw stagwmfnts, since our error corridors provide estimaess on higher-order efnects—albeit with drcgesfing reliabilkty as ${\enauremath{m_\pi}}$ increades. The agrewment for elevtric polarisabilities is si good that ce deel we must stresd that our xesultx are not fits to lattice cooputztions; the ohysical bxlue is determindd ny Wompton-scattering data on ehe protoi and deuterun, amd the pion-mass fependence exclusively bj chital dytamics.

For hhe magnetic polarisability of vie neutron, ${\enxusemdth{\beta_{M1}^{(\iathrk{n})}}}$, we cannot weproduce the kagnitube repurted by tge Adeleide group [@Prymer:2013pva; @Hall:2013dew]. NPLQCD [@Chanj:2015qxa] also repirts resultr for ${\ensurematn{\beta_{M1}^{(\matkxm{n})}}}$ and ${\ebsuremath{\beta_{M1}^{(\mathvm{p})}}}$ aj $806\;{\snsuremath{\mathrn{MeC}}}$; the former agteer wqlp xith eve Adelaide sesuuts. Yhe ajthors of tmis paprr point out that, sitce fhis pion mass cortefponds ti the flwvour SU(3) limiy, their result for the msovecvor cokbigation ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}^{(\mathrm{p})}}}-{\ehsuremath
of the lattice computations is not our that analysis of consistency of lattice for cannot proceed by “standard-deviation counting", because uncertainties in the shape of $\xi({\ensuremath{m_\pi}})$, thus also the theory errors at different pion masses, are highly correlated. Ref. derives a modified $\chi^2$, whose use would be one way to account for systematic We that [$\chi$EFT]{}prediction for ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}^{(\mathrm{n})}}}$ agrees well with the available computations, of Lujan et al. [@Lujan:2014qga], Detmold et [@Detmold:2010ts], and Engelhardt/LHPC [@Engelhardt:2007ub; @Engelhardt:2010tm]. For the proton, the result of Detmold al. for ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}$ at ${\ensuremath{m_\pi}}\approx400\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$ our criteria; it quite with chiral curve. In (i) and (ii) these are statistically rigorous statements, since our error corridors provide estimates of higher-order effects—albeit decreasing reliability increases. The for polarisabilities so good that we must stress that our results to lattice computations; the physical value is determined Compton-scattering data the proton and deuteron, and the dependence exclusively by chiral dynamics. For the magnetic of the neutron, ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}^{(\mathrm{n})}}}$, we cannot reproduce the magnitude reported by the Adelaide group [@Primer:2013pva; [@Chang:2015qxa] also reports results ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}^{(\mathrm{n})}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}^{(\mathrm{p})}}}$ $806\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$; former well the Adelaide The authors of this paper point out that, since this pion corresponds to the flavour SU(3) limit, their result for the ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}^{(\mathrm{p})}}}-{\ensuremath
 of the lattice computations iS not our goaL. Note ThaT an AnAlysIs of The consistency OF latTice computations with ouR ${\ensuReMAth{m_\PI}}$-dEpendEnt predICtIONs fOr PoLarIsABiLitieS caNnot proCeed by simpLe “sTaNdard-deviatiON cOunting", becAusE the uncertaiNtiEs in thE sHapE Of $\xi({\eNsuRematH{m_\pi}})$, anD Thus alSo the theoRy ERrors aT DiffereNT PiOn maSses, are highly corrELaTEd. Ref. [@Stump:2001gu] deRives a MoDIfIED $\chI^2$, whOse use woulD bE one wAY to accoUNt FOR SucH Systematic errOrs.

We find thAT thE [$\chi$EFt]{}pRedICtion fOr ${\ensUrEMatH{\alpha_{E1}^{(\mathRm{n})}}}$ aGrees well With thE AvailabLE computAtions, Of LUjaN et aL. [@luJaN:2014qgA], DETmoLD eT al. [@dEtmOld:2010ts], and enGeLhardT/LHPc [@eNGElhaRdt:2007Ub; @EnGelhaRdt:2010tm]. For the prOtoN, onlY The ResulT of DeTmolD eT al. foR ${\ensurEmath{\AlPha_{E1}}}$ at ${\ensurematH{m_\pi}}\Approx400\;{\ensUreMaTh{\mAtHrm{Mev}}}$ Meets oUr sEleCtion crIteria; iT Is qUiTE COmPatible with the chirAl CURvE. In regimE (i) and (iI) ThEsE Are statiStIcaLly rIGOrous StatEMeNts, since Our errOR cOrRidors pRoVide esTiMatEs oF highER-ordEr effeCts—albeiT with DEcreasing reliaBIlity as ${\ensureMAtH{M_\Pi}}$ INcreAseS. The agreemeNt foR ElecTric POlAriSAbiliTies iS sO GoOD that we feel we must stReSs that Our reSults are not fiTs to latticE COMputatioNs; thE PhYSical value is deTermiNed by ComptON-scatterIng daTa on the pRoton and dEUTeron, and The PioN-maSs dEPEnDence exclusivELY by cHiRal dynaMicS.

For the MagNetIc pOlaRiSability oF the neutRoN, ${\eNsUrEmaTh{\betA_{m1}^{(\mathrm{n})}}}$, We CanNoT reProduCE the maGnituDe rePoRtED by The AdelAIdE GRoup [@prImEr:2013pvA; @HaLl:2013Dva]. NPlQCD [@cHanG:2015qxa] alsO reports rEsuLTs foR ${\eNsUremath{\Beta_{M1}^{(\mathrm{n})}}}$ aNd ${\Ensuremath{\BeTa_{M1}^{(\Mathrm{P})}}}$ AT $806\;{\ensuremAth{\mathrm{MeV}}}$; the former agREes well WitH the ADelaIde resultS. ThE authoRs oF This paPer poiNt out ThAt, sINCe thiS PIoN maSs CorrespondS TO thE flavOuR SU(3) lImit, theIr result for the isovECtoR combination ${\eNsuRemaTH{\BeTa_{M1}^{(\MAtHRm{p})}}}-{\EnSUreMATh
 of the lattice computatio ns is notour g oal . N ot e th at a n analysis oft he c onsistency of latticecompu ta t ions wi th ou r ${\en s ur e m ath {m _\ pi} }$ - de pende ntpredict ions for p ola ri sabilities c a nn ot proceed  by  simple “sta nda rd-dev ia tio n  coun tin g", b ecause the un certainti es in the shape o f $\ xi({ \ensuremath{m_\pi } }) $ , and thus als o theth e or y err ors  at differ en t pio n  masses ,  a r e hig h ly correlated . Ref. [@St u mp: 2001gu ]der i ves amodif ie d  $\ chi^2$, who se u se wouldbe one way toa ccountfor su chsys tema t ic  e rro rs . 

W e  f ind tha t the [$ \c hi $EFT] {}pr e d i c tion  fo r ${ \ensu remath{\alpha _{E 1}^{ ( \ma thrm{ n})}} }$ a gr ees w ell wi th th eavailable compu tati ons, of L uja netal . [@L u jan:20 14q ga] , Detmo ld et a l . [ @D e t m ol d:2010ts], and Eng el h a rd t/LHPC [ @Engel h ar dt : 2007ub;@E nge lhar d t :2010 tm]. Fo r the pr oton,o nl ythe res ul t of D et mol d e t al. for${\ens uremath{ \alph a _{E1}}}$ at ${ \ ensuremath{m_ \ pi } } \a p prox 400 \;{\ensurem ath{ \ math rm{M e V} }}$ meets  ourse l ec t ion criteria; it is  q uite c ompat ible with the  chiral cu r v e . In reg ime( i) and (ii) these  arestatistica l ly rigor ous s tatement s, sinceo u r errorcor rid ors  pr o v id e estimates o f high er -ordereff ects—al bei t w ith  de cr easing re liabilit yas  $ {\ ens urema t h{m_\pi} }$  in cr eas es. T h e agre ement  for  e le c tri c polar i sa b i liti es  i s so  go od  that  wef eel  we mus t stresstha t  our  r es ults ar e not fits to  l attice com pu tat ions;t h e physic al value is determinedb y Compt on- scatt erin g data on  th e prot ona nd deu teron,  andth e p i o n-mas s de pen de nce exclus i v ely  by c hi raldynamic s.

For the magnet i c p olarisability  of  the n eu tro n ,$ {\e ns u rem a t h{\beta_{M1}^{( \mathrm{n} )} } }$ , we canno t  re pr oduce t he magn itude reporte d by theAdelaidegr oup[ @ Pri mer:2013pv a; @Hall :2013dva] .  NPLQ C D[@Cha ng: 2015qx a]  al so re portsr esu lts f or ${\ en surema th{\b et a_{M1}^{ (\mathrm{n})}}}$ and ${ \ensur emath {\b eta_{M1}^ {(\ m ath rm{p})}}} $ at  $806\;{\e nsu rem ath{\ mat h rm{Me V}}} $ ;the forme r ag r ees wellw it h t h e  A delaide res u l t s.The a uth o rs ofthis  paper point outt hat, since thi s pi o n  ma ssc orre sp onds to the fl avo ur S U(3) lim it , their res ult forth e  isov ectorcombin ation $ { \ en s uremat h{\b eta _{M1}^{(\ mat hr m {p})}}} -{ \e n surema th
 of_the lattice_computations is not our_goal. Note_that_an analysis_of_the consistency of_lattice computations with_our ${\ensuremath{m_\pi}}$-dependent predictions for_polarisabilities cannot proceed_by_simple “standard-deviation counting", because the uncertainties in the shape of $\xi({\ensuremath{m_\pi}})$, and thus also_the_theory errors_at_different_pion masses, are highly correlated._Ref. [@Stump:2001gu] derives a modified $\chi^2$,_whose use_would be one way to account for such_systematic_errors.

We find that_the [$\chi$EFT]{}prediction for ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}^{(\mathrm{n})}}}$ agrees well with the available_computations, of Lujan et al. [@Lujan:2014qga], Detmold_et al. [@Detmold:2010ts], and_Engelhardt/LHPC [@Engelhardt:2007ub;_@Engelhardt:2010tm]._For the proton, only_the result of Detmold et al. for_${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}$ at ${\ensuremath{m_\pi}}\approx400\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$ meets our selection_criteria; it is quite compatible with the_chiral curve. In regime (i) and_(ii) these are statistically rigorous_statements, since_our error corridors provide estimates_of higher-order effects—albeit_with decreasing_reliability as ${\ensuremath{m_\pi}}$_increases. The agreement for electric polarisabilities_is so good_that we feel we must stress_that_our results are_not_fits_to lattice_computations; the physical_value_is determined_by_Compton-scattering data on the proton and_deuteron,_and the pion-mass dependence exclusively by chiral_dynamics.

For the magnetic polarisability_of_the neutron, ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}^{(\mathrm{n})}}}$, we_cannot reproduce the magnitude reported_by the Adelaide group [@Primer:2013pva; @Hall:2013dva]. NPLQCD [@Chang:2015qxa]_also reports_results for_${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}^{(\mathrm{n})}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}^{(\mathrm{p})}}}$ at $806\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$; the former agrees well with the_Adelaide results. The authors of this_paper point out that,_since this_pion_mass corresponds to_the_flavour SU(3)_limit, their result for the isovector combination_${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}^{(\mathrm{p})}}}-{\ensuremath