pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.14933 · v3 · pith:3GBN4FWRnew · submitted 2025-10-16 · ✦ hep-ph · nucl-th· physics.atom-ph

Nucleon Electric Dipole Moments in Paramagnetic Molecules through Effective Field Theory

Wouter Dekens , Jordy de Vries , Lemonia Gialidi , Javier Men\'endez , Heleen Mulder , Beatriz Romeo This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 21:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph nucl-thphysics.atom-ph
keywords nucleon electric dipole momentsparamagnetic moleculeseffective field theorynuclear shell modelBaFCP violationhadronic sources
0
0 comments X

The pith

An effective field theory framework relates electric dipole moments measured in paramagnetic molecules to the electric dipole moments of neutrons and protons.

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

The paper develops an effective field theory to connect measurements of electric dipole moments in molecules to the electric dipole moments of neutrons and protons. It uses power counting to determine which contributions dominate and specifies the nuclear matrix elements that must be computed. The authors apply the nuclear shell model to evaluate these matrix elements for the molecule BaF and derive estimates for the constraints that current molecular EDM experiments place on nucleon EDMs. This approach allows hadronic sources of CP violation to be probed through molecular experiments that were previously interpreted mainly in terms of the electron EDM.

Core claim

We introduce an effective field theory framework to relate molecular EDMs to the EDMs of neutrons and protons. We identify the dominant contributions through power counting and pinpoint the necessary nuclear matrix elements. As a practical application, we employ the nuclear shell model to calculate these nuclear matrix elements for the polar molecule BaF. Finally, we estimate the limits on the nucleon EDMs set by current molecular EDM experiments.

What carries the argument

Effective field theory framework that uses power counting to isolate dominant contributions from nucleon EDMs to molecular EDMs, together with nuclear shell model calculations of the required matrix elements for BaF.

If this is right

  • Current molecular EDM experiments set new limits on the EDMs of neutrons and protons.
  • The dominant nuclear operators contributing to the molecular EDM from nucleon EDMs are identified via power counting.
  • Shell model results for BaF enable quantitative extraction of nucleon EDM bounds from existing experimental data.
  • Hadronic CP violation can now be constrained using paramagnetic molecule measurements in addition to direct nucleon EDM searches.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same EFT approach could be extended to other paramagnetic molecules to improve overall sensitivity to nucleon EDMs.
  • Better nuclear structure methods beyond the shell model would tighten the resulting bounds on nucleon EDMs.
  • This framework complements direct searches for nucleon EDMs by providing indirect constraints from molecular systems.

Load-bearing premise

The effective field theory power counting correctly isolates the dominant contributions from nucleon EDMs to the molecular EDM, and the nuclear shell model provides sufficiently accurate matrix elements for BaF without large uncontrolled uncertainties from nuclear structure.

What would settle it

A more precise nuclear structure calculation or measurement for BaF that yields matrix elements differing significantly from the shell model values would change the estimated limits on nucleon EDMs extracted from molecular data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.14933 by Beatriz Romeo, Heleen Mulder, Javier Men\'endez, Jordy de Vries, Lemonia Gialidi, Wouter Dekens.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Contributions to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The ratio between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: shows the cumulative sum of C¯usoft SP as a func￾tion of the excitation energy of the intermediate states. For the three nuclear Hamiltonians used, the behaviour is quite similar: a few states between 4 − 5 MeV domi￾nate, with lower- and higher-energy states contributing little. Additionally, Table I also presents the results for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Absolute value for the proton ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: further analyzes this aspect, showing the nor￾malized radial distribution c pot SP (r) for 20Ne, 48Ca, and 138Ba, defined by c pot SP (r) = P i̸=j µ (i)D(j) rijN(ij) (rij )δ(r − rij ) |Mpot SP | . (B9) which fulfills the relation 1 = Z ∞ 0 c pot SP (r)dr . (B10) The radial distributions in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Electric dipole moment (EDM) measurements using paramagnetic molecules have significantly advanced over the last decade. Traditionally, these experiments have been analyzed in terms of the electron EDM. However, paramagnetic molecules are also sensitive to hadronic sources of charge-parity (CP) violation, highlighting the need for a new framework to interpret the experimental results. In this Letter, we introduce an effective field theory framework to relate molecular EDMs to the EDMs of neutrons and protons. We identify the dominant contributions through power counting and pinpoint the necessary nuclear matrix elements. As a practical application, we employ the nuclear shell model to calculate these nuclear matrix elements for the polar molecule BaF. Finally, we estimate the limits on the nucleon EDMs set by current molecular EDM experiments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces an effective field theory (EFT) framework to relate electric dipole moments (EDMs) measured in paramagnetic molecules to the EDMs of neutrons and protons. It applies power counting to isolate dominant operators, identifies the required nuclear matrix elements, computes those elements for BaF using the nuclear shell model, and derives estimated limits on nucleon EDMs from existing molecular EDM data.

Significance. If the central results hold, the work supplies a systematic EFT-based bridge between molecular EDM experiments and hadronic CP violation, allowing current and future measurements on systems such as BaF to constrain nucleon EDMs in a manner complementary to direct neutron EDM searches. The explicit power-counting analysis and the concrete shell-model application for a heavy polar molecule constitute a practical advance in the interpretation of these precision experiments.

major comments (1)
  1. [Nuclear matrix elements for BaF] Nuclear matrix elements section: the shell-model calculation of the P,T-odd matrix elements for ^{137}Ba (or the relevant isotope in BaF) does not report a systematic uncertainty budget arising from model-space truncation or variation of the effective interaction. Because these matrix elements enter directly into the final limits on d_n and d_p, an assessment of the 20–50 % theoretical systematics typical for such operators in open-shell nuclei is required to substantiate the quoted bounds.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states that limits on nucleon EDMs are estimated but does not quote the numerical values; including them would improve clarity for readers.
  2. [EFT framework] Notation for the effective operators and the mapping from molecular to nucleon EDMs should be defined explicitly in a single equation or table to avoid ambiguity when comparing to other EFT treatments.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comment and for recognizing the significance of the EFT framework. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Nuclear matrix elements for BaF] Nuclear matrix elements section: the shell-model calculation of the P,T-odd matrix elements for ^{137}Ba (or the relevant isotope in BaF) does not report a systematic uncertainty budget arising from model-space truncation or variation of the effective interaction. Because these matrix elements enter directly into the final limits on d_n and d_p, an assessment of the 20–50 % theoretical systematics typical for such operators in open-shell nuclei is required to substantiate the quoted bounds.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit discussion of theoretical uncertainties would strengthen the presentation of the nuclear matrix elements. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph to the Nuclear matrix elements section that (i) recalls the model space and effective interaction employed, (ii) cites existing shell-model studies of P,T-odd operators in similar open-shell nuclei that report 20–40 % variations under changes of model-space size and interaction, and (iii) propagates these typical systematics into the final limits on d_n and d_p, qualifying them as order-of-magnitude estimates. A full, dedicated uncertainty budget involving multiple large-scale calculations lies beyond the scope of this Letter, whose primary goal is to introduce the EFT framework and demonstrate its application; the added discussion will nevertheless make the quoted bounds more robust. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: EFT power counting and independent shell-model matrix elements are self-contained

full rationale

The derivation introduces a standard EFT framework that relates molecular EDMs to nucleon EDMs via power counting to isolate leading operators and identifies the required nuclear matrix elements, which are then computed independently using the nuclear shell model for BaF. These matrix elements are obtained from established nuclear-structure techniques without any fitting to the target EDM data or observables inside the paper. No self-citation is invoked as load-bearing justification for uniqueness or ansatz choices, and the central results do not reduce by construction to inputs or predictions that are statistically forced by the same dataset. The framework remains externally falsifiable through nuclear-theory benchmarks and experimental limits.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the applicability of EFT power counting to isolate nucleon-EDM contributions and on the reliability of the nuclear shell model for the required matrix elements in BaF; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract description.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Effective field theory power counting applies and correctly identifies the dominant nucleon-EDM contributions to paramagnetic molecular EDMs.
    Invoked to pinpoint the necessary nuclear matrix elements.
  • domain assumption The nuclear shell model yields sufficiently accurate matrix elements for BaF without large model-dependent uncertainties.
    Used for the practical calculation of the matrix elements.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5674 in / 1461 out tokens · 53795 ms · 2026-05-21T21:02:15.149898+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · 21 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    They induce effective interactions between the nu- cleusandtheelectrons,i.e.thenuclearequivalentofC 0,1 SP, which we denote by¯CSP, see Eq. (7). To systematically compute the various contributions, it is useful to consider different photon modes depending on the scaling of their momentumq µ γ = (q0 γ,q γ). We identify three regions that give relevant cont...

    work page

  2. [2]

    soft photons:q 0 γ ∼ |q γ| ∼m π,

    work page

  3. [3]

    ultrasoft photons:q 0 γ ∼ |q γ| ∼m 2 π/mN,

    work page

  4. [4]

    potential photons:q 0 γ ∼q 2 γ/mN |qγ| ∼m π, and we defineQ∼m π ∼γandq∼Q 2/mN. TheCP-oddmeson-nucleoninteractionsinEq.(1)con- tribute toC 0,1 SP through diagrams involving a meson ex- change or a pion loop in combinations with the exchange of two photons in the ultrasoft or soft region. These diagrams were first considered in Ref. [13] and later com- pute...

    work page

  5. [5]

    signed ∆ϕjj

    or radiative corrections to superallowedβdecays [28, 30] although with different isospin and/orqdepen- dence. The many-body techniques needed to compute such NMEs, includingab-initioapproaches, have devel- oped significantly in the last decade and can be directly applied to these EDM calculations [29, 31]. Ultrasoft region:In this region, we expand in sma...

    work page doi:10.13039/501100011033 2025

  6. [6]

    Electric dipole moments as probes of new physics

    M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Annals Phys.318, 119 (2005), hep-ph/0504231

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  7. [7]

    Electric Dipole Moments of Nucleons, Nuclei, and Atoms: The Standard Model and Beyond

    J. Engel, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and U. van Kolck, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.71, 21 (2013), 1303.2371

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

    J. J. Hudson, D. M. Kara, I. J. Smallman, B. E. Sauer, M. R. Tarbutt, and E. A. Hinds, Nature473, 493 (2011)

    work page 2011

  9. [9]

    Order of Magnitude Smaller Limit on the Electric Dipole Moment of the Electron

    J. Baron et al. (ACME), Science343, 269 (2014), 1310.7534

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  10. [10]

    W. B. Cairncross, D. N. Gresh, M. Grau, K. C. Cossel, T. S. Roussy, Y. Ni, Y. Zhou, J. Ye, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 153001 (2017), 1704.07928

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

    Andreev et al

    V. Andreev et al. (ACME), Nature562, 355 (2018)

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    T. S. Roussy et al., Science381, adg4084 (2023), 2212.11841

    work page arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Measuring the electric dipole moment of the electron in BaF

    P. Aggarwal et al. (NL-eEDM), Eur. Phys. J. D72, 197 (2018), 1804.10012

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  14. [14]

    A. C. Vutha, M. Horbatsch, and E. A. Hessels, Phys. Rev. A98, 032513 (2018), 1806.06774

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  15. [15]

    C. J. Ho, S. C. Wright, B. E. Sauer, and M. R. Tarbutt, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 043233 (2023), 2306.02573

    work page arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Athanasakis-Kaklamanakis et al

    M. Athanasakis-Kaklamanakis et al. (Europwan EDM projects) (2025), 2505.22281

    work page arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Abel et al

    C. Abel et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 081803 (2020), 2001.11966

    work page arXiv 2020

  18. [18]

    V. V. Flambaum, M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and Y. V. Stad- nik, Phys. Rev. D102, 035001 (2020), 1912.13129

    work page arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    V. V. Flambaum, I. B. Samsonov, and H. B. Tran Tan, JHEP10, 077 (2020), 2004.10359

    work page arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    Mulder, R

    H. Mulder, R. Timmermans, and J. de Vries, JHEP07, 232 (2025), 2502.06406

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    L. I. Schiff, Phys. Rev.132, 2194 (1963)

    work page 1963

  22. [22]

    V. V. Flambaum, I. B. Khriplovich, and O. P. Sushkov, Sov. Phys. JETP60, 873 (1984)

    work page 1984

  23. [23]

    J. H. de Jesus and J. Engel, Phys. Rev. C72, 045503 (2005), nucl-th/0507031

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  24. [24]

    Y. Ema, T. Gao, and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 231801 (2022), 2202.10524

    work page arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    The Effective Chiral Lagrangian From Dimension-Six Parity and Time-Reversal Violation

    J. de Vries, E. Mereghetti, R. G. E. Timmermans, and U. van Kolck, Annals Phys.338, 50 (2013), 1212.0990

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  26. [26]

    Renormalization Group Running of Dimension-Six Sources of Parity and Time-Reversal Violation

    W. Dekens and J. de Vries, JHEP05, 149 (2013), 1303.3156

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  27. [27]

    J. Kley, T. Theil, E. Venturini, and A. Weiler, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 926 (2022), 2109.15085

    work page arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    Kumar and E

    J. Kumar and E. Mereghetti, JHEP09, 028 (2024), 2404.00516

    work page arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.63, 2333 (1989)

    work page 1989

  30. [30]

    R. J. Crewther, P. Di Vecchia, G. Veneziano, and E. Wit- ten, Phys. Lett. B88, 123 (1979), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 91, 487 (1980)]

    work page 1979

  31. [31]

    New insights into the neutron electric dipole moment

    K. Ottnad, B. Kubis, U. G. Meissner, and F. K. Guo, Phys. Lett. B687, 42 (2010), 0911.3981

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  32. [32]

    The Electric Dipole Form Factor of the Nucleon in Chiral Perturbation Theory to Sub-leading Order

    E. Mereghetti, J. de Vries, W. H. Hockings, C. M. Maekawa, and U. van Kolck, Phys. Lett. B696, 97 (2011), 1010.4078

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  33. [33]

    Cirigliano, W

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

    work page arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Agostini, G

    M. Agostini, G. Benato, J. A. Detwiler, J. Menéndez, and F. Vissani, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 025002 (2023), 2202.01787

    work page arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Cirigliano, W

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

    work page arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Cirigliano et al., J

    V. Cirigliano et al., J. Phys. G49, 120502 (2022), 2207.01085

    work page arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    Zupan, Eur

    J. Zupan, Eur. Phys. J. C25, 233 (2002), hep- ph/0202135

    work page arXiv 2002

  38. [38]

    R. D. Heil, H. H. Pitz, U. E. P. Berg, U. Kneissl, K. D. Hummel, G. Kilgus, D. Bohle, A. Richter, C. Wesselborg, and P. Von Brentano, Nucl. Phys. A476, 39 (1988)

    work page 1988

  39. [39]

    Pietralla et al., Nucl

    N. Pietralla et al., Nucl. Phys. A618, 141 (1997)

    work page 1997

  40. [40]

    Zilges, P

    A. Zilges, P. Von Brentano, C. Wesselborg, R. D. Heil, U. Kneissl, S. Lindenstruth, H. H. Pitz, U. Seemann, and R. Stock, Nucl. Phys. A507, 399 (1990), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.A 519, 848–848 (1990)]

    work page 1990

  41. [41]

    D. J. Broadhurst and A. G. Grozin, Phys. Lett. B267, 105 (1991), hep-ph/9908362

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1991

  42. [42]

    Improved description of the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay and a possibility to determine the effective axial-vector coupling constant

    F. Šimkovic, R. Dvornický, D. Stefánik, and A. Faessler, Phys. Rev. C97, 034315 (2018), 1804.04227

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  43. [43]

    S. e. Morabit, R. Bouabid, V. Cirigliano, J. de Vries, L. Gráf, and E. Mereghetti (2024), 2412.14160

    work page arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Romeo, J

    B. Romeo, J. Menéndez, and C. Peña Garay, Phys. Lett. B827, 136965 (2022), 2102.11101

    work page arXiv 2022

  45. [45]

    Dekens, J

    W. Dekens, J. de Vries, D. Castillo, J. Menéndez, E. Mereghetti, V. Plakkot, P. Soriano, and G. Zhou, JHEP09, 201 (2024), 2402.07993

    work page arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    Castillo, L

    D. Castillo, L. Jokiniemi, P. Soriano, and J. Menéndez, Phys. Lett. B860, 139181 (2025), 2408.03373

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Shell Model description of the beta beta decay of 136Xe

    E. Caurier, F. Nowacki, and A. Poves, Phys. Lett. B711, 62 (2012), 1112.5039

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  48. [48]

    Caurier, G

    E. Caurier, G. Martinez-Pinedo, F. Nowacki, A. Poves, and A. P. Zuker, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 427 (2005), nucl- th/0402046

    work page arXiv 2005

  49. [49]

    Caurier, F

    E. Caurier, F. Nowacki, A. Poves, and K. Sieja, Phys. Rev. C82, 064304 (2010)

    work page 2010

  50. [50]

    Qi and Z

    C. Qi and Z. X. Xu, Phys. Rev. C86, 044323 (2012)

    work page 2012

  51. [51]

    B. A. Brown, N. J. Stone, J. R. Stone, I. S. Towner, and M. Hjorth-Jensen, Phys. Rev. C71, 044317 (2005), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.71.044317

    work page 2005

  52. [52]

    Graner, Y

    B. Graner, Y. Chen, E. Lindahl, and B. Heckel, Physical Review Letters116(2016), ISSN 1079-7114, URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.161601

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.161601 2016

  53. [53]

    Alarcon et al., inSnowmass 2021(2022), 2203.08103

    R. Alarcon et al., inSnowmass 2021(2022), 2203.08103

    work page arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    Electric Dipole Moments: A Global Analysis

    T. Chupp and M. Ramsey-Musolf, Phys. Rev. C91, 035502 (2015), 1407.1064

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  55. [55]

    Model-independent determinations of the electron EDM and the role of diamagnetic atoms

    T. Fleig and M. Jung, JHEP07, 012 (2018), 1802.02171

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  56. [56]

    Parity- and Time-Reversal-Violating Form Factors of the Deuteron

    J. de Vries, E. Mereghetti, R. G. E. Timmermans, and U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 091804 (2011), 1102.4068

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  57. [57]

    The electric dipole moment of the deuteron from the QCD $\theta$-term

    J. Bsaisou, C. Hanhart, S. Liebig, U. G. Meissner, A. Nogga, and A. Wirzba, Eur. Phys. J. A49, 31 (2013), 1209.6306

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  58. [58]

    Baryon mass splittings and strong CP violation in SU(3) Chiral Perturbation Theory

    J. de Vries, E. Mereghetti, and A. Walker-Loud, Phys. Rev. C92, 045201 (2015), 1506.06247

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  59. [59]

    T. R. Richardson (2025), 2509.03613

    work page arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Dragos, T

    J. Dragos, T. Luu, A. Shindler, J. de Vries, and A. Yousif, Phys. Rev. C103, 015202 (2021), 1902.03254

    work page arXiv 2021

  61. [61]

    Liang, A

    J. Liang, A. Alexandru, T. Draper, K.-F. Liu, B. Wang, G. Wang, and Y.-B. Yang (χQCD), Phys. Rev. D108, 094512 (2023), 2301.04331

    work page arXiv 2023

  62. [62]

    CKM benchmarks for electron EDM experiments

    M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. D89, 056006 10 (2014), 1311.5537

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  63. [63]

    P. A. B. Haase, D. J. Doeglas, A. Boeschoten, E. Eliav, M. Iliaš, P. Aggarwal, H. L. Bethlem, A. Borschevsky, K. Esajas, Y. Hao, et al., The Journal of Chemical Physics155(2021), ISSN 1089-7690, URLhttp://dx. doi.org/10.1063/5.0047344

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0047344 2021

  64. [64]

    The phenomenology of electric dipole moments in models of scalar leptoquarks

    W. Dekens, J. de Vries, M. Jung, and K. K. Vos, JHEP 01, 069 (2019), 1809.09114

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  65. [65]

    Pospelov, Phys

    M. Pospelov, Phys. Lett. B530, 123 (2002), hep- ph/0109044

    work page arXiv 2002

  66. [66]

    Bhattacharya, K

    S. Bhattacharya, K. Fuyuto, E. Mereghetti, and T. R. Richardson, Phys. Rev. C112, 025501 (2025), 2504.01105

    work page arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    W. A. Richter, S. Mkhize, and B. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. C78, 064302 (2008)

    work page 2008

  68. [68]

    Poves, J

    A. Poves, J. Sánchez-Solano, E. Caurier, and F. Nowacki, Nuclear Physics A694, 157 (2001)

    work page 2001