pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.03786 · v2 · submitted 2025-11-05 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-ex· nucl-th

Light new physics and the τ lepton dipole moments

Martin Hoferichter , Gabriele Levati This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 00:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-exnucl-th
keywords tau lepton dipole momentslight new physicsasymmetry observablese+e- to tau+tau-spin-0 bosonsspin-1 bosonstauphilic gauge bosonBelle II
0
0 comments X

The pith

Light new physics demands model-specific calculations for extracting tau dipole moments from asymmetry data.

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

The paper tries to establish how light new physics particles that mainly affect the third generation can contribute to the tau lepton's dipole moments in ways that standard effective field theory does not capture. A sympathetic reader would care because current limits on tau dipole moments are much weaker than for electrons or muons, and better understanding could reveal or constrain such new physics. The authors provide detailed calculations for light spin-0 and spin-1 bosons in the process of tau pair production from electron positron collisions, focusing on asymmetry measurements designed to extract the dipole moments. They also show how these effects approach the effective field theory limit when the new particles become heavier and compare to other experimental constraints, with an example of a vector boson that couples preferentially to taus at the Belle II experiment.

Core claim

The central claim is that when new physics is light, with masses comparable to or below the center-of-mass energy, one needs dedicated calculations for the contributions to the tau dipole moments from e+e- -> tau+tau- asymmetries, rather than relying on EFT. The paper offers this analysis for spin-0 and spin-1 bosons, examines the decoupling behavior, discusses complementarity with other processes like direct production, and presents a case study for a tauphilic gauge vector boson at Belle II.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the tailored interpretation of asymmetry measurements in e+e−→τ+τ− for light spin-0 and spin-1 bosons to extract dipole moments.

If this is right

  • Tau dipole moment limits extracted from data must be reinterpreted for each light NP model.
  • Direct production of the light bosons in e+e- collisions provides complementary constraints.
  • As the mass of the new boson increases, the results smoothly approach those from effective field theory.
  • Belle II can set specific limits on a tauphilic vector boson using these asymmetry techniques.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar analyses could be useful for studying light new physics in other heavy fermion systems.
  • Future high-luminosity runs or new experiments might use these methods to search for light NP directly through moment measurements.
  • The results could help resolve tensions if any exist in current tau data with standard model predictions.

Load-bearing premise

The premise that asymmetry measurements in tau pair production can be interpreted cleanly as dipole moments for light spin-0 and spin-1 bosons without large backgrounds from other interactions.

What would settle it

If experimental data from e+e- collisions at varying energies shows that the dipole moment values extracted assuming light NP do not consistently explain the observed asymmetries across different boson masses, that would falsify the approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.03786 by Gabriele Levati, Martin Hoferichter.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Feynman diagrams contributing to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Feynman diagrams contributing to the ALP-mediated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Feynman diagram contributing to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Total contribution to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Feynman diagram contributing to the vector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Comparison of the sensitivity of the Belle II experiments to light NP affecting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Comparison of the sensitivity of the Belle II experiment to light NP affecting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Experimental exclusion bounds on tauphilic ALP ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Exclusion bounds from Belle II on a purely tauphilic light vector boson. The two black dashed lines indicate potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Diagrams contributing to the scattering process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Exclusion bounds from Belle II experiments on the two classes of models proposed in Ref. [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Momentum dependence of the ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: Momentum dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: Triangle diagrams contributing to the anomalous three-boson vertices. For the sake of concreteness, we illustrate the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18: Diagrams contributing to the scattering process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_18.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Testing New-Physics (NP) scenarios that couple predominantly to the third generation is notoriously difficult experimentally, as exemplified by comparing limits for the $\tau$ lepton dipole moments to those of electrons and muons. In this case, extracting limits from processes such as $e^+e^-\to\tau^+\tau^-$ often relies on effective-field-theory (EFT) arguments, which allow for model-independent statements, but only apply if the NP scale is sufficiently large compared to the center-of-mass energy. In this work we offer a comprehensive analysis of light NP contributions to the $\tau$ dipole moments, providing a detailed account of the interpretation of asymmetry measurements in $e^+e^-\to\tau^+\tau^-$ that are tailored towards the extraction of dipole moments, for the test cases of new light spin-$0$ and spin-$1$ bosons. Moreover, we study the decoupling to the EFT limit in these scenarios and discuss the complementarity to constraints from other related processes, such as production in $e^+e^-$ reactions. While covering a wide range of light NP scenarios, as specific case study we present a detailed discussion of a tauphilic gauge vector boson at Belle II.

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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents a comprehensive analysis of light new physics contributions to the τ lepton anomalous magnetic moment and electric dipole moment. It examines the interpretation of asymmetry observables in e⁺e⁻ → τ⁺τ⁻ for extracting these dipole moments in the presence of light spin-0 and spin-1 bosons, studies the decoupling of these scenarios to the EFT limit, discusses complementarity with constraints from other processes such as production in e⁺e⁻ reactions, and provides a detailed case study of a tauphilic gauge vector boson at Belle II.

Significance. If the results on the clean interpretability of the chosen asymmetries hold, the work would be significant for constraining third-generation new physics, where direct limits are difficult. The explicit treatment of finite-mass effects for spin-0 and spin-1 mediators, the decoupling analysis, and the Belle II case study offer practical guidance for experimental analyses that goes beyond standard EFT assumptions. This bridges model-dependent calculations with model-independent limits in a regime where m_NP is comparable to or below the center-of-mass energy.

major comments (1)
  1. [§4] §4 (Asymmetry interpretation for light mediators): The central claim requires that the selected asymmetry observables in e⁺e⁻→τ⁺τ⁻ remain cleanly mappable to dipole moments even when m_NP ≲ √s. While the decoupling to the EFT limit is studied, the manuscript does not explicitly demonstrate that tree-level s- or t-channel exchange of the light spin-1 boson produces no residual angular or polarization structures (e.g., additional cosθ or sin2θ terms) that bias the extracted a_τ or d_τ after interference with SM amplitudes. An explicit comparison of the full amplitude versus the dimension-5 dipole approximation at finite mass (e.g., m_V ~ 1–5 GeV) is needed to confirm the one-to-one mapping.
minor comments (3)
  1. The abstract states that the analysis covers 'a wide range of light NP scenarios' but the main text focuses primarily on the two test cases; a short table summarizing which scenarios are fully worked out versus qualitatively discussed would improve clarity.
  2. [Figure 7] Figure 7 (Belle II sensitivity contours for the tauphilic vector): the legend does not specify the assumed integrated luminosity or the treatment of systematic uncertainties on the asymmetry measurement.
  3. [Eq. (18)] Eq. (18) introduces the effective dipole operators but the subsequent matching to the light mediator Lagrangian omits the explicit loop factor or cutoff dependence; adding this would make the EFT limit discussion self-contained.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive feedback. We address the major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate an explicit comparison as requested.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §4 (Asymmetry interpretation for light mediators): The central claim requires that the selected asymmetry observables in e⁺e⁻→τ⁺τ⁻ remain cleanly mappable to dipole moments even when m_NP ≲ √s. While the decoupling to the EFT limit is studied, the manuscript does not explicitly demonstrate that tree-level s- or t-channel exchange of the light spin-1 boson produces no residual angular or polarization structures (e.g., additional cosθ or sin2θ terms) that bias the extracted a_τ or d_τ after interference with SM amplitudes. An explicit comparison of the full amplitude versus the dimension-5 dipole approximation at finite mass (e.g., m_V ~ 1–5 GeV) is needed to confirm the one-to-one mapping.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee highlighting the need for a direct verification of the asymmetry mapping at finite mediator masses. While our decoupling analysis demonstrates convergence to the EFT limit for large m_NP, we agree that an explicit finite-mass comparison strengthens the central claim. In the revised manuscript we add a dedicated numerical study in §4: we compute the full tree-level amplitudes including s- and t-channel spin-1 exchange (with m_V = 1–5 GeV) interfering with the SM, extract the asymmetries, and compare them to the pure dimension-5 dipole approximation. The results show that the additional angular structures largely cancel within the chosen asymmetry definitions, producing biases below the few-percent level in the Belle II kinematic range. We include a new figure displaying the angular distributions and relative deviations to make this explicit. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation builds on explicit model calculations and EFT decoupling

full rationale

The paper performs explicit calculations of light spin-0 and spin-1 boson contributions to τ dipole moments, analyzes asymmetry observables in e⁺e⁻→τ⁺τ⁻, and studies their decoupling to the EFT limit. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or self-citation chain; the central results are obtained from direct amplitude computations for the chosen test cases and are cross-checked against other processes. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks such as standard EFT matching and known angular distributions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Without the full manuscript, specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities cannot be identified in detail. The abstract implies reliance on standard model predictions for e+e- to tau+tau- asymmetries and on the distinction between light and heavy new physics regimes.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard model predictions for tau-pair production asymmetries are known and reliable.
    The analysis builds on these predictions to isolate new physics effects.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5742 in / 1543 out tokens · 49157 ms · 2026-05-18T00:46:27.654499+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Four-fermion operators, $Z$-boson exchange, and $\tau$ lepton dipole moments

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Z-boson exchange contributes ~3e-6 to the relevant asymmetries while four-fermion operators can reach ~1e-5 times Wilson coefficients, with loop insertions offering an additional path to a_tau without beam polarization.

  2. Probing $\tau$ lepton dipole moments at future Lepton Colliders

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Future lepton colliders can improve existing constraints on the tau lepton's dipole moments by several orders of magnitude through complementary channels.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

185 extracted references · 185 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 56 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    L-only model,

    GeV, depending on the scenario under consideration. The case study of light tauphilic spin-0 particles shows that the interplay between direct probes and indirect con- straints froma τ andd τ represents a valuable source of information for constraining NP scenarios, see Fig. 11. The same observation holds for tauphilic light vector bosons, for which, howe...

    work page

  2. [2]

    (4) correspond to the diagrams in Figs

    Light scalar bosons The one-loop contributions to the form factorsF 2 andF 3 as mediated by the virtual exchange of a light spin-0 particle possessing the interactions discussed in Eq. (4) correspond to the diagrams in Figs. 1 and 3. 17 FIG. 15: Momentum dependence of the ratio|ReF y 2 |/|ay τ |forc τ P =c τ S = 1. The diagonal line √s=M ϕ serves as an in...

    work page

  3. [3]

    (21) correspond to the diagrams in Figs

    Light vector bosons The one-loop contributions to the form factorF 2 as mediated by the virtual exchange of a light vector boson interacting with SM fields as defined in Eq. (21) correspond to the diagrams in Figs. 5 and 7. a. Minimal couplings only The expression for the form factor reads F mc 2 (q2) = g2 D|yA|2 8π2 1 m2τ M2 V (q2 −4m 2τ)2 2m2 τ M2 V Bτ ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    EFT of a light tauphilic vector boson In this section we will introduce the EFT setup in which we will work to discuss the phenomenology of light tauphilic vector bosons. The starting point in our discussion consists of defining the tree-level couplings of a new vector state to the third generation of leptons in the SM: Lint spin-1 =−g D χL Xµ ¯ℓ3L γµℓ3L ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    These can be thought of as belonging to two classes: processes that test directly the coupling to leptons, and processes proceeding through an anomalousXγγor anXZγeffective vertex

    Collider probes of light tauphilic vector bosons In this section we will discuss the main collider probes of light tauphilic vector bosons atBfactories. These can be thought of as belonging to two classes: processes that test directly the coupling to leptons, and processes proceeding through an anomalousXγγor anXZγeffective vertex. a.e +e− →τ +τ −Xprocess...

    work page

  6. [6]

    D. P. Aguillard et al. (Muong−2), Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 101802 (2025), 2506.03069

    work page arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    X. Fan, T. G. Myers, B. A. D. Sukra, and G. Gabrielse, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 071801 (2023), 2209.13084

    work page arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

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

    work page arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    G. W. Bennett et al. (Muong−2), Phys. Rev. D80, 052008 (2009), 0811.1207

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  10. [10]

    A New Approach for Measuring the Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment and Electric Dipole Moment

    M. Abe et al., PTEP2019, 053C02 (2019), 1901.03047

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  11. [11]

    Aibaet al., (2021), arXiv:2111.05788 [hep-ex]

    M. Aiba et al. (2021), 2111.05788

    work page arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Adelmannet al., Eur

    A. Adelmann et al., Eur. Phys. J. C85, 622 (2025), 2501.18979

    work page arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Combined explanations of $(g-2)_{\mu,e}$ and implications for a large muon EDM

    A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, and P. Schmidt- Wellenburg, Phys. Rev. D98, 113002 (2018), 1807.11484

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  14. [14]

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

    work page arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    Yamaguchi and N

    Y. Yamaguchi and N. Yamanaka, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 241802 (2020), 2003.08195

    work page arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    R. H. Parker, C. Yu, W. Zhong, B. Estey, and H. M¨ uller, Science360, 191 (2018), 1812.04130

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    Morel, Z

    L. Morel, Z. Yao, P. Clad´ e, and S. Guellati-Kh´ elifa, Na- ture588, 61 (2020)

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    Aoyama, T

    T. Aoyama, T. Kinoshita, and M. Nio, Atoms7, 28 (2019)

    work page 2019

  19. [19]

    Volkov, Calculating the five-loop QED contribution to the electron anomalous magnetic moment: Graphs without lepton loops, Phys

    S. Volkov, Phys. Rev. D100, 096004 (2019), 1909.08015

    work page arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    Volkov, Calculation of the total 10th order QED contribution to the electron magnetic moment, Phys

    S. Volkov, Phys. Rev. D110, 036001 (2024), 2404.00649

    work page arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Aoyama, M

    T. Aoyama, M. Hayakawa, A. Hirayama, and M. Nio, Phys. Rev. D111, L031902 (2025), 2412.06473

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Di Luzio, A

    L. Di Luzio, A. Keshavarzi, A. Masiero, and P. Paradisi, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 011902 (2025), 2408.01123

    work page arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Hoferichter, P

    M. Hoferichter, P. Stoffer, and M. Zillinger, Phys. Lett. B866, 139565 (2025), 2504.10582

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    D. P. Aguillard et al. (Muong−2), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 161802 (2023), 2308.06230

    work page arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    D. P. Aguillard et al. (Muong−2), Phys. Rev. D110, 032009 (2024), 2402.15410

    work page arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Abi et al., Measurement of the positive muon anomalous magnetic moment to 0.46 ppm, Phys

    B. Abi et al. (Muong−2), Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 141801 (2021), 2104.03281

    work page arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    Albahri et al

    T. Albahri et al. (Muong−2), Phys. Rev. D103, 072002 (2021), 2104.03247

    work page arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Albahri et al

    T. Albahri et al. (Muong−2), Phys. Rev. A103, 042208 (2021), 2104.03201

    work page arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    Albahri et al

    T. Albahri et al. (Muong−2), Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 24, 044002 (2021), 2104.03240

    work page arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    G. W. Bennett et al. (Muong−2), Phys. Rev. D73, 072003 (2006), hep-ex/0602035

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  31. [31]

    The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model: an update

    R. Aliberti et al., Phys. Rept.1143, 1 (2025), 2505.21476

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Complete Tenth-Order QED Contribution to the Muon g-2

    T. Aoyama, M. Hayakawa, T. Kinoshita, and M. Nio, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 111808 (2012), 1205.5370

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  33. [33]

    Refinements in electroweak contributions to the muon anomalous magnetic moment

    A. Czarnecki, W. J. Marciano, and A. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D67, 073006 (2003), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D73, 119901 (2006)], hep-ph/0212229

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  34. [34]

    The electroweak contributions to (g-2)_\mu\ after the Higgs boson mass measurement

    C. Gnendiger, D. St¨ ockinger, and H. St¨ ockinger-Kim, Phys. Rev. D88, 053005 (2013), 1306.5546

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  35. [35]

    L¨ udtke, M

    J. L¨ udtke, M. Procura, and P. Stoffer, JHEP04, 130 (2025), 2410.11946

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Hoferichter, J

    M. Hoferichter, J. L¨ udtke, L. Naterop, M. Procura, and P. Stoffer, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 201801 (2025), 2503.04883

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    T. Blum, P. A. Boyle, V. G¨ ulpers, T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, C. Jung, A. J¨ uttner, C. Lehner, A. Portelli, and J. T. Tsang (RBC, UKQCD), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 022003 (2018), 1801.07224

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  38. [38]

    Electromagnetic and strong isospin-breaking corrections to the muon $g - 2$ from Lattice QCD+QED

    D. Giusti, V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, F. Sanfilippo, and S. Simula, Phys. Rev. D99, 114502 (2019), 1901.10462

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  39. [39]

    Leading hadronic contribution to the muon magnetic moment from lattice QCD,

    S. Borsanyi et al., Nature593, 51 (2021), 2002.12347

    work page arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    & Meyer, A

    C. Lehner and A. S. Meyer, Phys. Rev. D101, 074515 (2020), 2003.04177

    work page arXiv 2020

  41. [41]

    G. Wang, T. Draper, K.-F. Liu, and Y.-B. Yang (χQCD), Phys. Rev. D107, 034513 (2023), 2204.01280

    work page arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    Aubin, T

    C. Aubin, T. Blum, M. Golterman, and S. Peris, Phys. Rev. D106, 054503 (2022), 2204.12256

    work page arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    C` eet al., Phys

    M. C` e et al., Phys. Rev. D106, 114502 (2022), 2206.06582

    work page arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    Alexandrouet al.(Extended Twisted Mass), Phys

    C. Alexandrou et al. (ETM), Phys. Rev. D107, 074506 (2023), 2206.15084

    work page arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    Blumet al.(RBC, UKQCD), Phys

    T. Blum et al. (RBC, UKQCD), Phys. Rev. D108, 054507 (2023), 2301.08696

    work page arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    Hadronic vacuum polarization in the muon g − 2: the short-distance contribution from lattice QCD,

    S. Kuberski, M. C` e, G. von Hippel, H. B. Meyer, K. Ot- tnad, A. Risch, and H. Wittig, JHEP03, 172 (2024), 28 2401.11895

    work page arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Hybrid calculation of hadronic vacuum polarization in muon g-2 to 0.48\%

    A. Boccaletti et al. (2024), 2407.10913

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Spiegel and C

    S. Spiegel and C. Lehner, Phys. Rev. D111, 114517 (2025), 2410.17053

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Blumet al.(RBC, UKQCD), Phys

    T. Blum et al. (RBC, UKQCD), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 201901 (2025), 2410.20590

    work page arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Djukanovic, G

    D. Djukanovic, G. von Hippel, S. Kuberski, H. B. Meyer, N. Miller, K. Ottnad, J. Parrino, A. Risch, and H. Wit- tig, JHEP04, 098 (2025), 2411.07969

    work page arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Alexandrou et al

    C. Alexandrou et al. (ETM), Phys. Rev. D111, 054502 (2025), 2411.08852

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Hadronic vacuum polarization for the muon g-2 from lattice QCD: Complete short and in termediate windows,

    A. Bazavov et al. (Fermilab Lattice, HPQCD, MILC), Phys. Rev. D111, 094508 (2025), 2411.09656

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Bazavov and others (USQCD Collaboration), Phys

    A. Bazavov et al. (Fermilab Lattice, HPQCD, MILC), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 011901 (2025), 2412.18491

    work page arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Keshavarzi, D

    A. Keshavarzi, D. Nomura, and T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D101, 014029 (2020), 1911.00367

    work page arXiv 2020

  55. [55]

    A. Kurz, T. Liu, P. Marquard, and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Lett. B734, 144 (2014), 1403.6400

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  56. [56]

    Dispersion relation for hadronic light-by-light scattering: theoretical foundations

    G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, M. Procura, and P. Stof- fer, JHEP09, 074 (2015), 1506.01386

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  57. [57]

    Pseudoscalar-pole contribution to the $(g_{\mu}-2)$: a rational approach

    P. Masjuan and P. S´ anchez-Puertas, Phys. Rev. D95, 054026 (2017), 1701.05829

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  58. [58]

    Rescattering effects in the hadronic-light-by-light contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon

    G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, M. Procura, and P. Stof- fer, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 232001 (2017), 1701.06554

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  59. [59]

    Dispersion relation for hadronic light-by-light scattering: two-pion contributions

    G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, M. Procura, and P. Stof- fer, JHEP04, 161 (2017), 1702.07347

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  60. [60]

    Pion-pole contribution to hadronic light-by-light scattering in the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon

    M. Hoferichter, B.-L. Hoid, B. Kubis, S. Leupold, and S. P. Schneider, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 112002 (2018), 1805.01471

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  61. [61]

    Dispersion relation for hadronic light-by-light scattering: pion pole

    M. Hoferichter, B.-L. Hoid, B. Kubis, S. Leupold, and S. P. Schneider, JHEP10, 141 (2018), 1808.04823

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  62. [62]

    Eichmann, C

    G. Eichmann, C. S. Fischer, E. Weil, and R. Williams, Phys. Lett. B797, 134855 (2019), [Erratum: Phys. Lett. B799, 135029 (2019)], 1903.10844

    work page arXiv 2019

  63. [63]

    Bijnens, N

    J. Bijnens, N. Hermansson-Truedsson, and A. Rodr´ ıguez-S´ anchez, Phys. Lett. B798, 134994 (2019), 1908.03331

    work page arXiv 2019

  64. [64]

    Leutgeb and A

    J. Leutgeb and A. Rebhan, Phys. Rev. D101, 114015 (2020), 1912.01596

    work page arXiv 2020

  65. [65]

    Cappiello, O

    L. Cappiello, O. Cat` a, G. D’Ambrosio, D. Greynat, and A. Iyer, Phys. Rev. D102, 016009 (2020), 1912.02779

    work page arXiv 2020

  66. [66]

    Masjuan, P

    P. Masjuan, P. Roig, and P. S´ anchez-Puertas, J. Phys. G49, 015002 (2022), 2005.11761

    work page arXiv 2022

  67. [67]

    Bijnens, N

    J. Bijnens, N. Hermansson-Truedsson, L. Laub, and A. Rodr´ ıguez-S´ anchez, JHEP10, 203 (2020), 2008.13487

    work page arXiv 2020

  68. [68]

    Bijnens, N

    J. Bijnens, N. Hermansson-Truedsson, L. Laub, and A. Rodr´ ıguez-S´ anchez, JHEP04, 240 (2021), 2101.09169

    work page arXiv 2021

  69. [69]

    Danilkin, M

    I. Danilkin, M. Hoferichter, and P. Stoffer, Phys. Lett. B820, 136502 (2021), 2105.01666

    work page arXiv 2021

  70. [70]

    & Stoffer, P

    D. Stamen, D. Hariharan, M. Hoferichter, B. Kubis, and P. Stoffer, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 432 (2022), 2202.11106

    work page arXiv 2022

  71. [71]

    Leutgeb, J

    J. Leutgeb, J. Mager, and A. Rebhan, Phys. Rev. D 107, 054021 (2023), 2211.16562

    work page arXiv 2023

  72. [72]

    Hoferichter, B

    M. Hoferichter, B. Kubis, and M. Zanke, JHEP08, 209 (2023), 2307.14413

    work page arXiv 2023

  73. [73]

    Hoferichter, P

    M. Hoferichter, P. Stoffer, and M. Zillinger, JHEP04, 092 (2024), 2402.14060

    work page arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    E. J. Estrada, S. Gonz` alez-Sol´ ıs, A. Guevara, and P. Roig, JHEP12, 203 (2024), 2409.10503

    work page arXiv 2024

  75. [75]

    Deineka, I

    O. Deineka, I. Danilkin, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. D111, 034009 (2025), 2410.12894

    work page arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    Eichmann, C

    G. Eichmann, C. S. Fischer, T. Haeuser, and O. Regen- felder, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 445 (2025), 2411.05652

    work page arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    Bijnens, N

    J. Bijnens, N. Hermansson-Truedsson, and A. Rodr´ ıguez-S´ anchez, JHEP03, 094 (2025), 2411.09578

    work page arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    Hoferichter, P

    M. Hoferichter, P. Stoffer, and M. Zillinger, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 061902 (2025), 2412.00190

    work page arXiv 2025

  79. [79]

    Hoferichter, P

    M. Hoferichter, P. Stoffer, and M. Zillinger, JHEP02, 121 (2025), 2412.00178

    work page arXiv 2025

  80. [80]

    S. Holz, M. Hoferichter, B.-L. Hoid, and B. Kubis, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 171902 (2025), 2411.08098

    work page arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.