Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 88 references

Dark Photons and Gravitino Like Particles: Complete EFT Operator Basis

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that classifying massive amplitudes by polarization configuration, then passing to the massless limit and back, constructs the complete redundancy-free EFT operator basis for particles of any spin, and it presents the…

desk verdict Useful operator catalogues for dark photon and spin-3/2 EFTs, but the completeness proof is deferred to a rank argument that isn't shown; the bases may be right, but the paper needs to expose that step. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20096 v1 pith:ZJQ3FGVN submitted 2024-12-28 hep-ph hep-th

Ziyu Dong , Teng Ma , Chengjie Yang , Zizheng Zhou This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-th
keywords effectivefieldtheoryoperatorbasison-shellamplitudesmassiveparticlesdarkphotongravitinoYoungtableauxdimension-eightoperators
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims a faster route to complete EFT operator bases for massive particles of arbitrary spin, based on on-shell scattering amplitudes and Young tableaux. The route classifies amplitude bases by each massive particle's polarization configuration, takes the high-energy massless limit to strip away redundancies, and then restores the massive spinors; no auxiliary fields or manual basis decomposition are needed. Applying this to dark photons and spin-3/2 gravitino-like particles, it produces explicit operator lists through dimension eight, which it claims are exhaustive. It also releases a computer-algebra package that automates the construction for other particle content.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the polarization-configuration label $\{l_i\}$ together with the factorization $M_{\{l_i\}}=C_{\{l_i\}}\cdot F_{\{l_i\}}$ and the massless-limit/massification mapping between $\{M\}$ and $\{c\cdot f\}$; Young tableaux, specifically semi-standard Young tableaux built from an effective $U(N)$ symmetry of the external legs, are the bookkeeping device that removes integration-by-parts redundancy in $f$, while the subset relations among different $\{l_i\}$ sectors remove equations-of-motion redundancy. The same Young-tableau technology is used to impose Bose/Fermi exchange symmetry on identical particles, with the new simplification that identical particles in different polarization configurations can be treated as effectively distinct.

What would settle it

Take one concrete class, the dimension-8 amplitude for two dark photons and two right-handed electrons $XX e_R^\dagger e_R$ worked out in Section 5. Enumerate all independent polynomials in the massive spinor brackets for that external state by brute-force linear algebra, imposing momentum conservation and the massive Dirac equations, then compare the count with the six Young-symmetrized monomials in Eq. (5.5). If the brute-force count is larger, the massification step missed operators; if smaller, two listed monomials are redundant.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the correspondence between EFT operators and on-shell amplitudes can be organized by the polarization configuration $\{l_i\}$ of each massive particle, where $l_i$ is the number of left-handed spinors in its polarization tensor. In each configuration the amplitude factorizes as $M_{\{l_i\}} = C_{\{l_i\}} \cdot F_{\{l_i\}}$, with $C$ built from right-handed spinors and $F$ from the rest. The paper argues that taking the massless limits $C\to c$, $F\to f$, constructing the massless basis $\{c \cdot f\}$ by semi-standard Young tableaux, and then massifying back gives a complete independent massive basis, because EOM redundancy appears only as subset relations between higher- and lower-$l_i$ sectors and is removed by keeping the lowest-dimensional unobstructed blocks. On this basis it presents exhaustive operator tables up to dimension $d=8$ for a massive U(1) dark photon interacting with Standard Model fields and, for the first time, for a spin-3/2 gravitino-like fermion.

Load-bearing premise

The construction rests on the massification principle, namely that restoring massive spinors to a complete massless amplitude basis yields a complete and independent massive basis, which the paper takes from its earlier work and does not fully re-prove here.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The operator lists in Appendices C and D exhaust the independent dark-photon and spin-3/2 gravitino-like interactions with Standard Model fields up to dimension 8, so no operators are missing for consistent EFT calculations such as renormalization running.
  • The polarization-configuration shortcut applies to particles of any mass and spin, so the same algorithm can generate bases for other new-physics states without auxiliary fields or case-by-case decomposition.
  • The exchange-symmetry rule, imposing the Young projector only within equal-polarization blocks and treating $(l_1,l_2)$ and $(l_2,l_1)$ as one orbit, cuts the counting work for identical massive particles roughly in half.
  • A companion computer-algebra package automates the basis construction, making the complete operator sets usable for collider-signal, direct-detection, and bootstrap studies of light dark sectors.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the massification principle is sound, the same $\{l_i\}$ classification should let dimension-9 and higher bases be built by iterating the massless basis construction, with the same subset-relation pruning, rather than by solving IBP/EOM relations directly.
  • Treating identical particles with different polarization configurations as distinct suggests a counting shortcut for any number of identical massive bosons or fermions: enumerate polarization-configuration orbits first, then apply Young projectors only on diagonal blocks.
  • A concrete cross-check of the d=8 gravitino-like list would be to match the number of operators in each table against an independent linear-algebra count of massive spinor polynomials for the same external states; any mismatch would locate the failure step.
  • If these bases are complete, amplitude-level positivity or bootstrap constraints applied to dark-photon and gravitino-like interactions can now be mapped directly onto the full Wilson-coefficient space at this order, including operators that vanish in the massless limit.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a method for constructing complete, redundancy-free EFT operator bases involving massive particles of any spin, using on-shell spinor-helicity amplitudes and Young tableaux. The method classifies massive amplitude bases by polarization configurations {li}, factorizes each configuration into a C piece and an F piece (Eq. (3.3)), and constructs the massive basis by first building the massless-limit basis {c·f}^{{li}} with semi-standard Young tableaux and then restoring little-group indices ('massification', Eq. (3.4)). Completeness and independence are claimed to follow from subset relations among the {C·f}^{{li}} spaces (Section 4.2, Eq. (4.6)), which the paper says can be established by a rank argument that it does not carry out. As applications, the paper lists EFT operator bases up to dimension 8 for a massive dark photon interacting with SM fields (Appendix C) and, claimed for the first time, for a spin-3/2 gravitino-like particle interacting with SM fields (Appendix D), and it provides a Mathematica package for automated basis generation.

Significance. If the completeness claims can be substantiated, this is a useful contribution: exhaustive dimension-8 bases for dark photon and spin-3/2 gravitino-like fields coupled to the SM are directly relevant to phenomenological calculations (matching, RG running, and collider and astroparticle searches), and the spin-3/2 lists appear to be genuinely new. The paper also has concrete strengths that deserve credit: the SSYT filling rules of Section 4.3 are explicit and algorithmic; the treatment of identical-particle exchange symmetries via representation matrices (Section 4.4 and Appendix B) is concrete; and the companion Mathematica package on GitHub is a reproducibility asset. The central guarantee, however — that the published tables are complete and redundancy-free — rests on the massification principle and the rank-based subset relations of Section 4.2, which are asserted rather than demonstrated in this manuscript. Until that load-bearing step is supplied or independently verified, the significance of the tables is conditional, and the stress-test concern about Section 4.2 lands on reading the paper.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2 (Eqs. (4.6)–(4.7), Fig. 1)] The claim that the bases in Appendices C and D are complete and redundancy-free rests on the subset relation {C·f}^{{l′}} ⊂ {C·f}^{{l}} for l ≤ l′ (Eq. (4.6)) and on the assertion that the union of unobstructed polarization blocks forms the lowest-dimensional complete basis (Fig. 1b). The manuscript states that these relations 'can be rigorously proven using representation theory and linear algebra by analyzing the ranks of linear spaces', but no rank computation is shown anywhere. This is load-bearing: the replacement i′→i in Eq. (4.7) is a many-to-one map, and after restoring little-group indices, two distinct massless polynomials could become EOM-equivalent via Eq. (4.5) or linearly dependent after the semi-standardization step of Section 4.3 (the paper's own Eq. (4.13) acknowledges that a (c·f) basis does not generally correspond to an SSYT). If the rank of the massified span is smaller than the number of claimed basis elements, the lists are overcomplete; if larger, they are incomplete. I ask the authors to provide the rank argument, at least for the two massive-vector case of Fig. 1 and for the spin-3/2 case, or to verify the lists by an explicit linear-independence computation of the massified amplitude polynomials.
  2. [§3.1 (Eq. (3.4))] The massification principle — that a complete massless basis {c·f}^{{li}} yields a complete and independent massive basis after restoring little-group indices — is imported from Refs. [2,3] rather than derived in this paper. Section 3.1 promises that 'the independence of the massive amplitude bases obtained in this way will be discussed in the next section', but Section 4.2 delivers only the verbal subset statement of Eq. (4.6) (see Major Comment 1), not a proof or a precise statement of the hypotheses under which the principle holds. This matters because the paper itself notes (Section 3) that for s ≥ 1 the number of polarization configurations (2s+1) does not match the number of helicity states in the massless limit, so the massive-to-massless map is not trivially bijective; and the spin-3/2 basis of Appendix D is presented 'for the first time'. The completeness of that new result is therefore conditional on a general principle whose applicability to spin 3/2 is not verified here. I request a precise statement of the theorem with its conditions, proved in an appendix or else explicitly checked in at least one gravitino sector (for example, the ψLHB and ψψH†H operators of Tables 9 and 10).
  3. [Appendix C (compared with Refs. [60,61])] No independent validation of the operator counts is provided. Complete dark photon EFT bases already exist in the literature (Refs. [60,61] are cited as alternative approaches), yet the paper does not compare its Appendix C lists with those results, not even at the level of counts per class and dimension. A count comparison for the dark photon at d = 6 and d = 8 would be a direct, falsifiable check of the method; if the counts agree, confidence in the new spin-3/2 lists of Appendix D would increase substantially. I recommend adding such a comparison and, at a minimum, a summary table of the number of operators per dimension and field content for both appendices.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 15] The second column header of Table 15 reads 'Form?'; this appears to be a typo and should be corrected.
  2. [§5, Eq. (5.4)] The representation matrix M(12) for the x6 basis is stated without showing the SSYT decomposition (Eqs. (4.12)–(4.13)) on which it is based; since this is the only fully worked example of the identical-particle projection, the intermediate steps should be shown.
  3. [§4.2, Fig. 1] The term 'unobstructed blocks' is never formally defined; a short definition would make the completeness argument in Section 4.2 easier to follow.
  4. [§6] The GitHub repository URL is provided but no version or commit identifier is given, and the paper does not document how the tables of Appendices C and D were generated from the code; this would materially improve reproducibility.
  5. [References] Some references are incomplete, notably [16] (CMS Phase-II Technical Proposal, no year or arXiv identifier), and the formatting of collaboration author entries is inconsistent (e.g., [13], [14], [15]).
  6. [§3.1, Eqs. (3.1)–(3.2)] The symmetrized little-group index notation in Eqs. (3.1)–(3.2) is dense; an explicit two-index example would help readers apply the dictionary of Table 2, which relies on the same notation.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Completeness of the massive bases rests on the authors' prior massification theorem and an unproved rank claim; the explicit operator lists are new, but the central completeness step is imported rather than derived.

  1. uniqueness imported from authors [Section 3.1, Eq. (3.4) and the following paragraph]
    "However, as found in [2, 3], since these different amplitudes share the same massless limit, they are related by EOM. So to obtain the independent M bases, one massification can be chosen arbitrarily."

    The paper's central completeness claim for the massive bases rests on the assertion that massification maps a complete massless basis to a complete, redundancy-free massive basis, and that the choice of massification is irrelevant because all choices are EOM-equivalent. This assertion is not proven here; it is imported from Refs. [2,3], which are prior works by the same authors. The operator lists in Appendices C and D, including the claimed first spin-3/2 basis, are therefore complete only if this self-cited theorem holds. The present paper supplies no independent derivation, external cross-check, or machine-checked verification of that theorem.

  2. other [Section 4.2, after Eq. (4.6)]
    "which can be rigorously proven using representation theory and linear algebra by analyzing the ranks of linear spaces."

    The subset relation (4.6) is exactly what justifies selecting the unobstructed blocks in Fig. 1 as 'the complete and independent EFT operator basis' and what underlies the replacement i' -> i in Eq. (4.7). No rank computation or proof is provided; the paper simply asserts that the relation can be proven. The claimed completeness and redundancy-freedom of the final bases thus reduces to this unproved rank statement, rather than being established by an explicit derivation in the paper.

full rationale

This is not a case where a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, nor where an output is defined to equal an input. The paper provides concrete, algorithmic content: explicit Young-tableau constructions, a Mathematica package, and explicit operator tables up to dimension 8 for dark photons and spin-3/2 gravitino-like particles. However, the central step that converts a massless amplitude basis into a complete massive basis is the massification theorem of Section 3.1, and the paper explicitly defers the justification of that step to Refs. [2,3] by the same authors. The only in-paper support is the assertion in Section 4.2 that the needed subset relations can be proven by a rank argument, but the argument is not shown. Because the completeness of the advertised bases depends on this imported and unproved step, the paper is not fully self-contained. The circularity is moderate: the new enumerations have independent content, but the central completeness claim relies on a load-bearing self-citation and an omitted proof.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the on-shell amplitude/operator correspondence (standard), the massification principle from the authors' prior papers, and an unproven rank argument. No free parameters were fitted to data, and no new physical entities were introduced. The main burden is the reliance on self-cited foundational results.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption One-to-one correspondence between on-shell amplitude bases and independent EFT operators.
    Used throughout Section 2 and 3. This is a standard result in the on-shell EFT program, cited to Refs. [70-73], but it is a foundational assumption.
  • domain assumption Massification principle: a complete massless amplitude basis, when restored to massive spinors, gives a complete and independent massive basis.
    Central to the method, stated in Section 3.1. This was established in the authors' prior work [2,3] and is not re-derived in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Rank-based subset relationships in Section 4.2 ensure that the union of unobstructed polarization blocks forms the complete, lowest-dimensional basis.
    The paper states this 'can be rigorously proven' but does not include the proof. This is a gap in the derivation.
  • standard math Semi-standard Young tableaux (SSYT) construction eliminates both IBP and EOM redundancies for massless amplitudes.
    Established in Ref. [1] and used throughout Section 4. This is a standard tool in the field.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark Photons and Gravitino Like Particles: Complete EFT Operator Basis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZJQ3FGVN

@misc{pith2026241220096,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark Photons and Gravitino Like Particles: Complete EFT Operator Basis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZJQ3FGVN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20096}
}
read the original abstract

We present a more efficient method for constructing the complete EFT operator basis for particles of any mass and spin, based on on-shell method and Young tableaux. By classifying the amplitude bases according to the polarization configurations of massive particles and using their high-energy limit, our approach can construct EFT basis in a straightforward way, without need of auxiliary fields and tedious basis decomposition. Based on this improved method, we develop a Mathematica code that can automatically construct the EFT basis for particles of any spin. As applications, the EFT bases up to d=8 are explicitly constructed for dark photons and, for the first time, for spin-3/2 gravitino like particles.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Henning and T

    B. Henning and T. Melia, Constructing effective field theories via their harmonics , Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 016015 [ 1902.06754]

    arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Z.-Y. Dong, T. Ma, J. Shu and Y.-H. Zheng, Constructing generic effective field theory for all masses and spins , Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 116010 [ 2202.08350]

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Z.-Y. Dong, T. Ma and J. Shu, Constructing on-shell operator basis for all masses and spins , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) L111901 [ 2103.15837]

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Z.-Y. Dong, T. Ma, J. Shu and Z.-Z. Zhou, The new formulation of higgs effective field Theory , JHEP 09 (2023) 101 [ 2211.16515]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Balkin, G

    R. Balkin, G. Durieux, T. Kitahara, Y. Shadmi and Y. Weiss, On-shell Higgsing for EFTs , JHEP 03 (2022) 129 [ 2112.09688]

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Goldberg, H

    J.M. Goldberg, H. Liu and Y. Shadmi, Dimension-8 SMEFT contact-terms for vector-pair production via on-shell Higgsing , JHEP 12 (2024) 057 [ 2407.07945]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Christensen, A complete set of 4-point amplitudes in the constructive Standard Model , Eur

    N. Christensen, A complete set of 4-point amplitudes in the constructive Standard Model , Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 620 [ 2403.07978]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Gr´ af, B

    L. Gr´ af, B. Henning, X. Lu, T. Melia and H. Murayama, Hilbert series, the Higgs mechanism, and HEFT, JHEP 02 (2023) 064 [ 2211.06275]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    De Angelis, Amplitude bases in generic EFTs , JHEP 08 (2022) 299 [ 2202.02681]

    S. De Angelis, Amplitude bases in generic EFTs , JHEP 08 (2022) 299 [ 2202.02681]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Alekhin et al., A facility to Search for Hidden Particles at the CERN SPS: the SHiP physics case , Rept

    S. Alekhin et al., A facility to Search for Hidden Particles at the CERN SPS: the SHiP physics case , Rept. Prog. Phys. 79 (2016) 124201 [ 1504.04855]

    2016 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Arcadi, M

    G. Arcadi, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mambrini, M. Pierre et al., The waning of the WIMP? A review of models, searches, and constraints , Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 203 [ 1703.07364]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Beacham et al., Physics Beyond Colliders at CERN: Beyond the Standard Model Working Group Report, J

    J. Beacham et al., Physics Beyond Colliders at CERN: Beyond the Standard Model Working Group Report, J. Phys. G 47 (2020) 010501 [ 1901.09966]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    CMS collaboration, Search for dark matter, extra dimensions, and unparticles in monojet events in proton–proton collisions at √s = 8 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 235 [ 1408.3583]. – 68 –

    2015 arXiv

  6. [14]

    LHC New Physics Working Groupcollaboration, Simplified Models for LHC New Physics Searches, J. Phys. G 39 (2012) 105005 [ 1105.2838]

    2012 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Particle Data Groupcollaboration, Review of Particle Physics , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 030001

    2018

  8. [16]

    Contardo, M

    D. Contardo, M. Klute, J. Mans, L. Silvestris and J.N. Butler, eds., Technical Proposal for the Phase-II Upgrade of the CMS Detector ,

  9. [17]

    Abercrombie et al., Dark Matter benchmark models for early LHC Run-2 Searches: Report of the ATLAS/CMS Dark Matter Forum , Phys

    D. Abercrombie et al., Dark Matter benchmark models for early LHC Run-2 Searches: Report of the ATLAS/CMS Dark Matter Forum , Phys. Dark Univ. 27 (2020) 100371 [ 1507.00966]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Abdallah et al., Simplified Models for Dark Matter Searches at the LHC , Phys

    J. Abdallah et al., Simplified Models for Dark Matter Searches at the LHC , Phys. Dark Univ. 9-10 (2015) 8 [ 1506.03116]

    2015 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Alimena et al., Searching for long-lived particles beyond the Standard Model at the Large Hadron Collider, J

    J. Alimena et al., Searching for long-lived particles beyond the Standard Model at the Large Hadron Collider, J. Phys. G 47 (2020) 090501 [ 1903.04497]

    2020

  12. [20]

    Drees, H

    M. Drees, H. Dreiner, D. Schmeier, J. Tattersall and J.S. Kim, CheckMATE: Confronting your Favourite New Physics Model with LHC Data , Comput. Phys. Commun. 187 (2015) 227 [1312.2591]

    2015 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Buchmueller, M.J

    O. Buchmueller, M.J. Dolan and C. McCabe, Beyond Effective Field Theory for Dark Matter Searches at the LHC , JHEP 01 (2014) 025 [ 1308.6799]

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Buckley, D

    M.R. Buckley, D. Feld and D. Goncalves, Scalar Simplified Models for Dark Matter , Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 015017 [ 1410.6497]

    2015 arXiv

  15. [23]

    CMS collaboration, Interpretation of Searches for Supersymmetry with Simplified Models , Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 052017 [ 1301.2175]

    2013 arXiv

  16. [24]

    H.-K. Guo, Y. Ma, J. Shu, X. Xue, Q. Yuan and Y. Zhao, Detecting dark photon dark matter with Gaia-like astrometry observations , JCAP 05 (2019) 015 [ 1902.05962]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    PPTA collaboration, High-precision search for dark photon dark matter with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array, Phys. Rev. Res. 4 (2022) L012022 [ 2112.07687]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Guo, Y.-L.S

    G. Guo, Y.-L.S. Tsai and M.-R. Wu, Probing cosmic-ray accelerated light dark matter with IceCube , JCAP 10 (2020) 049 [ 2004.03161]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Y. Chen, M. Jiang, J. Shu, X. Xue and Y. Zeng, Dissecting axion and dark photon with a network of vector sensors, Phys. Rev. Res. 4 (2022) 033080 [ 2111.06732]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Antypas et al., New Horizons: Scalar and Vector Ultralight Dark Matter , 2203.14915

    D. Antypas et al., New Horizons: Scalar and Vector Ultralight Dark Matter , 2203.14915

  21. [29]

    Jiang, L

    M. Jiang, L. Bian, W. Huang and J. Shu, Impact of a complex singlet: Electroweak baryogenesis and dark matter , Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 065032 [ 1502.07574]

    2016 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Chao, H.-K

    W. Chao, H.-K. Guo and J. Shu, Gravitational Wave Signals of Electroweak Phase Transition Triggered by Dark Matter , JCAP 09 (2017) 009 [ 1702.02698]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Caldwell et al., Detection of early-universe gravitational-wave signatures and fundamental physics , Gen

    R. Caldwell et al., Detection of early-universe gravitational-wave signatures and fundamental physics , Gen. Rel. Grav. 54 (2022) 156 [ 2203.07972]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Murayama and J

    H. Murayama and J. Shu, Topological Dark Matter, Phys. Lett. B 686 (2010) 162 [ 0905.1720]

    2010 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Chacko, H.-S

    Z. Chacko, H.-S. Goh and R. Harnik, The Twin Higgs: Natural electroweak breaking from mirror symmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 231802 [ hep-ph/0506256]

    2006 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Bellazzini, C

    B. Bellazzini, C. Cs´ aki and J. Serra,Composite Higgses, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 2766 [1401.2457]

    2014 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Carmi, A

    D. Carmi, A. Falkowski, E. Kuflik, T. Volansky and J. Zupan, Higgs After the Discovery: A Status Report, JHEP 10 (2012) 196 [ 1207.1718]

    2012 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Chacko, H.-S

    Z. Chacko, H.-S. Goh and R. Harnik, A Twin Higgs model from left-right symmetry , JHEP 01 (2006) 108 [hep-ph/0512088]

    2006 arXiv

  29. [37]

    M. Low, A. Tesi and L.-T. Wang, Twin Higgs mechanism and a composite Higgs boson , Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 095012 [ 1501.07890]. – 69 –

    2015 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Chang, L.J

    S. Chang, L.J. Hall and N. Weiner, A Supersymmetric twin Higgs , Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 035009 [hep-ph/0604076]

    2007 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Barbieri, D

    R. Barbieri, D. Greco, R. Rattazzi and A. Wulzer, The Composite Twin Higgs scenario , JHEP 08 (2015) 161 [ 1501.07803]

    2015 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Garcia Garcia, R

    I. Garcia Garcia, R. Lasenby and J. March-Russell, Twin Higgs WIMP Dark Matter , Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 055034 [ 1505.07109]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Chacko, N

    Z. Chacko, N. Craig, P.J. Fox and R. Harnik, Cosmology in Mirror Twin Higgs and Neutrino Masses , JHEP 07 (2017) 023 [ 1611.07975]

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Cs´ aki, C.-S

    C. Cs´ aki, C.-S. Guan, T. Ma and J. Shu, Twin Higgs with exact Z 2, JHEP 12 (2020) 005 [1910.14085]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Burdman, Z

    G. Burdman, Z. Chacko, H.-S. Goh and R. Harnik, Folded supersymmetry and the LEP paradox , JHEP 02 (2007) 009 [ hep-ph/0609152]

    2007 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Craig, S

    N. Craig, S. Knapen and P. Longhi, Neutral Naturalness from Orbifold Higgs Models , Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 061803 [ 1410.6808]

    2015 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Cs´ aki, T

    C. Cs´ aki, T. Ma and J. Shu, Trigonometric Parity for Composite Higgs Models , Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 231801 [ 1709.08636]

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Geller and O

    M. Geller and O. Telem, Holographic Twin Higgs Model , Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 191801 [1411.2974]

    2015 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Serra and R

    J. Serra and R. Torre, Neutral naturalness from the brother-Higgs model , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 035017 [1709.05399]

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Dong, C.-S

    Z.-Y. Dong, C.-S. Guan, T. Ma, J. Shu and X. Xue, UV completed composite Higgs model with heavy composite partners, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 035013 [ 2011.09460]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Arias, D

    P. Arias, D. Cadamuro, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo and A. Ringwald, WISPy Cold Dark Matter, JCAP 06 (2012) 013 [ 1201.5902]

    2012 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Delaunay, T

    C. Delaunay, T. Ma and Y. Soreq, Stealth decaying spin-1 dark matter , JHEP 02 (2021) 010 [2009.03060]

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Fabbrichesi, E

    M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli and G. Lanfranchi, The Dark Photon , 2005.01515

    2005 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Cheung, J.T

    C. Cheung, J.T. Ruderman, L.-T. Wang and I. Yavin, Kinetic Mixing as the Origin of Light Dark Scales, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 035008 [ 0902.3246]

    2009 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Gherghetta, J

    T. Gherghetta, J. Kersten, K. Olive and M. Pospelov, Evaluating the price of tiny kinetic mixing , Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 095001 [ 1909.00696]

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Goodsell, S

    M. Goodsell, S. Ramos-Sanchez and A. Ringwald, Kinetic Mixing of U(1)s in Heterotic Orbifolds , JHEP 01 (2012) 021 [ 1110.6901]

    2012 arXiv

  47. [55]

    S.Y. Choi, C. Englert and P.M. Zerwas, Multiple Higgs-Portal and Gauge-Kinetic Mixings , Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2643 [ 1308.5784]

    2013 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Hapitas, D

    T. Hapitas, D. Tuckler and Y. Zhang, General kinetic mixing in gauged U(1)L µ-Lτ model for muon g-2 and dark matter , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 016014 [ 2108.12440]

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Fayet, The light U boson as the mediator of a new force, coupled to a combination of Q, B, Land dark matter , Eur

    P. Fayet, The light U boson as the mediator of a new force, coupled to a combination of Q, B, Land dark matter , Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 53 [ 1611.05357]

    2017 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Bauer, P

    M. Bauer, P. Foldenauer and J. Jaeckel, Hunting All the Hidden Photons , JHEP 07 (2018) 094 [1803.05466]

    2018 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Heeck, Unbroken B – L symmetry , Phys

    J. Heeck, Unbroken B – L symmetry , Phys. Lett. B 739 (2014) 256 [ 1408.6845]

    2014 arXiv

  52. [60]

    H. Song, H. Sun and J.-H. Yu, Complete EFT operator bases for dark matter and weakly-interacting light particle, JHEP 05 (2024) 103 [ 2306.05999]. – 70 –

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    H. Song, H. Sun and J.-H. Yu, Effective field theories of axion, ALP and dark photon , JHEP 01 (2024) 161 [ 2305.16770]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Kitazawa, Brane SUSY Breaking and the Gravitino Mass , JHEP 04 (2018) 081 [ 1802.03088]

    N. Kitazawa, Brane SUSY Breaking and the Gravitino Mass , JHEP 04 (2018) 081 [ 1802.03088]

    2018 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Dudas and J

    E. Dudas and J. Mourad, Consistent gravitino couplings in nonsupersymmetric strings , Phys. Lett. B 514 (2001) 173 [ hep-th/0012071]

    2001 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Sugimoto, Anomaly cancellations in type I D-9 - anti-D-9 system and the USp(32) string theory , Prog

    S. Sugimoto, Anomaly cancellations in type I D-9 - anti-D-9 system and the USp(32) string theory , Prog. Theor. Phys. 102 (1999) 685 [ hep-th/9905159]

    1999 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Antoniadis, E

    I. Antoniadis, E. Dudas and A. Sagnotti, Brane supersymmetry breaking, Phys. Lett. B 464 (1999) 38 [hep-th/9908023]

    1999 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Angelantonj, Comments on open string orbifolds with a nonvanishing B(ab) , Nucl

    C. Angelantonj, Comments on open string orbifolds with a nonvanishing B(ab) , Nucl. Phys. B 566 (2000) 126 [ hep-th/9908064]

    2000 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Aldazabal and A.M

    G. Aldazabal and A.M. Uranga, Tachyon free nonsupersymmetric type IIB orientifolds via Brane - anti-brane systems, JHEP 10 (1999) 024 [ hep-th/9908072]

    1999 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Ding and Y

    R. Ding and Y. Liao, Spin 3/2 Particle as a Dark Matter Candidate: An Effective Field Theory Approach, Journal of High Energy Physics 2012 (2012) 54 [ 1201.0506]

    2012 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Y. Gu, M. Khlopov, L. Wu, J.M. Yang and B. Zhu, Light gravitino dark matter: LHC searches and the Hubble tension , Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 115005 [ 2006.09906]

    2020 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Shadmi and Y

    Y. Shadmi and Y. Weiss, Effective Field Theory Amplitudes the On-Shell Way: Scalar and Vector Couplings to Gluons , JHEP 02 (2019) 165 [ 1809.09644]

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Harlander and M.C

    R.V. Harlander and M.C. Schaaf, AutoEFT: Automated operator construction for effective field theories, Comput. Phys. Commun. 300 (2024) 109198 [ 2309.15783]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    T. Ma, J. Shu and M.-L. Xiao, Standard model effective field theory from on-shell amplitudes* , Chin. Phys. C 47 (2023) 023105 [ 1902.06752]

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Elvang, D.Z

    H. Elvang, D.Z. Freedman and M. Kiermaier, A simple approach to counterterms in N=8 supergravity, JHEP 11 (2010) 016 [ 1003.5018]

    2010 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Arkani-Hamed, T.-C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, T.-C. Huang and Y.-t. Huang, The EFT-Hedron, JHEP 05 (2021) 259 [2012.15849]

    2021 arXiv

  67. [75]

    de Rham, S

    C. de Rham, S. Melville, A.J. Tolley and S.-Y. Zhou, Positivity bounds for scalar field theories , Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 081702 [ 1702.06134]

    2017 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Caron-Huot and V

    S. Caron-Huot and V. Van Duong, Extremal Effective Field Theories , JHEP 05 (2021) 280 [2011.02957]

    2021 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Z. Bern, D. Kosmopoulos and A. Zhiboedov, Gravitational effective field theory islands, low-spin dominance, and the four-graviton amplitude , J. Phys. A 54 (2021) 344002 [ 2103.12728]

    2021 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Chiang, Y.-t

    L.-Y. Chiang, Y.-t. Huang, W. Li, L. Rodina and H.-C. Weng, Into the EFThedron and UV constraints from IR consistency , JHEP 03 (2022) 063 [ 2105.02862]

    2022 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Davighi, S

    J. Davighi, S. Melville and T. You, Natural selection rules: new positivity bounds for massive spinning particles, JHEP 02 (2022) 167 [ 2108.06334]

    2022 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Z.-Z. Du, C. Zhang and S.-Y. Zhou, Triple crossing positivity bounds for multi-field theories , JHEP 12 (2021) 115 [ 2111.01169]

    2021

  73. [81]

    Elias Mir´ o and A

    J. Elias Mir´ o and A. Guerrieri, Dual EFT bootstrap: QCD flux tubes , JHEP 10 (2021) 126 [2106.07957]

    2021 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Tolley, Z.-Y

    A.J. Tolley, Z.-Y. Wang and S.-Y. Zhou, New positivity bounds from full crossing symmetry , JHEP 05 (2021) 255 [ 2011.02400]. – 71 –

    2021 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Bellazzini, J

    B. Bellazzini, J. Elias Mir´ o, R. Rattazzi, M. Riembau and F. Riva, Positive moments for scattering amplitudes, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 036006 [ 2011.00037]

    2021 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Chowdhury, K

    S.D. Chowdhury, K. Ghosh, P. Haldar, P. Raman and A. Sinha, Crossing Symmetric Spinning S-matrix Bootstrap: EFT bounds , SciPost Phys. 13 (2022) 051 [ 2112.11755]

    2022 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Fernandez, A

    C. Fernandez, A. Pomarol, F. Riva and F. Sciotti, Cornering large-Nc QCD with positivity bounds , JHEP 06 (2023) 094 [ 2211.12488]

    2023 arXiv

  78. [86]

    T. Ma, A. Pomarol and F. Sciotti, Bootstrapping the chiral anomaly at large N c, JHEP 11 (2023) 176 [2307.04729]

    2023 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Z.-Y. Dong, T. Ma, A. Pomarol and F. Sciotti, Bootstrapping the Chiral-Gravitational Anomaly , 2411.14422

    arXiv

  80. [88]

    Witten, Perturbative gauge theory as a string theory in twistor space , Commun

    E. Witten, Perturbative gauge theory as a string theory in twistor space , Commun. Math. Phys. 252 (2004) 189 [ hep-th/0312171]. – 72 –

    2004 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.