Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Theory of Magnon Spintronics: Non-Abelian Gauge Theory of Electron Spintronics

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes that electron spintronics is a non-Abelian SU(2)×U(1) gauge theory whose magnons are the gauge bosons of a local spin symmetry, identical in form to the electroweak theory of the standard model.

desk verdict A clean formal exercise that misidentifies a scalar Higgs doublet as the electron—the central physical claim fails on spin–statistics before any comparison with experiment. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21850 v1 pith:SALUKBXT submitted 2025-06-27 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hall

Y.M. Cho , Franklin H. Cho This is my paper
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mes-hall
keywords electronspintronicsmagnonnon-Abeliangaugetheoryphoton-magnonmixingmassivephotonCho-Maisonmonopoletwo-gapferromagneticsuperconductivityMeissnereffect
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

Treating the electron as a charged SU(2) doublet (a 'spinon'), this paper proposes that magnon spintronics is governed by a non-Abelian SU(2)×U(1) gauge theory in which the magnon is the gauge boson of a local spin symmetry. The central mechanism is a photon-magnon mixing that leaves a massless Abelian magnon, responsible for long-range magnetic order, together with a massive photon and two doubly charged non-Abelian magnons that mediate spin flips. Because the resulting Lagrangian is formally identical to the electroweak Lagrangian of the standard model, the authors argue that the same mathematics that unifies weak and electromagnetic interactions can describe electron spintronics at meV scales. The theory fixes the photon-to-magnon mass ratio at $M_Z/M_W \simeq 1.6$ and predicts quantized magnonic vortices and a magnonic monopole of the Cho-Maison type.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the Abelian decomposition of the SU(2) magnon gauge potential, which separates the non-Abelian field into a restricted Abelian part and a complex 'valence' magnon $W_\mu$, followed by the photon-magnon rotation that diagonalizes the two Abelian gauge fields. This gauge-invariant reduction turns the original SU(2)×U(1) Lagrangian into an effective Abelian theory of a complex charged magnon interacting with two Abelian bosons. A second essential element is the Higgs mechanism implemented without spontaneous symmetry breaking: the scalar field $\rho$ acquires a vacuum value $\rho_0$ and generates masses for the photon and the W magnon, while the SU(2) unit doublet is absorbed into the longitudinal components. The quantitative payoff is the mass ratio $M_Z/M_W = \sqrt{(9+\sqrt{17})/(1+\sqrt{17})} \simeq 1.6$ and the fixed magnonic coupling $\bar{e} = 2\sqrt{2}/\sqrt{1+\sqrt{17}}\,e \simeq 1.25\,e$.

What would settle it

Measure, in a candidate magnetic material, the two independent penetration lengths—one from the conventional Meissner response and one from the spin-flip (non-Abelian) response—and compare their ratio; a value clearly different from $M_Z/M_W \approx 1.6$, or the absence of a gapless Abelian magnon mode alongside a massive photon mode, would rule out the proposed photon-magnon mixing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a gauge-theoretic unification of the two conserved objects in spintronics—the electromagnetic charge current and the magnonic spin current—inside a single SU(2)×U(1) Lagrangian. Starting from the electron as a charged spinon doublet, the authors use the Abelian decomposition of the SU(2) magnon field and a rotation of the two Abelian gauge fields to reach a physical spectrum of a massless Abelian magnon, a massive photon, and massive doubly charged non-Abelian magnons. The mixing angle is fixed by identifying the massive photon's coupling to the W magnon with the electric charge $e$, which yields $g' = \sqrt{(1+\sqrt{17})/2}\,e$ and the mass ratio $M_Z/M_W \simeq 1.6$. The paper further claims that the same Lagrangian, without any spontaneous symmetry breaking, generates masses through the Higgs field's vacuum value $\rho_0$, and that the non-Abelian structure naturally produces a quantized magnonic vortex with spin flux $2\pi/\bar{e}$ and a Cho-Maison-type magnonic monopole with charge $4\pi/\bar{e}$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that physical magnons in some real magnetic material are the gauge bosons of an exact local SU(2) symmetry acting on the electron as a fundamental doublet; the paper offers no microscopic derivation from a spin or electron Hamiltonian and names no specific material.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In any material that realizes the symmetry, spin-spin interactions are mediated by magnons as messenger particles, and the theory predicts two conserved currents—electromagnetic and spin—that mix and interconvert, explaining spin-charge conversion.
  • The mass ratio $M_Z/M_W \simeq 1.6$ fixes the penetration length of the photon relative to the off-diagonal magnon field, so the non-Abelian Meissner effect and the conventional Meissner effect occur on different, quantitatively predicted length scales.
  • The massless Abelian magnon explains the long-range magnetic order assumed in spintronics, while the massive photon implies that electromagnetic screening coexists with magnonic transport.
  • The theory predicts topological excitations—a quantized magnonic vortex and a Cho-Maison-type magnonic monopole—with energy scales around 100 meV, making them accessible to tabletop condensed-matter experiments rather than colliders.
  • Because the Lagrangian is formally identical to the authors' two-gap ferromagnetic superconductivity model, spintronics and this form of superconductivity are claimed to share the same underlying physics, importing topological objects and results between the two fields.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A concrete testable extension would be to search in candidate frustrated magnets for the predicted ratio of penetration lengths—one from the Meissner response and one from the spin-flip response; a ratio clearly different from 1.6 would undermine the photon-magnon mixing identification.
  • If the identification holds, the magnonic monopole provides a tabletop probe of the same topological sector tested at colliders, effectively importing a high-energy test into condensed matter.
  • The claim that masses arise without spontaneous symmetry breaking has broader conceptual spillover: it suggests that scalar vacuum expectation values in condensed-matter analogues need not indicate broken symmetry, which could affect how order parameters are interpreted.
  • A natural next step would be a microscopic derivation of the SU(2) gauge structure from a lattice spin Hamiltonian; if no such derivation exists, the theory remains a formal analogue rather than a description of real spintronics.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a theory of magnon spintronics based on an SU(2) x U(1) gauge theory in which the electron is treated as a 'charged spinon' doublet coupled to a magnon gauge field. After an Abelian decomposition and photon-magnon mixing, the authors obtain a massless Abelian magnon, a massive photon, massive doubly charged off-diagonal magnons, a Higgs scalar, two conserved currents, and non-Abelian topological objects. They further impose an identification that fixes the mixing angle and yields quantitative outputs, including M_Z/M_W = 1.6, a spin coupling of about 1.25e, and a magnonic Cho-Maison monopole charge. The paper also discusses reductions to the Landau-Ginzburg and Zarzuela-Kim limits and claims that the Lagrangian is precisely the Weinberg-Salam Lagrangian.

Significance. If the proposed identification were physically realized, this would be a remarkable unification of magnon spintronics with an electroweak-like gauge structure, with concrete quantitative predictions (mass ratio, spin coupling, non-Abelian vortex and monopole). The paper deserves credit for a largely consistent internal algebra: the mass spectrum in Eq. (11), the coupling constraints in Eqs. (12)-(14), and the formal reductions to the Landau-Ginzburg and Zarzuela-Kim limits are correct as algebraic statements. However, the central physical premise is not established and is in fact internally inconsistent: the matter field treated as the electron is a scalar, not a spin-1/2 fermion, and no microscopic derivation or material realization of the exact local SU(2) gauge symmetry is provided. These issues are load-bearing, so the manuscript does not constitute a viable theory of electron spintronics as it stands.

major comments (4)
  1. [Non-Abelian gauge theory of electron spintronics, Eq. (1)] The matter field phi in Eq. (1) is a complex scalar doublet: its kinetic term is |D_mu phi|^2 and its potential is the Ginzburg-Higgs potential, and no Dirac or Pauli kinetic term for a spin-1/2 electron appears anywhere in the paper. Consequently the object identified as the 'electron' or 'charged spinon' has spin 0 and bosonic statistics; the SU(2) index of phi is an internal isospin-like label, not the electron spin. The W-mediated 'spin-flip' interaction in Eqs. (6) and (9) rotates this internal index of a boson, not an electron spin. If the intended meaning is a bosonic slave-particle spinon, the physical electron would require a composite with a holon or a confinement mechanism, neither of which is introduced. This is an internal inconsistency in the central interpretation, independent of whether any material realizes the gauge symmetry.
  2. [Photon-magnon mixing, Eq. (12)] The numerical outputs emphasized in the abstract and Discussion (M_Z/M_W = 1.6, the spin coupling e_bar = 1.25 e, and the magnonic monopole charge 4 pi / e_bar) are not derived from the Lagrangian alone. They follow from the identification rule (12), which the authors impose by requiring that the coupling of Z_mu to W_mu 'should become the electric charge'. Since this constraint is an interpretive choice rather than a consequence of the dynamics, these numbers are consistency conditions of the proposed identification, not independent predictions. A testable theory of magnon spintronics needs a derivation of this identification from a microscopic Hamiltonian.
  3. [Discussions] The claim that the Lagrangian (1) is 'precisely the Weinberg-Salam Lagrangian' is an overstatement: the electroweak standard model contains chiral fermion doublets, Yukawa couplings, and a different hypercharge assignment, whereas Eq. (1) is a purely bosonic Ginzburg-Higgs model. The formal similarity to the bosonic sector of the standard model does not by itself make the theory a theory of electron spintronics, and it does not supply the missing electron spin degrees of freedom.
  4. [Non-Abelian gauge theory of electron spintronics] The paper provides no microscopic derivation of the exact local SU(2) gauge symmetry from a spin or electron Hamiltonian and identifies no material or material class in which the symmetry is realized. The only microscopic anchor cited, Zarzuela and Kim [20], is itself a theoretical proposal for frustrated magnets; the reduction to their model in Eq. (18) is a formal check, not a validation of Eq. (1) for physical magnons. Without such an anchor, the theory describes a possible mathematical world rather than the magnon spintronics of real materials.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction] The phrase 'non-pinear spin wave phenomena' should read 'nonlinear spin wave phenomena'.
  2. [Discussions] There are several typographical errors: 'charactristic' should be 'characteristic', 'spontronics' should be 'spintronics', and 'twe currents' should be 'two currents'.
  3. [References] Reference [29] contains 'Nautre', which should be 'Nature', and the entries [17] and [31] are listed as 'to be published' and should be updated or removed prior to publication.
  4. [Eq. (15)] The notation uses e, e_bar, and e in close proximity with different meanings; a short table of couplings and fields would improve readability.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The quantitative "prediction" M_Z/M_W ≈ 1.6 is the algebraic solution of the author-imposed identification (12), and the model's claim to be electron spintronics is justified by its own field content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 'Photon-magnon mixing', Eqs. (12)-(14)]
    "we must identify the massless ¯Aµ as the massless magnon which is responsible for the long range magnetic oder, and identify Zµ as the massive photon. In this case the coupling constant of Zµ which couples to Wµ in (9) should become the electric charge, ¯e g′/g = e. From this we have (with g/2 = e) g′ = p (1 + √17)/2 e, ... MZ = p (9 + √17)/2√2 eρ0 ≃ 1.6MW."

    Equation (14) is not obtained from any measurement of magnon or photon penetration lengths, nor from a microscopic spin/electron Hamiltonian. It is the algebraic solution of Eq. (12) together with g/2 = e. Equation (12) fixes the mixing angle by demanding that the Z-W coupling equal the electric charge, i.e. it is the very constraint that makes the Z field 'the photon' and W 'unit-charged'. The paper then presents the resulting mass ratio and the value ¯e ≈ 1.25 e as physical predictions. Because the ratio is fully determined by that imposed identification, the 'prediction' reduces to the input constraint by construction; no independent empirical content enters.

  2. self definitional [Section 'Non-Abelian gauge theory of electron spintronics', after Eq. (1)]
    "The justification of the Lagrangian as the Lagrangian for the electron spintronics is that it has all necessary ingredients for the magnon spintronics, photon, magnon, and electron."

    The adequacy of the Lagrangian is asserted from its own field content: the criterion for being a theory of electron spintronics ('has all necessary ingredients ... photon, magnon, and electron') is exactly the list of fields already put into the Lagrangian. No independent definition of magnon spintronics, no microscopic derivation from a spin model, and no material-specific input is used to establish that the SU(2)×U(1) doublet is the physical electron. The conclusion that the model describes electron spintronics is therefore built into the premise rather than derived.

full rationale

The formal sequence (1) → (7) → (9) → (15) is internally self-consistent, and the Abelian decomposition and mass-generation algebra are not circular by themselves. The central quantitative claims, however, are: the headline values M_Z/M_W ≈ 1.6 and the spin coupling ¯e ≈ 1.25 e are the direct algebraic consequences of Eq. (12), a condition imposed by the authors to make the reinterpretation of Z as 'the photon' work, rather than a quantity matched to, or checked against, external magnon-spintronics data. The paper also justifies the whole model by asserting that its Lagrangian 'has all necessary ingredients', which is a definitional circle. The later statement that Eq. (1) 'is precisely the Weinberg-Salam Lagrangian' is an honest identification, but it reinforces that the novel content is a relabeling of a known model with chosen charge normalizations. The self-citations [15-17] and [9-10,24] are mostly methodological and contextual; they do not add independent empirical support, but they are not the main source of circularity. Score 6: one central 'prediction' reduces by construction to an imposed identification, while the underlying gauge formalism retains independent mathematical content.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 6 invented entities

The central claim rests on the postulate that electrons and magnons in real materials realize an exact SU(2)xU(1) gauge structure with a Higgs scalar, an assumption the paper justifies only by listing the ingredients the Lagrangian contains. The quantitative outputs (g' = 1.6e, M_Z/M_W = 1.6, e_bar = 1.25e) follow from the identification choices in Eqs. (8) and (12) together with the free scale rho_0.

free parameters (2)
  • rho_0 (Higgs vacuum value, mass scale)
    All three masses in Eq. (11) scale with rho_0; the paper states the scale is 'supposed to be of the order of meV' but never fixes it from material parameters or data. The monopole mass estimate (~100 meV) also depends on it.
  • lambda (Higgs self-coupling)
    Sets M_H = sqrt(lambda) rho_0 in Eq. (11); left free and never used quantitatively in the paper.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The electron is a fundamental SU(2) doublet of charged spinons carrying electric charge g/2 = e and spin charge g'.
    Introduced as the starting point of the Lagrangian (1); no derivation from a microscopic model of the electron is given.
  • domain assumption Magnons are the gauge bosons of an exact local SU(2) symmetry, with a Higgs scalar and quartic potential completing the theory.
    The Lagrangian (1) is postulated; its stated justification is that it contains photon, magnon, and electron ingredients. Whether a real material realizes this gauge symmetry is not established.
  • domain assumption Long-range magnetic order exists in spintronics, so the massless gauge field must be identified as the magnon and the massive field as the photon.
    Stated just before Eq. (12): 'we may assume that the long range magnetic order does exist in spintronics.' This identification drives the fixing of the mixing angle.
  • ad hoc to paper The coupling of the massive photon Z to the charged magnon W equals the electric charge e.
    Eq. (12) imposes e_bar g'/g = e; this constraint selects the unique mixing angle and is the source of the 1.6 mass ratio and the g' value.
  • standard math The Abelian decomposition (Cho-Duan-Ge / Cho-Faddeev-Niemi) of the SU(2) gauge field is valid and gauge independent.
    Invoked in Eqs. (2)-(4); established in the authors' prior work [9,10] and elsewhere [11-14].
invented entities (6)
  • Massless Abelian magnon (bar A_mu)
    purpose: Massless neutral gauge boson mediating the long-range spin interaction responsible for magnetic order in the model.
    No observable-specific signature or coupling to a known material is provided beyond its charge-like coupling e_bar ~ 1.25e.
  • Massive photon Z_mu
    purpose: Massive neutral gauge boson assigned the role of the physical photon; its mass sets a Meissner penetration length.
    Its mass M_Z = 1.6 M_W is predicted relative to M_W, but M_W itself is set by the free scale rho_0; no experimental handle on a material is given.
  • Doubly charged non-Abelian magnon W_mu
    purpose: Massive complex vector boson inducing spin-flip interactions; carries both electric and spin charge.
    The spin-flip interaction it mediates is the model's substitute for conventional magnon exchange; no existing measurement is matched.
  • Higgs scalar rho
    purpose: Gives masses to the photon and W magnons via the Higgs mechanism; also sets the correlation length.
    No candidate collective mode in a material is proposed; rho_0 is a free input.
  • Magnonic Cho-Maison monopole independent evidence
    purpose: Topological defect carrying spin magnetic charge 4 pi / e_bar, estimated at ~100 meV; suggested as a table-top experimental target.
    The paper assigns it a concrete mass scale (~100 meV) and a definite charge, making it falsifiable in principle, though the mass scale depends on the free parameter rho_0.
  • Quantized non-Abrikosov magnonic vortex
    purpose: Topological vortex carrying spin flux 2 pi / e_bar with Higgs and W dressing.
    Its existence is asserted from the topology of the model; no specific observable signature is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Theory of Magnon Spintronics: Non-Abelian Gauge Theory of Electron Spintronics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SALUKBXT

@misc{pith2026250621850,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Theory of Magnon Spintronics: Non-Abelian Gauge Theory of Electron Spintronics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SALUKBXT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21850}
}
read the original abstract

Treating the electron as a charged spinon we propose a theory of magnon spintronics, a non-Abelian gauge theory of SU(2)xU(1), which could be viewed as an effective theory of electron spintronics. Just like QED the theory has the U(1) electromagnetic interaction, but the new ingredient is the non-Abelian SU(2) gauge interaction of the magnon with the spinon. A remarkable feature of the theory is the photon-magnon mixing, the mixing between the electromagnetic U(1) gauge boson and the diagonal part of the SU(2) magnon gauge boson. After the mixing we have the massless Abelian magnon and a massive photon, and the doubly charged massive off-diagonal non-Abelian magnons which induce the spin-flip interaction to the spinon. The theory is characterized by three scales. In addition to the correlation length fixed by the mass of the Higgs field it has two different penetration lengths, the one fixed by the mass of the photon which generates the well known Meissner effect and the other fixed by the mass of the off-diagonal magnons which generates the non-Abelian Meissner effect. The non-Abelian structure of the theory naturally accommodates new topological objects, the non-Abrikosov quantized magnonic vortex and non-Abelian magnonic monopole of the Cho-Maison type, as well as the well known Abrikosov vortex. We discuss the physical implications of the non-Abelian gauge theory of the magnon spintronics.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [20]

    Zarzuela and S.K

    R. Zarzuela and S.K. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 186701 (2025)

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    Bloch, Z

    F. Bloch, Z. Phys. 61, 206 (1930)

    work page 1930

  3. [2]

    Chumak, V.I

    See for example, A.V. Chumak, V.I. Vasyuchka, A.A. Serga, and B. Hillebrands, Nat. Phys. 11, 453 (2015), and the references therein

    work page 2015

  4. [3]

    Hirohata, K

    See for example, A. Hirohata, K. Yamada, Y. Nakatani, I. Prejbeanu, B. Dieny, P. Pirro, and B. Hillebrands, JMMM 509, 166711 (2020), and the references therein

    work page 2020

  5. [4]

    See also Handbook of Spintronics, edited by Y. Xu, D. Awschalom, and J. Nitta, (Springer), 2015, and the ref- erences therein

    work page 2015

  6. [5]

    Kruglyak, S.Q

    V.V. Kruglyak, S.Q. Demokritov, and D. Grundler, J. Phys. D43, 264001 (2010)

    work page 2010

  7. [6]

    Serga, A.V

    A.A. Serga, A.V. Chumak, and B. Hillebrands, J. Phys. D43, 264002 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [7]

    B. Lenk, H. Ulrichs, F. Garbs, and M. Munzenberg, Phys. Rep. 507, 107 (2011)

    work page 2011

Show all 31 references
  1. [8]

    Stamps et al., J

    R.L. Stamps et al., J. Phys. D47, 333001 (2014)

    2014

  2. [9]

    Cho, Phys

    Y.M. Cho, Phys. Rev. D21, 1080 (1980). See also Y.S. Duan and M.L. Ge, Sci. Sinica 11, 1072 (1979)

    1980

  3. [10]

    Cho, Phys

    Y.M. Cho, Phys. Rev. Lett. 46, 302 (1981); Phys. Rev. D23, 2415 (1981)

    1981

  4. [11]

    Faddeev and A

    L. Faddeev and A. Niemi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1624 (1999); Phys. Lett. B449, 214 (1999)

    1999

  5. [12]

    Shabanov, Phys

    S. Shabanov, Phys. Lett. B458, 322 (1999); B463, 263 (1999); H. Gies, Phys. Rev. D63, 125023 (2001)

    1999

  6. [13]

    Zucchini, Int

    R. Zucchini, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 1, 813 (2004)

    2004

  7. [14]

    Kondo, S

    K. Kondo, S. Kato, A. Shibata, and T. Shinohara, Phys. Rep. 579, 1 (2015)

    2015

  8. [15]

    Cho and Franklin H

    Y.M. Cho and Franklin H. Cho, Phys. Lett. A472, 128793 (2023)

    2023

  9. [16]

    Cho and Franklin H

    Y.M. Cho and Franklin H. Cho, Ann. Phys. 460,169573 (2024)

    2024

  10. [17]

    Cho and Franklin H

    Y.M. Cho and Franklin H. Cho, arXiv:2506.07318 [cond- mat.supr-con], to be published

    arXiv

  11. [18]

    Mendes et al., Phys

    J.B.S. Mendes et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 115,226601 (2015)

    2015

  12. [19]

    Caprara, Nat

    S. Caprara, Nat. Mat. 15, 1224 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Ginzburg and L

    V. Ginzburg and L. Landau, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 20, 1064 (1950)

    1950

  14. [22]

    Linder and J

    J. Linder and J. Robinson, Nat. Phys. 11, 307 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    Eschrig, Rep

    M. Eschrig, Rep. Prog. Phys. 78, 104501 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Cho and D

    Y.M. Cho and D. Maison, Phys. Lett. B391, 360 (1997)

    1997

  17. [25]

    ’tHooft, Nucl

    G. ’tHooft, Nucl. Phys. B79, 276 (1974); A. Polyakov, JETP Lett. 20, 194 (1974)

    1974

  18. [26]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 1264 (1967)

    1967

  19. [27]

    Acharya et al

    B. Acharya et al. (MoEDAL Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 061801 (2017); Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 021802 (2019)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Acharya et al

    B. Acharya et al. (MoEDAL Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 071801 (2021); Euro. Phys. J. bf C82,694 (2022)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Acharya et al

    B. Acharya et al. (MoEDAL Collaboration), Nautre 602, 63 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 031802 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Cho and Franklin H

    Y.M. Cho and Franklin H. Cho, to be published

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.