pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.20058 · v1 · pith:RQ2PT3CAnew · submitted 2026-05-19 · ✦ hep-ph

Renormalisation and invariants for two U(1)s

Sacha Davidson , Martin Gorbahn This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 04:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords renormalization group equationstwo U(1) gauge symmetrieskinetic mixingmillichargegauge field reparametrisationinvariantsMSbar scheme
0
0 comments X

The pith

A covariant formulation for two U(1) gauge symmetries yields simple two-loop RGEs and reparametrization-invariant combinations of parameters that match observables such as the millicharge.

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

The paper develops a formulation for models with two U(1) gauge symmetries that employs non-canonical kinetic terms for the gauge bosons and attributes a coupling matrix to those terms. This choice keeps the Lagrangian covariant under arbitrary redefinitions and rescalings of the two gauge fields. The resulting MSbar renormalization group equations stay compact through two loops and can be solved to obtain low-energy effective millicharges expressed in terms of the running couplings and heavy scales. From the same setup the authors construct combinations of the running Lagrangian parameters that remain unchanged under generic gauge-field reparametrizations and that correspond directly to physical quantities.

Core claim

By writing the gauge kinetic terms with a non-canonical matrix of couplings, the theory remains covariant under reparametrizations of the two gauge bosons. This covariance produces simple two-loop MSbar renormalization group equations whose solutions allow the construction of invariants built from the running parameters; these invariants are unchanged by rescalings or rotations of the gauge fields and are directly related to observables such as the millicharge.

What carries the argument

The coupling matrix assigned to the non-canonical gauge kinetic terms, which preserves covariance under gauge-boson field reparametrisations and thereby keeps the RGEs simple.

If this is right

  • Effective millicharges at low energy are obtained directly from the running couplings and the heavy mass scales of the model.
  • Invariants built from the Lagrangian parameters track physical quantities across scales without dependence on the choice of gauge-field basis.
  • Two-loop RGEs permit more accurate evolution of kinetic mixing and related observables in models containing two U(1) factors.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same invariants could streamline the matching of parameters when heavy states are integrated out in extensions of the Standard Model that contain multiple U(1) groups.
  • The matrix formulation may generalize to three or more U(1) factors by enlarging the coupling matrix while preserving the same covariance properties.

Load-bearing premise

The non-canonical gauge kinetic terms with an attributed coupling matrix remain covariant under arbitrary field reparametrisations among the two gauge bosons, allowing the RGEs to stay simple.

What would settle it

An explicit two-loop calculation in a concrete two-U(1) model in which the proposed invariants change value under a gauge-field rescaling or fail to reproduce the correct millicharge would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.20058 by Martin Gorbahn, Sacha Davidson.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Tree-level scattering between fermions f1 and f2 in a 2 U(1) model parametrised by the Lagrangian with non-canonical kinetic terms of Eqn (2.1). This diagram corresponds to the invariant of Eqn (2.9). Focusing on a single shadow fermion χ, the inner products of Eqn (2.9) can be combined to obtain a kinetic mixing or “millicharge” invariant, Iε ≡ ⃗vχ · [K−1 ] · ⃗vψ ⃗vψ · [K−1] · ⃗vψ (2.10) where ψ is a SM f… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The one loop diagram and representative two-loop diagrams contributing to vaccuum polarisation in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We revisit the renormalisation of models with two U(1) gauge symmetries, in a formulation with non-canonical gauge kinetic terms which is covariant under field reparametrisations among the two gauge bosons. This approach is convenient to study the appearance of kinetic mixing in scale evolution, because a coupling matrix is attributed to the gauge kinetic terms. We obtain simple MSbar renormalisation group equations up to two-loop, which can be solved to give effective millicharges at low energy which depend on the running couplings and heavy mass scales of the model. This formulation allows to construct ``invariants'' out of running Lagrangian parameters, which are invariant under generic gauge field reparametrisations, including rescalings, and which can be related directly to observables such as the millicharge.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript revisits the renormalisation of models with two U(1) gauge symmetries in a formulation with non-canonical gauge kinetic terms that remains covariant under arbitrary gauge boson field reparametrisations, including rescalings. It derives simple two-loop MSbar RGEs for the coupling matrix, solves them to obtain effective millicharges at low energy depending on running couplings and heavy mass scales, and constructs reparametrization-invariant quantities from the running Lagrangian parameters that are claimed to relate directly to physical observables such as the millicharge.

Significance. If the derivations and relations hold, the approach offers a practical covariant framework for tracking kinetic mixing evolution in two-U(1) models without repeated basis changes, potentially simplifying predictions for millicharged particles or dark photon scenarios. The explicit construction of invariants is a notable strength for making results independent of gauge field choices.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.2, Eq. (28)] §4.2, Eq. (28): the direct identification of the invariant I with the low-energy millicharge assumes that matter charge vectors remain unchanged under the field redefinitions used to define the invariants; after explicit diagonalization and canonical normalization of the kinetic matrix at the matching scale, threshold corrections to the effective charges must be shown to preserve this equality, otherwise the claimed direct relation to observables is basis-dependent.
  2. [§3, Eq. (15)] §3, Eq. (15): the two-loop MSbar RGEs are presented as simple and covariant, but the manuscript does not provide an explicit reduction to the standard canonical-basis results in the literature (e.g., after field redefinition to diagonal kinetic terms); without this check, it is unclear whether the claimed simplicity survives the transformation to physical parameters.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and introduction could more clearly state the range of validity (e.g., whether the invariants remain useful below all heavy thresholds).
  2. [§2] Notation for the coupling matrix G and its inverse should be introduced with an explicit definition in §2 to avoid ambiguity when discussing rescalings.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address the major comments point by point below, indicating planned revisions where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4.2, Eq. (28)] the direct identification of the invariant I with the low-energy millicharge assumes that matter charge vectors remain unchanged under the field redefinitions used to define the invariants; after explicit diagonalization and canonical normalization of the kinetic matrix at the matching scale, threshold corrections to the effective charges must be shown to preserve this equality, otherwise the claimed direct relation to observables is basis-dependent.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit verification of threshold corrections is required to rigorously establish the relation between the invariant and the physical millicharge. We will revise §4.2 by adding a dedicated paragraph and supporting equations that compute the one-loop threshold corrections to the effective charges after diagonalization and canonical normalization at the matching scale. This calculation will confirm that the invariant I equals the observable millicharge, preserving the claimed direct relation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3, Eq. (15)] the two-loop MSbar RGEs are presented as simple and covariant, but the manuscript does not provide an explicit reduction to the standard canonical-basis results in the literature (e.g., after field redefinition to diagonal kinetic terms); without this check, it is unclear whether the claimed simplicity survives the transformation to physical parameters.

    Authors: We acknowledge the value of an explicit consistency check. While the covariant formulation guarantees equivalence by construction, we will add a new appendix that performs the field redefinition to the diagonal canonical basis and explicitly reduces our two-loop RGEs to the standard expressions in the literature for the gauge couplings and kinetic mixing. This will demonstrate that the simplicity is retained in the physical basis. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper develops a covariant formulation using non-canonical gauge kinetic terms for two U(1) symmetries, derives simple MSbar RGEs up to two loops, and constructs invariants from running Lagrangian parameters that remain invariant under gauge field reparametrisations. These invariants are stated to relate directly to observables such as the millicharge. No load-bearing step reduces by the paper's own equations to a tautological redefinition, fitted input renamed as prediction, or self-citation chain. The central construction provides independent content via the covariant approach and explicit RGE solutions, remaining self-contained against standard renormalization benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, the central claim rests on standard quantum field theory renormalization assumptions and the specific choice of non-canonical kinetic terms; no free parameters or invented entities are mentioned.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Standard MSbar renormalization scheme applies to the gauge kinetic terms in models with two U(1) symmetries.
    Invoked to obtain the RGEs up to two loops.
  • domain assumption The non-canonical formulation with a coupling matrix is covariant under field reparametrisations.
    This is the key setup stated as convenient for studying kinetic mixing.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5653 in / 1436 out tokens · 62458 ms · 2026-05-20T04:10:17.221573+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · 24 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    LIMITS OF ELECTRODYNAMICS: PARAPHOTONS?,

    L. B. Okun, “LIMITS OF ELECTRODYNAMICS: PARAPHOTONS?,” Sov. Phys. JETP56(1982), 502 ITEP-48-1982

    work page 1982

  2. [2]

    Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts,

    B. Holdom, “Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts,” Phys. Lett. B166(1986), 196-198

    work page 1986

  3. [3]

    Limits on Millicharged Matter From Beam Dump Experiments,

    E. Golowich and R. W. Robinett, “Limits on Millicharged Matter From Beam Dump Experiments,” Phys. Rev. D35(1987), 391 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.35.391

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.35.391 1987

  4. [4]

    Search for Millicharged Particles at SLAC

    A. A. Prinz, R. Baggs, J. Ballam, S. Ecklund, C. Fertig, J. A. Jaros, K. Kase, A. Kulikov, W. G. J. Langeveld and R. Leonard,et al.“Search for millicharged particles at SLAC,” Phys. Rev. Lett.81(1998), 1175-1178 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.1175 [arXiv:hep-ex/9804008 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.81.1175 1998

  5. [5]

    Search for Darkonium ine +e− Collisions,

    J. P. Leeset al.[BABAR], “Search for Darkonium ine +e− Collisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.128(2022) no.2, 021802 [arXiv:2106.08529 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Search for a Dark Photon and an Invisible Dark Higgs Boson inµ+µ- and Missing Energy Final States with the Belle II Experiment,

    F. Abudin´ enet al.[Belle-II], “Search for a Dark Photon and an Invisible Dark Higgs Boson inµ+µ- and Missing Energy Final States with the Belle II Experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett.130(2023) no.7, 071804 [arXiv:2207.00509 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Search for invisible decays of a dark photon using e+e−annihilation data at BESIII,

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], “Search for invisible decays of a dark photon using e+e−annihilation data at BESIII,” Phys. Lett. B839(2023), 137785 [arXiv:2209.13893 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Search for Light Dark Matter with NA64 at CERN,

    Y. M. Andreevet al.[NA64], “Search for Light Dark Matter with NA64 at CERN,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 131(2023) no.16, 161801 [arXiv:2307.02404 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Probing light dark matter with positron beams at NA64,

    Y. M. Andreevet al.[NA64], “Probing light dark matter with positron beams at NA64,” Phys. Rev. D109(2024) no.3, L031103 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.L031103 [arXiv:2308.15612 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.l031103 2024

  10. [10]

    Search for dark photons with the FASER detector at the LHC,

    H. Abreuet al.[FASER], “Search for dark photons with the FASER detector at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B848(2024), 138378 [arXiv:2308.05587 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Search for Leptonic Decays of Dark Photons at NA62,

    E. Cortina Gilet al.[NA62], “Search for Leptonic Decays of Dark Photons at NA62,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 133(2024) no.11, 111802 [arXiv:2312.12055 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    The Low-Energy Frontier of Particle Physics

    J. Jaeckel and A. Ringwald, “The Low-Energy Frontier of Particle Physics,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.60(2010), 405-437 [arXiv:1002.0329 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  13. [13]

    A facility to Search for Hidden Particles at the CERN SPS: the SHiP physics case

    S. Alekhin, W. Altmannshofer, T. Asaka, B. Batell, F. Bezrukov, K. Bondarenko, A. Boyarsky, K. Y. Choi, C. Corral and N. Craig,et al.“A facility to Search for Hidden Particles at the CERN SPS: the SHiP physics case,” Rept. Prog. Phys.79(2016) no.12, 124201 [arXiv:1504.04855 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    SpeedNet: dual- channel CNN-GRU network with adaptive noise fusion for robust vehicle dead reckoning in GNSS-denied environments,

    D. Curtin, M. Drewes, M. McCullough, P. Meade, R. N. Mohapatra, J. Shelton, B. Shuve, E. Acco- mando, C. Alpigiani and S. Antusch,et al.Rept. Prog. Phys.82(2019) no.11, 116201 doi:10.1088/1361- 6633/ab28d6 [arXiv:1806.07396 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1361- 2019

  15. [15]

    Physics Beyond Colliders at CERN: Beyond the Standard Model Working Group Report,

    J. Beacham, C. Burrage, D. Curtin, A. De Roeck, J. Evans, J. L. Feng, C. Gatto, S. Gninenko, A. Hartin and I. Irastorza,et al.“Physics Beyond Colliders at CERN: Beyond the Standard Model Working Group Report,” J. Phys. G47(2020) no.1, 010501 [arXiv:1901.09966 [hep-ex]]. 14

    work page arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    Fabbrichesi, E

    M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli and G. Lanfranchi, “The Dark Photon,” [arXiv:2005.01515 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2005

  17. [17]

    Mirror matter-type dark matter

    R. Foot, “Mirror matter-type dark matter,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D13(2004), 2161-2192 doi:10.1142/S0218271804006449 [arXiv:astro-ph/0407623 [astro-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1142/s0218271804006449 2004

  18. [18]

    The Early Mirror Universe: Inflation, Baryogenesis, Nucleosynthesis and Dark Matter

    Z. Berezhiani, D. Comelli and F. L. Villante, “The Early mirror universe: Inflation, baryogenesis, nucleosynthesis and dark matter,” Phys. Lett. B503(2001), 362-375 [arXiv:hep-ph/0008105 [hep- ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  19. [19]

    Vector Dark Matter from Inflationary Fluctuations

    P. W. Graham, J. Mardon and S. Rajendran, “Vector Dark Matter from Inflationary Fluctuations,” Phys. Rev. D93(2016) no.10, 103520 [arXiv:1504.02102 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [20]

    Dark Light, Dark Matter and the Misalignment Mechanism

    A. E. Nelson and J. Scholtz, “Dark Light, Dark Matter and the Misalignment Mechanism,” Phys. Rev. D84(2011), 103501 [arXiv:1105.2812 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  21. [21]

    WISPy Cold Dark Matter

    P. Arias, D. Cadamuro, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo and A. Ringwald, “WISPy Cold Dark Matter,” JCAP06(2012), 013 [arXiv:1201.5902 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  22. [22]

    Constraints on millicharged particles from thunderstorms on the Solar system planets

    E. Dmitrieva and P. Satunin, “Constraints on millicharged particles from thunderstorms on the Solar system planets,” [arXiv:2603.05338 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    Implications of Generalized Z-Z' Mixing

    K. S. Babu, C. F. Kolda and J. March-Russell, “Implications of generalized Z - Z-prime mixing,” Phys. Rev. D57(1998), 6788-6792 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.57.6788 [arXiv:hep-ph/9710441 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.57.6788 1998

  24. [24]

    Kinetic and mass mixing with three abelian groups

    J. Heeck and W. Rodejohann, “Kinetic and mass mixing with three abelian groups,” Phys. Lett. B 705(2011), 369-374 [arXiv:1109.1508 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  25. [25]

    Gauge Kinetic Mixing in the $E_6$SSM

    T. G. Rizzo, “Gauge Kinetic Mixing in theE 6SSM,” Phys. Rev. D85(2012), 055010 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.055010 [arXiv:1201.2898 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.85.055010 2012

  26. [26]

    Gauge Coupling Renormalization With Several U(1) Factors,

    F. del Aguila, G. D. Coughlan and M. Quiros, “Gauge Coupling Renormalization With Several U(1) Factors,” Nucl. Phys. B307(1988), 633 [erratum: Nucl. Phys. B312(1989), 751]

    work page 1988

  27. [27]

    Physical Parameters and Renormalization of U(1)_a x U(1)_b Models

    F. del Aguila, M. Masip and M. Perez-Victoria, “Physical parameters and renormalization of U(1)-a x U(1)-b models,” Nucl. Phys. B456(1995), 531-549 [arXiv:hep-ph/9507455 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  28. [28]

    Renormalization of U(1) Gauge Boson Kinetic Mixing,

    F. Forner and F. Tellander, “Renormalization of U(1) Gauge Boson Kinetic Mixing,” [arXiv:2512.14836 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv

  29. [29]

    Renormalization Group Equations in Gauge Theories with Multiple U(1) Groups

    M. x. Luo and Y. Xiao, “Renormalization group equations in gauge theories with multiple U(1) groups,” Phys. Lett. B555(2003), 279-286 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(03)00076-5 [arXiv:hep-ph/0212152 [hep- ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(03)00076-5 2003

  30. [30]

    Two-loop Renormalization Group Equations in General Gauge Field Theories

    M. x. Luo, H. w. Wang and Y. Xiao, “Two loop renormalization group equations in general gauge field theories,” Phys. Rev. D67(2003), 065019 [arXiv:hep-ph/0211440 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  31. [31]

    Two Loop Renormalization Group Equations in a General Quantum Field Theory. 1. Wave Function Renormalization,

    M. E. Machacek and M. T. Vaughn, “Two Loop Renormalization Group Equations in a General Quantum Field Theory. 1. Wave Function Renormalization,” Nucl. Phys. B222(1983), 83-103

    work page 1983

  32. [32]

    Two Loop Renormalization Group Equations in a General Quantum Field Theory. 2. Yukawa Couplings,

    M. E. Machacek and M. T. Vaughn, “Two Loop Renormalization Group Equations in a General Quantum Field Theory. 2. Yukawa Couplings,” Nucl. Phys. B236(1984), 221-232

    work page 1984

  33. [33]

    Two Loop Renormalization Group Equations in a General Quantum Field Theory. 3. Scalar Quartic Couplings,

    M. E. Machacek and M. T. Vaughn, “Two Loop Renormalization Group Equations in a General Quantum Field Theory. 3. Scalar Quartic Couplings,” Nucl. Phys. B249(1985), 70-92

    work page 1985

  34. [34]

    Renormalization group equations and matching in a general quantum field theory with kinetic mixing

    R. M. Fonseca, M. Malinsk´ y and F. Staub, “Renormalization group equations and matching in a general quantum field theory with kinetic mixing,” Phys. Lett. B726(2013), 882-886 [arXiv:1308.1674 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  35. [35]

    PyR@TE 2: A Python tool for computing RGEs at two-loop

    F. Lyonnet and I. Schienbein, “PyR@TE 2: A Python tool for computing RGEs at two-loop,” Comput. Phys. Commun.213(2017), 181-196 [arXiv:1608.07274 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  36. [36]

    On the impact of kinetic mixing in beta functions at two-loop

    F. Lyonnet, “Impact of kinetic mixing in beta functions at two-loop,” Phys. Rev. D94(2016) no.7, 076008 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.076008 [arXiv:1608.07271 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.076008 2016

  37. [37]

    Introducing RGBeta: a Mathematica package for the evaluation of renormalization groupβ-functions,

    A. E. Thomsen, “Introducing RGBeta: a Mathematica package for the evaluation of renormalization groupβ-functions,” Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) no.5, 408 [arXiv:2101.08265 [hep-ph]]. 15

    work page arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    The Quantum theory of fields. Vol. 1: Foundations,

    S. Weinberg, “The Quantum theory of fields. Vol. 1: Foundations,” Cambridge University Press, 2005, ISBN 978-0-521-67053-1, 978-0-511-25204-4

    work page 2005

  39. [39]

    Solving the flavour problem with hierarchical fermion wave functions

    S. Davidson, G. Isidori and S. Uhlig, “Solving the flavour problem with hierarchical fermion wave functions,” Phys. Lett. B663(2008), 73-79 [arXiv:0711.3376 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  40. [40]

    Basis-independent methods for the two-Higgs-doublet model

    S. Davidson and H. E. Haber, “Basis-independent methods for the two-Higgs-doublet model,” Phys. Rev. D72(2005), 035004 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D72(2005), 099902] [arXiv:hep-ph/0504050 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  41. [41]

    Flavour-Dependent and Basis Independent Measures of R Violation

    S. Davidson and J. R. Ellis, “Flavor dependent and basis independent measures of R violation,” Phys. Rev. D56(1997), 4182-4193 [arXiv:hep-ph/9702247 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  42. [42]

    Basis Independent Measures of R-parity Violation

    S. Davidson and J. R. Ellis, “Basis independent measures of R-parity violation,” Phys. Lett. B390 (1997), 210-220 [arXiv:hep-ph/9609451 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  43. [43]

    Commutator of the Quark Mass Matrices in the Standard Electroweak Model and a Measure of Maximal CP Nonconservation,

    C. Jarlskog, “Commutator of the Quark Mass Matrices in the Standard Electroweak Model and a Measure of Maximal CP Nonconservation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.55(1985), 1039

    work page 1985

  44. [44]

    CP Restrictions on Quark Mass Matrices,

    J. Bernabeu, G. C. Branco and M. Gronau, “CP Restrictions on Quark Mass Matrices,” Phys. Lett. B169(1986), 243-247

    work page 1986

  45. [45]

    CP Violation,

    G. C. Branco, L. Lavoura and J. P. Silva, “CP Violation,” Int. Ser. Monogr. Phys.103(1999), 1-536

    work page 1999

  46. [46]

    The Stueckelberg Z-prime Extension with Kinetic Mixing and Milli-Charged Dark Matter From the Hidden Sector,

    D. Feldman, Z. Liu and P. Nath, “The Stueckelberg Z-prime Extension with Kinetic Mixing and Milli-Charged Dark Matter From the Hidden Sector,” Phys. Rev. D75(2007), 115001 [arXiv:hep- ph/0702123 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2007

  47. [47]

    Secluded U(1) below the weak scale

    M. Pospelov, “Secluded U(1) below the weak scale,” Phys. Rev. D80(2009), 095002 [arXiv:0811.1030 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  48. [48]

    Effective field theory,

    H. Georgi, “Effective field theory,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.43(1993), 209-252 doi:10.1146/annurev.ns.43.120193.001233

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.ns.43.120193.001233 1993

  49. [49]

    Electromagnetic Logarithms in B -> X_s l+ l-

    T. Huber, E. Lunghi, M. Misiak and D. Wyler, “Electromagnetic logarithms in ¯B→X sl+l−,” Nucl. Phys. B740(2006), 105-137 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.01.037 [arXiv:hep-ph/0512066 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.01.037 2006

  50. [50]

    TongLectures on Gauge Theory, https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/teaching.html

    D. TongLectures on Gauge Theory, https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/teaching.html

    work page

  51. [51]

    Evaluating the price of tiny kinetic mixing,

    T. Gherghetta, J. Kersten, K. Olive and M. Pospelov, “Evaluating the price of tiny kinetic mixing,” Phys. Rev. D100(2019) no.9, 095001 [arXiv:1909.00696 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2019

  52. [52]

    Fourth order vacuum polarization,

    A. O. G. Kallen and A. Sabry, “Fourth order vacuum polarization,” Kong. Dan. Vid. Sel. Mat. Fys. Med.29(1955) no.17, 1-20 doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00627-7 93

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00627-7 1955

  53. [53]

    On the photon self-energy to three loops in QED,

    F. Forner, C. Nega and L. Tancredi, “On the photon self-energy to three loops in QED,” JHEP03 (2025), 148 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2025)148 [arXiv:2411.19042 [hep-th]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep03(2025)148 2025

  54. [54]

    2007 , editor =

    M. Neubert, “Renormalization Theory and Effective Field Theories,” doi:10.1093/oso/9780198855743.003.0001 [arXiv:1901.06573 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1093/oso/9780198855743.003.0001 1901

  55. [55]

    Standard-Model Prediction ofϵ K with Manifest Quark-Mixing Unitarity,

    J. Brod, M. Gorbahn and E. Stamou, “Standard-Model Prediction ofϵ K with Manifest Quark-Mixing Unitarity,” Phys. Rev. Lett.125(2020) no.17, 171803 [arXiv:1911.06822 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2020

  56. [56]

    Constraining new physics models fromµ→eobservables in bottom-up EFT,

    M. Ardu, S. Davidson and S. Lavignac, “Constraining new physics models fromµ→eobservables in bottom-up EFT,” Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) no.5, 458 [arXiv:2401.06214 [hep-ph]]. 16

    work page arXiv 2024