pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.09166 · v1 · pith:RTJNWUMWnew · submitted 2026-06-08 · ✦ hep-ph

The Muon and Tau Electric Dipole Moments in the B-L Supersymmetric Standard Model

Wen-Hui Zhang , Jin-Lei Yang , Zhao-Feng Ge , Yu-Li Yan , Yin-Jie Zhang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 16:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords B-LSSMelectric dipole momentsmuon EDMtau EDMCP violationsupersymmetrytwo-loop contributions
0
0 comments X

The pith

The B-L supersymmetric standard model generates muon EDMs within Phase II experimental sensitivity and tau EDMs up to 10^{-21} e cm.

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

The paper examines how CP-violating effects in the B-L supersymmetric standard model contribute to the electric dipole moments of the muon and tau. It derives general analytical expressions for these contributions, incorporating two-loop diagrams. Numerical analysis reveals that the conventional mu-term dominates the EDMs, but parameters unique to the B-LSSM also play a notable role. In a large portion of the model's parameter space, the muon EDM is expected to be measurable in the next phase of proposed experiments, and the tau EDM can reach magnitudes around 10^{-21} e cm. Such predictions are relevant because upcoming precision measurements could test this supersymmetric extension.

Core claim

After considering corrections from some two-loop diagrams, the contributions in the B-LSSM to the EDMs of charged leptons are presented analytically in general forms. The numerical results show that the traditional μ-term in most SUSY models makes dominant contributions to d_μ and d_τ, while the B-LSSM specific CPV parameters also induce significant effects. It is found that across a substantial region of the B-LSSM parameter space, d_μ falls well within the projected sensitivity at Phase II of the proposed experiment, and |d_τ| can reach about 10^{-21} e·cm.

What carries the argument

The CP-violating phases associated with the B-LSSM soft terms and the μ parameter, which enter the one- and two-loop Feynman diagrams contributing to lepton EDMs.

If this is right

  • The muon EDM lies within the projected sensitivity of Phase II experiments over substantial parameter space.
  • The magnitude of the tau EDM can reach approximately 10^{-21} e cm.
  • The B-LSSM-specific CP-violating parameters contribute significantly to the EDMs in addition to the standard mu-term.
  • These values are achieved while satisfying existing experimental bounds on the model parameters.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the EDMs are measured at the predicted levels, it would favor B-LSSM over minimal supersymmetric models.
  • Full consistency with dark matter and flavor constraints may restrict the viable parameter space further.
  • Similar calculations could be extended to other leptonic observables or to the electron EDM for comparison.
  • Observation of non-zero tau EDM would point to new sources of CP violation beyond the standard model.

Load-bearing premise

The CP-violating phases and soft-breaking parameters in the B-LSSM can be chosen independently while satisfying constraints from flavor-changing neutral currents and dark matter relic density.

What would settle it

If Phase II experiments measure a muon EDM significantly below the lower bound of the predicted values in the B-LSSM scans, or if the tau EDM is found to be much smaller than 10^{-21} e cm, the claim of substantial viable parameter space would be falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.09166 by Jin-Lei Yang, Wen-Hui Zhang, Yin-Jie Zhang, Yu-Li Yan, Zhao-Feng Ge.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The one-loop level diagrams contributing to the charged lepton EDMs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The considered two-loop level diagrams contributing to the charged lepton EDMs, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The numerical results of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Effects of B-LSSM specific CPV parameters on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Scatter plots of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Recently proposed experiments are expected to significantly improve the measurement sensitivities of the electric dipole moments (EDMs) of muon ($d_\mu$) and tau ($d_\tau$). Given that theoretical predictions for $d_\mu$ and $d_\tau$ typically surpass those for the electron EDM, this work focuses on studying the contributions from the CP-violating (CPV) effects in the B-L supersymmetric (SUSY) standard model (B-LSSM) to $d_\mu$ and $d_\tau$. After considering the corrections from some two-loop diagrams, the contributions in the B-LSSM to the EDMs of charged leptons are presented analytically in general forms. The numerical results show that the traditional $\mu$-term in most SUSY models makes dominant contributions to $d_\mu$ and $d_\tau$, while the B-LSSM specific CPV parameters also induce significant effects. It is found that across a substantial region of the B-LSSM parameter space, $d_\mu$ falls well within the projected sensitivity at Phase II of the proposed experiment, and $|d_\tau|$ can reach about $10^{-21}e\cdot\text{cm}$.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives general analytic expressions for the electric dipole moments of the muon and tau in the B-L supersymmetric standard model (B-LSSM), including contributions from two-loop diagrams. It identifies the conventional μ-term as the dominant source while noting significant additional effects from B-LSSM-specific CP-violating phases and soft-breaking parameters. Numerical scans are presented to show that d_μ lies within the projected sensitivity of Phase II experiments over a substantial region of parameter space and that |d_τ| can reach ~10^{-21} e cm.

Significance. If the numerical results remain valid once all phenomenological constraints are imposed, the work would establish that the B-LSSM can produce observable muon and tau EDMs, furnishing testable predictions for forthcoming experiments and illustrating the phenomenological impact of the model's extra CP-violating phases. The provision of analytic forms that incorporate two-loop corrections is a positive feature that facilitates reproducibility and extension to related models.

major comments (1)
  1. [Numerical results section] Numerical results section (and abstract claim): The headline statement that d_μ falls within projected Phase-II sensitivity 'across a substantial region of the B-LSSM parameter space' is load-bearing. The text does not demonstrate that the scanned values of the B-LSSM CP-violating phases (e.g., those entering the μ-term and B-L gaugino sectors) simultaneously satisfy constraints from FCNC processes such as μ→eγ and b→sγ or from neutralino relic density. Without explicit verification that a non-empty viable region survives these bounds, the quoted numerical reach cannot be regarded as a robust prediction.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'some two-loop diagrams' without naming them; a short parenthetical list or reference to the relevant subsection would improve clarity for readers scanning the abstract.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and for highlighting the need to ensure our numerical claims are robust under additional phenomenological constraints. We address the major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Numerical results section] Numerical results section (and abstract claim): The headline statement that d_μ falls within projected Phase-II sensitivity 'across a substantial region of the B-LSSM parameter space' is load-bearing. The text does not demonstrate that the scanned values of the B-LSSM CP-violating phases (e.g., those entering the μ-term and B-L gaugino sectors) simultaneously satisfy constraints from FCNC processes such as μ→eγ and b→sγ or from neutralino relic density. Without explicit verification that a non-empty viable region survives these bounds, the quoted numerical reach cannot be regarded as a robust prediction.

    Authors: We agree that the current numerical scans, while illustrative of the EDM contributions from the μ-term and B-LSSM-specific CPV phases, do not explicitly impose the full set of constraints from μ→eγ, b→sγ, and neutralino relic density. The parameter choices were guided by basic consistency with SUSY mass bounds and electroweak symmetry breaking, but a dedicated scan incorporating these observables is required to confirm a viable region. In the revised version we will add an updated numerical section that performs a constrained scan: we will require BR(μ→eγ) < 4.2×10^{-13}, BR(b→sγ) within 3σ of the experimental value, and Ωh² ≈ 0.12, while retaining the two-loop EDM expressions. We will then demonstrate that a non-empty subset of the B-LSSM parameter space still yields d_μ within the projected Phase-II reach. The abstract claim will be qualified to reflect this constrained viable region. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Analytic expressions and parameter scans are independent of inputs

full rationale

The paper first derives general analytic forms for the charged-lepton EDMs from the B-LSSM Lagrangian after including specified two-loop diagrams; these expressions are presented as functions of the model parameters and CP-violating phases. Numerical results are then obtained by scanning the parameter space. No equation reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction, no load-bearing uniqueness theorem is imported from self-citation, and no ansatz is smuggled via prior work. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the B-LSSM framework itself, whose additional CP-violating phases and soft terms are treated as free inputs whose values are scanned numerically; no independent evidence for those phases is supplied.

free parameters (1)
  • B-LSSM CP-violating phases and soft-breaking parameters
    The abstract states that these parameters induce significant effects and that substantial regions of their space yield detectable EDMs; they are therefore scanned or chosen by hand.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard supersymmetric model assumptions including R-parity and the existence of the B-L gauge symmetry
    The entire calculation presupposes the B-LSSM particle content and Lagrangian structure.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5754 in / 1366 out tokens · 21610 ms · 2026-06-27T16:25:19.484851+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 33 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    + 2gB(gB +g Y B)(u2 η −u 2 ¯η) i +m2 ˜l + 1 2 v2 1YeY † e , m2 ˜lR = 1 8 h (2g2 1 + 2g2 Y B +g BgY B)(v2 2 −v 2

  2. [2]

    Additionally,Y e is the Yukawa cou- pling matrix of charged leptons

    + 2gB(gB + 2gY B)(u2 ¯η−u 2 η) i +m2 ˜e+ 1 2 v2 1YeY † e .(6) Similar to the MSSM,g 1 andg 2 are the standard gauge coupling constants,v 1, v2 are the VEVs of the Higgs doublets,A l denotes the trilinear coupling constant,µis theµterm cou- pling,m ˜l, m ˜eare the soft SUSY-breaking mass terms. Additionally,Y e is the Yukawa cou- pling matrix of charged le...

  3. [3]

    + 2gB(gB +g Y B)(u2 η −u 2 ¯η) i +m 2 ˜l , m2 ˜νodd,evenR = 1 8 h gBgY B(v2 2 −v 2

  4. [4]

    It is worth noting that all matrix elements of the sneutrinos are real; therefore, they do not significantly affect the numerical results ford µ andd τ

    + 2g2 B(u2 ¯η−u 2 η) i − √ 2 h uηR(AR)− √ 2u2 ηY † RYR i +m2 ˜ν± √ 2u¯ηR(YRµ∗ η).(8) Here, the±signs correspond to CP-odd and CP-even sneutrinos respectively.Rdenotes the real part.Y R is the Majorana coupling matrix of right-handed neutrinos while the Dirac coupling matrix is taken to be zero for simplicity.A ν, A R denote the relevant trilinear coupling...

  5. [5]

    J. H. Christenson, J. W. Cronin, V. L. Fitch, and R. Turlay, Phys. Rev. Lett.13, 138 (1964)

    1964

  6. [6]

    Abeet al.(Belle), Phys

    K. Abeet al.(Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 091802 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0107061

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  7. [7]

    Aubertet al.(BaBar), Phys

    B. Aubertet al.(BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 201802 (2002), arXiv:hep-ex/0207042

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  8. [8]

    Cooke, M

    R. Cooke, M. Pettini, R. A. Jorgenson, M. T. Murphy, and C. C. Steidel, Astrophys. J.781, 31 (2014), arXiv:1308.3240 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  9. [9]

    P. A. R. Adeet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.594, A13 (2016), arXiv:1502.01589 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  10. [10]

    M. E. Pospelov and I. B. Khriplovich, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.53, 638 (1991)

    1991

  11. [11]

    Pospelov and A

    M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. D89, 056006 (2014), arXiv:1311.5537 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  12. [12]

    Yamaguchi and N

    Y. Yamaguchi and N. Yamanaka, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 241802 (2020), arXiv:2003.08195 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  13. [13]

    Yamaguchi and N

    Y. Yamaguchi and N. Yamanaka, Phys. Rev. D103, 013001 (2021), arXiv:2006.00281 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Y. Ema, T. Gao, and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 231801 (2022), arXiv:2202.10524 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    Engel, M

    J. Engel, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and U. van Kolck, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.71, 21 (2013), arXiv:1303.2371 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  16. [16]

    Chupp, P

    T. Chupp, P. Fierlinger, M. Ramsey-Musolf, and J. Singh, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 015001 (2019), arXiv:1710.02504 [physics.atom-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    S. Abel, S. Khalil, and O. Lebedev, Nucl. Phys. B606, 151 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0103320

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  18. [18]

    Ibrahim, Phys

    T. Ibrahim, Phys. Rev. D64, 035009 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0102218. 18

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  19. [19]

    Cesarotti, Q

    C. Cesarotti, Q. Lu, Y. Nakai, A. Parikh, and M. Reece, JHEP05, 059 (2019), arXiv:1810.07736 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    Maiezza and M

    A. Maiezza and M. Nemevˇ sek, Phys. Rev. D90, 095002 (2014), arXiv:1407.3678 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  21. [21]

    Bertolini, A

    S. Bertolini, A. Maiezza, and F. Nesti, Phys. Rev. D101, 035036 (2020), arXiv:1911.09472 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    Altmannshofer, S

    W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori, N. Hamer, and H. H. Patel, Phys. Rev. D102, 115042 (2020), arXiv:2009.01258 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  23. [23]

    S. M. Barr and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. Lett.65, 21 (1990), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 65, 2920 (1990)]

    1990

  24. [24]

    E. J. Chun, J. Kim, and T. Mondal, JHEP12, 068 (2019), arXiv:1906.00612 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  25. [25]

    S. F. King, M. Muhlleitner, R. Nevzorov, and K. Walz, Nucl. Phys. B901, 526 (2015), arXiv:1508.03255 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  26. [26]

    Chang, W.-F

    D. Chang, W.-F. Chang, M. Frank, and W.-Y. Keung, Phys. Rev. D62, 095002 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0004170

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  27. [27]

    Yamanaka, T

    N. Yamanaka, T. Sato, and T. Kubota, Phys. Rev. D85, 117701 (2012), arXiv:1202.0106 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  28. [28]

    Yamanaka, Phys

    N. Yamanaka, Phys. Rev. D86, 075029 (2012), arXiv:1208.4521 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  29. [29]

    Yamanaka, T

    N. Yamanaka, T. Sato, and T. Kubota, Phys. Rev. D87, 115011 (2013), arXiv:1212.6833 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  30. [30]

    Khalil and H

    S. Khalil and H. Okada, Phys. Rev. D79, 083510 (2009), arXiv:0810.4573 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  31. [31]

    Elsayed, S

    A. Elsayed, S. Khalil, and S. Moretti, Phys. Lett. B715, 208 (2012), arXiv:1106.2130 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  32. [32]

    Elsayed, S

    A. Elsayed, S. Khalil, S. Moretti, and A. Moursy, Phys. Rev. D87, 053010 (2013), arXiv:1211.0644 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  33. [33]

    Abdallah, A

    W. Abdallah, A. Hammad, S. Khalil, and S. Moretti, Phys. Rev. D95, 055019 (2017), arXiv:1608.07500 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  34. [34]

    Khalil and S

    S. Khalil and S. Moretti, Rept. Prog. Phys.80, 036201 (2017), arXiv:1503.08162 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  35. [35]

    Delle Rose, S

    L. Delle Rose, S. Khalil, S. J. D. King, S. Kulkarni, C. Marzo, S. Moretti, and C. S. Un, JHEP07, 100 (2018), arXiv:1712.05232 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  36. [36]

    Yang, T.-F

    J.-L. Yang, T.-F. Feng, and H.-B. Zhang, J. Phys. G47, 055004 (2020), arXiv:2003.09781 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  37. [37]

    Yang, H.-B

    J.-L. Yang, H.-B. Zhang, C.-X. Liu, X.-X. Dong, and T.-F. Feng, JHEP08, 086 (2021), 19 arXiv:2104.03542 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    A. A. Abdelalim, B. Das, S. Khalil, and S. Moretti, Nucl. Phys. B985, 116013 (2022), arXiv:2012.04952 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Khalil, LHEP2023, 454 (2023)

    S. Khalil, LHEP2023, 454 (2023)

    2023

  40. [40]

    Yang, T.-F

    J.-L. Yang, T.-F. Feng, S.-K. Cui, C.-X. Liu, W. Li, and H.-B. Zhang, JHEP04, 013 (2020), arXiv:1910.05868 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  41. [41]

    Yang, T.-F

    J.-L. Yang, T.-F. Feng, and H.-B. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 210 (2020), arXiv:2002.09313 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    Inamiet al.(Belle), JHEP04, 110 (2022), arXiv:2108.11543 [hep-ex]

    K. Inamiet al.(Belle), JHEP04, 110 (2022), arXiv:2108.11543 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    G. W. Bennettet al.(Muon (g-2)), Phys. Rev. D80, 052008 (2009), arXiv:0811.1207 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  44. [44]

    T. S. Roussyet al., Science381, adg4084 (2023), arXiv:2212.11841 [physics.atom-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    Abeet al.(Belle-II), (2010), arXiv:1011.0352 [physics.ins-det]

    T. Abeet al.(Belle-II), (2010), arXiv:1011.0352 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  46. [46]

    Altmannshoferet al.(Belle-II), PTEP2019, 123C01 (2019), [Erratum: PTEP 2020, 029201 (2020)], arXiv:1808.10567 [hep-ex]

    W. Altmannshoferet al.(Belle-II), PTEP2019, 123C01 (2019), [Erratum: PTEP 2020, 029201 (2020)], arXiv:1808.10567 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2019

  47. [47]

    Aiharaet al., (2024), arXiv:2406.19421 [hep-ex]

    H. Aiharaet al., (2024), arXiv:2406.19421 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Nucl

    M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A614, 345 (2010), arXiv:0911.4960 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  49. [49]

    Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Chin

    M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Chin. Phys. C44, 040001 (2020), arXiv:1912.05983 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  50. [50]

    Bernreuther, L

    W. Bernreuther, L. Chen, and O. Nachtmann, Phys. Rev. D104, 115002 (2021), arXiv:2108.13106 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  51. [51]

    Donget al.(CEPC Study Group), (2018), arXiv:1811.10545 [hep-ex]

    M. Donget al.(CEPC Study Group), (2018), arXiv:1811.10545 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  52. [52]

    Chenget al.(CEPC Physics Study Group), inSnowmass 2021(2022) arXiv:2205.08553 [hep-ph]

    H. Chenget al.(CEPC Physics Study Group), inSnowmass 2021(2022) arXiv:2205.08553 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  53. [53]

    Bodrov, Int

    D. Bodrov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A39, 2442006 (2024), arXiv:2405.16512 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Crivellin, M

    A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, and J. M. Roney, Phys. Rev. D106, 093007 (2022), arXiv:2111.10378 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    Crivellin, M

    A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, and P. Schmidt-Wellenburg, Phys. Rev. D98, 113002 (2018), arXiv:1807.11484 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  56. [56]

    Adelmannet al., Eur

    A. Adelmannet al., Eur. Phys. J. C85, 622 (2025), arXiv:2501.18979 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Nakai, Y

    Y. Nakai, Y. Shigekami, P. Sun, and Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D113, 035001 (2026), arXiv:2508.05935 [hep-ph]. 20

    arXiv 2026

  58. [58]

    Huang, X.-Y

    Z.-L. Huang, X.-Y. Du, X.-G. He, C.-W. Liu, and Z.-Y. Zou, Chin. Phys. Lett.43, 030201 (2026), arXiv:2510.23348 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    K. Deka, M. Losada, and Y. Nir, JHEP03, 065 (2026), arXiv:2511.21828 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  60. [60]

    Minkowski, Phys

    P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B67, 421 (1977)

    1977

  61. [61]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.43, 1566 (1979)

    1979

  62. [62]

    Yang, Z.-J

    J.-L. Yang, Z.-J. Yang, X.-Y. Yang, H.-B. Zhang, and T.-F. Feng, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 1073 (2023)

    2023

  63. [63]

    Holdom, Phys

    B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B166, 196 (1986)

    1986

  64. [64]

    Matsuoka and D

    T. Matsuoka and D. Suematsu, Prog. Theor. Phys.76, 901 (1986)

    1986

  65. [65]

    del Aguila, J

    F. del Aguila, J. A. Gonzalez, and M. Quiros, Nucl. Phys. B307, 571 (1988)

    1988

  66. [66]

    del Aguila, G

    F. del Aguila, G. D. Coughlan, and M. Quiros, Nucl. Phys. B307, 633 (1988), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 312, 751 (1989)]

    1988

  67. [67]

    Foot and X.-G

    R. Foot and X.-G. He, Phys. Lett. B267, 509 (1991)

    1991

  68. [68]

    K. S. Babu, C. F. Kolda, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D57, 6788 (1998), arXiv:hep- ph/9710441

    arXiv 1998

  69. [69]

    Yang, M.-H

    J.-L. Yang, M.-H. Guo, W.-H. Zhang, H.-B. Zhang, and T.-F. Feng, (2024), arXiv:2406.01926 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    Cheung, O

    K. Cheung, O. C. W. Kong, and J. S. Lee, JHEP06, 020 (2009), arXiv:0904.4352 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  71. [71]

    Yamanaka, Phys

    N. Yamanaka, Phys. Rev. D108, 095004 (2023), arXiv:1212.5800 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  72. [72]

    Altmannshofer, P

    W. Altmannshofer, P. S. B. Dev, A. Soni, and F. Xu, JHEP01, 153 (2026), arXiv:2507.23722 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  73. [73]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  74. [74]

    Carena, A

    M. Carena, A. Daleo, B. A. Dobrescu, and T. M. P. Tait, Phys. Rev. D70, 093009 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0408098

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  75. [75]

    Cacciapaglia, C

    G. Cacciapaglia, C. Csaki, G. Marandella, and A. Strumia, Phys. Rev. D74, 033011 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0604111

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  76. [76]

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2016-045 (2016)

    2016

  77. [77]

    Basso, Adv

    L. Basso, Adv. High Energy Phys.2015, 980687 (2015), arXiv:1504.05328 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  78. [78]

    Yang, T.-F

    J.-L. Yang, T.-F. Feng, S.-M. Zhao, R.-F. Zhu, X.-Y. Yang, and H.-B. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 714 (2018), arXiv:1803.09904 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  79. [79]

    C. S. Un and O. Ozdal, Phys. Rev. D93, 055024 (2016), arXiv:1601.02494 [hep-ph]. 21

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016