Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 90 references

A Compatibility Check: Low-Scale Chiral $U(1)_X$ Theories Vs. $(g-2)_e$ Anomaly

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Three chiral U(1)_X models cannot explain the electron (g−2)_e anomaly without violating existing neutrino-scattering and dark-matter bounds.

desk verdict A clean application of a standard (g-2)_e formula to three chiral U(1)_X benchmarks; the stress-test sign-flip concern is a factor-of-two algebra error, and the real caveats are the Rb-vs-Cs anomaly choice and the thin allowed bands. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06868 v1 pith:HLKUFOSR submitted 2026-08-07 hep-ph

Bibhabasu De This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords chiralU(1)_Xextensionelectron(g-2)_eanomalyZ-primebosoncancellationneutrinoscatteringboundsdarkmatterdirectdetectionexclusionlimits
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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 tests whether three anomaly-free chiral U(1)_X extensions of the Standard Model can explain the observed electron magnetic-moment anomaly (g−2)_e while respecting existing low-scale bounds. Using the one-loop correction from the new Z' boson and Z−Z' mass mixing, it finds the correction is positive everywhere. Taking the Rubidium-based discrepancy as the target, only narrow strips of the $\{M_{Z'}, g_X\}$ plane survive, and those strips are already excluded by neutrino-scattering and dark-matter direct-detection experiments. If the calculation and that discrepancy are both right, all three benchmark models are ruled out as complete new-physics explanations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a chiral U(1)_X extension: the Standard Model gauge group is augmented by an Abelian symmetry under which left- and right-handed fermions carry different $X$-charges, with three right-handed SM-singlet fermions added to cancel anomalies. The SM Higgs must carry $X$-charge, so after spontaneous symmetry breaking the $Z$ and a new $Z'$ state mix through a mass matrix with mixing angle $\theta_X$, producing a tree-level shift in the $\rho$ parameter. The g−2 argument is carried by the one-loop formula $\Delta a_e^\xi = (m_e^2/(12\pi^2 M_\xi^2))(|B_V^\xi|^2 - 5|B_A^\xi|^2)$ from Ref. [88], summed over $\xi = Z, Z'$ with the SM $Z$ contribution subtracted. Because the $Z'$ couplings in these models are vector-dominated, the contribution is positive, decouples like $1/M_{Z'}^2$, and grows with the lepton $X$-charges.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be an independent measurement of the fine-structure constant, or a lattice-QCD prediction of $a_e$ with comparable precision, that decides between the Rubidium and Cesium values of $\Delta a_e$. If the true $\Delta a_e$ is not positive at the $4.8\times 10^{-13}$ level, the electron-anomaly constraint used here collapses. Alternatively, a neutrino-scattering or dark-matter experiment that probes $g_X$ below current limits in the $M_{Z'} \lesssim 10$ GeV window could find a signal in a region the paper leaves open.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for the three benchmark chiral U(1)_X models (labelled BM1, BM2, and BM3), there is no point in the low-scale parameter space $\{M_{Z'}, g_X\}$ that simultaneously satisfies the electron (g−2)_e anomaly and the current detector bounds. The loop contribution $\Delta a_e$ is always positive, so the paper uses the positive Rubidium-based value $\Delta a_e^{\rm Rb} = (4.8 \pm 3.0)\times 10^{-13}$ as the anomaly. The allowed strips pushed toward the $\rho$-parameter limit are all covered by bounds from elastic neutrino-electron scattering, coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering, and dark-matter direct detection. Hence the conclusion: the considered benchmark models are completely ruled out when the (g−2)_e anomaly is combined with existing experimental constraints.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument depends on believing that the Rubidium-based discrepancy $\Delta a_e^{\rm Rb} = (4.8 \pm 3.0)\times 10^{-13}$ is the real electron anomaly; if the true value is the Cesium one or zero, the paper's exclusion does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The three benchmark models BM1, BM2, and BM3 each leave only narrow $\Delta a_e^{\rm Rb}$-allowed strips in the $\{M_{Z'}, g_X\}$ plane, and every such strip is covered by existing neutrino-scattering and dark-matter detector bounds.
  • The constraint is driven by the $Z'$-exchange diagram; the $Z$ contribution after SM subtraction is negative and about $10^4$ times smaller, so the $Z'$ coupling controls the outcome.
  • Because $\Delta a_e$ is always positive, the negative Cesium-based discrepancy cannot be the target; the paper uses the Rubidium value and notes the muon anomaly adds no further constraint.
  • The surviving parameter space can be reopened only if the particle spectrum is augmented or the gauge symmetry extended, or in flavor-specific versions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If future fine-structure-constant measurements move $\Delta a_e$ toward zero, the driving constraint disappears and the allowed strips no longer need to be explained, so the exclusion would weaken or vanish.
  • The same positivity of $\Delta a_e$ means the Cesium-based negative discrepancy could never be fitted by these models, so the choice of the Rubidium value is not optional: it is the only positive target.
  • The pattern suggests a generic tension for leptophilic Abelian extensions: satisfying a positive electron g−2 requires couplings strong enough to be caught by coherent neutrino scattering.
  • Kinetic mixing between $U(1)_X$ and hypercharge is ignored in this calculation; turning it on could alter the $Z'$ couplings and reopen small regions, a testable extension of the paper's setup.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript considers three anomaly-free chiral U(1)_X extensions of the Standard Model, previously introduced in Ref. [73], and tests whether their low-scale parameter space can accommodate the electron anomalous magnetic moment. The setup adds SM-singlet fermions for anomaly cancellation and a complex SM-singlet scalar for U(1)_X breaking. After computing the Z-Z' mass mixing and the chiral couplings of Z and Z' to leptons, the author evaluates the one-loop contribution to (g-2)_e, subtracts the SM Z contribution, and finds that the BSM contribution is positive throughout the parameter space. The paper then uses the positive Rb-based discrepancy, Δa_e^Rb = (4.8 ± 3.0)×10^-13, to define an allowed region in the (M_Z', g_X) plane, and compares it with ρ-parameter and neutrino-scattering/direct-detection bounds from Ref. [73]. The central claim is that no parameter point survives the combination, so the three benchmark models are completely ruled out as standalone explanations of the electron g-2 anomaly.

Significance. If the result holds, it provides a useful, sharply stated negative result for three specific chiral U(1)_X benchmark models and demonstrates a clean complementarity between (g-2)_e and neutrino/detector constraints. The one-loop calculation is standard, the Z_SM subtraction is performed correctly, and the decoupling of Δa_e with increasing M_Z' is physically sensible. A strength is that the analysis is parameter-free in the sense that g_X and M_Z' are scanned rather than fitted, so the positive sign of Δa_e is a prediction of the models. I have also checked the potential sign issue for BM2 and BM3 using Eqs. (12) and (17): with the paper's positive sinθ_X convention, the axial coupling B_A is suppressed by the relation X_L-X_R=X_H, leaving the vector coupling dominant and Δa_e positive. That particular concern therefore does not invalidate the paper. The significance is limited by the conditionality of the experimental anomaly: the Rb-based value is a 1.6σ effect and the Cs-based value has the opposite sign, so the headline 'complete exclusion' should be framed with that caveat.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (18), and Sec. V] The central exclusion is built on selecting Δa_e^Rb = (4.8 ± 3.0)×10^-13, a 1.6σ deviation, while the Cs-based value Δa_e^Cs = (-8.8 ± 3.6)×10^-13 is a 2.4σ deviation of the opposite sign. The paper correctly notes that because the model's Δa_e is always positive, only Rb can be used to define an allowed strip; however, the conclusion 'completely ruled out' in Sec. V and the abstract is too strong unless the Rb determination is assumed to be the true new-physics signal. The authors should either explicitly state that the exclusion is conditional on the Rb-based discrepancy, or discuss why the conclusion is robust to the Rb/Cs ambiguity, e.g., by noting that a positive model contribution cannot accommodate the negative Cs anomaly at all.
  2. [Sec. IV and Fig. 5] The definition of the gray region in Fig. 5 is not quantitative. The caption says the gray region corresponds to 'Δa_e ≠ Δa_e^Rb', but the white strips must represent the region where Δa_e matches Δa_e^Rb within some confidence interval. The manuscript does not state whether the 1σ, 2σ, or 3σ band is used. Because the claim that the white strips are entirely covered by detector bounds is load-bearing, the confidence level should be stated and the robustness of the exclusion to this choice should be demonstrated.
  3. [Sec. III, Eq. (21)] The assertion that |B_V^{Z'}| > sqrt(5)|B_A^{Z'}| over the entire parameter range is central because it determines the sign of Δa_e and hence the choice of Δa_e^Rb over Δa_e^Cs. The manuscript merely states this without proof or detailed numerical support. Given that this property is essential, the authors should provide a short explicit derivation, for instance by using Eq. (12) together with the benchmark relation X_L-X_R=X_H, or show a numerical scan quantifying |B_V|^2 - 5|B_A|^2 over the plotted parameter range.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, text near Table I] There are several typos: 'resepectively' should be 'respectively', and 'osciallaions' should be 'oscillations'. These should be corrected.
  2. [Eq. (12), Sec. II.A] The sign convention for θ_X should be stated explicitly. Since flipping the sign of the U(1)_X gauge field C would flip the relative sign of the two terms in Eq. (17), a short remark clarifying that positive X_H and Eq. (12) define the convention would prevent sign-related confusion.
  3. [Fig. 5 caption] The phrase 'gray shaded region corresponds to Δa_e ≠ Δa_e^Rb' is imprecise; it should read something like 'outside the 1σ (or chosen) allowed band around Δa_e^Rb' to match the actual white-strip representation in the figure.
  4. [Sec. V, Conclusion] The conclusion should be softened or explicitly qualified. Phrases such as 'current experiments falsify the considered ... models' overstate the robustness in view of the 1.6σ Rb anomaly and the unresolved Rb/Cs discrepancy in the electron g-2 prediction; a conditional statement such as 'if the Rb-based discrepancy is confirmed, these models are excluded' would be more accurate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the (g-2)_e calculation is parameter-free, the benchmark charges are explicit inputs, and the exclusions follow from scanning rather than fitting.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the (g-2)_e claim. The benchmark U(1)_X charges in Table II are explicit inputs fixed by the anomaly-cancellation and Yukawa-invariance conditions in Eqs. (1)-(3), not outputs of the (g-2)_e analysis. The one-loop contribution is computed from Eq. (21), a standard result taken from the external reference [88]; no parameter is fitted to the electron anomaly. The couplings entering Eq. (21) are determined by the benchmark charges and the scanned parameters g_X and M_{Z'}, so the resulting Delta a_e is a genuine prediction of the model for each scanned point. The decision to use the Rb-based value Delta a_e^Rb rather than the Cs-based value is explicitly justified by the paper's claim that the computed BSM contribution is positive over the entire parameter space; whether that sign claim is numerically correct is a question of correctness, not circularity, because the sign is not imposed by the experimental input. The exclusion regions in Fig. 5 are formed by intersecting the independently computed (g-2)_e constraint with external inputs: the PDG rho parameter bound and the detector bounds from Ref. [73]. These are imported external constraints, not quantities derived from the same fitted parameters. The paper's self-citations to the author's own earlier work appear only inside broad citation ranges for vector U(1)_X models and carry no load-bearing weight in the derivation of the chiral-model exclusions. No equation or parameter in the central argument is defined in terms of the target result, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. Therefore no circularity is established.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The free parameters are the model-defining charge combinations and the two scanned parameters (g_X, M_Z'). The axioms include the anomaly structure inherited from prior work, the simplifying no-kinetic-mixing choice, the selection of the Rb-based (g-2)_e anomaly, and the valid one-loop approximation. The invented entities are borrowed from Refs. [59,73] rather than newly introduced, but they are necessary ingredients of the analysis.

free parameters (3)
  • U(1)_X charge parameters X_L, η, ζ = BM1: X_L=13, ζ=16; BM2: η=-1/3, ζ=-22; BM3: X_L=1, η=1, ζ=5
    Chosen in Table I to define three benchmark models inherited from Ref. [59]; not fitted to (g-2)_e data.
  • g_X (U(1)_X gauge coupling) = scanned 10^-8 to 10^-2
    Scan parameter in the exclusion plots; no fitting to data.
  • M_Z' (Z' boson mass) = scanned 10^-2 to 10 GeV
    Scan parameter determining the low-scale regime; no fitting to data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Anomaly cancellation conditions in Eq. (1) admit the benchmark solutions of Table I with three SM-singlet right-handed fermions.
    The paper follows Refs. [59,73]; no independent verification of the global consistency of the full model is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Kinetic mixing between U(1)_Y and U(1)_X is zero.
    Stated in Sec. II A 'for simplicity'; radiative mixing could alter the (g-2)_e contribution and the bounds.
  • domain assumption The electron (g-2) anomaly is the Rb-based value Δa_e^Rb = (4.8 ± 3.0)×10^-13.
    The paper uses this value because the computed Δa_e is always positive; the Cs-based value has opposite sign and would yield no constraint.
  • standard math The one-loop formula Eq. (21) with O(R_eξ) is valid for M_ξ ≥ 10^-2 GeV.
    Borrowed from Ref. [88]; valid because R_eξ ≤ 2.6×10^-3 in the scanned range.
invented entities (3)
  • SM-singlet right-handed fermions ψ_k (k=1,2,3)
    purpose: Cancel the U(1)_X gauge and mixed anomalies; the lightest can be dark matter
    Introduced in Ref. [59]; the present paper does not provide independent evidence for their existence.
  • Complex SM-singlet scalar Φ
    purpose: Breaking the U(1)_X symmetry and giving masses to the BSM fermions
    Needed to separate the U(1)_X breaking scale from the electroweak scale; no direct evidence.
  • Gauge boson Z' (mass eigenstate of U(1)_X mixing with Z)
    purpose: Mediates new neutral currents and generates the (g-2)_e loop correction
    The new interaction carrier in the model; no direct observation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Compatibility Check: Low-Scale Chiral $U(1)_X$ Theories Vs. $(g-2)_e$ Anomaly." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HLKUFOSR

@misc{pith2026260806868,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Compatibility Check: Low-Scale Chiral $U(1)_X$ Theories Vs. $(g-2)_e$ Anomaly},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HLKUFOSR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06868}
}
abstract

Chiral Abelian extensions of the Standard Model (SM) gauge group may offer significant new possibilities for explaining various Beyond the Standard Model (BSM) phenomena within a common framework. The models being less explored in the literature only a few experimental constraints have been reported to date, leaving a major portion of the parameter space available for the New Physics (NP) phenomenology. The present paper considers three anomaly-free chiral Abelian extensions and examines the compatibility of the corresponding low-scale parameter spaces with the observed $(g-2)_e$ anomaly. The analysis results in stringent exclusion limits, completely ruling out the considered chiral models when used in complementarity with the existing experimental bounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06868 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) shows the variation of ρ parameter as a function of gX with the MZ ′ being fixed at 1 GeV. The three colors violet, green, and brown symbolize XH = 3 (BM1), XH = 13 (BM2), and XH = 2 (BM3), respectively. The global fit to the EW precision data results in ρ = 1.00038 ± 0.00060(3σ) [65]. Thus, the red shade in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. One-loop correction to the ¯e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. depicts the variation of ∆ae as a function of MZ ′ for the three BMs. The colors blue, red, 10-22 10-20 10-18 10-16 10-14 10-12 10-10 10-8 10-2 10-1 100 101 ∆ ae MZ′ [GeV] gX = 10-7 gX = 10-5 gX = 10-3 10-22 10-20 10-18 10-16 10-14 10-12 10-10 10-8 10-2 10-1 100 101 BM1 (a) 10-24 10-22 10-20 10-18 10-16 10-14 10-12 10-10 10-2 10-1 100 101 ∆ ae MZ′ [GeV] gX = 10-7 gX = 10-5 gX = 10-3 10-24 10-22 10-20 10-18 10-16 10-… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the variation of ∆ae with gX for MZ ′ = 1 GeV. The considered BMs, BM1, BM2, and BM3, have been represented in red, blue, and green, respectively. gX has been varied from 10−8 to 10−2 leading to a large variation in ∆ae. Further, one can explicitly understand the…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Exclusion limits on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [88]

    General Remarks on the One-loop Contributions to the Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment

    B. Yu and S. Zhou,General remarks on the one-loop contributions to the muon anomalous magnetic moment, Nucl. Phys. B975(2022) 115674, [2106.11291]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  2. [73]

    Majumdar, D

    A. Majumdar, D. K. Papoulias, H. Prajapati and R. Srivastava,Constraining low scale dark hypercharge symmetry at spallation, reactor, and dark matter direct detection experiments,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 073006, [2411.04197]

    arXiv 2025

  3. [1]

    Aad et al.,Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,Phys

    ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al.,Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,Phys. Lett. B716(2012) 1–29, [1207.7214]

    arXiv 2012

  4. [2]

    Chatrchyan et al.,Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC,Phys

    CMS collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al.,Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC,Phys. Lett. B716(2012) 30–61, [1207.7235]

    arXiv 2012

  5. [3]

    Aad et al.,Measurement of the W-boson mass and width with the ATLAS detector using proton–proton collisions at√s=7TeV,Eur

    ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al.,Measurement of the W-boson mass and width with the ATLAS detector using proton–proton collisions at√s=7TeV,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 1309, [2403.15085]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [4]

    Chekhovsky et al.,High-precision measurement of the W boson mass with the CMS experiment,Nature652(2026) 321–327, [2412.13872]

    CMS collaboration, V . Chekhovsky et al.,High-precision measurement of the W boson mass with the CMS experiment,Nature652(2026) 321–327, [2412.13872]

    arXiv 2026

  7. [5]

    Aaij et al.,Measurement of the Z-Boson Mass,Phys

    LHCBcollaboration, R. Aaij et al.,Measurement of the Z-Boson Mass,Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025) 161802, [2505.15582]

    arXiv 2025

  8. [6]

    Aliberti et al.,The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model: an update,Phys

    R. Aliberti et al.,The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model: an update,Phys. Rept. 1143(2025) 1–158, [2505.21476]

    arXiv 2025

Show all 90 references
  1. [7]

    J. H. Oort,The force exerted by the stellar system in the direction perpendicular to the galactic plane and some related problems,Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of the Netherlands6(Aug., 1932) 249

    1932

  2. [8]

    Zwicky,On the Masses of Nebulae and of Clusters of Nebulae,Astrophys

    F. Zwicky,On the Masses of Nebulae and of Clusters of Nebulae,Astrophys. J.86(1937) 217–246

    1937

  3. [9]

    R. B. Metcalf, L. A. Moustakas, A. J. Bunker and I. R. Parry,Spectroscopic gravitational lensing and limits on the dark matter substructure in Q2237+0305,Astrophys. J.607(2004) 43–59, [astro-ph/0309738]

    2004 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Aghanim et al.,Planck 2018 results

    PLANCKcollaboration, N. Aghanim et al.,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A6, [1807.06209]. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Fukuda et al.,Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos,Phys

    SUPER-KAMIOKANDEcollaboration, Y . Fukuda et al.,Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos,Phys. Rev. Lett.81(1998) 1562–1567, [hep-ex/9807003]

    1998 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Langacker,The Physics of Heavy Z ′ Gauge Bosons,Rev

    P. Langacker,The Physics of Heavy Z ′ Gauge Bosons,Rev. Mod. Phys.81(2009) 1199–1228, [0801.1345]

    2009 arXiv

  7. [13]

    R. W. Robinett and J. L. Rosner,Mass Scales in Grand Unified Theories,Phys. Rev. D26(1982) 2396

    1982

  8. [14]

    Langacker, R

    P. Langacker, R. W. Robinett and J. L. Rosner,New Heavy Gauge Bosons in p p and p anti-p Collisions,Phys. Rev. D30(1984) 1470. 14

    1984

  9. [15]

    Antoniadis,A Possible new dimension at a few TeV,Phys

    I. Antoniadis,A Possible new dimension at a few TeV,Phys. Lett. B246(1990) 377–384

    1990

  10. [16]

    Appelquist, H.-C

    T. Appelquist, H.-C. Cheng and B. A. Dobrescu,Bounds on universal extra dimensions,Phys. Rev. D64(2001) 035002, [hep-ph/0012100]

    2001 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Goodsell and A

    M. Goodsell and A. Ringwald,Light Hidden-Sector U(1)s in String Compactifications,Fortsch. Phys.58(2010) 716–720, [1002.1840]

    2010 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Foot,New Physics From Electric Charge Quantization?,Mod

    R. Foot,New Physics From Electric Charge Quantization?,Mod. Phys. Lett. A6(1991) 527–530

    1991

  13. [19]

    X.-G. He, G. C. Joshi, H. Lew and R. R. V olkas,Simplest Z-prime model,Phys. Rev. D44(1991) 2118–2132

    1991

  14. [20]

    R. Foot, X. G. He, H. Lew and R. R. V olkas,Model for a light Z-prime boson,Phys. Rev. D50(1994) 4571–4580, [hep-ph/9401250]

    1994 arXiv

  15. [21]

    R. N. Mohapatra and R. E. Marshak,PHENOMENOLOGY OF NEUTRON OSCILLATIONS,Phys. Lett. B94 (1980) 183. [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 96, 444–444 (1980)]

    1980

  16. [22]

    Ma,Gauged B - 3L(tau) and radiative neutrino masses,Phys

    E. Ma,Gauged B - 3L(tau) and radiative neutrino masses,Phys. Lett. B433(1998) 74–81, [hep-ph/9709474]

    1998 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Appelquist, B

    T. Appelquist, B. A. Dobrescu and A. R. Hopper,Nonexotic Neutral Gauge Bosons,Phys. Rev. D68(2003) 035012, [hep-ph/0212073]

    2003 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Lee and E

    H.-S. Lee and E. Ma,Gauged B−x iL origin of R Parity and its implications,Phys. Lett. B688(2010) 319–322, [1001.0768]

    2010 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Bonilla, T

    C. Bonilla, T. Modak, R. Srivastava and J. W. F. Valle,U(1) B3−3Lµ gauge symmetry as a simple description of b→s anomalies,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 095002, [1705.00915]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Alonso, P

    R. Alonso, P. Cox, C. Han and T. T. Yanagida,Flavoured B−L local symmetry and anomalous rare B decays, Phys. Lett. B774(2017) 643–648, [1705.03858]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [27]

    P. J. Fox and E. Poppitz,Leptophilic Dark Matter,Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 083528, [0811.0399]

    2009 arXiv

  22. [28]

    J. Kopp, V . Niro, T. Schwetz and J. Zupan,DAMA/LIBRA and leptonically interacting Dark Matter,Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 083502, [0907.3159]

    2009 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Essig, J

    R. Essig, J. Mardon and T. V olansky,Direct Detection of Sub-GeV Dark Matter,Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 076007, [1108.5383]

    2012 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Banerjee, M

    S. Banerjee, M. Mitra and M. Spannowsky,Searching for a Heavy Higgs boson in a Higgs-portal B-L Model, Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 055013, [1506.06415]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Biswas, S

    A. Biswas, S. Choubey and S. Khan,Neutrino Mass, Dark Matter and Anomalous Magnetic Moment of Muon in a U(1)Lµ−Lτ Model,JHEP09(2016) 147, [1608.04194]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Hasegawa, N

    T. Hasegawa, N. Okada and O. Seto,Gravitational waves from the minimal gauged U(1) B−L model,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 095039, [1904.03020]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Blanco, M

    C. Blanco, M. Escudero, D. Hooper and S. J. Witte,Z ′ mediated WIMPs: dead, dying, or soon to be detected?, JCAP11(2019) 024, [1907.05893]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [34]

    B. De,Exploring the null results in the direct detection experiments,(g−2) ℓ and neutrino mass in an extended U(1) Lµ−Lτ model constrained through the Z→ℓ +ℓ− decays,JHEP12(2025) 075, [2509.10939]

    2025

  29. [35]

    Okada and O

    N. Okada and O. Seto,Higgs portal dark matter in the minimal gauged U(1) B−L model,Phys. Rev. D82(2010) 023507, [1002.2525]

    2010 arXiv

  30. [36]

    Okada, Y

    N. Okada, Y . Orikasa and T. Yamada,Minimal Flavor Violation in the Minimal U(1)B−L Model and Resonant Leptogenesis,Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 076003, [1207.1510]. 15

    2012 arXiv

  31. [37]

    De,The revival of U(1) Le−Lµ : a natural solution for(g−2) µ with a sub-GeV dark matter,Eur

    B. De,The revival of U(1) Le−Lµ : a natural solution for(g−2) µ with a sub-GeV dark matter,Eur. Phys. J. C85 (2025) 81, [2410.04399]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [38]

    D. K. Ghosh, P. Ghosh, S. Jeesun and R. Srivastava,N eff at CMB challenges U(1)X light gauge boson scenarios, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 075032, [2404.10077]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [39]

    Ota and W

    T. Ota and W. Rodejohann,Breaking of L(mu) - L(tau) Flavor Symmetry, Lepton Flavor Violation and Leptogenesis,Phys. Lett. B639(2006) 322–331, [hep-ph/0605231]

    2006 arXiv

  34. [40]

    Binetruy, S

    P. Binetruy, S. Lavignac, S. T. Petcov and P. Ramond,Quasidegenerate neutrinos from an Abelian family symmetry,Nucl. Phys. B496(1997) 3–23, [hep-ph/9610481]

    1997 arXiv

  35. [41]

    S. Baek, N. G. Deshpande, X. G. He and P. Ko,Muon anomalous g-2 and gauged L(muon) - L(tau) models, Phys. Rev. D64(2001) 055006, [hep-ph/0104141]

    2001 arXiv

  36. [42]

    C. S. Lam,A 2-3 symmetry in neutrino oscillations,Phys. Lett. B507(2001) 214–218, [hep-ph/0104116]

    2001 arXiv

  37. [43]

    Choubey and W

    S. Choubey and W. Rodejohann,A Flavor symmetry for quasi-degenerate neutrinos: L(mu) - L(tau),Eur. Phys. J. C40(2005) 259–268, [hep-ph/0411190]

    2005 arXiv

  38. [44]

    Wang and Z.-L

    W. Wang and Z.-L. Han,U(1) B−3Lα extended scotogenic models and single-zero textures of neutrino mass matrices,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 115040, [1911.00819]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [45]

    Barman, P

    B. Barman, P. Ghosh, A. Ghoshal and L. Mukherjee,Shedding flavor on dark via freeze-in: U(1) B−3Li gauged extensions,JCAP08(2022) 049, [2112.12798]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [46]

    Coloma, M

    P. Coloma, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia and M. Maltoni,Neutrino oscillation constraints on U(1) ′ models: from non-standard interactions to long-range forces,JHEP01(2021) 114, [2009.14220]. [Erratum: JHEP 11, 115 (2022)]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [47]

    Farzan,A model for large non-standard interactions of neutrinos leading to the LMA-Dark solution,Phys

    Y . Farzan,A model for large non-standard interactions of neutrinos leading to the LMA-Dark solution,Phys. Lett. B748(2015) 311–315, [1505.06906]

    2015 arXiv

  42. [48]

    De Romeri, D

    V . De Romeri, D. K. Papoulias and C. A. Ternes,Light vector mediators at direct detection experiments,JHEP 05(2024) 165, [2402.05506]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [49]

    M. B. Wise and Y . Zhang,Lepton Flavorful Fifth Force and Depth-dependent Neutrino Matter Interactions, JHEP06(2018) 053, [1803.00591]

    2018 arXiv

  44. [50]

    Ardu and F

    M. Ardu and F. Kirk,A viable L e−L µ model withµ→e violation,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 394, [2205.02254]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [51]

    Dasgupta, P

    A. Dasgupta, P. S. B. Dev, T. Han, R. Padhan, S. Wang and K. Xie,Searching for heavy leptophilic Z′: from lepton colliders to gravitational waves,JHEP12(2023) 011, [2308.12804]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [52]

    Asai,Predictions for the neutrino parameters in the minimal model extended by linear combination of U(1)Le−Lµ , U(1)Lµ−Lτ and U(1)B−L gauge symmetries,Eur

    K. Asai,Predictions for the neutrino parameters in the minimal model extended by linear combination of U(1)Le−Lµ , U(1)Lµ−Lτ and U(1)B−L gauge symmetries,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 76, [1907.04042]

    2020 arXiv

  47. [53]

    Borah, A

    D. Borah, A. Dasgupta and D. Mahanta,TeV scale resonant leptogenesis with L µ−L τ gauge symmetry in light of the muon g-2,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 075006, [2106.14410]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [54]

    Cai, Y .-P

    C. Cai, Y .-P. Zeng and H.-H. Zhang,Cancellation mechanism of dark matter direct detection in Higgs-portal and vector-portal models,JHEP01(2022) 117, [2109.11499]

    2022 arXiv

  49. [55]

    He, J.-Q

    R.-Y . He, J.-Q. Huang, J.-Y . Xu, F.-X. Yang, Z.-L. Han and F.-L. Shao,Heavy neutral leptons in gauged U(1)Lµ−Lτ at muon collider*,Chin. Phys. C48(2024) 093102, [2401.14687]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [56]

    Koechler and M

    J. Koechler and M. Di Mauro,Leptophilic dark matter in U(1) Li−L j models: A solution to the Fermi-LAT Galactic Center excess consistent with cosmological and laboratory observations,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 16 115016, [2508.02775]

    2025

  51. [57]

    De and A

    B. De and A. Dey,Constraining the heavy leptophilic neutral gauge bosons through the Z→ℓ +ℓ−, W±→ℓ±νℓ, and h→ℓ +ℓ− decays,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 115021, [2603.25589]

    2026 arXiv

  52. [58]

    Bauer, P

    M. Bauer, P. Foldenauer and J. Jaeckel,Hunting All the Hidden Photons,JHEP07(2018) 094, [1803.05466]

    2018 arXiv

  53. [59]

    Prajapati and R

    H. Prajapati and R. Srivastava,Dark hypercharge symmetry,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 055024, [2411.02512]

    2026

  54. [60]

    S. L. Adler,Axial vector vertex in spinor electrodynamics,Phys. Rev.177(1969) 2426–2438

    1969

  55. [61]

    W. A. Bardeen,Anomalous Ward identities in spinor field theories,Phys. Rev.184(1969) 1848–1857

    1969

  56. [62]

    J. S. Bell and R. Jackiw,A PCAC puzzle:π 0→γγin theσmodel,Nuovo Cim. A60(1969) 47–61

    1969

  57. [63]

    Delbourgo and A

    R. Delbourgo and A. Salam,The gravitational correction to pcac,Phys. Lett. B40(1972) 381–382

    1972

  58. [64]

    Alvarez-Gaume and E

    L. Alvarez-Gaume and E. Witten,Gravitational Anomalies,Nucl. Phys. B234(1984) 269

    1984

  59. [65]

    Navas et al.,Review of particle physics,Phys

    PARTICLEDATAGROUPcollaboration, S. Navas et al.,Review of particle physics,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 030001

    2024

  60. [66]

    Deniz et al.,Measurement of Nu(e)-bar -Electron Scattering Cross-Section with a CsI(Tl) Scintillating Crystal Array at the Kuo-Sheng Nuclear Power Reactor,Phys

    TEXONO collaboration, M. Deniz et al.,Measurement of Nu(e)-bar -Electron Scattering Cross-Section with a CsI(Tl) Scintillating Crystal Array at the Kuo-Sheng Nuclear Power Reactor,Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 072001, [0911.1597]

    2010 arXiv

  61. [67]

    Akimov et al.,Measurement of the Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering Cross Section on CsI by COHERENT,Phys

    COHERENT collaboration, D. Akimov et al.,Measurement of the Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering Cross Section on CsI by COHERENT,Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022) 081801, [2110.07730]

    2022 arXiv

  62. [68]

    Akimov et al.,First Measurement of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering on Argon,Phys

    COHERENT collaboration, D. Akimov et al.,First Measurement of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering on Argon,Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021) 012002, [2003.10630]

    2021 arXiv

  63. [69]

    Aprile et al.,Search for New Physics in Electronic Recoil Data from XENONnT, Phys

    XENON collaboration, E. Aprile et al.,Search for New Physics in Electronic Recoil Data from XENONnT, Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022) 161805, [2207.11330]

    2022 arXiv

  64. [70]

    Aalbers et al.,Search for new physics in low-energy electron recoils from the first LZ exposure,Phys

    LZ collaboration, J. Aalbers et al.,Search for new physics in low-energy electron recoils from the first LZ exposure,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 072006, [2307.15753]

    2023 arXiv

  65. [71]

    Zeng et al.,Exploring New Physics with PandaX-4T Low Energy Electronic Recoil Data,Phys

    PANDAX collaboration, X. Zeng et al.,Exploring New Physics with PandaX-4T Low Energy Electronic Recoil Data,Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) 041001, [2408.07641]

    2025 arXiv

  66. [72]

    Aalbers et al.,Solar neutrino detection sensitivity in DARWIN via electron scattering,Eur

    DARWIN collaboration, J. Aalbers et al.,Solar neutrino detection sensitivity in DARWIN via electron scattering,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 1133, [2006.03114]

    2020 arXiv

  67. [74]

    Aoyama, T

    T. Aoyama, T. Kinoshita and M. Nio,Theory of the Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Electron,Atoms7 (2019) 28

    2019

  68. [75]

    X. Fan, T. G. Myers, B. A. D. Sukra and G. Gabrielse,Measurement of the Electron Magnetic Moment,Phys. Rev. Lett.130(2023) 071801, [2209.13084]

    2023 arXiv

  69. [76]

    MUON G-2 collaboration, D. P. Aguillard et al.,Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 127 ppb,Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025) 101802, [2506.03069]

    2025

  70. [77]

    Abdallah et al.,Study of tau-pair production in photon-photon collisions at LEP and limits on the anomalous electromagnetic moments of the tau lepton,Eur

    DELPHI collaboration, J. Abdallah et al.,Study of tau-pair production in photon-photon collisions at LEP and limits on the anomalous electromagnetic moments of the tau lepton,Eur. Phys. J. C35(2004) 159–170, [hep-ex/0406010]. 17

    2004 arXiv

  71. [78]

    H. K. Prajapati and R. Srivastava,Light and Heavy Z ′ from Flavored Chiral U(1)X Gauge Symmetries: Purely Axial and Mixed Vector-Axial Couplings,2603.27157

  72. [79]

    Batra, F

    A. Batra, F. R. Joaquim, H. Prajapati and R. Srivastava,Flavor specific chiral U(1) X framework for explaining the ATOMKI anomaly,Phys. Rev. D114(2026) 015042, [2604.22278]

    2026 arXiv

  73. [80]

    Barger, P

    V . Barger, P. Langacker, M. McCaskey, M. Ramsey-Musolf and G. Shaughnessy,Complex Singlet Extension of the Standard Model,Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 015018, [0811.0393]

    2009 arXiv

  74. [81]

    Altarelli, R

    G. Altarelli, R. Casalbuoni, S. De Curtis, N. Di Bartolomeo, F. Feruglio and R. Gatto,Improved bounds on extended gauge models from new LEP data,Phys. Lett. B263(1991) 459–465

    1991

  75. [82]

    M. P. Bento, H. E. Haber and J. P. Silva,Tree-level Unitarity in SU(2) L×U(1) Y×U(1) Y′ Models,JHEP10 (2023) 083, [2306.01836]

    2023 arXiv

  76. [83]

    Morel, Z

    L. Morel, Z. Yao, P. Clad ´e and S. Guellati-Kh´elifa,Determination of the fine-structure constant with an accuracy of 81 parts per trillion,Nature588(2020) 61–65

    2020

  77. [84]

    R. H. Parker, C. Yu, W. Zhong, B. Estey and H. M ¨uller,Measurement of the fine-structure constant as a test of the Standard Model,Science360(2018) 191, [1812.04130]

    2018 arXiv

  78. [85]

    Borsanyi et al.,Hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the anomalous magnetic moments of leptons from first principles,Phys

    BUDAPEST-MARSEILLE-WUPPERTALcollaboration, S. Borsanyi et al.,Hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the anomalous magnetic moments of leptons from first principles,Phys. Rev. Lett.121(2018) 022002, [1711.04980]

    2018 arXiv

  79. [86]

    Giusti and S

    D. Giusti and S. Simula,Lepton anomalous magnetic moments in Lattice QCD+QED,PoSLA TTICE2019 (2019) 104, [1910.03874]

    2019 arXiv

  80. [87]

    Giusti and S

    D. Giusti and S. Simula,Ratios of the hadronic contributions to the lepton g−2from Lattice QCD+QED simulations,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 054503, [2003.12086]

    2020 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Aad et al.,Search for high-mass dilepton resonances using 139 fb −1 of pp collision data collected at√s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,Phys

    ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al.,Search for high-mass dilepton resonances using 139 fb −1 of pp collision data collected at√s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,Phys. Lett. B796(2019) 68–87, [1903.06248]

    2019 arXiv

  82. [90]

    CMS collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al.,Search for resonant and nonresonant new phenomena in high-mass dilepton final states at√s = 13 TeV,JHEP07(2021) 208, [2103.02708]. 18

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.