Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 58 references

Extension of the Standard Model with Chern-Simons type interaction

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that in the minimal Chern-Simons extension of the Standard Model, the loop-induced decay of the new vector boson into same-flavour fermion pairs cannot be predicted, because the divergences in the one-loop diagrams have…

desk verdict A candid proceedings-style status report: no new calculation, but a clear and honest statement of the same-flavour divergence bottleneck, whose truth rests entirely on the authors' own unreproduced unitary-gauge calculation. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18691 v1 pith:4H2DJ2AH submitted 2024-12-24 hep-ph

V. Gorkavenko , I. Hrynchak , O. Khasai , M. Tsarenkova This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords Chern-Simonsportallong-livedparticlesintensityfrontiersame-flavourdivergencesloop-inducedcouplingsStueckelbergvectorbosonStandardModelextensionmesondecays
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 examines a Standard Model extension in which a new massive vector boson, the Chern-Simons (CS) boson, couples only to electroweak gauge fields through an effective Chern-Simons interaction and not directly to fermions. The paper's central claim is that the loop-induced coupling of this boson to fermions of the same flavour cannot be computed: the loop diagrams contain ultraviolet divergences that cannot be absorbed by counterterms, because the starting Lagrangian has no direct CS-boson–fermion term. By contrast, the coupling to quarks of different flavours is finite and had already been used to predict meson-decay production channels. The authors conclude that the dominant decay modes needed for long-lived-particle searches, especially decays into lepton pairs, are not available, so the sensitivity regions for such searches cannot be derived from the minimal model. The message for the field is that resolving the same-flavour divergence must come first, either through a non-unitary-gauge calculation or through an extended effective field theory.

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective Chern-Simons interaction $L_{\rm CS} = c_z \epsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho} X^\mu Z^\nu \partial^\lambda Z^\rho + c_\gamma \epsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho} X^\mu Z^\nu \partial^\lambda A^\rho + c_w \epsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho} X^\mu W^-_\nu \partial^\lambda W^+_\rho + \mathrm{h.c.}$, along with the Stueckelberg nature of the field $X_\mu$. The argument is carried by the divergence structure of the one-loop diagrams: for different-flavour quarks, the divergent parts are proportional to off-diagonal pieces of $V^+V$ and vanish by CKM unitarity, whereas for same-flavour fermions the cancellation fails in unitary gauge. The machinery therefore is the comparison between two classes of loop diagrams, one with $W$ bosons only and one with $Z$, photon, and Higgs loops, which decides whether an effective Lagrangian can be written down.

What would settle it

Recompute the same-flavour loop diagrams of Fig. 3 in a non-unitary gauge, or with the full Stueckelberg structure and all possible counterterms built from Lagrangian (3); if the ultraviolet divergences cancel for some relation among $c_w$, $c_\gamma$, and $c_z$, the paper's central claim is wrong. A corrected re-derivation of the unitary-gauge calculation that finds a missed diagram or sign error would also settle it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a negative result: in the minimal Chern-Simons portal defined by Lagrangian (3), the effective interaction of the CS boson with same-flavour fermions is not a well-defined, finite observable. In the unitary-gauge calculation, the sum of all relevant loop diagrams still leaves ultraviolet divergences, and because the initial Lagrangian contains no direct $X_\mu$-fermion term, there is no counterterm available to remove them. Only the different-flavour quark interaction, which arises exclusively through $W$-boson loops and becomes finite after the CKM matrix removes the divergent non-diagonal part, is under control. The paper explicitly leaves open the possibility that a non-unitary gauge, additional terms in the Lagrangian, or an effective-field-theory treatment with new couplings could cure the problem, but with the current Lagrangian the same-flavour decay rates cannot be predicted.

Load-bearing premise

The entire conclusion rests on the earlier unitary-gauge calculation that the paper does not reproduce; if that calculation contains a sign error, misses a diagram, or would be rendered finite in another gauge or with different counterterms, the central claim falls.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Same-flavour decay modes of the CS boson, in particular $X \to e^+e^-$, $X \to \mu^+\mu^-$, and same-flavour quark channels, have no predicted width in the minimal model, so searches cannot use them to set or claim limits.
  • Sensitivity regions of intensity-frontier experiments for GeV-scale CS bosons cannot be computed while only production from different-flavour meson decays is known; the dominant decay branch is missing.
  • The model must be extended, with either new effective operators or extra terms in Lagrangian (3) that act as counterterms, introducing new couplings beyond $c_w$, $c_\gamma$, and $c_z$ and making the phenomenology model-dependent.
  • A successful non-unitary-gauge calculation would overturn the obstruction and restore the minimal model's predictive power for same-flavour decays.
  • Until the divergence problem is solved, the only calculable CS-boson signals are hadronic ones from $b \to s + X$, $b \to d + X$, and $s \to d + X$ transitions, which likely do not cover the channels where long-lived-particle detectors are most sensitive.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the divergence is a gauge artifact, the minimal model is saved; a decisive check is to repeat the Fig. 3 sum in a non-unitary gauge, and the paper itself names this as the open route.
  • A consistent UV completion with additional heavy fermions would generate finite same-flavour couplings through anomaly-type terms, making the low-energy divergence a sign that the effective Lagrangian (3) is incomplete rather than that the model is dead.
  • Absent a lepton-pair width, existing experimental bounds on light vectors from dilepton resonance searches cannot be imported into this model; the CS boson's allowed parameter region may be much wider than currently assumed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper considers a Standard Model extension with a massive Stueckelberg vector boson X (the Chern-Simons boson) that couples to electroweak gauge bosons through dimension-four Chern-Simons terms (Eq. (3)) after electroweak symmetry breaking, with no tree-level coupling to SM fermions. It collects existing constraints on the couplings cγ, cw, cZ from W/Z decay widths and LEP single-photon searches (Section 2), reviews the loop-induced effective interaction with different-flavour quarks (Section 3), and reports that the corresponding same-flavour couplings (e.g., X to e+e-) suffer unremovable divergences in the unitary gauge, citing a previous paper by nearly the same authors [59] (Section 4). The final section discusses consequences for long-lived-particle searches and states that, because same-flavour decay modes cannot be computed, sensitivity regions for intensity-frontier experiments cannot currently be derived.

Significance. If the Section 4 non-removability claim were established, it would identify a genuine obstruction to testing this minimal model through same-flavour decay channels, which is an important structural result for this class of Chern-Simons portal models. The paper is also useful as a concise compilation of constraints and of the flavor-changing effective interactions from the previous literature, and it is commendably explicit about the open status of the same-flavour problem. However, the central claim is not derived or independently checked in this manuscript; it is taken from self-cited reference [59] and is admitted to be provisional because only the unitary gauge was considered. The paper therefore provides no new calculational evidence for its main obstacle, and the Section 5 conclusion that sensitivity regions cannot be computed is conditional on that unreproduced result.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, paragraph starting 'As was shown in [58]'] The load-bearing assertion that 'using Lagrangian (3), we can not eliminate the divergences in the effective interaction of the CS bosons with fermions of the same flavours' is not derived in this paper; it is imported verbatim from the self-cited work [59]. This is a universal negative statement over all possible diagrams, gauge choices, and counterterm structures within Lagrangian (3), so it requires a complete calculation or an independent check. The paper itself concedes that the conclusion is gauge-dependent ('We can only hope that, perhaps, further consideration of this problem in non-unitary gauge will help solve the problem of divergences'). Given that Section 5's claim that no sensitivity region can be computed for same-flavour final states rests entirely on this result, the manuscript should either reproduce the calculation, supply an independent verification, or explicitly reframe the statement as an open conjecture rather than an established result.
  2. [Section 5, paragraph 'As for the decay channels'] The statement that 'even the decays into lepton pairs are not yet available for calculation' is only true under the contested non-removability result of [59]. If that result is a gauge artifact or contains an error, the decays X -> e+e- and X -> mu+mu- would be computable, and the paper's central phenomenological conclusion would collapse. The manuscript should make the logical dependence explicit and should quantify the impact: for example, by stating that if the divergence is cancelled in a non-unitary gauge, the sensitivity-region calculation would be restored and only the parameters cγ, cZ, and cw would be needed. As it stands, the argument is circular in the sense that the impossibility of computing same-flavour decay modes is both the premise and the conclusion of the Section 5 discussion.
  3. [Section 4, final paragraph] The paragraph listing possible resolutions of the divergence problem (non-unitary gauge, effective field theory operators, additional terms in the Lagrangian) actually undermines the categorical phrasing 'we can not eliminate the divergences'. Within an EFT framework one can always introduce local counterterms that absorb the divergences at the price of new couplings; what is true is that the minimal renormalizable (or unitary-gauge) Lagrangian (3) does not provide such counterterms. The paper should state the claim with this qualification, and should specify exactly which operator basis would be needed if the minimal model fails. Without such clarification, the difference between 'non-renormalizable in the minimal model' and 'incalculable in principle' is blurred.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References, [44]] Reference [44] is corrupted: the title appears as 'Seren10.1007/JHEP06(2018)004dipity in dark photon searches' and should be 'Serendipity in dark photon searches'; the DOI is also malformed and should be 10.1007/JHEP06(2018)004.
  2. [Introduction, list of facilities] The detector names 'F ACET' and 'F ASER' appear with artificial spaces; they should be 'FACET' and 'FASER' (the latter is also the standard acronym).
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (6)] The definition 'x = MW/MX' is followed in the text by limits written as 'MX/MW ≪ 1'; this is not wrong but is unnecessarily confusing. Defining r = MX/MW and rewriting F1, F2 in terms of r would make the small-MX limit more transparent.
  4. [Section 2, LEP bound] The LEP bound c2γ ≲ 10^-9 (MX/1 GeV)^2 is quoted from the single-photon search with photon energy above 15 GeV. This bound is not valid for MX close to MZ/2, where the photon is soft; the paper should either state this restriction explicitly or use a bound that accounts for the energy cut.
  5. [Section 5, production channels] The production channels 'π0 → Xγ, ω → ηX, φ → ηX' are listed without references, diagrams, or estimates. If they are intended as motivation, at least a qualitative argument for their relative importance compared to meson decays from the Section 3 Lagrangian should be given.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central obstacle — non-renormalizable same-flavour couplings — is imported from the authors' own [59] rather than derived, making the conclusion self-citation load-bearing.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 4, paragraph beginning 'We would like the divergences...'; reiterated in Section 5 Discussion]
    "As was shown in [58], for effective loop interaction of CS bosons with quarks of the same flavours or with leptons, divergences in loop diagrams with vertex XW W are not automatically removed during calculations. In [59] this interaction was considered in the unitary gauge taking into account all corresponding diagrams, see Fig.3. It was hoped that the sum of the differences of all diagrams could be cancelled for a certain relation between cw, cγ and cZ couplings."

    The paper's key claim, that same-flavour CS-fermion couplings contain divergences that cannot be eliminated within Lagrangian (3), is not demonstrated in this preprint. It is reported as the conclusion of [59], by Y. Borysenkova, V. Gorkavenko, I. Hrynchak, O. Khasai, and M. Tsarenkova, i.e., by authors four of five of whom are the present authors.

full rationale

The paper does contain independent, non-circular content: the W/Z decay-width constraints in Section 2 are derived in-text from Lagrangian (3), and the different-flavour effective Lagrangian (10) is quoted from [56-58], with the divergence cancellation being an external result from those references. Those steps do not reduce by construction. The load-bearing step that blocks the paper's phenomenology is different: Section 4 asserts that same-flavour couplings cannot be made finite using Lagrangian (3), and Section 5 repeats that 'the interaction with fermions of the same flavours contains divergences that have not yet been removed [59].' This assertion is not derived anywhere in the present text; it is imported from [59], a paper authored by the same group (four of five authors overlap with the present author list). The preprint does not reproduce the unitary-gauge calculation, does not check whether a different gauge or additional Stueckelberg/counterterm structure cancels the divergences, and explicitly says 'We can only hope that, perhaps, further consideration of this problem in non-unitary gauge will help solve the problem of divergences.' Thus the central obstacle is justified only by a self-citation whose content is not independently verified in this paper. This fits the self-citation load-bearing pattern, though it is not a tautology or a fit-renamed-as-prediction. The severity is tempered by the fact that Section 2's constraints are derived in the preprint and [59] is at least an external calculation, so the score is 6 rather than 8-10.

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

The central claim rests on a chain of model-building inputs (a new U_X(1) group, heavy fermions, a Stueckelberg X field), on a finite loop result from [58], and on the unitary-gauge divergence calculation of [59]. The last two are self-cited by the same group. Experimental constraints add PDG and LEP inputs. No free parameter is fitted in this preprint, but all couplings and the mass are free inputs of the model.

free parameters (6)
  • MX (Chern-Simons boson mass) = not fitted; treated as free in the GeV range
    All decay widths and constraints in the paper are functions of MX, and the paper scans over GeV-scale values.
  • c_gamma (X-Z-photon coupling) = bounded, c_gamma^2 ≲ 10^-9 (MX/1 GeV)^2 from LEP
    Free parameter of LCS in Eq. (3); constrained, not fitted.
  • Theta_W1 (Re c_w, X-W-W coupling) = bounded, [Re c_w]^2 ≲ 10^-2 (MX/1 GeV)^2
    Appears in the W-decay width and in the different-flavour quark effective Lagrangian; constrained, not fitted.
  • Theta_W2 (Im c_w)
    Appears in the W-decay width via F2(x); no bound is quoted in Eq. (9), so it is effectively free.
  • cz (X-Z-Z coupling)
    Appears in LCS Eq. (3) but no constraint is computed in the paper.
  • a (loop coefficient in Eq. (11)) = 0.13
    Quoted from [58] without derivation; the numerical value sets the quark-flavour-changing couplings and is an input to the central discussion.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Existence of an SM × U_X(1) gauge structure with heavy BSM fermions generating anomaly-induced Chern-Simons operators (1) and (2).
    Invoked in the Introduction following [51]; this is the model-building premise that produces the CS portal.
  • domain assumption X_mu is a Stueckelberg field, which makes the effective operators (1) and (2) gauge invariant.
    Stated in Section 1 after Eq. (2); the whole Lagrangian (3) presupposes this.
  • domain assumption The loop divergence in different-flavour quark couplings is exactly cancelled by CKM unitarity, yielding the finite Lagrangian (10) to (12) from [58].
    Used in Section 3; no derivation is given in this preprint.
  • domain assumption The unitary-gauge computation in [59] is complete and correct, and no other gauge or counterterm within (3) removes the same-flavour divergences.
    This is the central negative claim in Section 4; the paper itself flags non-unitary gauge as a possible loophole.
  • domain assumption PDG central values and uncertainties for Gamma_W, Gamma_Z, and the LEP single-photon bound apply to this model.
    Used in Section 2 to derive Eq. (9).
invented entities (2)
  • Chern-Simons boson X_mu independent evidence
    purpose: New massive vector mediator with effective couplings to W, Z, and photon fields.
    The model gives falsifiable handles such as Z to X gamma, W to X q qbar, and meson decays to X, though the same-flavour decay modes are incalculable.
  • Heavy BSM fermions
    purpose: Loop particles charged under U_X(1) and U_Y(1) that generate the CS operators via chiral anomalies.
    Postulated in the Introduction; their masses and couplings are unspecified and they have no direct detection signature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extension of the Standard Model with Chern-Simons type interaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4H2DJ2AH

@misc{pith2026241218691,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extension of the Standard Model with Chern-Simons type interaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4H2DJ2AH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18691}
}
read the original abstract

Extension of the Standard Model with Chern-Simons type interaction contains a new vector massive boson (Chern-Simons boson) that couples to electroweak gauge bosons by the so-called effective Chern-Simons interaction. There is no direct interaction between the Chern-Simons bosons and SM fermions. We consider existing restrictions on the parameters of this SM extension, the effective loop interaction of a new vector boson with SM fermions, and the possibility of the manifestation of the long-lived GeV-scale Chern-Simons bosons in collider experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18691 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagrams generating the Chern-Simons interaction. Heavy fermions, beyond [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. CS boson loop interactions with two quarks of different flavours. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Diagrams of the CS boson’s decay into leptons in the unitary gauge. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [59]

    Borysenkova, V

    Y. Borysenkova, V. Gorkavenko, I. Hrynchak, O. Khasai, M. Tsarenkova, Divergences in the effective loop interaction of the Chern-Simons bosons with leptons. The unitary gauge case. Ukr. J. Phys., 69, 897 (2024). [DOI: 10.15407/ujpe69.12.897]

    work page doi:10.15407/ujpe69.12.897 2024

  2. [1]

    Cottingham, D.A

    W.N. Cottingham, D.A. Greenwood. An Introduction to the Standard Model of Particle Physics, (Cambridge University Press, 2023) [ISBN: 978-1-00-940168-5, 978- 1-00-940172-2, 978-1-00-940170-8, 978-0-511-27136-6, 978-0-521-85249-4]

    work page 2023

  3. [2]

    Bilenky, S.T

    S.M. Bilenky, S.T. Petcov. Massive Neutrinos and Neutrino Oscillations. Rev. Mod. Phys., 59, 671 (1987) [DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.59.671] [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 61, 169 (1989), Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 60, 575–575 (1988)]

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.59.671 1987

  4. [3]

    Strumia, F

    A. Strumia, F. Vissani. Neutrino masses and mixings and... arXiv:hep-ph/0606054 (2006)

    arXiv 2006

  5. [4]

    de Salas, D.V

    P.F. de Salas, D.V. Forero, C.A. Ternes, M. Tortola, J.W.F. Valle. Status of neutrino oscillations 2018: 3 σ hint for normal mass ordering and improved CP sensitivity. Phys. Lett. B, 782, 633 (2018) [DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.06.019]

    doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.06.019 2018

  6. [5]

    P.J.E. Peebles. Dark Matter. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. , 112, 2246 (2015) [DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1308786111]

    doi:10.1073/pnas.1308786111 2015

  7. [6]

    Lukovic, P

    V. Lukovic, P. Cabella, N. Vittorio. Dark matter in cosmology. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 29, 1443001 (2014) [DOI: 10.1142/S0217751X14430015]

    doi:10.1142/s0217751x14430015 2014

  8. [7]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper. History of dark matter. Rev. Mod. Phys., 90, 045002 (2018) [DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.90.045002]

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.90.045002 2018

Show all 58 references
  1. [8]

    Cirelli, A

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, J. Zupan. Dark matter. arXiv:hep-ph/2406.01705 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Steigman

    G. Steigman. Observational tests of antimatter cosmologies. Ann. Rev. Astron. As- trophys., 14, 339 (1976) [DOI: 10.1146/annurev.aa.14.090176.002011]

    1976

  3. [10]

    Riotto, M

    A. Riotto, M. Trodden. Recent progress in baryogenesis. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 49, 35 (1999) [DOI: 10.1146/annurev.nucl.49.1.35]

    1999 doi

  4. [11]

    Canetti, M

    L. Canetti, M. Drewes, M. Shaposhnikov. Matter and Antimatter in the Universe. New J. Phys., 14, 095012 (2012) [DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/14/9/095012]

    2012 doi

  5. [12]

    Golling et al

    T. Golling et al. Physics at a 100 TeV pp collider: beyond the Standard Model phenomena. arXiv:1606.00947 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Abada et al

    A. Abada et al. FCC Physics Opportunities: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 1.Eur. Phys. J. C, 79, 474 (2019) [DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052- 019-6904-3]

    2019 doi

  7. [14]

    Gorkavenko

    V.M. Gorkavenko. Search for Hidden Particles in Intensity Frontier Experiment SHiP. Ukr. J. Phys., 64, 689 (2019) [DOI: 10.15407/ujpe64.8.689]

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    Lanfranchi, M

    G. Lanfranchi, M. Pospelov, P. Schuster. The Search for Feebly Interacting Parti- cles. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 71, 279 (2021) [DOI: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102419- 055056]

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    Antel et al

    C. Antel et al. Feebly Interacting Particles: FIPs 2022 workshop report. Eur. Phys. J. C, 83, 1122 (2023) [DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12168-5]

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Curtin et al

    D. Curtin et al. Long-Lived Particles at the Energy Frontier: The MATH- USLA Physics Case. Rept. Prog. Phys., 82, 116201 (2019) [DOI: 10.1088/1361- 6633/ab28d6]

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    Cerci et al

    S. Cerci et al. F ACET: A new long-lived particle detector in the very forward region of the CMS experiment. arXiv:2201.00019 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Ariga et al

    A. Ariga et al. Letter of Intent for F ASER: ForwArd Search ExpeRiment at the LHC. arXiv:1811.10243 (2018) [REPORT NUMBER: CERN-LHCC-2018-030, LHCC-I- 032, UCI-TR-2018-18, KYUSHU-RCAPP-2018-05]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Ariga et al

    A. Ariga et al. F ASER’s physics reach for long-lived particles. Phys. Rev. D, 99, 095011 (2019) [DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.095011]

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    Anelli et al

    M. Anelli et al. A facility to Search for Hidden Particles (SHiP) at the CERN SPS. arXiv:1504.04956 (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Alekhin et al

    S. Alekhin et al. A facility to Search for Hidden Particles at the CERN SPS: the SHiP physics case. Rept. Prog. Phys., 79, 124201 (2016) [DOI: 10.1088/0034- 4885/79/12/124201]

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    P. Mermod. Prospects of the SHiP and NA62 experiments at CERN for hidden sector searches. PoS, NuFact2017, 139 (2017) [DOI: 10.22323/1.295.0139]

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    Cortina Gil et al

    E. Cortina Gil et al. Search for heavy neutral lepton production in K + decays. Phys. Lett. B, 778, 137 (2018) [DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.01.031]

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    Drewes, J

    M. Drewes, J. Hajer, J. Klaric, G. Lanfranchi. NA62 sensitivity to heavy neutral leptons in the low scale seesaw model. JHEP, 07, 105 (2018) [DOI: 10.1007/JHEP07(2018)105]

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    Acciarri et al

    R. Acciarri et al. Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) and Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE): Conceptual Design Report, Volume 2: The Physics Program for DUNE at LBNF. arXiv:1512.06148 (2015) [REPORT NUMBER: FERMILAB-DESIGN-2016-02]

    2015

  20. [28]

    Abi et al

    B. Abi et al. Prospects for beyond the Standard Model physics searches at the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment. Eur. Phys. J. C, 81, 322 (2021) [DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09007-w]

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    Gorkavenko, B.K

    V. Gorkavenko, B.K. Jashal, V. Kholoimov, Y. Kyselov, D. Mendoza, M. Ovchyn- nikov et al. LHCb potential to discover long-lived new physics particles with lifetimes above 100 ps. Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 608 (2024) [DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12906- 3]. 9

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    B. Patt, F. Wilczek. Higgs-field portal into hidden sectors. arXiv:hep-ph/0605188 (2006)

    2006 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Bezrukov, D

    F. Bezrukov, D. Gorbunov. Light inflaton Hunter’s Guide. JHEP, 05, 010 (2010) [DOI: 10.1007/JHEP05(2010)010]

    2010 doi

  24. [32]

    Boiarska, K

    I. Boiarska, K. Bondarenko, A. Boyarsky, V. Gorkavenko, M. Ovchynnikov, A. Sokolenko. Phenomenology of GeV-scale scalar portal. JHEP, 11, 162 (2019) [DOI: 10.1007/JHEP11(2019)162]

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    Peccei, H.R

    R.D. Peccei, H.R. Quinn. CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons. Phys. Rev. Lett., 38, 1440 (1977) [DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.38.1440]

    1977 doi

  26. [34]

    Weinberg

    S. Weinberg. A New Light Boson? Phys. Rev. Lett., 40, 223 (1978) [DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.40.223]

    1978 doi

  27. [35]

    F. Wilczek. Problem of Strong P and T Invariance in the Presence of Instantons. Phys. Rev. Lett., 40, 279 (1978) [DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.40.279]

    1978 doi

  28. [36]

    Choi, S.H

    K. Choi, S.H. Im, C.S. Shin. Recent progress in physics of axions or axion-like par- ticles. arXiv:2012.05029 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Asaka, M

    T. Asaka, M. Shaposhnikov. The νMSM, dark matter and baryon asymmetry of the universe. Phys. Lett. B, 620, 17 (2005) [DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2005.06.020]

    2005 doi

  30. [38]

    Asaka, S

    T. Asaka, S. Blanchet, M. Shaposhnikov. The nuMSM, dark matter and neutrino masses. Phys. Lett. B, 631, 151 (2005) [DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2005.09.070]

    2005 doi

  31. [39]

    Bondarenko, A

    K. Bondarenko, A. Boyarsky, D. Gorbunov, O. Ruchayskiy. Phenomenol- ogy of GeV-scale Heavy Neutral Leptons. JHEP, 11, 032 (2018) [DOI: 10.1007/JHEP11(2018)032]

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    Boyarsky, M

    A. Boyarsky, M. Drewes, T. Lasserre, S. Mertens, O. Ruchayskiy. Ster- ile neutrino Dark Matter. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. , 104, 1 (2019) [DOI: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2018.07.004]

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    L.B. Okun. LIMITS OF ELECTRODYNAMICS: PARAPHOTONS? Sov. Phys. JETP, 56, 502 (1982)

    1982

  34. [42]

    B. Holdom. Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts. Phys. Lett. B, 166, 196 (1986) [DOI: 10.1016/0370-2693(86)91377-8]

    1986 doi

  35. [43]

    Langacker

    P. Langacker. The Physics of Heavy Z ′ Gauge Bosons. Rev. Mod. Phys., 81, 1199 (2009) [DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1199]

    2009 doi

  36. [44]

    Ilten, Y

    P. Ilten, Y. Soreq, M. Williams, Wei Xue. Seren10.1007/JHEP06(2018)004dipity in dark photon searches. JHEP, 06, 004 (2018) [DOI: 10.1007/JHEP06(2018)004]

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    Antoniadis, E

    I. Antoniadis, E. Kiritsis, T.N. Tomaras. A D-brane alternative to unification. Phys. Lett. B, 486, 186 (2000) [DOI: 10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00733-4]

    2000 doi

  38. [46]

    Coriano, N

    C. Coriano, N. Irges, E. Kiritsis. On the effective theory of low scale orientifold string vacua. Nucl. Phys. B, 746, 77 (2006) [DOI: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.04.009]. 10

    2006 doi

  39. [47]

    Anastasopoulos, M

    P. Anastasopoulos, M. Bianchi, E. Dudas, E. Kiritsis. Anomalies, anomalous U(1)’s and generalized Chern-Simons terms. JHEP, 11, 057 (2006) [DOI: 10.1088/1126- 6708/2006/11/057]

    2006 doi

  40. [48]

    Harvey, C.T

    J.A. Harvey, C.T. Hill, R.J. Hill. Standard Model Gauging of the Wess-Zumino- Witten Term: Anomalies, Global Currents and pseudo-Chern-Simons Interactions. Phys. Rev. D, 77, 085017 (2008) [DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.085017]

    2008 doi

  41. [49]

    Anastasopoulos, F

    P. Anastasopoulos, F. Fucito, A. Lionetto, G. Pradisi, A. Racioppi, Y.S. Stanev. Minimal Anomalous U(1)-prime Extension of the MSSM. Phys. Rev. D, 78, 085014 (2008) [DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.085014]

    2008 doi

  42. [51]

    Antoniadis, A

    I. Antoniadis, A. Boyarsky, S. Espahbodi, O. Ruchayskiy, J.D. Wells. Anomaly driven signatures of new invisible physics at the Large Hadron Collider. Nucl. Phys. B, 824, 296 (2010) [DOI: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2009.09.009]

    2010 doi

  43. [52]

    Ruegg and M

    H. Ruegg and M. Ruiz-Altaba. The Stueckelberg field. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A19, 3265 (2004) [DOI: 10.1142/S0217751X04019755]

    2004 doi

  44. [53]

    Kribs, G

    G.D. Kribs, G. Lee and A. Martin. Effective field theory of St¨ uckelberg vector bosons. Phys. Rev. D106, 055020 (2022) [DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.055020]

    2022 doi

  45. [54]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024) [DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001]

    2024 doi

  46. [55]

    Acciarri at al

    M. Acciarri at al. Search for new physics in energetic single photon production ine+e− annihilation at the Z resonance. Phys. Lett. B412,201 (1997) [DOI: 10.1016/S0370- 2693(97)01003-4]

    1997 doi

  47. [56]

    J.A. Dror, R. Lasenby, M. Pospelov. New constraints on light vectors coupled to anomalous currents. Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 141803 (2017) [DOI: 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.119.141803]

    2017 doi

  48. [57]

    J.A. Dror, R. Lasenby, M. Pospelov. Dark forces coupled to nonconserved currents. Phys. Rev. D, 96, 075036 (2017) [DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.075036]

    2017 doi

  49. [58]

    Borysenkova, P

    Y. Borysenkova, P. Kashko, M. Tsarenkova, K. Bondarenko, V. Gorkavenko. Pro- duction of Chern-Simons bosons in decays of mesons. J. Phys. G, 49, 085003 (2022) [DOI: 10.1088/1361-6471/ac77a7]

    2022 doi

  50. [60]

    Ovchynnikov, J.-L

    M. Ovchynnikov, J.-L. Tastet, O. Mikulenko, K. Bondarenko. Sensitivities to feebly interacting particles: public and unified calculations. Phys. Rev. D 108, 075028 (2023). [DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.075028]. 11

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.