Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 58 references

Probing new light scalars with the lepton anomalous magnetic moment and the weak equivalence principle violation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Combining electron and muon g-2 with MICROSCOPE, this paper bounds light-scalar couplings to leptons and photons—|λ_e|≤6.0×10⁻⁶, |λ_μ|≤3.5×10⁻⁴, |λ_γ|≤4.5×10⁻¹³ eV⁻¹ for m_φ<10⁴ eV—and finds the naive scaling λ_μ/λ_e=m_μ/m_e favored.

desk verdict Conditional but honest light-scalar bounds that live or die by which fine-structure constant you pick. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13384 v2 pith:C3W5JOUA submitted 2025-01-23 hep-ph gr-qc

Xitong Mei , Dongfeng Gao , Wei Zhao , Jin Wang , Mingsheng Zhan This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phgr-qc PACS 12.60.-i13.40.Em04.80.Cc
keywords lightscalaranomalousmagneticmomentweakequivalenceprincipleMICROSCOPEscalar-photoncouplingscalar-leptonnaivescalingHiggsmixing
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

The paper asks whether one new light scalar, coupled to photons and to the electron and muon, can be the common source of three experimental results: the $2.1\sigma$ positive electron $g-2$ discrepancy, the current muon $g-2$ situation, and the MICROSCOPE null test of the weak equivalence principle. It computes the one-loop scalar contributions to the lepton anomalous magnetic moment and combines them with the scalar-induced Eotvos parameter, obtaining improved bounds $|\lambda_e|\leq 6.0\times 10^{-6}$, $|\lambda_\mu|\leq 3.5\times 10^{-4}$, and $|\lambda_\gamma|\leq 4.5\times 10^{-13}\,\mathrm{eV}^{-1}$ for scalar masses below $10^4$ eV. The authors find that the naive scaling relation $\lambda_\mu/\lambda_e=m_\mu/m_e$ is consistent with all three experiments, and that the minimal standard-model extension by one scalar is not excluded, with its single parameter bounded by $|\mathcal{A}|\leq 1.7\times 10^{-11}$ eV for $m_\phi<10^{-13}$ eV. The wider interest is that these three measurements together engage all four fundamental interactions, so the resulting constraints reach parameter space that no single experiment can cover.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the two one-loop contributions to the lepton anomalous magnetic moment from a light scalar: the scalar-lepton-lepton loop, proportional to $\lambda_l^2$, and the scalar-lepton-photon loop, proportional to $\lambda_l\lambda_\gamma m_l$, giving $\delta a_l = \lambda_l^2 a_{\rm sll}(r_l)+\lambda_l\lambda_\gamma m_l b_{\rm sl\gamma}(r_l)$ with $r_l=m_\phi/m_l$. The companion piece is the Eotvos parameter built from composition-dependent scalar charges $\zeta'_A$, which turns the MICROSCOPE null result into a constraint on $\lambda_e$ and $\lambda_\gamma$. The 'naive scaling' identity $\lambda_\mu/\lambda_e=m_\mu/m_e$ then connects the muon and electron channels; because both loop functions are essentially mass-independent for $m_\phi<0.1 m_e$, the g-2 data alone leave wide bands, and adding MICROSCOPE collapses them.

What would settle it

A third, independent measurement of the fine-structure constant, or a new electron $g-2$ measurement, that gives $\delta a_e^{\rm EXP}<0$ would falsify the paper's central bounds, because the scalar contribution to the electron anomaly is positive for $m_\phi<m_e$ and the light-scalar interpretation would be excluded in that mass range.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that, if a single light scalar with linear couplings to photons and leptons is responsible for the observed discrepancies, then the three measurements together determine the coupling parameters. The derived bounds are $|\lambda_e|\leq 6.0\times 10^{-6}$, $|\lambda_\mu|\leq 3.5\times 10^{-4}$, and $|\lambda_\gamma|\leq 4.5\times 10^{-13}\,\mathrm{eV}^{-1}$ for $m_\phi<10^4$ eV. The paper also finds that the naive scaling ratio $\lambda_\mu/\lambda_e=m_\mu/m_e$ lies inside the allowed region, and that the minimal standard-model extension by one scalar from Higgs mixing is consistent with all three experiments, with its single parameter bounded by $|\mathcal{A}|\leq 1.7\times 10^{-11}$ eV for $m_\phi<10^{-13}$ eV.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the electron $g-2$ discrepancy is positive, which holds for one of the two current values of the fine-structure constant; with the other value the discrepancy is negative and the quoted bounds for scalar masses below $10^4$ eV no longer follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any scalar with mass below $10^4$ eV, a coupling to electrons larger than $6.0\times 10^{-6}$ or to muons larger than $3.5\times 10^{-4}$ is excluded at the $2.1\sigma$ level by this combination of data.
  • A scalar-photon coupling larger than $4.5\times 10^{-13}\,\mathrm{eV}^{-1}$ is excluded in the same mass range.
  • The naive scaling relation $\lambda_\mu/\lambda_e=m_\mu/m_e$ is not ruled out, so a single scalar with lepton-Yukawa-like couplings remains a viable explanation of the electron anomaly.
  • The minimal Higgs-mixing extension of the standard model by one scalar survives and is constrained by all three experiments, most strongly by MICROSCOPE for very light masses.
  • Improving the muon $g-2$ standard-model prediction by a factor of four, or pushing weak-equivalence-principle tests to the $10^{-17}$ level, would sharpen these bounds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reported bounds inherit the choice of the fine-structure constant that gives a positive electron discrepancy; if the competing determination is correct, the light-scalar window below $10^4$ eV closes and the same machinery would point to scalars heavier than 1 MeV. The paper states this caveat explicitly, and it is the first thing a reader should check.
  • The method effectively splits the problem: electron $g-2$ fixes $\lambda_e$, MICROSCOPE fixes $\lambda_\gamma$, and muon $g-2$ tests the scaling relation; the same one-loop formulas would apply directly to a future tau-lepton $g-2$ measurement.
  • A third, independent determination of $\alpha$ would be a decisive experiment; whichever sign it gives will validate or invalidate the $m_\phi<10^4$ eV interpretation without waiting for new particle physics data.
  • The quoted $\lambda_\gamma$ bound assumes the quark and gluon couplings of the scalar vanish; allowing them to vary would enlarge the parameter space and could shift the MICROSCOPE-based limits.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper considers a light scalar field φ with linear couplings to photons (λγ) and to leptons (λe, λμ). It computes the one-loop scalar-lepton-lepton and scalar-lepton-photon contributions to the lepton anomalous magnetic moment, and combines the electron g−2 discrepancy, the muon g−2 discrepancy, and the MICROSCOPE weak-equivalence-principle result to constrain the three couplings for scalar masses below 10^4 eV. The authors report |λe| ≤ 6.0×10^-6, |λμ| ≤ 3.5×10^-4, and |λγ| ≤ 4.5×10^-13 eV^-1, claim that the naive scaling λμ/λe = mμ/me is favored, and analyze the minimal SM extension with one scalar, obtaining |A| ≤ 1.7×10^-11 eV for mφ < 10^-13 eV.

Significance. If the calculation and the input assumptions hold, the paper offers a useful illustration of how independent experiments covering electromagnetic, weak, and gravitational sectors can be combined to pin down a three-parameter light-scalar model. The one-loop scalar-lepton result is checked against Ref. [25], and the MICROSCOPE treatment follows the established formalism of Damour and Donoghue. The claimed constraints are concrete and falsifiable, and the paper is honest about the dependence of the electron result on the choice of the fine-structure-constant measurement. However, the significance is limited by two load-bearing issues: the scalar-photon loop result is not fully renormalized, and the headline bounds depend on the sign of the electron g−2 discrepancy, which is currently experiment-dependent. The headline claim is therefore conditional rather than robust.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (A15)] The finite function b_slγ is obtained after discarding a 1/ε pole and a log(μ²/m_l²) term, but no renormalization condition or counterterm is specified. Since the φF² interaction is dimension-five, the divergence is not automatically physical; the statement that the divergence 'can be cancelled at low energy' is not a defined procedure. This matters because Eq. (7) is used to obtain the λγ bounds in Sec. III. Please provide the counterterm, state the renormalization scheme, and show that the resulting b_slγ is scheme-independent, or provide an independent cross-check of the finite part.
  2. [Sec. V and abstract] The central bounds for mφ < 10^4 eV assume δa_e^EXP = +0.34(16)×10^-12 from Ref. [23]. As the paper itself notes, using Ref. [22] gives δa_e^EXP = -1.02(26)×10^-12; since asll(r_e) and b_slγ(r_e) are positive for mφ < me (Fig. 3), no real λe and λγ can reproduce a negative δa_e in this mass range. The abstract's quoted bounds are therefore valid only for one side of an unresolved experimental tension. The paper should either present the analysis for both α determinations or explicitly qualify the abstract as conditional on Ref. [23].
  3. [Sec. III.B, Fig. 6, and Sec. IV] The claim that naive scaling and the minimal one-scalar model are 'favored by three experimental results' is not supported by a statistical measure. The allowed regions are obtained by inverting the three central values within 2.1σ, so a line or model lying inside the region is not necessarily favored over other possibilities; a chi-square or likelihood comparison is needed. Moreover, with the MICROSCOPE-derived bound |A| ≤ 1.7×10^-11 eV (Fig. 7), Eq. (17) gives a predicted δa_e of order 10^-57, which does not explain the adopted electron discrepancy; the model is merely not excluded at the 2.1σ threshold. Please rephrase these claims as consistency statements.
  4. [Sec. III.A] The solution of Eqs. (9) and (14) for λe and λγ is a set of quadratic equations and may have multiple roots or no real roots for some mφ. The paper does not state whether the quoted |λe| ≤ 6.0×10^-6 and |λγ| ≤ 4.5×10^-13 eV^-1 are the union of all real solutions, nor does it explain how sign degeneracies are treated. Please specify the full solution set used to draw Figs. 4–6.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos, e.g., 'magneti c' in the title, 'conmment' in Sec. V, and 'Sacalar' in Appendix A.
  2. [Eq. (A15)] The cancellation of the IR log(μ²/m_l²) term by bremsstrahlung is only asserted; please provide a reference or a short explanation of how bremsstrahlung enters a magnetic-moment form-factor calculation.
  3. [Sec. III.A] The comparison with stellar-cooling bounds (Refs. [40,41]) should state the mass range over which those bounds apply, since |λe| ≤ 7.0×10^-16 is much stronger than the bound derived in this paper.
  4. [Abstract] The term 'improved constraints' is potentially misleading because the stellar-cooling bound on λe is orders of magnitude stronger; please specify that the improvement refers to the three-experiment combination, not to all existing bounds.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the experimental inputs are used as data to constrain model parameters, and the claimed consistency checks are genuine overdetermined tests.

full rationale

The paper does not present any of the three measurements (δa_e, δa_μ, η_MICROSCOPE) as outputs of the model; they are inputs used to constrain λ_e, λ_γ, λ_μ through Eqs. (9) and (14). The procedure statement 'First, by inserting results (1) and (3) into Eqs. (9) and (14), we can solve them and find out the constraints on λ_e and λ_γ' is parameter estimation, not prediction, so the constraints are not fitted inputs relabeled as predictions. The only statements that go beyond inversion are the naive-scaling check λ_μ/λ_e = m_μ/m_e and the one-parameter minimal SM extension; both compare a theoretically fixed relation or a single parameter against the data, so they are genuine consistency tests rather than tautologies. The η formula (10) is attributed to Refs. [13,39]; Ref. [39] is by the present authors, but it is a parameter-free finite-size Earth calculation whose assumptions do not include the g-2 or MICROSCOPE central values, so the self-citation is not load-bearing in a circular way. The acknowledged dependence of the electron anomaly on the choice of α (Morel et al. vs Parker et al.) is an experimental tension affecting robustness, not a circular derivation. No equation is defined in terms of the quantity it is used to predict, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper postulates a new scalar with linear couplings to photons and leptons and uses the three experimental discrepancies to fit the three couplings. The WEP coefficients are taken from the authors' own prior work (Ref. [39]) and Damour-Donoghue (Ref. [13]). No independent evidence for the scalar is provided; the bounds are the output, not a falsifiable prediction.

free parameters (4)
  • λ_e (scalar-electron Yukawa coupling) = |λ_e| ≤ 6.0e-6
    Bounded by the electron g-2 discrepancy (Eqs. 1 and 9) in combination with the MICROSCOPE constraint (Eq. 14).
  • λ_μ (scalar-muon Yukawa coupling) = |λ_μ| ≤ 3.5e-4
    Bounded by the muon g-2 discrepancy (Eqs. 2 and 9) together with the λ_γ solution from the electron and MICROSCOPE constraints.
  • λ_γ (scalar-photon coupling) = |λ_γ| ≤ 4.5e-13 eV^-1
    Bounded by the combined electron g-2 and MICROSCOPE equations (Eqs. 9 and 14), then fed into the muon constraint.
  • A (Higgs-scalar mixing parameter) = |A| ≤ 1.7e-11 eV
    In the minimal SM extension, the single model parameter is constrained best by the MICROSCOPE result (Eq. 18) for m_φ < 1e-13 eV.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A new light scalar φ exists with linear couplings to photons and leptons as in Eq. (4).
    This is the model being tested; it is not derived from a more fundamental theory.
  • domain assumption The experimental discrepancies (1), (2), and (3) are entirely due to φ.
    No other new physics is considered; this is required to convert the measurements into constraints.
  • domain assumption One-loop contributions dominate; higher-order terms are negligible.
    Stated in Sec. II.A, justified by small couplings.
  • standard math The UV and IR divergences in the scalar-photon loop cancel as described, leaving the finite result in Eq. (A17).
    The divergence cancellation is asserted after Eq. (A15); the finite scheme-dependent remainder is not fully specified.
  • domain assumption The scalar-charge coefficients for the Earth, Pt, and Ti test masses (Eqs. 11-13) are correct.
    Quoted from Refs. [13] and [39]; not re-derived in this paper.
invented entities (1)
  • Light scalar φ
    purpose: To source the observed lepton g-2 discrepancies and a possible WEP violation
    The paper only constrains its couplings; it does not predict a new mass or provide an independent observable outside the three experiments used.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing new light scalars with the lepton anomalous magnetic moment and the weak equivalence principle violation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C3W5JOUA

@misc{pith2026250113384,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing new light scalars with the lepton anomalous magnetic moment and the weak equivalence principle violation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C3W5JOUA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13384}
}
abstract

A new scalar particle with generic couplings to the standard-model particles is a possible source for the lepton anomalous magnetic moment and the violation of the weak equivalence principle. Here, one-loop contributions to the lepton anomalous magnetic moment, involving the scalar-photon and scalar-lepton couplings, are calculated. Then, employing the recent experimental results of the electron anomalous magnetic moment, the muon anomalous magnetic moment, and the MICROSCOPE mission, we find the improved constraints on scalar-lepton and scalar-photon couplings: $|\lambda_e|\leq 6.0 \times 10^{-6}$, $|\lambda_\mu|\leq 3.5\times 10^{-4}$, and $|\lambda_\gamma|\leq 4.5 \times 10^{-13}$ ${\rm eV^{-1}}$ for scalar mass below $10^4$ eV. We find that the naive scaling relationship between the scalar-muon coupling and the scalar-electron coupling is favored by three experimental results. Furthermore, the minimal standard-model extension by one scalar is also favored by all three experiments, and the model parameter is constrained best to $|\mathcal{A}|\leq 1.7 \times 10^{-11}$ eV for $m_{\phi}< 10^{-13}$ eV.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13384 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The Scalar-Lepton-Lepton loop diagram [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The Scalar-Lepton-Photon loop diagrams [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The behaviors of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Full constraints on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Constraint on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Actually, according to Eq. (9), the lepton anoma￾lous magnetic moment measurements alone can be used to set constraints on the λe-λγ and λµ-λγ pairs, which are shown as blue regions in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Constraints on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The left is the Scalar-Lepton-Lepton Vertex: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The Scalar-Lepton-Photon loop diagrams [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [25]

    Aoyama, T

    T. Aoyama, T. Kinoshita, and M. Nio, Atoms 7, 28 (2019)

    2019

  2. [23]

    et al. . Navas S. (Particle Data Group Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024) , Section 90

    work page 2024

  3. [22]

    Battaglieri M., arXiv: 1707.04591 10.48550/arXiv.1707.04591

    et al. . Battaglieri M., arXiv: 1707.04591 10.48550/arXiv.1707.04591

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1707.04591

  4. [1]

    and the other is called the Scalar-Lepton- Photon loop diagram (Fig. 2). Using the Passarino- Veltman Renormalization [37, 38], we can calculate them. The details of the calculation are given in Appendix A. Here we summarize the main results. FIG. 1. The Scalar-Lepton-Lepton loop diagram For the Scalar-Lepton-Lepton loop diagram, its contri- bution to δal...

    work page

  5. [2]

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported by the Technological Inno- vation 2030 ”Quantum Communication and Quantum Computer” Major Project (Grants No

    and ( 3) would shift our focus to new scalars with mass larger than 1 MeV, which will be the topic of our future work. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported by the Technological Inno- vation 2030 ”Quantum Communication and Quantum Computer” Major Project (Grants No. 2021ZD0300603 and No. 2021ZD0300604), the Hubei Provincial Science and Technology Major ...

    work page

  6. [3]

    Suppose that the WEP violation is caused by new light scalar particles through their couplings to the SM particles

    can still be used to set useful constraints on new physics models. Suppose that the WEP violation is caused by new light scalar particles through their couplings to the SM particles. Then, the MICROSCOPE mission can set new constraints on such scalar particles [ 31, 34]. In this work, we investigate the possibility that a new light scalar can account for ...

    work page

  7. [4]

    This greatly con- fine the allowed parameter region, which clearly shows the advantage of putting all three experimental results together to constrain the scalar model

    Compared with blue regions which spread a large area in parameter space, the violet regions only cover finite areas. This greatly con- fine the allowed parameter region, which clearly shows the advantage of putting all three experimental results together to constrain the scalar model. Another interesting issue is about the so-called naive scaling [ 42]. It ...

    work page

  8. [5]

    ( 9), the lepton anoma- lous magnetic moment measurements alone can be used to set constraints on the λe-λγ and λµ-λγ pairs, which are shown as blue regions in Fig

    Actually, according to Eq. ( 9), the lepton anoma- lous magnetic moment measurements alone can be used to set constraints on the λe-λγ and λµ-λγ pairs, which are shown as blue regions in Fig

    work page

Show all 58 references
  1. [6]

    It is clear that the minimal SM extension by one scalar is in favor for mφ < 104 eV

    is the best one, which is |A| ≤ 1.7 × 10−11 eV for mφ < 10−13 eV. It is clear that the minimal SM extension by one scalar is in favor for mφ < 104 eV. For comparison, the constraint from the stellar cooling observations [ 40, 41] is also shown in Fig. 7. Again, our constraint ...

    2025

  2. [7]

    = µ2ǫ ∫ ddk (2π)d 1 k2 −m2 0 +iε, (A5) B{0,µ,µν}(p2;m2 0,m 2 i ) = µ2ǫ ∫ ddk (2π)d {1,k µ,k µkν} (k2 −m2 0 +iε)((k +p)2 −m2 i +iε), (A6) C{0,µ,µν}(p2 1,q 2,p 2 2;m2 0,m 2 1,m 2

  3. [8]

    ε is the infinitesimal in Feynman prescrip- tion of pole

    = ∫ ddk (2π)d {1,k µ,k µkν}µ2ǫ (k2 −m2 0 +iε)((k +p1)2 −m2 1 +iε)((k +p2)2 −m2 2 +iε), (A7) Cµ =p1µC1 +p2µC2, (A8) Cµν =gµνC00 +p1µp1ν C11 +p2µp2νC22 + (p1µp2ν +p2µp1ν)C12, (A9) where {0,µ,µν } stands for an index being 0, µ, or µν which corresponds to the momentum {1,k µ,k µk...

  4. [9]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  5. [10]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  6. [11]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  7. [12]

    Essig R., arXiv: 1311.0029 10.48550/arXiv.1311.0029, , and references therein

    et al. . Essig R., arXiv: 1311.0029 10.48550/arXiv.1311.0029, , and references therein

    doi arXiv

  8. [13]

    Patt and F

    B. Patt and F. Wilczek, (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0605188

    2006 arXiv

  9. [14]

    O’Connell, M

    D. O’Connell, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D 75, 037701 (2007)

    2007

  10. [15]

    Barger, P

    V. Barger, P. Langacker, M. McCaskey, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and G. Shaughnessy, Phys. Rev. D 77, 035005 (2008)

    2008

  11. [16]

    Piazza and M

    F. Piazza and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. D 82, 043533 (2010)

    2010

  12. [17]

    J. P. Conlon, J. High Energy Phys. 2006 (05), 078

    2006

  13. [18]

    Svrcek and E

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten, J. High Energy Phys. 2006 (06), 051

    2006

  14. [19]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123530 (2010)

    2010

  15. [20]

    Brans and R

    C. Brans and R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 124, 925 (1961)

    1961

  16. [21]

    Damour and J

    T. Damour and J. F. Donoghue, Phys. Rev. D 82, 084033 (2010)

    2010

  17. [24]

    Aoyama, M

    T. Aoyama, M. Hayakawa, T. Kinoshita, and M. Nio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 111807 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    Volkov, arXiv:2404.00649 10.48550/arXiv.2404.00649

    S. Volkov, arXiv:2404.00649 10.48550/arXiv.2404.00649

    doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    Aoyama, M

    T. Aoyama, M. Hayakawa, T. Kinoshita, and M. Nio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 111808 (2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    Aoyama T., Phys

    et al. . Aoyama T., Phys. Rept. 887, 1 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Colangelo G., arXiv: 2203.15810 10.48550/arXiv.2203.15810

    et al. . Colangelo G., arXiv: 2203.15810 10.48550/arXiv.2203.15810

    doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    R. H. Parker, C. Yu, W. Zhong, B. Estey, and H. M¨ uller, Science 360, 191 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Morel, Z

    L. Morel, Z. Yao, P. Clad´ e, and S. Guellati-Kh´ elifa, Nature 588, 61 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Chang, W.-F

    D. Chang, W.-F. Chang, C.-H. Chou, and W.-Y. Keung, Phys. Rev. D 63, 091301 (2001)

    2001

  25. [33]

    C.-Y. Chen, H. Davoudiasl, W. J. Marciano, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 93, 035006 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    W. J. Marciano, A. Masiero, P. Paradisi, and M. Passera, Phys. Rev. D 94, 115033 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    X. Fan, T. G. Myers, B. A. D. Sukra, and G. Gabrielse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 071801 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Aguillard D

    et al. . Aguillard D. P. (The Muon g − 2 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 161802 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Aliberti R., arXiv: 2505.21476 10.48550/arXiv.2505.21476, , and references therein

    et al. . Aliberti R., arXiv: 2505.21476 10.48550/arXiv.2505.21476, , and references therein

    doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    Aguillard D

    et al. . Aguillard D. P., arXiv: 2506.03069 10.48550/arXiv.2506.03069, , and references therein

    doi

  31. [39]

    Berg´ e, P

    J. Berg´ e, P. Brax, G. M´ etris, M. Pernot- Borr` as, P. Touboul, and J.-P. Uzan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 141101 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Touboul P

    et al. . Touboul P. (MICROSCOPE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 121102 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Touboul P

    et al. . Touboul P. (MICROSCOPE Collaboration), Class. Quant. Grav. 39, 204009 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Berg´ e,Rept

    J. Berg´ e,Rept. Prog. Phys. 86, 066901 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    et al. . Beloy K. (Boulder Atomic Clock Optical Network (BACON)), Nature 591, 564 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Vermeulen S

    et al. . Vermeulen S. M., Nature 600, 424 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Passarino and M

    G. Passarino and M. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B 160, 151 (1979)

    1979

  38. [46]

    ’t Hooft and M

    G. ’t Hooft and M. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B 153, 365 (1979)

    1979

  39. [47]

    W. Zhao, D. Gao, J. Wang, and M. Zhan, Gen. Relat. Grav. 54, 41 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    Hardy and R

    E. Hardy and R. Lasenby, J. High Energy Phys. 2017 (2), 33

    2017

  41. [49]

    Knapen, T

    S. Knapen, T. Lin, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 96, 115021 (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    G. F. Giudice, P. Paradisi, and M. Passera, J. High Energy Phys. 2012 (11), 113

    2012

  43. [51]

    Struckmann, R

    C. Struckmann, R. Corgier, S. Loriani, G. Kleinsteinbe rg, N. Gox, E. Giese, G. M´ etris, N. Gaaloul, and P. Wolf, Phys. Rev. D 109, 064010 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Nowakowski, E

    M. Nowakowski, E. A. Paschos, and J. M. Rodr ´ ıguez, Eur. J. Phys. 26, 545 (2005)

    2005

  45. [53]

    Mertig, M

    R. Mertig, M. B¨ ohm, and A. Denner, Comp. Phys. Comm. 64, 345 (1991)

    1991

  46. [54]

    Shtabovenko, R

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig, and F. Orellana, Comp. Phys. Comm. 256, 107478 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    Hahn, Comp

    T. Hahn, Comp. Phys. Comm. 140, 418 (2001)

    2001

  48. [56]

    H. H. Patel, Comp. Phys. Comm. 197, 276 (2015)

    2015

  49. [57]

    H. H. Patel, Comp. Phys. Comm. 218, 66 (2017)

    2017

  50. [58]

    J. W. Morgan and E. Anders, 12 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 77, 6973 (1980)

    1980

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.