Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 72 references

Electroweak Symmetry Restoration and Radiation Amplitude Zeros

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 At high energies the WZ-to-WH cross-section ratio, measured around the radiation amplitude zero, is predicted to converge to 1, and the paper reads that convergence as a quantitative signal of restored O(4) symmetry in the Higgs sector.

desk verdict A sound, parameter-free proposal for quantifying electroweak symmetry restoration via RAZ ratios; the physics holds up, but the experimental reach is not yet demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12336 v2 pith:DNS4VOJP submitted 2024-12-16 hep-ph

Rodolfo Capdevilla , Tao Han This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords electroweaksymmetryrestorationradiationamplitudezeroGoldstonebosonequivalenceO(4)WZandWHproductionHL-LHCmuoncollidercross-sectionratios
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

At energies far above the electroweak scale, the Standard Model should look nearly symmetric: symmetry-breaking effects shrink like $\delta = M_W/2E$. This paper proposes a collider observable for that restoration. It studies $W\gamma$, $WZ$, and $WH$ production, whose angular distributions feature a radiation amplitude zero, a deep dip at a charge-determined angle. Transverse-gauge-boson amplitudes vanish at that zero, leaving longitudinal $WZ$ and $WH$, whose high-energy amplitudes coincide because Goldstones and the Higgs rejoin into an $O(4)$ multiplet. The central claim is that the ratio $r_{ZH} = \sigma(WZ)/\sigma(WH)$, measured in a window around the zero, converges to 1 as energy grows and $\delta \to 0$, giving a quantitative test of electroweak symmetry restoration at the HL-LHC and a 10 TeV muon collider.

What carries the argument

The central object is the radiation amplitude zero (RAZ), the special emission angle at which the tree-level helicity amplitude for transverse $W^\pm\gamma$ or $W^\pm Z$ production vanishes, $c_{\theta_0} = -1/3$ for $d\bar u$ and $c_{\theta_0}\approx 1$ for lepton-neutrino initial states. The argument works because this zero is exact for transverse gauge bosons but is filled in by longitudinal and Higgs amplitudes, whose angular shapes are the same and overlap at high energy. The quantitative control parameter is $\delta = M_W/2E$, the residual symmetry-breaking size that the paper proposes as the universal measure of electroweak symmetry restoration.

What would settle it

A hadron-level analysis at the 14 TeV LHC that reconstructs $r_{ZH}$ in the window $|Q_W c_\theta - c_{\theta_0}| < d$ for $M_{WX} > 1$ TeV, including background and systematic uncertainties, would settle the claim: if the ratio does not approach 1 within the residual $\delta$ uncertainty, the proposed EWSR interpretation fails; an NLO QCD calculation that fills the zero substantially would likewise falsify the tree-level prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the radiation amplitude zero isolates the scalar sector: at the zero, the transverse $W_T Z_T$ amplitude vanishes, so the angular window around the zero is populated by longitudinal $W_L Z_L$ and $W^\pm H$. Because the Goldstone equivalence theorem identifies $W_L Z_L$ with the Goldstone pair $\omega^\pm \omega^0$, and because $W^\pm H$ is the partner amplitude, the cross-section ratio $r_{ZH}$ approaches 1 in this window as $\delta = M_W/2E \to 0$. The paper reads this convergence as direct evidence that the broken-phase fields $\omega^\pm,\omega^0,H$ restore the original $O(4)$ symmetry, and it shows the same window makes $r_{Z\gamma}$ a clean probe of the massless transverse-gauge sector.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the $WH$ final state can be tagged and reconstructed in the narrow angular window around the radiation amplitude zero with enough precision to extract $r_{ZH}$; the paper gives no detector-level simulation, background estimate, or systematic uncertainty for this channel, only citing projected Higgs-tagging significance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The ratio $r_{Z\gamma} = \sigma(WZ)/\sigma(W\gamma)$ is predicted to stay nearly energy-independent, approaching about 3.1 for $d\bar u$ and 1.8 for $\mu^-\bar\nu$, confirming that transverse gauge bosons behave as a massless gauge multiplet.
  • In the RAZ window, $r_{ZH}\to 1$ as the invariant-mass cut is raised, so the longitudinal $WZ$ channel and the $WH$ channel become equivalent, a direct test of the $O(4)$ multiplet $(\omega^\pm,\omega^0,H)$.
  • At the HL-LHC with $M_{WX}\gtrsim 1$ TeV, the proposed measurement would reach $\delta \approx M_W/1\text{ TeV} < 10\%$; at a 10 TeV muon collider, $\delta \approx M_W/2\text{ TeV} < 5\%$ is projected.
  • The same angular window suppresses transverse contamination, so the measured ratio is dominated by longitudinal and Higgs amplitudes rather than by the much larger transverse cross section.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One immediate extension the paper leaves implicit is an NLO QCD calculation of $r_{ZH}$ in the RAZ window; since higher-order corrections and final-state radiation are known to wash out the zero, the convergence to 1 may be weakened or shifted, and the tree-level prediction needs that check.
  • The technique could be turned into a BSM discriminator: in an extended Higgs sector with more scalars, the effective $O(4)$ multiplet is enlarged or deformed, so the measured $r_{ZH}$ would deviate from 1 in a calculable way, offering a sharper SMEFT-versus-HEFT test than inclusive rates.
  • If the ratio is measured at a muon collider, the clean environment could make $r_{ZH}$ a precision observable; a deviation from unity at the percent level would point to new dynamics in the Higgs sector rather than to statistical noise.
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. This Letter proposes a quantitative test of electroweak symmetry restoration (EWSR) using radiation amplitude zeros (RAZs) in the gauge-boson pair production processes Wγ, WZ, and WH. The authors define δ = M_W/(2E), present the tree-level high-energy helicity amplitudes for these processes, and show that transverse W_T Z_T and W_T γ exhibit RAZs while longitudinal W_L Z_L and W_L H have similar angular distributions that overlap at high energies. They define cross-section ratios r_Zγ and r_ZH, argue that r_ZH tends to 1 in a narrow angular window around the RAZ at high energy, and present MadGraph parton-level event counts at the HL-LHC and at a 10 TeV muon collider, claiming sensitivities of δ ~ 10% and δ < 5%, respectively.

Significance. If established, the proposed r_ZH observable would provide a parameter-free, falsifiable Standard Model prediction that directly probes the O(4) symmetry of the Higgs sector via the equivalence theorem. The tree-level amplitude relations in Eqs. (6)-(9) are standard results, and the convergence r_ZH → 1 near the RAZ at high energy follows from the equivalence theorem; the paper ships explicit analytic estimates rather than fitted parameters. The main limitation is that the collider test requires measuring the WH final state in a narrow angular window near the RAZ, and the experimental feasibility of that measurement is not demonstrated. The theoretical core is sound, but the quantitative sensitivity claims currently rest on parton-level event counts without detector simulation, background estimates, or reconstruction effects.

major comments (4)
  1. [EWSR at the LHC (Figs. 3-4)] The central quantitative claims, namely δ ≈ M_W/1 TeV < 10% at the HL-LHC and δ ≈ M_W/2 TeV < 5% at a 10 TeV muon collider, are extrapolated from MadGraph parton-level event counts at 3 ab^-1 and 10 ab^-1. No detector-level simulation is presented for the WH final state, no b-tagging or mistag efficiency is used, no treatment of the neutrino reconstruction ambiguity in W → lν is given, and no dominant backgrounds (e.g., ttbar, W+jets, VH) or systematic uncertainties are estimated. The cited projections [29,30,42] establish inclusive WH/ZH observation, not a differential angular measurement in the narrow window around c_θ0. The manuscript itself states that 'the most challenging final state to measure our proposed observables... is W H as it relies on Higgs tagging' (Section EWSR at the LHC). This is a load-bearing feasibility premise, and it is not supported by the analysis presented.
  2. [EWSR at the LHC, angular reconstruction] The observable r_ZH in the RAZ window requires the W polar angle in the partonic c.m. frame. At the LHC, the neutrino longitudinal momentum from W → lν has a two-fold ambiguity, and the partonic boost direction is not directly measurable; this affects the reconstruction of c_θ in every bin around the zero. The paper does not discuss this ambiguity or the W charge assignment used to define Q_W c_θ. Without a study of these reconstruction effects, the expected event counts in the narrow bins near c_θ0 shown in Fig. 3 cannot be regarded as realistic, and the projected precision on r_ZH is an upper bound.
  3. [Radiation Amplitude Zeroes and Figs. 3-4] The RAZ is a tree-level feature: the text acknowledges that higher-order QCD corrections, final-state radiation, and one-loop corrections wash it out, citing refs. [34-38]. Yet the event distributions in Figs. 3 and 4 are tree-level MadGraph samples with no NLO corrections or parton shower, and no jet-veto or rapidity-difference technique from refs. [39,40] is implemented or validated. Consequently, the depth of the zero and the event counts in the RAZ window are tree-level idealizations; the actual sensitivity of the proposed measurement will degrade, and the paper does not quantify by how much.
  4. [Definition of the observable, Eq. (11) and Fig. 2] Eq. (11) defines r_ZH as a ratio of cross sections, but the convergence r_ZH → 1 is only obtained after selecting events in the window Δc_θ = c_θ0 ± d. As written, the ratio is a function of d and of the applied kinematic cuts, yet no cut-dependent definition is given in the text or in Fig. 2. This ambiguity makes it difficult to translate the prediction into a concrete measurement. The authors should define r_ZH(Δc_θ) explicitly, including all selection cuts, so that the theoretical prediction and the experimental measurement correspond to the same quantity.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (10)] The numerical values in Eq. (10) are internally inconsistent: c_θ0 = -1/3 is approximately -0.33, not 0.1, and the second line reading '1 (≈ -0.3)' is also not self-consistent. Please correct these entries and check that Fig. 2 uses the correct c_θ0 values.
  2. [EWSR at a Muon Collider] The sentence 'It is conceivable to improve the sensitivity at higher MWZ as long as a sufficient number of events are reconstructed' appears to contain a typo: MWZ should likely be MWX, the invariant mass cut used in Fig. 4. Please clarify.
  3. [References] Reference [42] is incomplete: it lists only '(2018)' with no collaboration or title. Please complete it, and check the other references for missing titles or journal information (e.g., refs. [34] and [22]).
  4. [Notation and conventions] The paper alternates between W±Z and WZ, and between partonic and hadronic processes for the W charge assignment. A short summary of the lepton and quark charge assignments used for Q_W c_θ would improve readability and reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the rZH → 1 prediction follows from explicit SM amplitudes, not from fitted inputs or self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. The quantity δ = M_W/2E is a definition, not a fitted parameter. The central amplitudes, Eqs. (6)–(9), are explicit tree-level SM helicity amplitudes, and the equality relevant for rZH → 1 is derived: Eq. (8) gives σ(W_L Z_L) and Eq. (9) gives σ(W_L H), and the simplified form of Eq. (8) equals Eq. (9) via the coupling identity g_z^2 g_-(1−2) = −g^2 for the d-ubar initial state. The radiation amplitude zero locations in Eq. (10) are obtained from the zeros of Eqs. (6)–(7), and the angular cut around c_θ0 is introduced to remove the transverse gauge-boson contamination, so the convergence rZH → 1 in the window is a computed Standard Model prediction. The self-citation to Ref. [25] for the WZ RAZ is not load-bearing circularity: the present paper re-derives the relevant amplitudes, and the WZ RAZ has been independently observed by ATLAS [18]. The muon-collider EW-parton references are used to motivate the µ±ν process, but the numerical results come from full MadGraph tree-level simulation. The paper explicitly acknowledges that WH is the most challenging final state because it relies on Higgs tagging; this is an experimental feasibility limitation, not a circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work to force the choice of observable.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contains no fitted parameters and no invented physical entities. Its predictions are derived from the Standard Model, relying on well-established theorems (GET, custodial O(4)) and tree-level calculations. The main input from outside the paper is prior knowledge of the SM and the RAZ phenomenon. The definition δ = M_W/2E is a bookkeeping device, not a free parameter.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Standard Model with a single Higgs doublet and SU(2)_L ⊗ U(1)_Y gauge symmetry is the correct UV-complete theory at the energies considered.
    All amplitudes, Eqs. (6)-(9), and the RAZ locations are computed within the SM. The paper does not derive or test this assumption; it is the framework of the analysis.
  • domain assumption Goldstone Boson Equivalence Theorem: at energies E ≫ M_W, longitudinal gauge boson amplitudes are equivalent to the corresponding Goldstone boson amplitudes.
    Used to identify W_L Z_L with ω±ω0 and W_L H with ω±H, invoking refs [1-3]. The paper explicitly relies on this theorem to establish condition (ii) of EWSR.
  • domain assumption The SM Higgs sector has an approximate O(4) custodial symmetry, so that the amplitudes for ω±ω0 and ω±H production are equal at high energies.
    This equality, seen in Eqs. (8) and (9), is the basis for the claim that r_ZH → 1 signals O(4) restoration. The O(4) symmetry is a property of the SM potential, not proven in the paper.
  • domain assumption The tree-level helicity amplitudes in Eqs. (6)-(9) provide a faithful description of the cross sections in the high-energy limit, including the 'leading-forward' approximation used for Eq. (12).
    The paper uses leading-order calculations and MadGraph tree-level event generation; higher-order QCD corrections are discussed only qualitatively as a challenge.
  • domain assumption The RAZ can be observed in hadron collider environments through jet veto and rapidity-difference methods as established in refs [39,40].
    The observability of the zeros is assumed for the proposed LHC analysis; the paper does not repeat or adapt these methods to its specific observables.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electroweak Symmetry Restoration and Radiation Amplitude Zeros." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DNS4VOJP

@misc{pith2026241212336,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electroweak Symmetry Restoration and Radiation Amplitude Zeros},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DNS4VOJP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12336}
}
abstract

In high-energy collisions far above the electroweak scale, the effects of electroweak symmetry breaking are expected to become parametrically small $\delta \sim M_W/E$. This defines the extent to which the electroweak gauge symmetry is restored: $(i)$ the physics of the transverse gauge bosons and fermions is described by a massless theory in the unbroken phase; $(ii)$ the longitudinal gauge bosons behave like the Goldstone bosons and join the Higgs boson to restore the unbroken $O(4)$ symmetry in the original Higgs sector. Using the unique feature of the radiation amplitude zeros in gauge theory, we propose to study the electroweak symmetry restoration quantitatively by examining the processes for the gauge boson pair production $W^\pm \gamma,\ W^\pm Z$ and $W^\pm H$ at the LHC and muon colliders.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12336 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Angular distributions of processes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Cross section ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Angular distributions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Angular distributions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. M. Cornwall, D. N. Levin, and G. Tiktopoulos, Phys. Rev. D 10, 1145 (1974), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 11, 972 (1975)]

    1974

  2. [2]

    B. W. Lee, C. Quigg, and H. B. Thacker, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1519 (1977)

    1977

  3. [3]

    M. S. Chanowitz and M. K. Gaillard, Nucl. Phys. B 261, 379 (1985)

    work page 1985

  4. [4]

    Goldstone, A

    J. Goldstone, A. Salam, and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 127, 965 (1962)

    1962

  5. [5]

    Sikivie, L

    P. Sikivie, L. Susskind, M. B. Voloshin, and V. I. Za- kharov, Nucl. Phys. B 173, 189 (1980)

    work page 1980

  6. [6]

    Alonso, E

    R. Alonso, E. E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Lett. B 754, 335 (2016), arXiv:1511.00724 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    Falkowski and R

    A. Falkowski and R. Rattazzi, JHEP 10, 255 (2019), arXiv:1902.05936 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Cohen, N

    T. Cohen, N. Craig, X. Lu, and D. Sutherland, JHEP 03, 237 (2021), arXiv:2008.08597 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    G. C. Branco, P. M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M. N. Rebelo, M. Sher, and J. P. Silva, Phys. Rept. 516, 1 (2012), arXiv:1106.0034 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Navas et al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

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

    2024

  3. [11]

    Abramowicz et al

    H. Abramowicz et al. (H1, ZEUS), Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 580 (2015), arXiv:1506.06042 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  4. [12]

    M. E. Peskin, in 2016 European School of High-Energy Physics (2017) pp. 1–70, arXiv:1708.09043 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  5. [13]

    J. H. Kuhn, in 23rd Annual SLAC Summer Institute on Particle Physics: The Top Quark and the Elec- troweak Interaction (SSI 95)(1996) pp. 1–64, arXiv:hep- ph/9707321

    1996

  6. [14]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (CMS, ATLAS), JHEP 08, 051 (2020), arXiv:2005.03799 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012), arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Chatrchyan et al.(CMS), Phys

    S. Chatrchyan et al.(CMS), Phys. Lett. B716, 30 (2012), arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B 843, 137895 (2023), arXiv:2211.09435 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 101802 (2024), arXiv:2402.16365 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B 812, 136018 (2021), arXiv:2009.09429 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Aaboud et al.(ATLAS), Phys

    M. Aaboud et al.(ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 161801 (2019), arXiv:1906.03203 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), (2025), arXiv:2503.11317 [hep- ex]

    2025

  14. [22]

    Huang, S

    L. Huang, S. D. Lane, I. M. Lewis, and Z. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 103, 053007 (2021), arXiv:2012.00774 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    K. O. Mikaelian, M. A. Samuel, and D. Sahdev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 746 (1979)

    1979

  16. [24]

    S. J. Brodsky and R. W. Brown, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 966 (1982)

    1982

  17. [25]

    U. Baur, T. Han, and J. Ohnemus, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3941 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9403248

    1994 arXiv

  18. [26]

    V. M. Abazov et al. (D0), Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 241805 (2008), arXiv:0803.0030 [hep-ex]

    2008 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. D 89, 092005 (2014), arXiv:1308.6832 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Tumasyan et al

    A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. D 105, 052003 (2022), arXiv:2111.13948 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 178 (2021), arXiv:2007.02873 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Tumasyan et al

    A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. D 109, 092011 (2024), arXiv:2312.07562 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, JHEP 07, 079 (2014), arXiv:1405.0301 [hep- ph]

    2014 arXiv

  24. [32]

    R. Ruiz, A. Costantini, F. Maltoni, and O. Mattelaer, JHEP 06, 114 (2022), arXiv:2111.02442 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    G. N. Valenzuela and J. Smith, Phys. Rev. D 31, 2787 (1985)

    1985

  26. [34]

    N. M. Monyonko, J. H. Reid, M. A. Samuel, and G. Tup- per, (1984)

    1984

  27. [35]

    M. L. Laursen, M. A. Samuel, A. Sen, and G. Tupper, Nucl. Phys. B 226, 429 (1983)

    1983

  28. [36]

    M. L. Laursen, M. A. Samuel, and A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D 28, 650 (1983)

    1983

  29. [37]

    Smith, D

    J. Smith, D. Thomas, and W. L. van Neerven, Z. Phys. C 44, 267 (1989)

    1989

  30. [38]

    Ohnemus, Phys

    J. Ohnemus, Phys. Rev. D 47, 940 (1993)

    1993

  31. [39]

    U. Baur, T. Han, and J. Ohnemus, Phys. Rev. D 48, 5140 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9305314

    1993 arXiv

  32. [40]

    U. Baur, S. Errede, and G. L. Landsberg, Phys. Rev. D 50, 1917 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9402282

    1994 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Capdevilla, R

    R. Capdevilla, R. Harnik, and A. Martin, JHEP 03, 117 (2020), arXiv:1912.08234 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [43]

    T. Han, D. Krohn, L.-T. Wang, and W. Zhu, JHEP 03, 082 (2010), arXiv:0911.3656 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Searcy, L

    J. Searcy, L. Huang, M.-A. Pleier, and J. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 93, 094033 (2016), arXiv:1510.01691 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Kim and A

    T. Kim and A. Martin, (2021), arXiv:2102.05124 [hep- ph]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [46]

    T. N. Dao and D. N. Le, Commun. in Phys. 33, 223 (2023), arXiv:2302.03324 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [47]

    K. Long, D. Lucchesi, M. Palmer, N. Pastrone, D. Schulte, and V. Shiltsev, Nature Phys. 17, 289 (2021), arXiv:2007.15684 [physics.acc-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Al Ali et al., Rept

    H. Al Ali et al., Rept. Prog. Phys. 85, 084201 (2022), arXiv:2103.14043 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [49]

    K. M. Black et al. , JINST 19, T02015 (2024), arXiv:2209.01318 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Accettura et al., Eur

    C. Accettura et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 864 (2023), [Er- ratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 84, 36 (2024)], arXiv:2303.08533 [physics.acc-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [51]

    T. Han, D. Liu, I. Low, and X. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 103, 013002 (2021), arXiv:2008.12204 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Forslund and P

    M. Forslund and P. Meade, JHEP 08, 185 (2022), arXiv:2203.09425 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Ruhdorfer, E

    M. Ruhdorfer, E. Salvioni, and A. Wulzer, Phys. Rev. D 107, 095038 (2023), arXiv:2303.14202 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Forslund and P

    M. Forslund and P. Meade, JHEP 01, 182 (2024), arXiv:2308.02633 [hep-ph]. 7

    2024 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Andreetto et al., (2024), arXiv:2405.19314 [hep-ex]

    P. Andreetto et al., (2024), arXiv:2405.19314 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [56]

    P. Li, Z. Liu, and K.-F. Lyu, Phys. Rev. D 109, 073009 (2024), arXiv:2401.08756 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [57]

    T. Han, Z. Liu, L.-T. Wang, and X. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 103, 075004 (2021), arXiv:2009.11287 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Buttazzo, R

    D. Buttazzo, R. Franceschini, and A. Wulzer, JHEP 05, 219 (2021), arXiv:2012.11555 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Capdevilla, F

    R. Capdevilla, F. Meloni, R. Simoniello, and J. Zurita, JHEP 06, 133 (2021), arXiv:2102.11292 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Bottaro, D

    S. Bottaro, D. Buttazzo, M. Costa, R. Franceschini, P. Panci, D. Redigolo, and L. Vittorio, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 31 (2022), arXiv:2107.09688 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  52. [61]

    S. Chen, A. Glioti, R. Rattazzi, L. Ricci, and A. Wulzer, JHEP 05, 180 (2022), arXiv:2202.10509 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Bottaro, D

    S. Bottaro, D. Buttazzo, M. Costa, R. Franceschini, P. Panci, D. Redigolo, and L. Vittorio, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 992 (2022), arXiv:2205.04486 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Liu, L.-T

    D. Liu, L.-T. Wang, and K.-P. Xie, JHEP 04, 084 (2024), arXiv:2312.09117 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Korshynska, M

    K. Korshynska, M. L¨ oschner, M. Marinichenko, K. Mekala, and J. Reuter, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 568 (2024), arXiv:2402.18460 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Capdevilla, F

    R. Capdevilla, F. Meloni, and J. Zurita, (2024), arXiv:2405.08858 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [66]

    T. Han, Y. Ma, and K. Xie, Phys. Rev. D 103, L031301 (2021), arXiv:2007.14300 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  58. [67]

    T. Han, Y. Ma, and K. Xie, JHEP 02, 154 (2022), arXiv:2103.09844 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Garosi, D

    F. Garosi, D. Marzocca, and S. Trifinopoulos, JHEP 09, 107 (2023), arXiv:2303.16964 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Capdevilla, F

    R. Capdevilla, F. Garosi, D. Marzocca, and B. Stechauner, (2024), arXiv:2410.21383 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [70]

    J. Chen, T. Han, and B. Tweedie, JHEP 11, 093 (2017), arXiv:1611.00788 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  62. [71]

    C. W. Bauer, D. Provasoli, and B. R. Webber, JHEP 11, 030 (2018), arXiv:1806.10157 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  63. [72]

    T. Han, Y. Ma, and K. Xie, in Snowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.11129 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 9, 3357 (1974)

    1974

Pith tools

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