Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Impact of resummation on the production and experimental bounds of scalar high-electric-charge objects

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Resummed strongly coupled scalar electrodynamics predicts HECO pair-production cross sections 1.66 times (Drell-Yan) and 2.76 times (photon fusion) the tree-level values, raising lower mass limits up to about 30%.

desk verdict Competent scalar-HECO extension of the authors' resummation scheme, but the up-to-30% mass-bound gain is the saturation assumption g^2/h = 0.0825, not a prediction of the resummation equations. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19001 v2 pith:GEX5IDLZ submitted 2024-12-25 hep-ph hep-ex

Jean Alexandre , Nick E. Mavromatos , Vasiliki A. Mitsou , Emanuela Musumeci This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex PACS 12.20.-m13.85.-t
keywords high-electric-chargeobjectsHECOsstronglycoupledscalarQEDDyson-SchwingerresummationultravioletfixedpointDrell-YanproductionphotonfusionLHCmasslimits
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 sets out to make collider bounds on scalar high-electric-charge objects (HECOs) trustworthy by replacing fixed-order perturbation theory, which is unreliable at large electric charge, with a one-loop Dyson-Schwinger-style resummation of strongly coupled scalar quantum electrodynamics. Its central claim is that at the non-trivial ultraviolet fixed point of the resummed theory the pair-production cross sections at 13 TeV proton-proton collisions are larger than the tree-level values used in existing searches: about 1.66 times larger for Drell-Yan and 2.76 times larger for photon fusion. Because the experimental upper bounds on production are already published, the larger predicted cross sections translate directly into 95% confidence-level lower mass limits that are up to about 30% more stringent. The authors also show that, unlike the spin-1/2 case, the scalar case admits such a fixed point only when the HECOs carry strong quartic self-interactions, with $h \gtrsim 12.12\,g^2$. If the paper is right, the bounds quoted by current searches for this class of exotic particles are conservative, and future searches can exclude scalar HECOs at higher masses than previously thought.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the one-loop Dyson-Schwinger-like resummation of scalar electrodynamics with a quartic self-coupling $h$, evaluated at the non-trivial ultraviolet fixed point $k\to\Lambda$. The scheme replaces bare propagators and vertices in one-loop graphs by dressed ones, producing self-consistent equations for the photon wavefunction renormalization $\omega$, the scalar wavefunction renormalization $Z$, and the dressed mass $M$ and self-coupling $H$; the fixed point determines the effective Feynman rules (vertex $-igZ^\star$, photon propagator with longitudinal part $\omega^\star$, mass $\widetilde M$) that go into the cross-section computation. The key identity is $Z^\star{}^2\simeq1+8g^2/h$, which directly sets the Drell-Yan enhancement factor and, through its square, the photon-fusion enhancement. The existence of the fixed point is what makes the calculation reliable in the paper's sense: the large electric charge, which would invalidate ordinary perturbation theory, is absorbed into the resummed fixed-point quantities.

What would settle it

Take the same fixed-point equations with a self-coupling strictly above the boundary value, for example $h=20\,g^2$: the predicted Drell-Yan enhancement drops below 1.66 and the mass-limit gains shrink toward a few percent, which can be checked against the formulas in Eqs. (12)-(14). Experimentally, a measurement of scalar-HECO pair production at a known charge and mass that matches tree level, rather than the enhanced $Z^\star{}^2$ rate, would falsify the resummed prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a Dyson-Schwinger-like one-loop resummation of scalar QED, evaluated at its non-trivial ultraviolet fixed point, gives a definite set of effective Feynman rules for scalar HECOs and that those rules raise the production cross sections relative to the tree-level rules used in the searches. In the Feynman gauge $\lambda=1$, the fixed point is characterized by $Z^\star{}^2 \simeq 1 + 8g^2/h$, and under the saturation assumption $g^2/h = 0.0825$ this yields $Z^\star{}^2 = 1.66$, exactly the Drell-Yan enhancement of Table I; the photon-fusion process, proportional to the fourth power of the coupling, is enhanced by $Z^\star{}^4 \simeq 2.76$, matching Table II. The dressed scalar mass is set by the effective-theory cutoff through $\widetilde M = \Lambda \exp(-32\pi^2/h)$, which explains the charge-dependent mass values in the tables. Reinterpreting the published 95% CL upper limits on production with these cross sections raises the scalar-HECO mass bounds by up to about 30%, with the largest gains in the photon-fusion channel.

Load-bearing premise

The whole quantitative result hangs on the saturation choice $g^2/h=0.0825$; if the actual self-coupling is larger than this boundary value, the enhancement factors and the 30% mass-limit improvement shrink or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Scalar HECO pair production via Drell-Yan is higher by the fixed factor $Z^\star{}^2\simeq1.66$ than tree-level estimates at 13 TeV, independent of charge and mass in the tables.
  • Photon-fusion production, being proportional to $g^4$, is higher by $Z^\star{}^4\simeq2.76$, making photon fusion the more strongly enhanced channel.
  • Existing 95% CL lower mass limits for scalar HECOs rise by up to about 30% when resummed cross sections replace tree-level ones; gains are largest where the experimental upper-limit curve is steepest.
  • The scalar-HECO resummation requires strong quartic self-interactions ($h\gtrsim12.12\,g^2$), a qualitative difference from the fermionic case and a condition that any ultraviolet-complete model of scalar HECOs must satisfy.
  • Working in a different gauge (e.g., the Landau gauge) would raise the resummed cross sections by about 20% (Drell-Yan) and 44% (photon fusion), but the resulting mass limits would shift negligibly because bounds depend on the logarithm of the cross section.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The quoted enhancements assume the self-coupling sits exactly at the boundary $g^2/h=0.0825$; if the true scalar self-coupling is stronger, $Z^\star{}^2$ moves toward 1 and the advertised 30% bound improvement shrinks, so the numbers should be read as the maximal effect in this scheme.
  • Because photon fusion receives the larger enhancement and is the dominant channel at high mass, searches that combine both channels will gain more from the resummation than Drell-Yan-only analyses, and future high-luminosity runs would sharpen the test.
  • The requirement of strong self-interactions suggests an observable signature beyond pair production: multi-HECO processes or self-coupling-induced constraints could distinguish the scalar case from the fermionic one, although the paper does not compute them.
  • The preferred-gauge character of the resummed rules means the predictions carry a scheme dependence; the 20% and 44% gauge-induced spreads in the two cross sections give a rough theoretical uncertainty that the paper does not propagate into the mass 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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extends a Dyson-Schwinger-inspired one-loop resummation scheme, previously applied to spin-1/2 HECOs, to scalar HECOs in strongly coupled scalar QED with quartic self-interactions. It derives self-consistent fixed-point equations, identifies a nontrivial UV fixed point, and constructs effective Feynman rules at that fixed point, which are then implemented in a MadGraph UFO model. The reported Drell-Yan and photon-fusion pair-production cross sections are enhanced relative to tree level by factors of about 1.66 and 2.76, respectively, and the resulting re-interpretation of ATLAS and MoEDAL bounds raises 95% CL lower mass limits by up to about 30%. The MadGraph results are cross-checked against Mathematica in Tables V and VI.

Significance. If the framework is accepted, the paper provides a concrete, implemented route from a nonperturbative resummation to revised LHC bounds on scalar HECOs, and the explicit UFO validation against Mathematica is a genuine strength. The fixed-point equations are internally consistent, the loop computations are presented in detail, and the paper is transparent about the main assumption, Eq. (32). The central limitation is that the advertised numerical enhancements are not outputs of the resummation equations alone: Eq. (24) makes the DY and PF ratios algebraically equal to Z*^2 and Z*^4, and the chosen saturation value g^2/h = 0.0825 fixes those numbers. The exact fixed-point relations are also not used to derive the boundary used in the numerical model. The paper is not tautological, but its quantitative headline is conditional on an unsecured boundary choice and on the benchmark cutoff Lambda = 2 TeV.

major comments (4)
  1. [II C, Eqs. (24)-(25), (27), (31)-(32); Tables I-III] The reported enhancements are fixed by the saturation assumption (32), not by the resummation itself. Equation (24) gives (Z*)^2 = 1 + 8 g^2/h, so at the boundary g^2/h = 0.0825 one obtains Z*^2 = 1.66, which is exactly the DY ratio in Table I and the square root of the photon-fusion ratio in Table II. The inequality (25) permits any g^2/h <= 0.0825, and the paper explicitly labels Eq. (32) as an assumption. At half the boundary value, r = 0.04, the same formulas give Z*^2 = 1.32 and a PF enhancement of 1.74 instead of 1.66 and 2.76; at r = 0.01 the enhancement is essentially unity. Since the mass limits in Table III are extracted from logarithms of cross sections, the claimed up-to-30% improvement would shrink or disappear for interior couplings. The authors should either provide an independent nonperturbative or microscopic argument for saturation, or present all central results as functions of r and restrict the abstract's quantitative claim to the boundary value.
  2. [II C, Eqs. (22), (24), (31)] The numerical boundary and the Feynman rules use the first-order expressions (14)/(24), which assume g^2 << h, but the exact algebraic relations (22) are available and are not used. Solving Eq. (22) at the assumed saturation value r = 0.0825 gives omega* ≈ 0.0765 and H*/h ≈ 0.47, rather than the values omega* ≈ 0.11 and H* ≈ h/4 used in Eqs. (24) and (31). The effect on the DY and PF production ratios is modest because they depend mainly on Z*^2, but the self-interaction vertex in the effective model changes by a factor of order two, and the derivation of the bound (25) from the approximate mapping between omega* and r is not self-consistent. The authors should solve the exact fixed-point equations at the chosen r, state the resulting Z*, H*, and omega*, and verify that the UFO model and the numerical tables follow from that solution.
  3. [III, Eq. (29)] The vertex rule g_HECO = g Z* is introduced as an assumption, motivated by the absence of the standard Ward identity in the resummed 'preferred gauge'. This assumption is as load-bearing as Eq. (32), because the entire DY enhancement is (Z*)^2 and the photon-fusion enhancement is (Z*)^4. The paper argues that the absence of Ward identities justifies keeping the vertex correction, but it does not derive the magnitude of Z_V* or test the rule against a gauge-invariant observable. Since this is the central physical input that converts the fixed-point wavefunction renormalization into a cross-section enhancement, the authors should provide a concrete check, for example by computing an on-shell, transverse-photon scattering amplitude in the effective theory and verifying that the g Z* vertex reproduces the resummed result.
  4. [II C, IV, Eq. (27); Fig. 3; Table III] The re-evaluated bounds are computed with the benchmark cutoff Lambda = 2 TeV, and the mass formula (27) depends exponentially on Lambda and on the saturation assumption. Figure 3 shows that the cross sections vary by orders of magnitude as Lambda changes from 0.5 to 4 TeV, so the up-to-30% mass-limit improvement is also a statement about this benchmark. The paper should quantify the sensitivity of Tables I-III to Lambda and either justify the 2 TeV choice from the validity of the effective theory or present the bounds as a function of Lambda. Without this, the reader cannot distinguish the resummation effect from the cutoff choice.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] There is a typo in 'Quantun Electrodynamics'; it should be 'Quantum Electrodynamics'.
  2. [II C, Eq. (22)] In the expression for H*/h, the term '3(omega*)' appears to be missing the square; from the derivation it should be 3(omega*)^2.
  3. [Appendix E, Table VI] In the Q = 100e row for the photon-fusion process, the Mathematica value is printed as 1.741 x 10^4 pb, but the MadGraph/Mathematica ratio of 1.005 implies the value should be 1.741 x 10^5 pb.
  4. [Conclusions] There is a double comma in 'mass lower limits,, which are larger'; it should be a single comma.
  5. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption says 'dip around 350 GeV' while the horizontal axis is in TeV; this should be 0.35 TeV for consistency with the plot.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The advertised enhancement factors 1.66 and 2.76 are the saturation assumption g^2=0.0825h restated as Z*^2 and Z*^4, so the central quantitative claim reduces to a self-cited input.

  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section II C, Eq. (27); Section III, Eq. (32)]
    "In our analysis below we assume the saturation [21] of the constraint (25) between the interaction couplings. Hence this implies for the mass ˜M ≃ Λ exp(−2.64 π^2/g^2) ... which, as already mentioned, follows from the concrete assumption [21] of the saturation of the inequality of the constraint (25), g2 ≃ 0.0825 h , (32)"

    The saturation g^2 = 0.0825 h is not derived from the resummation equations in this paper; it is imported from the same authors' conference paper [21] and is explicitly called an assumption. Substituting Eq. (32) into Eq. (24) gives Z*^2 = 1 + 8(0.0825) = 1.66 and Z*^4 = 2.76, exactly the enhancement factors reported in Tables I and II. The mass formula (27) is likewise just 32π^2/h evaluated at h = g^2/0.0825. Any interior value r = g^2/h within the allowed inequality (25), r ≤ 0.0825, would give smaller Z*^2 and proportionally smaller cross-section and mass-bound improvements, so the headline result is fixed by this self-cited boundary choice rather than by the fixed-point computation.

  2. self definitional [Section IV, text accompanying Tables I and II]
    "an increase by a factor of ∼ 1.66 (corresponding to Z⋆2) in the cross-section value for the DY process is observed, consistent with cross-section being proportional to the square of the coupling g2, which is (gZ⋆)2 for the resummation case. On the other hand, for the PF process we have a stronger increase by ∼ 2.76 (corresponding to Z⋆4) in the cross section as it is proportional to g4."

    The paper defines the predicted cross-section ratios as Z*^2 and Z*^4, and Eq. (24) defines Z*^2 = 1 + 8g^2/h. With Eq. (32) setting g^2/h = 0.0825, the ratios 1.66 and 2.76 are algebraic consequences of the assumed input, not outputs of an independent calculation. The MadGraph/Mathematica validation checks that the simulation reproduces the implemented vertex rescaling g → gZ*, but it does not determine g^2/h. Thus the central 'resummed prediction' is, by construction, the assumed saturation value, and the reported enhancement is self-definitional relative to that input.

full rationale

The paper contains a substantial amount of independent, non-circular work: the one-loop Dyson-Schwinger resummation equations, the existence and structure of the UV fixed point, the derivation of Eq. (24) from those equations, and the careful MadGraph/Mathematica validation of the UFO implementation. These parts are internally consistent and are not the source of circularity. The circularity lies in the quantitative headline. The resummation equations alone constrain g^2/h only through the inequality (25), allowing any value up to 0.0825. The paper then selects the boundary value, Eq. (32), citing the same authors' conference paper [21], and calls it an assumption. Because Eq. (24) gives Z*^2 = 1 + 8g^2/h, the boundary choice uniquely yields Z*^2 = 1.66 and Z*^4 = 2.76, which are exactly the DY and PF enhancement factors reported in Tables I and II. The mass formula (27) and the ensuing up-to-30% mass-bound improvement similarly follow from this same choice. Therefore the central numerical results reduce, by construction, to the assumed saturation of inequality (25), with the assumption itself resting on a self-citation rather than on an independent mechanism or nonperturbative calculation. This is not a fully tautological paper, since the fixed-point formalism and its numerical implementation contain independent content, but the main advertised enhancements are effectively a restatement of the hand-picked coupling ratio. Score 6 reflects this partial circularity: the predictions reduce by construction to an input parameter choice, while the surrounding formalism and code validation remain non-circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces two effective parameters that control the quantitative claim: the ratio g^2/h, fixed by saturating an inequality, and the UV cutoff Lambda, set to 2 TeV. The charge n is scanned rather than fitted. The main axioms are the momentum-independence truncation, the dressed-loop resummation rule, abandonment of the Ward identity, and the photon-only coupling assumption. No new particle species or force is introduced beyond the pre-existing scalar HECO hypothesis.

free parameters (3)
  • Self-coupling ratio g^2/h = 0.0825 (saturation of the lower bound h >= 12.12 g^2, Eq. (25))
    The inequality (25) is saturated through Eq. (32), fixing Z*^2 = 1 + 8g^2/h = 1.66 and therefore the central cross-section enhancement factors in Tables I and II. Without this choice, the numerical results change.
  • UV cutoff Lambda = 2 TeV
    The transmutation scale at which the effective theory is evaluated. The mass formula (27) and all cross-section tables and mass limits are computed with this benchmark; the 30% bound enhancement is not demonstrated for other Lambda values.
  • HECO charge number n (Q = n e) = Scanned from 10 to 350 in units of e
    The electric charge of the HECO is a free model parameter; experimental limits are functions of Q. It is not fitted to data, but the comparison to experiment covers a range.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Quantum corrections M^2 - m^2, Z - 1, omega, H are momentum independent (Sec. II.B).
    The DS-like resummation system treats corrections as momentum independent from the start; momentum-dependent terms are excluded, so the fixed-point solution may miss contributions.
  • domain assumption Replacing bare propagators and vertices by dressed ones in one-loop graphs constitutes a valid resummation (Sec. II.B).
    The method substitutes dressed quantities into one-loop graphs without including two-loop graphs; no lattice or other independent nonperturbative check is provided.
  • domain assumption The Ward identity is abandoned for the HECO-photon vertex, which is rescaled by Z* (Sec. III, Eq. (29)).
    Gauge invariance no longer relates wavefunction and vertex renormalization, and the paper treats the resulting 'preferred gauge' lambda = 1 as physical via the Pinch Technique analogy.
  • domain assumption Gauge dependence can be absorbed into the cutoff Lambda, making M_tilde = Lambda exp(-32 pi^2/h) gauge invariant (Eq. (19)).
    The paper redefines Lambda to remove the lambda-dependent factor from Eq. (18); this is an assumption about the scheme, not a derivation from an external principle.
  • ad hoc to paper Saturation of the self-coupling constraint h = 12.12 g^2 (Eq. (32), from [21]).
    The inequality (25) only gives a lower bound on h; the equality is assumed, citing the same authors' conference proceedings, and it directly determines the numerical output.
  • domain assumption Scalar HECOs couple only to photons in Drell-Yan and photon fusion, with zero hypercharge and no Z-boson contributions (Sec. III).
    Following [27], the analysis ignores Z-mediated DY and Z-fusion, which could alter cross sections if the HECO carries Standard Model hypercharge.
  • domain assumption A non-trivial UV fixed point exists in the formal k -> infinity limit with logarithms held finite (Sec. II.C).
    The fixed point is not a standard RG fixed point; it is defined by requiring the logarithmic terms to remain finite while M goes to infinity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of resummation on the production and experimental bounds of scalar high-electric-charge objects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GEX5IDLZ

@misc{pith2026241219001,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of resummation on the production and experimental bounds of scalar high-electric-charge objects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GEX5IDLZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19001}
}
read the original abstract

A one-loop Dyson-Schwinger-like resummation scheme is applied to scalar High-Electric-Charge compact Objects (HECOs), extending previous work on spin-1/2 case. The electromagnetic interactions of HECOs are considered within the framework of strongly coupled scalar Quantun Electrodynamics. The resummation amounts to determining non-trivial ultraviolet (UV) fixed points, at which the effective Lagrangian, which will lead to the pertinent predictions on the cross sections, is computed. In contrast to the fermionic HECO case, in which the fixed point structure was determined solely by the interactions of the HECOs with the photon field, in the scalar case the existence of non-trivial UV fixed points requires the presence of additional strong self interactions among the HECOs. Our resummation scheme, which is notably different from a lattice strong-coupling approach, makes the computation of the pertinent scalar-HECO-production cross sections reliable, thus allowing revisiting the mass bounds obtained from searches for such objects in current or future colliders. Our MadGraph implementation of the results leads to enhanced (up to ~30%) lower bounds on the mass of scalar HECOs, as compared to those extracted from the tree-level processes typically used in LHC collider searches by ATLAS and MoEDAL experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19001 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Considered processes for the production of scalar HECO-anti-HECO ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Comparison of cross section values obtained after (solid line) and before (dashed-line) resummation as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Cross-section values for DY (left) and PF (right) after resummation. The scalar HECO pair-production [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Excluded lower mass limits for spin-0 HECOs from ATLAS [9] and MoEDAL [10] at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Excluded lower mass limits for spin- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The photon (a+b) and scalar (c+d+e) one-loop self energies. In the resummation we propose, all the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: One-loop corrections to the scalar self-coupling. Each graph contributes three times, due to the three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [21]

    Revisiting experimental mass limits on HECOs using Dyson-Schwinger resummation

    E. Musumeci, J. Alexandre, N. Mavromatos, and V. A. Mitsou, PoS ICHEP2024, 278 (2025), arXiv:2410.16434 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Search for long-lived, multi-charged particles in pp collisions at sqrt(s)=7 TeV using the ATLAS detector

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B 722, 305 (2013), arXiv:1301.5272 [hep-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  3. [2]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), JHEP 07, 122 (2013), [Erratum: JHEP 11, 149 (2022)], arXiv:1305.0491 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2013

  4. [3]

    Search for heavy long-lived multi-charged particles in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$=8 TeV using the ATLAS detector

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 362 (2015), arXiv:1504.04188 [hep-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  5. [4]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. D 93, 052009 (2016), arXiv:1509.08059 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2016

  6. [5]

    Search for heavy long-lived multi-charged particles in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV using the ATLAS detector

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. D 99, 052003 (2019), arXiv:1812.03673 [hep-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  7. [6]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 031802 (2020), arXiv:1905.10130 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [7]

    Acharya et al

    B. Acharya et al. (MoEDAL), Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 694 (2022), arXiv:2112.05806 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 42 references
  1. [8]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B 847, 138316 (2023), arXiv:2303.13613 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 11, 112 (2023), arXiv:2308.04835 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Acharya et al

    B. Acharya et al. (MoEDAL), Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 071802 (2025), arXiv:2311.06509 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  4. [11]

    M. M. Altakach, P. Lamba, R. Mase lek, V. A. Mitsou, and K. Sakurai, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 848 (2022), arXiv:2204.03667 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Holdom, J

    B. Holdom, J. Ren, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 222001 (2018), arXiv:1707.06610 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Farhi and R

    E. Farhi and R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D 30, 2379 (1984)

    1984

  7. [14]

    S. R. Coleman, Nucl. Phys. B 262, 263 (1985), [Addendum: Nucl.Phys.B 269, 744 (1986)]

    1985

  8. [15]

    Kusenko and M

    A. Kusenko and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B 418, 46 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9709492

    1998 arXiv

  9. [16]

    B. Koch, M. Bleicher, and H. Stoecker, J. Phys. G 34, S535 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0702187

    2007 arXiv

  10. [17]

    J. S. Schwinger, Science 165, 757 (1969)

    1969

  11. [18]

    Hirsch, R

    M. Hirsch, R. Mase lek, and K. Sakurai, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 697 (2021), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 82, 774 (2022)], arXiv:2103.05644 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Acharya et al

    B. Acharya et al. (MoEDAL), Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29, 1430050 (2014), arXiv:1405.7662 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Alexandre, N

    J. Alexandre, N. E. Mavromatos, V. A. Mitsou, and E. Musumeci, Phys. Rev. D 109, 036026 (2024), arXiv:2310.17452 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Alexandre and N

    J. Alexandre and N. E. Mavromatos, Phys. Rev. D 100, 096005 (2019), arXiv:1906.08738 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Baines, N

    S. Baines, N. E. Mavromatos, V. A. Mitsou, J. L. Pinfold, and A. Santra, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 966 (2018), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 79, 166 (2019)], arXiv:1808.08942 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Farakos, G

    K. Farakos, G. Koutsoumbas, and N. E. Mavromatos, Phys. Rev. D 109, 114512 (2024), arXiv:2401.12101 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    N. E. Mavromatos and V. A. Mitsou, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35, 2030012 (2020), arXiv:2005.05100 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    A. K. Drukier and S. Nussinov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 102 (1982)

    1982

  19. [27]

    W. Y. Song and W. Taylor, J. Phys. G 49, 045002 (2022), arXiv:2107.10789 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Itzykson and J

    C. Itzykson and J. B. Zuber, Quantum Field Theory, International Series In Pure and Applied Physics (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980)

    1980

  21. [29]

    Papavassiliou, Phys

    J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 41, 3179 (1990)

    1990

  22. [30]

    Binosi and J

    D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rept. 479, 1 (2009), arXiv:0909.2536 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  23. [31]

    J. M. Cornwall and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 40, 3474 (1989). 20

    1989

  24. [32]

    J. M. Cornwall, J. Papavassiliou, and D. Binosi, The Pinch Technique and its Applications to Non-Abelian Gauge Theories, Cambridge Monographs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Binosi and J

    D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, JHEP 03, 041 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0611354

    2007 arXiv

  26. [34]

    N. E. Mavromatos, Phys. Rev. D 83, 025018 (2011), arXiv:1011.3528 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Degrande, C

    C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, D. Grellscheid, O. Mattelaer, and T. Reiter, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1201 (2012), arXiv:1108.2040 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Darm´ eet al

    L. Darm´ eet al. , Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 631 (2023), arXiv:2304.09883 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Alwall, M

    J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, and T. Stelzer, JHEP 06, 128 (2011), arXiv:1106.0522 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  30. [38]

    R. D. Ball et al. , Nucl. Phys. B 867, 244 (2013), arXiv:1207.1303 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  31. [39]

    A. V. Manohar, P. Nason, G. P. Salam, and G. Zanderighi, JHEP 12, 046 (2017), arXiv:1708.01256 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), JINST 3, S08003 (2008)

    2008

  33. [41]

    M. D. Schwartz, Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model (Cambridge University Press, 2014)

    2014

  34. [42]

    Shtabovenko, R

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig, and F. Orellana, Comput. Phys. Commun. 256, 107478 (2020), arXiv:2001.04407 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

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