Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Overlapping resonance branches of a gauge-invariant Lorentz-violating massive vector

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A gauge-invariant Lorentz-violating term splits the massive Abelian vector propagator into two orthogonal physical branches, giving an overlapping double resonance that is invisible at any finite order in perturbation theory.

desk verdict Conditional but real: the split-pole massive-vector result is solid given its stated transversality assumption, and the geometry-dependent second-resonance enhancement is new—though the benchmark needs verifiable support. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02655 v1 pith:USWSQ7VB submitted 2026-08-01 hep-ph hep-th

Zurab Kepuladze This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-th
keywords LorentzviolationmassivevectorbosonpropagatorpolesoverlappingresonancesDysonresummationvacuumpolarizationfermionannihilationsiderealvariation
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 analyzes an Abelian massive vector field with a gauge-invariant, CPT-even, dimension-four Lorentz-violating kinetic term built from a preferred four-vector $n^\mu$. It claims that after spontaneous breaking of the internal U(1) symmetry, the three physical polarizations no longer share one dispersion relation: two propagate on $k^2-\delta k_n^2-M^2=0$ and one on $(1-\delta n^2)k^2-M^2=0$, so the massive vector acts as two overlapping resonance branches. It further claims that this decomposition survives Dyson resummation when the vacuum polarization stays transverse, and that the second branch's contribution to fermion annihilation vanishes for head-on massless fermions in a timelike background but is energy-enhanced for boosted nearly parallel configurations. A reader should care because the two-branch structure is a distinctive signature that a finite number of perturbative Lorentz-violating insertions cannot reproduce, and its geometry dependence suggests concrete high-energy and sidereal tests.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the projector decomposition of the propagator, using $P_k^{\mu\nu}=k^\mu k^\nu/k^2$ and the orthogonal preferred-direction projector $P_n^{\mu\nu}$ (built from $n^\mu$ with its component along $k^\mu$ removed), which splits $D^{\mu\nu}$ into a two-polarization sector with denominator $k^2-\delta k_n^2-M^2$ and a one-polarization sector with denominator $(1-\delta n^2)k^2-M^2$. The same projectors, applied to the Dyson-resummed propagator, guarantee that the two sectors do not mix as long as the vacuum polarization is transverse. The other essential mechanism is the all-order character of the effect: the expansion $(P_0-\delta X)^{-1}=P_0^{-1}+\delta X P_0^{-2}+\cdots$ shows why finitely many insertions keep the unperturbed pole location and cannot reveal the split branches.

What would settle it

Compute the one-loop (or higher-loop) vacuum-polarization tensor in this model without assuming the transverse form: if it acquires terms not proportional to $g^{\mu\nu}-k^\mu k^\nu/k^2$, the exact two-branch decomposition under Dyson resummation fails. A more directly experimental check would measure the two resonance peaks' widths and test whether both are set by the same transverse self-energy evaluated on their respective dispersion branches.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In its own terms, the discovery is that the propagator of the massive Lorentz-violating Abelian vector field separates exactly into two orthogonal sectors, with $k^\mu k^\nu/k^2$ and a preferred-direction projector $P_n^{\mu\nu}$ picking out different on-shell conditions. In the massless theory the second algebraic pole decouples from conserved currents, leaving two degrees of freedom; after the U(1) breaking all three polarizations are physical, with two carrying the branch $k^2-\delta k_n^2-M^2=0$ and one carrying $(1-\delta n^2)k^2-M^2=0$. The paper proves that for a transverse matter vacuum polarization $\Pi^{\mu\nu}=(g^{\mu\nu}-k^\mu k^\nu/k^2)\Pi(k^2)$ the two projector sectors remain unmixed under Dyson resummation, so each branch has its own effective mass and decay width, and that the resulting double resonance cannot be obtained by expanding the LIV operator to any finite order. It then computes the fermion-annihilation amplitude and shows that the second branch is strongly controlled by the geometry of the initial momenta.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that radiative corrections to the vector propagator keep the special 'transverse' shape they have in ordinary theories, with no component pointing along the preferred direction; if Lorentz violation generates other pieces, the clean separation into two resonance poles under Dyson resummation breaks down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The three polarizations of a massive LIV vector propagate with two nearby but distinct dispersion relations, so at high energies the resonance appears as an overlapping double peak that collapses to a single Breit-Wigner as $\delta\to0$.
  • The two sectors remain orthogonal under Dyson resummation for transverse vacuum polarization, giving each branch its own decay width, even though both widths derive from the same self-energy function evaluated on different shells.
  • In fermion annihilation with a timelike preferred direction and head-on massless initial fermions, the second-resonance contribution cancels at leading order and Lorentz violation shows up only through the first resonance factor.
  • For boosted nearly parallel initial momenta, the second branch produces corrections enhanced as $E^2/M^2$ and, for the quadratic pole-splitting term, as $E^4/M^4$; at the paper's electroweak benchmark these are of order $10^{-4}$ for $\delta\sim10^{-8}$.
  • For spacelike or lightlike preferred directions the cancellation is not generic, so the signal is direction dependent and, in an Earth-based experiment, can modulate with sidereal time.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same split-pole structure should also shape vector-boson pair production and vector-boson fusion amplitudes, where contractions with conserved currents will likewise select the two projector sectors; the paper does not compute these.
  • Because the second branch is enhanced only in kinematically nonstandard configurations, existing resonance lineshape and width measurements could be reanalyzed to search for a distorted, geometry-dependent peak rather than an isolated new resonance.
  • The nearly parallel benchmark is not a realistic parton-level distribution; folding in parton distribution functions could suppress or amplify the effect, a step the paper leaves for future work.
  • The sidereal modulation predicted for spacelike and lightlike preferred directions offers a time-domain observable that distinguishes this mechanism from isotropic LIV scenarios, an extension the paper notes only briefly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies an Abelian massive vector field whose kinetic term is modified by a gauge-invariant, CPT-even, dimension-four Lorentz-violating operator constructed from a single preferred four-vector n^μ. In the massless phase the propagator is shown to contain an algebraic pole that decouples from conserved currents, leaving two physical degrees of freedom. After spontaneous breaking of the U(1) symmetry the three polarizations are claimed to split into two orthogonal dispersion branches: two polarizations on k^2 - δ k_n^2 - M^2 = 0 and one on (1 - δ n^2) k^2 - M^2 = 0. The author assumes a standard transverse vacuum polarization, argues that the projector decomposition is preserved under Dyson resummation, computes the corresponding decay rates, and derives a fermion-annihilation amplitude with an overlapping double-resonance structure. The paper emphasizes that finite-order perturbation theory in δ cannot resolve the split-pole structure and that the second-branch contribution depends strongly on the initial momentum geometry, with explicit applications to timelike, spacelike, and lightlike preferred directions.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper identifies a concrete and potentially observable phenomenon: a Lorentz-violating massive vector field can produce two nearby, overlapping resonance branches with distinct polarizations and geometry-dependent contributions. The algebraic projector decomposition and the explicit Dyson resummation for the assumed self-energy form are internally consistent, and the observation that finite-order insertions cannot expose the split is a useful point. The author is also transparent in flagging the main assumption about the vacuum polarization. However, the quantitative phenomenological estimates contain a systematic error in the resonance factors that materially affects the numerical conclusions, so the central quantitative claims need correction before the results can be relied upon.

major comments (2)
  1. [2.3, Eqs. (23)-(24), (26), (28)-(32)] The definitions of the resonance factors R_s1 and R_s2 are inconsistent with the propagator in Eq. (20). There the width parameter is explicitly defined as e2 ≡ N e^2/(24π), so each denominator is k^2 - M_{i,eff}^2 (1 - i e2)^2. The modulus-squared denominator is therefore (k^2 - M_{i,eff}^2(1 - e2^2))^2 + 4 e2^2 M_{i,eff}^4. Equations (23) and (24), however, use (1 - e^4) and 4e^4, i.e., the fourth power of the bare charge rather than e2^2. For N = 1, e^4/e2^2 = (24π)^2, so the resonance denominators in (23)-(24) differ from the correct ones by a factor of roughly 5700. This error propagates through F in Eq. (26) and into the quantitative estimates in Eqs. (28)-(32) and (36). In particular, the benchmark in Eq. (32) claiming that δ ~ 10^-8 gives linear and quadratic corrections both of order 10^-4 is not reliable; with the correct e2^2 the quadratic term is enhanced by about three orders of magnitude. Please correct the resonance factors and recompute the numerical estimates.
  2. [2.1, Eq. (10)] The preservation of the two-branch decomposition under Dyson resummation is not a consequence of the gauge-invariant classical action alone; it depends on the assumed form in Eq. (8), namely a vacuum polarization that is both transverse and n-independent. The Introduction and Section 2.1 do acknowledge this restriction, but the text around Eqs. (9)-(10) says 'we can check that ... and Dyson resummation gives', which reads as a derivation. A transverse but n-dependent self-energy of the form (g - P_k)Π_1 + P_n Π_2 would still be diagonal but would shift the two branch denominators by different functions, and off-diagonal transverse terms would mix the branches entirely. Please state explicitly at Eq. (10) that this is a working assumption rather than a proven property of the model, and harmonize the wording of the Abstract and Conclusion with this qualification.
minor comments (4)
  1. [2.3, Eq. (22)] The step from Eq. (21) to Eq. (22) is described as an 'algebraic rearrangement' but the intermediate identity is not shown. For reproducibility, please display that current conservation and the projector form P_n^{μν} = n~^μ n~^ν/n~^2 imply (1/D_2 - 1/D_1) J_1·P_n·J_2 = δ k^2 (1 - i e2)^2 (J_1·n)(J_2·n)/(D_1 D_2), which justifies the replacement of the P_n sector by n^μ n^ν in the bracket.
  2. [2.3, after Eq. (20)] The symbol e2 introduced after Eq. (20) is visually almost identical to the square of the electric charge, e^2, which is likely the source of the inconsistency in Eqs. (23)-(24). Consider renaming it, for instance ar e^2 or a, to avoid confusion.
  3. [2.2, footnote 2] The neglect of the on-shell Jacobian in the decay-rate normalization is an O(δ) effect. Please state explicitly whether that approximation affects the numerical estimates at the claimed precision, especially in the energy-enhanced configurations of Section 2.3.
  4. [3, Conclusion] The concluding sentence that 'we have shown that the two projector sectors remain orthogonal under Dyson resummation' should include the qualifier 'under the assumption (8)' to match the body of the paper and avoid overclaiming.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the two-branch resonance structure is derived algebraically from the stated LIV operator; only a non-load-bearing self-citation appears in the benchmark discussion.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is the split-pole structure of a massive LIV vector propagator, Eqs. (7) and (10). This follows by direct algebraic inversion of the quadratic action built from Eq. (1), with δ and n^mu as inputs; no parameter is fitted to data and no quantity used in the derivation is defined in terms of the predicted resonance branches. The effective masses in Eqs. (12)-(13) are simply the pole locations read off from the denominators, and the widths in Eq. (19) are obtained from a standard phase-space integral, not imported from the outputs. The Dyson resummation in Eq. (10) is an explicit computation conditional on the stated transverse form of the vacuum polarization, Eq. (8); the transversality assumption is a genuine unproved limitation of the analysis, but it is a condition stated before the calculation, not a circular reuse of the result. The only self-referential element is the appeal to Refs. [38,39], authored with the same investigator, to argue that δ~1e-8 might be detectable at colliders. That citation is used only to motivate the numerical benchmark in the resonance discussion and does not enter the derivation of the propagator, decay rates, or amplitude. No fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is repackaged as new. The derivation is therefore self-contained and not circular; the main caveat is the unproved transversality assumption, which is a correctness/robustness concern rather than a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on the chosen LIV operator, the transversality assumption for vacuum polarization, and several standard approximations. No new particles or fitted constants are introduced; delta and n^mu are model inputs, and the only untested quantitative support comes from the self-cited benchmark.

free parameters (2)
  • delta (LIV coupling) = not fitted; benchmark uses 1e-8
    Introduced ad hoc in Eq (1) as the strength of the Lorentz-violating kinetic operator; the derivation treats it as an input, and its value is not determined by any data in this paper.
  • n^mu (preferred vector) = normalized, not fitted
    The fixed background direction defining the LIV frame; chosen as timelike, spacelike, or lightlike in different sections. It is an external input, not derived.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The matter vacuum-polarization tensor remains exactly transverse, Pi^mu^nu = (g^mu^nu - k^mu k^nu/k^2) Pi(k^2).
    Invoked in Eq (8) and used in the Dyson resummation of Eqs (9)-(10); the paper restricts to this regime in the Introduction without proving that LIV corrections preserve transversality.
  • domain assumption The narrow-width approximation, representing propagator denominators as k^2 - M_eff^2 (1 - i ebar^2)^2.
    Used in Eq (20) to convert the resummed self-energy into a Breit-Wigner form; assumes the width is small compared to the mass.
  • domain assumption The phase-space replacement p^mu q^nu -> (1/12)(M_eff^2 g^mu^nu + 2 k^mu k^nu) is valid inside the final-state integral.
    Adopted in Eq (16) to evaluate decay and annihilation amplitudes; it is exact only after integration over the final-state phase space, yet it is used before integration.
  • domain assumption On-shell Jacobian factors in the decay normalization are negligible (order delta).
    Footnote 2 states that 2k0 should be replaced by |d(k0)/d(dispersion)|, but the correction is neglected as numerically insignificant; this affects the decay-width formula (19).
  • standard math Standard perturbative QFT machinery: Feynman rules, Dyson resummation, optical theorem, and fermion current conservation.
    Unstated background assumed throughout; standard in hep-ph.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Overlapping resonance branches of a gauge-invariant Lorentz-violating massive vector." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/USWSQ7VB

@misc{pith2026260802655,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Overlapping resonance branches of a gauge-invariant Lorentz-violating massive vector},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/USWSQ7VB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02655}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the propagation and resonance behavior of an Abelian massive vector field in the presence of a gauge-invariant, CPT-even, dimension-four Lorentz-violating kinetic operator constructed from a single preferred four-vector. In the massless theory, the propagator contains an additional algebraic pole that decouples from conserved currents, leaving two physical degrees of freedom. After spontaneous breaking of the internal U(1) symmetry, all three vector polarizations become physical but separate into two orthogonal dispersion branches carrying two and one physical polarization states, respectively. We show that this decomposition is preserved under Dyson resummation for a transverse matter vacuum polarization and calculate the corresponding decay rates and fermion-annihilation amplitude. The split-pole structure and associated double resonance behavior cannot be understood through a finite number of perturbative Lorentz-violating insertions. The contribution of the second branch in physical processes is strongly dependent on the initial momentum geometry: it vanishes for massless head-on fermions in a timelike background, whereas boosted nearly parallel configurations can generate an energy-enhanced correction. Spacelike and lightlike backgrounds additionally lead to directional and potentially sidereal variations of the resonance signal.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [38]

    Probing Lorentz Invariance Violation in Z Boson Mass Measurements at High-Energy Colliders

    J.Jejelava, Z.Kepuladze. Probing Lorentz Invariance Violation in Z Boson Mass Measurements at High-Energy Colliders. Phys. Rev. D 113, 075011 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1103/vfjv-7v9n

    work page doi:10.1103/vfjv-7v9n 2026

  2. [1]

    Chadha, H.B

    S. Chadha, H.B. Nielsen. Lorentz invariance as a low energy phe- nomenon. Nuclear Phys. B 217 (1983) 125. https://doi.org/10.1016/0550- 3213(83)90081-0

    doi:10.1016/0550- 1983

  3. [2]

    Lorentz Invariance and Origin of Symmetries

    J.L.Chkareuli, C.D.Froggatt, H.B.Nielsen. Lorentz Invariance and Origin of Symmetries. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 091601. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.091601

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.87.091601 2001

  4. [3]

    Spontaneously generated gauge invariance

    J.L.Chkareuli, C.D.Froggatt, H.B.Nielsen. Spontaneously generated gauge invariance. Nucl. Phys. B 609 (2001) 46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0550- 3213(01)00283-8

    doi:10.1016/s0550- 2001

  5. [4]

    Lorentz-violating electrodynamics and the cosmic microwave background

    A.Kostelecky, M.Mewes. Lorentz-violating electrodynamics and the cosmic microwave background. Phys.Rev.Lett.99:011601,2007. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0702379 11

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0702379 2007

  6. [5]

    Electrodynamics with Lorentz-Violating Operators of Arbitrary Dimension

    A.Kostelecky, M.Mewes. Electrodynamics with Lorentz-Violating Operators of Arbitrary Dimension. Phys.Rev.D80:015020,2009. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0905.0031

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.0905.0031 2009

  7. [6]

    Spontaneous Lorentz Violation via QED with Non-Exact Gauge Invariance

    J.L.Chkareuli, Z.Kepuladze, G.Tatishvili. Spontaneous Lorentz Violation via QED with Non-Exact Gauge Invariance. Eur.Phys.J.C55:309-316,2008. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0802.1950

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.0802.1950 2008

  8. [7]

    Deriving Gauge Symmetry and Spontaneous Lorentz Violation

    J.L.Chkareuli, C.D.Froggatt, H.B.Nielsen. Deriving Gauge Symme- try and Spontaneous Lorentz Violation. Nucl.Phys.B821:65-73,2009. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.hep-th/0610186

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.hep-th/0610186 2009

Show all 37 references
  1. [8]

    Photons and Gravitons as Goldstone Bosons, and the Cosmological Constant

    P.Kraus, E.T.Tomboulis. Photons and Gravitons as Goldstone Bosons, and the Cosmological Constant. Phys.Rev. D66 (2002) 045015. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.hep-th/0203221

    2002 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Spontaneous Lorentz Violation, Nambu- Goldstone Modes, and Gravity

    R.Bluhm, A.Kostelecky. Spontaneous Lorentz Violation, Nambu- Goldstone Modes, and Gravity. Phys.Rev.D71:065008,2005. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.hep-th/0412320

    2005 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    Lorentz Violation in Extra Dimensions

    T.G.Rizzo. Lorentz Violation in Extra Dimensions. JHEP0509:036,2005. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.hep-ph/0506056

    2005 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    Constrained Gauge Fields from Spontaneous Lorentz Violation

    J.L.Chkareuli, C.D.Froggatt, J.G.Jejelava, H.B.Nielsen. Constrained Gauge Fields from Spontaneous Lorentz Violation. Nucl.Phys.B796:211- 223,2008. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0710.3479

    2008 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    Gravity from spontaneous Lorentz violation

    A.Kostelecky, R.Potting. Gravity from spontaneous Lorentz violation. Phys.Rev.D79:065018, 2009. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0901.0662

    2009 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    Graviton as a Goldstone bo- son: Nonlinear Sigma Model for Tensor Field Gravity

    J.L.Chkareuli, J.G.Jejelava, G.Tatishvili. Graviton as a Goldstone bo- son: Nonlinear Sigma Model for Tensor Field Gravity. Phys.Lett.B696:124- 130,2011. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1008.3707

    2011 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    Chkareuli, Z

    J.L. Chkareuli, Z. Kepuladze. Standard model with par- tial gauge invariance. Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1954 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1954-9

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    Photon and photino as Nambu-Goldstone zero modes in an emergent SUSY QED

    J.L.Chkareuli. Photon and photino as Nambu-Goldstone zero modes in an emergent SUSY QED. Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2906 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2906-3

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    Gauge Symmetries Emerging from Extra Dimensions

    J.L.Chkareuli, Z.Kepuladze. Gauge Symmetries Emerging from Extra Dimensions. Phys. Rev. D 94, 065013 (2016). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1607.05919. 12

    2016 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Chkareuli, J

    J.L. Chkareuli, J. Jejelava, Z. Kepuladze. Lorentzian Goldstone modes shared among photons and gravitons. Eur.Phys.J.C 78 (2018) 2, 156. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1709.02736

    2018 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    Limits on a Lorentz- and parity- violating modification of electrodynamics

    S.M.Carroll, G.B.Field, R.Jackiw. Limits on a Lorentz- and parity- violating modification of electrodynamics. Phys. Rev. D 41, 1231 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.41.1231

    1990 doi

  12. [21]

    Phys.Rev.D58:116002,1998

    D.Colladay, A.Kosteleck´ y, Lorentz-Violating Extension of the Standard Model. Phys.Rev.D58:116002,1998. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.hep- ph/9809521

    1998 doi

  13. [22]

    High-energy tests of Lorentz invariance

    S.R.Coleman, S.L.Glashow. High-energy tests of Lorentz invariance. Phys.Rev.D 59, 116008 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.59.116008

    1999 doi

  14. [23]

    O.Gagnon, G. D. Moore. Limits on Lorentz Violation from the Highest Energy Cosmic Rays. Phys. Rev. D 70, 065002 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.70.065002

    2004 doi

  15. [24]

    Astrophysical Tests of Lorentz and CPT Violation with Photons

    V.A.Kostelecky, M.Mewes. Astrophysical Tests of Lorentz and CPT Violation with Photons. Astrophys. J. 689, L1–L4 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1086/595815

    2008 doi

  16. [25]

    Data Tables for Lorentz and CPT Violation

    V.A.Kostelecky, N.Russell. Data Tables for Lorentz and CPT Violation. Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 11 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.83.11

    2011 doi

  17. [26]

    [LHAASO Collaboration]

    Z.Cao et al. [LHAASO Collaboration]. Stringent Tests of Lorentz Invariance Violation from LHAASO Observations of GRB 221009A. Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 071501 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.071501

    2024 doi

  18. [27]

    Testing New-Physics Scenarios with the Com- bined LHAASO and Carpet-3 Fluence Spectrum of GRB 221009A: Axion- Like Particles and Lorentz-Invariance Violation

    P.S.Satunin, S.V.Troitsky. Testing New-Physics Scenarios with the Com- bined LHAASO and Carpet-3 Fluence Spectrum of GRB 221009A: Axion- Like Particles and Lorentz-Invariance Violation. Jetp Lett. 123, 73–79 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0021364025609297

    2026 doi

  19. [28]

    One-Loop Renormalization of Lorentz-Violating Electrodynamics

    A.Kostelecky, C.Lane, A.Pickering. One-Loop Renormalization of Lorentz-Violating Electrodynamics. Phys.Rev.D65:056006,2002. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.hep-th/0111123

    2002 doi arXiv

  20. [29]

    Renormalization Of High-Energy Lorentz Violating QED

    D.Anselmi, M.Taiuti. Renormalization Of High-Energy Lorentz Violating QED. Phys.Rev.D81:085042,2010. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0912.0113. 13

    2010 doi arXiv

  21. [30]

    Nascimento, A.Yu

    J.R. Nascimento, A.Yu. Petrov, C.M. Reyes. Renormalization in a Lorentz- violating model and higher-order operators. Eur. Phys. J. C (2018) 78:541. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1706.01466

    2018 doi arXiv

  22. [31]

    Constraints and Sta- bility in Vector Theories with Spontaneous Lorentz Violation

    R.Bluhm, N.L.Gagne, R.Potting, A.Vrublevskis. Constraints and Sta- bility in Vector Theories with Spontaneous Lorentz Violation. Phys. Rev. D 77, 125007 (2008). Erratum Phys. Rev. D 79, 029902 (2009). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0802.4071

    2008 doi arXiv

  23. [32]

    Massive Photons and Lorentz Violation

    M.Cambiaso, R.Lehnert, R.Potting. Massive Photons and Lorentz Violation. Phys. Rev. D 85, 085023 (2012). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1201.3045

    2012 doi arXiv

  24. [33]

    Dual Embedding of Extended Models with a Lorentz-Breaking Mass Term

    H.G.Fargnoli, L.C.T.Brito, A.P.B.Scarpelli, M.Sampaio. Dual Embedding of Extended Models with a Lorentz-Breaking Mass Term. Phys. Rev. D 90, 085016 (2014). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1407.6904

    2014 doi arXiv

  25. [34]

    Vector models of gravitational Lorentz symmetry breaking

    M.D.Seifert. Vector models of gravitational Lorentz symmetry breaking. Phys. Rev. D 79, 124012 (2009). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0903.2279

    2009 doi arXiv

  26. [35]

    Renormalization Scheme Dependence ofβ-Functions In Lorentz-Violating Quantum Field Theory

    S.Karki, B.Altschul. Renormalization Scheme Dependence ofβ-Functions In Lorentz-Violating Quantum Field Theory. Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 676 (2022). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2110.08646

    2022 doi arXiv

  27. [36]

    Failure of Gauge Invariance in the Nonperturbative Formula- tion of Massless Lorentz-Violating QED

    B.Altschul. Failure of Gauge Invariance in the Nonperturbative Formula- tion of Massless Lorentz-Violating QED. Phys.Rev. D69 (2004) 125009. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.hep-th/0311200

    2004 doi arXiv

  28. [37]

    Gauge Invariance and the Pauli-Villars Regulator in Lorentz- and CPT-Violating Electrodynamics

    B.Altschul. Gauge Invariance and the Pauli-Villars Regulator in Lorentz- and CPT-Violating Electrodynamics. Phys.Rev. D70 (2004) 101701. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.hep-th/0407172

    2004 doi arXiv

  29. [39]

    Isotropic and Anisotropic Lorentz-Violating Sig- natures in Z Boson Resonances at the LHC

    J.Jejelava, Z.Kepuladze. Isotropic and Anisotropic Lorentz-Violating Sig- natures in Z Boson Resonances at the LHC. Particles 9, 73 (2026). https://doi.org/10.3390/particles9030073. 14

    2026 doi

Pith tools

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