Massless limit of massive self-interacting vector fields

Jitesh Singh; Nabamita Banerjee

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Massless limit of massive self-interacting vector fields

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quartic self-interacting Proca theory is classically ill-posed for any nonzero mass, so sending the mass to zero does not recover the well-behaved massless theory.

desk verdict Classical massless-limit analysis is sound; the quantum claim is not yet established due to a wrong scale estimate and a definition-dependent notion of the limit. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22119 v3 pith:4H2S7SDE submitted 2025-05-28 hep-th

Nabamita Banerjee , Jitesh Singh This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th

keywords massivevectorfieldsProcatheorymasslesslimithyperbolicitylossunitarityviolationVainshteinmechanismself-interactingnonlinear

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper studies massive vector fields whose mass is added by hand, with a quartic self-interaction $\lambda (X^2)^2/4$. It argues that the massless limit of this theory is not smooth: the classical equations lose hyperbolicity at field amplitudes of order $\mu/\sqrt{\lambda}$, and those pathological configurations survive no matter how small the mass is. The same pathology appears at the quantum level, where the two-loop imaginary part of the propagator is singular in the mass and unitarity is violated. The paper also shows that the Vainshtein-type decoupling of the longitudinal mode, which would restore the massless theory, holds only when the energy scale is much larger than the mass and fails beyond the scale $L_{B\rm str}\sim \sqrt{\lambda}/\mu$. If correct, the result means that a smooth massless limit cannot be assumed for these theories when energies are comparable to the mass.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective disformal metric $\bar g^{\mu\rho} = g^{\mu\rho} + 2z'z^{-1}X^\mu X^\rho$ with $z = -(\mu^2+\lambda X^2)$, whose local form is $\bar g = \operatorname{diag}((\mu^2+3\lambda X^2)/(\mu^2+\lambda X^2), -1,\ldots,-1)$. The determinant of the principal symbol factorizes as $(\bar g^{\alpha\beta}k_\alpha k_\beta)(g^{\mu\nu}k_\mu k_\nu)^d$, so when $\bar g$ changes signature the dispersion relation yields imaginary frequencies and the Cauchy problem loses well-posedness. On the quantum side, the machinery is the split $X_i = X_i^T + \partial_i\chi$, the normalized longitudinal mode $\chi_n = \mu\sqrt{-\Delta/(-\Delta+\mu^2)}\,\chi$, and the constraint equation for the non-propagating component $X_0$, whose approximate resolution fails at the same scale where hyperbolicity is lost. These pieces fix the strong-coupling scales $L_{\rm str}\sim \lambda^{1/4}/\mu$, $L_{\rm str}^T\sim \lambda^{1/3}/\mu$, and $L_{B\rm str}\sim \lambda^{1/2}/\mu$ that organize the argument.

What would settle it

Compute a fixed-momentum observable, such as the two-loop imaginary part of the propagator, at external momentum $k \gg \mu$ and take $\mu\to0$: if it has a finite limit equal to the massless-theory value, the claimed non-smoothness is an artifact of the full-field-space definition. Alternatively, evolve smooth Cauchy data with initial amplitude well below $\mu/\sqrt{\lambda}$ in 1+1 dimensions; if no solution reaches the degenerate configurations $z_3=0$ or $z=0$, hyperbolicity loss never occurs dynamically.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the quartic nonlinear Proca theory $\mathcal L = -\frac14 F^2 + \frac{\mu^2}{2}X^2 + \frac{\lambda}{4}(X^2)^2$ has no smooth massless limit. In the hyperbolic formulation, the equation of motion is governed by the effective disformal metric $\bar g = \operatorname{diag}\left(\frac{\mu^2+3\lambda X^2}{\mu^2+\lambda X^2}, -1, -1, -1\right)$, and the principal symbol loses hyperbolicity when this metric changes signature, which happens at field values $X^2 = -\mu^2/(3\lambda)$ and $X^2 = -\mu^2/\lambda$. As $\mu\to 0$ the pathological band shrinks to width $O(\mu^2)$, but the degenerate configurations themselves never leave field space, so the massive theory is not well-posed for any nonzero $\mu$ while the strictly massless theory is well-posed. At two loops the imaginary part of the propagator correction contains $\Theta^a_\alpha = -\eta^a_\alpha + p^a p_\alpha/\mu^2$ structures, giving contributions of order $\lambda^2 k^6/\mu^6$ that are singular as $\mu\to 0$, indicating unitarity violation. The paper argues that the Vainshtein mechanism cannot cure this: the decoupling of the longitudinal mode relies on an approximation to the $X_0$ constraint that breaks down at $L_{B\rm str}\sim \sqrt{\lambda}/\mu$, the same scale at which hyperbolicity is lost, so nonlinear terms do not restore well-posedness or unitarity when $1/L \sim \mu$.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the massless limit is not smooth depends on counting field configurations with amplitude of order $\mu/\sqrt{\lambda}$ and energy scales comparable to the mass as part of the limit; if one instead fixes a momentum $k \gg \mu$ and lets $\mu$ go to zero, those configurations recede to zero energy and the discontinuity could disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any nonzero mass, the quartic self-interacting Proca theory is classically ill-posed in a neighborhood of field space that does not disappear as $\mu\to 0$.
The massless theory itself is well-posed, so the massless limit is discontinuous at the level of the classical equations of motion.
The two-loop imaginary part of the propagator is order $\lambda^2 k^6/\mu^6$ and grows without bound in the massless limit, so unitarity is violated at two loops.
The Vainshtein-style decoupling of the longitudinal mode that would restore a smooth limit is only trustworthy when $1/L \gg \mu$; at $L_{B\rm str}\sim \sqrt{\lambda}/\mu$ the constraint equation and hyperbolicity break down together.
Massive Yang-Mills, protected by an internal symmetry, has well-posed equations of motion, so the pathology is specific to abelian self-interacting vector fields with a hard mass.

Reading between the lines

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

The non-smoothness may be an artifact of defining the massless limit over the full field configuration space: under the fixed-momentum definition $k\gg\mu$ as $\mu\to0$, the pathological region recedes to zero energy, and the paper identifies no observable that fails to converge in that definition.
If the mass is generated by the Higgs mechanism instead of added by hand, the hyperbolicity and unitarity problems may disappear; the paper leaves this as an open question, so a direct Abelian-Higgs computation would be a decisive extension.
The mass-singular two-loop imaginary part could indicate a breakdown of perturbation theory rather than genuine non-unitarity of the full theory; a lattice or resummation check would separate the two.
Phenomenological applications of massive vector dark matter or generalized Proca theories should state the regime $1/L\gg\mu$ explicitly before relying on effective-field-theory unitarity or smooth-limit arguments.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The classical part of this paper is solid; the quantum conclusion is not yet established. The effective-metric computation in Sec. 2.2 is correct as far as I can see: for quartic Proca, the massless effective metric tends to diag(3,-1,...), and the ill-posed band at z3=0/z=0 persists at amplitudes |X|~mu/sqrt(lambda) with width O(mu^2/lambda). The paper also correctly notes that [37]'s Vainshtein restoration is argued under 1/L>>mu, and that perturbation theory breaks down before the strong-coupling scale. The comparison table and the classical principal-symbol analysis are useful and are a faithful application of [34,35].

But the central new claim, that the Vainshtein cure fails at LBstr and unitarity cannot be restored, has two soft spots. First, the derivation of LBstr is internally inconsistent as written. At LBstr ~ sqrt(lambda)/mu, the derivative scale is 1/L^2 = mu^2/lambda, not mu^2. So the statement after Eq. (7.6) that the constraint inversion fails when 1/L^2~mu^2~lambda X^2 cannot be right at LBstr; the three quantities don't meet at that scale. A defender could repair this by noting that lambda delta-chi^2 ~ 1 at LBstr (using delta-chi ~ 1/(L mu)), which would break the expansion (D.3), but that is not what the paper says. As it stands, the constraint-violation claim is unproven. It is also uncomfortable that LBstr lies well inside the 1/L>>mu regime for small lambda, so framing this as relaxing the [37] assumption doesn't naturally select LBstr.

Second, the 'non-smooth massless limit' claim is definition-dependent. The pathological configurations sit at amplitudes proportional to mu, so for any fixed smooth initial data or fixed momentum k>>mu they recede from view as mu goes to zero. The paper never exhibits an observable that fails to converge in the fixed-momentum limit, and it does not address the traditional fixed-momentum definition of a massless limit. That weakens the wording from 'the limit is not smooth' to 'the massive theory is not uniformly well-posed for arbitrarily small mass.'

The two-loop unitarity discussion is the weakest part: the imaginary part is quoted for a single sunset diagram, with no optical-theorem check and hand-wavy scale assignments (kd, ku). I would not accept the unitarity-violation claim on this evidence.

Who is this for? People working on generalized Proca models, vector dark matter, or hyperbolic formulations of field theories. They should read the classical section and the challenge to [37], but treat the quantum conclusion as unproven.

Recommendation: send to peer review, since it is a serious challenge and the classical material deserves refereeing, but expect major revision. The authors should repair the LBstr derivation, either present an observable or explicitly adopt a uniform-in-field-space definition, and either add an optical-theorem check or drop the unitarity claim.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies massive abelian vector fields with quartic (and cubic) self-interactions added by hand. It reviews the hyperbolic/principal-symbol analysis of Refs. [34,35], which shows that the massive theory loses hyperbolicity at finite field amplitude, and argues that because the pathological field region has width O(μ^2/λ) and persists for arbitrarily small μ, the massless limit is not smooth. It then computes the imaginary part of the two-loop sunset correction to the propagator in the quartic theory, finds a mass-singular contribution, and claims that unitarity is violated unless the Vainshtein mechanism restores the massless limit. The paper's central new claim is that the Vainshtein/strong-coupling cure fails at the scale LBstr ~ √λ/μ, because the constraint inversion used to integrate out the non-propagating mode breaks down there.

Significance. If established, the result would mean that the massless limit of massive self-interacting vector field theory is discontinuous at both classical and quantum levels, contradicting the picture in Ref. [37]. The paper is self-contained, uses explicit Lagrangians with no fitted parameters, and correctly reproduces the known hyperbolicity-loss results. The comparison with massive Yang-Mills in Appendix E is also useful. However, the quantum claim rests on a single sunset diagram and on a scale estimate that is internally inconsistent as written; the massless-limit claim depends on a non-standard definition of the limit. These issues are load-bearing and need to be repaired before the main conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (4)

[Section 7, Eqs. (7.4)–(7.6) and Appendix D] The claim that the constraint approximation (D.3) is violated at LBstr because 1/L^2 ~ μ^2 ~ λX^2 is not supported. At LBstr = √λ/μ, one has 1/L^2 = μ^2/λ, so the derivative term in (7.6) dominates the mass term by a factor 1/λ, not comparable to it. The condition 1/L^2 ~ μ^2 occurs at L ~ 1/μ, parametrically different from LBstr. The amplitude condition λX^2 ~ μ^2 (Eq. 7.4) does not by itself invalidate the derivative expansion in (D.3). If the authors intend to show breakdown of (D.3) at LBstr via the longitudinal-mode fluctuation, the correct route is via Eq. (5.8): at L = LBstr, δχ_L ~ 1/√λ, so λχ^2 ~ O(1), violating assumption (D.2). That would be a defensible argument, but it is not what the text states, and the current derivation is internally inconsistent.
[Section 2.2 and Section 8] The non-smoothness conclusion depends on taking the massless limit over field configurations with |X| ~ μ/√λ and scales 1/L ~ μ. Equation (2.16) shows pointwise convergence of the effective metric to diag(3,−1,...) for any fixed non-zero X^2, and the pathological band has width O(μ^2/λ) that shrinks to zero as μ→0. Under the standard fixed-momentum definition of the limit (k fixed, μ→0), all finite-momentum observables eventually sit in the regime 1/L ≫ μ, and the paper identifies no observable that fails to converge. The conclusion that the massless limit is not smooth therefore requires an explicit definition of the topology in which the limit is taken and a physical observable that is discontinuous in that limit.
[Section 5.2 and Appendix C.0.2] The claim that unitarity is violated at two loops is inferred from the imaginary part of a single sunset diagram. To establish a unitarity violation, one must compute the full imaginary part of the relevant two-point function or S-matrix element and compare it with the optical-theorem sum over all intermediate states at that order, verifying that the contributions are physical and that the total exceeds the unitarity bound. The text states only that the mass-singular contribution may 'potentially surpass' the unitarity limit, which is weaker than the abstract's assertion of unitarity violation. This needs to be made rigorous if the quantum conclusion is to stand.
[Sections 6–7] The paper connects the classical loss of hyperbolicity to the breakdown of the non-covariant formulation and to quantum unitarity through heuristic estimates of minimal quantum fluctuations. This connection is not a substitute for a diagrammatic check: the classical principal-symbol analysis applies to the full nonlinear equations of motion, whereas the unitarity calculation is in perturbation theory. The paper should spell out why a classical ill-posedness at a given field amplitude implies a failure of the perturbative unitarity calculation at the corresponding scale, rather than merely an indication that the perturbative expansion is being used outside its regime of validity.

minor comments (5)

[General] There are numerous typos and grammatical slips, for example 'uplift the assumption' should be 'relax the assumption' in Sections 7 and 8, and 'the the' appears in the text. A careful editing pass is needed.
[Reference [35]] The author name of Ref. [35] is garbled in the bibliography ('K.i.e.i.f.m.c.i.d.I. ¨Unl¨ ut¨ urk'); this should be corrected.
[Eq. (5.6)] The expression for Sμν in Eq. (5.6) has indices that are not all consistently contracted; please clarify the index structure and the definition of Θ^a_a.
[Section 3, Definition 3] In Definition 3, the condition 'λX^2 << 1' should be written with an absolute value, since X^2 is not positive definite in Lorentzian signature.
[Section 7, Eq. (7.5)] The sentence following Eq. (7.5), 'which happen at the same scale, LBstr', is ambiguous: it refers to equality of 1/L^2 with both μ^2 and λX^2, but at LBstr these two quantities are not equal as shown in the major comment.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central claim that the Vainshtein cure fails at LBstr is imposed by identifying two unequal scales: Eq. (7.5) gives LBstr ~ sqrt(lambda)/mu, but the constraint-violation condition quoted right after Eq. (7.6) requires 1/L^2 ~ mu^2, which holds at L ~ 1/mu, not at sqrt(lambda)/mu.

self definitional [Section 7, Eqs. (7.4)-(7.6) and the paragraph following Eq. (7.6)]
"The scale at which perturbative treatment can not be defined in the case of quartic self-interaction is LBstr ∼ λ^{1/2}/μ ... From Eq. (7.6), it is immediate that the approximation of the constraint (D.1) is violated if 1/L^2 ∼ μ^2 ∼ λX_μX^μ, which happens at the same scale, LBstr."

Eq. (7.5) fixes LBstr by the amplitude condition λX^2 ~ μ^2 plus the minimal-fluctuation estimate δX_L ~ 1/L, giving LBstr ~ sqrt(lambda)/mu. At that scale 1/LBstr^2 = mu^2/lambda, not mu^2. The following sentence derives failure of the constraint expansion (D.3) from the condition 1/L^2 ~ mu^2, which defines L ~ 1/mu, a parametrically different scale. Identifying the two scales is an extra input, not a consequence of Eq. (7.6). Thus the claim that the Vainshtein mechanism fails at LBstr, so the two-loop mass singularity is not an artifact, is built into that imposed equality rather than derived.

full rationale

Most of the paper is self-contained and non-circular: the classical hyperbolicity analysis in Sections 2-3 follows from the principal symbol of the explicit Lagrangian (2.3); the two-loop imaginary part in Section 5 and Appendix C is a direct computation with no fitted parameters; and no author self-citations are used as load-bearing support. The paper's new quantum conclusion, however, rests on Section 7, where the breakdown scale LBstr is first defined by the amplitude condition |X| ~ mu/sqrt(lambda) and then asserted to be the same scale at which the derivative condition 1/L^2 ~ mu^2 violates the constraint expansion (D.3). At the defined LBstr one has 1/LBstr^2 = mu^2/lambda, so the quoted equality 1/L^2 ~ mu^2 ~ lambda X^2 cannot hold at that scale unless lambda ~ 1. Thus the failure of the non-covariant/Vainshtein resolution at LBstr is put in by construction at the point where two unequal scales are identified. This is a partial circularity of the central claim, not a fully circular paper; the underlying classical pathology and the two-loop computation retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard massive vector propagator, the principal-symbol criterion for hyperbolicity, and the constraint reduction in Appendix D. No data fitting or invented entities appear. The scales Lstr, LTstr, and LBstr are derived dimensional-analysis lengths, not new degrees of freedom.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The generalized Lorenz condition ∇_μ(z X^μ) = 0 can be imposed on shell for nonlinear Proca theory, reducing the equation of motion to a second-order quasilinear system.
Invoked in Section 2 and Appendix A to obtain the principal part used for hyperbolicity classification.
domain assumption Loss of hyperbolicity of the principal symbol implies ill-posedness of the Cauchy problem and exponential growth of modes.
Section 2 uses Definitions 1 and 3 and Theorem 2 from Refs. [42, 43] to translate signature change of the effective metric into pathology.
domain assumption The free massive vector propagator with pole at k² = μ² and longitudinal polarization kμ/μ is the correct starting point for two-loop unitarity cuts of the nonrenormalizable NPL theory.
Sections 5 and Appendix C compute imaginary parts via Cutkosky cuts with these propagators; no renormalization or counterterm scheme is specified.
domain assumption Flat spacetime is sufficient for the quantum unitarity analysis while the classical analysis includes curved-spacetime Ricci terms.
Loop and Vainshtein computations in Sections 4 through 7 are performed in flat space; the classical hyperbolic analysis in Section 2 keeps Rμν terms.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Massless limit of massive self-interacting vector fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4H2S7SDE

@misc{pith2026250522119,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Massless limit of massive self-interacting vector fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4H2S7SDE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22119}
}

read the original abstract

We study massive self-interacting vector field theories with mass added ``by hand". We show that the massless limit of the quartic self-interacting vector field theory is not smooth. Pathological behavior of the theory is not limited only at the classical level, even at the quantum level unitarity is violated at the two-loop. Using the Vainshtein mechanism, we show that it fails beyond the strong-coupling scale and hence a massless limit is not smooth even in quantum theory.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Zeroth law of black hole thermodynamics for higher derivative Proca theories
hep-th 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The zeroth law of black hole thermodynamics holds to all perturbative orders for higher curvature Einstein-Proca effective field theories.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[37]

Hell, The massless limit of massive gauge theories , Ph.D

A. Hell, The massless limit of massive gauge theories , Ph.D. thesis, Munich U., 2022. 10.5282/edoc.30317

work page doi:10.5282/edoc.30317 2022
[1]

Higgs, Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons , Phys

P.W. Higgs, Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons , Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 508

work page 1964
[2]

Fujikawa, B.W

K. Fujikawa, B.W. Lee and A.I. Sanda, Generalized renormalizable gauge formulation of spontaneously broken gauge theories , Phys. Rev. D 6 (1972) 2923

work page 1972
[3]

Boulware, Renormalizeability of massive non-abelian gauge fields - a functional integral approach, Annals Phys

D.G. Boulware, Renormalizeability of massive non-abelian gauge fields - a functional integral approach, Annals Phys. 56 (1970) 140

work page 1970
[4]

Ktorides, Renormalizability aspects of massive yang-mills field models , Phys

C.N. Ktorides, Renormalizability aspects of massive yang-mills field models , Phys. Rev. D 13 (1976) 2811

work page 1976
[5]

Proca, Sur la theorie ondulatoire des electrons positifs et negatifs , J

A. Proca, Sur la theorie ondulatoire des electrons positifs et negatifs , J. Phys. Radium 7 (1936) 347

work page 1936
[6]

Esposito-Farese, C

G. Esposito-Farese, C. Pitrou and J.-P. Uzan, Vector theories in cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 063519 [ 0912.0481]

arXiv 2010
[7]

De Felice, L

A. De Felice, L. Heisenberg, R. Kase, S. Mukohyama, S. Tsujikawa and Y.-l. Zhang, Cosmology in generalized proca theories, JCAP 06 (2016) 048 [ 1603.05806]

arXiv 2016

Show all 53 references

[8]

De Felice, L

A. De Felice, L. Heisenberg, R. Kase, S. Mukohyama and S. Tsujikawa, Effective gravitational couplings for cosmological perturbations in generalized proca theories , Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 044024 [ 1605.05066]. – 27 –

2016 arXiv
[9]

Heisenberg, A systematic approach to generalisations of general relativity and their cosmological implications, Phys

L. Heisenberg, A systematic approach to generalisations of general relativity and their cosmological implications, Phys. Rept. 796 (2019) 1 [ 1807.01725]

2019 arXiv
[10]

Kase and S

R. Kase and S. Tsujikawa, Black holes in vector-tensor theories , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 084009 [1712.06897]

2018 arXiv
[11]

Ramazanoglu, Spontaneous growth of vector fields in gravity , Phys

F.M. Ramazanoglu, Spontaneous growth of vector fields in gravity , Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 064009 [1706.01056]

2017 arXiv
[12]

Annulli, G

L. Annulli, G. Franciolini and P. Pani, Electromagnetic and gravitational perturbations of hairy black holes in vector-tensor theories: Stability and quasinormal modes , Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 044038 [ 1901.02461]

2019 arXiv
[13]

Barton and F.M

E.J. Barton and F.M. Ramazanoglu, Instabilities in self-interacting vector fields , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 064051 [ 2107.09620]

2021 arXiv
[14]

Minamitsuji, Black holes in the generalized proca theory with the nonminimal coupling to the einstein tensor , Phys

M. Minamitsuji, Black holes in the generalized proca theory with the nonminimal coupling to the einstein tensor , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 104023 [ 1805.09867]

2018 arXiv
[15]

Herdeiro, E

C.A.R. Herdeiro, E. Radu and U. Sperhake, Dynamical formation of proca stars and quasi-bound states in the einstein-proca model , Phys. Lett. B 807 (2020) 135577 [2004.07934]

2020 arXiv
[16]

Herdeiro, E

C.A.R. Herdeiro, E. Radu and U. Sperhake, Proca stars: Gravitating bose–einstein condensates of massive vector fields , Universe 7 (2021) 483 [ 2112.09960]

2021 arXiv
[17]

Dimopoulos, M

K. Dimopoulos, M. Karciauskas and J.M. Wagstaff, Vector dark energy models with radiation, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 043509 [ hep-ph/0607064]

2008 arXiv
[18]

Golovnev, V

A. Golovnev, V. Mukhanov and V. Vanchurin, Vector inflation, JCAP 06 (2008) 009 [0802.2068]

2008 arXiv
[20]

Maleknejad and M.M

A. Maleknejad and M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari, Gauge-flation: Inflation from non-abelian gauge fields, Phys. Lett. B 723 (2013) 224 [ 1102.1513]

2013 arXiv
[21]

Adshead and M

P. Adshead and M. Wyman, Chromo-natural inflation: Natural inflation on a steep potential with classical non-abelian gauge fields , Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 261302 [ 1202.2366]

2012 arXiv
[22]

Emami, E

R. Emami, E. Dimastrogiovanni, J. Chluba and M. Kamionkowski, Non-gaussianity from axion-gauge fields interactions during inflation , JCAP 06 (2017) 058 [ 1612.09348]

2017 arXiv
[23]

Garnica, A

K. Garnica, A. Maleknejad and E. Komatsu, Primordial gravitational waves from excited states of the hybrid inflation waterfall , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 023514 [ 2111.04574]

2022 arXiv
[24]

Holdom, Two u(1)’s and epsilon charge shifts , Phys

B. Holdom, Two u(1)’s and epsilon charge shifts , Phys. Lett. B 166 (1986) 196

1986
[25]

Graham, D.E

P.W. Graham, D.E. Kaplan and S. Rajendran, Relaxion dark matter , Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 063512 [ 1504.07543]

2015 arXiv
[26]

Agrawal, N

P. Agrawal, N. Kitajima, M. Reece, T. Sekiguchi and F. Takahashi, Relic abundance of dark photon dark matter , Phys. Lett. B 801 (2020) 135136 [ 1810.07188]

2020 arXiv
[27]

Goodsell and A

M. Goodsell and A. Ringwald, Light hidden u(1)s from string theory , JHEP 10 (2010) 045 [0910.4511]. – 28 –

2010 arXiv
[28]

Bastero-Gil, J

M. Bastero-Gil, J. Santiago and A. Tranberg, Warm dark matter from inflationary reheating , JCAP 01 (2019) 042 [ 1809.01669]

2019 arXiv
[29]

Y. Ema, K. Nakayama and Y. Tang, Production of purely gravitational dark matter: the case of fermion and vector boson , JHEP 07 (2019) 060 [ 1903.10973]

2019 arXiv
[30]

Kolb, A.J

E.W. Kolb, A.J. Long and E. McDonough, Dark matter from the inflaton portal , Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 055025 [ 2009.03828]

2021 arXiv
[31]

Ahmed, B

A. Ahmed, B. Grzadkowski and A. Socha, Implications of time-dependent dark matter production, JHEP 09 (2020) 059 [ 2005.01766]

2020 arXiv
[32]

Caputo, M

A. Caputo, M. Pospelov and S. Rajendran, Dark photon limits in the dark epoch , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 063036 [ 2103.03222]

2021 arXiv
[33]

Antypas et al., Search for dark matter with a 231-day exposure of liquid argon using deap-3600 at snolab , Phys

D. Antypas et al., Search for dark matter with a 231-day exposure of liquid argon using deap-3600 at snolab , Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 052004 [ 2205.15942]

2022 arXiv
[34]

Coates and F.M

A. Coates and F.M. Ramazano˘ glu,Intrinsic pathology of self-interacting vector fields , Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (2022) 151103

2022
[35]

¨Unl¨ ut¨ urk, A

K.i.e.i.f.m.c.i.d.I. ¨Unl¨ ut¨ urk, A. Coates and F.M. Ramazano˘ glu,Loss of hyperbolicity and tachyons in generalized proca theories , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 044022

2023
[36]

Bass and E

L.P. Bass and E. Schr¨ odinger,Must the photon mass be zero? , Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 232 (1955) 1

1955
[38]

van Dam and M.J.G

H. van Dam and M.J.G. Veltman, Massive and massless Yang-Mills and gravitational fields , Nucl. Phys. B 22 (1970) 397

1970
[39]

Vainshtein, To the problem of nonvanishing gravitation mass , Phys

A.I. Vainshtein, To the problem of nonvanishing gravitation mass , Phys. Lett. B 39 (1972) 393

1972
[40]

Vainshtein and I.B

A.I. Vainshtein and I.B. Khriplovich, On the zero-mass limit and renormalizability in the theory of massive yang-mills field , Yad. Fiz. 13 (1971) 198

1971
[41]

Gomez and J.F

G. Gomez and J.F. Rodriguez, Internal symmetry to the rescue: well-posed 1+1 evolution of self-interacting vector fields , 2503.09757
[42]

Sarbach and M

O. Sarbach and M. Tiglio, Continuum and discrete initial-boundary value problems and einstein ’s field equations, Living Reviews in Relativity 15 (2012)

2012
[43]

F. Hirosawa, Loss of regularity for the solutions to hyperbolic equations with non-regular coefficients - an application to kirchhoff equation , Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences 26 (2003) 783

2003
[44]

Carvalho, I.P

G.G. Carvalho, I.P. Lobo and E. Bittencourt, Extended disformal approach in the scenario of rainbow gravity, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 044005

2016
[45]

Bittencourt, I.P

E. Bittencourt, I.P. Lobo and G.G. Carvalho, On the disformal invariance of the dirac equation, Classical and Quantum Gravity 32 (2015) 185016

2015
[46]

Hell, The strong couplings of massive Yang-Mills theory , JHEP 03 (2022) 167 [2111.00017]

A. Hell, The strong couplings of massive Yang-Mills theory , JHEP 03 (2022) 167 [2111.00017]

2022 arXiv
[47]

Demozzi, V

V. Demozzi, V. Mukhanov and H. Rubinstein, Magnetic fields from inflation? , JCAP 08 (2009) 025 [ 0907.1030]. – 29 –

2009 arXiv
[48]

Hell, On the duality of massive kalb-ramond and proca fields , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2022 (2022) 056

A. Hell, On the duality of massive kalb-ramond and proca fields , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2022 (2022) 056

2022
[49]

Heisenberg and J

L. Heisenberg and J. Zosso, Quantum Stability of Generalized Proca Theories , Class. Quant. Grav. 38 (2021) 065001 [ 2005.01639]

2021 arXiv
[50]

Martin, Unitarity and high-energy behavior of scattering amplitudes , Phys

A. Martin, Unitarity and high-energy behavior of scattering amplitudes , Phys. Rev. 129 (1963) 1432

1963
[51]

Dvali, S

G. Dvali, S. Hofmann and J. Khoury, Degravitation of the cosmological constant and graviton width, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 084006 [ 0703027]

2007
[52]

Felice, L

A.D. Felice, L. Heisenberg, R. Kase, S. Tsujikawa, Y. l. Zhang and G.B. Zhao, Screening fifth forces in generalized Proca theories, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 104016 [ 1602.00371]

2016 arXiv
[53]

Mukhanov and S

V. Mukhanov and S. Winitzki, Introduction to quantum effects in gravity , Cambridge University Press (6, 2007)

2007
[54]

Mou and H.-Y

Z.-G. Mou and H.-Y. Zhang, Singularity problem for interacting massive vectors , Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (2022) 151101. – 30 –

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [37]

Hell, The massless limit of massive gauge theories , Ph.D

A. Hell, The massless limit of massive gauge theories , Ph.D. thesis, Munich U., 2022. 10.5282/edoc.30317

work page doi:10.5282/edoc.30317 2022

[2] [1]

Higgs, Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons , Phys

P.W. Higgs, Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons , Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 508

work page 1964

[3] [2]

Fujikawa, B.W

K. Fujikawa, B.W. Lee and A.I. Sanda, Generalized renormalizable gauge formulation of spontaneously broken gauge theories , Phys. Rev. D 6 (1972) 2923

work page 1972

[4] [3]

Boulware, Renormalizeability of massive non-abelian gauge fields - a functional integral approach, Annals Phys

D.G. Boulware, Renormalizeability of massive non-abelian gauge fields - a functional integral approach, Annals Phys. 56 (1970) 140

work page 1970

[5] [4]

Ktorides, Renormalizability aspects of massive yang-mills field models , Phys

C.N. Ktorides, Renormalizability aspects of massive yang-mills field models , Phys. Rev. D 13 (1976) 2811

work page 1976

[6] [5]

Proca, Sur la theorie ondulatoire des electrons positifs et negatifs , J

A. Proca, Sur la theorie ondulatoire des electrons positifs et negatifs , J. Phys. Radium 7 (1936) 347

work page 1936

[7] [6]

Esposito-Farese, C

G. Esposito-Farese, C. Pitrou and J.-P. Uzan, Vector theories in cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 063519 [ 0912.0481]

arXiv 2010

[8] [7]

De Felice, L

A. De Felice, L. Heisenberg, R. Kase, S. Mukohyama, S. Tsujikawa and Y.-l. Zhang, Cosmology in generalized proca theories, JCAP 06 (2016) 048 [ 1603.05806]

arXiv 2016