Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

A radiative lepton model in a non-invertible fusion rule

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Electron and muon masses can be generated entirely at one loop by the dynamical breaking of the Ising fusion rule, while the tau mass stays tree-level.

desk verdict Novel fusion-rule mechanism for radiative e/mu masses, but the scalar sector that makes it work is assumed, not derived, and the numerical support is thin. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11951 v1 pith:PJL5GHPU submitted 2025-07-16 hep-ph

Jingqian Chen , Chao-Qiang Geng , Hiroshi Okada , Jia-Jun Wu This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords Isingfusionrulenon-invertiblesymmetryradiativecharged-leptonmassneutrinodarkmattermuong-2leptonflavorviolation
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 proposes a mechanism in which the electron and muon masses $m_e$ and $m_\mu$ appear only at one loop, while the tau mass $m_\tau$ is generated at tree level. The trigger is the Ising fusion rule, a non-invertible symmetry whose fusion products include $\epsilon \otimes \epsilon = I$ and $\sigma \otimes \sigma = I \oplus \epsilon$; assigning the first two lepton doublets to $\epsilon$ forbids their tree-level Yukawa couplings. Once the scalars $S$ and $\eta$ mix with angle $\theta$, the symmetry is dynamically broken and loop diagrams generate $m_e$ and $m_\mu$. In the neutrino sector the same rule is not broken at any loop order, so it stabilizes the particles inside the loop. The mechanism makes the charged-lepton hierarchy a byproduct of loop suppression and provides a stable scalar dark-matter candidate.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Ising fusion rule, $\epsilon \otimes \epsilon = I$, $\sigma \otimes \sigma = I \oplus \epsilon$, $\sigma \otimes \epsilon = \sigma$: a non-invertible symmetry that is not a group but still forbids certain couplings at tree level. It carries the argument by forbidding the electron and muon tree-level Yukawas while allowing the tau coupling; the same rule's $\sigma$ objects host the new fermions and scalars. The machinery also includes the $S$–$\eta$ mixing angle $\theta$, which turns the tree-forbidden couplings into one-loop mass diagrams, with the loop integrals $F_I$ and $f$ governing the electron and muon masses, neutrino masses, lepton-flavor-violating amplitudes, and the muon $g-2$. In the neutrino sector the $\lambda_0(H^\dagger\eta)^2$ term generates masses while the fusion rule stays exact, stabilizing the loop particles.

What would settle it

Compute the complete scalar potential including the $H^\dagger\eta S$ term and check whether a mixing angle $\theta$ satisfying the paper's assumptions can coexist with the assumed near-degeneracy $m_{A_1}\approx m_{H_1}$; if the potential forces $\theta=0$ or splits the states too far, Eqs. (9) and (10) give no electron or muon mass. Alternatively, a measurement of $\mathrm{BR}(\mu\to e\gamma)$ above $3.1\times10^{-13}$ would exclude the model's surviving parameter space.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that a non-invertible fusion rule can do two jobs at once in the lepton sector. Assigning the first two lepton doublets to $\epsilon$ forbids the tree-level terms $\overline{L_{\ell}}\ell_R H$ for $\ell=e,\mu$; after the inert doublet $\eta$ and singlet $S$ mix with angle $\theta$, the one-loop diagram with the vector-like fermions $E_a$ fills in the $2\times 3$ block of the charged-lepton mass matrix, so $m_e$ and $m_\mu$ are loop-suppressed while $m_\tau$ stays at tree level. In the neutrino sector the same rule never breaks: it acts like an exact $\mathbb{Z}_2$ that stabilizes the loop particles, and the neutrino masses come from the one-loop diagram mediated by $\eta$ and the neutral fermions $N_a$. The numerical scan then shows that both normal and inverted neutrino hierarchies can satisfy neutrino oscillation data, lepton-flavor-violating bounds, the muon $g-2$, and the dark-matter relic density, with the lightest inert scalar $H_2$ as the dark-matter candidate.

Load-bearing premise

The entire radiative generation of $m_e$ and $m_\mu$ depends on an $S$–$\eta$ mixing angle $\theta$ that is inserted by hand, with no full scalar potential shown to produce it together with the required near-degenerate masses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The electron and muon masses become calculable one-loop effects, so the observed hierarchy $m_e, m_\mu \ll m_\tau$ is explained by loop suppression rather than by hand.
  • The Ising fusion rule remains unbroken in the neutrino sector at all loop orders, making the lightest inert scalar $H_2$ a stable dark-matter candidate.
  • The model can satisfy neutrino oscillation data, the $\mu\to e\gamma$ bound, and the dark-matter relic density simultaneously in both normal and inverted hierarchy scenarios.
  • The absolute value of the muon anomalous magnetic moment is predicted up to about $3\times10^{-10}$, which lies in the experimentally relevant range.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same mechanism could be moved to the quark sector: a non-invertible assignment would radiatively generate the first-generation quark masses while leaving the third generation at tree level.
  • If the $S$–$\eta$ mixing angle and mass splittings were derived from a complete scalar potential rather than inserted by hand, the loop masses would become predictive functions of the scalar couplings, sharpening the allowed parameter space.
  • The numerical scan assumes $m_{A_1}\approx m_{H_1}$ to avoid large oblique corrections; a full electroweak oblique-parameter calculation would test that assumption and could exclude part of the claimed region.
  • Future muon $g-2$ measurements that move $\Delta a_\mu$ closer to zero would thin out the parameter band allowed by the model, making its electron and muon mass mechanism easier to falsify.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an extension of the Standard Model in which the electron and muon masses are generated at one-loop level after the dynamical breaking of the Ising fusion rule, while the tau mass is tree-level. The model contains two vector-like lepton doublets, two Majorana singlet fermions, an inert scalar doublet eta, and an inert scalar singlet S, with the first- and second-generation lepton doublets assigned to the non-trivial representation epsilon of the fusion rule. Neutrino masses are also generated at one-loop order, and the lightest inert scalar H2 is proposed as a dark matter candidate. The paper computes lepton flavor violating rates, the muon anomalous magnetic moment, the dark matter annihilation cross section, and presents numerical scans for both normal and inverted neutrino mass hierarchies, claiming simultaneous agreement with neutrino oscillation data, LFV bounds, and the observed relic density.

Significance. If the underlying scalar sector can be realized, the proposal offers a novel way to connect non-invertible fusion rules to radiative mass generation for the first two charged-lepton generations, with a natural dark matter candidate. The one-loop formulas for charged-lepton masses, neutrino masses, LFV, and DM annihilation are standard and appear correctly derived assuming the stated scalar mixing. However, the paper's central claim depends on an unproven scalar potential ansatz, and the numerical results are scan outputs without benchmark points, so the current version is not yet a complete phenomenological proposal.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II.A, Eqs. (4)-(5) and Eq. (9)] The one-loop charged-lepton mass formula (9) requires both s_theta c_theta != 0 and a difference between the CP-even and CP-odd loop functions. The paper introduces a common mixing angle theta for the (eta_R,S_R) and (eta_I,S_I) sectors by hand and never derives it from a scalar potential. For the minimal mu H^dagger eta S term that is invoked, the off-diagonal entries of the CP-even and CP-odd 2x2 mass matrices have opposite signs, which leads to pairwise degenerate eigenvalues m_H1 = m_A1 and m_H2 = m_A2 in the absence of additional terms. With that degeneracy the bracket in Eq. (9) vanishes, so m_e = m_mu = 0 at one loop. Any additional term that splits the pairs generically changes the rotation angle for eta_I relative to eta_R, so the common-theta ansatz is not an automatic consequence of the model. The central mass-generation mechanism is therefore not established without a concrete scalar potential.
  2. [Section II.B, Eq. (14) and Section III] The neutrino mass formula (14) and the subsequent Casas-Ibarra relation (15) also rely on the same scalar mixing ansatz, since F_I(H1,A1,N) and F_I(H2,A2,N) vanish in the pairwise-degenerate limit and the required splittings depend on the same undetermined potential. The numerical analysis additionally imposes m_A1 ~ m_H1 'simply to evade oblique parameters' without showing a potential that realizes this, and it cuts the muon g-2 sample at Delta a_mu > 5 x 10^-11. Because no benchmark points are provided, the allowed regions in Figs. 1-2 cannot be reproduced or checked for fine-tuning, and the agreement with the relic-density window and g-2 is a scan output rather than a parameter-free prediction.
  3. [Section III and Eq. (15)] The neutrino oscillation data are satisfied by construction: Eq. (15) is the Casas-Ibarra parametrization, which determines y_eta from the observed neutrino parameters and the light neutrino mass matrix. The paper treats this as a constraint, but it is a fit, not a prediction. The only free quantity in the neutrino sector is the complex parameter z in O_N, and its role in the numerical scan is not discussed. The phenomenological claims in Section III should be framed accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section I] There are several grammatical errors and typos, e.g., 'Theses symmetries' and 'in which they discuss; e.g.,' in the introduction; the manuscript would benefit from a careful language edit.
  2. [Eqs. (4)-(5)] The sentence 's_theta is written by ~ v_H mu/(m^2_H(A)1 - m^2_H(A)2)' is incomplete and the notation H(A) is ambiguous; please specify whether the denominator refers to the H or A mass eigenvalues and give the exact relation.
  3. [Section II.C] The matrices V_L and V_R used to define Y and G are not explicitly introduced; they should be defined as the unitary matrices that diagonalize M_ell in Eq. (11).
  4. [Figs. 1-2] The figures lack axis labels; the captions mention the relic-density cross section and the muon g-2, but it is not clear which quantity is on each axis.
  5. [Eq. (27)] The quoted 1-sigma range for Delta a_mu, (39 +/- 64) x 10^-11, should be compared with the text's statement that the absolute value is predicted up to 3 x 10^-10; please clarify whether the model prefers positive or negative contributions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the charged-lepton loop mass is a genuine computation from the stated Yukawa terms and mixing ansatz, while the neutrino-sector fit is used as an input constraint, not presented as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained, and no claimed result reduces to its own inputs by construction. The one-loop charged-lepton mass formula in Eq. (9) follows from the explicit Yukawa interactions in Eqs. (2)-(3) together with the S-eta mixing defined in Eqs. (4)-(5); the loop integral is a genuine calculation and is not defined in terms of the electron or muon masses it is meant to produce. The equal-mixing-angle ansatz and the mass splittings are assumed rather than derived from a specified scalar potential, but that is an assumption or completeness issue, not a circularity, because the mass formula is not a restatement of the ansatz. In the neutrino sector, Eq. (15) uses the Casas-Ibarra parameterization to enforce the observed neutrino masses and mixing angles, and the paper does not present those observables as predictions; they are input constraints for the subsequent numerical scan of LFV, muon g-2, and dark matter observables. The g-2 and relic-density results are outputs of a random parameter scan filtered by experimental bounds, so they are compatibility statements rather than fitted quantities renamed as predictions. The self-citations, including Refs. [11], [17], and [20], are used only as examples of applications of non-invertible fusion rules and are not load-bearing for the paper's central mechanism, nor is any uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work. Thus the paper contains no circular step that would warrant a nonzero circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The central mechanism depends on several arbitrary couplings and masses. Neutrino oscillations are imposed through Casas-Ibarra, charged-lepton masses fix Yukawas, and the g-2/DM plots select random points rather than deriving unique predictions. No full scalar potential or benchmark point is given.

free parameters (5)
  • Charged-lepton Yukawas y_l, y_E, y_tau, h_tau = random scan, absolute values in [0,pi], complex phases not fixed
    Chosen to reproduce me, m_mu, m_tau; not predicted.
  • Neutrino Yukawa matrix y_eta and complex parameter z in O_N = fixed by Eq. (15) using NuFit 6.0 oscillation data
    Makes the neutrino sector satisfy oscillation data by construction.
  • Vector-like fermion masses M_Ea and M_Na (a=1,2) = scanned in 10^2 to 10^5 GeV
    Free mass inputs controlling loop sizes and DM annihilation.
  • Inert scalar masses m_H1, m_H2, m_A1, m_A2 = scanned in 10^2 to 10^5 GeV, with m_A1 approximately m_H1 imposed
    Mass splittings set the loop functions and oblique parameter safety.
  • Mixing parameter s_theta (set by mu and scalar mass splittings) = not reported; related to v_H mu / (m^2_H(A)1 - m^2_H(A)2)
    Controls the size of the one-loop charged-lepton masses, LFV, g-2, and DM cross section.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Ising fusion rule of Eq. (1) is an exact global symmetry of the 4D Lagrangian and enforces the selection rules used in Table I.
    The entire model rests on this symmetry acting like a flavor group; no UV completion is shown in this paper.
  • domain assumption The new particle content is anomaly-free and the SU(2)xU(1) assignments are valid.
    No anomaly check is presented; the authors rely on earlier string constructions.
  • ad hoc to paper The operator H^dagger eta S is allowed and generates the eta-S mixing through the mu term.
    The scalar potential is not written; the mixing is introduced by hand.
  • ad hoc to paper The CP-even and CP-odd mixing angles are approximately equal.
    Stated just before Eq. (4); it is needed for the loop formulas.
  • ad hoc to paper m_A1 is approximately m_H1 to evade oblique parameter constraints.
    Assumed in Sec. III with no computation.
  • standard math The Casas-Ibarra parametrization in Eq. (15) is valid for the two-right-handed-neutrino case.
    Standard parametrization of the neutrino Yukawa matrix; it fixes y_eta to reproduce oscillation data.
invented entities (4)
  • Vector-like lepton doublets E_L,R (two families)
    purpose: Connect L_L,e/mu to right-handed leptons through one-loop diagrams that generate electron and muon masses
    No mass prediction or dedicated collider signature is given; masses are scan inputs.
  • Right-handed Majorana neutrinos N_R (two families)
    purpose: Generate one-loop neutrino masses via the radiative seesaw with eta
    No mass spectrum or lepton-number-violating signature (e.g., 0nu beta beta rate) is predicted.
  • Inert scalar doublet eta
    purpose: Loop mediator for charged-lepton and neutrino masses; also mixes with singlet S
    No search strategy or production signature is described.
  • Inert scalar singlet S and its mass eigenstate H2 (dark matter chi)
    purpose: Dark matter candidate and second loop mediator
    Thermal relic cross section is estimated, but no direct detection or collider handle is computed; allowed masses span a wide range.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A radiative lepton model in a non-invertible fusion rule." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PJL5GHPU

@misc{pith2026250711951,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A radiative lepton model in a non-invertible fusion rule},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PJL5GHPU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11951}
}
abstract

We propose a new mechanism in which electron and muon masses are induced at one-loop level after dynamically violating the symmetry of the Ising fusion rule. In the neutrino sector, while the neutrino mass is generated at one-loop level, the Ising fusion rule plays a role in stabilizing the particles inside the loop. As a result, the symmetry works like a $Z_2$ symmetry that is not broken at any loop order. Subsequently, we discuss the lepton flavor violating processes, muon anomalous magnetic dipole moment, and relic density of dark matter, where we specify our dark matter candidate to be a singlet boson and briefly analyze the relic density by estimating the DM annihilation cross section. Finally, we present results for both the DM cross section and the muon $g-2$, satisfying the neutrino oscillation data as well as the constraints of lepton flavor violations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11951 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Allowed region for the cross section for the relic density of DM and muon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Allowed region for the cross section for the relic density of DM and muon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Radiative lepton model in a non-invertible fusion rule

    hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A radiative lepton mass model with a Z2-gauged Z5 non-invertible fusion rule can fit neutrino oscillation data and predicts charged-lepton EDMs that indirectly bound 0νββ to ≲28–33.5 meV.

  2. Non-Invertible Selection Rules on Heterotic Non-Abelian Orbifolds

    hep-th 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Non-Abelian orbifolds in heterotic string theory produce non-invertible coupling selection rules, since twisted sectors are labeled by conjugacy classes whose products contain multiple classes and yield characteristic...

  3. A natural realization of inverse seesaw model in a non-invertible selection rule

    hep-ph 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Z3 Tambara-Yamagami fusion rule is used to build an inverse seesaw model with radiatively generated Majorana masses and a dark matter candidate, fitted to neutrino oscillation data.

  4. Three-loop induced neutrino mass model in a non-invertible symmetry

    hep-ph 2025-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A Ma-model extension with a non-invertible symmetry generates neutrino masses at three loops and yields S0 or eta_R dark matter candidates, with scanned parameter regions shown.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    1 shows allowed region for the cross section for the relic density of DM and muon g − 2

    NH Fig. 1 shows allowed region for the cross section for the relic density of DM and muon g − 2. Our plots are shown in the blue dots, and our model satisfies both the experimental values. The red horizontal lines represent the upper and lower bounds corresponding to the relic density of DM in Eq.(31). The vertical dotted lines are the upper and lower exp...

    work page

  2. [2]

    2 show allowed region for the cross section for the relic density of DM and muon g − 2 in the case of IH

    IH Fig. 2 show allowed region for the cross section for the relic density of DM and muon g − 2 in the case of IH. Our plots are shown in the blue dots, where all the legends are the same as the ones of Fig. 1. The plot tendency of IH is almost same as the one of NH. 9 IV. SUMMAR Y AND DISCUSSION In this work, we have proposed a new mechanism in which the ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Kobayashi, H

    T. Kobayashi, H. Otsuka, and M. Tanimoto, JHEP 12, 117 (2024), 2409.05270

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Kobayashi, Y

    T. Kobayashi, Y. Nishioka, H. Otsuka, and M. Tanimoto, JHEP 05, 177 (2025), 2503.09966

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Kobayashi, H

    T. Kobayashi, H. Otsuka, M. Tanimoto, and H. Uchida (2025), 2505.07262

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Y. Choi, H. T. Lam, and S.-H. Shao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 161601 (2022), 2205.05086

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Cordova, S

    C. Cordova, S. Hong, S. Koren, and K. Ohmori, Phys. Rev. X 14, 031033 (2024), 2211.07639

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Cordova and K

    C. Cordova and K. Ohmori, Phys. Rev. X 13, 011034 (2023), 2205.06243

    arXiv 2023

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Cordova, S

    C. Cordova, S. Hong, and S. Koren (2024), 2402.12453. 10

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Kobayashi and H

    T. Kobayashi and H. Otsuka, JHEP 11, 120 (2024), 2408.13984

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Suzuki and L.-X

    M. Suzuki and L.-X. Xu (2025), 2503.19964

    2025

  4. [12]

    Liang and T

    Q. Liang and T. T. Yanagida (2025), 2505.05142

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Kobayashi, H

    T. Kobayashi, H. Okada, and H. Otsuka (2025), 2505.14878

    2025

  6. [14]

    J. J. Heckman, J. McNamara, M. Montero, A. Sharon, C. Vafa, and I. Valenzuela (2024), 2402.00118

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Kaidi, Y

    J. Kaidi, Y. Tachikawa, and H. Y. Zhang (2024), 2402.00105

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Kobayashi, H

    T. Kobayashi, H. Mita, H. Otsuka, and R. Sakuma (2025), 2506.10241

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Nomura and O

    T. Nomura and O. Popov (2025), 2507.10299

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Altarelli and F

    G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 2701 (2010), 1002.0211

    2010 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ishimori, T

    H. Ishimori, T. Kobayashi, H. Ohki, Y. Shimizu, H. Okada, and M. Tanimoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 183, 1 (2010), 1003.3552

    2010 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Kobayashi, H

    T. Kobayashi, H. Ohki, H. Okada, Y. Shimizu, and M. Tanimoto, An Introduction to Non-Abelian Discrete Symmetries for Particle Physicists (2022), ISBN 978-3- 662-64678-6, 978-3-662-64679-3

    2022

  13. [21]

    Ishimori, T

    H. Ishimori, T. Kobayashi, H. Ohki, H. Okada, Y. Shimizu, and M. Tanimoto, An introduction to non-Abelian discrete symmetries for particle physicists, vol. 858 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    Nomura and H

    T. Nomura and H. Okada (2025), 2506.16706

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    J. Dong, T. Jeric, T. Kobayashi, R. Nishida, and H. Otsuka (2025), 2507.02375

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    J. Dong, T. Kobayashi, R. Nishida, S. Nishimura, and H. Otsuka (2025), 2504.09773

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Funakoshi, T

    S. Funakoshi, T. Kobayashi, and H. Otsuka (2024), 2412.12524

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Dijkgraaf, E

    R. Dijkgraaf, E. P. Verlinde, and H. L. Verlinde, Commun. Math. Phys. 115, 649 (1988)

    1988

  19. [27]

    Kobayashi, S

    T. Kobayashi, S. Raby, and R.-J. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. B 704, 3 (2005), hep-ph/0409098

    2005 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Kobayashi, H

    T. Kobayashi, H. P. Nilles, F. Ploger, S. Raby, and M. Ratz, Nucl. Phys. B 768, 135 (2007), hep- ph/0611020

    2007

  21. [29]

    F. Beye, T. Kobayashi, and S. Kuwakino, Phys. Lett. B 736, 433 (2014), 1406.4660

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Thorngren and Y

    R. Thorngren and Y. Wang, JHEP 07, 051 (2024), 2106.12577

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Bhardwaj and Y

    L. Bhardwaj and Y. Tachikawa, JHEP 03, 189 (2018), 1704.02330

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ma, Phys

    E. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 73, 077301 (2006), hep-ph/0601225

    2006 arXiv

  25. [33]

    J. A. Casas and A. Ibarra, Nucl. Phys. B 618, 171 (2001), hep-ph/0103065

    2001 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Vagnozzi, E

    S. Vagnozzi, E. Giusarma, O. Mena, K. Freese, M. Gerbino, S. Ho, and M. Lattanzi, Phys. Rev. D 96, 123503 (2017), 1701.08172

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], 1807.06209

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI) (2024), 2404.03002

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Afanaciev et al

    K. Afanaciev et al. (MEG II), Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 190 (2024), 2310.11902

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Venturini (MEG II), Nuovo Cim

    A. Venturini (MEG II), Nuovo Cim. C 47, 287 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024). 11

    2024

  32. [40]

    D. P. Aguillard et al. (Muon g-2) (2025), 2506.03069

    2025

  33. [41]

    Aliberti et al

    R. Aliberti et al. (2025), 2505.21476

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 571, A16 (2014), 1303.5076

    2014 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. a. P. Pinheiro, and T. Schwetz, JHEP 12, 216 (2024), 2410.05380

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.