pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.01178 · v3 · pith:UZAJMZLBnew · submitted 2026-05-31 · ✦ hep-ph

Probing the imaginary parts and their q² dependences for the tau g-2 and EDM

Xin-Yu Du , Xiao-Gang He , Zhong-Lv Huang , Chia-Wei Liu , Zi-Yue Zou This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 17:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords tau anomalous magnetic momenttau electric dipole momentCP violationTwo Higgs Doublet ModelSMEFTdipole form factorsq2 dependenceBelle II
0
0 comments X

The pith

CP-violating interactions generating a non-zero tau EDM also contribute to a_tau through q^2-dependent form factors with imaginary parts.

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

The paper establishes that in SMEFT, CP-violating interactions that produce a non-zero d_tau generically also affect a_tau. This connection is explored in the 2HDM where sizable imaginary parts and q^2 running of the dipole form factors arise for timelike momentum transfers. These effects are within reach of e+e- colliders, motivating methods to extract real and imaginary components that allow Belle II and STCF to tighten a_tau bounds by more than an order of magnitude and to study q^2 evolution.

Core claim

The central claim is that new CP-violating interactions which generate a non-zero d_τ can also generically have non-zero contributions to a_τ. Within the 2HDM, sizable imaginary parts and significant q² running can be generated at levels accessible by e⁺e⁻ colliders. Experimental methods using distinct center-of-mass energies enable extraction of real and imaginary components, improving bounds on a_τ by more than one order of magnitude and providing information on q² evolution.

What carries the argument

The q²-dependent dipole form factors for the tau that acquire absorptive imaginary parts above the tau pair threshold.

If this is right

  • CP-violating interactions link a_τ and d_τ studies through shared contributions.
  • In 2HDM sizable imaginary parts and q² running are generated accessibly.
  • Belle II and STCF improve a_τ bounds by over an order of magnitude.
  • Combining data at different energies reveals q² evolution of the form factors.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The correlation suggests EDM limits can indirectly constrain a_τ in CP-violating models.
  • Multi-energy measurements may apply to other dipole observables.
  • q² dependence could affect existing constant-form-factor bounds.

Load-bearing premise

The proposed methods at Belle II and STCF can isolate real and imaginary parts of the dipole form factors at the needed precision.

What would settle it

A lack of improvement in a_τ bounds or no detectable q² dependence in combined collider data at multiple energies would challenge the claims.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.01178 by Chia-Wei Liu, Xiao-Gang He, Xin-Yu Du, Zhong-Lv Huang, Zi-Yue Zou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: One-loop QED vertex correction diagram in the timelike region The F2 and F3 structures correspond to dipole operators which are dimensin-5 and are not allowed at elementary tree-level interactions in renormalizable UV-complete theories. But they can be dynamically generated via loop corrections. For instance, in standard QED, we can calculate the one-loop vertex correction in the time like region shown in … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustrative Feynman diagrams of the one-loop dynamical processes generating the absorptive imaginary parts of the effective form factors using four-fermion operators (CSP,SS) via a closed τ loop, which yields the kine￾matic function g(s). Here, v/√ 2 is the vacuum expectation value of H, and (cW , sW ) = (cos θW ,sin θW ). This matching shows that the anomalous MDM and EDM are intimately correlated. To il… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The real (solid lines) and imaginary (dashed lines) parts of the scalar loop function f1(s, mA) (left) and the pseudoscalar loop function f2(s, mA) (right) as functions of the scalar mass mA. The blue and orange curves corre￾spond to the center-of-mass energies of STCF (√ s = 3.686 GeV) and Belle II (√ s = 10.58 GeV), respectively. The real parts of f1 and f2 have opposite signs over much of the light-mass… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The joint experimental constraints on the scalar and pseudoscalar couplings a and b for a benchmark mass ma = 2.0 GeV. The solid blue and dashed red curves denote the excluded boundaries from the BESIII [54] and OPAL [55] experiments, respectively. The light green shaded area marks the combined remaining allowed region in the (a, b) parameter space. Since gaγγ ∝ a and ˜gaγγ ∝ b, the upper bounds on the mul… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: One-loop QED predictions for Re (aτ ) (q 2 ) and Im (aτ ) (q 2 ), alongside projected 1σ sensitivities at the ψ(2S) and Υ(4S) resonances. Notably, the discontinuities observed in the distributions arise at the threshold q 2 = 4m2 τ . Table II. Projected sensitivities to g − 2 at √ s = mψ(2s) and √ s = mΥ(4S) . The one-loop QED prediction are also shown in this table. Here we consider both π and ρ decay cha… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left panel: The constraints on Y and χ from the Higgs Yukawa coupling relation for m1 = 2GeV, m2 = 500GeV. Right panel: The constraints on Y and m1 with χ = 30◦ , m2 = 500GeV . δλ + iγ5 δλ˜ = X i √ 2 mτ v " a 2 i − b 2 i 16π 2  g[mi , mh, mτ ] + m2 τ 4m2 i  + 2aibi (iγ5) 16π 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The $\tau$ anomalous magnetic dipole moment (MDM) $a_\tau = (g-2)_\tau/2$ and electric dipole moment (EDM) $d_\tau$, are precision probes of electroweak dynamics and possible new physics sources, yet both remain weakly constrained experimentally. Treated as generalized form factors, these quantities exhibit a generic $q^2$ dependence for an off-shell interacting photon. For timelike momentum transfer above the $\tau^+\tau^-$ threshold, $q^2 = s > 4m_\tau^2$, the form factors can acquire absorptive imaginary parts. We investigate how such a $q^2$ dependence and the associated imaginary parts are generated from two complementary perspectives: the model-independent Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT) and a UV-complete Two-Higgs-Doublet Model (2HDM). The effective framework reveals the intimate correlation between $a_\tau$ and $d_\tau$. New CP-violating interactions which generate a non-zero $d_{\tau}$, can also generically have non-zero contributions to $a_\tau$, thereby deeply linking their phenomenological studies. Within the 2HDM, we demonstrate that sizable imaginary parts and significant $q^2$ running can be generated at levels accessible by $e^+e^-$ colliders. Motivated by these features, we propose experimental methods to extract both the real and imaginary components of the dipole form factors. Utilizing these techniques, we show that Belle II and the Super Tau-Charm Facility (STCF) can improve current bounds on $a_\tau$ by more than one order of magnitude. Finally, we highlight that combining measurements across the distinct center-of-mass energies of Belle II and STCF provides a unique, previously unexplored avenue to explicitly obtain information about the $q^2$ evolution of these dipole form factors.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates the q² dependence and imaginary (absorptive) parts of the tau anomalous magnetic moment a_τ and electric dipole moment d_τ above the τ⁺τ⁻ threshold. In SMEFT it identifies a generic correlation arising from CP-violating operators that link non-zero d_τ to contributions in a_τ. In the 2HDM it demonstrates that sizable imaginary parts and q² running can be generated at levels potentially accessible at e⁺e⁻ colliders. The authors propose multi-energy experimental methods to extract real and imaginary components of the dipole form factors and claim that Belle II and STCF can improve existing bounds on a_τ by more than an order of magnitude while also constraining the q² evolution.

Significance. If the experimental extraction methods can be validated, the work would establish a direct phenomenological link between a_τ and d_τ studies, provide a new handle on CP violation in the tau sector, and open a previously unexplored route to mapping the q² dependence of dipole form factors. The model-independent SMEFT correlation is a clear strength; the 2HDM examples illustrate concrete UV realizations that could be tested at upcoming facilities.

major comments (2)
  1. Experimental proposals section (abstract and main text): The central claim that Belle II and STCF can improve current bounds on a_τ by more than one order of magnitude rests on the feasibility of cleanly separating the real and imaginary parts of the dipole form factors at multiple center-of-mass energies. No quantitative error budget, background-rejection study, Monte-Carlo validation, or statistical/systematic uncertainty analysis is supplied to demonstrate that the required precision—particularly for the absorptive imaginary components above threshold—can be achieved. Without this validation the headline phenomenological result cannot be substantiated.
  2. 2HDM section: The demonstration that sizable imaginary parts and significant q² running are generated relies on specific parameter choices; the manuscript should explicitly verify that these contributions remain unsuppressed across the viable parameter space and are not canceled by other diagrams or constraints from existing data.
minor comments (1)
  1. Notation for the generalized dipole form factors (real and imaginary parts) should be introduced with a clear table or equation early in the text to avoid ambiguity when discussing q² dependence.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive report. Below we provide point-by-point responses to the two major comments. We agree that both points identify areas where the manuscript can be strengthened and will incorporate revisions accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Experimental proposals section (abstract and main text): The central claim that Belle II and STCF can improve current bounds on a_τ by more than one order of magnitude rests on the feasibility of cleanly separating the real and imaginary parts of the dipole form factors at multiple center-of-mass energies. No quantitative error budget, background-rejection study, Monte-Carlo validation, or statistical/systematic uncertainty analysis is supplied to demonstrate that the required precision—particularly for the absorptive imaginary components above threshold—can be achieved. Without this validation the headline phenomenological result cannot be substantiated.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript presents a theoretical proposal for multi-energy extraction of the real and imaginary parts without supplying a full experimental simulation or detailed uncertainty budget. The projected improvement is based on the expected integrated luminosities and the kinematic sensitivity of the dipole contributions to the τ⁺τ⁻ cross section. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection with order-of-magnitude statistical uncertainty estimates derived from the expected event yields, together with a qualitative discussion of the dominant systematic effects (beam-energy spread, initial-state radiation, and background rejection). This will make the phenomenological claim more robust while remaining within the scope of a theory paper. revision: yes

  2. Referee: 2HDM section: The demonstration that sizable imaginary parts and significant q² running are generated relies on specific parameter choices; the manuscript should explicitly verify that these contributions remain unsuppressed across the viable parameter space and are not canceled by other diagrams or constraints from existing data.

    Authors: The benchmark points were selected to lie inside the region allowed by current Higgs, flavor, and electroweak constraints. The imaginary parts arise from the absorptive cuts in the one-loop diagrams involving the additional neutral and charged Higgs bosons. We will revise the section to include a short parameter scan (or additional representative points) showing that the size of the imaginary contributions and the q² slope remain comparable across a broader slice of the viable space and are not canceled by other diagrams once all relevant constraints are imposed. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivation relies on explicit SMEFT/2HDM calculations independent of target observables

full rationale

The paper computes dipole form factor contributions (real and imaginary parts, q² dependence) from SMEFT operators and 2HDM parameters via explicit Feynman diagrams and matching. The experimental extraction proposals at Belle II/STCF are motivated by those computed features but do not reduce to re-fitting or redefining the same observables. No self-citation chains, ansatze smuggled via prior work, or fitted inputs renamed as predictions appear in the derivation. The central phenomenological claims remain externally falsifiable against collider data and are not tautological.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, no specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are detailed in the provided text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5905 in / 1335 out tokens · 35881 ms · 2026-06-28T17:07:18.399904+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Current and future constraints on heavy New Physics from $\tau$ weak dipole moments

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Tau weak dipole moments already rank among the leading probes of tau dipole operators and will become dominant at FCC-ee and HL-LHC.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 35 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    (A6) For simplicity, we can also work in the Higgs basis to show the result

    Then the Yukawa interaction can be rewritten by Lh Yukawa =− 3X i=1 mf vsinβ Ri2 + (Y1(Ri1 −cotβR i2)√ 2 ) (hif f) +i( mf cosβ vsinβ − Y1√ 2 sinβ )Ri3(hif f)γ5 . (A6) For simplicity, we can also work in the Higgs basis to show the result. We can do the transformation from the basis we discussed before to Higgs basis [71, 72], where the vev only form the f...

  2. [2]

    J. S. Schwinger, Phys. Rev.73, 416-417 (1948)

    1948

  3. [3]

    Hoogeveen, Nucl

    F. Hoogeveen, Nucl. Phys. B341, 322-340 (1990)

    1990

  4. [4]

    Bernreuther and M

    W. Bernreuther and M. Suzuki, Rev. Mod. Phys.63, 313-340 (1991) [erratum: Rev. Mod. Phys.64, 633 (1992)]

    1991

  5. [5]

    Theory of the tau lepton anomalous magnetic moment

    S. Eidelman and M. Passera, Mod. Phys. Lett. A22, 159-179 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ph/0701260 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  6. [6]

    The Muon g-2

    F. Jegerlehner and A. Nyffeler, Phys. Rept.477, 1-110 (2009) [arXiv:0902.3360 [hep-ph]]. 17

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    Electric Dipole Moments of the Atoms, Molecules, Nuclei and Particles

    T. Chupp, P. Fierlinger, M. Ramsey-Musolf and J. Singh, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, no.1, 015001 (2019) [arXiv:1710.02504 [physics.atom-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Yamaguchi and N

    Y. Yamaguchi and N. Yamanaka, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 241802 (2020) [arXiv:2003.08195 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model

    T. Aoyama, N. Asmussen, M. Benayoun, J. Bijnens, T. Blum, M. Bruno, I. Caprini, C. M. Carloni Calame, M. C` e and G. Colangelo,et al.Phys. Rept.887, 1-166 (2020) [arXiv:2006.04822 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    Yamaguchi and N

    Y. Yamaguchi and N. Yamanaka, Phys. Rev. D103, no.1, 013001 (2021) [arXiv:2006.00281 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    R. E. Cutkosky, J. Math. Phys.1, 429-433 (1960)

    1960

  12. [12]

    R. J. Eden, P. V. Landshoff, D. I. Olive and J. C. Polkinghorne, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1966, ISBN 978-0-521-04869-9

    1966

  13. [13]

    Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys

    S. Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D110, no.3, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys. Rev. Lett.131, no.15, 151802 (2023) [arXiv:2204.13478 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    CP Violation Beyond the Standard Model and Tau Pair Production in $e^+ e^-$ Collisions

    W. Bernreuther, A. Brandenburg and P. Overmann, Phys. Lett. B391, 413-419 (1997) [erratum: Phys. Lett. B412, 425-425 (1997)] [arXiv:hep-ph/9608364 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  16. [16]

    Search For Non-Standard Model CP/T violation At Tau-Charm Factory

    T. Huang, W. Lu and Z. j. Tao, Phys. Rev. D55, 1643-1652 (1997) [arXiv:hep-ph/9609220 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  17. [17]

    M. Fael, L. Mercolli and M. Passera, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.253-255, 103-106 (2014) [arXiv:1301.5302 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  18. [18]

    Bernreuther, L

    W. Bernreuther, L. Chen and O. Nachtmann, Phys. Rev. D103, no.9, 096011 (2021) [arXiv:2101.08071 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    X. Sun, Y. Wu and X. Zhou, Chin. Phys.49, no.11, 113001 (2025) [arXiv:2411.19469 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    X. G. He, C. W. Liu, J. P. Ma, C. Yang and Z. Y. Zou, JHEP04, 001 (2025) [arXiv:2501.06687 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Z. L. Huang and X. G. He, JHEP07, 205 (2025) [arXiv:2503.18591 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    P. C. Lu, Z. G. Si and H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D112, no.7, 075039 (2025) [arXiv:2506.19557 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Nakai, Y

    Y. Nakai, Y. Shigekami, P. Sun and Z. Zhang, [arXiv:2508.05935 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv

  24. [24]

    Crivellin, M

    A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter and J. M. Roney, Phys. Rev. D106, no.9, 093007 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.093007 [arXiv:2111.10378 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.093007 2022

  25. [25]

    Tumasyanet al.[CMS], Phys

    A. Tumasyanet al.[CMS], Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 151803 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.151803 [arXiv:2206.05192 [nucl-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.151803 2023

  26. [26]

    Light new physics and the $\tau$ lepton dipole moments: prospects at Belle II

    M. Hoferichter and G. Levati, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, no.18, 181804 (2026) doi:10.1103/d3rt-69rd [arXiv:2510.13966 [hep- ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/d3rt-69rd 2026

  27. [27]

    Light new physics and the $\tau$ lepton dipole moments

    M. Hoferichter and G. Levati, Phys. Rev. D113, no.9, 095002 (2026) doi:10.1103/7rsy-974z [arXiv:2511.03786 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/7rsy-974z 2026

  28. [28]

    Four-fermion operators, $Z$-boson exchange, and $\tau$ lepton dipole moments

    J. Gogniat, M. Hoferichter and G. Levati, [arXiv:2604.16598 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    X. G. He, B. H. J. McKellar and S. Pakvasa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A4, 5011 (1989) [erratum: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A6, 1063-1066 (1991)]

    1989

  30. [30]

    K. B. Chen, X. G. He, J. P. Ma and X. B. Tong, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, no.5, 051902 (2026) [arXiv:2509.22087 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    S. M. Barr and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. Lett.65, 21-24 (1990) [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.65, 2920 (1990)]

    1990

  32. [32]

    X. G. He, B. H. J. McKellar and S. Pakvasa, Phys. Lett. B283, 348-352 (1992)

    1992

  33. [33]

    M. J. Ramsey-Musolf and S. Su, Phys. Rept.456, 1-88 (2008) [arXiv:hep-ph/0612057 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  34. [34]

    Y. Li, S. Profumo and M. Ramsey-Musolf, JHEP08, 062 (2010) [arXiv:1006.1440 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  35. [35]

    Impact of a CP Violating Higgs: from LHC to Baryogenesis

    J. Shu and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, no.9, 091801 (2013) [arXiv:1304.0773 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  36. [36]

    Electric Dipole Moments in Two-Higgs-Doublet Models

    M. Jung and A. Pich, JHEP04, 076 (2014) [arXiv:1308.6283 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  37. [37]

    CPV Phenomenology of Flavor Conserving Two Higgs Doublet Models

    S. Inoue, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D89, no.11, 115023 (2014) [arXiv:1403.4257 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  38. [38]

    Physics of leptoquarks in precision experiments and at particle colliders

    I. Dorˇ sner, S. Fajfer, A. Greljo, J. F. Kamenik and N. Koˇ snik, Phys. Rept.641, 1-68 (2016) [arXiv:1603.04993 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  39. [39]

    Electric Dipole Moments from CP-Violating Scalar Leptoquark Interactions

    K. Fuyuto, M. Ramsey-Musolf and T. Shen, Phys. Lett. B788, 52-57 (2019) [arXiv:1804.01137 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  40. [40]

    The phenomenology of electric dipole moments in models of scalar leptoquarks

    W. Dekens, J. de Vries, M. Jung and K. K. Vos, JHEP01, 069 (2019) [arXiv:1809.09114 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  41. [41]

    S. Li, Y. Xiao and J. M. Yang, Nucl. Phys. B974, 115629 (2022) [arXiv:2108.00359 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    Inamiet al.[Belle], JHEP04, 110 (2022) [arXiv:2108.11543 [hep-ex]]

    K. Inamiet al.[Belle], JHEP04, 110 (2022) [arXiv:2108.11543 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar and P. Stoffer, JHEP03, 016 (2018) [erratum: JHEP12, 043 (2023)] [arXiv:1709.04486 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2018

  44. [44]

    Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek, JHEP10, 085 (2010) [arXiv:1008.4884 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  45. [45]

    Alonso, E

    R. Alonso, E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar and M. Trott, JHEP04, 159 (2014) [arXiv:1312.2014 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2014

  46. [46]

    Laporta and E

    S. Laporta and E. Remiddi, Phys. Lett. B301, 440-446 (1993)

    1993

  47. [47]

    A. G. Grozin, I. B. Khriplovich and A. S. Rudenko, Phys. Atom. Nucl.72, 1203-1205 (2009) [arXiv:0811.1641 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  48. [48]

    T. S. Roussy, L. Caldwell, T. Wright, W. B. Cairncross, Y. Shagam, K. B. Ng, N. Schlossberger, S. Y. Park, A. Wang and J. Ye,et al.Science381, no.6653, adg4084 (2023) [arXiv:2212.11841 [physics.atom-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    Y. Ema, T. Gao and M. Pospelov, Phys. Lett. B835, 137496 (2022) [arXiv:2207.01679 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    A. C. Vutha, M. Horbatsch and E. A. Hessels, Phys. Rev. A98, no.3, 032513 (2018) [arXiv:1806.06774 [physics.atom-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  51. [51]

    N. J. Fitch, J. Lim, E. A. Hinds, B. E. Sauer and M. R. Tarbutt, Quantum Sci. Technol.6, no.1, 014006 (2021) [arXiv:2009.00346 [physics.atom-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2021

  52. [52]

    Hiramoto, T

    A. Hiramoto, T. Masuda, D. G. Ang, C. Meisenhelder, C. Panda, N. Sasao, S. Uetake, X. Wu, D. Demille and J. M. Doyle, et al.Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1045, 167513 (2023) [arXiv:2210.05727 [physics.ins-det]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

    Z. L. Huang, X. Y. Du, X. G. He, C. W. Liu and Z. Y. Zou, Chin. Phys. Lett.43, no.3, 030201 (2026) [arXiv:2510.23348 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  54. [54]

    Y. L. Wu and L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett.73, 1762-1764 (1994) [arXiv:hep-ph/9409421 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  55. [55]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII] 2023Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII] 2023Phys. Lett. B838137698

  56. [56]

    Multi-Photon Production in e+e- collisions at sqrt(s) = 181 - 209 GeV

    G. Abbiendiet al.[OPAL], Eur. Phys. J. C26, 331-344 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ex/0210016 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  57. [57]

    Searching for axion-like particles with ultra-peripheral heavy-ion collisions

    S. Knapen, T. Lin, H. K. Lou and T. Melia, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, no.17, 171801 (2017) [arXiv:1607.06083 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  58. [58]

    Pich, Int

    A. Pich, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A39, no.26n27, 2442002 (2024) [arXiv:2405.19955 [hep-ph]]. 18

    work page arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    Beresford, S

    L. Beresford, S. Clawson and J. Liu, Phys. Rev. D110, no.9, 092016 (2024) [arXiv:2403.06336 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  60. [60]

    Gogniat, M

    J. Gogniat, M. Hoferichter and Y. Ulrich, JHEP07, 172 (2025) [arXiv:2505.09678 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    Dittmaier, T

    S. Dittmaier, T. Engel, J. L. H. Ariza and M. Pellen, JHEP08, 051 (2025) [arXiv:2504.11391 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Probing $\tau$ lepton dipole moments at future Lepton Colliders

    D. Buttazzo, G. Levati, Y. Ma, F. Maltoni, P. Paradisi and Z. Wang, [arXiv:2604.14281 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  63. [63]

    X. G. He and J. P. Ma, Phys. Lett. B839, 137834 (2023) [arXiv:2212.08243 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  64. [64]

    Y. Du, X. G. He, J. P. Ma and X. Y. Du, Phys. Rev. D110, no.7, 076019 (2024) [arXiv:2405.09625 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    Bernreuther, L

    W. Bernreuther, L. Chen and O. Nachtmann, Phys. Rev. D104, no.11, 115002 (2021) [arXiv:2108.13106 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2021

  66. [66]

    Kouet al.[Belle-II], PTEP2019, no.12, 123C01 (2019) [erratum: PTEP2020, no.2, 029201 (2020)] [arXiv:1808.10567 [hep-ex]]

    E. Kouet al.[Belle-II], PTEP2019, no.12, 123C01 (2019) [erratum: PTEP2020, no.2, 029201 (2020)] [arXiv:1808.10567 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2019

  67. [67]

    Aggarwalet al.[Belle-II], [arXiv:2207.06307 [hep-ex]]

    L. Aggarwalet al.[Belle-II], [arXiv:2207.06307 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv

  68. [68]

    Achasov, X

    M. Achasov, X. C. Ai, R. Aliberti, L. P. An, Q. An, X. Z. Bai, Y. Bai, O. Bakina, A. Barnyakov and V. Blinov,et al. Front. Phys. (Beijing)19, no.1, 14701 (2024) [arXiv:2303.15790 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  69. [69]

    Complementarity Between Non-Standard Higgs Searches and Precision Higgs Measurements in the MSSM

    M. Carena, H. E. Haber, I. Low, N. R. Shah and C. E. M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D91, no.3, 035003 (2015) [arXiv:1410.4969 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  70. [70]

    P. S. Bhupal Dev and A. Pilaftsis, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.873, no.1, 012008 (2017) [arXiv:1703.05730 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  71. [71]

    E. J. Chun, J. Kim and T. Mondal, JHEP12, 068 (2019) [arXiv:1906.00612 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2019

  72. [72]

    J. F. Gunion and H. E. Haber, Phys. Rev. D67, 075019 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0207010 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  73. [73]

    Davidson and H

    S. Davidson and H. E. Haber, Phys. Rev. D72, 035004 (2005) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D72, 099902 (2005)] [arXiv:hep- ph/0504050 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2005

  74. [74]

    Tumasyanet al.[CMS], Eur

    A. Tumasyanet al.[CMS], Eur. Phys. J. C83, no.7, 667 (2023) [arXiv:2206.09466 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  75. [75]

    H. E. Haber and D. O’Neil, Phys. Rev. D83, 055017 (2011) [arXiv:1011.6188 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  76. [76]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys. Lett. B842, 137963 (2023) [arXiv:2301.10731 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  77. [77]

    [LEP Higgs Working Group for Higgs boson searches, ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL], [arXiv:hep-ex/0107031 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  78. [78]

    Search for Charged Higgs bosons: Combined Results Using LEP Data

    G. Abbiendiet al.[ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL and LEP], Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2463 (2013) [arXiv:1301.6065 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  79. [79]

    Stockdale and R

    L. Stockdale and R. R. Volkas, [arXiv:2511.08924 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv

  80. [80]

    LHC HXSWG interim recommendations to explore the coupling structure of a Higgs-like particle

    A. Davidet al.[LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group], [arXiv:1209.0040 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

Showing first 80 references.