Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Experimental signatures of Kalb-Ramond-like particles

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Massive Kalb-Ramond-like particles are most tightly constrained by 136.23 GeV LEP Bhabha data, with 95% CL pseudovector limits at 6.3e-13 eV^-1 and tensor limits at 1.3e-12 times the mass in eV.

desk verdict Solid phenomenology of Kalb-Ramond-like particles, but the headline LEP Bhabha bounds sit on an under-discussed chi^2 problem that needs fixing before they can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09836 v3 pith:SMY7GIK2 submitted 2025-01-16 hep-ph hep-th

P. C. Malta , J. P. S. Melo , C. A. D. Zarro This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-th
keywords Kalb-Ramond-likeparticlesantisymmetricrank-2tensorfieldsmassivespin-1mediatorsBhabhascatteringhyperfinesplittingpseudovectorcouplingsLEPbounds
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 tries to establish that Kalb-Ramond-like particles (KRLPs), massive spin-1 fields described by an antisymmetric rank-2 tensor, would leave measurable traces in precision atomic and collider observables, and that those traces are already strongly constrained. It works with two fermion couplings: a pseudovector current coupled to the dual of the KRLP field strength, and a tensor current coupled to the field itself. Applying these to hydrogen hyperfine splitting, to tree-level unitarity in $e^-e^+\to\ell^-\ell^+$, and to Bhabha scattering, the authors find the tightest 95% confidence limits from 136.23 GeV LEP data: $g_{\rm PV}/\Lambda \lesssim 6.3\times10^{-13}\,{\rm eV}^{-1}$ and $g_{\rm T}\lesssim 1.3\times10^{-12}\,(m/{\rm eV})$, valid when the mediator mass is far below the collision energy and the couplings are fermion-universal. If correct, these are the strongest existing laboratory bounds on KRLP couplings to fermions, and future lepton colliders should improve them.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Kalb-Ramond field $B_{\mu\nu}$, a real antisymmetric rank-2 tensor with a Proca mass term, whose propagator contains a longitudinal piece proportional to $k_\mu k_\nu/m^2$. Two non-conserved currents, $j^\mu_{\rm PV}=\bar\psi\gamma^\mu\gamma^5\psi$ and $j^{\mu\nu}_{\rm T}=\bar\psi\sigma^{\mu\nu}\psi$, couple respectively to the dual field strength and to the field itself; their non-conservation keeps the longitudinal propagator terms alive, which is what makes the amplitudes grow with energy and gives the potentials $V_{\rm PV}$ and $V_{\rm T}$ their spin structure. The atomic limit uses the splitting interval $D_{21}=8\Delta E_{\rm hfs}(2s)-\Delta E_{\rm hfs}(1s)$, which cancels the dominant nuclear-size uncertainty, and the collider limit uses the full photon-plus-$Z$ Standard Model Bhabha cross section as the baseline.

What would settle it

A reader could redo the nine-bin fit to the 136.23 GeV Bhabha data adding a 1% correlated systematic error in quadrature; if the 95% contour for $g_{\rm PV}/\Lambda$ no longer reaches $6.3\times10^{-13}\,{\rm eV}^{-1}$, the headline bound is an artifact of underestimated errors. An independent check would be a 0.1%-precision Bhabha measurement at a Z-pole lepton collider: a Standard-Model match would push the bound below the LEP value, while a growing excess with $\sqrt{s}$ would confirm the KRLP mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a massive, interacting KRLP is phenomenologically distinct from Proca-vector, axion-like, and hidden-photon mediators, and that its best signature is an energy-growing contribution to fermion scattering. Because the pseudovector and tensor currents are not conserved, the longitudinal part of the KRLP propagator does not cancel, and the amplitudes for $e^-e^+\to\ell^-\ell^+$ grow with $s$ instead of falling like $1/s$. Comparing the resulting Bhabha cross section to LEP data at $\sqrt{s}=136.23$ GeV, and assuming universal fermion couplings, the paper derives the 95% CL bounds $g_{\rm PV}/\Lambda \lesssim 6.3\times10^{-13}\,{\rm eV}^{-1}$ and $g_{\rm T}\lesssim 1.3\times10^{-12}(m/{\rm eV})$ for $m\ll\sqrt{s}$. The hydrogen analysis separately constrains the electron-proton coupling products through spin-dependent potentials, but these atomic bounds are weaker than the collider ones across the mass range considered.

Load-bearing premise

The headline limits assume the 136.23 GeV Bhabha measurements agree with the Standard Model plus a KRLP within the quoted experimental errors, but the paper's own fits are off by about four times the expected scatter; if those errors are underestimated, the 95% limits move.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LEP's 136.23 GeV Bhabha data already exclude pseudovector couplings above $g_{\rm PV}/\Lambda\simeq 6.3\times10^{-13}\,{\rm eV}^{-1}$ and tensor couplings above $g_{\rm T}\simeq 1.3\times10^{-12}(m/{\rm eV})$ at 95% CL for mediator masses far below the collision energy.
  • Because KRLP exchange makes Bhabha cross sections grow with energy, any future lepton collider at higher $\sqrt{s}$ will tighten these limits; the paper's scaling estimate gives $g_{\rm PV}/\Lambda \sim 4\times10^{-11}(\delta/0.1\%)^{1/2}(\mathrm{GeV}/\sqrt{s})\,{\rm eV}^{-1}$ and $g_{\rm T}\sim 9\times10^{-11}(m/{\rm eV})(\delta/0.1\%)^{1/4}(\mathrm{GeV}/\sqrt{s})$, where $\delta$ is the Bhabha-e
  • Hydrogen hyperfine data constrain the electron-proton products $g^{e}_{\rm PV}g^{p}_{\rm PV}/\Lambda^2$ and $g^{e}_{\rm T}g^{p}_{\rm T}$, with limits that weaken at high mediator mass; the tensor coupling's small-mass bound saturates to a constant, while the pseudovector bound worsens as $1/m^2$.
  • Perturbative unitarity of $e^-e^+\to\mu^-\mu^+/\tau^-\tau^+$ forces $|g^{e}_{\rm PV}g^{\ell}_{\rm PV}/\Lambda^2| \lesssim 12\pi/s$ and $|g^{e}_{\rm T}g^{\ell}_{\rm T}| \lesssim 6\pi (m/\sqrt{s})^2$, marking where the KRLP effective theory loses perturbative control.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The LEP fit quality values reported in the paper, $\chi^2_{\min}/N_{\rm dof}=3.74$ (PV) and $4.13$ (T), are far above 1; this suggests the quoted experimental errors may be incomplete, and including a systematic uncertainty could shift the 95% contours substantially.
  • The same non-conserved-current machinery could be turned on observables the paper does not analyze, such as muon $g-2$, atomic parity violation, or neutron spin-dependent forces, where the energy growth or $1/m^2$ enhancement would show up as distinctive scalings.
  • If string-motivated or dark-matter KRLPs are light, these bounds close much of the light-mass parameter space; a future 0.1%-precision Bhabha measurement at a Z-factory would either reveal an energy-growing excess or push the pseudovector limit below roughly $5\times10^{-13}\,{\rm eV}^{-1}$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Formalized claims in Lean

  1. Claim #1: The central claim is that a massive, interacting KRLP is phenomenologically distinct from Proca-vector, axion-like, and hidden-photon mediators, and that its best signature is an energy-growing contribution to fermion scattering. Because the pseudovector and tensor currents are not conserved, the longitudinal part of the KRLP propagator does not cancel, and the amplitudes for $e^-e^+\to\ell^-\ell^

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies a massive Kalb-Ramond-like antisymmetric rank-2 field coupled to fermions through pseudovector and tensor currents. It derives non-relativistic potentials and uses them to constrain the couplings from the Sternheim splitting of hydrogen; it derives tree-level unitarity bounds from e+e- -> l+l-; and it computes the KRLP contributions to Bhabha scattering, comparing them with PEP and LEP data. Under the assumption of fermion-universal couplings, the headline 95% CL bounds are g_PV/Lambda <= 6.3e-13 eV^-1 and g_T <= 1.3e-12 (m/eV) for m << sqrt(s), extracted from LEP Bhabha data at sqrt(s)=136.23 GeV. The paper also gives projected ILC sensitivities. The analytic calculations are detailed, with appendices and FeynCalc cross-checks, but the statistical treatment of the LEP data that carries the headline limits is not robust.

Significance. If the derived bounds survive scrutiny, they would be a useful new set of laboratory constraints on Kalb-Ramond-like particles and would complement existing ALP/hidden-photon searches. The paper has clear strengths: an explicit Lagrangian framework, analytic amplitudes and potentials, machine-checked algebra for the Bhabha cross sections, and a direct comparison with published experimental data. There is no circularity: the KRLP parameters are constrained, not recycled into predictions. The unitarity bounds and the projected ILC sensitivities are also interesting. However, the significance is materially reduced by the statistical issue in Sec. 3.3.2: the quoted 95% CL LEP limits rest on fits with chi^2_min/Ndof of 3.74 and 4.13, which is not statistically acceptable under the stated error model. Until that issue is fixed, the headline limits should be regarded as provisional.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.3.2, p. 27] The headline limits from LEP at sqrt(s)=136.23 GeV are obtained from chi^2 fits whose best-fit values are chi^2_min/Ndof = 3.74 (PV) and 4.13 (T), with Ndof = 7. These values are far above 1, yet the paper sets 95% CL contours via Delta chi^2 = 5.99 without adding systematic or theoretical uncertainties and without discussing the poor absolute fit. Because the size of the excluded region is controlled by the curvature of chi^2 around the minimum, an underestimated error scale directly makes the bounds look stronger than statistically justified. The abstract's claim that g_PV/Lambda <= 6.3e-13 eV^-1 and g_T <= 1.3e-12 (m/eV) are the strongest limits therefore depends on this statistical treatment. Please add a goodness-of-fit discussion, include all relevant systematic uncertainties (including luminosity normalization), and quantify how the contours change when the errors are rescaled to make chi^2_min/Ndof approximately 1.
  2. [Sec. 3.3, Eqs. (58)-(61)] The Bhabha prediction used in the fits is the tree-level SM cross section plus KRLP contributions. At sqrt(s)=136 GeV, Bhabha measurements receive significant higher-order QED and electroweak radiative corrections, and the experimental data are subject to acceptance and binning effects. If Eq. (58) is not accurate at the level of the quoted experimental errors, this would both explain the large chi^2_min/Ndof values and bias the extracted contours. Please state whether the OPAL data of Ref. [113] are corrected for radiative effects, whether Eq. (58) is expected to describe them within errors, and if not, include the dominant radiative corrections or an explicit theory uncertainty in the chi^2 definition.
  3. [Eqs. (39), (41), (102)-(107)] The KRLP s-channel propagator is a simple pole 1/(s-m^2) with no width. For m close to sqrt(s), the differential cross sections formally diverge at tree level, and a chi^2 scan may produce spuriously strong exclusion in that mass region. Please state how the scan treats the region sqrt(s) ~ m, and add a Breit-Wigner width (or another regulator) before quoting exclusion contours in that mass range. This does not affect the m << sqrt(s) limits directly, but it is needed for the full contours shown in Figs. 3 and 4.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3.3.2, p. 27] There is a typo: "fot T" should read "for T".
  2. [Sec. 3.1 and Fig. 1] "Steinheim's splitting interval" should be "Sternheim's splitting interval", as in the reference to Sternheim [83].
  3. [References] Ref. [45] contains a malformed arXiv identifier "arXiv:hep/ph:2401.03025"; the correct subfield is presumably hep-ph. Ref. [113] has "130-40 GeV" in the title, which should be "130-140 GeV".
  4. [Appendix C] There is a typo: "spiunors" should be "spinors".
  5. [Sec. 3.3.2] When quoting chi^2_min/Ndof values, the paper should state whether the experimental errors in Refs. [93] and [113] are statistical only or include systematics, and whether correlations between angular bins are negligible. Reporting p-values would also help the reader judge the fits.
  6. [Sec. 1 and Sec. 3.3.2] Ref. [7] already analyzes constraints on antisymmetric tensor fields from Bhabha scattering; the paper should explicitly compare its Bhabha limits with that earlier work, rather than only citing it in the introduction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: predictions are derived from the Lagrangian and compared with external data.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: it starts from the Kalb-Ramond-like action (Eq. 1), defines the PV and T interaction vertices (Eq. 3), computes the propagator (Eq. 9), derives amplitudes (Eqs. 12-13 and 38-41), the non-relativistic potentials (Eqs. 15-16), the hyperfine energy shifts (Eqs. 25-30), and the Bhabha differential cross sections (App. D). These model predictions are then compared with external experimental inputs: the hydrogen hyperfine splitting values from Refs. [82,85], the PEP Bhabha data from Ref. [93], and the LEP Bhabha data from Ref. [113]. The only free parameters in the analysis are the couplings and the KRLP mass; they are fit to the data and used to draw exclusion contours, but no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The 95% CL limits follow from the standard chi^2 - chi^2_min = 5.99 criterion, so they are not forced by construction. The self-citations to Refs. [69-71] concern spin-dependent potentials, but the potentials used here are re-derived in App. B from the paper's own amplitudes, making those citations non-load-bearing. The elevated chi^2_min/Ndof values at sqrt(s)=136.23 GeV (3.74 and 4.13) are a legitimate statistical concern about goodness of fit, but they concern the validity or strength of the exclusion limits, not circularity of the derivation. There is no step in which an input is defined in terms of the output, no fitted parameter is presented as an independent prediction, and the central claims are benchmarked against data external to the paper. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model parameters (g_PV, g_T, m, Lambda) are free inputs constrained by data; the model itself and the coupling structure are assumed. No new particles or forces are introduced beyond the Kalb-Ramond-like field already studied in prior literature.

free parameters (4)
  • g^PV_f = Excluded at 95% CL (universal coupling): g_PV/Lambda <= 6.3e-13 eV^-1 for m << sqrt(s)
    Dimensionless pseudovector coupling of the KRLP to fermion species f; appears only in the combination g_PV/Lambda and is bounded from Bhabha scattering at 136.23 GeV.
  • g^T_f = Excluded at 95% CL (universal coupling): g_T <= 1.3e-12 (m/eV) for m << sqrt(s)
    Dimensionless tensor coupling to fermions; bounded from Bhabha scattering and hyperfine data.
  • m = Scanned; constraints depend on m, with a resonance at m = sqrt(s)
    Mass of the KRLP; free parameter of the Lagrangian; the paper maps the (g, m) plane.
  • Lambda = Not independently bounded; only g_PV/Lambda enters; if g_PV ~ O(1) then Lambda >= ~1.6e8 eV (GeV/sqrt(s)) from unitarity
    Characteristic energy scale in the derivative PV interaction; cannot be separated from g_PV.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Massive real antisymmetric rank-2 field with Proca mass term describes a neutral, parity-even, massive spin-1 particle.
    Sec. 2, Eq. (1); the paper assumes this model without an ultraviolet completion.
  • domain assumption The only fermionic couplings are the PV current and the T current of Eq. (3), with no direct photon coupling.
    Sec. 1 and Eq. (3); alternative couplings (e.g., Chern-Simons mixing) are explicitly deferred.
  • domain assumption Couplings are universal across fermion species for the headline bounds (g_f = g).
    Sec. 4, Fig. 4; the strongest limits are quoted under this assumption.
  • standard math First Born approximation and static non-relativistic limit are valid for the atomic potentials.
    Sec. 3.1; velocity-dependent terms are suppressed by alpha^2 approximately 5e-5.
  • domain assumption Tree-level SM background with fixed PDG parameters suffices for the Bhabha fits.
    Sec. 3.3.2; no radiative corrections to the SM background are included.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Experimental signatures of Kalb-Ramond-like particles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SMY7GIK2

@misc{pith2026250109836,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Experimental signatures of Kalb-Ramond-like particles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SMY7GIK2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09836}
}
abstract

We analyse phenomenological signatures of Kalb-Ramond-like particles, described by an antisymmetric rank-2 tensor, when coupled to fermionic matter. The latter is modelled by a tensor current coupled directly to the Kalb-Ramond field or by a pseudovector current coupled to the rank-1 dual of the field-strength tensor. We obtain limits on the coupling constants to fermions and mass of the Kalb-Ramond-like particles by investigating their impact on the hyperfine splittings of hydrogen, the tree-level unitarity of the $S$ matrix for $e^- + e^+ \rightarrow \ell^- + \ell^+$ scattering with $\ell \neq e$ and the differential cross section for Bhabha scattering. Assuming that the couplings to fermions are independent of the fermion species, the strongest 95\%-CL bounds we find are from LEP data at $\sqrt{s} = 136.23$~GeV, namely $g_{\rm PV}/\Lambda \lesssim 6.3 \times 10^{-13} \, {\rm eV}^{-1}$ and $g_{\rm T} \lesssim 1.3 \times 10^{-12} \left( m/{\rm eV} \right)$, both for $m \ll \sqrt{s}$ (here $\Lambda$ is a characteristic energy scale). These limits can be improved in upcoming lepton colliders due to enhanced precision, as well as higher energies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09836 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Constraints on the parameter space of KRLPs coupled to electrons and protons at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Tree-level Feynman diagrams contributing to the scattering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Constraints on PV and T couplings of KRLPs from Bhabha scattering. The bounds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Excluded regions in parameter space for KRLP-mediated interactions assuming that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_4.png]

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

  1. Beyond general relativity: gravitational waves in non-minimally coupled theories

    gr-qc 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A generalized propagation parameterization for gravitational-wave strains is extended to O(H²) and O(H′), then mapped to Kalb-Ramond, axion-dilaton–Chern-Simons–Gauss-Bonnet, and U(1) dark-photon models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

127 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [7]

    Tiwary, R

    S. Tiwary, R. Dick, Constraints on antisymmetric tensor fields from Bhabha scattering , Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 1115 (2021)

    2021

  2. [113]

    OPAL Collaboration, Test of the four-fermion contact interaction in e + e− collisions at 130-40 GeV , Phys. Lett. B 387, 432 (1996)

    work page 1996

  3. [1]

    V. I. Ogievetsky and I. V. Polubarinov, The notoph and its possible interactions , Yad. Fiz. 4, 216 (1966) [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 4, 156 (1967)]

    1966

  4. [2]

    E. A. Ivanov, Gauge Fields, Nonlinear Realizations, Supersymmetry, Phys. Part. Nucl. 47, 508 (2016)

    2016

  5. [3]

    M. Kalb, P. Ramond, Classical Direct Interstring Action , Phys. Rev. D 9, 2273 (1974)

    1974

  6. [4]

    Cremmer, J

    E. Cremmer, J. Scherk, Spontaneous dynamical breaking of gauge symmetry in dual models, Nuclear Physics 72, 117-124 (1974)

    1974

  7. [5]

    Becker, M

    K. Becker, M. Becker and J. H. Schwarz, String theory and M-theory: A modern introduc- tion, Cambridge University Press, (2006)

    2006

  8. [6]

    Antoniadis, N

    I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G.R. Dvali, New dimensions at a mil- limeter to a fermi and superstrings at a TeV , Phys. Lett. B 436, 257 (1998)

    1998

Show all 127 references
  1. [8]

    Dashko, R

    A. Dashko, R. Dick, The shadow of dark matter as a shadow of string theory , Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 312 (2019)

    2019

  2. [9]

    Cline, G.D

    J.M. Cline, G.D. Moore, A.R. Frey, Composite magnetic dark matter and the 130 GeV line, Phys. Rev. D 86, 115013 (2012)

    2012

  3. [10]

    A. J. Magnus, J. G. Fenwick, R. Dick, Antisymmetric tensor portals to dark matter , arXiv:hep-ph/2409.05915

    arXiv

  4. [11]

    Nambu, III

    Y. Nambu, III. Magnetic and electric confinement of quarks Physics Reports 23(3), 250–253 (1976)

    1976

  5. [12]

    Greensite, An Introduction to Confinement Problem , Lecture Notes in Physics 821, second edition (Springer, Berlin, 2020)

    J. Greensite, An Introduction to Confinement Problem , Lecture Notes in Physics 821, second edition (Springer, Berlin, 2020)

    2020

  6. [13]

    L. S. Grigorio, M. S. Guimaraes, R. Rougemont and C. Wotzasek, Confinement, brane symmetry and the Julia-Toulouse approach for condensation of defects , JHEP 08, 118 (2011)

    2011

  7. [14]

    M. S. Guimaraes, R. Rougemont, C. Wotzasek and C. A. D. Zarro, Massive photons and Dirac monopoles: electric condensate and magnetic confinement , Phys. Lett. B 723, 422- 426 (2013). 41

    2013

  8. [15]

    Smailagic and E

    A. Smailagic and E. Spallucci, Cornell potential in Kalb-Ramond scalar QED via Higgs mechanism, Phys. Lett. B 803, 135304 (2020)

    2020

  9. [16]

    Franz, Vortex-boson duality in four space-time dimensions , EPL, 77(4), 47005 (2007)

    M. Franz, Vortex-boson duality in four space-time dimensions , EPL, 77(4), 47005 (2007)

    2007

  10. [17]

    Rougemont, J

    R. Rougemont, J. Noronha, C. A. D. Zarro, C. Wotzasek, M. S. Guimaraes and D. R. Granado, Vanishing DC holographic conductivity from a magnetic monopole con- densate, JHEP 07, 070 (2015)

    2015

  11. [18]

    F. A. Barone, L. M. De Moraes and J. A. Helayel-Neto, Casimir effect for gauge scalars: The Kalb-Ramond case , Phys. Rev. D 72, 105012 (2005) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 73, 089901 (2006)]

    2005

  12. [19]

    Belich, L

    H. Belich, L. M. Silva, J. A. Helayel-Neto and A. E. Santana, Casimir Effect at finite temperature for the Kalb-Ramond field , Phys. Rev. D 84, 045007 (2011)

    2011

  13. [20]

    Smailagic and E

    A. Smailagic and E. Spallucci, Kalb–Ramond scalar QED multiple vacua , J. Phys. G 48, no.12, 125002 (2021)

    2021

  14. [21]

    F. A. Barone, F. E. Barone and J. A. Helayel-Neto, Charged branes interactions via Kalb- Ramond field, Phys. Rev. D 84, 065026 (2011)

    2011

  15. [22]

    J. F. Assun¸ c˜ ao, T. Mariz, J. R. Nascimento, A. Yu. Petrov,Dynamical Lorentz symmetry breaking in a tensor bumblebee model , Phys. Rev. D 100, 085009 (2019)

    2019

  16. [23]

    L. H. C. Borges, A. G. Dias, A. F. Ferrari, J. R. Nascimento, A. Yu. Petrov, Generation of Axion-Like Couplings via Quantum Corrections in a Lorentz Violating Background , Phys. Rev. D 89, 045005 (2014)

    2014

  17. [24]

    A. J. G. Carvalho, A. G. Dias, A. F. Ferrari, T. Mariz, J. R. Nascimento, A. Yu. Petrov, Axion-Photon Interaction from Nonminimal Dimension-5 Lorentz-Violating Operators , Phys. Rev. D 107, 085021 (2023)

    2023

  18. [25]

    C. N. Ferreira, J. A. Helayel-Neto and N. A. Tomimura, Plane Gravitational Radiation from Neutrinos Source with Kalb-Ramond Coupling , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 24, 1537-1540 (2009)

    2009

  19. [26]

    Chakraborty and S

    S. Chakraborty and S. Sengupta, Packing extra mass in compact stellar structures: An interplay between Kalb-Ramond field and extra dimensions , JCAP 05, 032 (2018)

    2018

  20. [27]

    E. L. B. Junior, J. T. S. S. Junior, F. S. N. Lobo, M. E. Rodrigues, D. Rubiera-Garcia, L. F. D. da Silva and H. A. Vieira, Spontaneous Lorentz symmetry-breaking constraints in Kalb–Ramond gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, no.12, 1257 (2024). 42

    2024

  21. [28]

    Maity, P

    D. Maity, P. Majumdar, S. SenGupta, Parity violating Kalb-Ramond-Maxwell interactions and CMB anisotropy in a brane world , JCAP 06, 005 (2004)

    2004

  22. [29]

    J. P. Beltr´ an Almeida, A. Guarnizo and C. A. Valenzuela-Toledo, Arbitrarily coupled p- forms in cosmological backgrounds, Class. Quant. Grav. 37, 035001 (2020)

    2020

  23. [30]

    J. P. B. Almeida, A. Guarnizo, R. Kase, S. Tsujikawa, C. A. Valenzuela-Toledo,Arbitrarily coupled p-forms in cosmological backgrounds, JCAP 03, 025 (2019)

    2019

  24. [31]

    Capanelli, L

    C. Capanelli, L. Jenks, E. W. Kolb and E. McDonough, Cosmological implications of Kalb-Ramond-like particles, JHEP 06, 075 (2024)

    2024

  25. [32]

    S. E. Hjelmeland, U. Lindstrom, Duality for the nonspecialist , arXiv:hep-th/9705122

    arXiv

  26. [33]

    Hell, On the duality of massive Kalb-Ramond and Proca fields , JCAP 01, 056 (2022)

    A. Hell, On the duality of massive Kalb-Ramond and Proca fields , JCAP 01, 056 (2022)

    2022

  27. [34]

    Svrcek, E

    P. Svrcek, E. Witten, Axions In String Theory , JHEP 06, 051 (2006)

    2006

  28. [35]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, String Axiverse, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123530 (2010)

    2010

  29. [36]

    Peccei, H.R

    R.D. Peccei, H.R. Quinn, CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons , Phys. Rev. Lett. 3¯8, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  30. [37]

    Weinberg, A New Light Boson? , Phys

    S. Weinberg, A New Light Boson? , Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  31. [38]

    Wilczek, Problem of Strong P and T Invariance in the Presence of Instantons , Phys

    F. Wilczek, Problem of Strong P and T Invariance in the Presence of Instantons , Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  32. [39]

    Okun, Limits of electrodynamics: paraphotons?, Sov

    L.B. Okun, Limits of electrodynamics: paraphotons?, Sov. Phys. JETP 56, 502 (1982)

    1982

  33. [40]

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

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

    1986

  34. [41]

    Abel, M.D

    S.A. Abel, M.D. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, V.V. Khoze, A. Ringwald, Kinetic mixing of the photon with hidden U(1)s in string phenomenology, JHEP 807, 124 (2008)

    2008

  35. [42]

    S. Abel, J. Santiago, Constraining the string scale: from Planck to Weak and back again, J. Phys. G 30, (2004)

    2004

  36. [43]

    Fayet, Extra U(1)’s and new forces, Nucl

    P. Fayet, Extra U(1)’s and new forces, Nucl. Phys. B 347, 743 (1990)

    1990

  37. [44]

    Smailagic and E

    A. Smailagic and E. Spallucci, The dual phases of massless/massive Kalb-Ramond fields , J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 34 L435 (2001)

    2001

  38. [45]

    Zurek, Dark Matter Candidates of a Very Low Mass , arXiv:hep/ph:2401.03025

    K.M. Zurek, Dark Matter Candidates of a Very Low Mass , arXiv:hep/ph:2401.03025. 43

    arXiv

  39. [46]

    Feng Dark Matter Candidates from Particle Physics and Methods of Detection , Ann

    J.L. Feng Dark Matter Candidates from Particle Physics and Methods of Detection , Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 48, 495 (2010)

    2010

  40. [47]

    Chadha-Day, J

    F. Chadha-Day, J. Ellis, D.J.E. Marsh, Axion Dark Matter: What is it and Why Now? , arXiv:hep-ph/2105.01406

    arXiv

  41. [48]

    Nelson, J

    A.E. Nelson, J. Scholtz, Dark Light, Dark Matter and the Misalignment Mechanism , Phys. Rev. D 84, 103501 (2011)

    2011

  42. [49]

    Mass´ o, F

    E. Mass´ o, F. Rota, G. Zsembinszki,Planck-Scale Effects on Global Symmetries: Cosmology of Pseudo-Goldstone Bosons , Phys. Rev. D 70, 115009 (2004)

    2004

  43. [50]

    Graham et al., Experimental Searches for the Axion and Axion-Like Particles , Ann

    P.W. Graham et al., Experimental Searches for the Axion and Axion-Like Particles , Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 65, 485 (2015)

    2015

  44. [51]

    Capozzi et al., New Constraints on ALP Electron and Photon Couplings from ArgoNeuT and the MiniBooNE Beam Dump , arXiv:hep-ph/2307.03878

    F. Capozzi et al., New Constraints on ALP Electron and Photon Couplings from ArgoNeuT and the MiniBooNE Beam Dump , arXiv:hep-ph/2307.03878

    arXiv

  45. [52]

    Agrawal et al

    P. Agrawal et al. , Feebly-interacting particles: FIPs 2020 Workshop Report (2021) , arXiv:hep-ph/2102.12143

    2021 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Jaeckel, A force beyond the Standard Model - Status of the quest for hidden photons , arXiv:hep-ph/1303.1821

    J. Jaeckel, A force beyond the Standard Model - Status of the quest for hidden photons , arXiv:hep-ph/1303.1821

    arXiv

  47. [54]

    Leike, The phenomenology of extra neutral gauge bosons , Phys

    A. Leike, The phenomenology of extra neutral gauge bosons , Phys. Rept. 317, 143 (1999)

    1999

  48. [55]

    Langacker, The physics of heavy Z ′ gauge bosons, Rev

    P. Langacker, The physics of heavy Z ′ gauge bosons, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1199 (2009)

    2009

  49. [56]

    Shtabovenko, R

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig and F. Orellana, FeynCalc 10: Do multiloop integrals dream of computer codes?, arXiv:2312.14089

    arXiv

  50. [57]

    Shtabovenko, R

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig and F. Orellana, FeynCalc 9.3: New features and improvements, arXiv:2001.04407

    2001 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Shtabovenko, R

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig and F. Orellana, New Developments in FeynCalc 9.0 , Comput. Phys. Commun. 207, 432-444, (2016)

    2016

  52. [59]

    Mertig, M

    R. Mertig, M. B¨ ohm, and A. Denner,Feyn Calc - Computer-algebraic calculation of Feyn- man amplitudes , Comput. Phys. Commun. 64, 345-359 (1991)

    1991

  53. [60]

    J. Liu, Y. Luo, M. Song, Investigation of the concurrent effects of ALP-photon and ALP- electron couplings in Collider and Beam Dump Searches , JHEP 09, 104 (2023)

    2023

  54. [61]

    Nambu, Axial vector current conservation in weak interactions , Phys

    Y. Nambu, Axial vector current conservation in weak interactions , Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 380 (1960). 44

    1960

  55. [62]

    Cao, Z.-H

    X.-H. Cao, Z.-H. Guo, Comprehensive study of axion photoproduction off the nucleon in chiral effective field theory , Phys. Rev. D 110, 095025 (2024)

    2024

  56. [63]

    Chizhov, M

    M. Chizhov, M. Naydenov, Isospin-invariant Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model with complete set of spin-1 excitations , AIP Conf. Proc. 2075, 090025 (2019)

    2019

  57. [64]

    Naydenov, V

    M. Naydenov, V. Kozhuharov, Dark boson mediation of the π0 → γe+e− decay, Nucl. Phys. B 978, 115723 (2022)

    2022

  58. [65]

    Naydenov, V

    M. Naydenov, V. Kozhuharov, Dark sector tensor currents contribution to lepton ’s anoma- lous magnetic moment , arXiv:hep-ph/2212.02242

    arXiv

  59. [66]

    Dobrescu, Massless Gauge Bosons other than the Photon , Phys

    B.A. Dobrescu, Massless Gauge Bosons other than the Photon , Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 151802 (2005)

    2005

  60. [67]

    Altschul, Q.G

    B. Altschul, Q.G. Bailey, V.A. Kostelecky, Lorentz violation with an antisymmetric tensor , Phys. Rev. D 81, 065028 (2010)

    2010

  61. [68]

    Maggiore, A modern introduction to quantum field theory , Oxford University Press (2005)

    M. Maggiore, A modern introduction to quantum field theory , Oxford University Press (2005)

    2005

  62. [69]

    Gomes Ferreira, P.C

    F.A. Gomes Ferreira, P.C. Malta, L.P.R. Ospedal, J.A. Helay¨ el-Neto,Topologically massive spin-1 particles and spin-dependent potentials , Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 238 (2015)

    2015

  63. [70]

    Malta, L.P.R

    P.C. Malta, L.P.R. Ospedal, K. Veiga, J.A. Helay¨ el-Neto, Comparative aspects of spin- dependent interaction potentials for spin-1/2 and spin-1 matter fields , Adv. High Energy Phys. 2016 (2016) 2531436, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2017 (2017) 9152437 (erratum)

    2016

  64. [71]

    de Brito, P.C

    G.P. de Brito, P.C. Malta, L.P.R. Ospedal, Spin- and velocity-dependent nonrelativistic potentials in modified electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 95, 016006 (2017)

    2017

  65. [72]

    Fadeev, Y.V

    P. Fadeev, Y.V. Stadnik, F. Ficek, M.G. Kozlov, V.V. Flambaum, D. Budker, Revisiting spin-dependent forces mediated by new bosons: Potentials in the coordinate-space represen- tation for macroscopic- and atomic-scale experiments , Phys. Rev. A 99, 022113 (2019)

    2019

  66. [73]

    Fadeev, F

    P. Fadeev, F. Ficek, M.G. Kozlov, D. Budker, V.V. Flambaum, Pseudovector and pseu- doscalar spin-dependent interactions in atoms , Phys. Rev. A 105, 022812 (2022)

    2022

  67. [74]

    L. Cong, F. Ficek, P. Fadeev, D. Budker, Improved constraints on exotic interactions between electron and proton in hydrogen , arXiv:physics.atom-ph/2408.11009

  68. [75]

    Cong et al., Spin-dependent exotic interactions , arXiv:hep-ph/2408.15691

    L. Cong et al., Spin-dependent exotic interactions , arXiv:hep-ph/2408.15691

    arXiv

  69. [76]

    Dobrescu, I

    B.A. Dobrescu, I. Mocioiu, Spin-Dependent Macroscopic Forces from New Particle Ex- change, JHEP 0611, 005 (2006). 45

    2006

  70. [77]

    J. P. S. Melo, M. J. Neves, J. M. A. Paix˜ ao, J. A. Helay¨ el-Neto. Loop quantum gravity effects on electromagnetic properties of charged leptons. Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 938 (2024)

    2024

  71. [78]

    I, II) , 2nd edition, Wiley (1977)

    Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Bernard Diu, Franck Lalo¨ e, Quantum Mechanics (vol. I, II) , 2nd edition, Wiley (1977)

    1977

  72. [79]

    Griffiths, Hyperfine Splitting in the ground state of Hydrogen , Am

    D. Griffiths, Hyperfine Splitting in the ground state of Hydrogen , Am. J. Phys. 50, 698 (1982)

    1982

  73. [80]

    Kolachevsky, A

    N. Kolachevsky, A. Matveev, J. Alnis, C.G. Parthey, S.G. Karshenboim, T.W. Haensch, New Measurement of the 2S Hyperfine Interval in Atomic Hydrogen , Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 213002 (2009)

    2009

  74. [81]

    Parthey et al., Improved Measurement of the Hydrogen 1S - 2S Transition Frequency, Phys

    C.G. Parthey et al., Improved Measurement of the Hydrogen 1S - 2S Transition Frequency, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 203001 (2011)

    2011

  75. [82]

    R. G. Bullis, C. Rasor, W. L. Tavis, S. A. Johnson, M. R. Weiss, D. C. Yost, Ramsey Spectroscopy of the 2S1/2 Hyperfine Interval in Atomic Hydrogen , Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 203001 (2023)

    2023

  76. [83]

    Sternheim, State-Dependent Mass Corrections to Hyperfine Structure in Hydrogenic Atoms, Phys

    M.M. Sternheim, State-Dependent Mass Corrections to Hyperfine Structure in Hydrogenic Atoms, Phys. Rev. 130, 211 (1963)

    1963

  77. [84]

    Ficek, D

    F. Ficek, D. Budker, Constraining Exotic Interactions , Annalen der Physik 531, 1800273 (2019)

    2019

  78. [85]

    Yerokhin, U.D

    V.A. Yerokhin, U.D. Jentschura, Electron Self-Energy in the Presence of a Magnetic Field: Hyperfine Splitting and g Factor , Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 163001 (2008)

    2008

  79. [86]

    Jaeckel, S

    J. Jaeckel, S. Roy, Spectroscopy as a test of Coulomb’s law - A probe of the hidden sector , Phys. Rev. D 82, 125020 (2010)

    2010

  80. [87]

    Kroff, P.C

    D. Kroff, P.C. Malta, Constraining hidden photons via atomic force microscope measure- ments and the Plimpton-Lawton experiment , Phys. Rev. D 102, 095015 (2020)

    2020

  81. [88]

    Montagna, O

    G. Montagna, O. Nicrosini, F. Piccinini, Precision physics at LEP, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 21N9, 1-162 (1998)

    1998

  82. [89]

    SLD collaboration, Polarized Bhabha scattering and a precision measurement of the elec- tron neutral current couplings , Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2880 (1995)

    1995

  83. [90]

    Bozovic-Jelisavcic, S

    I. Bozovic-Jelisavcic, S. Lukic, M. Pandurovic, I. Smiljanic, Precision luminosity measure- ment at ILC ; arXiv:physics.acc-ph/1403.7348v1. 46

    arXiv

  84. [91]

    Bicer et al

    M. Bicer et al. , TLEP Design Study Working Group, JHEP 01, 164 (2014)

    2014

  85. [92]

    Baer et al

    H. Baer et al. , The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report – Volume 2: Physics, arXiv:hep-ph/1306.6352

    arXiv

  86. [93]

    Derrick et al

    M. Derrick et al. , Experimental study of the reactions e− e+ → e− e+ and e− e+ → γ γat 29 GeV, Phys. Rev. D 34, 3286 (1986)

    1986

  87. [94]

    Levi et al

    M.E. Levi et al. , Weak Neutral Currents in e+e− Collisions at √s = 29 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 1941 (1983)

    1983

  88. [95]

    G. S. Abrams et al., Measurement of Z decays into lepton pairs , Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 2780 (1989)

    1989

  89. [96]

    G. S. Abrams et al., Measurements of Z-boson resonance parameters in e+e− annihilation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 2173 (1989)

    1989

  90. [97]

    Workman et al., Particle Data Group, Progr

    R.I. Workman et al., Particle Data Group, Progr. Theor. Exp. Phys. p. 083C01 (2022) and 2023 update

    2022

  91. [98]

    Chanowitz, M.A

    M.S. Chanowitz, M.A. Furman, I. Hinchliffe, Weak Interactions of Ultraheavy Fermions , Phys. Lett. B 78, 285 (1978)

    1978

  92. [99]

    Chanowitz, M.A

    M.S. Chanowitz, M.A. Furman, I. Hinchliffe, Weak Interactions of Ultraheavy Fermions (II), Nucl. Phys. B 153, 402 (1979)

    1979

  93. [100]

    Jacob, G

    M. Jacob, G. C. Wick, On the general theory of collisions for particles with spin , Annals Phys. 7, 404 (1959)

    1959

  94. [101]

    H. E. Logan, Lectures on perturbative unitarity and decoupling in Higgs physics , arXiv:hep-ph/2207.01064

    arXiv

  95. [102]

    Varshalovich, A.N

    D.A. Varshalovich, A.N. Moskalev, V.K. Khersonskii, Quantum Theory of Angular Mo- mentum: Irreducible Tensors, Spherical Harmonics, Vector Coupling Coefficients, 3nj Symbols, World Scientific Publishing Company (1988)

    1988

  96. [103]

    Di Luzio, J

    L. Di Luzio, J. F. Kamenik, M. Nardecchia, Implications of perturbative unitarity for scalar di-boson resonance searches at LHC , Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 30 (2017)

    2017

  97. [104]

    Hidden symmetries and Higgs phenomena

    M. S. Chanowitz, Strong WW scattering at the end of the 90’s: Theory and experimen- tal prospects, pulished in Zuoz 1998, “Hidden symmetries and Higgs phenomena”, p. 81; arXiv:hep-ph/9812215

    1998 arXiv

  98. [105]

    B. W. Lee, C. Quigg, H. B. Thacker, Weak Interactions at Very High-Energies: The Role of the Higgs Boson Mass , Phys. Rev. D 16, 1519 (1977). 47

    1977

  99. [106]

    B. W. Lee, C. Quigg, H. B. Thacker, Strength of Weak Interactions at Very High Energies and the Higgs Boson Mass , Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 883 (1977)

    1977

  100. [107]

    Van Der Bij, Two-loop large higgs mass correction to vector boson masses , Nucl

    J.J. Van Der Bij, Two-loop large higgs mass correction to vector boson masses , Nucl. Phys. B 248, 141 (1984)

    1984

  101. [108]

    Djouadi, The Anatomy of electro-weak symmetry breaking

    A. Djouadi, The Anatomy of electro-weak symmetry breaking. I: The Higgs boson in the standard model, Phys. Rept. 457, 1 (2008)

    2008

  102. [109]

    G. P. de Brito, J. T. Guaitolini Junior, D. Kroff, P. C. Malta, C. Marques, Lorentz violation in simple QED processes , Phys. Rev. D 94, 056005 (2016)

    2016

  103. [110]

    Dutta, P

    S. Dutta, P. Konar, B. Mukhopadhyaya, S. Raychaudhuri,Bhabha scattering with radiated gravitons at linear colliders , Phys. Rev. D 68, 095005 (2003)

    2003

  104. [111]

    Bufalo, On the Bhabha scattering for z = 2 Lifshitz QED , Int

    R. Bufalo, On the Bhabha scattering for z = 2 Lifshitz QED , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 30, 1550086 (2015)

    2015

  105. [112]

    Bufalo, B.M

    R. Bufalo, B.M. Pimentel, D.E. Soto, Causal approach for the electron-positron scattering in Generalized Quantum Electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 90, 085012 (2014)

    2014

  106. [114]

    URL: http://www.linearcollider.org/cms/

    The International Linear Collider. URL: http://www.linearcollider.org/cms/

  107. [115]

    Bechtle, S

    P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, J. List, G. Moortgat-Pick, G. Weiglein, Physics case for an e+e− collider at 500 GeV and above , arXiv:hep-ph/2410.16191

    arXiv

  108. [116]

    Abada et al

    FCC collaboration, A. Abada et al. , FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2 , Eur. Phys. J. ST 228, 261 (2019)

    2019

  109. [117]

    Dong et al

    CEPC Study Group collaboration, M. Dong et al. , CEPC Conceptual Design Report: Volume 2 - Physics & Detector , arXiv:hep-ex/1811.10545

    arXiv

  110. [118]

    Vernieri et al

    C. Vernieri et al. , Strategy for Understanding the Higgs Physics: The Cool Copper Col- lider, JINST 18, P07053 (2023)

    2023

  111. [119]

    CLIC, CLICdp collaboration, The Compact Linear e+e− Collider (CLIC): Physics Po- tential, arXiv:hep-ex/1812.07986

    arXiv

  112. [120]

    Accettura et al

    C. Accettura et al. , Towards a muon collider , Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 864 (2023)

    2023

  113. [121]

    Ferreira, J.A

    C.N. Ferreira, J.A. Helay¨ el-Neto, M.B.D.S.M. Porto, Cosmic string configuration in the supersymmetric CSKR theory , Nucl. Phys. B 620 (2002) 181; arXiv: hep-th/0101008v2. 48

    2002 arXiv

  114. [122]

    Cocuroci, M.J

    D. Cocuroci, M.J. Neves, L.P.R. Ospedal and J.A. Helay¨ el-Neto,A 3-form Gauge Poten- tial in 5D in connection with a Possible Dark Sector of 4D-Electrodynamics , Eur. Phys. J. C 75 7, 322 (2015)

    2015

  115. [123]

    Sivakumar, Duality and Massive Gauge Invariant Theories , Phys

    E.Harikumar, M. Sivakumar, Duality and Massive Gauge Invariant Theories , Phys. Rev. D 57, 3794 (1998)

    1998

  116. [124]

    Three-dimensional Lorentz-violating action

    J. R. Nascimento, A. Y. Petrov, C. Wotzasek and C. A. D. Zarro, “Three-dimensional Lorentz-violating action ”, Phys. Rev. D 89, no.6, 065030 (2014)

    2014

  117. [125]

    Rivers, Lagrangian theory for neutral massive spin-2 fields , Nuovo Cimento, 34, 387 (1964)

    R.J. Rivers, Lagrangian theory for neutral massive spin-2 fields , Nuovo Cimento, 34, 387 (1964)

    1964

  118. [126]

    Kuhfuss, J

    R. Kuhfuss, J. Nitsch, Propagating modes in gauge field theories of gravity , Gen. Rel. Grav. 18, 1207 (1986)

    1986

  119. [127]

    Adkins, Three-dimensional Fourier transforms, integrals of spherical Bessel func- tions, and novel delta function identities , arXiv:math-ph/1302.1830v1

    G.S. Adkins, Three-dimensional Fourier transforms, integrals of spherical Bessel func- tions, and novel delta function identities , arXiv:math-ph/1302.1830v1. 49

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.