pith. sign in

arxiv: 2501.01060 · v3 · pith:XCJ3UDYWnew · submitted 2025-01-02 · ✦ hep-ph

S, T, U Parameters in The B-LSSM

Sheng-Kai Cui , Ke-Sheng Sun , Yu-Li Yan , Jin-Lei Yang , Tai-Fu Feng This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 06:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords S T U parametersB-LSSMpinch techniqueoblique parameterselectroweak precision observablesB-L gauge symmetrysupersymmetric models
0
0 comments X

The pith

The S, T, and U parameters are redefined for the B-L supersymmetric standard model to account for the local B-L gauge symmetry.

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

The paper redefines the oblique parameters S, T, and U in the B-LSSM, an extension of the Standard Model that includes a local U(1)_{B-L} gauge symmetry. Using the pinch technique, the authors fold one-loop vertex corrections into the gauge boson self-energies. This produces modified expressions for S, T, and U that differ from the usual SU(2)_L ⊗ U(1)_Y definitions. The new forms are shown to converge and are written as functions of B-LSSM parameters inside the low-energy effective Lagrangian for weak interactions. Experimental fits then place tighter bounds on the model's parameter space.

Core claim

Compared to the definitions of the S, T, and U parameters in the Standard Model based on the SU(2)_L ⊗ U(1)_Y group, the corresponding parameters in the local B-L gauge symmetry (B-LSSM) are modified. Using the pinch technique, one-loop vertices of weak interactions are computed and their pinch contributions are incorporated into the gauge boson self-energies. The redefined parameters converge and, within the low-energy effective Lagrangian, are expressed as functions of certain B-LSSM parameters, leading to strong constraints on the model's parameter space from updated experimental data.

What carries the argument

Redefined oblique parameters S, T, U obtained by incorporating pinch contributions from one-loop vertices into gauge boson self-energies under the local B-L gauge symmetry.

If this is right

  • The redefined S, T, and U parameters remain finite after the pinch contributions are included.
  • These parameters can be written directly as functions of B-LSSM parameters inside the low-energy effective weak Lagrangian.
  • Current experimental data impose strong constraints on the allowed ranges of B-LSSM parameters.
  • The modifications to S, T, and U originate specifically from the presence of the local B-L gauge symmetry.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same pinch-technique procedure could be applied to other U(1) extensions to obtain model-specific oblique parameters.
  • Precision electroweak fits performed with these new definitions may shift the preferred values of the B-L breaking scale.
  • Future high-precision measurements at lepton colliders could directly test the modified expressions rather than the Standard Model ones.

Load-bearing premise

The pinch technique contributions from one-loop vertices can be directly incorporated into the gauge boson self-energies in the B-LSSM without introducing additional divergences or requiring further renormalization adjustments beyond those stated.

What would settle it

An explicit one-loop calculation in the B-LSSM that produces non-convergent results or requires extra counterterms after the pinch contributions are added would falsify the redefinition.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01060 by Jin-Lei Yang, Ke-Sheng Sun, Sheng-Kai Cui, Tai-Fu Feng, Yu-Li Yan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Graphs (a)-(c) are some of the 1-loop contributions t [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Vacuum polarization diagram with Neutralino-Charg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: S and T parameters that are more sensitive to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: T and U parameters that are more sensitive to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: By using the Monte Carlo sampling method and generati [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Feynman diagrams with scalar loop-particle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Using the pinch technique, we compute the one-loop vertices of weak interactions in the B-LSSM and incorporate their pinch contributions into the gauge boson self-energies. Compared to the definitions of the $S, T,$ and $U$ parameters in the Standard Model based on the $SU(2)_L \otimes U(1)_Y$ group, the corresponding parameters in the local B-L gauge symmetry (B-LSSM) are modified. We provide these redefined $S, T,$ and $U$ parameters and demonstrate the convergence of the results. In the framework of the low-energy effective Lagrangian for weak interactions, the $S, T,$ and $U$ parameters can be expressed as functions of certain parameters in the B-LSSM. The updated experimental and fitting results constrain the parameter space of the B-LSSM strongly.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript redefines the electroweak oblique parameters S, T, and U in the B-LSSM by applying the pinch technique to one-loop weak-interaction vertices and folding the resulting pinch contributions into the gauge-boson self-energies. It supplies the modified expressions, demonstrates that the results remain finite, expresses the parameters as functions of B-LSSM inputs, and uses experimental fits to place constraints on the model parameter space.

Significance. If the redefinitions are free of additional divergences, the work supplies a concrete extension of the standard S, T, U formalism to a gauged U(1)_{B-L} model, enabling direct use of precision electroweak data to bound the extended gauge sector. The explicit demonstration of convergence is a methodological strength that could be reused in related BSM constructions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract, §3 (pinch incorporation) and §4 (convergence demonstration)] The central claim that the redefined S, T, U remain well-defined observables rests on the assertion that pinch-technique vertex contributions from the U(1)_{B-L} gauge boson, its mixing with the SM Z, and the associated scalars/fermions do not generate new divergent structures. The manuscript must show explicitly (e.g., in the combined transverse self-energy expressions) that all 1/ε poles cancel beyond those already subtracted by SM-like counterterms; without this cancellation displayed term-by-term, the subsequent mapping to the low-energy effective Lagrangian is not justified.
  2. [§5 (low-energy effective Lagrangian and fits)] The fitting procedure that constrains B-LSSM parameters assumes the redefined S, T, U are the quantities directly comparable to experimental bounds. A consistency check is required: in the limit where all B-LSSM parameters that break the SM gauge structure are taken to zero, the expressions must reduce exactly to the standard SM definitions of S, T, U (including the usual SM one-loop contributions).
minor comments (2)
  1. [§2] Notation for the mixing angle between the SM Z and the new Z' should be introduced once and used consistently; the current text occasionally redefines it inline.
  2. [§4] The abstract states that convergence is demonstrated, yet the main text would benefit from a short table or plot showing the numerical size of residual cutoff dependence before and after inclusion of the pinch terms.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments, which help strengthen the rigor of our presentation. We respond to each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract, §3 (pinch incorporation) and §4 (convergence demonstration)] The central claim that the redefined S, T, U remain well-defined observables rests on the assertion that pinch-technique vertex contributions from the U(1)_{B-L} gauge boson, its mixing with the SM Z, and the associated scalars/fermions do not generate new divergent structures. The manuscript must show explicitly (e.g., in the combined transverse self-energy expressions) that all 1/ε poles cancel beyond those already subtracted by SM-like counterterms; without this cancellation displayed term-by-term, the subsequent mapping to the low-energy effective Lagrangian is not justified.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit term-by-term display of the 1/ε pole cancellation would improve clarity. Although the manuscript demonstrates overall finiteness after incorporating pinch contributions, the individual divergent pieces from the U(1)_{B-L} sector, mixing, scalars, and fermions are not listed separately. In the revised version we will add a short appendix (or subsection in §4) that isolates the divergent parts of each contribution to the transverse self-energies and shows their mutual cancellation beyond the SM counterterms. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5 (low-energy effective Lagrangian and fits)] The fitting procedure that constrains B-LSSM parameters assumes the redefined S, T, U are the quantities directly comparable to experimental bounds. A consistency check is required: in the limit where all B-LSSM parameters that break the SM gauge structure are taken to zero, the expressions must reduce exactly to the standard SM definitions of S, T, U (including the usual SM one-loop contributions).

    Authors: We concur that this limit is an essential consistency check. Our analytic expressions were constructed so that, when g_{B-L}→0, the Z–Z' mixing angle vanishes, and the new scalar vevs decouple, the additional B-L contributions disappear and the standard SM one-loop results for S, T, U are recovered. To make this explicit we will insert a brief paragraph (or short appendix) in the revised §5 that performs the limit term by term. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; redefinitions and constraints are independent of inputs

full rationale

The derivation computes pinch-technique vertex corrections, folds them into self-energies, redefines S/T/U for the extended gauge group, verifies finiteness, and writes the parameters as explicit functions of B-LSSM inputs before applying external experimental bounds. No quoted equation reduces a claimed result to a fitted input by construction, no self-citation is load-bearing for the central redefinition, and the mapping to low-energy observables uses standard effective-Lagrangian matching rather than tautological renaming. External data constraints are falsifiable and not internal to the derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, the work assumes standard one-loop QFT in an extended gauge theory; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are listed.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5681 in / 1126 out tokens · 18734 ms · 2026-05-23T06:37:31.894533+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · 29 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    − ˆcW 2 ˆsW 2αT ˆcW 2 − ˆsW 2 )]f LC,W eν = − e√ 2 ˆsW (1 − αS 4( ˆcW 2 − ˆsW

    work page

  2. [2]

    + ˆcW 2αT 2( ˆcW 2 − ˆsW

    work page

  3. [3]

    (37) and Eq

    + αU 8ˆs2 )W ± µ ¯fγ µPLf (38) Where ˆsW and ˆcW are defined by ˆsW ˆcWmZ = 1 2ev =sWcWmSM Z (39) Comparing Eq. (37) and Eq. (38), one can obtain: αT =2[ ˆsW ˆcW sWcW (c′ −s′c′s′(m2 Z ′ −m2 Z) c′2m2 Z +s′2m2 Z ′ ) − 1] αS =4 ˆcW 2 ˆsW 2αT + 4( ˆcW 2 − ˆsW 2)(s2 W − ˆsW 2 −s′ c′ c2 Wc′s′(m2 Z ′ −m2 Z) + xmZ mZ′ 2 c′2m2 Z +s′2m2 Z ′ ) αU =8 ˆsW 2( ˆsW sW − 1...

    work page

  4. [4]

    − ˆcW 2αT 2( ˆcW 2 − ˆsW

    work page

  5. [5]

    ) (40) It can be demonstrated that the definition of ˆ cW is indeed equivalent to the the Sirlin definition [50], based on the values of mW andmZ. In comparison to the intrinsic definition of cW at the tree level, these can be connected by means of the equation : ∆s = ˆsW −sW ˆcW 2 = m2 W m2 Z c2 W = m2 W c′2mZ +s′2m2 Z ′ = 1 −s2 W = 1 − ˆsW 2 + 2 ˆsW ∆s = ˆ...

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    [ATLAS], ATLAS-CONF-2023-004

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    The Mass Spectra, Hierarchy and Cosmology of B-L MSSM Heterotic Compactifications

    M. Ambroso and B. A. Ovrut, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 26 (2011), 1569-1627 doi:10.1142/S0217751X11052943 [arXiv:1005.5392 [hep-t h]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1142/s0217751x11052943 2011

  8. [8]

    The Fate of R-Parity

    P. Fileviez Perez and S. Spinner, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011), 035004 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.035004 [arXiv:1005.4930 [hep- ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.83.035004 2011

  9. [9]

    Minimal gauged U(1)_{B-L} model with spontaneous R-parity violation

    V. Barger, P. Fileviez Perez and S. Spinner, Phys. Rev. Le tt. 102 (2009), 181802 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.181802 [arXiv:0812.3661 [ hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.102.181802 2009

  10. [10]

    Spontaneous R-Parity Breaking and Left-Right Symmetry

    P. Fileviez Perez and S. Spinner, Phys. Lett. B 673 (2009), 251-254 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.02.047 [arXiv:0811.3424 [ hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.02.047 2009

  11. [11]

    J. L. Yang, T. F. Feng and H. B. Zhang, J. Phys. G 47, no.5, 055004 (2020) doi:10.1088/1361- 6471/ab7986 [arXiv:2003.09781 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1361- 2020

  12. [12]

    J. L. Yang, H. B. Zhang, C. X. Liu, X. X. Dong and T. F. Feng, J HEP 08, 086 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2021)086 [arXiv:2104.03542 [hep-ph ]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep08(2021)086 2021

  13. [13]

    J. L. Yang, T. F. Feng, S. M. Zhao, R. F. Zhu, X. Y. Yang and H. B. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, no.9, 714 (2018) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6174-5 [a rXiv:1803.09904 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6174-5 2018

  14. [14]

    J. L. Yang, T. F. Feng, Y. L. Yan, W. Li, S. M. Zhao and H. B. Zh ang, Phys. Rev. D 99, no.1, 015002 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.015002 [arX iv:1812.03860 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.015002 2019

  15. [15]

    J. L. Yang, T. F. Feng, H. B. Zhang, G. Z. Ning and X. Y. Yang , Eur. Phys. J. C 78, no.6, 438 (2018) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5919-5 [arXiv:1 806.01476 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5919-5 2018

  16. [16]

    Z. N. Zhang, H. B. Zhang, J. L. Yang, S. M. Zhao and T. F. Fen g, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.11, 115015 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.115015 [arXiv:2 105.09799 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.115015 2021

  17. [17]

    J. L. Yang, T. F. Feng, S. K. Cui, C. X. Liu, W. Li and H. B. Zh ang, JHEP 04, 013 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2020)013 [arXiv:1910.05868 [hep-ph ]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2020)013 2020

  18. [18]

    J. L. Yang, T. F. Feng and H. B. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.3, 210 (2020) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7753-9 [arXiv:2002.09313 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7753-9 2020

  19. [19]

    X. X. Dong, T. F. Feng, H. B. Zhang, S. M. Zhao and J. L. Yang , JHEP 12, 052 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2021)052 [arXiv:2106.11084 [hep-ph ]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep12(2021)052 2021

  20. [20]

    X. X. Dong, T. F. Feng, S. M. Zhao and H. B. Zhang, Eur. Phys . J. C 80, no.12, 1206 (2020) 24 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08768-0 [arXiv:2005.0335 1 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08768-0 2020

  21. [21]

    X. X. Dong, S. M. Zhao, J. P. Huo, T. T. Wang and T. F. Feng, P hys. Rev. D 109, no.5, 055019 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.055019 [arXiv:2 402.19131 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.055019 2024

  22. [22]

    J. L. Yang, Z. J. Yang, X. Y. Yang, H. B. Zhang and T. F. Feng , Eur. Phys. J. C 83, no.11, 1073 (2023) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12235-x

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12235-x 2023

  23. [23]

    D. D. Cui, T. F. Feng, Y. L. Yan, H. B. Zhang, G. Z. Ning and J . L. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 102, 075002 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.075002 [arXiv:2 009.09598 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.075002 2020

  24. [24]

    Search for Mono-Higgs Signals at the LHC in the B-L Supersymmetric Standard Model

    W. Abdallah, A. Hammad, S. Khalil and S. Moretti, Phys. R ev. D 95 (2017) no.5, 055019 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.055019 [arXiv:1608.07500 [hep -ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.055019 2017

  25. [25]

    C. S. Aulakh, A. Melfo, A. Rasin and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Lett. B 459 (1999), 557-562 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00708-X [arXiv:hep-ph/9902 409 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(99)00708-x 1999

  26. [26]

    Dark Matter in B-L Extended MSSM Models

    S. Khalil and H. Okada, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009), 083510 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.083510 [arXiv:0810.4573 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.79.083510 2009

  27. [27]

    Naturalness and Dark Matter in the BLSSM

    L. Delle Rose, S. Khalil, S. J. D. King, C. Marzo, S. Moret ti and C. S. Un, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) no.5, 055004 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.055004 [arX iv:1702.01808 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.055004 2017

  28. [28]

    The oblique parameters in multi-Higgs-doublet models

    W. Grimus, L. Lavoura, O. M. Ogreid and P. Osland, Nucl. P hys. B 801, 81-96 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2008.04.019 [arXiv:0802.4353 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2008.04.019 2008

  29. [29]

    Beyond S, T and U

    I. Maksymyk, C. P. Burgess and D. London, Phys. Rev. D 50, 529-535 (1994) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.50.529 [arXiv:hep-ph/9306267 [he p-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.50.529 1994

  30. [30]

    Curing the Ills of Higgsless Models: the S Parameter and Unitarity

    G. Cacciapaglia, C. Csaki, C. Grojean and J. Terning, Ph ys. Rev. D 71, 035015 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.035015 [arXiv:hep-ph/0409126 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.71.035015 2005

  31. [31]

    Lavoura and J

    L. Lavoura and J. P. Silva, Phys. Rev. D 47, 2046-2057 (1993) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.47.2046

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.47.2046 2046

  32. [32]

    Electroweak Physics

    S. Haywood, P. R. Hobson, W. Hollik, Z. Kunszt, G. Azuelo s, U. Baur, J. van der Bij, D. Bourilkov, O. Brein and R. Casalbuoni, et al. doi:10.5170/CERN-2000-004.117 [arXiv:hep-ph/0003275 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.5170/cern-2000-004.117 2000

  33. [33]

    Oblique Corrections from Higgsless Models in Warped Space

    G. Cacciapaglia, C. Csaki, C. Grojean and J. Terning, Ph ys. Rev. D 70, 075014 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.075014 [arXiv:hep-ph/0401160 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.70.075014 2004

  34. [34]

    C. P. Burgess, S. Godfrey, H. Konig, D. London and I. Maks ymyk, Phys. Lett. B 326, 276-281 (1994) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)91322-6 [arXiv:hep-ph /9307337 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)91322-6 1994

  35. [35]

    Asadi, C

    P. Asadi, C. Cesarotti, K. Fraser, S. Homiller and A. Par ikh, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.5, 055026 25 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.055026 [arXiv:2204.05 283 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.055026 2023

  36. [36]

    H. N. Long and T. Inami, Phys. Rev. D 61, 075002 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.61.075002 [arXiv:hep-ph/9902475 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.61.075002 2000

  37. [37]

    A. Pich, I. Rosell and J. J. Sanz-Cillero, JHEP 01, 157 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2014)157 [arXiv:1310.3121 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep01(2014)157 2014

  38. [38]

    M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992), 381-409 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.46.381

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.46.381 1992

  39. [39]

    D. C. Kennedy and B. W. Lynn, SLAC-PUB-4608

    work page

  40. [40]

    Pinch Technique: Theory and Applications

    D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rept. 479 (2009), 1-152 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2009.05.001 [arXiv:0909.2536 [h ep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2009.05.001 2009

  41. [41]

    The Background Field Method: Alternative Way of Deriving the Pinch Technique's Results

    S. Hashimoto, J. Kodaira, Y. Yasui and K. Sasaki, Phys. R ev. D 50 (1994), 7066-7076 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.50.7066 [arXiv:hep-ph/9406271 [h ep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.50.7066 1994

  42. [42]

    Application of the Background-Field Method to the electroweak Standard Model

    A. Denner, G. Weiglein and S. Dittmaier, Nucl. Phys. B 440, 95-128 (1995) doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(95)00037-S [arXiv:hep-ph/9410338 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/0550- 1995

  43. [43]

    Gauge Invariance of Green Functions: Background-Field Method versus Pinch Technique

    A. Denner, G. Weiglein and S. Dittmaier, Phys. Lett. B 333, 420-426 (1994) doi:10.1016/0370- 2693(94)90162-7 [arXiv:hep-ph/9406204 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/0370- 1994

  44. [44]

    The background-field formulation of the electroweak Standard Model

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier and G. Weiglein, Acta Phys. Polo n. B 27, 3645-3660 (1996) [arXiv:hep-ph/9609422 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  45. [45]

    Denner, S

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier and G. Weiglein, [arXiv:hep-ph /9505271 [hep-ph]]

    work page

  46. [46]

    Gauge Invariant Three-Boson Vertices in the Standard Model and the Static Properties of the W

    J. Papavassiliou and K. Philippides, Phys. Rev. D 48, 4255-4268 (1993) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.48.4255 [arXiv:hep-ph/9310210 [h ep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.48.4255 1993

  47. [47]

    Degrassi and A

    G. Degrassi and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D 46, 3104-3116 (1992) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.46.3104

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.46.3104 1992

  48. [48]

    The Pinch Technique to All Orders

    D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 66, 111901 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.111901 [arXiv:hep-ph/0208189 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.66.111901 2002

  49. [49]

    Pinch technique self-energies and vertices to all orders in perturbation theory

    D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, J. Phys. G 30, 203 (2004) doi:10.1088/0954-3899/30/2/017 [arXiv:hep-ph/0301096 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0954-3899/30/2/017 2004

  50. [50]

    A Gauge-Independent Approach to Resonant Transition Amplitudes

    J. Papavassiliou and A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. D 53, 2128-2149 (1996) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.53.2128 [arXiv:hep-ph/9507246 [h ep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.53.2128 1996

  51. [51]

    Pinch Technique and the Batalin-Vilkovisky formalism

    D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 66, 025024 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.025024 [arXiv:hep-ph/0204128 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.66.025024 2002

  52. [52]

    Gauge-Invariant Resummation Formalism for Two-Point Correlation Functions

    J. Papavassiliou and A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. D 54, 5315-5335 (1996) 26 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.5315 [arXiv:hep-ph/9605385 [h ep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.54.5315 1996

  53. [53]

    Gauge independent transverse and longitudinal self-energies and vertices via the pinch technique

    J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994), 5958-5970 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.50.5958 [arXiv:hep-ph/9406258 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.50.5958 1994

  54. [54]

    C. P. Burgess, S. Godfrey, H. Konig, D. London and I. Maks ymyk, Phys. Rev. D 49, 6115-6147 (1994) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.49.6115 [arXiv:hep-ph/931 2291 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.49.6115 1994

  55. [55]

    Sirlin, Phys

    A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D 22, 971-981 (1980) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.22.971

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.22.971 1980

  56. [56]

    P. H. Chankowski, S. Pokorski and J. Wagner, Eur. Phys. J . C 47 (2006), 187-205 doi:10.1140/epjc/s2006-02537-3 [arXiv:hep-ph/0601097 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s2006-02537-3 2006

  57. [57]

    Degrassi, B

    G. Degrassi, B. A. Kniehl and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D 48, R3963-R3966 (1993) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.48.R3963

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.48.r3963 1993

  58. [58]

    de Blas, M

    J. de Blas, M. Pierini, L. Reina and L. Silvestrini, Phys . Rev. Lett. 129, no.27, 271801 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.271801 [arXiv:2204.04204 [hep-ph]]. 27

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.271801 2022