Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Constraining axion-like particles from rare pion decays

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Existing pion-decay data from PIENU and PIBETA exclude axion-pion mixing down to $\sin^2\vartheta \sim 10^{-5}$ at 95% confidence for light axion-like particles.

desk verdict Clean, transparent analysis turning rare pion decay data into new ALP-pion mixing exclusions; main caveat is the unquantified direct hadronic contribution. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00005 v2 pith:OLYKWOJJ submitted 2019-08-30 hep-ph

Wolfgang Altmannshofer , Stefania Gori , Dean J. Robinson This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 13.20.Cz14.80.Va
keywords axion-likeparticlesALP-pionmixingrarepiondecaysPIENUPIBETAleptonicdecaybetaangleconstraints
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

Ultraviolet completions that produce axion-like particles (ALPs) lighter than the neutral pion generically induce a small admixture of the pion in the ALP state, parametrized by a mixing angle $\vartheta$. The paper shows that this mixing can be constrained directly with data that already exist: the positron energy spectrum of $\pi^+\to e\nu$ measured by PIENU, and the diphoton opening-angle spectrum of $\pi^+\to\pi^0 e\nu$ measured by PIBETA. In the ALP mass range $10\text{ MeV}\lesssim m_a

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the ALP-pion mixing angle $\sin\vartheta$, defined by the physical ALP state containing an admixture of the neutral pion. Its work is to connect an experimentally accessible process, $\pi^+\to a e\nu$, to existing pion-decay measurements: the amplitude is assumed to be dominated by the off-shell $\pi^0$ insertion $\langle a|\pi^{*0}\rangle\langle\pi^{*0}|\bar d\gamma^\mu u|\pi^+\rangle = \sin\vartheta\langle\pi^{*0}|\bar d\gamma^\mu u|\pi^+\rangle$, and the $\pi^+\to\pi^0 e\nu$ rate is fixed by form factors normalized by the Ademollo-Gatto theorem ($f_+(0)\simeq 1$). This yields the branching-ratio formula, Eq. (9), that maps PIENU positron-spectrum residuals and PIBETA diphoton-opening-angle data onto the $\sin^2\vartheta$--$m_a$ plane, with separate treatment of prompt and invisible ALP lifetimes.

What would settle it

A dedicated stopped-pion measurement of $\pi^+\to (a\to\gamma\gamma)e\nu$ reconstructing the diphoton opening angle for $10\text{ MeV}\lesssim m_a\lesssim m_\pi$ would settle the central claim: the predicted opening-angle distribution beyond the $\pi^0$ edge, Eq. (11), should appear at the rate set by Eq. (9) for the claimed $\sin^2\vartheta$, and its absence would falsify the off-shell-$\pi^0$ dominance assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the rare decay $\pi^+\to a e\nu$ — which inherits the pion's vector current through an off-shell $\pi^0$ insertion proportional to $\sin\vartheta$ — lets one convert precision measurements of $\pi^+\to e\nu$ and $\pi^+\to \pi^0 e\nu$ into direct constraints on ALP-pion mixing. The paper computes the ratio $\mathrm{Br}[\pi a3]/\mathrm{Br}[\pi e2]$ via Eq. (9), using the conserved-vector-current form-factor description of $\pi^+\to\pi^0 e\nu$, treats the ALP lifetime in prompt and invisible regimes, and uses PIENU fit residuals plus the PIBETA $\theta_{\gamma\gamma}$ endpoint to set 95% CL exclusions. In the pure-mixing scenario with no direct ALP-photon coupling, these constraints combine with beam-dump, fixed-target, and collider limits to cover many decades of $\sin^2\vartheta$ for $10\text{ MeV}\lesssim m_a\lesssim m_\pi$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole chain rests on the assumption that the ALP production in $\pi^+\to a e\nu$ goes almost entirely through the ALP mixing with a virtual neutral pion, so that any other hadronic or ultraviolet contribution is negligible at the quoted level.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The PIENU positron-spectrum residuals exclude $\sin^2\vartheta \gtrsim 10^{-5}$ at 95% CL for ALP masses between about 10 and 130 MeV, in both the prompt and invisible lifetime regimes.
  • The PIBETA diphoton opening-angle edge sets the strongest prompt-ALP bound for $m_a\gtrsim 100$ MeV, and extending the analysis to opening angles below 160 degrees would extend the reach to lower masses.
  • Because the constraints arise from tree-level charged-current processes, they survive in UV models where kaon-based ALP-pion mixing bounds are spoiled by ALP-top penguin contributions.
  • In the pure-mixing scenario, the new data plus existing CHARM, E137, E141, and LEP limits nearly cover the $\sin^2\vartheta$--$m_a$ plane for $10\text{ MeV}\lesssim m_a\lesssim m_\pi$.
  • Improved treatments of the $\pi^+\to\pi^{*0}$ form factors would extend the bounds below 10 MeV toward the massless-ALP limit, with only O(10%) theoretical uncertainty at the current mass range.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same mixing-template logic could be applied to other semileptonic pseudoscalar decays with well-measured $\pi^0$ channels, such as kaon or charmed-meson decays, though backgrounds, form-factor uncertainties, and short-distance contributions would need separate evaluation.
  • Beyond the paper: if future $\pi^+\to e\nu$ experiments release the full correlated residual covariance, the prompt-versus-invisible dichotomy in the PIENU analysis could be replaced by a single likelihood, likely sharpening the reach below $\sin^2\vartheta = 10^{-5}$.
  • Beyond the paper: the bounds assume no tree-level ALP-lepton couplings; in models with such couplings, the same spectra would instead constrain those couplings, so the $\sin^2\vartheta$ contours should be read as a benchmark of a restricted but representative scenario.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes new constraints on the mixing angle between a light axion-like particle (ALP) and the neutral pion, using existing rare pion decay data. The authors argue that UV completions of ALPs lighter than m_pi generically induce ALP-pion mixing, and that the semileptonic decay pi+ -> a e nu can be related, via mixing with an off-shell pi0, to the Standard Model decay pi+ -> pi0 e nu. Using the PIENU positron-energy residuals from a previous sterile-neutrino analysis and the PIBETA diphoton opening-angle spectrum, they derive 95% CL exclusions in the sin^2 theta versus m_a plane, reaching sin^2 theta ~ 10^-5 for masses between about 25 and 130 MeV. They also explore a 'pure mixing' scenario in which the ALP-photon coupling is set by sin theta times the pion-photon coupling, and combine their bounds with existing beam-dump and collider limits. The analysis assumes no tree-level ALP-lepton couplings, a dominant diphoton decay mode, and either prompt or invisible ALP lifetimes, with the pure mixing scenario interpolating between the two regimes.

Significance. If the derived bounds are correct, they provide a genuinely new probe of ALP-pion mixing that is complementary to kaon-based limits: the process pi+ -> a e nu arises from a tree-level charged-current amplitude and is not subject to the ALP-top-quark short-distance contributions that complicate K+ -> pi+ a estimates. The central formula, Eq. (9), is cleanly derived and cross-checked against the known pi+ -> pi0 e nu rate to O[(1-r)^8], and the PIENU analysis is validated by reproducing the published pi+ -> e N constraints. The paper is also transparent about many of its approximations, including the uncorrelated-bin assumption and the approximate nature of the PIBETA bound. However, the central claim of model-independent constraints on sin theta is weakened by an unquantified hadronic assumption: the direct ALP-hadron contribution in Eq. (5) is dismissed parametrically, but no bound on its coefficient is given, so the mapping from the branching-ratio limit to sin^2 theta is not established for generic UV completions. Because of this, the paper should be revised to either quantify that contribution or carefully qualify the central claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [PIENU residuals bound] The central step of the paper is the approximation in Eq. (6) that the pi+ -> a e nu amplitude is saturated by the off-shell pi0 insertion from the first term of Eq. (5). The second term, whose leading chirally-unsuppressed contribution comes from virtual rho exchange, is dismissed because it is 'suppressed by m_a^2/m_rho^2'. This is a parametric suppression, but no bound on the coefficient of this term is given. Since sin theta is treated as a free phenomenological parameter, the ratio of the direct rho-exchange contribution to the mixing contribution scales as (1/sin theta) times hadronic matrix elements; for sin^2 theta ~ 10^-5, sin theta ~ 3 x 10^-3, and for m_a near m_pi one has m_a^2/m_rho^2 ~ 0.02, so a coefficient of order a few makes the direct term comparable to the mixing term. The exclusion contours in Fig. 3 and the abstract's claim of 'strong and novel bounds on the ALP-pion mixing angle' are therefore not established as model-independent bounds on sin theta. The authors should either derive a quantitative estimate of the direct term in a concrete EFT (e.g., chiral perturbation theory or vector-meson dominance) or explicitly qualify all central claims and figures as valid only when the direct hadronic contribution is negligible, with a discussion of how generic UV completions would alter the interpretation.
  2. [PIENU residuals bound] The PIENU exclusion limits in the left panel of Fig. 3 rely on treating all residual bins as uncorrelated. The only justification given is that this assumption reproduces the published pi+ -> e N bounds from Ref. [10]. Energy-spectrum residuals from a global fit are typically correlated, and the impact of possible bin correlations on the 95% CL contours is not quantified. The authors should provide a robustness test, for example a prescription with a simple positive-correlation model, or explicitly state that the derived limits are an approximation whose uncertainty from bin correlations is not assessed.
  3. [PIBETA diphoton bound] The PIBETA exclusion in Fig. 3 is derived from an order-of-magnitude requirement that the integrated ALP contribution in the 160-180 degree range does not exceed the quoted 0.6% branching-ratio uncertainty. This is not a statistical bound based on the full shape of the theta_gamma_gamma distribution, and the approximate treatment is described only in the text. Since the PIBETA bound is presented as one of the two new constraints in the abstract and in Fig. 3, its approximate character should be carried through to the abstract and the figure caption, or the bound should be replaced by a more rigorous likelihood-based estimate using the published spectrum.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Conclusions] The statement that the theoretical approximations introduce no more than O(10%) uncertainties refers to the form-factor approximation f_+(q^2) ~ 1; it does not cover the uncertainty from the neglected second term in Eq. (5). Please clarify the scope of that uncertainty estimate.
  2. [References] Several references are incomplete: Refs. [28], [31], and [36] lack author lists and titles. Please complete them.
  3. [Fig. 2] The y-axis label 'epsilon_a 10^5/Gamma[pi e2] x dGamma/dE_cal' is difficult to parse; consider rewriting it as, for example, '10^5/Gamma(pi->e nu) x dGamma/dE_cal (MeV^-1)'.
  4. [ALP-pion mixing] The phrase 'direct sin theta constraints' in the text overstates the result given the caveats in the following section; a more qualified wording such as 'constraints under the stated assumptions' would be more accurate.
  5. [Introduction] The sentence 'The irreducible background from Br[pi+ -> pi0 e nu] is much smaller than the experimental precision' could be expanded to state the numerical value of the pi beta branching ratio (about 1.04 x 10^-8) here rather than only in the PIBETA section, for reader convenience.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the PIENU and PIBETA bounds constrain a free phenomenological mixing parameter against external experimental data.

full rationale

The paper treats sin theta as a purely phenomenological mixing parameter and does not fit it to the data it then claims to constrain. The PIENU analysis uses published bin residuals from the external experimental analysis of Ref. [10], overlays predicted pi+ -> a e nu spectra for fixed masses and a chosen reference branching ratio, and converts the resulting branching-ratio exclusion into a bound on sin^2 theta via Eq. (9). No parameter is tuned from the residuals and then re-presented as a prediction; sin theta appears only as the unknown quantity being constrained. The PIBETA analysis similarly compares an integrated signal estimate against the quoted 0.6% uncertainty of the measured pi+ -> pi0 e nu branching ratio, again yielding a constraint on sin^2 theta rather than a fit output. The central hadronic relation, Eq. (6), is a theoretical approximation based on vector-meson mass suppression in Eq. (5); it is an assumption about the amplitude, not a circular redefinition of the constrained quantity. The pure-mixing relation g_eff_a_gamma = sin theta g_pi_gamma is defined by imposing ga_gamma = 0 and is used only to recast existing beam-dump, fixed-target, and collider limits, so it does not smuggle in the target conclusion. Self-citations appear only in the context of projected reaches (e.g., SeaQuest projections) and are not load-bearing for the central PIENU/PIBETA exclusions. The concern that other hadronic contributions, such as virtual rho exchange, might not be negligible is a quantitative model-dependence caveat that the paper itself flags ('Other contributions may involve mixing with other hadrons, or other UV operators'); it is a correctness risk, not a circularity. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to the data used for the exclusions, and no step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the chiral-EFT parametrization of ALP-pion mixing, a dominance assumption for the off-shell pion contribution to the semileptonic amplitude, a conservative form-factor approximation, a specific ALP model assumption (no lepton couplings, dominant diphoton decay), and two experimental analysis approximations (uncorrelated PIENU bins and the PIBETA integrated-threshold bound). No continuous parameters are fitted to the data; the mixing angle sin theta is the scanned target.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The physical ALP state is a superposition of the interaction eigenstate and the neutral pion, with coefficient sin theta given by Eq. (1).
    The paper treats sin theta as a purely phenomenological mixing parameter in the ALP-PION MIXING section.
  • domain assumption The pi+ to a e nu amplitude is dominated by the off-shell pi0 insertion in the first term of Eq. (5).
    Other hadronic contributions, e.g. virtual rho exchange, are assumed suppressed by m_a^2/m_rho^2 (Eq. (6)). This is the key mapping from branching ratio to sin theta.
  • domain assumption f+(q^2) approximately 1 provides a conservative lower bound on the pi+ to pi0* e nu rate for m0 greater than about 10 MeV.
    Equation (8), based on Ademollo-Gatto and a small z expansion; yields O(10%) uncertainties.
  • domain assumption No tree-level ALP-lepton couplings; ALP decays dominantly to gamma gamma for m_a below m_pi.
    Explicit model restriction in the ALP-PION MIXING section; the derived bounds apply to this scenario.
  • domain assumption PIENU bin residuals are treated as uncorrelated over the measured energy range.
    The paper extends the assumption from Ref. [10] to all bins; validated by reproducing the pi+ to e N bounds.
  • ad hoc to paper The PIBETA limit follows from requiring the integrated ALP contribution in the 160-180 degree range not to exceed the quoted 0.6% branching-ratio uncertainty.
    PIBETA does not publish fit residuals; the authors define this approximate statistical bound and label it as approximate.
  • standard math The Ademollo-Gatto theorem and the smallness of the conformal variable z justify treating f+(q^2) as approximately constant.
    Standard results from Refs. [21-24] invoked before Eq. (8).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraining axion-like particles from rare pion decays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OLYKWOJJ

@misc{pith2026190900005,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraining axion-like particles from rare pion decays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OLYKWOJJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00005}
}
read the original abstract

Ultraviolet completions for axion-like particles (ALPs) lighter than the neutral pion generically induce ALP-neutral pion mixing, and are therefore sensitive to direct constraints on the mixing angle. For ALPs below the pion mass, we demonstrate that strong and novel bounds on the ALP-pion mixing angle can be extracted from existing rare pion decay data, measured by the PIENU and PIBETA experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00005 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. PIENU fit bin residuals (grey) for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. PIBETA reconstructed diphoton opening angle distri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_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. A comprehensive study of ALPs from $B$-decays

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper derives the complete two-loop flavor-changing coupling of axion-like particles to b and s quarks and uses it to set updated limits on f_a in KSVZ, DFSZ and Flaxion models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [10]

    Search for Massive Neutrinos in the Decay pi --> e nu

    M. Aoki et al. (PIENU), Phys. Rev. D84, 052002 (2011), arXiv:1106.4055 [hep-ex]. 7

    work page Pith review arXiv 2011

  2. [1]

    We have defined dimensionless form factors f+,0 =f+,0(q2), such that f0 couples only to the lepton mass

    + (f0−f+)m2 +−m2 0 q2 qµ ] , in which q = p+−p0, the difference of the charged and neutral pseudoscalar momenta, with massesm+ andm0, respectively. We have defined dimensionless form factors f+,0 =f+,0(q2), such that f0 couples only to the lepton mass. Here cπ = 2× 1/ √ 2 is a coupling combinatoric factor multiplied by a Clebsch-Gordan coefficient. (For K+→π0...

    work page

  3. [2]

    πe2”) rate. Overlaid are π+→aeν (“πa3

    [24], so that provided |z|≪ 1, the form factor should be approximately linear in w or q2. In the analogous K+ → π0eν system, fK + (q2) is well- approximated by a linear function from f(q2 = 0)≃ 1 to f(q2 =q2 max)∼ 1.2, and|z|max≃ 0.098. Thus requiring a sufficiently small z, say |z|max ≲ 0.3 – equivalent to r & 0.1 or m0 & 10 MeV – and approximating f+(q2)≃...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Agrawal and K

    P. Agrawal and K. Howe, JHEP 12, 029 (2018), arXiv:1710.04213 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [4]

    Jaeckel and A

    J. Jaeckel and A. Ringwald, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60, 405 (2010), arXiv:1002.0329 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2010

  6. [5]

    K. S. Jeong, T. H. Jung, and C. S. Shin, (2018), arXiv:1811.03294 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2018

  7. [6]

    W. A. Bardeen, R. Peccei, and T. Yanagida, Nuclear Physics B 279, 401 (1987)

    work page 1987

  8. [7]

    D. S. M. Alves and N. Weiner, JHEP 07, 092 (2018), arXiv:1710.03764 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 45 references
  1. [8]

    L. M. Krauss and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B176, 483 (1986)

    1986

  2. [9]

    Tanabashi et al

    M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Aguilar-Arevalo et al

    A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (PiENu), Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 071801 (2015), arXiv:1506.05845 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  4. [12]

    C. E. Picciotto, S. Ahmad, D. I. Britton, D. A. Bryman, E. T. H. Clifford, P. Kitching, Y. Kuno, J. A. Macdonald, T. Numao, A. Olin, J.-M. Poutissou, J. Summhammer, and M. S. Dixit, Phys. Rev. D 37, 1131 (1988)

    1988

  5. [13]

    Aguilar-Arevalo et al

    A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (PIENU), Phys. Rev. D97, 072012 (2018), arXiv:1712.03275 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Aguilar-Arevalo et al

    A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (PIENU), (2019), arXiv:1904.03269 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. 103B, 121 (1981)

    1981

  8. [16]

    Pocanic et al

    D. Pocanic et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 181803 (2004), arXiv:hep-ex/0312030 [hep-ex]

    2004 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Bj¨ orkeroth, E

    F. Bj¨ orkeroth, E. J. Chun, and S. F. King, JHEP 08, 117 (2018), arXiv:1806.00660 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, and A. Thamm, JHEP 12, 044 (2017), arXiv:1708.00443 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    J. M. Frere, J. A. M. Vermaseren, and M. B. Gavela, Phys. Lett. 103B, 129 (1981)

    1981

  12. [20]

    L. J. Hall and M. B. Wise, Nucl. Phys. B187, 397 (1981)

    1981

  13. [21]

    R. E. Behrends and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 186 (1960)

    1960

  14. [22]

    Sirlin, Rev

    A. Sirlin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 50, 573 (1978)

    1978

  15. [23]

    Cowan, H

    T. Cowan, H. Backe, K. Bethge, H. Bokemeyer, H. Fol- ger, J. S. Greenberg, K. Sakaguchi, D. Schwalm, J. Schweppe, K. E. Stiebing, and P. Vincent, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 444 (1986)

    1986

  16. [24]

    Bourrely, B

    C. Bourrely, B. Machet, and E. de Rafael, Nuclear Physics B 189, 157 (1981)

    1981

  17. [25]

    Ademollo and R

    M. Ademollo and R. Gatto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 264 (1964)

    1964

  18. [26]

    Leutwyler and M

    H. Leutwyler and M. Roos, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik C Par- ticles and Fields 25, 91 (1984)

    1984

  19. [27]

    Aloni, C

    D. Aloni, C. Fanelli, Y. Soreq, and M. Williams, (2019), arXiv:1903.03586 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Berlin, S

    A. Berlin, S. Gori, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, Phys. Rev. D98, 035011 (2018), arXiv:1804.00661 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    M. J. Dolan, T. Ferber, C. Hearty, F. Kahlhoe- fer, and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, JHEP 12, 094 (2017), arXiv:1709.00009 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Banerjee et al

    D. Banerjee et al. (NA64), Phys. Rev. D97, 072002 (2018), arXiv:1710.00971 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    JHEP 06, 173 (2015), arXiv:1409.4792 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Jaeckel and M

    J. Jaeckel and M. Spannowsky, Phys. Lett. B753, 482 (2016), arXiv:1509.00476 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Bergsma et al

    F. Bergsma et al. (CHARM), Phys. Lett. 157B, 458 (1985)

    1985

  26. [34]

    (2018), arXiv:1808.05219 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    del Amo Sanchez et al

    P. del Amo Sanchez et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 021804 (2011), arXiv:1007.4646 [hep-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  28. [36]

    JHEP 02, 018 (2016), [JHEP02,018(2016)], arXiv:1512.03069 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Blumlein et al

    J. Blumlein et al. , Z. Phys. C51, 341 (1991)

    1991

  30. [38]

    pure mixing scenario

    and LEP [28, 29] experiments, corresponding in the 5 10−8 10−6 10−4 10−2 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 sin2 𝜗 𝑚𝑎 [MeV] PIENU (invisible) PIENU (prompt) PIBETA (prompt) 10−8 10−6 10−4 10−2 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 10−7 10−6 10−5 10−4 10−3 sin2 𝜗 𝑔eff 𝑎𝛾 [GeV−1] 𝑚𝑎 [MeV] PURE MIXING SCEN...

  31. [39]

    Blumlein et al

    J. Blumlein et al. , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A7, 3835 (1992)

    1992

  32. [40]

    J. D. Bjorken, S. Ecklund, W. R. Nelson, A. Abashian, C. Church, B. Lu, L. W. Mo, T. A. Nunamaker, and P. Rassmann, Phys. Rev. D38, 3375 (1988)

    1988

  33. [41]

    1, 253 (2018), arXiv:1708.05776 [hep-ph]

    Proceedings of the PHOTON-2017 Conference: CERN, Geneva, Switzerland, May 22-26, 2017 , CERN Proc. 1, 253 (2018), arXiv:1708.05776 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Beacham et al

    J. Beacham et al. , (2019), arXiv:1901.09966 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    J. L. Feng, I. Galon, F. Kling, and S. Trojanowski, Phys. Rev. D98, 055021 (2018), arXiv:1806.02348 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Alekhin et al

    S. Alekhin et al. , Rept. Prog. Phys. 79, 124201 (2016), arXiv:1504.04855 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Frlez et al

    E. Frlez et al. , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A526, 300 (2004), arXiv:hep-ex/0312017 [hep-ex]

    2004 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.