Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Probing ALP couplings to electroweak gauge bosons

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 Rare two-body decays of pseudoscalar mesons are the most sensitive probes of axion-like-particle couplings to electroweak gauge bosons for ALP masses below the kinematic threshold, carried by a finite, CKM-protected one-loop…

desk verdict A solid, comprehensive constraint update for ALP-electroweak gauge boson couplings; the rare-meson bounds rest on a clearly stated no-tree-level-couplings benchmark, and the map holds up on its own terms. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15250 v2 pith:TDYPUUNI submitted 2025-01-25 hep-ph

Jin Sun , Zhi-Peng Xing , Seokhoon Yun This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords axion-likeparticlesALPcouplingstoelectroweakgaugebosonsflavor-changingneutralcurrentsraremesondecaysmixingZbosonloop-inducedbeam-dumpsearches
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 argues that when an axion-like particle (ALP) couples at the ultraviolet scale only to the electroweak gauge bosons $W$ and $B$, the most sensitive window onto that coupling is not high-energy colliders but rare two-body decays of pseudoscalar mesons, such as $K^+ \to \pi^+ a$ and $B \to K^{(*)} a$, for ALP masses below the kinematic threshold. The reason is that the ALP–$W$ vertex forces a flavor-changing ALP–quark coupling at one loop, and that coupling is finite: the ultraviolet divergence cancels through CKM unitarity, leaving a rate fixed by $g_{aW}$, the quark masses, and known mixing angles. The paper assembles current and future bounds over $10^{-4}\,\mathrm{GeV} < m_a < 100\,\mathrm{GeV}$ in four coupling scenarios and shows that $Z$-boson decays ($Z \to a\gamma$, $Z \to 3\gamma$) and beam-dump searches take over where the meson decays close. A sympathetic reader should care because this one loop-induced coupling organizes a wide set of flavour, $Z$-pole, and beam-dump observables into a single testable map.

What carries the argument

The central object is the one-loop diagram (Fig. 1) in which the $a$--$W^+$--$W^-$ vertex turns into an effective flavor-changing ALP-quark interaction, Eq. (12), together with the flavor-conserving ALP-fermion couplings $g_{aFF}$ generated by one-loop renormalization-group running from $\Lambda=10\,\mathrm{TeV}$ down to the weak scale. The mechanism works through a cancellation: the divergent part of the W-loop is independent of the internal up-type quark mass, so the CKM-weighted sum over $u,c,t$ removes it exactly, and the surviving finite term depends only on the ratios $M_\alpha^2/M_W^2$ through $f(x)$. These two ingredients give the rare-meson decay rates, the ALP decay widths that decide whether the ALP decays inside a detector, and the $Z$-pole observables — which is why the bound map is predictive rather than dependent on the ultraviolet completion, in contrast to models with tree-level ALP-quark couplings.

What would settle it

Measure the mono-energetic missing-energy peaks $K^+ \to \pi^+ a$ and $B^+ \to K^+ a$ at NA62 and Belle II and compare their rates: the loop mechanism fixes the cross-channel ratio through the single coupling $g_{ad_id_j}$ with known CKM and form-factor input, so the relative rate is a parameter-free prediction of Eq. (12). A signal whose ratio across channels disagrees with that prediction — or an ALP decay to leptons faster than the loop-induced $g_{aFF}$ allows — would establish tree-level ALP-fermion couplings and break the mapping from rare-meson rates to $g_{aW}$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the dimension-five ALP couplings to the $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$ gauge fields, $g_{aW}$ and $g_{aB}$, can be probed across the mass range from MeV to 100 GeV through a hierarchy of loop-induced effects, and that for the light window the rare meson decays win. The load-bearing step is the finite flavor-changing down-quark coupling of Eq. (12), $g_{ad_i d_j} = -\frac{3\sqrt{2}\,G_F M_W^2}{16\pi^2}\, g_{aW} \sum_{\alpha\in u,c,t} V_{\alpha i} V_{\alpha j}^*\, f(M_\alpha^2/M_W^2)$ with $f(x) = x[1+x(\log x-1)]/(1-x)^2$: the W-loop divergence is quark-mass independent, so summing over $u,c,t$ kills it by the unitarity condition $\sum_\alpha V_{\alpha i}V_{\alpha j}^*=0$, and the remainder is determined by infrared physics alone. This coupling drives $M_1 \to M_2 a$, the most sensitive probes below the kinematic threshold, and — through the decay chains $M_1 \to M_2 a(\to \ell^+\ell^-)$ — constrains the loop-generated flavor-conserving ALP-fermion couplings. Complementary constraints come from $Z \to a\gamma$, $Z \to 3\gamma$, $Z \to \gamma \ell\ell$, the oblique parameters $S,T,U$, and the CHARM beam-dump search, and the whole map is presented for four scenarios: photophobic ($g_{a\gamma\gamma}=0$), $g_{aB}=0$, same-sign $g_{aB}=g_{aW}\tan^2\theta_W$, and $g_{aW}=0$.

Load-bearing premise

The entire constraint map assumes the ALP has no tree-level couplings to Standard-Model fermions or gluons at the ultraviolet scale — the EFT of Eq. (1) switches on only $g_{aW}$ and $g_{aB}$ — so every fermionic coupling that enters the rare-meson rates comes from one-loop W-boson and renormalization-group effects; the paper itself notes in Section II that models with a direct ALP-quark coupling have FCNC rates that depend on the ultraviolet completion, which would make the extracted $g_{aW}$ bounds hostage to that extra structure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Below the kinematic threshold, rare two-body meson decays set the strongest exclusions in every down-quark transition: $K^+ \to \pi^+ a$ reaches $g_{aW} \lesssim 10^{-5.4}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$, $B^0 \to K^{*0} a$ reaches about $10^{-4.2}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$, and $B \to \pi a$ leads the $b \to d$ sector.
  • Semi-leptonic chains $M_1 \to M_2 a(\to \ell^+\ell^-)$ and the pure-leptonic decays $B_{s,d} \to \mu^+\mu^-$ fill the kinematic windows where the ALP decays inside the detector, coverage that two-body decays alone leave open.
  • For heavier ALPs the $Z$-boson sector takes over: $Z \to a\gamma$ reaches $g_{aW} \sim 10^{-4.2}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ in the photophobic case, and $Z \to 3\gamma$ gives the most stringent $Z$-derived exclusion for $m_a \gtrsim 0.1\,\mathrm{GeV}$.
  • Among the four benchmark scenarios the photophobic ALP yields the widest excluded region, because suppressing $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ narrows the total width and sharpens the visible decay chains, whereas the scenarios with a tree-level photon coupling are dominated by $a \to \gamma\gamma$.
  • Future facilities extend the reach: FCC-ee and CEPC at the $Z$ pole exploit the $m_Z^2/\Gamma_Z^2 \approx 1330$ enhancement, with FCC-ee reaching $g_{aW} \sim 10^{-4.5}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$, while SHiP covers the small-coupling region and fully envelops the existing CHARM exclusion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable consequence the authors do not pursue: Eq. (12) fixes the rate ratios across channels — for instance $\mathrm{Br}(B^+ \to K^+ a)/\mathrm{Br}(K^+ \to \pi^+ a)$ is determined by CKM and form-factor inputs alone — so a flavour programme that measures several transitions simultaneously could confirm or refute the single-coupling hypothesis independently of colliders.
  • The fermionic bounds carry an explicit scale choice, $\Lambda = 10\,\mathrm{TeV}$ in Eq. (19); because the loop-induced ALP-fermion couplings grow logarithmically with the running scale, the semi-leptonic and leptonic constraints would shift for a very different ultraviolet scale, an unexamined parametric lever.
  • The same W-loop logic should generate analogous couplings in the charged-lepton sector, with testable consequences for $\tau$ decays and lepton-flavour-violating searches; the paper restricts itself to quarks, so a lepton-sector version of this bound map is the natural next step.
  • The Belle II $B^+ \to K^+ \nu\bar{\nu}$ excess is used as motivation; if the excess is real and an ALP mediates it, consistency with the CHARM and SHiP displaced-decay searches requires the ALP to be long-lived at the relevant couplings, which the paper's own bounds already constrain tightly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes the phenomenological constraints on ALPs coupled at dimension-five level to electroweak gauge bosons through the two Wilson coefficients gaW and gaB. Beginning from Eq. (1), the authors recompute the one-loop, flavor-changing a-d_i-d_j couplings induced by W-boson exchange, show that the UV divergences cancel through CKM unitarity, and obtain the finite expression Eq. (12) that matches Ref. [29]. These couplings are applied to rare two-body meson decays (K→πa, B→Ka, B→πa, etc.), semi-leptonic and pure leptonic meson decays, and neutral meson mixing. The same Lagrangian is used to derive flavor-conserving ALP-fermion couplings by RG running, and to constrain the model from Z→γa, Z→3γ, Z→γll, the Z total width, and oblique parameters S,T,U. Four benchmark scenarios are considered: photophobic (gaγγ=0), gaB=0, same-sign gaB=gaW tan²θW, and gaW=0. The main outputs are exclusion maps in the (ma,gaW) and (ma,gaB) planes (Fig. 3) and future projections for CEPC, FCC-ee and SHiP (Fig. 5), with the headline result that K+→π+a and related rare meson decays provide the most sensitive low-mass probes, while Z→3γ dominates at higher masses.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a useful and fairly comprehensive update of the ALP-EW-gauge-boson constraint map in the MeV-100 GeV window. The central one-loop calculation is standard and agrees with the existing literature; its finite form follows from CKM unitarity and quark-mass differences, and the paper states this clearly. The strengths of the paper are the simultaneous treatment of four benchmark ultraviolet scenarios, the updated set of experimental inputs including NA62 and Belle II, and the explicit future projections. It also honestly emphasizes in §II that the flavor-changing coupling is different from, and more predictive than, the UV-sensitive direct ALP-quark coupling case. The main caveat is that the bound map is benchmark-dependent and some of the experimental reinterpretations, particularly for M1→M2ll and Z→3γ, are approximate. Since the paper is primarily a constraints update rather than a new conceptual framework, its value depends on those caveats being stated and, where possible, quantified.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II, Eq. (1); Figs. 3 and 5] The entire exclusion map in Fig. 3 is computed in the benchmark of Eq. (1), in which only gaW and gaB are present at the UV scale and all couplings to SM fermions and gluons are generated radiatively. As the text notes in §II, models with a direct ALP-quark coupling have an FCNC amplitude that is not loop-suppressed and is sensitive to the UV completion; in that case the same rare-meson observables no longer measure gaW alone. The abstract and conclusion present the contours as bounds on gaW without this qualifier. Because the headline claim is specifically about probing the electroweak gauge-boson couplings through loop-induced flavor violation, the benchmark dependence is load-bearing. I ask that the limitation be stated explicitly in the abstract/conclusion and, ideally, that the authors quantify how the leading contours shift when one adds a direct ALP-quark coupling with a small coefficient.
  2. [§III.B, Eq. (26), Table II] The M1→M2ll constraints are obtained by comparing Eq. (26) with the inclusive branching ratios listed in Table II. The experimental values for channels such as B+→K+ee and B+→K+μμ are phase-space integrated and include the SM rate as well as long-distance resonances; a narrow ALP contributes only over a restricted q² interval, while the a→ll width is not necessarily narrow at large gaW. The paper does not specify how the SM prediction is subtracted or how detector acceptance for the two leptons is folded in. Without this information, the semi-leptonic contours in Fig. 3 may overstate or misplace the exclusion. I request a q²-binned treatment or, at minimum, an explicit description of the SM-subtraction and acceptance procedure used for each channel.
  3. [§III.D, Eq. (38)] The ATLAS limit Br(Z→3γ)<2.2×10^-6 is applied as a flat bound on the chain Z→γa with a→γγ for all ALP masses in Fig. 3. The ATLAS search of Ref. [96] is a pp measurement with photon pT, rapidity and isolation requirements, and the efficiency for the two photons from a→γγ depends on ma; for example, near ma∼mZ/2 the photons are soft and acceptance drops. Interpreting the quoted number as a total branching-ratio limit can make the high-mass Z→3γ contours optimistic. The paper should either model the acceptance as a function of ma or explicitly label this constraint as approximate and show the associated uncertainty.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] The word 'photobic' in the caption of Fig. 2 should be 'photophobic'.
  2. [§IV.D] The text says the bounds for the gaW=0 scenario are shown in Fig. 3(c); the correct panel is Fig. 3(d).
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption lists ma=0.5 GeV as one of the two illustrated ALP masses, but the plotted curves are labeled with ma=0.1 GeV; please make the caption and figure consistent.
  4. [Table I] The muon mass m_μ is listed twice in Table I; remove the duplicate entry.
  5. [Eq. (23)] The scale of α_s in Γ(a→hadrons) is not specified; since this width enters the decay probability P_dec and hence the displaced-decay constraints, please define the renormalization scale used.
  6. [Eq. (34)] For ma>m_H, only the running of the Wilson coefficient c2 is given; if c3 is retained in the neutral-meson-mixing bounds, state its treatment, or say explicitly that only c2 is used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the loop-induced ALP-quark coupling is derived from gaW, CKM unitarity, and quark masses, and the resulting predictions are compared with independent experimental data.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: Eq. (1) defines the input ALP couplings to electroweak gauge bosons; Eqs. (5)-(12) compute the one-loop flavor-changing ALP-quark coupling from gaW, with the UV divergence cancelled by CKM unitarity, and the finite result matching the independent result of Ref. [29]; Eq. (19) gives the RG-induced flavor-conserving fermion couplings with an explicitly stated UV scale Λ=10 TeV. The observables—rare meson decays, M1→M2ll chains, Bs,d→ll, neutral-meson mixing, Z→γa, Z→3γ, γll, and oblique parameters—are all compared against experimental measurements listed in Tables II-III and Refs. [54,55,56,57,63,68,70,72,75,77,78,79,80,81,82,94,95,96]. No parameter is fitted to the same observable it is used to predict, and no central result is imported solely from a self-citation. The only self-overlapping citation, Ref. [34] (which shares one author), is used for the CHARM signal-number estimate in Eq. (46), but that formula is displayed explicitly in the paper and is additionally attributed to Ref. [100], so it is not load-bearing for the central claim. The benchmark assumption of no tree-level ALP couplings to SM fermions or gluons is a stated EFT setup choice (Eq. (1)), explicitly contrasted in Sec. II with models having direct ALP-quark couplings; this is a scope limitation, not a circular reduction. The paper's quantitative conclusions therefore stand as genuine predictions from gaW, not as re-statements of its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard ALP effective field theory, the assumption of no tree-level fermion couplings, CKM unitarity, and quoted renormalization group formulas. The only hand-chosen parameter is the UV scale Lambda=10 TeV, which affects the ALP decay width and hence detector-based bounds. No new entities are introduced by this paper.

free parameters (1)
  • UV scale Lambda = 10 TeV
    The RG-induced ALP-fermion couplings in Eq. (19) depend on log(Lambda^2/mW^2); the paper sets Lambda = 10 TeV by hand. This choice affects the ALP decay width to leptons and thus the strength of constraints from semi-leptonic decays and displaced-vertex searches.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The ALP is a pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson whose leading couplings to SM gauge bosons are the dimension-5 operators of Eq. (1), with no higher-dimensional operators relevant below the UV scale.
    This EFT truncation defines the model; additional operators would alter the phenomenology.
  • domain assumption The ALP has no tree-level couplings to SM fermions; all fermionic couplings are loop-induced.
    Stated in the introduction and used in Section II; without this, the rare meson decay bounds would not map uniquely to gaW.
  • standard math The CKM matrix is unitary and the ALP-W coupling respects the SM flavor structure (minimal flavor violation).
    Unitarity in Eq. (10) cancels the UV divergence and fixes the finite part of the loop amplitude; minimal flavor violation is assumed in the setup.
  • domain assumption The one-loop renormalization group running of ALP-fermion couplings is given by Eq. (19) from Ref. [60].
    The paper quotes this formula without deriving it; it controls the ALP branching ratios into leptons.
  • domain assumption Experimental limits from LEP/L3, ATLAS, OPAL, and the CHARM beam dump can be reinterpreted as model-independent upper bounds on the corresponding ALP final states.
    The paper uses Br(Z->gamma a)<1.1e-6, Br(Z->3gamma)<2.2e-6, and CHARM signal counts directly; detector acceptances and efficiencies are not modeled.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing ALP couplings to electroweak gauge bosons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TDYPUUNI

@misc{pith2026250115250,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing ALP couplings to electroweak gauge bosons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TDYPUUNI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15250}
}
abstract

Motivated by the more and more abundant experimental data, we revisit the couplings of axion-like particle (ALP) to electroweak gauge bosons across the ALP mass range from MeV to 100 GeV. The current and future experimental limits on the couplings are extended. The ALP coupling to $W$-bosons gives rise to flavor-changing ALP-quark couplings at the one-loop level. These flavor-changing couplings deserve further investigation under current experimental constraints, especially those stemming from rare meson decays and neutral meson mixing processes. Additionally, flavor-conserving couplings of the ALP to Standard Model (SM) fermions arise at the one-loop level as well from ALP-electroweak gauge boson couplings, even in the absence of tree-level couplings to these SM fermions, with consequent ALP decays to the SM fermions leading to constraints on the ALP-electroweak gauge boson couplings. We also investigate processes relevant to $Z$-boson measurements, such as the invisible decay $Z\to a\gamma$, subsequent decays $Z\to 3\gamma$ and $Z\to \gamma ll$, as well as constraints from oblique parameters ($S,\, T,\, U$). Our study highlights that rare two-body decays of pseudoscalar mesons offer the most sensitive probes of ALP couplings to electroweak gauge bosons from the loop-induced flavor-violating interactions for ALP masses below the kinematic threshold, while $Z$-boson decays complementarily explore larger ALP masses. Future lepton colliders, such as CEPC and FCC-ee operating at the $Z$-pole, along with SHiP, provide further opportunities to probe ALP couplings to electroweak gauge bosons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15250 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Additionally, the SM charged vector-current interac￾tion mediated by W± bosons are expressed by LW =− g √ 2 (¯uL, c¯L,t¯L)γ µVCKM   dL sL bL   W+ µ + H.c..(6) Here g means the gauge coupling constant of SU(2)L gauge group. And the subscript L means the projection on the left. And the CKM mixing matrix VCKM is pa￾rameterized by three rotation angles and one phase   c12c13 s12c13 s13e −iδ −s12c23 − c12s23s13e iδ… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The ALP branching ratios decays into different SM final states. The decays into photons, electrons, muons, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The excluded parameter regions from different physical processes in the plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The cross section of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The future sensitivity for ALP parameter in the plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.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. ALP pair production at the LHC

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Non-resonant gg→aa→4γ production could constrain the dimension-6 ALP-gluon coupling down to ~10^-3 TeV^-2 at 300 fb^-1, but the allowed parameter space remains unbounded along multiple flat directions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [29]

    Bisht, S

    D. Bisht, S. Chakraborty, and A. Samanta,A comprehensive study of ALPs fromB-decays, arXiv:2412.09678

    arXiv

  2. [96]

    OP ALCollaboration, P. D. Acton et al.,A Measurement of photon radiation in lepton pair events from Z0 decays, Phys. Lett. B 273 (1991) 338–354

    1991

  3. [1]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn,CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 1440–1443

    1977

  4. [2]

    The other decay processes can be obtained by the corresponding transformations on the masses and form factors. Using light-cone sum rules [83, 84], the corresponding expressions are AB→K∗ 0 (m2 a) = 1.364 1 − m2a/(5.28)2 + −0.990 1 − m2a/36.78 , AB→ρ 0 (m2 a) = 1.527 1 − m2a/5.282 + −1.220 1 − m2a/33.36 , ABs→ϕ 0 (m2 a) = 3.310 1 − m2a/5.282 + −2.835 1 − ...

  5. [3]

    Weinberg,A New Light Boson?, Phys

    S. Weinberg,A New Light Boson?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 (1978) 223–226

    1978

  6. [4]

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

    F. Wilczek,Problem of StrongP and T Invariance in the Presence of Instantons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 (1978) 279–282

    1978

  7. [5]

    Cheng,The Strong CP Problem Revisited, Phys

    H.-Y. Cheng,The Strong CP Problem Revisited, Phys. Rept. 158 (1988) 1

    1988

  8. [6]

    J. E. Kim and G. Carosi,Axions and the Strong CP Problem, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82 (2010) 557–602, [arXiv:0807.3125]. [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 91, 049902 (2019)]

    arXiv 2010

Show all 107 references
  1. [7]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Giannotti, E. Nardi, and L. Visinelli, The landscape of QCD axion models, Phys. Rept. 870 (2020) 1–117, [arXiv:2003.01100]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [8]

    K. Choi, S. H. Im, and C. Sub Shin,Recent Progress in the Physics of Axions and Axion-Like Particles, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 71 (2021) 225–252, [arXiv:2012.05029]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Arias-Aragón, J

    F. Arias-Aragón, J. Quevillon, and C. Smith, Axion-like ALPs, JHEP 03 (2023) 134, [arXiv:2211.04489]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Jaeckel and A

    J. Jaeckel and A. Ringwald,The Low-Energy Frontier of Particle Physics, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60 (2010) 405–437, [arXiv:1002.0329]

    2010 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Beacham et al.,Physics Beyond Colliders at CERN: Beyond the Standard Model Working Group Report, J

    J. Beacham et al.,Physics Beyond Colliders at CERN: Beyond the Standard Model Working Group Report, J. Phys. G 47 (2020), no. 1 010501, [arXiv:1901.09966]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Calibbi, Z

    L. Calibbi, Z. Huang, S. Qin, Y. Yang, and X. Yin, Testing axion couplings to leptons in Z decays at future e+e- colliders, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023), no. 1 015002, [arXiv:2212.02818]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, and A. Thamm,Collider Probes of Axion-Like Particles, JHEP 12 (2017) 044, [arXiv:1708.00443]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, S. Renner, M. Schnubel, and A. Thamm,Flavor probes of axion-like particles, JHEP 09 (2022) 056, [arXiv:2110.10698]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Preskill, M

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek,Cosmology of the Invisible Axion, Phys. Lett. B 120 (1983) 127–132

    1983

  10. [16]

    L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie,A Cosmological Bound on the Invisible Axion, Phys. Lett. B 120 (1983) 133–136

    1983

  11. [17]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler,The Not So Harmless Axion, Phys. Lett. B 120 (1983) 137–141

    1983

  12. [18]

    Ringwald,Review on Axions, 4, 2024

    A. Ringwald,Review on Axions, 4, 2024. arXiv:2404.09036

    2024 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Sikivie,Experimental Tests of the Invisible Axion, Phys

    P. Sikivie,Experimental Tests of the Invisible Axion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 (1983) 1415–1417. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 52, 695 (1984)]

    1983

  14. [20]

    Primakoff,Photoproduction of neutral mesons in nuclear electric fields and the mean life of the neutral meson, Phys

    H. Primakoff,Photoproduction of neutral mesons in nuclear electric fields and the mean life of the neutral meson, Phys. Rev. 81 (1951) 899

    1951

  15. [21]

    Ahn et al.,Extensive Search for Axion Dark Matter over 1 GHz with CAPP’S Main Axion Experiment, Phys

    CAPP Collaboration, S. Ahn et al.,Extensive Search for Axion Dark Matter over 1 GHz with CAPP’S Main Axion Experiment, Phys. Rev. X 14 (2024), no. 3 031023, [arXiv:2402.12892]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Quiskamp, B

    A. Quiskamp, B. T. McAllister, P. Altin, E. N. Ivanov, M. Goryachev, and M. E. Tobar,Exclusion of Axionlike-Particle Cogenesis Dark Matter in a Mass Window above 100µeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024), no. 3 031601, [arXiv:2310.00904]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Wei,Towards the first axion search results of the Any Light Particle Search II experiment, PoS T AUP2023(2024) 049, [arXiv:2401.14773]

    ALPS Collaboration, L.-W. Wei,Towards the first axion search results of the Any Light Particle Search II experiment, PoS T AUP2023(2024) 049, [arXiv:2401.14773]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Altenmüller et al.,New Upper Limit on the Axion-Photon Coupling with an Extended CAST Run with a Xe-Based Micromegas Detector, Phys

    CAST Collaboration, K. Altenmüller et al.,New Upper Limit on the Axion-Photon Coupling with an Extended CAST Run with a Xe-Based Micromegas Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (2024), no. 22 221005, [arXiv:2406.16840]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [25]

    NEON Collaboration, B. J. Park et al.,Exploring the Cosmological Triangle in Search for Axion-Like Particles from a Reactor, arXiv:2406.06117

    arXiv

  20. [26]

    Rebello Teles, D

    P. Rebello Teles, D. d’Enterria, V. P. Gonçalves, and D. E. Martins,Searches for axionlike particles viaγγ fusion at future e+e- colliders, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024), no. 5 055003, [arXiv:2310.17270]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [27]

    I. G. Irastorza and J. Redondo,New experimental approaches in the search for axion-like particles, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 102 (2018) 89–159, [arXiv:1801.08127]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Chakraborty, M

    S. Chakraborty, M. Kraus, V. Loladze, T. Okui, and K. Tobioka,Heavy QCD axion in b→s transition: Enhanced limits and projections, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021), no. 5 055036, [arXiv:2102.04474]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 108, 039903 (2023)]. 20

    2021 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Izaguirre, T

    E. Izaguirre, T. Lin, and B. Shuve,Searching for Axionlike Particles in Flavor-Changing Neutral Current Processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017), no. 11 111802, [arXiv:1611.09355]

    2017 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Alonso-Álvarez, M

    G. Alonso-Álvarez, M. B. Gavela, and P. Quilez,Axion couplings to electroweak gauge bosons, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019), no. 3 223, [arXiv:1811.05466]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Dalla Valle Garcia, F

    G. Dalla Valle Garcia, F. Kahlhoefer, M. Ovchynnikov, and A. Zaporozhchenko,Phenomenology of axionlike particles with universal fermion couplings revisited, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024), no. 5 055042, [arXiv:2310.03524]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Freytsis, Z

    M. Freytsis, Z. Ligeti, and J. Thaler,Constraining the Axion Portal withB → Kl +l−, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 034001, [arXiv:0911.5355]

    2010 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Celis, J

    A. Celis, J. Fuentes-Martin, and H. Serodio,An invisible axion model with controlled FCNCs at tree level, Phys. Lett. B 741 (2015) 117–123, [arXiv:1410.6217]

    2015 arXiv

  28. [35]

    K. Choi, S. H. Im, C. B. Park, and S. Yun,Minimal Flavor Violation with Axion-like Particles, JHEP 11 (2017) 070, [arXiv:1708.00021]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Heeck,Phenomenology of Majorons, in 13th Patras Workshop on Axions, WIMPs and WISPs, pp

    J. Heeck,Phenomenology of Majorons, in 13th Patras Workshop on Axions, WIMPs and WISPs, pp. 212–215, 2018. arXiv:1709.07670

    2018 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Heeck and H

    J. Heeck and H. H. Patel,Majoron at two loops, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019), no. 9 095015, [arXiv:1909.02029]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Martin Camalich, M

    J. Martin Camalich, M. Pospelov, P. N. H. Vuong, R. Ziegler, and J. Zupan,Quark Flavor Phenomenology of the QCD Axion, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020), no. 1 015023, [arXiv:2002.04623]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Cheng, C.-W

    Y. Cheng, C.-W. Chiang, X.-G. He, and J. Sun, Flavor-changing Majoron interactions with leptons, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021), no. 1 013001, [arXiv:2012.15287]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [40]

    J. Sun, Y. Cheng, and X.-G. He,Structure Of Flavor Changing Goldstone Boson Interactions, JHEP 04 (2021) 141, [arXiv:2101.06055]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Bouchard, G

    HPQCD Collaboration, C. Bouchard, G. P. Lepage, C. Monahan, H. Na, and J. Shigemitsu,Rare decay B → Kℓ +ℓ− form factors from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013), no. 5 054509, [arXiv:1306.2384]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 88, 079901 (2013)]

    2013 arXiv

  35. [42]

    R. R. Horgan, Z. Liu, S. Meinel, and M. Wingate, Lattice QCD calculation of form factors describing the rare decaysB → K ∗ℓ+ℓ− and Bs → ϕℓ+ℓ−, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014), no. 9 094501, [arXiv:1310.3722]

    2014 arXiv

  36. [43]

    A. J. Buras, J. Girrbach-Noe, C. Niehoff, and D. M. Straub, B → K (∗)νν decays in the Standard Model and beyond, JHEP 02 (2015) 184, [arXiv:1409.4557]

    2015 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Alonso, B

    R. Alonso, B. Grinstein, and J. Martin Camalich, Lepton universality violation and lepton flavor conservation in B-meson decays, JHEP 10 (2015) 184, [arXiv:1505.05164]

    2015 arXiv

  38. [45]

    A. J. Buras, D. Buttazzo, J. Girrbach-Noe, and R. Knegjens, K + → π+νν and KL → π0νν in the Standard Model: status and perspectives, JHEP 11 (2015) 033, [arXiv:1503.02693]

    2015 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Blake, G

    T. Blake, G. Lanfranchi, and D. M. Straub,Rare B Decays as Tests of the Standard Model, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 92 (2017) 50–91, [arXiv:1606.00916]

    2017 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Gao, C.-D

    J. Gao, C.-D. Lü, Y.-L. Shen, Y.-M. Wang, and Y.-B. Wei,Precision calculations ofB → V form factors from soft-collinear effective theory sum rules on the light-cone, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020), no. 7 074035, [arXiv:1907.11092]

    2020 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Wang, F.-S

    W. Wang, F.-S. Yu, and Z.-X. Zhao,Novel Method to Reliably Determine the Photon Helicity inB → K1γ, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020), no. 5 051802, [arXiv:1909.13083]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Beneke, C

    M. Beneke, C. Bobeth, and Y.-M. Wang,Bd,s → γℓ ¯ℓ decay with an energetic photon, JHEP 12 (2020) 148, [arXiv:2008.12494]

    2020 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Huang, Y.-L

    Y.-K. Huang, Y.-L. Shen, C. Wang, and Y.-M. Wang, Next-to-Leading-Order Weak Annihilation Correction to Rare B → {K, π} ℓ+ℓ− Decays, arXiv:2403.11258

    arXiv

  44. [51]

    A. J. Buras, J. Harz, and M. A. Mojahed, Disentangling new physics inK → πν ν and B → K (K ∗) νν observables, JHEP 10 (2024) 087, [arXiv:2405.06742]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Fedele,B rare decays: theory overview, PoS WIF AI2023(2024) 022, [arXiv:2402.03863]

    M. Fedele,B rare decays: theory overview, PoS WIF AI2023(2024) 022, [arXiv:2402.03863]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Tian, H.-B

    H.-J. Tian, H.-B. Fu, T. Zhong, Y.-X. Wang, and X.-G. Wu,The rare decayB+ → K +ℓ+ℓ−(ν ¯ν) under the QCD sum rules approach, arXiv:2411.12141

    arXiv

  47. [54]

    Huber, T

    T. Huber, T. Hurth, J. Jenkins, E. Lunghi, Q. Qin, and K. K. Vos,Inclusive B → Xsℓ+ℓ− at the LHC: theory predictions and new-physics reach, JHEP 11 (2024) 130, [arXiv:2404.03517]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Navas et al., Review of particle physics, Phys

    Particle Data Group Collaboration, S. Navas et al., Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 3 030001

    2024

  49. [56]

    Adachi et al.,Evidence for B+→K+νν¯ decays, Phys

    Belle-II Collaboration, I. Adachi et al.,Evidence for B+→K+νν¯ decays, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024), no. 11 112006, [arXiv:2311.14647]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Cortina Gil et al., Measurement of the very rare K+→π+νν decay, JHEP 06 (2021) 093, [arXiv:2103.15389]

    NA62 Collaboration, E. Cortina Gil et al., Measurement of the very rare K+→π+νν decay, JHEP 06 (2021) 093, [arXiv:2103.15389]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Cortina Gil et al., Observation of theK + → π+ν ¯ν decay and measurement of its branching ratio, arXiv:2412.12015

    NA62 Collaboration, E. Cortina Gil et al., Observation of theK + → π+ν ¯ν decay and measurement of its branching ratio, arXiv:2412.12015

    arXiv

  52. [59]

    BNL-E949 Collaboration, A. V. Artamonov et al., Study of the decayK + → π+ν ¯ν in the momentum region 140 < Pπ < 199 MeV/c, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 092004, [arXiv:0903.0030]

    2009 arXiv

  53. [60]

    S. L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos, and L. Maiani,Weak Interactions with Lepton-Hadron Symmetry, Phys. Rev. D 2 (1970) 1285–1292

    1970

  54. [61]

    Craig, A

    N. Craig, A. Hook, and S. Kasko,The Photophobic ALP, JHEP 09 (2018) 028, [arXiv:1805.06538]

    2018 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Batell, M

    B. Batell, M. Pospelov, and A. Ritz,Multi-lepton Signatures of a Hidden Sector in Rare B Decays, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 054005, [arXiv:0911.4938]

    2011 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Hou, X.-Q

    B.-F. Hou, X.-Q. Li, M. Shen, Y.-D. Yang, and X.-B. Yuan,Deciphering the Belle II data onB → Kν ν decay in the (dark) SMEFT with minimal flavour violation, JHEP 06 (2024) 172, [arXiv:2402.19208]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [64]

    KOTO Collaboration, J. K. Ahn et al.,Search for the KL → π0νν and KL → π0X 0 decays at the J-PARC KOTO experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019), no. 2 021802, [arXiv:1810.09655]

    2019 arXiv

  58. [65]

    D’Ambrosio, G

    G. D’Ambrosio, G. Isidori, and J. Portoles,Can we extract short distance information from B(K(L) —> mu+ mu-)?, Phys. Lett. B 423 (1998) 385–394, 21 [hep-ph/9708326]

    1998 arXiv

  59. [66]

    A. J. Buras,Standard Model predictions for rare K and B decays without new physics infection, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023), no. 1 66, [arXiv:2209.03968]

    2023 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Alavi-Harati et al.,Search for the Rare DecayKL → π0e+e−, Phys

    KT e VCollaboration, A. Alavi-Harati et al.,Search for the Rare DecayKL → π0e+e−, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 021805, [hep-ex/0309072]

    2004 arXiv

  61. [68]

    Alavi-Harati et al.,Search for the DecayKL → π0µ+µ−, Phys

    KTEV Collaboration, A. Alavi-Harati et al.,Search for the DecayKL → π0µ+µ−, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 5279–5282, [hep-ex/0001006]

    2000 arXiv

  62. [69]

    Aggarwal et al.,Snowmass White Paper: Belle II physics reach and plans for the next decade and beyond, arXiv:2207.06307

    Belle-II Collaboration, L. Aggarwal et al.,Snowmass White Paper: Belle II physics reach and plans for the next decade and beyond, arXiv:2207.06307

    arXiv

  63. [70]

    Wang and Z.-J

    W.-F. Wang and Z.-J. Xiao,The semileptonic decays B/Bs → (π, K)(ℓ+ℓ−, ℓν, ν¯ν) in the perturbative QCD approach beyond the leading-order, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 114025, [arXiv:1207.0265]

    2012 arXiv

  64. [71]

    Adachi et al.,Search for Rare b→dℓ+ℓ- Transitions at Belle, Phys

    Belle, Belle-II Collaboration, I. Adachi et al.,Search for Rare b→dℓ+ℓ- Transitions at Belle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (2024), no. 10 101804, [arXiv:2404.08133]

    2024 arXiv

  65. [72]

    Beneke, C

    M. Beneke, C. Bobeth, and R. Szafron, Power-enhanced leading-logarithmic QED corrections to Bq → µ+µ−, JHEP 10 (2019) 232, [arXiv:1908.07011]. [Erratum: JHEP 11, 099 (2022)]

    2019 arXiv

  66. [73]

    Tumasyan et al., Measurement of the B0 S→µ+µ− decay properties and search for the B0→µ+µ− decay in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, Phys

    CMS Collaboration, A. Tumasyan et al., Measurement of the B0 S→µ+µ− decay properties and search for the B0→µ+µ− decay in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 842 (2023) 137955, [arXiv:2212.10311]

    2023 arXiv

  67. [74]

    Sahoo, D

    S. Sahoo, D. Banerjee, M. Kumar, and S. Mohanty, Effect of both Z and Z^prime - mediated flavor-changing neutral currents onBs decays into tau+tau−, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 27 (2012) 1250184, [arXiv:1302.6166]

    2012 arXiv

  68. [75]

    HPQCD Collaboration, W. G. Parrott, C. Bouchard, and C. T. H. Davies,Standard Model predictions for B→Kℓ+ℓ-, B→Kℓ1-ℓ2+ and B→Kνν¯ using form factors from Nf=2+1+1 lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023), no. 1 014511, [arXiv:2207.13371]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 107, 119903 (2023)]

    2023 arXiv

  69. [76]

    Grygier et al.,Search for B → hν ¯ν decays with semileptonic tagging at Belle, Phys

    Belle Collaboration, J. Grygier et al.,Search for B → hν ¯ν decays with semileptonic tagging at Belle, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017), no. 9 091101, [arXiv:1702.03224]. [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 97, 099902 (2018)]

    2017 arXiv

  70. [77]

    Bečirević, G

    D. Bečirević, G. Piazza, and O. Sumensari,Revisiting B → K (∗)ν ¯ν decays in the Standard Model and beyond, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023), no. 3 252, [arXiv:2301.06990]

    2023 arXiv

  71. [78]

    Adam et al.,Study of rare b decays with the DELPHI detector at LEP, Z

    DELPHI Collaboration, W. Adam et al.,Study of rare b decays with the DELPHI detector at LEP, Z. Phys. C 72 (1996) 207–220

    1996

  72. [79]

    Taniguchi,Prospects for the Belle II experiment to further elucidate the KM mechanism and beyond, arXiv:2401.08250

    Belle-II Collaboration, N. Taniguchi,Prospects for the Belle II experiment to further elucidate the KM mechanism and beyond, arXiv:2401.08250

    arXiv

  73. [80]

    Hayrapetyan et al.,Test of lepton flavor universality in B±→ K±µ+µ− and B±→ K±e+e− decays in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, Rept

    CMS Collaboration, A. Hayrapetyan et al.,Test of lepton flavor universality in B±→ K±µ+µ− and B±→ K±e+e− decays in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, Rept. Prog. Phys. 87 (2024), no. 7 077802, [arXiv:2401.07090]

    2024 arXiv

  74. [81]

    Aaij et al.,Branching Fraction Measurements of the RareB0 s → ϕµ+µ− and B0 s → f ′ 2(1525)µ+µ−- Decays, Phys

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al.,Branching Fraction Measurements of the RareB0 s → ϕµ+µ− and B0 s → f ′ 2(1525)µ+µ−- Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021), no. 15 151801, [arXiv:2105.14007]

    2021

  75. [82]

    BaBar Collaboration, J. P. Lees et al.,Search for B+ → K +τ +τ − at the BaBar experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017), no. 3 031802, [arXiv:1605.09637]

    2017 arXiv

  76. [83]

    Aaij et al.,Search for the decays B0 s → τ +τ − and B0 → τ +τ −, Phys

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al.,Search for the decays B0 s → τ +τ − and B0 → τ +τ −, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017), no. 25 251802, [arXiv:1703.02508]

    2017 arXiv

  77. [84]

    Ball and R

    P. Ball and R. Zwicky,New results onB → π, K, η decay formfactors from light-cone sum rules, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 014015, [hep-ph/0406232]

    2005 arXiv

  78. [85]

    Ball and R

    P. Ball and R. Zwicky,Bd,s → ρ, ω, K∗, ϕdecay form-factors from light-cone sum rules revisited, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 014029, [hep-ph/0412079]

    2005 arXiv

  79. [86]

    W. J. Marciano and Z. Parsa,Rare kaon decays with ‘‘missing energy’’, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996), no. 1 R1

    1996

  80. [87]

    Grossman and Y

    Y. Grossman and Y. Nir,K(L) —> pi0 neutrino anti-neutrino beyond the standard model, Phys. Lett. B 398 (1997) 163–168, [hep-ph/9701313]

    1997 arXiv

  81. [88]

    Hiller and M

    G. Hiller and M. Schmaltz,RK and future b → sℓℓ physics beyond the standard model opportunities, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 054014, [arXiv:1408.1627]

    2014 arXiv

  82. [89]

    A. Lenz, U. Nierste, J. Charles, S. Descotes-Genon, A. Jantsch, C. Kaufhold, H. Lacker, S. Monteil, V. Niess, and S. T’Jampens,Anatomy of New Physics in B − ¯B mixing, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 036004, [arXiv:1008.1593]

    2011 arXiv

  83. [90]

    Carrasco, P

    ETM Collaboration, N. Carrasco, P. Dimopoulos, R. Frezzotti, V. Lubicz, G. C. Rossi, S. Simula, and C. Tarantino,∆S=2 and ∆C=2 bag parameters in the standard model and beyond from Nf=2+1+1 twisted-mass lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015), no. 3 034516, [arXiv:1505.06639]

    2015 arXiv

  84. [91]

    Ciuchini et al.,Delta M(K) and epsilon(K) in SUSY at the next-to-leading order, JHEP 10 (1998) 008, [hep-ph/9808328]

    M. Ciuchini et al.,Delta M(K) and epsilon(K) in SUSY at the next-to-leading order, JHEP 10 (1998) 008, [hep-ph/9808328]

    1998 arXiv

  85. [92]

    Brod and M

    J. Brod and M. Gorbahn, Next-to-Next-to-Leading-Order Charm-Quark Contribution to theCP Violation Parameter ϵK and ∆MK, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 121801, [arXiv:1108.2036]

    2012 arXiv

  86. [93]

    D. King, A. Lenz, and T. Rauh,Bs mixing observables and |Vtd/Vts| from sum rules, JHEP 05 (2019) 034, [arXiv:1904.00940]

    2019 arXiv

  87. [94]

    Albrecht, F

    J. Albrecht, F. Bernlochner, A. Lenz, and A. Rusov, Lifetimes of b-hadrons and mixing of neutral B-mesons: theoretical and experimental status, Eur. Phys. J. ST 233 (2024), no. 2 359–390, [arXiv:2402.04224]

    2024 arXiv

  88. [95]

    Acciarri et al.,Search for new physics in energetic single photon production ine+e− annihilation at theZ resonance, Phys

    L3 Collaboration, M. Acciarri et al.,Search for new physics in energetic single photon production ine+e− annihilation at theZ resonance, Phys. Lett. B 412 (1997) 201–209

    1997

  89. [97]

    Aad et al.,Search for new phenomena in events with at least three photons collected in pp collisions at √s = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Search for new phenomena in events with at least three photons collected in pp collisions at √s = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016), no. 4 210, [arXiv:1509.05051]

    2016 arXiv

  90. [98]

    M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi,Estimation of oblique electroweak corrections, Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 381–409. 22

    1992

  91. [99]

    Aiko and M

    M. Aiko and M. Endo,Electroweak precision test of axion-like particles, JHEP 05 (2023) 147, [arXiv:2302.11377]

    2023 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Bergsma et al.,Search for Axion Like Particle Production in 400-GeV Proton - Copper Interactions, Phys

    CHARM Collaboration, F. Bergsma et al.,Search for Axion Like Particle Production in 400-GeV Proton - Copper Interactions, Phys. Lett. B 157 (1985) 458–462

    1985

  93. [101]

    J. D. Clarke, R. Foot, and R. R. Volkas, Phenomenology of a very light scalar (100 MeV< mh < 10 GeV) mixing with the SM Higgs, JHEP 02 (2014) 123, [arXiv:1310.8042]

    2014 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Abada et al.,FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2, Eur

    FCC Collaboration, A. Abada et al.,FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2, Eur. Phys. J. ST 228 (2019), no. 2 261–623

    2019

  95. [103]

    CEPC Study Group Collaboration, CEPC Conceptual Design Report: Volume 1 - Accelerator, arXiv:1809.00285

    arXiv

  96. [104]

    Chrząszcz, M

    M. Chrząszcz, M. Drewes, and J. Hajer,HECATE: A long-lived particle detector concept for the FCC-ee or CEPC, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021), no. 6 546, [arXiv:2011.01005]

    2021 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Ahdida et al.,The SHiP experiment at the proposed CERN SPS Beam Dump Facility, Eur

    SHiP Collaboration, C. Ahdida et al.,The SHiP experiment at the proposed CERN SPS Beam Dump Facility, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022), no. 5 486, [arXiv:2112.01487]

    2022 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Bondarenko, A

    K. Bondarenko, A. Boyarsky, D. Gorbunov, and O. Ruchayskiy,Phenomenology of GeV-scale Heavy Neutral Leptons, JHEP 11 (2018) 032, [arXiv:1805.08567]

    2018 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Z. S. Wang, Y. Zhang, and W. Liu,Searching for heavy neutral leptons coupled to axion-like particles at the LHC far detectors and SHiP, JHEP 01 (2025) 070, [arXiv:2409.18424]

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

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