Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 114 references

Analysis of axion-like particles in a top-quark pair production at the CLIC

T0 review · 4 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 The paper projects that CLIC's photon-photon mode can exclude ALP-top couplings down to 0.17 TeV^-1 at 1.5 TeV and 0.11 TeV^-1 at 3 TeV collision energy for an ALP mass of 10 GeV.

desk verdict Useful first projection for ALP-top couplings at CLIC gamma-gamma, but the omitted ALP-SM interference could change the bounds substantially. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15500 v2 pith:BLE5W5DM submitted 2025-01-26 hep-ph hep-ex

S.C. İnan , A.V. Kisselev This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords axion-likeparticlestopquarkgamma-gammacollisionsCLICeffectivefieldtheoryComptonbackscatteringALP-topcouplingexclusionbounds
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 asks whether the CLIC lepton collider, operated with Compton-backscattered photon beams, can reveal axion-like particles through a virtual s-channel contribution to top-quark pair production. It derives 95% confidence-level exclusion bounds on the ALP-top coupling $c_{a\bar t}/f_a$ as a function of the ALP mass over 10 GeV to 10 TeV. For the lightest studied mass, $m_a = 10$ GeV, the projected excluded couplings are $0.17$ TeV$^{-1}$ at 1.5 TeV and $0.11$ TeV$^{-1}$ at 3 TeV center-of-mass energy. The paper reports that these limits are about an order of magnitude stronger than current direct LHC searches for light ALPs and comparable to HL-LHC projections.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the squared amplitude for the s-channel ALP exchange, eq. (30): $$|M_a(\hat{s})|^2 = \frac{4}{$f_a^{2}$}\,\frac{[$g^{{\rm eff}}$_{a\gamma\gamma}\, $c^{{\rm eff}}$_{a\bar t}\, m_t]^2\,\hat{s}^3}{(\hat{s}-$m_a^{2}$)^2 + (m_a\Gamma_a)^2},$$ with the effective couplings including one-loop corrections taken from the literature and $\Lambda = f_a$ used as the ultraviolet cutoff. This expression determines the signal cross section through the Compton backscattering spectra, and the bounds follow from the statistical significance formula. The behavior of the bounds across the mass range, flat at low mass, weakening at intermediate mass, a resonance near 1 TeV, and constant at high mass, is read off directly from the $\hat{s}$- and $m_a$-dependence of this formula.

What would settle it

A direct dimensional check of eq. (30), requiring $d\sigma/d\cos\theta$ to be dimensionless, plus a recomputation of the bounds with the ALP-SM interference term included using the same photon spectra and cuts, would settle whether the quoted $0.11$ TeV$^{-1}$ reach is reliable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the process $\gamma\gamma \to a \to t\bar t$ at CLIC can probe ALP-top couplings down to $c_{a\bar t}/f_a \sim 0.1$ TeV$^{-1}$ for light ALPs, using only the pure ALP amplitude squared $|M_a|^2$ as signal and the Standard Model $\gamma\gamma \to W^+ b W^- \bar b$ rate as background. The sensitivity degrades as $m_a$ grows: it is nearly flat below about 300 GeV, weakens through the intermediate region, shows a small asymmetric resonance near $m_a \simeq 1$ TeV, and becomes essentially constant for $m_a \gtrsim 2$ TeV. At $m_a = 10$ TeV the bounds weaken to about $0.97$ TeV$^{-1}$ at 1.5 TeV and $1.07$ TeV$^{-1}$ at 3 TeV. The results depend on the choice of ALP-gauge couplings at small $m_a$, but become almost independent of them for $m_a \geq 1$ TeV.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the new-physics signal can be added to the known Standard Model background without accounting for their mutual interference, and that the unknown high-energy cutoff of the effective theory is simply the ALP decay constant.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $m_a = 10$ GeV, the CLIC in $\gamma\gamma$ mode excludes ALP-top couplings down to $0.17$ TeV$^{-1}$ at 1.5 TeV and $0.11$ TeV$^{-1}$ at 3 TeV, reaching the same ballpark as HL-LHC projections.
  • The reach is strongest for sub-TeV ALPs and weakens with mass, so the $\gamma\gamma$ channel is best viewed as a light-to-intermediate-mass ALP probe.
  • The low-mass bounds are nearly independent of $m_a$, reflecting the off-shell behavior $|M_a|^2 \sim m_t^2 \hat{s}/f_a^4$ when $\hat{s}\gg m_a^2$.
  • A small asymmetric resonance appears near $m_a \simeq 1$ TeV, and for $m_a \gtrsim 2$ TeV the bound becomes flat because the ALP width dominates the denominator.
  • The probed coupling region at 3 TeV stays below the partial-wave unitarity bound $|c_{a\bar t}/f_a| < 10$ TeV$^{-1}$, so the effective field theory treatment is self-consistent there.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper treats the Standard Model as pure background and omits the ALP-SM interference term in the signal; if that cross-term is included, the derived limits could shift, because interference can be comparable in size when the ALP amplitude is not tiny.
  • A dimensional check of eq. (30) suggests the expression may not be mass-dimensionally consistent as written given $g^{\rm eff}_{a\gamma\gamma}$ has dimension TeV$^{-1}$; if a compensating factor is needed, the numerical bounds would change accordingly.
  • The same photon-fusion technique could be applied to ALP couplings to lighter quarks or to tau leptons; the top's large mass makes the top channel most sensitive, but the reach for other fermions would scale with their masses.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the s-channel ALP contribution to top-quark pair production in photon-photon collisions at CLIC operating in gamma-gamma mode. Using an EFT with ALP couplings to gauge bosons and top quarks, one-loop effective couplings taken from the literature, Compton backscattered photon spectra, and a statistical significance formula, the authors derive exclusion bounds on the combination c_atbt/f_a as a function of the ALP mass in the range 10 GeV to 10 TeV. The headline results are 95% C.L. sensitivities of 0.17 TeV^-1 and 0.11 TeV^-1 for m_a = 10 GeV at 1.5 TeV and 3 TeV, respectively, which are compared with existing LHC and low-energy bounds.

Significance. If the central calculation is correct, the paper provides a useful projection for a complementary search channel at CLIC, with the claimed sensitivities competitive with HL-LHC projections. The paper is transparent in its setup, uses public tools (CalcHEP) for the background, and gives a clear comparison with existing constraints, which are strengths. The main significance is incremental but genuine: it extends the authors' previous CLIC ALP studies to the top-pair final state. However, the numerical bounds rest on several approximations that need to be addressed before the claims can be accepted as quantitative.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (31) vs. Eq. (30)] The signal is computed from |M_a|^2 only, while the background is computed from |M_SM|^2, even though Eq. (31) writes the total amplitude as M = M_a + M_SM. The cross term 2 Re(M_a M_SM^*) is dropped without any symmetry argument. For the quoted benchmark (m_a = 10 GeV, |c_atbt/f_a| ~ 0.1 TeV^-1) the ALP is far off shell and its width is negligible, so the propagator is approximately real; the interference term is then linear in c_atbt/f_a, while |M_a|^2 is quadratic. In the small-coupling regime the neglected term can be parametrically larger than the retained signal. Unless the interference is shown to vanish by an explicit angular-momentum/helicity argument or is computed and included, Tables 1-2 and Figs. 3-4 are not the correct 95% C.L. limits and could shift by an O(1) factor in either direction.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (30)] Equation (30) is dimensionally inconsistent as written. From Eq. (18), the object denoted c_eff_atbt has mass dimension GeV^-1 (it is defined as c_eff/f_a), and g_eff_aγγ also has dimension GeV^-1; then [g_eff_aγγ c_eff_atbt m_t]^2 has dimension GeV^-4, and the prefactor 4/f_a^2 together with s^3 divided by the propagator denominator leaves an overall dimension GeV^-2, whereas a 2->2 amplitude squared should be dimensionless. If c_eff_atbt is instead meant to be the dimensionless coefficient (i.e., Eq. (18) multiplied by f_a), then the notation in Eq. (30) conflicts with Eq. (18). The authors should state the convention explicitly and correct Eq. (30) so that the cross sections in Figs. 1-2 and the derived bounds are reproducible.
  3. [Section 2, below Eq. (28), and Section 5] The UV cutoff Lambda is set equal to f_a, which is one of the parameters being constrained. The one-loop effective couplings in Eqs. (21)-(28) contain logarithms of Lambda^2/m_t^2, so the cross section and the resulting exclusion bounds inherit a scheme dependence. The paper itself notes in the conclusions that f_a ~ 1-10 TeV is comparable to the CLIC center-of-mass energy and that the EFT requires a UV completion, which makes the identification Lambda = f_a an external input rather than a prediction. The authors should either demonstrate that the bounds are insensitive to varying Lambda in a reasonable range (for example, f_a/2 to 2 f_a) or present the limits as functions of Lambda. As it stands, the claimed precision of the numbers in Tables 1-2 is not established.
  4. [Section 3, around Eq. (33)] The background is computed at LO only, with no systematic uncertainty included in the significance formula. The formula (33) assumes a known background, so the exclusion curves in Figs. 3-4 are statistical-only projections. The text should state this limitation explicitly, and ideally assess how a few-percent background systematic would affect the quoted reaches. Without such a statement, the headline numbers in the abstract and conclusions are presented with an unjustified precision for a future-collider sensitivity study.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (10)] The sentence after Eq. (10) says the couplings gaVV are given by eqs. (9), but the quantities in Eq. (10) are the effective couplings g_eff_aVV from Eq. (9); the notation should be made consistent.
  2. [Section 3, below Eq. (33)] The sentence 'We define the regions SS <= 1.645 as the regions that can be excluded at the 95% C.L.' appears reversed: a model with SS above the threshold, not below, would be excluded at 95% C.L. The boundary is SS = 1.645; the text should say that points giving SS > 1.645 are excluded.
  3. [Figures 1-2] The figure captions state ma = fa = 1 TeV but do not specify the value of c_atbt (or the choice of C_BB and C_WW) used for the cross-section plots. This information is needed to reproduce the curves.
  4. [Tables 1-2] The entry for ma = 10000 GeV in Table 2 is written as '10.71 x 10^-1' rather than '1.071'; this is notationally inconsistent with the other entries and should be cleaned up.
  5. [References] References [54] and [86] appear to be the same paper (S. Blasi et al., 'Top-philic ALP phenomenology at the LHC: the elusive mass-window'); the duplicate should be removed or the two citations merged.
  6. [Section 2, below Eq. (16)] The phrase 'than we get' should read 'then we get'; also, the sentence beginning 'The top quark is a key object in various BSM models' is somewhat disconnected from the surrounding discussion and could be tightened.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CLIC sensitivity bounds are obtained by directly inverting a computed cross-section formula at a fixed significance threshold, with the ALP EFT parameters as inputs; no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is linear and self-contained as a sensitivity study. The authors assume an ALP EFT Lagrangian (Eqs. 1-7), take one-loop effective couplings from external references [52] and [90] (Eqs. 9, 17, 18), compute the ALP amplitude squared |Ma|^2 (Eq. 30), convolve it with Compton backscattering spectra (Eq. 31), define the statistical significance SS (Eq. 33), and solve SS = 1.645 to obtain exclusion bounds. The ALP-top coupling c_at_tbar/f_a is the scanned input parameter, not a quantity fitted to any subset of data and then presented as a prediction. The self-citations [25]-[28] and [45] are used only to motivate the CLIC gamma-gamma mode and do not carry the derivation of the bounds. The one-loop corrections are imported from external work, not from the authors' own prior results, so there is no self-citation chain that forces the outcome. The choice Lambda = f_a following [90] is a model assumption, but it is not circular: it does not define the predicted bound in terms of itself by construction. Two physics concerns noted in the manuscript context, namely the omission of the 2 Re(M_a M_SM*) interference term in the signal/background split and the apparent fa-independence of the amplitude in the large-ma region, are potential correctness issues, but they are not instances of self-definition, fitted-input-as-prediction, self-citation load-bearing, or renaming of known results under the criteria used here. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

The paper does not introduce new particles or forces; it analyzes a well-known hypothetical particle (ALP) within a standard EFT. The main choices that affect the result are the benchmark Wilson coefficients, the UV cutoff identification, and the analysis cuts, none of which are fitted to experimental data.

free parameters (4)
  • C_BB, C_WW (ALP-gauge boson Wilson coefficients) = Benchmark sets (1,0) and (0,1)
    The derived bounds on c_att/f_a depend on the assumed values of these coefficients; they are not fitted to data but are chosen to illustrate two scenarios.
  • Lambda (UV cutoff) = Lambda = f_a
    The one-loop corrections in eqs (20)-(28) depend logarithmically on Lambda; the paper sets it equal to f_a following ref [90]. The bounds would shift for other choices.
  • m_ttbar > 800 GeV cut = 800 GeV
    This kinematic cut is chosen by the authors to suppress the SM background; it changes both signal and background event rates.
  • Phase-space cuts |eta| < 2.5 and pT > 30 GeV = 2.5 and 30 GeV
    These fiducial cuts on the final-state top quarks are adopted without a dedicated optimization and affect the cross sections.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The ALP couples to top quarks with strength m_t c_att/f_a and to gauge bosons as in eqs (1)-(7), with no tree-level gluon coupling.
    This defines the effective field theory being tested; it excludes, for example, a tree-level ALP-gluon coupling that would contribute to gluon fusion.
  • domain assumption The one-loop corrections to the ALP couplings, eqs (9), (17), and (18), are taken from refs [52] and [90] and are valid at the scales considered.
    The paper adopts these loop functions wholesale; any error or inapplicability in those references would propagate into the derived bounds.
  • ad hoc to paper The UV cutoff Lambda is of order f_a, and numerically Lambda = f_a.
    The choice Lambda = f_a has no independent justification beyond the statement 'following [90]'; the loop corrections depend on this scale logarithmically.
  • domain assumption The Compton backscattered photon spectrum f_gamma/e(x) is given by the formula in ref [78] with x_max = 0.83.
    The explicit spectrum is not reproduced in the paper, so the calculation inherits the validity of that reference and the assumption that the CLIC photon source matches it.
  • domain assumption The SM background is the LO process gamma-gamma to W+b W- bbar computed with CalcHep, with no NLO corrections applied.
    Higher-order QCD and electroweak corrections to the background are not included in the significance calculation, which could change the exclusion reach.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analysis of axion-like particles in a top-quark pair production at the CLIC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BLE5W5DM

@misc{pith2026250115500,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analysis of axion-like particles in a top-quark pair production at the CLIC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BLE5W5DM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15500}
}
abstract

We examine a contribution of axion-like particles (ALPs) to a top pair production via the collision of Compton backscattered photons at the CLIC operating in a $\gamma\gamma$ mode. The exclusion bounds on the ALP-top quark coupling depending on the ALP mass $m_a$ are given. The mass range 10 GeV -- 10 TeV is considered. We have obtained that for $m_a = 10$ GeV the ALP-top quark couplings as small as $0.17$ TeV$^{-1}$ and $0.11$ TeV$^{-1}$ can be probed at the CLIC with the energy of 1.5 TeV and 3 TeV, respectively. A comparison with other constraints on the ALP-top coupling is given.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15500 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The differential cross sections of the collision [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The total cross sections of the collision [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The exclusion bounds on the scale fa via ALP mass ma. The collision energy of the CLIC is equal to 1.5 TeV. To understand various features of the curves in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The same as in Fig. 3, but for the CLIC energy of 3 TeV. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The summary figure with the existing bounds on the ALP-to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Peccei and H.R

    R.D. Peccei and H.R. Quinn, CP conservation in the presence of pseu- doparticles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  2. [2]

    Peccei and H.R

    R.D. Peccei and H.R. Quinn, Constraints imposed by CP conservation in the presence of pseudoparticles , Phys. Rev. D 16, 1791 (1977)

    1977

  3. [3]

    Weinberg, A new light boson? , Phys

    S. Weinberg, A new light boson? , Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  4. [4]

    Wilzcek, Problem of strong P and T invariance in the presence of instantons, Phys

    F. Wilzcek, Problem of strong P and T invariance in the presence of instantons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  5. [5]

    Preskill, M.B

    J. Preskill, M.B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Cosmology of the invisible ax- ion, Phys. Lett. B 120, 127 (1983)

    1983

  6. [6]

    Abbott, and P

    L.F. Abbott, and P. Sikivie, A cosmological bound on the invisible ax- ion, Phys. Lett. B 120, 113 (1983)

    1983

  7. [7]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler, The not so harmless axion , Phys. Lett. B 120, 137 (1983)

    1983

  8. [8]

    Chadha-Day, J

    F. Chadha-Day, J. Ellis, and D.J.E. Marsh, Axion dark matter: what is it and why now? , Sci. Adv. 8, 3618 (2022) [arXiv:2105.01406]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 114 references
  1. [9]

    Marsh, Axion cosmology , Phys

    D.J.E. Marsh, Axion cosmology , Phys. Rep. 643, 1 (2016) [arXiv:1510.07633]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Ringwald, Review on axions , arXiv:2404.09036

    A. Ringwald, Review on axions , arXiv:2404.09036

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Raffelt, Astrophysical Axion Bounds: The 2024 Edi- tion, PoS 454, 041 (2024) [arXiv:2401.13728]

    A Caputo and G. Raffelt, Astrophysical Axion Bounds: The 2024 Edi- tion, PoS 454, 041 (2024) [arXiv:2401.13728]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Baldenegro, S

    C. Baldenegro, S. Fichet, G. von Gersdorff, and C. Royon, Searching for axion-like particles with proton tagging at the LHC , JHEP 06, 131 (2018) [arXiv:1803.10835]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Baldenegro, S

    C. Baldenegro, S. Hassani, C. Royon and L. Schoeffel, Extending the constraint for axion-like particles as resonances at the LH C and laser beam experiments, Phys. Lett. B 795, 339 (2019) [arXiv:1903.04151]. 20

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Carra et al., Constraining off-shell production of axion-like particles with Zγ and W W differential cross-section measurements , Phys

    S. Carra et al., Constraining off-shell production of axion-like particles with Zγ and W W differential cross-section measurements , Phys. Rev. D 104, 092005 (2021) [arXiv:2106.10085]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    J. Ren, D. Wang, L. Wu, J.M. Yang, and M. Zhang, Detecting an axion-like particle with machine learning at the LHC , JHEP 11, 038 (2021) [arXiv:2106.07018]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Fl´ orez et al., Probing axion-like particles with γγ final states from vector boson fusion processes at the LHC , Phys

    A. Fl´ orez et al., Probing axion-like particles with γγ final states from vector boson fusion processes at the LHC , Phys. Rev. D 103, 095001 (2021) [arXiv:2101.11119]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    D. Wang, L. Wu, J.M. Yang, and M. Zhang, Photon-jet events as a probe of axion-like particles at the LHC , Phys. Rev. D 104, 095016 (2021) [arXiv:2102.01532]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    d’Enterria, Collider constraints on axion-like particles, in Workshop on feebly interacting particles , arXiv:2102.08971

    D. d’Enterria, Collider constraints on axion-like particles, in Workshop on feebly interacting particles , arXiv:2102.08971

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Bonilla, I

    J. Bonilla, I. Brivio, J. Machado-Rodriguez, and J.F. de Troconiz , Non- resonant searches for axion-like particles in vector boson scattering pro- cesses at the LHC , JHEP 06, 113 (2022) [arXiv:2202.03450]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Cheung, W

    K. Cheung, W. Hsiao, C.J. Ouseph, and C. Wang, Probing the gauge- boson couplings of axion-like particle at the LHC and High-L uminosity LHC, JHEP 05, 324 (2024) [arXiv:2402.10550]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, and A. Thamm, Collider probes of axion-like particles, JHEP 12, 044 (2017) [arXiv:1708.00443]

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Knapen, T

    S. Knapen, T. Lin, H.K. Lou, and T. Melia, Searching for axion-like particles with ultra-peripheral heavy-ion collisions , Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 171801 (2017) [arXiv:1607.06083]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Knapen, T

    S. Knapen, T. Lin, H.K. Lou, and T. Melia, LHC limits on axion- like particles from heavy-ion collisions , in Proceeding of the PHO- TON 2017 Conference, Geneva, Switzerland, 22-26 May, 2017, ed s. D. d’Enterria, A. de Roeck and M. Mangano, vol. 1, 2018, pp. 65-68 [arXiv:1709....

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Heiles, M. Neubert, and A. Thamm, Axion-like particles at future colliders , Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 74 (2019) [arXiv:1808.10323]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    ˙Inan and A.V

    S.C. ˙Inan and A.V. Kisselev, A search for axion-like particles in light-by-light scattering at the CLIC , JHEP 06, 183 (2020) [arXiv:2003.01978]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    ˙Inan and A.V

    S.C. ˙Inan and A.V. Kisselev, Polarized light-by-light scattering at the CLIC induced by axion-like particles , Chin. Phys. C 45, 043109 (2021) [arXiv:2007.01693]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    ˙Inan and A.V

    S.C. ˙Inan and A.V. Kisselev, Probing anomalous quartic γγγγ cou- plings in light-by-light collisions at the CLIC , Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 664 (2021) [arXiv:2009.09712]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    ˙Inan and A.V

    S.C. ˙Inan and A.V. Kisselev, Probing anomalous γγγZ couplings through γZ production in γγ collisions at the CLIC , JHEP 10, 121 (2021) [arXiv:2108.04478]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Steinberg, Discovering axion-like particles with photon fusion at the ILC, arXiv:2108.11927

    N. Steinberg, Discovering axion-like particles with photon fusion at the ILC, arXiv:2108.11927

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    Zhang, C.-X

    H.-Y. Zhang, C.-X. Yue, Y.-C. Guo, and S. Yang, Searching for axion- like particles at future electron- positron colliders , Phys. Rev. D 104, 096008 (2021) [arXiv:2103.05218]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Agrawal et al., Feebly-interacting particles: FIPs 2020 workshop report, Eur

    P. Agrawal et al., Feebly-interacting particles: FIPs 2020 workshop report, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 1015 (2021) [arXiv:2102.12143]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    M. Tian, K. Wang, Z.S. Wan, Search for long-lived axions with far detectors at future lepton colliders , arXiv:2201.08960

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Sch¨ afer, F

    R. Sch¨ afer, F. Tillinger, and S. Westhoff, Near or far detectors? Opti- mizing long-lived particle searches at electron-positron colliders, Phys. Rev. D 107, 076022 (2023) [arXiv:2202.11714]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Yue, H.-Y

    C.-X. Yue, H.-Y. Zhang, and H. Wang, Production of axion-like par- ticles via vector boson fusion at future electron-positron colliders, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 88 (2022) [arXiv:2112.11604]. 22

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Lu, Lighting electroweak-violating ALP-lepton interactions at e+e− and ep colliders, Phys

    C.-T. Lu, Lighting electroweak-violating ALP-lepton interactions at e+e− and ep colliders, Phys. Rev. D 108, 115029 (2023) [arXiv:2210.15648]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Davoudiasl, R

    H. Davoudiasl, R. Marcarelli, and E.T. Neil, Lepton-flavor-violating ALPs at the electron-ion collider: a golden opportunity , JHEP 02, 071 (2023) [arXiv:2112.04513]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Liu and B

    Y. Liu and B. Yan, Searching for the axion-like particle at the EIC , Chin. Phys. C 47, 043113 (2023) [arXiv:2112.02477]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Kim, Light pseudoscalars, particle physics and cosmology , Phys

    J.E. Kim, Light pseudoscalars, particle physics and cosmology , Phys. Rep. 150, 1 (1987)

    1987

  31. [39]

    Peccei, The Strong CP problem and axions , Lect

    R.D. Peccei, The Strong CP problem and axions , Lect. Notes Phys. 741, 3 (2008) [arXiv:hep-ph/0607268]

    2008 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Raffelt, Astrophysical axion bounds , Lect

    G.G. Raffelt, Astrophysical axion bounds , Lect. Notes Phys. 741, 51 (2008) [arXiv:hep-ph/0611350]

    2008 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Marsh, Axions and ALPs: a very short introduction , arXiv:1712.03018

    D.J.E. Marsh, Axions and ALPs: a very short introduction , arXiv:1712.03018

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    Irastorza and J

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

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Irastorza, An introduction to axions and their detection SciPost Phys

    I.G. Irastorza, An introduction to axions and their detection SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 45, 1 (2022) [arXiv:2109.07376]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Giannotti, Aspects of axions and ALPs phenomenology , J

    M. Giannotti, Aspects of axions and ALPs phenomenology , J. Phys.: Conf. Series 2502, 012003 (2023) [arXiv:2205.06831]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    ˙Inan and A.V

    S.C. ˙Inan and A.V. Kisselev, Probe of axion-like particles in vector boson scattering at a muon collider , J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 50, 105002 (2023) [arXiv:2207.03325]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    T. Han, T. Li, and X. Wa, Axion-like particles at high energy muon colliders – a White paper for Snowmass 2021 , arXiv:2203.05484

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Y. Bao, J. Fan, and L. Li, Electroweak ALP searches at a muon collider , JHEP 08, 276 (2022) [arXiv:2203.04328]. 23

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Haghighat and M.M

    G. Haghighat and M.M. Najafabad, Search for lepton-flavor-violating ALPs at a future muon collider and utilization of polarizati on-induced effects, Nucl. Phys. B 980, 115827([2022) [arXiv:2106.00505]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    C.-T. Lu, X. Luo, and X. Wei, Exploring muonphilic ALPs at muon colliders, Chin. Phys. C 47, 103102 (2023) [arXiv:2303.03110]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Batell, H

    B. Batell, H. Davoudiasl, R. Marcarelli, E.T. Neil, and S. Tro- janowski, Lepton-flavor-violating ALP signals with TeV-scale muon beams, Phys.Rev. D 110, 075039 (2024) [arXiv:2407.15942]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Marcos, A

    M.B. Marcos, A. de Giorgi, L. Merlo, and J.-L. Tastet, ALPs and HNLs at LHC and muon colliders: uncovering new couplings and sign als, arXiv:2407.14970

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    Esser, M

    F. Esser, M. Madigan, V. Sanza, and M. Ubialic, On the cou- pling of axion-like particles to the top quark , JHEP 09, 063 (2023) [arXiv:2303.17634]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Rygaard et L., Top Secrets: long-lived ALPs in top production , JHEP 10, 138 (2023) [arXiv:2306.08686]

    L. Rygaard et L., Top Secrets: long-lived ALPs in top production , JHEP 10, 138 (2023) [arXiv:2306.08686]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Cheung, C.-T

    K. Cheung, C.-T. Lu, C.J. Ouseph, and P. Sarmah, Exploring inter- ference effects between two ALP effective operators at the LHC , JHEP 09, 101 (2024) [arXiv:2404.14833]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Phan and S

    A.V. Phan and S. Westhof, Precise tests of the axion coupling to tops , JHEP 05, 075 (2024) [arXiv:2312.00872]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Bruggisser, L

    S. Bruggisser, L. Grabitza, and S. Westhof, Global analysis of the ALP effective theory , JHEP 01, 092 (2024) [arXiv:2308.11703]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [58]

    C.-X. Yue, H. Wang, and Y.-Q. Wang, Detecting the coupling of axion- like particles with fermions at the ILC , Phys. Lett. 848, 138368 (2024) [arXiv:2311.16768]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Chigusa, S

    S. Chigusa, S. Girmohanta, Y. Nakai, and Y. Zhang, Aiming for tops of ALPs with a muon collider , JHEP 01, 077 (2024) [arXiv:2310.11018]. 24

    2024 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Franceschini, Physics beyond the Standard Model associated with the top quark , Annu

    R. Franceschini, Physics beyond the Standard Model associated with the top quark , Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 73, 397 (2023) [arXiv:2301.04407]

    2023 arXiv

  52. [61]

    de la Torre and T

    H. de la Torre and T. Farooque, Looking beyond the Standard model with third generation quarks at the LHC , Symmetry 14, 444 (2022)

    2022

  53. [62]

    Anisha et al., On the BSM reach of four top production at the LHC , arXiv:2302.08281

    arXiv

  54. [63]

    J. Gao, M. Gao, T.J. Hobbs, D. Liu, and X. Shen, Simultaneous CTEQ- TEA extraction of PDFs and SMEFT parameters from jet and t¯t data, JHEP 05, 003 (2023) [arXiv:2211.01094]

    2023 arXiv

  55. [64]

    A. Basnet, Probing EFT models using top quark production in multilep- ton final states , Talk at the 16th International Workshop on Top Quark Physics (Top2023), 24-29 September 2023, Traverse City, Michigan, US [arXiv:2311.09954]

    2023 arXiv

  56. [65]

    D. Sengupta, Light new physics in the top quark sample from the Large Hadron Collider , Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on High Energy Physics (ICHEP2024) 17-24 July 2024, Prague Congre ss Centre, Prague, Czechia, p. 341 [arXiv:2410.12442]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [66]

    R. Sahu, S. Ashanujjaman, and K. Ghosh, Unveiling the secrets of new physics through top quark tagging , Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 233, 2465 (2024) [arXiv:2409.12085]

    2024

  58. [67]

    S. Tentori, Virtual corrections to top-pair production from new physic s, Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on High Energ y Physics (ICHEP2024) 17-24 July 2024, Prague Congress Centre, Prague, Czechia, p. 373 [arXiv:2409.15835]

    2024 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Wuchterl, Top quark properties measurements and searches at AT- LAS and CMS , arXiv:2410.10498

    S. Wuchterl, Top quark properties measurements and searches at AT- LAS and CMS , arXiv:2410.10498

    arXiv

  60. [69]

    Abramowicz et al

    H. Abramowicz et al. (CLICdp collaboration), Top-Quark Physics at the CLIC Electron-Positron Linear Collider , JHEP 11, 003 (2019) [arXiv:1807.02441]. 25

    2019 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Braun et al

    H. Braun et al. (CLIC Study Team), CLIC 2008 parameters , CERN- OPEN-2008-021, CLIC-NOTE-764

    2008

  62. [71]

    Boland et al

    M.J. Boland et al. (CLIC and CLICdp Collaborations), Updated baseline for a staged Compact Linear Collider , CERN-2016-004, arXiv:1608.07537

    2016 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Dannheim et al., CLIC e+e− Linear Collider Studies , in Proceed- ings of 2013 Community Summer Study on the Future of U.S

    D. Dannheim et al., CLIC e+e− Linear Collider Studies , in Proceed- ings of 2013 Community Summer Study on the Future of U.S. Part icle Physics: Snowmass on the Mississippi (CSS2013) , 29 July – 6 August, 2013, MN, US [arXiv:1208.1402]

    2013 arXiv

  64. [73]

    The CLIC Potential for New Physics , eds. J. de Blas et al., CERN Yellow report: Monographs, Vol. 3/2018, CERN-2018-009-M (CER N, Geneva, 2018)

    2018

  65. [74]

    Franceschini, Beyond the Standard model physics at CLIC , Int

    R. Franceschini, Beyond the Standard model physics at CLIC , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35, 2041015 (2020) [arXiv:1902.10125]

    2020 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Ginzburg, G.L

    I.F. Ginzburg, G.L. Kotkin, V.G. Serbo, and V.I. Telnov, Colliding γe and γγ beams based on the single-pass e+e− colliders (of VLEPP Type), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. 205, 47 (1983)

    1983

  67. [76]

    Ginzburg, G.L

    I.F. Ginzburg, G.L. Kotkin, S.L. Panfil, V.G. Serbo, and V.I. Telnov , Colliding γe and γγ beams based on single-pass e+e− accelerators II. Polarization effects, monochromatization improvement , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. 219, 5 (1984)

    1984

  68. [77]

    Abramowicz et al., A Linear collider vision for the future of particle physics, arXiv:2503.19983

    H. Abramowicz et al., A Linear collider vision for the future of particle physics, arXiv:2503.19983

  69. [78]

    Boos et al., Gold-plated processes at photon colliders , Nucl

    E. Boos et al., Gold-plated processes at photon colliders , Nucl. Inst. Meth. Phys. Res. A 472, 100 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0103090]

    2001 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Cao, J.-N

    Q.-H. Cao, J.-N. Fu, Y. Liu, X.-H. Wang, and R. Zhang, Probing top- philic new physics via four-top-quark production , Chin. Phys. C 45, 093107 (2021) [arXiv:2105.03372]

    2021 arXiv

  71. [80]

    Maltoni, D

    F. Maltoni, D. Pagani, and S. Tentori, Top-quark pair production as a probe of light top-philic scalars and anomalous Higgs inte ractions, JHEP 09, 098 (2024) [arXiv:2406.06694]. 26

    2024 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Greiner, K

    N. Greiner, K. Kong, J.-C. Park, S. Chan Parkd, and J.-C. Winte , Model-independent production of a top-philic resonance at the LHC , JHEP 04, 029 (2015) [arXiv:1410.6099]

    2015 arXiv

  73. [82]

    J.H. Kim, K. Kong, S. J. Lee, and G. Mohlabeng, Probing TeV scale top-philic resonances with boosted top-tagging at the high luminosity LHC, Phys. Rev. D 94, 035023 (2016) [arXiv:1604.07421]

    2016 arXiv

  74. [83]

    P.J. Fox, I. Low, and Y. Zhang, Top-philic Z ′ forces at the LHC , JHEP 03, 074 (2018) [arXiv:1801.03505]

    2018 arXiv

  75. [84]

    L. Darm, B. Fuks, and F. Maltoni, Top-philic heavy resonances in four- top final states and their EFT interpretation , JHEP 09, 143 (2021) [arXiv:2104.09512]

    2021 arXiv

  76. [85]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Search for top-philic heavy resonances in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector with the subsequent decays, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 157 (2024) [arXiv:2304.01678]

    2024 arXiv

  77. [86]

    Blasi et al., Top-philic ALP phenomenology at the LHC: the elusive mass-window, JHEP 06, 077 (2024) [arXiv:2311.16048]

    S. Blasi et al., Top-philic ALP phenomenology at the LHC: the elusive mass-window, JHEP 06, 077 (2024) [arXiv:2311.16048]

    2024 arXiv

  78. [87]

    Tentori, Top-philic ALP phenomenology at the LHC

    S. Tentori, Top-philic ALP phenomenology at the LHC . Talk at the 16th International Workshop on Top Quark Physics (TOP 2023), Septe mber 24-29, 2023, Traverse City, Michigan, USA [arXiv:2401.05068]

    2023 arXiv

  79. [88]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Evidence for t¯tt¯t production in the multilepton final state in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1085 (2020) [arXiv:2007.14858]

    2020 arXiv

  80. [89]

    Craig, A

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

    2018 arXiv

  81. [90]

    Bonilla, I

    J. Bonilla, I. Brivio, M.B. Gavela, and V. Sanz, One-loop corrections to ALP couplings , JHEP 11, 168 (2021) [arXiv:2107.11392]

    2021 arXiv

  82. [91]

    Denner, Techniques for calculation of electroweak radiative corre c- tions at the one loop level and results for W physics at LEP-200 , Fortsch

    A. Denner, Techniques for calculation of electroweak radiative corre c- tions at the one loop level and results for W physics at LEP-200 , Fortsch. Phys. 41, 307 (1993) [arXiv:0709.1075]. 27

    1993 arXiv

  83. [92]

    Ellis, N.E

    J. Ellis, N.E. Mavromatos, P. Roloff, and T. You, Light-by-light scattering at future e+e− colliders, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 634 (2022) [arXiv:2203.17111]

    2022 arXiv

  84. [93]

    Arominski et al

    D. Arominski et al. (CLICdp Collaboration), A detector for CLIC: main parameters and performance , arXiv:1812.07337

    arXiv

  85. [94]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1554 (2011) [Erratum ibid. 73, 2501 (2013)] [arXiv:1007.1727]

    2011 arXiv

  86. [95]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  87. [96]

    Belyaev, N

    A. Belyaev, N. Christensen, A. Pukhov, CalcHEP 3.4 for collider physics within and beyond the Standard Model , Comput. Phys. Comm. 184, 1729 (2013) [arXiv:1207.6082]

    2013 arXiv

  88. [97]

    L.-B. Chen, J. Wang, and Y. Wang, Analytic NNLO QCD corrections to top quark pair production in electron-positron collisio ns, JHEP 09, 014 (2024) [arXiv:2405.18912]

    2024 arXiv

  89. [98]

    Ma, S.-Q

    J. Ma, S.-Q. Wang, T. Sun, J.-M. Shen, and X.-G. Wu, Revisiting the top-quark pair production at future e+e− colliders, Chin. Phys. C 48 043105 (2024) [arXiv:2402.02363]

    2024 arXiv

  90. [99]

    X. Chen, X. Guan, C.-Q. He, X. Liu, and Y.-Q. Ma, Heavy-quark pair production at lepton colliders at NNNLO in QCD , Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 101901 (2024) [arXiv:2209.14259]

    2024 arXiv

  91. [100]

    Fleischer, A

    J. Fleischer, A. Leike, T. Riemann, A. Werthenbach, Electroweak one-loop corrections for e+e− annihilation into t¯t including hard bremsstrahlung, Eur. Phys. J. C 31, 37 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0302259]

    2003 arXiv

  92. [101]

    Khiem eta al., Full O(α ) electroweak radiative corrections to e+e−t¯tγ with GRACE-Loop , Eur

    P.H. Khiem eta al., Full O(α ) electroweak radiative corrections to e+e−t¯tγ with GRACE-Loop , Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2400 (2013) [arXiv:1211.1112]

    2013 arXiv

  93. [102]

    ATLAS collaboration, Search for a new pseudoscalar decaying into a pair of muons in events with a top-quark pair at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D 108, 092007 (2023) [arXiv:2304.14247]. 28

    2023 arXiv

  94. [103]

    CMS collaboration, Search for physics beyond the standard model in multilepton final states in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, JHEP 03, 051 (2020) [arXiv:1911.04968]

    2020 arXiv

  95. [104]

    Brivio, O.J.P

    I. Brivio, O.J.P. Eboli, and M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, Unitarity con- straints on ALP interactions , Phys. Rev. D 104, 035027 (2021) [arXiv:2106.05977]

    2021 arXiv

  96. [105]

    Ferretti and D

    G. Ferretti and D. Karateev, UV completions of Composite Higgs mod- els, JHEP 03, 077 (2014) [arXiv:1312.5330]

    2014 arXiv

  97. [106]

    Cacciapaglia, G

    G. Cacciapaglia, G. Ferretti, T. Flacke, and H. Serodio, Light scalars in Composite Higgs models , Front. Phys. 7, 22 (2019) [arXiv:1902.06890]

    2019 arXiv

  98. [107]

    Ferretti, Composite ALPs in composite Higgs models , arXiv:2504.01087

    G. Ferretti, Composite ALPs in composite Higgs models , arXiv:2504.01087

    arXiv

  99. [108]

    Kaplan, Flavor at SSC energies: A new mechanism for dynami- cally generated fermion masses , Nucl

    D.B. Kaplan, Flavor at SSC energies: A new mechanism for dynami- cally generated fermion masses , Nucl. Phys. B 365, 259 (1991)

    1991

  100. [109]

    Carenza, R

    P. Carenza, R. Pasechnik, and Z.-W. Wang, GALPs! Composite heavy axion-like Dark Matter , [arXiv:2408.14245]

    arXiv

  101. [110]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, String axiverse , Phys. Rev. D 81, 123530 (2010) [arXiv:0905.4720]

    2010 arXiv

  102. [111]

    Green, J.H

    M.B. Green, J.H. Schwarz, and E. Witten, Superstring theory , Vols. I & II (Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, 1987)

    1987

  103. [112]

    Svrcek and E

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten, Axions in string theory , JHEP 06, 051 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0605206]

    2006 arXiv

  104. [113]

    Halverson, C

    J. Halverson, C. Long, B. Nelson, and G. Salinas, Towards string theory expectations for photon couplings to axionlike particles , Phys. Rev. D 100, 106010 (2019) [arXiv:1909.05257]

    2019 arXiv

  105. [114]

    Gendler, D.J.E

    N. Gendler, D.J.E. Marsh, L. McAllister, and J. Moritz, Glimmers from the Axiverse , JCAP 09, 071 (2024) [arXiv:2309.13145]

    2024 arXiv

  106. [115]

    Haque, S

    S. Haque, S. Roy, and S. SenGupta, Translating current ALP photon coupling strength bounds to the Randall-Sundrum mod el, arXiv:2411.08396. 29

Pith tools

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