Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 85 references

Probing ALP-portal fermionic dark matter at the $e^+e^-$ colliders

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A GeV-scale axion-like particle that mediates dark matter and decays invisibly is discoverable at a 1 TeV electron-positron collider, with 7.64σ significance and a 1%-level measurement of its photon coupling.

desk verdict A competent ILC projection for an established ALP-portal DM model, but the simulated signal looks a factor 2.5–3.5 above its own analytic cross-section and the abstract oversells a kinetic-decoupling discussion that isn't in the body. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00478 v2 pith:FXTYHKW2 submitted 2025-05-01 hep-ph

Subhaditya Bhattacharya , Sahabub Jahedi , Soumen Kumar Manna , Arunansu Sil This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords axion-likeparticlesdarkmattermediatormono-photonsearchmissingenergyelectron-positroncolliderALP-photoncouplingrelicdensitybeampolarization
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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 a GeV-scale axion-like particle (ALP) can act as the portal between the Standard Model and a Dirac fermion dark matter particle, and that the same ALP-photon interaction which sets the dark matter relic abundance is directly testable at a 1 TeV electron-positron collider. In the near-resonant regime, with the ALP mass just above twice the dark matter mass ($m_a/m_\Psi = 2.02$), thermal freeze-out through $\Psi\bar{\Psi}\to a\to \gamma\gamma$ produces the observed relic density while evading gamma-ray line searches. The ALP then decays almost entirely into the dark matter pair, so the collider signature is a single hard photon plus missing energy from $e^+e^-\to \gamma a \to \gamma+\Psi\bar{\Psi}$. With 5 ab$^{-1}$ and polarized beams, the paper finds a significance of $7.64\sigma$ after the cuts $E_{\rm miss}<510$ GeV and $|\eta_\gamma|>1$, and a binned $\chi^2$ analysis can determine the ALP-photon coupling to about 1%. The result matters because it puts dark matter cosmology and a clean lepton-collider observable on one testable footing.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the ALP-photon coupling $g_{a\gamma\gamma}=\alpha_{\rm EM}/(\pi f_a)$, which enters both the relic-abundance process $\Psi\bar{\Psi}\to a\to\gamma\gamma$, through a near-resonant $s$-channel ALP, and the collider production $e^+e^-\to\gamma a$. The near-resonant mass ratio $r=m_a/m_\Psi=2.02$ lets thermal freeze-out produce $\Omega h^2\simeq0.12$ while evading gamma-ray line constraints, and the same coupling appears in the differential production cross section, so cosmology and collider reach are tied to one parameter. A second load-bearing piece is the invisible decay $a\to\Psi\bar{\Psi}$, assumed to dominate the total width; it converts every produced ALP into missing energy and creates the mono-photon signal. The kinematic handle that separates signal from background is the missing-energy peak at $\sqrt{s}/2$: the ALP carries half the beam energy in associated production, while the neutrino backgrounds populate higher and distinctly shaped peaks.

What would settle it

Count diphoton events from $a\to\gamma\gamma$ in the same 1 TeV, 5 ab$^{-1}$ sample: if more than a few percent of produced ALPs decay visibly, the invisible-branching assumption fails and the significance drops below $5\sigma$. A calculation of $\Gamma(a\to\Psi\bar{\Psi})$ with the exact phase-space factor $(1-4m_\Psi^2/m_a^2)^{3/2}$ and the $c_\Psi^2$ coupling would show whether the invisible width really dominates $\Gamma(a\to\gamma\gamma)$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that mono-photon plus missing-energy events cleanly separate ALP-portal dark matter from the Standard Model neutrino background at a 1 TeV $e^+e^-$ collider. For the benchmark $m_a=5$ GeV, $f_a=186$ GeV, and $m_\Psi=2.47$ GeV, associated ALP production followed by the invisible decay $a\to\Psi\bar{\Psi}$ produces a missing-energy distribution peaking at 500 GeV, whereas the dominant $W$-mediated $\nu\bar{\nu}$ background peaks near $\sqrt{s}$ and the subdominant $Z$-mediated piece sits at a lower, distinct position; the upper cut $E_{\rm miss}<510$ GeV removes roughly 97% of the background while leaving the signal intact. Adding $|\eta_\gamma|>1$ and the beam polarization $\{P_{e^+}:P_{e^-}\}=\{-20\%:+80\%\}$ leaves about 1810 signal events against about 56,189 background events, corresponding to $Z=7.64$ at $\sqrt{s}=1$ TeV with 5 ab$^{-1}$, and the same setup measures $g_{a\gamma\gamma}\simeq 1.33\times10^{-5}$ GeV$^{-1}$ to about 1% precision.

Load-bearing premise

Almost every produced ALP must decay invisibly into the dark matter pair; if visible decays such as $a\to\gamma\gamma$ compete at even the few-percent level, the missing-energy signal and the quoted $7.64\sigma$ significance shrink correspondingly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 5-sigma discovery of the ALP portal is within reach at a 1 TeV $e^+e^-$ collider: the paper quotes roughly 1 ab$^{-1}$ for 3-sigma and 3 ab$^{-1}$ for 5-sigma with the chosen polarization.
  • The ALP-photon coupling that fixes the dark matter relic abundance can be extracted at the collider to about 1% precision, turning a cosmological target into a laboratory measurement.
  • The mono-photon signature remains effective for ALP masses up to roughly 100 GeV, beyond which phase-space suppression lowers the significance.
  • With unpolarized beams the same analysis reaches only $Z\simeq2.86$, so beam polarization is essential to the claimed sensitivity.
  • Because the ALP decays invisibly, the collider events directly produce dark matter pairs, so the observed missing-energy events would be production of the same particle that populates the relic density.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The claimed significance scales linearly with the invisible branching ratio ${\rm Br}(a\to\Psi\bar{\Psi})$; if visible decays such as $a\to\gamma\gamma$ compete at the few-percent level, the quoted $Z$ is diluted, and a first-principles width including the phase-space factor $(1-4m_\Psi^2/m_a^2)^{3/2}$ and the $c_\Psi^2$ coupling is needed to certify the benchmark.
  • The abstract announces a discussion of early kinetic decoupling in the resonant regime, but the main text as provided does not contain that analysis; including it could shift the relic-satisfied contour and, with it, the benchmark collider predictions.
  • Because the discriminating power relies on the missing-energy peak at $\sqrt{s}/2$, other future $e^+e^-$ machines would need re-optimized cuts, but the mono-photon strategy transfers wherever polarized beams are available.
  • The EFT validity condition $\sqrt{s}<4\pi f_a$ holds at the benchmark, but near the lower-$f_a$ edge of the relic contour the effective scale approaches the collider energy, so a propagator-level computation would be a useful cross-check of the quoted rates.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a model in which a GeV-scale ALP mediates between the Standard Model and a Dirac fermion dark-matter candidate, with interactions limited to ALP couplings to electroweak gauge bosons and a derivative ALP-DM coupling. The authors find that the observed relic abundance can be obtained near the resonant condition m_a ≈ 2 m_Ψ, choosing a benchmark m_a = 5 GeV, m_Ψ = 2.47 GeV, f_a = 186 GeV. They then analyse e+e− → γ a, a → ΨΨbar at a 1 TeV ILC with 5 ab^-1, using mono-photon plus missing-energy events. After basic cuts, E_miss < 510 GeV, |η_γ| > 1, and beam polarization {P_e+ : P_e−} = {−20% : +80%}, they report a discovery significance Z = 7.64 (Table 1) and, through a binned χ² analysis of the differential cross-section, claim a ~1% determination of g_aγγ (Section 5).

Significance. If the reported signal size is correct, the paper would demonstrate a nice complementarity between the DM relic-density constraint and a clean lepton-collider mono-photon search, with a distinctive E_miss double-peak discrimination between the ALP signal and the SM neutrino background. The use of explicit MadGraph/Pythia/Delphes event generation, the explicit Lagrangian, and the cross-check against the relic contour of ref. [22] are strengths. However, the central collider claim depends on a normalization that is internally inconsistent: the analytic cross-section in Eq. (B.32) is a factor of roughly three below the event yield reported in Table 1. This discrepancy directly affects both the 7.6σ significance and the claimed 1% coupling precision, so the quantitative conclusions cannot be accepted until it is resolved.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix B, Eq. (B.32) and Table 1] The analytic and simulated signal normalizations are inconsistent. Integrating Eq. (B.32) with g_aγγ = 1.33×10^-5 GeV^-1, √s = 1 TeV, and m_a = 5 GeV gives σ(e+e−→γa) ≈ (π α/12) g_aγγ² ≈ 1.3×10^-4 pb, i.e. about 650 events at L = 5 ab^-1 before acceptance. Table 1 reports S = 1750 events after the same basic cuts for the unpolarized case, and 2050 for the polarized case. The basic cuts p_T^γ > 10 GeV and |η_γ| ≤ 2.5 retain essentially all events for this benchmark, so acceptance cannot explain the factor of about three. If Eq. (B.32) is the correct cross-section, the post-cut signal is roughly 500–650 events and the polarized significance falls from 7.64 to approximately 2–3, below the 5σ discovery threshold; if the MadGraph/Delphes number is correct, then Eq. (B.32) is missing a factor of about three and the Section 5 χ² analysis, which explicitly uses Eq. (32) as the differential cross-section, inherits the error. The authors should show a direct numerical comparison of the analytic formula with the generator-level cross-section and confirm which normalization is correct.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (15)] The invisible decay width in Eq. (15) is missing both the c_Ψ² factor and the threshold phase-space factor. For the derivative coupling used in the paper, one expects Γ(a→ΨΨbar) = c_Ψ² m_a m_Ψ²/(8π f_a²) (1 − 4m_Ψ²/m_a²)^{3/2}. At the benchmark m_a = 5 GeV, m_Ψ = 2.47 GeV, the threshold factor is O(3×10^-3), not O(1). Because Γ(a→γγ) is much smaller than Γ(a→ΨΨbar) even after this suppression, the invisible branching ratio remains ~1 for c_Ψ = O(1), so the reader's concern that the signal would be diluted by a small invisible branching ratio is not realized. Nevertheless, Eq. (15) as printed is incorrect and affects the subtraction term in Eq. (16) and the quantitative width used in the Boltzmann equation, so it must be corrected.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3] The abstract states that the effect of early kinetic decoupling is discussed in the resonant regime, but I could not find any discussion of kinetic decoupling in the main text or appendices; the authors should either add the promised discussion or remove the sentence.
  2. [Figure 4 and Section 4] The text in Section 4 describes the W-mediated t-channel as one background and the Z-mediated s-channel as the other, but the caption of Fig. 4 labels the left panel as Z-mediated and the right panel as W-mediated; this is reversed relative to the text.
  3. [Table 1] The cut row is written as '|η_γ| > 1 GeV'; pseudorapidity is dimensionless, so the 'GeV' unit should be removed.
  4. [Section 4, reference [84]] The sentence 'Based on the ILC snowmass report [84]' cites ref. [84], which is the CMB-HD Snowmass white paper; presumably the ILC Snowmass report [43] is the intended reference.
  5. [Appendix B, Eq. (31)] The momentum symbol k is used both for the off-shell photon momentum and for the photon polarization vector, which makes the amplitude notation ambiguous; a distinct symbol such as q or k_γ for the on-shell photon should be introduced.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the relic benchmark and collider projections are computed from an explicit Lagrangian via independent simulation and external constraints, not derived from the claimed outputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The DM relic abundance is computed from the Lagrangian of Eqs. (1)-(10) using micrOMEGAS (Sec. 3), and the benchmark point (ma=5 GeV, fa=186 GeV, mPsi=2.47 GeV) is selected by imposing the observed relic density and external indirect-detection bounds, not by fitting the collider signal. The collider observables are generated independently with Madgraph/Pythia/Delphes from a FeynRules UFO file (Sec. 4), and the analytic differential cross-section in Eq. (B.32) is derived from the amplitude in Eq. (31) rather than from the relic calculation. The chi-square analysis in Sec. 5 estimates the statistical precision on gaγγ assuming an input value consistent with DM phenomenology; this is a projection of future measurement sensitivity, not a prediction of the coupling from the collider data, so no fitted input is renamed as a prediction. The load-bearing references [14,20,22] are external works by other authors, not self-citations, and no uniqueness or ansatz is imported through a self-citation chain. The skeptic's noted factor-of-3-4 discrepancy between Eq. (B.32) and the event count in Table 1 is an internal normalization or modeling-consistency concern, not a circularity: neither quantity is defined in terms of the other by construction, and the simulation and analytic formula are independent implementations of the same Lagrangian. The possible omission of phase-space factors or Z-boson contributions would be a correctness issue, not evidence that the claimed result is equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model parameters ma, mPsi, fa and r are chosen to satisfy relic density and evade indirect-detection bounds; they are not derived. The EFT and model-structure assumptions are stated in the paper, but the invisible-width formula is incomplete as written because it lacks the standard phase-space factor and cPsi^2 dependence.

free parameters (6)
  • r = ma/mPsi = 2.02
    Mass ratio chosen near resonance to make thermal freeze-out produce the observed relic density while evading indirect detection; the relic-satisfying contour would be different for other r.
  • fa = 186 GeV
    Decay constant from the relic-satisfying contour for r=2.02; used as benchmark for the collider analysis.
  • ma = 5 GeV
    Benchmark ALP mass; with r=2.02 it fixes mPsi=2.47 GeV and is below MW and MZ.
  • mPsi = 2.47 GeV
    Implied by ma/r; benchmark DM mass in the range 1 GeV to MW/2.
  • cPsi = 1
    ALP-DM derivative coupling in Eq. (10) is said to be O(1); the paper sets it to unity implicitly but Eq. (15) omits it.
  • gaγγ input = 1.33e-5 GeV^-1
    Input value for the chi2 precision estimate; follows from fa=186 GeV via gaγγ = alpha/(pi fa).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Dimension-5 ALP effective operators are valid at sqrt(s)=1 TeV with Lambda_eff = 4*pi*fa = 2.3 TeV.
    Section 4 states the EFT validity check; if UV states at or below 1 TeV contribute, the mono-photon cross-section changes.
  • ad hoc to paper CaB = CaW, so gaγγ = gaZZ = gaWW and gaγZ = 0.
    Equations 5-8; made for convenience, and this choice sets the ALP-photon coupling used in both relic and collider calculations.
  • domain assumption The ALP has no direct couplings to SM fermions or gluons (KSVZ-like).
    Sections 2 and Appendix A; avoids flavor constraints and makes photon and weak-boson couplings the only visible channels.
  • domain assumption Thermal freeze-out follows standard Boltzmann equations and the narrow-width approximation near resonance.
    Equations 11-18; standard cosmology, but the NWA requires Gamma_a << ma and Gamma(a->Psi Psi) >> Gamma(a->gamma gamma).
  • domain assumption A residual Z2 symmetry stabilizes the Dirac fermion dark matter.
    Section 2 and Appendix A; if the dark matter were not stable, the missing-energy signature would change.
  • domain assumption The SM background does not interfere with the ALP signal.
    Section 4 labels the backgrounds as non-interfering; the final states involve neutrinos versus dark matter, so interference is absent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing ALP-portal fermionic dark matter at the $e^+e^-$ colliders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FXTYHKW2

@misc{pith2026250500478,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing ALP-portal fermionic dark matter at the $e^+e^-$ colliders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FXTYHKW2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00478}
}
abstract

Axion-like particles (ALPs) are promising candidates for mediating interactions between a dark sector and the Standard Model (SM). In this work, considering the effective interactions of ALPs with the SM gauge bosons and a fermion dark matter (DM), we explore the DM relic satisfied parameter space and assess its testability through indirect searches. The effect of early kinetic decoupling is also discussed in the resonant regime. The potential of probing such ALP-portal fermionic DM at the electron-positron colliders is investigated with the mono-photon plus missing energy final states. We show that a spectacular distinction between the signal and SM background is possible via the missing energy variable, the seed of which lies in the ALP-photon interaction, which also governs the relic density of DM. We further discuss the sensitivity of ALP-photon coupling using the $\chi^2$ analysis at the future electron-positron collider specifications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00478 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Feynman diagram indicating the annihilation of two Dirac fermion DM particles (Ψ) into [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left panel: Relic satisfied dark matter parameter space (shown in blue contour line), with mass ratio r = ma/mΨ = 2.02. Also, constraints from CMB and indirect searches are shown, which are taken from [22]. Right panel: Variation of thermally averaged cross section ⟨σv⟩ against r employing Eqs. (13)-(14) (solid blue), while use of the approximated expression of Eq. (18) is exhibited by dashed orange line (valid near… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Feynman diagrams that induce mono-γ + missing energy final state within EFT frame￾work. e − e + ν ν¯ W e − e + ν ν¯ Z [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Feynman diagrams of non interfering SM backgrounds contributing to mono- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Normalized event distribution of kinematic variables at the ILC with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left panel: variation of significance (Z) with luminosity (Lint) for a fixed ma = 5 GeV for both unpolarized and polarized beams. Red (Green) line indicates 3σ (5σ) significance. Right panel: variation of Z with the ALP mass (ma) for a fixed Lint = 5 ab−1 for both unpo…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Optimal χ 2 variation with gaγγ couplings at the ILC with √ s = 1 TeV, Lint = 500 fb−1 , and three different beam polarization written in the insect with ma = 5 GeV. timate the precision with which gaγγ coupling can be estimated at the e +e − colliders. We set the inpu…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    Allen, A

    S. Allen, A. Blackburn, O. Cardenas, Z. Messenger, N. H. Nguyen and B. Shuve, Electroweak axion portal to dark matter , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 095010 [2405.02403]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

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

    1977

  3. [2]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Constraints Imposed by CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons, Phys. Rev. D 16 (1977) 1791

    1977

  4. [3]

    Weinberg, A New Light Boson? , Phys

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

    1978

  5. [4]

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

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

    1978

  6. [5]

    Svrcek and E

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten, Axions In String Theory , JHEP 06 (2006) 051 [hep-th/0605206]

    arXiv 2006

  7. [6]

    Arvanitaki, S

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

    arXiv 2010

  8. [7]

    Demirtas, C

    M. Demirtas, C. Long, L. McAllister and M. Stillman, The Kreuzer-Skarke Axiverse , JHEP 04 (2020) 138 [ 1808.01282]. 14

    arXiv 2020

Show all 85 references
  1. [8]

    Preskill, M

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

    1983

  2. [9]

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

    1983

  3. [10]

    Dine and W

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

    1983

  4. [11]

    M. S. Turner, Coherent Scalar Field Oscillations in an Expanding Universe , Phys. Rev. D 28 (1983) 1243

    1983

  5. [12]

    Arias, D

    P. Arias, D. Cadamuro, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo and A. Ringwald, WISPy Cold Dark Matter , JCAP 06 (2012) 013 [ 1201.5902]

    2012 arXiv

  6. [13]

    M. J. Dolan, F. Kahlhoefer, C. McCabe and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, A taste of dark matter: Flavour constraints on pseudoscalar mediators , JHEP 03 (2015) 171 [1412.5174]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [14]

    M. J. Dolan, T. Ferber, C. Hearty, F. Kahlhoefer and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, Revised constraints and Belle II sensitivity for visible and invisible axion-like particles , JHEP 12 (2017) 094 [ 1709.00009]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Cid Vidal, A

    X. Cid Vidal, A. Mariotti, D. Redigolo, F. Sala and K. Tobioka, New Axion Searches at Flavor Factories, JHEP 01 (2019) 113 [ 1810.09452]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Bharucha, F

    A. Bharucha, F. Br¨ ummer, N. Desai and S. Mutzel, Axion-like particles as mediators for dark matter: beyond freeze-out , JHEP 02 (2023) 141 [ 2209.03932]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [17]

    D. K. Ghosh, A. Ghoshal and S. Jeesun, Axion-like particle (ALP) portal freeze-in dark matter confronting ALP search experiments , JHEP 01 (2024) 026 [ 2305.09188]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [18]

    P. J. Fitzpatrick, Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, R. Ovadia and Y. Soreq, Dark matter through the axion-gluon portal , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 075003 [ 2306.03128]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [19]

    J. A. Dror, S. Gori and P. Munbodh, QCD axion-mediated dark matter , JHEP 09 (2023) 128 [ 2306.03145]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Acanfora, R

    F. Acanfora, R. Franceschini, A. Mastroddi and D. Redigolo, Fusing photons into nothing, a new search for invisible ALPs and Dark Matter at Belle II , JHEP 11 (2024) 156 [ 2307.06369]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Armando, P

    G. Armando, P. Panci, J. Weiss and R. Ziegler, Leptonic ALP portal to the dark sector, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 055029 [ 2310.05827]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Redondo and A

    J. Redondo and A. Ringwald, Light shining through walls , Contemp. Phys. 52 (2011) 211 [1011.3741]

    2011 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Inoue, Y

    Y. Inoue, Y. Akimoto, R. Ohta, T. Mizumoto, A. Yamamoto and M. Minowa, Search for solar axions with mass around 1 eV using coherent conversion of axions into photons, Phys. Lett. B 668 (2008) 93 [ 0806.2230]

    2008 arXiv

  17. [25]

    P. W. Graham, I. G. Irastorza, S. K. Lamoreaux, A. Lindner and K. A. van Bibber, Experimental Searches for the Axion and Axion-Like Particles , Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 65 (2015) 485 [ 1602.00039]

    2015 arXiv

  18. [26]

    13 (2017) 584 [ 1705.02290]

    CAST collaboration, New CAST Limit on the Axion-Photon Interaction , Nature Phys. 13 (2017) 584 [ 1705.02290]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Masso and R

    E. Masso and R. Toldra, On a light spinless particle coupled to photons , Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 1755 [ hep-ph/9503293]. 15

    1995 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Cadamuro and J

    D. Cadamuro and J. Redondo, Cosmological bounds on pseudo Nambu-Goldstone bosons, JCAP 02 (2012) 032 [ 1110.2895]

    2012 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Poulin and P

    V. Poulin and P. D. Serpico, Nonuniversal BBN bounds on electromagnetically decaying particles, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 103007 [ 1503.04852]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Hufnagel, K

    M. Hufnagel, K. Schmidt-Hoberg and S. Wild, BBN constraints on MeV-scale dark sectors. Part II. Electromagnetic decays , JCAP 11 (2018) 032 [ 1808.09324]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    P. F. Depta, M. Hufnagel and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, Robust cosmological constraints on axion-like particles, JCAP 05 (2020) 009 [ 2002.08370]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bal´ azs et al.,Cosmological constraints on decaying axion-like particles: a global analysis, JCAP 12 (2022) 027 [ 2205.13549]

    C. Bal´ azs et al.,Cosmological constraints on decaying axion-like particles: a global analysis, JCAP 12 (2022) 027 [ 2205.13549]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Hu and J

    W. Hu and J. Silk, Thermalization constraints and spectral distortions for massive unstable relic particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) 2661

    1993

  26. [34]

    Lucca, N

    M. Lucca, N. Sch¨ oneberg, D. C. Hooper, J. Lesgourgues and J. Chluba, The synergy between CMB spectral distortions and anisotropies, JCAP 02 (2020) 026 [1910.04619]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    J. M. Overduin and P. S. Wesson, Dark matter and background light , Phys. Rept. 402 (2004) 267 [ astro-ph/0407207]

    2004 arXiv

  28. [36]

    BaBar collaboration, Search for Production of Invisible Final States in Single-Photon Decays of Υ(1S), Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 021804 [ 1007.4646]

    2011 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Jaeckel and M

    J. Jaeckel and M. Spannowsky, Probing MeV to 90 GeV axion-like particles with LEP and LHC, Phys. Lett. B 753 (2016) 482 [ 1509.00476]

    2016 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Mimasu and V

    K. Mimasu and V. Sanz, ALPs at Colliders , JHEP 06 (2015) 173 [ 1409.4792]

    2015 arXiv

  31. [39]

    E. M. Riordan et al., A Search for Short Lived Axions in an Electron Beam Dump Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 (1987) 755

    1987

  32. [40]

    J. D. Bjorken, S. Ecklund, W. R. Nelson, A. Abashian, C. Church, B. Lu et al., Search for Neutral Metastable Penetrating Particles Produced in the SLAC Beam Dump , Phys. Rev. D 38 (1988) 3375

    1988

  33. [41]

    D¨ obrich, J

    B. D¨ obrich, J. Jaeckel, F. Kahlhoefer, A. Ringwald and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, ALPtraum: ALP production in proton beam dump experiments , JHEP 02 (2016) 018 [1512.03069]

    2016 arXiv

  34. [42]

    The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 1: Executive Summary, 1306.6327

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    ILC International Development Team collaboration, The International Linear Collider: Report to Snowmass 2021 , 2203.07622

    2021

  36. [44]

    Yue, H.-Y

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

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

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

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    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) 015002 [ 2212.02818]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Heiles, M. Neubert and A. Thamm, Axion-Like Particles at Future Colliders, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 74 [ 1808.10323]

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Zhang, C.-X

    H.-Y. Zhang, C.-X. Yue, Y.-C. Guo and S. Yang, Searching for axionlike particles at future electron-positron colliders, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 096008 [ 2103.05218]. 16

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    C.-X. Yue, S. Yang, H. Wang and N. Zhang, Prospects for detecting axionlike particles via the decay Z→aff at future Z factories , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 115027 [2204.04702]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    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 (2023) 115029 [ 2210.15648]

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Brivio, M

    I. Brivio, M. B. Gavela, L. Merlo, K. Mimasu, J. M. No, R. del Rey et al., ALPs Effective Field Theory and Collider Signatures , Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 572 [1701.05379]

    2017 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Bauer, M

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

    2017 arXiv

  45. [53]

    J. E. Kim, Weak Interaction Singlet and Strong CP Invariance , Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979) 103

    1979

  46. [54]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, Can Confinement Ensure Natural CP Invariance of Strong Interactions? , Nucl. Phys. B 166 (1980) 493

    1980

  47. [55]

    Fermi-LAT collaboration, Search for 100 MeV to 10 GeV γ-ray lines in the Fermi-LAT data and implications for gravitino dark matter in µνSSM, JCAP 10 (2014) 023 [ 1406.3430]

    2014 arXiv

  48. [56]

    J. W. Foster, Y. Park, B. R. Safdi, Y. Soreq and W. L. Xu, Search for dark matter lines at the Galactic Center with 14 years of Fermi data , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 103047 [2212.07435]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    MAGIC collaboration, Search for Gamma-Ray Spectral Lines from Dark Matter Annihilation up to 100 TeV toward the Galactic Center with MAGIC , Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023) 061002 [ 2212.10527]

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    HESS collaboration, Search for γ-Ray Line Signals from Dark Matter Annihilations in the Inner Galactic Halo from 10 Years of Observations with H.E.S.S. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 201101 [ 1805.05741]

    2018 arXiv

  51. [59]

    A. R. Pullen, R.-R. Chary and M. Kamionkowski, Search with EGRET for a Gamma Ray Line from the Galactic Center , Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 063006 [astro-ph/0610295]

    2007 arXiv

  52. [60]

    K. K. Boddy and J. Kumar, Indirect Detection of Dark Matter Using MeV-Range Gamma-Ray Telescopes, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 023533 [ 1504.04024]

    2015 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Planck collaboration, Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters , Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6 [ 1807.06209]

    2020 arXiv

  54. [62]

    B´ elanger, F

    G. B´ elanger, F. Boudjema, A. Goudelis, A. Pukhov and B. Zaldivar, micrOMEGAs5.0 : Freeze-in, Comput. Phys. Commun. 231 (2018) 173 [ 1801.03509]

    2018 arXiv

  55. [63]

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

    2008 arXiv

  56. [64]

    P. J. Fox, R. Harnik, J. Kopp and Y. Tsai, LEP Shines Light on Dark Matter , Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 014028 [ 1103.0240]

    2011 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Yu, Q.-S

    Z.-H. Yu, Q.-S. Yan and P.-F. Yin, Detecting interactions between dark matter and photons at high energy e+e− colliders, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 075015 [ 1307.5740]

    2013 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Essig, J

    R. Essig, J. Mardon, M. Papucci, T. Volansky and Y.-M. Zhong, Constraining Light Dark Matter with Low-Energy e+e− Colliders, JHEP 11 (2013) 167 [ 1309.5084]

    2013 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Kadota and J

    K. Kadota and J. Silk, Constraints on Light Magnetic Dipole Dark Matter from the ILC and SN 1987A , Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 103528 [ 1402.7295]. 17

    2014 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Yu, X.-J

    Z.-H. Yu, X.-J. Bi, Q.-S. Yan and P.-F. Yin, Dark matter searches in the mono- Z channel at high energy e+e− colliders, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 055010 [ 1404.6990]

    2014 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Freitas and S

    A. Freitas and S. Westhoff, Leptophilic Dark Matter in Lepton Interactions at LEP and ILC, JHEP 10 (2014) 116 [ 1408.1959]

    2014 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Dutta, D

    S. Dutta, D. Sachdeva and B. Rawat, Signals of Leptophilic Dark Matter at the ILC , Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 639 [ 1704.03994]

    2017 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Choudhury and D

    D. Choudhury and D. Sachdeva, Model independent analysis of MeV scale dark matter. II. Implications from e−e+ colliders and direct detection , Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 075007 [ 1906.06364]

    2019 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Horigome, T

    S.-I. Horigome, T. Katayose, S. Matsumoto and I. Saha, Leptophilic fermion WIMP: Role of future lepton colliders , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 055001 [ 2102.08645]

    2021 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Barman, S

    B. Barman, S. Bhattacharya, S. Girmohanta and S. Jahedi, Effective Leptophilic WIMPs at the e+e− collider, JHEP 04 (2022) 146 [ 2109.10936]

    2022 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Kundu, A

    S. Kundu, A. Guha, P. K. Das and P. S. B. Dev, EFT analysis of leptophilic dark matter at future electron-positron colliders in the mono-photon and mono-Z channels , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 015003 [ 2110.06903]

    2023 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Bhattacharya, P

    S. Bhattacharya, P. Ghosh, J. Lahiri and B. Mukhopadhyaya, Mono-X signal and two component dark matter: New distinction criteria , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) L111703 [2211.10749]

    2023 arXiv

  68. [76]

    S.-F. Ge, K. Ma, X.-D. Ma and J. Sheng, Associated production of neutrino and dark fermion at future lepton colliders , JHEP 11 (2023) 190 [ 2306.00657]

    2023 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Barman, S

    B. Barman, S. Bhattacharya, S. Jahedi, D. Pradhan and A. Sarkar, Lepton Collider as a window to Reheating , 2406.11963

  70. [78]

    Borah, N

    D. Borah, N. Das, S. Jahedi and B. Thacker, Collider and CMB complementarity of leptophilic dark matter with light Dirac neutrinos , JHEP 01 (2025) 074 [ 2408.14548]

    2025

  71. [79]

    Barman, S

    B. Barman, S. Bhattacharya, S. Jahedi, D. Pradhan and A. Sarkar, Lepton Collider as a window to Reheating: II , 2410.18198

    arXiv

  72. [80]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer et al., The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations , JHEP 07 (2014) 079 [1405.0301]

    2014 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Sj¨ ostrand, S

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten et al., An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 , Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159 [ 1410.3012]

    2015 arXiv

  74. [82]

    DELPHES 3 collaboration, DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment , JHEP 02 (2014) 057 [ 1307.6346]

    2014 arXiv

  75. [83]

    N. D. Christensen and C. Duhr, FeynRules - Feynman rules made easy , Comput. Phys. Commun. 180 (2009) 1614 [ 0806.4194]

    2009 arXiv

  76. [84]

    CMB-HD collaboration, Snowmass2021 CMB-HD White Paper , 2203.05728

    arXiv

  77. [85]

    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 (2011) 1554 [ 1007.1727]. 18

    2011 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.