Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 4 cited by

A High-Quality Composite Pati-Salam Axion

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper constructs a composite QCD axion in an SU(N_c) gauge theory where the Peccei–Quinn symmetry is accidental and the first PQ-violating operator appears only at dimension 12.

desk verdict A concrete composite axion model with a fixed, testable E/N = -7/3 and a plausible quality mechanism; the operator enumeration is not exhaustive, but the central claim survives scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08866 v1 pith:234LENUK submitted 2025-05-13 hep-ph

Tony Gherghetta , Hitoshi Murayama , Pablo Quílez This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords compositeQCDaxionqualityproblemPeccei-QuinnsymmetryaccidentalPati-SalamunificationdarkmatterstrongCPaxion-photoncoupling
topics Dark MatterThe Strong CP Problem
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

The paper aims to solve the axion quality problem—the fact that Planck-scale physics can shift the axion potential and ruin the strong CP solution—by constructing a composite QCD axion in which the Peccei–Quinn symmetry is accidental. The model is an SU(N_c) gauge theory with ten flavors, with the Pati–Salam group SO(6)×SO(4)⊂SU(10)_L and Sp(10)⊂SU(10)_R weakly gauged. The strong dynamics breaks the flavor symmetry to SU(10)_V, which in turn dynamically breaks the weakly gauged groups down to U(3)×U(2), containing the Standard Model gauge group. The paper argues that no gauge-invariant, PQ-violating operator below dimension 12 can condense; the first such operator is an eight-fermion, dimension-12 operator whose Planck-scale presence leaves the residual strong CP phase below $10^{-10}$ for f_a ≲ $10^{11}$ GeV. This keeps the axion a viable dark-matter candidate via misalignment and fixes the axion–photon coupling through E/N = −7/3.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the eight-fermion, dimension-12 operator O_12 built from the bilinear invariants (Q_4,$6^{2}$)(Q_4,$6^{2}$)($P^{2}$)($P^{2}$) with color-index contractions that make it Lorentz- and gauge-invariant and carry nonzero PQ charge. The bilinear invariants of Eqs. (4)–(7) have opposite symmetry properties under interchange of the two SU(N_c) indices for Q-type versus P-type fermions, so no four-fermion operator can be formed; the first viable order parameter appears only at dimension 12. Lower-dimensional baryonic operators such as (Q_4)^4 and (Q_6)^4 carry baryon number, and the paper argues—following the standard result that vector-like gauge dynamics cannot break baryon number—that they cannot condense to shift the axion potential. This gap is what converts the accidental U(1)_PQ into a high-quality symmetry and controls the quantitative bound on θ_eff.

What would settle it

Run an exhaustive Hilbert-series enumeration of gauge-invariant operators for the SU(N_c) theory with this fermion content: if any PQ-charged, baryon-number-zero operator of dimension 8 or 10 appears, the central claim fails. Alternatively, a measurement of the axion–photon coupling that disagrees with the predicted E/N = −7/3 at the claimed f_a range would falsify the model's specific prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a single confining SU(N_c) theory can supply both the QCD axion and, through its flavor dynamics, the Standard Model gauge group, with a Peccei–Quinn symmetry that is accidentally protected to very high order. Before confinement, the fermion content is vector-like under SU(N_c) but chiral under the weakly gauged SO(6)×SO(4)×Sp(10), which forbids dimension-three mass terms. After condensation the quark bilinears break SU(10)_L×SU(10)_R to SU(10)_V, break the weakly gauged group to U(3)×U(2) ⊃ SU(3)_c×SU(2)_L×U(1)_Y, and spontaneously break the accidental U(1)_PQ, producing the QCD axion among the Nambu–Goldstone bosons. The key quantitative assertion is that the only PQ-violating operator that can obtain a vacuum expectation value has dimension 12; Eq. (10) then gives a residual θ_eff that remains below the neutron EDM bound $10^{-10}$ as long as f_a ≲ $10^{11}$ GeV, so axion dark matter from misalignment is allowed. The same construction fixes the electromagnetic charges of the exotic fermions and predicts the anomaly ratio E/N = −7/3, giving a relatively large axion–photon coupling, and can unify into SO(10) near 2×$10^{16}$ GeV.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's central claim collapses if a gauge-invariant, PQ-charged operator of dimension 8 or 10 with zero baryon number exists and condenses, because the paper rules out such operators by inspecting bilinear invariants and baryon-number arguments rather than by a complete operator enumeration.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Axion dark matter from the misalignment mechanism works with f_a up to about 10^11 GeV while the residual strong CP phase stays below 10^-10, so the model solves the axion quality problem and the dark matter problem together.
  • The axion–photon coupling is fixed to g_{aγγ} = (α_EM/2πf_a)(−7/3 − 1.92), which is relatively large and within reach of IAXO for axion masses above about 4 meV.
  • The Standard Model gauge group emerges from the strong dynamics, and with one extra scalar field the Pati–Salam couplings unify into SO(10) at ~2×10^16 GeV with f_a ≈ 5×10^11 GeV, allowing proton decay to be probed at Hyper-Kamiokande.
  • If PQ breaking happens after inflation, the dimension-12 operator breaks the discrete Z_{4N_c} symmetry down to Z_2, making domain walls decay and allowing axion dark matter with f_a as low as ~10^9 GeV; magnetic monopoles can then be eliminated by the temporary breaking of U(1)_Y.
  • The near-maximal residual θ_eff places the neutron electric dipole moment just below current limits, so next-generation nEDM and proton-EDM experiments can directly test the quality mechanism.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same weakly-gauged-flavor mechanism could be used to push the first PQ-violating operator to dimension 14 or higher by enlarging the flavor symmetry or changing the embedding; the cost would be a more complicated spectrum of pseudo-Nambu–Goldstone bosons and stronger constraints from unification.
  • A measured axion–photon coupling at the E/N = 8/3 value typical of DFSZ and simple GUT axions would falsify this model's specific prediction, whereas a large negative E/N in the IAXO range would single out constructions of this type.
  • If numerical lattice studies of the SU(N_c) theory confirm the assumed chiral condensate pattern and the non-condensation of baryonic operators, the dimension-12 gap would rest on firmer ground than the current bilinear-invariant argument.
  • The post-inflation scenario's viability hinges on the domain-wall decay estimate; dedicated simulations of the Z_{4N_c} → Z_2 breaking with the dimension-12 operator could determine whether f_a ~ 10^9 GeV really yields the observed dark matter abundance.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper constructs a composite QCD axion from a vector-like SU(N_c) gauge theory with ten flavors. The quarks are charged under weakly gauged flavor subgroups SO(6) x SO(4) x Sp(10), and the assumed chiral condensate in Eq. (3) simultaneously produces a U(1)_PQ Nambu-Goldstone boson and breaks the gauge group to U(3) x U(2), with Standard Model fermions embedded through the Pati-Salam group. The central claim is that accidental U(1)_PQ is violated only by dimension-12 eight-fermion operators (Eq. (8)), leading to the residual theta_eff estimate in Eq. (10) that allows f_a up to about 10^11 GeV while solving the strong CP problem. The paper also computes E/N = -7/3 (Eq. (17)), studies SO(10) unification at M_GUT ~ 2 x 10^16 GeV, and discusses pre- and post-inflation cosmology including domain-wall decay. The main phenomenological targets are the axion-photon coupling (IAXO), nEDM/pEDM experiments, and proton decay at Hyper-Kamiokande.

Significance. If correct, this is a significant advance: a high-quality composite axion from QCD-like dynamics with a predictive E/N = -7/3, a concrete unification framework, and a possible post-inflationary domain-wall solution. The anomaly computation in Eq. (17) and the pNGB counting are clean and self-contained, and the paper is explicit about its NDA assumptions. However, the central quality claim rests on the unproven assertion that no PQ-violating operator of dimension below 12 exists; without a systematic operator enumeration, the model's main qualitative and quantitative conclusions are conditional. This is a fixable but load-bearing gap.

major comments (3)
  1. [IV (Eq. (8), Eq. (11))] The claim that the axion potential is modified only by dimension-12 operators is not proven. The text shows that no four-fermion invariant is allowed by the bilinear structures in Eqs. (4)-(7), and the baryon-number argument covers specific baryonic four-fermion operators (Q4)^4 and (Q6)^4 for N_c=4, with only brief remarks for other N_c. It does not enumerate six-fermion (dimension-9) operators, nor mixed operators containing derivatives or more than one flavor representation. Because the quality bound in Eq. (10) and the dark-matter window in Fig. 1 require every gauge-invariant, Lorentz-invariant operator with nonzero PQ charge and vanishing U(1)_B charge to have dimension at least 12, this is a load-bearing point. A systematic operator enumeration, for example the Hilbert-series method cited as Ref. [45], should be added; citing Ref. [45] without performing the enumeration leaves the main claim conditional.
  2. [VI (scalar fields H and Phi)] The operator analysis of Section IV is performed before the scalars H=(1,2,2) and Phi=(10,1,3) are introduced in Section VI. These fields are neutral under PQ and baryon number and transform under the same weakly gauged flavor groups, so they can participate in gauge-invariant, PQ-violating operators that cannot be formed from fermion bilinears alone. The paper does not show that all such operators have dimension at least 12. This is especially relevant because Phi is responsible for the U(1)_B-L x U(1)_I3R -> U(1)_Y breaking; the operator classification should be extended to the full field content of the model.
  3. [Eq. (10), Fig. 1] The quantitative upper bound f_a <~ 10^11 GeV is highly sensitive to the NDA estimate in Eq. (10). The factor g_*^10 alone changes the residual theta_eff by roughly eleven orders of magnitude for g_* between 1 and 4 pi, and the normalization (4 N_c/square_root(13))^12 (2/N_c)/(4!4!) is not derived. The paper does not state which value of g_* was used in Fig. 1 or show how the allowed f_a region changes with the NDA uncertainty. As written, the compatibility with misalignment dark matter is not a robust quantitative result and should either be derived with a justified NDA prescription or presented with its uncertainty band.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (3)] The assumed chiral symmetry breaking pattern <P_r Q_i> proportional to delta^i_r is asserted without discussion of possible competing condensates. If a different pattern, such as <Q Q> or <P P>, were dynamically preferred, the identification of the axion and the anomaly ratio E/N would have to be reconsidered; a brief justification or an explicit statement that this is an assumption would help.
  2. [Eq. (17), Appendix A] The notation (+/- 1/3) and (+/- 1) in Eq. (17) and Appendix A is ambiguous because it does not specify which component has which sign; please replace it with the explicit charge assignments from the branching rules.
  3. [Fig. 1] The green dark-matter region is described as 'fading away' for f_a <~ 10^10 GeV, but the plot has no quantitative boundary for the maximum acceptable fine-tuning of the initial misalignment angle; a labeled contour or a stated tuning limit would make the figure more informative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circularity: the D=12 operator gap, theta_eff estimate, E/N=-7/3, and the unification scale are outputs of the charge assignments and RGEs, not repackaged inputs.

full rationale

The central claim that the first PQ-violating operator that can shift the axion potential has dimension 12 is derived from the fermion content in Table I and the bilinear building blocks in Eqs. (4)-(7), not assumed. Any gauge-invariant, Lorentz-invariant operator carrying nonzero PQ charge and zero U(1)_B charge must contract SU(N_c) indices between Q-type and P-type bilinears; the opposite symmetry properties of the scalar and tensor bilinears force at least two Q bilinears and two P bilinears, giving eight fermions and hence dimension 12. The paper's argument is group-theoretic rather than a Hilbert-series enumeration, so an overlooked sub-12 operator is a completeness or correctness risk, not a circularity: the conclusion is not used as an input. Equation (10) is an NDA estimate of theta_eff in terms of the coefficient c_PQ, the phase delta, g_*, and f_a; these are model parameters and inputs, and the resulting bound f_a <= 10^11 GeV is an inequality, not a fitted quantity relabeled as a prediction. The anomaly ratio E/N = -7/3 is computed from the fixed PQ and electromagnetic charges of the exotic fermions imposed by the Pati-Salam embedding; it is not used to define those charges. The unification scale M_GUT ~ 2 x 10^16 GeV and f_a ~ 5 x 10^11 GeV are obtained by solving the stated one-loop RGEs with the matching conditions (19)-(21); threshold corrections are invoked only to move f_a into the quality/DM window, which is a numerical adjustment, not a circular reduction. The paper cites several works with overlapping authors (e.g., Refs. [15, 21, 24, 25, 40, 45, 52, 61]), but none of these self-citations is the exclusive justification of the central claim; the key vector-charge condensation argument rests on the external Vafa-Witten theorem [53] and Ref. [23]. No step in the derivation chain reduces by construction to its own input, so there is no significant circularity; the score reflects only the presence of non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The model is a self-contained construction: its predictions (E/N, pNGB spectrum, unification scale) follow from the stated charges and field content, but all of these rest on assumptions about the strong dynamics of SU(N_c), the absence of low-dimension PQ-violating operators, and simplified one-loop running. The free parameters are the discrete N_c, the operator coefficient and phase, the composite coupling, the initial misalignment angle, and the scale M_PQ used in the post-inflation scenario.

free parameters (5)
  • N_c (number of strong colors) = 4, 6, 8 (even)
    The model requires even N_c to avoid the Witten anomaly; the unification coupling depends on N_c as alpha_GUT^{-1} = 41.9 - 0.85 N_c, so N_c is a discrete model choice, not fixed by data.
  • c_PQ sin(delta) = 0.1 in Fig. 1
    Coefficient and phase of the D = 12 PQ-violating operator; the theta_eff estimate in Eq. (10) scales with this product and the figure assumes |c_PQ sin(delta)| = 0.1.
  • g_* (composite coupling) = 1 to 4 pi (range)
    Coupling between composite states in the NDA relation Lambda = g_* f_PQ, used to convert the operator estimate into a bound on f_a.
  • theta_i (initial misalignment angle) = free, O(1) for f_a ~ 5e11 GeV
    Determines the axion dark matter abundance in the pre-inflation scenario; shown as contours in Fig. 1.
  • M_PQ (scale suppressing the D = 12 operator in the post-inflation scenario) = 10^15 to 10^17 GeV (choice)
    Needed for the domain wall decay analysis in Section VII; not predicted by the model.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The SU(N_c) ten-flavor theory confines with the QCD-like bilinear condensate <P Q> = Lambda^3 delta, breaking SU(10)_L x SU(10)_R to SU(10)_V.
    Equation (3) assumes the standard chiral symmetry breaking pattern; no lattice or other non-perturbative check is provided, and weak gauging could in principle tilt the vacuum.
  • standard math Vector-like gauge theories do not spontaneously break baryon number (Vafa-Witten theorem).
    Used in Section IV to argue that baryon-number-violating operators such as (Q4)^4 and (Q6)^4 do not condense and therefore do not shift the axion potential.
  • standard math The Sp(10) gauge group requires even N_c to avoid the Witten anomaly.
    Invoked in Section III to restrict the model to even N_c.
  • domain assumption Naive dimensional analysis applies to the composite operator matrix elements, with O(1) coefficients and g_* between 1 and 4 pi.
    The theta_eff estimate in Eq. (10) relies on NDA power counting; the numerical prefactor is not derived from first principles.
  • ad hoc to paper No PQ-violating gauge-invariant operator of dimension below 12 exists in this model.
    This is the central quality claim, argued from the bilinear invariants in Eqs. (4) to (7) and the baryon-number argument, but not proven by an exhaustive operator enumeration such as a Hilbert series.
  • domain assumption One-loop renormalization group running with the stated field content and threshold effects neglected gives the unification scale and f_a.
    The matching conditions in Eqs. (19) to (21) and beta functions in Eq. (22) assume only H and Phi below f_a; two-loop corrections and threshold uncertainties are acknowledged as potentially shifting f_a to lower values.
invented entities (3)
  • SU(N_c) hyperquarks Q6, Q4, P
    purpose: Generate the accidental PQ symmetry, form the composite axion, and dynamically break the Pati-Salam gauge group to the Standard Model group.
    New strongly coupled fermion content with no independent experimental evidence; their charges and condensates drive the entire model.
  • Weakly gauged Sp(10) subgroup
    purpose: Make the theory chiral, forbid D = 3 mass terms for the exotic quarks, and protect the PQ symmetry.
    A new gauge force with no current evidence; it is part of the construction that makes the PQ symmetry accidental.
  • Scalar field Phi in the (10,1,3) of Pati-Salam from the 126 of SO(10)
    purpose: Break U(1)_B-L x U(1)_I3R to U(1)_Y and help achieve unification and right-handed neutrino masses.
    A model field required for the breaking and unification; its mass and VEV are inputs, and it has no independent observational support.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A High-Quality Composite Pati-Salam Axion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/234LENUK

@misc{pith2026250508866,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A High-Quality Composite Pati-Salam Axion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/234LENUK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08866}
}
abstract

We present a composite QCD axion model where the Peccei--Quinn (PQ) symmetry emerges as a high-quality, accidental symmetry. The axion potential is only modified by eight-fermion, dimension 12 operators, which if present at the Planck scale, allow for axion dark matter from misalignment while solving the strong CP problem. The model is an $\text{SU}(N_c)$ gauge theory with ten flavors where the Pati--Salam unified subgroup $\text{SO}(6)\times \text{SO}(4) \subset \text{SU}(10)_L$ and $\text{Sp}(10)\subset \text{SU}(10)_R$ are weakly gauged. The dynamics breaks $\text{SU}(10)_L\times \text{SU}(10)_R \rightarrow \text{SU}(10)_V$ and the weakly-gauged groups to $\text{U}(3)\times \text{U}(2) \supset \text{SU}(3)_c \times \text{SU}(2)_L \times \text{U}(1)_Y$, with the QCD axion identified as one of the Nambu-Goldstone bosons. This axion has a relatively large coupling to photons while a residual $\bar{\theta}_{\rm eff}$ may be just below the current limit on the neutron electric dipole moment. If the dimension 12 operators are present near the GUT scale, they can cause domain wall networks to decay, allowing for axion dark matter even for the post-inflationary scenario.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08866 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The expected contribution to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The limits on the axion-photon coupling as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The running of the Standard Model gauge couplings [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Abundant production of scalars and axions from phase transition bubble expansion

    hep-ph 2026-08 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

    Constant-velocity spherical bubble walls radiate massive scalars until the wall's rest-frame curvature exceeds the particle Compton wavelength, a mechanism that can dominate freeze-in production of axion-like particles.

  2. A High-Quality Axion from Exact SUSY Chiral Dynamics

    hep-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A supersymmetric chiral gauge theory stabilized by anomaly-mediated supersymmetry breaking produces a composite QCD axion whose Peccei-Quinn symmetry is protected by a discrete gauge symmetry.

  3. The Minimal High-Quality QCD Axion

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    A flat-interval 5D U(1) Wilson-line axion with 4D KSVZ/DFSZ anomaly sector supplies exponential quality protection while remaining minimal.

  4. Axion Quality Problem: Keep Calm and Baryon

    hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The QCD axion can be the Goldstone boson of baryon number in a minimal N_c=N_f supersymmetric QCD sector, with PQ-breaking effects suppressed by dimension N_c+2 operators.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [43]

    Axion dark matter from topological defects,

    M. Kawasaki, K. Saikawa, and T. Sekiguchi, “Axion dark matter from topological defects,” Phys. Rev. D 91 no. 6, (2015) 065014, arXiv:1412.0789 [hep-ph] . 2, 8

    arXiv 2015

  2. [45]

    Accidental symmetries, Hilbert series, and friends,

    B. Grinstein, X. Lu, C. Mir´ o, and P. Qu´ ılez, “Accidental symmetries, Hilbert series, and friends,” JHEP 03 (2025) 172, arXiv:2412.05359 [hep-ph] . 2

    arXiv 2025

  3. [1]

    CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, “CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 1440–1443. 1

    1977

  4. [2]

    A New Light Boson?,

    S. Weinberg, “A New Light Boson?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 (1978) 223–226. 1

    1978

  5. [3]

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

    F. Wilczek, “Problem of Strong P and T Invariance in the Presence of Instantons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 (1978) 279–282. 1

    work page 1978

  6. [4]

    Grand Unified Models with an Automatic Peccei-Quinn Symmetry,

    H. M. Georgi, L. J. Hall, and M. B. Wise, “Grand Unified Models with an Automatic Peccei-Quinn Symmetry,” Nucl. Phys. B192 (1981) 409–416. 1

    1981

  7. [5]

    Planck Scale Physics and the Peccei-Quinn Mechanism,

    M. Kamionkowski and J. March-Russell, “Planck Scale Physics and the Peccei-Quinn Mechanism,” Phys. Lett. B282 (1992) 137–141, arXiv:hep-th/9202003 [hep-th]. 3

    arXiv 1992

  8. [6]

    Solutions to the Strong CP Problem in a World with Gravity,

    R. Holman, S. D. H. Hsu, T. W. Kephart, E. W. Kolb, R. Watkins, and L. M. Widrow, “Solutions to the Strong CP Problem in a World with Gravity,” Phys. Lett. B282 (1992) 132–136, arXiv:hep-ph/9203206 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 1992

Show all 82 references
  1. [7]

    Gravity and global symmetries,

    R. Kallosh, A. D. Linde, D. A. Linde, and L. Susskind, “Gravity and global symmetries,” Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 912–935, arXiv:hep-th/9502069

    1995 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Planck Scale Corrections to Axion Models,

    S. M. Barr and D. Seckel, “Planck Scale Corrections to Axion Models,” Phys. Rev. D46 (1992) 539–549

    1992

  3. [9]

    Instability of the Invisible Axion,

    S. Ghigna, M. Lusignoli, and M. Roncadelli, “Instability of the Invisible Axion,” Phys. Lett. B283 (1992) 278–281

    1992

  4. [10]

    Wormholes and masses for Goldstone bosons,

    R. Alonso and A. Urbano, “Wormholes and masses for Goldstone bosons,” JHEP 02 (2019) 136, arXiv:1706.07415 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [11]

    The axion quality problem: global symmetry breaking and wormholes,

    J. Alvey and M. Escudero, “The axion quality problem: global symmetry breaking and wormholes,” JHEP 01 (2021) 032, arXiv:2009.03917 [hep-ph] . [Erratum: JHEP 11, 223 (2023)]. 1

    2021 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Symmetries in quantum field theory and quantum gravity,

    D. Harlow and H. Ooguri, “Symmetries in quantum field theory and quantum gravity,” Commun. Math. Phys. 383 no. 3, (2021) 1669–1804, arXiv:1810.05338 [hep-th]. 1

    2021 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Axions In String Theory,

    P. Svrˇ cek and E. Witten, “Axions In String Theory,” JHEP 06 (2006) 051, arXiv:hep-th/0605206. 1

    2006 arXiv

  8. [14]

    String Axiverse,

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, “String Axiverse,” Phys. Rev. D81 (2010) 123530, arXiv:0905.4720 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  9. [15]

    The QCD axion sum rule,

    B. Gavela, P. Qu´ ılez, and M. Ramos, “The QCD axion sum rule,” JHEP 04 (2024) 056, arXiv:2305.15465 [hep-ph]. 1

    2024 arXiv

  10. [16]

    A Composite Invisible Axion,

    J. E. Kim, “A Composite Invisible Axion,” Phys. Rev. D 31 (1985) 1733. 1, 7

    1985

  11. [17]

    Dynamical Axion,

    K. Choi and J. E. Kim, “Dynamical Axion,” Phys. Rev. D 32 (1985) 1828. 1

    1985

  12. [18]

    Composite axion models and Planck scale physics,

    L. Randall, “Composite axion models and Planck scale physics,” Phys. Lett. B284 (1992) 77–80. 1

    1992

  13. [19]

    Composite Accidental Axions,

    M. Redi and R. Sato, “Composite Accidental Axions,” JHEP 05 (2016) 104, arXiv:1602.05427 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [20]

    A High Quality Composite Axion,

    B. Lillard and T. M. P. Tait, “A High Quality Composite Axion,” arXiv:1811.03089 [hep-ph] . 1

    arXiv

  15. [21]

    Automatic Peccei–Quinn symmetry,

    M. B. Gavela, M. Ibe, P. Qu´ ılez, and T. T. Yanagida, “Automatic Peccei–Quinn symmetry,” Eur. Phys. J. C79 no. 6, (2019) 542, arXiv:1812.08174 [hep-ph] . 1

    2019 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Axion quality from the (anti)symmetric of SU(N ),

    M. Ardu, L. Di Luzio, G. Landini, A. Strumia, D. Teresi, and J.-W. Wang, “Axion quality from the (anti)symmetric of SU(N ),” JHEP 11 (2020) 090, arXiv:2007.12663 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Chiral models of composite axions and accidental Peccei-Quinn symmetry,

    R. Contino, A. Podo, and F. Revello, “Chiral models of composite axions and accidental Peccei-Quinn symmetry,” JHEP 04 (2022) 180, arXiv:2112.09635 11 [hep-ph]. 1, 5

    2022 arXiv

  18. [24]

    A Holographic Perspective on the Axion Quality Problem,

    P. Cox, T. Gherghetta, and M. D. Nguyen, “A Holographic Perspective on the Axion Quality Problem,” JHEP 01 (2020) 188, arXiv:1911.09385 [hep-ph]. 1

    2020 arXiv

  19. [25]

    A common origin for the QCD axion and sterile neutrinos from SU(5) strong dynamics,

    P. Cox, T. Gherghetta, and A. Paul, “A common origin for the QCD axion and sterile neutrinos from SU(5) strong dynamics,” JHEP 12 (2023) 180, arXiv:2310.08557 [hep-ph] . 1

    2023 arXiv

  20. [26]

    SU(5) and the Invisible Axion,

    M. B. Wise, H. Georgi, and S. L. Glashow, “SU(5) and the Invisible Axion,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 47 (1981) 402. 2, 6

    1981

  21. [27]

    Axion mass prediction from minimal grand unification,

    L. Di Luzio, A. Ringwald, and C. Tamarit, “Axion mass prediction from minimal grand unification,” Phys. Rev. D 98 no. 9, (2018) 095011, arXiv:1807.09769 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Axion Predictions in SO(10)×U(1)PQ Models,

    A. Ernst, A. Ringwald, and C. Tamarit, “Axion Predictions in SO(10)×U(1)PQ Models,” JHEP 02 (2018) 103, arXiv:1801.04906 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [29]

    The QCD Axion and Unification,

    P. Fileviez P´ erez, C. Murgui, and A. D. Plascencia, “The QCD Axion and Unification,” JHEP 11 (2019) 093, arXiv:1908.01772 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Axion Dark Matter, Proton Decay and Unification,

    P. Fileviez P´ erez, C. Murgui, and A. D. Plascencia, “Axion Dark Matter, Proton Decay and Unification,” JHEP 01 (2020) 091, arXiv:1911.05738 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Axion couplings in grand unified theories,

    P. Agrawal, M. Nee, and M. Reig, “Axion couplings in grand unified theories,” JHEP 10 (2022) 141, arXiv:2206.07053 [hep-ph] . 2, 6

    2022 arXiv

  26. [32]

    High-quality Peccei-Quinn symmetry from the interplay of vertical and horizontal gauge symmetries,

    L. Di Luzio, G. Landini, F. Mescia, and V. Susiˇ c, “High-quality Peccei-Quinn symmetry from the interplay of vertical and horizontal gauge symmetries,” arXiv:2503.16648 [hep-ph] . 2

  27. [33]

    Accidental SO(10) axion from gauged flavour,

    L. Di Luzio, “Accidental SO(10) axion from gauged flavour,” JHEP 11 (2020) 074, arXiv:2008.09119 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Pati-Salam Axion,

    L. Di Luzio, “Pati-Salam Axion,” JHEP 07 (2020) 071, arXiv:2005.00012 [hep-ph] . 2

    2020 arXiv

  29. [35]

    Cosmology of the Invisible Axion,

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, “Cosmology of the Invisible Axion,” Phys. Lett. B 120 (1983) 127–132. 2

    1983

  30. [36]

    A Cosmological Bound on the Invisible Axion,

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

    1983

  31. [37]

    The Not So Harmless Axion,

    M. Dine and W. Fischler, “The Not So Harmless Axion,” Phys. Lett. B 120 (1983) 137–141. 2

    1983

  32. [38]

    Proton decay in SUSY GUTs,

    J. Hisano, “Proton decay in SUSY GUTs,” PTEP 2022 no. 12, (2022) 12B104, arXiv:2202.01404 [hep-ph] . 2

    2022 arXiv

  33. [39]

    Hyper-Kamiokande,

    Hyper-Kamiokande Collaboration, M. B. Smy, “Hyper-Kamiokande,” Phys. Sci. Forum 8 no. 1, (2023)

    2023

  34. [40]

    Enhanced EDMs from small instantons,

    R. S. Bedi, T. Gherghetta, and M. Pospelov, “Enhanced EDMs from small instantons,” Phys. Rev. D 106 no. 1, (2022) 015030, arXiv:2205.07948 [hep-ph] . 2, 5

    2022 arXiv

  35. [41]

    String Theory and the Strong CP Problem,

    M. Dine and N. Seiberg, “String Theory and the Strong CP Problem,” Nucl. Phys. B273 (1986) 109–124. 2

    1986

  36. [42]

    Instanton NDA and applications to axion models,

    C. Cs´ aki, R. T. D’Agnolo, E. Kuflik, and M. Ruhdorfer, “Instanton NDA and applications to axion models,” JHEP 04 (2024) 074, arXiv:2311.09285 [hep-ph] . 2, 5

    2024 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Magnetic Monopoles in Grand Unified Theories,

    P. Langacker and S.-Y. Pi, “Magnetic Monopoles in Grand Unified Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 45 (1980) 1. 2, 8

    1980

  38. [46]

    A Universal Bound on QCD Axions from Supernovae,

    K. Springmann, M. Stadlbauer, S. Stelzl, and A. Weiler, “A Universal Bound on QCD Axions from Supernovae,” arXiv:2410.19902 [hep-ph] . 3

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Improved axion emissivity from a supernova via nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung,

    P. Carenza, T. Fischer, M. Giannotti, G. Guo, G. Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, and A. Mirizzi, “Improved axion emissivity from a supernova via nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung,” JCAP 10 no. 10, (2019) 016, arXiv:1906.11844 [hep-ph] . [Erratum: JCAP 05, E01 (2020)]. 3

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    An SU(2) Anomaly,

    E. Witten, “An SU(2) Anomaly,” Phys. Lett. B 117 (1982) 324–328. 3

    1982

  41. [49]

    Weak Interaction Singlet and Strong CP Invariance,

    J. E. Kim, “Weak Interaction Singlet and Strong CP Invariance,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979) 103. 3

    1979

  42. [50]

    Can Confinement Ensure Natural CP Invariance of Strong Interactions?,

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, “Can Confinement Ensure Natural CP Invariance of Strong Interactions?,” Nucl. Phys. B166 (1980) 493–506

    1980

  43. [51]

    On Possible Suppression of the Axion Hadron Interactions. (In Russian),

    A. R. Zhitnitsky, “On Possible Suppression of the Axion Hadron Interactions. (In Russian),” Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 31 (1980) 260. [Yad. Fiz.31,497(1980)]. 3

    1980

  44. [52]

    Broken Conformal Window,

    D. Kondo, H. Murayama, B. Noether, and D. R. Varier, “Broken Conformal Window,” arXiv:2111.09690 [hep-th]. 4

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    Restrictions on Symmetry Breaking in Vector-Like Gauge Theories,

    C. Vafa and E. Witten, “Restrictions on Symmetry Breaking in Vector-Like Gauge Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B234 (1984) 173–188. 4, 5

    1984

  46. [54]

    Hadronic Matrix Elements and the pi+ pi0 Mass Difference,

    W. A. Bardeen, J. Bijnens, and J. M. Gerard, “Hadronic Matrix Elements and the pi+ pi0 Mass Difference,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 62 (1989) 1343. 4

    1989

  47. [55]

    Chiral Quarks and the Nonrelativistic Quark Model,

    A. Manohar and H. Georgi, “Chiral Quarks and the Nonrelativistic Quark Model,” Nucl. Phys. B 234 (1984) 189–212. 4

    1984

  48. [56]

    Counting 4π’s in strongly coupled supersymmetry,

    A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan, and A. E. Nelson, “Counting 4π’s in strongly coupled supersymmetry,” Phys. Lett. B 412 (1997) 301–308, arXiv:hep-ph/9706275

    1997 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Analysis of General Power Counting Rules in Effective Field Theory,

    B. M. Gavela, E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and L. Merlo, “Analysis of General Power Counting Rules in Effective Field Theory,” Eur. Phys. J. C 76 no. 9, (2016) 485, arXiv:1601.07551 [hep-ph] . 4

    2016 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Grand unification and heavy axion,

    V. A. Rubakov, “Grand unification and heavy axion,” JETP Lett. 65 (1997) 621–624, arXiv:hep-ph/9703409. 5

    1997 arXiv

  51. [59]

    A Visible QCD Axion from an Enlarged Color Group,

    T. Gherghetta, N. Nagata, and M. Shifman, “A Visible QCD Axion from an Enlarged Color Group,” Phys. Rev. D 93 no. 11, (2016) 115010, arXiv:1604.01127 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Factoring the Strong CP Problem,

    P. Agrawal and K. Howe, “Factoring the Strong CP Problem,” JHEP 12 (2018) 029, arXiv:1710.04213 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Color unified dynamical axion,

    M. K. Gaillard, M. B. Gavela, R. Houtz, P. Qu´ ılez, and R. Del Rey, “Color unified dynamical axion,” Eur. Phys. J. C 78 no. 11, (2018) 972, arXiv:1805.06465 [hep-ph]. 5

    2018 arXiv

  54. [62]

    The Precision nEDM Measurement with UltraCold Neutrons at TRIUMF,

    TUCAN Collaboration, R. Matsumiya et al. , “The Precision nEDM Measurement with UltraCold Neutrons at TRIUMF,” JPS Conf. Proc. 37 (2022) 020701, arXiv:2207.09880 [physics.ins-det] . 5

    2022 arXiv

  55. [63]

    A Proposal for a cryogenic experiment to measure the neutron electric 12 dipole moment (nEDM),

    S. N. Balashov, K. Green, M. G. D. van der Grinten, P. G. Harris, H. Kraus, J. M. Pendlebury, D. B. Shiers, M. A. H. Tucker, and D. L. Wark, “A Proposal for a cryogenic experiment to measure the neutron electric 12 dipole moment (nEDM),” arXiv:0709.2428 [hep-ex] . 5

    arXiv

  56. [64]

    Physics Briefing Book: Input for the European Strategy for Particle Physics Update 2020,

    R. K. Ellis et al. , “Physics Briefing Book: Input for the European Strategy for Particle Physics Update 2020,” arXiv:1910.11775 [hep-ex] . 5

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    The storage ring proton EDM experiment,

    J. Alexander et al. , “The storage ring proton EDM experiment,” arXiv:2205.00830 [hep-ph] . 5

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    The QCD axion, precisely,

    G. Grilli di Cortona, E. Hardy, J. Pardo Vega, and G. Villadoro, “The QCD axion, precisely,” JHEP 01 (2016) 034, arXiv:1511.02867 [hep-ph] . 6

    2016 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Redefining the Axion Window,

    L. Di Luzio, F. Mescia, and E. Nardi, “Redefining the Axion Window,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 no. 3, (2017) 031801, arXiv:1610.07593 [hep-ph] . 6

    2017 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Window for preferred axion models,

    L. Di Luzio, F. Mescia, and E. Nardi, “Window for preferred axion models,” Phys. Rev. D 96 no. 7, (2017) 075003, arXiv:1705.05370 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Anomaly ratio distributions of hadronic axion models with multiple heavy quarks,

    V. Plakkot and S. Hoof, “Anomaly ratio distributions of hadronic axion models with multiple heavy quarks,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 7, (2021) 075017, arXiv:2107.12378 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Catalogues of Cosmologically Self-Consistent Hadronic QCD Axion Models,

    L. Di Luzio, S. Hoof, C. Marinissen, and V. Plakkot, “Catalogues of Cosmologically Self-Consistent Hadronic QCD Axion Models,” arXiv:2412.17896 [hep-ph] . 6

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    cajohare/axionlimits: Axionlimits,

    C. O’Hare, “cajohare/axionlimits: Axionlimits,” July,

  64. [72]

    Higgs Bosons in SO(10) and Partial Unification,

    F. del Aguila and L. E. Ib´ a˜ nez, “Higgs Bosons in SO(10) and Partial Unification,” Nucl. Phys. B 177 (1981) 60–86. 6

    1981

  65. [73]

    Extended Survival Hypothesis and Fermion Masses,

    S. Dimopoulos and H. M. Georgi, “Extended Survival Hypothesis and Fermion Masses,” Phys. Lett. B 140 (1984) 67–70. 6

    1984

  66. [74]

    Non-supersymmetric SO(10) models with Gauge and Yukawa coupling unification,

    A. Djouadi, R. Fonseca, R. Ouyang, and M. Raidal, “Non-supersymmetric SO(10) models with Gauge and Yukawa coupling unification,” Eur. Phys. J. C 83 no. 6, (2023) 529, arXiv:2212.11315 [hep-ph] . 6

    2023 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Leptogenesis for pedestrians,

    W. Buchm¨ uller, P. Di Bari, and M. Pl¨ umacher, “Leptogenesis for pedestrians,” Annals Phys. 315 (2005) 305–351, arXiv:hep-ph/0401240. 6

    2005 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Predictive neutrino spectrum in minimal SO(10) grand unification,

    K. S. Babu and R. N. Mohapatra, “Predictive neutrino spectrum in minimal SO(10) grand unification,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) 2845–2848, arXiv:hep-ph/9209215. 7

    1993 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Yukawa sector in non-supersymmetric renormalizable SO(10),

    B. Bajc, A. Melfo, G. Senjanovic, and F. Vissani, “Yukawa sector in non-supersymmetric renormalizable SO(10),” Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 055001, arXiv:hep-ph/0510139. 7

    2006 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Fits to Non-Supersymmetric SO(10) Models with Type I and II Seesaw Mechanisms Using Renormalization Group Evolution,

    T. Ohlsson and M. Pernow, “Fits to Non-Supersymmetric SO(10) Models with Type I and II Seesaw Mechanisms Using Renormalization Group Evolution,” JHEP 06 (2019) 085, arXiv:1903.08241 [hep-ph]. 7

    2019 arXiv

  71. [79]

    The quality/cosmology tension for a post-inflation QCD axion,

    Q. Lu, M. Reece, and Z. Sun, “The quality/cosmology tension for a post-inflation QCD axion,” JHEP 07 (2024) 227, arXiv:2312.07650 [hep-ph] . 7, 8

    2024 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Axion Models with No Domain Wall Problem,

    G. Lazarides and Q. Shafi, “Axion Models with No Domain Wall Problem,” Phys. Lett. B 115 (1982) 21–25. 8

    1982

  73. [81]

    More axions from strings,

    M. Gorghetto, E. Hardy, and G. Villadoro, “More axions from strings,” SciPost Phys. 10 no. 2, (2021) 050, arXiv:2007.04990 [hep-ph] . 8

    2021 arXiv

  74. [2020]

    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3932430. 6

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.