Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 95 references

ALP pair production at the LHC

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that a four-photon search for non-resonant axion-like-particle pair production at the LHC could already at 300 fb^-1 probe the dimension-6 ALP-gluon coupling down to 10^-3 TeV^-2, while no single such search can ever

desk verdict First solid projection for non-resonant gg→aa→4γ at the LHC; the headline CG2 reach is conditional on a best-case ALP branching ratio, but the paper is transparent about that. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21712 v1 pith:YFHJZWQ6 submitted 2026-07-23 hep-ph hep-ex

Ilaria Brivio , Simone Meoni , Davide Pagani This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-ex PACS 12.60.-i13.85.Rm14.80.Va
keywords axion-likeparticlesALPpairproductionfour-photonfinalstatedimension-6operatorsLHCphenomenologylong-livedALPseffectivefieldtheoryHiggsexoticdecays
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 establishes that the LHC can probe axion-like particles (ALPs) in pairs, not just singly, and gives the first analysis of the non-resonant process gg→aa, where a dimension-6 contact interaction between two ALPs and two gluons competes with the usual dimension-5 gluon coupling. Its central quantitative claim is that with 300 fb^-1 of 13 TeV data, a nearly background-free four-photon search would be sensitive to the dimension-6 coefficient C_G2/Λ²a down to 10^-3 TeV^-2 — roughly an order of magnitude stronger than the Higgs-resonant channel's reach on the analogous h→aa coupling. Equally central is the structural result that no single pp→aa→4γ measurement can ever close the ALP parameter space: cancellations between production and decay, saturation of the photon branching ratio, and long-lived-ALP detector-escape effects leave the allowed region unbounded along specific directions. The authors argue this is generic to collider ALP searches in which the same couplings enter both production and decay, so the same-shaped open regions should appear in other final states. They further recast an LHC search for h→aa→4γ into three-dimensional coupling space, showing that the commonly quoted bounds on C_γγ shift by orders of magnitude once a small gluon coupling C_G1 is admitted.

What carries the argument

The engine of the analysis is an amplitude identity and a cancellation: the non-resonant gg→aa cross section factorizes as σ = C_G1⁴σ11 + C_G2²σ22 + C_G1²C_G2σ12, where the interference term σ12 is comparable to the pure terms and changes sign with C_G2; meanwhile the branching ratio Br(a→γγ) = [1 + F(m_a) + k²(m_a) r_γ²]^-1 depends only on the ratio r_γ = C_G1/C_γγ. Combining them, C_G1⁴ production growth cancels against the C_G1^-4 suppression of the branching ratio, creating a flat direction, and Br saturates for C_γγ ≳ 250 C_G1, creating another. Finite-size detector effects — the probability that both ALPs decay within the 1.08 m detector radius, which scales as (Γ_tot^a)² in the low-wi

What would settle it

Measure the ALP's photon branching ratio or any additional decay width: since the projected reach scales as Br(a→γγ)², detecting a non-negligible a→Zγ, a→W⁺W⁻, or fermionic channel (allowed by gauge invariance above 2m_W) would push the 10^-3 TeV^-2 sensitivity out of reach, directly testing the best-case assumption. Running the four-photon search itself at 300 fb^-1 also settles it: the predicted SM background is ~0.2 events, so a null result places the bound and a 4γ excess whose kinematic distributions disagree with the gg→aa prediction would falsify the EFT interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Double-ALP production at the LHC is a viable and competitive probe of ALP interactions beyond dimension-5. Focusing on gg→aa→4γ, the paper analyzes for the first time the non-resonant mode, whose rate is a polynomial in the couplings — pure C_G1⁴, pure C_G2², and an interference term C_G1²C_G2 — so different regimes test different operators, including the sign of C_G2. Because the same C_G1 that boosts production also suppresses Br(a→γγ) by opening gluonic decays, the signal is not monotonic: it contains regions where the coupling dependence cancels exactly, a valley of destructive interference for C_G2<0, and a long-lived-ALP regime where the pair escapes the detector before converting to p

Load-bearing premise

The projected reach assumes a best-case ALP whose electroweak decay couplings are tuned to maximize the photon branching ratio; if the real ALP decays more readily into W/Z pairs or fermions, the four-photon signal shrinks as Br(a→γγ)² and the quoted bounds weaken, in some regions by orders of magnitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 300 fb^-1 four-photon search would set the first direct bound on the dimension-6 ALP-gluon contact operator, C_G2/Λ²a ≲ 10^-3 TeV^-2 for ma ≲ 300 GeV (10^-2 at 1 TeV), about an order of magnitude tighter than the Higgs-resonant channel's C_ah/Λ²a ≲ 10^-2 TeV^-2.
  • No 4γ search alone closes the parameter space: allowed regions stay unbounded along four directions — C_G1 cancellation, C_γγ saturation, the C_G2<0 interference valley, and small-coupling long-lived escape.
  • The same-coupling cancellation is generic, so cusps, thin allowed bands, and open regions should appear in any ALP search where one coupling controls both production and decay; interpreting such bounds requires a global fit.
  • In the Higgs-resonant recast, a non-zero C_G1 weakens the inferred limits on C_γγ by 3–5 orders of magnitude (e.g. for C_G1/Λa = 10^-3 TeV^-1), and meaningful C_γγ bounds exist only for C_ah inside a narrow, mass-dependent window.
  • Sensitivity to the sign of C_G2 is possible only where interference matters (large C_G1); elsewhere the search probes |C_G2| alone, and the best-case Br assumption caps the photon branching ratio at 1/(1+F(ma)) ≈ 0.6 for ma ≫ 2m_W.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The strongest apparent C_γγ exclusions (down to ~10^-9 TeV^-1 non-resonant, 10^-5–10^-7 TeV^-1 Higgs-resonant) live where a dimension-6 coefficient vastly exceeds dimension-5 ones; a global fit with EFT-power-counting priors would likely discard those points, reframing these as lifetime exclusions of long-lived ALPs rather than coupling bounds.
  • Because the cancellation mechanism is structural, a quick cross-check of existing single-ALP limits for the same saturation direction (C_γγ → large, Br saturating) would reveal which published bounds are slices of open regions.
  • A testable extension: push below ma = 30 GeV with merged-photon topologies for boosted ALPs; the paper's own efficiency curve (ϵ_cuts ≈ 0.002 at 10 GeV) predicts exactly where the non-resonant channel loses sensitivity.
  • The LO-only gg→aa prediction leaves the σ11/σ12/σ22 ratios vulnerable to NLO QCD corrections; given K-factors of order 5 in the Higgs channel, the 10^-3 TeV^-2 number could move by a comparable factor once the calculation exists.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes and analyzes pp→aa→4γ searches at the LHC as a probe of the ALP EFT, focusing on the first study of non-resonant gg→aa production with dimension-5 (O_G1) and dimension-6 (O_G2) gluon couplings. The production amplitude is decomposed into σ11, σ22, σ12, computed with MadGraph and reweighting; ALP decays are treated in the NWA with Br(a→γγ) normalized to a 'best-case' total width (C_WW minimized, C_ψ=0). Detector effects are modeled with selection cuts, flat 95% photon efficiency, and finite-size detector effects with Ldet=1.08 m calibrated on the ATLAS f_aa. Under a background-free Poisson assumption, 95% CL projections are given for 300 fb^-1 at 13 TeV in two-dimensional slices, and the ATLAS h→aa→4γ search [46] is recast in (Cγγ, CG1, Cah). The main results are a projected reach on C_G2/Λ_a^2 down to ~10^-3 TeV^-2 and the observation that a pp→aa→4γ measurement alone leaves the parameter space unbounded in certain directions.

Significance. This is the first quantitative treatment of non-resonant ALP pair production through O_G2 and provides a clear analytic parameterization (Eqs. 4.3–4.8), a transparent Monte-Carlo reweighting procedure, and an explicit handling of the three components σ11/σ22/σ12 and their interference. The multidimensional presentation of allowed regions, including the sign dependence of C_G2 and finite-size detector effects, is a useful contribution. The central caveat — that the quoted reach assumes the maximal Br(a→γγ) by construction — is acknowledged internally but is not carried into the headline numbers in the abstract and conclusions.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.2, Eqs. (4.30)–(4.32); §5.1, Eq. (5.1); §6] The headline reach C_G2/Λ_a^2 ≲ 10^-3 TeV^-2 is computed in the 'best-case' decay scenario: C_WW is fixed to the value minimizing Γ_a→EW (Appendix A) and all fermionic couplings C_ψ are set to zero, maximizing Br(a→γγ). These are independent ALP EFT parameters, not measured inputs. Since N_signal ∝ σ(pp→aa) Br(a→γγ)^2 and, in the C_G2-dominated region, σ(pp→aa) ∝ C_G2^2, a reduction of Br by a factor x weakens the projected bound on C_G2 by the same factor x. For m_a ≥ 2m_W, even the minimized EW width is nonzero (F(m_a) > 0, Eq. 4.29), and for a generic C_WW or non-vanishing fermionic couplings the maximum Br is smaller. The authors list this dependence as a future extension in Sec. 6, but the abstract and the conclusion quote the 10^-3 TeV^-2 value without this qualifier. Please quantify the degradation for representative non-minimal choices (e.g., C_WW=0 and a fermionic benchmark) and
  2. [§4.4, Eq. (4.48); lower panels of Fig. 9] The extreme bounds on C_γγ in the FSDE-dominated corners (values down to ~10^-9 TeV^-1 at m_a=1 TeV in the lower-right panel of Fig. 9) are sensitive to the modeling of the detector size. The parameter L_det=1.08 m is calibrated to reproduce the ATLAS f_aa, which is a reasonable choice, but the paper does not provide an uncertainty band. Since the bound in this regime is set by the exponential factor in P_aa and by Γ_tot^a, a factor-of-order-unity change in L_det can shift the contour. This does not affect the main C_G2 reach, but it is load-bearing for the statement that C_γγ can be constrained down to 10^-9 TeV^-1; a short scan over L_det (e.g., 0.9–1.5 m) would make the claim robust.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (5.7)] The symbol C_γγ is used both as the parameter being constrained and as the upper-limit value taken from Ref. [46]. Rename the latter, e.g. C_γγ^lim, to avoid ambiguity in the recast inequality.
  2. [Fig. 7] The three efficiency curves ε_cuts,11, ε_cuts,22, ε_cuts,12 are stated to completely overlap. The caption should state this explicitly; if the few-percent differences matter at m_a=30 GeV, they could be shown in a small inset.
  3. [§4.3, Eq. (4.41)] The flat 95% photon reconstruction efficiency is a useful approximation, but it neglects p_T/η dependence and possible merging of photons from boosted ALPs. The restriction m_a ≥ 30 GeV mitigates the latter; a sentence quantifying the residual uncertainty would be helpful.
  4. [§3.1] Typographical issue: 'can also be extracted from by di-photon resonance searches' should be 'can also be extracted from di-photon resonance searches'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the projected C_G2/Λ_a^2 sensitivity follows from first-principles matrix elements and a disclosed best-case Br choice; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, the central non-resonant sensitivity claim is self-contained. The signal count is N_signal = L ε_reco σ_FSDE,cuts (Br(a→γγ))^2 (Eqs. 4.1 and 5.1), with σ(pp→aa) decomposed into components σ11, σ22, σ12 computed from the tree-level amplitudes in Eqs. (4.3)–(4.8) and Tab. 1, and Br(a→γγ) obtained from the partial-width ratios in Eqs. (4.23)–(4.32). None of these inputs is fitted to the reported 95% CL reach; the reach is obtained by setting the background-free Poisson bound N_signal≤3. The fixed value C_WW = C̄_WW in Sec. 4.2 is explicitly a disclosed best-case benchmark that minimizes Γ_a→EW and maximizes Br(a→γγ); it is a modeling assumption, acknowledged in the Conclusions, and it weakens but does not determine the final bound by construction. The detector-scale parameter L_det=1.08 m is calibrated to reproduce the ATLAS f_aa function (Sec. 4.4) and then used to recast the ATLAS h→aa→4γ limits (Sec. 5.2); this is an external-data validation/calibration, and the recast outputs are transformations of the ATLAS limits, not an independently predicted quantity recycled from the fit. Self-citations (e.g. Refs. [26,33,140,142]) are contextual—EFT formulation, running, NDA/unitarity remarks—and are not load-bearing for the projected reach; the unitarity bounds of Ref. [140] enter only the theoretical-context Table 3, not the derivation of the sensitivity. The unbounded-directions conclusion follows algebraically from cancellations and saturation (Sec. 5.3), not from a self-referential construction. Thus no step reduces to its own input; the score of 2 reflects only minor non-load-bearing self-citations and the disclosed optimistic Br assumption, not circularity.

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

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; the ALP is an established hypothetical state from the cited literature. The paper's load-bearing assumptions are the best-case ALP decay width, the narrow-width approximation, the background-free statistical model, and the specific EFT truncation; these are disclosed but could all shift the central sensitivity numbers.

free parameters (4)
  • C_WW (best-case EW ALP-decay coefficient) = Piecewise: s_w^2 for mZ≤ma<2mW; s_w^4 λ^(3/2)_Zγ/(c_w^2 λ^(3/2)_WW + s_w^2 λ^(3/2)_Zγ) for 2mW≤ma<2mZ; etc. (Eq. A.1)
    Set to the value that minimizes Γa→EW and therefore maximizes Br(a→γγ). This is a hand-chosen benchmark that directly sets the signal normalization in all projected limits; non-minimal C_WW would weaken the bounds.
  • Ldet (detector radius for finite-size detector effects) = 1.08 m
    Tuned to reproduce the ATLAS f_aa treatment in Ref. [46]. It affects how quickly bounds degrade at small Cγγ and CG1 and shapes the long-lived region of the recast.
  • ϵreco (flat photon reconstruction efficiency) = (0.95)^4 ≈ 0.81
    Assumed flat factor applied to all non-resonant signal yields (Sec. 4.3). A lower efficiency would weaken all projected limits.
  • K-factor for pp→h = K ≈ 5
    Applied to the Higgs-resonant simulation to match the N3LO pp→h cross section (Sec. 4.1.2). It normalizes the Higgs-resonant recast and is an estimate, not a measured input.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption ALP EFT truncated at dimension 6 with CP-even operators and no fermionic couplings
    Sec. 3 defines L6 = CG2 OG2 + Cah Oah and neglects O_aψϕ and other operators. If fermionic or CP-odd operators contribute, Br(a→γγ) and/or production change.
  • domain assumption Narrow-width approximation factorizes production and decay
    Eq. (4.1) and Eq. (4.12) assume σ(pp→aa→4γ) = σ(pp→aa) × Br(a→γγ)^2. The paper marks regions where NWA fails but does not exclude them from all results.
  • domain assumption SM background is negligible and nobs=0, so 95% CL is Nsignal≤3
    Sec. 5.1 assumes a Poisson mean equal to the signal yield with zero observed events. If real backgrounds exceed the estimated ~0.18 events at 300 fb^-1, the limits weaken.
  • ad hoc to paper OG2 is retained while dimension-6 fermionic operators are discarded
    Sec. 3, p.9: 'we choose to retain OG2 and discard the fermionic O_aψϕ'. This is motivated by shift-symmetry arguments but is a model-building choice, not forced by data.
  • domain assumption Interference between Higgs-resonant and non-resonant amplitudes is neglected
    Sec. 4.1.2 derives conditions (4.21)-(4.22) under which interference is negligible, then treats the two channels as independent. In regions where the interference is sizable, the recasting procedure is not valid.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ALP pair production at the LHC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YFHJZWQ6

@misc{pith2026260721712,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ALP pair production at the LHC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YFHJZWQ6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21712}
}
abstract

We study axion-like particle (ALP) pair production at the LHC, investigating its sensitivity to the simultaneous presence of dimension-5 and dimension-6 ALP interactions. Focusing on the signature with four isolated photons, we analyze for the first time the non-resonant process $gg\to aa$, finding that it can constrain significantly ALP interactions, already at an integrated luminosity of 300 fb$^{-1}$. Particular attention is paid to the multidimensional nature of the ALP parameter space. To this end, we present a re-interpretation of a search for the Higgs-resonant process $gg\to h\to aa$ by the ATLAS Collaboration, recasting their results within a three-parameter space. We find that the multi-dimensional constraints resulting from both non-resonant and Higgs-resonant ALP pair production exhibit non-trivial features, that are expected to extend to other searches in which the ALPs decay into Standard Model particles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21712 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Representative Feynman diagrams contributing to gg → aa, in the non-resonant (a), (b) and Higgs-resonant (c) channels. behaves at higher orders [58], constructing a Hilbert series to determine the number of independent parameters [59] and exploring the structure of the EFT with on-shell amplitude techniques [60, 61]. The role of quadratic interactions, and particularly of the dimension-6 a 2FµνF µν interaction, in (… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Non-resonant pp → aa production cross section normalized to C 4 G1 as a function of |rG| = |CG2 |/C2 G1 for three representative values of the ALP mass. take values within a very broad range. The total production cross section can then be dominated by different combinations of σ11, σ22 and σ12, depending on the relative size of the parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Contours of constant σ(pp → aa) for different values of ma as a function of (CG1 , CG2 ). The cross section is sensitive to the sign of CG2 , which is shown on a symmetric logarithmic scale. The red dashed lines lie at 10−5 pb, which corresponds to 3 events for an integrated luminosity of 300 fb−1 . vertical (horizontal) the cross section is dominated by CG1 (CG2 ), while those around the “corners” correspond to the… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Impact of the interference between Higgs-resonant and non-resonant double ALP production: contour plots of log10(σinterf/σres) (left) and log10(σinterf/σnonres) (right) as a function of rG = CG2 /C2 G1 and rh = Cah/C2 G1 , for ma = 30 GeV. Within the green regions, the…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Numerical value of F(ma) defined in Eq. (4.29), as a function of the ALP mass ma. where Γa→EW represents the sum over all the kinematically open decay channels involving W ± and Z bosons. It is convenient to recast the dependence of Γa→EW on CB and CW into a dependence…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Br(a → γγ) evaluated in the best-case scenario that minimizes the decay rates of the ALP into weak bosons (Eq. (4.32)), as a function of the ratio rγ = CG1 /Cγγ and for representative values of ma. and the corresponding branching ratio to photons as Brbest(a → γγ) = 1 …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Selection efficiency ϵcuts as a function of ma, evaluated for individual components of the non￾resonant production cross section σ11, σ22 and σ12. The three lines completely overlap. reweighted to extract the σ cuts 11 , σcuts 22 and σ cuts 12 components. The total cro…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: Contours of constant ϵFSDE = σ FSDE,cuts/σcuts for non-resonant pp → aa production, as a function of (CG1 , Cγγ) and for representative ALP masses. The figure was produced with a fixed CG2 = CG1 , but the result is approximately independent of CG2 . Right: ϵFSDE …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Expected sensitivity of non-resonant pp → aa → 4γ at the LHC with L = 300 fb−1 : the colored areas show the 95%CL-allowed region in the (Cγγ, CG1 ) plane for fixed values of CG2 and of ma = 30 GeV (left) or ma = 1 TeV (right). The upper and lower panels differ in the C…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Expected sensitivity of non-resonant pp → aa → 4γ at the LHC with L = 300 fb−1 : the colored areas show the 95%CL-allowed region in the (CG1 , CG2 ) plane for fixed values of Cγγ and of ma = 30 GeV (left) or ma = 1 TeV (right). Upper (lower) panels show the same const…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Expected sensitivity of non-resonant pp → aa → 4γ at the LHC with L = 300 fb−1 : the colored areas show the 95%CL-allowed region in the (Cγγ, CG2 ) plane for fixed values of CG1 and of ma = 30 GeV (left) or ma = 1 TeV (right). Upper (lower) panels show the same constr…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: 95%CL upper bounds on CG2 /Λ 2 a achievable with non-resonant gg → aa → 4γ searches at the LHC with L = 300 fb−1 , as a function of ma and for fixed values of CG1 /Λa (panels) and Cγγ/Λa (curves). In the first three plots, the curves for Cγγ/Λa ∈ [10−5 − 1] TeV−1 over…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Left: Bounds on Cγγ/Λa extracted in Ref. [46] from the measured limits on Br(h → aa → 4γ)eff, under the assumptions Cah/Λ 2 a = 1 TeV−2 and CG1 = 0 (blue). Right: comparison of the same bounds (blue) with their reinterpretation for Cah/Λ 2 a = 1 TeV−2 and CG1 /Λa = 10…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Upper limits on Cγγ/Λa as a function of ma, obtained recasting the limits reported in Ref. [46] by varying CG1 /Λa ̸= 0, while keeping Cah/Λ 2 a fixed to 1 TeV−2 . 10 20 30 40 50 60 ma [GeV] 10 2 10 1 10 0 |C a h|/ 2 a [ T e V 2 ] 0.1 0.022 0.0155 CG1/ a = 0 BBSM < 0.…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Left: values of Cah/Λ 2 a , as a function of ma, for which it is possible to infer constraints on the ALP parameter space from the limits on Br(h → aa → 4γ)eff measured in Ref. [46]. The gray region is excluded by Br(h → aa) ≤ 30%. Within the light blue region Nsignal…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Upper panels: two-dimensional constraints in the (Cγγ, Cah) plane, derived by recasting the upper bounds from the pp → h → aa → 4γ search reported in Ref. [46], for fixed values of CG1 and of the ALP mass ma = 3 GeV (left) and 30 GeV (right). The solid (dotted) black …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: 95%CL upper bounds on Cah/Λ 2 a obtained recasting the limits from the pp → h → aa → 4γ search in Ref. [46], as a function of ma and for fixed values of CG1 /Λa (panels) and Cγγ/Λa (curves). In the first two plots, the curves for Cγγ/Λa ∈ [10−4 − 1] TeV−1 mostly overl…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Normalized distribution of the ALP transverse momentum in non-resonant pp → aa production, for various ALP masses and for the individual components σ11(CG1 ), σ22(CG2 ) and σ12 (interf). in the shape of the corresponding distributions: dσ11/dpT,a, vs. dσ22/dpT,a and d…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Di Luzio, M

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

    arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

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

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Di Luzio, H

    L. Di Luzio, H. Gisbert, G. Levati, P. Paradisi and P. Sørensen,CP-Violating Axions: A Theory Review,2312.17310

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Biek¨ otter and K

    A. Biek¨ otter and K. Mimasu,Axions and Axion-like particles: collider searches,2508.19358

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    Arza et al.,The COSMIC WISPers White Paper: The physics case for Weakly Interacting Slim Particles,2603.03433

    A. Arza et al.,The COSMIC WISPers White Paper: The physics case for Weakly Interacting Slim Particles,2603.03433

    arXiv

  6. [6]

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

    1977

  7. [7]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn,Constraints Imposed by CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,Phys. Rev. D16(1977) 1791–1797

    1977

  8. [8]

    Weinberg,A New Light Boson?,Phys

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

    1978

Show all 95 references
  1. [9]

    Wilczek,Problem of StrongPandTInvariance in the Presence of Instantons,Phys

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

    1978

  2. [10]

    P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan and S. Rajendran,Cosmological Relaxation of the Electroweak Scale, Phys. Rev. Lett.115(2015) 221801, [1504.07551]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [11]

    G. B. Gelmini and M. Roncadelli,Left-Handed Neutrino Mass Scale and Spontaneously Broken Lepton Number,Phys. Lett. B99(1981) 411–415. – 56 –

    1981

  4. [12]

    Chikashige, R

    Y. Chikashige, R. N. Mohapatra and R. D. Peccei,Spontaneously Broken Lepton Number and Cosmological Constraints on the Neutrino Mass Spectrum,Phys. Rev. Lett.45(1980) 1926

    1980

  5. [13]

    Chikashige, R

    Y. Chikashige, R. N. Mohapatra and R. D. Peccei,Are There Real Goldstone Bosons Associated with Broken Lepton Number?,Phys. Lett. B98(1981) 265–268

    1981

  6. [14]

    Schechter and J

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle,Neutrino Decay and Spontaneous Violation of Lepton Number, Phys. Rev. D25(1982) 774

    1982

  7. [15]

    Calibbi, F

    L. Calibbi, F. Goertz, D. Redigolo, R. Ziegler and J. Zupan,Minimal axion model from flavor, Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 095009, [1612.08040]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Y. Ema, K. Hamaguchi, T. Moroi and K. Nakayama,Flaxion: a minimal extension to solve puzzles in the standard model,JHEP01(2017) 096, [1612.05492]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Davidson and K

    A. Davidson and K. C. Wali,Minimal flavor unification via multigenerational Peccei-Quinn symmetry,Phys. Rev. Lett.48(1982) 11

    1982

  10. [18]

    Wilczek,Axions and Family Symmetry Breaking,Phys

    F. Wilczek,Axions and Family Symmetry Breaking,Phys. Rev. Lett.49(1982) 1549–1552

    1982

  11. [19]

    E. Katz, A. E. Nelson and D. G. E. Walker,The Intermediate Higgs,JHEP08(2005) 074, [hep-ph/0504252]

    2005 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Contino, D

    R. Contino, D. Marzocca, D. Pappadopulo and R. Rattazzi,On the effect of resonances in composite Higgs phenomenology,JHEP10(2011) 081, [1109.1570]

    2011 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Witten,Some Properties of O(32) Superstrings,Phys

    E. Witten,Some Properties of O(32) Superstrings,Phys. Lett. B149(1984) 351–356

    1984

  14. [22]

    Svrcek and E

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten,Axions In String Theory,JHEP06(2006) 051, [hep-th/0605206]

    2006 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Georgi, D

    H. Georgi, D. B. Kaplan and L. Randall,Manifesting the Invisible Axion at Low-energies,Phys. Lett. B169(1986) 73–78

    1986

  16. [24]

    Buchmuller and D

    W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler,Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation,Nucl. Phys. B268(1986) 621–653

    1986

  17. [25]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek,Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,JHEP10(2010) 085, [1008.4884]

    2010 arXiv

  18. [26]

    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. C77(2017) 572, [1701.05379]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Buchalla, O

    G. Buchalla, O. Cat` a and C. Krause,Complete Electroweak Chiral Lagrangian with a Light Higgs at NLO,Nucl. Phys. B880(2014) 552–573, [1307.5017]. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 913, 475–478 (2016)]

    2014 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Brivio, J

    I. Brivio, J. Gonzalez-Fraile, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia and L. Merlo,The complete HEFT Lagrangian after the LHC Run I,Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 416, [1604.06801]

    2016 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Buchalla, A

    G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras and M. E. Lautenbacher,Weak Decays beyond Leading Logarithms,Rev. Mod. Phys.68(1996) 1125–1144, [hep-ph/9512380]

    1996 arXiv

  22. [30]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar and P. Stoffer,Low-Energy Effective Field Theory below the Electroweak Scale: Operators and Matching,JHEP03(2018) 016, [1709.04486]. [Erratum: JHEP 12, 043 (2023)]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, S. Renner, M. Schnubel and A. Thamm,The Low-Energy Effective Theory of Axions and ALPs,JHEP04(2021) 063, [2012.12272]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Chala, G

    M. Chala, G. Guedes, M. Ramos and J. Santiago,Running in the ALPs,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 181, [2012.09017]. – 57 –

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Bonilla, I

    J. Bonilla, I. Brivio, M. B. Gavela and V. Sanz,One-loop corrections to ALP couplings,JHEP11 (2021) 168, [2107.11392]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, S. Renner, M. Schnubel and A. Thamm,Consistent Treatment of Axions in the Weak Chiral Lagrangian,Phys. Rev. Lett.127(2021) 081803, [2102.13112]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, S. Renner, M. Schnubel and A. Thamm,Flavor probes of axion-like particles,JHEP09(2022) 056, [2110.10698]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Di Luzio, G

    L. Di Luzio, G. Levati and P. Paradisi,The chiral Lagrangian of CP-violating axion-like particles, JHEP02(2024) 020, [2311.12158]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Das Bakshi, J

    S. Das Bakshi, J. Machado-Rodr ´ ıguez and M. Ramos,Running beyond ALPs: shift-breaking and CP-violating effects,JHEP11(2023) 133, [2306.08036]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    L. C. Bresciani, G. Brunello, G. Levati, P. Mastrolia and P. Paradisi,Renormalization of effective field theories via on-shell methods: the case of axion-like particles,JHEP10(2025) 190, [2412.04160]

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    cajohare/axionlimits: Axionlimits

    C. O’Hare, “cajohare/axionlimits: Axionlimits.”https://cajohare.github.io/AxionLimits/, July, 2020. 10.5281/zenodo.3932430

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert and A. Thamm,Collider Probes of Axion-Like Particles,JHEP12(2017) 044, [1708.00443]. [41]ATLAScollaboration, M. Aaboud et al.,Search for Higgs boson decays into pairs of light (pseudo)scalar particles in theγγjjfinal state inppcollisions at √s= 13TeV with ...

    2017 arXiv

  33. [53]

    Bonilla, I

    J. Bonilla, I. Brivio, J. Machado-Rodr ´ ıguez and J. F. de Troc´ oniz,Nonresonant searches for axion-like particles in vector boson scattering processes at the LHC,JHEP06(2022) 113, [2202.03450]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [54]

    Esser, A

    F. Esser, A. Salas-Bernardez, M. Ubiali and V. Sanz,A global analysis of ALP-mediated multiboson production at the LHC,2510.24873

    arXiv

  35. [55]

    Bruggisser, L

    S. Bruggisser, L. Grabitz and S. Westhoff,Global analysis of the ALP effective theory,JHEP01 (2024) 092, [2308.11703]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [56]

    Biek¨ otter, J

    A. Biek¨ otter, J. Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, A. M. Galda and M. Neubert,A global analysis of axion-like particle interactions using SMEFT fits,JHEP09(2023) 120, [2307.10372]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [57]

    A. M. Galda and M. Neubert,ALP-LEFT Interference and the Muon(g−2),JHEP11(2023) 015, [2308.01338]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [58]

    Bonnefoy, C

    Q. Bonnefoy, C. Grojean and J. Kley,Shift-Invariant Orders of an Axionlike Particle,Phys. Rev. Lett.130(2023) 111803, [2206.04182]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [59]

    Grojean, J

    C. Grojean, J. Kley and C.-Y. Yao,Hilbert series for ALP EFTs,JHEP11(2023) 196, [2307.08563]

    2023 arXiv

  40. [60]

    Bertuzzo, C

    E. Bertuzzo, C. Grojean and G. M. Salla,ALPs, the on-shell way,JHEP05(2024) 175, [2311.16253]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [61]

    L. C. Bresciani, G. Levati and P. Paradisi,Positivity and partial wave unitarity bounds on ALP theories via amplitude methods,2510.13953

    arXiv

  42. [62]

    Beadle, S

    C. Beadle, S. A. R. Ellis, J. Quevillon and P. N. Hoa Vuong,Quadratic coupling of the axion to photons,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 035019, [2307.10362]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [63]

    H. Kim, A. Lenoci, G. Perez and W. Ratzinger,Probing an ultralight QCD axion with electromagnetic quadratic interaction,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 015030, [2307.14962]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [64]

    Draper and D

    P. Draper and D. McKeen,Diphotons from Tetraphotons in the Decay of a 125 GeV Higgs at the LHC,Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 115023, [1204.1061]

    2012 arXiv

  45. [65]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Heiles, M. Neubert and A. Thamm,Axion-Like Particles at Future Colliders,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 74, [1808.10323]

    2019 arXiv

  46. [66]

    Bauer, G

    M. Bauer, G. Rostagni and J. Spinner,Axion-Higgs portal,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 015007, [2207.05762]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [67]

    Craig, A

    N. Craig, A. Hook and S. Kasko,The Photophobic ALP,JHEP09(2018) 028, [1805.06538]. – 59 – [68]ATLAScollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Search for new phenomena in events with at least three photons collected inppcollisions at √s= 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector,Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016)...

    2018 arXiv

  48. [70]

    Aloni, Y

    D. Aloni, Y. Soreq and M. Williams,Coupling QCD-Scale Axionlike Particles to Gluons,Phys. Rev. Lett.123(2019) 031803, [1811.03474]

    2019 arXiv

  49. [71]

    K. Choi, K. Kang and J. E. Kim,Effects ofη ′ in Low-energy Axion Physics,Phys. Lett. B181 (1986) 145–149

    1986

  50. [72]

    Jaeckel and M

    J. Jaeckel and M. Spannowsky,Probing MeV to 90 GeV axion-like particles with LEP and LHC, Phys. Lett. B753(2016) 482–487, [1509.00476]

    2016 arXiv

  51. [73]

    Mimasu and V

    K. Mimasu and V. Sanz,ALPs at Colliders,JHEP06(2015) 173, [1409.4792]. [74]OPALcollaboration, G. Abbiendi et al.,Multiphoton production in e+ e- collisions at s**(1/2) = 181-GeV to 209-GeV,Eur. Phys. J. C26(2003) 331–344, [hep-ex/0210016]

    2015 arXiv

  52. [75]

    Knapen, T

    S. Knapen, T. Lin, H. K. Lou and T. Melia,Searching for Axionlike Particles with Ultraperipheral Heavy-Ion Collisions,Phys. Rev. Lett.118(2017) 171801, [1607.06083]. [76]Belle-IIcollaboration, F. Abudin´ en et al.,Search for Axion-Like Particles produced ine +e− collisions at ...

    2017 arXiv

  53. [80]

    Baldenegro, S

    C. Baldenegro, S. Fichet, G. von Gersdorff and C. Royon,Searching for axion-like particles with proton tagging at the LHC,JHEP06(2018) 131, [1803.10835]. [81]TOTEM, CMScollaboration, A. Tumasyan et al.,Search for high-mass exclusive diphoton production with tagged protons in p...

    2018 arXiv

  54. [83]

    V. P. Goncalves and W. K. Sauter,Exclusive axionlike particle production by gluon – induced interactions in hadronic collisions,Phys. Lett. B811(2020) 135981, [2006.16716]. [84]ATLAScollaboration, M. Aaboud et al.,Search for new phenomena in high-mass diphoton final states usi...

    2020 arXiv

  55. [88]

    Mariotti, D

    A. Mariotti, D. Redigolo, F. Sala and K. Tobioka,New LHC bound on low-mass diphoton resonances,Phys. Lett. B783(2018) 13–18, [1710.01743]. [89]CMScollaboration, A. Hayrapetyan et al.,Search for a standard model-like Higgs boson in the mass range between 70 and 110 GeV in the d...

    2018 arXiv

  56. [93]

    d’Enterria,Collider constraints on axion-like particles, inWorkshop on Feebly Interacting Particles, 2, 2021.2102.08971

    D. d’Enterria,Collider constraints on axion-like particles, inWorkshop on Feebly Interacting Particles, 2, 2021.2102.08971

    2021

  57. [94]

    M. B. Gavela, J. M. No, V. Sanz and J. F. de Troc´ oniz,Nonresonant Searches for Axionlike Particles at the LHC,Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020) 051802, [1905.12953]

    2020 arXiv

  58. [95]

    Carra, V

    S. Carra, V. Goumarre, R. Gupta, S. Heim, B. Heinemann, J. Kuechler et al.,Constraining off-shell production of axionlike particles with Zγand WW differential cross-section measurements,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 092005, [2106.10085]. [96]CMScollaboration, A. Tumasyan et al.,Search...

    2021 arXiv

  59. [97]

    Biswas,Probing the interactions of axion-like particles with electroweak bosons and the Higgs boson in the high energy regime at LHC,JHEP05(2024) 081, [2312.05992]

    T. Biswas,Probing the interactions of axion-like particles with electroweak bosons and the Higgs boson in the high energy regime at LHC,JHEP05(2024) 081, [2312.05992]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [98]

    Alonso- ´Alvarez, M

    G. Alonso- ´Alvarez, M. B. Gavela and P. Quilez,Axion couplings to electroweak gauge bosons,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 223, [1811.05466]

    2019 arXiv

  61. [99]

    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-luminosity LHC,JHEP05(2024) 324, [2402.10550]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [100]

    Sun, Z.-P

    J. Sun, Z.-P. Xing and S. Yun,Revisiting axion-like particle couplings to electroweak gauge bosons, Chin. Phys. C49(2025) 113109, [2501.15250]

    2025 arXiv

  63. [101]

    A. M. Galda, M. Neubert and S. Renner,ALP — SMEFT interference,JHEP06(2021) 135, [2105.01078]

    2021 arXiv

  64. [102]

    Arganda, A

    E. Arganda, A. D. Medina, N. I. Mileo, R. A. Morales and A. Szynkman,Constraining R-axion models through dijet searches at the LHC,Phys. Lett. B789(2019) 575–581, [1808.01292]. – 61 –

    2019 arXiv

  65. [103]

    F. A. Ghebretinsaea, Z. S. Wang and K. Wang,Probing axion-like particles coupling to gluons at the LHC,JHEP07(2022) 070, [2203.01734]

    2022 arXiv

  66. [104]

    Haghighat, D

    G. Haghighat, D. Haji Raissi and M. Mohammadi Najafabadi,New collider searches for axionlike particles coupling to gluons,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 115010, [2006.05302]. [105]ATLAScollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Search for new phenomena in events with an energetic jet and missing tra...

    2020 arXiv

  67. [106]

    Anuar, A

    A. Anuar, A. Biek¨ otter, T. Biek¨ otter, A. Grohsjean, S. Heinemeyer, L. Jeppe et al.,ALP-ine quests at the LHC: hunting axion-like particles via peaks and dips int tproduction,JHEP12(2024) 197, [2404.19014]

    2024 arXiv

  68. [107]

    Esser, M

    F. Esser, M. Madigan, V. Sanz and M. Ubiali,On the coupling of axion-like particles to the top quark,JHEP09(2023) 063, [2303.17634]. [108]CMScollaboration, A. Gevorgyan et al.,Measurement of dijet angular distributions and search for beyond the standard model physics in proton...

    2023 arXiv

  69. [109]

    Ebadi, S

    J. Ebadi, S. Khatibi and M. Mohammadi Najafabadi,New probes for axionlike particles at hadron colliders,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 015016, [1901.03061]

    2019 arXiv

  70. [110]

    Rygaard, J

    L. Rygaard, J. Niedziela, R. Sch¨ afer, S. Bruggisser, J. Alimena, S. Westhoff et al.,Top Secrets: long-lived ALPs in top production,JHEP10(2023) 138, [2306.08686]

    2023 arXiv

  71. [111]

    Hosseini and M

    Y. Hosseini and M. Mohammadi Najafabadi,Exploring axionlike particle couplings through single top tW-channel and top pair production at the LHC,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 055026, [2408.11588]

    2024 arXiv

  72. [112]

    Butterworth, M

    J. Butterworth, M. Cullingworth, J. Egan, F. Esser, V. Sanz and M. Ubiali,Probing the coupling of axions to tops and gluons with LHC measurements,JHEP02(2026) 073, [2508.21660]

    2026 arXiv

  73. [113]

    A. V. Phan and S. Westhoff,Precise tests of the axion coupling to tops,JHEP05(2024) 075, [2312.00872]

    2024 arXiv

  74. [114]

    Blasi, F

    S. Blasi, F. Maltoni, A. Mariotti, K. Mimasu, D. Pagani and S. Tentori,Top-philic ALP phenomenology at the LHC: the elusive mass-window,JHEP06(2024) 077, [2311.16048]. [115]ATLAS, CMScollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and co...

    2024 arXiv

  75. [124]

    Bonilla, B

    J. Bonilla, B. Gavela and J. Machado-Rodr ´ ıguez,Limits on ALP-neutrino couplings from loop-level processes,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 055023, [2309.15910]. [125]ATLAScollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Measurement of off-shell Higgs boson production in the H ∗ →ZZ→4ℓdecay channel using ...

    2024 arXiv

  76. [129]

    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,JHEP07(2014) 079, [1405.0301]

    2014 arXiv

  77. [130]

    Frederix, S

    R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani, H. S. Shao and M. Zaro,The automation of next-to-leading order electroweak calculations,JHEP07(2018) 185, [1804.10017]. [Erratum: JHEP 11, 085 (2021)]. [131]NNPDFcollaboration, R. D. Ball et al.,The path to proton structure at 1...

    2018 arXiv

  78. [132]

    Anastasiou, C

    C. Anastasiou, C. Duhr, F. Dulat, E. Furlan, T. Gehrmann, F. Herzog et al.,High precision determination of the gluon fusion Higgs boson cross-section at the LHC,JHEP05(2016) 058, [1602.00695]

    2016 arXiv

  79. [133]

    Frixione,Isolated photons in perturbative QCD,Phys

    S. Frixione,Isolated photons in perturbative QCD,Phys. Lett. B429(1998) 369–374, [hep-ph/9801442]. [134]ATLAScollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Electron and photon performance measurements with the ATLAS detector using the 2015–2017 LHC proton-proton collision data,JINST14(2019) P12...

    1998 arXiv

  80. [139]

    Search for short- and long-lived axion-like particles inH→aa→4γdecays with the ATLAS experiment at the LHC

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for short- and long-lived axion-like particles inH→aa→4γdecays with the ATLAS experiment at the LHC.” HEPData (collection), 2024. https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.144534

    2024 doi

  81. [140]

    Brivio, O

    I. Brivio, O. J. P. ´Eboli and M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia,Unitarity constraints on ALP interactions, Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 035027, [2106.05977]

    2021 arXiv

  82. [141]

    Manohar and H

    A. Manohar and H. Georgi,Chiral Quarks and the Nonrelativistic Quark Model,Nucl. Phys. B234 (1984) 189–212

    1984

  83. [142]

    Brivio, R

    I. Brivio, R. Gr¨ ober and K. Schmid,The Art of Counting: a reappraisal of the HEFT expansion, JHEP04(2026) 202, [2511.23410]

    2026 arXiv

  84. [143]

    L. C. Bresciani, G. Levati and P. Paradisi,Amplitudes and partial wave unitarity bounds,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) L071702, [2504.12855]

    2026 arXiv

  85. [144]

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

    1979

  86. [145]

    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

  87. [146]

    Palavri´ c, X

    A. Palavri´ c, X. Ponce D ´ ıaz and H. Tiblom,The KSVZ Atlas: A Unified SMEFT-ALP Framework, 2606.12298. – 64 –

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.