Dark-matter induced neutron-antineutron oscillations

Christopher Smith; Th\'eo Brugeat

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Dark-matter induced neutron-antineutron oscillations

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read If dark matter carries baryon number two, it could resonantly drive neutron-antineutron oscillations—but a true QCD axion cannot be the driver.

desk verdict Solid EFT no-go: true QCD axions cannot produce observable dark-matter-induced n-nbar oscillations; one un-derived bound and an uncompleted non-relativistic reduction are real but not fatal. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06434 v1 pith:OOXHUNBW submitted 2024-12-09 hep-ph

Théo Brugeat , Christopher Smith This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords neutron-antineutronoscillationsdarkmatterQCDaxionaxion-likeparticlesbaryonnumberviolationRabiresonanceGoldstonebosonMajoranamassterms

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

Neutron-antineutron oscillations are the low-energy signature of baryon-number violation by two units. The paper starts from the observation that if dark matter is a very light field carrying baryon number two, its coherent oscillations can turn the tiny $n$-$\bar n$ mixing into a resonant, time-dependent effect, greatly enhancing the signal for a given coupling. It then asks whether the QCD axion, the most minimal dark-matter candidate, can play this role. After a systematic analysis of baryonic axion models, it concludes that the axion's Goldstone boson nature forces additional, axion-independent $n$-$\bar n$ mixing effects, in vacuum or in neutron production and decay, that are already excluded by experiment; hence resonant oscillations could only be induced by a generic scalar or axion-like particle.

What carries the argument

The central object is the $U(2)$ transformation $U$ that brings the general neutron mass matrix (Dirac mass plus left- and right-handed Majorana masses) into the standard oscillation basis through Takagi's factorization, combining baryonic and chiral rephasings with a Bogoliubov-like rotation $n\to n\cos\alpha+\gamma_5 n^C\sin\alpha$. The load-bearing piece is the induced $3\times3$ rotation matrix $R(U)$ acting on the derivative currents: it mixes the baryon-number vector current with the two $\Delta B=2$ axial currents, and its entries $R(U)_{13}$ and $R(U)_{23}$ fix the size of the axionic $n$-$\bar n$ coupling. The Goldstone-boson counterpart is the exponential parametrization $(1+ia/v+\dots)$ of the axion couplings, which is what forces companion axionless $\Delta B=2$ mixing to appear.

What would settle it

Derive the actual constraint on the vertex mixing parameter $\lambda$ from the free-neutron beam search's production and detection setup; if $\lambda$ is not forced below $10^{-9}$, the exclusion of the $\varepsilon=0$ branch fails. Alternatively, a neutron-beam measurement that finds positron production or fixed, time-independent $\Delta B=2$ mixing would confirm the companion axionless effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that true QCD axion models, in which the Peccei-Quinn symmetry is merged with baryon number, cannot be the source of resonant $n$-$\bar n$ oscillations. Because the axion is a Goldstone boson, its $\Delta B=2$ couplings must enter with the exponential factor $(1+ia/v+\dots)$; after a baryonic reparametrization the axion couples to the baryon-number current, and its effect is entangled with the diagonalization of the neutron mass matrix. That diagonalization leaves imprints: the derivative coupling $\partial_\mu a\, J^\mu_i R(U)_{i3}$ is suppressed by $R(U)_{13}=(m_L^2-m_R^2)/(4m_D\varepsilon_s)$ and $R(U)_{23}=-m_L m_R\sin 2\phi_\Sigma/(2m_D\varepsilon_s)$, and the $n$-$\bar n$ mixing at production and decay vertices is equally small. Either the vacuum oscillation parameter $\varepsilon$ is bounded by the free-neutron beam limit $\varepsilon<0.8\times10^{-23}$ eV, or the vertex mixing parameter $\lambda$ is bounded below $10^{-9}$, so the paper concludes that axion-induced oscillations are phenomenologically impossible for the QCD axion and only a generic scalar or axion-like particle could induce them.

Load-bearing premise

The no-go for the $\varepsilon=0$ branch depends on transferring the free-neutron beam oscillation bound to the parameter $\lambda$ that controls $n$-$\bar n$ mixing at production and decay vertices; the paper asserts $\lambda<10^{-9}$ without deriving the bound from that experiment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the no-go is right, no QCD axion model aligned with baryon number can produce observable resonant neutron-antineutron oscillations; the vacuum-oscillation and decay-mixing constraints jointly cover the parameter space.
The axionic $\varepsilon_0$ is suppressed to roughly $10^{-36}$ eV once the free-neutron beam bound is transferred to the vertex mixing parameter, far below any planned sensitivity.
A signal of wrong-sign positrons or antineutrons in a neutron beam would not by itself prove vacuum oscillations, because production and decay can mix $n$ and $\bar n$ even when $\varepsilon=0$.
A generic scalar or axion-like dark matter particle with direct $\Delta B=2$ couplings remains viable and could give a resonant, time-dependent signal; future beam searches should target such particles rather than the QCD axion.
Axial $\Delta B=2$ couplings break the usual two-state Schrodinger reduction; the leading non-relativistic effect is a spin-dependent gradient coupling, so polarized neutrons would be needed to search for it.

Reading between the lines

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

One testable extension: re-analyzing the old free-neutron beam data for production and decay mixing would either harden the $\lambda<10^{-9}$ transfer or reopen the $\varepsilon=0$ branch of the axion no-go.
The same Takagi-plus-anomaly machinery transfers directly to neutrinos, where merging the Majoron and axion mechanisms would couple the axion to lepton-number and $\Delta L=2$ axial currents; the neutrino mass hierarchy would make the phenomenology rather different.
For axion-like dark matter the resonance probability scales as $m_\phi^{-3}$, so sub-micro-eV ALPs with a direct $\Delta B=2$ derivative coupling are the most sensitive targets for future ultracold-neutron or beam searches.
A time-correlation search in a polarized-neutron beam, looking for spin-dependent oscillations modulated at the dark-matter mass, would directly test the ALP scenario the paper leaves open.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read Brugeat–Smith, 2412.06434. The paper earns its keep. What is actually new: for axions that carry B = −2 and solve strong CP, the Goldstone nature forces the axion's ΔB = 2 coupling to be accompanied by axionless n–nbar mixing, either in vacuum (ε) or in production/decay vertices (λ). Both are experimentally constrained, so resonant axion-induced oscillations are out. That closes a loop earlier literature had left open. The EFT machinery—Takagi diagonalization to a standard n–nbar basis, the current rotation R(U), and the anomaly matching for ΔB = 2 currents—is careful and mostly self-contained; the step-wise diagonalization in Sec. 3 and the current transformations in Sec. 5 are the real substance, and they hold up.

The weak spots are as stated. The exclusion of the ε = 0 branch leans on a single sentence in Sec. 6: "Naively, the ILL search sets λ < 10^−9," with no derivation. ILL's 0.8 × 10^−23 eV limit is on vacuum oscillations from a pure neutron beam, and it does not automatically bound a constant wrong-B admixture in the beam. That is a genuine gap. But the stress-test's stronger claim—that a weaker λ bound would put axion-induced oscillations within reach—does not survive arithmetic. In the ε = 0 scenario, ε0 = v_a √(2ρ_DM)/(4 m_n) × εbar with εbar = λ m_n/v, so ε0 = λ v_a √(2ρ_DM)/(4 v). For λ ≲ 1 and v ~ 10^12 GeV, that is ≲ 10^−27 eV, about four orders below the ILL constant-mixing limit and far below any plausible future sensitivity. The no-go does not actually depend on the un-derived ILL transfer; it is driven by the PQ scale. The paper just uses the transfer to make the bound look stronger than it needs to be.

Second caveat: the non-relativistic reduction of the axial ΔB = 2 terms is explicitly left incomplete. The γ5 off-diagonal mixes large and small components, and the authors discard the time-derivative term at leading order. They flag this in the conclusion. It is a technical loose end, not a reason to doubt the structural result.

Citation pattern is fine: prior work by the same group on UV completions and triangle functions is tool usage, not circularity. No fitting to target conclusions. The central no-go is derived from Goldstone structure plus external limits.

Who gets value: axion phenomenologists and anyone working on baryon-number violation or dark-matter couplings. A serious referee can usefully push on the λ bound and the non-relativistic treatment; the paper should go to review.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the possibility that dark matter carrying baryon number B = -2 induces neutron-antineutron oscillations through a very light scalar or axion field, with a resonant (Rabi) enhancement when the scalar mass matches the neutron-antineutron energy splitting. The authors construct a general low-energy Lagrangian for baryonic axion models in which the PQ symmetry is aligned with baryon number, then develop a detailed diagonalization of the neutron Dirac and Majorana mass terms into a standard n-nbar basis. They track the effect of this diagonalization on electromagnetic and weak interactions, on derivative axion couplings, and on anomalous triangle contributions, and they derive a final effective Lagrangian in Sec. 6. The central conclusion is that for true QCD axions the Goldstone nature forces axionless n-nbar mixing to appear either in vacuum or in production/decay, and existing experimental limits leave no room for observable axion-induced oscillations; only generic scalars or axion-like particles could produce the resonant signal.

Significance. If the no-go is correct, it is an important negative result: it rules out QCD axion dark matter as the source of resonantly enhanced neutron-antineutron oscillations and identifies axion-like particles or generic scalars as the only viable candidates. The technical machinery in Secs. 3-5, including the Takagi diagonalization, the transformation of currents, and the anomaly matching, is presented in detail and appears internally consistent. The paper also makes a falsifiable prediction: true QCD axions cannot induce observable resonant n-nbar oscillations, while ALPs can. The main caveat is that the exclusion of the epsilon=0 branch depends on a bound that is asserted rather than derived, which is the decisive point for the abstract's central claim.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 6, after Eq. (109)] The exclusion of the epsilon=0 branch rests on the sentence 'Naively, the ILL search sets lambda < 10^-9' and the resulting bound epsilon0 < 10^-36 eV. This transfer is not derived. The ILL limit epsilon < 0.8 x 10^-23 eV is a vacuum-oscillation limit: it assumes a beam that is initially pure neutron and a signal growing like t^2. It does not automatically bound the time-independent wrong-B admixture lambda at the production/decay vertices that controls this branch. Since epsilon=0 is exactly the branch on which axion-induced oscillations could be resonantly enhanced, the authors should derive the corresponding limit from the ILL exposure or from another experiment, including the relevant acceptance and backgrounds, or provide a citable derivation. Without that step, the abstract's central claim is not established.
[Sec. 6, Eqs. (107)-(109), and Sec. 7] The non-relativistic reduction used to obtain Eq. (109) is acknowledged in Sec. 7 to be incomplete: the partial_t a gamma5 term is discarded because it mixes small components, and the Conclusion states that 'further work would be needed to develop a systematic procedure.' Because the paper is a no-go statement, this is a load-bearing assumption: if the leading non-relativistic off-diagonal term were not the sigma.grad a term but an unsuppressed partial_t a term, the estimate for epsilon0 would change. The authors should either provide the systematic Foldy-Wouthuysen reduction or state explicitly that the discarded term is suppressed by additional powers of p/m or m_a/m, making Eq. (109) an estimate valid up to O(1). As written, the robustness claim in Sec. 6 goes beyond what the paper itself establishes.
[Sec. 2 and Sec. 7] The construction in Sec. 2 assumes that the PQ symmetry is aligned with baryon number (phi carries B = -2), and the Conclusion acknowledges that 'some intricate ways to break the PQ symmetry could evade this conclusion, but they remain to be devised.' The abstract nevertheless states the no-go for 'true QCD axion models' without this qualification. Since the paper does not prove that every QCD axion coupled to Delta B = 2 must fall into the analyzed class, please qualify the abstract and Conclusion to 'baryonic QCD axion models' or give a general argument for why the analyzed class is exhaustive.

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (9)] There is a typo in the term '1/2 m_R e^{-ia/v} m_R \bar n_R n_R^C'; the second m_R should be removed.
[Sec. 4.2] The text states a probability sin^2(2 alpha) for detecting a positron, but Eq. (56) gives n' = cos alpha n + gamma5 n^C sin alpha, which naively yields an amplitude sin alpha and probability sin^2 alpha; please clarify whether the quoted quantity refers to a different observable.
[Sec. 6, paragraph after Eq. (109)] The phrase 'Naively, the ILL search sets lambda < 10^-9' should either be replaced by the derivation requested in the major comments or be accompanied by a reference; as written, the word 'Naively' signals an unverified input in a quantitative bound.
[Sec. 7] The Conclusion uses 'In our opinion' and 'most models' where the technical results in Secs. 3-6 support a more precise statement; consider aligning the wording with the actual scope of the analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the no-go is derived from the Goldstone/reparametrization structure and external ILL data, not from the target result.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: start from a baryonic axion Lagrangian (Eqs. 8-10), remove the axion from the Majorana masses by baryonic rephasing (Eq. 16), diagonalize the general mass matrix into the standard n-nbar basis (Sec. 3), and compute the induced derivative and weak vertices (Secs. 4-5). The final amplitude epsilon0 = v_a sqrt(2 rho_DM)/m_n times R(U)_13 (Eq. 109) is a calculated consequence of the model parameters; it is not fitted to n-nbar data. The no-go for true QCD axions is that the same R(U)_13 and R(U)_23 coefficients that generate the axion derivative coupling also generate axionless mixing in production/decay, which is then bounded by the external ILL limit. This is an external-input exclusion, not a self-referential reduction: the ILL bound is not used to define any parameter, and the axion amplitude is not set equal to the bound by construction. Self-citations (Refs. 28-30, 35, 36, 43, 45) supply diagonalization techniques, UV examples, and triangle-anomaly formulas; none of these carries the conclusion alone, and the special epsilon=0 point (phi_Sigma=pi/2, m_L=m_R) is derived from the mass matrix (Eqs. 45-47), not imposed via a uniqueness theorem. The weakest link is the un-derived transfer 'Naively, the ILL search sets lambda<10^-9' in Sec. 6; if that limit does not transfer, the epsilon=0 branch may reopen. That is a robustness/correctness concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to the target result; the paper uses external experimental bounds as constraints. The main postulates are the B=-2 dark matter scalar and the Goldstone nature of the QCD axion. The epsilon=0 branch additionally relies on a 'Naive' transfer of the ILL limit to production/decay mixing, which is the most fragile input.

free parameters (3)

m_L, m_R (left and right Majorana neutron masses)
Free model parameters in Eq. (8); they are not predicted by the paper and are only bounded by external constraints such as the ILL and EDM limits.
phase combination phi_Sigma
Determines whether the model realizes vacuum mixing, pseudoscalar mixing, or the epsilon=0 special point; it is a free phase parameter of the mass matrix.
epsilon_bar (common Majorana mass in the epsilon=0 scenario)
Used in Sec. 6 to set m_L = m_R = epsilon_bar; its size is bounded by the assumed lambda < 1e-9 constraint but is not fitted to data.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Dark matter is a coherently oscillating classical scalar field carrying baryon number -2
Introduced in Sec. 1 and Eq. (5); this is the model setup that enables time-dependent n-nbar mixing and is load-bearing for the entire analysis.
domain assumption The QCD axion is the Goldstone boson of a spontaneously broken PQ symmetry and solves the strong CP problem
Used throughout Sec. 2; the Goldstone nature is the property that forces axionless Delta B=2 mixing effects and is the basis of the no-go.
standard math Fermionic reparametrization (Chisholm-Kamefuchi-Salam theorem) leaves observables unchanged for Delta B=2 couplings
Invoked in Sec. 2 and Sec. 5.1 to relate exponential and derivative parametrizations; the theorem is cited from Refs. [41,42] and treated as exact.
standard math Anomalous triangle graph Ward identities from Ref. [43] are valid in this context
Used in Sec. 5.2 to compute the anomaly structure of the baryonic and Delta B=2 currents; standard QFT result, not machine-checked here.
ad hoc to paper The leading non-relativistic effect of the sigma.grad a coupling is captured by dropping small-component terms
Assumed in Sec. 6 around Eq. (107); the authors explicitly state that a systematic Foldy-Wouthuysen treatment is left for future work in Sec. 7.
domain assumption External experimental limits, especially the ILL bound on n-nbar oscillations, are valid and transferable to the production/decay mixing parameter lambda
Used in Secs. 4 and 6; the transfer of the ILL bound to lambda is labeled 'Naively' and is not independently derived.

invented entities (1)

Dark matter scalar field carrying baryon number -2
purpose: Induces a time-dependent neutron-antineutron mixing term epsilon(t) = epsilon_0 sin(m_phi t), enabling a Rabi resonance when m_phi matches the neutron-antineutron energy difference.
Postulated in Eq. (5) and Sec. 2 as a model ingredient. No direct experimental evidence exists, but the scenario is falsifiable through n-nbar search targets.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark-matter induced neutron-antineutron oscillations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OOXHUNBW

@misc{pith2026241206434,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark-matter induced neutron-antineutron oscillations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OOXHUNBW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06434}
}

read the original abstract

If dark matter carries a baryon number of two, neutron-antineutron oscillations could require its presence to manifest themselves. If it is in addition very light, in the micro-eV range or up to a few orders of magnitude below, these oscillations could even exhibit a Rabi resonance. Though the magnetic tuning required to convert a macroscopic number of neutrons into antineutrons is not realistic, sizeable enhancements remain possible. Building on this observation, axionic realizations for this scenario are systematically analyzed. For true QCD axion models, we find that the Goldstone boson nature of the axion imposes the presence of axionless n-nbar mixing effects, either in vacuum or in decays, which are sufficiently constrained experimentally to leave no room for axion-induced oscillations. Thus, a generic scalar or axion-like dark matter background would have to exist to induce resonant n-nbar oscillations. Yet, if Nature has taken that path to relate dark matter and baryon number violation, the experimental signature would be striking and certainly worth pursuing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06434 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Baryonic Axion in neutron-antineutron oscillation
hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A QCD axion's Goldstone nature suppresses its coupling to neutron-antineutron oscillation, but ALPs with a derivative coupling can produce a resonant Rabi oscillation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

R. N. Mohapatra and R. E. Marshak, Phys. Lett. B 94 (1980), 183 [erratum: Phys. Lett. B 96 (1980), 444-444] doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(80)90853-9

work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90853-9 1980
[2]

R. N. Mohapatra, J. Phys. G 36 (2009), 104006 doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/36/10/104006 [arXiv:0902.0834 [hep-ph]]. 29

arXiv 2009
[3]

D. G. Phillips, II, W. M. Snow, K. Babu, S. Banerjee, D. V. Baxter, Z. Berezhiani, M. Bergevin, S. Bhattacharya, G. Brooijmans and L. Castellanos, et al. Phys. Rept. 612 (2016), 1-45 doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2015.11.001 [arXiv:1410.1100 [hep-ex]]

arXiv 2016
[4]

Rinaldi, S

E. Rinaldi, S. Syritsyn, M. L. Wagman, M. I. Buchoff, C. Schroeder and J. Wasem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) no.16, 162001 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.162001 [arXiv:1809.00246 [hep-lat]]

arXiv 2019
[6]

Baldo-Ceolin, P

M. Baldo-Ceolin, P. Benetti, T. Bitter, F. Bobisut, E. Calligarich, R. Dolfini, D. Dub- bers, F. Eisert, P. El-Muzeini and M. Genoni, et al. Phys. Lett. B 236 (1990), 95-101 doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(90)90601-2

work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(90)90601-2 1990
[7]

Baldo-Ceolin, P

M. Baldo-Ceolin, P. Benetti, T. Bitter, F. Bobisut, E. Calligarich, R. Dolfini, D. Dub- bers, P. El-Muzeini, M. Genoni and D. Gibin, et al. Z. Phys. C 63 (1994), 409-416 doi: 10.1007/BF01580321

doi:10.1007/bf01580321 1994
[8]

I. I. Rabi, Phys. Rev. 51 (1937) no.8, 652 doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.51.652

doi:10.1103/physrev.51.652 1937
[9]

G. D. Pusch, Nuovo Cim. A 74 (1983), 149 doi: 10.1007/BF02902503

work page doi:10.1007/bf02902503 1983

Show all 54 references

[10]

P. S. Krstic, R. K. Janev, I. V. Komarov and N. Zovko, Phys. Rev. D 37 (1988), 2590-2596 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.37.2590

1988 doi
[11]

Catena and P

R. Catena and P. Ullio, JCAP 08 (2010), 004 doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2010/08/004 [arXiv:0907.0018 [astro-ph.CO]]

2010 arXiv
[12]

Heeck, Phys

J. Heeck, Phys. Lett. B 813 (2021), 136043 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2020.136043 [arXiv:2009.01256 [hep-ph]]

2021
[13]

Araki et al

T. Araki et al. [KamLAND], Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006), 101802 doi: 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.96.101802 [arXiv:hep-ex/0512059 [hep-ex]]

2006 arXiv
[14]

Allega et al

A. Allega et al. [SNO+], Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) no.11, 112012 doi: 10.1103/Phys- RevD.105.112012 [arXiv:2205.06400 [hep-ex]]

2022 arXiv
[15]

Abusleme et al

A. Abusleme et al. [JUNO], [arXiv:2405.17792 [hep-ex]]
[16]

P. S. B. Dev, L. W. Koerner, S. Saad, S. Antusch, M. Askins, K. S. Babu, J. L. Barrow, J. Chakrabortty, A. de Gouvˆ ea and Z. Djurcic,et al. J. Phys. G 51 (2024) no.3, 033001 doi: 10.1088/1361-6471/ad1658 [arXiv:2203.08771 [hep-ex]]

2024 arXiv
[17]

T. F. Motta, P. A. M. Guichon and A. W. Thomas, J. Phys. G 45 (2018) no.5, 05LT01 doi: 10.1088/1361-6471/aab689 [arXiv:1802.08427 [nucl-th]]

2018 arXiv
[18]

J. M. Berryman, S. Gardner and M. Zakeri, Symmetry 14 (2022) no.3, 518 doi: 10.3390/sym14030518 [arXiv:2201.02637 [hep-ph]]

2022 arXiv
[19]

Ellis, G

J. Ellis, G. H¨ utsi, K. Kannike, L. Marzola, M. Raidal and V. Vaskonen, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no.12, 123007 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.123007 [arXiv:1804.01418 [astro-ph.CO]]. 30

2018 arXiv
[20]

McKeen, M

D. McKeen, M. Pospelov and N. Raj, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) no.11, 115002 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.115002 [arXiv:2012.09865 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[21]

Goldman, R

I. Goldman, R. N. Mohapatra, S. Nussinov and R. Shrock, [arXiv:2408.14555 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[22]

McKeen, A

D. McKeen, A. E. Nelson, S. Reddy and D. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) no.6, 061802 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.061802 [arXiv:1802.08244 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[23]

G. Baym, D. H. Beck, P. Geltenbort and J. Shelton, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) no.6, 061801 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.061801 [arXiv:1802.08282 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[24]

J. M. Cline and J. M. Cornell, JHEP 07 (2018), 081 doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2018)081 [arXiv:1803.04961 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[25]

Bastero-Gil, T

M. Bastero-Gil, T. Huertas-Roldan and D. Santos, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.8, 083003 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.083003 [arXiv:2403.08666 [astro-ph.CO]]

2024 arXiv
[26]

Fornal and B

B. Fornal and B. Grinstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) no.19, 191801 [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (2020) no.21, 219901] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.191801 [arXiv:1801.01124 [hep- ph]]

2018 arXiv
[27]

Smith, [arXiv:2411.09529 [hep-ph]]

C. Smith, [arXiv:2411.09529 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[28]

Berezhiani and A

Z. Berezhiani and A. Vainshtein, [arXiv:1506.05096 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[29]

Fujikawa and A

K. Fujikawa and A. Tureanu, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) no.11, 115009 doi: 10.1103/Phys- RevD.94.115009 [arXiv:1609.03203 [hep-ph]]

2016 arXiv
[30]

Berezhiani and A

Z. Berezhiani and A. Vainshtein, Phys. Lett. B 788 (2019), 58-64 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.11.014 [arXiv:1809.00997 [hep-ph]]

2019 arXiv
[32]

R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. D 16 (1977), 1791-1797 doi: 10.1103/Phys- RevD.16.1791

1977 doi
[33]

Weinberg, Phys

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 (1978), 223-226 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.40.223

1978 doi
[34]

Wilczek, Phys

F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 (1978), 279-282 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.40.279

1978 doi
[35]

Quevillon and C

J. Quevillon and C. Smith, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) no.7, 075031 doi: 10.1103/Phys- RevD.102.075031 [arXiv:2006.06778 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[36]

Arias-Arag´ on and C

F. Arias-Arag´ on and C. Smith, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) no.5, 055034 doi: 10.1103/Phys- RevD.106.055034 [arXiv:2206.09810 [hep-ph]]

2022 arXiv
[37]

M. Dine, W. Fischler and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B 104 (1981), 199-202 doi: 10.1016/0370- 2693(81)90590-6

1981 doi
[38]

A. R. Zhitnitsky, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 31 (1980), 260

1980
[39]

J. E. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979), 103 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.43.103. 31

1979 doi
[40]

M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B 166 (1980), 493-506 doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(80)90209-6

1980 doi
[41]

J. S. R. Chisholm, Nucl. Phys. 26 (1961) no.3, 469-479 doi: 10.1016/0029-5582(61)90106-7

1961 doi
[42]

Kamefuchi, L

S. Kamefuchi, L. O’Raifeartaigh and A. Salam, Nucl. Phys. 28 (1961), 529-549 doi: 10.1016/0029-5582(61)90056-6

1961 doi
[43]

Quevillon and C

J. Quevillon and C. Smith, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) no.10, 822 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052- 019-7304-4 [arXiv:1903.12559 [hep-ph]]

2019 arXiv
[44]

Bonnefoy, L

Q. Bonnefoy, L. Di Luzio, C. Grojean, A. Paul and A. N. Rossia, JHEP 07 (2021), 189 doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2021)189 [arXiv:2011.10025 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[45]

Quevillon, C

J. Quevillon, C. Smith and P. N. H. Vuong, JHEP 08 (2022), 137 doi: 10.1007/JHEP08(2022)137 [arXiv:2112.00553 [hep-ph]]

2022 arXiv
[46]

H. K. Dreiner, H. E. Haber and S. P. Martin, Phys. Rept. 494 (2010), 1-196 doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2010.05.002 [arXiv:0812.1594 [hep-ph]]

2010 arXiv
[47]

C. Abel, S. Afach, N. J. Ayres, C. A. Baker, G. Ban, G. Bison, K. Bodek, V. Bondar, M. Burghoff and E. Chanel, et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (2020) no.8, 081803 doi: 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.124.081803 [arXiv:2001.11966 [hep-ex]]

2020 arXiv
[48]

Smith, Eur

C. Smith, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024), 12 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12354-5 [arXiv:2302.01142 [hep-ph]]

2024 arXiv
[49]

McKeen and A

D. McKeen and A. E. Nelson, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) no.7, 076002 doi: 10.1103/Phys- RevD.94.076002 [arXiv:1512.05359 [hep-ph]]

2016 arXiv
[50]

Knirck, A

S. Knirck, A. J. Millar, C. A. J. O’Hare, J. Redondo and F. D. Steffen, JCAP 11 (2018), 051 doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/11/051 [arXiv:1806.05927 [astro-ph.CO]]

2018 arXiv
[51]

J. D. Clarke and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no.3, 035001 doi: 10.1103/Phys- RevD.93.035001 [arXiv:1509.07243 [hep-ph]]

2016 arXiv
[52]

Nikolidakis and C

E. Nikolidakis and C. Smith, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008), 015021 doi: 10.1103/Phys- RevD.77.015021 [arXiv:0710.3129 [hep-ph]]

2008 arXiv
[53]

Smith, Phys

C. Smith, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012), 036005 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.036005 [arXiv:1105.1723 [hep-ph]]

2012 arXiv
[54]

Durieux, J

G. Durieux, J. M. Gerard, F. Maltoni and C. Smith, Phys. Lett. B 721 (2013), 82-85 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.02.052 [arXiv:1210.6598 [hep-ph]]

2013 arXiv
[55]

Alonso- ´Alvarez, G

G. Alonso- ´Alvarez, G. Elor, M. Escudero, B. Fornal, B. Grinstein and J. Martin Camalich, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) no.11, 115005 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.115005 [arXiv:2111.12712 [hep-ph]]

2022 arXiv
[56]

Weinberg, The quantum theory of fields

S. Weinberg, The quantum theory of fields. Vol. 2: Modern applications , Cambridge, 1996. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139644174 32

1996 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

R. N. Mohapatra and R. E. Marshak, Phys. Lett. B 94 (1980), 183 [erratum: Phys. Lett. B 96 (1980), 444-444] doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(80)90853-9

work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90853-9 1980

[2] [2]

R. N. Mohapatra, J. Phys. G 36 (2009), 104006 doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/36/10/104006 [arXiv:0902.0834 [hep-ph]]. 29

arXiv 2009

[3] [3]

D. G. Phillips, II, W. M. Snow, K. Babu, S. Banerjee, D. V. Baxter, Z. Berezhiani, M. Bergevin, S. Bhattacharya, G. Brooijmans and L. Castellanos, et al. Phys. Rept. 612 (2016), 1-45 doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2015.11.001 [arXiv:1410.1100 [hep-ex]]

arXiv 2016

[4] [4]

Rinaldi, S

E. Rinaldi, S. Syritsyn, M. L. Wagman, M. I. Buchoff, C. Schroeder and J. Wasem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) no.16, 162001 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.162001 [arXiv:1809.00246 [hep-lat]]

arXiv 2019

[5] [6]

Baldo-Ceolin, P

M. Baldo-Ceolin, P. Benetti, T. Bitter, F. Bobisut, E. Calligarich, R. Dolfini, D. Dub- bers, F. Eisert, P. El-Muzeini and M. Genoni, et al. Phys. Lett. B 236 (1990), 95-101 doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(90)90601-2

work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(90)90601-2 1990

[6] [7]

Baldo-Ceolin, P

M. Baldo-Ceolin, P. Benetti, T. Bitter, F. Bobisut, E. Calligarich, R. Dolfini, D. Dub- bers, P. El-Muzeini, M. Genoni and D. Gibin, et al. Z. Phys. C 63 (1994), 409-416 doi: 10.1007/BF01580321

doi:10.1007/bf01580321 1994

[7] [8]

I. I. Rabi, Phys. Rev. 51 (1937) no.8, 652 doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.51.652

doi:10.1103/physrev.51.652 1937

[8] [9]

G. D. Pusch, Nuovo Cim. A 74 (1983), 149 doi: 10.1007/BF02902503

work page doi:10.1007/bf02902503 1983