Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Every Wilson coefficient in the ALP effective field theory up to dimension 8 now has an explicit unitarity bound and a positivity bound, derived with on-shell amplitude methods.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 09:39 UTC pith:QXUUV3J5

load-bearing objection A solid, systematic application of the authors' on-shell partial-wave formalism to ALP EFT up to dim-8; the claimed completeness needs a scope caveat for B/L-violating operators, but the unitarity and positivity bounds themselves look credible and useful. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2510.13953 v2 pith:QXUUV3J5 submitted 2025-10-15 hep-ph

Positivity and partial wave unitarity bounds on ALP theories via amplitude methods

Luigi C. Bresciani , Gabriele Levati , Paride Paradisi This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords axion-like particlesALP effective field theorypartial wave unitarity boundspositivity boundson-shell amplitude methodsspinor-helicity formalismSMEFTdimension-8 operators
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper aims to prove that every interaction coefficient in the most general axion-like-particle (ALP) effective field theory up to mass dimension 8 is constrained by hard inequalities following from unitarity and analyticity of scattering amplitudes. Working in the high-energy limit and using on-shell spinor-helicity methods, the authors derive the complete set of partial wave unitarity bounds for N-to-M scattering, including processes like phi-phi to HHHH and phi-psi to H-psi, and then derive the complementary positivity bounds for the dimension-8 operators. If correct, these bounds delimit the viable parameter space of ALP models, making theoretical limits directly comparable to collider and rare-decay searches. The paper also shows that the same logic yields new positive-semidefinite constraints in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory, extending earlier SMEFT positivity results.

Core claim

The central claim is that the ALP effective field theory up to dimension 8 is fully controlled by two families of amplitude-level constraints: partial wave unitarity, |a^J| ≤ 1, evaluated here for the first time for all N-to-M amplitudes relevant to ALP physics in the large-sqrt(s) limit, and positivity bounds, d^2 A/ds^2(s,0) ≥ 0, applied to dimension-8 operators. Concretely, the strongest bounds take explicit closed forms, such as sqrt(s) |5C_phiX^2| ≤ min{ sqrt(4π/(2d(G)-1)), sqrt(8π/(1+sqrt(32d(G)+1))) } for dimension-5 gauge couplings and s^2 |8C_phi4| ≤ 24π/5 for the pure four-ALP contact term, with similar inequalities for every operator class in the paper's classification tables. For

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the on-shell partial wave formalism: a basis of fixed-angular-momentum amplitudes |B^J_(i→f)> is constructed from Poincare Clebsch-Gordan coefficients and the Pauli-Lubanski operator, producing partial wave coefficients a^J for N-to-M scattering with the standard normalization that enforces |a^J| ≤ 1 and 0 ≤ Im a^J ≤ 2. This basis generalizes the Wigner-d expansion to inelastic and multiparticle processes that a textbook 2-to-2 partial wave analysis cannot handle. The positivity bounds come from the dispersion-theoretic requirement that the second derivative of a forward elastic amplitude be non-negative for a UV completion that is unitary, local, and causal; the pap

Load-bearing premise

The whole derivation leans on the companion paper's claim that the on-shell angular momentum basis for N-to-M amplitudes is complete and correctly normalized; if that basis misses a kinematic structure, or if the extension of |a^J| ≤ 1 to N-to-M processes is not exactly as assumed, the bounds are not the claimed partial-wave bounds. The 'most general' characterization also carries a caveat: the dimension-8 operator set is restricted to operators that conserve lepton and baryo

What would settle it

For a specific 2-to-3 process such as φφ → HHH, compute the partial wave coefficients with the standard Wigner-d method in a fixed frame (or with an independent numerical partial-wave projection) and compare to the paper's basis-derived results; any mismatch would disprove the completeness or normalization of the on-shell basis. Alternatively, find a lepton- and baryon-number-conserving dimension-8 operator that is absent from Table 3 but contributes to a 2-to-2 or 2-to-3 amplitude, which would break the claimed completeness of the unitarity bounds.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • In the large-sqrt(s) limit, every dimension-5, -6, -7, and -8 ALP Wilson coefficient is bounded by a power of 1/sqrt(s) times a numerical constant, so at fixed energy the ALP EFT has a finite, explicitly charted parameter space.
  • Coupled-channel effects make the bounds stronger than naive per-coefficient limits: the simultaneous presence of phiB^2, phiW^2, and phiG^2 couplings yields correlated inequalities (Eq. (4.15)) with a smaller allowed volume.
  • At TeV-scale energies the unitarity bounds are competitive with, and sometimes stronger than, current non-resonant LHC limits on ALP couplings to photons and Z bosons (Fig. 9).
  • Weak-violating ALP-lepton couplings of the form ∂^μ φ l̄ γ_μ P_L ν_l are forced to be ≲ 10^{-5} (m_l/m_e) (TeV/sqrt(s))^2, which translates into upper bounds on rare decays such as π+ → e+ν_e φ, K+ → e+ν_e φ, and W+ → e+ν_e φ.
  • The derived positivity bounds, combined with the unitarity bounds, cut the dimension-8 parameter space: for Abelian gauge groups the positivity condition shrinks the unitarity-allowed volume of the φ^2 X^2 D^2 class to about 13% of its original size.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Independently of the paper's own applications, the bounds define a maximum UV cutoff scale for any ALP EFT as a function of its Wilson coefficients: an experimental signal demanding coefficients beyond these bounds would be evidence of either new light states or the breakdown of the EFT description.
  • The on-shell partial wave basis is operator-independent, so the same construction should extend to other pseudo-Goldstone or spin-1 EFTs, suggesting that analogous complete unitarity bounds exist for dark photons or axions with different shift symmetries.
  • The SMEFT positivity constraints derived here for off-diagonal flavor entries of operators like C^(1)_(ψ2H2D3) + C^(2)_(ψ2H2D3) ⪯ 0 are new relative to earlier literature and could be testable at future colliders if such flavor-non-diagonal Wilson coefficients are generated.
  • One could test the completeness of the claimed 'complete set' by recomputing a subset of 2-to-2 bounds with the ordinary Wigner-d partial wave expansion and checking that the two methods agree exactly in normalization and in the resulting inequalities.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper applies the authors' on-shell partial-wave formalism [72] to derive unitarity bounds for ALP effective field theories up to dimension 8, including 2-to-2 and N-to-M amplitudes, coupled-channel effects among the dimension-5 gauge-boson operators, and weak-violating ALP-lepton interactions. It also derives positivity bounds for the dimension-8 operators, compares them with the unitarity bounds, and translates some of them into new SMEFT positivity constraints. The main outputs are explicit inequalities on Wilson coefficients, e.g. Eqs. (4.1), (4.38), (4.40), (5.13) and (5.15), together with phenomenological applications to ALP searches at the LHC and to rare meson and W boson decays.

Significance. If the results are correct, this is a useful and fairly systematic reference for ALP EFT bounds: it extends the existing dimension-5 unitarity analysis of Ref. [57], includes many dimension-6/7/8 operators, gives coupled-channel bounds, and provides positivity constraints that are partly new. The strengths are the explicit amplitude lists in Appendix B, the concrete inequalities that can be used in fits and Monte Carlo studies, and the SMEFT byproduct in Section 5. The main caveat is that the advertised completeness is not what is proven: the dimension-8 operator set is restricted to baryon- and lepton-number-conserving operators, and several central computations are only summarized or delegated to a companion paper.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, Sec. 4.3, Table 3, Conclusions] The abstract and Conclusions claim the complete set of bounds on the most general ALP EFT up to dimension 8, but Table 3 is explicitly headed 'Dimension-8 ALP operators that conserve lepton and baryon numbers' and Sec. 4.3 starts with the same restriction. The classifications cited in refs. [41,79,80] also contain B/L-violating dimension-8 operators, and no unitarity or positivity bounds for those operators are derived. The completeness claim is therefore unsupported as stated. The paper should either include the missing operators or amend the abstract, Sec. 4.3, and Conclusions to state that the dimension-8 results are restricted to B/L-conserving operators.
  2. [Eq. (4.1) vs Eqs. (4.2)-(4.4)] There is a numerical inconsistency in the dimension-5 bosonic bounds. For SU(3), d(G)=3, Eq. (4.1) as typeset gives min(sqrt(4pi)/5, sqrt(8pi)/(1+sqrt(97))) which is about 0.46, whereas Eq. (4.4) quotes sqrt(4pi/15) which is about 0.915. For the U(1) and SU(2) cases, the quoted values 1.93 and 1.52 also require a different reading of the square-root grouping in Eq. (4.1). Since these bounds are central to Sec. 4.1, Fig. 2 and the phenomenological applications, please correct the general formula or the special cases and make the root grouping unambiguous.
  3. [Footnote 3, Sec. 4.1] The correction to Ref. [57] is load-bearing: it supports the claim that XX to XX and XX to phi phi give the strongest dimension-5 ALP bounds at all energies, rather than processes such as W+W- to Z(gamma) phi. The footnote reports an s^{1/2} behavior after an explicit calculation but does not show the calculation or provide a reference where it appears. Please include the relevant amplitudes, at least in an appendix, or give a precise citation, so that the claimed correction can be checked.
  4. [Sec. 2 and Secs. 4-5] Many of the central partial-wave projections, eigenvalue computations, and positive-semidefiniteness constraints are not independently checkable from the text. For example, the roots of the polynomials in Eq. (4.7) are reduced to the final inequalities via the Jury criterion, and the matrix diagonalizations behind Eqs. (4.41)-(4.46) and (5.15) are not shown. In a paper whose central claim is completeness of a long list of bounds, this is a reproducibility problem. Please provide an ancillary notebook or an additional appendix listing the key projections and the explicit eigenvalue and positivity checks.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (4.51)] The second inequality in Eq. (4.51) repeats C^{pr}_{phi2quH}; it should presumably involve C^{pr}_{phi2qdH}.
  2. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption swaps the labels: Eq. (5.15) is a positivity bound, while Eqs. (4.41)-(4.46) are the unitarity bounds. The blue/red scheme is also inverted relative to the text in Sec. 5.
  3. [Eqs. (4.2)-(4.4)] Please clarify the placement of the square root: sqrt(8pi)/(1+sqrt(33)) and sqrt(8pi/(1+sqrt(33))) are very different, and the current formatting is ambiguous.
  4. [Footnote 4] The statement 'One can check that the same is true for all the other psi' is not backed by an explicit formula; either spell out the argument or omit the closure claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the bounds follow from unitarity and analyticity applied to explicit amplitudes, with an independent operator basis; the 'most general' wording is an overclaim rather than a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Partial-wave unitarity bounds are obtained by projecting the explicit helicity amplitudes of Appendix B onto the angular momentum basis and applying the optical-theorem bounds |a^J| <= 1 (Eqs. (2.7)-(2.8)); the resulting inequalities such as Eqs. (4.1), (4.38), and (4.48) are direct constraints on Wilson coefficients, not fits or redefinitions. No coefficient is fitted to the quantity being predicted. Positivity bounds are derived from the forward-limit condition d^2 A/ds^2|_{s=0} >= 0 (Eq. (5.2)) using explicitly computed amplitudes, giving conditions such as Eqs. (5.13), (5.15), and (5.22); these are standard consistency conditions, and Appendix C checks them against a UV matching. The dimension-8 operator basis is taken from refs. [41,79,80], which are independent of the present authors, so no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The authors' companion paper [72] is cited for the N->M partial-wave formalism, but Section 2 reviews the method and its assumptions do not include the ALP bounds; the citation provides method-level support rather than the target result, so it does not make the derivation circular. One caveat is not circular but is a correctness/completeness issue: the abstract's 'most general ... up to dimension 8' is broader than the actual analysis, since Table 3 and Section 4.3 restrict dimension-8 operators to those conserving lepton and baryon numbers.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No Wilson coefficients are fitted to data in this paper; all results are inequalities on coefficients. The only numerical inputs are SM parameters (s_W, m_l, m_W) and illustrative benchmark values f, y_l in Section 6.2, which are not fitted. No new particles or forces are introduced; the massive spin-2 field in Appendix C is a toy UV completion used only to check consistency of positivity bounds.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The on-shell partial-wave basis of Ref. [72] is complete and correctly normalized for N→M amplitudes (Eqs. (2.3)–(2.8)).
    Section 2 adopts the formalism wholesale; if the normalization or completeness fails, all N→M bounds in Section 4 are invalid.
  • domain assumption The ALP EFT operator basis of Refs. [41,79,80] is complete up to dimension 8 for shift-symmetric ALP interactions.
    Section 3 and Tables 1–3; the paper bounds only the B/L-conserving dimension-8 subset, so 'complete' is conditional on the classification and on B/L conservation.
  • standard math Unitarity of the S-matrix implies |a^J|≤1 and the optical-theorem form Eq. (2.7).
    Standard partial-wave unitarity, used throughout Section 4.
  • domain assumption The EFT is the low-energy limit of a unitary, local, causal QFT with a mass gap, so the forward second derivative of elastic amplitudes is nonnegative (Eq. (5.2)).
    Section 5; standard positivity assumptions from [81]; if violated, the positivity bounds change.
  • domain assumption External particles can be treated as massless in the high-energy limit; electroweak symmetry-breaking effects are negligible for the stated bounds.
    Appendix B states all particles are outgoing and massless; the paper explicitly checks broken/unbroken phase only for one process (footnote 3).
  • domain assumption The weak-violating ALP-lepton Lagrangian Eq. (4.53) of Ref. [78] correctly parameterizes non-SU(2)-invariant ALP-lepton couplings.
    Section 4.4 relies on this Lagrangian for the g_ll−g_ll+g_νl bounds.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 34510 in / 13798 out tokens · 118159 ms · 2026-08-04T09:39:35.250360+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We derive the complete set of partial wave unitarity bounds on the most general Axion-Like Particle (ALP) effective interactions up to dimension 8 in the limit of large center-of-mass energy. Exploiting a recently developed formalism based on spinor-helicity techniques, we discuss the unitarity bounds for $N \to M$ (with $N, M \geq 2$) scattering amplitudes that can be relevant for ALP searches at colliders or in a variety of rare processes. Moreover, we compute positivity bounds on ALP interactions, emphasizing their complementarity with partial wave unitarity bounds. As a byproduct, we show that our results can be used to infer new positivity constraints in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. ALP pair production at the LHC

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Non-resonant gg→aa→4γ production could constrain the dimension-6 ALP-gluon coupling down to ~10^-3 TeV^-2 at 300 fb^-1, but the allowed parameter space remains unbounded along multiple flat directions.

  2. Theoretical and Experimental Constraints in the $\mu$--$\tau$ Four-Lepton Sector of the SMEFT: implications to neutrino self interactions

    hep-ph 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0

    Current constraints on μ-τ SMEFT four-lepton operators exclude heavy-mediator UV completions of strong neutrino self-interactions in the dimension-six SMEFT without tuned cancellations, while leaving light-mediator sc...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

136 extracted references · 116 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Jaeckel and A

    J. Jaeckel and A. Ringwald,The Low-Energy Frontier of Particle Physics,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.60(2010) 405 [1002.0329]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  2. [2]

    Marsh,Axion Cosmology,Phys

    D.J.E. Marsh,Axion Cosmology,Phys. Rept.643(2016) 1 [1510.07633]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Irastorza and J

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Di Luzio, M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Peccei and H.R

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

    1977

  6. [6]

    Peccei and H.R

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

    1977

  7. [7]

    Weinberg,A New Light Boson?,Phys

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

    1978

  8. [8]

    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

    1978

  9. [9]

    Davidson and K.C

    A. Davidson and K.C. Wali,MINIMAL FLAVOR UNIFICATION VIA MULTIGENERATIONAL PECCEI-QUINN SYMMETRY,Phys. Rev. Lett.48(1982) 11

    1982

  10. [10]

    Wilczek,Axions and Family Symmetry Breaking,Phys

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

    1982

  11. [11]

    Berezhiani and M.Y

    Z.G. Berezhiani and M.Y. Khlopov,Cosmology of Spontaneously Broken Gauge Family Symmetry,Z. Phys. C49(1991) 73

    1991

  12. [12]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    Greljo, A

    A. Greljo, A. Smolkoviˇ c and A. Valenti,Froggatt-Nielsen ALP,JHEP09(2024) 174 [2407.02998]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Graham, D.E

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  15. [15]

    Abbott and P

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

    1983

  16. [16]

    Preskill, M.B

    J. Preskill, M.B. Wise and F. Wilczek,Cosmology of the Invisible Axion,Phys. Lett. B120 (1983) 127

    1983

  17. [17]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler,The Not So Harmless Axion,Phys. Lett. B120(1983) 137

    1983

  18. [18]

    Davis,Cosmic Axions from Cosmic Strings,Phys

    R.L. Davis,Cosmic Axions from Cosmic Strings,Phys. Lett. B180(1986) 225. [19]ADMXcollaboration,An Improved RF cavity search for halo axions,Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 011101 [astro-ph/0310042]. – 31 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1986

  19. [20]

    Barbieri, C

    R. Barbieri, C. Braggio, G. Carugno, C.S. Gallo, A. Lombardi, A. Ortolan et al.,Searching for galactic axions through magnetized media: the QUAX proposal,Phys. Dark Univ.15 (2017) 135 [1606.02201]. [21]MADMAX Working Groupcollaboration,Dielectric Haloscopes: A New Way to Detect Axion Dark Matter,Phys. Rev. Lett.118(2017) 091801 [1611.05865]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [22]

    Zioutas et al.,A Decommissioned LHC model magnet as an axion telescope,Nucl

    K. Zioutas et al.,A Decommissioned LHC model magnet as an axion telescope,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A425(1999) 480 [astro-ph/9801176]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  21. [23]

    Irastorza et al.,Towards a new generation axion helioscope,JCAP06(2011) 013 [1103.5334]

    I.G. Irastorza et al.,Towards a new generation axion helioscope,JCAP06(2011) 013 [1103.5334]. [24]CASTcollaboration,New CAST Limit on the Axion-Photon Interaction,Nature Phys.13 (2017) 584 [1705.02290]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  22. [25]

    Armengaud et al.,Conceptual Design of the International Axion Observatory (IAXO), JINST9(2014) T05002 [1401.3233]

    E. Armengaud et al.,Conceptual Design of the International Axion Observatory (IAXO), JINST9(2014) T05002 [1401.3233]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  23. [26]

    Van Bibber, N.R

    K. Van Bibber, N.R. Dagdeviren, S.E. Koonin, A. Kerman and H.N. Nelson,Proposed experiment to produce and detect light pseudoscalars,Phys. Rev. Lett.59(1987) 759

    1987

  24. [27]

    B¨ ahre et al.,Any light particle search II —Technical Design Report,JINST8(2013) T09001 [1302.5647]

    R. B¨ ahre et al.,Any light particle search II —Technical Design Report,JINST8(2013) T09001 [1302.5647]. [28]OSQARcollaboration,New exclusion limits on scalar and pseudoscalar axionlike particles from light shining through a wall,Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 092002 [1506.08082]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  25. [29]

    Arvanitaki and A.A

    A. Arvanitaki and A.A. Geraci,Resonantly Detecting Axion-Mediated Forces with Nuclear Magnetic Resonance,Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014) 161801 [1403.1290]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  26. [30]

    Alekhin et al.,A facility to Search for Hidden Particles at the CERN SPS: the SHiP physics case,Rept

    S. Alekhin et al.,A facility to Search for Hidden Particles at the CERN SPS: the SHiP physics case,Rept. Prog. Phys.79(2016) 124201 [1504.04855]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  27. [31]

    D¨ obrich, J

    B. D¨ obrich, J. Jaeckel, F. Kahlhoefer, A. Ringwald and K. Schmidt-Hoberg,ALPtraum: ALP production in proton beam dump experiments,JHEP02(2016) 018 [1512.03069]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  28. [32]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert and A. Thamm,Collider Probes of Axion-Like Particles,JHEP12 (2017) 044 [1708.00443]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  29. [33]

    Bauer, M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [34]

    Gavela, R

    M.B. Gavela, R. Houtz, P. Quilez, R. Del Rey and O. Sumensari,Flavor constraints on electroweak ALP couplings,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 369 [1901.02031]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  31. [35]

    Cornella, P

    C. Cornella, P. Paradisi and O. Sumensari,Hunting for ALPs with Lepton Flavor Violation, JHEP01(2020) 158 [1911.06279]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [36]

    Di Luzio, A.W.M

    L. Di Luzio, A.W.M. Guerrera, X.P. D´ ıaz and S. Rigolin,On the IR/UV flavour connection in non-universal axion models,JHEP06(2023) 046 [2304.04643]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [37]

    Marciano, A

    W.J. Marciano, A. Masiero, P. Paradisi and M. Passera,Contributions of axionlike particles to lepton dipole moments,Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 115033 [1607.01022]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  34. [38]

    Di Luzio, R

    L. Di Luzio, R. Gr¨ ober and P. Paradisi,Hunting forCP-violating axionlike particle interactions,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 095027 [2010.13760]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [39]

    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]. – 32 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [40]

    Georgi, D.B

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

    1986

  37. [41]

    Bertuzzo, C

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [42]

    De Angelis,Amplitude bases in generic EFTs,JHEP08(2022) 299 [2202.02681]

    S. De Angelis,Amplitude bases in generic EFTs,JHEP08(2022) 299 [2202.02681]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [43]

    H.-L. Li, Z. Ren, M.-L. Xiao, J.-H. Yu and Y.-H. Zheng,Operators for generic effective field theory at any dimension: on-shell amplitude basis construction,JHEP04(2022) 140 [2201.04639]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [44]

    B.W. Lee, C. Quigg and H.B. Thacker,The Strength of Weak Interactions at Very High-Energies and the Higgs Boson Mass,Phys. Rev. Lett.38(1977) 883

    1977

  41. [45]

    B.W. Lee, C. Quigg and H.B. Thacker,Weak Interactions at Very High-Energies: The Role of the Higgs Boson Mass,Phys. Rev. D16(1977) 1519

    1977

  42. [46]

    Gounaris, J

    G.J. Gounaris, J. Layssac, J.E. Paschalis and F.M. Renard,Unitarity constraints for new physics induced by dim-6 operators,Z. Phys. C66(1995) 619 [hep-ph/9409260]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  43. [47]

    Corbett, O.J.P

    T. Corbett, O.J.P. ´Eboli and M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia,Unitarity Constraints on Dimension-Six Operators,Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 035014 [1411.5026]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  44. [48]

    Corbett, O.J.P

    T. Corbett, O.J.P. ´Eboli and M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia,Unitarity Constraints on Dimension-six Operators II: Including Fermionic Operators,Phys. Rev. D96(2017) 035006 [1705.09294]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  45. [49]

    Di Luzio and M

    L. Di Luzio and M. Nardecchia,What is the scale of new physics behind theB-flavour anomalies?,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 536 [1706.01868]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [50]

    Di Luzio, J.F

    L. Di Luzio, J.F. Kamenik and M. Nardecchia,Implications of perturbative unitarity for scalar di-boson resonance searches at LHC,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 30 [1604.05746]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  47. [51]

    Mahmud and K

    S. Mahmud and K. Tobioka,Energy growth in V LVL→V LVL, VLVLh scattering to probe Higgs cubic and HEFT interactions,JHEP09(2024) 073 [2406.03522]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [52]

    Allwicher, L

    L. Allwicher, L. Di Luzio, M. Fedele, F. Mescia and M. Nardecchia,What is the scale of new physics behind the muon g-2?,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 055035 [2105.13981]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  49. [53]

    Cohen, N

    T. Cohen, N. Craig, X. Lu and D. Sutherland,Unitarity violation and the geometry of Higgs EFTs,JHEP12(2021) 003 [2108.03240]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  50. [54]

    Almeida, O.J.P

    E.d.S. Almeida, O.J.P. ´Eboli and M.C. Gonzalez–Garcia,Unitarity constraints on anomalous quartic couplings,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 113003 [2004.05174]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  51. [55]

    Cohen, J

    T. Cohen, J. Doss and X. Lu,Unitarity bounds on effective field theories at the LHC,JHEP 04(2022) 155 [2111.09895]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  52. [56]

    Abu-Ajamieh, S

    F. Abu-Ajamieh, S. Chang, M. Chen and M.A. Luty,Higgs coupling measurements and the scale of new physics,JHEP07(2021) 056 [2009.11293]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  53. [57]

    Brivio, O.J.P

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  54. [58]

    Jacob and G.C

    M. Jacob and G.C. Wick,On the General Theory of Collisions for Particles with Spin, Annals Phys.7(1959) 404

    1959

  55. [59]

    Caron-Huot and M

    S. Caron-Huot and M. Wilhelm,Renormalization group coefficients and the S-matrix, JHEP12(2016) 010 [1607.06448]. – 33 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  56. [60]

    Elias Mir´ o, J

    J. Elias Mir´ o, J. Ingoldby and M. Riembau,EFT anomalous dimensions from the S-matrix, JHEP09(2020) 163 [2005.06983]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  57. [61]

    Baratella, C

    P. Baratella, C. Fernandez and A. Pomarol,Renormalization of Higher-Dimensional Operators from On-shell Amplitudes,Nucl. Phys. B959(2020) 115155 [2005.07129]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  58. [62]

    Jiang, T

    M. Jiang, T. Ma and J. Shu,Renormalization Group Evolution from On-shell SMEFT, JHEP01(2021) 101 [2005.10261]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  59. [63]

    Z. Bern, J. Parra-Martinez and E. Sawyer,Structure of two-loop SMEFT anomalous dimensions via on-shell methods,JHEP10(2020) 211 [2005.12917]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  60. [64]

    Baratella, C

    P. Baratella, C. Fernandez, B. von Harling and A. Pomarol,Anomalous Dimensions of Effective Theories from Partial Waves,JHEP03(2021) 287 [2010.13809]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  61. [65]

    Accettulli Huber and S

    M. Accettulli Huber and S. De Angelis,Standard Model EFTs via on-shell methods,JHEP 11(2021) 221 [2108.03669]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  62. [66]

    Elias Miro, C

    J. Elias Miro, C. Fernandez, M.A. Gumus and A. Pomarol,Gearing up for the next generation of LFV experiments, via on-shell methods,JHEP06(2022) 126 [2112.12131]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  63. [67]

    Baratella, S

    P. Baratella, S. Maggio, M. Stadlbauer and T. Theil,Two-loop infrared renormalization with on-shell methods,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 751 [2207.08831]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  64. [68]

    Machado, S

    C.S. Machado, S. Renner and D. Sutherland,Building blocks of the flavourful SMEFT RG, JHEP03(2023) 226 [2210.09316]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  65. [69]

    Bresciani, G

    L.C. Bresciani, G. Levati, P. Mastrolia and P. Paradisi,Anomalous dimensions via on-shell methods: Operator mixing and leading mass effects,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 056041 [2312.05206]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  66. [70]

    Bresciani, G

    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,2412.04160

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  67. [71]

    Aebischer, L.C

    J. Aebischer, L.C. Bresciani and N. Selimovic,Anomalous dimension of a general effective gauge theory. Part I. Bosonic sector,JHEP08(2025) 209 [2502.14030]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  68. [72]

    Bresciani, G

    L.C. Bresciani, G. Levati and P. Paradisi,Amplitudes and partial wave unitarity bounds, 2504.12855

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  69. [73]

    Jiang, J

    M. Jiang, J. Shu, M.-L. Xiao and Y.-H. Zheng,Partial Wave Amplitude Basis and Selection Rules in Effective Field Theories,Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021) 011601 [2001.04481]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  70. [74]

    Dixon,A brief introduction to modern amplitude methods, inTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Particle Physics: The Higgs Boson and Beyond, pp

    L.J. Dixon,A brief introduction to modern amplitude methods, inTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Particle Physics: The Higgs Boson and Beyond, pp. 31–67, 2014, DOI [1310.5353]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  71. [75]

    Shadmi and Y

    Y. Shadmi and Y. Weiss,Effective Field Theory Amplitudes the On-Shell Way: Scalar and Vector Couplings to Gluons,JHEP02(2019) 165 [1809.09644]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  72. [76]

    Durieux, T

    G. Durieux, T. Kitahara, Y. Shadmi and Y. Weiss,The electroweak effective field theory from on-shell amplitudes,JHEP01(2020) 119 [1909.10551]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  73. [77]

    Z.-Y. Dong, T. Ma and J. Shu,Constructing on-shell operator basis for all masses and spins,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) L111901 [2103.15837]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  74. [78]

    Altmannshofer, J.A

    W. Altmannshofer, J.A. Dror and S. Gori,New Opportunities for Detecting Axion-Lepton Interactions,Phys. Rev. Lett.130(2023) 241801 [2209.00665]. – 34 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  75. [79]

    H. Song, H. Sun and J.-H. Yu,Effective field theories of axion, ALP and dark photon, JHEP01(2024) 161 [2305.16770]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  76. [80]

    Grojean, J

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  77. [81]

    Adams, N

    A. Adams, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dubovsky, A. Nicolis and R. Rattazzi,Causality, analyticity and an IR obstruction to UV completion,JHEP10(2006) 014 [hep-th/0602178]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  78. [82]

    Bellazzini and F

    B. Bellazzini and F. Riva,New phenomenological and theoretical perspective on anomalous ZZ and Zγprocesses,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 095021 [1806.09640]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  79. [83]

    Zhang and S.-Y

    C. Zhang and S.-Y. Zhou,Convex Geometry Perspective on the (Standard Model) Effective Field Theory Space,Phys. Rev. Lett.125(2020) 201601 [2005.03047]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  80. [84]

    Bonnefoy, V

    Q. Bonnefoy, V. Cort´ es, E. Gendy, C. Grojean, K.R. von Merkl and P.N. Pilatus,Geometry of effective field theory positivity cones,2508.18165

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

Showing first 80 references.