Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 112 references

An optical dump using laser-generated hard photons can reach ALP-electron couplings down to ~10^-7, extending long-lived-ALP searches to fermion couplings.

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

2026-08-02 01:55 UTC pith:BATVJ7HZ

load-bearing objection A competent projection extending the LUXE-NPOD optical dump to ALP-electron couplings, but the headline electron-philic reach relies on a charged e+e- channel without a matching detector model. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.14492 v1 pith:BATVJ7HZ submitted 2026-07-16 hep-ph

Searching for long-lived ALPs with a laser-assisted optical dump

Tong Li , Haolong Wang , Man Yuan This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords axion-like particleslong-lived particlesoptical dumpPrimakoff processCompton scatteringALP-electron couplinglaser-assisted photon sourcebeam dump searches
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.

The paper argues that a laser-assisted optical dump—where hard photons from an electron-laser collision strike a tungsten dump—can search for long-lived axion-like particles (ALPs) coupled not only to photons but also to electrons. It computes the yield from Compton-like scattering off atomic electrons and finds that ALP-electron couplings down to g_ae ~ 10^-6 (10^-7) could be probed for electron-beam energies of 16.5 (125) GeV. It also shows that when both ALP-photon and ALP-electron couplings are present, the Primakoff process enhances the sensitivity to g_ae by 2-3 orders of magnitude relative to the electron-only case. If correct, this gives a concrete route to test electron-philic ALPs in the MeV-GeV mass range.

Core claim

The central claim is that the optical dump idea, originally proposed for photon-coupled ALPs, can be extended to fermion couplings via a tree-level Compton-like process, gamma + e -> a + e, with the atomic electrons of the tungsten target. For a 16.5 GeV electron beam and the two laser configurations considered, the projected 3-event sensitivity reaches g_ae ~ 10^-6 and lower; for a 125 GeV beam it reaches ~10^-7. The paper also demonstrates that when both couplings exist, the Primakoff production on nuclei contributes a sizable additional yield, improving the g_ae sensitivity by 2-3 orders of magnitude over the case where g_ae acts alone.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is the optical dump chain: an intense laser pulse converts a high-energy electron beam into a large flux of hard photons via nonlinear Compton scattering; those photons then strike a tungsten dump, where an ALP is produced either through Primakoff scattering off the nucleus (if coupled to photons) or Compton-like scattering off atomic electrons (if coupled to electrons). The ALP decays in a downstream decay volume, and the signal yield is computed by convolving the photon spectrum with the production cross section, the decay probability, and the angular acceptance. For the electron channel, the cross section uses a free-electron Compton amplitude corrected by an effective a

Load-bearing premise

The projected electron-philic sensitivity assumes that the charged e+e- pair from ALP decay reaches the downstream detector with full angular acceptance and no background, but the experiment's own background model removes charged particles with a magnetic sweep—so if that sweep also deflects the signal, the reach is not supported.

What would settle it

Compute, for a given magnetic-field configuration, the bending of a 1-10 GeV electron or positron from an ALP decay inside the decay volume and check whether it still hits the detector with the assumed A=1. A simulation that shows a significant fraction of e+e- events swept out before the detector would falsify the projected g_ae contour.

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

If this is right

  • An optical dump can independently probe the ALP-electron coupling in the MeV-GeV mass window, a parameter space otherwise accessible mainly through beam-dump and collider searches.
  • The 125 GeV electron-beam option extends the mass reach by about an order of magnitude compared with the 16.5 GeV benchmark, and lowers the coupling reach by roughly a factor of ten.
  • When both couplings are present, the sensitivity to g_ae improves by 2-3 orders of magnitude because the Primakoff process adds a large yield even when g_ae alone would be too small to produce events.
  • The method provides a direct 2-to-2 production mechanism without the virtual-photon approximation needed in conventional beam dumps, avoiding the collinear and mass limitations of that approximation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same optical-dump geometry could be repurposed for other light, weakly coupled states that couple to electrons or photons, such as dark photons or muon-philic ALPs, with appropriate target choices.
  • The electron-philic reach may be optimistic if the magnetic sweep used to remove charged backgrounds also deflects the signal e+e- pairs; a dedicated tracking simulation of the charged final state would test whether the angular acceptance A=1 and the background-free assumption hold.
  • The Primakoff-Compton interplay suggests a way to disentangle the two couplings by comparing decay-channel ratios (gamma gamma vs e+ e-) in the same experiment, since the production mechanisms weight the two couplings differently.

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper revisits the LUXE-NPOD optical dump proposal and extends it to ALP couplings to electrons. The hard-photon beam produced by nonlinear Compton scattering of a high-energy electron beam on a laser pulse is sent into a tungsten dump, where ALPs are produced via the Primakoff process (γN→aN) and via Compton-like scattering off atomic electrons (γe→ae). The authors compute ALP decay lengths and branching ratios, then derive projected sensitivities in the (m_a, g_aγ) and (m_a, g_ae) planes for E_e = 16.5 and 125 GeV, and present two-coupling contours showing the interplay between Primakoff and Compton production. The main new results are the electron-philic reach g_ae ~ 10^-6 (10^-7) for the two beam energies and a claimed 2-3 order-of-magnitude improvement in g_ae sensitivity when a non-negligible ALP-photon coupling is present.

Significance. The paper is well organized and uses a standard EFT framework with explicitly stated cross-section formulas. It reproduces the known LUXE-NPOD Primakoff sensitivity, which is a useful cross-check. The electron-philic extension is a genuinely new direction for the optical dump concept and, if supported by a detector model, would open a complementary window on ALP-electron couplings. The correlation study is also a valuable addition. However, the photon-philic part is not the main novelty; the central new claim rests on detection of a charged e+e- final state, which the manuscript does not model.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV.B, Eq. (9), Fig. 6] The electron-philic search assumes the same angular acceptance A=1 and the same background-free benchmark as the diphoton channel. Sec. IV.A explicitly states that charged particles are swept away by a magnetic field and that the dominant residual background is neutral. The Compton signal, however, is a charged e+e- pair. No detector model is provided for the detection, tracking/calorimetric efficiency, or charged-background rejection of this final state. Without this, the projected g_ae contours in Fig. 6 and the 2-3 orders-of-magnitude improvement claim in Sec. IV.C/Fig. 7 are not supported. This is the central new claim of the paper.
  2. [Sec. IV.C and Conclusion] The statement that Primakoff production improves the g_ae sensitivity by 2-3 orders of magnitude is specific to the intermediate region where a non-negligible effective ALP-photon coupling is present. For a purely electron-philic ALP, the loop-induced g_aγ is suppressed by α/π and the improvement is far smaller. The conclusion should state this qualification explicitly; as written, the bullet in Sec. V could be misread as a property of the electron-philic case.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV.B, Eq. (21)] The hydrogen form factor is written F(q)=(1−a^2q^2/4)^{-2}; the standard hydrogen form factor is (1+a^2q^2/4)^{-2}. The numerical impact is small for the mass range considered, but the formula should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. IV.B, last paragraph] The phrase 'and even lower for E_e = 125 GeV' is vague; specify the numerical value of the reach for the 125 GeV beam in the electron-philic case.
  3. [Sec. I and IV.A] The text contains unclear wording: 'which are both 2 to 3 productions' in Sec. I should be '2→3 processes'; 'replies on' should be 'relies on'.
  4. [Eq. (9) and surrounding text] It is not stated whether P_decay in Eq. (9) is evaluated at the t-dependent ALP momentum or at an average value. If an approximation is used, it should be justified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the sensitivity projections are forward calculations from stated EFT cross sections, decay widths, and benchmark inputs; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper contains no fit to data. The couplings g_aγ and g_ae are scanned model parameters, and the event yield is computed forward from the effective Lagrangian (Eq. 2), the standard decay widths (Eqs. 4-6), the Primakoff cross section (Eq. 15, with the amplitude in Appendix A), the Compton cross section (Eqs. 20-21 with atomic corrections), and the benchmark photon spectra from Ptarmigan. The sensitivity contours in Figs. 4, 6, and 7 are defined by requiring N_a = 3 expected events; this is a direct calculation, not an inversion of a fitted parameter. The correlation between Primakoff and Compton processes (Eq. 23) is simply the sum of two independent production cross sections with a shared total decay width; the 2-3 order-of-magnitude improvement in g_ae sensitivity follows from adding an independent production channel, not from defining one coupling in terms of the other. Self-citations are present but not load-bearing: Ref. [35] (T. Li, M. A. Schmidt, M. Yuan) is cited in the introduction among several references for threshold behavior, and Ref. [88] (K. Ma and T. Li) is used to exclude the primary e_V → e_V + a production mode because the produced ALP mass is below ~1 MeV and its decay length is long; even if that citation were set aside, the exclusion is conservative and does not enter the main yield calculation. The concern that the e+e− channel borrows the diphoton background model and A = 1 acceptance is a modeling gap, not a circular reduction: the paper explicitly adopts these inputs, and the resulting contours are consequences of those assumptions rather than being equivalent to them by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces; it uses existing ALP EFT operators. Its central claim rests on a chain of physical assumptions: the EFT is the right low-energy description, the strong-field QED spectrum is correct, atomic/nuclear form factors are adequate, and the detector can detect both neutral and charged LLP decay products with unit acceptance. The most fragile items are the background-free assumption imported from the diphoton-oriented LUXE-NPOD study and the unmodeled e+e- detector acceptance.

free parameters (4)
  • Signal event threshold N_a = 3
    The sensitivity contours are defined by requiring exactly three expected signal events. Changing this threshold shifts all projected coupling bounds.
  • Angular acceptance A = 1
    A = 1 is assumed for all signal channels, justified only by a statement that geometric corrections are at most O(1). This directly scales the event yield and therefore the reach.
  • Photon energy threshold E_th = 0.5 GeV
    The yield calculation assumes a detector threshold of 0.5 GeV for signal photons; the value affects which decays survive the event selection.
  • Dump and decay-volume geometry L_D, L_V = L_D = 1 m, L_V = 2.5 m
    The decay probability P_decay in Eq. (11) uses these lengths from the LUXE-NPOD design. Any change in dump thickness or detector placement changes the LLP acceptance.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption The dimension-5 effective Lagrangian in Eq. (2) with independent ALP-photon and ALP-electron couplings describes the couplings to photons and electrons.
    This is the entire new-physics input; the ALP is assumed to couple only through these operators below the electroweak scale.
  • domain assumption For MeV-GeV ALPs, only a -> gamma gamma and a -> e+e- decays are relevant, with widths given by Eqs. (4)-(6).
    Heavier final states are kinematically closed or suppressed, and loop-induced photon coupling from the electron operator is included only in the decay width.
  • domain assumption The nonlinear-Compton photon spectrum from Ptarmigan with the LUXE and ILC benchmark parameters correctly represents the photon beam incident on the dump.
    Sec. III relies entirely on this Monte-Carlo spectrum; the paper does not release the spectrum files or a cross-check against another independent simulation.
  • domain assumption Coherent elastic nuclear scattering with the form factors in Eqs. (A8)-(A10) describes Primakoff production.
    The Primakoff cross section in Sec. IV.A and Appendix A adopts the standard nuclear charge/graphite form-factor parametrization from the cited literature.
  • domain assumption Atomic electrons in tungsten can be treated as quasi-free with the Zeff step function in Table I and the hydrogenic form factor in Eq. (21).
    This is necessary for the Compton cross section; it is standard for high-energy incident photons, but is an approximation to the real atomic response.
  • ad hoc to paper The LUXE-NPOD background estimate from Ref. [65] remains valid: neutral backgrounds are below one event per year after f_n->gamma <= 1e-3 and R_sel <= 1e-3.
    The paper adopts the background-free benchmark without simulating backgrounds for the new e+e- channel, which is an important unvalidated transfer of an external result.
  • ad hoc to paper The detector records both gamma gamma and e+e- final states with angular acceptance A = 1 and no efficiency loss.
    No detector geometry, trigger, or reconstruction efficiency is modeled; the charged e+e- signal is simply assigned the same acceptance as the diphoton signal.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17885 in / 14824 out tokens · 145201 ms · 2026-08-02T01:55:30.457408+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The feeble interactions of light axion-like particles (ALPs) render them long-lived. Probing long-lived ALPs therefore demands facilities with a macroscopic decay volume to match their potentially long decay lengths, such as high-intensity beam dump experiments. An optical dump setup was proposed by utilizing hard photons from the collision of a high-energy electron beam and a high-intensity laser pulse. In this work, we revisit the probe of long-lived ALPs with MeV$\sim$ GeV mass via a laser-assisted optical dump. We consider the low-energy effective Lagrangian for ALPs incorporating the ALP-photon and ALP-fermion interactions. The scope of optical dump searches is extended to both the ALP-photon coupling induced Primakoff process and the Compton-like scattering via the ALP-electron coupling. We also investigate the correlation between Primakoff process and Compton scattering, and exhibit the interplay of two ALP couplings in light of optical dump experiment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14492 by Haolong Wang, Man Yuan, Tong Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Proper decay length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Photon energy spectra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The Feynman diagram for ALP production via photon scattering off a nucleus, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The sensitivity reach in the parameter space of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The Feynman diagrams for ALP production via photon scattering off atomic electrons, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The sensitivity reach in the parameter space of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The sensitivity reach in the parameter space of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 69 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  2. [2]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. D16, 1791 (1977)

    1977

  3. [3]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  4. [4]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  5. [5]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Giannotti, E. Nardi, and L. Visinelli, Phys. Rept.870, 1 (2020), arXiv:2003.01100 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Dimopoulos, Phys

    S. Dimopoulos, Phys. Lett. B84, 435 (1979)

    1979

  7. [7]

    S. H. H. Tye, Phys. Rev. Lett.47, 1035 (1981)

    1981

  8. [8]

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

    1980

  9. [9]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B104, 199 (1981)

    1981

  10. [10]

    Holdom and M

    B. Holdom and M. E. Peskin, Nucl. Phys. B208, 397 (1982)

    1982

  11. [11]

    D. B. Kaplan, Nucl. Phys. B260, 215 (1985)

    1985

  12. [12]

    Srednicki, Nucl

    M. Srednicki, Nucl. Phys. B260, 689 (1985)

    1985

  13. [13]

    J. M. Flynn and L. Randall, Nucl. Phys. B293, 731 (1987)

    1987

  14. [14]

    Kamionkowski and J

    M. Kamionkowski and J. March-Russell, Phys. Lett. B282, 137 (1992), arXiv:hep-th/9202003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1992

  15. [15]

    Berezhiani, L

    Z. Berezhiani, L. Gianfagna, and M. Giannotti, Phys. Lett. B500, 286 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0009290

    arXiv 2001

  16. [16]

    S. D. H. Hsu and F. Sannino, Phys. Lett. B605, 369 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0408319

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  17. [17]

    Hook, Phys

    A. Hook, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 141801 (2015), arXiv:1411.3325 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  18. [18]

    Alonso- ´Alvarez, M

    G. Alonso- ´Alvarez, M. B. Gavela, and P. Quilez, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 223 (2019), arXiv:1811.05466 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  19. [19]

    A. Hook, S. Kumar, Z. Liu, and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 221801 (2020), arXiv:1911.12364 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    J. E. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett.43, 103 (1979)

    1979

  21. [21]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V . I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B166, 493 (1980)

    1980

  22. [22]

    M. S. Turner, Phys. Rept.197, 67 (1990)

    1990

  23. [23]

    V . A. Rubakov, JETP Lett.65, 621 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9703409. 20

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  24. [24]

    Fukuda, K

    H. Fukuda, K. Harigaya, M. Ibe, and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D92, 015021 (2015), arXiv:1504.06084 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  25. [25]

    Gherghetta, N

    T. Gherghetta, N. Nagata, and M. Shifman, Phys. Rev. D93, 115010 (2016), arXiv:1604.01127 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  26. [26]

    Dimopoulos, A

    S. Dimopoulos, A. Hook, J. Huang, and G. Marques-Tavares, JHEP11, 052 (2016), arXiv:1606.03097 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  27. [27]

    Chiang, H

    C.-W. Chiang, H. Fukuda, M. Ibe, and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D93, 095016 (2016), arXiv:1602.07909 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  28. [28]

    M. K. Gaillard, M. B. Gavela, R. Houtz, P. Quilez, and R. Del Rey, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 972 (2018), arXiv:1805.06465 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  29. [29]

    Gherghetta and M

    T. Gherghetta and M. D. Nguyen, JHEP12, 094 (2020), arXiv:2007.10875 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  30. [30]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, and A. Thamm, JHEP12, 044 (2017), arXiv:1708.00443 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  31. [31]

    Arigaet al.(FASER), Phys

    A. Arigaet al.(FASER), Phys. Rev. D99, 095011 (2019), arXiv:1811.12522 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    Aloni, Y

    D. Aloni, Y . Soreq, and M. Williams, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 031803 (2019), arXiv:1811.03474 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  33. [33]

    Cheng, L

    H.-C. Cheng, L. Li, and E. Salvioni, JHEP01, 122 (2022), arXiv:2110.10691 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    Dalla Valle Garcia, F

    G. Dalla Valle Garcia, F. Kahlhoefer, M. Ovchynnikov, and A. Zaporozhchenko, Phys. Rev. D109, 055042 (2024), arXiv:2310.03524 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    T. Li, M. A. Schmidt, and M. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D112, 115038 (2025), arXiv:2506.08342 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    J. L. Feng, I. Galon, F. Kling, and S. Trojanowski, Phys. Rev. D97, 035001 (2018), arXiv:1708.09389 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  37. [37]

    Arigaet al.(FASER), (2018), arXiv:1811.10243 [physics.ins-det]

    A. Arigaet al.(FASER), (2018), arXiv:1811.10243 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  38. [38]

    Arigaet al.(FASER), (2018), arXiv:1812.09139 [physics.ins-det]

    A. Arigaet al.(FASER), (2018), arXiv:1812.09139 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [39]

    Arigaet al.(FASER), (2019), arXiv:1901.04468 [hep-ex]

    A. Arigaet al.(FASER), (2019), arXiv:1901.04468 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  40. [40]

    Abreuet al.(FASER), JINST19, P05066 (2024), arXiv:2207.11427 [physics.ins-det]

    H. Abreuet al.(FASER), JINST19, P05066 (2024), arXiv:2207.11427 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    J. L. Fenget al., J. Phys. G50, 030501 (2023), arXiv:2203.05090 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    Boiarska, K

    I. Boiarska, K. Bondarenko, A. Boyarsky, M. Ovchynnikov, O. Ruchayskiy, and A. Sokolenko, JHEP05, 049 (2020), arXiv:1908.04635 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  43. [43]

    Cerciet al., JHEP06, 110 (2022), arXiv:2201.00019 [hep-ex]

    S. Cerciet al., JHEP06, 110 (2022), arXiv:2201.00019 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    E. M. Riordanet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.59, 755 (1987)

    1987

  45. [45]

    J. D. Bjorken, S. Ecklund, W. R. Nelson, A. Abashian, C. Church, B. Lu, L. W. Mo, T. A. Nunamaker, and P. Rassmann, Phys. Rev. D38, 3375 (1988)

    1988

  46. [46]

    Bross, M

    A. Bross, M. Crisler, S. H. Pordes, J. V olk, S. Errede, and J. Wrbanek, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 2942 (1991)

    1991

  47. [47]

    Liu and G

    Y .-S. Liu and G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. D96, 016004 (2017), arXiv:1705.01633 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  48. [48]

    Banerjeeet al.(NA64), Phys

    D. Banerjeeet al.(NA64), Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 081801 (2020), arXiv:2005.02710 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    Y . M. Andreevet al.(NA64), Phys. Rev. D104, L111102 (2021), arXiv:2104.13342 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    Ishikawa, Y

    A. Ishikawa, Y . Sakaki, and Y . Takubo, PTEP2022, 113B05 (2022), arXiv:2107.06431 [hep-ph]. 21

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    Sieber, D

    H. Sieber, D. Banerjee, P. Crivelli, E. Depero, S. N. Gninenko, D. V . Kirpichnikov, M. M. Kirsanov, V . Poliakov, and L. Molina Bueno, Phys. Rev. D105, 052006 (2022), arXiv:2110.15111 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    Y . M. Andreevet al.(NA64), Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 211803 (2024), arXiv:2401.01708 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    Bergsmaet al.(CHARM), Phys

    F. Bergsmaet al.(CHARM), Phys. Lett. B166, 473 (1986)

    1986

  54. [54]

    Athanassopouloset al.(LSND), Phys

    C. Athanassopouloset al.(LSND), Phys. Rev. C58, 2489 (1998), arXiv:nucl-ex/9706006

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  55. [55]

    Astieret al.(NOMAD), Phys

    P. Astieret al.(NOMAD), Phys. Lett. B506, 27 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0101041

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  56. [56]

    Anelliet al.(SHiP), (2015), arXiv:1504.04956 [physics.ins-det]

    M. Anelliet al.(SHiP), (2015), arXiv:1504.04956 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  57. [57]

    Alekhinet al., Rept

    S. Alekhinet al., Rept. Prog. Phys.79, 124201 (2016), arXiv:1504.04855 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  58. [58]

    R. R. Dusaev, D. V . Kirpichnikov, and M. M. Kirsanov, Phys. Rev. D102, 055018 (2020), arXiv:2004.04469 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  59. [59]

    J. Liu, Y . Luo, and M. Song, JHEP09, 104 (2023), arXiv:2304.05435 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  60. [60]

    K. J. Kim and Y .-S. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D8, 3109 (1973)

    1973

  61. [61]

    Bauer, P

    M. Bauer, P. Foldenauer, and J. Jaeckel, JHEP07, 094 (2018), arXiv:1803.05466 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  62. [62]

    Tsai and V

    Y .-S. Tsai and V . Whitis, Phys. Rev.149, 1248 (1966)

    1966

  63. [63]

    Tsai, Rev

    Y .-S. Tsai, Rev. Mod. Phys.46, 815 (1974), [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 49, 421–423 (1977)]

    1974

  64. [64]

    Tsai, Phys

    Y .-S. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D34, 1326 (1986)

    1986

  65. [65]

    Baiet al., Phys

    Z. Baiet al., Phys. Rev. D106, 115034 (2022), arXiv:2107.13554 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  66. [66]

    M. A. Sotoet al., Phys. Rev. D112, 112014 (2025), arXiv:2507.17716 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    Fedotov, A

    A. Fedotov, A. Ilderton, F. Karbstein, B. King, D. Seipt, H. Taya, and G. Torgrimsson, Phys. Rept. 1010, 1 (2023), arXiv:2203.00019 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  68. [68]

    D. L. Burkeet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 1626 (1997)

    1997

  69. [69]

    Bamberet al., Phys

    C. Bamberet al., Phys. Rev. D60, 092004 (1999)

    1999

  70. [70]

    Hartin, Int

    A. Hartin, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33, 1830011 (2018), arXiv:1804.02934 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  71. [71]

    Abramowiczet al., (2019), arXiv:1909.00860 [physics.ins-det]

    H. Abramowiczet al., (2019), arXiv:1909.00860 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  72. [72]

    Abramowiczet al., Eur

    H. Abramowiczet al., Eur. Phys. J. ST230, 2445 (2021), arXiv:2102.02032 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  73. [73]

    (2006), 10.3204/DESY 06-097

    doi:10.3204/desy 2006

  74. [74]

    Ness and B

    N. Ness and B. Cimring, (2025), arXiv:2512.11975 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, S. Renner, M. Schnubel, and A. Thamm, JHEP04, 063 (2021), arXiv:2012.12272 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  76. [76]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, S. Renner, M. Schnubel, and A. Thamm, JHEP09, 056 (2022), arXiv:2110.10698 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  77. [77]

    Georgi, D

    H. Georgi, D. B. Kaplan, and L. Randall, Phys. Lett. B169, 73 (1986)

    1986

  78. [78]

    Y . Ema, K. Hamaguchi, T. Moroi, and K. Nakayama, JHEP01, 096 (2017), arXiv:1612.05492 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  79. [79]

    Calibbi, F

    L. Calibbi, F. Goertz, D. Redigolo, R. Ziegler, and J. Zupan, Phys. Rev. D95, 095009 (2017), arXiv:1612.08040 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  80. [80]

    Bj ¨orkeroth, L

    F. Bj ¨orkeroth, L. Di Luzio, F. Mescia, and E. Nardi, JHEP02, 133 (2019), arXiv:1811.09637 [hep- ph]. 22

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

Showing first 80 references.