Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 76 references

A quality-coupling relation in chiral $U(1)_{B-L}$ axion model

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A gauged chiral U(1)_{B-L} symmetry can protect the QCD axion's quality, but the same protection forces a minimal 'quality floor' on the axion-electron coupling, making axion quality testable.

desk verdict A genuinely new quality-coupling relation in a chiral U(1)_{B-L} axion model, but the quantitative floor rests on an underived loop formula used outside its stated regime. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01897 v1 pith:J2OPNXYC submitted 2026-08-03 hep-ph hep-th

Yu-Cheng Qiu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-th
keywords QCDaxionqualityproblemU(1)_{B-L}gaugesymmetrychiraltheoryaccidentalPQaxion-electroncouplinggaugedMajoronstrongCP
open problems The Strong CP Problem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that protecting the QCD axion's quality with a gauged chiral $U(1)_{B-L}$ symmetry has a concrete, testable consequence. Two complex scalars break the gauge symmetry through their vacuum expectation values; one phase combination is eaten by the $B-L$ gauge boson, and the orthogonal combination becomes the QCD axion. Requiring the axion-induced $\bar{\theta}$ shift to stay below $10^{-10}$ forces a large number of heavy chiral quarks, and anomaly cancellation then forces the anomaly coefficient $C_{B-L}$ between the axion and the $B-L$ gauge field to be large. Through a one-loop process with the massive $B-L$ gauge boson, this large coefficient generates an axion-electron coupling, so the same requirement that makes the axion high-quality sets a lower bound, the 'quality floor', on $|g_{aee}|$. The author concludes that axion quality is not merely a theoretical condition: for a given axion mass, the model predicts a minimal electron coupling that experiments can search for.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three linked pieces. First, the accidental PQ symmetry is the phase direction left over after the $U(1)_{B-L}$ gauge boson eats one combination of the two scalar phases; its anomaly with QCD solves the strong CP problem, and its decay constant $F_a$ follows from the scalar VEVs and charges. Second, the cubic anomaly-cancellation equation, with sums $A$ and $B$ of squared heavy-quark charges, converts the need for large $m,n$ into the lower bound on the anomaly coefficient $C_{B-L}$. Third, the one-loop triangle diagram with a massive $B-L$ gauge boson turns $C_{B-L}$ into the induced axion-fermion coupling of Eq. (23). The 'quality floor' is the composition: quality forces large $n$, which forces large $C_{B-L}$, which forces large induced $|g_{aee}|$.

What would settle it

A search over integer solutions of the cubic anomaly equation (16) for $m=6$, $n=11$ at $F_a=10^{12}$ GeV that satisfies the no-cross Yukawa condition and gives $C_{B-L}<33$ would disprove the claimed lower bound; alternatively, observing a QCD axion at that scale with an electron coupling below the quality floor shown in Fig. 2 would rule out this model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a quantitative quality-coupling relation: high axion quality implies a large anomalous coupling between the axion and the $U(1)_{B-L}$ gauge boson, and that coupling induces an axion-fermion interaction with a calculable lower bound. Under the charge assignment $q_1=m=l$, $-q_2=n=k$ with equal scalar VEVs, the cubic anomaly-cancellation condition reduces to $3mA-3nB = nm(m^2-n^2)$, and non-negativity of the sums $A,B$ of squared heavy-quark charges gives $C_{B-L}\ge \max(n^2/4,(m^2+3)/4)$ (or the $n\leftrightarrow m$ variant). The loop computation yields $g_{aee}^{(B-L)}\simeq (3\alpha_{B-L}^2/(4\pi^2))\,q_f^2 (m_f/F_a) C_{B-L}\log(v/m_B)$. Because the quality requirement $\delta\bar{\theta}<10^{-10}$ forces $n$ large, this induced coupling has a floor that can exceed the model-independent QCD contribution, extending the observable parameter space of invisible QCD axions and tying low-energy couplings to the UV charge assignments of the heavy chiral quarks.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the leading symmetry-breaking operator in Eq. (9) dominates all others with an order-one Wilson coefficient, so that the quality condition in Eq. (20) fixes the required number of heavy quarks; if that coefficient were much smaller, fewer quarks would be needed and the coupling floor would drop.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At a given axion decay constant, the model predicts a definite minimum axion-electron coupling; a discovered QCD axion with $|g_{aee}|$ below that floor would be inconsistent with this chiral $U(1)_{B-L}$ quality mechanism.
  • The allowed parameter space for invisible QCD axions widens beyond the conventional narrow coupling band, with larger $|g_{aee}|$ values that laboratory and astrophysical searches, including red-giant constraints, can probe.
  • The UV choice of heavy-quark $U(1)_{B-L}$ charges controls how far $C_{B-L}$ sits above its floor, so precise measurements of axion couplings would provide indirect information about the high-energy spectrum.
  • In the dark-matter limit where $\alpha_{B-L}$ is very small, the induced $B-L$ contribution falls below the QCD contribution, but the floor logic still applies and can be combined with dark-matter searches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same floor mechanism should appear in any gauge-protected accidental-PQ model in which quality forces a large anomaly coefficient, so the $U(1)_{B-L}$ example is likely one member of a broader family of quality-coupling relations.
  • Because the floor scales with the unknown order-one Wilson coefficient of the leading PQ-breaking operator, a null search cannot falsify the quality idea itself; it only rules out the order-one-coefficient version, so reporting bounds at several assumed quality thresholds would make the comparison sharper.
  • The logarithmic dependence of the induced coupling on $v/m_B$ suggests that raising the floor further is possible by changing the $B-L$ gauge-boson mass, connecting axion searches to direct searches for the $B-L$ gauge boson.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a chiral U(1)_{B-L} gauge extension with two Higgs-like scalars and N chiral quark pairs, in which the QCD axion is an accidental pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson. It derives lower bounds on the U(1)_{B-L} anomaly coefficient C_{B-L} from the requirement delta_theta < 10^{-10} (Eqs. 16-20), and then argues that this 'quality floor' radiatively induces a lower bound on the axion-electron coupling |g_aee| (Eq. 23), thereby extending the visible parameter space of QCD axions beyond the KSVZ-like band. The paper also provides an explicit charge assignment at n=11, m=6 and compares the resulting couplings with red-giant bounds in Fig. 2.

Significance. If the derivation of Eq. (23) holds, the proposed relation between axion quality and IR axion-fermion couplings is interesting and potentially testable. The algebraic lower bounds on C_{B-L} in Eqs. (18)-(19) are carefully derived from the cubic anomaly condition (16), and the explicit charge assignment at n=11, m=6 indeed satisfies that condition. The paper also makes a good conceptual point that embedding the accidental PQ symmetry in a gauge symmetry removes the PQ charge ambiguity, so the anomaly coefficient is fixed by the UV charge assignments. The central numerical claim, however, currently rests on an unproven loop formula that is used outside its stated regime of validity.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV, Eq. (23)] The central formula for the induced axion-fermion coupling, Eq. (23), is presented without derivation or a specific reference. The appendix computes only the anomaly a-B-B~ and the matching to Eq. (12), not the radiative generation of g_aff from two B exchanges. Since Fig. 2 and the 'quality floor' are quantitative outputs of the paper, this missing step is load-bearing. The author should either provide the one-loop matching calculation that leads to Eq. (23) or cite a paper that contains it, and state the exact matching conditions and sign convention.
  2. [IV, Eq. (23) and Fig. 2] The stated validity condition v1=v2>mB>mf is not satisfied in the plotted region. From Eq. (7) and the definition of mB one obtains v/mB = 1/(g_{B-L} sqrt(m^2+n^2)). For m=6 and the smallest plotted alpha_{B-L}=0.005 (g about 0.25), this ratio is about 0.65 for n=1 and 0.32 for n=11; for all n shown and all plotted alpha_{B-L}>=0.005 the logarithm log(v/mB) is negative. Therefore Eq. (23) is used outside its domain, and the magnitude and sign of the logarithmic term that determines the blue-shaded floor are not controlled by the stated formula.
  3. [IV, Eqs. (23)-(24)] The 'minimal coupling' claim is not rigorous because of the acknowledged possible cancellation between the B-L induced term and the model-independent electromagnetic term of Eq. (24). Since the sign of g^(B-L)_aff depends on conventions and threshold corrections, |g_aee| can be smaller than the plotted floor for suitable parameters. The paper should either include the electromagnetic contribution with a definite sign convention and show whether the cancellation can occur, or state explicitly that the floor bounds only the B-L component of the coupling rather than the total |g_aee|.
  4. [II, Eqs. (9)-(10) and (20)] The quality bound Eq. (20) assumes that O_a in Eq. (9) is the dominant PQ-breaking operator with a Wilson coefficient c_a of order one and that all higher-order terms can be neglected. This is standard in the axion quality literature but is an assumption: if c_a were suppressed by a discrete symmetry, the required n would be smaller and the quality floor would be proportionally weaker. The paper should state this parametric uncertainty explicitly in the discussion of Fig. 2 and in the summary.
minor comments (4)
  1. [IV, Eq. (23)] The notation v_i = sqrt(m^2+n^2) F_a is confusing because v_i elsewhere denotes the scalar VEVs; using a single symbol v for the common VEV would make the hierarchy condition and the ratio v/mB clearer.
  2. [III, Eq. (17)] The equality of the two expressions for C_{B-L} in Eq. (17) follows from the cubic condition Eq. (16); stating this explicitly would help the reader follow the derivation of the lower bounds.
  3. [IV, Fig. 2 caption] The caption says the blue-shaded region denotes couplings allowed by the quality requirement, but the boundaries depend on the choice of alpha_{B-L}; clarifying that the boundaries are illustrative choices and that interior points are not all guaranteed to be realizable would improve the figure.
  4. [V] The terms 'gauged Majoron' and 'feeton' are used without definition in Section V; a brief definition or reference in the text would help non-specialist readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the quality floor is derived from the delta-theta constraint and anomaly cancellation; the unproven loop formula is a correctness gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: anomaly cancellation (Eqs. 3 and 16) with the charge parametrization (Eqs. 13-15) yields lower bounds on C_B-L (Eqs. 18-19); the quality condition (Eq. 20), obtained from the PQ-breaking operator (Eq. 10), fixes the minimal n for given F_a and m; combining these with the loop-induced coupling (Eq. 23) produces the lower bound on |g_aee| shown in Fig. 2. No parameter is fitted to reproduce the floor: the experimental input delta-theta < 10^{-10} is used as an external constraint, and (C_B-L)_min follows from the anomaly equations rather than from the target coupling. The citations to the QWY framework [28] supply the chiral U(1) model and Eq. (4); they do not encode the quality-floor result and are published, externally checkable prior work, so they do not make the new derivation circular. Caveats: Eq. (23) is stated without derivation while the appendix computes only the a-B-B~ anomaly, not the induced a-f-f coupling; the hierarchy v > m_B assumed in Eq. (23) is not satisfied across the plotted alpha_B-L region for m=6; and Eq. (20) assumes the Wilson coefficient c_a is O(1). These are correctness risks and omitted-derivation concerns, not circular reductions of the central claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard QCD axion machinery, the assumption that O_a is the leading PQ-breaking operator with O(1) coefficient, and the unproven loop formula Eq. (23). No new particles are introduced. The free parameters are model parameters (m, alpha_B-L), not fitted to data.

free parameters (2)
  • m (U(1)_{B-L} charge of phi_1) = 6 (chosen for the Majoron example)
    The numerical floor in Figs. 1-2 fixes m=6 so that phi_1 is the Majoron with charge -3 under the 1/3 normalization. The central argument is illustrated for this value.
  • alpha_B-L (gauge coupling) = 0.07, 0.01, 0.005 (varied in Fig. 2)
    The quality floor in |g_aee| depends on alpha_B-L through the loop factor in Eq. (23). The figure shows three representative values.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The QCD axion solves the strong CP problem via the PQ mechanism.
    Standard background, stated in the introduction.
  • domain assumption The operator O_a in Eq. (9) is the leading operator that breaks the accidental PQ symmetry while preserving U(1)_{B-L}; higher-order terms are negligible.
    The paper states 'The higher-order terms are neglected from now on' after Eq. (9), and the U(1) charge constraints make O_a the lowest-dimensional such operator.
  • domain assumption The Wilson coefficient c_a of O_a is O(1).
    Eq. (10) absorbs c_a into the potential with an arbitrary phase delta; the quality bound Eq. (20) assumes no additional suppression.
  • standard math The anomaly coefficient calculation in the Appendix is correct, including the spinor identities and the matching to the EFT operator.
    The Appendix performs a one-loop triangle calculation; the result reproduces the Dirac-limit anomaly coefficient.
  • domain assumption The effective axion-fermion coupling in Eq. (23) is the leading contribution induced by the massive B-L gauge boson.
    Stated as 'at leading order' without derivation; it is an estimate with a log(v/m_B) factor.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A quality-coupling relation in chiral $U(1)_{B-L}$ axion model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J2OPNXYC

@misc{pith2026260801897,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A quality-coupling relation in chiral $U(1)_B-L$ axion model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J2OPNXYC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01897}
}
abstract

The quality of the QCD axion can be protected by a gauge symmetry. This work considers a gauged chiral $U(1)_{B-L}$. The vacuum expectation values of two complex scalars break $U(1)_{B-L}$. One linear combination of their two phase degrees of freedom is eaten by the $U(1)_{B-L}$ gauge boson, while the other becomes the QCD axion. Since the PQ symmetry is accidental, there is no ambiguity in the PQ charge assignment. High axion quality implies a large anomalous coupling between the axion and the $U(1)_{B-L}$ gauge boson (or gauged Majoron). A `quality floor', namely a minimal coupling determined by the axion quality, arises for the coupling between the axion and SM fermions, extending the parameter space of QCD axions toward improved testability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01897 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Relation between the decay constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Dimensionless axion-electron coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    According to Eq

    Assume thatnis even andmis odd. According to Eq. (15), one has (a 2 j)min = 1 and (b 2 j)min = 0, which leads toB≥0 andA≥n. Meanwhile, the cubic equation (16) indicates that 3nB=nm(m 2−n 2) + 3mA. Therefore,B≥0 impliesA≥n(n 2−m 2)/3. Thus, the allowed range ofAisA≥max(n,n(n 2− m2)/3). This gives CB−L≥max n2 4 , m2 + 3 4 .(18) Using the corresponding range...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The field range and decay constantF a of the axion are a≡F aθa∈ 0, 2πv1v2p m2v2 1 +n 2v2 2 # ,(7) Fa = v1v2p m2v2 1 +n 2v2 2

    Hereθ b becomes the longi- tudinal mode ofB µ andθ a is the axion. The field range and decay constantF a of the axion are a≡F aθa∈ 0, 2πv1v2p m2v2 1 +n 2v2 2 # ,(7) Fa = v1v2p m2v2 1 +n 2v2 2 . The shift ofθ a is anomalous. At low energies, anomaly matching requires the term ¯θ+N DW a Fa g2 s 32π2GA µν ˜GAµν ,(8) whereG A µν is the gluon field strength, a...

    work page

  3. [3]

    An analogous analysis yields the result obtained by interchangingn↔min Eq

    Ifmis even andnis odd, thenA≥0 andB≥m. An analogous analysis yields the result obtained by interchangingn↔min Eq. (18)

    work page

  4. [4]

    Using the cubic equation (16), one obtains CB−L≥max m2 + 3 4 , n2 + 3 4 .(19) The analysis above does not fully account for the integer nature of the solutionsa j andb j

    Ifmandnare both odd, thenA≥nandB≥m. Using the cubic equation (16), one obtains CB−L≥max m2 + 3 4 , n2 + 3 4 .(19) The analysis above does not fully account for the integer nature of the solutionsa j andb j. The actual minimum can therefore be larger than the bounds found here. As- suming thatϕ 1 is the Majoron that gives mass to the right-handed neutrinos...

    work page

  5. [5]

    J. H. Smith, E. M. Purcell, and N. F. Ramsey, Experi- mental limit to the electric dipole moment of the neutron, Phys. Rev.108, 120 (1957)

    work page 1957

  6. [6]

    Abelet al., Measurement of the Permanent Electric Dipole Moment of the Neutron, Phys

    C. Abelet al., Measurement of the Permanent Electric Dipole Moment of the Neutron, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 081803 (2020), arXiv:2001.11966 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

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

    1977

  8. [8]

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

    1977

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    Weinberg, A New Light Boson?, Phys

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

    1978

  2. [10]

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

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

    1978

  3. [11]

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

    1979

  4. [12]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, Can Confinement Ensure Natural CP Invariance of Strong In- teractions?, Nucl. Phys. B166, 493 (1980)

    1980

  5. [13]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, A Simple Solu- tion to the Strong CP Problem with a Harmless Axion, Phys. Lett. B104, 199 (1981)

    1981

  6. [14]

    A. R. Zhitnitsky, On Possible Suppression of the Axion Hadron Interactions. (In Russian), Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 31, 260 (1980)

    1980

  7. [15]

    Banks and N

    T. Banks and N. Seiberg, Symmetries and Strings in Field Theory and Gravity, Phys. Rev. D83, 084019 (2011), arXiv:1011.5120 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  8. [16]

    H. M. Georgi, L. J. Hall, and M. B. Wise, Grand Uni- fied Models With an Automatic Peccei-Quinn Symmetry, Nucl. Phys. B192, 409 (1981)

    1981

  9. [17]

    Redi and R

    M. Redi and R. Sato, Composite Accidental Axions, JHEP05, 104, arXiv:1602.05427 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Di Luzio, F

    L. Di Luzio, F. Mescia, and E. Nardi, Window for pre- ferred axion models, Phys. Rev. D96, 075003 (2017), arXiv:1705.05370 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Duerr, K

    M. Duerr, K. Schmidt-Hoberg, and J. Unwin, Protecting the Axion with Local Baryon Number, Phys. Lett. B780, 553 (2018), arXiv:1712.01841 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Fukuda, M

    H. Fukuda, M. Ibe, M. Suzuki, and T. T. Yanagida, A ”gauged”U(1) Peccei–Quinn symmetry, Phys. Lett. B 771, 327 (2017), arXiv:1703.01112 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Bonnefoy, E

    Q. Bonnefoy, E. Dudas, and S. Pokorski, Axions in a highly protected gauge symmetry model, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 31 (2019), arXiv:1804.01112 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Lillard and T

    B. Lillard and T. M. P. Tait, A High Quality Composite Axion, JHEP11, 199, arXiv:1811.03089 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Lee and W

    H.-S. Lee and W. Yin, Peccei-Quinn symmetry from a hidden gauge group structure, Phys. Rev. D99, 015041 7 (2019), arXiv:1811.04039 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Fukuda, M

    H. Fukuda, M. Ibe, M. Suzuki, and T. T. Yanagida, Gauged Peccei-Quinn symmetry — A case of simulta- neous breaking of SUSY and PQ symmetry, JHEP07, 128, arXiv:1803.00759 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    M. Ibe, M. Suzuki, and T. T. Yanagida,B−Las a Gauged Peccei-Quinn Symmetry, JHEP08, 049, arXiv:1805.10029 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    M. B. Gavela, M. Ibe, P. Quilez, and T. T. Yanagida, Automatic Peccei–Quinn symmetry, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 542 (2019), arXiv:1812.08174 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    M. Ardu, L. Di Luzio, G. Landini, A. Strumia, D. Teresi, and J.-W. Wang, Axion quality from the (anti)symmetric of SU(N), JHEP11, 090, arXiv:2007.12663 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  20. [28]

    G. Choi, M. Suzuki, and T. T. Yanagida, QCD axion from a spontaneously brokenB−Lgauge symmetry, JHEP07, 048, arXiv:2005.10415 [hep-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Darm´ e and E

    L. Darm´ e and E. Nardi, Exact accidental U(1) symme- tries for the axion, Phys. Rev. D104, 055013 (2021), arXiv:2102.05055 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Contino, A

    R. Contino, A. Podo, and F. Revello, Chiral models of composite axions and accidental Peccei-Quinn symmetry, JHEP04, 180, arXiv:2112.09635 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Choi and T

    G. Choi and T. T. Yanagida, High quality axion in su- persymmetric models, JHEP12, 067, arXiv:2209.09290 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Qiu, J.-W

    Y.-C. Qiu, J.-W. Wang, and T. T. Yanagida, High- Quality Axions in a Class of Chiral U(1) Gauge Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 071802 (2023), arXiv:2301.02345 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Sheng and T

    J. Sheng and T. T. Yanagida, High quality QCD axion in the Standard Model, Phys. Rev. D113, 055010 (2026), arXiv:2510.17370 [hep-ph]

    2026

  26. [34]

    K. I. Izawa, T. Watari, and T. Yanagida, Higher dimen- sional QCD without the strong CP problem, Phys. Lett. B534, 93 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0202171

    2002 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Choi, A QCD axion from higher dimensional gauge field, Phys

    K.-w. Choi, A QCD axion from higher dimensional gauge field, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 101602 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0308024

    2004

  28. [36]

    K. I. Izawa, T. Watari, and T. Yanagida, Supersymmet- ric and CP-symmetric QCD in higher dimensions, Phys. Lett. B589, 141 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0403090

    2004 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Flacke, B

    T. Flacke, B. Gripaios, J. March-Russell, and D. May- bury, Warped axions, JHEP01, 061, arXiv:hep- ph/0611278

  30. [38]

    P. Cox, T. Gherghetta, and M. D. Nguyen, A Holographic Perspective on the Axion Quality Problem, JHEP01, 188, arXiv:1911.09385 [hep-ph]

    1911 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Bonnefoy, P

    Q. Bonnefoy, P. Cox, E. Dudas, T. Gherghetta, and M. D. Nguyen, Flavoured Warped Axion, JHEP04, 084, arXiv:2012.09728 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Nakai and M

    Y. Nakai and M. Suzuki, Axion Quality from Super- conformal Dynamics, Phys. Lett. B816, 136239 (2021), arXiv:2102.01329 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Nakagawa, Y

    S. Nakagawa, Y. Nakai, M. Yamada, and Y. Zhang, Dy- namics of superconformal axion: Quality and scalegene- sis, Phys. Lett. B849, 138447 (2024), arXiv:2309.06964 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Nakagawa, Y

    S. Nakagawa, Y. Nakai, J. Xu, and Y. Zhang, High qual- ity QCD axion via electric-magnetic duality, JHEP06, 005, arXiv:2412.08931 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    Craig and M

    N. Craig and M. Kongsore, High-quality axions from higher-form symmetries in extra dimensions, Phys. Rev. D111, 015047 (2025), arXiv:2408.10295 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Reece, Extra-dimensional axion expectations, JHEP 07, 130, arXiv:2406.08543 [hep-ph]

    M. Reece, Extra-dimensional axion expectations, JHEP 07, 130, arXiv:2406.08543 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    Choi and T

    G. Choi and T. Gherghetta, An extra-dimensional ax- ion in a 5D warped orbifold GUT, JHEP03, 169, arXiv:2512.15666 [hep-ph]

  38. [46]

    K. Choi, C. H. Lee, and C. S. Shin, Axion Quality in Warped Extra-Dimension, (2026), arXiv:2604.08700 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Cs´ aki, E

    C. Cs´ aki, E. Kuflik, W. Xue, and T. Youn, The Holographic QCD Axion in Five Dimensions, (2026), arXiv:2604.02411 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  40. [48]

    S. H. H. Tye, A Superstrong Force With a Heavy Axion, Phys. Rev. Lett.47, 1035 (1981)

    1981

  41. [49]

    A. Hook, S. Kumar, Z. Liu, and R. Sundrum, High Qual- ity QCD Axion and the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 221801 (2020), arXiv:1911.12364 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    J. Liu, N. McGinnis, C. E. M. Wagner, and X.-P. Wang, Challenges for a QCD Axion at the 10 MeV Scale, JHEP 05, 138, arXiv:2102.10118 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Girmohanta, S

    S. Girmohanta, S. Nakagawa, Y. Nakai, and J. Xu, How viable is a QCD axion near 10 MeV?, JHEP10, 153, arXiv:2405.13425 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    Murayama, GeV-scale QCD Axion, (2026), arXiv:2601.02465 [hep-ph]

    H. Murayama, GeV-scale QCD Axion, (2026), arXiv:2601.02465 [hep-ph]

    2026

  45. [53]

    Dvali, Strong-CPwith and without gravity, (2022), arXiv:2209.14219 [hep-ph]

    G. Dvali, Strong-CPwith and without gravity, (2022), arXiv:2209.14219 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    C. P. Burgess, G. Choi, and F. Quevedo, UV and IR effects in axion quality control, JHEP03, 051, arXiv:2301.00549 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    P. G. Catinari and A. Urbano, Gravitational instantons and the quality problem of the QCD axion: Facts, spec- ulations, and statements in between, Phys. Rev. D111, 125007 (2025), arXiv:2410.12741 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Cheek, A

    A. Cheek, A. Fowlie, and G. Herrera, Quality control for axions and ALPs, (2026), arXiv:2606.14098 [hep-ph]

    2026

  49. [57]

    Binetruy, C

    P. Binetruy, C. Deffayet, and P. Peter, Global versus local cosmic strings from pseudoanomalous U(1), Phys. Lett. B441, 52 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9807233

    1998 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Hiramatsu, M

    T. Hiramatsu, M. Ibe, and M. Suzuki, New Type of String Solutions with Long Range Forces, JHEP02, 058, arXiv:1910.14321 [hep-ph]

    1910 arXiv

  51. [59]

    X. Niu, W. Xue, and F. Yang, Gauged global strings, JHEP02, 093, arXiv:2311.07639 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  52. [60]

    M. Eto, Y. Hamada, and M. Nitta, Tying Knots in Particle Physics, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 091603 (2025), arXiv:2407.11731 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  53. [61]

    J. Hua, B. Fu, and Y.-L. Tang, One-Dimensional Simu- lations of the Topological Defects in a 3:1U(1) Model, (2026), arXiv:2607.13066 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  54. [62]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 912 (1980)

    1980

  55. [63]

    R. N. Mohapatra and R. E. Marshak, Local B-L Symme- try of Electroweak Interactions, Majorana Neutrinos and Neutron Oscillations, Phys. Rev. Lett.44, 1316 (1980), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 44, 1643 (1980)]

    1980

  56. [64]

    Fukugita and T

    M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification, Phys. Lett. B174, 45 (1986)

    1986

  57. [65]

    Buchmuller, R

    W. Buchmuller, R. D. Peccei, and T. Yanagida, Leptoge- nesis as the origin of matter, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 55, 311 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0502169

    2005 arXiv

  58. [66]

    W. Lin, L. Visinelli, D. Xu, and T. T. Yanagida, Neutrino astronomy as a probe of physics beyond the Standard Model: Decay of sub-MeV B-L gauge boson dark matter, 8 Phys. Rev. D106, 075011 (2022), arXiv:2202.04496 [hep- ph]

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Sheng, Y

    J. Sheng, Y. Cheng, W. Lin, and T. T. Yanagida, F´ eeton (B-L gauge boson) dark matter for the 511-keV gamma- ray excess and the prediction of low-energy neutrino flux, Chin. Phys. C48, 083104 (2024), arXiv:2310.05420 [hep- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    D. B. Costa, B. A. Dobrescu, and P. J. Fox, General So- lution to the U(1) Anomaly Equations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 151601 (2019), arXiv:1905.13729 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Zhou, J.-W

    R. Zhou, J.-W. Wang, and L. Bian, Probing High- Quality Axions with Gravitational Waves, (2026), arXiv:2604.09081 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Grilli di Cortona, E

    G. Grilli di Cortona, E. Hardy, J. Pardo Vega, and G. Villadoro, The QCD axion, precisely, JHEP01, 034, arXiv:1511.02867 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    W. A. Bardeen and S. H. H. Tye, Current Algebra Ap- plied to Properties of the Light Higgs Boson, Phys. Lett. B74, 229 (1978)

    1978

  64. [72]

    Srednicki, Axion Couplings to Matter

    M. Srednicki, Axion Couplings to Matter. 1. CP Con- serving Parts, Nucl. Phys. B260, 689 (1985)

    1985

  65. [73]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, S. Renner, M. Schnubel, and A. Thamm, The Low-Energy Effective Theory of Axions and ALPs, JHEP04, 063, arXiv:2012.12272 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Capozzi and G

    F. Capozzi and G. Raffelt, Axion and neutrino bounds improved with new calibrations of the tip of the red-giant branch using geometric distance determinations, Phys. Rev. D102, 083007 (2020), arXiv:2007.03694 [astro- ph.SR]

    2020 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Holdom, Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts, Phys

    B. Holdom, Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts, Phys. Lett. B166, 196 (1986)

    1986

  68. [76]

    H. K. Dreiner, H. E. Haber, and S. P. Martin, Two- component spinor techniques and Feynman rules for quantum field theory and supersymmetry, Phys. Rept. 494, 1 (2010), arXiv:0812.1594 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

Pith tools

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