Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

The electron-ion collider could set the strongest laboratory limits on electron-only ALPs and Z′ bosons in the 10–100 GeV range.

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

2026-08-03 11:48 UTC pith:5MU4NYPT

load-bearing objection First EIC projection for electrophilic ALP and Z' — new and cleanly done, but the '95% CL' limits use a 2-sigma discovery threshold, so the reach curves need recalibration. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.04962 v2 pith:5MU4NYPT submitted 2026-01-08 hep-ph hep-ex

ALP and Z^prime boson at the Electron-Ion collider

Amit Adhikary , Dilip Kumar Ghosh , Sk Jeesun , Sourov Roy This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords axion-like particleZ′ bosonelectron-ion collidertri-electron channelleptophilic new physicsresonance searchprojected exclusion limits
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 the upcoming electron-ion collider can become the best laboratory probe of new GeV-scale particles that couple only to electrons. Using 18 GeV electrons on 275 GeV protons (√s = 141 GeV) and 100 fb⁻¹ of data, it analyzes the tri-electron final state e⁻p → e⁻e⁺e⁻j, where an axion-like particle or a Z′ boson is produced resonantly and decays to an electron pair. The projected 95% exclusion limits reach g_aee ≈ 0.005 at 5.5 GeV and g_Z′ ≈ 0.0026, and are strongest compared to all existing constraints for ALP masses 10–100 GeV and Z′ masses 10–30 GeV. The single- and di-photon channels that arise through a loop-induced ALP–photon coupling are far weaker and do not change the conclusion. This matters because electron-only couplings in this mass range have been largely untested.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a resonance search in e⁻p → e⁻e⁺e⁻j can set 95% CL upper limits on the electron coupling of a pseudoscalar ALP and a vector Z′ with masses from 5.5 to 100 GeV. The two hardest-pT electrons reconstruct the parent mass; the signal forms a narrow peak on a smooth Standard Model background. Fitting the mass distribution and selecting a ±1σ window gives signal efficiencies of about 0.18–0.44 and background yields from roughly 5200 down to a few events per 100 fb⁻¹. Converting to couplings, the paper obtains g_aee < 0.005–0.64 and g_Z′ < 0.0026–0.60 depending on mass and systematic uncertainty, with the electron-only ALP limits stronger than previous bounds above

What carries the argument

The repeating move is the tri-electron resonance: e–p collisions produce a photon or Z that radiates an ALP or Z′ off the electron line, and the new particle decays to e⁺e⁻, so the event contains three electrons plus a jet. The signal is extracted by forming the invariant mass of the two hardest-pT electrons, m_ee, fitting the peak with a Gaussian core plus power-law tails, and counting events in a ±1σ window. The two effective Lagrangians each contain a single coupling (g_aee for the ALP, g_Z′ for the vector), plus the loop relation g_aγγ = (α/π)(g_aee/m_e)(B₁−1) for the ALP–photon mode, which turns out to be numerically negligible in the GeV region.

Load-bearing premise

The reach assumes that leading-order, parton-level event rates with simple detector smearing describe both signal and background well enough that the fitted efficiencies and yields are trustworthy; any sizeable K-factor, hadronization effect, or background-shape change would move the coupling limits by a comparable factor.

What would settle it

Recalculate the m_ee spectrum with parton shower, hadronization, and NLO matrix elements: if the Standard Model background in the 10 GeV window exceeds roughly 7000 events for 100 fb⁻¹ (about twice the value used here), or if the signal efficiency for g_aee = 0.1 drops below about 0.2, the claimed coupling exclusions would shift by more than the gap to existing bounds. Alternatively, a real EIC data run of 100 fb⁻¹ that finds no narrow excess in e⁻p → e⁻e⁺e⁻j would convert the projection into an actual exclusion and settle the reach.

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

If this is right

  • A 100 fb⁻¹ e–p run at √s = 141 GeV could exclude ALP–electron couplings down to about 0.005–0.01 in the 10–100 GeV mass window, a region where existing experiments are weak.
  • For an electrophilic Z′, the projected limits are strongest between roughly 10 and 30 GeV, filling a gap between low-energy e⁺e⁻ collider constraints and higher-mass LEP limits.
  • The tri-electron channel is the decisive one: the di-photon and single-photon channels are so much weaker that they do not improve the coupling reach.
  • The loop-induced ALP–photon coupling contributes negligibly to the tri-electron signal, so the limits are robust to that particular correction.
  • The same analysis strategy can be applied directly to other leptophilic new-physics scenarios with a resonant decay to electrons.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If this reach is realized, the electron-ion collider would serve as a discovery machine for electron-philic hidden sectors, complementing beam-dump and fixed-target experiments that probe lower masses.
  • The tri-electron signature could be reinterpreted for anomaly-free gauge structures such as lepton-flavor-difference models by a simple coupling rescaling, extending the same bounds to a broader class of Z′ bosons.
  • The dominant uncertainty is the leading-order, parton-level simulation; a future full-simulation projection with parton shower and NLO corrections would sharpen or shift the quoted limits, so the exact numbers should be treated as order-of-magnitude guidance.
  • A null result at the EIC would place the first direct laboratory constraint on GeV-scale electron-only ALPs and Z′ bosons in a window currently bounded only by indirect or loop-induced searches.

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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the sensitivity of the upcoming Electron-Ion Collider (EIC) to purely electrophilic new physics in the GeV mass range. Two scenarios are considered in an EFT framework: an axion-like particle (ALP) with coupling to electrons, and a Z' boson coupled to electrons. The analysis uses e-p collisions at sqrt(s)=141 GeV with L=100 fb^-1, focusing on the tri-electron final state e-p -> e-e+e-j; for the ALP, loop-induced diphoton and single-photon channels are also studied. Signal and background events are generated at leading order with MadGraph5, smeared with projected EIC detector resolutions, and selected by fitting the reconstructed invariant mass with a double-sided Crystal Ball function and choosing a +/-sigma window. Upper limits on cross-sections and couplings are derived using a discovery-significance formula with a threshold N_CL=2, quoted as 95% CL. The resulting limits are compared with BaBar, LEP, IceCube, and an ATLAS-derived ALP-photon bound, with the claim that EIC would give the strongest constraints for m_a between 10 and 100 GeV and m_Z' between 10 and 30 GeV.

Significance. If the projected limits are reliable, this is a useful addition to the phenomenology of leptophilic BSM particles at colliders. The paper is clearly written, explores multiple final states, and identifies a channel (e-p -> e-e+e-j) that has not been emphasized in EIC studies. The authors correctly note that the EIC provides a clean environment for such searches. The strengths include the explicit EFT setup, the treatment of loop-induced ALP-photon couplings, and the comparison with existing constraints. However, the central quantitative claim rests on a statistically incorrect 95% CL construction and on leading-order, parton-level simulations without parton shower or hadronization. These issues directly affect the placement of the exclusion curves in Figs. 16 and 17, and therefore the headline conclusion that EIC extends sensitivity in the claimed mass windows. The method is coherent internally, but the calibration of the limits needs to be corrected before the results can be taken as projected 95% CL exclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3.1) and Figs. 16-17] The upper limit is computed from S > N_CL with N_CL=2 and quoted as a 95% CL exclusion. Equation (3.1) is the asymptotic discovery significance for an excess, and a 2-sigma discovery threshold is not a 95% CL upper limit. For a counting experiment with expected background B and no observed excess, the 95% CL limit on the signal yield is approximately 1.64*sqrt(B) for large B (or the exact Poisson value), whereas the S>2 rule corresponds to about 2*sqrt(B). The cross-section limits in Tables 2-7 and the red curves in Figs. 16-17 therefore carry a mass-dependent calibration error: aggressive at small B and conservative at large B. Since the claimed strongest regions (m_a in 10-100 GeV and m_Z' in 10-30 GeV) depend on the exact curve positions, the limits must be recomputed with a proper upper-limit procedure (e.g., CL_s or a profile-likelihood test statistic q_mu) before the central claim
  2. [Sec. 3, first paragraph; Sec. 3.1] All signal and background samples are generated at leading order with MadGraph5 and no parton shower or hadronization. The signal efficiencies and background yields in Tables 2-7, and the +/-sigma mass windows derived from Crystal Ball fits, are therefore based on parton-level kinematics. Missing final-state radiation and jet fragmentation can alter the reconstructed m_ee line shape and the signal/background acceptances by O(10%) or more, and the derived coupling limits scale directly with these inputs. The authors should include parton showering (e.g., Pythia8) and, where feasible, NLO/EW corrections, or at least quantify the resulting uncertainty and state it as a caveat on the projected limits.
  3. [Sec. 5, Fig. 16 and Eq. (2.4)] The region labeled ATLAS in Fig. 16 is translated into the (m_a, g_aee) plane using Eq. (2.4), but reference [105] is a collider-search review, not an ATLAS measurement. The translation also uses the one-loop formula without discussing normalization conventions or theoretical uncertainties. Because the claim that the EIC projection is the strongest for m_a>10 GeV relies on this comparison, the authors should cite a specific ATLAS (or CMS) search and state clearly the operator normalization and the loop function used, including any uncertainty in the translation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] Typographical errors: 'pseudo-Nabu-Goldstone' should be 'Nambu-Goldstone' (Introduction); 'psudorapidity' should be 'pseudorapidity' (Table 1); 'loop-induced ALP-photon couplings driven photon final states' (Abstract) is awkward and should be rephrased.
  2. [Fig. 14 caption] The caption says 'a 20 GeV refers to an ALP with mass m_a = 20 GeV' in the Z' section. This should refer to a Z' with mass m_Z'.
  3. [Tables 2 and 4] The signal-yield columns use inconsistent normalizations: Table 2 lists S for g_aee=0.1 while Table 4 lists S x 10^-5 for g_aee=1.0. Please clarify in the captions and use a uniform convention.
  4. [Introduction and Conclusion] The statement that the GeV-to-sub-TeV region of electrophilic ALPs and Z' 'has not been investigated yet' is too strong, as the paper itself shows existing limits from LEP, BaBar, and IceCube in this mass range. Please soften the novelty claim.
  5. [Sec. 5, Fig. 17] The IceCube constraint is shown with a note that it depends on nu_e NSI, but the text does not explain the dependence. Add a brief explanation and a specific reference for the curve, rather than only citing Refs. [74,110].
  6. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3.2)] Equation (3.2) uses sigma_B = sigma_sys x B, implying the systematic uncertainty applies only to the background normalization. Please state whether signal-side systematics (e.g., luminosity, efficiency) are neglected, and justify the choice of 1% and 5% values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: projected EIC limits are derived from simulated event counts and model cross-sections; the only caveat is a statistical-calibration issue, not a circular-input issue.

full rationale

The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks: EIC limits are derived from LO MadGraph MC, not from any external fitted value, and external bounds are shown only for comparison. For each benchmark mass, signal and SM background samples are generated in MadGraph5; efficiencies are obtained after Crystal Ball fits and [mu-sigma, mu+sigma] windows; background yields are MC counts; the cross-section limit is obtained by inverting the significance formula S(sigma_UL)=2 (Eqs. 3.1-3.2); and the coupling limit follows from the same model's g^2 scaling. No fitted external parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the result is not equivalent to an input by construction. The few self-citations (e.g. Refs. [79,90]) are background references, not load-bearing support. Eq. 2.4 is used only to translate the ATLAS g_aγγ bound into the (m_a,g_aee) plane, not to set the main EIC limit. The statement in Sec. 3.1 that 'N_CL = 2 is taken for the 95% confidence interval' is a statistical-correctness concern (a 2-sigma discovery threshold is not a 95% CL exclusion), but it is not a circularity of the derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces; the ALP and Z' are borrowed from the existing EFT literature. The load-bearing inputs are the LO simulation assumption, assumed detector performance, and hand-chosen analysis thresholds (systematics 1%/5%, photon efficiency 70%, N_CL=2).

free parameters (4)
  • N_CL (95% CL threshold) = 2
    In Sec. 3.1 the authors set S > N_CL with N_CL = 2 to define the 95% CL upper limit. This is a hand-chosen approximate threshold, not derived from a CL_s or modified-frequentist procedure.
  • Systematic uncertainty sigma_sys = 1% and 5%
    Used in Eq. (3.2) for all channels; the values are assumed, not derived from an EIC detector/systematics study.
  • Photon identification efficiency = 0.70 (flat)
    Assumed for all photon final states, following Ref. [20]; the authors note it is actually pT/eta-dependent.
  • Mass-window width = +/-1 sigma around Crystal Ball mean
    Signal and background yields are evaluated in [mu - sigma, mu + sigma] for each benchmark mass; this choice is not optimized and directly affects every limit.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Leading-order MadGraph with NNPDF2.3LO gives adequate signal and background cross sections for projections.
    Sec. 3.1: background and signal are generated at LO without parton shower or NLO corrections; no K-factors are applied. This underpins all efficiencies and yields in Tables 2-7.
  • domain assumption ECCE detector resolutions (Ref. [99]) represent the future EIC detector performance.
    Sec. 3, Table 1: tracking and calorimeter resolutions are taken from the ECCE design and applied to smear electrons/photons.
  • ad hoc to paper The ALP has vanishing couplings to all SM fermions except the electron.
    Sec. 2.1: 'we neglect all other ALP-fermion couplings (simply by setting other Wilson coefficients to zero)'. This defines the pure electrophilic scenario and the signal interpretation.
  • domain assumption A Z' coupled only to electrons (plus the neutrino doublet partner) is a meaningful benchmark despite the absence of a fully gauge-invariant pure-electrophilic UV completion.
    Sec. 2.2 acknowledges that a pure electrophilic Z' is not gauge-invariant, but adopts Eq. (2.7) and cites L_e - L_mu/tau as an anomaly-free realization.
  • standard math The asymptotic significance formulas of Cowan et al. are applicable to this counting-experiment projection.
    Eqs. (3.1)-(3.2) are used for all limits; the formulas are standard but the N_CL = 2 usage is an approximation for 95% CL exclusion.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23760 in / 14165 out tokens · 156890 ms · 2026-08-03T11:48:59.149518+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the sensitivity of the upcoming electron-ion (EIC) collider to purely electrophilic new physics in the GeV mass range. Within an effective field theory framework, we consider two different scenarios: an axion-like particle (ALP) and a new heavy neutral vector gauge boson $Z^\prime $, each couples to electrons only. We analyze electron-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}= 141$ GeV with an integrated luminosity of $100~{\rm fb}^{-1}$, focusing primarily on the tri-electron final state. Additionally, loop-induced ALP-photon couplings driven photon final states are also explored. Incorporating realistic detector effects and systematic uncertainties, we obtain projected exclusion limits on the relevant cross-sections and couplings. We find that the results from EIC can significantly extend the sensitivity to electrophilic axion-like particles and $Z^\prime $ bosons in regions of parameter space that remain weakly constrained by existing experiments.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. On Exclusive Coherent Production of Bosons in Electron-Proton Collisions

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A phenomenological 2-to-3 framework is constructed for exclusive boson electroproduction that matches flux-factorized predictions near Q^{2}=0 while capturing finite-Q^{2} effects at larger virtualities.

  2. Axion-Like Electrophilic Portal for Pion Dark Matter

    hep-ph 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A minimal electrophilic ALP portal for SIMP pion dark matter widens the allowed parameter space, making an ALP mass of order 10 MeV viable and consistent with the X17 anomaly.

  3. A search for heavy axion-like particles in light-by-light scattering at the FCC-hh

    hep-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Computes production cross sections and sensitivity limits for heavy ALPs in light-by-light scattering at FCC-hh across pp, pPb, and PbPb modes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 63 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [3]

    Zwicky,Die Rotverschiebung von extragalaktischen Nebeln,Helv

    F. Zwicky,Die Rotverschiebung von extragalaktischen Nebeln,Helv. Phys. Acta6(1933) 110–127

    1933

  2. [4]

    V. C. Rubin and W. K. Ford, Jr.,Rotation of the Andromeda Nebula from a Spectroscopic Survey of Emission Regions,Astrophys. J.159(1970) 379–403

    1970

  3. [5]

    Clowe, M

    D. Clowe, M. Bradac, A. H. Gonzalez, M. Markevitch, S. W. Randall, C. Jones et al.,A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter,Astrophys. J. Lett.648(2006) L109–L113, [astro-ph/0608407]. [6]Planckcollaboration, N. Aghanim et al.,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A6, [1807.06209]. [7]Daya Baycollabora...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  4. [11]

    A. D. Sakharov,Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe,Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.5(1967) 32–35

    1967

  5. [12]

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

    1977

  6. [13]

    Harris, V

    P. Harris, V. V. Khoze, M. Spannowsky and C. Williams,Constraining Dark Sectors at Colliders: Beyond the Effective Theory Approach,Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 055009, [1411.0535]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  7. [14]

    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

  8. [15]

    Essig, J

    R. Essig, J. Mardon, M. Papucci, T. Volansky and Y.-M. Zhong,Constraining Light Dark Matter with Low-Energye +e− Colliders,JHEP11(2013) 167, [1309.5084]. – 25 – [16]DESIcollaboration, A. G. Adame et al.,DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations,JCAP02(2025) 021, [2404.03002]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  9. [17]

    G. G. Raffelt,Stars as laboratories for fundamental physics: The astrophysics of neutrinos, axions, and other weakly interacting particles. 5, 1996

    1996

  10. [18]

    Accardi et al.,Electron Ion Collider: The Next QCD Frontier: Understanding the glue that binds us all,Eur

    A. Accardi et al.,Electron Ion Collider: The Next QCD Frontier: Understanding the glue that binds us all,Eur. Phys. J. A52(2016) 268, [1212.1701]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  11. [19]

    Abdul Khalek et al.,Science Requirements and Detector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report,Nucl

    R. Abdul Khalek et al.,Science Requirements and Detector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report,Nucl. Phys. A1026(2022) 122447, [2103.05419]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [20]

    Balkin, O

    R. Balkin, O. Hen, W. Li, H. Liu, T. Ma, Y. Soreq et al.,Probing axion-like particles at the Electron-Ion Collider,JHEP02(2024) 123, [2310.08827]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [21]

    Batell, T

    B. Batell, T. Ghosh, T. Han and K. Xie,Heavy neutral leptons at the Electron-Ion Collider, JHEP03(2023) 020, [2210.09287]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [22]

    Davoudiasl, R

    H. Davoudiasl, R. Marcarelli and E. T. Neil,Lepton-flavor-violating ALPs at the Electron-Ion Collider: a golden opportunity,JHEP02(2023) 071, [2112.04513]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [23]

    Liu and B

    Y. Liu and B. Yan,Searching for the axion-like particle at the EIC*,Chin. Phys. C47 (2023) 043113, [2112.02477]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [24]

    Weinberg,A New Light Boson?,Phys

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

    1978

  17. [25]

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

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

    1978

  18. [26]

    J. E. Kim and G. Carosi,Axions and the Strong CP Problem,Rev. Mod. Phys.82(2010) 557–602, [0807.3125]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  19. [27]

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

    1979

  20. [28]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov,Can Confinement Ensure Natural CP Invariance of Strong Interactions?,Nucl. Phys. B166(1980) 493–506

    1980

  21. [29]

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

    1980

  22. [30]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler and M. Srednicki,A Simple Solution to the Strong CP Problem with a Harmless Axion,Phys. Lett. B104(1981) 199–202

    1981

  23. [31]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler,The Not So Harmless Axion,Phys. Lett. B120(1983) 137–141

    1983

  24. [32]

    Preskill, M

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise and F. Wilczek,Cosmology of the Invisible Axion,Phys. Lett. B 120(1983) 127–132

    1983

  25. [33]

    L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie,A Cosmological Bound on the Invisible Axion,Phys. Lett. B 120(1983) 133–136

    1983

  26. [34]

    Di Luzio, M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  27. [35]

    R. T. Co, L. J. Hall and K. Harigaya,Axion Kinetic Misalignment Mechanism,Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020) 251802, [1910.14152]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  28. [36]

    Arias, D

    P. Arias, D. Cadamuro, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo and A. Ringwald,WISPy Cold Dark Matter,JCAP06(2012) 013, [1201.5902]. – 26 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  29. [37]

    Jaeckel, J

    J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo and A. Ringwald,3.55 keV hint for decaying axionlike particle dark matter,Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 103511, [1402.7335]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  30. [38]

    Bharucha, F

    A. Bharucha, F. Br¨ ummer, N. Desai and S. Mutzel,Axion-like particles as mediators for dark matter: beyond freeze-out,JHEP02(2023) 141, [2209.03932]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [39]

    D. J. E. Marsh,Axion Cosmology,Phys. Rept.643(2016) 1–79, [1510.07633]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  32. [40]

    Caloni, M

    L. Caloni, M. Gerbino, M. Lattanzi and L. Visinelli,Novel cosmological bounds on thermally-produced axion-like particles,JCAP09(2022) 021, [2205.01637]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [41]

    Cadamuro, S

    D. Cadamuro, S. Hannestad, G. Raffelt and J. Redondo,Cosmological bounds on sub-MeV mass axions,JCAP02(2011) 003, [1011.3694]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  34. [42]

    M. S. Turner,Axions from SN 1987a,Phys. Rev. Lett.60(1988) 1797

    1988

  35. [43]

    Caputo and G

    A. Caputo and G. Raffelt,Astrophysical Axion Bounds: The 2024 Edition,PoS COSMICWISPers(2024) 041, [2401.13728]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [44]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert and A. Thamm,Collider Probes of Axion-Like Particles,JHEP12 (2017) 044, [1708.00443]. [45]OPALcollaboration, G. Abbiendi et al.,Multiphoton production in e+ e- collisions at s**(1/2) = 181-GeV to 209-GeV,Eur. Phys. J. C26(2003) 331–344, [hep-ex/0210016]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  37. [46]

    Jaeckel and M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  38. [47]

    Yue, H.-Y

    C.-X. Yue, H.-Y. Zhang and H. Wang,Production of axion-like particles via vector boson fusion at future electron-positron colliders,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 88, [2112.11604]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [48]

    M. Tian, Z. S. Wang and K. Wang,Search for long-lived axions with far detectors at future lepton colliders,2201.08960. [49]BESIIIcollaboration, M. Ablikim et al.,Search for an axion-like particle in radiative J/ψ decays,Phys. Lett. B838(2023) 137698, [2211.12699]. [50]CMScollaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al.,Search for Exclusive or Semi-Exclusive Photon Pai...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  40. [52]

    Mimasu and V

    K. Mimasu and V. Sanz,ALPs at Colliders,JHEP06(2015) 173, [1409.4792]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  41. [53]

    Brivio, M

    I. Brivio, M. B. Gavela, L. Merlo, K. Mimasu, J. M. No, R. del Rey et al.,ALPs Effective Field Theory and Collider Signatures,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 572, [1701.05379]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  42. [54]

    Ebadi, S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  43. [55]

    Bonilla, I

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [56]

    Mitridate, M

    A. Mitridate, M. Papucci, C. Wang, C. Pe˜ na and S. Xie,Energetic long-lived particles in the CMS muon chambers,2304.06109. – 27 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  45. [57]

    Dutta, D

    B. Dutta, D. Kim and H. Kim,A Novel Beam-Dump Measurement with the LHC General-Purpose Detectors,2305.16383

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  46. [58]

    Y. Bao, J. Fan and L. Li,Electroweak ALP Searches at a Muon Collider,2203.04328. [59]CHARMcollaboration, F. Bergsma et al.,Search for Axion Like Particle Production in 400-GeV Proton - Copper Interactions,Phys. Lett. B157(1985) 458–462

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1985

  47. [60]

    J. D. Bjorken, S. Ecklund, W. R. Nelson, A. Abashian, C. Church, B. Lu et al.,Search for Neutral Metastable Penetrating Particles Produced in the SLAC Beam Dump,Phys. Rev. D 38(1988) 3375

    1988

  48. [61]

    Blumlein et al.,Limits on neutral light scalar and pseudoscalar particles in a proton beam dump experiment,Z

    J. Blumlein et al.,Limits on neutral light scalar and pseudoscalar particles in a proton beam dump experiment,Z. Phys. C51(1991) 341–350

    1991

  49. [62]

    D¨ obrich,Axion-like Particles from Primakov production in beam-dumps,CERN Proc.1 (2018) 253, [1708.05776]

    B. D¨ obrich,Axion-like Particles from Primakov production in beam-dumps,CERN Proc.1 (2018) 253, [1708.05776]. [63]NA64collaboration, D. Banerjee et al.,Search for Axionlike and Scalar Particles with the NA64 Experiment,Phys. Rev. Lett.125(2020) 081801, [2005.02710]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  50. [64]

    Y. Afik, B. D¨ obrich, J. Jerhot, Y. Soreq and K. Tobioka,Probing Long-lived Axions at the KOTO Experiment,2303.01521

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  51. [65]

    Y. Ema, Z. Liu and R. Plestid,Searching for axions with kaon decay at rest,2308.08589. [66]BaBarcollaboration, J. P. Lees et al.,Search for a Dark Photon ine +e− Collisions at BaBar,Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014) 201801, [1406.2980]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  52. [67]

    Inguglia,Belle II studies of missing energy decays and searches for dark photon production,PoSDIS2016(2016) 263, [1607.02089]

    G. Inguglia,Belle II studies of missing energy decays and searches for dark photon production,PoSDIS2016(2016) 263, [1607.02089]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  53. [68]

    Okada and S

    N. Okada and S. Okada,Z ′-portal right-handed neutrino dark matter in the minimal U(1) X extended Standard Model,Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 035025, [1611.02672]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  54. [69]

    R. N. Mohapatra and N. Okada,Freeze-in Dark Matter from a Minimal B-L Model and Possible Grand Unification,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 115022, [2005.00365]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  55. [70]

    Okada, Y

    H. Okada, Y. Orikasa and Y. Shoji,Radiative dark matter and neutrino masses from an alternative U(1) B-L gauge symmetry,JCAP07(2021) 006, [2102.10944]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  56. [71]

    Ma and R

    E. Ma and R. Srivastava,Dirac or inverse seesaw neutrino masses from gaugedB–L symmetry,Mod. Phys. Lett. A30(2015) 1530020, [1504.00111]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  57. [72]

    Qi and H

    X. Qi and H. Sun,Dark matter, leptogenesis andZ ′ in theB−Lmodel,Eur. Phys. J. C 85(2025) 1224, [2407.21292]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [73]

    Bonilla, T

    C. Bonilla, T. Modak, R. Srivastava and J. W. F. Valle,U(1) B3−3Lµ gauge symmetry as a simple description ofb→sanomalies,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 095002, [1705.00915]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  59. [74]

    Bauer, P

    M. Bauer, P. Foldenauer and J. Jaeckel,Hunting All the Hidden Photons,JHEP07(2018) 094, [1803.05466]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  60. [75]

    Coloma, M

    P. Coloma, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia and M. Maltoni,Neutrino oscillation constraints on U(1)’ models: from non-standard interactions to long-range forces,JHEP01(2021) 114, [2009.14220]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  61. [76]

    Coloma, P

    P. Coloma, P. Coloma, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, M. Maltoni et al.,Constraining new physics with Borexino Phase-II spectral data,JHEP07 (2022) 138, [2204.03011]. – 28 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  62. [77]

    Atzori Corona, M

    M. Atzori Corona, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, Y. F. Li et al.,Probing light mediators and(g−2) µ through detection of coherent elastic neutrino nucleus scattering at COHERENT,JHEP05(2022) 109, [2202.11002]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  63. [78]

    Majumdar, D

    A. Majumdar, D. K. Papoulias and R. Srivastava,Dark matter detectors as a novel probe for light new physics,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 013001, [2112.03309]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  64. [79]

    Chakraborty, A

    K. Chakraborty, A. Das, S. Goswami and S. Roy,Constraining general U(1) interactions from neutrino-electron scattering measurements at DUNE near detector,JHEP04(2022) 008, [2111.08767]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  65. [80]

    Demirci and M

    M. Demirci and M. F. Mustamin,Solar neutrino constraints on light mediators through coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 015021, [2312.17502]. [81]CMScollaboration, V. Khachatryan et al.,Search for narrow resonances in dilepton mass spectra in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV and combination with 8 TeV data,Phys. Lett. ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  66. [83]

    A. Das, S. Oda, N. Okada and D.-s. Takahashi,Classically conformal U(1)’ extended standard model, electroweak vacuum stability, and LHC Run-2 bounds,Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 115038, [1605.01157]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  67. [84]

    Accomando, L

    E. Accomando, L. Delle Rose, S. Moretti, E. Olaiya and C. H. Shepherd-Themistocleous, Extra Higgs boson and Z ′ as portals to signatures of heavy neutrinos at the LHC,JHEP02 (2018) 109, [1708.03650]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  68. [85]

    Essig, P

    R. Essig, P. Schuster and N. Toro,Probing Dark Forces and Light Hidden Sectors at Low-Energy e+e- Colliders,Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 015003, [0903.3941]. [86]LHCbcollaboration, R. Aaij et al.,Search for Dark Photons Produced in 13 TeVpp Collisions,Phys. Rev. Lett.120(2018) 061801, [1710.02867]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  69. [87]

    Bross, M

    A. Bross, M. Crisler, S. H. Pordes, J. Volk, S. Errede and J. Wrbanek,A Search for Shortlived Particles Produced in an Electron Beam Dump,Phys. Rev. Lett.67(1991) 2942–2945. [88]COHERENTcollaboration, D. Akimov et al.,Measurement of the Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering Cross Section on CsI by COHERENT,Phys. Rev. Lett.129 (2022) 081801, [2110.07730]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1991

  70. [89]

    Escudero, D

    M. Escudero, D. Hooper, G. Krnjaic and M. Pierre,Cosmology with A Very Light L µ −L τ Gauge Boson,JHEP03(2019) 071, [1901.02010]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  71. [90]

    D. K. Ghosh, P. Ghosh, S. Jeesun and R. Srivastava,Neff at CMB challenges U(1)X light gauge boson scenarios,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 075032, [2404.10077]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  72. [91]

    E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner,Supernova SN 1987a and the Secret Interactions of Neutrinos,Phys. Rev. D36(1987) 2895

    1987

  73. [92]

    Croon, G

    D. Croon, G. Elor, R. K. Leane and S. D. McDermott,Supernova Muons: New Constraints onZ’ Bosons, Axions and ALPs,JHEP01(2021) 107, [2006.13942]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  74. [93]

    Akita, S

    K. Akita, S. H. Im, M. Masud and S. Yun,Limits on heavy neutral leptons,Z ′ bosons and majorons from high-energy supernova neutrinos,2312.13627. – 29 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  75. [94]

    Li and X.-J

    S.-P. Li and X.-J. Xu,Production rates of dark photons and Z’ in the Sun and stellar cooling bounds,JCAP09(2023) 009, [2304.12907]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  76. [95]

    Eberhart, M

    A. Eberhart, M. Fedele, F. Kahlhoefer, E. Ravensburg and R. Ziegler,Leptophilic ALPs in Laboratory Experiments,2504.05873

    arXiv

  77. [96]

    Alloul, N

    A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr and B. Fuks,FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology,Comput. Phys. Commun.185(2014) 2250–2300, [1310.1921]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  78. [97]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer et al.,The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,JHEP07(2014) 079, [1405.0301]. [98]NNPDFcollaboration, R. D. Ball et al.,Parton distributions for the LHC Run II,JHEP 04(2015) 040, [...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  79. [99]

    J. K. Adkins et al.,Design of the ECCE detector for the Electron Ion Collider,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1073(2025) 170240, [2209.02580]

    arXiv 2025

  80. [100]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross and O. Vitells,Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics,Eur. Phys. J. C71(2011) 1554, [1007.1727]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

Showing first 80 references.