Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 75 references

Spin-Dependent Axion Generation with Controllable Emission Angles in Strong Laser Fields

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Polarized electron spins in strong laser fields deflect emitted axions to a controllable angle of about 0.5 mrad, a spin-dependent asymmetry that could serve as a laboratory signature of the axion-electron coupling.

desk verdict Spin-asymmetric axion source from strong lasers: plausible and well-simulated, but the central rate sits in an unpublished companion paper and the angular mapping needs a smear check. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21596 v1 pith:BZQDRJ6D submitted 2025-07-29 hep-ph

Jia-Ding Chen , Hang Liu , Kai-Hong Zhuang , Baifei Shen , Pei-Lun He , Yue-Yue Chen This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords axion-likeparticlesstrong-fieldQEDspinpolarizationnonlinearComptonscatteringlaser-plasmainteractionmontecarlosimulationaxion-electroncouplinglocalconstantfieldapproximation
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 axions produced when a spin-polarized relativistic electron beam meets an ultraintense, elliptically polarized laser pulse are not emitted symmetrically: the electron's spin biases emission into one half-cycle of the laser, and the electron's transverse momentum at that instant gives the axion beam a characteristic deflection of about 0.5 mrad. The direction of the deflection is set by the initial electron polarization and the magnitude can be tuned by the laser ellipticity, while the single-shot yield scales as $N_a \approx 3.03 N_e g_{ae}^2$, reaching about $10^{10} g_{ae}^2$ axions for a $10^{10}$-electron bunch. This matters because the angular asymmetry is a laboratory signature of the axion-electron coupling that survives the much more symmetric QED photon background and isotropic noise, offering a complementary route to current laser-based axion searches.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spin-resolved axion emission probability in the local constant field approximation, Eq. (1), specifically the term $(\vec{\zeta}\cdot\vec{b})K_{1/3}(z_a^q)$ that changes sign when the electron polarization reverses and biases emission toward one field half-cycle. The second ingredient is the emission-angle mapping $\vec{k}_a^f=\vec{p}(t_r)$, which converts that cycle-dependent emission bias into a geometric deflection angle $\theta_y=\arctan(p_y/p_z)$; the Lorentz force and the classical spin-precession equation supply $\vec{p}(t_r)$ and $\vec{\zeta}$ along the trajectory.

What would settle it

A plane-wave QED calculation of the same axion emission process without the local constant field approximation, evaluated at the simulation's $\chi\approx1.5$, would settle whether Eq. (1) is valid: if the spin-dependent term does not survive or its truncation error is of order one, the predicted $0.5$ mrad deflection and $R\approx0.67$ collapse. Experimentally, flipping the electron helicity must flip the sign of the axion deflection while leaving the photon angular distribution almost unchanged; observing that reversal would confirm the mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that spin-dependent radiation probability, not just the axion coupling itself, controls where axions go. Under the local constant field approximation, the axion emission rate contains a term proportional to $(\vec{\zeta}\cdot\vec{b})K_{1/3}(z_a^q)$, so an electron polarized along $+y$ radiates axions preferentially in the half-cycles where the local field direction $\vec{b}$ points along $+y$. Because the electron's transverse momentum $p_y$ is phase-shifted relative to the magnetic field in an elliptically polarized laser, axions created in those favored half-cycles leave with $p_y<0$, i.e. $\theta_y>0$; reversing the spin reverses the deflection. The simulations give an angular asymmetry $R\approx0.67$ and central deflection $\theta_{y,\max}\approx0.5$ mrad for the reference parameters, with $R$ growing to about 0.8 for heavier axions, and the whole pattern constitutes the paper's proposed mechanism for steering axion trajectories.

Load-bearing premise

The mechanism depends on the spin-dependent emission probability having exactly the form quoted in Eq. (1), including the $(\vec{\zeta}\cdot\vec{b})K_{1/3}$ term, but that formula is imported from an unpublished companion paper by overlapping authors and is neither derived nor error-estimated in this manuscript, so if that rate is wrong the predicted deflection and asymmetry vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single collision of a 2 GeV polarized electron bunch with a $100~a_0$ elliptically polarized pulse should produce $N_a\approx3.03\,N_e g_{ae}^2$ axions within tens of femtoseconds, or about $10^{10}g_{ae}^2$ axions for $N_e=10^{10}$.
  • Reversing the electron polarization from $\zeta_y=+1$ to $-1$ should flip the dominant deflection from $\theta_y\approx+0.5$ mrad to $-0.58$ mrad, and lowering the average polarization reduces the asymmetry $R$.
  • Increasing laser ellipticity from 0 to about 0.1 should raise the angular asymmetry from zero toward saturation while continuously shifting the central deflection angle, giving an external control knob for the axion beam direction.
  • Raising the axion mass from $\delta_m=0$ to 0.9 should suppress the yield by roughly one order of magnitude but increase both the asymmetry and the deflection angle, because heavier axions are emitted only near the pulse peak.
  • With a 5 T, 4.21 m regeneration magnet and one year of data at a 1/60 Hz repetition rate, the scheme projects sensitivity of order $g_{ae}g_{a\gamma\gamma}\sim10^{-9}$ GeV$^{-1}$, with a dipole asymmetry as the spin-dependent signature.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same spin-asymmetry mechanism should apply to any light pseudoscalar or scalar coupled to electrons, so the predicted deflection profile would be a generic probe of such couplings rather than a special feature of axions.
  • One testable extension suggested by the simulation is to scan laser ellipticity from negative to positive values: the central deflection angle should sweep continuously through zero, and reproducing that sign change would directly confirm the phase-delay mapping between emission cycle and final angle.
  • Another cross-check: because the QED photon channel is nearly symmetric in $\theta_y$, subtracting the regenerated-photon pattern for $\zeta_y=+1$ from that for $\zeta_y=-1$ gives a self-referencing null test that suppresses both Poisson noise and astrophysical backgrounds without precise knowledge of $g_{ae}$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a spin-resolved Monte Carlo framework for axion production in the collision of a polarized 2 GeV electron bunch with an ultraintense elliptically polarized laser pulse (a0 = 100, λ0 = 800 nm, τ = 10T0). It uses a local-constant-field-approximation (LCFA) emission probability, Eq. (1), which contains a spin-dependent term proportional to (ζ·b)K_{1/3}, and it simulates electron trajectories with the Lorentz and BMT equations, stochastic photon emission, and radiative spin flips. The central quantitative claims are that the emitted axions acquire an angular deflection θy,max ≈ 0.5 mrad whose sign is set by the initial electron spin and whose magnitude is tunable via laser ellipticity; that the single-shot yield scales as Na ≈ 3.03 N_e g_ae^2; that the angular asymmetry R ≈ 0.67 for δm = 0 survives Primakoff contributions; and that a one-year measurement at a 10 PW facility could probe g_ae g_aγγ ~ 10^-9 GeV^-1. The paper also includes projected exclusion limits and a comparison with the solar axion flux.

Significance. If the spin-dependent rate in Eq. (1) is correct, the proposal offers a genuinely new way to produce a directional, spin-controlled axion source and to use the angular asymmetry as a null-test observable. The paper is not circular in the load-bearing sense: R is not fitted to data, and the yield scaling is a direct consequence of the input emission rate. Strengths include explicit simulation parameters, a comparison of axion versus photon cycle asymmetries, inclusion of Primakoff and detection stages, and falsifiable predictions for θy,max, R, and projected limits. The principal weakness is that the load-bearing spin-dependent probability is imported from an unpublished companion paper [72], with no derivation or error estimate given, and the missing Supplemental Material prevents verification of the Monte Carlo model. The significance is therefore conditional on those materials being supplied and checked.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (1), 'spin-dependent axion emission probabilities'] The spin-dependent axion emission probability, specifically the (ζ·b)K_{1/3}(z_a^q) term that produces the angular asymmetry, is imported from Ref. [72], an unpublished companion paper by overlapping authors. The manuscript provides no derivation, no estimate of the LCFA truncation error for this term, and no independent numerical comparison; the spin-averaging consistency with Ref. [55] is a necessary but not sufficient check. Since the predicted asymmetry R ≈ 0.67 and deflection θy,max ≈ 0.5 mrad vanish if this term has the wrong coefficient or sign, the derivation (or a detailed outline with error estimates) must be included before the central claim can be assessed.
  2. [Eq. (2) and following paragraph] Eq. (2), which is used to explain the mechanism, omits the first term of Eq. (1) and changes the spin-term coefficient from 1/2 to 1. If Eq. (2) is meant to be exact, it is inconsistent with Eq. (1); if it is only schematic, it should be labeled as such. Moreover, as written w(ζ) = C_a[K_{2/3}(z) + (ζ·b)K_{1/3}(z)] can become negative for ζ·b = -1 whenever K_{1/3} > K_{2/3}, a positivity condition the paper does not check. Because the emission-phase asymmetry is derived from this expression, the discrepancy must be resolved.
  3. [Final momentum mapping, k_a^f = p(t_r)] The assignment of each emitted axion to the instantaneous electron momentum direction assumes exact collinearity, but the LCFA probability in Eq. (1) is angle-integrated. The intrinsic emission cone 1/γ ≈ 0.26 mrad is comparable to the claimed deflection ≈ 0.5 mrad, so finite-angular-spread effects could substantially dilute the predicted asymmetry. The authors should quantify this spread, ideally with an angle-differential rate or a numerical convergence test, to show that θy,max and R are robust.
  4. [References [69]-[71] and [75]] The text repeatedly refers to Supplemental Material for the Primakoff conversion probability, the theoretical model, the back-reaction estimate, and the mass-dependence discussion, but none of this material is included in the posted manuscript. Without it, the Monte Carlo implementation and the conversion calculation cannot be checked by a reader. The supplement should be submitted with the revision, or the relevant formulas and tests should be summarized in an appendix.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Yield scaling and flux comparison] The flux comparison after the yield scaling uses Ψ = Na/(π w_e^2 L_e) with units cm^-2 s^-1, but the right-hand side has dimensions cm^-3; the numerical value 3.02 × 10^33 g_ae^2 cm^-2 s^-1 is also not reproduced from the stated N_e = 10^10, w_e = λ0, and L_e = 5λ0 parameters. Please correct the definition or the number.
  2. [Fig. 3(d)] Fig. 3(d) scans ellipticity from -0.2 to 0.2, but the sign convention for ǫ is not defined in the text; specify which handedness corresponds to positive ǫ.
  3. [Typos] Typos: 'deflection angel' and 'perturbertive QED' should read 'deflection angle' and 'perturbative QED'.
  4. [Abstract] In the abstract, '∼mrad' is imprecise; the main text gives ∼0.5 mrad, so the abstract should either quote the value or say 'sub-milliradian'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The central spin-dependent asymmetry is imported from an unpublished companion paper by overlapping authors, making the key prediction reliant on a load-bearing self-citation; no fitted-parameter circularity is found.

  1. self citation load bearing [Methods section, Eq. (1) and preceding paragraph]
    "The spin-dependent axion emission probabilities in LCFA are employed with the leading order contribution with respect to 1/γ, which are derived with the quantum electrodynamics operator method of Baier-Katkov. The probability of emitting an axion with energy of ωa reads [72] ... Averaging by the electron initial spin, the spin-unresolved radiation probability derived in previous literatures is obtained [55]."

    The spin term (ζ·b)K_{1/3} in Eq. (1) is the sole source of the predicted angular asymmetry and deflection, as used in Eq. (2) and Figs. 2-3. It is attributed to Ref. [72], an unpublished companion paper by P.-L. He and Y.-Y. Chen, who are also authors of the present work. The manuscript provides no derivation of this spin-dependent term, and the only consistency check offered, spin-averaging to Ref. [55], verifies only the spin-independent part. Thus the load-bearing input is a self-citation whose content is not independently established in this paper; if the sign or coefficient of the spin term were different, the central predictions would change or vanish. This is a self-reliance or circularity-of-evidence issue rather than a fitted-parameter circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular in the fitted-parameter or definitional sense: no parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then used to predict that same data; the Monte Carlo simulations propagate the input probabilities, and the yield scaling Na ≈ 3.03 Ne g_ae^2 follows directly from the coupling-constant dependence of Eq. (1), so it is not a disguised fit. The central novelty, however, rests on Eq. (1)'s spin-dependent term, which is taken from Ref. [72], an unpublished companion paper by overlapping authors, with no independent derivation or numerical check of that term in this manuscript. The statement that spin-averaging recovers Ref. [55] is only a consistency check of the unpolarized part. Under the rubric this is a load-bearing self-citation, giving a score of 4: the central claim still has independent content in the form of a completed simulation and a proposed experimental signature, but the physical asymmetry itself is not independently established here. An internal discrepancy between Eq. (1), which has a factor 1/2 on the spin term, and Eq. (2), which omits that factor, further underscores that the spin-dependent input is assumed rather than derived. No prediction reduces to its input by construction through fitting, so scores of 8-10 would be inappropriate.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data; the laser and electron bunch parameters are scenario inputs scanned in Figs. 2 and 3. The central claim rests on the spin-dependent emission probability from the same group's unpublished companion paper [72], plus standard strong-field QED modeling assumptions. No new particles or entities are introduced; axions and ALPs are pre-existing hypothetical targets.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Local constant field approximation (LCFA) is accurate for the simulated regime (a0=100, chi_max ~ 1.5).
    Eq. (1) uses LCFA emission rates, following Ref. [54]; the paper does not estimate the error of this approximation for axion emission or for the spin-dependent term.
  • domain assumption Spin-dependent axion emission probability Eq. (1) from the companion paper [72] is correct.
    The central asymmetry R and deflection angle are direct consequences of this formula; the manuscript provides no derivation or independent verification.
  • domain assumption Electron dynamics obey the Lorentz force and BMT spin precession with radiative corrections.
    Used in the simulation of electron trajectories and spin evolution; details are referenced to Supplemental Material [70].
  • domain assumption Axion emission is collinear with the instantaneous electron momentum (k_a^f = p(t_r)).
    Used to convert emission phase into the final angular deflection theta_y; an approximation that should be checked at the mrad level.
  • domain assumption Photon-to-axion Primakoff conversion probability from Ref. [69] is valid.
    Used for the axion-photon coupling channel; the formula is deferred to Supplemental Material.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin-Dependent Axion Generation with Controllable Emission Angles in Strong Laser Fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BZQDRJ6D

@misc{pith2026250721596,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin-Dependent Axion Generation with Controllable Emission Angles in Strong Laser Fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BZQDRJ6D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21596}
}
abstract

We investigate axion production in the collision between a spin-polarized relativistic electron beam and an ultraintense laser pulse. A spin-resolved Monte Carlo framework is developed to model axion-electron and axion-photon couplings in arbitrary electromagnetic fields, using quantum emission probabilities under the local constant field approximation. Owing to spin-dependent asymmetries in radiation probability, the emitted axions acquire a characteristic angular deflection tied to the initial electron polarization. This spin-dependent asymmetry enables control over the axion emission direction by adjusting the polarization of the electron beam and laser field. Simulations show that a dense and collimated axion beam ($\sim 10^{10} g_{ae}^2$) with a tunable deflection angle ($\sim$ mrad) can be produced within tens of femtoseconds using current laser technology. Our results establish a novel mechanism for manipulating axion trajectories and open a promising route toward laboratory-based searches for the axion-electron coupling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21596 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Illustration of axion generation schemes in stro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) The scaling law of axion yield log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The angular distribution of axion density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [72]

    He, E.-R

    P .-L. He, E.-R. Zhou, F. He, and Y .-Y . Chen, Semiclassical anal- ysis of axion-like particle emission via nonlinear compton -like scattering in intense laser fields (2025), submitted to Phys . Rev. D

    work page 2025

  2. [55]

    B. M. Dillon and B. King, ALP production through non-linear compton scattering in intense fields, The European Physical Journal C 78, 1 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [1]

    E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, The Early Universe , Frontiers in Physics (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1990)

    work page 1990

  4. [2]

    Preskill, M

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Cosmology of the invi s- ible axion, Physics Letters B 120, 127 (1983)

    work page 1983

  5. [3]

    L. F. Abbott and P . Sikivie, A cosmological bound on the invis - ible axion, Physics Letters B 120, 133 (1983)

    work page 1983

  6. [4]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler, The not-so-harmless axion, Physics Letters B 120, 137 (1983)

    work page 1983

  7. [5]

    Weinberg, A new light boson?, Physical Review Letters 40, 223 (1978)

    S. Weinberg, A new light boson?, Physical Review Letters 40, 223 (1978)

    work page 1978

  8. [6]

    Wilczek, Problem of strong P and T invariance in the pres- ence of instantons, Physical Review Letters 40, 279 (1978)

    F. Wilczek, Problem of strong P and T invariance in the pres- ence of instantons, Physical Review Letters 40, 279 (1978)

    work page 1978

Show all 75 references
  1. [7]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, CP conservation in the presence of pseudoparticles, Physical Review Letters 38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  2. [8]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Constraints imposed by CP con- servation in the presence of pseudoparticles, Physical Rev iew D 16, 1791 (1977)

    1977

  3. [9]

    Witten, Some properties of O (32) superstrings, Physics L et- ters B 149, 351 (1984)

    E. Witten, Some properties of O (32) superstrings, Physics L et- ters B 149, 351 (1984)

    1984

  4. [10]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, String axiverse, Physical Review D 81, 123530 (2010)

    2010

  5. [11]

    H. Baer, V . Barger, and D. Sengupta, Gravity safe, electroweak natural axionic solution to strong CP and SUSY µ problems, Physics Letters B 790, 58 (2019)

    2019

  6. [12]

    Sikivie, D

    P . Sikivie, D. Tanner, and Y . Wang, Axion detection in the 10−4 eV mass range, Physical Review D 50, 4744 (1994)

    1994

  7. [13]

    Caldwell, G

    A. Caldwell, G. Dvali, B. Majorovits, A. Millar, G. Ra ffelt, J. Redondo, O. Reimann, F. Simon, and F. t. M. Ste ffen, Di- electric haloscopes: A new way to detect axion dark matter, Physical Review Letters 118, 091801 (2017)

    2017

  8. [14]

    P . W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, J. Mardon, S. Rajendran, W. A. Terrano, L. Trahms, and T. Wilkason, Spin precession exper- iments for light axionic dark matter, Physical Review D 97, 055006 (2018)

    2018

  9. [15]

    J. L. Ouellet, C. P . Salemi, J. W. Foster, R. Henning, Z. Bo- gorad, J. M. Conrad, J. A. Formaggio, Y . Kahn, J. Minervini, A. Radovinsky, et al., First results from abracadabra-10 cm: A search for sub-µ eV axion dark matter, Physical Review Letters 122, 121802 (2019)

    2019

  10. [16]

    invisible

    P . Sikivie, Experimental tests of the “invisible” axion, Ph ysical Review Letters 51, 1415 (1983)

    1983

  11. [17]

    invisible

    P . Sikivie, Detection rates for “invisible”-axion searche s, Physi- cal Review D 32, 2988 (1985)

    1985

  12. [18]

    Avignone III, D

    F. Avignone III, D. Abriola, R. Brodzinski, J. Collar, R. Creswick, D. DiGregorio, H. Farach, A. Gattone, C. Gu´ erard, F. Hasenbalg, et al. , Experimental search for solar axions via coherent Primako ffconversion in a germanium spectrometer, Physical Review Letters 81, 5068 (1998)

    1998

  13. [19]

    Akerib, S

    D. Akerib, S. Alsum, C. Aquino, H. Ara´ ujo, X. Bai, A. Bailey, J. Balajthy, P . Beltrame, E. Bernard, A. Bernstein, et al. , First searches for axions and axionlike particles with the LUX exp er- iment, Physical Review Letters 118, 261301 (2017)

    2017

  14. [20]

    Ballou, G

    R. Ballou, G. Deferne, M. Finger Jr, M. Finger, L. Flekova, J. Hosek, S. Kunc, K. Macuchova, K. Meissner, P . Pugnat,et al., New exclusion limits on scalar and pseudoscalar axionlike p ar- ticles from light shining through a wall, Physical Review D 92, 092002 (2015)

    2015

  15. [21]

    B¨ ahre, B

    R. B¨ ahre, B. D¨ obrich, J. Dreyling-Eschweiler, S. Ghazary an, R. Hodajerdi, D. Horns, F. Januschek, E.-A. Knabbe, A. Lind- ner, D. Notz, et al. , Any light particle search II—technical de- sign report, Journal of Instrumentation 8 (09), T09001

  16. [22]

    Srednicki, Particle physics and cosmology: dark matter (El- sevier, 2012)

    M. Srednicki, Particle physics and cosmology: dark matter (El- sevier, 2012)

    2012

  17. [23]

    Della V alle, A

    F. Della V alle, A. Ejlli, U. Gastaldi, G. Messineo, E. Milott i, R. Pengo, G. Ruoso, and G. Zavattini, The PVLAS experiment: measuring vacuum magnetic birefringence and dichroism wit h a birefringent Fabry–Perot cavity, The European Physical J our- nal C 76, 1 (2016)

    2016

  18. [24]

    Konaka, K

    A. Konaka, K. Imai, H. Kobayashi, A. Masaike, K. Miyake, T. Nakamura, N. Nagamine, N. Sasao, A. Enomoto, Y . Fukushima, et al. , Search for neutral particles in electron- beam-dump experiment, Physical Review Letters 57, 659 (1986)

    1986

  19. [25]

    Davier and H

    M. Davier and H. N. Ngoc, An unambiguous search for a light higgs boson, Physics Letters B 229, 150 (1989). 6

    1989

  20. [26]

    Bross, M

    A. Bross, M. Crisler, S. Pordes, J. V olk, S. Errede, and J. Wr- banek, Search for short-lived particles produced in an elec tron beam dump, Physical Review Letters 67, 2942 (1991)

    1991

  21. [27]

    Abrahamyan, Z

    S. Abrahamyan, Z. Ahmed, K. Allada, D. Anez, T. Averett, A. Barbieri, K. Bartlett, J. Beacham, J. Bono, J. Boyce, et al. , Search for a new gauge boson in electron-nucleus fixed-targe t scattering by the APEX experiment, Physical Review Letters 107, 191804 (2011)

    2011

  22. [28]

    D¨ obrich, J

    B. D¨ obrich, J. Jaeckel, F. Kahlhoefer, A. Ringwald, and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, ALPtraum: ALP production in proton beam dump experiments, Journal of High Energy Physics 2016, 1 (2016)

    2016

  23. [29]

    J. E. Kim and G. Carosi, Axions and the strong CP problem, Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 557 (2010)

    2010

  24. [30]

    Andreas, C

    S. Andreas, C. Niebuhr, and A. Ringwald, New limits on hidden photons from past electron beam dumps, Physical Review D 86, 095019 (2012)

    2012

  25. [31]

    Baker, G

    K. Baker, G. Cantatore, S. Cetin, M. Davenport, K. Desch, B. D¨ obrich, H. Gies, I. Irastorza, J. Jaeckel, A. Lindner, et al., The quest for axions and other new light particles, Annalen d er Physik 525, A93 (2013)

    2013

  26. [32]

    I. G. Irastorza and J. Redondo, New experimental approaches in the search for axion-like particles, Progress in Particl e and Nuclear Physics 102, 89 (2018)

    2018

  27. [33]

    Masso and J

    E. Masso and J. Redondo, Compatibility of cast search with ax - ionlike interpretation of PVLAS results, Physical Review L et- ters 97, 151802 (2006)

    2006

  28. [34]

    Jaeckel, E

    J. Jaeckel, E. Masso, J. Redondo, A. Ringwald, and F. Taka- hashi, Need for purely laboratory-based axionlike particl e searches, Physical Review D 75, 013004 (2007)

    2007

  29. [35]

    Melnikov and A

    K. Melnikov and A. V ainshtein, On dispersion relations and hadronic light-by-light scattering contribution to the mu on anomalous magnetic moment, in GRIBOV-90 Memorial V ol- ume: Field Theory, Symmetry, and Related Topics, Proceedings of the Memorial Workshop Devoted to the ...

    2021

  30. [36]

    extreme-light-infrastructure.eu/

    The extreme light infrastructure (ELI), http://www. extreme-light-infrastructure.eu/

  31. [37]

    Exawatt center for extreme light stidies (XCELS), http:// www.xcels.iapras.ru/

  32. [38]

    Mendonc ¸a, Axion excitation by intense laser fields, Euro - physics Letters 79, 21001 (2007)

    J. Mendonc ¸a, Axion excitation by intense laser fields, Euro - physics Letters 79, 21001 (2007)

    2007

  33. [39]

    Gies, Strong laser fields as a probe for fundamental physic s, The European Physical Journal D 55, 311 (2009)

    H. Gies, Strong laser fields as a probe for fundamental physic s, The European Physical Journal D 55, 311 (2009)

    2009

  34. [40]

    D¨ obrich and H

    B. D¨ obrich and H. Gies, Axion-like-particle search with hi gh- intensity lasers, Journal of High Energy Physics 2010, 1 (2010)

    2010

  35. [41]

    D¨ obrich and H

    B. D¨ obrich and H. Gies, High-intensity probes of axion-like par- ticles, arXiv preprint arXiv:1010.6161 (2010)

    2010 arXiv

  36. [42]

    Z. Bai, X. An, Y . Chen, and L. Ji, Coherent axion production through laser crystal interaction, arXiv prepr int arXiv:2412.05073 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  37. [43]

    Beyer, G

    K. Beyer, G. Marocco, R. Bingham, and G. Gregori, Light- shining-through-wall axion detection experiments with a s timu- lating laser, Physical Review D 105, 035031 (2022)

    2022

  38. [44]

    Beyer, G

    K. Beyer, G. Marocco, R. Bingham, and G. Gregori, Axion de- tection through resonant photon-photon collisions, Physi cal Re- view D 101, 095018 (2020)

    2020

  39. [45]

    Villalba-Ch´ avez and C

    S. Villalba-Ch´ avez and C. M¨ uller, Light dark matter candidates in intense laser pulses II: the relevance of the spin degrees of freedom, Journal of High Energy Physics 2016, 1 (2016)

    2016

  40. [46]

    Villalba-Ch´ avez and A

    S. Villalba-Ch´ avez and A. Di Piazza, Axion-induced birefr in- gence effects in laser driven nonlinear vacuum interaction, Jour- nal of High Energy Physics 2013, 1 (2013)

    2013

  41. [47]

    Anselm and N

    A. Anselm and N. Uraltsev, A second massless axion?, Physics Letters B 114, 39 (1982)

    1982

  42. [48]

    A. Dias, A. Machado, C. Nishi, A. Ringwald, and P . V au- drevange, The quest for an intermediate-scale accidental a x- ion and further ALPs, Journal of High Energy Physics 2014, 1 (2014)

    2014

  43. [49]

    Cicoli, M

    M. Cicoli, M. D. Goodsell, and A. Ringwald, The type IIB string axiverse and its low-energy phenomenology, Journal of High Energy Physics 2012, 1 (2012)

    2012

  44. [50]

    B. M. Dillon and B. King, Light scalars: coherent nonlin- ear Thomson scattering and detection, Physical Review D 99, 035048 (2019)

    2019

  45. [51]

    King, Electron-seeded ALP production and ALP decay in an oscillating electromagnetic field, Physics Letters B 782, 737 (2018)

    B. King, Electron-seeded ALP production and ALP decay in an oscillating electromagnetic field, Physics Letters B 782, 737 (2018)

    2018

  46. [52]

    Ma and T

    K. Ma and T. Li, Laser induced compton scattering to dark photon or axion-like particle, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410. 17591 (2024)

    2024

  47. [53]

    Z. Bai, T. Blackburn, O. Borysov, O. Davidi, A. Hartin, B. Heinemann, T. Ma, G. Perez, A. Santra, Y . Soreq, et al. , New physics searches with an optical dump at LUXE, Physical Review D 106, 115034 (2022)

    2022

  48. [54]

    Ritus, Quantum e ffects of the interaction of elementary particles with an intense electromagnetic field, J

    V . Ritus, Quantum e ffects of the interaction of elementary particles with an intense electromagnetic field, J. Sov. Las er Res.;(United States) 6 (1985)

    1985

  49. [56]

    Y .-N. Dai, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, C. H. Keitel, and Y .-Y . Chen, Fermionic signal of vacuum polarization in strong laser fiel ds, Physical Review D 110, 012008 (2024)

    2024

  50. [57]

    Elkina, A

    N. Elkina, A. Fedotov, I. Y . Kostyukov, M. Legkov, N. Narozhny, E. Nerush, and H. Ruhl, QED cascades induced by circularly polarized laser fields, Physical Review Accel era- tors and Beams 14, 054401 (2011)

    2011

  51. [58]

    C. P . Ridgers, J. G. Kirk, R. Duclous, T. G. Blackburn, C. S. Brady, K. Bennett, T. D. Arber, and A. R. Bell, Mod- elling gamma-ray photon emission and pair production in hig h- intensity laser–matter interactions, Journal of computat ional physics 260, 273 (2014)

    2014

  52. [59]

    Green and C

    D. Green and C. Harvey, SIMLA: Simulating particle dynam- ics in intense laser and other electromagnetic fields via cla ssical and quantum electrodynamics, Computer Physics Communica- tions 192, 313 (2015)

    2015

  53. [60]

    Gonoskov, S

    A. Gonoskov, S. Bastrakov, E. Efimenko, A. Ilderton, M. Mark- lund, I. Meyerov, A. Muraviev, A. Sergeev, I. Surmin, and E. Wallin, Extended particle-in-cell schemes for physics i n ul- trastrong laser fields: Review and developments, Physical R e- view E 92, 023305 (2015)

    2015

  54. [61]

    Chen, P .-L

    Y .-Y . Chen, P .-L. He, R. Shaisultanov, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan,and C. H. Keitel, Polarized positron beams via intense two-colo r laser pulses, Physical Review Letters 123, 174801 (2019)

    2019

  55. [62]

    Li, Y .-Y

    Y .-F. Li, Y .-Y . Chen, W.-M. Wang, and H.-S. Hu, Production of highly polarized positron beams via helicity transfer from po- larized electrons in a strong laser field, Physical Review Le tters 125, 044802 (2020)

    2020

  56. [63]

    Dai, B.-F

    Y .-N. Dai, B.-F. Shen, J.-X. Li, R. Shaisultanov, K. Z. Hat- sagortsyan, C. H. Keitel, and Y .-Y . Chen, Photon polarizati on effects in polarized electron-positron pair production in a strong laser field, Matter and Radiation at Extremes 7 (2022)

    2022

  57. [64]

    Zhuang, Y .-Y

    K.-H. Zhuang, Y .-Y . Chen, Y .-F. Li, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Laser-driven lepton polarization in the quant um radiation-dominated reflection regime, Physical Review D 108, 033001 (2023). 7

    2023

  58. [65]

    Song, W.-M

    H.-H. Song, W.-M. Wang, and Y .-T. Li, Dense polarized positrons from laser-irradiated foil targets in the qed reg ime, Physical Review Letters 129, 035001 (2022)

    2022

  59. [66]

    Z. Gong, X. Shen, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Elec- tron slingshot acceleration in relativistic preturbulent shocks ex- plored via emitted photon polarization, Physical Review Letters 131, 225101 (2023)

    2023

  60. [67]

    K. Xue, T. Sun, K.-J. Wei, Z.-P . Li, Q. Zhao, F. Wan, C. Lv, Y .-T. Zhao, Z.-F. Xu, and J.-X. Li, Generation of high-densi ty high-polarization positrons via single-shot strong laser -foil in- teraction, Physical Review Letters 131, 175101 (2023)

    2023

  61. [68]

    Chen, Y .-N

    J.-D. Chen, Y .-N. Dai, K.-H. Zhuang, J.-J. Jiang, B. Shen, and Y .-Y . Chen, Angular modulation of nonlinear breit-wheeler yield by vacuum dichroism, Physical Review D 111, 036025 (2025)

    2025

  62. [69]

    See Supplemental Material for the convertion probability o f ax- ion induced by the Primako ffeffect

  63. [70]

    See Supplemental Material for details on the applied theore tical model

  64. [71]

    See Supplemental Material for details on the influence of axi on emission on electron dynamics

  65. [73]

    J. P . Freidberg, Plasma physics and fusion energy (Cambridge university press, 2008)

    2008

  66. [74]

    Andriamonje, S

    S. Andriamonje, S. Aune, D. Autiero, K. Barth, A. Belov, B. Beltr´ an, H. Br¨ auninger, J. Carmona, S. Cebri´ an, J. Collar, et al. , An improved limit on the axion–photon coupling from the CAST experiment, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticl e Physics 2007 (04), 010

    2007

  67. [75]

    See the Supplemental Material for a detailed discussion of t he axion mass dependence

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.