Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The paper claims that coupling the GeV-scale axion's PQ scalar to the charm quark eliminates the isospin obstruction, yields a quality-safe f_a ~ 2–3 GeV axion, and predicts B→Kσ and negative ΔN_eff that experiments can test.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 06:13 UTC pith:D2GU5JTP

load-bearing objection A genuinely new GeV-axion variant that fixes the isospin problem and matches Belle II, but the 'all constraints satisfied' claim rests on an uncomputed NA64-e escape. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.12956 v2 pith:D2GU5JTP submitted 2026-07-14 hep-ph gr-qchep-exhep-th

Naturally quality-safe GeV axion with charm coupling

Bo-Qiang Lu This is my paper
classification hep-ph gr-qchep-exhep-th PACS 12.38.Mh14.80.Va11.30.Er98.80.Cq
keywords GeV axioncharm couplingstrong CP problemaxion quality problemisospin spurionB→Kσnegative ΔN_effSVZ sum rule
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish that the GeV-scale QCD axion—where the Peccei-Quinn symmetry is broken by the QCD condensate at f_a ~ 1 GeV—does not have to suffer the structural isospin violation that afflicts light-quark couplings. By giving the PQ charge only to the right-handed charm quark, the light-quark spurion becomes exactly zero, so no π0–π± mass splitting is generated at leading chiral order. Lowering the PQ scalar mass to 3–4 MeV makes the charm Yukawa perturbative, and the resulting f_a ~ 2–3 GeV suppresses Planck-suppressed operators to m_PQ/m_a ~ 10^-14, solving the axion quality problem without extra symmetries. If correct, the model provides a minimal, quality-safe solution to strong CP with distinctive predictions: BR(B→Kσ) ~ 2×10^-5, matching the Belle II B→Kνν̄ excess, and a negative ΔN_eff ~ -0.1 testable by CMB-S4, with all ten constraint classes claimed to pass.

Core claim

The central claim: assigning the PQ charge to the right-handed charm quark, not to light quarks, zeroes the light-quark spurion and thereby removes the isospin obstruction that otherwise produces a 15% pion mass splitting. With m_φ ≈ 3–4 MeV the charm Yukawa κ_c ≈ 0.44–0.59 is perturbative, f_a ≈ 2.1–2.9 GeV, and the axion mass is 2–2.7 MeV. At this f_a, even the d=6 Planck-suppressed operator gives m_PQ/m_a ~ 10^-14, solving the quality problem without extra symmetries. The model predicts BR(B→Kσ) ≈ 2×10^-5 and ΔN_eff ≈ -0.1, and claims all ten constraint classes pass.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is the PQ charge assignment X(c_R) = -1, X(ϕ)=+1, and X(all light quarks)=0, which makes the light-quark spurion I_PQ^light = diag(0,0,0) and eliminates all isospin-violating χPT operators. The second load-bearing identity is the SVZ sum-rule relation m_c^2 = κ_c^2 C[1 + (11/3)α_s/π]/(2 m_φ^2), which yields the linear relation κ_c ≈ 148 m_φ(GeV). This linearity is what allows m_φ to be lowered to 3–4 MeV while keeping κ_c perturbative, and it fixes f_a = m_c/κ_c.

Load-bearing premise

The viability of the m_φ = 3–4 MeV window hinges on the assumption that the NA64-e missing-energy search does not actually exclude it, because the model's large g_aNN ~ O(1) could suppress acceptance—an effect the paper itself flags as uncalculated.

What would settle it

A Geant4-level simulation of the NA64-e setup that includes g_aNN-mediated production and scattering: if it confirms the exclusion of g_aγγ = 4.5×10^-4 GeV^-1 at m_a = 2 MeV, the 3–4 MeV window is ruled out; alternatively, a CMB-S4 measurement that rules out ΔN_eff ≈ -0.1 at m_φ ≈ 3 MeV would falsify the cosmological prediction.

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

If this is right

  • The strong CP problem can be solved at the GeV scale, making the axion directly accessible to fixed-target and flavor experiments rather than requiring invisible-axion scales.
  • The B→Kνν̄ excess observed by Belle II is explained by B→Kσ with BR ≈ 2×10^-5, and the missing-mass distribution offers a future discriminant.
  • The model predicts a negative ΔN_eff of about -0.1 at m_φ ≈ 3 MeV, a signature opposite to that of standard thermal axions; CMB-S4 can test it.
  • All ten classes of constraints (perturbativity, BBN, FCNC, SN1987A trapping, stellar cooling, LHC, fifth force, etc.) are claimed to be satisfied in the m_φ = 3–4 MeV window.
  • The axion and scalar decay long before recombination, so the model predicts no axion dark matter or dark radiation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The charm-coupling trick is specific to charm; bottom and top fail because of perturbativity versus BBN overlap, so if the mechanism works, charm is the unique heavy-quark option.
  • Editorial inference: The NA64-e escape is the model's soft spot; a detector-level simulation including g_aNN scattering could decisively close or open the window, and until then the 'all constraints satisfied' claim should be read with that caveat.
  • Editorial inference: The negative ΔN_eff, if confirmed, would be a qualitatively new axion signature: an axion that heats photons rather than adding relativistic energy, changing how future CMB surveys interpret N_eff deviations.
  • Editorial inference: The B_s-mixing tension could be settled by lattice QCD; if the scalar bag parameter B_S is near 1, the model's 0.5 B_S contribution would exceed the 20% bound and require a new ingredient.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a GeV-scale QCD axion in which the Peccei-Quinn scalar couples to the charm quark rather than to light quarks. The PQ charge assignment eliminates the leading-order isospin-violating spurion, and the SVZ relation is used to argue that κ_c ∝ m_φ, so that m_φ ≈ 3–4 MeV gives κ_c = 0.44–0.59 and f_a ≈ 2–3 GeV. The model is claimed to solve the axion quality problem without discrete symmetries, to explain the Belle II B+→K+νν̄ excess through B→Kσ with σ appearing as missing energy, and to predict ΔN_eff ≈ −0.1 testable by CMB-S4. The paper states that all ten classes of constraints are satisfied in the m_φ = 3–4 MeV window, with B_s mixing pending a dedicated lattice calculation.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the model is an elegant and minimal solution to the strong CP problem with f_a ≪ M_Pl, and it has distinctive, near-term testable signatures: a negative ΔN_eff, π0→γa decays, and a B→Kσ contribution to the Belle II missing-energy excess. The paper is explicit about its derivations: the isospin-elimination argument is clean, the quality-problem estimate is transparent, and the B→Kσ one-loop calculation is presented in enough detail to be reproduced. The advertised negative ΔN_eff is a falsifiable prediction that differs from ordinary thermal axions. These are genuine strengths. However, the paper's own text concedes that the benchmark window lies inside the NA64-e exclusion region and that the escape relies on an uncalculated detector-level effect; the same is true for the B_s mixing constraint. The central claim that the model is viable is therefore conditional, not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [S10(c), S10(e); Table S2] The benchmark point m_φ = 3 MeV gives m_a = 2.0 MeV and g_{aγγ} = 4.5×10^-4 GeV^-1, which is squarely inside the NA64-e excluded region for photon-coupled ALPs (2×10^-4 ≲ g_{aγγ} ≲ 5×10^-2 GeV^-1, m_a ≲ 55 MeV). The only escape offered is the untested assertion that the O(1) axion-nucleon coupling causes ~90% HCAL scattering and suppresses the missing-energy acceptance. The text itself notes that nucleon bremsstrahlung production, also ∝ g_{aNN}^2, could enhance the signal and strengthen the exclusion, and it explicitly states that if a reanalysis including g_{aNN} confirms the exclusion, 'the m_φ = 3–4 MeV window would be ruled out.' Since this is the benchmark region of the paper, the claim that all constraints are satisfied is not established. A Geant4-level or otherwise quantitative reanalysis of the NA64-e acceptance for this model is required before this constraint can be counted a
  2. [S2, Eq. (S27)] The B_s mixing constraint is a second load-bearing caveat. Under vacuum insertion the σ-exchange contribution to B_s mixing is ΔM_Bs^NP/ΔM_Bs^SM ≈ 0.5 B_S, which for B_S = 1 is about 50% of the SM value and exceeds the stated ~20% bound. The paper argues that lattice QCD could yield B_S ≪ 1, but no lattice result is provided. Speculating that an uncalculated hadronic matrix element is significantly below its standard value is not sufficient to claim viability. The conclusion is explicitly deferred ('a dedicated lattice calculation'), but the abstract nevertheless states that the window is viable. This is an internal inconsistency in the strength of the claim.
  3. [Table II; S10(e); abstract] The constraint accounting is incomplete and the summary overstates the result. Table II lists ten constraint classes and marks all as 'Pass,' but NA64-e — which the paper elsewhere describes as potentially ruling out the window — does not appear in the table, and B_s mixing, which is only conditionally passing, is also absent. The abstract and introduction state 'all ten classes of constraints are satisfied' while S10(e) admits the m_φ = 3–4 MeV window could be ruled out by a reanalysis of an existing experiment. A reader comparing the abstract to the supplementary text cannot verify the central claim without performing the missing analyses. The constraint summary should be revised to distinguish established constraints from ones that are conditional on unperformed calculations.
  4. [S9(b); 'Cosmological signature' in main text] The headline prediction ΔN_eff ≈ −0.1 at m_φ = 3 MeV is asserted rather than computed. The text says this value arises from 'partial photon heating' during axion decay near neutrino decoupling and then lists a 'precise ΔN_eff calculation' as a future direction. Since the sign and magnitude of the asymmetry depend on the non-instantaneous decoupling process, an order-unity change in the residual could affect the claimed CMB-S4 sensitivity. If this is a central prediction, it should be backed by at least a simplified Boltzmann treatment, not merely an estimate.
minor comments (4)
  1. [References [15], [23]] Several JHEP entries are missing publication years (e.g., [15] and [23]); the bibliography should be completed before submission.
  2. [Equation (S12)] The numerical evaluation of C_{c u}^σ gives a value that is below the intermediate rounding; the reader would benefit from showing one more significant digit or stating the approximate equality.
  3. [Figure 1] The shaded 'viable window' in the figure includes m_φ = 3–4 MeV, but the NA64-e excluded region is not shown. Adding the NA64-e boundary would make the residual uncertainty visible to the reader.
  4. [S6] The discussion of the λ correction says the minimum condition is satisfied only 'up to a factor of 2.' This O(1) caveat should appear in the main text wherever Eq. (8) is used to derive the benchmark κ_c values, not only in the supplemental material.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: central relations derive from external SVZ inputs and one-loop computations; NA64-e and B_s caveats are unresolved constraints, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The central relation κ_c ∝ m_φ is derived from the SVZ sum rule using external inputs (m_c, C, α_s, m_φ) in Eqs. (8)–(9) and S6; it does not assume the target perturbativity or the desired f_a. The B→Kσ branching ratio is computed from the one-loop coefficient C_bs^σ (S2) with external form factors and CKM elements, then compared with Belle II as a constraint rather than fitted to it. The negative ΔN_eff follows from an entropy-conservation argument with g_a=1 and external T_ν, not from a parameter tuned to produce that sign. The elimination of isospin violation follows by construction from the stated PQ charge assignment (X(c_R)=-1, light quarks X=0), which is a model definition rather than a disguised prediction. There are no load-bearing self-citations: [14] and [15] are prior works by different authors, and the paper does not invoke any author-specific uniqueness theorem. The manuscript itself flags genuine open issues—S10(e) admits that the m_φ=3–4 MeV window would be ruled out if a reanalysis including g_aNN-mediated effects confirms the NA64-e exclusion, and S2 notes the B_s mixing bound is pending a lattice calculation—but these are unresolved external constraints and correctness risks, not circular reasoning. No step reduces by definition to its own input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 7 axioms · 2 invented entities

The model's output (κ_c, f_a, m_a, BR(B→Kσ), ΔN_eff) is governed by a single scanned parameter m_φ, with all other inputs taken from SVZ/lattice. The main unproven inputs are the SVZ relation and the ad hoc NA64-e evasion.

free parameters (3)
  • m_φ (PQ scalar mass) = 3–4 MeV (viable window)
    Scanned to satisfy perturbativity, ΔN_eff, Belle II, and B→Kσ bounds; all other quantities follow from Eq. (9).
  • Gluon condensate C = <α_s G^2>/(12π^2) = ~1.01×10^-4 GeV^4
    Taken from SVZ sum rules [20,32]; sets κ_c via Eq. (9) and carries O(1) uncertainty that shifts the viable window.
  • Axion-nucleon coupling g_aNN = ~2–3
    Derived from the chiral anomaly formula but with O(1) model dependence; used to argue SN1987A trapping and NA64-e evasion.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption PQ symmetry is broken by the QCD quark condensate at f_a ~ O(1) GeV
    Foundation of the GeV-axion framework taken from ref. [14]; the paper does not derive this from QCD.
  • domain assumption The SVZ sum rule relation <c̄c> = -C/m_c [1 + (11/3)α_s/π] is applicable at the PQ minimum
    Used in Eq. (8)–(9); the paper states Λ_QCD^2/m_c^2 ~ 2% validity but also admits O(1) coefficient uncertainties from the λ correction (S6).
  • ad hoc to paper The minimum of the scalar potential satisfies m_φ^2 v_φ^2 = C_eff (λ→0 limit)
    Central self-consistency condition Eq. (8); S6 acknowledges the full minimum condition differs by up to a factor of 2.
  • standard math Heavy-quark spurions decouple from light-meson χPT at leading order
    Used to claim isospin violation vanishes for charm coupling; standard decoupling in χPT.
  • domain assumption The Belle II B+→K+νν̄ excess is a real new-physics signal
    The paper interprets the 2.7σ excess as the target for B→Kσ, but does not prove it is not a statistical fluctuation.
  • domain assumption The axion thermalizes with the EM plasma via Primakoff and decays to photons after neutrino decoupling for m_a ≲ T_ν
    Basis of the negative ΔN_eff calculation in S9; assumes Γ_Prim/H ≫ 1 and instantaneous decoupling.
  • ad hoc to paper NA64-e missing-energy efficiency is degraded by g_aNN-induced HCAL scattering
    Hypothesis to evade the NA64-e exclusion; the paper states a dedicated simulation is needed (S10c).
invented entities (2)
  • Complex PQ scalar φ (with radial mode σ and axion a) independent evidence
    purpose: Generates charm mass, solves strong CP, predicts B→Kσ and π0→γa signatures
    Predicts specific masses (m_a ≈ 2 MeV, m_σ ≈ 4–6 MeV), couplings, and branching ratios testable at Belle II, CMB-S4, SHiP.
  • Protecting U(1)' symmetry (PNGB origin of φ) no independent evidence
    purpose: Explains the tiny quartic λ ~ 10^-7
    Invoked ad hoc to solve the small-λ naturalness problem; no scale or phenomenology specified (S5).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20535 in / 20861 out tokens · 299054 ms · 2026-08-02T06:13:06.657259+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The GeV-scale QCD axion -- where Peccei-Quinn (PQ) symmetry is broken by the QCD condensate at $f_a\sim\mathcal{O}(1)$~GeV -- faces a structural isospin problem: the PQ spurion coupling to light quarks ($u,d,s$) breaks $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ isospin, generating an unacceptable $\sim 15\%$ $\pi^0$--$\pi^\pm$ mass splitting. We show that coupling the PQ scalar to the charm quark instead eliminates this violation entirely, and lowering $m_\phi\sim 3$--$4$~MeV makes the charm Yukawa $\kappa_c\propto m_\phi$ perturbative ($\kappa_c<1$). The resulting $f_a\sim\text{GeV}\ll M_{\rm Pl}$ solves the axion quality problem: even the lowest-dimension $d=6$ Planck-suppressed operator gives $m_{\rm PQ}/m_a\sim 10^{-14}$, without any additional symmetry. The model predicts a distinctive {\it negative} $\Delta N_{\rm eff}\sim -0.1$ for $m_\phi\sim 3$~MeV, testable by CMB-S4. The $B\to K\sigma$ penguin predicts $\mathrm{BR}\sim 2\times 10^{-5}$, consistent with the Belle~II evidence for $B^+\to K^+\nu\bar{\nu}$ at $(2.3\pm0.7)\times 10^{-5}$~\cite{BelleII:2024knv}. All ten classes of experimental, astrophysical, and cosmological constraints are satisfied in the viable window $m_\phi\sim 3$--$4$~MeV, with the $B_s$ mixing constraint pending a dedicated lattice calculation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.12956 by Bo-Qiang Lu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Total invisible branching ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Heavy meson chiral perturbation theory constraints on a charm-coupled GeV-scale QCD axion

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A charm-only QCD axion model passes a heavy-meson EFT consistency check, with its tightest bound coming from σ-mediated B_s mixing.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 17 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Adachiet al.(Belle II), Phys

    I. Adachiet al.(Belle II), Phys. Rev. D109, 112006 (2024), arXiv:2311.14647 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

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

    1977

  3. [3]

    Weinberg, Phys

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

    1978

  4. [4]

    Wilczek, Phys

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

    1978

  5. [5]

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

    1979

  6. [6]

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

    1980

  7. [7]

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

    1980

  8. [8]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B 104, 199 (1981)

    1981

  9. [9]

    Preskill, M

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B 120, 127 (1983)

    1983

  10. [10]

    L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. B120, 133 (1983)

    1983

  11. [11]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler, Phys. Lett. B120, 137 (1983)

    1983

  12. [12]

    Sikivie, Rev

    P. Sikivie, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 015004 (2021), arXiv:2003.02206 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Di Luzio, M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    Murayama, arXiv (2026), arXiv:2601.02465 [hep-ph]

    H. Murayama, arXiv (2026), arXiv:2601.02465 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Redi, A. Strumia, A. Tesi, and A. V. Titov, JHEP06, 151, arXiv:2602.10057 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    F. L. A. G. (FLAG), Eur. Phys. J. C82, 869 (2022), arXiv:2111.09849 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Abazajianet al.(CMB-S4), arXiv (2022), arXiv:2203.08024 [astro-ph.CO]

    K. Abazajianet al.(CMB-S4), arXiv (2022), arXiv:2203.08024 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Gasser and H

    J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Ann. Phys.158, 142 (1984)

    1984

  19. [19]

    Borsanyiet al., Nature539, 69 (2016), arXiv:1606.07494 [hep-lat]

    S. Borsanyiet al., Nature539, 69 (2016), arXiv:1606.07494 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [20]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B147, 385 (1979)

    1979

  21. [21]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    Kamionkowski and J

    M. Kamionkowski and J. March-Russell, Phys. Lett. B 282, 137 (1992)

    1992

  23. [23]

    Redi and R

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    Choi and S

    K. Choi and S. H. Im, JHEP01, 149, arXiv:1511.00132 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    Mayle, J

    R. Mayle, J. R. Wilson, J. R. Ellis, K. A. Olive, D. N. Schramm, and G. Steigman, Phys. Lett. B203, 188 (1988)

    1988

  26. [26]

    G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rept.198, 1 (1990)

    1990

  27. [27]

    Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys. Rev. D105, L071102 (2022), arXiv:2112.14236 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    SHiP Collaboration,A facility to Search for Hid- den Particles (SHiP) at the CERN SPS, Tech. Rep. CERN-SPSC-2015-016 (CERN, 2015) arXiv:1504.04956 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  29. [29]

    Banerjeeet al.(NA64), Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  30. [30]

    Hyper-Kamiokande Proto-Collaboration, arXiv (2018), arXiv:1805.04163 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    Beˇ cirevi´ c, G

    D. Beˇ cirevi´ c, G. Piazza, and O. Sumensari, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 252 (2023), arXiv:2301.06990 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Narison, Phys

    S. Narison, Phys. Lett. B693, 559 (2010), arXiv:1004.5333

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  33. [33]

    R. L. Workmanet al.(Particle Data Group), PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  34. [34]

    Steigman, Annu

    G. Steigman, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.57, 463 (2007), arXiv:0712.1100 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  35. [35]

    Y. M. Andreevet al.(NA64), Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 121803 (2024), arXiv:2406.01990 [hep-ex]. 1 Naturally quality-safe GeV axion with charm coupling Supplemental Material By Bo-Qiang Lu S1. DECA Y CHANNELS AND LIFETIMES Scalarσ(radial mode,m σ = √ 2m ϕ):The QCD condensate generates a logarithmic potentialV QCD = −Ceff ln(κcϕ/µ), whereC eff =C[1 + (11/3)α s(mc...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    invisible

    Sincem c(ϕ)4 =κ 4 cϕ4/4, expanding to quartic order gives λCW ∼ Nc κ4 c 64π2 ∼10 −5–10−3,(S34) forκ c = 0.44–1.48. The target quarticλ target =m 2 ϕ/(2f 2 a )∝m 4 ϕ is∼10 −9–10−6, smaller by a factor∼10 3. Ifλ=λ CW, the resultingm ϕ ∼ √2λCW fa ∼40–180 MeV, givingκ c ∼6–27—non-perturbative. Therefore, perturbativity requiresλ≪λ CW, which requires a symmetr...

    2018