TTP-20-005
Quark Flavor Phenomenology of the QCD Axion
Jorge Martin Camalich,1, 2 Maxim Pospelov,3, 4 Pham Ngoc Hoa Vuong,5 Robert Ziegler,6, 7 and Jure Zupan8 1Instituto de Astrof´ısica de Canarias, C/ V´ıaL´actea, s/n E38205 - La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain 2Universidad de La Laguna, Departamento de Astrof´ısica, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain 3School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA 4William I. Fine Theoretical Physics Institute, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA 5Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, Universit´eGrenoble-Alpes, CNRS/IN2P3, Grenoble INP, 38000 Grenoble, France 6Theoretical Physics Department, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland 7Institut f¨urTheoretische Teilchenphysik (TTP), Karlsruher Institut f¨urTechnologie (KIT), 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany 8Department of Physics, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221,USA Axion models with generation-dependent Peccei-Quinn charges can lead to flavor-changing neutral currents, thus motivating QCD axion searches at precision flavor experiments. We rigorously derive limits on the most general effective flavor-violating couplings from current measurements and assess their discovery potential. For two-body decays we use available experimental data to derive limits on q → q0a decay rates for all flavor transitions. Axion contributions to neutral-meson mixing are calculated in a systematic way using chiral perturbation theory and operator product expansion. We also discuss in detail baryonic decays and three-body meson decays, which can lead to the best search strategies for some of the couplings. For instance, a strong limit on the Λ → na transition can be derived from the supernova SN 1987A. In the near future, dedicated searches for q → q0a decays at ongoing experiments could potentially test Peccei-Quinn breaking scales up to 1012 GeV at NA62 or KOTO, and up to 109 GeV at Belle II or BES III.
I. INTRODUCTION be performed. Besides the two-body meson decays, also the three-body and baryonic decays can provide the best sensitivity to specific axion couplings. We The QCD axion is arguably one of the best- provide a careful and rigorous analysis of the result- motivated particles beyond the Standard Model ing constraints by exploiting the entire set of current (SM). Originally predicted by the Peccei-Quinn experimental information. We also improve the pre- (PQ) solution to the strong CP problem [1–4], dictions for axion induced neutral-meson oscillations i.e., the apparent absence of large CP violation in by using effective-field theory methods, and derive strong interactions [5–12], the axion is also an ex- a new bound from supernova cooling. cellent cold Dark Matter (DM) candidate in large parts of the parameter space [13–15]. Predictions for axion couplings to fermions are The original electroweak axion models [3, 4] were model-dependent. The only requirement for a suc- strongly disfavored by the non-observation of flavor- cessful axion model is an almost exact global U(1) violating K+ π+a decays (where a is the ax- PQ symmetry that is spontaneously broken and ion) [16]. Since→ then, experimental searches for anomalous with respect to QCD. Therefore, the only axions have been primarily focused on the flavor- coupling shared by all axion models is the axion ˜ conserving axion couplings. Searches using halo- coupling to the CP-odd gluon operator, GG, aris- scopes [17–24] and helioscopes [25–28] rely on ax- ing from the QCD anomaly and responsible for the ion couplings to photons, while searches using pre- solution to the strong CP problem. Axion models divide into two classes, depending on how the color arXiv:2002.04623v1 [hep-ph] 11 Feb 2020 cision magnetometry rely on axion couplings to glu- ons [29]. Much activity is being devoted to de- anomaly arises. In the KSVZ-type models [35, 36] vise new experimental techniques, and ambitious the color anomaly is due to a set of heavy fermions projects have been proposed for the upcoming years that are vectorlike under the SM but chiral under (for a review see Ref. [30]). the PQ symmetry. In this case the axion does not couple to elementary SM fermions at tree level. In In this paper we reiterate the importance of fla- the DFSZ-type models [37, 38], on the other hand, vor violating transitions for axion searches. In- the SM fermions carry PQ charges, and the axion deed, a QCD axion with flavor violating couplings always couples to the fermionic currents. Whether could well be first discovered in flavor-physics ex- these couplings are flavor conserving or flavor vio- periments. While this possibility was already con- lating is a model-dependent choice. templated in the literature for rare meson decays and neutral meson mixing [31–34], we go well be- In the original DFSZ model the PQ charges are yond the state of the art. We show that, in light taken to be flavor universal [37, 38], so that flavor- of upcoming experiments, there are a number of ad- violating axion couplings arise only at loop level. ditional dedicated searches that could and should In general, though, flavor violating axion couplings 2 are present already at tree level. This is the case, where f is the axion decay constant, cV,A are her- a fifj for instance, in generalized DFSZ-type models with mitian matrices in flavor space, and the sum over generation dependent PQ charges [39–43], which can repeated generational indices, i, j = 1, 2, 3, is im- also allow to suppress the axion couplings to nucle- plied. For future convenience we define effective de- ons [44–46]. Particularly motivated scenarios, which cay constants as lead to flavor violating axion couplings at tree level, arise when the PQ symmetry is part of a flavor 2fa F V,A . (2) group that shapes the structure of the yukawa sec- fifj ≡ cV,A tor [31, 47]. The PQ symmetry could enforce texture fifj zeros in the Yukawa matrices [48–50], or be respon- ∗ In general F V,A, i = j, are complex, with F V,A = sible for their hierarchical structure `ala Froggatt- fifj 6 fifj F V,A. Throughout the paper we take a to be the Nielsen (FN) [51]. While in the simplest scenario fj fi PQ and FN symmetries are identified [52–54], PQ QCD axion, so that its mass is inversely propor- could also be a subgroup of a larger flavor symmetry, tional to fa [79], see e.g. Refs. [55–61]. Finally, flavored PQ symme- tries can arise also in the context of Minimal Fla- 1012 GeV ma = 5.691(51) µeV . (3) vor Violation [62, 63] or as accidental symmetries in fa models with gauged flavor symmetries [64–67]. In our analysis we remain, for the most part, ag- For the “invisible” axion the decay constant is fa nostic about the origin of the flavor and chiral struc- 106 GeV [80], in which case the axion is much lighter ture of axion couplings to SM fermions, and sim- than an eV and essentially decoupled from the SM. ply treat axion couplings to fermions as independent We will always be working in this limit, so that in parameters in an effective Lagrangain. For related the flavor transitions the axion can be taken as mass- studies of axion-like particles with flavor violating less for all practical purposes. couplings, see [68–70] (for loop induced transitions In this mass range the axion has a lifetime that see [71–78]). We restrict the analysis to the case of is larger than the age of the universe, and there- the (practically) massless QCD axion, but our re- fore is a suitable DM candidate. If the PQ symme- sults can be repurposed for any other light scalar or try is broken before inflation, axions are produced pseudoscalar with flavor violating couplings to the near the QCD phase transition and yield the ob- SM fermions, as long as the mass of the (pseudo- served DM abundance for axion decay constants of 11 13 )scalar is much smaller than the typical energy re- the order fa (10 10 ) GeV [13–15], assum- lease in the flavor transition. ing natural values∼ of the÷ misalignment angle. Other The paper is structured as follows. In Section II production mechanisms, e.g., via parametric reso- we introduce our notation for the axion couplings nance, allow for axion DM also for smaller decay 8 to fermions and comment on their flavor structure. constants, down to fa 10 GeV [81]. We will see In Section III we derive the bounds on these cou- below that precision flavor∼ experiments are able to plings from two-body and three-body meson decays, test this most interesting region of the QCD axion from baryon decays and from baryon transitions in parameter space. supernovae. Section IV contains bounds from mix- The axion couplings to the SM fermions in the ing of neutral mesons, Section V reviews bounds on mass basis, cV and cA , are related to the PQ fifj fifj flavor-diagonal couplings, and Section VI discusses charge matrices in the flavor basis, Xf , through axion couplings involving the top quark. Finally, in Section VII we present the results and experi- V,A 1 † † cf f = Vf XfR VfR Vf XqL VfL , (4) mental projections. Details about renormalization i j 2N R ± L ij of effective axion couplings, experimental recasts of two-body meson decays and hadronic inputs are de- where N is the QCD anomaly coefficient of the ferred to the Appendix. PQ symmetry. The unitary rotations VfL,fR diag- onalize the appropriate SM fermion yukawa matri- ces, V † y V = ydiag, for the “up” and “down” fL f fR f II. AXION COUPLINGS TO FERMIONS quark flavors, f = u, d. We focus on axion cou- plings to quarks, and refer the reader to Ref. [82] The Lagrangian describing the most general inter- for present and future prospects for testing lepton actions of the axion with the SM fermions is given flavor violating axion couplings. Off-diagonal cou- 1 by (see also Appendix A) plings arise whenever PQ charges, XqL ,XfR , are not diagonal in the same basis as the yukawa matrices, ∂ a = µ f γµ cV + cA γ f , (1) yf . Their sizes depend on the misalignment between aff i fifj fifj 5 j L 2fa the two bases, parametrized by the unitary rotations
VfL ,VfR (taking XqL ,XfR to be diagonal). Very different flavor textures of cV,A are possible. fifj 1 Note that diagonal vector couplings are unphysical up to Provided a suitable set of PQ charges and appropri- electroweak anomaly terms, which are irrelevant for the ate flavor structures of the SM yukawa matrices, it purpose of this paper. is possible for just a single off-diagonal coupling to 3 be large cV,A (1), i = j, with all the other off- methods [90] that are difficult to re-interpret for dif- fifj ∼ O 6 diagonal couplings zero or very small. For example, ferent purposes [93] (see also Ref. [94]). V A one can realize a situation where cbs = cbs 1 and The available experimental information is sum- V,A ∼ marized in Table I, where we give the 90% CL up- all the other cf 6=f = 0, by taking XqL = XuR = 1, i j per limits on the branching ratios for decays involv- (XdR )2 = (XdR )3, with down yukawa matrix yd such that the6 only non-vanishing rotation is in the 2-3 ing neutrinos or invisible massless axions. We in- Rd clude the limits on the decays involving axions that RH sector, s23 1. Moreover, while one would generically expect∼ axial couplings cA and vector we obtained by recasting the experimental searches fifj for decays involving neutrinos (“recast”). Table I couplings cV to be of the same order, the latter fifj shows bounds on the branching ratios for decays can be suppressed in a situation where X = X + fR qL to pseudoscalar mesons, P1 P2a, for K − + → → and VfR = VfL , which can arise in models where PQ π a (s d transition, experimental analysis in charges are compatible with a grand unified struc- Ref. [85]),→ D+ π+a (c u transition, our re- ture (see Ref. [83] for a recent example in SO(10)), cast of Ref. [87]),→ B+ π→+a (b d transition, and yukawas are hermitian, positive definite matri- experimental analysis in→ Ref. [86]→ and our recast ces (see e.g. Ref. [84] for a realization of this scenario of Ref. [88]), B+ K+a (b s transition, ex- in SO(10)). perimental analysis→ in Ref. [86]→ and our recast of In the absence of a theory of flavor, we will be Ref. [89]). For decays to vector mesons, P1 V2a, agnostic about the origin of the possible flavor mis- there is experimental information on the B → K∗a alignment, and simply take cV,A to be unknown pa- → fifj decay (b s transition, our recast of Ref. [89]). rameters in an effective Lagrangian, which will be In the same→ section of Table I we also include the constrained solely from data. bounds on K+ π+π0a decay used in Sec. III B below (s d transition,→ experimental analysis in Ref. [91]).→ For details on the recast see Appendix B. III. BOUNDS FROM HADRON DECAYS The above analyses could be improved with ded- icated axion searches applied to existing data or to ongoing experiments. Sensitivity to the K+ π+a Bounds on the vector and axial-vector parts of decay better than the present world best limit→ can the flavor-violating axion couplings, Eqs. (1), (2), be achieved at the NA62 experiment. For a massless can be derived from searches for hadron decays axion, an improvement by an order of magnitude with missing energy. In this section we consider compared to the BNL result, BR(K+ π+a) < the bounds from two-body decays of pseudoscalar 7.3 10−11 [85], is expected by 2025→ [95]. The mesons to pseudoscalar and vector mesons respec- same× flavor transition is probed by KOTO searching tively, from three-body meson decays, and from de- for the neutral decay mode K π0a. The cur- cays of baryons. In each case, we first review the L rent limit using data collected in→ 2015 is BR(K available and planned experimental measurements L π0a) < 2 10−9 and is in the same ballpark as for→ and then interpret them in terms of the bounds on the decay× to the neutrino pair [96]. The KOTO flavor violating axion couplings. collaboration expects the sensitivity to be improved down to the 10−11 level [97]. Improved sensitivity in the neutral-kaon mode can also be expected from A. Bounds from two-body meson decays the proposed KLEVER experiment [98]. To the best of our knowledge, the future prospects Due to parity conservation of strong interactions, for the heavy-meson axion decays P1 P2a or → the P1 P2a decays of a pseudoscalar meson P1 P1 V2a have not yet been estimated by the exper- → → to a pseudoscalar meson P2 are only sensitive to the imental collaborations. Nevertheless, it is clear that vector couplings of the axion, while the P1 V2a improvements over the present situation are justi- → decays, where V2 is the vector meson, are only sensi- fiably expected. For instance, the experimental er- tive to the axial-vector couplings (see Appendix C). ror on the D+ τ +ν branching ratio is projected Searches targeting specifically the massless axion to be reduced→ by a factor of 3 with 20 fb−1 inte- were performed in K+ π+a [85], B+ K+a [86] grated luminosity at BESIII [99] compared to the and B+ π+a [86] decays.→ In addition,→ searches present value [100], indicating a potential significant for SM decays→ where the invisible final state is a νν improvement in sensitivity to the c ua transition. pair can be recast to derive limits on the axion cou- The reach on the branching ratios for→ the axionic de- plings. This requires that the two-body kinematics cay modes of B mesons will be improved with the of an (essentially) massless axion is included in the amount of data expected to be collected at Belle II, search region, as was the case in the BaBar and which is roughly a factor of 50 larger compared to CLEO searches for B K(∗)νν [89], B πνν [88] the BaBar and Belle samples. and D (τ πν)ν [87].→ Note that the correspond-→ Several potentially interesting channels are lack- ing Belle→ data→ sets analyzed in Refs. [90, 92] cannot ing any experimental analyses so far. For exam- be readily used to set bounds on axion couplings, ple, there is no experimental analysis of c ua because the analyses either cut out two-body de- transitions that are sensitive to the axial-vector→ cou- cays with a massless axion [92] or used multi-variate pling, i.e., there are no D ππXinv or D ρXinv, → → 4
Decay sd cu bd bs −11 −5 −5 BR(P1 → P2 + a) 7.3 × 10 [85] no analysis 4.9 × 10 [86] 4.9 × 10 [86] −6 −5 −6 BR(P1 → P2 + a)recast no need 8.0 × 10 [87] 2.3 × 10 [88] 7.1 × 10 [89] +1.30 −10 −5 −5 BR(P1 → P2 + νν) 1.47−0.89 × 10 [85] no analysis 0.8 × 10 [90] 1.6 × 10 [90] −5 BR(P1 → V2 + a) 3.8 × 10 [91] no analysis no analysis no analysis −5 BR(P1 → V2 + a)recast no need no data no data 5.3 × 10 [89] −5 −5 −5 BR(P1 → V2 + νν) 4.3 × 10 [91] no analysis 2.8 × 10 [90] 2.7 × 10 [90]
TABLE I. Experimental inputs for meson decays, see text for details. We show the 90% CL upper bounds on the branching ratios of a pseudo-scalar meson P1 to another pseudo-scalar (P2) or vector (V2) meson (for sd transitions V2 = ππ instead). The bounds shown are for decays to neutrinos or massless invisible axions. In the latter case we also show our bounds obtained by recasting related searches for invisible decays (subscript ”recast”).
+ Xinv = νν, a, searches. One could also search for a π a decay rates obey the Grossman-Nir bound ∗ 0 + + c ua signal in Ds Ka, Ds K a decays, all BR(KL π a) 4.3 BR(K π a) [102, 103]. → → → → ≤ 2 → 2 of which could be performed at Belle II and BESIII. The form factors f+(q ) and A0(q ) are defined Potentially, LHCb could also probe these couplings in Appendix C, where we also collect the numerical using decay chains, such as B− D0π− followed values used as inputs in the numerical analysis. The 0 0 → by D ρ a, which results in three charged pi- resulting bounds on axion couplings F V,A are shown → ij ons + MET and two displaced vertices. The lack in Tab. III. The implications of these results and of such analyses means that there is at present no future projections will be discussed in Sec. VII. bound from meson decays on axial cu couplings to the axion. Similarly, there is at present no pub- licly available experimental analysis that bounds B. Bounds from three-body meson decays the B ρa decays (as discussed above, one can- not readily→ use for that purpose the B ρνν Belle data from Ref. [90], while BaBar has→ not The E787 experiment at Brookhaven performed a search for the three-body K+ π0π+a decay me- performed such an analysis). Finally, our recast → bounds on B K(∗)a, B πa could be easily diated by the s da transition, and set the bound + 0 +→ −5 improved by dedicated→ experimental→ searches using BR(K π π a) 3.8 10 at 90% CL [91]. → ≤ × 0 0 The related decay mode KL π π a has also been already collected data. At LHCb one could mea- → sure the B K∗a and B ρa branching ratios searched for, resulting in the upper limit for light → → 0∗∗ massive axions BR(K π0π0a) 0.7 10−6 [104]. using the decay chains such as B K+B− or L . s However, this analysis→ excluded the m× = 0 kine- 0∗∗ + − − ∗−→ − a B π B followed by B K ( KSπ )a, matic region and is thus not applicable to the case 0→∗∗ 0 → 0 → ∗0 0 or Bs KSB followed by B K a, ρ a of the QCD axion [105]. Other decay modes such as → → + − [101]. One could also attempt more challenging de- KL π π a or those involving the decays of KS ∗ → cay chain measurements such as Bs Bsγ, followed have not been investigated experimentally. ∗ → by Bs φa or Bs K a. Parity conservation implies that the K ππa → → We now convert the bounds on the branching ra- decays are sensitive only to the axial-vector→ cou- tios in Table I to bounds on flavor violating cou- plings of the axion to quarks (see Appendix C). The plings of axions to quarks, Eqs. (1), (2). The corre- form factors entering the predictions are related via sponding partial decay widths are given by isospin symmetry to the form factors measured in K+ π+π−e+ν [106–109], making precise predic- 2 f+(0) tions→ for K ππa decay rates possible. The two |F V |2 ,P1 P2a ij → Γ = κ12 2 → (5) final state pions can be only in the total isospin A0(0) |F A|2 ,P1 V2a I = 0 or the I = 1 state, since the s da La- ij → grangian is ∆I = 1/2, while the initial kaon→ is part with the kinematic prefactor of an isodoublet.| | Bose symmetry demands the de- cay amplitude to be symmetric with respect to the 3 2 3 M1 M2 exchange of the two pions. The I = 0 (I = 1) am- κ12 = 1 2 , (6) plitude is even (odd) under this permutation. The 16π − M1 form factors must therefore enter in combinations where M1 (M2) is the mass of the parent (daughter) which are even (odd) with respect to the exchange 0 meson. Since KL π a decay is CP violating, the of pion momenta, pπ1 pπ2 . The two pions in the 0 0 0 ↔+ + 0 partial decay width→ in that case is given by decay K π π a (K π π a) are in a pure I = 0 (I =→ 1) state and one→ obtains, 2 V 2 Γ 0 = κ12f+(0) Im (1/F ) , (7) KL→π a sd 0 0 2 3 dΓ(KL π π a) A 2 (mK0 s) 2 → = Re (1/Fsd) −3 5 βFs , and thus vanishes in the CP conserving limit, ds 1024π mK V 0 + Im F = 0, cf. Eq. (2). The KL π a and K (8) sd → → 5 and though controlled calculations using QCD factoriza- tion and soft-collinear effective theory may be possi- + + 0 2 3 dΓ(K π π a) 1 (m + s) → = K − β ble [112] and could be attempted in the future. Until ds F A 2 1536π3m5 then one can use as a rough guide the bounds that | sd| K 2 2 2 were obtained for the related two body decays, i.e., F + β G + 2βFpGp , × p p + + V + + A (9) B π a (on Fbd) and B ρ a (on Fbd), as a ball-park→ figure for what an interesting→ experimen- + 0 + 2 2 2 tal reach for B ρ π a (bounding a combination where s = (pπ + pπ ) and β = 1 4m /s. The 1 2 − π of F V and F A) might→ be. functions Fs, Fp and Gp correspond to the moduli bd bd of the coefficients in the partial-wave expansion of Finally one can also use LHCb di-muon data col- the form factors (which are complex functions of the lected for the Bq µµ analysis to constrain the A→ A kinematic variables of the two-pion system) in the axial couplings Fbd and Fbs. As long as no vetos K+ π+π−e+ν decay channel [106, 107, 110, 111] on extra particles in the event are applied in the (see→ Appendix C). In the first equation we also used LHCb analysis, their datasets can be used to con- the fact that the final state is CP-odd and, therefore, strain decays with additional particles in the final the decay occurs through the predominantly CP- state such as axions. In Ref. [70] the present data were used to derive constraints on F A of the order odd component of KL. bq One can also obtain expressions for other decay of 105 GeV, cf. Table III. With 300 fb−1 the bounds modes from eqs. (8) and (9). The amplitude of can be strengthened by about an order of magni- + − KL π π a contains both I = 0 and I = 1 isospin tude, and could be further improved by using also components→ and the decay rate in the isospin limit the ATLAS and CMS data on Bq µµ. The same → is, strategy might also be applied to sd transitions us- ing KS µµ decays, as proposed in Ref. [113]. + − + + 0 → Γ(KL π π a) = Γ(˜ K π π a) → → 0 0 + 2 Γ(KL π π a), (10) → C. Bounds from Baryon Decays where Γ(˜ K+ π+π0a) is obtained by replac- ing 1/ F A →Re (1/F A ) in Γ(K+ π+π0a). Baryon decays, B1 B2a, are sensitive to both | sd| → sd → axial and vector couplings→ of the axion. The decay Rates for the KS decays are obtained by replacing A A rates are given by Re (1/F ) Im (1/F ) in the rates of KL. sd → sd Better sensitivity to the axial sd axion coupling f (0)2 g (0)2 0 0 Γ(B B a) = κ 1 + 1 , (12) can be achieved by searching for KL π π a at 1 2 12 V 2 A 2 + →+ 0 → F F KOTO [105], while a search for K π π a could | ij | | ij | be attempted at NA62. Note that eqs.→ (8) and (9) with the kinematic prefactor κ12 given in Eq. (6). can be combined to the inequality 2 2 The form factors f1(q ) and g1(q ) are discussed in 0 0 + + 0 detail in Appendix C. BR(KL π π a) 31 BR(K π π a), (11) → ≤ → At present there are no published experimental searches for B1 B2a decays. We therefore set which, besides the ratio of kaon lifetimes τL/τ+ = → 90% CL upper limits on BR(B1 B2a) indirectly. 4.1 (that gives the main effect in the Grossman-Nir → bound for BR(K πa)), also includes the effects For hyperons, we subtract from unity the branch- of different combinations→ of Clebsch-Gordan coeffi- ing ratios for all channels that have been measured cients, form factors and phase space factors. so far, adding the experimental errors in quadra- The numerical input values for the hadronic ma- ture [10]. For Λb decays we use the SM prediction for its lifetime at NLO in αs and at (1/mb) in heavy trix elements are described in Appendix C, while O the resulting bound on the axion coupling obtained quark expansion [114], compare it to the experimen- from the current bound on K+ π+π0a [91], is in- tal measurements [10], and ascribe the difference to cluded in Tab. III. The implications→ of these results the allowed value for BR(Λb B2a). For Λc we sat- urate the observed lifetime with→ the Λ+ pa decay and prospects are discussed further in Sec. VII. c → Other searches using three body decays could width. The resulting upper bounds on the branching + 0 + ratios BR(B1 B2a) are collected in Tab. II and be of interest. Decays such as B ρ π a, → 0 0 0 0 → ∗0 0 V,A B ρ ρ a or Bs KSρ a, Bs K ρ a, used to derive the limits on axion couplings Fij → 0 → → Bs φρ a could potentially be even attempted at shown in Tab. III. LHCb,→ since they result in three or four charged The sensitivity could be improved substantially particles and a massless invisible particle. Other with dedicated searches for B1 B2a decays. The → possible decays of theoretical interest, but proba- BESIII collaboration plans to measure B1 B2νν → bly only measurable at Belle II, are B+ π0π+a, decays of hyperons by using a sample of hyperon- B0 π+π−a, B0 ρ+ρ−a, B+ ρ+ρ→0a. Belle antihyperon pairs collected at the e+e− J/ψ → → → → II could also access from the Υ(5S) run the Bs peak [115]. At BESIII one could also study the de- 0 decays with neutral pions such as Bs KSπ a, cays of charmed baryons into axions. Namely, ap- ∗0 0 → 4 + − Bs K π a, etc. Providing predictions for these proximately 10 Λc Λc pairs have been collected decays→ lies beyond the scope of the present paper, in a run with∼ 567 pb−1 of integrated luminosity 6
Baryon B1 BR(B1 → B2a)90% Λ and n are negligible. Λ 8.5 × 10−3 The volume emission rate Q inside the PNS due Σ+ 4.9 × 10−3 to the process Λ na is given by, 0 −4 → Ξ 2.3 × 10 m3 Γ(Λ na) Z ∞ − −4 n Ξ 6.4 × 10 Q = 2 2 → 2 p dp π (mΛ mn) 0 × Λc 1 0 − (13) −2 Z pmax Λb 4.1 × 10 0 0 EΛ En Λ n p dp − fp (1 fp0 ), × 0 EΛEn − pmin TABLE II. The 90% CL upper bounds on the branch- 0 0 ing fractions for the baryon B1 → B2a decays ob- where pmax (pmin) is the maximal (minimal) neutron tained by adding up the measured branching fractions of momentum in the Λ na decay, if Λ has momen- the exclusive modes (hyperons) or by comparing theory tum p = p (all in the→ PNS’s rest frame) 2. No- predictions for lifetimes with the measurements (heavy tice that in| | the non-relativistic limit where p, p0 baryons). mΛ mn, and in the limit of no Fermi blocking of the∼ final state neutrons, this formula reduces to a more familiar form, at e+e− collisions just above the pair-production − mΛ−mn threshold [116]. Note that bottom baryons are Q nn(mΛ mn)Γ(Λ na) e T , (14) not produced in the modern e+e− machines, since ' − → where n is the number density of neutrons. they run at energies below the corresponding pair- n Evaluating the distributions (chemical potentials) production thresholds, so that only LHCb, while for benchmark conditions of T = 30 MeV and nu- challenging, could have access to these decays. clear density ρ = ρnuc, using Eq. (13), we obtain for the energy loss per unit mass = Q/ρ, D. Supernova bound erg f (0)2 g (0)2 = 3.6 1038 GeV2 1 + 1 . (15) V 2 A 2 × s g Fsd Fsd In the core of neutron stars (NS) hyperons coex- | | | | Setting as the maximal limit on the energy ist in equilibrium with neutrons, protons and elec- lost through neutrino emission one second after trons [117–120]. The decay Λ na would repre- the collapse of the supernova SN 1987A, sent a new cooling mechanism for→ NS, and can thus . 1019 erg/s g [123, 124], one obtains bounds on F A be constrained by stellar structure calculations and sd and F V in the range 109 - 1010 GeV. | | observations. At exactly zero temperature, the de- sd Our| estimates| are afflicted by significant uncer- generate Λ and neutron distributions must have the tainties. Nuclear interactions induce important cor- same Fermi energy, leaving no phase space for the rections in the calculation of the number densi- Λ na decays to occur. The degeneracy is par- ties [118, 120] and there are considerable stellar un- tially→ lifted at finite temperature allowing for the certainties stemming from the complex physics at Λ na transitions with a rate that increases with work in the supernova. Note that the energy loss the→ temperature. The impact of this new cooling per unit mass obtained using the approximate for- mechanism is maximal during the few seconds af- mula in Eq. (14) is independent of the structural ter the supernova explosion, when a proto-neutron details of the PNS, except for the temperature. At star (PNS) reaches temperatures of several tens of T = 30 MeV this leads to an emission rate that is MeV [121, 122]. 40% larger than in Eq. (15). More than anything, In order to estimate the cooling facilitated by the the∼ emission rate suffers from the uncertainty in the sd-axion interaction in this early phase of the su- temperature of the central region. Variation of this pernova evolution we assume that the PNS is a sys- quantity from 20 to 40 MeV changes Q by two orders tem of non-interacting (finite temperature) Fermi of magnitude. Finally, our bound crucially relies on gases of neutrons, protons, electrons and Λ baryons the validity of the standard scenario for the SN ex- that are in thermal and chemical equilibrium. Fur- plosion as applied to SN 1987A, which was disputed thermore, we assume that the neutrinos are trapped in a recent publication [125]. inside the PNS, while the lepton fraction num- ber, relative to baryon number density, is taken to be YL = 0.3 [123]. The occupancy of Λ states IV. BOUNDS FROM MESON MIXING is distributed according to the Fermi distribution f Λ = 1/ 1 + exp EΛ−µΛ where p is the Λ three- p T The exchanges of axions with flavor violating cou- momentum in the star’s rest frame, EΛ its energy, 2 2 2 plings contribute to ∆F = 2 transitions and can EΛ = p + mΛ, and µΛ its chemical potential. Neu- trons are distributed following an analogous distri- n bution, f 0 , characterized by µn and labelled by the p 2 0 In the star’s rest frame Λ is moving in the direction of pˆ. corresponding neutron three-momentum p , also in The maximum (minimum) three-momentum of the neutron the star’s frame. Anti-particles follow identical dis- in the PNS’s rest frame is reached when the neutron recoils tributions with the replacement µ µ, so that for in the Λ’s rest frame in the direction (in the direction op- the temperatures expected in a PNS→ the − densities of posite) to pˆ. 7
b) a) K0 a c) d) a 0 0 K¯ 0 a K0 K¯ 0 K0 K¯ 0 K0 K¯ K
π0,η
0 FIG. 1. Contributions to K0-K mixing from exchanges of flavor violating axion, up to and including one loop in ChPT. modify meson mixing rates from the SM predictions. To construct the ChPT Lagrangian in the pres- The contribution from axion exchanges to the mix- ence of flavor violating axions we use a spurion anal- 0 ing amplitude of the P 0 P neutral meson system ysis [126, 127]. In terms of the (pseudo)scalar in- is given by the time-ordered− correlator teractions, the Lagrangian for QCD with a flavor violating axion can be conveniently written as Z i 4 0 0 M12 = d x P T aff (x), aff (0) P , a a 4m QCD+a =q(i∂/ + gsG/ T )q q qq − P h | {L L }| i L − M (19) (16) a q(χS iχP γ5)q, − − where aff (x) is the axion-fermion interaction La- where we keep only light quarks, q = (u, d, s). The L grangian in Eq. (1). diagonal mass matrix is q = diag (mu, md, ms), M In this section it will prove useful to use the fol- while χS,P are 3 3 Hermitian matrices describing lowing form of the axion-fermion interaction La- the quark-axion couplings,× grangian, 0 0 0 a V md−ms 0 0 V aff = i f i (mfi mfj )cf f χ = i F , (20) L − 2f − i j S ds a (17) 0 ms−md 0 A F V + (m + m )c γ f , sd fi fj fifj 5 j 2mu A 0 0 Fuu which is obtained from Eq. (1) with the axion- 2md md+ms χP = 0 F A F A . (21) dd ds dependent field transformation − ms+md 2ms 0 A A Fsd Fss h i a (cV −cA ) i a (cV +cA ) i fi e 2fa ij ij PL + e 2fa ij ij PR fj . (18) → The off-diagonal couplings in (20), (21) induce kaon oscillations. The mixing matrix element M12 fol- Notice that (a2) terms that also appear in the lows from a double insertion of the interaction La- O transformation from Eq. (1) to Eq. (17) do not af- grangian aff = a q(χS iχP γ5)q, where q = fect ∆F = 2 processes, and are omitted for that u, d, s, cf.L Eq. (16).− − reason. The above form of aff simplifies some- The Lagrangian for QCD with the flavor vio- L what the calculations of the non-local meson mix- lating axion, QCD+a, is formally invariant un- L ing matrix elements, Eq. (16). For this we utilize der SU(3)R SU(3)L transformations, qR,L × → the appropriate effective field theories; we use Chi- gR,L(x)qR,L, if aχS,P and q are promoted to spu- ral Perturbation Theory (ChPT) for contributions rions that transform as M to K K mixing, while for the heavy-quark sys- tems, −B B and D D, we use the Opera- † d,s d,s s + ip gR(s + ip)gL, (22) tor Product− Expansion (OPE),− matching onto local → four-quark operators describing the meson mixing. and that take the values In the following we use the relativistic normaliza- tion of states, P 0(k) P 0(k0) = 2Eδ(~k ~k0), and s = q + χSa, p = χP a. (23) h | i 0 − M the phase convention CP P 0 = P . | i −| i We also define the spurion χ = χS + iχP that does not contain the axion field, and which transforms † similarly as χ gRχ gL. The identification of this A. K − K mixing symmetry structure→ allows one to build the ChPT Lagrangian, including the chiral-symmetry breaking Since ma 1 GeV we can use ChPT to describe terms. The introduction of the spurion χ is needed contributions from axion exchanges in K K mix- because the axion cannot be treated merely as an ing. For axial couplings, cA , the leading− contribu- fifj external field and enters in the chiral loops with two tions arise at tree level, while for vector couplings, insertions of χS,P . Thus, the ChPT Lagrangian is cV , the first nonzero contributions are at one loop. fifj also invariant under a Z2 symmetry that transforms 8
χ χ, with all the other fields taken to be Z2 squared [126, 127, 129]. The two terms in (25), ex- even.→ − panded in meson fields, are Up to overall normalization factors, the axion in- 2 2 duced contributions to the K K mixing ampli- (4) m 2 K α + 2α − ν νF ChPT+a A 0 1 tude have the scalings 2mK M12 (p/Λχ) (1/F ) . L ⊃ F ∼ ds The integer ν characterizes the usual chiral scal- 2 2 2 m m 0 ing [126, 127] where the derivatives of meson fields K π 2 −V α0 2α1 K + , (and the axion) count as (p), the quark masses − Fds − ··· as (p2) and where the UVO cut-off of ChPT is (27) O Λχ 4πfπ (1 GeV) (fπ is the pion decay con- ' ∼ O where again we only keep the terms relevant for K stant). On the other hand, νF counts the number of K mixing. − 1/F V,A insertions in the amplitude. Thus, the chiral ds The axion exchange contributions to the K K counting of the spurions is (p2) and ν = 0 q F mixing amplitude due to axial vector couplings− are and χ (p2) and ν =M 1.∼ In O the following we S,P F proportional to (1/F A )2 and are, up to (p4) in the use ChPT∼ to O calculate the leading axion-exchange ds chiral counting, given by O contributions to the K K mixing amplitude in- − cluding corrections up to NLO corrections in the 2 f m 2m2 chiral counting, ν 4. This requires two insertions A K K K M12 = A 1 2 (α0 + 2α1) V,A ≤ Fds 2 − fK of 1/Fds and thus νF = 2. (28) 2 2 The LO ChPT Lagrangian, including a as the 8 mK mK + 2 2 1 log 2 . light degree of freedom, is given by 3 16π fK − µ 2 The first term in the parenthesis is due to the tree (2) f µ † = Tr ∂µU∂ U LChPT+a 4 level axion exchange, Fig. 1 a), and is induced by the 2 first term in the expanded LO ChPT Lagrangian, f † + B0 Tr (s ip)U + (s + ip)U (24) Eq. (26). The NLO correction is due to the loop 2 − 2 diagram in Fig. 1 b), induced by the last term 1 µ ma 2 + ∂µa∂ a a , in Eq. (26). We use dimensional regularization in 2 − 2 the MS scheme and fix the renormalization scale to µ = m in order to minimize the size of the chi- while the relevant terms in the NLO ChPT La- K ral logarithm. The counter-terms in Fig. 1 d) which grangian are cancel the µ dependence of the loops are provided by the two terms in the expanded (p4) Lagrangian, (4) 2 2 † † O ChPT+a B0 f α0Tr χU Tr χ U Eq. (27). While the numerical values of the low L ⊃ (25) † 2 † 2 energy constants α0,1 are not known, we can esti- + α1Tr (χU ) + (χ U) . mate their sizes by varying µ in the loop contribu- tion around its nominal value by a factor of 2, while a a Here U(x) = exp(iλ π /f) is the unitary matrix artificially setting α0,1 to zero. This estimates the 4 parametrizing the meson fields [126, 127], B0 is a (p ) contribution in (28) to be (17% 23%) of the O 2 ± constant related to the quark condensate, B0(µ = (p ) one. 2 GeV) = 2.666(57) GeV, f is related to the pion O The vector couplings of the axions first contribute 4 decay constant f fπ/√2 = 92.2(1) MeV [128], at (p ) through the one loop diagram in Fig. 1 c) ' − O with normalization 0 uγµd(0) π (p) = ipµfπ, and with the counterterms in Fig. 1 d), resulting in 2 2 h | | i α0,1 f /Λχ are the (unknown) low energy con- stants.∼ ΓV f 2 m m2 2 M V i 12 = K K 1 π Expanding (24) in meson fields gives 12 V 2 − 2 Fds 2 − mK × m2 (2) a 2 0 K 1 (29) f m K 2 I0(zπ) + 3 I0(zη) ChPT+a A K K × 32π2f L ⊃ −Fds K 2m2 i a 2 2 0 0 η K m m K π + √ + α0 2α1 . V K π 3 f 2 − − √2 Fds − K 2 a 2m 0 2 + K K0 K + h.c. Above, we have re-arranged the factors of fK and A 3f V 2 Fds K mK to make the dependence on (1/Fds) as well as (26) the structure of the chiral corrections more trans- parent. The two-point loop function is I0(z) = 2 2 2 + − Here we kept only the terms relevant for K K log(mK /µ ) z log z (1 z) log(z 1 i0 ), where − − − 2− 2 − −V mixing, and replaced √2f with the kaon decay con- the argument is zφ = mφ/mK . The Γ12 receives a stant, fK = 155.6 0.4 MeV [10], thus capturing contribution from the discontinuity, Im I0(zπ), i.e., part of the SU(3) breaking± that corrects our results from the on-shell part of the diagram Fig. 1 c) with at higher orders in the ChPT expansion [126]. We pion and axion running in the loop. The choice also traded the products B0mq for the meson masses µ = mK again minimizes the log. However, since 9 the low energy constants α0,1 are unknown the pre- where dicted M V is quite uncertain. In the numerical esti- 12 Im Γ12 mates we use α0,1 = 0 and assign 100% uncertainty ξ . (33) V ' ∆ΓK to the resulting estimate for M12. As we will see in the next subsection, for heavy We take the values for ∆mK = mL mS, ∆ΓK = − quarks both s-channel and t-channel exchanges of ΓS ΓL, and φ = arctan(2∆mK /∆ΓK ) from ex- − axions lead to contributions that are parametrically periment [10]. With the SM prediction for K from | | of similar size. However, this is not the case for [131], and the axion contributions to M12,Γ12 from light quarks. The above ChPT analysis implies that Eqs. (28), (29) we get the tree level s-channel axion exchange (necessar- 7 2 ily proportional to 1/(F A )2) is leading in the chiral 2.5(2) 10 GeV ds δC = C 1 = Im · expansion, while the t channel contribution is sub- K K − F A − ds (34) leading. 5(5) 105 GeV 2 Note that in addition to the contributions to + · , F V K K mixing from axion exchange, there can be ds other− contributions from UV physics which are para- where in the numerical expressions we set the un- V,A 2 metrically of the same order, M12 (1/Fds ) . In known low energy constants to zero, α0,1 0, with the numerical analysis we set these∝ UV model de- the quoted errors our estimates of the resulting→ er- pendent contributions to zero, keeping in mind that rors due to this approximation 3. their presence can modify our numerical results. The global CKM fit by the UTFit collaboration
Numerically, Eqs. (28) and (29) give for the con- obtains 0.87 < CK < 1.39 at 95% CL [132, 133]. tribution of the axion to the neutral-kaon mass dif- Assuming α0,1 = 0 this translates into the 90% A 7 V ference, CL bounds Fds > 4.4(7.7) 10 GeV, Fds > 0.9(1.5) 106| GeV| for purely imaginary· and| posi-| 2 A 2 · A,V 2 ∆mK /mK = 0.028(6) GeV Re 1/(F ) tive (negative) (1/F ) which maximally increase ds (30) ds 2 V 2 (reduce) C above (below) 1. + 0.0018(18) GeV Re 1/(F ) , K ds In Tab. III we quote the bounds from the less stringent case of CP violating contributions that where we use the relation ∆mK = 2ReM12 and positively interfere with the SM contributions to K . have set α0 = α1 = 0. The prefactor of the vector couplings carries an (100%) relative uncertainty These bounds will improve in the future, once the O improved prediction for K [131] is implemented in because of the unknown contributions of α0,1 co- efficients, entering at the same order in ChPT as the global CKM fits. the loop contribution. The prediction of ∆mK in the SM has large uncertainties stemming from long- B. Heavy-meson mixing distance contributions. Therefore, in order to ob- tain the bounds on the axion couplings from this ob- In the mixing of neutral heavy mesons, Bs,d Bs,d servable we conservatively saturate the experimental − value ∆mexpt. = 3.484(6) 10−12 MeV [10] with the or D D, a large momentum, of the order of the K − axion-exchange contribution.× Assuming α = 0 heavy quark mass, p mQ ΛQCD, is injected 0,1 ∼ this leads to F A > 2.0 106 GeV and F V > 5.1 105 through aff , Eq. (16), to an intermediate set of ds ds L | | · | | A,V 2· states of the form a + hadrons. This allows one GeV at 90% C.L., for the case where 1/(Fds ) are to perform an OPE in x 1/mQ and express the real. These are the bounds quoted in Tab. III. Tak- ∼ ing into account the estimate for the range of values bi-local operator in terms of the local ones, A Z for α0,1 reduces the bound on Fds by about 10%. i 4 | | d xT aff (x), aff (0) Note that without fixing the values of α0,1 there is 2 {L L } → V (35) no bound on Fds . Allowing for large cancellations X ∆F =2 | | eff (0) = Ci (0). up to 1% between the loop diagram and the coun- → L Oi terterm contributions relaxes the bound on F V by i | ds| an order of magnitude. The sum runs over different dimensions and possible To obtain the bounds on non-SM CP violating structures of the local operators. The mass matrix contributions to K K mixing we use the normal- element leading to the meson mixing is ized quantity − 1 0 0 M12 = P eff (0) P . (36) SM+a −2mP h |L | i C = | K |. (31) εK SM | K | 3 There is a 1:100 cancellation between the contributions of For the theoretical prediction of K we use the ex- V V ImM12 and ImΓ12 to K in Eq. (34) that makes the pre- pression [130] diction of the vectorial axion couplings to this observable even more uncertain. For the experimental inputs we use Im M the PDG values [10], using m and mπ in (29) for the iφ 12 K0 0 K = e sin φ + ξ , (32) kaon and pion masses, respectively. ∆mK 10 a ) a ) b) 1 1 1 2 C = , (40) 4 V 2 A 2 (Fdb) − (Fdb)
bla = and similarly for the Bs system, with d s. The ⇒ → matching gets corrected at (αs) due to hard-gluon O contributions to the matching, and at (ΛQCD/mb) 2, ˜2, 4 O bla O O O from corrections to the heavy-quark limit. The matrix elements of the operators in 0 FIG. 2. Matching of the axion-mediated contributions to Eq. (37) between B0 and B states are given by B−B mixing, diagrams a1) and a2), onto the dimension- 0 0 2 B i B f Bi, where fB is the B meson six local operators in the OPE, diagram b), where we also h |O | i ∝ B indicate the operators that receive the contributions. decay constant, and Bi the appropriate bag pa- Single (double) lines represent the d quark (b quark). rameter. Both of these are well known and have been been calculated using lattice QCD [135–138]. Parity conservation of strong interactions implies O˜i = Oi so that the contributions to ∆mB from h i h Ai V At LO in the 1/mQ expansion the local operators the 1/(FdbFdb) terms in (38) and (39) cancel. Us- ∆F =2 ± i (0) in (35) are of dimension-six. One may ing the lattice results from Ref. [138] we find haveO therefore naively expected the Wilson coeffi- 2 2 2 cients to scale as C 1/m . However, the axion ∆mB 0.053(5) GeV 0.016(2) GeV i Q = Abs , ∝ A 2 V 2 couplings to quarks are mQ/fa, cf. Eq. (17), lead- mB (Fdb) − (Fdb) 2 ∝ ing to Ci 1/fa . Note also that we are calculat- ∆m 0.077(8) GeV2 0.020(2) GeV2 ing the OPE∝ at one single kinematic point over the Bs = Abs , m (F A)2 (F V )2 physical cut of the a + hadrons intermediate state. Bs sb − sb We assume the mass of the heavy-quark to be large (41) enough so that the energies involved correspond to (bs) where ∆mB = 2 M and with the dominant the perturbative regime of QCD and that the viola- (s) | 12 | tions of quark-hadron duality are small. theoretical uncertainty due to power-corrections en- 0 tering at ΛQCD/mb 0.1. The reduced sensitivity We first present the results for the B0 B system, ∼ 0 − 0 to the vectorial couplings in this formula was an- and then extend the results to B0 B and D0 D s − s − ticipated already in the vacuum-insertion approx- systems. We work at LO in 1/mQ. The full basis of imation estimate [32]. The SM predictions for local operators at this order is given by [134], ∆mBd,s are consistent, within 10%, with the mea- ∼ −10 α β sured values ∆mBd = 3.354(22) 10 MeV and µ α µ β −8 × 1 = (dLγ bL)(dLγ bL), ∆mB = 1.1688(14) 10 MeV [10]. Comparison O s × α α β β α β β α (37) with our predictions immediately shows that we can 2 = (dRbL)(dRbL), 3 = (dRbL)(dRbL), V,A 5 6 O O expect the bounds on Fsb,db at the level of 10 to 10 α α β β α β β α 4 = (dRbL)(dLbR), 5 = (dRbL)(dLbR), GeV. O O To derive the precise bounds on the allowed ax- along with the operators ˜1,2,3 obtained by replac- ionic contributions we consider simultaneously both O ing PL PR in 1,2,3. The summation over color the contributions to ∆mBd,s as well as to the mixing indices,→α, β, isO implied. The operator basis for phase. We thus define Bs Bs mixing is obtained from the above by re- 0 SM+a 0 − Bq Bq placing d s, and for D D mixing by replacing 2iφBq eff → − CBq e = h |L | i, (q = d, s). (42) b c, d u. 0 SM 0 → → Bq eff Bq The Wilson coefficients Ci are most easily ob- h |L | i tained by matching both sides of Eq. (35) for axion- In the SM CBq = 1 and φBq = 0. From the mediated bd bd scattering with on-shell quarks → global fit to CKM observables, including Bq Bq in the initial and final state, see Fig. 2. The ax- mixing observables, the UTFit collaboration− ob- ion can be exchanged in s- and t-channels. In both ◦ tained CBd = 1.05 0.11, φBd = ( 2.0 1.8) , 2 2 ± −◦ ± cases the axion is far off-shell, pa (mb ), where C = 1.110 0.090, φ = (0.60 0.88) [132, 133]. ∼ O Bs Bs mb ΛQCD, justifying the application of the OPE. ± ± The SM predictions are obtained using the inputs Note that for the virtuality of the axion in the t- in Table IV and ref. [138], and the results for the channel we are using the fact that in the heavy- CKM matrix elements of the “New-Physics fit” of quark limit pB0 = pb and pB0 = pb. the UTfit collaboration (Summer 2018) [132, 133]. 0 The matching at (αS) leads to the following This leads to the 90% C.L. bounds nonzero Wilson coefficients,O V 6 Fdb > 1.1(1.3) 10 GeV, (43) 2 | | · 1 1 1 V 5 Fsb > 2.0(3.8) 10 GeV, (44) C2 = A + V , (38) | | · 2 Fdb Fdb and 1 1 1 2 C˜2 = , (39) 2 F A − F V F A > 2.0(2.3) 106 GeV, (45) db db | db| · 11
A 5 Fsb > 4.0(7.7) 10 GeV, (46) At the end of LHCb Upgrade II the experimen- | | · tal constraints are expected to reach the paramet- A,V when the weak phase of Fqb is aligned with (dif- ric sizes of the SM contributions to the two mixing fers by π/2 from) the SM contribution. The first phases, φM φΓ 10−3. For the projections of fu- 2 ∼ 2 ∼ choice corresponds± to MFV like couplings of the ax- ture sensitivities we thus still use the projected 90% ion, where the CPV phase is the SM one, while the CL bound on φM < 2.0 10−3 (approximate uni- | 2 | · second choice corresponds to generic couplings with versality fit projection in [142]), assuming that the new weak phase that maximizes the axion exchange axion saturates the upper bound, i.e., we assume no contribution to the meson mixing phase. In deriv- cancellations with the poorly known SM contribu- ing the bounds above we chose in each case the sign tion. This gives for the expected future sensitivities of the NP contribution that leads to the weakest F V > 7.8 107 GeV, F A > 1.4 108 GeV, while | cu| · | cu| · bound. For each of the bounds we also assume that the bounds from ∆mD do not change. the axion only has axial or vector couplings. These Finally, we reiterate that the above mixing V,A bounds are also collected in Tab. III. bounds on F 0 assume that the axion contribution 0 qq Extending the above OPE results to the D0 D is not cancelled by the UV contributions from heavy system could be problematic since the violations− of particles present in the UV theory, even though the quark-hadron duality in the a + hadrons system at latter are expected to be parametrically of the same √s mD0 may be large. Extending naively our size. results' we obtain for the axion contribution to the mass difference cu V. BOUNDS ON FLAVOR-CONSERVING ∆mD 2 M12 1 0 a 0 AXION COUPLINGS = | | = 2 D eff (0) D mD mD m |h |L | i| D (47) 0.12 GeV2 0.034 GeV2 For completeness we briefly review the constraints = Abs . A 2 V 2 on flavor-conserving axion couplings that are dom- (Fuc) − (Fuc) inated by astrophysical bounds from star cooling. In the last line we used the lattice QCD results for These constrain axion couplings to photons, elec- the bag parameters from [139] (see also [140, 141]). trons and nucleons, defined by the Lagrangian To obtain a bound on F A,V we saturate the exper- | uc | µ imental value of ∆mD with the axion contribution αem a µν µν ∂ a = Cγ F F˜ + Ce eγµγ5e because the SM prediction is poorly known. L 8π fa 2fa A more stringent bound is obtained for CP vi- ∂µa ∂µa olating axionic contributions from an experimental + Cp pγµγ5p + Cn nγµγ5n . (53) 2fa 2fa bound on the D D mixing phase [142] − For a wide range of axion masses, the strongest M Γ φ12 φ φ , (48) ≡ 2 − 2 bound on axion coupling to photons Fγ fa/Cγ 1.8 107 GeV (95% CL) is set both by≡ the CAST≥ where in the most commonly used phase convention experiment× [144] and the evolution of Horizontal φM = arg(M ), φΓ = arg(Γ ). (49) Branch (HB) stars in globular clusters [145]. The 2 12 2 12 CAST successor, IAXO, is expected to improve this
The axion contributes at tree level to M12 and bound by about an order of magnitude [146, 147]. only at loop level to Γ12. For present experimen- For restricted ranges of DM axion masses close to tal bounds the SM contributions to φ12 are negligi- ma 3 µeV the ADMX experiment probes the ∼ 12 ble, i.e., φ12 at present experimental levels would be axion-photon couplings up to Fγ & 10 GeV [148]. induced entirely by the axion exchanges, and thus Note that the photon coupling Cγ = E/N 1.92(4) can be suppressed only by tuning the ratio− of EM a a M Im M12 2Im M12 2Im M12 and color anomaly coefficients, and thus is expected φ12 φ2 = = . ' M12 ' ∆mD x Γ to be (1) in the bulk of UV axion models. | | (50) AxionO couplings to electrons are constrained from cu a Above we shortened M12 M12, while M12 is the star cooling, specifically from their impact on the mixing matrix element due→ to the axion exchange. luminosity function of White Dwarfs (WD) as as- Comparison with the experiment, the HFLAV sessed in Ref. [149], giving Fe 2fa/Ce 4.9 (4.6) ◦ 9 ≡ ≥ × Moriond 2019 average φ12 = (0.25 0.97) [143], 10 GeV at 90 (95)% CL. Interestingly, there are − ± and PDG value for mass difference ∆mD = (95 hints of anomalous energy loss in stars that may 8 −1 ± 43) 10 ~s , gives at 90% C.L., be explained by axions with non-zero couplings to · electrons (and possibly photons) of the order of V 7 9 Fcu > 0.2(2.5) 10 GeV, (51) F 7 10 GeV [150, 151]. | | · e A 7 Finally,≈ × axion couplings to nucleons are con- Fcu > 0.5(4.8) 10 GeV, (52) | | · strained by axion emission from the core of super- when saturating ∆mD (φ12) with the axion contri- novae. Converting the results of Ref. [152] to our bution, Eq. (47) (Eq. (50)) and where in Eq. (50) notation gives the bound FN 2fa/CN & 1.0 9 ≡ × we used the central value of ∆mD. 10 GeV, where the effective coupling to nucleons, 12
H,H˜ 2 (cf. Section V). The yt enhanced contributions to these couplings are
2 V yt fa ∗ V A ∆csd(µ) = 2 log 2VtsVtd(ctt + ctt) Q 64π µ Lj QLi X ∗ V A U ,D U ,D V Vtd(c c ) R,k R,k R,k′ R,k′ − ks ukt − ukt k a # asd X ∗ V A V Vkd(c c ) , (56) − ts tuk − tuk FIG. 3. Radiative contribution to the flavor mixing of k the couplings of the axion to the quark-doublets. 6y2 f ∆cA (µ) = t log a cA , (57) ee 16π2 µ tt
CN , is given in terms of axion couplings to protons where µ is the low-energy scale, while on the right- 2 2 2 and neutrons as CN = Cn + 0.29 Cp + 0.27 CpCn. hand side the couplings are given at the UV scale The nucleon couplings are related to the quark cou- fa. plings (taking a UV scale of 1012 GeV and including These contributions are added to the tree-level only QCD running effects) [44, 153] sd a and ee a couplings, so that from observations we− can bound− only the sum of the loop induced and A A Cp + Cn = 0.50(5) c + c 1 2δ , (54) tree level coupling, c (µ) = ∆c (µ) + c (f ). Bar- uu dd − − ij ij ij a ring cancellations between the two contributions one A A 1 z Cp Cn = 1.273(2) cuu cdd − , (55) can thus obtain bounds on the top quark couplings − − − 1 + z to axions. The UV values of sd a and/or ee a − − A couplings can be suppressed in certain models. A where z = mu/md = 0.48(3) and δ 0.038(5)css + A A ≡ A suppressed sd a coupling arises in scenarios where 0.012(5)ccc + 0.009(2)cbb + 0.0035(4)ctt. Similar to − axion-photon couplings, the couplings to protons the down-quark sector is aligned, or all flavor vio- and neutrons can be suppressed only by tuning, see lating axion couplings are strongly suppressed [72– Refs. [44–46]. However, as discussed in Section III D 76]. A scenario with suppressed ee couplings instead this bound relies on the validity of the standard sce- arises in, e.g., DFSZ-type models where all charged nario for the SN explosion. lepton couplings are suppressed if the ratio of the Higgs vevs is small. Assuming that indeed ∆cij(µ) cij(fa), the ra- V VI. AXION COUPLINGS TO TOP QUARKS diative contributions to FCNCs (∆csd) and WD A cooling (∆cee) give stringent bounds on top-axion couplings. Finally we discuss flavor-violating couplings of the The strongest constraint on the sd coupling, axion that involve the top quark. Direct bounds on V 11 Fsd & 6.8 10 GeV translates to a bound on the flavor-violating axion-top couplings are, in principle, × A 7 diagonal top-axion coupling Ftt & 2.5 10 GeV, as accessible at the LHC. Monotop searches [154, 155] V,A× 8 are sensitive to the t ca, ua FCNC transitions, well as the off-diagonal couplings Ftc & 3.2 10 V,A 8 × and tt+MET [156] to→ the diagonal tta couplings. GeV and Ftu & 7.0 10 GeV. Here we have as- sumed real couplings× for simplicity (purely imagi- However, these searches bound fa only very weakly, at the level of the electroweak scale. Namely, sim- nary couplings result in a slightly different bound), SM 10 ply restricting the contribution of t ca to the and set in (56) yt = yt (µ = MZ ), fa = 10 GeV total width of the top to be smaller than→ (1 GeV), and used the values of the CKM elements of the O “New-Physics fit” of the UTfit collaboration (Sum- gives a bound fa & (vEW) while the mono-top O mer 2018) [132, 133]. With the same numerical in- searches [155] may lead to a bound on fa that is roughly an order of magnitude stronger. puts one can derive a bound on the diagonal top Much more stringent bounds on top couplings to couplings from WD cooling [32] using the bound 9 axions can be obtained from virtual corrections. Be- Fe 4.9 10 GeV at 90% CL. This translates to A≥ × 9 cause of the large top mass, the radiative yukawa Ftt & 3.4 10 GeV, which is about two orders of magnitudes× stronger than the bound from K πa. corrections from axion-top couplings (Fig. 3) can → give sizable contributions to other axion-fermion Note that similar radiative contributions are ob- couplings that are strongly constrained. The lead- tained for diagonal light quark couplings which can ing log expressions for the radiative contributions have an impact in the bounds derived from super- novae in specific models. are derived in Appendix A, with the yt-enhanced contributions collected in Eqs. (A10)-(A14). The most relevant effects are the radiative cor- V VII. RESULTS rections to the flavor-violating coupling csd, subject to stringent constraints from K πa (cf. Sec- tion III A), and the flavor conserving→ coupling to In Table III we summarize the 90% CL lower A V,A electrons, cee, which is constrained by WD cooling bounds on the couplings Fij , Eq. (2), obtained 13
V A V Flavors Process Fij [GeV] Fij [GeV] Ref. mixing on Fds suffer from poorly-known theoreti- K+ → π+a 6.8 × 1011 – [85] cal predictions; (iii) and bounds on top-axion cou- (2 × 1012)– plings rely on additional, model-dependent assump- K+ → π+π0a – 1.7 × 107 [104] tions on the absence of cancellations with tree-level (7 × 108) contributions. In Tab. III all these bounds are Λ → n a (decay) 6.9 × 106 5.0 × 106 [10] flagged by a “ ” superscript. Future projections (1 × 109)(8 × 108) for the bounds† based on ongoing or future exper- Λ → n a (SN) 7.4 × 109 † 5.4 × 109 † iments are given in Tab III inside parentheses and + 6 6 s → d Σ → pa 6.7 × 10 2.3 × 10 [10] will be discussed below. Furthermore, we recall that 8 8 (7 × 10 ) (3 × 10 ) all meson-mixing bounds are sensitive to additional − − 7 7 Ξ → Σ a 1.0 × 10 1.3 × 10 [10] contributions from UV physics. Ξ0 → Σ0a 1.6 × 107 2.0 × 107 [10] 8 8 In Fig. 4 we summarize the most relevant bounds (2 × 10 ) (3 × 10 ) for the different flavor sectors and types of couplings, Ξ0 → Λa 5.4 × 107 1.0 × 107 [10] as well as the potential reach of ongoing and future (9 × 108) (2 × 108) 5 † 6 experiments. These are compared to the strongest K − K (∆mK ) 5.1 × 10 2.0 × 10 [10] 6 † 7 constraints on the diagonal axion couplings to elec- (K ) 0.9 × 10 4.4 × 10 [133] + + 7 trons (WD cooling), nucleons (SN 1987A) and pho- D → π a 9.7 × 10 – [87] tons (HB/CAST), which were discussed in Section (5 × 108)– 5 5 V. For the projected reach on the axion photon Λc → p a 1.4 × 10 1.2 × 10 [10] c → u (2 × 107)(2 × 107) coupling “Fγ (prosp.)” we quote the prospects for D − D (CP cons.) 2.4 × 106 † 4.6 × 106 † [10] IAXO [146, 147]. In Fig. 4 we do not show the (CP viol.) 2.5 × 107 4.8 × 107 [143] bounds from ADMX, since these depend heavily on (8 × 107)(1 × 108) [142] the assumed axion mass, but for particular axion B+,0 → K+,0a 3.3 × 108 – [89] mass ranges can be much stronger than the bounds (3 × 109)– from helioscopes. B+,0 → K∗+,0a – 1.3 × 108 [89] –(1 × 109) 6 6 b → s Λb → Λ a 2.1 × 10 1.4 × 10 [10] A. Present bounds + − 5 Bs → µ µ a – 2.2 × 10 [70] (9 × 105) The strongest bound on QCD axion couplings is B − B (MFV) 2.0 × 105 4.0 × 105 11−12 s s [133] of the order of 10 GeV and due to the strin- (gen.) 3.8 × 105 7.7 × 105 V + + gent constraints on Fsd from K π a decays, B+ → π+a 1.1 × 108 – [88] cf. Table III. This bound exceeds→ even the stellar 9 9 (3 × 10 )– axion bounds, Fe,N 10 GeV, which rely on the +,0 +,0 9 & B → ρ a –(1 × 10 ) diagonal couplings. If the flavor structure is not 6 6 Λb → n a 3.1 × 10 1.6 × 10 [10] b → d + − 5 completely generic, the vectorial sd a couplings Bd → µ µ a – 2.8 × 10 [70] − 6 could be suppressed and other probes can become (1.2 × 10 ) equally or more important (so clearly K+ π+a B − B (MFV) 1.1 × 106 2.0 × 106 [133] should not be interpreted as the strongest constraint→ (gen.) 1.3 × 106 2.3 × 106 on the QCD axion independently of the underlying t → u K+ → π+a (loop) 3 × 108 † 3 × 108 † + + 8 † 8 † [85] axion model). For instance, as discussed in Sec. II, t → c K → π a (loop) 7 × 10 7 × 10 the sd a couplings could be strongly suppressed by suitable− alignment of PQ-charge matrices and SM TABLE III. 90% CL lower bounds on the scales of flavor- V A Yukawas. violating axion couplings Fij and Fij (in GeV), with fu- The axial-vector sd a couplings can be accessed ture projections in parentheses. Bounds obtained from from three-body kaon− decay, K+ π+π0a, from data with large experimental or theoretical systematic → errors are marked with a † superscript. The most rele- hyperon decays, and indirectly from K K mixing, − 6−7 vant constraints in each sector are typeset in boldface. resulting in lower bounds that are in the (10 ) GeV range. In principle, the best bound∼ on O the ax- A 9 ial sd a coupling, Fsd & (10 ) GeV, comes from hyperon− Λ na transitionsO in the SN 1987A su- using the flavor-changing processes discussed in the pernova. In→ fact, at face value this is the strongest previous sections. Some of the bounds are afflicted bound of all the axial-vector axion–quark couplings by large theoretical uncertainties which could in in our analysis. However, as pointed out already principle change the quoted numerical values by above, the supernova bounds should be used with as much as an order of magnitude. The affected caution due to difficult to estimate systematics. As A,V bounds are: (i) the bounds on Fsd from super- discussed below, quite impressively the projected nova cooling due to Λ na transition, where improvements on the Λ na decay branching ratio the temperature of the PNS→ and the interpretation reach at BESIII will start→ to compete with this su- of the SN 1987A neutrino events are two impor- pernova bound, but using well-controlled transitions tant sources of potential systematic errors; (ii) the measured in the lab. meson-mixing bounds from ∆mD and from kaon The two-body decays of B mesons probe all the 14
�� [���] ���� ���� ���� ���� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���
+ + � K
D
D
�� �� �γ (������) �γ ��-� ��-� ��-� ��-� ��-� ��-� ��� ��� ��� ��� [��]
FIG. 4. Summary of the most important bounds for the different flavor sectors and for vectorial (red) and axial- vectorial (blue) couplings. On the lower axis we indicate the corresponding values for the effective axion mass defined 6 by mi.eff ≡ 4.69 eV × 10 GeV/Fi. Also shown as vertical gray lines are the bounds on axion couplings to electrons Fe (95%CL), nucleons FN , and photons Fγ (95%CL), see Section V for details.
b s and b d couplings up to a scale of 108 couplings that are potentially sensitive to relatively → → A ∼ GeV, with the exception of Fbd due to the absence high scales are possible with charmed mesons and of dedicated B ρa searches at the B factories (the baryons. The most sensitive probe of the flavor vi- related Belle B → ρνν analysis cannot be readily re- olating vectorial cu a coupling turns out to be cast, as discussed→ in Sec. III). The bounds from two- the two-body D+ − π+a decay. Recast of the + + + → body heavy-baryon Λb decays and from Bd,s Bds D (τ π ν)ν analysis of CLEO and BE- − → → V 8 mixing are more than two orders of magnitude less SIII gives the bound Fcu & (10 ) GeV. Axial- sensitive. Only the bound on the axial-vector bd a vector cu a couplings are currentlyO probed pre- 6 − 7 − 0 coupling from Λb decays and B B, in the 10 10 dominantly by D -mixing with lower bounds in the − − A 6 8 GeV ballpark, are phenomenologically relevant con- range Fcu & 10 10 GeV depending on the CP- straints. Note that in this work we have focused violating phase of− the axion contribution. These on the case of the QCD axion, such that b qa couplings can also be directly probed by Λc pa transitions result in the axion escaping the detector→ decays, which in the future could provide the→ best A and a missing energy signature. A more inclusive bounds on approximately real Fcu (this case is not search strategy, that does not require any informa- included in Fig. 4 for simplicity). tion about the axion decay modes is possible using searches for Bs µµa decays [70], though with → a reduced sensitivity to the quark-axion couplings B. Future projections compared to the other modes. The K and B meson decays also probe top- The sensitivity to the couplings of the flavored- quark axion couplings indirectly through loop ef- axion to the quarks can be greatly improved with fu- fects, cf. Sec. II and Appendix A. These constraints ture experiments. Dedicated searches for a massless become important in the scenarios with down-quark axion in two-body kaon decays at NA62 and KOTO alignment or flavor-diagonal (or MFV) couplings are expected to reach a sensitivity to the branching in the UV. In particular, the strong bound on fraction better than 10−11 [95] (cf. Sec. III). We + + the K π a branching fraction translates into thus use bounds for→ the t c and t u transitions at the level of 108 109 GeV.→ Although→ we show these con- + + −11 BRproj(K π a) < 10 , (58) straints in− Table III, we did not include them in → Fig. 4 as they only constrain the left-handed combi- as the (conservative) experimental projection. As nation and require the absence of possible cancella- shown in Table III this will allow to push the lower tions with tree-level sd a couplings. − bounds on vectorial sd a couplings beyond a scale Direct probes of flavor violating up-quark–axion of 1012 GeV. − 15
0 0 The three-body kaon decays KL π π a can case of conservative scaling is about a factor of 3 be potentially searched for at KOTO→ [105]. How- smaller. ever, to this date there is no analysis of the sensi- Finally, the searches for axions in charm-meson tivity KOTO could achieve for this decay channel. and charm-baryon decays could be undertaken at A direct extension of the current experimental sen- BESIII and Belle II. For mesons one can rescale the 0 0 −6 sitivity for BR(KL π π a) . 10 [104] to the CLEO bound on D πa by the expected gain in kinematics of a massless→ axion would give a bound luminosity which is about→ a factor 20, assuming that A 8 −1 Fsd 6.2 10 GeV. A very interesting set of BESIII will collect 20 fb , which leads to bound on | | ≥ × V probes for axial sd a coupling is also offered by Fcu that is stronger by a factor 5 (2) for the “op- the hyperon decays.− BESIII has a rich hyperon- timistic” and “conservative” scalings, respectively. physics program, and as part of it searches for axions 4 + − For baryon decays, 10 Λc Λc pairs have been should be attempted. We use the projections for the produced with 567 pb∼−1 at BESIII [116] while 107 s dνν decay modes, estimated for 5 fb1 integrated − ∼ Σ+Σ pairs are expected with 5 fb−1 [115]. BESIII luminosity→ in [115], as the projected bounds on the could therefore reach the limit s da decays: → −7 −5 BRproj(Λ na) < 3 10 , BRproj(Λc pa) < 4 10 , (61) → × → × + −7 BRproj(Σ pa) < 4 10 , → × obtained by naively rescaling with the relative sizes 0 0 −7 (59) BRproj(Ξ Σ a) < 9 10 , of the samples the projection for the branching frac- → × + 0 −7 tion of the Σ pa decay shown in Eq. (59). This BRproj(Ξ Λa) < 8 10 . → × should lead to bounds→ on the axial cu a coupling A that are comparable with the current− bounds from This will allow to reach scales as high as Fsd 109 GeV, entering in the range constrained| indi-| ∼ D D mixing, but with the benefit of no UV model − rectly by the supernova emissivity bound. Dedi- dependence. cated searches for such s da hyperon transitions could lead to even more stringent→ constraints than the above conservative estimates. VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS All the limits on heavy-quark transitions from two-body meson decays reported in this paper are In conclusion, in this paper we explored the phe- obtained recasting the analyses of “νν” decays at nomenological implications of the possibility that BaBar and CLEO. These bounds will certainly be the QCD axion has flavor violating couplings to improved by dedicated searches in the future. Belle −1 the SM quarks. Although the presence of flavor II expects to gather 50 ab of data in the next five violation in axion models is very model-dependent, years, roughly a factor 100 larger than the final inte- this scenario generically arises whenever the U(1)PQ grated luminosity at BaBar. The gain in the bounds charges are not family universal. The flavor violat- on the branching ratios depends on the scaling be- ing couplings may even be a necessary ingredient in haviors of the backgrounds. In the absence of ded- the UV structure of the theory. This is the case, icated experimental projections, we simply assume for instance, if the U(1)PQ group that solves the an “optimistic” scaling inversely proportional to the strong CP problem is part of a larger flavor sym- increase in luminosity with respect to the integrated metry group, which is a frequent feature in models luminosities on which the respective BaBar analy- addressing the SM flavor problem with approximate ses were performed. The “conservative” scaling in- horizontal symmetries. versely proportional to the square-root of the num- In this paper we investigated in detail the flavor ber of total events would result in slightly weaker phenomenology of the axion couplings to quarks. bounds. Assuming similar reconstruction efficien- We advocate to use a model-independent approach, cies at Belle II as those achieved at BaBar one can treating every flavor-violating coupling, vectorial or expect an improvement in the sensitivity to F V,A bs axial-vectorial, as a different parameter. This is very and F V by at least an order of magnitude, see Ta- bd similar, in spirit, to the global analyses to search ble III for the optimistic projections. For the con- for heavy new physics in low-energy experiments servative scaling the expected bounds are about a and the LHC using the SM effective field theory. factor 5 weaker. Throughout this work we have assumed the limit of In case of B ρa the future projection can be a practically massless axion. Much of the framework estimated by using→ the current Belle bound for the developed in this paper can be extended straight- “νν” mode in Table I and rescaling with the lumi- forwardly to massive axion-like particles with the nosities. This gives us, appropriate changes due to the different kinematics + + −7 involved. BR(B ρ a)prosp < 4 10 , (60) → × The present paper goes beyond previous studies 9 which would give the sensitivity to fa & 10 GeV in the same spirit [32–34] in several ways: from the axial bd a couplings, about three orders of (i) We critically examined the bounds that can magnitude stronger− than the current bound on this be derived using two-body decays of heavy-mesons coupling from B-B mixing. The expected bound in with final state axions. By recasting BaBar data 16 of B K(∗)νν and B πνν one can derive lim- support from the Non-Member State CERN Sum- its that→ supersede the old→ CLEO direct searches of mer Student Programme. B Ka and B πa. We also find that the Belle analyses→ on the “ν→ν” modes cannot be recast for this purpose. Thus, there is no bound from two-body de- A Appendix A: Renormalization Group Equations cays on Fbd, with the best limit currently given by Λb na decays and B B mixing. (ii)→ We derived the strongest− direct limit in the Above the electroweak scale the Lagrangian de- up-quark sector by recasting data on D+ (τ + scribing the interactions of the axion with the SM π+ν)ν as a search for the D+ π+a decay.→ → Higgs and the fermions take the form (iii) We provided the theoretical→ framework and X µ µ † phenomenological analysis of new processes not con- UV i ψγ Dµψ + (D H) DµH L ⊃ sidered before, such as the three-body K ππa ψ → i decays and baryon decays. We argue that baryon + yu Hqi uj + yd H˜ qi dj + ye H˜ ` ej + h.c. decays can in the future give the best sensitivity to ij L R ij L R ij L R several couplings of the axion: the CP-conserving q ∂µa i µ j u ∂µa i µ j + cij qLγ qL + cij uRγ uR cu a couplings from Λc pa decay, or the axial 2fa 2fa − → vector sd a coupling from hyperon decays. d ∂µa i µ j ` ∂µa i µ j − + cij dRγ dR + cij `Lγ `L (iv) We derived the strongest limit on axial cou- 2fa 2fa plings using a novel interpretation of the supernova ↔ e ∂µa i µ j ∂µa † µ SN 1987A bound, based on the impact of the pro- + c e γ e + cH iH D H, (A1) ij 2f R R 2f cess Λ na on the neutrino emissivity of the hot a a → proto-neutron star. ↔ † µ † µ † (v) We developed a theoretical framework to where H D H = H D H (DµH) H. In the first − extract reliable limits from neutral-meson mixing. two lines we included the relevant parts of the SM This is based on the effective field theories of QCD; Lagrangian – the fermion kinetic terms, the Higgs chiral-perturbation theory for the case of kaon- kinetic term and the Yukawa interactions. For axion mixing and operator product expansion for the case interactions we keep only the lowest dimension op- of heavy-meson mixing. erators and allow for general flavor structure. The f Our main results for present and future con- Yukawa matrices yij are general 3 3 matrices, while straints on flavor-violating axion couplings are sum- the axion interactions are described× by hermitian f marized in Table III and Fig. 4. For several of the 3 3 matrices cij. considered modes a significant improvement is ex- ×The Yukawa interactions are invariant under the pected. Precision flavor facilities can potentially axion-dependent, flavor-diagonal field redefinitions test PQ breaking scales up to the order of 1012 GeV 9 a(x) a(x) (NA62 and KOTO) and 10 GeV (Belle II and BES iα −iαYψ H e 2fa H , ψi e fa ψi , (A2) III), if dedicated searches are performed in ongoing → → experiments at strange, charm and bottom facto- where α is a free parameter and Y denotes hyper- ries. This reach actually falls into the most interest- ψ charge. Under these transformations the axion cou- ing region of the parameter space where the axion plings shift as can account for the observed dark matter abundance or possibly explain various mild hints for anoma- ψ ψ cH cH α , c c + 2αYψδij . (A3) lous stellar cooling. These expectations strongly → − ij → ij motivate a comprehensive experimental program of searching for axions in rare flavor-changing transi- Thus one can always employ the above field redefini- tions, which may well lead to the first discovery of tion with α = cH to get rid of the cH operator, and the QCD axion. shift the axion couplings to fermions as in Eq. (A3), which gives Eq. (1). The axion couplings to the gauge fields also do not change, since the transfor- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS mations in (A2) are non-anomalous – they corre- spond to a phase shift of each fermion field that is proportional to its hypercharge Y . When per- We thank Daniel Craik, Marko Gersabeck, Pablo ψ forming the renormalization group (RG) evolution Goldenzweig, Aida El-Khadra, Martin Heeck, Phil this field redefinition needs to be performed at each Ilten, Alex Kagan, Hajime Muramatsu, Uli Nier- scale µ, in order to keep c (µ) = 0. ste, Steven Robertson, Luca Silvestrini, Abner Sof- H The RG equations for the couplings in matrix no- fer, Sheldon Stone, Olcyr Sumensari, Shiro Suzuki, 4 tation, keeping cH = 0, are given by (see, e.g., Giuseppe Ruggiero and Emmanuel Stamou for use- 6 ful discussions. JMC acknowledges support from the Spanish MINECO through the “Ram´ony Cajal” program RYC-2016-20672 and the grant PGC2018- 102016-A-I00. JZ acknowledges support in part by 4 One can verify that these equations transform consistently the DOE grant de-sc0011784. PNHV acknowledges under the field redefinitions in Eq. (A3). 17
2 Ref. [157]), A yt fa h A ∆c (µ) = log 24 c δij uiuj 64π2 µ tt V A (c + 3c )δit − tuj tuj (A13) dc 1 V A 2 q † † † (cu t + 3cu t)δjt 16π = yuyu + ydyd cq yucuyu − i i d ln µ 2 − V A i + 2(ctt 3ctt)δitδjt , 1 † † † (A4) − + cq yuy + ydy ydcdy 2 u d − d 6y2 f ∆cA (µ) = t log a cAδ . (A14) † † eiej 2 tt ij cH yuy ydy , −16π µ − u − d 2 dcu † † † The flavor-universal contributions arise from a non- 16π = cuyuyu + yuyucu 2 yucqyu d ln µ − (A5) zero cH which is radiatively generated and then through field redefinitions absorbed into c at low +2 c y† y , fifj H u u energies. Note also that the high-energy couplings 2 dcd † † † satisfy 16π = cdy yd + y ydcd 2 y cqyd d ln µ d d − d (A6) V A ∗ V A † cu u cu u = VikVjl cd d cd d . (A15) 2 cH y yd , i j i j k l k l − d − − 2 dc` 1 † 1 † † 16π = yeyec` + c`yeye yeceye d ln µ 2 2 − (A7) Appendix B: Details on two-body recasts † +cH yeye , For the recasts of P P νν and P V νν 2 dce † † † 1 2 1 2 16π = ceyeye + yeyece 2 yec`ye we use the experimental→ information in the→ kine- d ln µ − (A8) † matic regions corresponding to a massless axion, 2 cH y ye , − e i.e., taking into account only the bin that contains 2 dcH † † events with vanishing invariant mass of the neutrino 16π = 6 Tr cqyuy cqydy d ln µ u − d pair 5. For B πa we take from the BaBar anal- → † † ysis in Ref. [88] for the numbers of observed and +6 Tr cdy yd cuyuyu d − (A9) background events in the relevant bin Nobs = 1 and +2 Tr c y†y c y y† Nbg = 1, respectively, for the total number of B- e e e ` e e 7 − mesons in the data sample Ntot = (8.9 0.1) 10 , † † † ± −4× 2 cH Tr 3yuyu + 3ydy + yeye . and for the efficiency = (6.5 0.6) 10 . The − d ± × expected number of events is then µ = Nbg + Ntot BR(B πa). To obtain the 90% CL upper limits we follow→ the statistical treatment in Ref. [89] Using these equations, one can express the low- and use the mixed frequentist-Bayesian approach energy couplings in terms of high-energy couplings, described in Refs. [158, 159] in order to include sys- diagonal SM Yukawas and the CKM matrix V . tematic uncertainties. Keeping only the effects proportional to the top In the same way we proceed for B Ka and B yukawa coupling, the radiative corrections to the ax- K∗a using the BaBar data from Ref.→ [85] for the→ ion couplings, ∆cV,A , are given by two decay channels in each case, and N = (4.71 fifj tot 0.03) 108. For the channels B+ K+νν, B0 ± 0 × { → → K νν we take Nobs = 2, 0 , Nbg = 0, 0 and = 9}.5 0.5, 4.5 0.5 { 10}−4, while for{ B}+ 2 ∗+{ ±0 ∗0± } × { → V yt fa h ∗ V A K νν, B K νν we use Nobs = 1, 3 , Nbg = ∆cd d (µ) = log 2V3iV3j(ctt + ctt) → } −4{ } i j 64π2 µ 1, 1 , = 1.2 0.1, 0.3 0.05 10 . In each case { } { ± ± }× ∗ V A (A10) the two channels are combined by maximizing the V V3j(c c ) − ki ukt − ukt likelihood function that is the product of Poisson ∗ V A i V Vkj(c c ) , probabilities, following Ref. [158]. − 3i tuk − tuk 2 Finally, for c u transitions we use the search A yt fa h A for D+ τ +ν→decay in the τ + π+ν chan- ∆cd d (µ) = log 24 cttδij i j −64π2 µ nel at CLEO→ in Ref. [87]. In the→ signal window ∗ V A 2 2 + 2V V (c + c ) m 0.05 GeV CLEO observed Nobs = 11 pion 3i 3j tt tt (A11) miss ≤ ∗ V A like events, with the expected SM background of V V3j(c c ) − ki ukt − ukt ∗ V A i V Vkj(c c ) , − 3i tuk − tuk 2 5 V yt fa h V A Since usually the bin size is wider than the experimen- ∆c (µ) = log 2(3c c )δitδjt uiuj 64π2 µ tt − tt tal momentum resolution, in this way we count also back- ground or SM events with mνν 6= 0 as axion signals. This 3cV + cA δ (A12) tuj tuj it renders the resulting bound only more conservative, which − will be eventually superseded by a proper recast done by V A i (3c + c )δjt , the experimental collaborations using the full information. − uit uit 18
Nbg = 13.5 1.0, for a total number of tagged D by ± 5 decays Ntot = 4.6 10 and single pion detection × efficiency π = 0.89. This results in the 90%CL up- 0 0 ∗ qµ 2 V (p , η) q γµγ5q P (p) = i(η q) 2 mV A0(q ) per bound BR(D πa) 8.0 10−6, following the h | | i · q2 → ≤ · same statistical prescription as before. A recast of (η∗ q)qµ + + + i(m + m ) η∗µ · A (q2) the recent D τ ν BESIII analysis [100] using B V q2 1 → + + − pion like events from the τ π ν channel, Fig. 3 µ µ right in Ref. [100], results in→ a bound that is about ∗ (2p q) q 2 i(η q) − (mB mV ) 2 A2(q ), a factor 2 weaker than our recast of the bound from − · mB +mV − − q CLEO. (C2)
where η is the polarization vector of the vector me- Appendix C: Hadronic matrix elements son. Parity conservation implies that the matrix el- 0 0 ement of the vector current, V (p , λ) q γµq P (p) , transforms as an axial vectorh and| must| be i In this appendix we give further details on the pν p0ρησ. This gives a vanishing contribution∝ hadronic elements describing axion induced flavor µνρσ to the decay amplitude upon contraction with the changing transitions. The numerical values of dif- derivative interaction of the axion. Furthermore, ferent inputs entering the predictions are collected contracting Eq. (C2) with iqµ, and taking into ac- in Table IV. count that −
mP + mV mP mV A1(0) − A2(0) = A0(0), (C3) 1. Two-body decays 2mV − 2mV
We first give the parametrizations of matrix ele- one finds that A0(0) is the only hadronic input ments for two-body hadron decays H H0a, where needed to describe the P V a decays. For the 0 H( ) is a pseudoscalar meson, a vector→ meson or a B K∗ and B ρ form factors→ we use the light- spin 1/2 baryon. The transitions are induced by cone→ sum rules determinations→ from Ref. [170]. quark level transitions of the type q q0a. The The hadronic matrix elements for B B0a decay, 0 form factors in the resulting hadronic→ matrix el- with B( ) the spin-1/2 baryons, are parametrized→ by ements are functions of the momentum exchange 2 0 2 2 squared, q = (p p ) = ma 0, i.e., for the 0 0 0 0 0 h 2 − ' B (p ) q γµq B(p) = u (p ) f1(q ) γµ predictions we only need the values of form factors h | | i 2 2 2 (C4) at q = 0. f2(q ) ν f3(q ) i 0 + σ q + q u(p), The hadronic matrix elements for P P a M µν M µ (0) → transitions, with P pseudoscalar mesons, are 0 0 0 0 0 h 2 B (p ) q γµγ5q B(p) = u (p ) g1(q )γµ parametrized by two sets of form factors h | | i 2 2 (C5) 0 0 g2(q ) ν g3(q ) i 0 0 0 µ µ PP 2 µ PP 2 + σµν q + qµ γ5u(p). P (p ) q γ q P (p) = P f+ (q ) + q f− (q ), M M h | | i (C1) where P µ = (p + p0)µ. The related matrix element After contracting with iqµ from the derivative on 0 µ of the axial current q γ γ5q vanishes by parity in- the axion field, the decay− amplitude involves only variance of the strong interactions. In the decay two form factors at q2 = 0, i.e., the vector and the Lorentz index in (C1) is contracted with iqµ axial-vector couplings f (0) and g (0). In numer- − 1 1 from the derivative of the axion field, cf. Eq. (1). ical evaluations we use for Λb n form factors the → The only hadronic inputs needed to describe the lattice QCD determinations of the Λb p form fac- 0 PP 0 → P P a decays are therefore f+ (0). tors from Ref. [169] (they are equal in the isospin- → + + For f K π (0) we use the N = 2 + 1 + 1 lat- symmetric limit), for Λc p from Ref. [164], and + f → K0π− for Λb Λ from Ref. [167]. For hyperons we use tice QCD determination of f+ (0) [160], since in → K+π+ K0π− the flavor SU(3) symmetry to obtain the form fac- the isospin symmetric limit f+ (0) = f+ (0). tors from their electric charges and semileptonic de- Likewise, we use for the axion induced charm meson cays [161, 162]. For reference we quote also the un- D0π− decays the lattice QCD calculation of f+ (0) re- certainties due to the expected sizes of the SU(3) ported by the ETM collaboration [163], along with flavor-breaking effects. The leading corrections to D+π+ D0π+ the isospin relation f+ (0) = f+ (0). For the f1(0) vanish because of the Ademollo-Gatto theo- B+ K+a decay we use the lattice QCD deter- rem [171]. Explicit calculations using lattice QCD → mination of the form factors by the Fermilab/MILC showed that the breaking effects are . 5% [172]. + + collaboration [165], while for the B π a decay For the axial couplings, g1(0), the leading SU(3)- we use the light-cone sum rule determination→ of the flavor breaking corrections can be predicted in chiral form factors in [168]. perturbation theory by using experimental measure- The hadronic matrix element for the decays of a ments of the isospin-related channels, the semilep- pseudoscalar meson P into a vector meson V is given tonic hyperon decays, and lattice QCD results [162]. 19
Flavors Process Inputs References
K → π f+(0) = 0.9706(27) [160] 0 00 fs = 5.705(35), fs = 0.87(5), fs = −0.42(5) K → ππ 0 [106, 107] fp = −0.274(29), gp = 4.95(9), gp = 0.51(12)
B1 → B2 f1(0) g1(0) s → d Λ → n −1.22(6) −0.89(2) Σ+ → p −1.00(5) 0.34(1) Ξ− → Σ− 1.00(5) 1.26(5) [161, 162] Ξ0 → Σ0 −0.71(4) −0.89(3) Ξ0 → Λ 1.22(6) 0.24(5)
K − K fK± = 155.7(3) MeV [160]
D → π f+(0) = 0.612(35) [163] c → u Λc → p f1(0) = 0.672(39), g1(0) = 0.602(31) [164] D − D hO2i = −0.1442(72), hO4i = 0.275(14) [139]
B → K f+(0) = 0.335(36) [165] ∗ B → K A0(0) = 0.356(46) [166] Λ → Λ f (0) = 0.16(4), g (0) = 0.11(9) [167] b → s b 1 1 fBs = 230.3(1.3) MeV [160] Bs − Bs B2 = 0.817(43),B4 = 1.033(47) [138] η2 = −2.669(62), η4 = 3.536(74) [138]
B → π f+(0) = 0.21(7) [168] B → ρ A0(0) = 0.356(42) [166] Λ → p f (0) = 0.23(8), g (0) = 0.12(13) [169] b → d b 1 1 fB = 190.0(1.3) MeV [160] B − B B2 = 0.769(44),B4 = 1.077(55) [138] η2 = −2.678(62), η4 = 3.547(74) [138]
TABLE IV. Numerical values for the theoretical inputs used in the analysis as described in Appendix C. The bag parameters for the Bd,s systems are evaluated at the renormalization scale µ = mb [138]. The matrix elements of the corresponding four-quark operators hOii in the D meson system are evaluated at µ = 3 GeV and are shown in units of GeV4 [139].
2. K → ππa factors are complex functions with a strong phase arising due to the rescatterings of the pions. We The hadronic matrix elements needed for the de- follow a standard parametrization of the form fac- + + 0 0 0 tors using a partial wave expansion of the two-pion cays K π π a and KL π π a can be ob- tained from→ the form factors measured→ in the decay system [110, 111], and truncate it at the p-wave, K+ π+π− e+ν using isospin symmetry. The ma- → trix element of the axial-vector current for the latter F = Fs + Fp cos θπ exp( iδ), (C7) − process is defined as [110, 111], G = Gp exp( iδ). (C8) − + − µ − π (p+)π (p−) sγ γ5u K (p) = h | | i Here δ = δs δp is the difference of s- and p-wave i + − − µ µ µ π π phase shifts. The prefactors Fs, Fp and Gp F (p+ + p−) + G(p+ p−) + Rq , 2 − mK − are only functions of q and s. In the experimental (C6) analyses of K ππeν decays they are often Taylor → 2 2 expanded around q = 0 and s = 4mπ. For the where q = p p+ p− is the four-momentum of the K ππa decays we only need their values at q2 = − −2 axion and thus q 0. Once the above hadronic 0, retaining→ the parameters of the expansion in the ' µ matrix element is contracted with iq from the 2 − dimensionless variable s = (s/4mπ) 1, around s = derivative on the axion field, the contribution of R 0, − to the decay matrix element vanishes at the phys- ical point q2 = 0. The related matrix element of F = f + f 0 s + f 00 s2, the vector current completely vanishes due to parity s s s s 0 invariance once it is contracted with the axion-field Fp = fp,Gp = gp + gp s, (C9) derivative, similarly to the P V a decays discussed above. → which are determined from the experimental The K ππ form factors depend on three data [106, 107] and shown in Table IV. kinematic variables→ which can be chosen to be q2, In order to connect these form factors in the 2 + + − + + + 0 s = (p+ + p−) and cos θπ, where θπ is the an- K π π e ν channel to those in K π π a → 0 0 → gle between the positively-charged pion’s and kaon’s and KL π π a, one uses the isospin-symmetry three-momenta in the di-pion rest frame. The form relations→ [108, 109] with the convention that (u, d) 20 and ( d, u) transform as isodoublets, to heavy neutral-meson mixing are conventionally − defined in terms of the so-called bag parameters, + 0 µ + π π sγ γ5d K = Bi. For the case of B B mixing and shortening h | | i (C10) 0 − + − µ + 0 √2 (π π )I=1 sγ γ5u K , B i B = i these are defined as, − h | | i h |O | i hO i 0 0 µ 0 π π sγ γ5d K = h | | i + − µ + (C11) (π π )I=0 sγ γ5u K , h | | i where the subscripts on the right-hand sides indicate that we have projected the isospin wave functions of 0 1 (i) B0 Oq B = ηq(µ)f 2 m2 B (µ), (C12) the two final pions to either I = 0 or I = 1. The h q | i | qi 4 i Bq Bq Bq total amplitude must be even under the exchange of the two pions (Bose symmetry). Therefore, for the isospin symmetric I = 0 (anti-symmetric I = 1) wave function only the s-wave (p-wave) components contribute. A final observation is that one does not have interference in the total rates between s- and with the values for ηq(m ) and B(i) (m ) as provided i b Bq b p-wave components in these axion decay channels in [138]. These definitions are straightforwardly ex- and they are insensitive to the strong phase δ. tended to the short-distance contributions in the other neutral-meson systems. The values of the dif- ferent parameters in these equations are obtained 3. Neutral meson mixing from lattice calculations. In case of the charm- meson oscillations we use results in ref. [139] which Hadronic matrix elements of the four-quark op- directly provides the results in terms of the matrix erators Eq. (37) involved in the axion contributions elements i at µ = 3 GeV. hO i
[1] R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. [18] C. Hagmann et al. (ADMX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 38, 1440 (1977), [,328(1977)]. 2043 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9801286 [astro-ph]. [2] R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. D16, [19] S. J. Asztalos et al. (ADMX), Phys. Rev. D69, 1791 (1977). 011101 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0310042 [astro-ph]. [3] F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 279 (1978). [20] B. M. Brubaker et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, [4] S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 223 (1978). 061302 (2017), arXiv:1610.02580 [astro-ph.CO]. [5] V. Baluni, Phys. Rev. D19, 2227 (1979). [21] B. T. McAllister, G. Flower, E. N. Ivanov, [6] R. J. Crewther, P. Di Vecchia, G. Veneziano, and M. Goryachev, J. Bourhill, and M. E. Tobar, E. Witten, Phys. Lett. 88B, 123 (1979), [Erratum: Phys. Dark Univ. 18, 67 (2017), arXiv:1706.00209 Phys. Lett.91B,487(1980)]. [physics.ins-det]. [7] M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Annals Phys. 318, 119 [22] A. Caldwell, G. Dvali, B. Majorovits, A. Millar, (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0504231 [hep-ph]. G. Raffelt, J. Redondo, O. Reimann, F. Simon, [8] J. E. Kim and G. Carosi, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 557 and F. Steffen (MADMAX Working Group), Phys. (2010), arXiv:0807.3125 [hep-ph]. Rev. Lett. 118, 091801 (2017), arXiv:1611.05865 [9] C. A. Baker et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 131801 [physics.ins-det]. (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0602020 [hep-ex]. [23] B. Majorovits and J. Redondo (MADMAX Work- [10] M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. ing Group), in Proceedings, 12th Patras Workshop Rev. D98, 030001 (2018). on Axions, WIMPs and WISPs (PATRAS 2016): [11] B. Graner, Y. Chen, E. G. Lindahl, and B. R. Jeju Island, South Korea, June 20-24, 2016 (2017) Heckel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 161601 (2016), [Er- pp. 94–97, arXiv:1611.04549 [astro-ph.IM]. ratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.119,no.11,119901(2017)], [24] P. Brun et al. (MADMAX), Eur. Phys. J. C79, arXiv:1601.04339 [physics.atom-ph]. 186 (2019), arXiv:1901.07401 [physics.ins-det]. [12] J. M. Pendlebury et al., Phys. Rev. D92, 092003 [25] V. Anastassopoulos et al. (CAST), Nature Phys. (2015), arXiv:1509.04411 [hep-ex]. 13, 584 (2017), arXiv:1705.02290 [hep-ex]. [13] J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Phys. [26] I. Irastorza et al. (IAXO), CERN-SPSC-2013-022. Lett. B120, 127 (1983), [,URL(1982)]. [27] I. G. Irastorza, “Talk at Physics Beyond Colliders, [14] L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. B120, 133 CERN,” (2017). (1983), [,URL(1982)]. [28] E. Aprile et al. (XENON100), Phys. Rev. [15] M. Dine and W. Fischler, Phys. Lett. B120, 137 D90, 062009 (2014), [Erratum: Phys. (1983), [,URL(1982)]. Rev.D95,no.2,029904(2017)], arXiv:1404.1455 [16] J. T. Goldman and C. M. Hoffman, Phys. Rev. [astro-ph.CO]. Lett. 40, 220 (1978). [29] D. Budker, P. W. Graham, M. Ledbetter, S. Ra- [17] S. J. Asztalos et al. (ADMX), Phys. Rev. jendran, and A. Sushkov, Phys. Rev. X4, 021030 Lett. 104, 041301 (2010), arXiv:0910.5914 [astro- (2014), arXiv:1306.6089 [hep-ph]. ph.CO]. [30] P. W. Graham, I. G. Irastorza, S. K. Lamoreaux, A. Lindner, and K. A. van Bibber, Ann. Rev. 21
Nucl. Part. Sci. 65, 485 (2015), arXiv:1602.00039 [61] C. D. Carone and M. Merchand, (2019), [hep-ex]. arXiv:1904.11059 [hep-ph]. [31] F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1549 (1982). [62] M. E. Albrecht, T. Feldmann, and T. Mannel, [32] J. L. Feng, T. Moroi, H. Murayama, and JHEP 10, 089 (2010), arXiv:1002.4798 [hep-ph]. E. Schnapka, Phys. Rev. D57, 5875 (1998), [63] F. Arias-Aragon and L. Merlo, JHEP 10, arXiv:hep-ph/9709411 [hep-ph]. 168 (2017), [Erratum: JHEP11,152(2019)], [33] J. F. Kamenik and C. Smith, JHEP 03, 090 (2012), arXiv:1709.07039 [hep-ph]. arXiv:1111.6402 [hep-ph]. [64] K. S. Babu and S. M. Barr, Phys. Lett. B300, 367 [34] F. Bj¨orkeroth, E. J. Chun, and S. F. King, JHEP (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9212219 [hep-ph]. 08, 117 (2018), arXiv:1806.00660 [hep-ph]. [65] C. Cheung, JHEP 06, 074 (2010), arXiv:1003.0941 [35] J. E. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 103 (1979). [hep-ph]. [36] M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Za- [66] D. Suematsu, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 881 (2018), kharov, Nucl. Phys. B166, 493 (1980). arXiv:1809.06563 [hep-ph]. [37] M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, Phys. [67] Q. Bonnefoy, E. Dudas, and S. Pokorski, (2019), Lett. 104B, 199 (1981). arXiv:1909.05336 [hep-ph]. [38] A. R. Zhitnitsky, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 31, 260 [68] C. Cornella, P. Paradisi, and O. Sumensari, (1980), [Yad. Fiz.31,497(1980)]. (2019), arXiv:1911.06279 [hep-ph]. [39] A. Davidson and M. A. H. Vozmediano, Nucl. [69] M. Bauer, M. Neubert, S. Renner, M. Schnubel, Phys. B248, 647 (1984). and A. Thamm, (2019), arXiv:1908.00008 [hep- [40] R. D. Peccei, T. T. Wu, and T. Yanagida, Phys. ph]. Lett. B172, 435 (1986). [70] J. Albrecht, E. Stamou, R. Ziegler, and R. Zwicky, [41] L. M. Krauss and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B173, (2019), arXiv:1911.05018 [hep-ph]. 189 (1986). [71] T. Flacke, C. Frugiuele, E. Fuchs, R. S. [42] C. Q. Geng and J. N. Ng, Phys. Rev. D39, 1449 Gupta, and G. Perez, JHEP 06, 050 (2017), (1989). arXiv:1610.02025 [hep-ph]. [43] A. Celis, J. Fuentes-Martin, and H. Serodio, Phys. [72] J. M. Frere, J. A. M. Vermaseren, and M. B. Lett. B741, 117 (2015), arXiv:1410.6217 [hep-ph]. Gavela, Phys. Lett. 103B, 129 (1981). [44] L. Di Luzio, F. Mescia, E. Nardi, P. Panci, and [73] M. Freytsis, Z. Ligeti, and J. Thaler, Phys. Rev. R. Ziegler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 261803 (2018), D81, 034001 (2010), arXiv:0911.5355 [hep-ph]. arXiv:1712.04940 [hep-ph]. [74] M. J. Dolan, F. Kahlhoefer, C. McCabe, and [45] F. Bj¨orkeroth, L. Di Luzio, F. Mescia, E. Nardi, K. Schmidt-Hoberg, JHEP 03, 171 (2015), [Er- P. Panci, and R. Ziegler, (2019), arXiv:1907.06575 ratum: JHEP07,103(2015)], arXiv:1412.5174 [hep- [hep-ph]. ph]. [46] K. Saikawa and T. T. Yanagida, (2019), [75] B. Batell, M. Pospelov, and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. arXiv:1907.07662 [hep-ph]. D83, 054005 (2011), arXiv:0911.4938 [hep-ph]. [47] A. Davidson and K. C. Wali, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, [76] M. B. Gavela, R. Houtz, P. Quilez, R. Del Rey, 11 (1982). and O. Sumensari, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 369 (2019), [48] A. Davidson, V. P. Nair, and K. C. Wali, Phys. arXiv:1901.02031 [hep-ph]. Rev. D29, 1504 (1984). [77] E. Izaguirre, T. Lin, and B. Shuve, Phys. Rev. [49] A. Davidson and M. A. H. Vozmediano, Phys. Lett. Lett. 118, 111802 (2017), arXiv:1611.09355 [hep- 141B, 177 (1984). ph]. [50] F. Bj¨orkeroth, L. Di Luzio, F. Mescia, and [78] B. D¨obrich, F. Ertas, F. Kahlhoefer, and E. Nardi, JHEP 02, 133 (2019), arXiv:1811.09637 T. Spadaro, Phys. Lett. B790, 537 (2019), [hep-ph]. arXiv:1810.11336 [hep-ph]. [51] C. D. Froggatt and H. B. Nielsen, Nucl. Phys. [79] M. Gorghetto and G. Villadoro, JHEP 03, 033 B147, 277 (1979). (2019), arXiv:1812.01008 [hep-ph]. [52] L. Calibbi, F. Goertz, D. Redigolo, R. Ziegler, [80] H. Georgi, D. B. Kaplan, and L. Randall, Phys. and J. Zupan, Phys. Rev. D95, 095009 (2017), Lett. 169B, 73 (1986). arXiv:1612.08040 [hep-ph]. [81] R. T. Co, L. J. Hall, and K. Harigaya, Phys. Rev. [53] Y. Ema, K. Hamaguchi, T. Moroi, and Lett. 120, 211602 (2018), arXiv:1711.10486 [hep- K. Nakayama, JHEP 01, 096 (2017), ph]. arXiv:1612.05492 [hep-ph]. [82] L. Calibbi, D. Redigolo, R. Ziegler, and J. Zupan, [54] Y. Ema, D. Hagihara, K. Hamaguchi, T. Mo- to appear. roi, and K. Nakayama, JHEP 04, 094 (2018), [83] A. Ernst, A. Ringwald, and C. Tamarit, JHEP arXiv:1802.07739 [hep-ph]. 02, 103 (2018), arXiv:1801.04906 [hep-ph]. [55] Y. H. Ahn, Phys. Rev. D91, 056005 (2015), [84] R. G. Moorhouse, Phys. Rev. D77, 053006 (2008), arXiv:1410.1634 [hep-ph]. arXiv:0711.2626 [hep-ph]. [56] T. Nomura, Y. Shimizu, and T. Yamada, JHEP [85] S. Adler et al. (E787, E949), Phys. Rev. D77, 06, 125 (2016), arXiv:1604.07650 [hep-ph]. 052003 (2008), arXiv:0709.1000 [hep-ex]. [57] F. Bj¨orkeroth, E. J. Chun, and S. F. King, Phys. [86] R. Ammar et al. (CLEO), Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, Lett. B777, 428 (2018), arXiv:1711.05741 [hep- 271801 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0106038 [hep-ex]. ph]. [87] B. I. Eisenstein et al. (CLEO), Phys. Rev. D78, [58] Y. H. Ahn, Nucl. Phys. B939, 534 (2019), 052003 (2008), arXiv:0806.2112 [hep-ex]. arXiv:1802.05044 [hep-ph]. [88] B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, [59] Y. H. Ahn, Phys. Rev. D98, 035047 (2018), 101801 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0411061 [hep-ex]. arXiv:1804.06988 [hep-ph]. [89] J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D87, 112005 [60] M. Linster and R. Ziegler, JHEP 08, 058 (2018), (2013), arXiv:1303.7465 [hep-ex]. arXiv:1805.07341 [hep-ph]. 22
[90] J. Grygier et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. [119] J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Phys. Rept. 442, D96, 091101 (2017), [Addendum: Phys. 109 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0612440 [astro-ph]. Rev.D97,no.9,099902(2018)], arXiv:1702.03224 [120] I. Vidaa, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A474, 0145 (2018), [hep-ex]. arXiv:1803.00504 [nucl-th]. [91] S. Adler et al. (E787), Phys. Rev. D63, 032004 [121] A. Burrows and J. M. Lattimer, Astrophys. J. 307, (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0009055 [hep-ex]. 178 (1986). [92] O. Lutz et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D87, 111103 [122] H. A. Bethe, Rev. Mod. Phys. 62, 801 (1990). (2013), arXiv:1303.3719 [hep-ex]. [123] G. G. Raffelt, Stars as laboratories for fundamental [93] M. Heck, “B Decays with Invisibles in the Final physics (1996). State,” https://indico.cern.ch/event/653347/ [124] K. Hirata et al. (Kamiokande-II), Phys. Rev. Lett. contributions/2722083/, talk given at the work- 58, 1490 (1987), [,727(1987)]. shop ”Flavour and Dark Matter”, Heidelberg, [125] N. Bar, K. Blum, and G. D’amico, (2019), 2017. arXiv:1907.05020 [hep-ph]. [94] A. Filimonova, R. Sch¨afer, and S. Westhoff, [126] J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B250, (2019), arXiv:1911.03490 [hep-ph]. 465 (1985). [95] Giuseppe Ruggiero, private communication. [127] A. Pich, Rept. Prog. Phys. 58, 563 (1995), [96] J. K. Ahn et al. (KOTO), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, arXiv:hep-ph/9502366 [hep-ph]. 021802 (2019), arXiv:1810.09655 [hep-ex]. [128] S. Aoki et al. (Flavour Lattice Averaging Group), 0 [97] H. Nanjo, “Recent news from KL → π νν and (2019), arXiv:1902.08191 [hep-lat]. perspectives KOTO ,” http://moriond.in2p3. [129] M. Gell-Mann, R. J. Oakes, and B. Renner, Phys. fr/2019/EW/slides/1_Sunday/1_morning/5_ Rev. 175, 2195 (1968). Nanjo.pdf, talk given at the Rencontres de [130] A. J. Buras, D. Guadagnoli, and G. Isidori, Phys. Moriond EW 2019. Lett. B688, 309 (2010), arXiv:1002.3612 [hep-ph]. [98] F. Ambrosino et al. (KLEVER Project), (2019), [131] J. Brod, M. Gorbahn, and E. Stamou, (2019), arXiv:1901.03099 [hep-ex]. arXiv:1911.06822 [hep-ph]. [99] M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), (2019), [132] M. Bona et al. (UTfit), JHEP 03, 049 (2008, sum- arXiv:1912.05983 [hep-ex]. mer 2018 update), arXiv:0707.0636 [hep-ph]. [100] M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), (2019), [133] Updated fits of the UTfit collaboration at http: arXiv:1908.08877 [hep-ex]. //www.utfit.org/UTfit/. [101] S. Stone and L. Zhang, Adv. High Energy Phys. [134] M. Ciuchini et al., JHEP 10, 008 (1998), 2014, 931257 (2014), arXiv:1402.4205 [hep-ex]. arXiv:hep-ph/9808328 [hep-ph]. [102] Y. Grossman and Y. Nir, Phys. Lett. B398, 163 [135] A. Bazavov et al., Phys. Rev. D86, 034503 (2012), (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9701313 [hep-ph]. arXiv:1205.7013 [hep-lat]. [103] T. Kitahara, T. Okui, G. Perez, Y. Soreq, and [136] N. Carrasco et al. (ETM), JHEP 03, 016 (2014), K. Tobioka, (2019), arXiv:1909.11111 [hep-ph]. arXiv:1308.1851 [hep-lat]. [104] R. Ogata et al. (E391a), Phys. Rev. D84, 052009 [137] A. Bazavov et al. (Fermilab Lattice, MILC), Phys. (2011), arXiv:1106.3404 [hep-ex]. Rev. D93, 113016 (2016), arXiv:1602.03560 [hep- [105] Shiro Suzuki, private communication. lat]. [106] J. R. Batley et al. (NA48-2), Eur. Phys. J. C70, [138] R. J. Dowdall, C. T. H. Davies, R. R. Horgan, 635 (2010). G. P. Lepage, C. J. Monahan, J. Shigemitsu, and [107] J. R. Batley et al. (NA48/2), Phys. Lett. M. Wingate, (2019), arXiv:1907.01025 [hep-lat]. B715, 105 (2012), [Addendum: Phys. [139] A. Bazavov et al., Phys. Rev. D97, 034513 (2018), Lett.B740,364(2015)], arXiv:1206.7065 [hep-ex]. arXiv:1706.04622 [hep-lat]. [108] L. S. Littenberg and G. Valencia, Phys. Lett. [140] N. Carrasco et al., Phys. Rev. D90, 014502 (2014), B385, 379 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9512413 [hep- arXiv:1403.7302 [hep-lat]. ph]. [141] N. Carrasco, P. Dimopoulos, R. Frezzotti, [109] C.-W. Chiang and F. J. Gilman, Phys. Rev. D62, V. Lubicz, G. C. Rossi, S. Simula, and 094026 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0007063 [hep-ph]. C. Tarantino (ETM), Phys. Rev. D92, 034516 [110] A. Pais and S. B. Treiman, Phys. Rev. 168, 1858 (2015), arXiv:1505.06639 [hep-lat]. (1968). [142] A. L. Kagan and L. Silvestrini, (2020), [111] J. Bijnens, G. Colangelo, and J. Gasser, Nucl. arXiv:2001.07207 [hep-ph]. Phys. B427, 427 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9403390 [143] Y. S. Amhis et al. (HFLAV), (2019), moriond [hep-ph]. 2019 update available from hflav.web.cern.ch, [112] R. Klein, T. Mannel, J. Virto, and K. K. Vos, arXiv:1909.12524 [hep-ex]. JHEP 10, 117 (2017), arXiv:1708.02047 [hep-ph]. [144] V. Anastassopoulos et al. (CAST), Nature Phys. [113] A. A. Alves Junior et al., JHEP 05, 048 (2019), 13, 584 (2017), arXiv:1705.02290 [hep-ex]. arXiv:1808.03477 [hep-ex]. [145] A. Ayala, I. Dom´ınguez,M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi, [114] A. Lenz, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A30, 1543005 (2015), and O. Straniero, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 191302 [,63(2014)], arXiv:1405.3601 [hep-ph]. (2014), arXiv:1406.6053 [astro-ph.SR]. [115] H.-B. Li, Front. Phys.(Beijing) 12, 121301 (2017), [146] I. G. Irastorza and J. Redondo, Prog. Part. Nucl. arXiv:1612.01775 [hep-ex]. Phys. 102, 89 (2018), arXiv:1801.08127 [hep-ph]. [116] M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, [147] E. Armengaud et al. (IAXO), JCAP 1906, 047 221805 (2015), arXiv:1510.02610 [hep-ex]. (2019), arXiv:1904.09155 [hep-ph]. [117] V. A. Ambartsumyan and G. S. Saakyan, Soviet [148] T. Braine et al. (ADMX), (2019), Astronomy 4, 187 (1960). arXiv:1910.08638 [hep-ex]. [118] M. Prakash, I. Bombaci, M. Prakash, P. J. Ellis, [149] M. M. Miller Bertolami, B. E. Melendez, L. G. J. M. Lattimer, and R. Knorren, Phys. Rept. 280, Althaus, and J. Isern, JCAP 1410, 069 (2014), 1 (1997), arXiv:nucl-th/9603042 [nucl-th]. arXiv:1406.7712 [hep-ph]. 23
[150] M. Giannotti, I. Irastorza, J. Redondo, [161] N. Cabibbo, E. C. Swallow, and R. Winston, Ann. and A. Ringwald, JCAP 1605, 057 (2016), Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 53, 39 (2003), arXiv:hep- arXiv:1512.08108 [astro-ph.HE]. ph/0307298 [hep-ph]. [151] M. Giannotti, I. G. Irastorza, J. Redondo, A. Ring- [162] T. Ledwig, J. Martin Camalich, L. S. Geng, and wald, and K. Saikawa, JCAP 1710, 010 (2017), M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. D90, 054502 arXiv:1708.02111 [hep-ph]. (2014), arXiv:1405.5456 [hep-ph]. [152] P. Carenza, T. Fischer, M. Giannotti, G. Guo, [163] V. Lubicz, L. Riggio, G. Salerno, S. Sim- G. Mart´ınez-Pinedo, and A. Mirizzi, JCAP 1910, ula, and C. Tarantino (ETM), Phys. 016 (2019), arXiv:1906.11844 [hep-ph]. Rev. D96, 054514 (2017), [erratum: Phys. [153] G. Grilli di Cortona, E. Hardy, J. Pardo Vega, Rev.D99,no.9,099902(2019)], arXiv:1706.03017 and G. Villadoro, JHEP 01, 034 (2016), [hep-lat]. arXiv:1511.02867 [hep-ph]. [164] S. Meinel, Phys. Rev. D97, 034511 (2018), [154] J. Andrea, B. Fuks, and F. Maltoni, Phys. Rev. arXiv:1712.05783 [hep-lat]. D84, 074025 (2011), arXiv:1106.6199 [hep-ph]. [165] J. A. Bailey et al., Phys. Rev. D93, 025026 (2016), [155] I. Boucheneb, G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea, and arXiv:1509.06235 [hep-lat]. B. Fuks, JHEP 01, 017 (2015), arXiv:1407.7529 [166] A. Bharucha, D. M. Straub, and R. Zwicky, JHEP [hep-ph]. 08, 098 (2016), arXiv:1503.05534 [hep-ph]. [156] C. Arina et al., JHEP 11, 111 (2016), [167] W. Detmold and S. Meinel, Phys. Rev. D93, arXiv:1605.09242 [hep-ph]. 074501 (2016), arXiv:1602.01399 [hep-lat]. [157] K. Choi, S. H. Im, C. B. Park, and S. Yun, JHEP [168] N. Gubernari, A. Kokulu, and D. van Dyk, 11, 070 (2017), arXiv:1708.00021 [hep-ph]. (2018), arXiv:1811.00983 [hep-ph]. [158] R. Barlow, Comput. Phys. Commun. 149, 97 [169] W. Detmold, C. Lehner, and S. Meinel, Phys. Rev. (2002), arXiv:hep-ex/0203002 [hep-ex]. D92, 034503 (2015), arXiv:1503.01421 [hep-lat]. [159] R. D. Cousins and V. L. Highland, Nucl. Instrum. [170] P. Ball and R. Zwicky, Phys. Rev. D71, 014029 Meth. A320, 331 (1992). (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0412079 [hep-ph]. [160] S. Aoki et al. (Flavour Lattice Averaging Group), [171] M. Ademollo and R. Gatto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, (2019), arXiv:1902.08191 [hep-lat]. 264 (1964). [172] S. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D96, 074509 (2017), arXiv:1708.04008 [hep-lat].