CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-PAS-HIN-21-015
Measurements of the light-by-light scattering and the Breit-Wheeler processes, and searches for axion-like particles in ultraperipheral PbPb collisions at $ \sqrt {\smash [b]{s_{_{\mathrm {NN}}}}} = $ 5.02 TeV
Abstract: Measurements of the light-by-light scattering (LbL, $ \gamma\gamma\to\gamma\gamma $) and the Breit-Wheeler (B-W, $ \gamma\gamma\to\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^- $) processes are reported in ultraperipheral PbPb collisions at a centre-of-mass energy per nucleon pair of 5.02 TeV using a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 1.65 nb$^{-1}$. Events with a pair of exclusively produced photons or $ \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^- $ are selected, each with transverse energy $ E_\mathrm{T}^{\gamma,\mathrm{e}} > $ 2 GeV, pseudorapidity $ |\eta^{\gamma,\mathrm{e}}| < $ 2.2, pair invariant mass $ m^{\gamma\gamma,\mathrm{ee}} > $ 5 GeV, pair transverse momentum $ p_\mathrm{T}^{\gamma\gamma,\mathrm{ee}} < $ 1 GeV, and pair azimuthal acoplanarity $ A_\phi < $ 0.01. The measured B-W fiducial cross section, $ \sigma_\text{fid} (\gamma\gamma \to \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^-)= $ 271.5 $ \pm $ 1.9 (stat) $\pm$ 18.3 (syst) $\mu $b, as well as the differential distributions for various kinematic observables, are in agreement with the standard model (SM) predictions. In the LbL final state, 26 exclusive diphoton candidate events are observed compared with 12.8 $ \pm $ 3.1 events expected for the signal and 12.0 $ \pm $ 2.9 for the background. The observed significance of the LbL signal with respect to the background-only hypothesis is above five standard deviations. The fiducial LbL scattering cross section, $ \sigma_\text{fid} (\gamma\gamma \to \gamma\gamma)= $ 107 $ \pm $ 33 (stat) $\pm$ 20 (syst) nb, is consistent with the SM prediction. Limits on the production of axion-like particles coupling to photons are set over the mass range $ m_\mathrm{a} = $ 5-100 GeV, including the most stringent limits in the 5-10 GeV mass range.
Figures & Tables Summary References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
Schematic diagrams of light-by-light scattering ($ \gamma \gamma \to \gamma \gamma $, upper left), the Breit-Wheeler process ($ \gamma \gamma \to \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^- $, upper right), central exclusive diphoton production ($ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g} \to \gamma\gamma $, lower left), and axion- or graviton-like particle production ($ \gamma\gamma\to \mathrm{a},\mathrm{G} \to\gamma\gamma $, lower right) in ultraperipheral PbPb collisions. The $ \,^{(*)} $ superindex indicates a potential electromagnetic excitation of the outgoing Pb ions.

png pdf
Figure 2:
Detector-level kinematic distributions for exclusive $ \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^- $ events passing our analysis requirements (Table 1) in the data (black points) and in SUPERCHIC + PHOTOS++ and STARLIGHT simulations (histograms). The MC simulations are normalised to match $ \sigma_\text{fid,MC}\mathcal{L}_\text{int} $, and corrected with the scale factors listed in Table 2. Ratios of the data to MC expectation are shown in the bottom panels. Error bars (boxes) around the data points indicate statistical (square sum of systematic and MC statistical) uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 2-a:
Detector-level kinematic distributions for exclusive $ \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^- $ events passing our analysis requirements (Table 1) in the data (black points) and in SUPERCHIC + PHOTOS++ and STARLIGHT simulations (histograms). The MC simulations are normalised to match $ \sigma_\text{fid,MC}\mathcal{L}_\text{int} $, and corrected with the scale factors listed in Table 2. Ratios of the data to MC expectation are shown in the bottom panels. Error bars (boxes) around the data points indicate statistical (square sum of systematic and MC statistical) uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 2-b:
Detector-level kinematic distributions for exclusive $ \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^- $ events passing our analysis requirements (Table 1) in the data (black points) and in SUPERCHIC + PHOTOS++ and STARLIGHT simulations (histograms). The MC simulations are normalised to match $ \sigma_\text{fid,MC}\mathcal{L}_\text{int} $, and corrected with the scale factors listed in Table 2. Ratios of the data to MC expectation are shown in the bottom panels. Error bars (boxes) around the data points indicate statistical (square sum of systematic and MC statistical) uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 2-c:
Detector-level kinematic distributions for exclusive $ \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^- $ events passing our analysis requirements (Table 1) in the data (black points) and in SUPERCHIC + PHOTOS++ and STARLIGHT simulations (histograms). The MC simulations are normalised to match $ \sigma_\text{fid,MC}\mathcal{L}_\text{int} $, and corrected with the scale factors listed in Table 2. Ratios of the data to MC expectation are shown in the bottom panels. Error bars (boxes) around the data points indicate statistical (square sum of systematic and MC statistical) uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 2-d:
Detector-level kinematic distributions for exclusive $ \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^- $ events passing our analysis requirements (Table 1) in the data (black points) and in SUPERCHIC + PHOTOS++ and STARLIGHT simulations (histograms). The MC simulations are normalised to match $ \sigma_\text{fid,MC}\mathcal{L}_\text{int} $, and corrected with the scale factors listed in Table 2. Ratios of the data to MC expectation are shown in the bottom panels. Error bars (boxes) around the data points indicate statistical (square sum of systematic and MC statistical) uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 2-e:
Detector-level kinematic distributions for exclusive $ \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^- $ events passing our analysis requirements (Table 1) in the data (black points) and in SUPERCHIC + PHOTOS++ and STARLIGHT simulations (histograms). The MC simulations are normalised to match $ \sigma_\text{fid,MC}\mathcal{L}_\text{int} $, and corrected with the scale factors listed in Table 2. Ratios of the data to MC expectation are shown in the bottom panels. Error bars (boxes) around the data points indicate statistical (square sum of systematic and MC statistical) uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 2-f:
Detector-level kinematic distributions for exclusive $ \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^- $ events passing our analysis requirements (Table 1) in the data (black points) and in SUPERCHIC + PHOTOS++ and STARLIGHT simulations (histograms). The MC simulations are normalised to match $ \sigma_\text{fid,MC}\mathcal{L}_\text{int} $, and corrected with the scale factors listed in Table 2. Ratios of the data to MC expectation are shown in the bottom panels. Error bars (boxes) around the data points indicate statistical (square sum of systematic and MC statistical) uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 2-g:
Detector-level kinematic distributions for exclusive $ \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^- $ events passing our analysis requirements (Table 1) in the data (black points) and in SUPERCHIC + PHOTOS++ and STARLIGHT simulations (histograms). The MC simulations are normalised to match $ \sigma_\text{fid,MC}\mathcal{L}_\text{int} $, and corrected with the scale factors listed in Table 2. Ratios of the data to MC expectation are shown in the bottom panels. Error bars (boxes) around the data points indicate statistical (square sum of systematic and MC statistical) uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 2-h:
Detector-level kinematic distributions for exclusive $ \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^- $ events passing our analysis requirements (Table 1) in the data (black points) and in SUPERCHIC + PHOTOS++ and STARLIGHT simulations (histograms). The MC simulations are normalised to match $ \sigma_\text{fid,MC}\mathcal{L}_\text{int} $, and corrected with the scale factors listed in Table 2. Ratios of the data to MC expectation are shown in the bottom panels. Error bars (boxes) around the data points indicate statistical (square sum of systematic and MC statistical) uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 3:
Probability for different neutron multiplicity classes (0n, 1n, and Xn with $ X > $ 2) measured on each ZDC side, for B-W process events within the fiducial phase space of Table 1. The measured ratios are compared with SUPERCHIC 4.2 and STARLIGHT predictions.

png pdf
Figure 4:
Differential cross sections for exclusive dielectron production, in the fiducial phase space of Table 1, as a function of pair $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper left), rapidity (upper right), invariant mass (lower left), and $ |\cos\theta^{*}| $ (lower right). Data (black dots) are compared with SUPERCHIC + FSR( PHOTOS++), STARLIGHT, and gamma-UPC + FSR(PY8) predictions. Vertical bars (boxes) show statistical (systematic) uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 4-a:
Differential cross sections for exclusive dielectron production, in the fiducial phase space of Table 1, as a function of pair $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper left), rapidity (upper right), invariant mass (lower left), and $ |\cos\theta^{*}| $ (lower right). Data (black dots) are compared with SUPERCHIC + FSR( PHOTOS++), STARLIGHT, and gamma-UPC + FSR(PY8) predictions. Vertical bars (boxes) show statistical (systematic) uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 4-b:
Differential cross sections for exclusive dielectron production, in the fiducial phase space of Table 1, as a function of pair $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper left), rapidity (upper right), invariant mass (lower left), and $ |\cos\theta^{*}| $ (lower right). Data (black dots) are compared with SUPERCHIC + FSR( PHOTOS++), STARLIGHT, and gamma-UPC + FSR(PY8) predictions. Vertical bars (boxes) show statistical (systematic) uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 4-c:
Differential cross sections for exclusive dielectron production, in the fiducial phase space of Table 1, as a function of pair $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper left), rapidity (upper right), invariant mass (lower left), and $ |\cos\theta^{*}| $ (lower right). Data (black dots) are compared with SUPERCHIC + FSR( PHOTOS++), STARLIGHT, and gamma-UPC + FSR(PY8) predictions. Vertical bars (boxes) show statistical (systematic) uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 4-d:
Differential cross sections for exclusive dielectron production, in the fiducial phase space of Table 1, as a function of pair $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper left), rapidity (upper right), invariant mass (lower left), and $ |\cos\theta^{*}| $ (lower right). Data (black dots) are compared with SUPERCHIC + FSR( PHOTOS++), STARLIGHT, and gamma-UPC + FSR(PY8) predictions. Vertical bars (boxes) show statistical (systematic) uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 5:
Diphoton acoplanarity distribution over $ A_{\phi}^{\gamma\gamma} = $ 0-0.1 in events passing the fiducial criteria of Table 1 (except the $ A_{\phi}^{\gamma\gamma} < $ 0.01 one) measured in data (black dots) compared with the predictions for the LbL signal (orange histogram), the B-W process (yellow histogram), and the CEP (blue histogram, normalised to data as explained in the text) backgrounds. Error bars on the data points show statistical uncertainties, and dashed bands on the stacked histograms (and at unity in the data/MC ratio) represent systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 6:
Detector-level kinematic distributions for candidate exclusive diphoton events passing all selection criteria (Table 1) in the data (black dots) compared with the simulated LbL scattering signal (orange histogram) and backgrounds from the B-W (yellow histogram) and CEP (blue histogram, scaled as described in the text) processes. All MC simulations are normalised as explained in the text. Error bars on the data points show statistical uncertainties, and dashed bands on the stacked histograms (and at unity in the data/MC ratios) represent systematic and MC statistical uncertainties added in quadrature.

png pdf
Figure 6-a:
Detector-level kinematic distributions for candidate exclusive diphoton events passing all selection criteria (Table 1) in the data (black dots) compared with the simulated LbL scattering signal (orange histogram) and backgrounds from the B-W (yellow histogram) and CEP (blue histogram, scaled as described in the text) processes. All MC simulations are normalised as explained in the text. Error bars on the data points show statistical uncertainties, and dashed bands on the stacked histograms (and at unity in the data/MC ratios) represent systematic and MC statistical uncertainties added in quadrature.

png pdf
Figure 6-b:
Detector-level kinematic distributions for candidate exclusive diphoton events passing all selection criteria (Table 1) in the data (black dots) compared with the simulated LbL scattering signal (orange histogram) and backgrounds from the B-W (yellow histogram) and CEP (blue histogram, scaled as described in the text) processes. All MC simulations are normalised as explained in the text. Error bars on the data points show statistical uncertainties, and dashed bands on the stacked histograms (and at unity in the data/MC ratios) represent systematic and MC statistical uncertainties added in quadrature.

png pdf
Figure 6-c:
Detector-level kinematic distributions for candidate exclusive diphoton events passing all selection criteria (Table 1) in the data (black dots) compared with the simulated LbL scattering signal (orange histogram) and backgrounds from the B-W (yellow histogram) and CEP (blue histogram, scaled as described in the text) processes. All MC simulations are normalised as explained in the text. Error bars on the data points show statistical uncertainties, and dashed bands on the stacked histograms (and at unity in the data/MC ratios) represent systematic and MC statistical uncertainties added in quadrature.

png pdf
Figure 6-d:
Detector-level kinematic distributions for candidate exclusive diphoton events passing all selection criteria (Table 1) in the data (black dots) compared with the simulated LbL scattering signal (orange histogram) and backgrounds from the B-W (yellow histogram) and CEP (blue histogram, scaled as described in the text) processes. All MC simulations are normalised as explained in the text. Error bars on the data points show statistical uncertainties, and dashed bands on the stacked histograms (and at unity in the data/MC ratios) represent systematic and MC statistical uncertainties added in quadrature.

png pdf
Figure 6-e:
Detector-level kinematic distributions for candidate exclusive diphoton events passing all selection criteria (Table 1) in the data (black dots) compared with the simulated LbL scattering signal (orange histogram) and backgrounds from the B-W (yellow histogram) and CEP (blue histogram, scaled as described in the text) processes. All MC simulations are normalised as explained in the text. Error bars on the data points show statistical uncertainties, and dashed bands on the stacked histograms (and at unity in the data/MC ratios) represent systematic and MC statistical uncertainties added in quadrature.

png pdf
Figure 6-f:
Detector-level kinematic distributions for candidate exclusive diphoton events passing all selection criteria (Table 1) in the data (black dots) compared with the simulated LbL scattering signal (orange histogram) and backgrounds from the B-W (yellow histogram) and CEP (blue histogram, scaled as described in the text) processes. All MC simulations are normalised as explained in the text. Error bars on the data points show statistical uncertainties, and dashed bands on the stacked histograms (and at unity in the data/MC ratios) represent systematic and MC statistical uncertainties added in quadrature.

png pdf
Figure 6-g:
Detector-level kinematic distributions for candidate exclusive diphoton events passing all selection criteria (Table 1) in the data (black dots) compared with the simulated LbL scattering signal (orange histogram) and backgrounds from the B-W (yellow histogram) and CEP (blue histogram, scaled as described in the text) processes. All MC simulations are normalised as explained in the text. Error bars on the data points show statistical uncertainties, and dashed bands on the stacked histograms (and at unity in the data/MC ratios) represent systematic and MC statistical uncertainties added in quadrature.

png pdf
Figure 7:
Differential exclusive diphoton cross sections in the fiducial phase space of Table 1 as a function of diphoton rapidity (left) and invariant mass (right) measured in data (black dots) compared with SUPERCHIC, and gamma-UPC @ NLO predictions. Vertical bars (boxes) indicate statistical (systematic) uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 7-a:
Differential exclusive diphoton cross sections in the fiducial phase space of Table 1 as a function of diphoton rapidity (left) and invariant mass (right) measured in data (black dots) compared with SUPERCHIC, and gamma-UPC @ NLO predictions. Vertical bars (boxes) indicate statistical (systematic) uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 7-b:
Differential exclusive diphoton cross sections in the fiducial phase space of Table 1 as a function of diphoton rapidity (left) and invariant mass (right) measured in data (black dots) compared with SUPERCHIC, and gamma-UPC @ NLO predictions. Vertical bars (boxes) indicate statistical (systematic) uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 8:
Observed (full line) and expected (dotted line) 95% CL limits on the production cross section $ \sigma(\gamma\gamma \to \mathrm{a} \to \gamma\gamma) $ as a function of the ALP mass $ m_\mathrm{a} $ in ultraperipheral PbPb collisions at $ \sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}} = $ 5.02 TeV. The inner (green) and outer (yellow) bands indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis.

png pdf
Figure 9:
Exclusion limits at 95% CL in the axion-photon coupling $ g_{\mathrm{a}\gamma} $ versus axion mass $ m_\mathrm{a} $ plane, for the operator $ \frac{1}{4\Lambda}aF\tilde{F} $ (assuming ALP coupling to photons only) derived from multiple measurements compared with the limits extracted here (red area, the expected limits are indicated with a dashed line).
Tables

png pdf
Table 1:
Definition of the fiducial phase space for the B-W and LbL scattering processes, used in their respective cross section measurements.

png pdf
Table 2:
Summary of the overall efficiencies from simulation ($ \varepsilon^{\gamma\gamma,\mathrm{e}\mathrm{e}} $), individual data-to-simulation scale factors (SF), and final correction factors ($ C^{\gamma\gamma,\mathrm{e}\mathrm{e}} $) obtained for the exclusive diphoton and dielectron analyses. The quoted uncertainties in $ \varepsilon^{\gamma\gamma,\mathrm{e}\mathrm{e}} $, SF, and $ C^{\gamma\gamma\mathrm{e}\mathrm{e}} $ are statistical, systematic, and statistical and systematic added in quadrature, respectively.

png pdf
Table 3:
Exclusive dielectron yields after applying each selection criteria in data and MC simulations. The simulation yields are normalised to match $ \sigma_\text{fid,MC}\mathcal{L}_\text{int} $, and corrected by the scale factors listed in Table 2. The (%) column indicates the percentage of events remaining after applying the selection with respect to the previous one.

png pdf
Table 4:
Summary of relative systematic uncertainties in the measurement of exclusive dielectron cross sections.

png pdf
Table 5:
Probability of different neutron multiplicity classes measured in the exclusive dielectron events passing our fiducial criteria (Table 1), compared with the predictions of SUPERCHIC 4.2 and STARLIGHT 3.13 for the deexcitation of the Pb ions in concurrent EMD processes. (The MC predictions are not available for all XnYn categories). The experimental (MC model) uncertainties quoted are the square sum of statistical and systematic (MC statistical) sources.

png pdf
Table 6:
Exclusive diphoton yields after applying each selection criteria in data and MC simulations. The simulation yields are scaled by the integrated luminosity of the measurement and corrected by the scale factors listed in Table 2. The (%) column indicates the percentage of events remaining after applying the selection with respect to the previous one.

png pdf
Table 7:
Summary of relative systematic uncertainties in the measurement of the LbL scattering cross section.
Summary
Measurements of light-by-light scattering $ \gamma\gamma\to\gamma\gamma $, and the Breit-Wheeler process $ \gamma\gamma\to\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^- $, have been reported in ultraperipheral collisions of lead ions (PbPb). Both processes are among the simplest and most fundamental ones in quantum electrodynamics (QED). The data were collected in 2018 by the CMS experiment at the LHC at a centre-of-mass energy per nucleon pair of 5.02 TeV corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 1.647 nb$^{-1}$. The LbL and B-W processes are studied in events with exclusively produced $ \gamma\gamma $ and $ \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^- $ pairs, respectively. Each reconstructed particle is required to have a transverse energy of $ E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma,\mathrm{e}} > $ 2 GeV, a pseudorapidity of $ |\eta^{\gamma,\mathrm{e}}| < $ 2.2, and the pairs to have an invariant mass of $ m^{\gamma\gamma,\mathrm{e}\mathrm{e}} > $ 5 GeV, a transverse momentum of $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma\gamma,\mathrm{e}\mathrm{e}} < $ 1 GeV, and an acoplanarity $ A_{\phi}^{\gamma\gamma,\mathrm{e}\mathrm{e}} \equiv (1-\Delta \phi^{\gamma\gamma,\mathrm{e}\mathrm{e}}/\pi) < $ 0.01. The selected events are required to have no additional neutral particle produced within $ |\eta| < $ 5.2, as well as no charged particle with $ p_{\mathrm{T}} > $ 0.3 GeV over $ |\eta| < $ 2.4. More than 20\,000 B-W events pass the selection criteria, and their kinematic distributions are compared with simulated events generated with the STARLIGHT 3.13 and SUPERCHIC 3.03 Monte Carlo codes, including results for the probabilities of different multiplicities of forward neutrons emitted due to the electromagnetic excitation of the ions. The measured B-W cross section, $ \sigma_\text{fid}(\gamma\gamma \to \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^-)= $ 271.5 $ \pm $ 1.9 (stat) $ \pm $ 18.3 (syst) $ \mu$b, is consistent with the QED prediction at leading-order (LO) accuracy plus final-state photon radiation (FSR). The unfolded $ \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^- $ transverse momentum, rapidity and invariant mass distributions are compared with the predictions of STARLIGHT, SUPERCHIC, and \textttgamma-UPC/MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO MC event generators, including FSR simulated with the PHOTOS++ and PYTHIA8 codes. All predictions agree with the measured distributions within uncertainties, but the addition of photon FSR achieves a better accord. In the LbL final state, 26 exclusive diphoton candidate events are observed after all selection criteria, compared with an expectation of 12.8 events predicted for the signal and 12.0 for the background, the latter dominated by contributions from central exclusive (gluon mediated) production (10.1 events) with some remaining counts from the B-W QED process (1.9 events). The significance of the LbL signal against the background-only hypothesis is above five standard deviations. The measured fiducial light-by-light scattering cross section, $ \sigma_\text{fid}(\gamma\gamma \to \gamma\gamma)= $ 107 $ \pm $ 33 (stat) $ \pm $ 20 (syst) nb, is consistent with the theoretical prediction at NLO accuracy. The unfolded diphoton rapidity and invariant mass differential cross sections show a good agreement with the theoretical expectations. Exploiting the measured invariant mass distribution of exclusive diphoton events, new limits on the resonant production of axion-like particles (ALPs) coupling to photons are set for ALP masses $ m_\mathrm{a} = $ 5-100 GeV in the $ m_\mathrm{a} $ vs. axion-photon coupling plane. Couplings larger than $ g_{\mathrm{a}\gamma} \approx $ 0.1 TeV$^{-1} $ can be excluded over $ m_\mathrm{a} = $ 5-10 GeV. The latter are the most stringent constraints in this mass range to date.
References
1 C. F. von Weizsacker Radiation emitted in collisions of very fast electrons Z. Phys. 88 (1934) 612
2 E. J. Williams Nature of the high-energy particles of penetrating radiation and status of ionization and radiation formulae PR 45 (1934) 729
3 E. Fermi On the theory of collisions between atoms and electrically charged particles Nuovo Cim. 2 (1925) 143 hep-th/0205086
4 S. J. Brodsky, T. Kinoshita, and H. Terazawa Two photon mechanism of particle production by high-energy colliding beams PRD 4 (1971) 1532
5 V. M. Budnev, I. F. Ginzburg, G. V. Meledin, and V. G. Serbo The two photon particle production mechanism. Physical problems. Applications. Equivalent photon approximation Phys. Rept. 15 (1975) 181
6 J. A. M. Vermaseren Two photon processes at very high-energies NPB 229 (1983) 347
7 D. Morgan, M. R. Pennington, and M. R. Whalley A compilation of data on two photon reactions leading to hadron final states JPG 20 Suppl. 8A (1994) A1
8 M. R. Whalley A compilation of data on two photon reactions JPG 27 (2001) A1
9 F. Krauss, M. Greiner, and G. Soff Photon and gluon induced processes in relativistic heavy ion collisions Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 39 (1997) 503
10 A. J. Baltz The physics of ultraperipheral collisions at the LHC Phys. Rept. 458 (2008) 1 0706.3356
11 D. d'Enterria, M. Klasen, and K. Piotrzkowski High-energy photon collisions at the LHC Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 179 (2008) 1
12 J. de Favereau de Jeneret et al. High energy photon interactions at the LHC 0908.2020
13 D. d'Enterria and G. G. da Silveira Observing light-by-light scattering at the Large Hadron Collider PRL 111 (2013) 080405 1305.7142
14 R. Bruce et al. New physics searches with heavy-ion collisions at the CERN Large Hadron Collider JPG 47 (2020) 060501 1812.07688
15 D. d'Enterria et al. Opportunities for new physics searches with heavy ions at colliders JPG 50 (2023) 050501 2203.05939
16 ATLAS Collaboration Evidence for light-by-light scattering in heavy-ion collisions with the ATLAS detector at the LHC Nature Phys. 13 (2017) 852 1702.01625
17 CMS Collaboration Evidence for light-by-light scattering and searches for axion-like particles in ultraperipheral PbPb collisions at $ \sqrt {\smash [b]{s_{_{\mathrm {NN}}}}} = $ 5.02 TeV PLB 797 (2019) 134826 CMS-FSQ-16-012
1810.04602
18 ATLAS Collaboration Observation of light-by-light scattering in ultraperipheral Pb+Pb collisions with the ATLAS detector PRL 123 (2019) 052001 1904.03536
19 Ajjath A. H., E. Chaubey, and H.-S. Shao Two-loop massive QCD and QED helicity amplitudes for light-by-light scattering JHEP 03 (2024) 121 2312.16966
20 Ajjath A. H. et al. Light-by-light scattering at next-to-leading order in QCD and QED PLB 851 (2024) 138555 2312.16956
21 S. Knapen, T. Lin, H. K. Lou, and T. Melia Searching for axionlike particles with ultraperipheral heavy-ion collisions PRL 118 (2017) 171801 1607.06083
22 H. Sun Large extra dimension effects through light-by-light scattering at the CERN LHC EPJC 74 (2014) 2977 1406.3897
23 D. d'Enterria et al. Collider constraints on massive gravitons coupling to photons PLB 846 (2023) 138237 2306.15558
24 J. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos, and T. You Light-by-light scattering constraint on Born--Infeld theory PRL 118 (2017) 261802 1703.08450
25 S. Fichet et al. Light-by-light scattering with intact protons at the LHC: from Standard Model to New Physics JHEP 02 (2015) 165 1411.6629
26 G. Breit and J. A. Wheeler Collision of two light quanta PR 46 (1934) 1087
27 JADE Collaboration Lepton pair production in double tagged two photon interactions Z. Phys. C 30 (1986) 545
28 L3 Collaboration Production of e, $ \mu $ and $ \tau $ pairs in untagged two photon collisions at LEP PLB 407 (1997) 341
29 C. R. Vane et al. Electron positron pair production in Coulomb collisions of ultrarelativistic sulphur ions with fixed targets PRL 69 (1992) 1911
30 CERES/NA45 Collaboration Measurement of electromagnetically produced $ \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^- $ pairs in distant S-Pt collisions PLB 332 (1994) 471
31 STAR Collaboration Production of $ \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^- $ pairs accompanied by nuclear dissociation in ultra-peripheral heavy ion collision Phys. Rev. C 70 (2004) 031902 nucl-ex/0404012
32 STAR Collaboration Measurement of $ \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^- $ momentum and angular distributions from linearly polarized photon collisions PRL 127 (2021) 052302 1910.12400
33 PHENIX Collaboration Photoproduction of $ {\mathrm{J}/\psi} $ and of high mass $ \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^- $ in ultra-peripheral Au+Au collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 200 GeV PLB 679 (2009) 321 0903.2041
34 CDF Collaboration Observation of exclusive electron-positron production in hadron-hadron collisions PRL 98 (2007) 112001 hep-ex/0611040
35 CDF Collaboration Search for exclusive Z boson production and observation of high mass $ \mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}\to\gamma\gamma\to \mathrm{p}+\ell\ell+\overline{\mathrm{p}} $ events in $ \mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} $ = 1.96 TeV PRL 102 (2009) 222002 0902.2816
36 ALICE Collaboration Charmonium and $ \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^- $ pair photoproduction at mid-rapidity in ultra-peripheral Pb-Pb collisions at $ \sqrt {\smash [b]{s_{_{\mathrm {NN}}}}} = $ 2.76 TeV EPJC 73 (2013) 2617 1305.1467
37 CMS Collaboration Search for exclusive or semi-exclusive photon pair production and observation of exclusive and semi-exclusive electron pair production in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV JHEP 11 (2012) 080 CMS-FWD-11-004
1209.1666
38 CMS and TOTEM Collaborations Observation of proton-tagged, central (semi)exclusive production of high-mass lepton pairs in pp collisions at 13 TeV with the CMS-TOTEM precision proton spectrometer JHEP 07 (2018) 153 CMS-PPS-17-001
1803.04496
39 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of exclusive $ \gamma\gamma\to \ell^+\ell^- $ production in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector PLB 749 (2015) 242 1506.07098
40 ATLAS Collaboration Observation and measurement of forward proton scattering in association with lepton pairs produced via the photon fusion mechanism at ATLAS PRL 125 (2020) 261801 2009.14537
41 CMS Collaboration CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002 CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002
42 G. Baur, K. Hencken, and D. Trautmann Electromagnetic dissociation as a tool for nuclear structure and astrophysics Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 51 (2003) 487 nucl-th/0304041
43 V. A. Khoze, A. D. Martin, M. G. Ryskin, and W. J. Stirling Diffractive $ \gamma\gamma $ production at hadron colliders EPJC 38 (2005) 475 hep-ph/0409037
44 CMS Collaboration Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker JINST 9 (2014) P10009 CMS-TRK-11-001
1405.6569
45 CMS Collaboration Status of zero degree calorimeter for CMS experiment AIP Conf. Proc. 867 (2006) 258 nucl-ex/0608052
46 CMS Collaboration Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JINST 15 (2020) P10017 CMS-TRG-17-001
2006.10165
47 CMS Collaboration The CMS trigger system JINST 12 (2017) P01020 CMS-TRG-12-001
1609.02366
48 CMS Collaboration The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 3 (2008) S08004
49 CMS Collaboration Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3 CMS-PRF-21-001
2309.05466
50 S. R. Klein et al. STARLIGHT: A Monte Carlo simulation program for ultra-peripheral collisions of relativistic ions Comput. Phys. Commun. 212 (2017) 258 1607.03838
51 L. A. Harland-Lang, V. A. Khoze, and M. G. Ryskin Exclusive LHC physics with heavy ions: SUPERCHIC 3 EPJC 79 (2019) 39 1810.06567
52 N. Davidson, T. Przedzinski, and Z. Was PHOTOS interface in C++: Technical and physics documentation Comput. Phys. Commun. 199 (2016) 86 1011.0937
53 H.-S. Shao and D. d'Enterria \textttgamma-UPC: automated generation of exclusive photon-photon processes in ultraperipheral proton and nuclear collisions with varying form factors JHEP 09 (2022) 248 2207.03012
54 J. Alwall et al. The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations JHEP 07 (2014) 079 1405.0301
55 T. Sjöstrand et al. An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159 1410.3012
56 C. Loizides, J. Kamin, and D. d'Enterria Improved Monte Carlo Glauber predictions at present and future nuclear colliders Phys. Rev. C 97 (2018) 054910 1710.07098
57 D. d'Enterria and C. Loizides Progress in the Glauber model at collider energies Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 71 (2021) 315 2011.14909
58 GEANT4 Collaboration GEANT 4---a simulation toolkit NIM A 506 (2003) 250
59 CMS Collaboration Precision measurement of the structure of the CMS inner tracking system using nuclear interactions JINST 13 (2018) P10034 CMS-TRK-17-001
1807.03289
60 CMS Collaboration Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector JINST 12 (2017) P10003 CMS-PRF-14-001
1706.04965
61 CMS Collaboration Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 16 (2021) P05014 CMS-EGM-17-001
2012.06888
62 CMS Collaboration Performance of low-$ E_{\text{T}} $ electrons and photons using 2018 ultraperipheral PbPb CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2022-006, 2022
CDS
63 CMS Collaboration ECAL 2016 refined calibration and Run2 summary plots CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2020-021, 2020
CDS
64 CMS Collaboration Measurements of inclusive W and Z cross sections in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV JHEP 01 (2011) 080 CMS-EWK-10-002
1012.2466
65 CMS Collaboration Observation of forward neutron multiplicity dependence of dimuon acoplanarity in ultraperipheral Pb-Pb collisions at $ \sqrt {\smash [b]{s_{_{\mathrm {NN}}}}}= $ 5.02 TeV PRL 127 (2021) 122001 CMS-HIN-19-014
2011.05239
66 J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper Angular distribution of dileptons in high-energy hadron collisions PRD 16 (1977) 2219
67 CMS Collaboration Probing small Bjorken-$ x $ nuclear gluonic structure via coherent J/\ensuremath\psi photoproduction in ultraperipheral Pb-Pb collisions at $ \sqrt {\smash [b]{s_{_{\mathrm {NN}}}}} = $ 5.02 TeV PRL 131 (2023) 262301 CMS-HIN-22-002
2303.16984
68 L. A. Harland-Lang Exciting ions: A systematic treatment of ultraperipheral heavy ion collisions with nuclear breakup PRD 107 (2023) 093004 2303.04826
69 T. Adye Unfolding algorithms and tests using RooUnfold in PHYSTAT 2011, CERN, 2011
PHYSTAT 201 (2011) 313
1105.1160
70 G. D'Agostini A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes' theorem NIM A 362 (1995) 487
71 R. J. Barlow and C. Beeston Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples Comput. Phys. Commun. 77 (1993) 219
72 J. S. Conway Incorporating nuisance parameters in likelihoods for multisource spectra in Proceedings, PHYSTAT 2011, Workshop on Statistical Issues Related to Discovery Claims in Search Experiments and Unfolding, CERN, 2011
link
1103.0354
73 ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, LHC Higgs Combination Group Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011 CMS-NOTE-2011-005; ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-11, 2011
link
74 R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn CP conservation in the presence of instantons PRL 38 (1977) 1440
75 P. Agrawal et al. Feebly-interacting particles: FIPs 2020 workshop report EPJC 81 (2021) 1015 2102.12143
76 D. d'Enterria Collider constraints on axion-like particles in Workshop on Feebly Interacting Particles, 2021 2102.08971
77 T. Junk Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics NIM A 434 (1999) 435 hep-ex/9902006
78 A. L. Read Presentation of search results: The CL$ _{\text{s}} $ technique JPG 28 (2002) 2693
79 J. Jaeckel and M. Spannowsky Probing MeV to 90 GeV axion-like particles with LEP and LHC PLB 753 (2016) 482 1509.00476
80 OPAL Collaboration Multiphoton production in $ \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^- $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} $ = 181 GeV to 209 GeV EPJC 26 (2003) 331 hep-ex/0210016
81 ATLAS Collaboration Search for scalar diphoton resonances in the mass range 65--600 GeV with the ATLAS detector in pp collision data at $ \sqrt{s} $ = 8 TeV PRL 113 (2014) 171801 1407.6583
82 ATLAS Collaboration Search for new phenomena in events with at least three photons collected in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} $ = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector EPJC 76 (2016) 210 1509.05051
83 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of light-by-light scattering and search for axion-like particles with 2.2 nb$ ^{-1} $ of Pb+Pb data with the ATLAS detector JHEP 11 (2021) 050 2008.05355
84 CMS and TOTEM Collaborations First search for exclusive diphoton production at high mass with tagged protons in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV PRL 129 (2022) 011801 CMS-EXO-18-014
2110.05916
85 CMS and TOTEM Collaborations Search for high-mass exclusive diphoton production with tagged protons in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} $ = 13 TeV submitted to PRD CMS-EXO-21-007
2311.02725
86 ATLAS Collaboration Search for an axion-like particle with forward proton scattering in association with photon pairs at ATLAS JHEP 07 (2023) 234 2304.10953
87 Belle-II Collaboration Search for axion-like particles produced in $ \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^- $ collisions at Belle II PRL 125 (2020) 161806 2007.13071
88 BESIII Collaboration Search for an axion-like particle in radiative J/\ensuremath\psi decays PLB 838 (2023) 137698 2211.12699
89 CHARM Collaboration Search for axion like particle production in 400-GeV proton-copper interactions PLB 157 (1985) 458
90 E. M. Riordan et al. A search for short lived axions in an electron beam dump experiment PRL 59 (1987) 755
91 M. J. Dolan et al. Revised constraints and Belle II sensitivity for visible and invisible axion-like particles JHEP 12 (2017) 094 1709.00009
92 B. Döbrich, J. Jaeckel, and T. Spadaro Light in the beam dump - ALP production from decay photons in proton beam-dumps JHEP 05 (2019) 213 1904.02091
93 NA64 Collaboration Search for axionlike and scalar particles with the NA64 experiment PRL 125 (2020) 081801 2005.02710
94 F. Capozzi et al. New constraints on ALP couplings to electrons and photons from ArgoNeuT and the MiniBooNE beam dump PRD 108 (2023) 075019 2307.03878
95 A. Caputo, H.-T. Janka, G. Raffelt, and E. Vitagliano Low-energy supernovae severely constrain radiative particle decays PRL 128 (2022) 221103 2201.09890
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN