Constraints on CP-Odd ALP Couplings from EDM Limits of Fermions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Congratulations to the authors for this nice work, please find below few comments/suggestions.
The paper presents new constraints on CP-odd couplings of ALP from experimental data on EDM bounds of SM fermions, based on simplified phenomenological scenarios (leptophilic and hadrophilic ALPs interactions). This is an interesting research field that is receiving increasingly interest in both the experimental and theory particle physics communities.
I think the results are of interest and are scientifically sound and worth the publications, however I would suggest some minor revision of the text/presentation of the results to improve text flow and readability.
General/content comments:
- I would suggest to move the discussion and reference of known results on limits for the couplings from EDM bounds from the end of section 5 to the introduction, leaving in section 5 only comparison and comments with respect known results.
- In particular, it is not always immediate to understand the relationship between the constraints obtained and the exclusions reported in the references cited in the bibliography, because different choices for the units used and / or for the quantities represented in the exclusion plots. In this sense, more comments and explanations of the results in the text would certainly make it easier for a reader not to interpret and put into context the results presented in the manuscript.
Style/typos related comments:
- In same places the manuscript will benefit from a slightly revision of the text to improve text flow and readability
- Abstract: I would not define acronyms in the abstract, postponing the definition the first time they are used in the main text
- Page 2, 12th line from bottom: not necessary applicable —> not necessarily applicable
- Page 3, Figure 1, caption last line: planing sensitivity —> planned sensitivity
- Page 4, first line below equation (9): An authors of —> An author of
- Page 6, 2nd line below equation (20): rulled out —> ruled out
- Page 7, first line below equation (A1): Here —> here (I would suggest to remove “here”)
- Page 7, 2nd line below equation (A4): redifinition —> redefinition
- Page 8, funding paragraph: fundedby —> funded by
Author Response
1) Referee's comment:
- I would suggest to move the discussion and reference of known results on limits for the couplings from EDM bounds from the end of section 5 to the introduction, leaving in section 5 only comparison and comments with respect known results.
- In particular, it is not always immediate to understand the relationship between the constraints obtained and the exclusions reported in the references cited in the bibliography, because different choices for the units used and / or for the quantities represented in the exclusion plots. In this sense, more comments and explanations of the results in the text would certainly make it easier for a reader not to interpret and put into context the results presented in the manuscript.
Our response:
In the end of Sec.5 we clarified notation from known constraint on CP-violating couplings and relate them with our notations. We also added discussion in the introduction. In particular the second paragraph from bottom is extended.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Referee's comment:
- Abstract: I would not define acronyms in the abstract, postponing the definition the first time they are used in the main text
Our response:
We removed definitions of acronyms in the abstract.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Referee's comment:
- Page 2, 12th line from bottom: not necessary applicable —> not necessarily applicable
- Page 3, Figure 1, caption last line: planing sensitivity —> planned sensitivity
- Page 4, first line below equation (9): An authors of —> An author of
- Page 6, 2nd line below equation (20): rulled out —> ruled out
- Page 7, first line below equation (A1): Here —> here (I would suggest to remove “here”)
- Page 7, 2nd line below equation (A4): redifinition —> redefinition
- Page 8, funding paragraph: fundedby —> funded by
Our response:
we fixed these typos
Please see the revised version of manuscript in the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this work the authors analyze the constraints on possible CP-violating couplings of hypothetical axion-like particles, originating from measurements of electric dipole moments (EDMs) of SM particles, prominantly electron EDM.
The authors show how the CP-violating couplings give rise to the EDMs and, as a result, how the constraints on EDMs translate to constraints on the CP-violating couplings. The results are clearly presented and seem relevant for constraining this class of models.
I have detected no problems with the analysis and recommend the manuscript for publication.
Author Response
Referee's remark:
English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
Our response:
We corrected the typos
Please see the revised version of manuscript in the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
