Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Simulation of dark scalar particle sensitivity in $\eta$ rare decay channels at HIAF

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a one-month run at the proposed Huizhou eta factory could reach branching-ratio limits near $10^{-9}$ for dark scalars decaying to $e^+e^-$.

desk verdict A facility-specific dark scalar sensitivity study for a proposed HIAF eta factory; the setup and simulations are solid, but a scale-up factor inconsistency makes the projected limits optimistic by roughly a factor of 8 as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03196 v1 pith:6IFIMFVK submitted 2024-12-04 hep-ph

Yang Liu , Rong Wang , Zaiba Mushtaq , Ye Tian , Xionghong He , Hao Qiu , Xurong Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords darkscalarportaletamesonraredecaysfixed-targetexperimentHIAFsensitivityprojectionhadrophilicmodelminimalsiliconpixelspectrometer
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that a one-month fixed-target run at the proposed Huizhou eta factory could search for a light dark scalar particle in two rare eta decay channels, $\eta \to S\pi^0 \to e^+e^-\pi^0$ and $\eta \to S\pi^0 \to \pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$, with projected branching-ratio upper limits near $10^{-9}$ and below $10^{-6}$, respectively. The target is a narrow bump in the $e^+e^-$ or $\pi^+\pi^-$ invariant-mass spectrum sitting on a smooth background. The projected reach translates into sensitivities of $\sin^2\theta \sim 10^{-1}$ for the minimal scalar (Higgs-mixing) model and $g_u \sim 10^{-6}$ for the hadrophilic scalar model at 99% confidence. These numbers are obtained from a simulation of $\eta$ production in $p+{}^7$Li collisions at 1.8 GeV, a compact silicon-pixel spectrometer design, and a scaling of the background to an assumed sample of $5.9\times 10^{11}$ $\eta$ events in one month.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the bump-hunt: the dark scalar $S$ would appear as a narrow peak, with invariant-mass resolution below 2 MeV, in the $e^+e^-$ or $\pi^+\pi^-$ spectrum, on top of a smooth background from $\eta\to \pi^0 e^+e^-$ and $\eta\to\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$. The sensitivity is set by the upper-limit formula $\mathrm{Br}_{\rm UL} = 3\sqrt{N_{\rm bg}}/(N_\eta\,\epsilon)$, which converts the background counts in each mass bin into a branching-ratio limit using the total $\eta$ yield $N_\eta=5.9\times 10^{11}$ and the bin-dependent detection efficiency $\epsilon$. The translation from branching ratio to model parameters is done through two identities: $\mathrm{Br}(\eta\to\pi^0 S)\simeq 1.8\times 10^{-6}\,\lambda^{1/2}\sin^2\theta$ for the minimal scalar model, and the corresponding expression $\mathrm{Br}(\eta\to\pi^0 S) = c_{S\pi^0\eta}^2 g_u^2 B^2 \lambda^{1/2}/(16\pi m_\eta \Gamma_\eta)$ for the hadrophilic model.

What would settle it

Measure the actual $p + {}^7$Li $\to \eta X$ cross-section at 1.8 GeV and the real fixed-target luminosity and duty factor at the facility; if the resulting one-month $\eta$ yield is below about $3\times 10^{11}$, the projected branching-ratio limits would be correspondingly worse. Alternatively, check whether the simulated background shapes match data from an existing $\eta$ experiment such as BESIII in the same final states.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a fixed-target $\eta$ factory can be a competitive dark-scalar hunter. Using an event generator for proton–lithium collisions at 1.8 GeV, a full detector simulation of a compact silicon-pixel-based spectrometer, and background-only Monte Carlo scaled by a factor of about $10^5$, the authors project that one month of running would set an upper limit on $\mathrm{Br}(\eta\to S\pi^0\to e^+e^-\pi^0)$ close to $10^{-9}$ for $S$ masses above the pion mass, and an upper limit below $10^{-6}$ on $\mathrm{Br}(\eta\to S\pi^0\to \pi^+\pi^-\pi^0)$. Interpreting these limits through the standard portal relations, they become sensitivities of $\sin^2\theta \sim 10^{-1}$ and $g_u \sim 10^{-6}$ at 99% CL. The paper presents these as conservative: it assumes one month at 30% duty factor, a 100 MHz inelastic event-rate cap, and detection efficiencies around 40%.

Load-bearing premise

The projected reach assumes a one-month sample of $5.9\times 10^{11}$ $\eta$ mesons, which scales linearly with the assumed luminosity of $10^{35}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}$, the 100 MHz inelastic event-rate cap, the 30% duty factor, and the 0.76% $\eta$-production probability from a $0.1\times A$ mb cross-section; if any of these inputs is overestimated, every limit and sensitivity curve worsens in proportion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The one-month experiment would set the best direct constraints on the hadrophilic scalar coupling $g_u$ below 1 GeV, surpassing existing bounds from MAMI, BESIII, KLOE, and E787/E949 in the mass region above the pion threshold.
  • The projected $\sin^2\theta \sim 10^{-1}$ sensitivity in the minimal scalar model is comparable to the REDTOP proposal in the high-mass region, showing that a fixed-target $\eta$ factory can compete with a dedicated $\eta$/ $\eta'$ production experiment.
  • Because the sensitivity is driven by $N_\eta$, increasing the running time or event-rate capability directly improves the limits; the ideal one-year, 500 MHz scenario would improve them further.
  • The simulation demonstrates that the compact silicon-pixel spectrometer design achieves near-geometric acceptance (about 40%) and sub-2 MeV mass resolution, which are the key performance requirements for the bump-hunt.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the assumed $\eta$ yield is not realized—say the luminosity or the $\eta$ production cross-section is lower than assumed—every projected limit scales linearly with $N_\eta$; the paper's reach figures should be read as an upper bound on what this facility could deliver, not a guaranteed performance.
  • The same bump-hunt strategy applies to other portals: replacing the $e^+e^-$ or $\pi^+\pi^-$ final state with $\mu^+\mu^-$ or $\gamma\gamma$ would let the same spectrometer search for vector and axion-like dark particles, since the background shape, not the model, determines the reach.
  • The low-mass sensitivity in the $e^+e^-$ channel is limited by the $\pi^0$ Dalitz background dropping at the pion mass; a calorimeter with better energy resolution would push the reach to lower $S$ masses, a testable improvement in the detector design.
  • The projection uses a scale-up factor of about $10^5$ on a 13-million-event simulation; the statistical fluctuations of the background in the simulation should be checked against the scaled Poisson expectation, since bins with zero simulated events could underestimate $N_{\rm bg}$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a Monte Carlo simulation study of a proposed fixed-target experiment at the HIAF accelerator (the 'Huizhou η factory') to search for a light dark scalar particle S produced in η → S π0 decays, with S decaying to either e+e− or π+π−. The η mesons are produced in 1.8 GeV p-7Li collisions simulated with GiBUU, and the detector response is modeled with a GEANT4-based package (ChnsRoot). The authors estimate a one-month η yield of 5.9×10^11, determine detection efficiencies around 40%, and compute projected 99% CL upper limits on Br(η→Sπ0) as a function of m_S, reaching ~10^-9 in the e+e− channel and ~10^-6 in the π+π− channel. From these limits they derive projected sensitivities to the Higgs-mixing parameter sin^2θ in the minimal scalar model and to the coupling g_u in the hadrophilic scalar model, benchmarking against REDTOP and existing experimental constraints.

Significance. If the quantitative projections are correct, the proposed experiment would be competitive with and in some mass regions superior to existing and planned searches for light scalar particles produced in η decays. The paper's strengths include a full simulation chain from production to detector response, explicit and falsifiable projections benchmarked against other experiments, and an honest statement of the main limitations (e.g., no quantitative treatment of systematic uncertainties). The qualitative conclusions are interesting and timely. However, the numerical projections are directly tied to a set of assumed beam, target, and scaling parameters, and one of these parameters — the Monte Carlo scale-up factor — is internally inconsistent, which directly affects the quoted upper limits. Until that inconsistency is resolved, the specific sensitivity numbers cannot be considered reliable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV and Eq. (4)] The scale-up factor stated in Section IV is internally inconsistent with the quoted η yield. The text says that 13 million inelastic p-A events were simulated, the η probability is 0.76%, and 'both the background distributions and the number of produced η samples' were scaled up by a factor of 'around 10^5'. This yields approximately 1.0×10^10 η events, a factor of about 60 below N_η = 5.9×10^11 quoted in the same section. Consistency requires a scale factor of 5.9×10^11 / (13×10^6 × 0.0076) ≈ 6.0×10^6. Since Eq. (4) computes the upper limit as 3√N_bg / (N_η ε), using a background histogram scaled by 10^5 instead of 6×10^6 underestimates N_bg by a factor of about 60 and therefore underestimates the branching-ratio upper limits by √60 ≈ 7.7 in background-dominated bins. This directly affects the sensitivities quoted in Sections V.D and V.E (e.g., sin^2θ ~ 10^-1 and g_u ~ 10^-6). The authors must correct the scale factor or explicitly state the actual factor used; if the code used approximately 6×10^6, the text should be corrected accordingly.
  2. [Section IV] The derivation of N_η = 5.9×10^11 is not reproducible from the inputs stated in Section IV. The paper quotes a luminosity of 10^35 cm^-2 s^-1, a p-A η-production cross section of about 0.1×A mb (with A=7), a 100 MHz inelastic event-rate cap, and a 30% duty factor for one month, but it does not give the formula used to obtain N_η. Using the quoted luminosity and η-production cross section directly gives N_η ≈ 5×10^13, whereas using the 100 MHz cap together with the 0.76% η probability from GiBUU gives 5.9×10^11. The paper should present the explicit expression for N_η and clarify whether the quoted luminosity is an upper bound that is not actually achieved in a rate-limited running scenario. Without this, the numerical projections cannot be reproduced by an independent reader.
  3. [Section VI and Eq. (4)] Section VI states that 'the experimental uncertainties are not evaluated quantitatively' and asserts that systematic uncertainties are 'at the level of several percentages' without showing their impact on the results. Because Eq. (4) uses only the statistical Poisson fluctuation 3√N_bg, and because the background distributions in Figs. 14 and 15 contain large event counts, systematic uncertainties in the background normalization or shape would likely dominate the statistical uncertainties. A quantitative estimate of the leading systematic effects (e.g., background normalization, particle misidentification, mass-scale calibration) and their effect on the projected upper limits is needed to support the claimed 99% CL sensitivities.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV] The phrase 'the η probability in elastic scattering is around 0.76%' is presumably a typo, since η production is an inelastic process; it should read 'inelastic scattering' or 'p-7Li collisions'.
  2. [Throughout] The term 'hardrophilic' appears to be a typo for 'hadrophilic' in several places (e.g., Sections II.B and V.E and the figure captions).
  3. [Section V.C and Eq. (4)] The paper should specify the exact event selection criteria (for example, the ±3σ windows around the η and π0 masses) and the bin width used in Figs. 14 and 15, as these affect the interpretation of N_bg in Eq. (4).
  4. [Eq. (4)] The formula 3√N_bg is a Gaussian approximation to the 99% CL upper limit on a Poisson signal in the presence of background; the authors should state this approximation and comment on its validity for bins with small N_bg.
  5. [Figures 14 and 15] The axis labels in Figs. 14 and 15 (especially the y-axis 'Events') are poorly rendered in the manuscript and should be made legible in the published version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sensitivity projections are computed from stated external inputs and Monte Carlo simulations, benchmarked against independent experimental limits.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The model equations (Eq. 1 and Eq. 3) are taken from cited external literature (Tulin et al., REDTOP, Batell et al.) and are used as inputs to convert projected branching-ratio upper limits into sensitivity bounds on sin^2(theta) and g_u; they are not outputs of this paper's own fitting. The branching-ratio upper limit in Eq. (4) is a standard statistical formula applied to simulated background counts and an assumed eta yield, so the projected limits are straightforward consequences of the stated inputs, not disguised restatements of those inputs. The paper benchmarks its projections against external results: REDTOP in Fig. 18 and MAMI, BESIII, KLOE, E787/E949, and SN1987A in Fig. 19. The one self-citation, Ref. [57] (the Huizhou eta factory proposal by the same group), is used only to motivate the facility and its beam parameters; those parameters are assumptions for the projection, not derived from the present paper's own sensitivity results. Even if one questions the internal consistency of the scale-up factor used for the Monte Carlo statistics, that is an arithmetic or reproducibility concern, not circularity: the projected limits scale with N_eta and N_bg but are not defined in terms of the quantities they claim to constrain. No step in the paper reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to its own target claim. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity with score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central projections rest on a small set of assumed experimental parameters (luminosity, event rate, duty factor, running time) and on the reliability of GiBUU and the fast detector simulation. No parameters are fitted to data; the paper is a simulation-based projection. The model equations are taken from the cited literature, so the ledger is short and contains no invented physical entities.

free parameters (4)
  • eta yield per month = 5.9e11
    Derived from assumed luminosity 1e35 cm^-2s^-1, event rate 100 MHz, duty factor 30%, one month, and GiBUU eta probability 0.76% (Sec. IV); this yield multiplies all projected limits and sensitivities.
  • Detection efficiency = ~40%
    From ChnsRoot fast simulation; enters linearly in the upper-limit formula Eq. (4). The efficiency is close to geometric acceptance, so detector performance assumptions are not stress-tested.
  • Upper-limit confidence factor = 3
    Eq. (4) uses 3*sqrt(N_bg) as a 99% CL upper limit; this is a Gaussian approximation without systematic uncertainty treatment.
  • Scale-up factor = ~1e5
    Background histograms from 13 million simulated inelastic events are scaled to ~1e13 events; statistical uncertainty in the simulated background is not propagated through the limits.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption GiBUU reliably simulates eta production in p+7Li at 1.8 GeV and the resulting background processes.
    All background distributions and the eta production probability (0.76%) come from GiBUU (Sec. IV); no validation against measured data is shown.
  • domain assumption The eta production cross section in p-A scales as ~0.1 x A mb at 1.8 GeV.
    Extrapolated from pp measurements with a simple A-scaling (Sec. IV); this enters the eta yield estimate.
  • ad hoc to paper The luminosity of 1e35 cm^-2s^-1 is achievable with a thin-foil fixed target while limiting the inelastic event rate to 100 MHz.
    Assumed for the conservative one-month scenario (Sec. IV); not demonstrated by an accelerator or target design.
  • domain assumption ChnsRoot fast simulation reproduces the full Geant4 detector response.
    The paper states ChnsRoot is a fast simulation based on geant4 resolution and efficiency results (Sec. IV); details of the mapping are not given.
  • domain assumption The SM background eta to e+e- pi0 is negligible at Br ~ 1e-9, so the dominant backgrounds are eta to e+e- gamma gamma and eta to pi+pi- gamma gamma.
    Used in the background simulation (Sec. V.C); the e+e- channel limit is driven by pi0 Dalitz decays and misidentified neutrons.
  • standard math Eq. (1) and Eq. (3) correctly relate Br(eta to pi0 S) to sin^2(theta) and g_u.
    Taken from the Tulin review [7] and Batell et al. [13]; Eq. (1) carries a stated ~20% uncertainty.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulation of dark scalar particle sensitivity in $\eta$ rare decay channels at HIAF." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6IFIMFVK

@misc{pith2026241203196,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulation of dark scalar particle sensitivity in $\eta$ rare decay channels at HIAF},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6IFIMFVK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03196}
}
abstract

Searching dark portal particle is a hot topic in particle physics frontier. We present a simulation study of an experiment targeted for searching the scalar portal particle at Huizhou $\eta$ factory. The HIAF high-intensity proton beam and a high event-rate spectrometer are suggested for the experiment aimed for the discovery of new physics. Under the conservative estimation, $5.9\times 10^{11}$ $\eta$ events could be produced in one month running of the experiment. The hadronic production of $\eta$ meson ($p + ^7\text{Li} \rightarrow \eta X$) is simulated at beam energy of 1.8 GeV using GiBUU event generator. We tend to search for the light dark scalar particle in the rare decay channels $\eta \rightarrow S \pi^0 \rightarrow \pi^+ \pi^- \pi^0$ and $\eta \rightarrow S \pi^0 \rightarrow e^+ e^- \pi^0$. The detection efficiencies of the channels and the spectrometer resolutions are studied in the simulation. We also present the projected upper limits of the decay branching ratios of the dark scalar particle and the projected sensitivities to the model parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03196 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The conceptual design of a compact spectrometer for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The momentum versus angle distributions of the final-state particles from the decay channel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The momentum versus angle distributions of the final-state particles from the decay channel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The event distributions as a function of the mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The invariant mass distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The distribution of the reconstructed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_10.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The invariant mass distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The distribution of the reconstructed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. The projected invariant mass distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_15.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. The distribution of the reconstructed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_13.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. The projected branching-ratio upper limit of dark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. The projected branching-ratio upper limit of dark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Exploring the lifetime frontier with a beam-dump experiment at CiADS

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A proposed CiADS beam-dump experiment could search for dark photons and reach currently unexcluded parameter space around 100 MeV mass and 1e-9 to 1e-8 kinetic mixing.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Young, Front

    B.-L. Young, Front. Phys. (Beijing) 12, 121201 (2017), [Erratum: Front.Phys.(Beijing) 12, 121202 (2017)]

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Arbey and F

    A. Arbey and F. Mahmoudi, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.119, 103865 (2021), arXiv:2104.11488 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Oks, New Astron

    E. Oks, New Astron. Rev. 93, 101632 (2021), arXiv:2111.00363 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Bertone and T

    G. Bertone and T. Tait, M. P., Nature 562, 51 (2018), arXiv:1810.01668 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Aramaki et al

    T. Aramaki et al. , Phys. Rept. 618, 1 (2016), arXiv:1505.07785 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Lanfranchi, M

    G. Lanfranchi, M. Pospelov, and P. Schuster, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 71, 279 (2021), arXiv:2011.02157 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    L. Gan, B. Kubis, E. Passemar, and S. Tulin, Phys. Rept. 945, 1 (2022), arXiv:2007.00664 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Holdom, Phys

    B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B 166, 196 (1986)

    1986

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    Galison and A

    P. Galison and A. Manohar, Phys. Lett. B 136, 279 (1984)

    1984

  2. [10]

    Fayet, Nucl

    P. Fayet, Nucl. Phys. B 347, 743 (1990)

    1990

  3. [11]

    O’Connell, M

    D. O’Connell, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D 75, 037701 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0611014

    2007 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Krnjaic, Phys

    G. Krnjaic, Phys. Rev. D 94, 073009 (2016), arXiv:1512.04119 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Batell, A

    B. Batell, A. Freitas, A. Ismail, and D. Mckeen, Phys. 10 Rev. D 100, 095020 (2019), arXiv:1812.05103 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Batell, A

    B. Batell, A. Freitas, A. Ismail, and D. Mckeen, Phys. Rev. D 98, 055026 (2018), arXiv:1712.10022 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Georgi, D

    H. Georgi, D. B. Kaplan, and L. Randall, Phys. Lett. B 169, 73 (1986)

    1986

  8. [16]

    Gorbunov and M

    D. Gorbunov and M. Shaposhnikov, JHEP 10, 015 (2007), [Erratum: JHEP 11, 101 (2013)], arXiv:0705.1729 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Zhao and J

    L. Zhao and J. Liu, Front. Phys. (Beijing) 15, 44301 (2020), arXiv:2004.04547 [astro-ph.IM]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    J. Liu, X. Chen, and X. Ji, Nature Phys. 13, 212 (2017), arXiv:1709.00688 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Cebri´ an, J

    S. Cebri´ an, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2502, 012004 (2023), arXiv:2205.06833 [physics.ins-det]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Du et al

    N. Du et al. (ADMX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 151301 (2018), arXiv:1804.05750 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Z. Y. Zhang et al.(CDEX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 171001 (2024), arXiv:2309.14982 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Hochberg, Y

    Y. Hochberg, Y. F. Kahn, R. K. Leane, S. Rajendran, K. Van Tilburg, T.-T. Yu, and K. M. Zurek, Nature Rev. Phys. 4, 637 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Georgescu, Nature Rev

    I. Georgescu, Nature Rev. Phys. 4, 216 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Buchmueller, C

    O. Buchmueller, C. Doglioni, and L. T. Wang, Nature Phys. 13, 217 (2017), arXiv:1912.12739 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Felcini (ATLAS, CMS), in 53rd Rencontres de Moriond on Cosmology (2018) pp

    M. Felcini (ATLAS, CMS), in 53rd Rencontres de Moriond on Cosmology (2018) pp. 327–336, arXiv:1809.06341 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Jungman, M

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, Phys. Rept. 267, 195 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9506380

    1996 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Phys. Rept. 405, 279 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404175

    2005 arXiv

  20. [28]

    J. L. Feng, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 48, 495 (2010), arXiv:1003.0904 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Navas et al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

    S. Navas et al.(Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Roszkowski, E

    L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo, and S. Trojanowski, Rept. Prog. Phys. 81, 066201 (2018), arXiv:1707.06277 [hep- ph]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    S. R. Golwala et al. (CDMS), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 444, 345 (2000)

    2000

  24. [32]

    Pospelov, A

    M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and M. B. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B 662, 53 (2008), arXiv:0711.4866 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Pospelov and A

    M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Phys. Lett. B 671, 391 (2009), arXiv:0810.1502 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Baltzell et al., (2022), arXiv:2203.08324 [hep-ex]

    N. Baltzell et al., (2022), arXiv:2203.08324 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Elam et al

    J. Elam et al. (REDTOP), (2022), arXiv:2203.07651 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    A. J. Krasznahorkay et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 042501 (2016), arXiv:1504.01527 [nucl-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  29. [37]

    D. P. Aguillard et al. (Muon g-2), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 161802 (2023), arXiv:2308.06230 [hep-ex]

    2023

  30. [38]

    Abi et al

    B. Abi et al. (Muon g-2), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 141801 (2021), arXiv:2104.03281 [hep-ex]

    2021

  31. [39]

    J. P. Miller, E. de Rafael, and B. L. Roberts, Rept. Prog. Phys. 70, 795 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0703049

    2007 arXiv

  32. [40]

    J. L. Feng, B. Fornal, I. Galon, S. Gardner, J. Smolinsky, T. M. P. Tait, and P. Tanedo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 071803 (2016), arXiv:1604.07411 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  33. [41]

    J. L. Feng, B. Fornal, I. Galon, S. Gardner, J. Smolinsky, T. M. P. Tait, and P. Tanedo, Phys. Rev. D 95, 035017 (2017), arXiv:1608.03591 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Cazzaniga et al

    C. Cazzaniga et al. (NA64), Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 959 (2021), arXiv:2107.02021 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Bodas, R

    A. Bodas, R. Coy, and S. J. D. King, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 1065 (2021), arXiv:2102.07781 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Nomura and P

    T. Nomura and P. Sanyal, JHEP 05, 232 (2021), arXiv:2010.04266 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Ariga et al.(F ASER), Phys

    A. Ariga et al.(F ASER), Phys. Rev. D99, 095011 (2019), arXiv:1811.12522 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Prentki and M

    J. Prentki and M. J. G. Veltman, Phys. Lett. 15, 88 (1965)

    1965

  39. [47]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 87, 012009 (2013), arXiv:1209.2469 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 107, 092007 (2023), arXiv:2302.08282 [hep-ex]

    2023

  41. [49]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 92, 012014 (2015), arXiv:1506.05360 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 87, 032006 (2013), arXiv:1211.3600 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Ablikim et al.(BESIII), Phys

    M. Ablikim et al.(BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 251801 (2014), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 113, 039903 (2014)], arXiv:1404.0096 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Ablikim et al.(BESIII), Phys

    M. Ablikim et al.(BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 012001 (2017), arXiv:1606.03847 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Krzemien and E

    W. Krzemien and E. P´ erez del Rio (KLOE-2), Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 34, 1930012 (2019), arXiv:1909.01233 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Babusci et al

    D. Babusci et al. (KLOE-2), JHEP 10, 047 (2020), arXiv:2006.14710 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Anastasi et al

    A. Anastasi et al. (KLOE-2), JHEP 05, 019 (2016), arXiv:1601.06985 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Ambrosino et al

    F. Ambrosino et al. (KLOE), Phys. Lett. B 675, 283 (2009), arXiv:0812.4830 [hep-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Chen et al., (2024), arXiv:2407.00874 [hep-ph]

    X.-R. Chen et al., (2024), arXiv:2407.00874 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    C. P. Burgess, M. Pospelov, and T. ter Veldhuis, Nucl. Phys. B 619, 709 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0011335

    2001 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Piazza and M

    F. Piazza and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. D 82, 043533 (2010), arXiv:1003.2313 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Kouvaris, I

    C. Kouvaris, I. M. Shoemaker, and K. Tuominen, Phys. Rev. D 91, 043519 (2015), arXiv:1411.3730 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Patt and F

    B. Patt and F. Wilczek, (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0605188

    2006 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Batell, M

    B. Batell, M. Pospelov, and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. D 80, 095024 (2009), arXiv:0906.5614 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  55. [63]

    J. L. Feng, I. Galon, F. Kling, and S. Trojanowski, Phys. Rev. D 97, 055034 (2018), arXiv:1710.09387 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Bezrukov and D

    F. Bezrukov and D. Gorbunov, JHEP 07, 140 (2013), arXiv:1303.4395 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  57. [65]

    O. Buss, T. Gaitanos, K. Gallmeister, H. van Hees, M. Kaskulov, O. Lalakulich, A. B. Larionov, T. Leit- ner, J. Weil, and U. Mosel, Phys. Rept. 512, 1 (2012), arXiv:1106.1344 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Gaitanos, H

    T. Gaitanos, H. Lenske, and U. Mosel, Phys. Lett. B 663, 197 (2008), arXiv:0712.3292 [nucl-th]

    2008 arXiv

  59. [67]

    J. Weil, H. van Hees, and U. Mosel, Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 111 (2012), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.A 48, 150 (2012)], arXiv:1203.3557 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Al-Turany, D

    M. Al-Turany, D. Bertini, R. Karabowicz, D. Kresan, P. Malzacher, T. Stockmanns, and F. Uhlig, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 396, 022001 (2012)

    2012

  61. [69]

    Wilkin, Eur

    C. Wilkin, Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 114 (2017), arXiv:1611.07250 [nucl-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Adler et al

    S. Adler et al. (E787), Phys. Lett. B 537, 211 (2002), arXiv:hep-ex/0201037

    2002 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Adler et al

    S. Adler et al. (E787), Phys. Rev. D 70, 037102 (2004), arXiv:hep-ex/0403034

    2004 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Adler et al

    S. Adler et al. (E949, E787), Phys. Rev. D 77, 052003 (2008), arXiv:0709.1000 [hep-ex]

    2008 arXiv

  65. [73]

    A. V. Artamonov et al. (BNL-E949), Phys. Rev. D 79, 11 092004 (2009), arXiv:0903.0030 [hep-ex]. [74] Y.-S. Liu, I. C. Clo¨ et, and G. A. Miller, Nucl. Phys. B, 114638 (2019), arXiv:1805.01028 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.