pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.11329 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-ex

Recognition: unknown

Searching for apparent baryon number violation in Λ_c^+ decays at the Super Tau-Charm Facility

Zeren Simon Wang , Xin-Ru Tang , Yu Zhang , Xiaorong Zhou
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-ex
keywords baryon number violationcharm baryon decaysSuper Tau-Charm Facilitynew physicseffective field theoryR-parity violationMonte Carlo simulation
0
0 comments X

The pith

STCF with 1 ab^{-1} can probe apparent baryon number violation in Lambda_c+ decays to several TeV in new physics models.

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

The paper proposes dedicated searches for apparent baryon number violation in the decays Lambda_c+ to a charged pion or kaon plus missing energy at the future Super Tau-Charm Facility. These channels remain unexplored experimentally and benefit from the clean near-threshold production environment in electron-positron collisions. Monte Carlo simulations are used to determine signal efficiencies and projected sensitivities under the assumption of zero background, with results interpreted in a sterile-neutrino-extended effective field theory and in R-parity-violating supersymmetry. A sympathetic reader would care because laboratory observation of baryon number violation would constitute direct evidence for physics beyond the Standard Model, and the proposed facility offers competitive reach in these rare charm-baryon processes.

Core claim

Observation of baryon number violation in laboratory experiments would constitute unambiguous evidence for physics beyond the Standard Model. Dedicated searches are proposed for apparent BNV in charm-baryon decays Lambda_c+ to M+ plus missing energy, where M is pi or K and the missing energy stems from a resonance. State-of-the-art Monte Carlo simulations for the Super Tau-Charm Facility evaluate signal efficiencies and derive projected model-independent sensitivities assuming negligible background. These sensitivities are interpreted in a sterile-neutrino-extended low-energy effective field theory and in R-parity-violating supersymmetry, showing that 1 ab^{-1} integrated luminosity allows a

What carries the argument

The decay channels Lambda_c+ to pi+ or K+ plus missing energy from a resonance, analyzed via Monte Carlo simulation of signal efficiencies at STCF to extract projected limits.

If this is right

  • Model-independent limits on apparent BNV can be set in the proposed Lambda_c+ decay channels.
  • New-physics scales of several TeV become accessible in the nuLEFT framework.
  • The RPV supersymmetry parameter lambda''_212 over m^2_qtilde is constrained down to about 0.1 TeV^{-2}.
  • STCF provides a competitive opportunity to probe BNV interactions in rare charm-baryon decays.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If backgrounds prove non-negligible in real data, dedicated background-rejection techniques would be required to preserve the projected reach.
  • The resonance hypothesis for the missing energy could be tested directly by reconstructing the invariant mass of the missing system.
  • These channels complement existing searches for BNV at higher-energy colliders by accessing lower-mass scales with different systematic uncertainties.

Load-bearing premise

Backgrounds remain negligible in the signal regions of the proposed decay channels, as assumed in the Monte Carlo simulations.

What would settle it

Observation of a non-negligible number of background events in the signal regions during actual data collection at STCF would invalidate the projected sensitivities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11329 by Xiaorong Zhou, Xin-Ru Tang, Yu Zhang, Zeren Simon Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The parton-level Feynman diagram for the Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The hadron-level Feynman diagrams for the Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The decay branching ratios of Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The parton-level Feynman diagrams for the Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Left panel: the reconstruction efficiencies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Model-dependent sensitivity limits at 95% C.L., for vanishing backgrounds. The leading [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Observation of baryon number violation (BNV) in laboratory experiments would constitute unambiguous evidence for physics beyond the Standard Model. We propose dedicated searches for \textit{apparent} BNV in charm-baryon decays, $\Lambda_c^+\to M^+ +$ missing energy ($M=\pi, K$) where the missing energy stems from a resonance. These channels have not been explored experimentally so far, despite the relatively clean environment potentially provided by near $\Lambda_c^+\overline{\Lambda}_c^-$ threshold production at $e^+e^-$ colliders. Performing state-of-the-art Monte Carlo simulations for the proposed Super Tau-Charm Facility (STCF), we evaluate the signal efficiencies and derive projected model-independent sensitivities under the assumption of negligible background. We further interpret these sensitivities within two theoretical frameworks: a sterile-neutrino-extended low-energy effective field theory ($\nu$LEFT) and R-parity-violating (RPV) supersymmetry. With an integrated luminosity of 1 ab$^{-1}$, STCF can probe new-physics scales of several TeV in the $\nu$LEFT description and constrain the RPV model parameter $\lambda''_{212}/m^2_{\tilde{q}}$ down to about $0.1~\mathrm{TeV}^{-2}$. Our results demonstrate that STCF provides a highly competitive opportunity for probing BNV interactions in rare charm-baryon decays.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes dedicated searches for apparent baryon-number violation in the decays Λ_c^+ → M^+ + missing energy (M=π,K) at the Super Tau-Charm Facility. It performs state-of-the-art Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate signal efficiencies, derives projected sensitivities under the assumption of negligible background, and interprets the results in a sterile-neutrino-extended low-energy effective theory (νLEFT) and in R-parity-violating supersymmetry, claiming that 1 ab^{-1} of data can probe new-physics scales of several TeV and constrain λ''_{212}/m^2_{q̃} to ~0.1 TeV^{-2}.

Significance. If the negligible-background assumption is substantiated, the work would provide a competitive, previously unexplored probe of baryon-number violation in the charm sector, yielding model-independent constraints in νLEFT and concrete bounds in RPV SUSY. The use of state-of-the-art Monte Carlo simulations for signal efficiencies is a clear technical strength that supports the projected reach.

major comments (1)
  1. [Monte Carlo simulations and sensitivity projections] The projected sensitivities quoted in the abstract and derived from the Monte Carlo studies (several TeV in νLEFT; λ''_{212}/m^2_{q̃} ≲ 0.1 TeV^{-2} at 1 ab^{-1}) rest entirely on the assumption that background is negligible after all selection cuts. No quantitative background estimate, sideband extrapolation, or simulation of irreducible sources (mis-reconstructed Λ_c decays containing neutrinos, combinatorial missing energy from π^0/γ, beam-related backgrounds, or detector-material interactions) is presented to justify that expected background events are ≪1 in the signal window. This assumption is load-bearing: even a few surviving background events would weaken the limits by a factor ∼√(S+B)/S.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Monte Carlo section] The abstract and main text refer to 'state-of-the-art Monte Carlo simulations' without naming the specific generators, detector simulation package, or luminosity scaling procedure; adding these details would improve reproducibility.
  2. [Throughout] Notation for the RPV coupling (λ''_{212}/m^2_{q̃}) should be checked for consistency between the abstract, text, and any tables or equations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our work's significance and for the detailed, constructive comment. We address the major concern below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Monte Carlo simulations and sensitivity projections] The projected sensitivities quoted in the abstract and derived from the Monte Carlo studies (several TeV in νLEFT; λ''_{212}/m^2_{q̃} ≲ 0.1 TeV^{-2} at 1 ab^{-1}) rest entirely on the assumption that background is negligible after all selection cuts. No quantitative background estimate, sideband extrapolation, or simulation of irreducible sources (mis-reconstructed Λ_c decays containing neutrinos, combinatorial missing energy from π^0/γ, beam-related backgrounds, or detector-material interactions) is presented to justify that expected background events are ≪1 in the signal window. This assumption is load-bearing: even a few surviving background events would weaken the limits by a factor ∼√(S+B)/S.

    Authors: We agree that the sensitivity projections rest on the negligible-background assumption stated in the manuscript and that a quantitative justification is needed to make the results more robust. The assumption is motivated by the clean kinematic environment of near-threshold Λ_c^+ Λ_c^- production at STCF, where the total energy is precisely known and missing-energy reconstruction can suppress many backgrounds. However, we acknowledge that no dedicated background simulation or estimate was included in the current version. In the revised manuscript we will add Monte Carlo studies of the dominant potential background sources (mis-reconstructed Λ_c decays with neutrinos, combinatorial π^0/γ contributions, beam-related backgrounds, and detector-material interactions) after the full selection chain. These studies will either substantiate that residual background remains ≪1 event or provide revised sensitivity projections that account for a small but non-zero background level. We believe this addition will directly address the referee's concern without altering the overall conclusions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: sensitivities derived from explicit MC signal efficiencies plus stated background assumption

full rationale

The paper computes signal efficiencies via standard Monte Carlo simulation of the proposed STCF detector response for the channels Λ_c^+ → M^+ + missing energy, then converts these efficiencies into projected 90% CL limits at 1 ab^{-1} luminosity by assuming background is negligible. This assumption is declared explicitly rather than derived from any equation or prior result within the paper. No parameter is fitted to data and then relabeled as a prediction, no self-citation supplies a load-bearing uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz is smuggled in. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained and non-circular; the quoted reach follows directly from the stated inputs and the conventional Poisson limit formula under B=0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard Monte Carlo event generation for e+e- collisions, the assumption that backgrounds can be made negligible by kinematic cuts, and the validity of the two effective theories used for interpretation.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Backgrounds in the signal region can be reduced to negligible levels by kinematic selection at STCF
    Stated explicitly in the abstract as the basis for model-independent sensitivities.
  • domain assumption Standard Model plus the chosen BSM extensions (νLEFT, RPV SUSY) correctly describe the relevant processes
    Used to translate experimental sensitivities into new-physics scales and coupling limits.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5568 in / 1426 out tokens · 49772 ms · 2026-05-10T16:24:16.000763+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    pole” and “non-pole

    We show how to match this UV-completion to the EFT. Both the sterile neutrino and the light bino neutralino are very long-lived, appearing as missing energy at STCF. We will confine ourselves to the mass range roughly betweenm p andm Λ+ c −m M +, where mp/Λ+ c /M+ labels the mass of proton, Λ + c baryon, and the charged meson (π + orK +). For lower masses...

  2. [2]

    (14), only terms with right-chiral quarks or squarks are given, since we assume absence of squark mixing and the BNV terms as shown in Eq

    We note that in Eq. (14), only terms with right-chiral quarks or squarks are given, since we assume absence of squark mixing and the BNV terms as shown in Eq. (15) involve only such fields. Besides assuming vanishing squark mixing, we confine ourselves to the case of degenerate squark massesm ˜qfor simplicity of discussion. The corresponding parton-level ...

  3. [3]

    + g ˜d 1Rλ′′ 212 m2 ˜d (sRcc R)(dR ˜χ0

  4. [4]

    (2) and Eq

    + g˜c 1Rλ′′ 212 m2 ˜c (sRdc R)(cR ˜χ0 1),(22) where the first two terms entail operators that match with the Hermitian-conjugated (h.c.) counterparts of the operators given in Eq. (2) and Eq. (3), respectively. The operator in the third term can be re-expressed via a Fierz transformation as (sRdc R)(cR ˜χ0 1) Fierz ≈ 1 2(sR ˜χ0 1)(cRdc R) =− 1 2(dRcc R)(s...

  5. [5]

    + g ˜d 1Rλ′′ 212 m2 ˜q (sRcc R)(dR ˜χ0 1),(24) where we have assumed squark-mass degeneracy and exploited the relationg ˜c 1R =−2g ˜s 1R derived from Eq. (16). Matching the UV Lagrangian to the effective Lagrangian (5), we obtain the following relations, c212 Λ2 = 2λ′′ 212g˜s 1R m2 ˜q , c221 Λ2 = λ′′ 212g ˜d 1R m2 ˜q ,(25) wherec 212/Λ2 andc 221/Λ2 are, r...

  6. [6]

    For the considered mass range of interest, their decays are highly suppressed. For the sterile neutrino, the decay amplitudes are proportional to the small values of the coefficientsc/Λ 2 and are further reduced by off-shell propagators (aW-boson and a down-type quark). Similarly, the light bino neutralino has its decays suppressed by three off-shell prop...

  7. [7]

    F. R. Klinkhamer and N. S. Manton, Phys. Rev. D30, 2212 (1984)

    1984

  8. [8]

    A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B59, 82 (1975)

    1975

  9. [9]

    A. A. Belavin, A. M. Polyakov, A. S. Schwartz, and Y. S. Tyupkin, Phys. Lett. B59, 85 (1975)

    1975

  10. [10]

    ’t Hooft, Phys

    G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. Lett.37, 8 (1976)

    1976

  11. [11]

    ’t Hooft, Phys

    G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. D14, 3432 (1976), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 18, 2199 (1978)]

    1976

  12. [12]

    Ringwald, Nucl

    A. Ringwald, Nucl. Phys. B330, 1 (1990)

    1990

  13. [13]

    P. B. Arnold and L. D. McLerran, Phys. Rev. D36, 581 (1987)

    1987

  14. [14]

    Finite temperature field theory and phase transitions

    M. Quiros, inICTP Summer School in High-Energy Physics and Cosmology(1999) pp. 187– 259, arXiv:hep-ph/9901312

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 1999

  15. [15]

    D. E. Morrissey and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, New J. Phys.14, 125003 (2012), arXiv:1206.2942 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  16. [16]

    L. J. Broussardet al., J. Phys. G52, 083001 (2025), arXiv:2504.16983 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  18. [18]

    A. D. Dolgov, Phys. Rept.222, 309 (1992)

    1992

  19. [19]

    Recent Progress in Baryogenesis

    A. Riotto and M. Trodden, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.49, 35 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9901362

    work page Pith review arXiv 1999

  20. [20]

    A. D. Sakharov, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.5, 32 (1967)

    1967

  21. [21]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024). 19

    2024

  22. [22]

    del Aguila, S

    F. del Aguila, S. Bar-Shalom, A. Soni, and J. Wudka, Phys. Lett. B670, 399 (2009), arXiv:0806.0876 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2009

  23. [23]

    Aparici, K

    A. Aparici, K. Kim, A. Santamaria, and J. Wudka, Phys. Rev. D80, 013010 (2009), arXiv:0904.3244 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2009

  24. [24]

    Liao and X.-D

    Y. Liao and X.-D. Ma, Phys. Rev. D96, 015012 (2017), arXiv:1612.04527 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2017

  25. [25]

    H.-L. Li, Z. Ren, M.-L. Xiao, J.-H. Yu, and Y.-H. Zheng, JHEP11, 003 (2021), arXiv:2105.09329 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    Heeck, D

    J. Heeck, D. Sokhashvili, and A. Thapa, (2026), arXiv:2603.17050 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Bischer and W

    I. Bischer and W. Rodejohann, Nucl. Phys. B947, 114746 (2019), arXiv:1905.08699 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  28. [28]

    Chala and A

    M. Chala and A. Titov, JHEP05, 139 (2020), arXiv:2001.07732 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    Li, X.-D

    T. Li, X.-D. Ma, and M. A. Schmidt, JHEP07, 152 (2020), arXiv:2005.01543 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  30. [30]

    Li, X.-D

    T. Li, X.-D. Ma, and M. A. Schmidt, JHEP10, 115 (2020), arXiv:2007.15408 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Claudson, M

    M. Claudson, M. B. Wise, and L. J. Hall, Nucl. Phys. B195, 297 (1982)

    1982

  32. [32]

    E. E. Jenkins and A. V. Manohar, inWorkshop on Effective Field Theories of the Standard Model(1991)

    1991

  33. [33]

    Beltr´ an, G

    R. Beltr´ an, G. Cottin, J. G¨ unther, M. Hirsch, A. Titov, and Z. S. Wang, JHEP05, 238 (2025), [Erratum: JHEP 08, 204 (2025)], arXiv:2501.09065 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    J. Y. G¨ unther, J. de Vries, H. K. Dreiner, Z. S. Wang, and G. Zhou, JHEP01, 108 (2024), arXiv:2310.12392 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    P. D. Bolton, F. F. Deppisch, S. Kulkarni, C. Majumdar, and W. Pei, JHEP10, 199 (2025), arXiv:2502.06972 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Bertholet, C

    E. Bertholet, C. O. Dib, S. P. Gandelman, J. C. Helo, V. E. Lyubovitskij, M. Nayak, N. A. Neill, A. Soffer, and Z. S. Wang, JHEP10, 076 (2025), arXiv:2507.00359 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Braat, J

    P. Braat, J. de Vries, J. Groot, J. Y. G¨ unther, and J. Klari´ c, (2026), arXiv:2602.12745 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    G. Elor, M. Escudero, and A. Nelson, Phys. Rev. D99, 035031 (2019), arXiv:1810.00880 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  39. [39]

    A. E. Nelson and H. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D100, 075002 (2019), arXiv:1901.08141 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  40. [40]

    Alonso- ´Alvarez, G

    G. Alonso- ´Alvarez, G. Elor, A. E. Nelson, and H. Xiao, JHEP03, 046 (2020), arXiv:1907.10612 [hep-ph]. 20

    work page arXiv 2020

  41. [41]

    Alonso- ´Alvarez, G

    G. Alonso- ´Alvarez, G. Elor, and M. Escudero, Phys. Rev. D104, 035028 (2021), arXiv:2101.02706 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    J. P. Leeset al.(BaBar), Phys. Rev. D107, 092001 (2023), arXiv:2302.00208 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    J. P. Leeset al.(BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 201801 (2023), arXiv:2306.08490 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    C. O. Dib, J. C. Helo, V. E. Lyubovitskij, N. A. Neill, A. Soffer, and Z. S. Wang, JHEP02, 224 (2023), arXiv:2208.06421 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    Abumusabhet al.(Belle-II, Belle), (2026), arXiv:2601.07104 [hep-ex]

    M. Abumusabhet al.(Belle-II, Belle), (2026), arXiv:2601.07104 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2026

  46. [46]

    H. K. Dreiner, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys.21, 565 (2010), arXiv:hep-ph/9707435

    work page arXiv 2010

  47. [47]

    B. C. Allanach, A. Dedes, and H. K. Dreiner, Phys. Rev. D69, 115002 (2004), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 72, 079902 (2005)], arXiv:hep-ph/0309196

    work page arXiv 2004

  48. [48]

    Barbieret al., Phys

    R. Barbieret al., Phys. Rept.420, 1 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0406039

    work page arXiv 2005

  49. [49]

    R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Scripta90, 088004 (2015), arXiv:1503.06478 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2015

  50. [50]

    Davoudiasl, D

    H. Davoudiasl, D. E. Morrissey, K. Sigurdson, and S. Tulin, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 211304 (2010), arXiv:1008.2399 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2010

  51. [51]

    Baldes, N

    I. Baldes, N. F. Bell, A. Millar, K. Petraki, and R. R. Volkas, JCAP11, 041 (2014), arXiv:1410.0108 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2014

  52. [52]

    Baldes, N

    I. Baldes, N. F. Bell, K. Petraki, and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 181601 (2014), arXiv:1407.4566 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2014

  53. [53]

    Heeck, Phys

    J. Heeck, Phys. Lett. B813, 136043 (2021), arXiv:2009.01256 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    Barman, D

    B. Barman, D. Borah, and R. Roshan, Phys. Rev. D104, 035022 (2021), arXiv:2103.01675 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  55. [55]

    Goudelis, D

    A. Goudelis, D. Karamitros, P. Papachristou, and V. C. Spanos, Phys. Rev. D106, 023515 (2022), arXiv:2204.13554 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    C´ ıscar-Monsalvatje, A

    M. C´ ıscar-Monsalvatje, A. Ibarra, and J. Vandecasteele, JCAP01, 028 (2024), [Erratum: JCAP 10, E01 (2024)], arXiv:2307.02592 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    T. Li, M. A. Schmidt, and C.-Y. Yao, JHEP08, 221 (2024), arXiv:2406.11382 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    Blazek, P

    T. Blazek, P. Matak, J. Ramaj, and M. Sabova, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 801 (2025), arXiv:2504.15164 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Heeck and I

    J. Heeck and I. M. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 111804 (2025), arXiv:2506.08090 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    W.-Q. Fan, Y. Liao, X.-D. Ma, and H.-L. Wang, (2025), arXiv:2507.11844 [hep-ph]. 21

    work page arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    J. C. Helo, M. Hirsch, and T. Ota, (2025), arXiv:2510.14940 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Achasovet al., Front

    M. Achasovet al., Front. Phys. (Beijing)19, 14701 (2024), arXiv:2303.15790 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    Aiet al., Nucl

    X.-C. Aiet al., Nucl. Sci. Tech.36, 242 (2025), arXiv:2509.11522 [physics.acc-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 191901 (2023), arXiv:2307.07316 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  65. [65]

    W. H. Huang, T. Li, Q. Y. Li, H. Li, D. Liu, and X. T. Huang, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.2438, 012054 (2023)

    2023

  66. [66]

    T. Li, W. Huang, X. Huang, X. Ai, H. Li, and D. Liu, EPJ Web Conf.295, 03025 (2024)

    2024

  67. [67]

    X. Ai, X. Huang, T. Li, B. Qi, and X. Qin, Mod. Phys. Lett. A39, 2440006 (2024)

    2024

  68. [68]

    Agostinelliet al.(GEANT4), Nucl

    S. Agostinelliet al.(GEANT4), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506, 250 (2003)

    2003

  69. [69]

    Allisonet al., Nucl

    J. Allisonet al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A835, 186 (2016)

    2016

  70. [70]

    J. A. Grifols, E. Masso, and S. Peris, Phys. Lett. B220, 591 (1989)

    1989

  71. [71]

    J. R. Ellis, K. A. Olive, S. Sarkar, and D. W. Sciama, Phys. Lett. B215, 404 (1988)

    1988

  72. [72]

    Lau, Phys

    K. Lau, Phys. Rev. D47, 1087 (1993)

    1993

  73. [73]

    H. K. Dreiner, C. Hanhart, U. Langenfeld, and D. R. Phillips, Phys. Rev. D68, 055004 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0304289

    work page arXiv 2003

  74. [74]

    H. K. Dreiner, J.-F. Fortin, J. Isern, and L. Ubaldi, Phys. Rev. D88, 043517 (2013), arXiv:1303.7232 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2013

  75. [75]

    Profumo, Phys

    S. Profumo, Phys. Rev. D78, 023507 (2008), arXiv:0806.2150 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2008

  76. [76]

    H. K. Dreiner, M. Hanussek, J. S. Kim, and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D85, 065027 (2012), arXiv:1111.5715 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2012

  77. [77]

    T. C. Collaborationet al.(CMS), JHEP10, 244 (2019), arXiv:1908.04722 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2019

  78. [78]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP10, 062 (2020), arXiv:2008.06032 [hep-ex]

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP10, 062 (2020), arXiv:2008.06032 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2020

  79. [79]

    Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Nucl

    M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A614, 345 (2010), arXiv:0911.4960 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2010

  80. [80]

    Belle II Technical Design Report

    T. Abeet al.(Belle-II), (2010), arXiv:1011.0352 [physics.ins-det]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2010

Showing first 80 references.