pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.01791 · v1 · pith:UMUOS74Wnew · submitted 2026-06-01 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-ex

Probing the dark axion portal via J/psi decays at BESIII and STCF

Zeren Simon Wang , Dazhuang He , Yu Zhang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 14:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-ex
keywords dark axion portalJ/ψ decaysBESIIISTCFmono-photon signatureaxionlike particledark photonexclusion sensitivity
0
0 comments X

The pith

Existing BESIII data can exclude previously unexplored regions of the dark axion portal parameter space via mono-photon J/ψ decays.

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

The paper investigates rare J/ψ decays into an axionlike particle and a dark photon in the dark axion portal model at BESIII and the future STCF collider. It performs Monte Carlo simulations to estimate the exclusion power on the portal coupling for different particle masses, including background contributions. A sympathetic reader cares because this targets a specific mechanism that could connect dark matter candidates to detectable particles in a controlled collider environment. The results show that current data already accesses new parts of the parameter space, with future data providing significantly better reach.

Core claim

In the dark axion portal, the decay J/ψ → a γ' produces a mono-photon signature that can be used to set limits on the coupling G_aγγ'. Simulations indicate that the BESIII dataset can exclude new areas in the coupling-mass plane, and STCF can improve the sensitivity by about an order of magnitude.

What carries the argument

The mono-photon final state from J/ψ decays to axionlike particle and dark photon, serving as the probe for the portal coupling across mass values.

If this is right

  • The existing BESIII dataset has exclusion sensitivity to new regions of the dark axion portal parameter space.
  • The future STCF can improve the sensitivity by roughly an order of magnitude.
  • The reach is calculated as a function of the ALP and dark photon masses.
  • Background events are included in the sensitivity estimates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This mono-photon search could be extended to other vector meson decays for additional coverage of the parameter space.
  • The results provide a benchmark for comparing with direct dark photon or ALP searches at different facilities.
  • Accurate background modeling is crucial, suggesting that data-driven methods could refine the projections.

Load-bearing premise

The Monte Carlo simulations correctly capture signal efficiencies, background rates, and detector response for the mono-photon final state in J/ψ decays at both BESIII and STCF.

What would settle it

Searching for mono-photon events in the existing BESIII J/ψ dataset and finding event counts consistent with background expectations in the mass ranges where sensitivity is claimed would support the exclusion reach; a significant excess would indicate either new physics or underestimated backgrounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.01791 by Dazhuang He, Yu Zhang, Zeren Simon Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The Feynman diagram depicting the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The proper decay length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Exclusion reach from the existing BESIII dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Large numbers of $J/\psi$ mesons can be resonantly produced at BESIII and STCF at the center-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}=3.097$ GeV. Such $J/\psi$ mesons may undergo rare decays into an axionlike particle (ALP) $a$ and a dark photon $\gamma'$ in the theoretical framework of the dark axion portal. In this work, we investigate the exclusion reach of the existing BESIII dataset together with the projected sensitivity of STCF, focusing on the mono-photon signature. We perform Monte Carlo simulations and estimate the exclusion reach in the portal coupling $G_{a\gamma\gamma'}$ as a function of the ALP and dark-photon masses, taking background events into account. Our results indicate that the existing BESIII dataset already has exclusion sensitivity to previously unexplored regions of the dark axion portal parameter space, while the future STCF can further improve the sensitivity by roughly an order of magnitude.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that Monte Carlo simulations of J/ψ → a γ' decays (with mono-photon signature) at √s=3.097 GeV show that the existing BESIII dataset already excludes previously unexplored regions of the dark axion portal parameter space in G_aγγ' as a function of m_a and m_γ', while the projected STCF luminosity improves the sensitivity by roughly an order of magnitude, with backgrounds included in the MC.

Significance. If the MC projections are reliable, the work would set new limits on a light dark-sector portal model using existing and near-future e+e- data, complementing other ALP and dark-photon searches.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Monte Carlo section] Abstract and method description: the central exclusion-reach claim rests on the accuracy of the simulated background rate (after all selection cuts) in the mono-photon channel. No details are provided on background modeling choices (e.g., radiative J/ψ decays, beam-related photons, mis-ID rates), systematic uncertainties, or validation against data, which directly affects both the BESIII and STCF projections.
  2. [Results / sensitivity plots] The mass-dependent efficiency and kinematic acceptance enter the limit-setting procedure; any mismatch between MC and reality in these quantities would propagate to the quoted sensitivity curves in G_aγγ'.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] Clarify the precise definition of the portal coupling G_aγγ' and its relation to the underlying Lagrangian parameters.
  2. [Simulation setup] Add a table or explicit statement of the assumed integrated luminosities for BESIII and STCF.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The comments correctly identify areas where additional methodological detail is needed to support the Monte Carlo-based projections. We will revise the manuscript to address these points.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Monte Carlo section] Abstract and method description: the central exclusion-reach claim rests on the accuracy of the simulated background rate (after all selection cuts) in the mono-photon channel. No details are provided on background modeling choices (e.g., radiative J/ψ decays, beam-related photons, mis-ID rates), systematic uncertainties, or validation against data, which directly affects both the BESIII and STCF projections.

    Authors: We agree that the current manuscript lacks sufficient detail on background modeling. In the revised version we will expand the Monte Carlo section to describe the modeling of radiative J/ψ decays, beam-related photons, and particle mis-identification rates. We will also add a dedicated paragraph on the systematic uncertainties assigned to the background rate after selection cuts and on any cross-checks performed against existing BESIII data samples. These additions will apply to both the existing-data and STCF projections. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results / sensitivity plots] The mass-dependent efficiency and kinematic acceptance enter the limit-setting procedure; any mismatch between MC and reality in these quantities would propagate to the quoted sensitivity curves in G_aγγ'.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the quoted sensitivity depends on the accuracy of the mass-dependent efficiencies and acceptances obtained from simulation. In the revision we will include a short discussion of possible sources of mismatch between MC and data (e.g., photon reconstruction efficiency, angular resolution) together with a conservative estimate of the associated uncertainty on the exclusion contours. This will be presented alongside the main sensitivity curves. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in Monte Carlo-based sensitivity projections

full rationale

The paper estimates exclusion reach for the dark axion portal via Monte Carlo simulations of J/ψ → a γ' decays and background modeling at BESIII and STCF. These are forward projections of experimental sensitivity as a function of masses and coupling G_aγγ', not theoretical derivations or fits that reduce to the input parameters by construction. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the provided text. The method relies on external simulation assumptions for efficiencies and backgrounds, which are independent of the target parameter space and do not create a closed loop. This is a standard phenomenological sensitivity study with no reduction of the claimed results to the inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions of particle production at e+e- colliders and detector modeling; the dark axion portal framework and its particles are taken from prior theory without new evidence supplied here.

axioms (2)
  • standard math J/ψ production cross-section and decay branching ratios at sqrt(s) = 3.097 GeV follow known resonance properties
    Invoked to normalize the expected number of J/ψ events in the simulation.
  • domain assumption Monte Carlo tools accurately model signal acceptance and background processes for the mono-photon signature
    Required for translating simulated events into exclusion limits.
invented entities (1)
  • ALP a and dark photon γ' in the dark axion portal no independent evidence
    purpose: Hypothetical particles whose coupling G_aγγ' is being probed
    Introduced by the theoretical framework being tested; no independent evidence or falsifiable prediction outside the model is provided.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5705 in / 1452 out tokens · 42841 ms · 2026-06-28T14:01:06.512442+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

64 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. E. Shrock, Phys. Lett. B96, 159 (1980)

    1980

  2. [2]

    R. E. Shrock, Phys. Rev. D24, 1232 (1981)

    1981

  3. [3]

    R. E. Shrock, Phys. Rev. D24, 1275 (1981)

    1981

  4. [4]

    O’Connell, M

    D. O’Connell, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D75, 037701 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0611014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  5. [5]

    J. D. Wells, , 283 (2008), arXiv:0803.1243 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    C. Bird, P. Jackson, R. V. Kowalewski, and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 201803 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0401195

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  7. [7]

    Pospelov, A

    M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and M. B. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B662, 53 (2008), arXiv:0711.4866 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    Krnjaic, Phys

    G. Krnjaic, Phys. Rev. D94, 073009 (2016), arXiv:1512.04119 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  9. [9]

    Boiarska, K

    I. Boiarska, K. Bondarenko, A. Boyarsky, V. Gorkavenko, M. Ovchynnikov, and A. Sokolenko, JHEP11, 162 (2019), arXiv:1904.10447 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    L. B. Okun, Sov. Phys. JETP56, 502 (1982)

    1982

  11. [11]

    Galison and A

    P. Galison and A. Manohar, Phys. Lett. B136, 279 (1984)

    1984

  12. [12]

    Holdom, Phys

    B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B166, 196 (1986)

    1986

  13. [13]

    Boehm and P

    C. Boehm and P. Fayet, Nucl. Phys. B683, 219 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0305261

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  14. [14]

    Pospelov, Phys

    M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. D80, 095002 (2009), arXiv:0811.1030 [hep-ph]. 3 As mentioned in Sec. I, we ignore theZ-boson contributions to the signal process in this work since we study low-energye +e− collider experiments BESIII and STCF. 4 We note, however, in Ref. [64], a factor of 4 is missing in its Eq. (7) for the expression of the matrix element ofJ/ψ→γν¯ν

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  15. [15]

    Curtin, R

    D. Curtin, R. Essig, S. Gori, and J. Shelton, JHEP02, 157 (2015), arXiv:1412.0018 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  16. [16]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  17. [17]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. D16, 1791 (1977)

    1977

  18. [18]

    Witten, Phys

    E. Witten, Phys. Lett. B149, 351 (1984)

    1984

  19. [19]

    J. P. Conlon, JHEP05, 078 (2006), arXiv:hep- th/0602233

    arXiv 2006

  20. [20]

    Arkani-Hamed, L

    N. Arkani-Hamed, L. Motl, A. Nicolis, and C. Vafa, JHEP06, 060 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0601001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  21. [21]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D81, 123530 (2010), arXiv:0905.4720 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  22. [22]

    Cicoli, M

    M. Cicoli, M. Goodsell, and A. Ringwald, JHEP10, 146 (2012), arXiv:1206.0819 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  23. [23]

    Kaneta, H.-S

    K. Kaneta, H.-S. Lee, and S. Yun, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 101802 (2017), arXiv:1611.01466 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  24. [24]

    Kaneta, H.-S

    K. Kaneta, H.-S. Lee, and S. Yun, Phys. Rev. D95, 115032 (2017), arXiv:1704.07542 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  25. [25]

    Broadberry, S

    E. Broadberry, S. Das, A. Hook, and G. Mar- ques Tavares, JHEP03, 215 (2025), arXiv:2408.03370 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 221801 (2015), arXiv:1504.07551 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  27. [27]

    K. Choi, H. Kim, and T. Sekiguchi, Phys. Rev. D95, 075008 (2017), arXiv:1611.08569 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  28. [28]

    Domcke, K

    V. Domcke, K. Schmitz, and T. You, JHEP07, 126 (2022), arXiv:2108.11295 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    deNiverville and H.-S

    P. deNiverville and H.-S. Lee, Phys. Rev. D100, 055017 (2019), arXiv:1904.13061 [hep-ph]. 7

    arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    A. S. Zhevlakov, D. V. Kirpichnikov, and V. E. Lyubovitskij, Phys. Rev. D106, 035018 (2022), arXiv:2204.09978 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    S. N. Gninenko, N. V. Krasnikov, V. E. Lyubovitskij, S. Kuleshov, A. S. Zhevlakov, I. V. Voronchikhin, and D. V. Kirpichnikov, (2026), arXiv:2602.11405 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    deNiverville, H.-S

    P. deNiverville, H.-S. Lee, and M.-S. Seo, Phys. Rev. D 98, 115011 (2018), arXiv:1806.00757 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  33. [33]

    O. E. Kalashev, A. Kusenko, and E. Vitagliano, Phys. Rev. D99, 023002 (2019), arXiv:1808.05613 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  34. [34]

    Deniverville, H.-S

    P. Deniverville, H.-S. Lee, and Y.-M. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 103, 075006 (2021), arXiv:2011.03276 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    A. Hook, G. Marques-Tavares, and C. Ristow, JHEP06, 167 (2021), arXiv:2105.06476 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    A. Hook, G. Marques-Tavares, and C. Ristow, JHEP05, 086 (2024), arXiv:2306.13135 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    H. Hong, U. Min, M. Son, and T. You, JHEP03, 155 (2024), arXiv:2310.19544 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Jod lowski, Phys

    K. Jod lowski, Phys. Rev. D108, 115017 (2023), arXiv:2305.05710 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Jod lowski, JHEP08, 022 (2025), arXiv:2411.19196 [hep-ph]

    K. Jod lowski, JHEP08, 022 (2025), arXiv:2411.19196 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Ness and B

    N. Ness and B. Cimring, (2025), arXiv:2512.11975 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Y. Shen, J. Tang, L. Wang, Y. Wu, and L. Yang, (2026), arXiv:2603.24050 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Nucl

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  43. [43]

    Achasovet al., Front

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

    arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Aiet al., Nucl

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

    arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Ejlli, Eur

    D. Ejlli, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 63 (2018), arXiv:1609.06623 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  46. [46]

    Brambillaet al.(Quarkonium Working Group), (2004), 10.5170/CERN-2005-005, arXiv:hep- ph/0412158

    N. Brambillaet al.(Quarkonium Working Group), (2004), 10.5170/CERN-2005-005, arXiv:hep- ph/0412158

    work page doi:10.5170/cern-2005-005 2004

  47. [47]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

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

    2024

  48. [48]

    Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys. Rev. D96, 112008 (2017), arXiv:1707.05178 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  49. [49]

    Liu, Y.-H

    Z. Liu, Y.-H. Xu, and Y. Zhang, JHEP06, 009 (2019), arXiv:1903.12114 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  50. [50]

    Zhang, W.-T

    Y. Zhang, W.-T. Zhang, M. Song, X.-A. Pan, Z.-M. Niu, and G. Li, Phys. Rev. D100, 115016 (2019), arXiv:1907.07046 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  51. [51]

    Liu and Y

    Z. Liu and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D99, 015004 (2019), arXiv:1808.00983 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  52. [52]

    D. M. Asneret al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. A24, S1 (2009), arXiv:0809.1869 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  53. [53]

    Y. Meng, N. Li, C. Liu, H. Yan, K.-L. Zhang, and X.-Z. Zhang, (2026), arXiv:2601.18209 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2026

  54. [54]

    Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Chin

    M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Chin. Phys. C46, 074001 (2022), arXiv:2111.07571 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    S. N. Gninenko, Phys. Rev. D85, 055027 (2012), arXiv:1112.5438 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  56. [56]

    S. N. Gninenko, Phys. Lett. B713, 244 (2012), arXiv:1204.3583 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  57. [57]

    Blumleinet al., Z

    J. Blumleinet al., Z. Phys. C51, 341 (1991)

    1991

  58. [58]

    Blumlein and J

    J. Blumlein and J. Brunner, Phys. Lett. B701, 155 (2011), arXiv:1104.2747 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  59. [59]

    Aubertet al.(BaBar), in34th International Con- ference on High Energy Physics(2008) arXiv:0808.0017 [hep-ex]

    B. Aubertet al.(BaBar), in34th International Con- ference on High Energy Physics(2008) arXiv:0808.0017 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  60. [60]

    Akerset al.(OPAL), Z

    R. Akerset al.(OPAL), Z. Phys. C65, 47 (1995)

    1995

  61. [61]

    Abreuet al.(DELPHI), Z

    P. Abreuet al.(DELPHI), Z. Phys. C74, 577 (1997)

    1997

  62. [62]

    Abdallahet al.(DELPHI), Eur

    J. Abdallahet al.(DELPHI), Eur. Phys. J. C38, 395 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0406019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  63. [63]

    G. Hao, Y. Jia, C.-F. Qiao, and P. Sun, JHEP02, 057 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0612173

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  64. [64]

    Gao, Phys

    D.-N. Gao, Phys. Rev. D90, 077501 (2014), arXiv:1408.4552 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014