New Physics Searches at the BESIII Experiment
Abstract
The Standard Model (SM) of particle physics, comprised of the unified electro-weak (EW) and Quantum Chromodynamic (QCD) theories, accurately explains almost all experimental results related to the micro-world, and has made a number of predictions for previously unseen particles, most notably the Higgs scalar boson, that were subsequently discovered. As a result, the SM is currently universally accepted as the theory of the fundamental particles and their interactions. However, in spite of its numerous successes, the SM has a number of apparent shortcomings including: many free parameters that must be supplied by experimental measurements; no mechanism to produce the dominance of matter over antimatter in the universe; and no explanations for gravity, the dark matter in the universe, neutrino masses, the number of particle generations, etc. Because of these shortcomings, there is considerable incentive to search for evidence for new, non-SM physics phenomena that might provide important clues about what a new, beyond the SM theory (BSM) might look like. Although the center-of-mass energies that BESIII can access are far below the energy frontier, searches for new, BSM physics are an important component of its research program. Here we describe ways that BESIII looks for signs of BSM physics by measuring rates for processes that the SM predicts to be forbidden or very rare, searching for non-SM particles such as dark photons, making precision tests of SM predictions, and looking for violations of the discrete symmetries and in processes for which the SM-expectations are immeasurably small.
I Introduction
The Standard Model consistently predicts the results of experimental measurements and has emerged as the only viable candidate theory for describing elementary particle interactions Weinberg (2018). In spite of its great success, there are a number of reasons to believe that the Standard Model (SM) is not the ultimate theory, including:
-
•
The SM has 19 free parameters that must be supplied by experimental measurements. These include the quark, lepton and Higgs masses, the mixing angles of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) quark-flavor mixing matrix, and the couplings of the electric, weak and QCD color forces.
-
•
As first pointed out by Sakharov Sakharov (1967), the matter-antimatter asymmetry of the universe implies the existence of sizable -violating interactions in nature. However, The established SM mechanism for violation fails to explain the matter-dominated universe by about ten orders of magnitude; there must be additional violating mechanisms in nature beyond those contained in the SM.
-
•
The model has no explanation for dark matter, which is, apparently, the dominant component of the mass of the universe.
-
•
The particles in the SM are arranged in three generations of colored quarks and three generations of leptons; particle interactions are mediated by three forces, the color, electromagnetic and weak forces. The theory provides no explanation for why the number of generations is three and it does not account in any way for gravity, the fourth force that is known to exist.
As a result, there have been a huge number of experimental efforts aimed finding “new physics,” which refers to new physical phenomena beyond the Standard Model (BSM) of particle physics. This may be, for example, a new fundamental particle, such as a fourth generation quark or lepton, or a new fundamental force carrier, such as a dark photon, high-mass gauge boson, a new Higgs-like meson, etc. Searches for new physics can be performed in two ways. One method is to look for direct production of new particles in collisions at high energy accelerators, for example at the Large Hadron Collider, and reconstruct it from its SM decay products. Another way is to measure precisely a decay process that can be accurately described by the SM, and look for deviations from the SM prediction of the decay rate. According to quantum field theory (QFT), new heavy particles can contribute to the decay process through virtual loop diagrams. These make precision measurements sensitive to new physics, and this technique is widely used in high intensity collider experiments such as BESIII Prasad (2019); Wang (2015); Godang (2013).
Here we review highlights of some of these activities at BESIII.
II Rare Processes
II.1 Search for flavor changing neutral currents (FCNC)
Flavor changing neutral current (FCNC) processes transform an up-type () or down-type () quark into another quark of the same type but with a different flavor. In the SM, these processes are mediated by the boson and are known as neutral currents. However, they are strongly suppressed by the Glashow–Iliopoulos–Maiani (GIM) cancellation Glashow et al. (1970) and only occur as second-order loop processes. In many extensions of the SM, virtual TeV-scale particles can contribute competing processes that lead to measurable deviations from SM-inferred transition rates or other properties. Hence studies of rare FCNC processes are suitable probes for new physics.
Recently, hints of discrepancies have been observed in the semi-leptonic FCNC processes of the -quark, () by the LHCb experiment Capriotti (2019): (1) The differential branching fractions measured as a function of the squared four-momentum transferred to the two leptons, , for several -meson decay modes are below the theoretical predictions Aaij et al. (2014a, 2015a, 2016a, 2015b); Detmold and Meinel (2016). The largest local discrepancy is a difference in the rate for decay from its SM-predicted value. (2) The ratios of branching fractions for decays involving muons and electrons, defined as and , which are unity in the SM (i.e. lepton-flavor universality), were measured to be Aaij et al. (2014b, 2017)
where the levels of deviations from the SM predictions are indicated. (3) Measurements of the quantity , which is the chiral asymmetry produced by the interference between the transversely and longitudinally polarized amplitudes in the decay , are and lower than the SM prediction in two intervals below the resonance mass Aaij et al. (2016b). Since these discrepancies could be evidence for new particles that would extend the SM, it is important to check if there are similar deviations in the charm sector.
While SM rates for FCNC transitions in the down-type - or -quark sectors are relatively frequent because of the large mass of the top quark contribution to the loop, those in the up-type -quark sector are especially rare due to the small masses of the intermediate down-like quarks in the loop that result in a strong GIM cancellation. For transition rates for charmed and charmonia particles that proceed via the SM loop contribution, dubbed as short distance (SD) effects, the expected branching fractions are typically between Greub et al. (1996); Fajfer et al. (2001a); Burdman et al. (2002); Fajfer et al. (2001b); Paul et al. (2011); Cappiello et al. (2013) and - Sanchis-Lozano (1994); Wang et al. (2008), respectively. For FCNC decays of charmed mesons, the measured rates are enhanced by a few orders of magnitude by SM contributions from long distance (LD) effects that proceed via di-lepton decays of ordinary , and vector mesons Paul et al. (2011); Cappiello et al. (2013). However, some extensions to the SM further enhance these FCNC processes, sometimes by orders of magnitude Prelovsek and Wyler (2001); Paul et al. (2010); Fajfer et al. (2001b); Hill (1995); Aulakh and Mohapatra (1982); Glashow and Weinberg (1977).
The BESIII experiment has searched for -quark FCNC processes in both charmed meson and charmonium decays. No significant signals for new physics are found in any of the investigated decay modes, and the inferred 90% confidence level (CL) upper limits on the branching fractions are summarized in Table 1.
-
•
For the mode, the upper limit is consistent with that previously set by the BaBar experiment Lees et al. (2012a). The BESIII result is the first experimental study of this decay that uses mesons produced at the open-charm threshold.
-
•
For the rare decays , where =light meson(s), searches for four-body decays of mesons are performed for the first time, and the upper limits for meson decays are, in general, one order of magnitude better than previous measurements Patrignani et al. (2016).
-
•
Searches for the FCNC decays and are performed for the first time. The upper limit on is two orders of magnitude more stringent than the best previous result, which was set by the BESII collaboration Ablikim et al. (2006a).
Mode | Data | at 90% CL | Ref. | Previous best |
Ablikim et al. (2015a) | ||||
Ablikim et al. (2018a) | – | |||
Ablikim et al. (2018a) | – | |||
Ablikim et al. (2018a) | – | |||
Ablikim et al. (2018a) | – | |||
Ablikim et al. (2018a) | ||||
Ablikim et al. (2018a) | ||||
Ablikim et al. (2018a) | ||||
Ablikim et al. (2018a) | ||||
Ablikim et al. (2018a) | ||||
Ablikim et al. (2018a) | ||||
Ablikim et al. (2018a) | ||||
B | Ablikim et al. (2017a) | |||
M | Ablikim et al. (2017a) | – | ||
M | Ablikim (2018) | – |
II.2 Prospects for BESIII rare decay searches
The BESIII FCNC search results mentioned above are based on data collected in 2009-2012, which included 1.31B and 448M event samples and a 2.93 fb-1 data sample that was accumulated at GeV, the peak energy of the resonance. BESIII has recently increased the data sample to 10B events and will eventually increase the sample to 3B events, and the data to 20 fb-1 (see Table 7.1 in ref. Ablikim et al. (2020a)). Since the results listed in Table 1 are mainly limited by statistics, when the full data are available and analyzed, the sensitivity levels of FCNC searches should improve, in most cases, by factors of , and decay branching fractions will be probed at the - levels. If no interesting signals are found, more stringent upper limits would be established that should further constrain the parameter spaces of a number of new physics models.
In contrast to FCNC processes, charged-current weak decays of charmonium states are allowed, but are expected to occur as very rare processes; the SM-predicted branching fractions are of the order - Sanchis-Lozano (1994), which means they would be difficult to detect at BESIII, even with the full 10B event data sample. However, some BSM calculations based on a two-Higgs-doublet model predict that the branching ratios of charmonium weak decays could be enhanced to be as large as Datta et al. (1999). BESIII searched for several Cabibbo-favored weak decays, such as the hadronic processes and Ablikim et al. (2014a), and the semi-leptonic process Ablikim et al. (2014b), and established 90% CL branching fraction upper limits in the - range. Searches for some Cabibbo-suppressed weak decays of the are currently underway at BESIII, with expected branching fraction sensitivity levels of about .
III Testing SM predictions for lepton couplings & CKM matrix elements
In the SM, the strength of charged-current weak interactions is governed by a single universal parameter, the Fermi constant . The three charged leptons, () all couple to the -boson with this strength, a feature called lepton-flavor universality, LFU. Although the quarks appeared, at first, to have different coupling strengths, this is because of a misalignment of the charge strong-interaction flavor eigenstates () and their weak-interactions counterparts (), as was first realized by Cabibbo in 1963 Cabibbo (1963). He hypothesized that the weak interaction flavor states were related to the strong-interaction states by an orthogonal rotation; the most general rotation matrix for three quark generations was first written down by Kobayashi and Maskawa in 1973 Kobayashi and Maskawa (1973). The universality of the quark- couplings is reflected by the unitarity of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix. The equality of the weak interaction-coupling strengths for the quarks and leptons is a feature that is specfic to the SM and is violated by many beyond-the-SM theories, such as those that include fourth generation quarks, additional weak vector bosons, or multiple Higgs particles.
III.1 Search for violations of charged lepton flavor universality (LFU)
The equality of the electron and muon couplings, and , has been established at the level, i.e. , by a comparison between the and partial decay widths measured by the NA62 experiment Lazzeroni et al. (2013) together with PDG values for the lifetime and the electron & muon masses Tanabashi et al. (2018). The best test of the equality of the -lepton coupling and muon couplings, , has similar precision and is from a BESIII measurement of the tau mass Ablikim et al. (2014c) together with with PDG values of the tau-lepton’s lifetime and leptonic decay branching fractions.
The possibility of LFU violation has attracted considerable recent attention because of measurements from BaBar Lees et al. (2012b), Belle Abdesselam et al. (2019) and LHCb Aaij et al. (2018) of the relative decay rates for the semileptonic processes and ( that seem to violate SM expectations. Specifically, the HFLAV Group’s recent averages of experimental measurements are Amhis et al. (2019):
(1) |
Here the discrepancies with LFU, if they are real and not just statistical fluctuations, are of order 10%, and motivate more careful checks of LFU in semileptonic and purely leptonic charmed particle decays with BESIII data.
III.1.1 BESIII tests of LFU
Charmed particle decay measurements at BESIII are summarized in detail elsewhere in this volume Li and Lyu (2020). Table 2 summarizes measurements that are relevant for LFU tests, where all the measurements agree with SM expectations within . The quantities in the last column, , which would be if radiative corrections and detailed considerations of the relevant form-factors were properly applied, are included as indicators of the sensitivity levels. According to these values, the most stringent BESIII sensitivity levels for LFU-violating effects are a factor of five better than those of the measurements (eqn. 1) but an order of magnitude poorer than the limits on from decay.
mode | ref. | SM pred. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
47.1K | Ablikim et al. (2019a) | |||||
70.7K | Ablikim et al. (2015b) | |||||
2.3K | Ablikim et al. (2018b) | |||||
6.3K | Ablikim et al. (2015b) | |||||
20.7K | Ablikim et al. (2016a) | |||||
26.0K | Ablikim et al. (2017b) | |||||
1.3K | Ablikim et al. (2018b) | |||||
3.4K | Ablikim et al. (2017b) | |||||
194 | Ablikim et al. (2020b) | |||||
491 | Ablikim et al. (2015c) | |||||
234 | Ablikim et al. (2020c) | |||||
373 | Ablikim et al. (2018c) | |||||
1.3K | Ablikim et al. (2017c) | |||||
104 | Ablikim et al. (2015d) | |||||
137 | Ablikim et al. (2019b) | |||||
400 | Ablikim et al. (2014d) | |||||
22.1K | Muramatsu et al. (2020) | |||||
1.1K | Ablikim et al. (2019c) |
III.1.2 Future prospects for LFU tests at BESIII
The most stringent BESIII tests for LFU-violating effects in charmed-particle decays are derived from measurements of and semileptonic decays, where the current sensitivities are at the level. These results are based on the analysis of the 2.93 fb-1 data sample accumulated at the resonance. When the analysis of the full 20 fb-1 data set is complete, the sensitivity levels of the LFU tests, which are now mostly statistically limited, will improve by factors of , and be in the sub-1% range. In this case, if the current discrepancy that BESIII sees in is real and the central value reported in Table 2 persists, its significance will increase to more than . The other BESIII measurement with interesting potential is the ratio of the and purely leptonic decay rates that is based on analyses of a 3.19 fb-1 data sample collected at MeV, where has a local maximum of 1 nb. In this case, the BESIII long-range plan includes an additional 3 fb-1 data sample at 4178 MeV, which would provide a improvement in sensitivity.
III.2 Unitarity of the CKM Matrix and the Cabibbo Angle Anomaly
The CKM matrix (see Fig. 1a) is the DNA of flavor physics; its elements characterize all of the SM weak charged current interactions of quarks. It defines a rotation in three-dimensions of flavor-space and, in the SM where there are three quark generations, it must be exactly unitary; any deviation from this would be a clear signal for new physics.
The unitarity condition for the top row of the CKM matrix is: . Experimentally, a high precision value of comes from an analysis of eight superallowed nuclear -decays Hardy and Towner (2016) corrected for electroweak effects. The latest result is Seng et al. (2018). A precise value of the ratio ratio is determined from a KLOE measurement of Ambrosino et al. (2006), the PDG 2018 world average for Tanabashi et al. (2018) and a FLAG average of LQCD evaluations of the pseudoscalar form-factor ratio Aoki et al. (2020). The value of , determined from -meson decays, is and is a negligible contributor to the unitarity condition Tanabashi et al. (2018). The combination of these results Seng et al. (2018),
(2) |
indicates a nominal deviation from unitarity that, if taken at face value, is strong evidence for a SM violation.
Since deviations from CKM unitarity would be a clear sign of new physics, the eqn. 2 result inspired further investigations. These included: independent determinations of based on the neutron lifetime Czarnecki et al. (2019); Seng et al. (2020) that returned consistent results, albeit with a slightly larger error; an independent evaluation of using and Bazavov et al. (2019) that found an even larger deviation from unitarity, but with a corresondingly larger error; and reexaminations of the nuclear physics corrections used in the nuclear -decay analyses for Seng et al. (2019); Gorchtein (2019) that did not change the central value, but indicated that the previous error that was assigned to these effects may have been somewhat underestimated. The current state of affairs is that the best current analyses of the existing data find an deviation from unitarity for the top row of the CKM matrix with a significance level that is somewhere in the range.

The strong generational hierarchy of the CKM quark-flavor mixing matrix is illustrated in Fig. 1a, where the Wolfenstein parameterization Wolfenstein (1983) is shown with shaded rectangles with areas that are proportional to . Transitions between different generations (i.e., further off-diagonal elements) are successively suppressed by additional factors of , where is the Cabibbo angle. A striking feature of the Wolfenstein formulation, and a characteristic of the SM, is that, to , the four entries in the upper-left corner of the matrix, i.e., all transitions involving () & () quarks, are well characterized by the single parameter, . The authors of ref. Grossman et al. (2019) argue that comparing the values derived from different () subprocesses is a more sensitive test for new physics than tests of the CKM matrix unitarity, and provide, in support of this claim, an example of a toy model that has a heavy gauge boson with different - and -quark couplings that demonstrates this. In Fig. 1b, values of derived from the nuclear -decay () and decays () transitions discussed in the previous paragraph are shown. The apparent discrepancy from a single, universal value is referred to as the Cabibbo angle anomaly.
Studies of transitions provide independent determinations. In the SM, ; a deviation between the value inferred from decays with the one evaluated from decays would be another clear indication of new physics. To date, this relation has not been strenuously tested. The PDG 2018 world-average value, , differs from that for by , where the uncertainty of the latter is nearly an order of magnitude poorer Tanabashi et al. (2018). The best determinations of to date are from statistically limited BESIII measurements of Ablikim et al. (2014d) and the ratio Ablikim et al. (2015b), both of which are based on analyses of BESIII’s 2.97 fb-1 sample of events that are discussed elsewere in this volume Li and Lyu (2020). The average value of the two measurements is plotted in Fig. 1b.
With the full 20 fb-1 data sample, the BESIII precision on should be improved by at least a factor of 2.5; if the result is the same as the current central value, the significance of the discrepancy would increase to about the level.
IV Searches for non-SM sources of violation
Searches for new sources of have been elevated to a new level of interest by the recent LHCb discovery of a violating asymmetry in the charmed quark sector; a difference between the branching fractions for or and to the same final states, with a magnitude of order Aaij et al. (2019); the measured violating asymmetry is at the high end of theoretical estimates for its SM value, which range from Golden and Grinstein (1989); Buccella et al. (1995); Bianco et al. (2003); Grossman et al. (2007) to Khodjamirian and Petrov (2017). Although the LHCb result is intriguing in that it may be a sign of the long-sought-for non-SM mechanism for , uncertainties in the SM calculations for this asymmetry make it impossible to either establish or rule out this possibility Saur and Yu (2020).
Violations of have never been observed in weak decays of strange hyperons; the current limit on asymmetry in hyperon decay is of order Barnes et al. (1996), which is two orders-of-magnitude above the highest conceivable SM effects Donoghue et al. (1986). A non-zero measurement of a asymmetry at the level of would be an unambiguous signature for new physics.
IV.1 Search for violation in decay
Parity violation in the weak interactions was discovered in 1957 Lee and Yang (1956); Wu et al. (1957). Immediately thereafter there was considerable interest is studying parity violations in strange hyperon decays that were predicted by Lee and Yang Lee and Yang (1957). For the weak decay process, where is one of the spin strange hyperons and is an octet baryon, parity violation allows for both - and -wave transitions, and the final states are characterized by the Lee-Yang parameters:
(3) |
where . If the initial-state has a non-zero polarization , the flight direction in the rest frame relative to the polarization direction, , is distributed as and, if is also non-zero, has an explicit parity-violating up-down asymmetry. The polarization of the daughter baryon, , depends on , , and the parameters as illustrated in Fig. 2a. If is conserved, the decay parameters for and are equal in magnitude but opposite in sign. (The parameters for are denoted by & .) Violations of symmetry would result in non-zero values for the parameters and , defined as
(4) |

Measuring for decay is not straight forward. Measurements of the up-down parity-violating asymmetry in determine the product , where is generally unknown. To extract , the polarization of the final-state proton must be measured. This was done in a series of pre-1975 experiments by scattering the final-state proton on carbon, with a world-average result of Bricman et al. (1978); this was the PDG value for 43 years, from 1976 until 2019.
BESIII measured and with fully reconstructed events. For this reaction, the joint angular distribution can be expressed as Fäldt and Kupsc (2017)
(5) |
where: is the production angle relative to the -beam direction (the distribution is ); is the complex phase difference between the and helicity amplitudes; and denotes , where ( ) are the () decay angles (see Fig. 2b). The -dependent (and ) polarization is given by
(6) |
The polarization is zero if the and helicity amplitudes are relatively real (i.e., ), in which case it is apparent from eqn. 5 that only the product can be measured and individual determinations of and cannot be extracted from the data. (Expressions for and are provided in ref. Fäldt and Kupsc (2017).)
When BESIII was being planned, it was generally thought that and that events would not be useful for tests. It was somewhat of a surprise when BESIII subsequently discovered that, in fact, the polarization of and hyperons produced in decays is substantial Ablikim et al. (2019d), as shown in Fig. 3a. With a sample of 420K fully reconstructed events in a 1.31B event sample, BESIII measured . This null result improved on the precision of the best previous measurement, Barnes et al. (1996), that was based on 96K events, by a factor of two. As a by-product of this measurement, BESIII made the world’s most precise measurement of , a result that is more than five standard deviations higher than the previous PDG average value. It is likely that all previous measurements were biased by a common systematic problem, probably related to the spin analyzing properties of carbon; the PDG 2019 value for is solely based on the BESIII value Tanabashi et al. (2018).

IV.2 Prospects for BESIII violation studies
The BESIII values for and mentioned in the previous paragraph were realized by an analysis of 1.3 B decays, which is a small subset of BESIII’s total 10B event sample. The analysis of the full data set is currently underway that, when done, will provide a factor-of-three improvement in sensitivity.
BESIII is currently applying a similar analysis to hyperon pairs, where preliminary results demonstrate that there is substantial transverse polarization (see Fig. 3b). In events, the decay parameter influences both the up-down decay asymmetry in the primary process, and the polarization of the daughter hyperons (see Fig. 3a) that can be determined from the decay asymmetry in the secondary decay. For a given sample of decays, the number of fully reconstructed events in which and are only about one quarter of the number of reconstructed events because of the smaller branching fraction and a lower detection efficiency. Nevertheless, this lower event number is compensated by the added information from the daughter decays. As a result, the sensitivity per event for the decay parameters is higher than that for parameters with events, and simulations show comparable precisions for and Adlarson and Kupsc (2019). In contrast to , where measuring the daughter proton’s polarization is impractical, in decays the daughter polarization is measured and can be determined; is potentially more sensitive to new physics than Gonzalez and Illana (1994).
In addition to the hyperons produced by , those produced as daughters in events are also useful for measurements. The rms polarization of hyperons produced via (see Fig. 3a) is . In contrast, the rms polarization for hyperons produced as a daughter particle in decay is (see Fig. 2a). Thus, and, since the sensitivity is proportional to but linear in , a from decay has nine times the equivalent statistical power of a from . Detailed estimates of BESIII’s ultimate statistical error for with the existing 10B event sample, including hyperons from decays, are reported in ref. Adlarson and Kupsc (2019) and summarized here in Table 3. The projected ultimate sensitivity is , which is an order of magnitude improvement on the pre-BESIII result Barnes et al. (1996).
reaction | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
18.9 | 3,200K | 0.0010 | 0.0049 | ||||||||
9.7 | 810K | 0.0018 | 0.0034 | 0.0016 | 0.0039 | ||||||
11.6 | 670K | 0.0019 | 0.0041 | 0.0017 | 0.0049 | ||||||
combined | 0.0013 | 0.0023 |
V Standard model forbidden processes
Cross sections for in the BESIII accessible regions are and the experiment typically records events/day. However, at the resonance peak, the cross section is b, and in a typical day of operation BESIII collects events. The cross section at the peak is b and the event rate is events/day. Thus, at the and peaks, BESIII has a high rate of events in a very clean experimental environment that are well suited for high sensitivity searches for a number of SM-model forbidden processes. About one third of the events decay via , where the triggering on, and detection of only the pair provides an unbiased “beam” of tagged mesons that can be used to search for decays to final states that would otherwise be undetectable.
V.1 Search for the Landau-Yang theorem forbidden decay
The Landau-Yang theorem states that a massive spin 1 meson cannot decay to two photons Landau (1948); Yang (1950). As a consequence, the decay mode is strictly forbidden. An unambiguous signal for would signal a breakdown of the spin-symmetry theorem of QFT, the underlying framework of the SM and its many proposed new physics extensions. (For a discussion of how QFT might be modified to accommodate a Landau-Yang theorem violation see ref. Gninenko et al. (2011).)

The PDG 2018 upper limit, Tanabashi et al. (2018), is entirely based on a BESIII measurement that uses tagged mesons that recoil from the system in decays Ablikim et al. (2014e), and is a factor of 20 times more sensitive than previous measurements. In a data sample containing 106M decays, events with two oppositely charged tracks and two -rays that satisfy a four-constraint energy-momentum kinematic fit to the hypothesis were selected. Figure 4a shows the mass recoiling against the tracks where there is a event peak at the mass that is consistent with being entirely due to the expected background from roughly equal numbers of and events in which the and decay to a pair of -rays with a large energy asymmetry and the low energy is undetected either because its energy is below the detection threshold or it outside of the fiducial acceptance region of the detector ().
V.1.1 Search for the -parity violating decay
A similar BESIII analysis searched for Ablikim et al. (2014e). Although this process does not violate the Landau-Yang theorem, it violates charge-parity () conservation. The weak interactions are known to violate -parity, but the expected branching fractions for weak-interaction-mediated decays are below the level of Wang et al. (2017). If were seen with a branching fraction that is higher than this, it would be imply a -parity violation in the electromagnetic interaction and be an indicator of new physics. This measurement is based on a search for decays to ; , with tagged mesons from decays. In this case kinematically constrained events, where the and are positively identified as such by the BESIII pid systems and the recoil mass is within MeV of . Figure 4b shows the invariant mass where there is no sign of a peak at MeV. A 90% CL upper limit on the size of the signal is events, which translates into a branching fraction upper limit of . This is the first experimental limit for this decay.
V.2 Search for lepton flavor violation in decays
The discovery of neutrino oscillations Fukuda et al. (1998) provided clear evidence for violations of lepton flavor conservation (LFV) in the neutrino sector. However, the SM translation of the neutrino results to the charged-lepton sector predicts LFV effects that are proportional to powers of the neutrino masses with branching fractions that are immeasurably small (). Thus, any observation of LFV at levels much higher than this would be clear evidence for new physics, such as grand unified (GUT) theories or the presence of extra dimensions. Although most attention is given to LFV searches in muon decay, tau decay and conversion experiments, in some theories LFV quarkonium decays, including decays, where , are promising reactions Bordes et al. (2001). BESIII searched for the LFV decay .

The best previous limit was a 2003 BESII result, Bai et al. (2003), that was based on an analysis of a sample of M events. This was improved by a 2013 BESIII result that used a sample of 230M events. In this analysis, the variables and are examined for events with two back-to-back and oppositely charged tracks, with one track positively identified as an electron and the other as muon. Events with detected -rays or additional tracks are rejected, and selected events are required to satisfy a four-constraint energy-momentum kinematic fit. The main background is expected to be from events in which one of the muons passes the electron identification requirements. Figure 5a shows a scatterplot of vs. for selected events, where the four events in the signal box are consistent with the background events that are expected. (This background level corresponds to a muon to electron misidentification probability of .) The 90% CL upper limit of that is established Ablikim et al. (2013a) is a factor of seven more stringent than the previous result.
V.3 Search for lepton/baryon number violations in
In addition to , another requirement that Sakharov listed for the production of the matter-antimatter symmetry of the universe is the existence of a mechanism for baryon/lepton number violation Sakharov (1967). Processes that violate baryon (B) and lepton number (L) but conserve their difference (B-L) occur in GUT theories Pati and Salam (1974). Experiments that search for B-violating decays of the proton have reported lifetime upper limits with spectacular sensitivities: e.g., years Abe et al. (2017). In contrast, limits for B-violating decays in the heavy quark sector are sparse and not remotely as sensitive. These include a 90% CL upper limit from CLEO Rubin et al. (2009) and BaBar branching fraction limits for and (here ) that range from a for the modes to a for the modes del Amo Sanchez et al. (2011).
The only result on B-violating quarkonium decays is a BESIII upper limit on that is based on an analysis of a sample of 1.31B decays. Quark line diagrams for this process in the context of the Pati-Salam model Pati and Salam (1974) are shown in Fig. 5b, where X and Y are virtual leptoquarks that mediate the decay. BESIII search searched for exclusive decay events where the decays to (). The invariant mass distribution for candidate events, shown as data points in Fig. 5c, has no events in the mass interval that is times the resolution and centered on the mass. The absence of any event candidates translates into a 90% CL frequentist upper limit of Ablikim et al. (2019e).
VI Searches for New, Beyond the Standard Model Particles
In spite of the success of the SM, particle physics still faces a number of mysteries and challenges, including the origin of elementary particle masses and the nature of dark matter (DM). The Higgs mechanism Higgs (1964) is a theoretically attractive way to explain the mass of elementary particles. However, the SM relation for the Higgs mass is a potentially divergent infinite sum of quadratically increasing terms that somehow add up to the finite value GeV, a SM feature that many theoretical physicists consider to be unnatural Susskind (1979). The existence of DM is inferred from a number of astrophysical and cosmological observations Jibrail et al. (2020). One possibility is that DM may be comprised of electrically neutral, weakly interacting, stable particles with a mass at the electroweak scale. However, none of the SM particles are good DM candidates and, from the perspective of theory and phenomenology, this implies that the SM is deficient and the quest for a more fundamental theory beyond the SM is strongly motivated. In some extensions of the SM, the naturalness and DM problems can be solved at once.
The naturalness problem can be solved by supersymmetry (SUSY) Martin (1997), where every SM particle has an as yet undiscovered partner with the same quantum numbers and gauge interactions but differs in spin by . The most economical and intensively studied version of SUSY is the minimal supersymmetric model (MSSM) Martin (1997), with superpartners that include:
spin-zero | sfermions: | left handed , right handed ; |
---|---|---|
spin- | gauginos: | a bino , three winos , gluinos ; |
spin- | higgsinos: | two . |
The two higgsinos can mix with the bino and the three winos to produce two chargino and four neutralino physical states. A discrete symmetry called -parity is introduced to make the lightest SUSY particle, usually the , stable, which makes it a nearly ideal DM candidate that is often denoted as simply . A further extension is the so-called next-to-minimal MSSM (NMSSM) Ellwanger et al. (2010); Maniatis (2010); Djouadi et al. (2008), in which a complex isosinglet field is added. The NMSSM has a rich Higgs sector containing three -even, two -odd, and two charged Higgs bosons. The mass of the lightest -odd scalar Higgs boson, the , may be less than twice the mass of charm quark, in which case it would be accessible at BESIII.
Although the lightest neutralino is an attractive DM candidate, the lack of any experimental evidence for it in either LHC experiments or direct detection experiments suggests that DM might be more complex than the neutralino of the SUSY models. Attempts to devise a unified explanation have led to a vast and diverse array of dark-sector models. These models necessarily have several sectors: a visible sector that includes all of the SM particles, a dark sector of particles that do not interact with the known strong, weak, or electromagnetic forces, and a portal sector that consists of particles that couple the visible and dark sectors. The latter may be vectors, axions, higgs-like scalars or neutrino-like fermions Essig et al. (2013); Alexander et al. (2016), of which vectors are the most frequently studied. The simplest scenario for the vector portal invokes a new force that is mediated by a gauge boson Holdom (1986) that couples very weakly to charged particles via kinetic mixing with the SM photon , with a mixing strength that is in the range between and Arkani-Hamed et al. (2009). This new boson is variously called a dark photon, hidden photon or boson, and is denoted as . The mass is expected to be low, on the order of MeV/ to GeV/ Arkani-Hamed et al. (2009) and, thus, it could be produced at the BEPCII collider in a variety of processes, depending on its mass.
VI.1 Search for , and invisible decays of light mesons
Both the light -odd NMSSM Higgs boson and dark photon have been searched for by BESIII. Since it is Higgs-like, the couples to SM fermions with a strength proportional to the fermion mass. For an with a mass below the pair production threshold, the decay is expected to be dominant. The can also serve as a portal to the dark sector with the invisible-final-state decay process . Similarly, as a portal between the SM and dark sectors, the can, in turn, either decay to , or visibly to a pair of light leptons or quarks, provided it is kinematically allowed.
BESIII results on searches for the , and invisible decays of light meson states are summarized in Table 4. The was searched for in () and () () decay candidate events in BESIII’s Ablikim (2016) and Ablikim et al. (2012) data samples. The sensitivity obtained with the data is five times better than that with the data. The combination of BaBar Lees et al. (2013) and BESIII Ablikim (2016) measurements constrain the to be mostly singlet. BESIII published three results on dark photon () searches in and decays with resulting 90% CL exclusion regions for as a function of the dark photon mass that are shown in Fig. 6. BESIII dark photon searches in () decays Ablikim et al. (2019f) and () decays Ablikim et al. (2019g) were among the first searches that were based on these channels Ablikim et al. (2017d). BESIII results for dark photon searches in initial state radiation events were based on two years of data taking and are competitive with BaBar results Lees et al. (2014) based on nine years of running. Invisible decays of light mesons produced decays were also searched for at BESIII. These include the first measurements for the and vector mesons that are copiously produced via and decays Ablikim et al. (2018d). For ()and () decays, the BESIII limits Ablikim et al. (2013b) are factors of six and three improvements over previous results from BESII Ablikim et al. (2006b). These results provide complementary information to studies of the nature of DM and constrain parameters of the phenomenological models.

Mode | Data | at 90% CL | ref. | |
M | Ablikim (2016) | |||
M | Ablikim et al. (2012) | |||
B | Ablikim et al. (2019f) | |||
Ablikim et al. (2019g) | ||||
Ablikim et al. (2017d) | ||||
B | Ablikim et al. (2018d) | |||
M | Ablikim et al. (2013b) | |||
VII Interactions with Other Experiments
The standard model of particle physics is a seamless structure in which measurements in one sector have profound impact on other, seemingly unrelated areas. Thus, for example, BESIII measurements of strong-interaction phases in hadronic decays of charmed mesons provide important input into determinations of the -violating angle in -meson decays by BelleII and LHCb. Similarly, BESIII measurements of the annihilation cross section for at energies below 2 GeV provide critical input to the interpretation of high energy tests of the SM at the Higgs (126 GeV) and top-quark(173 GeV) mass scales as well as the measurements of , the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon. The relation between BESIII measurements of strong phases in the charmed sector to measurements in the beauty sector are discussed elsewhere in this volume Li and Lyu (2020). Here we briefly review the impact of BESIIII cross section results on the interpretation of measurements.
VII.1 BESIII impact on the determination of
The measured value of from BNL experiment E821 Bennett et al. (2006) is 3.7 standard deviations higher than the SM prediction Aoyama et al. (2020), a discrepancy that has inspired elaborate follow-up experiments at Fermilab Grange et al. (2015) and J-PARC Otani (2015). As illustrated in Fig. 7a, the SM predicted value for is very sensitive to the effects of hadronic vacuum polarization (HVP) of the virtual photon, which are about 100 times larger than the current experimental uncertainty. The contributions from higher-order radiative corrections to the - vertex, so-called hadron light-by-light (HLbL) scattering, is of the same order as the current experimental error, but it has a 20% theoretical uncertainty that will be comparable to the expected error from the new round of experiments.
Vacuum polarization also has critical influence on precision tests of the electroweak theory that rely on a precise knowledge of , the running QED coupling constant. Because of vacuum polarization, Davier et al. (2017), about 6% below its long-distance value of . About half of this change is due to HVP.

VII.1.1 Precision measurement of vacuum polarization of virtual photons
Since HVP effects are non-perturbative, they cannot be directly computed from first principle QCD. Recent computer-based Lattice QCD (LQCD) calculations have made significant progress but the uncertainties are still large Miura (2019); Davies et al. (2020). The most reliable determinations to date of HVP contributions to and use dispersion relations with input from experimental measurements of cross sections for annihilation into hadrons Aoyama et al. (2020). The data used for the most recent determinations are mostly from the SND Achasov et al. (2006), BaBar Lees et al. (2012c), BESIII Ablikim et al. (2016b), CMD-2 Akhmetshin et al. (2004, 2007), and KLOE Anastasi et al. (2018) experiments. BaBar and KLOE operations have been terminated, leaving SND, CMD-3 Akhmetshin et al. (2017), and BESIII as the only running facilities with the capability to provide the improvements in precision that will be essential for the evaluation of with a precision that will match those of the new experimental measurements.
With data taken at GeV (primarily for studies of -meson decays) BESIII measured the cross sections for at between 0.6 and 0.9 GeV Ablikim et al. (2016b), which covers the peak, the major contributor to the HVP dispersion relation integral. These measurements used initial state radiation (ISR) events in which one of the incoming beam particles radiates a -ray with energy before annihilating at a reduced CM energy of . The relative uncertainty of the BESIII measurements is 0.9%, which is similar to the precision of the BaBar Lees et al. (2012c) and KLOE Anastasi et al. (2018) results. The BESIII measured values agree well with KLOE results for energies below 0.8 GeV but are systematically higher at higher energies; in contrast, BESIII results agree with BaBar at higher energies but are lower at lower energies. Detailed comparisons are shown in Fig. 7b. Nevertheless, the contributions of to the HVP calculation from these experiments have overall agreement within two standard deviations, and the observed 3.7 standard deviation difference between the calculated muon magnetic moment value and the E821 experimental measurement persists.
VII.1.2 Experimental input for data-driven HLbL determinations
The HLbL scattering contribution to the SM value, has a hadron loop (see Fig. 7a) that is non-perturbative and in a more complex environment than the HVP loop. As a result, its determination is not straightforward and has a rather volatile history (see ref. Melnikov (2016)). In this case, the loop integral is dominated by single mesons (, , ) but, since they couple to virtual photons, their time-like form factors at low values are involved. Until now, only high measurements of these form factors have been reported and models were used to extrapolate these to the low regions of interest. Recently, however, BESIII reported preliminary form-factor results for values in the range - GeV2 Redmer (2018) (see Fig. 7c). These are the first experimental results that include momentum transfers below GeV2, the relevant region for HLbL calculations. These, and measurements of the and form factors that are currently underway, will reduce the model dependence and, thus, the theoretical errors of the HLbL contribution to .
VII.2 Prospects for -related measurements at BESIII
Currently, the precision of the measurement (54 ppm Bennett et al. (2006)) is comparable to that of the SM calculation (37 ppm Aoyama et al. (2020)). However, since a four-fold improvement in the experimental precision is imminent, improvements in the theoretical precision are needed. These will require improved experimental input for the data-driven evauations of the HVP and HLbL terms and/or improved LQCD calculations. BESIII is improving the measurements used for the HVP term and providing light-meson form-factors for the HLbL determination. Moreover, precision BESIII measurements of various decay constants and form-factors provide calibration points that are used to validate LQCD techniques.
VIII Summary and Perspectives
In the search for new, beyond the standard model physics, there is no compelling theoretical guidance for where it might first show up. It may first appear at the energy frontier that is explored at the LHC, or at the intensity frontier that is pursued at lower energies. (Interestingly, the current most prominent candidate for BSM physics is the discrepancy in , which is about as far removed from the energy frontier as one can get.) A key aspect of any experiment is reach, i.e. the range of unexplored SM-parameter space that is explored. In this quest, BESIII is accumulating huge numbers of and events that support high sensitivity searches for low-mass non-SM particles, SM-forbidden decay processes, and non-SM violations in hyperon decays. In addition, high statistics samples of and mesons produced just above threshold in very clean experimental environments provide the means to search for new physics in the ()-() quark sector with world’s best precision. BESIII is continuing the BES program’s long history of steadily improving the precision of annihilation cross section measurements and light meson form factor determinations that are used to evaluate HVP and HLbL corrections that are needed for the interpretation of SM tests being done by other experiments.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported in part by National Key Basic Research Program of China under Contract No. 2015CB856700; Joint Large-Scale Scientific Facility Funds of the NSFC and CAS under Contract No. U1532257; the CAS President’s International Fellowship Initiative; and the Korean Institute for Basic Science under project code IBS-R016-D1.
References
- Weinberg (2018) S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 220001 (2018).
- Sakharov (1967) A. D. Sakharov, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 5, 32 (1967), [JETP Lett.5,24(1967); Sov. Phys. Usp.34,no.5,392(1991); Usp. Fiz. Nauk161,no.5,61(1991)].
- Prasad (2019) V. Prasad (BESIII), in An Alpine LHC Physics Summit 2019 (ALPS 2019) Obergurgl, Austria, April 22-27, 2019 (2019), eprint 1907.12058.
- Wang (2015) B. Wang, in Proceedings, Meeting of the APS Division of Particles and Fields (DPF 2015): Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, 4-8 Aug 2015 (2015), eprint 1511.00373.
- Godang (2013) R. Godang, EPJ Web Conf. 49, 15002 (2013), eprint 1302.2171.
- Glashow et al. (1970) S. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos, and L. Maiani, Phys. Rev. D 2, 1285 (1970).
- Capriotti (2019) L. Capriotti (LHCb), PoS ICHEP2018, 233 (2019).
- Aaij et al. (2014a) R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), JHEP 06, 133 (2014a), eprint 1403.8044.
- Aaij et al. (2015a) R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), JHEP 09, 179 (2015a), eprint 1506.08777.
- Aaij et al. (2016a) R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), JHEP 11, 047 (2016a), [Erratum: JHEP 04, 142 (2017)], eprint 1606.04731.
- Aaij et al. (2015b) R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), JHEP 06, 115 (2015b), [Erratum: JHEP 09, 145 (2018)], eprint 1503.07138.
- Detmold and Meinel (2016) W. Detmold and S. Meinel, Phys. Rev. D 93, 074501 (2016), eprint 1602.01399.
- Aaij et al. (2014b) R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 151601 (2014b), eprint 1406.6482.
- Aaij et al. (2017) R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), JHEP 08, 055 (2017), eprint 1705.05802.
- Aaij et al. (2016b) R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), JHEP 02, 104 (2016b), eprint 1512.04442.
- Greub et al. (1996) C. Greub, T. Hurth, M. Misiak, and D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. B 382, 415 (1996), eprint hep-ph/9603417.
- Fajfer et al. (2001a) S. Fajfer, P. Singer, and J. Zupan, Phys. Rev. D 64, 074008 (2001a), eprint hep-ph/0104236.
- Burdman et al. (2002) G. Burdman, E. Golowich, J. L. Hewett, and S. Pakvasa, Phys. Rev. D 66, 014009 (2002), eprint hep-ph/0112235.
- Fajfer et al. (2001b) S. Fajfer, S. Prelovsek, and P. Singer, Phys. Rev. D 64, 114009 (2001b), eprint hep-ph/0106333.
- Paul et al. (2011) A. Paul, I. I. Bigi, and S. Recksiegel, Phys. Rev. D 83, 114006 (2011), eprint 1101.6053.
- Cappiello et al. (2013) L. Cappiello, O. Cata, and G. D’Ambrosio, JHEP 04, 135 (2013), eprint 1209.4235.
- Sanchis-Lozano (1994) M. A. Sanchis-Lozano, Z. Phys. C 62, 271 (1994).
- Wang et al. (2008) Y.-M. Wang, H. Zou, Z.-T. Wei, X.-Q. Li, and C.-D. Lu, Eur. Phys. J. C 54, 107 (2008), eprint 0707.1138.
- Prelovsek and Wyler (2001) S. Prelovsek and D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. B 500, 304 (2001), eprint hep-ph/0012116.
- Paul et al. (2010) A. Paul, I. I. Bigi, and S. Recksiegel, Phys. Rev. D 82, 094006 (2010), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 83, 019901 (2011)], eprint 1008.3141.
- Hill (1995) C. T. Hill, Phys. Lett. B 345, 483 (1995), eprint hep-ph/9411426.
- Aulakh and Mohapatra (1982) C. Aulakh and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Lett. B 119, 136 (1982).
- Glashow and Weinberg (1977) S. L. Glashow and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 15, 1958 (1977).
- Lees et al. (2012a) J. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 85, 091107 (2012a), eprint 1110.6480.
- Patrignani et al. (2016) C. Patrignani et al. (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C 40, 100001 (2016).
- Ablikim et al. (2006a) M. Ablikim et al. (BES), Phys. Lett. B 639, 418 (2006a), eprint hep-ex/0604005.
- Ablikim et al. (2015a) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 91, 112015 (2015a), eprint 1505.03087.
- Ablikim et al. (2018a) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 97, 072015 (2018a), eprint 1802.09752.
- Ablikim et al. (2017a) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 96, 111101 (2017a), eprint 1710.02278.
- Ablikim (2018) M. Ablikim (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 97, 091102 (2018), eprint 1802.04057.
- Ablikim et al. (2020a) M. Ablikim et al., Chin. Phys. C 44, 040001 (2020a), eprint 1912.05983.
- Datta et al. (1999) A. Datta, P. O’Donnell, S. Pakvasa, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 60, 014011 (1999), eprint hep-ph/9812325.
- Ablikim et al. (2014a) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 89, 071101 (2014a), eprint 1402.4025.
- Ablikim et al. (2014b) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 90, 112014 (2014b), eprint 1410.8426.
- Cabibbo (1963) N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 531 (1963).
- Kobayashi and Maskawa (1973) M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 49, 652 (1973).
- Lazzeroni et al. (2013) C. Lazzeroni et al. (NA62), Phys. Lett. B 719, 326 (2013), eprint 1212.4012.
- Tanabashi et al. (2018) M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D98, 030001 (2018).
- Ablikim et al. (2014c) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 90, 012001 (2014c), eprint 1405.1076.
- Lees et al. (2012b) J. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 101802 (2012b), eprint 1205.5442.
- Abdesselam et al. (2019) A. Abdesselam et al. (Belle) (2019), eprint 1904.08794.
- Aaij et al. (2018) R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. D 97, 072013 (2018), eprint 1711.02505.
- Amhis et al. (2019) Y. S. Amhis et al. (HFLAV) (2019), eprint 1909.12524.
- Li and Lyu (2020) H. Li and X.-R. Lyu, Precision Standard Model tests with charmed hadron decays, In these proceedings (2020).
- Ablikim et al. (2019a) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 011804 (2019a), eprint 1810.03127.
- Ablikim et al. (2015b) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D92, 072012 (2015b), eprint 1508.07560.
- Ablikim et al. (2018b) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 171803 (2018b), eprint 1802.05492.
- Ablikim et al. (2016a) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 369 (2016a), eprint 1605.00068.
- Ablikim et al. (2017b) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 96, 012002 (2017b), eprint 1703.09084.
- Ablikim et al. (2020b) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 101, 072005 (2020b), eprint 2002.10578.
- Ablikim et al. (2015c) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 92, 071101 (2015c), eprint 1508.00151.
- Ablikim et al. (2020c) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 231801 (2020c), eprint 2003.12220.
- Ablikim et al. (2018c) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 97, 092009 (2018c), eprint 1803.05570.
- Ablikim et al. (2017c) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Lett. B 767, 42 (2017c), eprint 1611.04382.
- Ablikim et al. (2015d) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 221805 (2015d), eprint 1510.02610.
- Ablikim et al. (2019b) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 211802 (2019b), eprint 1908.08877.
- Ablikim et al. (2014d) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D89, 051104 (2014d), eprint 1312.0374.
- Muramatsu et al. (2020) H. Muramatsu et al. (2020), BESIII Analysis Memo BAM-00372, preliminary.
- Ablikim et al. (2019c) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 071802 (2019c), eprint 1811.10890.
- Hardy and Towner (2016) J. Hardy and I. S. Towner, PoS CKM2016, 028 (2016).
- Seng et al. (2018) C.-Y. Seng, M. Gorchtein, H. H. Patel, and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 241804 (2018), eprint 1807.10197.
- Ambrosino et al. (2006) F. Ambrosino et al. (KLOE), Phys. Lett. B632, 76 (2006), eprint hep-ex/0509045.
- Aoki et al. (2020) S. Aoki et al. (Flavour Lattice Averaging Group), Eur. Phys. J. C80, 113 (2020), eprint 1902.08191.
- Czarnecki et al. (2019) A. Czarnecki, W. J. Marciano, and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D100, 073008 (2019), eprint 1907.06737.
- Seng et al. (2020) C.-Y. Seng, X. Feng, M. Gorchtein, and L.-C. Jin (2020), eprint 2003.11264.
- Bazavov et al. (2019) A. Bazavov et al. (Fermilab Lattice, MILC), Phys. Rev. D99, 114509 (2019), eprint 1809.02827.
- Seng et al. (2019) C. Y. Seng, M. Gorchtein, and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Phys. Rev. D100, 013001 (2019), eprint 1812.03352.
- Gorchtein (2019) M. Gorchtein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 042503 (2019), eprint 1812.04229.
- Wolfenstein (1983) L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 1945 (1983).
- Grossman et al. (2019) Y. Grossman, E. Passemar, and S. Schacht (2019), eprint 1911.07821.
- Aaij et al. (2019) R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 211803 (2019), eprint 1903.08726.
- Golden and Grinstein (1989) M. Golden and B. Grinstein, Phys. Lett. B222, 501 (1989).
- Buccella et al. (1995) F. Buccella, M. Lusignoli, G. Miele, A. Pugliese, and P. Santorelli, Phys. Rev. D51, 3478 (1995), eprint hep-ph/9411286.
- Bianco et al. (2003) S. Bianco, F. L. Fabbri, D. Benson, and I. Bigi, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 26N7, 1 (2003), eprint hep-ex/0309021.
- Grossman et al. (2007) Y. Grossman, A. L. Kagan, and Y. Nir, Phys. Rev. D75, 036008 (2007), eprint hep-ph/0609178.
- Khodjamirian and Petrov (2017) A. Khodjamirian and A. A. Petrov, Phys. Lett. B774, 235 (2017), eprint 1706.07780.
- Saur and Yu (2020) M. Saur and F.-S. Yu, Sci. Bull. 65, 1428 (2020), eprint 2002.12088.
- Barnes et al. (1996) P. D. Barnes et al., Phys. Rev. C54, 1877 (1996).
- Donoghue et al. (1986) J. F. Donoghue, X.-G. He, and S. Pakvasa, Phys. Rev. D34, 833 (1986).
- Lee and Yang (1956) T. D. Lee and C.-N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 104, 254 (1956).
- Wu et al. (1957) C. S. Wu, E. Ambler, R. W. Hayward, D. D. Hoppes, and R. P. Hudson, Phys. Rev. 105, 1413 (1957).
- Lee and Yang (1957) T. D. Lee and C.-N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 108, 1645 (1957).
- Bricman et al. (1978) C. Bricman et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Lett. 75B, 1 (1978).
- Fäldt and Kupsc (2017) G. Fäldt and A. Kupsc, Phys. Lett. B772, 16 (2017), eprint 1702.07288.
- Ablikim et al. (2019d) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Nature Phys. 15, 631 (2019d), eprint 1808.08917.
- Adlarson et al. (2019) P. Adlarson et al. (2019), BESIII Document 803-v4, preliminary.
- Adlarson and Kupsc (2019) P. Adlarson and A. Kupsc, Phys. Rev. D100, 114005 (2019), eprint 1908.03102.
- Gonzalez and Illana (1994) E. Gonzalez and J. I. Illana, in Tau charm factory. Proceedings, 3rd Workshop, Marbella, Spain, June 1-6, 1993 (1994), pp. 525–538.
- Landau (1948) L. Landau, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 60, 207 (1948).
- Yang (1950) C.-N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 77, 242 (1950).
- Gninenko et al. (2011) S. Gninenko, A. Ignatiev, and V. Matveev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 26, 4367 (2011), eprint 1102.5702.
- Ablikim et al. (2014e) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 90, 092002 (2014e), eprint 1409.4040.
- Wang et al. (2017) T. Wang, Y. Jiang, H. Yuan, K. Chai, and G.-L. Wang, J. Phys. G 44, 045004 (2017), eprint 1604.03298.
- Fukuda et al. (1998) Y. Fukuda et al. (Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1562 (1998), eprint hep-ex/9807003.
- Bordes et al. (2001) J. Bordes, H.-M. Chan, and S. T. Tsou, Phys. Rev. D 63, 016006 (2001), eprint hep-ph/0006338.
- Ablikim et al. (2013a) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 87, 112007 (2013a), eprint 1304.3205.
- Pati and Salam (1974) J. C. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. D 10, 275 (1974), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 11, 703–703 (1975)].
- Ablikim et al. (2019e) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 99, 072006 (2019e), eprint 1803.04789.
- Bai et al. (2003) J. Bai et al. (BES), Phys. Lett. B 561, 49 (2003), eprint hep-ex/0303005.
- Abe et al. (2017) K. Abe et al. (Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. D 95, 012004 (2017), eprint 1610.03597.
- Rubin et al. (2009) P. Rubin et al. (CLEO), Phys. Rev. D 79, 097101 (2009), eprint 0904.1619.
- del Amo Sanchez et al. (2011) P. del Amo Sanchez et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 83, 091101 (2011), eprint 1101.3830.
- Higgs (1964) P. W. Higgs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 508 (1964).
- Susskind (1979) L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D 20, 2619 (1979).
- Jibrail et al. (2020) A. W. Jibrail, P. J. Elahi, and G. F. Lewis, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 492, 2369 (2020), eprint 1912.10595.
- Martin (1997) S. P. Martin, pp. 1–98 (1997), [Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys.21,1(2010); Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys.18,1(1998)], eprint hep-ph/9709356.
- Ellwanger et al. (2010) U. Ellwanger, C. Hugonie, and A. M. Teixeira, Phys. Rept. 496, 1 (2010), eprint 0910.1785.
- Maniatis (2010) M. Maniatis, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25, 3505 (2010), eprint 0906.0777.
- Djouadi et al. (2008) A. Djouadi et al., JHEP 07, 002 (2008), eprint 0801.4321.
- Essig et al. (2013) R. Essig et al., in Proceedings, 2013 Community Summer Study on the Future of U.S. Particle Physics: Snowmass on the Mississippi (CSS2013): Minneapolis, MN, USA, July 29-August 6, 2013 (2013), eprint 1311.0029, URL http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C1307292/docs/IntensityFrontier/NewLight-17.pdf.
- Alexander et al. (2016) J. Alexander et al., in Dark Sectors 2016 Workshop: Community Report (2016), eprint 1608.08632.
- Holdom (1986) B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B 166, 196 (1986).
- Arkani-Hamed et al. (2009) N. Arkani-Hamed, D. P. Finkbeiner, T. R. Slatyer, and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D 79, 015014 (2009), eprint 0810.0713.
- Ablikim (2016) M. Ablikim (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 93, 052005 (2016), eprint 1510.01641.
- Ablikim et al. (2012) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 85, 092012 (2012), eprint 1111.2112.
- Lees et al. (2013) J. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 87, 031102 (2013), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 87, 059903 (2013)], eprint 1210.0287.
- Ablikim et al. (2019f) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 99, 012006 (2019f), eprint 1810.03091.
- Ablikim et al. (2019g) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 99, 012013 (2019g), eprint 1809.00635.
- Ablikim et al. (2017d) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Lett. B 774, 252 (2017d), eprint 1705.04265.
- Lees et al. (2014) J. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 201801 (2014), eprint 1406.2980.
- Ablikim et al. (2018d) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 98, 032001 (2018d), eprint 1805.05613.
- Ablikim et al. (2013b) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 87, 012009 (2013b), eprint 1209.2469.
- Ablikim et al. (2006b) M. Ablikim et al. (BES), Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 202002 (2006b), eprint hep-ex/0607006.
- Pospelov (2009) M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. D 80, 095002 (2009), eprint 0811.1030.
- Bennett et al. (2006) G. Bennett et al. (Muon g-2), Phys. Rev. D 73, 072003 (2006), eprint hep-ex/0602035.
- Aoyama et al. (2020) T. Aoyama et al. (2020), eprint 2006.04822.
- Grange et al. (2015) J. Grange et al. (Muon g-2) (2015), eprint 1501.06858.
- Otani (2015) M. Otani (E34), JPS Conf. Proc. 8, 025008 (2015).
- Davier et al. (2017) M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu, and Z. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 827 (2017), eprint 1706.09436.
- Achasov et al. (2006) M. Achasov et al., J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 103, 380 (2006), eprint hep-ex/0605013.
- Akhmetshin et al. (2004) R. Akhmetshin et al. (CMD-2), Phys. Lett. B 578, 285 (2004), eprint hep-ex/0308008.
- Akhmetshin et al. (2007) R. Akhmetshin et al. (CMD-2), Phys. Lett. B 648, 28 (2007), eprint hep-ex/0610021.
- Lees et al. (2012c) J. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 86, 032013 (2012c), eprint 1205.2228.
- Anastasi et al. (2018) A. Anastasi et al. (KLOE-2), JHEP 03, 173 (2018), eprint 1711.03085.
- Ablikim et al. (2016b) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Lett. B 753, 629 (2016b), eprint 1507.08188.
- Keshavarzi et al. (2018) A. Keshavarzi, D. Nomura, and T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D 97, 114025 (2018), eprint 1802.02995.
- Redmer (2018) C. Redmer (BESIII), in 13th Conference on the Intersections of Particle and Nuclear Physics (2018), eprint 1810.00654.
- Behrend et al. (1991) H. Behrend et al. (CELLO), Z. Phys. C 49, 401 (1991).
- Gronberg et al. (1998) J. Gronberg et al. (CLEO), Phys. Rev. D 57, 33 (1998), eprint hep-ex/9707031.
- Aubert et al. (2009) B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 80, 052002 (2009), eprint 0905.4778.
- Uehara et al. (2012) S. Uehara et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D 86, 092007 (2012), eprint 1205.3249.
- Miura (2019) K. Miura, PoS LATTICE2018, 010 (2019), eprint 1901.09052.
- Davies et al. (2020) C. Davies et al. (Fermilab Lattice, LATTICE-HPQCD, MILC), Phys. Rev. D 101, 034512 (2020), eprint 1902.04223.
- Akhmetshin et al. (2017) R. Akhmetshin et al., Phys. Lett. B 768, 345 (2017), eprint 1612.04483.
- Melnikov (2016) K. Melnikov, EPJ Web Conf. 118, 01020 (2016).