Tests of the Atomki anomaly in lepton pair decays of heavy mesons
Abstract
The anomalies recently reported in lepton pair transitions of 8Be∗ and 4He nuclei may be attributed to the existence of a feebly interacting light vector boson . We study the effects of this hypothetic particle in the semileptonic decays ( a meson) in the framework of the HQET+VMD model. Using current bounds and the universality assumption of the boson to quarks, we find that decays of and mesons can be importantly enhanced relative to the dominant photon-mediated contributions. Dedicated experimental searches at current heavy meson factories may confirm the existence of this light boson or set stronger bounds of their couplings to ordinary matter.
I Introduction
The existence of a light vector boson weakly coupled to Standard Model (SM) fermions, has been suggested as a solution to the observed discrepancy between the SM prediction and the experimental measurement of the muon magnetic moment anomaly (see for example Fayet:2007ua ; Pospelov:2008zw ). It may be also a good candidate as a mediator of dark and ordinary matter interactions Fayet:2007ua ; Pospelov:2008zw . Several strategies aiming their detection in different collider and fixed target experiments have not found any signal so far Essig:2013lka ; wfip2020 , but have excluded different regions in the mass and coupling strenghts of parameter space. Theoretically, different models can accomodate a light vector boson and its required interactions through dimension-four kinetic mixing with SM neutral gauge bosons and their interactions with fermionic currents of SM or dark matter particles Fayet:2007ua ; Pospelov:2008zw ; Essig:2013lka .
The anomalies recently reported in the invariant-mass spectrum and angular distribution of lepton pairs produced in 8Be∗ transitions to its ground state Krasznahorkay:2015iga , reinforces the interest in searches of light vector bosons. The observed anomalies seems to require the existence of a spin-1 boson named Krasznahorkay:2015iga ; Feng:2016jff ; Feng:2016ysn with mass MeV and a relative ratio Feng:2016ysn . Couplings to standard model first-generation fermions of (in units of the the electron charge), required to explain this ratio is not discarded by other data. More recently, the same group seems to confirm the particle in studies of the transitions of 4He Krasznahorkay:2019lyl . Several new physics extensions of the SM have been proposed in the literature with the required couplings to interpret the Atomki anomaly, including enlarged Higgs and/or gauge sectors (see, for instance, Refs. Feng:2016ysn ; DelleRose:2017xil ; DelleRose:2018eic ; DelleRose:2018pgm ; Seto:2020jal ; Nomura:2020kcw ). Despite the excitement generated by these anomalies, one must be warned that the addition of radiative corrections to the leading one photon exchange amplitude may be responsible Aleksejevs:2021zjw for generating the bumps reported in the angle and mass spectrum of electron-positron pairs in 8Be∗ transitions.
The almost isosinglet nature and the small mass difference of nuclei involved in 8Be∗ decay provides an ideal place to observe this light boson, in case it exists. Mixing of nuclear isospin states Krasznahorkay:2019lyl ; Feng:2016ysn ; Feng:2020mbt and other nuclear interference effects Zhang:2017zap can only partially explain the observed anomaly. Further studies in analogous systems will be very important in order to establish or discard this light boson. In the present letter, we propose the study of decays, where is a heavy spin-0 (spin-1) meson. Previous related studies include: 1) decays and associated production of mesons at BESIII and Belle II experiments, recently reported in Ban:2020uii and, 2) a search proposal at LHCb of with displaced vertex or resonant production of the dark photon was detailed in Ref. Ilten:2015hya . decays seem to be interesting to further test the Atomki anomaly: on the one hand, the mass-splitting in heavy mesons is large enough (see Table 1) to produce the boson on-shell; on the other hand, strong decays of are either very suppressed of forbidden by kinematics, leaving electromagnetic decays as dominant. Furthermore, the large amount of data produced at heavy meson factories would allow to test the proposed channels in the near future.
Transition | (MeV) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
140.603(15) | [ PDG2020 ] | |||
142.014(30) | [ PDG2020 ] | |||
143.8(4) | () [ PDG2020 ] | |||
45.37(21) | ||||
45.37(21) | ||||
48.6() | () |
The Lagrangian describing the interaction of quark and lepton flavors with the photon and the boson is , with couplings strenghts and given in units of the electron charge . The photon and boson couplings to hadrons are described each by a single vector form factor which takes into account their structure in the momentum transfer region , with . The form factors describing the couplings of the off-shell vector particles () in are defined from the hadronic amplitude
(1) |
For on-shell vector particles , this Lorentz-vector amplitude must be contracted with its vector polarization . The case of lepton pair production is discussed in Section III.
II -Vector vertices
The form factors are evaluated in the framework of the heavy quark effective theory suplemented with vector meson dominance model (HQET+VDM) Colangelo:1993zq ; Casalbuoni:1992dx , which has shown to give a good description of decays. Since we will normalize results for our observables to this radiative decay, we use the ratio of decay rates because they are rather insensitive to the specific -dependency of the form factor. This is due to the smallness of the mass splitting (see Table 1) compared to typical hadronic scales (). Also, since the contributions of heavy quarks are suppressed, we expect that such ratios are relatively independent of constants involved in light-quark contributions through vector meson dominance model.
For self-containess purposes, we reproduce here the term of the Lagrangian density relevant for our calculations and definitions of couplings constants Colangelo:1993zq ; Casalbuoni:1992dx . The strong interaction of heavy mesons are described by
where denotes the trace in flavor space, is the field strenght tensor and where the 33 matrix of the nonet of light vector mesons. The heavy meson field is defined in terms of the pseudoscalar () and vector () mesons fields as , and . On the other hand, the coupling of light vector mesons to the vector currents are described in terms of a single constant in the SU(3) flavor symmetry Colangelo:1993zq ; Casalbuoni:1992dx :
where and for quarks, respectively. The values of coupling constant are given below.
The vector and pseudoscalar heavy mesons are composed of a pair, with and . The hadronic matrix element of the electromagnetic current is given by Colangelo:1993zq :
(2) | |||||
where is the electric charge of the heavy quark (light quark) in units of the positron charge, and similarly, for the boson current.
A straightforward evaluation of the form factors in the HQET+VMD model Colangelo:1993zq leads to
(3) | |||||
(4) |
with the effective light “quark mass” parameter
(5) |
The expressions for the form factors of heavy mesons are explicitly separated in Eq. (3-4) into its heavy and light quark components. In the model under consideration, the couplings of heavy quarks to the the photon and boson are fixed by HQET, while the couplings to the light antiquarks are modeled by the dominance of light vector mesons Colangelo:1993zq . For the latter, the sum extends over light vector-meson resonances () according to the light-quark content of heavy mesons Colangelo:1993zq . Under the assumption of the ideal mixing for vector mesons, the couplings of light and quarks are dominated by the exchange of and mesons, while the coupling of the quark corresponds to the exchange of the meson.
Numerical inputs for couplings constants can be found in Ref Colangelo:1993zq and are reproduced here for reference: , (updated from new experimental inputs PDG2020 ) and () the decay constant (mass) of vector meson . Using current experimental data for lepton-pair decays of vector mesons PDG2020 , one gets , with very small uncertainties. In Table 1 we list values for the electromagnetic form factor predicted in the HQET+VMD model at . The quoted uncertainty is dominated by the input on the strong coupling () in this model (in all the predictions from this model quoted below, all the other uncertainties are very small). A comparison with the magnitude of the measured form factor (within square brackets), obtained from the measurement of the radiative decay branching fraction PDG2020 , give confidence on this model.
Transition | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Let us define the following ratio of two-body decay rates:
(6) |
where is the momentum of the final state boson in the rest frame of . This ratio exhibits two important differences with respect to the similar ratio defined in nuclear transitions Feng:2016jff . First, since we have a suppression of the heavy quark relative to the light quarks contributions in Eqs. (3) and (4), which is stronger for bottom meson transition amplitudes. In order to be more explicit, and for the easy reference of the interested reader, in Table 2 we display the values of the two contributions that appear within square brackets in Eq. (4), by assuming for the square of the momentum transfer of the -boson. This has the advantage that the the ratio is more sensitive to the couplings, which are relatively well bounded from other processes Feng:2016jff . On the other hand, given the larger phase-space in heavy meson decays, this ratio is not suppressed by kinematics, as it happens for decay of 8Be nucleus.
Predictions for the decay fractions require an estimate of the couplings. For the couplings of the boson to the quarks of the first generation we use: and Fornal:2017msy . They are obtained by combining , obtained in Refs. Feng:2016jff ; Feng:2016ysn from the 8Be∗ anomaly, with the null results on searches of the by the NA48/2 experiment Batley:2015lha , which translates into the contraint Fornal:2017msy for the boson couplings. By assumming the NA48/2 constraint to be exactly zero, namely the ‘protophobic’ assumption (see however Zhang:2020ukq ), one gets the results used in this paper. On the other hand, the limits on the coupling to electrons can be obtained from beam dump experiments at SLAC and measurements of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron according to Ref. Fornal:2017msy . Our study requires the knowledge of second- and third-generation couplings, namely strange , charm , and bottom . A priori these parameters are independent Feng:2016ysn , and need not be related to the first-generation couplings. Our simplest starting assumption is universality of down- and up-type quark couplings, thus, we will take and ; henceforth, our results will be obtained under this assumption Feng:2016jff ; Feng:2016ysn . Values of the couplings and ratios for these transitions are given in Table 2. The ratios are larger than the ones in the nuclear case mainly due to the unsuppressed phase space for production.
III Lepton pair production
The decay amplitude for lepton pair production is the coherent sum of the photon and X-boson mediated amplitudes , where ():
(7) |
where is the leptonic current and , . In numerical evaluations throughout this paper we use , the fine structure constant, because according to Table 1 the maximum value of the squared photon momentum is not large (). On the other hand, running effects between and are very small compared with the present and forthcoming experimental accuracies which, in the absence of real estimates, we will assume to be not better than 5% for the branching fractions.
As in Ref. Feng:2016jff ; Feng:2016ysn , we assume negligible decays of the boson into neutrino channels, such that its full width is given by
(8) | |||||
with . The total width quoted above corresponds to maximun value of , discussed in the previous section. Decays of a light vector boson into neutrino-antineutrino pairs that may increase width are also allowed by kinematics and are included in some extensions of the SM involving enlarged Higgs and/or gauge sectors Feng:2016ysn ; DelleRose:2017xil ; DelleRose:2018eic ; DelleRose:2018pgm ; Seto:2020jal ; Nomura:2020kcw . The relevant coupling can be constrained from neutrino-electron scattering in the case of the first generation like done from the TEXONO experiment Deniz:2009mu yielding to Feng:2016ysn . The addition of the channels will modify the total width of the boson by less that 0.1%, and our results will remain unchanged.






The lepton pair invariant mass distribution, normalized to the radiative decay width of , becomes the sum of the photon and -boson mediated distributions, namely (we use ):
(9) |
Given the very narrow width of the -boson, the interference of the amplitudes is negligible. Indeed, the interference in the di-lepton spectrum vanishes at the position of the and it is suppressed by more than six orders of magnitude relative to the one-photon contribution outside the resonance.
Channel | Total | Experiment | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
CroninHennessy:2011xp | ||||
The lepton-pair invariant mass distributions due to photon (solid-red) and -boson (dashed-blue) exchange are shown separately in Figure 1 for the six different decay channels under consideration. The shaded bands around each curve represents the theoretical error, which are difficult to visualise in the log-scale. The peak due to the production of the boson in each channel is not located very close to the end of the lepton-pair spectrum as it happens in the nuclear case, avoiding in this way possible end-point kinematical effects. In contradistinction to the on-shell production, the effect of this boson is the largest for the decay. The corresponding peaks of this boson contribution is suppressed by one or two orders of magnitude in all other cases, relative to the photon contribution. Note that we are assuming universality bounds on heavier quark couplings; since this is a conservative assumption, the experimental study of heavy mesons transitions involving lepton pairs may serve to set bounds on these unknown couplings of the hypothetical boson.
Table 3 displays the values of the decay rates for the lepton-pair production in transitions normalized to the corresponding rates of the radiative decays , namely
(10) |
where the radiative rate is given by . We expect that the remaining model-dependent terms in the form factors are cancelled in this ratio (all other lepton-pair and angular distributions in the following are normalized to this radiative width). As in the case of the lepton-pair spectra, the largest contribution of the boson is observed for the and decays, making these channels the most sensitive for the observation of this light boson effects. Our calculation of the electromagnetic contribution in the case of decays yields is in good agreement with the experimental value reported in CroninHennessy:2011xp . When we add the contribution of the boson exchange, our prediction increases to , which exceeds the experimental value but it is still consistent with it within 1.4. Let us notice that a previous prediction of this ratio was estimated in Ref. CroninHennessy:2011xp based on the model proposed in Landsberg:1986fd which includes only the electromagnetic contribution.

sThe sensitivity of decays into lepton pairs to the effects of boson exchange observed in the previous paragraph, suggests this channel can be useful to constrain the parameter space of the hypothetical vector boson. In Fig. 2 we show the confidence level allowed for the parameter space in the plane, obtained from the comparison of the experimental branching fraction reported by CLEO CroninHennessy:2011xp and the result of integrating Eq. (9) for (light-red shaded band). The current experimental uncertainty in is close to , and current experiments producing a large dataset of charmed mesons have not planned new measurements. Therefore, we will assume that a dedicated measurement of this observable may reach an improvement of the current uncertainty by a factor of five. Under this assumption we get the region enclosed by the red-dashed contour in Figure 2. For comparison, we also show the two thin parallel black lines corresponding to the allowed values of () obtained from results Feng:2016jff ; Feng:2016ysn and the region allowed from the so-called ‘protophobic condition’ obtained from the non-observation of by the NA48/2 experiment Feng:2016ysn ; Batley:2015lha (single steepest blue band). The different sensitivities observed from these measurements to the up-type and down-type quark couplings makes worth an improved measurement of the heavy mesons decays discussed in this paper.
Finally, let us comment that the angular distribution of the pair, in the rest frame of the decaying particle, will be peaked closer to the collinear configuration compared to the nuclear case of 8Be∗ transitions, where . This happens because the boson is produced with a larger velocity, while in nuclear transitions this boson is produced almost at rest.
IV Conclusions
The hypothetical light vector boson , proposed as a solution for the anomaly observed in lepton-pair production of 8Be∗ and 4He transitions, can be studied in the clean environment provided by vector to pseudoscalar heavy mesons transitions in Belle, Belle II and BESIII factories. These decays are free from theoretical uncertainties associated to nuclear effects. We have used the HQET+VMD framework to model the hadronic form factors of meson transitions, however our results are little-dependent on hadronic uncertainties because the rates are normalized to the dominant electromagnetic decays and the dominant contributions in most channels are dominated by photon emission off the light quarks in this model.
Although all the branching fractions of the heavy meson channels considered in this paper exhibit some sensitivity to the effects of the boson, decays of and mesons turn out to be the most sensitive ones. This happens because 1) the radiative charged charmed vector meson decay rates used as a normalization factor in and are suppressed in the HQET+VMD owing to a partial cancellation of the heavy and light quarks contributions and, 2) the large contribution of the light quark coupling to for transition. Also, improved measurements of these leptonic decay channels can set additional and complementary constraints on the boson couplings to ordinary fermions, as shown in Figure 2 for the case of decays or, eventually, confirm the existence of this light boson.
Acknowledgements.
GLC acknowledges support from Ciencia de Frontera project No. 428218 (Conacyt). The work of N. Quintero has been financially supported by MINCIENCIAS and Universidad del Tolima through Convocatoria Estancias Postdoctorales No. 848-2019 (Contract No. 834-2020), and Dirección General de Investigaciones - Universidad Santiago de Cali under Project No. 935-621118-3.References
- (1) P. Fayet, U-boson production in annihilations, and decays, and Light Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D 75, 115017 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ph/0702176 [hep-ph]].
- (2) M. Pospelov, Secluded U(1) below the weak scale, Phys. Rev. D 80, 095002 (2009) [arXiv:0811.1030 [hep-ph]].
- (3) R. Essig et al., “Working Group Report: New Light Weakly Coupled Particles,” arXiv:1311.0029 [hep-ph].
- (4) See talks at the Workshop on Feeble Interacting Particles 2020, https://indico.cern.ch/event/864648/timetable/ , August 31st- September 4th (2020).
- (5) A. J. Krasznahorkay et al, Observation of Anomalous Internal Pair Creation in Be8 : A Possible Indication of a Light, Neutral Boson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, no.4, 042501 (2016) [arXiv:1504.01527 [nucl-ex]].
- (6) J. L. Feng, B. Fornal, I. Galon, S. Gardner, J. Smolinsky, T. M. P. Tait and P. Tanedo, Protophobic Fifth-Force Interpretation of the Observed Anomaly in 8Be Nuclear Transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, no.7, 071803 (2016) [arXiv:1604.07411 [hep-ph]].
- (7) J. L. Feng, B. Fornal, I. Galon, S. Gardner, J. Smolinsky, T. M. P. Tait and P. Tanedo, Particle physics models for the 17 MeV anomaly in beryllium nuclear decays, Phys. Rev. D 95, no.3, 035017 (2017) [arXiv:1608.03591 [hep-ph]].
- (8) A. J. Krasznahorkay et al., New evidence supporting the existence of the hypothetic X17 particle, arXiv:1910.10459 [nucl-ex].
- (9) L. Delle Rose, S. Khalil and S. Moretti, Explanation of the 17 MeV Atomki anomaly in a U(1)’ -extended two Higgs doublet model, Phys. Rev. D 96, no.11, 115024 (2017) [arXiv:1704.03436 [hep-ph]].
- (10) L. Delle Rose, S. Khalil, S. J. D. King, S. Moretti and A. M. Thabt, Atomki Anomaly in Family-Dependent Extension of the Standard Model, Phys. Rev. D 99, no.5, 055022 (2019) [arXiv:1811.07953 [hep-ph]].
- (11) L. Delle Rose, S. Khalil, S. J. D. King and S. Moretti, New Physics Suggested by Atomki Anomaly, Front. in Phys. 7, 73 (2019) [arXiv:1812.05497 [hep-ph]].
- (12) O. Seto and T. Shimomura, Atomki anomaly in gauged symmetric model, [arXiv:2006.05497 [hep-ph]].
- (13) T. Nomura and P. Sanyal, Explaining Atomki anomaly and muon in extended flavour violating two Higgs doublet model, [arXiv:2010.04266 [hep-ph]].
- (14) A. Aleksejevs, S. Barkanova, Y. G. Kolomensky and B. Sheff, A Standard Model Explanation for the ”ATOMKI Anomaly, arXiv:2102.01127 [hep-ph].
- (15) J. L. Feng, T. M. P. Tait and C. B. Verhaaren, Dynamical Evidence For a Fifth Force Explanation of the ATOMKI Nuclear Anomalies, Phys. Rev. D 102, no. 3, 036016 (2020) [arXiv:2006.01151 [hep-ph]].
- (16) X. Zhang and G. A. Miller, Can nuclear physics explain the anomaly observed in the internal pair production in the Beryllium-8 nucleus?, Phys. Lett. B 773, 159 (2017).
- (17) K. Ban, Y. Jho, Y. Kwon, S. C. Park, S. Park and P. Y. Tseng, Search for new light vector boson using at BESIII and Belle II, arXiv:2012.04190 [hep-ph].
- (18) P. Ilten, J. Thaler, M. Williams and W. Xue, Dark photons from charm mesons at LHCb, Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 11, 115017 (2015)
- (19) P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio and G. Nardulli, Radiative heavy meson transitions, Phys. Lett. B 316, 555-560 (1993) [arXiv:hep-ph/9307330 [hep-ph]].
- (20) R. Casalbuoni, A. Deandrea, N. Di Bartolomeo, R. Gatto, F. Feruglio and G. Nardulli, Effective Lagrangian for heavy and light mesons: Semileptonic decays, Phys. Lett. B 299, 139 (1993).
- (21) P. A. Zyla et al. [Particle Data Group], Review of Particle Physics, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2020, 083C01 (2020).
- (22) B. Fornal, Is There a Sign of New Physics in Beryllium Transitions?, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 32, 1730020 (2017) [arXiv:1707.09749 [hep-ph]].
- (23) J. R. Batley et al. [NA48/2], Search for the dark photon in decays, Phys. Lett. B 746, 178-185 (2015) [arXiv:1504.00607 [hep-ex]].
- (24) X. Zhang and G. A. Miller, Can a protophobic vector boson explain the ATOMKI anomaly?, arXiv:2008.11288 [hep-ph].
- (25) M. Deniz et al. [TEXONO], Measurement of -Electron Scattering Cross-Section with a CsI(Tl) Scintillating Crystal Array at the Kuo-Sheng Nuclear Power Reactor, Phys. Rev. D 81, 072001 (2010) [arXiv:0911.1597 [hep-ex]].
- (26) E. Kou et al. [Belle-II Collaboration], The Belle II Physics Book, PTEP 2019, no. 12, 123C01 (2019) Erratum: [PTEP 2020, no. 2, 029201 (2020)]
- (27) D. Cronin-Hennessy et al. [CLEO], Observation of the Dalitz Decay , Phys. Rev. D 86, 072005 (2012) [arXiv:1104.3265 [hep-ex]].
- (28) L. G. Landsberg, Electromagnetic Decays of Light Mesons, Phys. Rept. 128, 301-376 (1985).