Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 83 references

You never have enough J/$\psi$ events: the case for a J/$\psi$ factory

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A future J/psi factory could measure the strange-hyperon weak-phase difference near the Standard Model level of 0.01 degrees and improve the neutral-kaon CPT limit by an order of magnitude.

desk verdict A competent white paper for a J/psi factory, but the flagship sensitivities rest on unverified systematic-scaling assumptions that need to be stated as assumptions. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20975 v1 pith:ALSN2FUK submitted 2025-06-26 hep-ex hep-phnucl-ex

Stephen Lars Olsen This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-exhep-phnucl-ex
keywords J/psiphysicshyperonCPviolationLee-YangparametersCPTinvarianceneutralkaonmixingBell-Steinbergerrelationstrangenesstagginge+e-collidermonochromatization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the $J/\psi$ is not a finished dataset: three decades of running at the peak showed that every order-of-magnitude increase in $J/\psi$ events produced new discoveries and new physics topics, with no sign of saturation. The forward-looking claim is that a future facility producing multi-trillion $J/\psi$ events, in a detector tailored to the task, could do qualitatively new things in two areas that general-purpose colliders have set aside. It could measure the CP-violating weak-phase difference in $\Xi$ decays, $\xi_P - \xi_S$, near the Standard Model value of about $-0.01^\circ$, instead of today's $0.94^\circ$ upper limit. It could also use strangeness-tagged neutral kaon decays from $10^{12}$ $J/\psi$ decays to determine $\phi_{\rm SW} + \Delta\phi_{\rm CPT}= 43.51^\circ \pm 0.05^\circ$, corresponding to $|M_{\bar K^0} - M_{K^0}| \approx 4\times10^{-17}$ MeV, an order of magnitude past the best existing CPT limit. These two numbers are the paper's quantitative answer to the perennial question of why more $J/\psi$ events are needed.

What carries the argument

The machinery for the hyperon claim is the entangled $J/\psi\to\Xi\bar{\Xi}$ event, analyzed through a nine-angle spin-density-matrix formalism in which a $4\times4$ correlation matrix $C_{\mu\nu}$ encodes the $\Xi$ polarizations and spin correlations, and Lee-Yang parameters ($\alpha_Y$, $\beta_Y$, $\gamma_Y$, equivalently $\phi_Y$) are extracted from the fully correlated angular distribution. The key observable is $B^{\Xi}_{\rm CP}=(\beta_\Xi+\beta_{\bar\Xi})/(\alpha_\Xi-\alpha_{\bar\Xi})=\tan(\xi_P^\Xi-\xi_S^\Xi)$, which the paper stresses is not suppressed by the small strong-interaction phase differences that dilute the familiar $A^{\Lambda}_{\rm CP}$ asymmetries. For the CPT claim, the machinery is the strangeness-tagged $K^0(\tau)/\bar K^0(\tau)$ wave function, whose $K_S$-$K_L$ interference terms have opposite signs and oscillate as $\cos(\Delta M\tau-\phi_j)$; the reduced asymmetry $A'_{\pi\pi}$ isolates $\phi_j=\phi_{\rm SW}+\Delta\phi_{\rm CPT}$. The Bell-Steinberger relation $\sum_j \langle f_j|K_S\rangle^*\langle f_j|K_L\rangle = \tfrac12(\Gamma_S+\Gamma_L+2i\Delta M)\langle K_S|K_L\rangle$ converts the measured channel amplitudes into an exact determination of $\mathrm{Im}\,\delta$, and hence of $M_{\bar K^0}-M_{K^0}$. On the accelerator side, monochromatization with dispersion at the interaction point is the practical enabler, raising the visible $e^+e^-\to J/\psi$ cross-section from 3.4 microbarns toward the full 90 microbarns.

What would settle it

A complete end-to-end Monte Carlo of $10^{12}$ $J/\psi$ decays through a realistic high-rate detector would settle the claims: if the fitted uncertainty on $\phi_{\rm SW}+\Delta\phi_{\rm CPT}$ does not approach $0.05^\circ$, or if the hyperon weak-phase difference retains a systematic floor above about $0.1^\circ$ when control samples are scaled up a thousandfold, the two headline projections are not realizable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a specialized near-future facility with multi-trillion $J/\psi$ decays would be a discovery machine for two precision probes that are uniquely enabled by the $J/\psi$ event topology, not merely a statistics upgrade of the light-hadron program. For CP violation, the paper points out that $J/\psi \to \Xi\bar{\Xi}$ events are nearly ideal: the $\Xi$ and $\bar{\Xi}$ are produced back-to-back in a spin-entangled state with equal polarizations, decay in vacuum, and the proton and antiproton directions measure the $\Lambda$ spin event by event, giving an effective polarization of one and a twentyfold sensitivity gain. The current combined limit $|\xi_P - \xi_S| < 0.94^\circ$ is statistically limited, and the quoted $0.1^\circ$ systematics are themselves mostly statistical errors from control samples, so a multi-trillion-event sample plausibly reaches the Standard Model sensitivity of about $-0.01^\circ\pm 0.01^\circ$. For CPT, $10^{12}$ $J/\psi$ decays tag roughly two billion $K^0\to\pi^+\pi^-$ and $\bar K^0\to\pi^+\pi^-$ decays through the charge of the accompanying kaon; the simulated strangeness-tagged interference pattern gives $\phi_{\rm SW} + \Delta\phi_{\rm CPT} = 43.51^\circ \pm 0.05^\circ$, meaning $|M_{\bar K^0} - M_{K^0}|\approx 4\times10^{-17}$ MeV. The Bell-Steinberger relation is then available to elevate this into an exact, phase-convention-independent determination of $\mathrm{Im}\,\delta$, provided the auxiliary kaon decay inputs are improved in step with the $\pi\pi$ phases.

Load-bearing premise

The forward projections collapse if systematic uncertainties at a future $J/\psi$ factory do not shrink with larger control samples; the paper explicitly relies on the quoted $0.1^\circ$ systematics being mostly statistical in origin, and if a $10^{12}$-event detector instead introduces new backgrounds, trigger losses, or reconstruction inefficiencies, neither claim follows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the projected sensitivity holds, any measured $\xi_P-\xi_S$ above the few-hundredths-of-a-degree level would be evidence for new physics in the parity-conserving $P$-wave amplitudes of hyperon decay, since the Standard Model expectation is about $-0.01^\circ$.
  • A $10^{12}$-event sample would improve the neutral-kaon CPT limit from about $4\times10^{-16}$ MeV to about $4\times10^{-17}$ MeV, an order of magnitude better than the 1990s regenerator and tagged-kaon measurements.
  • The $\Xi\bar{\Xi}$ and $\Xi^0\bar{\Xi}^0$ channels already deliver $\Lambda$ CP asymmetries competitive with a sample ten times larger in $J/\psi\to\Lambda\bar\Lambda$; at factory statistics these become independent probes with different systematics.
  • A rigorous Bell-Steinberger analysis at the new precision requires matching improvements in the $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$, semileptonic, and $K_S\to 3\pi^0$ inputs, so the decades-old limits on those channels would otherwise become the bottleneck.
  • Monochromatization of the $e^+e^-$ beams could increase the visible $J/\psi$ cross-section by a factor of ten or more without higher beam currents, making multi-trillion samples feasible at modest cost.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the decisive test of its projections is detector-dependent: a full end-to-end simulation at $10^{12}$ events that includes pile-up, trigger rates, beam backgrounds, and vertex resolution would show whether the statistical gains survive reconstruction losses.
  • Beyond the paper, the same strangeness-tagged sample could improve the $\mathrm{Re}\,\delta$ determination from $\Delta S=\Delta Q$-violating semileptonic kaon decays, tightening the Bell-Steinberger global fit from a direction the $\pi\pi$ phase measurement does not constrain.
  • Beyond the paper, the 'no saturation' history is a heuristic, not a guarantee; the cleanest quantitative check of the factory concept would be a complete Bell-Steinberger Monte Carlo at $10^{12}$ events including all auxiliary channels, not just the $\pi\pi$ modes.
  • Beyond the paper, a monochromatized factory's tagged $\eta$, $\eta'$, and $f_0(980)$ samples would grow in proportion to the $J/\psi$ sample, so long-standing questions about the four-quark structure of the light scalar mesons could be settled at much higher significance.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper is a written version of a symposium talk. It reviews the growth of J/ψ event samples from BES through BESIII and argues that a future dedicated J/ψ factory with about 10^12 J/ψ decays would open two qualitatively new measurements: (i) CP violation in strange hyperon decays, specifically ξP−ξS in Ξ decays, with a projected sensitivity near the Standard Model level of about 0.01° (Section 2.4), and (ii) CPT tests using strangeness-tagged neutral kaons from J/ψ decays, with a simulated statistical precision of 43.51° ± 0.05° on ϕSW + ΔϕCPT (Section 3.4.1, Eq. (41)), corresponding to |M_K0bar − M_K0| ≈ 4 × 10^−17 MeV. The paper assembles the standard Lee-Yang parameter formalism, the Perotti et al. spin-correlation framework, published BESIII results, and the Bell-Steinberger relation. It also discusses monochromatized beams as a route to increasing the visible J/ψ cross section.

Significance. The paper's historical narrative is supported by specific published examples (X(1835), η1(1855), X(2370), f0-a0 mixing), and the closing list of strangeness physics contributions is a useful reminder of the role of kaons and hyperons in constructing the Standard Model. Its main quantitative content is the extrapolation of BESIII sensitivities to a multi-trillion J/ψ sample. The hyperon CP formalism and the Bell-Steinberger relation are standard and are, for the most part, correctly presented; the use of published BESIII measurements and the explicit reliance on the BESIII-affiliated simulation of ref. [65] are transparent. The projected observables are concrete and can in principle be tested by a future experiment. However, the forward projections depend on assumptions about the scaling of systematic uncertainties and on a statistical-only simulated error; these points need to be stated and quantified. With those caveats addressed, the paper would be a credible and valuable roadmap for a J/ψ factory.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.4, Eq. (16)] The central projection that a multi-trillion J/ψ sample could measure ξP−ξS near the 0.01° SM level depends on the assertion that BESIII's quoted 0.1° systematic errors are 'for the most part statistical errors associated with the numbers of control sample events.' This assertion is not substantiated in the manuscript: no decomposition of the 0.11° systematic error in Eq. (16) is given, and no model of irreducible systematic floors (magnetic-field mapping, detector alignment, background topologies, control-sample sizes) is provided for the proposed specialized detector. Because Eq. (21) sets a target near 0.01°, the projection requires reducing the current systematic error by more than an order of magnitude; a fixed floor of the current size would invalidate the claim. Please add a quantitative systematic-scaling argument or clearly label this as a favorable, unverified assumption.
  2. [Section 3.4.1, Eq. (41)] The simulated sensitivity ϕSW + ΔϕCPT = 43.51° ± 0.05° is quoted with statistical errors only, but extracting a CPT-violating phase from this sum requires the external input ϕSW = 43.5° ± 0.1° from Eq. (32), whose uncertainty does not decrease with J/ψ statistics. The claim of an order-of-magnitude improvement over the E773 and CPLEAR results in Eq. (42) is therefore incomplete unless the 0.1° uncertainty on ϕSW and the systematic contributions from regeneration, vertex resolution, and acceptance are included. Please provide a total error budget for the proposed measurement, or restrict the claim to statistical sensitivity.
  3. [Section 3.5] The Bell-Steinberger discussion correctly notes that the auxiliary inputs—π+π−π0, semileptonic, and especially KS→3π0—are statistics-limited and based on older data, and that future progress will require corresponding improvements in those terms. This materially qualifies the order-of-magnitude improvement claim for |M_K0bar − M_K0| made in Section 3.4.1: the Eq. (51) limit is not dominated solely by J/ψ-statistics-limited ππ phases, and no proposal is given for improving the 3π0 entry without a new φ factory. The manuscript should state which route (direct ϕ+−/ϕ00 phases versus Bell-Steinberger) is being claimed to reach the quoted mass sensitivity and quantify the required auxiliary-term improvements.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical and grammatical errors, including 'amd' in Section 3.3.1, 'none the world's major particle physics developed' in Section 4, and 'of of' in the Figure 10 caption; a careful proofread is needed.
  2. [Section 3.4.1] The phrase 'the existing eqn. 36 limit' appears to refer to the limit quoted in Eq. (25), since Eq. (36) is the conversion formula rather than the limit itself; please correct this cross-reference to avoid confusion.
  3. [Figure 11] The axis label 'K0decay time (tS)' is unclear; please use a dimensionless variable such as τ/τS and define it in the caption.
  4. [References] Reference [49] is listed as 'To be published' without an arXiv number; if a preprint is available, it should be cited so readers can verify the quoted Ξ−Ξ+ errors.
  5. [Appendix A] The monochromatization discussion would benefit from stating the assumed beam energy spreads that correspond to the curves in Figure 13, so that the quoted visible cross sections can be reproduced from the formulas.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: forward projections are extrapolations from published data and an explicit Monte Carlo sensitivity study, not recycled inputs.

full rationale

The paper's quantitative claims are extrapolations, not derived predictions that reduce to their inputs. The hyperon CP sensitivity (Sec. 2.4) scales BESIII's published ξP−ξS uncertainty (Eq. 16) with the assumed larger event samples and improved detector design; no equation forces the projected near-0.01° sensitivity to equal an input, and the SM target (Eq. 21) comes from an independent calculation [40]. The CPT projection (Sec. 3.4.1) is based on an explicit Monte Carlo study [65] in which events were generated with φ_SW=43.5° and Δφ_CPT=0; the fitted value 43.51°±0.05° (Eq. 41) is transparently a sensitivity estimate, and the paper's actual claim is the 0.05° statistical precision, not a new measurement of φ_SW. The Bell–Steinberger discussion uses external PDG, KLOE, CPLEAR, and E773 measurements as inputs and does not recycle the paper's own outputs. The cited BESIII results are published experimental data rather than paper-specific fitted values, so they serve as independent evidence. The weakest point—whether systematic errors at a future facility really scale down with control-sample statistics—is an unverified assumption about detector performance, which is a correctness risk rather than a circularity. The paper therefore contains no self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, or self-citation-chain circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no physical free parameters fitted to data and no new particles or forces. Its projections rely on assumed machine parameters (10^12 events, 80 keV energy spread, solid-angle coverage) and on scaling assumptions for systematic uncertainties, which are listed as free parameters and axioms because they are chosen, not measured. All physics inputs come from published or in-preparation BESIII analyses and standard references.

free parameters (3)
  • J/psi event sample size = 10^12 events
    Assumed scale of a future J/psi factory; all projected sensitivities scale with this number.
  • c.m. energy spread of monochromatized beams = 80 keV rms
    Appendix A: assumed improvement via monochromatization, raising the visible J/psi cross-section from 3.4 to 41 microbarn.
  • Detector solid-angle coverage = |cos theta| <= 0.85
    Taken from the simulation of ref [65] and used for the 3.8 billion tagged K -> pi pi event projection.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Parity conservation in e+e- -> J/psi -> Xi anti-Xi production makes Xi and anti-Xi polarizations exactly equal.
    Section 2.1 item ii; standard for single-photon production, but an assumption about the event topology.
  • standard math The Wigner-Weisskopf effective Hamiltonian and the Bell-Steinberger relation describe neutral kaon decays, with Im delta as the CPT-violation parameter.
    Sections 3.3 to 3.5; standard quantum-mechanics formalism used throughout.
  • ad hoc to paper BESIII systematic errors are mostly statistical in origin and will shrink with larger control samples at a future facility.
    Section 2.4; this scaling is load-bearing for the projected near-SM sensitivity and is not demonstrated.
  • ad hoc to paper A future detector can reconstruct multi-track Xi and kaon decay chains with backgrounds no worse than BESIII.
    Sections 2.4 and 3.4.1; event-yield and purity assumptions are carried over from BESIII.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of You never have enough J/$\psi$ events: the case for a J/$\psi$ factory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ALSN2FUK

@misc{pith2026250620975,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: You never have enough J/$\psi$ events: the case for a J/$\psi$ factory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ALSN2FUK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20975}
}
abstract

In a talk at an IHEP-Beijing symposium celebrating the 50th anniversary of the discovery of the J/$\psi$, I reminisced about some of the interesting phenomena that were observed in J/$\psi$ decays in the BES, BESII, and BESIII detectors during the 35 year long BES experimental program. The three order of magnitude increase in the J/$\psi$ event samples and the improved detector capabilities that occurred during this time led to a persistent series of interesting discoveries and new insights. As more J/$\psi$ events were collected, the scientific interest in them increased and the breadth of physics topics that are addressed by them expanded. In addition, I speculated on what might happen if, in the next few decades, the magnitude of J/$\psi$ data samples and the detector capabilities continued to increase at similar paces. In particular, I emphasize the possibilities of searches for CP violation in strange hyperon decays and testing the CPT~theorem with strangeness-tagged neutral kaon decays.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20975 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a) The upper panel shows the M(pp¯)−2mp distribution for J/ψ→γpp¯ in the 58 M J/ψ event sample [8]. The fitted curve is described in the text. The lower panel shows the same distribution weighted by the inverse of phase space. b) The π +π−η ′ ) invariant mass distribution for J/ψ→γπ+π−η ′ events in the 58 M J/ψ event sample [9]. c) The same distribution for 1.09 B J/ψ events [11]. The blue curve shows results of a f… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. a) The 1−+ ηη′ partial wave for J/ψ→γηη′ events [12]. b) The KSKSπ +π− invariant mass distribution for J/ψ→γKSKSπ +π− events [14]. c) The ηπ0 mass spectrum for J/ψ→ϕηπ0 events. The top panel shows the results of a fit with J/ψ→ϕf0(980), f0→a0(980)→ ηπ0 included and shown as a dashed red curve; the bottom panel shows a fit with mixing excluded. [15]. γη (B= 0.1%), & γη′ , (B= 0.5%), BESIII has functioned as a multipl… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. My final slide at the BES 30th anniversary symposium (September 2019). This comment seemed to strike a resonant chord in the psyche of my BES colleagues because, in spite of the numerous (what I thought were) sage observations that I made 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: a) An e +e−→J/ψ→Ξ−Ξ¯+ event in the BESIII detector. b) A road map for these events. The overall process involves five different reactions that are most simply described by considering five different reference frames. The first is the J/ψ rest frame where, since the spi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: a) The decay angle θΛ and Λ polarization vector PΛ for polarized Ξ− → Λπ− decays. b) The decay angle θp for polarized Λ → pπ− decays. Since the proton and antiproton polarizations are not measured, only the αΛ and αΛ¯ parameters can be determined The (real) Lee-Yang pa…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fig.4. Here the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Coordinate systems for J/ψ→Ξ Ξ¯ and Ξ→Λπ and Ξ¯→Λ¯π decays. The coordinate systems for Λ→pπ− and Λ¯→pπ¯ + decays are not shown. The Cµν spin-density matrix in eqn. 14 has the form Cµν(θψ, αψ, ∆Φ) = 2(1 + αψ cos2 θψ)   1 0 Py 0 0 Cxx 0 Cxz −Py 0 Cyy 0 0 −Cxz 0 Czz …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ξ polarization Py and the Ξ-Ξ¯ spin correlations Cxx, Cyy and Czz in quantum entangled J/ψ → Ξ−Ξ¯+ events. (From BESIII [47].) measured, and the effective Ξ polarizations for the αΞ & αΞ¯ determinations become P eff y =1. The corresponding overall sensitivity gain from…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: In string theories, elementary particles are tiny loops of oscillating strings with no point-like vertices and their associated infinities. Although non-renormalizable higher-order perturbative effects do not show up at mass scales below the Planck mass (MP = p ℏc/GN =…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The box diagrams for the short-distance contributions to K0 -K¯ 0 mixing. 3.2 Neutral K mesons and tests of the CPT theorem The main consequences of CPT symmetry are that particle and antiparticle masses and lifetimes are equal. Since lifetime differences can only come…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: a) A simulated J/ψ→K−π +K0 (τ); K0 (τ)→ π +π− event in the BESIII detector. b) The relative arrangements on the complex plane of of the complex quantities discussed in the text. Here, for display purposes, the magnitudes of δ and ε ′ relative to ε are exaggerated. 16 …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: a) The solid circles show the proper time distribution for simulated strangeness-tagged K0 (τ)→π +π− decays (the open circles are K¯ 0 (τ)→π +π− decays). b) The reduced asymmetry, A′ π+π− , for the events shown in panel a (from ref. [65]). The simulated data shown in …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: a) The 68% and 95% confidence level allowed region for Im δ and Re ε from a Bell￾Steinberger analysis. b) The corresponding allowed regions in ∆Γ= ΓK¯ 0−ΓK0 and ∆M = MK¯ 0 −MK0 . From ref. [58]. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: a) The visible e +e−→J/ψ lineshape for different values of the Ecm resolution (provided by Xiaoshuai Qin). b) Usually colliders operate with zero dispersion at the interaction point, with no correlation between a beam particle’s energy and its horizontal position, as …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [65]

    Measurement of CP violation of neutral kaon system in J/ψ decay at the Super Tau-Charm Facility

    Jian-Yu Zhang, Cheng-Dong Fu, Hai-Bo Li, Liang Liu, and Xiao-Rong Zhou. Measurement of CP violation of neutral kaon system in J/ψ decay at the Super Tau-Charm Facility. 9 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    J. Z. Bai et al. Structure analysis of the f(J) (1710) in the radiative decay J / psi —> gamma K+ K-. Phys. Rev. Lett., 77:3959–3962, 1996

    1996

  3. [2]

    J. Z. Bai et al. Partial wave analysis of J / psi – > gamma (eta pi+ pi-). Phys. Lett. B, 446:356–362, 1999

    1999

  4. [3]

    S. X. Nakamura, Q. Huang, J. J. Wu, H. P. Peng, Y . Zhang, and Y . C. Zhu. Three- body unitary coupled-channel approach to radiative J/ψ decays and η(1405/1475). Phys. Rev. D, 109(1):014021, 2024

    2024

  5. [4]

    N. N. Achasov, A. A. Kozhevnikov, and G. N. Shestakov. Isospin breaking decay η(1405) → f0(980)π0 → 3π. Phys. Rev. D, 92(3):036003, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [5]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. The sigma pole in J / psi — > omega pi+ pi-. Phys. Lett. B , 598:149–158, 2004. 23

    work page 2004

  7. [6]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. Evidence for kappa meson production in J/psi — > anti-K* (892)0 K+ pi- process. Phys. Lett. B, 633:681–690, 2006

    work page 2006

  8. [7]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. Review of particle physics. Phys. Rev. D, 110(3):030001, 2024

    2024

Show all 83 references
  1. [8]

    J. Z. Bai et al. Observation of a near threshold enhancement in the p anti-p mass spectrum from radiative J / psi — > gamma p anti-p decays. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 91:022001, 2003

    2003

  2. [9]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. Observation of a resonance X(1835) in J / psi - > gamma pi+ pi- eta-prime. Phys. Rev. Lett., 95:262001, 2005

    2005

  3. [10]

    Productions of X(1835) as baryonium with siz- able gluon content

    Gui-Jun Ding and Mu-Lin Yan. Productions of X(1835) as baryonium with siz- able gluon content. Eur . Phys. J. A, 28:351–360, 2006

    2006

  4. [11]

    Observation of an anomalous line shape of the η′π+π− mass spectrum near the p¯p mass threshold in J/ψ → γη ′π+π−

    Medina Ablikim et al. Observation of an anomalous line shape of the η′π+π− mass spectrum near the p¯p mass threshold in J/ψ → γη ′π+π−. Phys. Rev. Lett., 117(4):042002, 2016

    2016

  5. [12]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. Observation of an Isoscalar Resonance with Exotic J P C=1−+ Quantum Numbers in J/ψ → γηη ′. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 129(19):192002, 2022. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 130, 159901 (2023)]

    2023

  6. [13]

    Rodas et al

    A. Rodas et al. Determination of the pole position of the lightest hybrid meson candidate. Phys. Rev. Lett., 122(4):042002, 2019

    2019

  7. [14]

    Determination of Spin-Parity Quantum Numbers of X(2370) as 0−+ from J/ψ → γK 0 ¯K 0η′

    Medina Ablikim et al. Determination of Spin-Parity Quantum Numbers of X(2370) as 0−+ from J/ψ → γK 0 ¯K 0η′. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 132(18):181901, 2024

    2024

  8. [15]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. Observation of a0 0(980)-f0(980) Mixing. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 121(2):022001, 2018

    2018

  9. [16]

    Light meson physics at BESIII

    Shuang-Shi Fang. Light meson physics at BESIII. Natl. Sci. Rev., 8(11):nwab052, 2021

    2021

  10. [17]

    N. N. Achasov, S. A. Devyanin, and G. N. Shestakov. The S* Delta0 Mixing as the Threshold Phenomenon. Phys. Lett. B, 88:367–371, 1979

    1979

  11. [18]

    Nikolai Nikolaevich Achasov and G. N. Shestakov. Strong isospin symmetry breaking in light scalar meson production. Phys. Usp., 62(1):3–31, 2019

    2019

  12. [19]

    Robert L. Jaffe. Multi-Quark Hadrons. 1. The Phenomenology of (2 Quark 2 anti-Quark) Mesons. Phys. Rev. D, 15:267, 1977

    1977

  13. [20]

    V . A. Rubakov and M. E. Shaposhnikov. Electroweak baryon number noncon- servation in the early universe and in high-energy collisions. Usp. Fiz. Nauk , 166:493–537, 1996

    1996

  14. [21]

    Augusto Alves, Jr

    A. Augusto Alves, Jr. et al. The LHCb Detector at the LHC. JINST, 3:S08005, 2008

    2008

  15. [22]

    Aushev et al

    T. Aushev et al. Physics at Super B Factory. 2010. arXiv:1002.5012

    2010 arXiv

  16. [23]

    and Nir Y

    Gershon T. and Nir Y . CP Violation in the Quark Sector. Phys. Rev. D , 110(3):280, 2024. Review article in the PDG 2024 review. 24

    2024

  17. [24]

    Observation of charge-parity symmetry breaking in baryon de- cays

    Roel Aaij et al. Observation of charge-parity symmetry breaking in baryon de- cays. 3 2025

    2025

  18. [25]

    Large CP violation in Λ0 b → pK −π+π− and its U-spin partner decays

    Xiao-Gang He, Chia-Wei Liu, and Jusak Tandean. Large CP violation in Λ0 b → pK −π+π− and its U-spin partner decays. 3 2025

    2025

  19. [26]

    Kagan, and Yosef Nir

    Yuval Grossman, Alexander L. Kagan, and Yosef Nir. New physics and CP vio- lation in singly Cabibbo suppressed D decays. Phys. Rev. D, 75:036008, 2007

    2007

  20. [27]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. Evidence for CP violation in time-integrated D0 → h−h+ decay rates. Phys. Rev. Lett., 108:111602, 2012

    2012

  21. [28]

    Observation of CP Violation in Charm Decays

    Roel Aaij et al. Observation of CP Violation in Charm Decays. Phys. Rev. Lett., 122(21):211803, 2019

    2019

  22. [29]

    SU(3) symmetry breaking and CP vio- lation in D -> PP decays

    Hai-Yang Cheng and Cheng-Wei Chiang. SU(3) symmetry breaking and CP vio- lation in D -> PP decays. Phys. Rev. D, 86:014014, 2012

    2012

  23. [30]

    Robinson

    Yuval Grossman and Dean J. Robinson. SU(3) Sum Rules for Charm Decay. JHEP, 04:067, 2013

    2013

  24. [31]

    Abel et al

    C. Abel et al. Measurement of the Permanent Electric Dipole Moment of the Neutron. Phys. Rev. Lett., 124(8):081803, 2020

    2020

  25. [32]

    Andrew et al

    V . Andrew et al. Improved limit on the electric dipole moment of the electron. Nature, 562(7727):355–360, 2018

    2018

  26. [33]

    Roussy et al

    Tanya S. Roussy et al. An improved bound on the electron’s electric dipole mo- ment. Science, 381(6653):adg4084, 2023

    2023

  27. [34]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report. unpublished, 5 2018

    2018

  28. [35]

    Abi et al

    B. Abi et al. Long-baseline neutrino oscillation physics potential of the DUNE experiment. Eur . Phys. J. C, 80(10):978, 2020

    2020

  29. [36]

    Leptogenesis

    Sacha Davidson, Enrico Nardi, and Yosef Nir. Leptogenesis. Phys. Rept. , 466:105–177, 2008

    2008

  30. [37]

    Lai et al

    A. Lai et al. A Precise measurement of the direct CP violation parameter Re(ϵ′/ϵ). Eur . Phys. J. C, 22:231–254, 2001

    2001

  31. [38]

    Alavi-Harati et al

    A. Alavi-Harati et al. Observation of direct CP violation in KS,L → ππ decays. Phys. Rev. Lett., 83:22–27, 1999

    1999

  32. [39]

    Andrzej J. Buras. The ϵ′/ϵ-Story: 1976-2021. Acta Phys. Polon. B , 52(1):7–41, 2021

    1976

  33. [40]

    Valencia

    Jusak Tandean and G. Valencia. CP violation in hyperon nonleptonic decays within the standard model. Phys. Rev. D, 67:056001, 2003

    2003

  34. [41]

    Valencia

    Xiao-Gang He, Hitoshi Murayama, Sandip Pakvasa, and G. Valencia. CP vio- lation in hyperon decays from supersymmetry. Phys. Rev. D , 61:071701, 2000. arXiv:hep-ph/9909562

    2000 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Polarization observables in e+e− annihilation to a baryon-antibaryon pair

    Elisabetta Perotti, Göran Fäldt, Andrzej Kupsc, Stefan Leupold, and Jiao Jiao Song. Polarization observables in e+e− annihilation to a baryon-antibaryon pair. Phys. Rev. D, 99(5):056008, 2019. 25

    2019

  36. [43]

    T. D. Lee, J. Steinberger, G. Feinberg, P. K. Kabir, and Chen-Ning Yang. Possible Detection of Parity Nonconservation in Hyperon Decay. Phys. Rev., 106:1367– 1369, 1957

    1957

  37. [44]

    Donoghue and Sandip Pakvasa

    John F. Donoghue and Sandip Pakvasa. Signals of CP Nonconservation in Hy- peron Decay. Phys. Rev. Lett., 55:162, 1985

    1985

  38. [45]

    Martin Hoferichter, Jacobo Ruiz de Elvira, Bastian Kubis, and Ulf-G. Meißner. Roy–Steiner-equation analysis of pion–nucleon scattering. Phys. Rept. , 625:1– 88, 2016

    2016

  39. [46]

    Meson-baryon scattering to one-loop order in heavy baryon chiral perturbation theory

    Bo-Lin Huang, Jin-Sheng Zhang, Yun-De Li, and Norbert Kaiser. Meson-baryon scattering to one-loop order in heavy baryon chiral perturbation theory. Phys. Rev. D, 96(1):016021, 2017

    2017

  40. [47]

    Probing CP symmetry and weak phases with entangled double-strange baryons

    Medina Ablikim et al. Probing CP symmetry and weak phases with entangled double-strange baryons. Nature, 606(7912):64–69, 2022

    2022

  41. [48]

    Tests of CP symmetry in entangled Ξ0-¯Ξ0 pairs

    Medina Ablikim et al. Tests of CP symmetry in entangled Ξ0-¯Ξ0 pairs. Phys. Rev. D, 108(3):L031106, 2023

    2023

  42. [49]

    Precise Measurement of Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry with Entangled Hyperon Antihyperon pairs

    Medina Ablikim et al. Precise Measurement of Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry with Entangled Hyperon Antihyperon pairs. To be published, 2025

    2025

  43. [50]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. Precision measurements of decay parameters and CP asym- metry in Λ decays. 4 2022. arXiv:2204.11058

    2022

  44. [51]

    Parametrization of the Kobayashi-Maskawa Matrix

    Lincoln Wolfenstein. Parametrization of the Kobayashi-Maskawa Matrix. Phys. Rev. Lett., 51:1945, 1983. the PDG 2020 central values are η = 0.355, A = 0.84, & λ = 0.2245

    1945

  45. [52]

    Schwinger

    Julian S. Schwinger. The Theory of quantized fields. 1. Phys. Rev., 82:914–927, 1951

    1951

  46. [53]

    Chekanov et al

    S. Chekanov et al. Search for contact interactions, large extra dimensions and finite quark radius in e p collisions at HERA. Phys. Lett. B, 591:23–41, 2004

    2004

  47. [54]

    H. A. Bethe. The Electromagnetic shift of energy levels. Phys. Rev., 72:339–341, 1947

    1947

  48. [55]

    F. J. Dyson. The Radiation theories of Tomonaga, Schwinger, and Feynman. Phys. Rev., 75:486–502, 1949

    1949

  49. [56]

    K. G. Wilson and John B. Kogut. The Renormalization group and the epsilon expansion. Phys. Rept., 12:75–199, 1974

    1974

  50. [57]

    Limits on Massless Particles

    Steven Weinberg and Edward Witten. Limits on Massless Particles. Phys. Lett. B, 96:59–62, 1980

    1980

  51. [58]

    P. A. Zyla et al. Review of Particle Physics. PTEP, 2020(8):083C01, 2020

    2020

  52. [59]

    Bigi and A

    Ikaros I. Bigi and A. I. Sanda. CP violation, volume 9. Cambridge University Press, 9 2009

    2009

  53. [60]

    Schubert

    Klaus R. Schubert. T Violation and CPT Tests in Neutral-Meson Systems. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 81:1–38, 2015. 26

    2015

  54. [61]

    R. L. Workman and Others. Review of Particle Physics. PTEP, 2022:083C01, 2022

    2022

  55. [62]

    J. R. Batley et al. A Precision measurement of direct CP violation in the decay of neutral kaons into two pions. Phys. Lett. B, 544:97–112, 2002

    2002

  56. [63]

    Abouzaid et al

    E. Abouzaid et al. Precise Measurements of Direct CP Violation, CPT Symmetry, and Other Parameters in the Neutral Kaon System. Phys. Rev. D , 83:092001,

  57. [64]

    Colangelo, J

    G. Colangelo, J. Gasser, and H. Leutwyler.ππ scattering. Nucl. Phys. B, 603:125– 179, 2001

    2001

  58. [66]

    Apostolakis et al

    A. Apostolakis et al. A Determination of the CP violation parameter η+− from the decay of strangeness tagged neutral kaons. Phys. Lett. B, 458:545–552, 1999

    1999

  59. [67]

    Schwingenheuer et al

    B. Schwingenheuer et al. CPT tests in the neutral kaon system. Phys. Rev. Lett., 74:4376–4379, 1995

    1995

  60. [68]

    Briere and Bruce Winstein

    Roy A. Briere and Bruce Winstein. Determining the phase of a strong scat- tering amplitude from its momentum dependence to better than 1-degree: The Example of Kaon regeneration. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 75:402–405, 1995. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 75, 2070 (1995)]

    1995

  61. [69]

    Angelopoulos et al

    A. Angelopoulos et al. Measurement of the neutral kaon regeneration amplitude in carbon at momenta below 1-GeV/c. Phys. Lett. B, 413:422–430, 1997

    1997

  62. [70]

    J. S. Bell and J. Steinberger. Weak Interactions of Kaons. In Proceedings of the Oxford Int. Conf. on Elementary Particles, pages 195–222, 1965

    1965

  63. [71]

    Determination of CP and CPT violation parameters in the neutral kaon system using the Bell-Steinberger relation and data from the KLOE experiment

    Giancarlo D’Ambrosio and Gino Isidori. Determination of CP and CPT violation parameters in the neutral kaon system using the Bell-Steinberger relation and data from the KLOE experiment. JHEP, 12:011, 2006

    2006

  64. [72]

    Antonelli, G

    M. Antonelli, G. D’Ambrosio, and M.S. Sozzi. cpt invariance testa in neutral kaon decay (pdg review article). PTEP, 2022:871, 2022

    2022

  65. [73]

    Radiative kaon decays K+- — > pi+- pi0 gamma and direct CP violation

    Hai-Yang Cheng. Radiative kaon decays K+- — > pi+- pi0 gamma and direct CP violation. Phys. Rev. D, 49:3771–3774, 1994

    1994

  66. [74]

    CP violation in kaon decays

    Giancarlo D’Ambrosio and Gino Isidori. CP violation in kaon decays. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 13:1–94, 1998

    1998

  67. [75]

    Zou et al

    Y . Zou et al. New measurement of the amplitude of the CP conserving decay KS → π+π−π0. Phys. Lett. B, 369:362–366, 1996

    1996

  68. [76]

    Adler et al

    R. Adler et al. CPLEAR results on the CP parameters of neutral kaons decaying to π+π−π0. Phys. Lett. B, 407:193–200, 1997

    1997

  69. [77]

    Babusci et al

    D. Babusci et al. A new limit on the CP violating decay KS → 3π0 with the KLOE experiment. Phys. Lett. B, 723:54–60, 2013. 27

    2013

  70. [78]

    Angelopoulos et al

    A. Angelopoulos et al. A Determination of the CPT violation parameter Re(delta) from the semileptonic decay of strangeness tagged neutral kaons. Phys. Lett. B , 444:52–60, 1998

    1998

  71. [79]

    Pontecorvo

    B. Pontecorvo. Inverse beta processes and nonconservation of lepton charge. Zh. Eksp. Teor . Fiz., 34:247, 1957

    1957

  72. [80]

    A. Renieri. Possibility of Achieving Very High-Energy Resolution in electron-Positron Storage Rings. https://lib- extopc.kek.jp/preprints/PDF/1975/7506/7506061.pdf, 2 1975

    1975

  73. [81]

    I. Ya. Protopopov, A. N. Skrinsky, and A. A. Zholents. ENERGY MONOCHROMATIZATION OF PARTICLE INTERACTION IN STORAGE RINGS. 1 1979

    1979

  74. [82]

    Zholents

    Alexander A. Zholents. Polarized J / psi mesons at a tau charm factory with a monochromator scheme. 6 1992

    1992

  75. [83]

    V . I. Telnov. Monochromatization of e+e− colliders with a large crossing angle. 8 2020. 28

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.