Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 53 references

With beam divergence, multiple scattering, and production-vertex depth included, the original E141 beam-dump dataset cannot exclude a vector X17 boson with mass near 17 MeV.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 05:47 UTC pith:4AIBM3RP

load-bearing objection A serious reanalysis that may erase the E141 constraint on a 17 MeV vector boson, but the paper never states how the two E141 target configurations enter the MC, and that could flip the result. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.22102 v1 pith:4AIBM3RP submitted 2026-07-24 hep-ph hep-ex

Updated E141 constraints on a long-lived X₁₇ vector boson

A. Celentano , A. Marini , L. Marsicano This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords X17 bosonbeam-dump experimentexclusion limitselectron couplingexact tree-level cross sectiontrack-length distributionlong-lived particleangular acceptance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that the longstanding E141 exclusion of an X17 vector boson at the preferred mass of about 16.9 MeV is an artifact of simplifying assumptions. When the exact tree-level production cross section, the full angular spread of electrons in the dump, and the spatial distribution of production vertices are included, the predicted signal never reaches the 95% CL upper limit adopted by the earlier reanalysis. Consequently, no electron coupling in the previously quoted range 5.1e-5 to 1.7e-4 is actually excluded at that mass. This reopens the possibility of a long-lived X17 with a coupling near 1e-4, consistent with recent hints about the particle's lifetime, and shifts the remaining viable window to be bounded by other experiments.

Core claim

The paper claims that the E141 constraints commonly used against the X17 hypothesis are not valid for mX above roughly 16 MeV. By computing the signal with the exact tree-level differential cross section for radiative emission, by properly simulating the shower's angle-resolved track-length distribution (including beam divergence and multiple scattering), and by treating the production vertex as distributed along the target depth rather than fixed at its entrance, the expected number of accepted positrons at mX = 16.88 MeV stays below the 95% CL upper limit of 3419 events for every value of the electron coupling epsilon_e. The result is that the E141 dataset does not exclude a new light vect

What carries the argument

The central object is the improved signal-yield calculation, which multiplies the exact-tree-level radiative cross section by the simulated electron track-length distribution inside the tungsten dump, then folds in the X17 decay-probability exponentials and the detector acceptance defined by the ~1.1 mrad collimator. Three refinements drive the change: replacing the improved equivalent-photon approximation with the exact cross section (lowering the yield), including angular smearing from beam divergence and multiple scattering (reducing acceptance by a roughly constant factor over a wide coupling range), and replacing the fixed z=0 production vertex with the actual depth distribution (which

Load-bearing premise

The analysis imports a fixed 95% CL upper limit of 3419 events from the earlier reanalysis while the signal is computed for one target configuration, even though the original E141 dataset combined two different dump lengths; if the simulated geometry underestimates the combined-data signal, the no-exclusion conclusion could fail.

What would settle it

Recompute the expected signal at mX = 16.88 MeV using the full two-dump E141 configuration; if the combined Ns exceeds 3419 events for epsilon_e = 1e-4, the paper's central claim is wrong.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The previously quoted E141 exclusion band for the X17-electron coupling no longer applies at the preferred mass of about 16.88 MeV; there is no epsilon_e value excluded in that region.
  • A long-lived X17 with a coupling near 10^-4, as suggested by recent lifetime estimates, is experimentally viable and consistent with the E141 data.
  • The surviving allowed window, roughly 6.5e-5 to 1.1e-4 at 90% CL, is bounded by constraints from other electron-beam experiments rather than by E141.
  • At these couplings an X17 produced by a 100 GeV electron beam would have a decay length of a few meters, making invisible-mode missing-energy experiments a promising probe of the remaining window.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the result holds, other legacy beam-dump limits derived with the equivalent-photon approximation and with production vertices fixed at z=0 may also overstate sensitivity near kinematic edges; revisiting them could shift the global landscape of light-vector-boson bounds.
  • The newly allowed window 6.5e-5 to 1.1e-4 is a sharp, testable target: a 100 GeV missing-energy electron fixed-target experiment should either see or exclude a long-lived X17 with meter-scale decay length, settling the question independently of nuclear-physics anomalies.
  • The paper's emphasis on the mass-edge behavior suggests that future reanalyses of historical experiments should treat the threshold region with full kinematics instead of interpolating exclusion contours derived under approximations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper revisits the E141 experiment's constraints on a vector X17 boson. The authors build a Geant4/DMG4 Monte Carlo simulation of the E141 setup, using exact tree-level cross sections for radiative X17 production and including beam divergence, electromagnetic shower track-length, production-vertex distribution, and decay-product angular acceptance. They compare the predicted signal yield to the imported 95% CL upper limit N_s^95=3419 from Andreas et al. They find that for m_X ≳ 16 MeV the expected yield never reaches this limit, so E141 does not exclude the X17 interpretation at the mass preferred by ATOMKI. They further show an allowed window 6.5×10^-5 ≲ ε_e ≲ 1.1×10^-4. The result is cross-checked with an independent MADDUMP/MadGraph5 calculation.

Significance. If the result holds, it removes a long-standing exclusion and opens a viable parameter region for a long-lived vector X17, consistent with recent preliminary lifetime estimates. The paper's strengths include the use of two independent MC codes with ~10% agreement, a first-principles ETL cross-section derivation cross-checked against the literature, and a clear falsifiable prediction for the NA64-e invisible mode. The central claim, however, rests on a comparison to a combined-data upper limit while the MC geometry/EOT normalization is not fully specified.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III.A–III.D and Fig. 5] The manuscript never states how the two E141 target configurations are simulated or combined. Sec. III.A describes 10.16 cm and 12.16 cm W targets, each ~2×10^15 EOT, combined in the original analysis. The MC description (Sec. III.B) and Fig. 5 quote yields 'per EOT' without specifying target length or total EOT used for N_s; the only explicit length is L_sh=12.16 cm in Sec. II. Since N_s^95=3419 from Ref. [35] is for the combined dataset, simulating only the 12.16 cm target and/or only 2×10^15 EOT would underestimate N_s by about a factor of two plus a geometry correction. The no-exclusion conclusion for mX≈16.88 MeV depends on this normalization. Please state the simulated geometry(ies), EOT, and combination procedure, or show robustness to including the second configuration.
  2. [Sec. III.D and Fig. 7] The central claim is that for mX≳16 MeV the expected signal N_s(ε_e) never reaches the 95% CL upper limit N_s^95=3419. The paper does not show N_s(ε_e) for a mass in this region or report the maximum N_s/N_s^95 ratio. Given the ~10% DMG4/MADDUMP normalization difference and the unresolved EOT/geometry issue in the previous comment, the margin by which the maximum falls below the limit is essential to assess the robustness of the conclusion. Please include representative N_s(ε_e) curves (or a table of maximum N_s/N_s^95 vs mX) and quantify the effect of a ±10% normalization uncertainty on the endpoint of the exclusion contour.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III.A] The rate '1.1×6.7×10^-14' appears to be a typo; it should likely read '1.1×10^-13 to 6.7×10^-14' or similar.
  2. [Fig. 4] The axis label for z_e is garbled in the text; please fix.
  3. [Sec. III.D and Fig. 8] The paper uses N_s^95=3419 for the 95% CL contour in Fig. 7, but Fig. 8 compares this with 90% CL limits from other experiments. Please state the CL of the E141 contour in Fig. 8 or consistently present all curves at a single CL.
  4. [Appendix A] The text says several errors in Ref. [52] are corrected, but the specific corrections are not listed. A brief enumeration would help readers.
  5. [References] References [12], [18], and [30] lack complete year/volume information; please complete the entries.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the E141 limit comparison is externally anchored and the self-cited MC package is cross-validated.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The central comparison is N_s (simulated X17 signal in the E141 detector) against N95_s = 3419, an external 95% CL upper limit on signal events imported from Andreas et al. (Ref. [35]). That limit is derived from the measured E141 positron yield N_e+ = (1126±1132), not from the X17 production model, so using it as a threshold is a standard, non-circular limit-setting procedure. The predicted N_s is obtained from an exact tree-level cross section (Eq. 3, derived in Appendix A and cross-checked against Ref. [52]) convolved with a Geant4 track-length distribution; mX and eps_e are scanned, not fitted, and no prediction is equivalent to an input by construction. The only self-citation is the DMG4 package (Ref. [44], co-authored by two of the present authors), but its yield is cross-checked against the independent MADDUMP/MG5 calculation and the ~10% difference is shown not to change the conclusion; hence the self-citation is not load-bearing. A non-circular correctness caveat should be flagged: Sec. III.A describes two E141 runs (10.16 cm and 12.16 cm targets, ~2e15 EOT each) and states the original analysis combined them, while Secs. III.B-III.C and Fig. 5 report yields 'per EOT' and never state whether both geometries and the full 4e15 EOT enter N_s. If only the 12.16 cm configuration is simulated, N_s would be underestimated. This is an omitted-support/geometry-normalization issue, not a definitional or self-referential circularity, so it does not increase the circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted in this paper: mX and ε_e are scanned model parameters imported from the X17 hypothesis, and the MC biasing parameters are computational. The analysis imports the ETL cross-section framework from Ref [39]/[52], the fixed upper limit N95_s from Ref [35], and the Geant4 shower tool DMG4 (including two of the authors); none of these is an invented entity. The main axioms listed below are the modeling and data-import assumptions on which the 'no exclusion' conclusion rests.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The X17 is a vector boson described by Eq. (1) with negligible coupling to neutrinos (ε_ν ≈ 0), so it decays only to e+e- with width Eq. (2).
    Defines the signal model; if ε_ν were not negligible, the e+e- branching fraction and the lifetime/coupling relation would change, altering the limit.
  • domain assumption Production of X17 in the E141 dump is dominated by radiative emission from electrons (and shower secondaries) off tungsten nuclei, with form factors from Ref [39].
    Used throughout Sec II and in the DMG4/MADDUMP simulations; other production mechanisms are neglected.
  • domain assumption The exact-tree-level differential cross section derived in Appendix A is correct and more accurate than the IWW approximation for the E141 kinematics.
    The central yield reduction factor (~1.4–2 vs IWW) rests on this calculation; the authors state it agrees with Ref [52] after correcting a few errors.
  • domain assumption N95_s = 3419, the 95% CL upper limit on the E141 signal yield from Ref [35], is directly applicable to the X17 signal hypothesis with the same signal region (0.7 ≤ x_e+ ≤ 0.9).
    The paper does not reanalyze the raw E141 counts; the whole exclusion test compares the simulated N_s to this imported number.
  • domain assumption The Geant4/DMG4 simulation of the electromagnetic shower (with E_thr = 4 GeV, biasing factor β, and the flat-cos beam divergence) accurately reproduces the electron track-length distribution and production vertex distribution in the E141 target.
    The predicted yield and z-distribution in Figs 4–5 determine the exponential decay-acceptance factors; a 10% cross-code spread is shown but no systematic band is propagated.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16572 in / 22558 out tokens · 236234 ms · 2026-08-01T05:47:06.538377+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Since its first observation by the ATOMKI experiment in 2018, the $\rm ^*Be$ anomaly has attracted considerable interest within the dark sector community as it may indicate the existence of a new fundamental particle with a mass of about 16.9 MeV, the $X_{17}$. However, the minimal model describing $X_{17}$ as a new vector boson is severely constrained by null results from legacy beam-dump experiments. Among these, the E141 experiment at SLAC places stringent limits on the $X_{17}$ coupling to electrons $\varepsilon_e$ in the $5.1\times10^{-5}\lesssim \varepsilon_e\lesssim1.7\times10^{-4}$ region. This excludes the possibility of a long-lived $X_{17}$, potentially in contrast with the preliminary estimate of the particle lifetime recently reported by the ATOMKI collaboration. The E141 limits commonly adopted in the literature rely on reinterpretations of the original analysis under solid but simplifying assumptions. While these studies provide a reliable estimate of the experiment's reach, they rely on approximations that were well justified when the boson mass was largely unconstrained. With the $X_{17}$ mass now confined to a narrow region by recent experimental observations, a more refined treatment of the E141 sensitivity becomes necessary. In this work, we revisit the E141 exclusion limits in the $X_{17}$ scenario by performing a dedicated reanalysis that incorporates a more accurate treatment of the experimental setup and signal prediction. We quantify the impact of these refinements on the excluded parameter space and discuss their implications for the compatibility between the E141 constraints and the vector boson interpretation of the ATOMKI anomalies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.22102 by A. Celentano, A. Marini, L. Marsicano.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Differential cross section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Energy spectrum of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Schematic drawing of the E141 experimental setup. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: as a function of mX, for εe = 1, comparing the DMG4 result (black) with the MADDUMP one (red). We observe that the two codes produce very similar results, demonstrating the robustness of our approach. We also mention that the MADDUMP yield is systematically lower than the DMG4 one, the difference being ≈ 10% over the whole mX range relevant for this work. We traced this difference to a possible numerical i… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Experimental E141 detection acceptance for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Updated 95% CL exclusion limits from E141 for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Summary of current [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 38 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    A. J. Krasznahorkayet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 042501 (2016), arXiv:1504.01527 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    [41, 52]

    Adopting the mostly-minus Lorentz metrics, the differential cross section is given by the expression: 2 We adopt a convention with an opposite sign with respect to Refs. [41, 52]. 10 dσ= M 2 4M p(2π)5 dkdp′dPf 8EkE′Ef δ(E+M−E k −E ′ −E f )δ(p+P i −k−p ′ −P f ),(A1) where M 2 is the matrix element squared for the pro- cess, averaged and summed over the hel...

  3. [3]

    T. T. Anhet al., Universe10, 168 (2024), 12 arXiv:2401.11676 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    J. L. Feng, B. Fornal, I. Galon, S. Gardner, J. Smolinsky, T. M. P. Tait, and P. Tanedo, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 071803 (2016), arXiv:1604.07411 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    J. L. Feng, B. Fornal, I. Galon, S. Gardner, J. Smolinsky, T. M. P. Tait, and P. Tanedo, Phys. Rev. D95, 035017 (2017), arXiv:1608.03591 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    A. J. Krasznahorkay, M. Csatl´ os, L. Csige, J. Guly´ as, A. Krasznahorkay, B. M. Nyak´ o, I. Rajta, J. Tim´ ar, I. Va- jda, and N. J. Sas, Phys. Rev. C104, 044003 (2021), arXiv:2104.10075 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    A. J. Krasznahorkayet al., Phys. Rev. C106, L061601 (2022), arXiv:2209.10795 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    A. J. Krasznahorky, A. Krasznahorkay, M. Csatl´ os, J. Tim´ ar, M. Begala, A. Krak´ o, I. Rajta, I. Vajda, and N. J. Sas, Universe10, 409 (2024), arXiv:2409.16300 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Afanacievet al.(MEG II), Eur

    K. Afanacievet al.(MEG II), Eur. Phys. J. C85, 763 (2025), arXiv:2411.07994 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Gustavinoet al., Nucl

    C. Gustavinoet al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1072, 170087 (2025)

    2025

  11. [11]

    B. G. Servinet al., Nuovo Cim. C48, 23 (2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    Bastinet al.(New JEDI), EPJ Web Conf.275, 01012 (2023)

    B. Bastinet al.(New JEDI), EPJ Web Conf.275, 01012 (2023)

    2023

  13. [13]

    Bossiet al.(PADME), JHEP11, 007, arXiv:2505.24797 [hep-ex]

    F. Bossiet al.(PADME), JHEP11, 007, arXiv:2505.24797 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  14. [14]

    Banerjeeet al.(NA64), Phys

    D. Banerjeeet al.(NA64), Phys. Rev. D101, 071101 (2020), arXiv:1912.11389 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Duttaet al., A new direct detection electron scat- tering experiment to search for the X17 particle (2023), arXiv:2301.08768 [nucl-ex]

    D. Duttaet al., A new direct detection electron scat- tering experiment to search for the X17 particle (2023), arXiv:2301.08768 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    J. L. Feng, T. M. P. Tait, and C. B. Verhaaren, Phys. Rev. D102, 036016 (2020), arXiv:2006.01151 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    Zhang and G

    X. Zhang and G. A. Miller, Phys. Lett. B813, 136061 (2021), arXiv:2008.11288 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Kozaczuk, D

    J. Kozaczuk, D. E. Morrissey, and S. R. Stroberg, Phys. Rev. D95, 115024 (2017), arXiv:1612.01525 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  19. [19]

    Ellwanger and S

    U. Ellwanger and S. Moretti, JHEP11, 039, arXiv:1609.01669 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    Zhang and G

    X. Zhang and G. A. Miller, Phys. Lett. B773, 159 (2017)

    2017

  21. [21]

    Chen, Is theX17 composed of four bare quarks? (2020), arXiv:2006.01018 [hep-ph]

    H.-X. Chen, Is theX17 composed of four bare quarks? (2020), arXiv:2006.01018 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    Kubarovsky, J

    V. Kubarovsky, J. R. West, and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. C111, 024320 (2025), arXiv:2206.14441 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    ATOMKI Anomaly

    A. Aleksejevs, S. Barkanova, Y. G. Kolomensky, and B. Sheff, A Standard Model Explanation for the “ATOMKI Anomaly” (2021), arXiv:2102.01127 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Barducci and C

    D. Barducci and C. Toni, JHEP02, 154, [Erratum: JHEP 07, 168 (2023)], arXiv:2212.06453 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Rathsman, J

    J. Rathsman, J. Cederk¨ all, Y. Hicyilmaz, E. Lytken, and S. Moretti, Glimpses of the X17 from coherent elas- tic neutrino nucleus scattering (2026), arXiv:2603.15246 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    P. B. Denton and J. Gehrlein, Phys. Rev. D108, 015009 (2023), arXiv:2304.09877 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Capolupo, A

    A. Capolupo, A. Quaranta, and R. Serao, in11th Inter- national Workshop on Decoherence, Information, Com- plexity and Entropy: Spacetime - Matter - Quantum Me- chanics(2025) arXiv:2503.01594 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Hostert and M

    M. Hostert and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. D108, 055011 (2023), arXiv:2306.15077 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Hostert, M

    M. Hostert, M. Pospelov, and A. Thompson, Phys. Rev. D113, 115003 (2026), arXiv:2602.19479 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    D. S. M. Alves, Phys. Rev. D103, 055018 (2021), arXiv:2009.05578 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    J. Liu, N. McGinnis, C. E. M. Wagner, and X.-P. Wang, JHEP05, 138, arXiv:2102.10118 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    Arias-Arag´ on, G

    F. Arias-Arag´ on, G. G. di Cortona, E. Nardi, and C. Toni, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 378 (2026), arXiv:2504.11439 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    P. B. Denton and J. Gehrlein, Phys. Rev. D108, 015009 (2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    C. J. G. Mommers and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Lett. B858, 139031 (2024), arXiv:2406.08143 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Anastasiet al., Phys

    A. Anastasiet al., Phys. Lett. B750, 633 (2015), arXiv:1509.00740 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  36. [36]

    Andreas, C

    S. Andreas, C. Niebuhr, and A. Ringwald, Phys. Rev. D 86, 095019 (2012), arXiv:1209.6083 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  37. [37]

    E. M. Riordanet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.59, 755 (1987)

    1987

  38. [38]

    Krasznahorkay, Experiments to detect the X17 parti- cle, Talk presented at the ”The X17 particle, status and new ideas” workshop (2025)

    A. Krasznahorkay, Experiments to detect the X17 parti- cle, Talk presented at the ”The X17 particle, status and new ideas” workshop (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    Krasznahorkay, Recent status of the discovery of the X17 particle, Talk presented at the 18th Workshop on Particle Correlations and Femtoscopy

    A. Krasznahorkay, Recent status of the discovery of the X17 particle, Talk presented at the 18th Workshop on Particle Correlations and Femtoscopy

  40. [40]

    J. D. Bjorken, R. Essig, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, Phys. Rev. D80, 075018 (2009), arXiv:0906.0580 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  41. [41]

    Izaguirre, G

    E. Izaguirre, G. Krnjaic, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, Phys. Rev. D88, 114015 (2013), arXiv:1307.6554 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  42. [42]

    Liu and G

    Y.-S. Liu and G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. D96, 016004 (2017), arXiv:1705.01633 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  43. [43]

    Andivahis, F

    L. Andivahis, F. Dietrich, C. W. Johnson, A. Lung, G. Petratos, K. Van Bibber, and L. W. Whitlow,A Pre- cise calibration of the SLAC 8-GeV spectrometer using the floating wire technique, Tech. Rep. (1992)

    1992

  44. [44]

    Fabbrichesi, E

    M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli, and G. Lanfranchi (2020) SpringerBrief in Physics, arXiv:2005.01515 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  45. [45]

    Bondi, A

    M. Bondi, A. Celentano, R. R. Dusaev, D. V. Kirpich- nikov, M. M. Kirsanov, N. V. Krasnikov, L. Marsicano, and D. Shchukin, Comput. Phys. Commun.269, 108129 (2021), arXiv:2101.12192 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    B. B. Oberhauseret al., Comput. Phys. Commun.300, 109199 (2024), arXiv:2401.12573 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Y. M. Andreevet al.(NA64), JHEP06, 256, arXiv:2502.04053 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  48. [48]

    Buonocore, C

    L. Buonocore, C. Frugiuele, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, and F. Tramontano, JHEP05, 028, arXiv:1812.06771 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  49. [49]

    Alwall, M

    J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, and T. Stelzer, JHEP06, 128, arXiv:1106.0522 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  50. [50]

    Andreas, O

    S. Andreas, O. Lebedev, S. Ramos-Sanchez, and A. Ring- wald, JHEP08, 003, 1005.3978 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  51. [51]

    Davier and H

    M. Davier and H. Nguyen Ngoc, Phys. Lett. B229, 150 (1989)

    1989

  52. [52]

    Y. M. Andreevet al.(NA64), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 161801 (2023), arXiv:2307.02404 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

    S. N. Gninenko, D. V. Kirpichnikov, M. M. Kirsanov, and N. V. Krasnikov, Phys. Lett. B782, 406 (2018), arXiv:1712.05706 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018