Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 55 references

The X(17) boson cannot couple to electrons in any of five standard ways, the paper concludes; the Atomki anomalies may be nuclear.

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

2026-08-03 10:49 UTC pith:JIBQCW4G

load-bearing objection A useful X(17) constraint inventory whose one new ingredient — an E158 bound on εvεa — is unvalidated and ~100x adrift from the independent estimate it cites, and whose abstract contradicts the body on whether the vector model survives. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.08567 v5 pith:JIBQCW4G submitted 2026-01-13 hep-ph

Where to find X(17)?

Jun Jiang , Cong-Feng Qiao , Yu-Han Zhao This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords X(17)Atomki anomalylight dark bosonelectron couplingparity-violating Møller scatteringanomalous magnetic momentbeam dump constraintsvector-axial-vector model
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 asks whether the 17 MeV particle X(17), invoked to explain the anomalous electron-positron pairs seen in excited beryllium, helium, and carbon decays, can couple to electrons at all. The authors combine measurements of the electron's anomalous magnetic moment, beam-dump searches, the KLOE-2 collider search, the PADME fixed-target search, and parity-violating Møller scattering to bound the electron couplings in five Lorentz structures. They conclude that the surviving window for vector-plus-axial-vector couplings is closed by a new product bound from parity violation, so no parameter space remains for scalar, pseudoscalar, vector, axial-vector, or mixed couplings. If this conclusion holds, the Atomki anomalies are not signals of a new light boson but a poorly understood nuclear effect. The result matters because it redirects the search for new physics away from a very popular candidate.

Core claim

Within a general vector-plus-axial-vector (V±A) Lagrangian in which X(17) couples to electrons with vector strength εv and axial strength εa, the paper maps the allowed region in the (εv, εa) plane. The electron's anomalous magnetic moment forces (εv)^2 − 5(εa)^2 into a narrow band; beam-dump experiments and KLOE-2 bound (εv)^2 + (εa)^2 between about 4.6×10^-7 and 4×10^-6; and parity-violating Møller scattering limits the product εv εa to (2.6±5.0)×10^-9. These three constraint families have no common intersection. The same combination excludes the pure vector and pure axial-vector models, and the Atomki nuclear transitions themselves rule out scalar and pseudoscalar couplings by parity sele

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-dimensional space of electron coupling parameters (εv, εa) of the X(17) boson, defined through the interaction Lagrangian L = −e ψ̄ γμ(εv − εa γ5)ψ Xμ. The argument runs on three inequalities: the AMM constraint (εv)^2 − 5(εa)^2 ≲ 0, the beam-dump/KLOE-2 band 4.6×10^-7 ≲ (εv)^2 + (εa)^2 ≲ 4×10^-6, and the new parity-violating Møller-scattering bound εv εa ≲ (2.6±5.0)×10^-9. The product bound is the load-bearing new ingredient: it cuts diagonally through the ellipse left by the other two, leaving an empty allowed set.

Load-bearing premise

The exclusion of the mixed V±A model rests entirely on the product bound εv εa ≲ (2.6±5.0)×10^-9 derived from parity-violating Møller scattering; if the normalization of that interference term is off by the suspected charge factor, the bound weakens and the parameter space reopens.

What would settle it

Recompute the exact tree-level interference term for e−e− → e−e− with an intermediate light vector-axial boson, including all electron-charge factors, and compare to the measured parity-violating asymmetry from fixed-target Møller running at Q²=0.026 GeV². A corrected bound above εv εa ~ 10^-7 would leave the V±A window open.

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

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, the X(17) particle as a light boson coupling to electrons is ruled out; the Atomki bumps cannot be explained by any scalar, pseudoscalar, vector, axial-vector, or mixed vector-axial electron-coupled state.
  • Future electron-beam and positron-beam searches for X(17) lose their primary motivation and would only make sense if a new coupling structure is proposed.
  • The paper's proposed nuclear test becomes decisive: comparing e+e− angular correlations in de-excitation of 16O, an α-cluster nucleus, with those of non-α-cluster nuclei could confirm the nuclear-effect explanation.
  • Any surviving new-physics explanation of Atomki must couple the 17 MeV state primarily to quarks or neutrons, or through a different Lorentz structure, since electron couplings are now excluded.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same constraint-combination method — AMM ellipse, beam-dump ring, and parity-violating product cut — can be applied to any proposed light vector/axial mediator in the 1–100 MeV range, giving a template for closing parameter spaces of light bosons.
  • The Møller-scattering product bound, if it stands, has a broader implication: it excludes not only X(17) but any light axial-vector boson with electron coupling sufficient to explain light-mass anomalies, because such a boson would induce a parity-violating electron-electron asymmetry larger than the measured residual.
  • A testable extension: re-analyze archival fixed-target electron-electron scattering data at lower momentum transfer, where the X-exchange term is relatively larger, to independently confirm or refute the product bound before excluding the model.
  • If the normalization of the product bound is later corrected and the window reopens, the surviving region would be a thin arc requiring fine-tuned cancellation between vector and axial couplings — a strong prior against it, but a distinct experimental signature in future AMM measurements.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper combines Atomki 8Be/4He/12C data, the electron anomalous magnetic moment, NA64/E137/E141 beam-dump limits, KLOE-2, PADME, and SLAC E158 parity-violating Møller scattering to constrain the electron couplings of a 17 MeV X boson under scalar, pseudoscalar, vector, axial-vector, and V±A Lorentz structures. Its central new result is a bound on the product ε_v ε_a from Møller scattering, which the authors use to close the V±A parameter space allowed by the AMM, beam-dump, and KLOE-2 constraints. The paper concludes that no viable parameter space for any of these five coupling structures survives and that the Atomki anomalies may therefore be of nuclear, rather than new-physics, origin.

Significance. If the Møller-based V±A exclusion is correct, the paper would be an important negative result: it would rule out a broad class of light-boson explanations of the Atomki anomaly and sharpen the case for a nuclear interpretation. The manuscript is useful in synthesizing recent NA64, KLOE-2, PADME, and E158 results, and it is commendably explicit about model assumptions such as Br(X→e+e-)≈1, the decay-length cut, and the roughness of the PADME extraction. The closed-form cross-section formulas and the summary table are also assets. However, the decisive new constraint rests on a Møller interference formula whose normalization appears inconsistent with the quoted SM asymmetry, and the abstract and body state opposite conclusions for the vector and V±A cases. The significance of the paper is therefore not established in its present form.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II.B.6, Eqs. (29)–(31) and (33)] A direct numerical evaluation of Eq. (29) with the stated E158 kinematics (s=(0.208 GeV)^2, t=-0.026 GeV^2, m_Z=91.188 GeV, sin^2θ_W≈0.231), divided by the denominator |M_R|^2+|M_L|^2 from Eq. (28), gives a SM asymmetry of roughly -4.5×10^-7, not the quoted A_Z^PV=-122×10^-9 in Eq. (33). The discrepancy is about a factor of four, indicating a missing normalization factor in Eq. (29) or an inconsistency between Eqs. (28) and (29). Because Eq. (30) is presented on the same footing, the X(17) contribution to the asymmetry—and hence the bound ε_v ε_a ≲ (2.6±5.0)×10^-9 in Eq. (34)—inherits the same normalization uncertainty. The authors should derive the interference terms from the full amplitudes or compare with the standard E158 formula, and verify the numerical coefficient before using Eq. (34) to exclude V±A models.
  2. [§II.B.6, footnote 11 and Eq. (34)] The paper acknowledges that its central value for ε_v ε_a differs by about two orders of magnitude from the independent estimate ε_v ε_a ≲1.1×10^-7 in Eq. (F.3) of Ref. [28], but it does not reconcile this difference after applying the coupling-convention conversion noted in footnote 2. Since this Møller bound is the single constraint that excludes the V±A model, the discrepancy cannot be left as an unexplained footnote. The authors should either provide a quantitative conversion between the two conventions or perform an independent cross-check of Eq. (30). Without this, the central exclusion claim is not supported.
  3. [Abstract vs. §II.C and §III] The abstract states that the pure vector and V±A analyses 'consistently show that the Xee coupling is of the vector type' with a fixed range |ε_e^v| ≈ (6.78–6.93)×10^-4. In contrast, the body and Section III conclude that the vector and V±A models are excluded and that 'no viable parameter space' exists. These statements are mutually contradictory and cannot both describe the final result. The abstract appears to reflect an earlier stage of the analysis. This must be corrected, and the summary should distinguish models that are excluded from those that are merely disfavored; Table I, for example, does not contain a constraint that excludes the pure vector case.
  4. [§III, final claim] The concluding sentence 'no new physics associated with X(17) exists' is broader than the analysis actually performed. The paper only constrains the Xee coupling for five Lorentz structures, under additional assumptions of Br(X→e+e-)≈1 and a specified decay-length cut. It does not exclude, for example, new physics couplings to quarks that evade the electron-coupling constraints, or a different production mechanism in the nuclear transitions. The conclusion should be scoped to the models and assumptions considered, or the stronger claim should be supported by additional arguments.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§II.B.2 heading] The heading 'Electron's Anomalous Magnetic Momentum' should read 'Anomalous Magnetic Moment'.
  2. [Table I] The header 'KLEO-2' is a typo for 'KLOE-2'.
  3. [Footnote 2] There is a typo: 'cahrge' should be 'charge'. More importantly, the convention conversion relative to Ref. [28] should be stated explicitly, since it is central to comparing the ε_v ε_a bounds.
  4. [Fig. 5] The figure uses x and y for |ε_e^v| and |ε_e^a| but the axis labels are partially cut off in the text version. The caption should state the exact inequalities shown and the confidence level of the A_PV exclusion boundary.
  5. [§II.B.1] The statement that the Atomki experiments 'exclude' the scalar and pseudoscalar models via parity conservation depends on the assumed J^P assignments of the nuclear transitions. This is standard in the literature, but the paper should cite the relevant nuclear-structure analysis explicitly, as the conclusion is a premise for the rest of the exclusion logic.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the V±A exclusion is an intersection of independent experimental constraints; the only self-citations are illustrative and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Scalar/pseudoscalar exclusions come from parity/spin assignments of the nuclear transitions (§II.B.1). The AMM constraint Eq. (17) is obtained by requiring the standard one-loop X contribution to lie within the measured Δa_e; beam-dump, KLOE-2 and PADME constraints are extracted from published exclusions or cross-section formulas; and the Møller bound Eq. (34) is derived from the E158 residual via the interference formula Eq. (30). None of these inputs is defined in terms of the paper's conclusion, and the final 'no viable parameter space' claim is an intersection, not a tautology. The Atomki decay-length lower bounds Eqs. (6),(9),(12) do assume the X(17) signal is real, but the authors do not use them in the final V±A exclusion (they are absent from Table I, and the text explicitly refrains from drawing a conclusion from Eq. (12)). The only self-citations, [31,32], are used to say that the decay-width approximation Eq. (5) had been checked before; Eq. (5) is a standard tree-level width with an explicit O((me/mX)^2) error, so the citation is not load-bearing. Two non-circular weaknesses should be noted: footnote 11 concedes that the Møller central value differs by about two orders of magnitude from the independent estimate ε_v ε_a ≲ 1.1e-7 in Ref. [28], which is a correctness risk in Eq. (34), not a circularity; and the abstract's allowed pure-vector interval conflicts with the body's claim that the vector model is excluded, an internal-consistency issue. These do not make the derivation circular. Score 2 reflects the presence of minor self-citations, not a reduction of any result to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particle or force is introduced; X(17) is taken from prior experiments. The central claim rests on external measurements and a set of interpretive assumptions about how those measurements map onto V±A couplings.

free parameters (2)
  • X(17) decay-length cut L = 5 cm or 1 cm
    Lower bounds on (εv)^2+(εa)^2 from Atomki are derived by requiring L≤5cm or L≤1cm; the paper admits the choice is arbitrary and declines to use the 12C bound, yet uses the same-style bounds elsewhere.
  • Br(X→e+e-) = ≈1
    Assumes saturated X→e+e- decay to convert Atomki width ratios into Γ(8Be*→8BeX); a smaller branching ratio would rescale the lower bounds.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption X(17) couples to electrons through Eq. (1) with only scalar/pseudoscalar/vector/axial-vector/V±A Lorentz structures and couplings in units of e.
    The whole constraint analysis is restricted to this model space; other structures (e.g., tensor, anapole) are not considered.
  • ad hoc to paper Br(X→e+e-) ≈ 1 and the X decay length is cut at L≤5 cm or 1 cm.
    Used in §II.B.1 to convert Atomki observations into lower bounds; the L choice is hand-set and the paper itself flags it as arbitrary.
  • domain assumption The electron AMM discrepancy Δae=-1.02(26)×10^-12 is to be saturated by the X(17) loop contribution a_X^e in the range [Δae,0].
    Eq. (17) assumes X(17) explains the -3.9σ AMM shift; other BSM contributions would change the bound.
  • domain assumption The SM parity-violating Møller asymmetry at E158 kinematics is A_Z^PV=-122×10^-9 and the residual vs Eq. (32) is attributable to X(17).
    Used in §II.B.6 to derive Eq. (34); if the SM prediction or the E158 interpretation differs, the εv εa bound changes.
  • domain assumption Published exclusion curves for vector couplings apply to V±A through the replacement |εv| → sqrt((εv)^2+(εa)^2).
    Used for NA64, E137/E141, KLOE-2, and PADME bounds; valid only up to O((me/mX)^2)≈0.1%.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14146 in / 21489 out tokens · 188314 ms · 2026-08-03T10:49:29.902850+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The Atomki anomaly puts forward the hypothesis of an $X(17)$ particle to explain its observation. Utilizing experimental results from the Atomki experiments, measurements of the electron's anomalous magnetic moment, beam dump experiments, the KLOE-2 experiment, the PADME experiment, and the parity-violating M{\o}ller scattering experiment, we derive constraints on the $Xee$ coupling of the $X(17)$ boson to electrons. It is found that the scalar and pseudoscalar models can be excluded by Atomki experiments due to the parity conservation, and the pure axial-vector model is excluded at 98\% C.L. Meanwhile, the analyses in both pure vector and the vector $\pm$ axial-vector models consistently show that the $Xee$ coupling is of the vector type and has an almost fixed value, $\left(6.78 \pm 0.042\right) \times 10^{-4} \lesssim |\varepsilon_e^v| \lesssim \left(6.93 \pm 1.66\right) \times 10^{-4}$ in unit of electric charge $e$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.08567 by Cong-Feng Qiao, Jun Jiang, Yu-Han Zhao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The Feynman diagrams for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The Feynman diagrams of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The Feynman diagrams for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The Feynman diagrams for the Møller Scattering, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Constraints on the coupling parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.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

55 extracted references · 35 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    (3) to (6±1)×10 −6 [2, 4]

    Atomki Experiments In 2016, Krasznahorkayet al.reported the production of a neutral particleX, which subsequently decays toe +e− via internal pair creation, along with its mass and the ratio of decay widths [1], mX = 16.7±0.35(stat.)±0.5(sys.) MeV,(2) Γ (8Be∗ →8 BeX) Br (X→e +e−) Γ (8Be∗ →8 Beγ) = 5.8×10 −6.(3) Later, they updated the measurement of its m...

    2016

  2. [2]

    In 2022, an improved determination of the electron’s AMM was reported [35], aexp e = 0.00115965218059 (13),(13) which is 2.2 times more accurate than the 2008 measurement [36]

    Electron ’s Anomalous Magnetic Momentum Since the hypotheticalX(17) boson couples to electrons, it will contribute to the electron’s anomalous magnetic moment (AMM), defined asa e ≡(g e −2)/2. In 2022, an improved determination of the electron’s AMM was reported [35], aexp e = 0.00115965218059 (13),(13) which is 2.2 times more accurate than the 2008 measu...

    2022

  3. [3]

    Beam Dump Experiments In beam dump experiments, theX(17) boson is produced via initial/final-state radiation from a single electron impinging on a fixed target with atomic numberZ, a process known as the bremsstrahlung reactione −Z→e −ZX, as shown in Fig. 1. When considering the “V±A” interaction betweenX(17) and electrons in this process, the squared amp...

    2018

  4. [4]

    (F.5) of Ref

    KLOE-2 Experiment The KLOE-2 collaboration searched for a low-mass vector bosonUin the processe +e− → U γwithU→e +e− using the KLOE (3) dataset at the DAΦNEe +e− collider running at the 7 In Eq. (F.5) of Ref. [28], it is claimed that the NA64 experiment yields the constraint q (εve)2 + (εae )2 ≳ 1.2×10 −4, which is inconsistent with the original NA64 resu...

  5. [5]

    PADME experiment Very recently, the PADME experiment at the Frascati DAΦNE LINAC searches forX(17) using a positron beam incident on a fixed target [11]. The analysis relies on the measure- ment of the cross section for the production of events with a two-body final state (either e+e− orγγ) frome +e− annihilation processes over a beam energy range of 262-...

    2022

  6. [6]

    Parity-violating Møller Scattering The parity-violating Møller scattering can further constrain the combinationε v eεa e. The left-right scattering asymmetryA P V in fixed-target electron-electron (Møller) scattering is 10 The two-photon final state processe +e− →X(17)→γγinvolves theXγγinteraction ofX(17) with photons, which is beyond the scope of theV±Ai...

    2005

  7. [7]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    A. J. Krasznahorkay et al., J. Phys. Conf. Ser.1056, 012028 (2018)

    2018

  9. [9]

    A. J. Krasznahorkay et al., (2019), arXiv:1910.10459 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    A. J. Krasznahorkay, M. Csatl´ os, L. Csige, D. Firak, J. Guly´ as, ´A. Nagy, N. Sas, J. Tim´ ar, T. G. Tornyi, and A. Krasznahorkay, Acta Phys. Polon. B50, 675 (2019)

    2019

  11. [11]

    A. J. Krasznahorkay, M. Csatl´ os, L. Csige, J. Guly´ as, A. Krasznahorkay, B. M. Nyak´ o, I. Rajta, J. Tim´ ar, I. Vajda, and N. J. Sas, Phys. Rev. C104, 044003 (2021), arXiv:2104.10075 [nucl- 19 ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    A. J. Krasznahorkay, A. Krasznahorkay, M. Csatl´ os, L. Csige, J. Tim´ ar, M. Begala, A. Krak´ o, I. Rajta, and I. Vajda, (2023), arXiv:2308.06473 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    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

  15. [15]

    Arias-Arag´ on, G

    F. Arias-Arag´ on, G. G. di Cortona, E. Nardi, and C. Toni, (2025), arXiv:2504.11439 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Afanaciev et al

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Bossi et al

    F. Bossi et al. (PADME), JHEP11, 007 (2025), arXiv:2505.24797 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    D. S. M. Alves et al., Eur. Phys. J. C83, 230 (2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    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

  20. [20]

    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

  21. [21]

    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

  22. [22]

    Fayet, Phys

    P. Fayet, Phys. Lett. B95, 285 (1980)

    1980

  23. [23]

    Fayet, Nucl

    P. Fayet, Nucl. Phys. B187, 184 (1981)

    1981

  24. [24]

    Fayet, Phys

    P. Fayet, Phys. Rev. D103, 035034 (2021), arXiv:2010.04673 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Wong, JHEP08, 165 (2020), arXiv:2001.04864 [nucl-th]

    C.-Y. Wong, JHEP08, 165 (2020), arXiv:2001.04864 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    Wong and A

    C.-Y. Wong and A. V. Koshelkin, Eur. Phys. J. A59, 285 (2023), arXiv:2111.14933 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Zhang and G

    X. Zhang and G. A. Miller, Phys. Lett. B773, 159 (2017), arXiv:1703.04588 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  28. [28]

    Zhang and G

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    A. C. Hayes, J. L. Friar, G. M. Hale, and G. T. Garvey, Phys. Rev. C105, 055502 (2022), arXiv:2106.06834 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Banerjee et al

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Di Luzio, P

    L. Di Luzio, P. Paradisi, and N. Selimovic, Nucl. Phys. B1021, 117177 (2025), arXiv:2504.14014 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    N. V. Krasnikov, Mod. Phys. Lett. A35, 2050116 (2020), arXiv:1912.11689 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    R. H. Parker, C. Yu, W. Zhong, B. Estey, and H. M¨ uller, Science360, 191 (2018), arXiv:1812.04130 [physics.atom-ph]. 20

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  34. [34]

    Barducci and C

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Aliberti et al., Phys

    R. Aliberti et al., Phys. Rept.1143, 1 (2025), arXiv:2505.21476 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    D. P. Aguillard et al. (Muon g-2), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 101802 (2025), arXiv:2506.03069 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Jiang, L.-B

    J. Jiang, L.-B. Chen, Y. Liang, and C.-F. Qiao, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 456 (2018)

    2018

  38. [38]

    Jiang, H

    J. Jiang, H. Yang, and C.-F. Qiao, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 404 (2019), arXiv:1810.05790 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  39. [39]

    D. R. Tilley, J. H. Kelley, J. L. Godwin, D. J. Millener, J. E. Purcell, C. G. Sheu, and H. R. Weller, Nucl. Phys. A745, 155 (2004)

    2004

  40. [40]

    Guly´ as, T

    J. Guly´ as, T. J. Ketel, A. J. Krasznahorkay, M. Csatl´ os, L. Csige, Z. G´ acsi, M. Hunyadi, A. Krasznahorkay, A. Vit´ ez, and T. G. Tornyi, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A808, 21 (2016), arXiv:1504.00489 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  41. [41]

    X. Fan, T. G. Myers, B. A. D. Sukra, and G. Gabrielse, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 071801 (2023), arXiv:2209.13084 [physics.atom-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    Hanneke, S

    D. Hanneke, S. Fogwell, and G. Gabrielse, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 120801 (2008), arXiv:0801.1134 [physics.atom-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  43. [43]

    J. P. Leveille, Nucl. Phys. B137, 63 (1978)

    1978

  44. [44]

    Banerjee et al

    D. Banerjee et al. (NA64), Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 231802 (2018), arXiv:1803.07748 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  45. [45]

    M. H. Fieg, T. M¨ akel¨ a, T. M. P. Tait, and M. Toman, (2026), arXiv:2602.11263 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  46. [46]

    Depero et al

    E. Depero et al. (NA64), Eur. Phys. J. C80, 1159 (2020), arXiv:2009.02756 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  47. [47]

    Y. M. Andreev et al. (NA64), Phys. Rev. D104, L111102 (2021), arXiv:2104.13342 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  49. [49]

    Webplotdigitizer,

    A. Rohatgi, “Webplotdigitizer,”

  50. [50]

    Andreas, C

    S. Andreas, C. Niebuhr, and A. Ringwald, Phys. Rev. D86, 095019 (2012), arXiv:1209.6083 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  51. [51]

    Anastasi et al., Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  52. [52]

    Derman and W

    E. Derman and W. J. Marciano, Annals Phys.121, 147 (1979)

    1979

  53. [53]

    P. L. Anthony et al. (SLAC E158), Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 081601 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0504049

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  54. [54]

    D. R. Tilley, H. R. Weller, and C. M. Cheves, Nucl. Phys. A564, 1 (1993)

    1993

  55. [55]

    A. M. and T. Bandyopadhyay, (2025), arXiv:2512.10084 [hep-ph]. 21

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025