Search for Invisible Decays of a Dark Photon Produced in e+e- Collisions at BaBar
J.P. Lees (on behalf of the BaBar Collaboration)

TL;DR
This study searches for invisible decays of dark photons in electron-positron collisions using BaBar data, setting upper limits on their coupling strength and excluding certain dark-sector model parameters.
Contribution
First search for invisible dark photon decays in e+e- collisions at BaBar, providing new constraints on dark photon properties and dark matter models.
Findings
No evidence for dark photon production was observed.
Set 90% confidence level upper limits on the coupling strength of dark photons.
Excluded dark photon parameters suggested by the muon g-2 anomaly.
Abstract
We search for single-photon events in 53 fb^-1 of e+e- collision data collected with the BaBar detector at the PEP-II B-factory. We look for events with a single high-energy photon and a large missing momentum and energy, consistent with production of a spin-1 particle A' through the process e+e->gamma A', A'->invisible. Such particles, referred to as "dark photons", are motivated by theories applying a U(1) gauge symmetry to dark matter. We find no evidence for such processes and set 90% confidence level upper limits on the coupling strength of A' to e+e- in the mass range m_A'<=8 GeV. In particular, our limits exclude the values of the A' coupling suggested by the dark-photon interpretation of the muon (g-2) anomaly, as well as a broad range of parameters for the dark-sector models.
| Dataset | “lowM” | “highM” | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dataset | Selection | Selection | |||||
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
BABAR-PUB-17/001
SLAC-PUB-16923
††thanks: Deceased††thanks: Deceased
The BABAR Collaboration
Search for Invisible Decays of a Dark Photon Produced in
Collisions at BABAR
J. P. Lees
V. Poireau
V. Tisserand
Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules (LAPP), Université de Savoie, CNRS/IN2P3, F-74941 Annecy-Le-Vieux, France
E. Grauges
Universitat de Barcelona, Facultat de Fisica, Departament ECM, E-08028 Barcelona, Spain
A. Palano
INFN Sezione di Bari and Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Bari, I-70126 Bari, Italy
G. Eigen
University of Bergen, Institute of Physics, N-5007 Bergen, Norway
D. N. Brown
M. Derdzinski
A. Giuffrida
Yu. G. Kolomensky
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA
M. Fritsch
H. Koch
T. Schroeder
Ruhr Universität Bochum, Institut für Experimentalphysik 1, D-44780 Bochum, Germany
C. Heartyab
T. S. Mattisonb
J. A. McKennab
R. Y. Sob
Institute of Particle Physics; University of British Columbiab, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z1
V. E. Blinovabc
A. R. Buzykaeva
V. P. Druzhininab
V. B. Golubevab
E. A. Kravchenkoab
A. P. Onuchinabc
S. I. Serednyakovab
Yu. I. Skovpenab
E. P. Solodovab
K. Yu. Todyshevab
Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics SB RAS, Novosibirsk 630090a, Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk 630090b, Novosibirsk State Technical University, Novosibirsk 630092c, Russia
A. J. Lankford
University of California at Irvine, Irvine, California 92697, USA
J. W. Gary
O. Long
University of California at Riverside, Riverside, California 92521, USA
A. M. Eisner
W. S. Lockman
W. Panduro Vazquez
University of California at Santa Cruz, Institute for Particle Physics, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA
D. S. Chao
C. H. Cheng
B. Echenard
K. T. Flood
D. G. Hitlin
J. Kim
T. S. Miyashita
P. Ongmongkolkul
F. C. Porter
M. Röhrken
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA
Z. Huard
B. T. Meadows
B. G. Pushpawela
M. D. Sokoloff
L. Sun
Now at: Wuhan University, Wuhan 43072, China
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221, USA
J. G. Smith
S. R. Wagner
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA
D. Bernard
M. Verderi
Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole Polytechnique, CNRS/IN2P3, F-91128 Palaiseau, France
D. Bettonia
C. Bozzia
R. Calabreseab
G. Cibinettoab
E. Fioravantiab
I. Garziaab
E. Luppiab
V. Santoroa
INFN Sezione di Ferraraa; Dipartimento di Fisica e Scienze della Terra, Università di Ferrarab, I-44122 Ferrara, Italy
A. Calcaterra
R. de Sangro
G. Finocchiaro
S. Martellotti
P. Patteri
I. M. Peruzzi
M. Piccolo
M. Rotondo
A. Zallo
INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, I-00044 Frascati, Italy
S. Passaggio
C. Patrignani
Now at: Università di Bologna and INFN Sezione di Bologna, I-47921 Rimini, Italy
INFN Sezione di Genova, I-16146 Genova, Italy
H. M. Lacker
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institut für Physik, D-12489 Berlin, Germany
B. Bhuyan
Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, 781 039, India
U. Mallik
University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242, USA
C. Chen
J. Cochran
S. Prell
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA
H. Ahmed
Physics Department, Jazan University, Jazan 22822, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
A. V. Gritsan
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, USA
N. Arnaud
M. Davier
F. Le Diberder
A. M. Lutz
G. Wormser
Laboratoire de l’Accélérateur Linéaire, IN2P3/CNRS et Université Paris-Sud 11, Centre Scientifique d’Orsay, F-91898 Orsay Cedex, France
D. J. Lange
D. M. Wright
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California 94550, USA
J. P. Coleman
E. Gabathuler
D. E. Hutchcroft
D. J. Payne
C. Touramanis
University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZE, United Kingdom
A. J. Bevan
F. Di Lodovico
R. Sacco
Queen Mary, University of London, London, E1 4NS, United Kingdom
G. Cowan
University of London, Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, United Kingdom
Sw. Banerjee
D. N. Brown
C. L. Davis
University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky 40292, USA
A. G. Denig
W. Gradl
K. Griessinger
A. Hafner
K. R. Schubert
Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Institut für Kernphysik, D-55099 Mainz, Germany
R. J. Barlow
Now at: University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield HD1 3DH, UK
G. D. Lafferty
University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom
R. Cenci
A. Jawahery
D. A. Roberts
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA
R. Cowan
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Laboratory for Nuclear Science, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA
S. H. Robertson
Institute of Particle Physics and McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3A 2T8
B. Deya
N. Neria
F. Palomboab
INFN Sezione di Milanoa; Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Milanob, I-20133 Milano, Italy
R. Cheaib
L. Cremaldi
R. Godang
Now at: University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama 36688, USA
D. J. Summers
University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi 38677, USA
P. Taras
Université de Montréal, Physique des Particules, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3C 3J7
G. De Nardo
C. Sciacca
INFN Sezione di Napoli and Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche, Università di Napoli Federico II, I-80126 Napoli, Italy
G. Raven
NIKHEF, National Institute for Nuclear Physics and High Energy Physics, NL-1009 DB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
C. P. Jessop
J. M. LoSecco
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, USA
K. Honscheid
R. Kass
Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA
A. Gaza
M. Margoniab
M. Posoccoa
G. Simiab
F. Simonettoab
R. Stroiliab
INFN Sezione di Padovaa; Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Padovab, I-35131 Padova, Italy
S. Akar
E. Ben-Haim
M. Bomben
G. R. Bonneaud
G. Calderini
J. Chauveau
G. Marchiori
J. Ocariz
Laboratoire de Physique Nucléaire et de Hautes Energies, IN2P3/CNRS, Université Pierre et Marie Curie-Paris6, Université Denis Diderot-Paris7, F-75252 Paris, France
M. Biasiniab
E. Manonia
A. Rossia
INFN Sezione di Perugiaa; Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Perugiab, I-06123 Perugia, Italy
G. Batignaniab
S. Bettariniab
M. Carpinelliab
Also at: Università di Sassari, I-07100 Sassari, Italy
G. Casarosaab
M. Chrzaszcza
F. Fortiab
M. A. Giorgiab
A. Lusianiac
B. Oberhofab
E. Paoloniab
M. Ramaa
G. Rizzoab
J. J. Walsha
INFN Sezione di Pisaa; Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Pisab; Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisac, I-56127 Pisa, Italy
A. J. S. Smith
Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA
F. Anullia
R. Facciniab
F. Ferrarottoa
F. Ferroniab
A. Pilloniab
G. Pireddaa
INFN Sezione di Romaa; Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Roma La Sapienzab, I-00185 Roma, Italy
C. Bünger
S. Dittrich
O. Grünberg
M. Heß
T. Leddig
C. Voß
R. Waldi
Universität Rostock, D-18051 Rostock, Germany
T. Adye
F. F. Wilson
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, OX11 0QX, United Kingdom
S. Emery
G. Vasseur
CEA, Irfu, SPP, Centre de Saclay, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France
D. Aston
C. Cartaro
M. R. Convery
J. Dorfan
W. Dunwoodie
M. Ebert
R. C. Field
B. G. Fulsom
M. T. Graham
C. Hast
W. R. Innes
P. Kim
D. W. G. S. Leith
S. Luitz
D. B. MacFarlane
D. R. Muller
H. Neal
B. N. Ratcliff
A. Roodman
M. K. Sullivan
J. Va’vra
W. J. Wisniewski
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford, California 94309 USA
M. V. Purohit
J. R. Wilson
University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208, USA
A. Randle-Conde
S. J. Sekula
Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 75275, USA
M. Bellis
P. R. Burchat
E. M. T. Puccio
Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA
M. S. Alam
J. A. Ernst
State University of New York, Albany, New York 12222, USA
R. Gorodeisky
N. Guttman
D. R. Peimer
A. Soffer
Tel Aviv University, School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv, 69978, Israel
S. M. Spanier
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996, USA
J. L. Ritchie
R. F. Schwitters
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, USA
J. M. Izen
X. C. Lou
University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas 75083, USA
F. Bianchiab
F. De Moriab
A. Filippia
D. Gambaab
INFN Sezione di Torinoa; Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Torinob, I-10125 Torino, Italy
L. Lanceri
L. Vitale
INFN Sezione di Trieste and Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Trieste, I-34127 Trieste, Italy
F. Martinez-Vidal
A. Oyanguren
IFIC, Universitat de Valencia-CSIC, E-46071 Valencia, Spain
J. Albertb
A. Beaulieub
F. U. Bernlochnerb
G. J. Kingb
R. Kowalewskib
T. Lueckb
I. M. Nugentb
J. M. Roneyb
R. J. Sobieab
N. Tasneemb
Institute of Particle Physics; University of Victoriab, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 3P6
T. J. Gershon
P. F. Harrison
T. E. Latham
Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom
R. Prepost
S. L. Wu
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA
(September 28, 2017)
Abstract
We search for single-photon events in fb*-1* of collision data collected with the BABAR detector at the PEP-II B-factory. We look for events with a single high-energy photon and a large missing momentum and energy, consistent with production of a spin-1 particle through the process . Such particles, referred to as “dark photons”, are motivated by theories applying a gauge symmetry to dark matter. We find no evidence for such processes and set 90% confidence level upper limits on the coupling strength of to in the mass range GeV. In particular, our limits exclude the values of the coupling suggested by the dark-photon interpretation of the muon anomaly, as well as a broad range of parameters for the dark-sector models.
pacs:
12.15.Ji, 95.35.+d
The nature of dark matter is one of the greatest mysteries of modern physics. It is transparent to electromagnetic radiation and we have only been able to infer its existence through gravitational effects. Since terrestrial searches for dark matter interactions have so far yielded null results, it is postulated to interact very weakly with ordinary matter. Recently, models attempting to explain certain astrophysical observations ref:INTEGRAL ; ref:PAMELA ; ref:FERMI ; Berezhiani:2013dea as well as the muon anomaly ref:g-2 have introduced an appealing idea of a low-mass spin-1 particle, referred to as or , that would possess a gauge coupling of electroweak strength to dark matter, but with a much smaller coupling to the Standard Model (SM) hypercharge ref:Aprimerefs ; Essig:2013lka . Such a boson may be associated with a gauge symmetry in the dark sector and kinetically mix with the SM photon with a mixing strength ; hence the name “dark photon”. Values as high as and masses in a GeV range have been predicted in the literature ref:Aprimerefs ; Essig:2013lka .
The decay modes of the dark photon depend on its mass and couplings, as well as on the particle spectrum of the dark sector. If the lowest-mass dark matter state is sufficiently light: , then the dominant decay mode of the is invisible: . The cleanest collider signature of such particles is the production of monochromatic single photons in , accompanied by significant missing energy and momentum. The photon energy in the center-of-mass (CM) is related to the missing mass through , where is the square of the CM energy, and the asterisk hereafter denotes a CM quantity. We seek a signal of the dark photon as a narrow peak in the distribution of in events with a single high-energy photon. As expected for the dark matter coupling Essig:2013lka , we assume that the decay width of the is negligible compared to the experimental resolution, and that the decays predominantly to dark matter (i.e. the invisible branching fraction is ). Furthermore, we assume that a single state exists in the range GeV; or if two or more states are present, they do not interfere.
The current best limits on the mixing strength of the dark photon are from searches for narrow peaks in the or invariant mass spectra BaBarDM ; KLOE ; NA48 ; WASA ; HADES ; A1 ; APEX and from beam-dump and neutrino experiments Blumlein:2013cua ; Andreas:2012mt . These limits assume that the dominant decays of the are to the visible SM particles, but are not valid if there are low-mass invisible degrees of freedom. There are constraints on invisible decays of the from kaon decays Pospelov ; E787 ; E949 and from the recent search for missing energy events in electron-nucleus scattering NA64 .
We search for the process , followed by invisible decays of the in a fb*-1* dataset Lumi collected with the BABAR detector at the PEP-II asymmetric-energy collider at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. The data were collected in 2007–2008 with CM energies near the , , and resonances with a special “single photon” trigger described below. The CM frame was boosted relative to the detector approximately along the detector’s magnetic field axis by . Since the production of the is not expected to be enhanced by the presence of the resonances, we combine the datasets collected in the vicinity of each resonance. In order to properly account for acceptance effects and changes in the cross section as a function of , we measure the signal event yields separately for the , , and datasets.
Since the BABAR detector is described in detail elsewhere detector , only the components of the detector crucial to this analysis are summarized below. Charged particle tracking is provided by a five-layer double-sided silicon vertex tracker (SVT) and a 40-layer drift chamber (DCH). Photons and neutral pions are identified and measured using the electromagnetic calorimeter (EMC), which comprises 6580 thallium-doped CsI crystals. These systems are mounted inside a 1.5 T solenoidal superconducting magnet. The Instrumented Flux Return (IFR) forms the return yoke of the superconducting coil, instrumented in the central barrel region with limited streamer tubes for the identification of muons and the detection of clusters produced by neutral hadrons. We use the Geant4 geant software to simulate interactions of particles traversing the BABAR detector, taking into account the varying detector conditions and beam backgrounds.
Detection of low-multiplicity single photon events requires dedicated trigger lines. Event processing and selection proceeds in three steps. First, the hardware-based Level-1 (L1) trigger accepts single-photon events if they contain at least one EMC cluster with energy above MeV (in the laboratory frame). Second, L1-accepted events are forwarded to a software-based Level-3 (L3) trigger, which forms DCH tracks and EMC clusters and makes decisions for a variety of physics signatures. Two single-photon L3 trigger lines were active during the data-taking period. The high-energy photon line (low , “LowM” hereafter) requires an isolated EMC cluster with energy GeV, and no tracks originating from the interaction region (IR). The “LowM” dataset amounts to fb*-1* collected at the resonance ( GeV), fb*-1* collected at the resonance ( GeV), fb*-1* collected 30 MeV below the , fb*-1* collected at the resonance ( GeV), and fb*-1* collected 30 MeV below the resonance. The total data sample collected with the “LowM” triggers is fb*-1*.
A low-energy (high , “HighM”) L3 single-photon trigger, which requires an EMC cluster with energy GeV and no tracks originating from the interaction region, was active for a subset of the data: fb*-1* collected at the resonance as well as all of the data collected below and at the resonance. The total data sample collected with the “HighM” triggers is fb*-1*.
Additional offline software filters are applied to the stored data. We accept single-photon events if they satisfy one of the two following criteria. The “LowM” selection requires one EMC cluster in the event with GeV and no DCH tracks with momentum GeV. The “HighM” selection requires one EMC cluster with the transverse profile consistent with an electromagnetic shower and GeV, and no DCH tracks with momentum GeV. The two selection criteria are not mutually exclusive.
The trigger and reconstruction selections naturally split the dataset into two broad ranges. The “LowM” selections are used for the low region . The backgrounds in this region are dominated by the QED process , especially near (). Due to the orientation of the EMC crystals, which point towards the IR, one of the photons may escape detection even if it is within the nominal EMC acceptance. The event selection is optimized to reduce this peaking background as much as possible. The “HighM” trigger selection defines the high range for the () dataset. This region is dominated by the low-angle radiative Bhabha events , in which both the electron and the positron escape the detector.
We suppress the SM backgrounds, which involve one or more particles that escape detection, by requiring that a candidate event be consistent with a single isolated photon shower in the EMC. We accept photons in the polar angle range , rejecting radiative Bhabha events that strongly peak in the forward and backward directions, and we require that the event contain no charged particle tracks.
The signal events are further selected by a multivariate Boosted Decision Tree (BDT) discriminant TMVA , based on the following 12 discriminating variables. First, after a relatively coarse selection, we include the EMC variables that describe the shape of the electromagnetic shower: the difference between the number of crystals in the EMC cluster and the expectation for a single photon of given energy, and two transverse shower moments ref:LAT . Second, we include both the total excess EMC energy in the laboratory frame not associated with the highest-energy photon, and the CM energy and polar angle of the second most energetic EMC cluster. We also compute the azimuthal angle difference between the highest and second-highest energy EMC clusters; the events with partial energy deposit in the EMC tend to peak at . Third, a number of variables improve containment of the background events. We extrapolate the missing momentum vector to the EMC face, and compute the distance (in polar lab-frame coordinates) to the nearest crystal edge. This allows us to suppress events where one of the photons penetrates the EMC between crystals leaving little detectable energy. Furthermore, we look for energy deposited in the IFR, and compute the correlation angle between the primary photon and the IFR cluster closest to the missing momentum direction; events produce a peak at . We also apply a fiducial selection to the azimuthal angle of the missing momentum by including into the BDT. This accounts for uninstrumented regions between six IFR sectors detector . Finally, is included in the BDT to take advantage of the different angular distributions for signal and background events.
The BDT discriminants are trained separately in “LowM” and “HighM” regions. Each BDT is trained using simulated signal events with uniformly distributed masses, and background events from the on-peak sample that corresponds to approximately 3 . We test the BDT, define the final selection, and measure the signal efficiency using sets of signal and background events statistically independent from the BDT training samples. The BDT score is designed so that the signal peaks near 1 while the background events are generally distributed between .
The event selection is optimized to minimize the expected upper limit on the cross section . Since the number of peaking events cannot be reliably estimated and has to be determined from the fit to the data, this background limits the sensitivity to at the low masses where the photon energies for the two types of events are indistinguishable. In this regime, we define a “tight” selection region which maximizes the ratio for large , and in the limit , where is the selection efficiency for the signal and is the number of background events expected in the full data sample. We also require in order to suppress events in which one of the photons would have missed the central region of the EMC.
A “loose” selection region maximizes . This selection is appropriate at higher where the background is well described by a featureless continuum distribution, and maximal corresponds to the lowest upper limit on the cross section.
Finally, a background region is defined by and is used to determine the distribution of the background events. The selection criteria used in this analysis and the numbers of events selected in different datasets are summarized in Table 1.
We measure the cross section as a function of the assumed mass by performing a series of unbinned extended maximum likelihood fits to the distribution of . For each value of , varied from 0 to GeV in 166 steps roughly equal to half of the mass resolution, we perform a set of simultaneous fits to , , and for the low- region, datasets. Moreover, we subdivide the data into broad event selection bins: used to define the background probability density functions (PDFs), and signal regions (used for GeV), , and (used for GeV). The region is defined to be the part of not overlapping with . Thus, the simultaneous fits are performed to 9 independent samples for GeV, and 4 independent samples for GeV (missing mass spectra for all datasets are shown in EPAPS ).
For the fits to the regions, we fix the number of signal events to zero, and determine the parameters of the background PDFs. In the fits to the and regions, we fix the background PDF shape, and vary the number of background events , the number of peaking background events (for GeV), and the mixing strength . The numbers of signal and background events are constrained: and .
The signal PDF is described by a Crystal Ball ref:CBshape function centered around the expected value of . We determine the PDF as a function of using high-statistics simulated samples of signal events, and we correct it for the difference between the photon energy resolution function in data and simulation using a high-statistics sample in which one of the photons converts to an pair in the detector material ref:bad2330 . The resolution for signal events decreases monotonically from for to for GeV. The background PDF has two components: a peaking background from events, described by a Crystal Ball function, and a smooth function of dominated by the (second order polynomial for and a sum of exponentiated polynomials for GeV).
The signal selection efficiency varies slowly as a function of between 2.4-3.1% ( selection for GeV), 3.4-3.8% ( for GeV), and ( selection for GeV).
The largest systematic uncertainties in the signal yield are from the shape of the signal and background PDFs, and the uncertainties in the efficiency of signal and trigger selections. We determine the uncertainty in the signal PDF by comparing the data and simulated distributions of events. We correct for the small observed differences, and use half of the correction as an estimate of the systematic uncertainty. We measure the trigger selection efficiency using single-photon and events that are selected from a sample of unbiased randomly accepted triggers. We find good agreement with the simulation estimates of the trigger efficiency, within the systematic uncertainty of . We compare the input BDT observables in simulation and in a sample of the single-photon data events, counting the difference as a systematic uncertainty of the signal selection efficiency. The total multiplicative error on the signal cross section is , and is small compared to the statistical uncertainty.
Figure 1 shows the maximum-likelihood estimators of the mixing strength for the 166 hypotheses. The values of “local” significance of observation , where is the maximum value of the likelihood, and is the value of the likelihood with the signal yield fixed to zero, are shown in Fig. 2. The most significant deviation of from zero occurs at GeV and corresponds to . Parametrized simulations determine that the probability to find such a deviation in any of the 166 points in the absence of any signal is , corresponding to a “global” significance of . A representative fit for GeV is shown in Fig. 3.
The 90% confidence level (CL) upper limits on as a function of are shown in Fig. 4. We compute both the Bayesian limits with a uniform prior for and the frequentist profile-likelihood limits ref:Rolke . Figure 5 compares our results to other limits on in channels where is allowed to decay invisibly, as well as to the region of parameter space consistent with the anomaly ref:g-2 . At each value of we compute a limit on as a square root of the Bayesian limit on from Fig. 4. Our data rules out the dark-photon coupling as the explanation for the anomaly. Our limits place stringent constraints on dark-sector models over a broad range of parameter space, and represent a significant improvement over previously available results.
We are grateful for the excellent luminosity and machine conditions provided by our PEP-II colleagues, and for the substantial dedicated effort from the computing organizations that support BABAR. The collaborating institutions wish to thank SLAC for its support and kind hospitality. This work is supported by the US Department of Energy and National Science Foundation, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (Canada), the Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique and Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (France), the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Germany), the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (Italy), the Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (The Netherlands), the Research Council of Norway, the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (Spain), the Science and Technology Facilities Council (United Kingdom), and the Binational Science Foundation (U.S.-Israel). Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie IEF program (European Union) and the A. P. Sloan Foundation (USA).
We wish to acknowledge Adrian Down, Zachary Judkins, and Jesse Reiss for initiating the study of the physics opportunities with the single photon triggers in BABAR, Rouven Essig for stimulating discussions and for providing data for Fig. 5, and Farinaldo Queiroz for correcting a typo in Fig. 5.
I EPAPS Material
The following includes supplementary material for the Electronic Physics Auxiliary Publication Service.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1(1) P. Jean et al. , Astron. Astrophys. 407 , L 55 (2003); J. Knodlseder et al. , Astron. Astrophys. 411 , L 457 (2003).
- 2(2) O. Adriani et al. [PAMELA Collaboration], Nature 458 , 607 (2009).
- 3(3) M. Ackermann et al. [Fermi LAT Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 , 011103 (2012).
- 4(4) Z. Berezhiani, A. D. Dolgov and I. I. Tkachev, Eur. Phys. J. C 73 , 2620 (2013).
- 5(5) G. W. Bennett et al. [Muon g-2 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 73 , 072003 (2006).
- 6(6) P. Fayet, Phys. Lett. B 95 285 (1980), Nucl. Phys. B 187 , 184 (1981); B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B 166 , 196 (1986); N. Borodatchenkova, D. Choudhury and M. Drees, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 , 141802 (2006); D. P. Finkbeiner and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D 76 , 083519 (2007); M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and M. B. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B 662 , 53 (2008); N. Arkani-Hamed et al. , Phys. Rev. D 79 , 015014 (2009).
- 7(7) R. Essig et al. , ar Xiv:1311.0029 [hep-ph], and references therein.
- 8(8) J. P. Lees et al. [ B A B AR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 , 201801 (2014).
