Contents lists available atScienceDirect
Physics Letters B
www.elsevier.com/locate/physletb
Combined limit on the production of a light gauge boson decaying into
μ + μ − and π + π −
The KLOE-2 Collaboration
A. Anastasi
f,c, D. Babusci
c, M. Berlowski
c,w, C. Bloise
c, F. Bossi
c, P. Branchini
t, A. Budano
s,t, B. Cao
v, F. Ceradini
s,t, P. Ciambrone
c, F. Curciarello
c,∗, E. Czerwi ´nski
b, G. D’Agostini
o,p, E. Danè
c, V. De Leo
r, E. De Lucia
c, A. De Santis
c, P. De Simone
c, A. Di Cicco
s,t, A. Di Domenico
o,p, D. Domenici
c, A. D’Uffizi
c, A. Fantini
q,r, G. Fantini
d, P. Fermani
c, S. Fiore
u,p, A. Gajos
b, P. Gauzzi
o,p, S. Giovannella
c, E. Graziani
t,
V.L. Ivanov
h,i, T. Johansson
v, X. Kang
c, D. Kisielewska-Kami ´nska
b, E.A. Kozyrev
h,i, W. Krzemien
w, A. Kupsc
v, P.A. Lukin
h,i, G. Mandaglio
g,a,∗, M. Martini
c,n, R. Messi
q,r, S. Miscetti
c, D. Moricciani
r, P. Moskal
b, A. Passeri
t, V. Patera
m,p, E. Perez del Rio
c, N. Raha
r, P. Santangelo
c, M. Schioppa
k,l, A. Selce
s,t, M. Silarski
b, F. Sirghi
c,e, E.P. Solodov
h,i, L. Tortora
t, G. Venanzoni
j, W. Wi´slicki
w, M. Wolke
vaINFNSezionediCatania,Catania,Italy
bInstituteofPhysics,JagiellonianUniversity,Cracow,Poland cLaboratoriNazionalidiFrascatidell’INFN,Frascati,Italy dGranSassoScienceInstitute,L’Aquila,Italy
eHoriaHulubeiNationalInstituteofPhysicsandNuclearEngineering,Mˇagurele,Romania
fDipartimentodiScienzeMatematicheeInformatiche,ScienzeFisicheeScienzedellaTerradell’UniversitàdiMessina,Messina,Italy gDipartimentodiScienzeChimiche,Biologiche,FarmaceuticheedAmbientalidell’UniversitàdiMessina,Messina,Italy
hBudkerInstituteofNuclearPhysics,Novosibirsk,Russia iNovosibirskStateUniversity,Novosibirsk,Russia jINFNSezionediPisa,Pisa,Italy
kDipartimentodiFisicadell’UniversitàdellaCalabria,Rende,Italy lINFNGruppocollegatodiCosenza,Rende,Italy
mDipartimentodiScienzediBaseedApplicateperl’Ingegneriadell’Università“Sapienza”,Roma,Italy nDipartimentodiScienzeeTecnologieapplicate,Università“GuglielmoMarconi”,Roma,Italy oDipartimentodiFisicadell’Università“Sapienza”,Roma,Italy
pINFNSezionediRoma,Roma,Italy
qDipartimentodiFisicadell’Università“TorVergata”,Roma,Italy rINFNSezionediRomaTorVergata,Roma,Italy
sDipartimentodiMatematicaeFisicadell’Università“RomaTre”,Roma,Italy tINFNSezionediRomaTre,Roma,Italy
uENEA,DepartmentofFusionandTechnologyforNuclearSafetyandSecurity,Frascati(RM),Italy vDepartmentofPhysicsandAstronomy,UppsalaUniversity,Uppsala,Sweden
wNationalCentreforNuclearResearch,Warsaw,Poland
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t ra c t
Articlehistory:
Received6July2018
Receivedinrevisedform3August2018 Accepted9August2018
Availableonline13August2018 Editor:L.Rolandi
We searched for theμ+μ− decayofalightvector gaugeboson, alsoknown as dark photon,in the e+e−→μ+μ−γISRprocessbymeansoftheInitialStateRadiation(ISR)method.Weused 1.93 fb−1of datacollectedbytheKLOEexperimentattheDANEφ-factory.Nostructureshavebeenobservedover the irreducibleμ+μ− background.A 90%CLlimitontheratio ε2=α/α betweenthe darkcoupling constantand thefinestructureconstantof3×10−6–2×10−7 hasbeenset inthedarkphoton mass regionbetween519MeVand 973MeV.Thisnewlimithasbeencombined withthe publishedresult
*
Correspondingauthors.E-mailaddresses:francesca.curciarello@lnf.infn.it(F. Curciarello),gmandaglio@unime.it(G. Mandaglio).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2018.08.012
0370-2693/©2018TheAuthor(s).PublishedbyElsevierB.V.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).Fundedby SCOAP3.
Keywords:
e+e−Collisions Darkforces Gaugevectorboson Upperlimits
obtainedinvestigatingthehypothesis ofthedark photondecayingintohadronsine+e−→π+π−γISR events.Thecombined90%CLlimitincreasesthesensitivityespeciallyintheρ–ωinterferenceregionand excludesε2greaterthan(13−2)×10−7.Fordarkphotonmassesgreaterthan600MeVthecombined limitislowerthan8×10−7resultingmorestringentthanpresentconstraintsfromotherexperiments.
©2018TheAuthor(s).PublishedbyElsevierB.V.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).FundedbySCOAP3.
1. Introduction
Manygravitationalanomalies observed since thefirst decades ofthe twentieth century, aswell aslarge-scale structure forma- tionintheearlyUniverse,canbe explainedbytheexistence ofa non-baryonicmatterknownasdarkmatter(DM) [1].Darkmatter motivatesextendingtheStandardModelofparticlephysics(SM)to includeadarksectorconsistingoffieldsandparticleswithnoSM gaugechargesandincludingextragaugesymmetries.Theminimal extensionofthe SM consistsofjustone additionalabelian gauge symmetry UD(1) with associateda light vector gauge boson,the darkphoton –knownalsoasU boson,
γ
or A–asmediatorof thenewforce,calledforthisreasondarkforce.Inthesimplestsce- nario [2],thecouplingwithSMparticlesarisesfromavectorportal knownaskinetic mixingconsisting inloopsof heavy darkparti- clescharged under both the electromagnetic andthe dark force.Theportalallowsthemixingofthedarkphotonbelongingtothe UD(1) groupwiththeSM photon oftheUem(1)symmetryintro- ducingtheLagrangianterm:
Lmix
= − ε
2Fi jemFdarki j
.
(1)Here
ε
isadimensionlessparameterwhichgovernsthestrengthof themixing(ε
2=α
/α
,α
=α
em,α
istheeffectivedarkcoupling constant)whileFi jemandFdarki j arethefieldstrengthtensorsofthe SM Uem(1) and dark UD(1) gauge groups, respectively. Through theportaltheU bosoncancoupletotheelectromagneticcurrent witha strength proportional to the SM particles electric charge.The process is responsible for both production and decayof the darkphoton inSM interactions thus resulting in an
ε
2 suppres- sion.Ifthekineticmixingappearsattheone-loop level,ε
canbe estimatedtobeintherange10−2–10−6 allowingvisibleeffectsat highluminositye+e− colliders [3].Duringthelastdecade,thedarkphotonhasbeenthefocusofa world-wideintensive researchbecause consideredaspossibleex- planationofmanyastrophysicalpuzzlingevidences [4].
Inthisworkweinvestigatethesimplesthypothesisofavisibly decaying dark photon looking for resonant production of U bo- sonfromthecontinuum, consideringasallowed onlydecaysinto SMparticles.The U signal shouldappearasapeak intheinvari- ant mass of the final state particles with a widthmainly domi- natedbytheinvariantmassresolutionsincetheexpectedU -decay widthcan beconsidered negligible [5].KLOEalreadyinvestigated e+e−→U h(dark Higgsstrahlung) [6], U bosonindecaysofvec- torparticlesto pseudoscalars [7,8],andthevisibledecayhypoth- esis publishing three searches for radiative U production in the e+e−→U
γ
process, withthe U boson decayinginto: a)μ
+μ
−[9], using 240 pb−1 of data; b) e+e− [10], using a sample of 1.54 fb−1; c)
π
+π
− [11] analyzing thewholeKLOE datasetcor- respondingto anintegrated luminosityof 1.93 fb−1.Searches for muon andpion pairs, withthe ISR photon selected atsmall an- gle(θ < 15◦,θ > 165◦),coverapproximatelythesameU -boson massrangeof520–990MeV,whilefortheelectronpairsthepho- tonselection was atlarge angle(55◦ < θ < 125◦) allowing toreachalowest U -bosonmassof5MeVandprobingthe (g−2)μ favored region [12].
InthepresentworkweextendthestatisticsoftheU→
μ
+μ
−search to the wholedata sample andupdate the analysiswitha newestimateofthebackground,analogoustotheoneusedforthe U →
π
+π
− search. The new search confirms no U -bosonsignal inthe dimuoninvariant mass spectrum:a new90% CL exclusion limit inε
2 is estimated. This limit is of comparable magnitude withrespecttothepreviousones,thusacombinedsearchofdark photondecaysintobothmuon andpionpairswouldincrease the sensitivity ofthe single channel searches, particularly, it is more effectivein theregion oftheρ
–ω
interferencewhere thesearch forU→μ
+μ
−losessensitivity.2. TheKLOEdetector
TheKLOEdetectoroperatesatDANE[13],theFrascatiφ-fac- tory. DANE is an e+e− collider working at a center of mass energy mφ1.019 GeV. Positron and electron beams collide at an angleof
π
−25 mrad,producingφ mesonsnearlyatrest.The detectorconsistsofalargecylindricaldriftchamber(DC) [14],sur- rounded by a lead scintillating-fiber electromagnetic calorimeter (EMC)[15].A superconductingcoilaroundtheEMCprovidesa0.52 Tmagneticfieldalongthebisectorofthecollidingbeamswhichis takenasthez axisofourcoordinatesystem.The EMC barrel and end-caps cover 98% of the solid angle.
Calorimetermodulesarereadoutatbothendsby4880photomul- tipliers. Energy andtime resolutions are
σ
E/E=0.057/√E(GeV) and
σ
t=57 ps/√E(GeV)⊕100 ps,respectively. The drift cham- berhasonlystereowiresandis4 mindiameter,3.3 mlong.Itis builtout ofcarbon-fibersandoperates witha low- Z gasmixture (heliumwith10%isobutane).Spatialresolutionsare
σ
xy∼150μm andσ
z∼2 mm.Themomentumresolutionforlargeangletracksisσ
(p⊥)/p⊥∼0.4%.ThetriggerusesbothEMCandDCinformation.Events used inthis analysisare triggered by atleast two energy depositslargerthan50 MeVintwosectorsofthebarrelcalorime- ter [16].
3. e+e−→
μ
+μ
−γ
dataanalysis 3.1. EventselectionWe selected
μ
+μ
−γ
candidates by requiring events with two oppositely-charged tracks emitted at large polar angles, 50◦ < θ < 130◦,withtheundetectedISR photon missingmo- mentumpointing–accordingtotheμ
+μ
−γ
kinematics–atsmall polarangles(θ < 15◦,θ > 165◦).Thetracksarerequiredtohave thepointofclosestapproachtothez axiswithinacylinderofra- dius 8 cm and length 15 cm centered at the interaction point.Inordertoensuregoodreconstructionandefficiency,weselected trackswithtransverseandlongitudinalmomentump⊥>160 MeV or|pz|>90 MeV,respectively.Thisseparationoftrackandphoton selectionregionsintheanalysis,greatlyreducesthecontamination fromtheresonantprocesse+e−→ φ →
π
+π
−π
0,fromtheFinal State Radiation (FSR)processes e+e−→π
+π
−γ
FSR ande+e−→μ
+μ
−γ
FSR, since theμ
+μ
−γ
cross section diverges at smallFig. 1. Mtrkdistributionsforμ+μ+γ andπ+π−γ.Dataarerepresentedinblack, theMCsimulationsofπ+π−γ and μ+μ−γ channelsareingreenandred,re- spectively,whiletheirsumisinblue;theverticalbacklinerepresentstheselection cutappliedtoseparatethetwochannels.(Forinterpretationofthecolorsinthe figure(s),thereaderisreferredtothewebversionofthisarticle.)
ISR photon angle making FSR processes and φ decays relatively unimportant [17–20].Consequently, since ISR-photons are mostly collinear with the beam line, a high statistics for the ISR signal eventsremains. The main background contributions affectingthe ISR
μ
+μ
−γ
samplearetheresonante+e−→ φ →π
+π
−π
0 pro- cess andthe ISR and FSR e+e−→x+x−γ(γ),x=e,π
processes.Their contributions have beenevaluated by applying kinematical cutsintheMtrk,M2π π plane,1 withMππ theinvariantmassofthe trackpairinthepionmasshypothesis.
Aparticleidentificationestimator(PID),L±,basedonapseudo- likelihood function usingthe charged particles time-of-flight and energy depositionsin the five calorimeterlayers is used to sup- pressradiative Bhabhaevents [19,21,22]. Events withbothtracks having L±<0 are identified as e+e−
γ
events andrejected (see Fig.2).Finally,acutonthetrack-massvariable Mtrk selectsmuonsby requiringMtrk < 115 MeV asshowninFig.1.Attheendofthe selectiondescribedaboveabout7.16×106eventssurvive.
In order to evaluate the residual background contributions, the sameanalysis chain was applied to simulatedevents forthe
π
+π
−γ
andπ
+π
−π
0 channelswhilethe radiativeBhabha con- tributionhas beenevaluated directlyfrommeasured data.Distri- butionsofthefractionalresidualbackgroundFBGforeachchannel andtheir sumare shownin Fig. 3asa function ofthe invariant massofthetrackpairinthemuonmasshypothesis,Mμμ.Thetotalresidualbackgroundrisesuptoabout9%inthe
ρ
–ω
regionanddecreases downtoabout3%atlowandhighinvariant massvalues.
4. Parametrizationoftheirreducible
μ
+μ
−γ
backgroundTominimizethesystematicuncertaintiesaffectingtheanalysis, weevaluatedtheirreducible
μ
+μ
−γ
backgrounddirectlyfromthe data.InFig. 4,we report thecomparisonbetween dataandesti-1 Mtrk is computed from energy and momentum conservation, assumingthe presenceofoneundetectedphotonandthatthetracksbelongtoparticlesofthe samemass:
√s−
|p+|2+M2trk−
|p−|2+M2trk
2
−p++ p−2
=0
wherep+(p−)isthemeasuredmomentumofthepositive(negative)particle,and onlyoneofthefoursolutionsisphysical.
Fig. 2. MCL+vs.L−PIDdistributionsforbothtracks.Eventscontainedinthelow leftrectangle(havingbothtrackswithL±<0)areregardedase+e−γ eventsand rejectedintheselection.
Fig. 3. Fractional residual backgrounds as function of Mμμ.
matedbackgrounddistributions(toppanel)andtheirratio(bottom panel),whichareingoodagreementwithinerrors.
We estimated theirreducible
μ
+μ
−γ
background by using a sidebandfittotheobservedspectrum,keeping,foreachiteration, thefitwiththebestreducedχ
2.Thefittosidebandsinthewhole mass range has been performed considering sub ranges ±12σ
wide, where
σ
is thedimuon invariant massresolution ofabout 2MeV[11].ForeachU-masshypothesisaregioncorrespondingto±3
σ
isexcludedfromthefit.Wefitthedatadistributionsbyus- ing Chebyshevpolynomials(asinRef. [9])up to6thorderinthe massranges519–757 MeVand811–973 MeV.Inthemassinterval between759and809 MeV,wheretheeffectoftheρ
–ω
interfer- enceispresent[23],weusedanotherparametrization:f
(
x) =
pol2(
x) · [
1+
A· (
x−
M) ·
exp(−
0.
5· ((
x−
M)/λ)
2)].
(2) The parametrization (2) has beenused because found to best fitthe
μμ
invariantmasssimulatedspectrum(PHOKHARA gener- ator [24–27] with vacuumpolarization correction included anda full descriptionofthe detectorperformedwiththeGEANFIpack- age [28])asshowninFig. 5.As afirststep,thethreecoefficients ofthesecond orderpolynomial pol2(x)andthe parameters A, M andλarecomputedbyfittingthefunctioninEq.(2) overthefullμ
+μ
−γ
simulatedspectrum:valuesof782.24MeVand6.09MeV wereobtainedfortheparametersM andλ,respectively.Then,theFig. 4. Toppanel:μ+μ−γ observedspectrum(fullsquares)and estimatedirre- duciblebackground(opensquares).Bottompanel:dataandestimatedbackground ratio.
Fig. 5. FitofreconstructedPHOKHARAMCwithvacuumpolarization correctionin- cluded.
fitsinthe consideredmassrange(759–809 MeV)ofthe
μ
+μ
−γ
observedspectrumhavebeenperformedbyusingagainthefunc- tion (2), keeping the parameters M and λ fixed at the values 782.24MeVand6.09MeV,andleavingfreeall theother parame- ters.
ExamplesofthefitsperformedbyusingChebyshevpolynomials ortheparametrizationineq. (2) areshowninFig.6.
Thereduced
χ
2 ofthefittosidebandsforbothparameteriza- tionsremainsbelow2inthewholemassrange.Thefitprocedure isstableinthe wholedata rangeandnoanomaly is observedin thefittedbackground.5. Systematicuncertainties
Inthefollowingwe report thesystematicuncertaintiesaffect- ing the analysis, mainly dueto the evaluationof the irreducible
Fig. 6. Examplesoffitsperformedintwosub-rangesoftheμ+μ−γ spectrumby usingChebyshevpolynomials(upperpanel)andparametrization(2) (lowerpanel).
Fig. 7. Bin-by-bin total fractional systematic error of the background estimate.
backgroundandtotheeventselectionappliedtothe
μ
+μ
−γ
can- didates.5.1. Systematicuncertaintiesontheirreduciblebackground
Thefractionalsystematicerrorontheirreducible
μ
+μ
−γ
back- groundisshowninFig.7.Theevaluationofthesystematicuncer- taintieshasbeenderivedforeachmassbinbyestimatingtheerror ofthefit.Thetotalsystematicerrorislessthan1%inmostofthe massrange.The systematic error dueto the side bands fit procedure has been also evaluated by varying the range of the fit interval of
±1
σ
andcomputingthemaximumdifferencebetweennominalfitFig. 8. Global efficiency as function of Mμμ.
Table 1
Summaryofthesystematicuncertainties.
Systematic source Relative uncertainty (%)
Mtrkcut 0.4
Acceptance 0.6–0.1 as Mμμincreases
Trigger 0.1
Tracking 0.3–0.6 as Mμμincreases
Generator 0.5
Luminosity 0.3
PID negligible
Total 0.98–0.94 as Mμμincreases
andthefitderived bychangingthefitinterval.Itscontributionis
<<1%andthereforeresultsnegligibleinthewholemassrange.
5.2. Systematicuncertaintiesoftheglobalefficiency
Fig.8showstheglobalanalysisefficiencythathasbeenevalu- atedfromafull
μ
+μ
−γ
simulation.Thisefficiencyincludes con- tributions from kinematic selection, trigger, tracking, acceptance andPID-likelihoodefficiencies.Table 1 lists all the systematic errors affecting the
μ
+μ
−γ
analysis. We evaluated the corresponding uncertainties by using the same procedures described in Ref. [9]. These systematic un- certaintiesdonotaffecttheirreduciblebackgroundestimationbut enterin thedetermination oftheselection efficiencyandthe lu- minositymeasurement.
6. LimitsonU -bosonproductionin
μμγ
eventsThe
μ
+μ
−γ
observed spectrum doesnot reveal thepresence of any visible structure (see Fig. 4) within the mass-dependent systematicuncertainties.Forthisreason,aprocedurehasbeenap- plied to evaluate the statisticalsignificance of theobserved data fluctuationsandeventually set a limit on the e+e−→Uγ
,U→μ
+μ
− process. The following subsection describesthe results of thelimitextractionprocedure.6.1. Upperlimitextractionon
ε
2Toextractthe upperlimit(UL) on
ε
2 weused theConfidence LevelSignal(CLS)technique [29].Theprocedurerequiresasinputs theinvariantmassdataspectrum,thebackground(theirreducibleμ
+μ
−γ
background),theU -bosonsignalandthesystematicfrac- tional uncertainties on the background estimation foreach Mμμ bin.ThesignalhasbeengeneratedwithatoyMCinstepsof2MeV fortheU -bosonmass.Ateachstep,aGaussiandistributionisbuiltwithawidthcorrespondingtotheinvariantmassresolutionofthe dimuonsystemofabout2 MeV.Thesignalisthenintegratedover Mμμ around MU.Thenumberof signalevents,givenasinput to theprocedure,isinitiallyarbitraryandveryhigh(abouttentimes the square rootof the estimatedbackground value inthe corre- spondingmassbin)andtheniterativelyscaleduntiltheconfidence levelCLS reaches0.1within±0.01.Theintegralofthesignalcor- respondingtothedefinedlevelofconfidencerepresentsthelimit on the numberof U -bosoneventsexcluded at 90%CL. Since the limit isstronglydependent ontheirreduciblebackgroundevalua- tion,thelimitextractionaccountsforthesystematicuncertainties of the background estimate. The limit extraction procedure uses the total bin-by-bin fractional systematicuncertainty, reportedin Fig. 7, to perform a Gaussian smearing of the
μ
+μ
−γ
expected backgroundgivenasinput.TheULonthekinetic mixingparameterhasbeenextractedby using,foreachU -bosonmassvalue,thefollowingformula [9–11]:
ε
2= α
α =
NCLS
eff
·
L·
H·
I (3)where NCLS is thelimit on thenumber ofevents,
eff represents the global efficiency (shown in Fig. 8), L is the integrated lumi- nosity (1.93 fb−1 with an uncertainty of 0.3% [18,19]), H is the radiator function calculated at QED next-to-leading-order correc- tionswithanuncertaintyof0.5% [25–27,30] andgivenby:
H
=
dσ
μμγ/
dMμμσ (
e+e−→ μ
+μ
−,
Mμμ) .
(4) Here dσ
μμγ/dMμμ is the differential cross section of e+e−→μ
+μ
−γ
,σ
(e+e−→μ
+μ
−,Mμμ)isthetotalcrosssectionofthe e+e−→μ
+μ
− process.InEq. (3), I isgivenbythefollowingin- tegralaround MU:I
=
σ
Uμμd√
s
,
(5)where
σ
Uμμ=σ
(e+e−→U→μ
+μ
−,s)isthetotalcrosssection of U -bosonproductiondecaying intheμ
+μ
− channelwhen the kineticmixingparameterε
isequalto1,s=M2U.Theuncertainties on H ,eff, L, and I, propagate tothe systematicerror on
ε
2 via eq. (3).The resultinguncertaintyonε
2 islowerthan 1%andhas beentakenintoaccountintheestimatedlimit.The exclusion plot on
ε
2 is shown asa dashed linein Fig. 9 comparedwiththeexistinglimitsinthemassrangebelow1 GeV.Our90%CLULrangesfrom3×10−6 to2×10−7 inthe519–973 MeVmassinterval.
7. CombinedlimitonU -bosonproductionin
μμγ
andπ π γ
events
Inthissectionwepresentthecombinationprocedureofthefull statistics
π
+π
−γ
andμ
+μ
−γ
limits. As forthe previous analy- ses, weuse theCLS technique toestimate a 90%CL limit forthe e+e−→Uγ
ISR,U →μ
+μ
−,π
+π
− process. Toextract the limit, weusethealreadyestimatedbackgroundandobservedspectrafor bothπ π γ
[11] andμμγ
channels in a combined way. A total systematicerrorontheirreduciblebackgroundestimate,givenby the combinationofthecorresponding estimateduncertainties for bothU -bosondecaymodes,isalsogivenasinputtotheprocedure.A combinedU -bosonsignal isgeneratedforboth decaychannels taking into account the differences in global efficiencyand rela- tive branching ratio [3]. Thesignal inputsare generatedwiththe same toy MC procedure performedfor the
μ
+μ
−γ
limit extrac- tion,then,eachsignalisintegratedandnormalized tothenumberFig. 9. 90%CLexclusionplot forε2 as afunctionofthe U -boson massfor the e+e−→Uγ process.The U→μ+μ− limit(dashedline), theU→π+π− [11]
constraint(dotted line),and the U→μ+μ−,π+π− combination (solidline) at fullKLOE statistics,arepresentedincomparisonwiththe competitivelimits by BaBar [31],NA48/2 [32],andLHCbexperiments[33].
of events estimated from Eq. (3), for a given hypothesis of the kinetic mixingparameter
ε
2. Thelimit computation proceedsac- cordingtothefollowingsteps:itmakesahypothesisoftheε
2 ki- neticmixingparameter,startingfromanarbitraryverylowvalue;thecorresponding numberofeventsfor
π π γ
andμμγ
channels aregeneratedaccordingtoEq. (3) inordertobuild thesignalin- puthistogram, then, the procedure runsas before by comparing data andexpected irreducible background. The search procedure endswhentheestimatedCLS becomescloseto 0.1within±0.01, providingdirectlythecorrespondingexclusiononε
2.Thecombinedupperlimit,obtainedafteraveraging thestatis- ticalfluctuationsby asmoothingprocedure,excludesvaluesof
ε
2greaterthan(13−2)×10−7 intheU -massrange519–987 MeV.
ItisshowninFig.9,comparedtothemostcompetitivelimits.The other existing limits [7–10,34–37] are not reported to make the figure more readable. The combined limit is represented by the blue area and is more stringent with respect to the already set limitsinthemassregion600–987 MeV,whileitiscomparableto BaBarandLHCbresultsformasseslowerthan600 MeV.
8. Conclusions
We analyzed 1.93 fb−1 of KLOE data to investigate the hy- pothesis ofa light vector gauge boson decaying into muonsand pions by means of the ISR method in the e+e−→U
γ
ISR,U →μ
+μ
−,π
+π
− process.No U -bosonevidencehasbeenfound and acombinedlimitat90%CLusingthetwoU -decaymodeshasbeen extractedonthekineticmixingparameterε
2 intheenergyrange between519and987 MeV.Thenewcombinedlimitismorestrin- gent than the alreadyset constraints in the region between600 and987MeVbyexcludingvaluesofε
2 higherthan(8−2)×10−7. AcknowledgementsWe warmly thank our former KLOE colleagues for the ac- cess to the data collected during the KLOE data taking cam- paign.WethanktheDANEteamfortheir effortsinmaintaining
low background running conditions and their collaboration dur- ing all data taking. We want to thank our technical staff: G.F.
Fortugno and F. Sborzacchi for their dedication in ensuring ef- ficient operation of the KLOE computing facilities; M. Anelli for hiscontinuous attentiontothegassystemanddetectorsafety;A.
Balla, M. Gatta, G. Corradiand G. Papalino for electronicsmain- tenance; C. Piscitelli for his help during major maintenance pe- riods. This work was supported in part by the Polish National Science Centre through the Grants Nos. 2013/11/B/ST2/04245, 2014/14/E/ST2/00262,2014/12/S/ST2/00459,2016/21/N/ST2/01727, 2016/23/N/ST2/01293,2017/26/M/ST2/00697.
References
[1]C.Patrignani,etal.,Chin.Phys.C40(2016)100001;
G. Bertone, D. Hooper, J. Silk, Phys. Rep. 405 (2005) 279, arXiv:hep-ph/ 0404175;
G. Bertone,Particle DarkMatter: Observations, Modelsand Searches, Cam- bridgeUniversityPress,2010;
J.Alexander,etal.,arXiv:1608.08632.
[2]B.Holdom,Phys.Lett.B166(1985)196;
C.Boehm,P.Fayet,Nucl.Phys.B683(2004)219;
P.Fayet,Phys.Rev.D75(2007)115017;
Y.Mambrini,J.Cosmol.Astropart.Phys.1009(2010)022;
M.Pospelov,A.Ritz,M.B.Voloshin,Phys.Lett.B662(2008)53.
[3]R.Essig,P.Schuster,N.Toro,Phys.Rev.80(2009)015003;
B.Batell,M.Pospelov,A.Ritz,Phys.Rev.D79(2009)115008;
M.Reece,L.T.Wang,J.HighEnergyPhys.07(2009)051.
[4]O.Adriani,etal.,Nature458(2009)607;
P.Jean,etal.,Astron.Astrophys.407(2003)L55;
J.Chang,etal.,Nature456(2008)362;
F.Aharonian,etal.,Phys.Rev.Lett.101(2008)261104;
A.A.Abdo,etal.,Phys.Rev.Lett.102(2009)181101;
R.Bernabei,etal.,Eur.Phys.J.C56(2008)333;
M.Aguilar,etal.,Phys.Rev.Lett.110(2013)141102.
[5]L.Barzè,etal.,Eur.Phys.J.C71(2011)1680.
[6]A.Anastasi,etal.,Phys.Lett.B747(2015)365.
[7]F.Archilli,etal.,Phys.Lett.B706(2012)251.
[8]D.Babusci,etal.,Phys.Lett.B720(2013)111.
[9]D.Babusci,etal.,Phys.Lett.B736(2014)459.
[10]A.Anastasi,etal.,Phys.Lett.B750(2015)633.
[11]A.Anastasi,etal.,Phys.Lett.B757(2016)356.
[12]M.Pospelov,Phys.Rev.D80(2009)095002.
[13]A.Gallo,etal.,DAFNEstatusreport,ConfProc.C060626(2006)604–606.
[14]M.Adinolfi,etal.,Nucl.Instrum.Methods,Sect.A488(2002)51.
[15]M.Adinolfi,etal.,Nucl.Instrum.Methods,Sect.A482(2002)364.
[16]M.Adinolfi,etal.,Nucl.Instrum.Methods,Sect.A492(2002)134.
[17]S.Binner,J.H.Kuehn,K.Melnikov,Phys.Lett.B459(1999)279.
[18]A.Aloisio,etal.,Phys.Lett.B606(2005)12.
[19]F.Ambrosino,etal.,Phys.Lett.B670(2009)285.
[20]D.Babusci,etal.,Phys.Lett.B720(2013)336.
[21]D.Babusci,etal.,Phys.Lett.B720(2009)336.
[22]F.Ambrosino,etal.,Phys.Lett.B700(2011)102.
[23]A.Anastasi,etal.,Phys.Lett.B767(2017)485.
[24]H.Czy ˙z,A.Grzelinska,J.H.Kühn,G.Rodrigo,Eur.Phys.J.C39(2005)411.
[25]G.Rodrigo,H.Czy ˙z,J.H.Kühn,M.Szopa,Eur.Phys.J.C24(2002)71.
[26]H.Czy ˙z,A.Grzelinska,J.H.Kühn,G.Rodrigo,Eur.Phys.J.C27(2003)563.
[27]H.Czy ˙z,A.Grzelinska,J.H.Kühn,G.Rodrigo,Eur.Phys.J.C33(2004)333.
[28]F.Ambrosino,etal.,Nucl.Instrum.Methods,Sect.A534(2004)403.
[29]G.C.Feldman,R.D.Cousins,Phys.Rev.D57(1998)3873.
[30]S.Actis,etal.,Eur.Phys.J.C66(2010)585.
[31]J.P.Lees,etal.,Phys.Rev.Lett.113(2014)201801.
[32]J.R.Batley,etal.,Phys.Lett.B746(2015)178.
[33]R.Aaij,etal.,Phys.Rev.Lett.120(2018)061801.
[34]H.Merkel,etal.,Phys.Rev.Lett.112(2014)221802.
[35]S.Abrahamyan,etal.,Phys.Rev.Lett.107(2011)191804.
[36]P.Adlarson,etal.,Phys.Lett.B726(2013)187.
[37]G.Agakishiev,etal.,Phys.Lett.B731(2014)265.