- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Toward excluding a light Z′ explanation of b→sℓ+ℓ−

Andreas Crivellin* and Claudio Andrea Manzari†

Wolfgang Altmannshofer‡

Gianluca Inguglia§ and Paul Feichtinger∥

Jorge Martin Camalich

  • Physik-Institut, Universität Zürich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH–8057 Zürich, Switzerland, and Paul Scherrer Institut, CH–5232 Villigen PSI, Switzerland

  • Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics and Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA

  • Institute of High Energy Physics, 1050 Vienna, Austria

  • Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, C/ Vía Láctea, s/n E38205—La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain, and Universidad de La Laguna, Departamento de Astrofísica, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain

  • *andreas.crivellin@cern.ch
  • †claudioandrea.manzari@physik.uzh.ch
  • ‡waltmann@ucsc.edu
  • §gianluca.inguglia@oeaw.ac.at
  • ∥paul.feichtinger@oeaw.ac.at
  • jcamalich@iac.es
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 106, L031703 – Published 15 August, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.L031703

Abstract

The discrepancies between b→sℓ+ℓ− data and the corresponding Standard Model predictions constitute one of the most significant hints for new physics currently available. In fact, many scenarios that can account for these anomalies have been proposed in the literature. However, only a single light new physics explanation, i.e., with a mass below the B meson scale, is possible: a light Z′ boson. In this article, we aim at excluding any light Z′ model as a solution to b→sℓ+ℓ− data, using a minimal and conservative setup. Considering the improved limits on B→K(*)νν, including the experimental sensitivities required for a proper treatment of the necessarily sizable Z′ width, together with the forthcoming Belle II analyses of e+e−→μ+μ−+invisible, can rule out a Z′ explanation of b→sℓ+ℓ− data with a mass below ≈4  GeV. Importantly, such a light Z′ is the only viable single particle solution to the b→sℓ+ℓ− anomalies predicting R(K(*))>0 in high q2 bins, therefore providing an essential consistency test of data.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (171)

  1. A. Crivellin and M. Hoferichter, Science 374, 1051 (2021).
  2. O. Fischer et al., arXiv:2109.06065.
  3. J. M. Camalich and M. Patel, Sci. Bull. 67, 1 (2022).
  4. J. Albrecht, D. van Dyk, and C. Langenbruch, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 120, 103885 (2021).
  5. D. London and J. Matias, arXiv:2110.13270.
  6. W. Altmannshofer and P. Stangl, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 952 (2021).
  7. L.-S. Geng, B. Grinstein, S. Jäger, S.-Y. Li, J. Martin Camalich, and R.-X. Shi, Phys. Rev. D 104, 035029 (2021).
  8. M. Algueró, B. Capdevila, S. Descotes-Genon, J. Matias, and M. Novoa-Brunet, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 326 (2022).
  9. T. Hurth, F. Mahmoudi, D. M. Santos, and S. Neshatpour, Phys. Lett. B 824, 136838 (2022).
  10. G. Isidori, D. Lancierini, P. Owen, and N. Serra, Phys. Lett. B 822, 136644 (2021).
  11. K. Kowalska, D. Kumar, and E. M. Sessolo, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 840 (2019).
  12. M. Ciuchini, M. Fedele, E. Franco, A. Paul, L. Silvestrini, and M. Valli, arXiv:2110.10126.
  13. G. D’Amico, M. Nardecchia, P. Panci, F. Sannino, A. Strumia, R. Torre, and A. Urbano, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2017) 010.
  14. R. Alonso, B. Grinstein, and J. Martin Camalich, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2015) 184.
  15. L. Calibbi, A. Crivellin, and T. Ota, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 181801 (2015).
  16. G. Hiller, D. Loose, and K. Schönwald, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2016) 027.
  17. B. Bhattacharya, A. Datta, J.-P. Guévin, D. London, and R. Watanabe, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2017) 015.
  18. D. Buttazzo, A. Greljo, G. Isidori, and D. Marzocca, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2017) 044.
  19. R. Barbieri, G. Isidori, A. Pattori, and F. Senia, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 67 (2016).
  20. R. Barbieri, C. W. Murphy, and F. Senia, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 8 (2017).
  21. L. Calibbi, A. Crivellin, and T. Li, Phys. Rev. D 98, 115002 (2018).
  22. A. Crivellin, D. Müller, A. Signer, and Y. Ulrich, Phys. Rev. D 97, 015019 (2018).
  23. M. Bordone, C. Cornella, J. Fuentes-Martín, and G. Isidori, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2018) 148.
  24. J. Kumar, D. London, and R. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. D 99, 015007 (2019).
  25. A. Crivellin, C. Greub, D. Müller, and F. Saturnino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 011805 (2019).
  26. A. Crivellin and F. Saturnino, Proc. Sci. DIS2019 (2019) 163 [arXiv:1906.01222].
  27. C. Cornella, J. Fuentes-Martin, and G. Isidori, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2019) 168.
  28. M. Bordone, O. Catà, and T. Feldmann, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2020) 067.
  29. J. Bernigaud, I. de Medeiros Varzielas, and J. Talbert, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2020) 194.
  30. J. Aebischer, A. Crivellin, and C. Greub, Phys. Rev. D 99, 055002 (2019).
  31. J. Fuentes-Martín, G. Isidori, M. König, and N. Selimović, Phys. Rev. D 101, 035024 (2020).
  32. O. Popov, M. A. Schmidt, and G. White, Phys. Rev. D 100, 035028 (2019).
  33. S. Fajfer and N. Košnik, Phys. Lett. B 755, 270 (2016).
  34. M. Blanke and A. Crivellin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 011801 (2018).
  35. I. de Medeiros Varzielas and J. Talbert, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 536 (2019).
  36. I. de Medeiros Varzielas and G. Hiller, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2015) 072.
  37. A. Crivellin, D. Müller, and F. Saturnino, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2020) 020.
  38. S. Saad, Phys. Rev. D 102, 015019 (2020).
  39. S. Saad and A. Thapa, Phys. Rev. D 102, 015014 (2020).
  40. V. Gherardi, D. Marzocca, and E. Venturini, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2021) 138.
  41. L. Da Rold and F. Lamagna, Phys. Rev. D 103, 115007 (2021).
  42. J. Heeck and A. Thapa, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 480 (2022).
  43. B. Gripaios, M. Nardecchia, and S. A. Renner, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2016) 083.
  44. P. Arnan, L. Hofer, F. Mescia, and A. Crivellin, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2017) 043.
  45. B. Grinstein, S. Pokorski, and G. G. Ross, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2018) 079.
  46. S.-P. Li, X.-Q. Li, Y.-D. Yang, and X. Zhang, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2018) 149.
  47. C. Marzo, L. Marzola, and M. Raidal, Phys. Rev. D 100, 055031 (2019).
  48. A. Crivellin, D. Müller, and C. Wiegand, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2019) 119.
  49. P. Arnan, A. Crivellin, M. Fedele, and F. Mescia, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2019) 118.
  50. A. J. Buras and J. Girrbach, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2013) 009.
  51. R. Gauld, F. Goertz, and U. Haisch, Phys. Rev. D 89, 015005 (2014).
  52. R. Gauld, F. Goertz, and U. Haisch, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2014) 069.
  53. W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori, M. Pospelov, and I. Yavin, Phys. Rev. D 89, 095033 (2014).
  54. A. Crivellin, G. D’Ambrosio, and J. Heeck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 151801 (2015).
  55. A. Crivellin, G. D’Ambrosio, and J. Heeck, Phys. Rev. D 91, 075006 (2015).
  56. C. Niehoff, P. Stangl, and D. M. Straub, Phys. Lett. B 747, 182 (2015).
  57. D. Aristizabal Sierra, F. Staub, and A. Vicente, Phys. Rev. D 92, 015001 (2015).
  58. A. Carmona and F. Goertz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 251801 (2016).
  59. A. Falkowski, M. Nardecchia, and R. Ziegler, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2015) 173.
  60. A. Celis, W.-Z. Feng, and D. Lüst, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2016) 007.
  61. A. Celis, J. Fuentes-Martin, M. Jung, and H. Serodio, Phys. Rev. D 92, 015007 (2015).
  62. A. Crivellin, L. Hofer, J. Matias, U. Nierste, S. Pokorski, and J. Rosiek, Phys. Rev. D 92, 054013 (2015).
  63. S. M. Boucenna, A. Celis, J. Fuentes-Martin, A. Vicente, and J. Virto, Phys. Lett. B 760, 214 (2016).
  64. W. Altmannshofer, M. Carena, and A. Crivellin, Phys. Rev. D 94, 095026 (2016).
  65. S. M. Boucenna, A. Celis, J. Fuentes-Martin, A. Vicente, and J. Virto, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2016) 059.
  66. A. Crivellin, J. Fuentes-Martin, A. Greljo, and G. Isidori, Phys. Lett. B 766, 77 (2017).
  67. I. Garcia Garcia, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2017) 040.
  68. G. Faisel and J. Tandean, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2018) 074.
  69. S. F. King, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2017) 019.
  70. C.-W. Chiang, X.-G. He, J. Tandean, and X.-B. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 96, 115022 (2017).
  71. S. Di Chiara, A. Fowlie, S. Fraser, C. Marzo, L. Marzola, M. Raidal, and C. Spethmann, Nucl. Phys. B923, 245 (2017).
  72. P. Ko, Y. Omura, Y. Shigekami, and C. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 95, 115040 (2017).
  73. F. Sannino, P. Stangl, D. M. Straub, and A. E. Thomsen, Phys. Rev. D 97, 115046 (2018).
  74. S. Raby and A. Trautner, Phys. Rev. D 97, 095006 (2018).
  75. R. Alonso, P. Cox, C. Han, and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D 96, 071701 (2017).
  76. J. M. Cline and J. Martin Camalich, Phys. Rev. D 96, 055036 (2017).
  77. D. Bhatia, S. Chakraborty, and A. Dighe, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2017) 117.
  78. A. Carmona and F. Goertz, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 979 (2018).
  79. A. Falkowski, S. F. King, E. Perdomo, and M. Pierre, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2018) 061.
  80. R. H. Benavides, L. Muñoz, W. A. Ponce, O. Rodríguez, and E. Rojas, J. Phys. G 47, 075003 (2020).
  81. P. Maji, P. Nayek, and S. Sahoo, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2019, 033B06 (2019).
  82. S. Singirala, S. Sahoo, and R. Mohanta, Phys. Rev. D 99, 035042 (2019).
  83. D. Guadagnoli, M. Reboud, and O. Sumensari, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2018) 163.
  84. B. C. Allanach and J. Davighi, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2018) 075.
  85. M. Kohda, T. Modak, and A. Soffer, Phys. Rev. D 97, 115019 (2018).
  86. S. F. King, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2018) 069.
  87. G. H. Duan, X. Fan, M. Frank, C. Han, and J. M. Yang, Phys. Lett. B 789, 54 (2019).
  88. P. Rocha-Moran and A. Vicente, Phys. Rev. D 99, 035016 (2019).
  89. S. Dwivedi, D. Kumar Ghosh, A. Falkowski, and N. Ghosh, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 263 (2020).
  90. P. Foldenauer, Ph.D. thesis, University of Heidelberg (main), 2019.
  91. P. Ko, T. Nomura, and C. Yu, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2019) 102.
  92. B. C. Allanach and J. Davighi, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 908 (2019).
  93. J. Kawamura, S. Raby, and A. Trautner, Phys. Rev. D 100, 055030 (2019).
  94. W. Altmannshofer, J. Davighi, and M. Nardecchia, Phys. Rev. D 101, 015004 (2020).
  95. L. Calibbi, A. Crivellin, F. Kirk, C. A. Manzari, and L. Vernazza, Phys. Rev. D 101, 095003 (2020).
  96. J. Aebischer, A. J. Buras, M. Cerdà-Sevilla, and F. De Fazio, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2020) 183.
  97. J. Kawamura, S. Raby, and A. Trautner, Phys. Rev. D 101, 035026 (2020).
  98. A. Crivellin, C. A. Manzari, M. Alguero, and J. Matias, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 011801 (2021).
  99. B. C. Allanach, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 56 (2021); 81, 321(E) (2021).
  100. B. Capdevila, A. Crivellin, C. A. Manzari, and M. Montull, Phys. Rev. D 103, 015032 (2021).
  101. A. Greljo, P. Stangl, and A. E. Thomsen, Phys. Lett. B 820, 136554 (2021).
  102. J. Davighi, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2021) 101.
  103. B. C. Allanach, J. E. Camargo-Molina, and J. Davighi, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 721 (2021).
  104. M. F. Navarro and S. F. King, Phys. Rev. D 105, 035015 (2022).
  105. P. Ko, T. Nomura, and H. Okada, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2022) 098.
  106. R. Bause, G. Hiller, T. Höhne, D. F. Litim, and T. Steudtner, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 42 (2022).
  107. B. C. Allanach, J. M. Butterworth, and T. Corbett, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 1126 (2021).
  108. M. Algueró, A. Crivellin, C. A. Manzari, and J. Matias, arXiv:2201.08170.
  109. F. Sala and D. M. Straub, Phys. Lett. B 774, 205 (2017).
  110. M. K. Mohapatra and A. Giri, Phys. Rev. D 104, 095012 (2021).
  111. A. Datta, J. Kumar, J. Liao, and D. Marfatia, Phys. Rev. D 97, 115038 (2018).
  112. W. Altmannshofer, M. J. Baker, S. Gori, R. Harnik, M. Pospelov, E. Stamou, and A. Thamm, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2018) 188.
  113. F. Sala, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 303–305, 14 (2018).
  114. F. Bishara, U. Haisch, and P. F. Monni, Phys. Rev. D 96, 055002 (2017).
  115. D. Borah, L. Mukherjee, and S. Nandi, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2020) 052.
  116. L. Darmé, M. Fedele, K. Kowalska, and E. M. Sessolo, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2022) 085.
  117. A. Greljo, Y. Soreq, P. Stangl, A. E. Thomsen, and J. Zupan, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2022) 151.
  118. I. Adachi et al. (Belle-II Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 141801 (2020).
  119. J. Grygier et al. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 96, 091101 (2017); 97, 099902(A) (2018).

  120. This is relevant for calculating the width of the Z′ as a function of q2. However, we checked that this assumption has a minor impact on our final results.

  121. D. M. Straub, arXiv:1810.08132.
  122. R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Nat. Phys. 18, 277 (2022).
  123. R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2017) 055.
  124. R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 191802 (2022).
  125. V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS, LHCb Collaborations), Nature (London) 522, 68 (2015).
  126. M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2019) 098.
  127. A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2020) 188.
  128. R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 161802 (2021).
  129. R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2021) 043.
  130. R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 151801 (2021).
  131. J. P. Lees et al. (BABAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 87, 112005 (2013).
  132. F. Abudinén et al. (Belle-II Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 181802 (2021).

  133. The bounds obtained using the full Belle [119] and BABAR [131] datasets are slightly more stringent than Eq. (3) but are more difficult to use for our purposes (see, however, Ref. [134] for a recast of the BABAR limits in terms of a QCD axion).

  134. J. Martin Camalich, M. Pospelov, P. N. H. Vuong, R. Ziegler, and J. Zupan, Phys. Rev. D 102, 015023 (2020).
  135. A. J. Buras, J. Girrbach-Noe, C. Niehoff, and D. M. Straub, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2015) 184.
  136. J. A. Bailey et al., Phys. Rev. D 93, 025026 (2016).
  137. F. Abudinén et al. (Belle-II Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 161806 (2020).
  138. A. J. Buras, A. Crivellin, F. Kirk, C. A. Manzari, and M. Montull, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2021) 068.
  139. G. W. Bennett et al. (Muon g−2 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 73, 072003 (2006).
  140. B. Abi et al. (Muon g−2 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 141801 (2021).
  141. T. Aoyama et al., Phys. Rep. 887, 1 (2020).

  142. This result is based on Refs. [143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162]. The recent lattice result of the Budapest-Marseilles-Wuppertal collaboration (BMWc) for the hadronic vacuum polarization (HVP) [163], on the other hand, is not included. This result would render the SM prediction of aμ compatible with experiment. However, the BMWc results are in tension with the HVP determined from e+e−→ hadrons data [157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162]. Furthermore, the HVP also enters the global EW fit [164], whose (indirect) determination is below the BMWc result [165]. Therefore, the BMWc determination of the HVP would increase tension in the EW fit [166, 167] and we opted for using the community consensus of Ref. [141].

  143. T. Aoyama, M. Hayakawa, T. Kinoshita, and M. Nio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 111808 (2012).
  144. T. Aoyama, T. Kinoshita, and M. Nio, Atoms 7, 28 (2019).
  145. A. Czarnecki, W. J. Marciano, and A. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D 67, 073006 (2003); 73, 119901(E) (2006).
  146. C. Gnendiger, D. Stöckinger, and H. Stöckinger-Kim, Phys. Rev. D 88, 053005 (2013).
  147. A. Kurz, T. Liu, P. Marquard, and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Lett. B 734, 144 (2014).
  148. K. Melnikov and A. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D 70, 113006 (2004).
  149. P. Masjuan and P. Sanchez-Puertas, Phys. Rev. D 95, 054026 (2017).
  150. G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, M. Procura, and P. Stoffer, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2017) 161.
  151. M. Hoferichter, B.-L. Hoid, B. Kubis, S. Leupold, and S. P. Schneider, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2018) 141.
  152. A. Gérardin, H. B. Meyer, and A. Nyffeler, Phys. Rev. D 100, 034520 (2019).
  153. J. Bijnens, N. Hermansson-Truedsson, and A. Rodríguez-Sánchez, Phys. Lett. B 798, 134994 (2019).
  154. G. Colangelo, F. Hagelstein, M. Hoferichter, L. Laub, and P. Stoffer, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2020) 101.
  155. T. Blum, N. Christ, M. Hayakawa, T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, C. Jung, and C. Lehner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 132002 (2020).
  156. G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, A. Nyffeler, M. Passera, and P. Stoffer, Phys. Lett. B 735, 90 (2014).
  157. M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu, and Z. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 827 (2017).
  158. A. Keshavarzi, D. Nomura, and T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D 97, 114025 (2018).
  159. G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, and P. Stoffer, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2019) 006.
  160. M. Hoferichter, B.-L. Hoid, and B. Kubis, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2019) 137.
  161. M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu, and Z. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 241 (2020); 80, 410(E) (2020).
  162. A. Keshavarzi, D. Nomura, and T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D 101, 014029 (2020).
  163. S. Borsanyi et al., Nature (London) 593, 51 (2021).
  164. M. Passera, W. J. Marciano, and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D 78, 013009 (2008).
  165. J. Haller, A. Hoecker, R. Kogler, K. Mönig, T. Peiffer, and J. Stelzer, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 675 (2018).
  166. A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, C. A. Manzari, and M. Montull, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 091801 (2020).
  167. A. Keshavarzi, W. J. Marciano, M. Passera, and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D 102, 033002 (2020).
  168. Belle-II (2020), https://docs.belle2.org/record/2028?ln=en.

  169. Of course, the actual branching ratio cannot be 100% since decays to muons must be possible where kinematically allowed. However, as long as Z′→ invisible is the dominant decay mode, the bounds depend weakly on the branching ratio.

  170. A. Bharucha, D. M. Straub, and R. Zwicky, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2016) 098.
  171. J. A. Dror, R. Lasenby, and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. D 96, 075036 (2017).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 106, L031703– Published 15 August, 2022
  • Received 4 March 2022
  • Accepted 27 July 2022
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by SCOAP3.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation