Tests of the Atomki anomaly in lepton pair decays of heavy mesons

G. L´opez Castro1, ∗ and N´estorQuintero2, 3, † 1Departamento de F´ısica, Centro de Investigaci´ony de Estudios Avanzados, Apartado Postal 14-740, 07000 M´exico D.F., M´exico 2Facultad de Ciencias B´asicas, Universidad Santiago de Cali, Campus Pampalinda, Calle 5 No. 62-00, C´odigoPostal 76001, Santiago de Cali, Colombia 3Departamento de F´ısica, Universidad del Tolima, C´odigoPostal 730006299, Ibagu´e,Colombia The anomalies recently reported in lepton pair transitions of 8Be∗ and 4He nuclei may be at- tributed to the existence of a feebly interacting light vector boson X17. We study the effects of this hypothetic particle in the semileptonic H∗ → He+e− decays (H a Qq¯ meson) in the framework of the HQET+VMD model. Using current bounds and the universality assumption of the X17 boson ∗+ ∗+ to quarks, we find that decays of D and Ds mesons can be importantly enhanced relative to the dominant photon-mediated contributions. Dedicated experimental searches at current heavy meson factories may confirm the existence of this light boson or set stronger bounds of their couplings to ordinary matter.

I. INTRODUCTION warned that the addition of radiative corrections to the leading one photon exchange amplitude may be respon- The existence of a light vector boson weakly coupled sible [14] for generating the bumps reported in the an- 8 ∗ to Standard Model (SM) fermions, has been suggested gle and mass spectrum of electron-positron pairs in Be as a solution to the observed discrepancy between the transitions. SM prediction and the experimental measurement of the muon g − 2 magnetic moment anomaly (see for exam- The almost isosinglet nature and the small mass dif- ple [1,2]). It may be also a good candidate as a media- ference of nuclei involved in 8Be∗ decay provides an ideal tor of dark and ordinary matter interactions [1,2]. Sev- place to observe this light boson, in case it exists. Mix- eral strategies aiming their detection in different collider ing of nuclear isospin states [7,8, 15] and other nuclear and fixed target experiments have not found any signal interference effects [16] can only partially explain the ob- so far [3,4], but have excluded different regions in the served anomaly. Further studies in analogous systems mass and coupling strenghts of parameter space. Theo- will be very important in order to establish or discard retically, different models can accomodate a light vector this light boson. In the present letter, we propose the boson and its required interactions through dimension- study of H∗ → He+e− decays, where H(H∗) is a heavy four kinetic mixing with SM neutral gauge bosons and Qq¯ spin-0 (spin-1) meson. Previous related studies in- their interactions with fermionic currents of SM or dark clude: 1) J/ψ → ηcX decays and associated production matter particles [1–3]. of J/ψ mesons at BESIII and Belle II experiments, re- The anomalies recently reported in the invariant-mass cently reported in [17] and, 2) a search proposal at LHCb spectrum and angular distribution of lepton pairs pro- of D∗0 → D0A0 → D0e+e− with displaced vertex or res- duced in 8Be∗ transitions to its ground state [5], re- onant production of the dark photon A0 was detailed in inforces the interest in searches of light vector bosons. Ref. [18]. H∗ → He+e− decays seem to be interesting The observed anomalies seems to require the existence to further test the Atomki anomaly: on the one hand, of a spin-1 boson named X17 [5–7] with mass mX = the mass-splitting in heavy mesons is large enough (see (16.7 ± 0.35 ± 0.50) MeV and a relative ratio B(8Be∗ →8 TableI) to produce the X17 boson on-shell; on the other BeX)/B(8Be∗ →8 Beγ) = 5.8 × 10−6 [7]. Couplings to hand, strong decays of H∗ are either very suppressed of arXiv:2101.01865v3 [hep-ph] 4 May 2021 standard model first-generation fermions of O(10−3) (in forbidden by kinematics, leaving electromagnetic decays units of the the electron charge), required to explain this as dominant. Furthermore, the large amount of data pro- ratio is not discarded by other data. More recently, the duced at heavy meson factories would allow to test the same group seems to confirm the X17 particle in stud- proposed channels in the near future. ies of the 0− → 0+ transitions of 4He [8]. Several new physics extensions of the SM have been proposed in the The Lagrangian describing the interaction of quark and literature with the required couplings to interpret the lepton flavors f with the photon and the X boson is P ¯ µ Atomki anomaly, including enlarged Higgs and/or gauge L(γ,X)ff = −e f (ef Aµ + εf Xµ)fγ f, with couplings sectors (see, for instance, Refs. [7,9–13]). Despite the strenghts ef and εf given in units of the electron charge excitement generated by these anomalies, one must be e. The photon and X boson couplings to hadrons are described each by a single vector form factor which takes into account their structure in the momentum transfer re- 2 2 2 gion 4me ≤ q ≤ (mH∗ −mH ) , with q = pe+ +pe− . The ∗ glopez@fis.cinvestav.mx form factors describing the couplings of the off-shell vec- † [email protected] ∗ tor particles (V = γ, X) in H (pH∗ , H∗ ) → H(pH )V (q) 2

−1 −1 −1 Transition mH∗ − mH (MeV) eQ/mH∗ [GeV ] eq/mq(0) [GeV ] FH∗Hγ (0) [GeV ] D∗+ → D+γ 140.603(15) 0.33 −0.85 −0.54 ± 0.05 −0.47 ± 0.06 [21] D∗0 → D0γ 142.014(30) 0.33 1.70 2.11 ± 0.10 < 10.8 [21] ∗+ +   Ds → Ds γ 143.8(4) 0.32 −0.48 (−0.17 ± 0.03) > −16.4 [21] B∗+ → B+γ 45.37(21) −0.063 1.70 1.64 ± 0.09 B∗0 → B0γ 45.37(21) −0.063 −0.85 −0.92 ± 0.12 ∗0 0 +1.8 Bs → Bs γ 48.6(−1.5) −0.062 −0.48 (−0.42 ± 0.02)

TABLE I. Mass splittings of heavy mesons and electromagnetic couplings of H∗ → Hγ transitions in the HQET+VMD model. Within square brackets we show experimental values when available. are defined from the hadronic amplitude The vector H∗ and pseudoscalar H heavy mesons are 2 ν α β composed of a Qq¯ pair, with Q = b, c and q = u, d, s. The M = ieF ∗ (q )  p p . (1) µ H HV µναβ H∗ H H∗ hadronic matrix element of the electromagnetic current For on-shell vector particles V , this Lorentz-vector am- is given by [19]: plitude must be contracted with its vector polarization em ∗ H(P )|J |H (P ∗ ,  ∗ ) µ (q). The case of lepton pair production is discussed in H µ H H V ¯ ∗ Section III. = e H(PH )|eQQγµQ + eqqγ¯ µq|H (PH∗ , H∗ ) , Q q = e(eQJµ + eqJµ), (2) ∗ II. H H-VECTOR VERTICES where eQ(eq) is the electric charge of the heavy quark (light quark) in units of the positron charge, and simi- X ∗ Q q larly, H(P )|J |H (P ∗ ,  ∗ ) = e(ε J + ε J ) for The form factors FH∗HV (q) are evaluated in the frame- H µ H H Q µ q µ work of the heavy quark effective theory suplemented the X boson current. with vector meson dominance model (HQET+VDM) A straightforward evaluation of the form factors in the [19, 20], which has shown to give a good description of HQET+VMD model [19] leads to H∗ → Hγ decays. Since we will normalize results for our r   2 mH∗ eQ eq ∗ observables to this radiative decay, we use the ratio of de- FH Hγ (q ) = + 2 , (3) m m ∗ m (q ) cay rates because they are rather insensitive to the spe- H H q r   2 2 mH∗ εQ εq cific q -dependency of the form factor. This is due to the ∗ ∗ FH HX (q ) = + 2 , (4) smallness of the H −H mass splitting (see TableI) com- mH mH∗ mq(q ) 2 pared to typical hadronic scales (∼ 1 GeV ). Also, since with the effective light “quark mass” parameter the contributions of heavy quarks are 1/mQ suppressed,  2 −1 we expect that such ratios are relatively independent of X  √ fV  q m (q2)−1 = − 2 2g λ 1 − . (5) constants involved in light-quark contributions through q V m2 m2 vector meson dominance model. V V V For self-containess purposes, we reproduce here the The expressions for the form factors of heavy mesons are term of the Lagrangian density relevant for our calcula- explicitly separated in Eq. (3-4) into its heavy and light tions and definitions of couplings constants [19, 20]. The quark components. In the model under consideration, strong interaction of heavy mesons are described by the couplings of heavy quarks to the the photon and X ∗ µν boson are fixed by HQET, while the couplings to the L2(H HV ) = iλhHbσ Fµν (ρ)baHai , light antiquarks are modeled by the dominance of light where h· · · i denotes the trace in flavor space, Fµν (ρ) = vector mesons [19]. For the latter, the sum extends over µ ∂µρν −∂√ν ρµ +[ρµ, ρν ] is the field strenght tensor and ρ = light vector-meson resonances (V = ρ0, ω, φ) according µ µ igV ρb / 2 where ρb the 3×3 matrix of the nonet of light to the light-quark content of heavy mesons [19]. Under vector mesons. The heavy meson field H is defined in the assumption of the ideal mixing for vector mesons, the ∗ terms of the pseudoscalar (Pa) and vector (Paµ) mesons couplings of light u and d quarks are dominated by the 1 ∗ µ 0 † 0 exchange of ρ and ω mesons, while the coupling of the s fields as Ha = 2 (1+v/)[Paµγ −Paγ5], and Ha = γ Haγ . On the other hand, the coupling of light vector mesons quark corresponds to the exchange of the φ meson. to the vector currents are described in terms of a single Numerical inputs for couplings constants can be found constant fV in the SU(3) flavor symmetry [19, 20]: in Ref [19] and are reproduced here for reference: −1 i µ µ i gV = 5.8, λ = −0.289 ± 0.016 GeV (updated from h0|qT¯ γ q|V (q, η)i = η fV Tr(VT ) , new experimental inputs [21]) and fV (mV ) the de- i where (T )mn = δimδin and i = 1, 2, 3 for q = u, d, s cay constant (mass) of vector meson V . Using cur- quarks, respectively. The values of coupling constant are rent experimental data for lepton-pair decays of vec- − + given below. tor mesons V → e e [21], one gets (fρ, fω, fφ) = 3

(0.171, 0.155, 0.232) GeV2, with very small uncertainties. our results will be obtained under this assumption [6,7]. ∗ ∗ In TableI we list values for the electromagnetic form Values of the H HX couplings and RX/γ (H ) ratios for factor predicted in the HQET+VMD model at q2 = 0. these transitions are given in TableII. The ratios are The quoted uncertainty is dominated by the input on larger than the ones in the nuclear case mainly due to the H∗HV strong coupling (λ) in this model (in all the the unsuppressed phase space for X17 production. predictions from this model quoted below, all the other uncertainties are very small). A comparison with the magnitude of the measured form factor (within square III. LEPTON PAIR PRODUCTION brackets), obtained from the measurement of the radia- tive decay D∗+ → D+γ branching fraction [21], give con- The decay amplitude for lepton pair production ∗ + − fidence on this model. H (PH∗ ) → H(PH )e (p+)e (p−) is the coherent sum of Let us define the following ratio of two-body decay the photon and X-boson mediated amplitudes M(H∗ → + − rates: He e ) = Mγ + MX , where (V = γ, X): 2 2 µ ν α δ ∗ 2 2 3 MV = −e GH∗HV (q ) µναδ` H∗ PH PH∗ , (7) ∗ Γ(H → HX) FH∗HX (mX ) |~pX | RX/γ (H ) = ∗ = · 3 , Γ(H → Hγ) FH∗Hγ (0) |~p | where `µ =u ¯(p−)γµv(p+) is the leptonic current γ 2 2 2 2 (6) and GH∗Hγ (q ) = −FH∗Hγ (q )/q , GH∗HX (q ) = 2 2 2 ε F ∗ (q )/(q − m + im Γ ). In numerical eval- where ~pV is the momentum of the final state boson in e H HX X X X the rest frame of H∗. This ratio exhibits two impor- uations throughout this paper we use αem = α(0), the tant differences with respect to the similar ratio defined fine structure constant, because according to TableI the in 8Be∗ → 8Be nuclear transitions [6]. First, since maximum value of the squared photon momentum is not 2 2 2 large (q = (m ∗ − m ) ). On the other hand, run- m ∗  m (q ) we have a suppression of the heavy quark max H H H q 2 2 relative to the light quarks contributions in Eqs. (3) and ning effects between q = 0 and qmax are very small com- (4), which is stronger for bottom meson transition am- pared with the present and forthcoming experimental ac- plitudes. In order to be more explicit, and for the easy curacies which, in the absence of real estimates, we will reference of the interested reader, in Table 2 we display assume to be not better than 5% for the branching frac- the values of the two contributions that appear within tions. 2 2 As in Ref. [6,7], we assume negligible decays of the square brackets in Eq. (4), by assuming q = mX for the square of the momentum transfer of the X-boson. This X17 boson into neutrino channels, such that its full width ∗ is given by has the advantage that the the ratio RX/γ (H ) is more + − sensitive to the Xqq¯ couplings, which are relatively well ΓX ≡ Γ(X → e e ) bounded from other processes [6]. On the other hand, α ε2m √ given the larger phase-space in heavy meson decays, this = em e X (1 + 2r ) 1 − 4r 3 e e ratio is not suppressed by kinematics, as it happens for −8 decay of 8Be nucleus. = 8.0 × 10 MeV (8) ∗ 2 2 Predictions for the H → HX decay fractions require with re = me/mX . The total width quoted above corre- an estimate of the εQ,q couplings. For the couplings sponds to maximun value of εe, discussed in the previous of the X17 boson to the quarks of the first generation section. Decays of a light vector boson into neutrino- −3 −3 we use: εu ' ±3.7 × 10 and εd ' ∓7.4 × 10 [22]. antineutrino pairs that may increase ΓX width are also −3 They are obtained by combining |εu + εd| ≈ 3.7 × 10 , allowed by kinematics and are included in some exten- obtained in Refs. [6,7] from the 8Be∗ anomaly, with sions of the SM involving enlarged Higgs and/or gauge 0 the null results on searches of the π → Xγ by the sectors [7,9–13]. The relevant coupling εν can be con- NA48/2 experiment [23], which translates into the con- strained from neutrino-electron scattering in the case of −4 traint |2εu + d| ≤ 8 × 10 [22] for the X17 boson the first generation like done from the TEXONO experi- 1/2 −5 couplings. By assumming the NA48/2 constraint to be ment [25] yielding to |εeεν | . 7 × 10 [7]. The addi- exactly zero, namely the ‘protophobic’ assumption (see tion of the νν¯ channels will modify the total width of the however [24]), one gets the results used in this paper. On X boson by less that 0.1%, and our results will remain the other hand, the limits on the coupling to electrons unchanged. −3 −3 can be obtained 0.2 × 10 . |εe| . 1.4 × 10 from The lepton pair invariant mass distribution, normal- beam dump experiments at SLAC and measurements of ized to the radiative decay width of H∗ → Hγ, becomes the g −2 anomalous magnetic moment of the electron ac- the sum of the photon and X-boson mediated distribu- cording to Ref. [22]. Our study requires the knowledge of tions, namely (we use λ(x, y, z) = x2 + y2 + z2 − 2xy − second- and third-generation couplings, namely strange 2xz − 2yz): εs, charm εc, and bottom εb. A priori these parameters ∗ + − 2 dΓ(H → He e ) αem 2 are independent [7], and need not be related to the first- = G ∗ (q ) dq2 72πΓ(H∗ → Hγ) H Hγ generation couplings. Our simplest starting assumption 2  2 2 2 1/2 3 is universality of down- and up-type quark εf couplings, 2 2 λ(mH∗ , mH , q ) +GH∗HX (q ) q . (9) thus, we will take εc = εu and εb = εs = εd; henceforth, mH∗ 4

−1 2 −1 2 −1 ∗ Transition εQ/mH∗ [GeV ] εq/mq(mX ) [GeV ] FH∗HX (mX ) [GeV ] RX/γ (H ) D∗+ → D+X 1.84 × 10−3 −1.89 × 10−2 (−1.76 ± 0.11) × 10−2 1.1 × 10−3 D∗0 → D0X 1.84 × 10−3 9.43 × 10−3 (1.17 ± 0.05) × 10−2 3.0 × 10−5 ∗+ + −3 −3 −2 −3 Ds → Ds X 1.75 × 10 −7.83 × 10 (−0.91 ± 0.06) × 10 3.1 × 10 B∗+ → B+X −1.39 × 10−3 9.43 × 10−3 (0.81 ± 0.05) × 10−2 1.9 × 10−5 B∗0 → B0X −1.39 × 10−3 −1.88 × 10−2 (−2.03 ± 0.10) × 10−2 4.0 × 10−4 ∗0 0 −3 −3 −2 −4 Bs → Bs X −1.37 × 10 −7.83 × 10 (−0.92 ± 0.04) × 10 4.1 × 10

∗ 2 2 TABLE II. The H HX form factors evaluated at q = mX and ratio RX/γ defined in Eq. (6). L L

2 *+ + + - 2 *0 0 + -

- a D ®D e e - b D ®D e e 10-4 10-4

MeV Photon MeV Photon H H

2 -7 2 -7 10 H L 10 H L dq dq   L L - - e -10 e -10 + 10 + 10 He He

® X17 boson ® X17 boson * 10-13 * 10-13 H H H H G G d d 10-16 10-16 1 10 100 1000 104 1 10 100 1000 104 q2 MeV2 q2 MeV2 L L

2 *+ + + - 2 *+ + + -

- - c Ds ®Ds e e - - d B ®B e e 10 4 H L 10 4 H L

MeV Photon MeV Photon H H

2 -7 2 -7 10 H L 10 H L dq dq   L L - - e -10 e -10 + 10 + 10

He X17 boson He

® ® X17 boson * 10-13 * 10-13 H H H H G G d d 10-16 10-16 1 10 100 1000 104 1 5 10 50 100 500 1000 q2 MeV2 q2 MeV2 L L

2 * 0 0 + - 2 * 0 0 + - - - e B ®B e e - - f Bs ®Bse e 10 4 H L 10 4 H L

MeV Photon MeV Photon H H

2 10-7 2 10-7

dq H L dq H L   L L - - e -10 e -10 + 10 + 10 He He

® X17 boson ® X17 boson * 10-13 * 10-13 H H H H G G d d 10-16 10-16 1 5 10 50 100 500 1000 1 5 10 50 100 500 1000 q2 MeV2 q2 MeV2

FIG. 1. Lepton pair invariant mass distributions of H∗ → He+e− transitions normalized to the radiative H∗ → Hγ decay ∗+ + + − ∗0 0 + − ∗+ + + − ∗+ + + − ∗0 0 + − width: (a) D → D e e , (b) D H → DL e e , (c) Ds → Ds e e , (d) B → B He e L, (e) B → B e e and (f) ∗0 0 + − Bs → Bs e e . The red-solid plot denotes the virtual photon contribution, while the X17 boson contribution is represented by the blue-dashed curve. The (almost invisible) shaded bands account for the theoretical uncertainties in form factors.

Given the very narrow width of the X17-boson, the in- orders of magnitude relative to the one-photon contribu- terference of the amplitudes is negligible. Indeed, the tion outside the resonance. interference in the di-lepton spectrum vanishes at the po- The lepton-pair invariant mass distributions due to sition of the X17 and it is suppressed by more than six photon (solid-red) and X17-boson (dashed-blue) ex- 5

γ ∗ X ∗ Channel Ree(H ) Ree(H ) Total Experiment D∗+ → D+e+e− 6.67 × 10−3 (1.05 ± 0.07) × 10−3 (7.72 ± 0.07) × 10−3 −− D∗0 → D0e+e− 6.67 × 10−3 3.02 × 10−5 6.70 × 10−3 −− ∗+ + + − −3 −3 −3 +1.8 −3 Ds → Ds e e 6.72 × 10 (3.10 ± 0.60) × 10 (9.82 ± 0.60) × 10 (7.2−1.6) × 10 [27] B∗+ → B+e+e− 4.88 × 10−3 (1.91 ± 0.03) × 10−5 4.90 × 10−3 −− B∗0 → B0e+e− 4.88 × 10−3 3.96 × 10−4 5.28 × 10−3 −− ∗0 0 + − −3 −4 −3 Bs → Bs e e 4.99 × 10 4.08 × 10 5.40 × 10 −−

TABLE III. Photon and X17 boson exchange contributions to the ratio of decay rates defined in Eq. (10). We assume −3 universal couplings of the hypothetical X17 boson to down-type quarks [εb = εs = εd = ∓7.4 × 10 ] and up-type quarks −3 [εc = εu = ±3.7 × 10 ] (see end of Section II). Unless explicityly indicated, theoretical uncertainties are at least three-orders of magnitude smaller than the corresponding central values. change are shown separately in Figure1 for the six dif- 0.02 ferent decay channels under consideration. The shaded 8 * bands around each curve represents the theoretical error, Be NA48 2 which are difficult to visualise in the log-scale. The peak due to the production of the X17 boson in each channel is 0.01 *+ + + - not located very close to the end of the lepton-pair spec-  Ds ®Ds e e trum as it happens in the nuclear case, avoiding in this way possible end-point kinematical effects. In contradis- D 0.00 tinction to the on-shell X17 production, the effect of this ¶ ∗+ ∗+ + + + − boson is the largest for the D (Ds ) → D (Ds )e e decay. The corresponding peaks of this boson contribu- tion is suppressed by one or two orders of magnitude -0.01 in all other cases, relative to the photon contribution. Note that we are assuming universality bounds on heav- ier quark εc,s,b couplings; since this is a conservative as- sumption, the experimental study of heavy mesons tran- -0.02 sitions involving lepton pairs may serve to set bounds on -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 these unknown couplings of the hypothetical X17 boson. TableIII displays the values of the decay rates for the ¶U lepton-pair production in H∗ → H transitions normal- ized to the corresponding rates of the radiative decays FIG. 2. The 1σ confidence level allowed regions in the pa- ∗ rameter space of up-type (εU = εc) and down-type (εD = εs) H → Hγ, namely ∗+ + + − X-quark couplings from Ds → Ds e e (light-red shaded Γ(H∗ → He+e−) band). The region within dashed lines corresponds to the R (H∗) ≡ (10) assumption of a five-fold improvement in the experimen- ee Γ(H∗ → Hγ) tal uncertainty. The corresponding constraints on (εU = 8 ∗ where the radiative rate is given by Γ(H∗ → Hγ) = εu, εD = εd) from the experimental results from Be [5–7] 2 3 and NA48/2 [7, 23] are represented by the the two paralell (α /3)|F ∗ (0)| |~p | . We expect that the remain- em H Hγ γ thin black lines and the wider steepest blue band, respec- ing model-dependent terms in the form factors are can- tively. celled in this ratio (all other lepton-pair and angular dis- tributions in the following are normalized to this radia- tive width). As in the case of the lepton-pair spectra, the largest contribution of the X17 boson is observed in Ref. [27] based on the model proposed in [28] which ∗+ ∗+ includes only the electromagnetic contribution. for the D and Ds decays, making these channels ∗ the most sensitive for the observation of this light bo- sThe sensitivity of Ds decays into lepton pairs to the son effects. Our calculation of the electromagnetic con- effects of X17 boson exchange observed in the previous ∗ γ ∗+ tribution in the case of Ds decays yields Ree(Ds ) = paragraph, suggests this channel can be useful to con- 6.8 × 10−3 is in good agreement with the experimental strain the parameter space of the hypothetical vector bo- +1.8 −3 value (7.2 −1.6) × 10 reported in [27]. When we add son. In Fig.2 we show the 1 σ confidence level allowed the contribution of the X17 boson exchange, our predic- for the parameter space in the (εc, εs) plane, obtained γ+X ∗ −3 tion increases to Ree (Ds ) = (9.8 ± 0.6) × 10 , which from the comparison of the experimental branching frac- exceeds the experimental value but it is still consistent tion reported by CLEO [27] and the result of integrat- ∗ + − with it within 1.4σ. Let us notice that a previous pre- ing Eq. (9) for Ds → Dse e (light-red shaded band). ∗ −3 ∗ diction of this ratio Ree(Ds ) = 6.5 × 10 was estimated The current experimental uncertainty in R(Ds ) is close to 6

25%, and current experiments producing a large dataset fects. We have used the HQET+VMD framework to of charmed mesons have not planned new measurements. model the hadronic form factors of 1− → 0− meson Therefore, we will assume that a dedicated measurement transitions, however our results are little-dependent on of this observable may reach an improvement of the cur- hadronic uncertainties because the rates are normalized rent uncertainty by a factor of five. Under this assump- to the dominant H∗ → Hγ electromagnetic decays and tion we get the region enclosed by the red-dashed contour the dominant contributions in most channels are dom- in Figure2. For comparison, we also show the two thin inated by photon emission off the light quarks in this parallel black lines corresponding to the allowed values of model. (ε , ε ) obtained from 8Be∗ results [6,7]and the region al- u d Although all the branching fractions of the heavy me- lowed from the so-called ‘protophobic condition’ obtained son channels considered in this paper exhibit some sensi- from the non-observation of π0 → γX by the NA48/2 tivity to the effects of the X17 boson, decays of D∗+ experiment [7, 23] (single steepest blue band). The dif- and D∗+ mesons turn out to be the most sensitive ferent sensitivities observed from these measurements to s ones. This happens because 1) the radiative charged the up-type and down-type quark couplings makes worth charmed vector meson decay rates used as a normal- an improved measurement of the heavy mesons decays ization factor in R (D∗) and R (D∗+) are suppressed discussed in this paper. ee s ee in the HQET+VMD owing to a partial cancellation of Finally, let us comment that the angular distribution the heavy and light quarks contributions and, 2) the of the e+e− pair, in the rest frame of the decaying par- large contribution of the light quark coupling to X17 for ticle, will be peaked closer to the collinear configuration D∗+ → D+ transition. Also, improved measurements compared to the nuclear case of 8Be∗ transitions, where of these leptonic decay channels can set additional and θ(e+e−) ∼ 1400. This happens because the X17 boson complementary constraints on the X17 boson couplings is produced with a larger velocity, while in nuclear tran- to ordinary fermions, as shown in Figure2 for the case sitions this boson is produced almost at rest. ∗ + − of Ds → Dse e decays or, eventually, confirm the ex- istence of this light boson. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IV. CONCLUSIONS

The hypothetical light vector boson X17, proposed as GLC acknowledges support from Ciencia de Frontera a solution for the anomaly observed in lepton-pair pro- project No. 428218 (Conacyt). The work of N. Quintero duction of 8Be∗ and 4He transitions, can be studied in has been financially supported by MINCIENCIAS and the clean environment provided by vector to pseudoscalar Universidad del Tolima through Convocatoria Estancias heavy mesons transitions in Belle, Belle II and BESIII Postdoctorales No. 848-2019 (Contract No. 834-2020), factories. These H∗(Qq¯) → H(Qq¯)e+e− decays are free and Direcci´onGeneral de Investigaciones - Universidad from theoretical uncertainties associated to nuclear ef- Santiago de Cali under Project No. 935-621118-3.

[1] P. Fayet, U-boson production in e+e− annihilations, ψ Rev. D 95, no.3, 035017 (2017) [arXiv:1608.03591 [hep- and Υ decays, and Light Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D 75, ph]]. 115017 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ph/0702176 [hep-ph]]. [8] A. J. Krasznahorkay et al., New evidence support- [2] M. Pospelov, Secluded U(1) below the weak scale, Phys. ing the existence of the hypothetic X17 particle, Rev. D 80, 095002 (2009) [arXiv:0811.1030 [hep-ph]]. arXiv:1910.10459 [nucl-ex]. [3] R. Essig et al., “Working Group Report: New Light [9] L. Delle Rose, S. Khalil and S. Moretti, Explanation of Weakly Coupled Particles,” arXiv:1311.0029 [hep-ph]. the 17 MeV Atomki anomaly in a U(1)’ -extended two [4] See talks at the Workshop on Feeble Interacting Particles Higgs doublet model, Phys. Rev. D 96, no.11, 115024 2020, https://indico.cern.ch/event/864648/timetable/ , (2017) [arXiv:1704.03436 [hep-ph]]. August 31st- September 4th (2020). [10] L. Delle Rose, S. Khalil, S. J. D. King, S. Moretti and [5] A. J. Krasznahorkay et al, Observation of Anomalous A. M. Thabt, Atomki Anomaly in Family-Dependent Internal Pair Creation in Be8 : A Possible Indication U(1)0 Extension of the Standard Model, Phys. Rev. D of a Light, Neutral Boson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, no.4, 99, no.5, 055022 (2019) [arXiv:1811.07953 [hep-ph]]. 042501 (2016) [arXiv:1504.01527 [nucl-ex]]. [11] L. Delle Rose, S. Khalil, S. J. D. King and S. Moretti, [6] J. L. Feng, B. Fornal, I. Galon, S. Gardner, J. Smolinsky, New Physics Suggested by Atomki Anomaly, Front. in T. M. P. Tait and P. Tanedo, Protophobic Fifth-Force Phys. 7, 73 (2019) [arXiv:1812.05497 [hep-ph]]. Interpretation of the Observed Anomaly in 8Be Nuclear [12] O. Seto and T. Shimomura, Atomki anomaly in gauged Transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, no.7, 071803 (2016) U(1)R symmetric model, [arXiv:2006.05497 [hep-ph]]. [arXiv:1604.07411 [hep-ph]]. [13] T. Nomura and P. Sanyal, Explaining Atomki anomaly [7] J. L. Feng, B. Fornal, I. Galon, S. Gardner, J. Smolinsky, and muon g − 2 in U(1)X extended flavour violating two T. M. P. Tait and P. Tanedo, Particle physics models for Higgs doublet model, [arXiv:2010.04266 [hep-ph]]. the 17 MeV anomaly in beryllium nuclear decays, Phys. 7

[14] A. Aleksejevs, S. Barkanova, Y. G. Kolomensky and [22] B. Fornal, Is There a Sign of New Physics in Beryllium B. Sheff, A Standard Model Explanation for the Transitions?, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 32, 1730020 (2017) ”ATOMKI Anomaly, arXiv:2102.01127 [hep-ph]. [arXiv:1707.09749 [hep-ph]]. [15] J. L. Feng, T. M. P. Tait and C. B. Verhaaren, Dynamical [23] J. R. Batley et al. [NA48/2], Search for the dark pho- Evidence For a Fifth Force Explanation of the ATOMKI ton in π0 decays, Phys. Lett. B 746, 178-185 (2015) Nuclear Anomalies, Phys. Rev. D 102, no. 3, 036016 [arXiv:1504.00607 [hep-ex]]. (2020) [arXiv:2006.01151 [hep-ph]]. [24] X. Zhang and G. A. Miller, Can a protophobic vector [16] X. Zhang and G. A. Miller, Can nuclear physics explain boson explain the ATOMKI anomaly?, arXiv:2008.11288 the anomaly observed in the internal pair production in [hep-ph]. the Beryllium-8 nucleus?, Phys. Lett. B 773, 159 (2017). [25] M. Deniz et al. [TEXONO], Measurement ofν ¯e -Electron [17] K. Ban, Y. Jho, Y. Kwon, S. C. Park, S. Park and Scattering Cross-Section with a CsI(Tl) Scintillating P. Y. Tseng, Search for new light vector boson using J/Ψ Crystal Array at the Kuo-Sheng Nuclear Power Reac- at BESIII and Belle II, arXiv:2012.04190 [hep-ph]. tor, Phys. Rev. D 81, 072001 (2010) [arXiv:0911.1597 [18] P. Ilten, J. Thaler, M. Williams and W. Xue, Dark pho- [hep-ex]]. tons from charm mesons at LHCb, Phys. Rev. D 92, no. [26] E. Kou et al. [Belle-II Collaboration], The Belle II 11, 115017 (2015) Physics Book, PTEP 2019, no. 12, 123C01 (2019) Er- [19] P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio and G. Nardulli, Radiative ratum: [PTEP 2020, no. 2, 029201 (2020)] heavy meson transitions, Phys. Lett. B 316, 555-560 [27] D. Cronin-Hennessy et al. [CLEO], Observation of the ∗+ + + − (1993) [arXiv:hep-ph/9307330 [hep-ph]]. Dalitz Decay Ds → Ds e e , Phys. Rev. D 86, 072005 [20] R. Casalbuoni, A. Deandrea, N. Di Bartolomeo, (2012) [arXiv:1104.3265 [hep-ex]]. R. Gatto, F. Feruglio and G. Nardulli, Effective La- [28] L. G. Landsberg, Electromagnetic Decays of Light grangian for heavy and light mesons: Semileptonic de- Mesons, Phys. Rept. 128, 301-376 (1985). cays, Phys. Lett. B 299, 139 (1993). [21] P. A. Zyla et al. [Particle Data Group], Review of Particle Physics, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2020, 083C01 (2020).