STCF conceptual design report (Volume 1): Physics & detector

doi:10.1007/s11467-023-1333-z

Front. Phys.

2024, Vol. 19

Issue (1) : 14701 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11467-023-1333-z

REPORT

STCF conceptual design report (Volume 1): Physics & detector

M. Achasov³, X. C. Ai⁸², L. P. An⁵⁴, R. Aliberti³⁸, Q. An^63,⁷², X. Z. Bai^63,⁷², Y. Bai⁶², O. Bakina³⁹, A. Barnyakov^3,⁵⁰, V. Blinov^3,^50,⁵¹, V. Bobrovnikov^3,⁵¹, D. Bodrov^23,⁶⁰, A. Bogomyagkov³, A. Bondar³, I. Boyko³⁹, Z. H. Bu⁷³, F. M. Cai²⁰, H. Cai⁷⁷, J. J. Cao²⁰, Q. H. Cao⁵⁴, X. Cao³³, Z. Cao^63,⁷², Q. Chang²⁰, K. T. Chao⁵⁴, D. Y. Chen⁶², H. Chen⁸¹, H. X. Chen⁶², J. F. Chen⁵⁸, K. Chen⁶, L. L. Chen²⁰, P. Chen⁷⁸, S. L. Chen⁶, S. M. Chen⁶⁶, S. Chen⁶⁹, S. P. Chen⁶⁹, W. Chen⁶⁴, X. Chen⁷⁴, X. F. Chen⁵⁸, X. R. Chen³³, Y. Chen³², Y. Q. Chen³⁶, H. Y. Cheng³⁴, J. Cheng⁴⁸, S. Cheng²⁸, T. G. Cheng², J. P. Dai⁸⁰, L. Y. Dai²⁸, X. C. Dai⁵⁴, D. Dedovich³⁹, A. Denig^19,³⁸, I. Denisenko³⁹, J. M. Dias⁴, D. Z. Ding⁵⁸, L. Y. Dong³², W. H. Dong^63,⁷², V. Druzhinin³, D. S. Du^63,⁷², Y. J. Du⁷⁷, Z. G. Du⁴¹, L. M. Duan³³, D. Epifanov³, Y. L. Fan⁷⁷, S. S. Fang³², Z. J. Fang^63,⁷², G. Fedotovich³, C. Q. Feng^63,⁷², X. Feng⁵⁴, Y. T. Feng^63,⁷², J. L. Fu⁶⁹, J. Gao⁵⁹, Y. N. Gao⁵⁴, P. S. Ge⁷³, C. Q. Geng¹⁵, L. S. Geng², A. Gilman⁷¹, L. Gong⁴³, T. Gong²¹, B. Gou³³, W. Gradl³⁸, J. L. Gu^63,⁷², A. Guevara⁴, L. C. Gui²⁶, A. Q. Guo³³, F. K. Guo^4,^69,², J. C. Guo^63,⁷², J. Guo⁵⁹, Y. P. Guo¹¹, Z. H. Guo¹⁶, A. Guskov³⁹, K. L. Han⁶⁹, L. Han^63,⁷², M. Han^63,⁷², X. Q. Hao²⁰, J. B. He⁶⁹, S. Q. He^63,⁷², X. G. He⁵⁹, Y. L. He²⁰, Z. B. He³³, Z. X. Heng²⁰, B. L. Hou^63,⁷², T. J. Hou⁷⁴, Y. R. Hou⁶⁹, C. Y. Hu⁷⁴, H. M. Hu³², K. Hu⁵⁷, R. J. Hu³³, W. H. Hu⁵⁴, X. H. Hu⁹, Y. C. Hu⁴⁹, J. Hua⁶¹, G. S. Huang^63,⁷², J. S. Huang⁴⁷, M. Huang⁶⁹, Q. Y. Huang⁶⁹, W. Q. Huang⁶⁹, X. T. Huang⁵⁷, X. J. Huang³³, Y. B. Huang¹⁴, Y. S. Huang⁶⁴, N. Hüsken³⁸, V. Ivanov³, Q. P. Ji²⁰, J. J. Jia⁷⁷, S. Jia⁶², Z. K. Jia^63,⁷², H. B. Jiang⁷⁷, J. Jiang⁵⁷, S. Z. Jiang¹⁴, J. B. Jiao⁵⁷, Z. Jiao²⁴, H. J. Jing⁶⁹, X. L. Kang⁸, X. S. Kang⁴³, B. C. Ke⁸², M. Kenzie⁵, A. Khoukaz⁷⁶, I. Koop^3,^50,⁵¹, E. Kravchenko^3,⁵¹, A. Kuzmin³, Y. Lei⁶⁰, E. Levichev³, C. H. Li⁴², C. Li⁵⁵, D. Y. Li³³, F. Li^63,⁷², G. Li⁵⁵, G. Li¹⁵, H. B. Li^32,⁶⁹, H. Li^63,⁷², H. N. Li⁶¹, H. J. Li²⁰, H. L. Li²⁷, J. M. Li^63,⁷², J. Li³², L. Li⁵⁶, L. Li⁵⁹, L. Y. Li^63,⁷², N. Li⁶⁴, P. R. Li⁴¹, R. H. Li³⁰, S. Li⁵⁹, T. Li⁵⁷, W. J. Li²⁰, X. Li³³, X. H. Li⁷⁴, X. Q. Li⁶, X. H. Li^63,⁷², Y. Li⁷⁹, Y. Y. Li⁷², Z. J. Li³³, H. Liang^63,⁷², J. H. Liang⁶¹, Y. T. Liang³³, G. R. Liao¹³, L. Z. Liao²⁵, Y. Liao⁶¹, C. X. Lin⁶⁹, D. X. Lin³³, X. S. Lin^63,⁷², B. J. Liu³², C. W. Liu¹⁵, D. Liu^63,⁷², F. Liu⁶, G. M. Liu⁶¹, H. B. Liu¹⁴, J. Liu⁵⁴, J. J. Liu⁷⁴, J. B. Liu^63,⁷², K. Liu⁴¹, K. Y. Liu⁴³, K. Liu⁵⁹, L. Liu^63,⁷², Q. Liu⁶⁹, S. B. Liu^63,⁷², T. Liu¹¹, X. Liu⁴¹, Y. W. Liu^63,⁷², Y. Liu⁸², Y. L. Liu^63,⁷², Z. Q. Liu⁵⁷, Z. Y. Liu⁴¹, Z. W. Liu⁴⁵, I. Logashenko³, Y. Long^63,⁷², C. G. Lu³³, J. X. Lu², N. Lu^63,⁷², Q. F. Lü²⁶, Y. Lu⁷, Y. Lu⁶⁹, Z. Lu⁶², P. Lukin³, F. J. Luo⁷⁴, T. Luo¹¹, X. F. Luo⁶, Y. H. Luo⁵⁴, H. J. Lyu²⁴, X. R. Lyu⁶⁹, J. P. Ma³⁵, P. Ma³³, Y. Ma¹⁵, Y. M. Ma³³, F. Maas^19,³⁸, S. Malde⁷¹, D. Matvienko³, Z. X. Meng⁷⁰, R. Mitchell²⁹, A. Nefediev⁴⁰, Y. Nefedov³⁹, S. L. Olsen^22,⁵³, Q. Ouyang^32,⁶³, P. Pakhlov²³, G. Pakhlova^23,⁵², X. Pan⁶⁰, Y. Pan⁶², E. Passemar^29,^65,⁶⁷, Y. P. Pei^63,⁷², H. P. Peng^63,⁷², L. Peng²⁷, X. Y. Peng⁸, X. J. Peng⁴¹, K. Peters¹², S. Pivovarov³, E. Pyata³, B. B. Qi^63,⁷², Y. Q. Qi^63,⁷², W. B. Qian⁶⁹, Y. Qian³³, C. F. Qiao⁶⁹, J. J. Qin⁷⁴, J. J. Qin^63,⁷², L. Q. Qin¹³, X. S. Qin⁵⁷, T. L. Qiu³³, J. Rademacker⁶⁸, C. F. Redmer³⁸, H. Y. Sang^63,⁷², M. Saur⁵⁴, W. Shan²⁶, X. Y. Shan^63,⁷², L. L. Shang²⁰, M. Shao^63,⁷², L. Shekhtman³, C. P. Shen¹¹, J. M. Shen²⁸, Z. T. Shen^63,⁷², H. C. Shi^63,⁷², X. D. Shi^63,⁷², B. Shwartz³, A. Sokolov³, J. J. Song²⁰, W. M. Song³⁶, Y. Song^63,⁷², Y. X. Song¹⁰, A. Sukharev^3,⁵¹, J. F. Sun²⁰, L. Sun⁷⁷, X. M. Sun⁶, Y. J. Sun^63,⁷², Z. P. Sun³³, J. Tang⁶⁴, S. S. Tang^63,⁷², Z. B. Tang^63,⁷², C. H. Tian^63,⁷², J. S. Tian⁷⁸, Y. Tian³³, Y. Tikhonov³, K. Todyshev^3,⁵¹, T. Uglov⁵², V. Vorobyev³, B. D. Wan¹⁵, B. L. Wang⁶⁹, B. Wang^63,⁷², D. Y. Wang⁵⁴, G. Y. Wang²¹, G. L. Wang¹⁷, H. L. Wang⁶¹, J. Wang⁴⁹, J. H. Wang^63,⁷², J. C. Wang^63,⁷², M. L. Wang³², R. Wang^63,⁷², R. Wang³³, S. B. Wang⁵⁹, W. Wang⁵⁹, W. P. Wang^63,⁷², X. C. Wang²⁰, X. D. Wang⁷⁴, X. L. Wang^63,⁷², X. L. Wang²⁰, X. P. Wang², X. F. Wang⁴¹, Y. D. Wang⁴⁸, Y. P. Wang⁶, Y. Q. Wang¹⁷, Y. L. Wang²⁰, Y. G. Wang^63,⁷², Z. Y. Wang^63,⁷², Z. Y. Wang⁷³, Z. L. Wang⁶⁹, Z. G. Wang⁴⁸, D. H. Wei¹³, X. L. Wei³³, X. M. Wei⁴⁹, Q. G. Wen¹, X. J. Wen³³, G. Wilkinson⁷¹, B. Wu^63,⁷², J. J. Wu⁶⁹, L. Wu⁴⁴, P. Wu⁶², T. W. Wu¹⁵, Y. S. Wu^63,⁷², L. Xia^63,⁷², T. Xiang⁵⁴, C. W. Xiao^7,¹³, D. Xiao⁴¹, M. Xiao⁷⁴, K. P. Xie², Y. H. Xie⁶, Y. Xing⁹, Z. Z. Xing³², X. N. Xiong⁷, F. R. Xu³⁷, J. Xu⁸², L. L. Xu^63,⁷², Q. N. Xu³⁰, X. C. Xu^63,⁷², X. P. Xu⁶⁰, Y. C. Xu⁷⁹, Y. P. Xu⁴⁸, Y. Xu⁴³, Z. Z. Xu^63,⁷², D. W. Xuan^63,⁷², F. F. Xue⁴⁹, L. Yan¹¹, M. J. Yan⁴, W. B. Yan^63,⁷², W. C. Yan⁸², X. S. Yan²⁰, B. F. Yang²⁰, C. Yang⁵⁷, H. J. Yang⁵⁹, H. R. Yang³³, H. T. Yang^63,⁷², J. F. Yang^63,⁷², S. L. Yang⁶⁹, Y. D. Yang²⁰, Y. H. Yang⁶⁹, Y. S. Yang³³, Y. L. Yang²⁰, Z. W. Yang⁵⁴, Z. Y. Yang^63,⁷², D. L. Yao²⁸, H. Yin⁶, X. H. Yin³³, N. Yokozaki⁸¹, S. Y. You⁴¹, Z. Y. You⁶⁴, C. X. Yu⁴⁶, F. S. Yu⁴¹, G. L. Yu⁴⁸, H. L. Yu^63,⁷², J. S. Yu²⁸, J. Q. Yu²⁸, L. Yuan², X. B. Yuan⁶, Z. Y. Yuan⁵⁴, Y. F. Yue²⁰, M. Zeng⁶⁶, S. Zeng⁷⁴, A. L. Zhang^63,⁷², B. W. Zhang⁶, G. Y. Zhang²⁰, G. Q. Zhang³¹, H. J. Zhang^63,⁷², H. B. Zhang⁶⁹, J. Y. Zhang⁶⁹, J. L. Zhang²¹, J. Zhang⁶⁴, L. Zhang⁵⁷, L. M. Zhang⁶⁶, Q. A. Zhang², R. Zhang⁷⁵, S. L. Zhang²⁸, T. Zhang⁵⁹, X. Zhang⁴, Y. Zhang^63,⁷², Y. J. Zhang², Y. X. Zhang⁵⁴, Y. T. Zhang⁸², Y. F. Zhang^63,⁷², Y. C. Zhang⁶², Y. Zhang¹⁸, Y. Zhang⁷⁴, Y. M. Zhang⁶⁴, Y. L. Zhang^63,⁷², Z. H. Zhang⁷⁴, Z. Y. Zhang⁷⁷, Z. Y. Zhang^63,⁷², H. Y. Zhao³³, J. Zhao²¹, L. Zhao^63,⁷², M. G. Zhao⁴⁶, Q. Zhao³², R. G. Zhao⁴⁹, R. P. Zhao⁶⁹, Y. X. Zhao³³, Z. G. Zhao^63,⁷², Z. X. Zhao³⁰, A. Zhemchugov³⁹, B. Zheng⁷⁴, L. Zheng⁸, Q. B. Zheng⁷³, R. Zheng⁴⁹, Y. H. Zheng⁶⁹, X. H. Zhong²⁶, H. J. Zhou²⁰, H. Q. Zhou⁶², H. Zhou^63,⁷², S. H. Zhou³⁰, X. Zhou⁷⁷, X. K. Zhou⁶, X. P. Zhou², X. R. Zhou^63,⁷², Y. L. Zhou¹⁵, Y. Zhou^63,⁷², Y. X. Zhou⁶⁹, Z. Y. Zhou⁶², J. Y. Zhu²¹, K. Zhu³², R. D. Zhu⁶⁰, R. L. Zhu⁴⁴, S. H. Zhu⁵⁴, Y. C. Zhu^63,⁷², Z. A. Zhu^63,⁷², V. Zhukova⁴⁰, V. Zhulanov³, B. S. Zou^4,^69,³³, Y. B. Zuo⁴²

¹. Anhui University, Hefei 230039, China
². Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China
³. Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk 630090, Russia
⁴. CAS Key Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China
⁵. Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, United Kingdom
⁶. Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China
⁷. Central South University, Changsha 410083, China
⁸. China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China
⁹. China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China
¹⁰. École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
¹¹. Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China
¹². Goethe University Frankfurt, D-60325 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
¹³. Guangxi Normal University, Guilin 541004, China
¹⁴. Guangxi Uninversity, Nanning 530004, China
¹⁵. Hangzhou Institute for Advanced Study, UCAS, Hangzhou 310024, China
¹⁶. Hebei Normal University, Shijiazhuang 050024, China
¹⁷. Hebei University, Baoding 071002, China
¹⁸. Hefei University of Technology, Hefei 230601, China
¹⁹. Helmholtz Institute Mainz, Staudinger Weg 18, D-55099 Mainz, Germany
²⁰. Henan Normal University, Xinxiang 453007, China
²¹. Henan University, Kaifeng 475004, China
²². High Energy Physics Center, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 06974, Korea
²³. Higher School of Economy 11 Pokrovsky Bulvar, Moscow 109028, Russia
²⁴. Huangshan University, Huangshan 245000, China
²⁵. Hubei University of Automotive Technology, Shiyan 442002, China
²⁶. Hunan Normal University, Changsha 410081, China
²⁷. Hunan University of Science and Technology, Xiangtan 411201, China
²⁸. Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China
²⁹. Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, USA
³⁰. Inner Mongolia University, Hohhot 010021, China
³¹. Institute of Advanced Science Facilities, Shenzhen 518107, China
³². Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
³³. Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China
³⁴. Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan 11529, China
³⁵. Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China
³⁶. Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China
³⁷. Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China
³⁸. Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Johann-Joachim-Becher-Weg 45, D-55099 Mainz, Germany
³⁹. Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, 141980 Dubna, Moscow region, Russia
⁴⁰. Josef Stefan Institute, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
⁴¹. Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
⁴². Liaoning Normal University, Dalian 116029, China
⁴³. Liaoning University, Shenyang 110036, China
⁴⁴. Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210023, China
⁴⁵. Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023, China
⁴⁶. Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, China
⁴⁷. Nanyang Normal University, Nanyang 473061, China
⁴⁸. North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, China
⁴⁹. Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an 710072, China
⁵⁰. Novosibirsk State Technical University, Novosibirsk 630073, Russia
⁵¹. Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk 630090, Russia
⁵². P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow 119991, Russia
⁵³. Particle and Nuclear Physics Institute, Institute for Basic Science, Daejeon 34126, Korea
⁵⁴. Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
⁵⁵. Qufu Normal University, Qufu 273165, China
⁵⁶. Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China
⁵⁷. Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China
⁵⁸. Shanghai Institute of Ceramics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201899, China
⁵⁹. Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China
⁶⁰. Soochow University, Suzhou 215006, China
⁶¹. South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510006, China
⁶². Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China
⁶³. State Key Laboratory of Particle Detection and Electronics, Beijing 100049, Hefei 230026, China
⁶⁴. Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
⁶⁵. Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, Newport News, VA 23606, USA
⁶⁶. Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
⁶⁷. Universitat de València, E-46071 València, Spain
⁶⁸. University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TL, United Kingdom
⁶⁹. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
⁷⁰. University of Jinan, Jinan 250022, China
⁷¹. University of Oxford, Keble Road, Oxford OX13RH, United Kingdom
⁷². University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China
⁷³. University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai 200093, China
⁷⁴. University of South China, Hengyang 421001, China
⁷⁵. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin-Madison 53706, USA
⁷⁶. University Münster, Wilhelm-Klemm-Str.9, 48149 Münster, Germany
⁷⁷. Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China
⁷⁸. Xi’an Institute of Optics and Precision Mechanics of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xi’an 710119, China
⁷⁹. Yantai University, Yantai 264005, China
⁸⁰. Yunnan University, Kunming 650500, China
⁸¹. Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, China
⁸². Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China

Download: PDF(18750 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

The super τ-charm facility (STCF) is an electron−positron collider proposed by the Chinese particle physics community. It is designed to operate in a center-of-mass energy range from 2 to 7 GeV with a peak luminosity of 0.5 × 10³⁵ cm⁻²·s⁻¹ or higher. The STCF will produce a data sample about a factor of 100 larger than that of the present τ-charm factory — the BEPCII, providing a unique platform for exploring the asymmetry of matter-antimatter (charge-parity violation), in-depth studies of the internal structure of hadrons and the nature of non-perturbative strong interactions, as well as searching for exotic hadrons and physics beyond the Standard Model. The STCF project in China is under development with an extensive R&D program. This document presents the physics opportunities at the STCF, describes conceptual designs of the STCF detector system, and discusses future plans for detector R&D and physics case studies.

Keywords electron−positron collider tau-charm region high luminosity STCF detector conceptual design

Issue Date: 26 September 2023

Cite this article:

M. Achasov,X. C. Ai,L. P. An, et al. STCF conceptual design report (Volume 1): Physics & detector[J]. Front. Phys. , 2024, 19(1): 14701.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fop/EN/10.1007/s11467-023-1333-z
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fop/EN/Y2024/V19/I1/14701

Fig.1 (a) The free parameters of the Standard Model. Note that the neutrino masses and mixing angles are not included here. (b) The behavior of the QCD coupling strength

α s (Q)

vs.

1 / Q

(bottom axis) and distance (top axis).

CME ( $G e V$ )	Lumi ( $ab − 1$ )	Samples	$σ (n b)$	No. of events	Remarks
3.097	1	$J / ψ$	3400	$3.4 × 1012$
3.670	1	$τ + τ −$	2.4	$2.4 × 109$
3.686	1	$ψ (3686)$	640	$6.4 × 1011$
		$τ + τ −$	2.5	$2.5 × 109$
		$ψ (3686) → τ + τ −$		$2.0 × 109$
3.770	1	$D 0 D ¯ 0$	3.6	$3.6 × 109$
		$D + D ¯ −$	2.8	$2.8 × 109$
		$D 0 D ¯ 0$		$7.9 × 108$	Single tag
		$D + D ¯ −$		$5.5 × 108$	Single tag
		$τ + τ −$	2.9	$2.9 × 109$
4.009	1	$D ∗ 0 D ¯ 0 + c . c .$	4.0	$1.4 × 109$	$C P D 0 D ¯ 0 = +$
		$D ∗ 0 D ¯ 0 + c . c .$	4.0	$2.6 × 109$	$C P D 0 D ¯ 0 = −$
		$D s + D s −$	0.20	$2.0 × 108$
		$τ + τ −$	3.5	$3.5 × 109$
4.180	1	$D s + ∗ D s −$ +c.c.	0.90	$9.0 × 108$
		$D s + ∗ D s −$ +c.c.		$1.3 × 108$	Single tag
		$τ + τ −$	3.6	$3.6 × 109$
4.230	1	$J / ψ π + π −$	0.085	$8.5 × 107$
		$τ + τ −$	3.6	$3.6 × 109$
		$γ X (3872)$
4.360	1	$ψ (3686) π + π −$	0.058	$5.8 × 107$
4.360	1	$τ + τ −$	3.5	$3.5 × 109$
4.420	1	$ψ (3686) π + π −$	0.040	$4.0 × 107$
4.420	1	$τ + τ −$	3.5	$3.5 × 109$
4.630	1	$ψ (3686) π + π −$	0.033	$3.3 × 107$
4.630		$Λ c Λ ¯ c$	0.56	$5.6 × 108$
		$Λ c Λ ¯ c$		$6.4 × 107$	Single tag
		$τ + τ −$	3.4	$3.4 × 109$
4.0–7.0	3	300-point scan with 10 MeV steps, 1 $fb − 1$ /point
$> 5$	2–7	Several $ab − 1$ of high-energy data, details dependent on scan results

Tab.1 The expected numbers of events per year at different STCF energy points.

XYZ	$Y (4260)$	$Z c (3900)$	$Z c (4020)$	$X (3872)$
No. of events	$109$	$108$	$108$	$5 × 106$

Tab.2 The expected numbers of produced

X Y Z

-particle events before reconstruction per year at the STCF.

Fig.2 The mass spectrum of charmonia and XYZ states in comparison with the predictions from the Godfrey–Isgur quark model [92].

$X Y Z$	$I G (J P C)$	Production processes	Decay modes
$X (3872)$	$0 + (1 + +)$	$B → K X / K π X$ , $e + e − → γ X$ ,	$π + π − J / ψ$ , $ω J / ψ$ , $D ∗ 0 D ¯ 0$ ,
$X (3872)$	$0 + (1 + +)$	$p p / p p ¯$ inclusive, PbPb, $γ γ ∗$	$γ J / ψ$ , $γ ψ (3686)$
$X (3915)$	$0 + (0 or 2 + +)$	$B → K X$ , $γ γ → X$	$ω J / ψ$
$X (4140)$	$0 + (1 + +)$	$B → K X$ , $p p ¯$ inclusive	$ϕ J / ψ$
$X (4274)$	$0 + (1 + +)$	$B → K X$
$X (4500)$	$0 + (0 + +)$
$X (4700)$	$0 + (0 + +)$
$X (3940)$	$? ? (? ? ?)$	$e + e − → J / ψ + X$	$D D ¯ ∗$
$X (4160)$	$? ? (? ? ?)$	$e + e − → J / ψ + X$	$D ∗ D ¯ ∗$
$X (4350)$	$0 + (? ? +)$	$γ γ → X$	$ϕ J / ψ$
$Y (4008)$	$0 − (1)$	$e + e − → Y$	$π π J / ψ$
$Y (4260)$	$0 − (1)$	$e + e − → Y$	$π π J / ψ$ , $D D ¯ ∗ π$ , $χ c 0 ω$ , $h c π π$
$Y (4360)$	$0 − (1)$	$e + e − → Y$	$π π ψ (3686)$
$Y (4660)$	$0 − (1)$	$e + e − → Y$	$π π ψ (3686)$ , $Λ c Λ ¯ c$
$Z c (3900)$	$1 + (1 + −)$	$e + e − → π Z c$ , inclusive $b$ -hadron decays	$π J / ψ$ , $D D ¯ ∗$
$Z c (4020)$	$1 + (? ? −)$	$e + e − → π Z c$	$π h c$ , $D ∗ D ¯ ∗$
$Z 1 (4050)$	$1 − (? ? +)$	$B → K Z c$	$π ± χ c 1$
$Z 2 (4250)$	$1 − (? ? +)$	$B → K Z c$	$π ± χ c 1$
$Z c (4200)$	$1 + (1 + −)$	$B → K Z c$	$π ± J / ψ$
$Z c (4430)$	$1 + (1 + −)$	$B → K Z c$	$π ± J / ψ$ , $π ± ψ (3686)$
$Z c s (3985)$	$12 (? ?)$	$e + e − → K Z c s$	$D ¯ s D ∗$ , $D ¯ s ∗ D$
$Z c s (4000)$	$12 (1 +)$	$B + → ϕ Z c s$	$J / ψ K$
$Z c s (4220)$	$12 (1 +)$	$B + → ϕ Z c s$	$J / ψ K$

Tab.3 Some of the

X Y Z

states in the charmonium mass region as well as the observed production processes and decay modes. For the complete list and more detailed information, we refer to the latest version of the Review of Particle Physics (RPP) [34].

	BESIII	STCF	Belle II
Luminosity	2.93 fb⁻¹ at 3.773 GeV	1 ab⁻¹ at 3.773 GeV	50 ab⁻¹ at $Υ (n S)$
$B (D + → μ + ν μ)$	5.1%_stat 1.6%_syst [120]	0.28%_stat	2.8%_stat [66]
$f D + μ$ (MeV)	2.6%_stat 0.9%_syst [120]	0.15%_stat	–
$\| V c d \|$	2.6%_stat 1.0%_syst^* [120]	0.15%_stat	–
$B (D + → τ + ν τ)$	20%_stat 10%_syst [121]	0.41%_stat	–
$B (D + → τ + ν τ) B (D + → μ + ν μ)$	21%_stat 13%_syst [121]	0.50%_stat	–
Luminosity	6.3 fb⁻¹ at (4.178, 4.226) GeV	1 ab⁻¹ at 4.009 GeV	50 ab⁻¹ at $Υ (n S)$
$B (D s + → μ + ν μ)$	2.4%_stat 3.0%_syst [122]	0.30%_stat	0.8%_stat 1.8%_syst
$f D s + μ$ (MeV)	1.2%_stat 1.5%_syst [122]	0.15%_stat	–
$\| V c s \|$	1.2%_stat 1.5%_syst [122]	0.15%_stat	–
$B (D s + → τ + ν τ)$	1.7%_stat 2.1%_syst [123]	0.24%_stat	0.6%_stat 2.7%_syst
$f D s + τ$ (MeV)	0.8%_stat 1.1%_syst [123]	0.11%_stat	–
$\| V c s \|$	0.8%_stat 1.1%_syst [123]	0.11%_stat	–
$f ¯ D s + μ & τ$ (MeV)	0.7%_stat 0.9%_syst	0.09%_stat	0.3%_stat 1.0%_syst
$\| V ¯ c s μ & τ \|$	0.7%_stat 0.9%_syst	0.09%_stat	–
$f D s + / f D +$	1.4%_stat 1.7%_syst [124]	0.21%_stat	–
$B (D s + → τ + ν τ) B (D s + → μ + ν μ)$	2.9%_stat 3.5%_syst	0.38%_stat	0.9%_stat 3.2%_syst

Tab.4 For studies on

D (s) + → ℓ + ν ℓ

, the precisions achieved at BESIII and the projected precisions at the STCF and Belle II. Considering that the LQCD uncertainty of

f D (s) +

has been updated to be approximately 0.2% [119], the

| V c d |

value measured at BESIII has been recalculated; this recalculated value is marked with ^*. For Belle II, we assume that the systematic uncertainties can be reduced by a factor of 2 compared to the Belle results.

Decay	$B$	Decay	$B$	Decay	$B$
$Λ c + → Λ π +$	1.30±0.07	$Λ c + → Λ ρ +$	$4.06 ± 0.52$	$Λ c + → Δ + + K −$	$1.08 ± 0.25$
$Λ c + → Σ 0 π +$	1.29±0.07	$Λ c + → Σ 0 ρ +$		$Λ c + → Σ ∗ 0 π +$	$0.65 ± 0.10$
$Λ c + → Σ + π 0$	1.25±0.10	$Λ c + → Σ + ρ 0$	$< 1.7$	$Λ c + → Σ ∗ + π 0$	$0.59 ± 0.08$
$Λ c + → Σ + η$	0.44±0.20	$Λ c + → Σ + ω$	1.70±0.21	$Λ c + → Σ ∗ + η$	$1.05 ± 0.23$
$Λ c + → Σ + η ′$	1.5±0.6	$Λ c + → Σ + ϕ$	0.38±0.06	$Λ c + → Σ ∗ + η ′$
$Λ c + → Ξ 0 K +$	0.55±0.07	$Λ c + → Ξ 0 K ∗ +$		$Λ c + → Ξ ∗ 0 K +$	0.43±0.09
$Λ c + → p K S$	1.59±0.08	$Λ c + → p K ¯ ∗ 0$	1.96±0.27	$Λ c + → Δ + K ¯ 0$

Tab.5 The measured branching fractions of the Cabibbo-allowed two-body decays of

Λ c +

(in units of %) taken from the PDG [34]. We have included the new BESIII measurements of

Λ c + → Λ ρ +

Σ ∗ + π 0

and

Σ ∗ 0 π +

[179].

	$Σ c + → Λ c + γ$	$Σ c ∗ + → Λ c + γ$	$Σ c ∗ + + → Λ c + + γ$	$Σ c ∗ 0 → Σ c 0 γ$	$Ξ c ′ + → Ξ c + γ$	$Ξ c ∗ + → Ξ c + γ$	$Ξ c ∗ 0 → Ξ c 0 γ$	$Ξ c ′ 0 → Ξ c 0 γ$	$Ω c ∗ 0 → Ω c 0 γ$
LO	91.5	150.3	1.3	1.2	19.7	63.5	0.4	1.0	0.9
NLO	164.2	893.0	11.6	2.9	54.3	502.1	0.02	3.8	4.8
NNLO	65.6	161.8	1.2	0.49	5.4	21.6	0.46	0.42	0.32

Tab.6 Electromagnetic decay rates (in units of keV) of

S

-wave charmed baryons in heavy hadron chiral perturbation theory to LO [210,211], NLO [212] and NNLO [213].

	$J P (n L)$	States	Mass difference(s)
$3 ¯$	$12 + (1 S)$	$Λ c (2287) +$ , $Ξ c (2470) +, Ξ c (2470) 0$	$Δ m Ξ c Λ c = 183$
	$12 − (1 P)$	$Λ c (2595) +$ , $Ξ c (2790) +, Ξ c (2790) 0$	$Δ m Ξ c Λ c = 198$
	$32 − (1 P)$	$Λ c (2625) +$ , $Ξ c (2815) +, Ξ c (2815) 0$	$Δ m Ξ c Λ c = 190$
	$12 + (2 S)$	$Λ c (2765) +$ , $Ξ c (2970) +, Ξ c (2970) 0$	$Δ m Ξ c Λ c = 200$
	$32 + (1 D)$	$Λ c (2860) +$ , $Ξ c (3055) +, Ξ c (3055) 0$	$Δ m Ξ c Λ c = 201$
	$52 + (1 D)$	$Λ c (2880) +$ , $Ξ c (3080) +, Ξ c (3080) 0$	$Δ m Ξ c Λ c = 196$
$6$	$12 + (1 S)$	$Ω c (2695) 0$ , $Ξ c ′ (2575) +, 0, Σ c (2455) + +, +, 0$	$Δ m Ω c Ξ c ′ = 119$ , $Δ m Ξ c ′ Σ c = 124$
	$32 + (1 S)$	$Ω c (2770) 0$ , $Ξ c ′ (2645) +, 0, Σ c (2520) + +, +, 0$	$Δ m Ω c Ξ c ′ = 120$ , $Δ m Ξ c ′ Σ c = 128$

Tab.7 Antitriplet and sextet states of charmed baryons. The mass differences

Δ m Ξ c Λ c ≡ m Ξ c − m Λ c

Δ m Ξ c ′ Σ c ≡ m Ξ c ′ − m Σ c

, and

Δ m Ω c Ξ c ′ ≡ m Ω c − m Ξ c ′

are all in units of MeV.

Fig.3 Cross sections for

e + e − → J / ψ η c

(left) and

e + e − → J / ψ c c ¯

(right) as calculated using NRQCD with the charm quark mass fixed at 1.5 GeV. The solid and dashed curves represent the results from the next-to-leading-order and leading-order calculations, respectively.

Decay mode	$B$ ( $× 10 − 4$ ) [34]	$η / η ′$ events
$J / ψ → γ η ′$	$52.1 ± 1.7$	$1.8 × 1010$
$J / ψ → γ η$	$11.08 ± 0.27$	$3.7 × 109$
$J / ψ → ϕ η ′$	$7.4 ± 0.8$	$2.5 × 109$
$J / ψ → ϕ η$	$4.6 ± 0.5$	$1.6 × 109$

Tab.8 The expected numbers of

η / η ′

events as calculated from the

3.4 × 1012

J / ψ

events anticipated to be produced at the STCF per year.

Decay mode	Best upper limit 90% CL	STCF limit $(3.4 × 1012$ $J / ψ$ events)	Theoretical prediction	Physics
$η ′ → e + e −$	$5.6 × 10 − 9$	1.5 $× 10 − 10$	$1.1 × 10 − 10$	leptoquark
$η ′ → μ + μ −$	$−$	1.5 $× 10 − 10$	$1.1 × 10 − 7$	leptoquark
$η ′ → e + e − e + e −$	$−$	2.4 $× 10 − 10$	$1 × 10 − 4$	$γ ∗ γ ∗$
$η ′ → μ + μ − μ + μ −$	$−$	2.4 $× 10 − 10$	$4 × 10 − 7$	$γ ∗ γ ∗$
$η ′ → π 0 μ + μ −$	$6.0 × 10 − 5$	2.4 $× 10 − 10$		$C$ violation
$η ′ → π 0 e + e −$	$1.4 × 10 − 3$	2.4 $× 10 − 10$		$C$ violation
$η ′ → π 0 π 0$	$9.0 × 10 − 4$	2.9 $× 10 − 9$		$C P$ violation
$η ′ → π + π −$	$2.9 × 10 − 3$	1.5 $× 10 − 10$		$C P$ violation
$η ′ → μ + e − + μ − e +$	$4.7 × 10 − 4$	1.5 $× 10 − 10$		LPV
$η ′ →$ invisible	$5.3 × 10 − 4$	3.3 $× 10 − 8$		Dark matter
$η ′ → η e + e −$	$2.4 × 10 − 3$	5.9 $× 10 − 10$		$C$ violation
$η ′ → η μ + μ −$	$1.5 × 10 − 5$	5.9 $× 10 − 10$		$C$ violation

Tab.9 The statistical sensitivities to rare and forbidden

η ′

decays. The expected sensitivities are estimated by considering the detector efficiencies for different decay modes at the STCF. We assume that there is no background dilution and that the observed number of signal events is zero. The STCF limits are given at the 90% confidence level.

Decay mode	$B$ (in units of $10 − 4$ )	Angular distribution parameter $α ψ$	Detection efficiency	No. of events expected at the STCF
$J / ψ → Λ Λ ¯$	$19.43 ± 0.03 ± 0.33$	$− 0.469 ± 0.026$	40%	$1100 × 106$
$ψ (3686) → Λ Λ ¯$	$0 3.97 ± 0.02 ± 0.12$	$− 0.824 ± 0.074$	40%	$130 × 106$
$J / ψ → Ξ 0 Ξ ¯ 0$	$11.65 ± 0.04$	$− 0.66 ± 0.03$	14%	$230 × 106$
$ψ (3686) → Ξ 0 Ξ ¯ 0$	$0 2.73 ± 0.03$	$− 0.65 ± 0.09$	14%	$32 × 106$
$J / ψ → Ξ − Ξ ¯ +$	$10.40 ± 0.06$	$− 0.58 ± 0.04$	19%	$270 × 106$
$ψ (3686) → Ξ − Ξ ¯ +$	$0 2.78 ± 0.05$	$− 0.91 ± 0.13$	19%	$42 × 106$

Tab.10 Branching fractions for some

J / ψ, ψ (3686) → B B ¯

decays and the estimated sizes of the data samples from the full data set of

3.4 × 1012 J / ψ

and

3.2 × 109 ψ (3686)

to be collected by the STCF. The approximate detection efficiencies for the final states reconstructed using the

Λ → p π −

and

Ξ → Λ π

decay modes are based on the published BESIII analyses using partial data sets [325-327].

	$A Ξ$	$A Λ$	$A Ξ Λ$	$(ζ p − ζ s) Ξ$ Eq. (2.24)	$(ζ p − ζ s) Ξ$ Eq. (2.26)
$J / ψ → Λ Λ ¯$	$−$	$1.7 × 10 − 4$	$−$	$−$	$−$
$J / ψ → Ξ − Ξ ¯ +$ ( $Δ Φ = 0$ )	$2.2 × 10 − 4$	$2.1 × 10 − 4$	$2.5 × 10 − 4$	$2.4 × 10 − 3$	$6.5 × 10 − 4$

Tab.11 Statistical sensitivity for asymmetry parameters extracted using STCF data samples. The input values of the parameters are taken from Tab.10 and Ref. [75].

Fig.4 The box diagrams for the short-distance contributions to

K 0

−

K ¯ 0

mixing.

Fig.5 (a) A simulated

J / ψ → K − π + K 0 (τ)

;

K 0 (τ) → π + π −

event in the BESIII detector. (b) The solid circles show the proper time distribution for simulated strangeness-tagged

K 0 (τ) → π + π −

decays (the open circles are

K ¯ 0 (τ) → π + π −

decays). (c) The reduced asymmetry,

A π + π − r e d u c e d = A π + π − × e − 12 Δ Γ τ

, which weights the asymmetries according to their relative statistical significance, is plotted for the events shown in panel b. Here

ϕ = ϕ S W + δ ϕ η C P T

Fig.6 Constraints on the mixing strength

?

versus the dark photon mass

m A ′ > 1

MeV from the measurements of the electron and muon anomalous magnetic moments, low-energy

e + e −

colliders, beam dump experiments and fixed-target experiments. For details, see Ref. [349]. Reproduced from Ref. [349].

Fig.7 The sensitivity to the mixing strength

?

at the STCF for

e + e − → γ + A ′ (→ l + l −)

with 1 ab⁻¹ of data. Reproduced from Ref. [368].

Fig.8 Monophoton cross sections for millicharged partic-les (solid) and for the SM irreducible BG (dashed) versus the collision energy

s

. These cross sections are computed with the following detector pre-selection cuts:

E γ > 25

MeV for

cos ? θ γ < 0.8

and

E γ > 50

MeV for

0.86 < cos ? θ γ < 0.92

. The model parameters

? = 0.001

and

m χ = 0.1

GeV are used for the millicharged particles model. Reproduced from Ref. [381].

Fig.9 The expected 95% C.L. upper bounds on millicharged particles from the STCF as well as from Belle II, BESIII, and BaBar. The dot-dashed curves are obtained with the bBG cut for the STCF, BESIII, and Belle II, while gBG is neglected [381]. Reproduced from Ref. [381].

Fig.10 The expected 95% C.L. upper bounds on millicharged particles with 10 ab⁻¹ of data assumed for each of the three STCF

s

values. The solid curves are analyzed with the bBG cut. Reproduced from Ref. [381].

$s$ (GeV)	2	2	4	4	7	7
$m$ (MeV)	1	100	1	100	1	100
$? ≲$	$3 × 10 − 5$	$7 × 10 − 5$	9 $× 10 − 5$	$1 × 10 − 4$	2 $× 10 − 4$	$3 × 10 − 4$

Tab.12 The expected 95% C.L. upper bounds on

?

for millicharged particles with 10 ab⁻¹ of data for three STCF

s

values, namely, 2 GeV, 4 GeV, and 7 GeV, as analyzed with the bBG cut [381].

Physics process		Optimized parameter
$τ → K s π ν τ$ ; $J / ψ → Λ Λ ¯$		Vertex reconstruction; tracking (efficiency, momentum resolution)
$τ → γ μ$ ; $τ → l l l$ ; $D s → μ ν$ ; $D → π μ ν$		PID (range, $μ / π$ suppression power, efficiency)
$e + e − → π + π − + X$ , $K K + X$ ; $D s → τ ν τ$		PID (range, $π / K$ and $K / π$ misidentification, efficiency)
$τ → γ μ$ ; $J / ψ → Λ Λ ¯$		Photon (position/energy resolution)
$e + e − → n n ¯$ , $e + e − → γ n n ¯$		$n$ (position/time resolution)
$D 0 → K L π + π −$		$K L$ (position/time resolution)

Tab.13 Summary of the physics processes and the corresponding responses to be optimized.

Fig.11 Momentum distributions of charged particles from various processes at the truth level, normalized to 10⁴ entries.

Fig.12 (a) Six tracking efficiency curves of charged pions used for optimization of benchmark processes. (b) The relative improvement in the detection efficiency

Δ (?)

for the processes for the six efficiencies, where solid circles represent

D s + → K + K − π +

, triangles represent

τ − → K S π − ν τ

and open circles represent

J / ψ → Λ Λ ¯ → p π − n ¯ π 0

Fig.13 The distribution of (a)

Δ E

and (b)

M B C

associated with the spatial resolution of the track system in process

e + e − → D 0 D ¯ 0

s = 3.77

GeV with

D 0 → K − π +

. The different colored lines represent different spatial resolutions. (c) Detection efficiency with different charged track position resolutions in the

J / ψ → Λ Λ ¯

process. (d) 2D scattering plot of position resolution versus momentum resolution in the

J / ψ → Λ Λ ¯

process.

Fig.14 Energy distribution of photons at the truth level, normalized to 10⁴ entries.

Fig.15 The RMS of

M π 0

versus the momentum of

π 0

under different (a) energy resolution

Δ E / E

and (b) spatial resolution

σ z

when

E = 1

GeV.

Fig.16 Momentum distribution of neutral particles (

K L / n

) from various physics processes, which is depicted at the truth level and normalized to 10⁴ entries.

Fig.17 Expected time resolution (

Δ T

) for distinguishing neutral particles, neutrons/

K L

from photons with a separation power of

3 σ

versus their incident momenta for a flight length of 1.5 m.

Process	Physics interest	Optimized subdetector	Requirements
$τ → K s π ν τ$ ,	CPV in the $τ$ sector,	ITK+MDC	Acceptance: 93% of $4 π$ ; Trk. Effi.:
$J / ψ → Λ Λ ¯$ ,	CPV in the hyperon sector,		$> 99$ % at $p T > 0.3$ GeV/c; $> 90$ % at $p T = 0.1$ GeV/c,
$D (s)$ tag	Charm physics		$σ p / p = 0.5$ %, $σ γ ϕ = 130$ μm at 1 GeV/c
$e + e − → K K + X$ ,	Fragmentation function,	PID	$π / K$ and $K / π$ misidentification rate $< 2$ %,
$D (s)$ decays	CKM matrix, LQCD, etc.	PID	PID efficiency of hadrons $> 97$ % at p < 2 GeV/c
$τ → μ μ μ$ , $τ → γ μ$ ,	cLFV decay of $τ$ ,	PID+MUD	$μ / π$ suppression power over 30 at p < 2 GeV/c,
$D s → μ ν$	CKM matrix, LQCD, etc.	PID+MUD	$μ$ efficiency over 95% at p = 1 GeV/c
$τ → γ μ$ ,	cLFV decay of $τ$ ,	EMC	$σ E / E ≈ 2.5$ % at E = 1 GeV,
$ψ (3686) → γ η (2 S)$	Charmonium transition	EMC	$σ p o s ≈ 5$ mm at E = 1 GeV
$e + e − → n n ¯$ ,	Nucleon structure	EMC+MUD	$σ T = 300 p 3 (G e V 3) p s$
$D 0 → K L π + π −$	Unity of CKM triangle	EMC+MUD	$σ T = 300 p 3 (G e V 3) p s$

Tab.14 Benchmark physics processes used to determine the physics requirements of the STCF detector.

Parameter	Value
Circumference (m)	600
Beam energy range (GeV)	1−3.5
Optimized beam energy (GeV)	2
Current (A)	2
Crossing angle $2 θ$ (mrad)	60
Natural energy spread	$4.0 × 10 − 4$
Bunch length (mm)	12
Luminosity ( $× 1035$ $c m − 2$ $? s − 1$ )	$> 0.5$

Tab.15 The designed machine parameters for the STCF.

Fig.18 The MDI structure layout includes an inner pipe (white), Y-shaped pipe (orange and green), separated pipe (pink), stainless shield (yellow), copper shield (blue), tungsten shield (dark red) and magnets (red).

Luminosity-related	RBB $e + e −$	RBB photon	Two photon process
Cross-section (mb)	2.99	2.99, $n ¯ γ$ =1.3573	5.15
Luminosity (cm⁻²·s⁻¹)		$1 × 1035$
Particle rate (Hz)	$5.98 × 108$	$1.07 × 108$	$1.03 × 109$
Beam-related	Touschek effect	Coulomb scattering	Bremsstrahlung
Particle rate (Hz)	$1.12 × 109$	$2.09 × 108$	$2.1 × 106$

Tab.16 Calculated particle rates for various background sources. The thresholds for the scattering angle and radiated photon energy for radiative Bhabha scattering are set to 4.47 mrad and 1 MeV, respectively. The average number of radiated photons in a radiative Bhabha event is denoted by

n ¯ γ

. No threshold is set for the two photon process. The particle rate of the beam-related background is calculated by the theoretical lifetime.

Fig.19 Particle distribution near the IP if it hits the vacuum chamber for the electron beam, which is supposed to transfer from left to right. The positron beam is considered lost at the symmetrical position from the IP. The dark blue line and light blue line means the radius of the beamline in x and y direction, respectively. The yellow line means the bias distance between the center of the electron/positron cluster and the center of the beam pipe in the shared pipe section.

Fig.20 The TID value (a), NIEL damage (b) and background count rate (c) distributions of the STCF detector system.

Detector	TID value (Gy/y)	NIEL damage (1 MeV neutron·cm⁻²·y⁻¹)	Total count rate (Hz)
Silicon-inner-1	1170	$2.71 × 1010$	$3.90 × 108$
Silicon-inner-2	243	$1.02 × 1010$	$3.59 × 108$
Silicon-inner-3	64.9	$1.71 × 1010$	$2.92 × 108$
$μ$ RWELL-inner-1	10.9	$9.95 × 109$	$5.35 × 108$
$μ$ RWELL-inner-2	4.55	$1.15 × 1010$	$4.75 × 108$
$μ$ RWELL-inner-3	4.66	$1.44 × 1010$	$6.81 × 108$
MDC	11.0	$4.27 × 1010$	$7.27 × 108$
PID-Barrel (RICH)	2.96	$8.67 × 109$	$4.50 × 108$
PID-Endcap (DTOF)	1.34	$4.65 × 109$	$8.30 × 108$
EMC-Barrel	0.35	$1.41 × 1010$	$2.64 × 109$
EMC-Endcap	0.32	$7.26 × 109$	$9.38 × 108$
MUD-Barrel-RPC	0.028	$3.23 × 108$	$5.58 × 106$
MUD-Barrel-Scintillator	0.040	$3.89 × 1011$	$1.06 × 107$
MUD-Endcap-RPC	0.017	$7.03 × 107$	$3.53 × 106$
MUD-Endcap-Scintillator	0.027	$1.86 × 1011$	$1.22 × 107$

Tab.17 GEANT4 simulated TID and NIEL in the STCF subdetectors. The numbers are given as the mean values along the beam direction for each subdetector. For the ITK, the results are given for two different design options, the silicon pixel-based and the

μ

RWELL-based designs.

Detector	Highest TID value per pixel (Gy/y)	Highest NIEL damage per pixel (1 MeV neutron·cm⁻²·y⁻¹)	Highest count rate per channel (Hz/channel)
Silicon-inner-1	3490	$1.75 × 1011$	$2.61 × 102$
Silicon-inner-2	320	$3.72 × 1010$	$2.74 × 101$
Silicon-inner-3	150	$2.68 × 1010$	$8.51 × 100$
$μ$ RWELL-inner-1	118	$1.12 × 1010$	$3.35 × 105$
$μ$ RWELL-inner-2	61.8	$1.46 × 1010$	$1.63 × 105$
$μ$ RWELL-inner-3	38.6	$5.67 × 1010$	$1.61 × 105$
MDC	60.5	$4.87 × 1010$	$4.00 × 105$
PID-Barrel (RICH)	4.25	$1.07 × 1010$	$3.3 × 103$
PID-Endcap (DTOF)	44.3	$1.98 × 1010$	$1.20 × 105$
EMC-Barrel	21.1	$1.76 × 1010$	$9.00 × 105$
EMC-Endcap	45.1	$1.88 × 1010$	$1.50 × 106$
MUD-Barrel-RPC	0.093	$3.74 × 1011$	$1.76 × 103$
MUD-Barrel-Scintillator	0.047	$4.88 × 1011$	$1.15 × 103$
MUD-Endcap-RPC	0.37	$1.22 × 1010$	$2.83 × 104$
MUD-Endcap-Scintillator	0.24	$2.79 × 1012$	$9.8 × 104$

Tab.18 GEANT4 simulated TID and NIEL in the STCF subdetectors. The numbers are given as the maximum values along the beam direction for each subdetector. For the inner tracker, the results are given for two different design options, the silicon pixel-based and the

μ

RWELL-based designs.

Electronic component	TID value (Gy/y)	NIEL damage (1 MeV neutron·cm⁻²·y⁻¹)	Highest TID value per pixel (Gy/y)	Highest NIEL damage per pixel (1 MeV neutron·cm⁻²·y⁻¹)
Inner-1-electronic	1420	$5.09 × 1010$	1460	$5.94 × 1010$
Inner-2-electronic	238	$2.22 × 1010$	250	$2.35 × 1010$
Inner-3-electronic	95.9	$2.95 × 1010$	97.2	$3.24 × 1010$
MDC-electronic	5.2	$6.44 × 109$	7.4	$2.20 × 1010$
PID-Barrel-electronic	2.45	$6.87 × 109$	2.95	$8.37 × 109$
PID-Endcap-electronic	1.02	$2.70 × 109$	6.81	$3.96 × 109$
EMC-Barrel-electronic	0.046	$1.51 × 109$	1.03	$3.88 × 109$
EMC-Endcap-electronic	0.67	$9.44 × 108$	60.5	$1.78 × 1010$
MUD-Barrel-electronic	0.020	$1.45 × 108$	0.065	$3.42 × 1011$
MUD-Endcap-electronic	0.28	$1.87 × 108$	3.56	$1.79 × 109$

Tab.19 GEANT4 simulated TID and NIEL values in the STCF electronic subsystems.

Fig.21 The contribution of the background to the TID, NIEL damage and count.

Fig.22 Schematic layout of the STCF detector concept.

Fig.23 Geometry of the STCF detector: (a) 3D cutaway view, (b) cross-section view in the

x − y

plane, and (c) cross-section view in the

z − r

plane. It consists of ITK, PID system, EMC, SCS and MUD from inner to outmost.

Fig.24 (a) The schematic structure of the

μ

RWELL-based inner tracker. (b) The structure of each layer of the

μ

RWELL detector.

Structure	Material	Thickness (cm)	Material budget (X $0$ )
Inner cylinder	Aluminum ( $X 0$ = 8.897 cm)	0.001	0.011%
	Polyimide ( $X 0$ = 28.57 cm)	0.01	0.035%
	Aramid honeycomb/Rohacell ( $X 0$ $≃$ 267 cm)	0.2	0.075%
Gas volume	Argon-based gas mixture ( $X 0$ = 11760 cm)	0.5	0.00425%
Outer cylinder ( $μ$ RWELL foil)	Alumium ( $X 0$ = 8.897 cm)	0.0015	0.017%
	Polyimide ( $X 0$ = 28.57 cm)	0.03	0.106%
	DLC ( $X 0$ = 12.13 cm)	0.0001	0.00082%
Total			0.249%

Tab.20 The material budget of the

μ

RWELL-based inner tracker design.

Fig.25 The

r − ϕ

spatial resolution as a function of various parameters based on the GEANT4 simulation.

Fig.26 Dependence of the (a) Lorentz angle, (b) electron drift velocity and (c) transverse diffusion coefficient on the drift electric field strength with the 1 atm gas mixtures, simulated by GARFIELD-9.

Fig.27 (a) The spatial resolution

σ

r

ϕ

as a function of the incidence angle with the

μ

RWELL detector operated in the

μ

-TPC mode. The spatial resolution in the (b)

r − ϕ

and (c) beamline direction of various particles with the same transverse momentum of 100 MeV/c and the

μ

RWELL detector operated in the

μ

-TPC mode.

Fig.28 The simulated resolution of the impact parameters (a)

d 0

and (b)

z 0

and (c) the momentum

p

and (d) transverse momentum

p T

as a function of

p T

of the incident particle. The results with different material budgets, expressed in terms of the radiation length, are compared.

Fig.29 The

X / V

readout strips of the

μ

RWELL detector.

Fig.30 Block diagram of the readout electronics for the

μ

RWELL-based ITK detector.

Fig.31 Block diagram of the front−end ASIC.

Fig.32 Block diagram of the digital deconvolution and low-pass filter circuit.

Tab.21 The material budgets of the inner cylinders manufactured in the preresearch stage.

Fig.33 The Rohacell foam-based inner cylinder (left) and aramid honeycomb-based detector model (right) produced in the preresearch stage.

Fig.34 The simulated resolution of the impact parameters (a)

d 0

and (b)

z 0

and (c) the momentum p and (d) transverse momentum p_T as a function of p_T of the incident particle. The results with different layout configurations, the default with radii of 36 mm, 98 mm and 160 mm and alternative radii of 60 mm, 110 mm and 160 mm, are compared.

Fig.35 The simulated resolution of the impact parameters (a)

d 0

and (b)

z 0

and (c) the momentum

p

and (d) transverse momentum

p T

as a function of

p T

of the incident particle. The results with different material budgets, expressed in terms of the radiation length, are compared.

Fig.36 Block diagram of the pixel sensor readout circuit.

Tab.22 The main parameters of the STCF MDC conceptual design.

Fig.37 The schematic structure of the MDC.

Fig.38 (a) Cross-section view of the layout of wire layers and superlayers. (b) Enlarged cross-section view of the wire layout. Open circles represent field wires, and dots represent sense wires. The square-shaped drift cell structure can be seen, with a sense wire in the center and field wires forming a square.

Fig.39 The simulated resolution of the transverse momentum of the MDC-only tracking system with different wire diameter settings, with polar angles of (a) cos

θ

= 0 and (b) cos

θ

= 0.5.

Fig.40 The simulated drift time for particles entering the drift cell at a distance of half cell width from the sense wire and at a polar angle of 45 degree, with the cell aspect ratio of 1 (left) and 1.1 (right), respectively.

Fig.41 The simulated transverse momentum resolution with different numbers of layer, with polar angles of cos

θ

= 0 (left) and cos

θ

= 0.5 (right).

Gas Mixture	Ar/CO $2$ /CH $4$ (89/10/1)	He/CH $4$ (60/40)	He/C $2$ H $6$ (50/50)	He/C $3$ H $8$ (60/40)	He/iC $4$ H $10$ (80/20)
Drift velocity of an electron	5.0	3.7	4.0	3.8	3.4
$v d$ (cm/μs)
Transverse diffusion coefficient	233	191	170	154	159
$σ$ $L$ (μm/ $c m 12$ ) @ E=760 V/cm
Lorentz angle	41	28	29	24	21
$θ$ $L$ (degree) @ E=760 V/cm
Primary ionizing power (i.p./cm)	30	10	23	30	21
Radiation length (m)	124	808	640	550	807

Tab.23 The main parameters of several kinds of gas mixtures, pressure = 1 atm, temperature = 20 Celsius, magnetic field strength = 1 T.

Fig.42 The simulated resolution of the transverse momentum of the MDC with different working gases, with the polar angle of cos

θ = 0.5

Fig.43 The simulated resolution of the impact parameters (a)

d 0

and (b)

z 0

and (c) momentum

p

and (d) transverse momentum

p T

as a function of

p T

. The results with different polar angles of incident particles, with cos

θ

= 0, 0.2 and 0.8, are compared.

Fig.44 The simulated resolution of the impact parameters (a)

d 0

and (b)

z 0

and (c) momentum

p

and (d) transverse momentum

p T

as a function of the

p T

of an incident particle with a polar angle of cos

θ

= 0. The results with different ITK designs are compared. For the comparison of the

z 0

resolution, the results for the MDC-only option are not shown since the design of the MDC alone cannot provide precise

z 0

measurements.

Fig.45 (a) The distribution of the original

d E / d x

in one MDC cell, with penetrating

π

particles with

p = 0.5

GeV/c. (b) The calculated

d E / d x

resolution of

p = 0.5

GeV/c

π

with the truncated average method.

Fig.46 The simulated relationship between

d E / d x

and momentum with various particles (a) and the simulated PID performance of the MDC (b).

Fig.47 The simulated relationship between momentum and

d E / d x

resolution for various particles.

Fig.48 Drift time distribution in the STCF MDC.

Fig.49 Block diagram of the MDC electronics.

Fig.50 Time and charge measurement circuit for the MDC.

Fig.51 The

π / K / p

PID separation abilities of different radiators assuming

2.5

mrad angular resolution. The results for quartz and C

6

14

with a refractive index of

180

nm are depicted.

Fig.52 The RICH detector structure.

	Thickness [mm]	$X / X 0$
Top ceramic plate	3	0.03
Quartz window	3	0.03
Radiator C $6$ F $14$	10	0.05
THGEM+Micromegas	0.4	0.01
Anode+FEE	8	0.02
Aluminum plate	5	0.05
FEE cooling	5	0.05
Total		0.24

Tab.24 Material budget of the RICH detector.

Fig.53 The Cherenkov light propagation in the RICH detector.

Tab.25 Systematic error for RICH reconstruction.

Fig.54 RICH reconstruction system error versus the Lorentz factor

γ

Fig.55 (a) Refractive indexes for liquid C

6

14

and quartz, (b) transmission rate of each optical component, (c) photoelectron distribution, and (d) reconstructed Cherenkov angle distribution.

Fig.56 Examples of Cherenkov images in a RICH module. The blue image depicts the distribution of hits for

2 G e V / c

pion with incident angle

θ = 0 ∘

, perpendicular to RICH, while the red image depicts

θ = 40 ∘

Fig.57 RICH PID capabilities in terms of (a)

π

/K efficiency and (b) misidentification efficiency.

Fig.58 PID capability scans for (a)

π

efficiency, (b)

π / K

mis-ID rate.

	Generation rate (Hz)	RICH rate (Hz)	Counting rate (Hz/mm²)
RBB e^±	5.98 $× 108$	1.25 $× 108$	50.7
RBB $γ$	1.07 $× 108$	3.71 $× 106$	1.47
Two photon	1.03 $× 109$	2.44 $× 107$	9.65
Touschek	1.12 $× 109$	5.04 $× 106$	1.99
Coulomb	2.09 $× 108$	2.90 $× 108$	115
Brems	2.10 $× 106$	2.10 $× 102$	negligible

Tab.26 The background simulation for the RICH detector.

Fig.59 The conceptual design of the RICH detector: (a) the overall layout and (b) a schematic view of the module box.

Fig.60 Block diagram of the RICH electronics.

Fig.61 Block diagram of the front−end ASIC.

Fig.62 An example of the radiator sector for the DTOF detector and the light path of the radiator.

Fig.63 Main DTOF timing error factors and their dependences on the distance from the incident point of the particle (kaon at

p = 1

GeV/c) to the photon detector

Fig.64 The conceptual design of the DTOF detector.

Fig.65 The simulated TOP vs. hit position pattern of the DTOF detector.

Fig.66 The coordinate system used in DTOF reconstruction (left) and the direction of Cherenkov photons (deep blue line).

Fig.67 The expected timing error and propagation length uncertainty of Cherenkov photons in a DTOF quadrant.

Fig.68 The TOF resolution of the DTOF detector for a single photoelectron and the average of all photons.

Fig.69 The TOF PID capabilities of the DTOF detector for

π / K

separation at

2

GeV/c, without (left) and with (right) contributions from other timing uncertainties.

Fig.70 The likelihood PID capabilities of the DTOF detector for

π / K

separation at

2

GeV/c emitted at different angles.

Fig.71 The likelihood PID capabilities of the DTOF detector for

π / K

separation in different directions and at different momenta.

Fig.72 The rate at which

T 0

is determined correctly using the DTOF detector for

π

samples in different directions and at different momenta.

Tab.27 Description of the different DTOF geometry configurations, where A stands for absorber and R for reflective mirror.

Fig.73 Three different configurations on the outer surface of the radiator. An absorber (left) or mirror (middle) on the outer surface and a mirror on the

45 ∘

chamber of the outer side surface (right).

Configuration/Geometry ID	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
$N p e$ for pions	21.8	21.9	17.0	15.5	25.7	33.2	38.7
Accumulated charge density on	10.8	10.5	9.6	8.8	11.8	17.0	25.6
MCP-PMT anode ( $C / c m 2$ )
$π$ /K separation power	$4.17 σ$	$4.08 σ$	$3.66 σ$	$3.99 σ$	$4.27 σ$	$4.26 σ$	$4.19 σ$

Tab.28 Performance of different geometries at

p = 2

GeV/c,

θ = 24 ∘

and

ϕ = 45 ∘

Fig.74 Overall time distribution of background particles hitting the DTOF detector.

Fig.75 2-D time-position map of DTOF hits (left) and reconstructed TOF distribution of a single photoelectron signal (right), with multiple-hit correction.

Fig.76

π / K

identification capabilities (at 2 GeV/c) of DTOF with multiple-hit correction.

Fig.77 The preliminary structure of the DTOF readout electronic system.

Fig.78 The shower longitudinal distribution.

Fig.79 The schematic arrangement of crystals.

Fig.80 The energy resolution of the EMC. The pCsI front face size is 5 cm (a) and 3 cm (b).

Fig.81 The EMC position resolution based on the logarithmic energy weighting method, with (a) 5 cm × 5 cm and (b) 3 cm × 3 cm crystal front face sizes.

Fig.82 The efficiency of the EMC for

π 0

Fig.83 The EMC layout design.

Fig.84 The EMC defocus design.

Tab.29 The energy resolution considering different effects.

Fig.85 The expected energy resolution of the EMC, (a) the intrinsic performance without considering material effects and (b) with several main factors.

Fig.86 The expected performance of (a) the energy linearity, and (b) the energy resolution.

Fig.87 The expected (a) position resolution and (b) angular resolution for 1 GeV photons.

Fig.88 (a) The time resoluiton of 100 MeV gamma rays and (b) time resolution curve.

Fig.89 The energy resolution of EMC with different thicknesses of upstream materials. (a) 23%

X 0

, (b) 27%

X 0

, (c) 31%

X 0

and (d) 35%

X 0

Fig.90 The reconstruction efficiency curve of the EMC with upstream materials.

Fig.91 The radiation length of the inner subdetectors in front of the EMC.

Fig.92 (a) Comparison of the energy resolution of the EMC (barrel) as a function of the energy with full detector simulation and EMC-only simulation. (b) The energy resolution as a function of the incident polar angle for 1 GeV photons.

Fig.93 The background simulation in the EMC: (a) the deposited energy distribution and (b) the background counting rate.

Fig.94 The EMC energy response for 1 GeV photons (a) without background and (b) with background included in the simulation.

Fig.95 (a) An example output pulse of the EMC with multiwaveform fitting. The dotted green curve is a simulated waveform, which is a superposition of the signal and background spectra. The red curve represents the signal template, and the blue represents the fitting results of the background. (b) The energy resolution of 1 GeV

γ

rays in the EMC using the multifit method.

Fig.96 The expected EMC energy resolution with the multifit method for (a) the barrel region and (b) the endcap region.

Fig.97 The structure of CSA-based readout electronics.

Fig.98 The pCsI crystal for the EMC.

Fig.99 The energy deposition of MIPs. (a) S8664-55 result and (b) S8664-1010 result.

Fig.100 Prototype electronics of the CSA-based method (FEE on the left and BEU on the right).

Fig.101 Noise of the readout system at different shaping times.

Tab.30 The dynamic range of EMC.

Fig.102 Schematic of the MUD design. (a) Half-section view of the MUD, and partial enlarged view of the sandwich placement of the Bakelite-RPC, plastic scintillator, and iron yoke. (b) Cutaway view of the MUD and the setting of the main structural parameters.

Fig.103 Module layout of the MUD design. (a) Bakelite-RPC in barrel MUD. (b) Scintillator in barrel MUD. (c) Bakelite-RPC and scintillator in endcap MUD.

Parameter	Baseline design
$R i n$ [cm]	185
$R o u t$ [cm]	291
$R e$ [cm]	85
$L B a r r e l$ [cm]	480
$T E n d c a p$ [cm]	107
Segmentation in $ϕ$	8
Number of detector layers	10
Iron yoke thickness [cm]	4/4/4.5/4.5/6/6/6/8/8 cm
( $λ$ =16.77 cm)	Total: 51 cm, 3.04 $λ$
Solid angle	79.2% × 4 $π$ in barrel
	14.8% × 4 $π$ in endcap
	94% × 4 $π$ in total
Total area [m²]	Barrel ~717
	Endcap ~520
	Total ~1237

Tab.31 The structure parameters of the conceptual baseline design of the MUD.

R i n

and

R o u t

are the inner and outer radius of the barrel MUD, respectively, including the 15 cm-thick iron plate shielding outside the detector system.

R e

is the inner radius of the endcap MUD.

L B a r r e l

and

T E n d c a p

are the length of the barrel and endcap MUD in the z-direction, respectively. The size of neutron shielding layer is not included.

Fig.104 The muon detection efficiency curve from the GEANT4 simulation. Efficiencies are compared with different detector layer settings. The results for two scenarios of muon/pion suppression power, 33 and 100, are shown.

Fig.105 The muon detection efficiency curves with different combinations of Bakelite-RPC and plastic scintillator in the MUD design along the direction of

θ = 90 ∘

and

ϕ = 90 ∘

(

θ

: polar angle,

ϕ

: azimuth angle) including the background.

Fig.106 GEANT4-simulated muon detection efficiency with different granularities along the zenith direction.

Fig.107 The probability that a muon arrives at the MUD as a function of the muon momentum in the zenith direction.

Fig.108 The muon detection efficiency curve from the GEANT4 simulation, with a polar angle of 90 degrees. Results for two scenarios of muon/pion suppression power, 33 and 100, are also shown.

Fig.109 2D map of the muon identification efficiency as a function of the momentum and the

θ

angle from GEANT4 simulation. The

μ / π

suppression power is assumed to be 33.

	Neutron		$K L$
	Average cluster size in scintillators	Probability of cluster size $≥$ 2	Average cluster size in scintillators	Probability of cluster size $≥$ 2
200 MeV/c	2.42	5%	4.42	32%
400 MeV/c	4.07	31%	6.48	50%
600 MeV/c	5.57	49%	7.88	68%
800 MeV/c	7.23	66%	9.20	74%
1000 MeV/c	8.31	74%	8.96	76%
1200 MeV/c	9.03	79%	11.18	84%

Tab.32 The GEANT4 simulated neutron and

K L

cluster parameters in plastic scintillator detector layers.

Fig.110 The detection efficiency curves of various neutral hadrons in the MUD (notice: all of these neutral hadrons deposit less than 40 MeV energy in the EMC).

Tab.33 The GEANT4 simulated barrel MUD background count rate.

Tab.34 The estimated readout channel requirement in the MUD conceptual design.

Cryostat
Inner radius	1.450 m
Outer radius	1.850 m
Length	4.760 m
Coil
Mean radius	1.565 m
Length	4.000 m
Conductor dimension	4.67 × 15.0 mm²
Electrical parameters
Central field	1.0 T
Nominal current	3820 A
Inductance	1.68 H
Stored energy	12.3 MJ
Cold mass	4.6 ton
Radiation thickness	1.9 $X 0$
Cool down time from room temperature	$≤$ 7 days
Quench recovery time	$≤$ 7 hours

Tab.35 Main parameters of the STCF detector superconducting magnet.

Fig.111 2D geometrical layout of the STCF detector magnet, which consists of a superconducting coil and an iron yoke with a barrel yoke and two end-cap yokes.

Fig.112 Flux of the magnetic field.

Fig.113 (a) B_z as a function of z along the beam axis. (b) The field uniformity in the tracking area.

Fig.114 The equivalent stress distribution in the coil.

Fig.115 Conceptual structure layout of the solenoid.

Rated current	3820 A
Critical current at 4.2 K & 2 T	$≥$ 15000 A
Conductor length	9.15 km
Cable dimension	4.67 mm × 15 mm
Rutherford cable parameters
Number of strands	16
Cable transposition pitch	100 ± 5 mm
Cu:NbTi	1:1
NbTi filament diameter	30 ± 5 μm
Number of filaments	$≥$ 600
N value@2T	$≥$ 35
Aluminum stabilizer parameters
RRR@0T, 4.2K	$≥$ 500
Yield strength@4.2K	$≥$ 60 MPa
Impurity content	$>$ 1000 ppm
Cross-section ratio of aluminum	$>$ 80%

Tab.36 Main parameters of the superconducting conductor.

Fig.116 Cross-sectional view of the superconductor for the STCF detector magnet.

Fig.117 Configuration of the iron yoke with pole tips for the STCF detector.

Fig.118 Stress and deformation of vacuum vessel(2D 1/2 Model).

Heat load components	77 K	4.5 K
Caused by the support rods in cryostat	27 W	1.0 W
Caused by the radiation in cryostat	74 W	3.2 W
Caused by the current leads	−	7.9 W + 0.4 g/s
Caused by the radiation in chimney & SP	10 W	0.4 W
Caused by the support rods in chimney & SP	4 W	0.1 W
Caused by the bayonet and valves in SP	46 W	13 W
Caused by the measuring wires	5 W	0.8 W
Total	166 W 26.4 W + 0.4 g/s
Adopted heat load ( $× 1.5$ )	249 W	39.6 W + 0.6 g/s

Tab.37 Heat load estimation.

Fig.119 A schematic view of the iron yoke in the (a) barrel and (b) endcap regions.

Fig.120 A cross-sectional view of the detector (a) and an overall view of the detector (b).

Physics process	Cross-section (nb)	Rate (Hz)
$s = 3.097$ GeV, $L = 0.75 × 1035$ $c m − 2$ $? s − 1$ , $Δ E = 0.848$ MeV
$J / ψ$	4500	337500
$→ e + e −$	270	20000
$→ μ + μ −$	270	20000
Bhabha $(θ ∈ (20 ∘, 160 ∘))$	734	55000
$γ γ$ $(θ ∈ (20 ∘, 160 ∘))$	36	2700
$μ + μ −$	11.4	900
Hadronic from continuum	25.6	2000
$2 γ$ process $(θ ∈ (20 ∘, 160 ∘)), E > 0.1$ GeV	~23.3	1740
Total	~5300	~400000
$s = 3.773$ GeV, $L = 1.0 × 1035$ $c m − 2$ $? s − 1$
$ψ (3770)$	9	900
Bhabha $(θ ∈ (20 ∘, 160 ∘))$	517	51700
$γ γ$ $(θ ∈ (20 ∘, 160 ∘))$	24.5	2450
$μ + μ −$	7.9	790
Hadronic from continuum	18	1800
$2 γ$ process $(θ ∈ (20 ∘, 160 ∘)), E > 0.1$ GeV	~25	2500
Total	~601	~60100

Tab.38 Summary of the cross-sections and event rates from physics processes at

s = 3.097

GeV and

s = 3.773

GeV.

Fig.121 The schematic of STCF trigger system.

Fig.122 Block diagram of the trigger electronics for the STCF.

Fig.123 Block diagram of the clock system for the readout electronics in the STCF.

Component	Num. of channels	Readout time window	Event size (B)	Total (B/s)
ITK (Silicon)	50M	500 ns	14300	5.72G
ITK ( $μ$ RWELL)	10552	500 ns	17232	6.89G
MDC	11520	1 μs	20400	8.16G
PID (RICH)	518400	500 ns	15600	6.24G
PID (DTOF)	6912	500 ns	7380	2.95G
EMC	8670	500 ns	15000	6.00G
MUD	41280	500 ns	262	105M
Total(Silicon)	50.6M	–	72.9k	29.2G
Total( $μ$ RWELL)	5.94 × 10⁵	–	75.9k	30.4G

Tab.39 Estimated data size of each detector system. The readout time window is adjusted for each detector system to collect the stored events after receiving the trigger. A 50 ns jitter for the event starting time is assumed. The estimated event size includes both the physics events and the background contribution within the corresponding readout time.

Fig.124 Conceptual hardware architecture (FL).

Fig.125 Conceptual hardware architecture (SL).

Fig.126 Multiple point-to-point (MPP) model.

Fig.127 Processing map for data stream.

Fig.128 Overview of the STCF offline software system.

Fig.129 Structure of the geometry parameters repository. The library of elements and materials is shared by all sub-detectors. Different sub-detector designs are separately managed in different XML files; if a sub-detector has more than one designs, the parameters for different designs are stored in different XML files with version numbers. A mother XML file can include several daughter XML files.

Fig.130 Workflow of the DDXMLSvc. The geometry parameters in the repository are parsed by detector constructors and converted to formats for simulation, reconstruction and visualization.

Fig.131 Full detector described by the GMS and printed using the default 3D visualization plugin of DD4Hep. 2D sections are viewed from different directions: (a) Z−R view and (b) X−Y view.

Fig.132 Overview of the full detector simulation framework for STCF.

Fig.133 Number of expected samples at STCF under 0.2 ab⁻¹ and 1 ab⁻¹ integrated luminosity, compared with current BESIII statistics and Belle II 50 ab⁻¹ expected.

Fig.134 Precision of various measurements to test SM, such as muon g-2, tau mass, CKM matrix and

C P V

, from current precision and STCF expected with 0.2 ab⁻¹ and 1 ab⁻¹ integrated luminosity. The uncertainties of STCF expected consider the sources from statistics (sta.), reducible systematic (sys.) such as tracking, PID, and other selection criteria, irreducible systematic from theoretic input and instrument effects such as beam energy and beam spread.

Fig.135 Sensitivity of processes that are forbidden or rare in SM prediction, from current results and STCF expect with 0.2 ab⁻¹ and 1 ab⁻¹, and compared with predictions from theoretical models beyond the SM.

Observable	BESIII (2020)	Belle II (50 ab⁻¹)	STCF (1 ab⁻¹)
Charmonium(like) spectroscopy:
Luminosity between 4−5 GeV	20 fb⁻¹	0.23 ab⁻¹	1 ab⁻¹
Collins fragmentation functions:
Asymmetry in $e + e − → K K + X$	0.3 [470]	−	$< 0.002$ [471]
CP violations:
$A c p$ in hyperon	0.014 [26]	−	$0.00023$
$A c p$ in $τ$	−	$O (10 − 3) / 70$ [251]	0.0009 [250]
Leptonic decays of $D (s)$ :
$V c d$	0.03 [472]	−	0.0015
$f D$	0.03	−	0.0015
$B (D → τ ν) B (D → μ ν)$	0.2	−	0.005
$V c s$	0.02 [473]	0.005	0.0015
$f D s$	0.02	0.005	0.0015
$B (D s → τ ν) B (D s → μ ν)$	$0.04$	$0.009$	0.0038
D mixing parameter:
$x$	−	0.03	0.05 [474]
$y$	−	0.02	0.05
$τ$ properties:
$m τ$ (MeV/c⁻²)	0.12 [475]	−	0.012
$d τ$ (e cm)	−	$2.02 × 10 − 19$	$5.14 × 10 − 19$
cLFV decays of $τ$ (U.L at 90% C.L.):
$τ → l l l$	−	$1 × 10 − 9$	$1.4 × 10 − 9$
$τ → γ μ$	−	$5 × 10 − 9$	$1.8 × 10 − 8$
$J / ψ → e τ$	$7.5 × 10 − 8$	−	$7.1 × 10 − 10$

Tab.40 Summary of the statistical sensitivities for some benchmark physics processes, not inclusive yet.

Fig.136 (a) Definition of

ϕ 0

as the angle between the plane spanned by the beam axis and the momentum of the second hadron (

P 2

) and the plane spanned by the transverse momentum

p t

of the first hadron relative to the second hadron. (b) Different

K π

mis-IDs versus the background level

f K π

Fig.137 (a) Invariant mass of

K S π −

with combined

e

-tag and

μ

-tag from

τ +

decay. (b) Selection efficiencies for the signal process at different CMEs from

s = 4.0

GeV to 5.0 GeV.

Fig.138 (a) Distribution of

M b c

from signal tag

D s − → K + K − π −

. (b) Distribution of extra energy for

D s → τ ν

with

τ → e ν ν

, where the open dots come from class I background, the shaded green comes from class II background, and the dashed blue comes from class III background. The plots are depicted with 0.1 ab⁻¹ simulated cocktail MC.

Fig.139 Comparison of

| V c s |

Fig.140 Comparison of

f D s

Fig.141 (a) The number of surviving background events

N B G

and (b) the selection efficiency with different

π / μ

mis-ID rates for

τ → l l l

Fig.142 Expected timeline for the STCF project.

1	H. Hoddeson L.Brown L.Riordan M. Dresden (Eds.) M., The Rise of the standard model: Particle physics in the 1960s and 1970s, Proceedings, Conference, Stanford, USA, June 24–27, 1992 (1997)
2	S. Abrams G.. et al.. The mark-II detector for the SLC. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 1989, 281 : 55 https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-9002(89)91217-5
3	Bernstein D.. et al.. The mark-III spectrometer. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 1984, 226 : 301 https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-9002(84)90043-3
4	E. Augustin J.. et al.. Dm2: A magnetic detector for the Orsay storage ring DCI. Phys. Scripta, 1981, 23 : 623 https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-8949/23/4B/004
5	Asner (CLEO) D., The CLEO-c research program, AIP Conf. Proc. 722, 82 (2004), arXiv: hep-ex/0312034
6	Z. Bai J.. et al.. The BES detector. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 1994, 344 : 319 https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-9002(94)90081-7
7	Z. Bai J.. et al.. Measurement of the mass of the tau lepton. Phys. Rev. Lett., 1992, 69 : 3021 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.3021
8	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Precision measurement of the mass of the τ lepton, Phys. Rev. D 90, 012001 (2014), arXiv: 1405.1076
9	Z. Bai J.(BES) ., et al.., Measurements of the cross section for e+e− → Hadrons at center-of-mass energies from 2 to 5 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 101802 (2002), arXiv: hep-ex/0102003
10	Z. Bai J.. et al.. Evidence for the leptonic decay D → μνμ. Phys. Lett. B, 1998, 429 : 188 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.101802
11	Z. Bai J.(BES) ., et al.., Observation of a near-threshold enhancement in the p p ¯ mass spectrum from radiative J/ψ → γ pp ¯ decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 022001 (2003), arXiv: hep-ex/0303006
12	Ablikim M.(BES) ., et al.., Observation of a resonance X(1835) in J/ψ → γπ+π−η', Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 262001 (2005), arXiv: hep-ex/0508025
13	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Spin-parity analysis of pp ¯ mass threshold structure in J/ψ and ψ(3686) radiative decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 112003 (2012), arXiv: 1112.0942
14	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Observation of an anomalous line shape of the η' π+π− mass spectrum near the p p ¯ mass threshold in J/ψ → γη' π+π−, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 042002 (2016), arXiv: 1603.09653
15	Ablikim M.(BES) ., et al.., The sigma pole in J/ψ → ωπ+π−, Phys. Lett. B 598, 149 (2004), arXiv: hep-ex/0406038
16	Ablikim M.(BES) ., et al.., Observation of charged κ in J/ψ → K(892)∓ Ksπ±, K(892)∓ → Ksπ∓ at BESII, Phys. Lett. B 698, 183 (2011), arXiv: 1008.4489
17	Zhang C.-A., in: 32nd International Conference on High Energy Physics (2004), pp 993–997
18	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Design and construction of the BESIII detector, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 614, 345 (2010), arXiv: 0911.4960
19	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Observation of an isoscalar resonance with exotic JPC = 1−+ quantum numbers in J/ψ→γηη', Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 192002 (2022), arXiv: 2202.00621 [hep-ex]
20	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Partial wave analysis of J/ψ→γηη', Phys. Rev. D 106, 072012 (2022), arXiv: 2202.00623 [hep-ex]
21	Horn D., Mandula J.. A model of mesons with constituent gluons. Phys. Rev. D, 1978, 17 : 898 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.17.898
22	Ablikim M.(BESIII Collaboration) ., et al.., Observation of a state X(2600) in the π+π−η' system in the process J/ψ → γπ+π−η', Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 042001 (2022), arXiv: 2201.10796 [hep-ex]
23	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., First observation of η(1405) decays into f0(980)π0, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 182001 (2012), arXiv: 1201.2737
24	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Observation of a00(980)-f0(980) mixing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 022001 (2018), arXiv: 1802.00583
25	N. Achasov N., A. Devyanin S., N. Shestakov G.. s−δ0 mixing as the threshold phenomenon. Phys. Lett. B*, 1979, 88 : 367 https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(79)90488-X
26	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Polarization and entanglement in baryon−antibaryon pair production in electron-positron annihilation, Nature Phys. 15, 631 (2019), arXiv: 1808.08917 [hep-ex]
27	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Precise measurements of decay parameters and CP asymmetry with entangled Λ−Λ ¯ pairs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 131801 (2022), arXiv: 2204.11058 [hep-ex]
28	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Probing CP symmetry and weak phases with entangled double- strange baryons, Nature 606, 64 (2022), arXiv: 2105.11155[hep-ex]
29	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Analysis of D+ → K ¯0 e+νe and D+ → π0e+νe semileptonic decays, Phys. Rev. D 96, 012002 (2017), arXiv: 1703.09084
30	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Study of dynamics of D0 → K−e+νe and D0 → π−e+νe decays, Phys. Rev. D 92, 072012 (2015), arXiv: 1508.07560
31	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Determination of the pseudoscalar decay constant fDs+ via Ds+ → µ+νµ, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 071802 (2019), arXiv: 1811.10890
32	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Measurement of the Ds+ → ℓ+νℓ branching fractions and the decay constant fD+, Phys. Rev. D 94, 072004 (2016), arXiv: 1608.06732
33	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Measurements of absolute hadronic branching fractions of the Λ+ baryon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 052001 (2016), arXiv: 1511.08380
34	L. Workman R., (Particle Data Group) .. et al.. Review of Particle Physics. PTEP, 2022, 2022 : 083C01 https://doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptac097
35	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Measurement of the D → K−π+ strong phase difference in ψ(3770) → D 0 D ¯ 0, Phys. Lett. B 734, 227 (2014), arXiv: 1404.4691
36	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Model-independent determination of the relative strong-phase difference between D 0 and D ¯0 → KS,L0π+π− and its impact on the measurement of the ckm angle γ/ϕ3, Phys. Rev. D 101, 112002 (2020), arXiv: 2003.00091
37	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Improved model-independent determination of the strong-phase difference between D 0 and D ¯0 → KS,L0K+K− decays, Phys. Rev. D 102, 052008 (2020), arXiv: 2007.07959
38	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Measurement of the Cross Section for e+e− →Hadrons at energies from 2.2324 to 3.6710 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 062004 (2022), arXiv: 2112.11728 [hep-ex]
39	Davier M.Hoecker A.Malaescu B.Zhang Z., Reevaluation of the hadronic vacuum polarisation contributions to the standard model predictions of the muon g-2 and α(mz2) using newest hadronic cross-section data, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 827 (2017), arXiv: 1706.09436
40	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Measurement of the ππ cross section between 600 and 900 mev using initial state radiation, Phys. Lett. B 753, 629 (2016) [Erratum: Phys. Lett. B 812, 135982 (2021)], arXiv: 1507.08188
41	Grange J.(Muon g-2) ., et al.., Muon (g-2) technical design report, FERMILAB-FN-0992-E, FERMILAB-DESIGN-2014–02 (2015–01), arXiv: 1501.06858
42	Abi B.(Muon g-2) ., et al.., Measurement of the positive muon anomalous magnetic moment to 0.46 ppm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 141801 (2021), arXiv: 2104.03281[hep-ex]
43	Mibe (J-PARC g-2) T.. New g-2 experiment at J-PARC. Chin. Phys. C, 2010, 34 : 745 https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/34/6/022
44	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Measurement of proton electromagnetic form factors in e+e− → pp ¯ in the energy region 2.00–3.08 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 042001 (2020), arXiv: 1905.09001
45	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Oscillating features in the electromagnetic structure of the neutron, Nature Phys. 17, 1200 (2021), arXiv: 2103.12486 [hep-ex]
46	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Observation of a cross-section enhancement near mass threshold in e+e− → ΛΛ ¯, Phys. Rev. D 97, 032013 (2018), arXiv: 1709.10236
47	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Complete measurement of the Λ electromagnetic form factors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 122003 (2019), arXiv: 1903.09421
48	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Measurements of Σ+ and Σ− time-like electromagnetic form factors for center-of-mass energies from 2.3864 to 3.0200 GeV, Phys. Lett. B 814, 136110 (2021), arXiv: 2009.01404
49	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Measurement of cross section for e+e− → Ξ− Ξ ¯+ near threshold at BESIII, Phys. Rev. D 103, 012005 (2021), arXiv: 2010.08320
50	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Observation of a resonant structure in e+e− → K+ K−π0π0, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 112001 (2020), arXiv: 2001.04131
51	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Observation of a structure in e+e− → ϕη' at s from 2.05 to 3.08 GeV, Phys. Rev. D 102, 012008 (2020), arXiv: 2003.13064
52	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Measurement of e+e− → K+K− cross section at s = 2.00 ~ −3.08 GeV, Phys. Rev. D 99, 032001 (2019), arXiv: 1811.08742
53	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Cross section measurements of e+e− → K+K−K+K− and ϕK+K− at center-of-mass energies from 2.10 to 3.08 GeV, Phys. Rev. D 100, 032009 (2019), arXiv: 1907.06015
54	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Observation of a charged charmoniumlike structure in e+e− → π+π− J/ψ at s = 4.26 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 252001 (2013), arXiv: 1303.5949
55	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Observation of a charged charmoniumlike structure Zc(4020) and search for the Zc(3900) in e+e− → π+π−hc, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 242001 (2013), arXiv: 1309.1896
56	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Observation of a near-threshold structure in the K+ recoil-mass spectra in e+e− → K+(Ds−D0 + Ds−D0), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 102001 (2021), arXiv: 2011.07855
57	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Precise measurement of the e+e− → π+π− J/ψ cross section at center- of-mass energies from 3.77 to 4.60 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 092001 (2017), arXiv: 1611.01317
58	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Observation of e+e− → γX(3872) at BESIII, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 092001 (2014), arXiv: 1310.4101
59	J. Marciano W.. The tau decay puzzle. Phys. Rev. D, 1992, 45 : 721 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.45.R721
60	Aaij R.(LHCb) ., et al.., Observation of the doubly charmed baryon Ξ cc ++, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 112001 (2017), arXiv: 1707.01621
61	P. Peng H., et al.. Physics Potential of a Super tau-Charm Facility, Snowmass2021-Letter of Interest (2021)
62	Luo Q., in: 8th International Particle Accelerator Conference (2017)
63	Biagini M., Super τ/charm project in Italy (2014)
64	Adachi I., E. Browder T., Križan P., Tanaka S., Ushiroda (Belle-II) Y.. Detectors for extreme luminosity: Belle II. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 2018, 907 : 46 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2018.03.068
65	A. Alves A.. et al.. The LHCB detector at the LHC. JINST, 2008, 3 : S08005 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08005
66	Altmannshofer W.(Belle II) ., et al.., The Belle II Physics Book, PTEP 2019, 123C01 (2019) [Erratum: PTEP 2020, 029201 (2020)], arXiv: 1808.10567 [hep-ex]
67	Aaij R.(LHCb) ., et al.., Physics case for an LHCB upgrade II − opportunities in flavour physics, and beyond, in the HL-LHC era, LHCB-PUB-2018-009, CERN-LHCC-2018–027 (2018), arXiv: 1808.08865 [hep-ex]
68	Aad G.(ATLAS) ., et al.., Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard model Higgs boson with the atlas detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012), arXiv: 1207.7214
69	Chatrchyan S.(CMS) ., et al.., Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012), arXiv: 1207.7235
70	M. Asner D., et al.., Physics at BES-III, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 24, S1 (2009), arXiv: 0809.1869 [hep-ex]
71	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Future physics programme of BESIII, Chin. Phys. C 44, 040001 (2020), arXiv: 1912.05983
72	Grossman Y.Passemar E.Schacht S., On the statistical treatment of the Cabibbo angle anomaly, JHEP 07, 068 (2020), arXiv: 1911.07821 [hep-ph]
73	P. Lees J.(BaBar) ., et al.., Search for CP violation in the decay τ− → π−Ks0(≥0π0)ντ, Phys. Rev. D 85, 031102 (2012) [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 85, 099904 (2012)], arXiv: 1109.1527 [hep-ex]
74	S. Tsai Y.. Production of polarized τ pairs and tests of CP violation using polarized e± colliders near threshold. Phys. Rev. D, 1995, 51 : 3172 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.51.3172
75	Adlarson P.Kupsc A., CP symmetry tests in the cascade−anticascade decay of charmonium, Phys. Rev. D 100, 114005 (2019), arXiv: 1908.03102 [hep-ph]
76	S. Swanson E., The new heavy mesons: A status report, Phys. Rept. 429, 243 (2006), arXiv: hep-ph/0601110
77	B. Voloshin M., Charmonium, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 61, 455 (2008), arXiv: 0711.4556 [hep-ph]
78	Chen H.-X.Chen W.Liu X.Zhu S.-L., The hidden-charm pentaquark and tetraquark states, Phys. Rep. 639, 1 (2016), arXiv: 1601.02092 [hep-ph]
79	Hosaka A.Iijima T.Miyabayashi K.Sakai Y.Yasui S., Exotic hadrons with heavy flavors: X, Y, Z, and related states, PTEP 2016, 062C01 (2016), arXiv: 1603.09229 [hep-ph]
80	F. Lebed R.E. Mitchell R.S. Swanson E., Heavy-quark QCD exotica, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 93, 143 (2017), arXiv: 1610.04528 [hep-ph]
81	Esposito A.Pilloni A.D. Polosa A., Multiquark Resonances, Phys. Rep. 668, 1 (2017), arXiv: 1611.07920 [hep-ph]
82	Guo F.-K.Hanhart C.Meißner U.-G.Wang Q.Zhao Q. Zou B.-S., Hadronic molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015004 (2018) [Erratum: Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 029901 (2022)], arXiv: 1705.00141 [hep-ph]
83	Ali A.S. Lange J.Stone S., Exotics: Heavy pentaquarks and tetraquarks, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 97, 123 (2017), arXiv: 1706.00610 [hep-ph]
84	L. Olsen S.Skwarnicki T.Zieminska D., Nonstandard heavy mesons and baryons: Experimental evidence, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015003 (2018), arXiv: 1708.04012 [hep-ph]
85	Karliner M.L. Rosner J.Skwarnicki T., Multiquark states, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68, 17 (2018), arXiv: 1711.10626 [hep-ph]
86	Yuan C.-Z., The XYZ states revisited, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33, 1830018 (2018), arXiv: 1808.01570 [hep-ex]
87	Cerri A., et al.., Report from Working Group 4: Opportunities in flavour physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC, CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr. 7, 867 (2019), arXiv: 1812.07638 [hep-ph]
88	Liu Y.-R.Chen H.-X.Chen W.Liu X.Zhu S.-L., Pentaquark and tetraquark states, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 107, 237 (2019), arXiv: 1903.11976 [hep-ph]
89	Brambilla N.Eidelman S.Hanhart C.Nefediev A.Shen C.-P. E. Thomas C.Vairo A.Yuan C.-Z., The XYZ states: Experimental and theoretical status and perspectives, Phys. Rept. 873, 1 (2020), arXiv: 1907.07583 [hep-ex]
90	Guo F.-K.Liu X.-H.Sakai S., Threshold cusps and triangle singularities in hadronic reactions, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 112, 103757 (2020), arXiv: 1912.07030 [hep-ph]
91	Chen H.-X.Chen W.Liu X.Liu Y.-R.Zhu S.-L., An updated review of the new hadron states, Rep. Prog. Phys. 86, 026201 (2023), arXiv: 2204.02649 [hep-ph]
92	Godfrey S., Isgur N.. Mesons in a relativized quark model with chromodynamics. Phys. Rev. D, 1985, 32 : 189 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.32.189
93	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Observation of a near-threshold structure in the K+ recoil-mass spectra in e+e- → K+(Ds−D0 + Ds−D0), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 102001 (2021), arXiv: 2011.07855 [hep-ex]
94	Aaij R.(LHCb) ., et al.., Observation of new resonances decaying to J/ψK+ and J/ψϕ, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 082001 (2021), arXiv: 2103.01803 [hep-ex]
95	Cleven M.Guo F.-K.Hanhart C.Wang Q.Zhao Q., Employing spin symmetry to disentangle different models for the XYZ states, Phys. Rev. D 92, 014005 (2015), arXiv: 1505.01771 [hep-ph]
96	Wang Q.Hanhart C.Zhao Q., Decoding the riddle of Y(4260) and Zc(3900), Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 132003 (2013), arXiv: 1303.6355 [hep-ph]
97	Pilloni A.Fernandez-Ramirez C.Jackura A. Mathieu V.Mikhasenko M.Nys J.P. Szczepaniak (JPAC) A., Amplitude analysis and the nature of the Zc(3900), Phys. Lett. B 772, 200 (2017), arXiv: 1612.06490 [hep-ph]
98	Yang Z.Cao X.Guo F.-K.Nieves J.P. Valderrama M., Strange molecular partners of the Zc(3900) and Zc(4020), Phys. Rev. D 103, 074029 (2021), arXiv: 2011.08725 [hep-ph]
99	E. Bondar A.Garmash A.I. Milstein A.Mizuk R.B. Voloshin M., Heavy quark spin structure in Zb resonances, Phys. Rev. D 84, 054010 (2011), arXiv: 1105.4473 [hep-ph]
100	Cao Q.-F.Qi H.-R.Wang Y.-F.Zheng H.-Q., Discussions on the line-shape of the X(4660) resonance, Phys. Rev. D 100, 054040 (2019), arXiv: 1906.00356 [hep-ph]
101	Dong X.-K.Guo F.-K.Zou B.-S., A survey of heavy−antiheavy hadronic molecules, Prog. Phys. 41, 65 (2021), arXiv: 2101.01021 [hep-ph]
102	Chao K.-T.Guo F.-K.Zhang Y.-J., Production of J/ψpp ¯ in electron−positron collisions (2023) (in preparation)
103	Ma Y.-Q.Zhang Y.-J.Chao K.-T., QCD Corrections to e+e− → J/ψ + gg at B factories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 162002 (2009), arXiv: 0812.5106 [hep-ph]
104	Shen C.-W.Guo F.-K.Xie J.-J.Zou B.-S., Disentangling the hadronic molecule nature of the Pc(4380) pentaquark-like structure, Nucl. Phys. A 954, 393 (2016), arXiv: 1603.04672 [hep-ph]
105	Zhang Y.-J.Gao Y.-j.Chao K.-T., Next-to-leading-order QCD correction to e+e− → J/ψ + ηc at s = 10.6 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 092001 (2006), arXiv: hep-ph/0506076
106	Zhang Y.-J.Chao K.-T., Double-charm production e+e− → J/ψ + c c ¯ at B factories with next-to-leading-order QCD corrections, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 092003 (2007), arXiv: hep-ph/0611086
107	Chao K.-T.. The (cc)−(c ¯c) (diquark−anti-diquark) states in e+e− annihilation. Z. Phys. C, 1981, 7 : 317 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01431564
108	Karliner M.Nussinov S.L. Rosner J., QQQQ ¯ states: Masses, production, and decays, Phys. Rev. D 95, 034011 (2017), arXiv: 1611.00348 [hep-ph]
109	R. Debastiani V.Aceti F.Liang W.-H. Oset E., Revising the f1(1420) resonance, Phys. Rev. D 95, 034015 (2017), arXiv: 1611.05383 [hep-ph]
110	Wang G.-J.Meng L.Zhu S.-L., Spectrum of the fully-heavy tetraquark state QQQ′ ¯Q′ ¯, Phys. Rev. D 100, 096013 (2019), arXiv: 1907.05177 [hep-ph]
111	N. Anwar M.Ferretti J.Guo F.-K.Santopinto E.Zou B.-S., Spectroscopy and decays of the fully-heavy tetraquarks, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 647 (2018), arXiv: 1710.02540 [hep-ph]
112	Aaij R.(LHCb) ., et al.., Observation of structure in the J/ψ-pair mass spectrum, Sci. Bull. 65, 1983 (2020), arXiv: 2006.16957 [hep-ex]
113	Liu L.Moir G.Peardon M.M. Ryan S.E. Thomas C.Vilaseca P.J. Dudek J.G. Edwards R.Joo B.G. Richards (Hadron Spectrum) D., Excited and exotic charmonium spectroscopy from lattice QCD, JHEP 07, 126 (2012), arXiv: 1204.5425 [hep-ph]
114	Zhu S.-L., The Possible interpretations of Y(4260), Phys. Lett. B 625, 212 (2005), arXiv: hep-ph/0507025
115	Bhardwaj V.(Belle) ., et al.., Evidence of a new narrow resonance decaying to χc1γ in B → χc1γK, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 032001 (2013), arXiv: 1304.3975 [hep-ex]
116	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Observation of the ψ(13 D2) state in e+e− → π+π−γχc1 at BESIII, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 011803 (2015), arXiv: 1503.08203 [hep-ex]
117	Yang Y.-B.Chen Y.Gui L.-C.Liu C.Liu Y.-B. Liu Z.Ma J.-P.Zhang (CLQCD) J.-B., Lattice study on ηc2 and X(3872), Phys. Rev. D 87, 014501 (2013), arXiv: 1206.2086 [hep-lat]
118	Li H.-B.Lyu X.-R., Study of the standard model with weak decays of charmed hadrons at BESIII, Natl. Sci. Rev. 8, nwab181 (2021), arXiv: 2103.00908 [hep-ex]
119	Bazavov A., et al.., B- and D-meson leptonic decay constants from four-flavor lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 98, 074512 (2018), arXiv: 1712.09262 [hep-lat]
120	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Precision measurements of B(D+ → µ+νµ), the pseudoscalar decay constant fD+, and the quark mixing matrix element \|Vcd\|, Phys. Rev. D 89, 051104 (2014), arXiv: 1312.0374 [hep-ex]
121	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Observation of the leptonic decay D+ → τ+ντ, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 211802 (2019), arXiv: 1908.08877 [hep-ex]
122	Ablikim M.(BESIII Collaboration) ., et al.., Measurement of the absolute branching fractions for purely leptonic Ds+ decays, Phys. Rev. D 104, 052009 (2021), arXiv: 2102.11734 [hep-ex]
123	S. Amhis Y.(Heavy Flavor Averaging Group .HFLAV), et al.., Averages of b-hadron, c-hadron, and τ-lepton properties as of 2021, Phys. Rev. D 107, 052008 (2023), arXiv: 2206.07501 [hep-ex]
124	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Measurement of the absolute branching fraction of Ds+ → τ+ντ via τ+ → e+νeν ¯τ, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 171801 (2021), arXiv: 2106.02218 [hep-ex]
125	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Determination of the pseudoscalar decay constant f Ds+ via Ds+ → µ+νµ, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 071802 (2019), arXiv: 1811.10890 [hep-ex]
126	Liu J.Shi X.Li H.Zhou X.Zheng B., Prospects of CKM elements \|Vcs\| and decay constant f Ds + in D s+ → µ+νµ decay at STCF, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 337 (2022), arXiv: 2109.14969 [hep-ex]
127	Li H.Luo T. Shi X.Zhou X., Feasibility study of D s+ → τ+ντ decay and test of lepton flavor universality with leptonic Ds+ decays at STCF, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 310 (2022), arXiv: 2110.08864 [hep-ex]
128	Charles J.Hocker A.Lacker H.Laplace S.R. Le Diberder F.Malcles J.Ocariz J.Pivk M. Roos (CKMfitter Group) L., CP violation and the CKM matrix: Assessing the impact of the asymmetric B factories, Eur. Phys. J. C 41, 1 (2005), arXiv: hep-ph/0406184
129	CKMfitter Group, URL: ckmfitter.in2p3.fr/ (2022)
130	Bona M.(UTfit) ., et al.., The 2004 UTfit collaboration report on the status of the unitarity triangle in the standard model, JHEP 07, 028 (2005), arXiv: hep-ph/0501199
131	UTfit Collaboration, URL: utfit.org/UTfit/WebHome (2022)
132	Belanger G., Q. Geng C.. T-violating muon polarization in Kμ3 decays. Phys. Rev. D, 1991, 44 : 2789 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.44.2789
133	Grossman Y., Beyond the standard model with B and K physics, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 19, 907 (2004), arXiv: hep-ph/0310229
134	Wang W.Yu F.-S.Zhao Z.-X., Novel method to reliably determine the photon helicity in B → K1γ, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 051802 (2020), arXiv: 1909.13083 [hep-ph]
135	Fajfer S.Nisandzic I.Rojec U., Discerning new physics in charm meson leptonic and semileptonic decays, Phys. Rev. D 91, 094009 (2015), arXiv: 1502.07488 [hep-ph]
136	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Measurement of the branching fraction for the semileptonic decay D0(+) → π−(0)µ+νµ and test of lepton flavor universality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 171803 (2018), arXiv: 1802.05492 [hep-ex]
137	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Study of the D0 → K−µ+νµ dynamics and test of lepton flavor universality with D0 → K−ℓ+νℓ decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 011804 (2019), arXiv: 1810.03127 [hep-ex]
138	F. Falk A.Grossman Y.Ligeti Z.Nir Y.A. Petrov A., D0−D0 mass difference from a dispersion relation, Phys. Rev. D 69, 114021 (2004), arXiv: hep-ph/0402204
139	T. D’Agnolo R.Grosso G.Pierini M. Wulzer A.Zanetti M., Learning multivariate new physics, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 89 (2021), arXiv: 1912.12155 [hep-ph]
140	HFLAV Collaboration, URL: hflav.web.cern.ch/ (2022)
141	O’Leary B.(SuperB) ., et al.., SuperB progress reports−Physics, arXiv: 1008.1541 [hep-ex] (2010)
142	Xing Z.-Z.. An overview of D0 anti-D0 mixing and CP violation. Chin. Phys. C, 2008, 32 : 483 https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/32/6/015
143	Xing Z.-Z., D 0−D ¯0 mixing and CP violation in neutral D-meson decays, Phys. Rev. D 55, 196 (1997), arXiv: hep-ph/9606422
144	Xing Z.-Z., Effect of K0−anti-K0 mixing on CP asymmetries in weak decays of D and B mesons, Phys. Lett. B 353, 313 (1995), [Erratum: Phys. Lett. B 363, 266 (1995)], arXiv: hep-ph/9505272
145	Yu F.-S.Wang D.Li H.-N., CP asymmetries in charm decays into neutral kaons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 181802 (2017), arXiv: 1707.09297 [hep-ph]
146	Aaij R.(LHCb) ., et al.., Observation of CP violation in charm decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 211803 (2019), arXiv: 1903.08726 [hep-ex]
147	Saur M.Yu F.-S., Charm CPV: Observation and prospects, Sci. Bull. 65, 1428 (2020), arXiv: 2002.12088[hep-ex]
148	Cheng H.-Y.Chiang C.-W., Direct CP violation in two-body hadronic charmed meson decays, Phys. Rev. D 85, 034036 (2012) [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 85, 079903 (2012)], arXiv: 1201.0785 [hep-ph]
149	Li H.-N.Lu C.-D.Yu F.-S., Branching ratios and direct CP asymmetries in D → PP decays, Phys. Rev. D 86, 036012 (2012), arXiv: 1203.3120 [hep-ph]
150	Pirtskhalava D.Uttayarat P., CP violation and flavor SU(3) breaking in D-meson decays, Phys. Lett. B 712, 81 (2012), arXiv: 1112.5451 [hep-ph]
151	Gronau M., High order U-spin breaking: A precise amplitude relation in D0 decays, Phys. Lett. B 730, 221 (2014) [Addendum: Phys. Lett. B 735, 282 (2014)], arXiv: 1311.1434 [hep-ph]
152	Buccella F.Lusignoli M.Pugliese A.Santorelli P., CP violation in D meson decays: Would it be a sign of new physics? Phys. Rev. D 88, 074011 (2013), arXiv: 1305.7343[hep-ph]
153	Buccella F.Paul A.Santorelli P., SU(3)F breaking through final state interactions and CP asymmetries in D → PP decays, Phys. Rev. D 99, 113001 (2019), arXiv: 1902.05564 [hep-ph]
154	Li H.-N.Lü C.-D.Yu F.-S., Implications on the first observation of charm CPV at LHCb, arXiv: 1903.10638 (2019)
155	Grossman Y.Schacht S., The emergence of the ΔU = 0 rule in charm physics, JHEP 07, 020 (2019), arXiv: 1903.10952 [hep-ph]
156	I. Bigi I.Paul A., On CP asymmetries in two-, three- and four-body D decays, JHEP 03, 021 (2012), arXiv: 1110.2862 [hep-ph]
157	E. Morrissey D.J. Ramsey-Musolf M. Electroweak baryogenesis, New J. Phys. 14, 125003 (2012), arXiv: 1206.2942 [hep-ph]
158	Bondar A.Poluektov A.Vorobiev V., Charm mixing in a model-independent analysis of correlated D 0 D ¯ 0 decays, Phys. Rev. D 82, 034033 (2010), arXiv: 1004.2350 [hep-ph]
159	Atwood D.A. Petrov A., Lifetime differences in heavy mesons with time independent measurements, Phys. Rev. D 71, 054032 (2005), arXiv: hep-ph/0207165
160	Shi Y.Yang J., Time reversal symmetry violation in entangled pseudoscalar neutral charmed mesons, Phys. Rev. D 98, 075019 (2018), arXiv: 1612.07628 [hep-ph]
161	A. Kostelecky V., Formalism for CPT, T, and Lorentz violation in neutral meson oscillations, Phys. Rev. D 64, 076001 (2001), arXiv: hep-ph/0104120
162	(LHCb), Simultaneous determination of the CKM angle γ and parameters related to mixing and CP violation in the charm sector, LHCb-CONF-2022-003, CERN-LHCb-CONF-2022-003, CERN-LHCb-CONF-2022-002 (2022)
163	Gronau M., London D.. How to determine all the angles of the unitarity triangle from B d0 → DKs and B s0 → D0. Phys. Lett. B, 1991, 253 : 483 https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(91)91756-L
164	Gronau M., Wyler D.. On determining a weak phase from CP asymmetries in charged B decays. Phys. Lett. B, 1991, 265 : 172
165	Atwood D.Dunietz I.Soni A., Enhanced CP violation with B → K D0(D ¯0) modes and extraction of the Cabibbo−Kobayashi−Maskawa angle γ, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3257 (1997), arXiv: hep-ph/9612433
166	Atwood D.Dunietz I.Soni A., Improved methods for observing CP violation in B±→ KD and measuring the CKM phase γ, Phys. Rev. D 63, 036005 (2001), arXiv: hep-ph/0008090
167	Giri A.Grossman Y.Soffer A.Zupan J., Determining γ using B±→ DK± with multibody D decays, Phys. Rev. D 68, 054018 (2003), arXiv: hep-ph/0303187
168	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Future physics programme of BESIII, Chin. Phys. C 44, 040001 (2020), arXiv: 1912.05983 [hep-ex]
169	Burdman G.Shipsey I., D 0−D ¯0 mixing and rare charm decays, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 53, 431 (2003), arXiv: hep-ph/0310076
170	Golowich E.Hewett J.Pakvasa S.A. Petrov A., Relating D 0−D ¯0 mixing and D0 → l+l− with new physics, Phys. Rev. D 79, 114030 (2009), arXiv: 0903.2830 [hep-ph]
171	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Search for the rare decays D → h(h('))e+e−, Phys. Rev. D 97, 072015 (2018), arXiv: 1802.09752 [hep-ex]
172	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Search for the decay D0 → π0νν ¯, Phys. Rev. D 105, L071102 (2022), arXiv: 2112.14236 [hep-ex]
173	Chen H.-X.Chen W.Liu X.Liu Y.-R.Zhu S.-L., A review of the open charm and open bottom systems, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 076201 (2017), arXiv: 1609.08928 [hep-ph]
174	Kato Y.Iijima T., Open charm hadron spectroscopy at B-factories, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 105, 61 (2019), arXiv: 1810.03748 [hep-ex]
175	Zupanc A.(Belle) ., et al.., Measurement of the branching fraction B(Λc+ → pK−π+), Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 042002 (2014), arXiv: 1312.7826 [hep-ex]
176	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Measurements of absolute hadronic branching fractions of the Λc+ baryon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 052001 (2016), arXiv: 1511.08380 [hep-ex]
177	B. Yang S.(Belle) ., et al.., First observation of the doubly Cabibbo-suppressed decay of a charmed baryon: Λc + → pK+π−, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 011801 (2016), arXiv: 1512.07366[hep-ex]
178	M. Sirunyan A.(CMS) ., et al.., Measurement of inclusive very forward jet cross sections in proton-lead collisions at sNN = 5.02 TeV, JHEP 05, 043 (2019), arXiv: 1812.01691 [hep-ex]
179	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Partial wave analysis of the charmed baryon hadronic decay Λc + → Λπ+π0, JHEP 12, 033 (2022), arXiv: 2209.08464 [hep-ex]
180	Bishai M.(CLEO) ., et al.., Measurement of the decay asymmetry parameters in Λc + → Λπ+ and Λc + → Σ+π0, Phys. Lett. B 350, 256 (1995), arXiv: hep-ex/9502004
181	Cheng H.-Y.Tseng B., Cabibbo allowed nonleptonic weak decays of charmed baryons, Phys. Rev. D 48, 4188 (1993), arXiv: hep-ph/9304286
182	K. Sharma K.C. Verma R., A study of weak mesonic decays of Λc and Ξc baryons on the basis of HQET results, Eur. Phys. J. C 7, 217 (1999), arXiv: hep-ph/9803302
183	Zenczykowski P., Quark and pole models of nonleptonic decays of charmed baryons, Phys. Rev. D 50, 402 (1994), arXiv: hep-ph/9309265
184	Datta A., Nonleptonic two-body decays of charmed and Lambda(b) baryons, arXiv: hep-ph/9504428 (1995)
185	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Measurements of weak decay asymmetries of Λc + → pKs0, Λπ+, Σ+π0, and Σ0π+, Phys. Rev. D 100, 072004 (2019), arXiv: 1905.04707 [hep-ex]
186	K. Li L.(Belle) ., et al.., Search for CP violation and measurement of branching fractions and decay asymmetry parameters for Λc + → Λh+ and Λc + → Σ0h+ (h = K, π), Sci. Bull. 68, 583 (2023), arXiv: 2208.08695 [hep-ex]
187	B. Li Y.(Belle) ., et al.., First measurements of absolute branching fractions of the Ξc 0 baryon at Belle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 082001 (2019), arXiv: 1811.09738 [hep-ex]
188	B. Li Y.(Belle) ., et al.., First measurements of absolute branching fractions of the Ξc + baryon at Belle, Phys. Rev. D 100, 031101 (2019), arXiv: 1904.12093 [hep-ex]
189	Dhir R.S. Kim C., Axial-vector emitting weak nonleptonic decays of Ωc0 baryon, Phys. Rev. D 91, 114008 (2015), arXiv: 1501.04259 [hep-ph]
190	Cheng H.-Y., Cheung C.-Y., Lin G.-L., C. Lin Y., Yan T.-M., Yu H.-L.. Heavy flavor conserving nonleptonic weak decays of heavy baryons. Phys. Rev. D, 1992, 46 : 5060
191	Aaij R.(LHCb) ., et al.., First branching fraction measurement of the suppressed decay Ξc 0 → π−Λc +, Phys. Rev. D 102, 071101 (2020), arXiv: 2007.12096 [hep-ex]
192	S. Tang S.(Belle) ., et al.., Measurement of the branching fraction of Ξc 0→Λc +π− at Belle, Phys. Rev. D 107, 032005 (2023), arXiv: 2206.08527 [hep-ex]
193	Niu P.-Y.Wang Q.Zhao Q., Study of heavy quark conserving weak decays in the quark model, Phys. Lett. B 826, 136916 (2022), arXiv: 2111.14111 [hep-ph]
194	Cheng H.-Y.Xu F., Heavy-flavor-conserving hadronic weak decays of charmed and bottom baryons, Phys. Rev. D 105, 094011 (2022), arXiv: 2204.03149 [hep-ph]
195	Cheng H.-Y.Liu C.-W.Xu F., Heavy-flavor-conserving hadronic weak decays of charmed and bottom baryons: An update, Phys. Rev. D 106, 093005 (2022), arXiv: 2209.00257 [hep-ph]
196	Perez-Marcial R.Huerta R.Garcia A. Avila-Aoki M., Predictions for semileptonic decays of charm baryons. 2. Nonrelativistic and MIT bag quark models, Phys. Rev. D 40, 2955 (1989) [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 44, 2203 (1991)]
197	L. Singleton R.. Semileptonic baryon decays with a heavy quark. Phys. Rev. D, 1991, 43 : 2939 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.43.2939
198	Cheng H.-Y.Tseng B., 1/M corrections to baryonic form-factors in the quark model, Phys. Rev. D 53, 1457 (1996) [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 55, 1697 (1997)], arXiv: hep-ph/9502391
199	Pervin M.Roberts W.Capstick S., Semileptonic decays of heavy lambda baryons in a quark model, Phys. Rev. C 72, 035201 (2005), arXiv: nucl-th/0503030
200	A. Ivanov M.E. Lyubovitskij V.G. Korner J.Kroll P., Heavy baryon transitions in a relativistic three quark model, Phys. Rev. D 56, 348 (1997), arXiv: hep-ph/9612463
201	Gutsche T.A. Ivanov M.G. Körner J.E. Lyubovitskij V.Santorelli P., Heavy-to-light semileptonic decays of Λb and Λc baryons in the covariant confined quark model, Phys. Rev. D 90, 114033 (2014) [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 94, 059902 (2016)], arXiv: 1410.6043 [hep-ph]
202	N. Faustov R.O. Galkin V., Semileptonic decays of Λc baryons in the relativistic quark model, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 628 (2016), arXiv: 1610.00957 [hep-ph]
203	W. Luo C.. Heavy to light baryon weak form-factors in the light cone constituent quark model. Eur. Phys. J. C, 1998, 1 : 235
204	S. Marques de Carvalho R.S. Navarra F.Nielsen M. Ferreira E.G. Dosch H., Form-factors and decay rates for heavy lambda semileptonic decays from QCD sum rules, Phys. Rev. D 60, 034009 (1999), arXiv: hep-ph/9903326
205	Huang M.-Q.Wang D.-W., Semileptonic decay Λc → Λl+ν from QCD light-cone sum rules, arXiv: hep-ph/0608170 (2006)
206	Azizi K.Sarac Y.Sundu H., Light cone QCD sum rules study of the semileptonic heavy ΞQ and ΞQ' transitions to Ξ and Σ baryons, Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 2 (2012), arXiv: 1107.5925 [hep-ph]
207	Meinel S., Λc → Λl+νl form factors and decay rates from lattice QCD with physical quark masses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 082001 (2017), arXiv: 1611.09696 [hep-lat]
208	Meinel S., Λc → N form factors from lattice QCD and phenomenology of Λc → nℓ+νℓ and Λc → pµ+µ− decays, Phys. Rev. D 97, 034511 (2018), arXiv: 1712.05783 [hep-lat]
209	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Measurement of the absolute branching fraction for Λc + → Λe+νe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 221805 (2015), arXiv: 1510.02610 [hep-ex]
210	Cheng H.-Y., Remarks on the strong coupling constants in heavy hadron chiral Lagrangians, Phys. Lett. B 399, 281 (1997), arXiv: hep-ph/9701234
211	Cheng H.-Y.Cheung C.-Y.Lin G.-L.C. Lin Y.Yan T.-M. Yu H.-L., Chiral Lagrangians for radiative decays of heavy hadrons, Phys. Rev. D 47, 1030 (1993), arXiv: hep-ph/9209262
212	Jiang N.Chen X.-L.Zhu S.-L., Electromagnetic decays of the charmed and bottom baryons in chiral perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. D 92, 054017 (2015), arXiv: 1505.02999 [hep-ph]
213	Wang G.-J.Meng L.Zhu S.-L., Radiative decays of the singly heavy baryons in chiral perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. D 99, 034021 (2019), arXiv: 1811.06208 [hep-ph]
214	Yelton J.(Belle) ., et al.., Study of electromagnetic decays of orbitally excited Ξc baryons, Phys. Rev. D 102, 071103 (2020), arXiv: 2009.03951 [hep-ex]
215	Li Y.(Belle) ., et al.., First search for the weak radiative decays Λc+→Σ+γ and Ξc0 →Ξ0γ, Phys. Rev. D 107, 032001 (2023), arXiv: 2206.12517 [hep-ex]
216	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Search for the weak radiative decay Λc + → Σ+γ at BESIII, arXiv: 2212.07214 (2022)
217	Bondar A.Grabovsky A.Reznichenko A.Rudenko A.Vorobyev V., Measurement of the weak mixing angle at a super charm-tau factory with data-driven monitoring of the average electron beam polarization, JHEP 03, 076 (2020), arXiv: 1912.09760 [hep-ph]
218	Aaij R.(LHCb) ., et al.., A measurement of the CP asymmetry difference in Λc + → pK−K+ and pπ−π+ decays, JHEP 03, 182 (2018), arXiv: 1712.07051[hep-ex]
219	I. Bigi I., Probing CP asymmetries in charm baryons decays, arXiv: 1206.4554 (2012)
220	Shi X.-D.Kang X.-W.Bigi I.Wang W.-P.Peng H.-P., Prospects for CP and P violation in Λc + decays at super tau charm facility, Phys. Rev. D 100, 113002 (2019), arXiv: 1904.12415 [hep-ph]
221	Aubert B.(BaBar) ., et al.., Observation of a charmed baryon decaying to D0p at a mass near 2.94 GeV/c2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 012001 (2007), arXiv: hep-ex/0603052
222	Cheng H.-Y.. Charmed baryons circa 2015. Front. Phys. (Beijing), 2015, 10 : 101406 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11467-015-0483-z
223	Aaij R.(LHCb) ., et al.., Study of the D0p amplitude in Λb0 → D0pπ− decays, JHEP 05, 030 (2017), arXiv: 1701.07873 [hep-ex]
224	Cheng H.-Y.Chiang C.-W., Quantum numbers of Ωc states and other charmed baryons, Phys. Rev. D 95, 094018 (2017), arXiv: 1704.00396 [hep-ph]
225	Luo S.-Q.Chen B.Liu Z.-W.Liu X., Resolving the low mass puzzle of Λc(2940)+, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 301 (2020), arXiv: 1910.14545[hep-ph]
226	Aaij R.(LHCb) ., et al.., Observation of five new narrow Ωc 0 states decaying to Ξc + K−, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 182001 (2017), arXiv: 1703.04639 [hep-ex]
227	Yelton J.(Belle) ., et al.., Observation of excited Ωc charmed baryons in e+e− collisions, Phys. Rev. D 97, 051102 (2018), arXiv: 1711.07927 [hep-ex]
228	(LHCb), Observation of new Ωc0 states decaying to the Ξc+K− final state, arXiv: 2302.04733 (2023)
229	Li W.-D., Mao Y.-J., Wang Y.-F.. The BES-III detector and offline software. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 2009, 24S1 : 9
230	d’Enterria D.Shao H.-S., Prospects for ditauonium discovery at colliders, arXiv: 2302.07365 [hep-ph] (2023)
231	Davoudiasl H.J. Marciano W., Tale of two anomalies, Phys. Rev. D 98, 075011 (2018), arXiv: 1806.10252 [hep-ph]
232	Abi B.(Muon g-2) ., et al.., Measurement of the positive muon anomalous magnetic moment to 0.46 ppm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 141801 (2021), arXiv: 2104.03281 [hep-ex]
233	Eidelman S.Passera M., Theory of the tau lepton anomalous magnetic moment, Mod. Phys. Lett. A22, 159 (2007), arXiv: hep-ph/0701260 [hep-ph]
234	Abdallah J.(DELPHI) ., et al.., Study of tau-pair production in photon−photon collisions at LEP and limits on the anomalous electromagnetic moments of the tau lepton, Eur. Phys. J. C 35, 159 (2004), arXiv: hep-ex/0406010
235	Chen X.Wu Y., Search for the electric dipole moment and anomalous magnetic moment of the tau lepton at tau factories, JHEP 10, 089 (2019), arXiv: 1803.00501 [hep-ph]
236	Bernabeu J.A. Gonzalez-Sprinberg G.Papavassiliou J.Vidal J., Tau anomalous magnetic moment form-factor at super B/flavor factories, Nucl. Phys. B 790, 160 (2008), arXiv: 0707.2496[hep-ph]
237	Eidelman S.Epifanov D.Fael M.Mercolli L.Passera M., τ dipole moments via radiative leptonic τ decays, JHEP 03, 140 (2016), arXiv: 1601.07987 [hep-ph]
238	Pich A., Precision Tau Physics, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 75, 41 (2014), arXiv: 1310.7922 [hep-ph]
239	Amhis Y.(HFLAV) ., et al.., Averages of B-hadron, C-hadron, and tau-lepton properties as of early 2012, arXiv: 1207.1158 (2012)
240	B. Arbuzov A.V. Kopylova T., Michel parameters in radiative muon decay, JHEP 09, 109 (2016), arXiv: 1605.06612 [hep-ph]
241	P. Lees J.(BaBar) ., et al.., Measurement of the branching fractions of the radiative leptonic τ decays τ → eγνν ¯ and τ → µγνν ¯ at BABAR, Phys. Rev. D 91, 051103 (2015), arXiv: 1502.01784 [hep-ex]
242	Shimizu N.(Belle) ., et al.., Measurement of the tau Michel parameters η ¯ and ξκ in the radiative leptonic decay τ− → ℓ−ντν ¯ℓγ, PTEP 2018, 023C01 (2018), arXiv: 1709.08833 [hep-ex]
243	G. López Castro , P. Roig. A. Flores-Tlalpa, Five-body leptonic decays of muon and tau leptons, JHEP 04, 185 (2016), arXiv: 1508.01822 [hep-ph]
244	Braaten E., Narison S., Pich A.. QCD analysis of the tau hadronic width. Nucl. Phys. B, 1992, 373 : 581 https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(92)90267-F
245	Boito D., Golterman M., Jamin M., Mahdavi A., Maltman K., Osborne J., Peris S.. Updated determination of αs from τ decays. Phys. Rev. D, 2012, 85 : 093015 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.093015
246	Beneke M.Boito D.Jamin M., Perturbative expansion of τ hadronic spectral function moments and αs extractions, JHEP 01, 125 (2013), arXiv: 1210.8038 [hep-ph]
247	I. Bigi I.I. Sanda A., A “Known” CP asymmetry in tau decays, Phys. Lett. B 625, 47 (2005), arXiv: hep-ph/0506037
248	Grossman Y.Nir Y., CP violation in τ±→ π±KS ν and D±→ π±KS: The importance of KS−KL interference, JHEP 04, 002 (2012), arXiv: 1110.3790 [hep-ph]
249	Bischofberger M.(Belle) ., et al.., Search for CP violation in τ → Ks0 πντ decays at Belle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 131801 (2011), arXiv: 1101.0349 [hep-ex]
250	Sang H.Shi X.Zhou X.Kang X.Liu J., Feasibility study of CP violation in τ → KS πντ decays at the Super Tau Charm Facility, Chin. Phys. C 45, 053003 (2021), arXiv: 2012.06241 [hep-ex]
251	Chen F.-Z.Li X.-Q.Yang Y.-D., CP asymmetry in the angular distribution of τ → KS πντ decays, JHEP 05, 151 (2020), arXiv: 2003.05735 [hep-ph]
252	Bernreuther W.Nachtmann O., CP violating correlations in electron positron annihilation into τ leptons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 2787 (1989) [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1072 (1990)]
253	E. Ralph S., Capasso F., J. Malik R.. New photorefractive effect in graded-gap superlattices. Phys. Rev. Lett., 1990, 64 : 1072 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.64.1072
254	Inami K.(Belle) ., et al.., Search for the electric dipole moment of the tau lepton, Phys. Lett. B 551, 16 (2003), arXiv: hep-ex/0210066
255	Bernabeu J.A. Gonzalez-Sprinberg G.Vidal J., CP violation and electric-dipole-moment at low energy tau production with polarized electrons, Nucl. Phys. B 763, 283 (2007), arXiv: hep-ph/0610135
256	S. Tsai Y., Production of polarized tau pairs and tests of CP violation using polarized e+− colliders near threshold, Phys. Rev. D 51, 3172 (1995), arXiv: hep-ph/9410265
257	R. Zhou X., Tau LFV decays: Super Tau Charm Factory, URL: indico.fnal.gov/event/44457/ (2020)
258	V. Bobrov A.E. Bondar A., Search for τ → µ + γ decay at Super c−τ factory, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 225–227, 195 (2012), arXiv: 1206.1909 [hep-ex]
259	Xiang T.Shi X.-D.Wang D.-Y.Zhou X.-R., Sensitivity study of the charged lepton flavor violating process τ → γµ at STCF, (2023), arXiv: 2305.00483 [hep-ex]
260	Z. Bai (BES) J.. Measurement of the total cross section for hadronic production by e+e− annihilation at energies between 2.6–5 GeV. Phys. Rev. Lett., 2000, 84 : 594
261	Z. Bai J.(BES) ., et al.., Measurements of the cross-section for e+e− → hadrons at center-of-mass energies from 2-GeV to 5-GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 101802 (2002), arXiv: hep-ex/0102003
262	V. Anashin V.(KEDR) ., et al.., Precise measurement of Ruds and R between 1.84 and 3.72 GeV at the KEDR detector, Phys. Lett. B 788, 42 (2019), arXiv: 1805.06235 [hep-ex]
263	Baak M.Kogler R., in: 48th Rencontres de Moriond on Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories (2013), pp 349–358, arXiv: 1306.0571 [hep-ph]
264	Abi B.(Muon g-2) ., et al.., Measurement of the positive muon anomalous magnetic moment to 0.46 ppm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 141801 (2021), arXiv: 2104.03281 [hep-ex]
265	Sterman G., Smith J., C. Collins J., Whitmore J., Brock R., Huston J., Pumplin J., Tung W.-K., Weerts H., Yuan C.-P., Kuhlmann S., Mishra S., G. Morfín J., Olness F., Owens J., Qiu J., E. Soper D.. Handbook of perturbative QCD. Rev. Mod. Phys., 1995, 67 : 157
266	C. Collins J.E. Soper D., Back-to-back jets in QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 193, 381 (1981) [Erratum: Nucl. Phys. B 213, 545 (1983)]
267	Pitonyak D., Schlegel M., Metz A.. Polarized hadron pair production from electron−positron annihilation. Phys. Rev. D, 2014, 89 : 054032 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.054032
268	Collins J.. Fragmentation of transversely polarized quarks probed in transverse momentum distributions. Nucl. Phys. B, 1993, 396 : 161
269	Seidl R.(Belle) ., et al.., Measurement of azimuthal asymmetries in inclusive production of hadron pairs in e+e− annihilation at s = 10.58-GeV, Phys. Rev. D 78, 032011 (2008) [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 86, 039905 (2012)], arXiv: 0805.2975[hep-ex]
270	Sun P., Yuan F.. Energy evolution for the Sivers asymmetries in hard processes. Phys. Rev. D, 2013, 88 : 034016 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.034016
271	Collaboration B.Z. Bai J.Ban Y. G. Bian J., Observation of a near-threshold enhancement in th pp ¯ mass spectrum from radiative J/ψ-γpp ¯ p ¯ decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 022001 (2003), arXiv: hep-ex/0303006 [hep-ex]
272	E. A. Aubert (BABAR) B., Study of e+e− → ΛΛ ¯, ΛΣ ¯0 Σ0 Σ ¯ 0 using initial state radiation with BABAR, Phys. Rev. D 76, 092006 (2007).
273	E. A. Pakhlov (Belle) P.. Measurement of the e+e− → J/ψc c ¯ cross section at s ≈ 10.6 GeV. Phys. Rev. D, 2009, 79 : 071101
274	Ma Y.-Q.Zhang Y.-J.Chao K.-T., QCD corrections to e+e− → J/ψgg at B factories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 162002 (2008), arXiv: 0812.5106 [hep-ph]
275	Zhang Y.-J., Ma Y.-Q., Wang K., Chao K.-T.. QCD radiative correction to color-octet J/ψ inclusive production at B factories. Phys. Rev. D, 2010, 81 : 034015 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.034015
276	Gong B.Wang J.-X., Next-to-leading-order QCD corrections to e+e− → J/ψ gg at the B factories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 162003 (2009), arXiv: 0901.0117 [hep-ph]
277	Gong B., Wang J.-X.. Next-to-leading-order QCD corrections to e+e− → J/ψcc ¯ at the B factories. Phys. Rev. D, 2009, 80 : 054015
278	Brambilla N., et al.., Heavy quarkonium: progress, puzzles, and opportunities, Euro. Phys. J. C 71, 1534 (2011)
279	B. Collaboration T.Abe K., Observation of double cc ¯ Production in e+e− annihilation at s = 10.6 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 142001 (2002), arXiv: hep-ex/0205104 [hep-ex]
280	Feng F.Jia Y.Mo Z.Sang W.-L.Zhang J.-Y., Next-to-next-to-leading-order QCD corrections to e+e− → J/ψ + ηc at B factories, arXiv: 1901.08447 (2019)
281	Zhang Y.-J.Gao Y.-J.Chao K.-T., Next-to-leading order QCD correction to e+e− → J/ψ + ηc at s = 10.6-GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 092001 (2006), arXiv: hep-ph/0506076
282	Zhang Y.-J., Chao K.-T.. Double-charm production e+e− → J/ψ + cc ¯ at B factories with next-to-leading-order QCD corrections. Phys. Rev. Lett., 2007, 98 : 092003
283	Brambilla N., et al.., QCD and strongly coupled gauge theories: Challenges and perspectives, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2981 (2014), arXiv: 1404.3723 [hep-ph]
284	A. Meyer C., Van Haarlem Y.. Status of exotic-quantum-number mesons. Phys. Rev. C, 2010, 82 : 025208
285	Crede V.A. Meyer C., The Experimental Status of Glueballs, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 63, 74 (2008), arXiv: 0812.0600 [hep-ex]
286	Klempt E., Zaitsev A.. Glueballs, hybrids, multiquarks: Experimental facts versus QCD inspired concepts. Phys. Rep., 2007, 454 : 1
287	Amsler C., A. Törnqvist N.. Mesons beyond the naive quark model. Phys. Rep., 2004, 389 : 61
288	Godfrey S., Napolitano J.. Light-meson spectroscopy. Rev. Mod. Phys., 1999, 71 : 1411
289	Lee W.-J.Weingarten D., Scalar quarkonium masses and mixing with the lightest scalar glueball, Phys. Rev. D 61, 014015 (2000), arXiv: hep-lat/9910008
290	S. Bali G.Schilling K.Hulsebos A.C. Irving A.Michael C. W. Stephenson (UKQCD) P., A comprehensive lattice study of SU(3) glueballs, Phys. Lett. B 309, 378 (1993), arXiv: hep-lat/9304012
291	J. Morningstar C.J. Peardon M., Efficient glueball simulations on anisotropic lattices, Phys. Rev. D 56, 4043 (1997), arXiv: hep-lat/9704011
292	Chen Y., et al.., Glueball spectrum and matrix elements on anisotropic lattices, Phys. Rev. D 73, 014516 (2006), arXiv: hep-lat/0510074
293	Lacock P.Michael C.Boyle P.Rowland (UKQCD) P., Hybrid mesons from quenched QCD, Phys. Lett. B 401, 308 (1997), arXiv: hep-lat/9611011
294	W. Bernard C.(MILC) ., et al.., Exotic mesons in quenched lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 56, 7039 (1997), arXiv: hep-lat/9707008
295	J. Dudek J.G. Edwards R.Joo B.J. Peardon M.G. Richards D.E. Thomas C., Isoscalar meson spectroscopy from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 83, 111502 (2011), arXiv: 1102.4299 [hep-lat]
296	J. Dudek J.G. Edwards R.Guo P.E. Thomas (Hadron Spectrum) C., Toward the excited isoscalar meson spectrum from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 88, 094505 (2013), arXiv: 1309.2608[hep-lat]
297	P. Druzhinin V.I. Eidelman S.I. Serednyakov S.P. Solodov E., Hadron production via e+e− collisions with initial state radiation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1545 (2011), arXiv: 1105.4975 [hep-ex]
298	T. Chao K., F. Wang Y.. Front matter. International J. Mod. Phys. A, 2009, 24 : supp01 https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X09046400
299	Battaglieri M., et al.., Analysis tools for next-generation hadron spectroscopy experiments, Acta Phys. Polon. B 46, 257 (2015), arXiv: 1412.6393 [hep-ph]
300	Berger N., Beijiang L., Jike W.. Partial wave analysis using graphics processing units. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 2010, 219 : 042031 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/219/4/042031
301	Gasser J., Leutwyler H.. Chiral perturbation theory to one loop. Ann. Phys., 1984, 158 : 142
302	Kaiser R., Leutwyler H.. Large Nc in chiral perturbation theory. Euro. Phys. J. C, 2000, 17 : 623 https://doi.org/10.1007/s100520000499
303	Wess J.Zumino B., Consequences of anomalous ward identities, Phys. Lett. B 37, 95 (1971)
304	Witten E.. Global aspects of current algebra. Nucl. Phys. B, 1983, 223 : 422
305	Bijnens J.Bramon A.Cornet F., English Chiral perturbation theory for anomalous processes, Eur. Phys. J. C 46, 599 (1990)
306	Sakurai J.. Theory of strong interactions. Ann. Phys., 1960, 11 : 1
307	Landsberg L.. Electromagnetic decays of light mesons. Phys. Rep., 1985, 128 : 301
308	Nambu Y.Jona-Lasinio G., Dynamical model of elementary particles based on an analogy with superconductivity (1), Phys. Rev. 122, 345 (1961)
309	Nambu Y.Jona-Lasinio G., Dynamical model of elementary particles based on an analogy with superconductivity (II), Phys. Rev. 124, 246 (1961)
310	Aoyama. T., et al.. The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model, Phys. Rep. 887, 1 (2020), the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model
311	Gan L.Kubis B.Passemar E.Tulin S., Precision tests of fundamental physics with η and η' mesons, Phys. Rep. 945, 1 (2022), precision tests of fundamental physics with η and η' mesons
312	Jarlskog C., Shabalin E.. On searches for CP, T, CPT and C violation in flavour-changing and flavour-conserving interactions. Phys. Scr., 2002, 2002 : 23
313	Jarlskog C., Shabalin E.. ϵ' and the decay η→ππ in a theory with both explicit and spontaneous CP violation. Phys. Rev. D, 1995, 52 : 6327 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.52.6327
314	Escribano R.Royo E., A theoretical analysis of the semileptonic decays η(') → π0l+l- and η' → ηl+l-, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1190 (2020), arXiv: 2007.12467 [hep-ph]
315	Niecknig F.Kubis B.P. Schneider S., Dispersive analysis of ω → 3π and ϕ → 3π decays, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 2014 (2012), arXiv: 1203.2501 [hep-ph]
316	V. Danilkin I., Fernández-Ramírez C., Guo P., Mathieu V., Schott D., Shi M., P. Szczepa- niak A.. Dispersive analysis of ω/ϕ → 3π, πγ. Phys. Rev. D*, 2015, 91 : 094029 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.094029
317	Wu J.-J., Liu X.-H., Zhao Q., Zou B.-S.. Puzzle of anomalously large isospin violations in η(1405/1475) → 3π. Phys. Rev. Lett., 2012, 108 : 081803 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.081803
318	H. Christenson J., W. Cronin J., L. Fitch V., Turlay R.. Evidence for the 2π decay of the K20 meson. Phys. Rev. Lett., 1964, 13 : 138 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.138
319	E. A. Aubert (BABAR) B.. Observation of CP violation in the B0 meson system. Phys. Rev. Lett., 2001, 87 : 091801 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.091801
320	Abe K.(Belle) ., et al.., Observation of large CP violation in the neutral B meson system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 091802 (2001), arXiv: hep-ex/0107061
321	F. Donoghue J., Pakvasa S.. Signals of CP nonconservation in hyperon decay. Phys. Rev. Lett., 1985, 55 : 162 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.55.162
322	Holmstrom T.. et al.. Search for CP violation in charged-Ξ and Λ hyperon decays. Phys. Rev. Lett., 2004, 93 : 262001 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.262001
323	Tandean J., Valencia G.. CP violation in hyperon nonleptonic decays within the standard model. Phys. Rev. D, 2003, 67 : 056001 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.67.056001
324	Materniak (HyperCP) C.. Search for CP violation in Ξ and Λ hyperon decays with the HyperCP spectrometer at Fermilab. Nucl. Phys. B Suppl., 2009, 187 : 208 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2009.01.030
325	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.. Study of J/ψ and ψ(3686) decay to ΛΛ ¯ and Σ 0 Σ ¯0 final states, Phys. Rev. D 95, 052003 (2017)
326	Ablikim M., et al.., Study of J/ψ and ψ (3686) → Σ(1385)0 Σ ¯ (1385)0 and Ξ0 Ξ ¯0, Physics Letters B 770, 217 (2017), arXiv: 1612.08664 [hep-ex]
327	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Study of ψ decays to the Ξ− Ξ ¯+ and Σ(1385)∓Σ ¯(1385 )± final states, Phys. Rev. D 93, 072003 (2016)
328	Fäldt G.Kupsc A., Hadronic structure functions in the e+e− → Λ ¯Λ reaction, Phys. Lett. B 772, 16 (2017), arXiv: 1702.07288 [hep-ph]
329	Perotti E., Fäldt G., Kupsc A., Leupold S., J. Song J.. Polarization observables in e+e− annihilation to a baryon−antibaryon pair. Phys. Rev. D, 2019, 99 : 056008 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.056008
330	Huang M., (HyperCP) .. et al.. New measurement of Ξ− → Λπ− decay parameters. Phys. Rev. Lett., 2004, 93 : 011802 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.011802
331	Dutta B.Mimura Y.N. Mohapatra R., Observable neutron antineutron oscillation in high scale seesaw models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 061801 (2005), arXiv: hep-ph/0510291 [hep-ph]
332	Baldo-Ceolin M., Benetti P., Bitter T., Bobisut F., Calligarich E., Dolfini R., Dubbers D., El-Muzeini P., Genoni M., Gibin D., Berzolari A., Gobrecht K., Guglielmi A., Last J., Laveder M., Lippert W., Mattioli F., Mauri F., Mezzetto M., Visentin L.. A new experimental limit on neutron−antineutron oscillations. Zeitsch. für Phys. C, 1994, 63 : 409 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01580321
333	Kang X.-W., Li H.-B., Lu G.-R.. Study of Λ− Λ ¯ oscillation in quantum coherent ΛΛ ¯ by using J/ψ → ΛΛ ¯ decay. Phys. Rev. D, 2010, 81 : 051901 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.051901
334	H. Dalitz R., Rajasekharan G.. The spins and lifetimes of the light hypernuclei. Phys. Lett., 1962, 1 : 58
335	I. Abelev B.(STAR) ., et al.., Observation of an antimatter hypernucleus, Science 328, 58 (2010), arXiv: 1003.2030 [nucl-ex]
336	Rappold C.. et al.. On the measured lifetime of light hypernuclei Λ 3H and Λ4 H. Phys. Lett. B, 2014, 728 : 543 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2013.12.037
337	S. Schwinger J., The Theory of quantized fields (1), Phys. Rev. 82, 914 (1951)
338	Chekanov S.(ZEUS) ., et al.., Search for contact interactions, large extra dimensions and finite quark radius in ep collisions at HERA, Phys. Lett. B 591, 23 (2004), arXiv: hep-ex/0401009
339	A. Bethe H.. The electromagnetic shift of energy levels. Phys. Rev., 1947, 72 : 339 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.72.339
340	J. Dyson F.. The radiation theories of Tomonaga, Schwinger, and Feynman. Phys. Rev., 1949, 75 : 486 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.75.486
341	G. Wilson K., B. Kogut J.. The renormalization group and the epsilon expansion. Phys. Rep., 1974, 12 : 75
342	Weinberg S., Witten E.. Limits on massless particles. Phys. Lett. B, 1980, 96 : 59
343	R. Schubert K., T violation and CPT tests in neutral-meson systems, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 81, 1 (2015), arXiv: 1409.5998 [hep-ex]
344	S. Bell J.Steinberger J., in: Proceedings of the Oxford Int. Conf. on Elementary Particles (1965), pp 195–222
345	Aubert B.(BaBar) ., et al.., Search for T, CP and CPT violation in B0− B ¯0 mixing with inclusive dilepton events, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 251802 (2006), arXiv: hep-ex/0603053
346	Higuchi T., et al.., Search for time-dependent CPT violation in hadronic and semileptonic B decays, Phys. Rev. D 85, 071105 (2012), arXiv: 1203.0930 [hep-ex]
347	Apostolakis A.. et al.. A Determination of the CP violation parameter η+− from the decay of strangeness tagged neutral kaons. Phys. Lett. B, 1999, 458 : 545 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00596-1
348	Schwingenheuer B.. et al.. CPT tests in the neutral kaon system. Phys. Rev. Lett., 1995, 74 : 4376 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.4376
349	Essig R., et al.., in: Community Summer Study 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi (2013), arXiv: 1311.0029 [hep-ph]
350	Adriani O.(PAMELA) ., et al.. An anomalous positron abundance in cosmic rays with energies 1.5–100 GeV, Nature 458, 607 (2009), arXiv: 0810.4995 [astro-ph]
351	Chang J.. et al.. An excess of cosmic ray electrons at energies of 300−800 GeV. Nature, 2008, 456 : 362
352	A. Abdo A.(Fermi-LAT) ., et al.., Measurement of the cosmic ray e+ plus e− spectrum from 20 GeV to 1 TeV with the Fermi Large Area Telescope, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 181101 (2009), arXiv: 0905.0025 [astro-ph.HE]
353	Aguilar M.. et al.. First result from the alpha magnetic spectrometer on the international space station: Precision measurement of the positron fraction in primary cosmic rays of 0.5–350 GeV. Phys. Rev. Lett., 2013, 110 : 141102 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.141102
354	Arkani-Hamed N.P. Finkbeiner D.R. Slatyer T.Weiner N., A theory of dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 79, 015014 (2009), arXiv: 0810.0713 [hep-ph]
355	Pospelov M.Ritz A., Astrophysical signatures of secluded dark matter, Phys. Lett. B 671, 391 (2009), arXiv: 0810.1502 [hep-ph]
356	Arkani-Hamed N.Weiner N., LHC signals for a superunified theory of dark matter, JHEP 12, 104 (2008), arXiv: 0810.0714 [hep-ph]
357	Cheung C.T. Ruderman J.Wang L.-T.Yavin I., Kinetic mixing as the origin of light dark scales, Phys. Rev. D 80, 035008 (2009), arXiv: 0902.3246 [hep-ph]
358	Zhu S.-h., U-boson at BESIII, Phys. Rev. D75, 115004 (2007), arXiv: hep-ph/0701001
359	Fayet P., U-boson production in e+e− annihilations, ψ and Υ decays, and light dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 75, 115017 (2007), arXiv: hep-ph/0702176
360	Reece M.Wang L.-T., Searching for the light dark gauge boson in GeV-scale experiments, JHEP 07, 051 (2009), arXiv: 0904.1743 [hep-ph]
361	Essig R.Schuster P.Toro N., Probing dark forces and light hidden sectors at low-energy e+e− colliders, Phys. Rev. D 80, 015003 (2009), arXiv: 0903.3941 [hep-ph]
362	Yin P.-F.Liu J.Zhu S.-H., Detecting light leptophilic gauge boson at BESIII detector, Phys. Lett. B 679, 362 (2009), arXiv: 0904.4644 [hep-ph]
363	Aubert B.(BaBar) ., et al.., Search for dimuon decays of a light scalar boson in radiative transitions Υ → γA0, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 081803 (2009), arXiv: 0905.4539 [hep-ex]
364	D. Bjorken J.Essig R.Schuster P. Toro N., New fixed-target experiments to search for dark gauge forces, Phys. Rev. D 80, 075018 (2009), arXiv: 0906.0580 [hep-ph]
365	Jia S.(Belle) ., et al.., Search for a light Higgs boson in single-photon decays of Υ(1S) using Υ(2S) → π+π−Υ(1S) tagging method, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 081804 (2022), arXiv: 2112.11852 [hep-ex]
366	O’Leary B.(SuperB) ., et al.., SuperB progress reports − Physics, arXiv: 1008.1541 (2010)
367	Altmannshofer W.(Belle-II) ., et al.., The Belle II physics book, PTEP 2019, 123C01 (2019) [Erratum: PTEP 2020, 029201 (2020)], arXiv: 1808.10567 [hep-ex]
368	Li H.-B.Luo T., Probing dark force at BES-III/BEPCII, Phys. Lett. B 686, 249 (2010), arXiv: 0911.2067 [hep-ph]
369	Baumgart M.Cheung C.T. Ruderman J.Wang L.-T.Yavin I., Non-Abelian dark sectors and their collider signatures, JHEP 04, 014 (2009), arXiv: 0901.0283 [hep-ph]
370	Batell B.Pospelov M.Ritz A., Probing a secluded U(1) at B-factories, Phys. Rev. D 79, 115008 (2009), arXiv: 0903.0363 [hep-ph]
371	Adachi I.(Belle-II) ., et al.., Search for an invisibly decaying Z' boson at Belle II in e+e− → µ+µ−(e± μ∓) plus missing energy final states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 141801 (2020), arXiv: 1912.11276 [hep-ex]
372	Abudinén F.(Belle-II) ., et al.., Search for axionlike particles produced in e+e− collisions at Belle II, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 161806 (2020), arXiv: 2007.13071 [hep-ex]
373	Holdom B.. Two U(1)’s and epsilon charge shifts. Phys. Lett. B, 1986, 166 : 196 https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(86)91377-8
374	Holdom B.. Searching for ϵ charges and a new U(1). Phys. Lett. B, 1986, 178 : 65 https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(86)90470-3
375	Foot R., He X.-G.. Comment on zz-prime mixing in extended gauge theories. Phys. Lett. B, 1991, 267 : 509
376	Kors B.Nath P., A Stueckelberg extension of the standard model, Phys. Lett. B 586, 366 (2004), arXiv: hep-ph/0402047
377	Cheung K.Yuan T.-C., Hidden fermion as milli-charged dark matter in Stueckelberg Z-prime model, JHEP 03, 120 (2007), arXiv: hep-ph/0701107
378	Feldman D.Liu Z.Nath P., Stueckelberg Z' extension with kinetic mixing and millicharged dark matter from the hidden sector, Phys. Rev. D 75, 115001 (2007), arXiv: hep-ph/0702123
379	Jaeckel J.Ringwald A., The low-energy frontier of particle physics, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60, 405 (2010), arXiv: 1002.0329[hep-ph]
380	Liu Z.Zhang Y., Probing millicharge at BESIII via monophoton searches, Phys. Rev. D 99, 015004 (2019), arXiv: 1808.00983 [hep-ph]
381	Liang J.Liu Z.Ma Y.Zhang Y., Millicharged particles at electron colliders, Phys. Rev. D 102, 015002 (2020), arXiv: 1909.06847 [hep-ph]
382	Davidson S., Campbell B., C. Bailey D.. Limits on particles of small electric charge. Phys. Rev. D, 1991, 43 : 2314 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.43.2314
383	A. Prinz A., et al.., Search for millicharged particles at SLAC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1175 (1998), arXiv: hep-ex/9804008
384	Magill G.Plestid R.Pospelov M.Tsai Y.-D., Millicharged particles in neutrino experiments, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 071801 (2019), arXiv: 1806.03310[hep-ph]
385	D. Bowman J.E. E. Rogers A.A. Monsalve R.J. Mozdzen T.Mahesh N., An absorption profile centred at 78 megahertz in the sky-averaged spectrum, Nature 555, 67 (2018), arXiv: 1810.05912 [astro-ph.CO]
386	B. Muñoz J.Loeb A., A small amount of mini-charged dark matter could cool the baryons in the early universe, Nature 557, 684 (2018), arXiv: 1802.10094 [astro-ph.CO]
387	Berlin A.Hooper D.Krnjaic G.D. McDermott S., Severely constraining dark matter interpretations of the 21-cm anomaly, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 011102 (2018), arXiv: 1803.02804 [hep-ph]
388	Barkana R.J. Outmezguine N.Redigolo D. Volansky T., Strong constraints on light dark matter interpretation of the EDGES signal, Phys. Rev. D 98, 103005 (2018), arXiv: 1803.03091 [hep-ph]
389	H.Brück Circular particle accelerators, PUF, Paris (1966).
390	(2022)
391	Battaglia M.Da Via C.Bortoletto D.Brenner R.Campbell M. Collins P.Dalla Betta G.Demarteau M.Denes P.Graafsma H., et al.., R&d paths of pixel detectors for vertex tracking and radiation imaging, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 716, 29 (2013)
392	Contin G., Anderssen E., Greiner L., Schambach J., Silber J., Stezelberger T., Sun X., Szelezniak M., Vu C., Wieman H.. et al.. The maps based PXL vertex detector for the star experiment. J. Instrum., 2015, 10 : C03026
393	Lacasta C., in: Proceedings of the 22nd International Workshop on Vertex Detectors (Vertex2013), 15−20 September (2013), page 5
394	e. a. Abe T., Belle II technical design report, (2010)
395	Balla A.Bencivenni G.Cerioni S.Ciambrone P.De Lucia E. Domenici D.Dong J.Felici G.Gatta M.Jacewicz M., et al.., in: 2011 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (IEEE, 2011) pp 1002–1005
396	Bencivenni G., Branchini P., Ciambrone P., Czerwinski E., De Lucia E., Di Cicco A., Domenici D., Felici G., Kang X., Morello G.. The cylindrical-gem inner tracker detector of the kloe-2 experiment. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A, 2020, 958 : 162366
397	Amoroso A., Baldini R., Bertani M., Bettoni D., Bianchi F., Calcaterra A., Carassiti V., Cerioni S., Chai J., Cibinetto G.. et al.. A cylindrical gem detector with analog readout for the be- siii experiment. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A, 2016, 824 : 515
398	P. Lener M., Bencivenni G., de Olivera R., Felici G., Franchino S., Gatta M., Maggi M., Morello G., Sharma A.. The μ-RWELL: A compact, spark protected, single amplification-stage mpgd. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A, 2016, 824 : 565
399	Bencivenni G., De Oliveira R., Felici G., Gatta M., Morello G., Ochi A., P. Lener M., Tskhadadze E.. Performance of μ-RWELL detector vs resistivity of the resistive stage. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A, 2018, 886 : 36
400	Bencivenni G., Benussi L., Borgonovi L., De Oliveira R., De Simone P., Felici G., Gatta M., Giacomelli P., Morello G., Ochi A.. et al.. The μ-RWELL detector. J. Instrum., 2017, 12 : C06027
401	Bachmann S., Bressan A., Ropelewski L., Sauli F., Sharma A., Mörmann D.. Charge amplification and transfer processes in the gas electron multiplier. Nucl. Instru. Meth. Phys. Res. A, 1999, 438 : 376
402	Agostinelli S., Allison J., A. Amako K., Apostolakis J., Araujo H., Arce P., Asai M., Axen D., Banerjee S., Barrand G.. et al.. GEANT4 — a simulation toolkit. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A, 2003, 506 : 250
403	Bencivenni G.Felici G.Gatta M. Giovannetti M.Morello G.P. Lener M. de Oliveira R.Ochi A.Tskhadadze E., in: Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 1498 (IOP Publishing, 2020), page 012003
404	Wang H., Wang Y., Yao Y.-Z., Hu J., Yang J., Hao W., Luo Y.-Q.. Aramid paper’s structure and performance and their effect on the mechanical properties of aramid paper honey-comb. J. Funct. Mater., 2013, 44 : 2184
405	Arezoo S., Tagarielli V., Siviour C., Petrinic N.. Compressive deformation of rohacell foams: Effects of strain rate and temperature. Inter. J. Impact Eng., 2013, 51 : 50
406	Contin G., Anderssen E., Greiner L., Schambach J., Silber J., Stezelberger T., Sun X., Szelezniak M., Vu C., Wieman H.. et al.. The maps based pxl vertex detector for the star experiment. J. Instrum., 2015, 10 : C03026
407	Valin I., Hu-Guo C., Baudot J., Bertolone G., Besson A., Colledani C., Claus G., Dorokhov A., Doziere G., Dulinski W.. et al.. A reticle size cmos pixel sensor dedicated to the star hft. J. Instrum., 2012, 7 : C01102
408	Abelev B., Adam J., Adamová D., Aggarwal M., A. Rinella G., Agnello M., Agostinelli A., Agrawal N., Ahammed Z., Ahmad N.. et al.. Technical design report for the upgrade of the alice inner tracking system. J. Phys. G, 2014, 41 : 087002
409	A. Rinella G.. et al.. The alpide pixel sensor chip for the upgrade of the alice inner tracking system. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A, 2017, 845 : 583
410	Chen L., et al.., Characterization of the prototype cmos pixel sensor Jadepix-1 for the CEPC vertex detector, (2019)
411	S. Group C., et al.., CEPC conceptual design report: Volume 2 − physics & detector, arXiv: 1811.10545 (2018)
412	Arndt K., Augustin H., Baesso P., Berger N., Berg F., Betancourt C., Bortoletto D., Bravar A., Briggl K., vom Bruch D.. et al.. Technical design of the phase I MU3E experiment. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A, 2021, 1014 : 165679
413	Prathapan M.Schimassek R.Benoit M.Casanova R.Ehrler F. Meneses A.Pangaud P.Sultan D.Vilella E.L. Weber A., et al.., in: Proceedings of Topical Workshop on Electronics for Particle Physics-PoS (TWEPP2019) (Sissa Medialab, 2020)
414	Spannagel S.. Silicon technologies for the clic vertex detector. J. Instrum., 2017, 12 : C06006
415	Schöning A.Anders J.Augustin H. Benoit M.Berger N.Dittmeier S.Ehrler F.Fehr A. Golling T.G. Sevilla S., et al.., Mupix and atlaspix-architectures and results, arXiv: 2002.07253 (2020)
416	Snoeys W.. et al.. A process modification for CMOS monolithic active pixel sensors for enhanced depletion, timing performance and radiation tolerance. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 2017, 871 : 90
417	Gustavino G., et al.., in: 23rd International Workshop on Radiation Imaging Detectors (2022), arXiv: 2209.14676 [physics.ins-det]
418	Paladino A.. Beam background evaluation at superkekb and Belle II. J. Instrum., 2020, 15 : C07023
419	Mager M., collaboration A.. et al.. Alpide, the monolithic active pixel sensor for the alice its upgrade. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 2016, 824 : 434
420	Titov M., in: Innovative Detectors for Supercolliders, World Scientific, 2004, pp 199–226
421	Ablikim M., An Z., Bai J., Berger N., Bian J., Cai X., Cao G., Cao X., Chang J., Chen C.. et al.. Design and construction of the besiii detector. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 2010, 614 : 345
422	Abe T.Adachi I.Adamczyk K.Ahn S.Aihara H. Akai K.Aloi M.Andricek L.Aoki K.Arai Y., et al.., Belle II technical design report, arXiv: 1011.0352 (2010)
423	Adhikari S., Akondi C., Al Ghoul H., Ali A., Amaryan M., Anassontzis E., Austregesilo A., Barbosa F., Barlow J., Barnes A.. et al.. The gluex beamline and detector. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 2021, 987 : 164807
424	Baldini A., Baracchini E., Bemporad C., Berg F., Biasotti M., Boca G., Cattaneo P., Cavoto G., Cei F., Chiappini M.. et al.. The design of the meg ii experiment. Eur. Phys. J. C, 2018, 78 : 1
425	Tassielli G.Collaboration I., et al.., in: 40th International Conference on High Energy physics (2021), p. 877
426	B. Smirnov I.. Modeling of ionization produced by fast charged particles in gases. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 2005, 554 : 474
427	Cao X.-X., Li W.-D., Liu C.-L., Mao Z.-P., Chen S.-J., Deng Z.-Y., He K.-L., Huang X.-T., Huang B., Huang Y.-P.. et al.. Studies of dE/dx measurements with the besiii. Chin. Phys. C, 2010, 34 : 1852
428	Bachmann S., Bressan A., Ropelewski L., Sauli F., Sharma A., Mörmann D.. Charge ampli fication and transfer processes in the gas electron multiplier. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 1999, 438 : 376
429	Tessarotto F.. et al.. Long term experience and performance of COMPASS RICH-1. JINST, 2014, 9 : https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/9/09/C09011
430	Di Mauro A.. et al.. Performance of large area CsI RICH prototypes for ALICE at LHC. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 1999, 433 : 190
431	Boutigny D.Goy C.Karyotakis Y.Lees J.L. Rosier S.Palano A.Chen G.Wang Y. Wen O.Lan Y., et al.., Babar technical design report, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford, CA94309 (1995)
432	Singh B., Erni W., Krusche B., Steinacher M., Walford N., Liu B., Liu H., Liu Z., Shen X., Wang C.. et al.. Technical design report for the barrel dirc detector. J. Phys. G, 2019, 46 : 045001
433	Kalicy G., Allison L., Cao T., Dzhygadlo R., Hartlove T., Horn T., Hyde C., Ilieva Y., Nadel-Turonski P., Park K.. et al.. High-performance dirc detector for the future electron ion collider experiment. J. Instrum., 2018, 13 : C04018
434	J. Charles M.Forty (LHCb) R., TORCH: Time of flight identification with Cherenkov radiation, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 639, 173 (2011), arXiv: 1009.3793 [physics.ins-det]
435	Wu B., Wang Y., Cao Q., Li Z., Li X., Zhou X., Hu Y., Wang Z., Shao M., Liu J.. et al.. Design of time-to-digital converters for time-over-threshold measurement in picosecond timing detectors. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., 2021, 68 : 470
436	Hu Y., Wang Y., Kuang J., Wu B.. A clock distribution and synchronization scheme over optical links for large-scale physics experiments. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., 2021, 68 : 1351
437	Ablikim M., An Z., Bai J., Berger N., Bian J., Cai X., Cao G., Cao X., Chang J., Chen C.. et al.. Design and construction of the besiii detector. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A, 2010, 614 : 345
438	Miyabayashi K.. Belle electromagnetic calorimeter. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A, 2002, 494 : 298
439	Yamamoto A., Kichimi H., Kimura N., Inoue H., Yamaoka H., Haruyama T., Mito T., Araoka O., Tadano M., Suzuki S.. et al.. Performance of the topaz thin superconducting solenoid wound with internal winding method. Japan. J. Appl. Phys., 1986, 25 : L440
440	M. Sirunyan A.(CMS) ., et al.., Reconstruction of signal amplitudes in the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter in the presence of overlapping proton−proton interactions, JINST 15, P10002 (2020), arXiv: 2006.14359 [physics.ins-det]
441	S. Huang G., The 15th International Workshop on Tau Lepton Physics, talk on “The Super Tau Charm Factory Plan in China” (2018)
442	B. Liu J., Joint Workshop on Future Tau-Charm Factories, talk on “Detector Concepts for the Super Tau-Charm Facility in China” (2018)
443	Abe T.Adachi I.Adamczyk K.Ahn S.Aihara H. Akai K.Aloi M.Andricek L.Aoki K.Arai Y., et al.., Belle II technical design report, arXiv: 1011.0352 (2010)
444	Abe K.Hoshi Y.Nagamine T.Neichi K.Onodera K. Takahashi T.Yamaguchi A.Yuta H., in: 2002 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, Vol. 1 (IEEE, 2002), pp 171–175
445	Hoshi Y., Kikuchi N., Nagamine T., Neichi K., Yamaguchi A.. Performance of the endcap RPC in the Belle detector under high luminosity operation of the KEKB accelerator. Nucl. Phys. B, 2006, 158 : 190
446	Kanazawa K., Ohnishi Y., Nakayama Y., Kiesling C., Koblitz S.. et al.. Beam background simulation for superKEKB/Belle-II. Proceed. IPAC, 2011, 1109094 : 3700
447	Gouzevitch M.Lagarde F.Laktineh I. Buridon V.Chen X.Combaret C.Eynard A.Germani L. Grenier G.Mathez H., et al.., High rate, fast timing glass rpc for the high ηcms muon detectors, arXiv: 1606.00993 (2016)
448	Collaboration A., et al.., Atlas muon spectrometer: Technical design report (1997)
449	Aubert B., Bazan A., Boucham A., Boutigny D., De Bonis I., Favier J., Gaillard J.-M., Jeremie A., Karyotakis Y., Le Flour T.. et al.. The babar detector. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A, 2002, 479 : 1
450	Belle-BaBar Workshop, talk on “RPC and Muon Detection at BELLE” (2002)
451	Ackermann K., Adams N., Adler C., Ahammed Z., Ahmad S., Allgower C., Amonett J., Amsbaugh J., Anderson B., Anderson M.. et al.. Star detector overview. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A, 2003, 499 : 624
452	Xie Y.. et al.. Performance study of rpc prototypes for the BESIII muon detector. Chin. Phys. C, 2007, 31 :
453	An F., Bai J., Balantekin A., Band H., Beavis D., Beriguete W., Bishai M., Blyth S., Brown R., Butorov I.. et al.. The detector system of the daya bay reactor neutrino experiment. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A, 2016, 811 : 133
454	Aushev T., Besson D., Chilikin K., Chistov R., Danilov M., Katrenko P., Mizuk R., Pakhlova G., Pakhlov P., Rusinov V.. et al.. A scintillator based endcap KL and muon detector for the Belle II experiment. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A, 2015, 789 : 134
455	Agostinelli S., Allison J., a. Amako K., Apostolakis J., Araujo H., Arce P., Asai M., Axen D., Banerjee S., Barrand G.. et al.. GEANT4 — a simulation toolkit. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A, 2003, 506 : 250
456	Fang Z., Liu Y., Shi H., Liu J., Shao M.. A hybrid muon detector design with rpc and plastic scintillator for the experiment at the super tau-charm facility. J. Instrum., 2021, 16 : P09022
457	M. Hamada M., R. Rela P., E. da Costa F., H. de Mesquita C.. Radiation damage studies on the optical and mechanical properties of plastic scintillators. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A, 1999, 422 : 148
458	Vasil’Chenko V., Lapshin V., Peresypkin A., Konstantinchenko A., Pyshchev A., Shershukov V., Semenov B., Solov’ev A.. New results on radiation damage studies of plastic scintillators. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 1996, 369 : 55
459	Yamamoto A., Mito T., Kimura N., Haruyama T., Yamaoka H., Araoka O., Tadano M., Suzuki S., Kondo Y., Kawai M.. et al.. Quench characteristics and operational stability of the topaz thin superconducting solenoid. Japan. J. Appl. Phys., 1986, 25 : L443
460	Acquistapace G.Collaboration C., et al.., Cms, the magnet project: Technical design report, Technical Design Report CMS (1997)
461	Ma X., et al.., Determination of event start time at BESIII, Chin. Phys. C 32, 744 (2008)
462	H. Zou J., T. Huang X., D. Li W., Lin T., Li T., Zhang K., Y. Deng Z., F. Cao G.. SNiPER: An offline software framework for non-collider physics experiments. J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 2015, 664 : 072053 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/664/7/072053
463	Li T.Xia X. Huang X.Zou J.Li W.lin T.Zhang K. Deng Z., Design and Development of JUNO Event Data Model, Chin. Phys. C 41, 066201 (2017), arXiv: 1702.04100
464	Gaede F., Hegner B., A. Stewart G.. PODIO: recent developments in the Plain Old Data EDM toolkit. EPJ Web Conf., 2020, 245 : 05024 https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/202024505024
465	Li H., Huang W., Liu D., Song Y., Shao M., Huang X.. Detector geometry management system designed for super tau charm facility offline software. J. Instrum., 2021, 16 : T04004 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/16/04/T04004
466	Frank M., Gaede F., Grefe C., Mato P.. DD4hep: A detector description toolkit for high energy physics experiments. J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 2014, 513 : 022010 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/513/2/022010
467	Extensible Markup Language (XML) web page, URL: www.w3.org/XML/ (2022)
468	Agostinelli S.. et al.. GEANT4 – a simulation toolkit. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 2003, 506 : 250
469	Li H., H. Huang W., Liu D., Song Y., Shao M., T. Huang X.. Detector geometry management system designed for Super Tau Charm Facility offline software. JINST, 2021, 16 : T04004 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/16/04/T04004
470	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Measurement of azimuthal asymmetries in inclusive charged dip- ion production in e+e− annihilations at s = 3.65 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 042001 (2016), arXiv: 1507.06824 [hep-ex]
471	L. Wang B., R. Lü X., H. Zheng Y.. Collins effect at super tau-charm facility. J. Univ. Chin. Acad. Sci., 2021, 38 : 433 https://doi.org/10.7523/j.issn.2095-6134.2021.04.001
472	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Observation of the leptonic decay D+ → τ+ντ, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 211802 (2019), arXiv: 1908.08877 [hep-ex]
473	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Determination of the pseudoscalar decay constant f Ds+ via Ds+ → µ+νµ, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 071802 (2019), arXiv: 1811.10890 [hep-ex]
474	Cheng H.-Y.Lyu X.-R.Xing Z.-Z., in: 2022 Snowmass Summer Study (2022), arXiv: 2203.03211 [hep-ph]
475	Ablikim M.(BESIII) ., et al.., Precision measurement of the mass of the τ lepton, Phys. Rev. D 90, 012001 (2014), arXiv: 1405.1076 [hep-ex]
476	Airapetian A.(HERMES) ., et al.., Single-spin asymmetries in semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scattering on a transversely polarized hydrogen target, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 012002 (2005), arXiv: hep-ex/0408013
477	Airapetian A.(HERMES) ., et al.., Effects of transversity in deep-inelastic scattering by polarized protons, Phys. Lett. B 693, 11 (2010), arXiv: 1006.4221[hep-ex]
478	Adolph C.(COMPASS) ., et al.., Experimental investigation of transverse spin asymmetries in muon-p SIDIS processes: Collins asymmetries, Phys. Lett. B 717, 376 (2012), arXiv: 1205.5121 [hep-ex]
479	Qian X.(Jefferson Lab Hall A) ., et al.., Single spin asymmetries in charged pion production from semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering on a transversely polarized 3He target, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 072003 (2011), arXiv: 1106.0363 [nucl-ex]
480	Abe K.(Belle) ., et al.., Measurement of azimuthal asymmetries in inclusive production of hadron pairs in e+e− annihilation at Belle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 232002 (2006), arXiv: hep-ex/0507063
481	Seidl R.(Belle) ., et al.., Measurement of azimuthal asymmetries in inclusive production of hadron pairs in e+e− annihilation at s = 10.58-GeV, Phys. Rev. D 78, 032011 (2008) [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 86, 039905 (2012)], arXiv: 0805.2975 [hep-ex]
482	P. Lees J.(BaBar) ., et al.., Measurement of Collins asymmetries in inclusive production of charged pion pairs in e+e− annihilation at BABAR, Phys. Rev. D 90, 052003 (2014), arXiv: 1309.5278 [hep-ex]
483	L. Wang B., Lyu X.-R., H. Zheng Y.. Collins effect at super tau-charm facility. J. Univ. Chin. Acad. Sci., 2021, 38 : 433 https://doi.org/10.7523/j.issn.2095-6134.2021.04.001
484	I. Bigi I.I. Sanda A., A “known” CP asymmetry in tau decays, Phys. Lett. B 625, 47 (2005), arXiv: hep-ph/0506037
485	Grossman Y.Nir Y., CP violation in τ±→ π±KSν and D±→ π±KS: The importance of KS−KL interference, JHEP 04, 002 (2012), arXiv: 1110.3790 [hep-ph]
486	P. Lees J.(BaBar) ., et al.., Search for CP violation in the decay τ− → π− KS0 (≥ Oπ0)ντ, Phys. Rev. D 85, 031102 (2012) [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 85, 099904 (2012)], arXiv: 1109.1527 [hep-ex]
487	Bonvicini G.(CLEO) ., et al.., Search for CP violation in τ → Kπντ decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 111803 (2002), arXiv: hep-ex/0111095
488	Bischofberger M.(Belle) ., et al.., Search for CP violation in τ → KS0πντ decays at Belle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 131801 (2011), arXiv: 1101.0349 [hep-ex]
489	H. Kuhn J.Mirkes E., Structure functions in tau decays, Z. Phys. C 56, 661 (1992) [Erratum: Z. Phys. C 67, 364 (1995)]
490	Jadach S.F. L. Ward B.Was Z., The precision Monte Carlo event generator KK for two fermion final states in e+e− collisions, Comput. Phys. Commun. 130, 260 (2000), arXiv: hep-ph/9912214
491	F. Donoghue J., He X.-G., Pakvasa S.. Hyperon decays and CP nonconservation. Phys. Rev. D, 1986, 34 : 833 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.34.833
492	Salone N.Adlarson P.Batozskaya V.Kupsc A.Leupold S. Tandean J., Study of CP violation in hyperon decays at super-charm-τ factories with a polarized electron beam, Phys. Rev. D 105, 116022 (2022), arXiv: 2203.03035 [hep-ph]
493	Cronin-Hennessy D.(CLEO) ., et al.., Measurement of Charm Production Cross Sections in e+e− Annihilation at Energies between 3.97 and 4.26-GeV, Phys. Rev. D 80, 072001 (2009), arXiv: 0801.3418 [hep-ex]
494	S. Babu K.Kolda C., Higgs mediated τ → 3μ in the supersymmetric seesaw model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 241802 (2002), arXiv: hep-ph/0206310
495	R. Ellis J.Hisano J.Raidal M.Shimizu Y., A New parametrization of the seesaw mechanism and applications in supersymmetric models, Phys. Rev. D 66, 115013 (2002), arXiv: hep-ph/0206110
496	Borzumati F., Masiero A.. Large muon and electron number violations in supergravity the-ories. Phys. Rev. Lett., 1986, 57 : 961 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.57.961
497	Ma E., Neutrino, lepton, and quark masses in supersymmetry, Phys. Rev. D 64, 097302 (2001), arXiv: hep-ph/0107177
498	Yue C.-X.Zhang Y.-M.Liu L.-J., Nonuniversal gauge bosons Z-prime and lepton flavor violation tau decays, Phys. Lett. B 547, 252 (2002), arXiv: hep-ph/0209291
499	E. Kim J., Ko P., Lee D.-G.. More on r-parity- and lepton-family-number-violating couplings from muon(ium) conversion, and τ and π0 decays. Phys. Rev. D, 1997, 56 : 100 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.56.100
500	Aubert B.(BaBar) ., et al.., Searches for lepton flavor violation in the decays τ± → e±γ and τ± → μ±γ, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 021802 (2010), arXiv: 0908.2381 [hep-ex]
501	Hayasaka K.(Belle) ., et al.., New search for τ → μγ and τ → eγ decays at Belle, Phys. Lett. B 666, 16 (2008), arXiv: 0705.0650 [hep-ex]
502	Balossini G.M. Carloni Calame C.Montagna G. Nicrosini O.Piccinini F., Matching perturbative and parton shower corrections to Bhabha process at flavour factories, Nucl. Phys. B 758, 227 (2006), arXiv: hep-ph/0607181
503	Balossini G.Bignamini C.M. C. Calame C.Montagna G.Nicrosini O.Piccinini F., Photon pair production at flavour factories with per mille accuracy, Phys. Lett. B 663, 209 (2008), arXiv: 0801.3360 [hep-ph]
504	Rodrigo G.Czyz H.H. Kuhn J.Szopa M., Radiative return at NLO and the measurement of the hadronic cross-section in electron positron annihilation, Eur. Phys. J. C 24, 71 (2002), arXiv: hep-ph/0112184
505	Actis S.(Working Group on Radiative Corrections .Carlo generators for low energies) Monte, et al.., Quest for precision in hadronic cross sections at low energy: Monte Carlo tools vs. experimental data, Eur. Phys. J. C 66, 585 (2010), arXiv: 0912.0749 [hep-ph]
506	Sturm C., Leptonic contributions to the effective electromagnetic coupling at four-loop order in QED, Nucl. Phys. B 874, 698 (2013), arXiv: 1305.0581 [hep-ph]
507	Jegerlehner F., The Running fine structure constant alpha(E) via the Adler function, Nucl. Phys. B Suppl. 181–182, 135 (2008), arXiv: 0807.4206 [hep-ph]

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed