⇦Chinese Physics Letters, 2021, Vol. 38, No. 10, Article code 109902 Erratum: A Search for Solar Axions and Anomalous Neutrino Magnetic Moment with the Complete PandaX-II Data [CHIN. PHYS. LETT. 38 (2021) 011301] Xiaopeng Zhou (周小朋)2, Xinning Zeng (曾鑫宁)1, Xuyang Ning (宁旭阳)1, Abdusalam Abdukerim (阿布都沙拉木·阿布都克力木)1, Wei Chen (陈葳)1, Xun Chen (谌勋)1,3, Yunhua Chen (陈云华)4, Chen Cheng (程晨)5, Xiangyi Cui (崔祥仪)6, Yingjie Fan (樊英杰)7, Deqing Fang (方德清)8, Changbo Fu (符长波)8, Mengting Fu (付孟婷)9, Lisheng Geng (耿立升)2,10, Karl Giboni1, Linhui Gu (顾琳慧)1, Xuyuan Guo (郭绪元)4, Ke Han (韩柯)1*, Changda He (何昶达)1, Di Huang (黄迪)1, Yan Huang (黄焱)4, Yanlin Huang (黄彦霖)11, Zhou Huang (黄周)1, Xiangdong Ji (季向东)12, Yonglin Ju (巨永林)13, Shuaijie Li (李帅杰)6, Huaxuan Liu (刘华萱)13, Jianglai Liu (刘江来)1,6,3†, Xiaoying Lu (芦晓盈)14, Wenbo Ma (马文博)1, Yugang Ma (马余刚)8,15, Yajun Mao (冒亚军)9, Yue Meng (孟月)1,3, Kaixiang Ni (倪恺翔)1, Jinhua Ning (宁金华)4, Xiangxiang Ren (任祥祥)14, Changsong Shang (商长松)4, Guofang Shen (申国防)2, Lin Si (司琳)1, Andi Tan (谈安迪)12, Anqing Wang (王安庆)14, Hongwei Wang (王宏伟)15,16, Meng Wang (王萌)14, Qiuhong Wang (王秋红)15, Siguang Wang (王思广)9, Wei Wang (王为)5, Xiuli Wang (王秀丽)13, Zhou Wang (王舟)1,3, Mengmeng Wu (武蒙蒙)5, Shiyong Wu (吴世勇)4, Weihao Wu (邬维浩)1, Jingkai Xia (夏经铠)1, Mengjiao Xiao (肖梦姣)12,17, Pengwei Xie (谢鹏伟)6, Binbin Yan (燕斌斌)1, Jijun Yang (杨继军)1, Yong Yang (杨勇)1, Chunxu Yu (喻纯旭)7, Jumin Yuan (袁鞠敏)14, Ying Yuan (袁影)1, Dan Zhang (张丹)12, Tao Zhang (张涛)1, Li Zhao (赵力)1, Qibin Zheng (郑其斌)11, Jifang Zhou (周济芳)4, and Ning Zhou (周宁)1* (PandaX-II Collaboration) Affiliations 1INPAC, School of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and Shanghai Key Laboratory for Particle Physics and Cosmology, Shanghai 200240, China 2School of Physics, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China 3Shanghai Jiao Tong University Sichuan Research Institute, Chengdu 610213, China 4Yalong River Hydropower Development Company, Ltd., 288 Shuanglin Road, Chengdu 610051, China 5School of Physics, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China 6Tsung-Dao Lee Institute, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China 7School of Physics, Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, China 8Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Ion-Beam Application (MOE), Institute of Modern Physics, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China 9School of Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China 10International Research Center for Nuclei and Particles in the Cosmos & Beijing Key Laboratory of Advanced Nuclear Materials and Physics, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China 11School of Medical Instrument and Food Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai 200093, China 12Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA 13School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China 14School of Physics and Key Laboratory of Particle Physics and Particle Irradiation (MOE), Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China 15Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800, China 16Shanghai Advanced Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201210, China 17Center for High Energy Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China Received 13 September 2021; accepted 13 September 2021; published online 28 September 2021 *Corresponding authors. Email: ke.han@sjtu.edu.cn; nzhou@sjtu.edu.cn
†Spokesperson. Email: jianglai.liu@sjtu.edu.cn Citation Text: Zhou X P et al. (PandaX-II Collaboration) 2021 Chin. Phys. Lett. 38 109902    Abstract DOI:10.1088/0256-307X/38/10/109902 © 2021 Chinese Physics Society Article Text In our published letter,[1] we have identified a minor error in Figs. 2 and 3. Instead, we have 2111 events in these two plots with 646, 249, 382, and 834 events in Run 9 (20.0 ton$\cdot$day), Run 10 (19.4 ton$\cdot$day), Run 11–1 (24.2 ton$\cdot$day), and Run 11–2 (37.1 ton$\cdot$day). The mistake is due to an incorrect application of a small energy non-linearity (known as the BLS non-linearity) in making plots, but has no impact to the final results. Figures 2 and 3 are now updated in this note. The new number of events are also updated in the last row of Table 1 (two typos are also fixed). In addition, the vertical coordinates in Figs. 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) should be named as normalized events per 0.4 keV, events per keV and events per 0.4 keV, respectively.
Table 1. Summary of the best fit background values and data from the background-only likelihood fit.
Events Run 9 Run 10 Run 11–1 Run 11–2
$^{127}$Xe 77.3 3.5 0.0 0.0
Tritium 0.0 49.6 60.1 92.2
$^{85}$Kr 418.2 51.1 146.0 479.7
Flat ER 148.1 143.6 176.1 270.1
Accidental 1.5 0.8 0.8 1.2
Neutron 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.8
$^{136}$Xe 2.3 2.2 2.7 4.1
Total 648.1$ \pm 35.3$ 251.2$ \pm 22.1$ 386.1$ \pm 32.5$ 848.1$ \pm 52.7$
Data 646 249 382 834
cpl-38-10-109902-fig2.png
Fig. 2. Electron recoil energy distributions for Runs 10, 11–1, and 11–2 with background-only pre-fits. Likelihood fits are performed in two-dimensional space. The background due to $^{136}$Xe, neutron, and accidentals is not drawn in the figure.
cpl-38-10-109902-fig3.png
Fig. 3. Low energy spectrum of electron recoil events for the total 100.7 ton$\cdot$day data. Simultaneous best-fit background contributions are overlaid, where tritium background rate is treated as the same in Run 10 and Run 11. The expected axion signal with XENON1T best-fit signal strength is shown by a dashed grey line.
References A Search for Solar Axions and Anomalous Neutrino Magnetic Moment with the Complete PandaX-II Data
[1] Zhou X P et al. (PandaX-II Collaboration) 2021 Chin. Phys. Lett. 38 011301