Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 20 references

High-statistics simulations pin the WFI's fluorescence background to specific minor parts, chiefly bolts and a light-trap component.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 00:35 UTC pith:GMK2E3QX

load-bearing objection Useful, honest progress report from a mature simulation pipeline; the bolt/light-trap attributions and General Neutron Process warning are genuinely interesting, but the key tradeoff claim lacks the error bars to back up the word 'significantly'. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26163 v1 pith:GMK2E3QX submitted 2026-07-28 astro-ph.IM

High-statistics simulations of NewAthena WFI background using Geant4

Matthew K. Heine , Catherine E. Grant , Marshall W. Bautz , Beverly J. LaMarr , Eric D. Miller , Michael W. J. Hubbard , David Hall , Joan Requena
show 9 more authors
Emanuele Perinati Steven W. Allen Artem Poliszczuk Dan Wilkins Fabio Gastaldello Silvano Molendi Ralph P. Kraft Gerrit Schellenberger Arnab Sarkar
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords NewAthena WFIX-ray detector backgroundGeant4 simulationfluorescence linesmass modelhigh performance computingcosmic-ray backgroundinstrument design
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper argues that billion-particle Geant4 simulations of the NewAthena WFI, run on a large CPU cluster, can identify exactly which instrument components create the X-ray fluorescence lines in the detector background. Tracking the creation sites of in-band X-rays shows that the chromium and iron background lines come almost entirely from bolts, and that a gold fluorescence line comes from a single light-trap component. Removing that component in simulation removes the gold line but increases the nickel line, because the component had been partially shielding nickel X-rays. The authors also show that the simplified shell model is a fast, effective tool for isolating simulation artifacts, such as the Geant4 'General Neutron Process' that inflated background in versions before 11.4. If these attributions hold for the real instrument, targeted material and design choices can reduce the background that limits observations of faint diffuse X-ray sources.

Core claim

Using two complementary mass models—a simplified spherical shell model and a detailed CAD-derived model with about 1,500 components—the authors trace each fluorescence peak in the simulated WFI background to its spatial origin. For the galactic cosmic-ray proton background, the chromium and iron peaks are produced almost exclusively by fasteners (bolts), while the strong gold peak comes from a single component inside the light trap. When that light-trap component is removed from the simulation, the gold line disappears but the nickel line increases, showing that the component had been shielding nickel fluorescence from the detector. In a separate investigation, the shell model allowed the au

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a pair of Geant4 mass models—a detailed CAD-derived geometry with about 1,500 components and a fast spherical shell model—plus a source-tagging post-processing step that records where each X-ray that enters a detector pixel was created. A spatial tally then assigns each fluorescence peak in the background spectrum to individual components such as bolts or the light trap. HPC parallelization over roughly one billion independent primary particles provides the statistics needed to resolve tiny fluorescence peaks.

Load-bearing premise

The simulation's simplified geometry of the instrument—bolts modeled as plain cylinders and some parts left out—still matches the real near-detector material layout closely enough that the fluorescence lines it blames on bolts and the light trap are the ones the flight instrument will actually produce.

What would settle it

Take a flight-like WFI prototype, measure its chromium and iron fluorescence peaks, then replace the fasteners with a non-chromium, non-iron alloy and re-measure: if those peaks do not drop by the simulated amount, the bolt attribution is wrong. Alternatively, in simulation, changing only the bolt material should remove the chromium and iron peaks; if other components then dominate those lines, the mass-model attribution is incomplete.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Fluorescence background lines can be quantitatively attributed to specific instrument components, including minor parts such as bolts, not just materials.
  • Design changes to the light trap trade one background line for another: removing the gold-producing component eliminates the gold peak but raises the nickel peak.
  • Fastener material choice becomes a potential background-reduction lever, since the bolts dominate the chromium and iron lines.
  • The Geant4 General Neutron Process should be disabled in space-applications simulations running versions before 11.4.
  • The pipeline transfers to other X-ray missions by substituting the appropriate mass model and input particle spectra.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same source-attribution method could be applied to other background components, such as cosmic X-ray background-induced lines, effectively turning background simulations into a debugging tool for instrument design.
  • The shielding/nickel tradeoff suggests that a component which reduces one background line can expose another, so instrument optimization should use a full-spectrum view rather than single-line fixes.
  • The General Neutron Process finding implies that all space-mission simulation pipelines should re-verify results after every Geant4 upgrade, using a fast shell model before committing to expensive detailed runs.
  • If the bolt attribution holds, hardware-level experiments with alternative fastener alloys could validate the simulation and provide a practical, low-cost background mitigation for the flight instrument.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports ongoing Geant4 simulations of the NewAthena Wide Field Imager (WFI) particle background. The authors describe a two-pronged simulation strategy: a detailed, ~1500-component mass model for high-statistics studies and a simplified spherical shell model for rapid iteration, both deployed on the MIT SuperCloud HPC system with multi-threaded Geant4 and map-reduce style post-processing. Example results show the simulated background spectrum decomposed by primary particle type, locate X-ray 'hot spots' near the detector, attribute fluorescence peaks to instrument components (notably Cr and Fe lines from bolts, Au from a light-trap component), and illustrate a design tradeoff in which removing a gold light-trap component eliminates the Au line while apparently increasing the Ni line. The paper also reports that a Geant4 upgrade increased simulated background and attributes this to the General Neutron Process.

Significance. If the quantitative claims were supported, the paper would be useful to the NewAthena WFI background community and to future X-ray instrument design. Its strengths are: direct Monte Carlo tallies rather than fitted models; transparent two-level mass-model methodology; detailed HPC workflow (384-1152 cores, threading, SLURM) that makes high-statistics runs tractable; and a clear decomposition of spectral contributions by component. I see no circularity: the results are forward simulations from geometry and physics lists, and reuse of prior post-processing and spectral inputs is normal method continuity. However, the absence of statistical uncertainties on line-flux comparisons, and the lack of quantified support for the General Neutron Process attribution, mean that the central demonstration is not yet complete.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3, Fig. 6 and accompanying text] The tradeoff example - that removing the gold light-trap component 'significantly increases the nickel fluorescence peak' - is not statistically supported. The teal spectrum was simulated with far fewer primaries than the reference, and no error bars, confidence intervals, or line-count significances are given. The apparent Ni increase could be a Poisson fluctuation. Please provide a quantitative comparison (e.g., counts in the Ni line with Poisson uncertainties, or a significance estimate) or soften the claim to a qualitative observation. This is load-bearing because the paper's capability claim for evaluating design tradeoffs rests on this example.
  2. [Sec. 3, Fig. 5] The attribution that 'both the Chromium and Iron background peaks ... are caused virtually exclusively by minor components, namely the bolts' is a direct tally, but no counting statistics or systematic errors are reported. Given that the peaks are a small fraction of the in-band counts (Fig. 2), finite simulation statistics could affect the component ranking. Please report the number of tagged X-ray events per component with Poisson uncertainties, at least for the dominant lines, so that the 'virtually exclusively' claim has a quantitative basis.
  3. [Sec. 3, General Neutron Process] The paper states that the increase in simulated background from Geant4 10.6.3 to 11.2.2 was 'ultimately ... determined that the new General Neutron Process was the cause' and recommends disabling it. However, no shell-model comparison spectra, rates, or other quantitative evidence are shown in this manuscript; Refs. [19] and [20] are release notes and a course page, not a quantitative analysis. Please show the supporting simulation data (or cite a citable analysis) before making this recommendation, or clearly frame it as a preliminary finding.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 5 caption] Typo: 'detailed detailed mass model' should read 'detailed mass model'.
  2. [Sec. 3, text near Fig. 6] The text says 'Fig. 5 demonstrates that ... the gold line is eliminated' and 'Fig. 5 also reveals ...', but the component-removal spectra appear to be in Fig. 6, not Fig. 5. Please correct the figure cross-references.
  3. [Acknowledgments] Typo: 'by the the NASA' should read 'by the NASA'.
  4. [Sec. 2 and Fig. 1 caption] The paper acknowledges that the detailed mass model is an intermediate working model with simplified fasteners and incomplete component inclusion. This caveat should be restated in the Summary/Conclusions so that design recommendations are not overgeneralized to the flight instrument.
  5. [Sec. 3, General Neutron Process] Reference [20] is a course event page rather than a peer-reviewed or archival source. If the General Neutron Process attribution is retained, please replace or supplement this citation with a published analysis or the team's own quantitative comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: results are direct Geant4 tallies from an explicitly constructed mass model, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a Monte Carlo simulation: a mass model derived from instrument CAD is combined with Geant4 physics (QBBC_EMZ, fluorescence/PIXE enabled) and primary particle distributions from Ref. [16], then detector interactions are tallied to attribute fluorescence peaks to components (Figs. 3-5) and to compare spectra with and without a component (Fig. 6). None of the central results are defined in terms of the quantity they purport to predict: the bolt attribution is an accumulated origin tally, and the component-removal spectrum is an independent simulation. References [7] and [16] supply post-processing and input spectra/methodology; they are method citations, and the paper does not invoke any self-citation as a load-bearing uniqueness or correctness argument. The acknowledged simplifications of the mass model (bolts as solid cylinders, not all components in all models) and the lower-statistics teal spectrum in Fig. 6 bear on model fidelity and statistical significance, not on circularity: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no equation reduces to an input. The skeptical concern about missing error bars on the Ni-peak increase is a correctness/quantification issue outside the circularity definition. Score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or physical entities are introduced. The central claims rest on the fidelity of the simulation pipeline: mass model geometry, Geant4 physics lists, input particle spectra from prior work, and post-processing assumptions.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Geant4 11.4.0 QBBC_EMZ physics list with fluorescence, Auger, PIXE, and atomic de-excitation accurately describes the relevant particle interactions and X-ray production.
    Invoked in Section 2; no validation against measured spectra is presented.
  • domain assumption The detailed mass model, with simplifications such as bolts-as-cylinders and omitted components, is faithful enough for component-level background source attribution.
    Section 2 describes the CAD-derived model and its simplifications; inaccuracy would change the conclusions about bolts and the light trap.
  • domain assumption Primary particle spectra and isotropic source distributions from Ref. [16] represent the L1 environment for GCR protons, alphas, electrons, and CXB.
    Section 2 says primaries are drawn from distributions 'as described in Ref. 16'; no sensitivity analysis is given.
  • domain assumption Post-processing in Ref. [7] correctly converts detector energy deposits into candidate X-ray events.
    Section 2 relies on this to produce the background spectra; the validity of event selection and charge conversion is not demonstrated here.
  • domain assumption The General Neutron Process in Geant4 11.2-11.3 produces erroneous extra background and can be disabled without losing relevant physics.
    Section 3 rests on Refs [19] and [20] (release notes and a course event page) rather than on a quantitative comparison shown in this paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10173 in / 12959 out tokens · 128643 ms · 2026-08-01T00:35:43.249606+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The observation of hot gas structures is one science goal of the Wide Field Imager (WFI) on ESA's NewAthena X-ray observatory. Because the measurement of these faint diffuse sources is limited by background from cosmic ray particle interactions within the instrument, understanding and reducing this background is critical. To this end, we employ a two-pronged approach, performing high-fidelity Geant4 simulations on both detailed, realistic geometry models as well as complementary simple geometry models. The former can reveal subtle sensitivities of background to details of the instrument design. The latter allows for fast iteration, useful in guiding and understanding the larger simulations. We show how we leverage High Performance Computing (HPC) resources to achieve simultaneously high throughput and fast time to result. We discuss our recent results, which are applicable not only to WFI, but also other X-ray missions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26163 by Arnab Sarkar, Artem Poliszczuk, Beverly J. LaMarr, Catherine E. Grant, Dan Wilkins, David Hall, Emanuele Perinati, Eric D. Miller, Fabio Gastaldello, Gerrit Schellenberger, Joan Requena, Marshall W. Bautz, Matthew K. Heine, Michael W. J. Hubbard, Ralph P. Kraft, Silvano Molendi, Steven W. Allen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A cutaway view of the detailed mass model. A few features are highlighted: the DEPFETs are shown in green, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Example instrument background spectra produced by GCR protons, GCR alpha particles, GCR electrons, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Origin of X-rays which enter the detector. Mass model is shown semi-transparent in silver for reference. Each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Origin of X-rays which enter the detector: focus on detector region. Bolts and Light Trap physical components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sources of fluorescence peaks in simulated detector spectrum for GCR primary protons. Simulated spectrum is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example study of tradeoffs of removing a single component from the detailed mass model. The reference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The NewAthena mission concept in the context of the next decade of X-ray astronomy,

    Cruise, M., Guainazzi, M., Aird, J., Carrera, F. J., Costantini, E., Corrales, L., Dauser, T., Eckert, D., Gastaldello, F., Matsumoto, H., et al., “The NewAthena mission concept in the context of the next decade of X-ray astronomy,”Nature Astronomy9(1), 36–44 (2025)

    2025

  2. [2]

    The Hot and Energetic Universe: The Wide Field Imager (WFI) for Athena+,

    Rau, A., Meidinger, N., Nandra, K., Porro, M., Barret, D., Santangelo, A., Schmid, C., Struder, L., Tenzer, C., Wilms, J., Amoros, C., Andritschke, R., Aschauer, F., Bahr, A., Gunther, B., Furmetz, M., Ott, B., Perinati, E., Rambaud, D., Reiffers, J., Treis, J., von Kienlin, A., and Weidenspointner, G., “The Hot and Energetic Universe: The Wide Field Imag...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    The Athena X-ray Integral Field Unit (X-IFU),

    Barret, D., Lam Trong, T., den Herder, J.-W., Piro, L., Barcons, X., Huovelin, J., Kelley, R., Mas-Hesse, J. M., Mitsuda, K., Paltani, S., Rauw, G., Ro ˙Zanska, A., Wilms, J., Barbera, M., Bozzo, E., Ceballos, M. T., Charles, I., Decourchelle, A., den Hartog, R., Duval, J.-M., Fiore, F., Gatti, F., Goldwurm, A., Jackson, B., Jonker, P., Kilbourne, C., Mac...

    2016

  4. [4]

    The Wide Field Imager instrument for Athena,

    Meidinger, N., Barbera, M., Emberger, V., F¨ urmetz, M., Manhart, M., M¨ uller-Seidlitz, J., Nandra, K., Plattner, M., Rau, A., and Treberspurg, W., “The Wide Field Imager instrument for Athena,” in [Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series], Siegmund, O. H., ed.,Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) ...

    2017

  5. [5]

    Evaluation of the ATHENA/WFI instrumental background,

    von Kienlin, A., Eraerds, T., Bulbul, E., Fioretti, V., Gastaldello, F., Grant, C. E., Hall, D., Holland, A., Keelan, J., Meidinger, N., Molendi, S., Perinati, E., and Rau, A., “Evaluation of the ATHENA/WFI instrumental background,” in [Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray], den Herder, J.-W. A., Nikzad, S., and Nakazawa, K....

    2018

  6. [6]

    Reducing the Athena WFI charged particle background: results from Geant4 simulations,

    Grant, C. E., Miller, E. D., Bautz, M. W., Eraerds, T., Molendi, S., Keelan, J., Hall, D., Holland, A. D., Kraft, R., Bulbul, E., et al., “Reducing the Athena WFI charged particle background: results from Geant4 simulations,” in [Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray],11444, 672–680, SPIE (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    Mitigating the effects of particle background on the Athena Wide Field Imager,

    Miller, E. D., Grant, C. E., Bautz, M. W., Molendi, S., Kraft, R. P., Nulsen, P., Bulbul, E., Allen, S., Burrows, D. N., Eraerds, T., Fioretti, V., Gastaldello, F., Hall, D. J., Hubbard, M. W. J., Keelan, J., Meidinger, N., Perinati, E., Rau, A., and Wilkins, D. R., “Mitigating the effects of particle background on the Athena Wide Field Imager,”Journal of...

    2022

  8. [8]

    Augmenting astronomical x-ray detectors with AI for enhanced sensitivity and reduced background,

    Wilkins, D. R., Poliszczuk, A., Schneider, B., Miller, E. D., Allen, S. W., Bautz, M., Chattopadhyay, T., Falcone, A. D., Foster, R., Grant, C. E., Herrmann, S., Kraft, R., Morris, R. G., Nulsen, P., Orel, P., and Schellenberger, G., “Augmenting astronomical x-ray detectors with AI for enhanced sensitivity and reduced background,” in [Space Telescopes and...

    2024

  9. [9]

    Towards efficient machine-learning-based reduction of the cosmic- ray induced background in x-ray imaging detectors: increasing context awareness,

    Poliszczuk, A., Wilkins, D., Allen, S. W., Miller, E. D., Chattopadhyay, T., Schneider, B., Darve, J. E., Bautz, M., Falcone, A., Foster, R., Grant, C. E., Herrmann, S., Kraft, R., Morris, R. G., Nulsen, P., Orel, P., Schellenberger, G., and Stueber, H. R., “Towards efficient machine-learning-based reduction of the cosmic- ray induced background in x-ray ...

    2024

  10. [10]

    The Origin of the Unfocused XMM-Newton Background, Its Variability, and Lessons Learned for ATHENA,

    Gastaldello, F., Marelli, M., Molendi, S., Bartalucci, I., K¨ uhl, P., Grant, C. E., Ghizzardi, S., Rossetti, M., De Luca, A., and Tiengo, A., “The Origin of the Unfocused XMM-Newton Background, Its Variability, and Lessons Learned for ATHENA,”Astrophysical Journal928, 168 (Apr. 2022)

    2022

  11. [11]

    Advancing Precision Particle Background Esti- mation for Future X-Ray Missions: Correlated Variability between the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer and Chandra/XMM-Newton,

    Sarkar, A., Grant, C. E., Miller, E. D., Bautz, M., Schneider, B., Foster, R. F., Schellenberger, G., Allen, S., Kraft, R. P., Wilkins, D., Falcone, A., and Ptak, A., “Advancing Precision Particle Background Esti- mation for Future X-Ray Missions: Correlated Variability between the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer and Chandra/XMM-Newton,”Astrophysical Journal9...

    2024

  12. [12]

    Using the XMM-Newton small window mode to investigate systematic uncertainties in the particle background of X-ray charge-coupled device detectors,

    Schellenberger, G., Kraft, R., Nulsen, P., Miller, E. D., Bautz, M. W., Grant, C. E., Wilkins, D., Allen, S., Molendi, S., Burrows, D. N., Falcone, A. D., Fioretti, V., Foster, R. F., Hall, D., Hubbard, M. W. J., Perinati, E., Poliszczuk, A., Rau, A., Sarkar, A., and Schneider, B., “Using the XMM-Newton small window mode to investigate systematic uncertai...

    2025

  13. [13]

    Geant4—a simulation toolkit,

    Agostinelli, S., Allison, J., Amako, K., Apostolakis, J., Araujo, H., Arce, P., Asai, M., Axen, D., Baner- jee, S., Barrand, G., Behner, F., Bellagamba, L., Boudreau, J., Broglia, L., Brunengo, A., Burkhardt, H., Chauvie, S., Chuma, J., Chytracek, R., Cooperman, G., Cosmo, G., Degtyarenko, P., Dell’Acqua, A., De- paola, G., Dietrich, D., Enami, R., Felici...

    2003

  14. [14]

    Geant4 developments and applications,

    Allison, J., Amako, K., Apostolakis, J., Araujo, H., Dubois, P. A., Asai, M., Barrand, G., Capra, R., Chauvie, S., Chytracek, R., et al., “Geant4 developments and applications,”IEEE Transactions on nuclear science53(1), 270–278 (2006)

    2006

  15. [15]

    Recent developments in Geant4,

    Allison, J., Amako, K., Apostolakis, J., Arce, P., Asai, M., Aso, T., Bagli, E., Bagulya, A., Banerjee, S., Barrand, G., Beck, B., Bogdanov, A., Brandt, D., Brown, J., Burkhardt, H., Canal, P., Cano-Ott, D., Chauvie, S., Cho, K., Cirrone, G., Cooperman, G., Cort´ es-Giraldo, M., Cosmo, G., Cuttone, G., Depaola, G., Desorgher, L., Dong, X., Dotti, A., Elvi...

    2016

  16. [16]

    Enhanced simulations on the Athena/Wide Field Imager instrumental background,

    Eraerds, T., Antonelli, V., Davis, C., Hall, D., Hetherington, O., Holland, A., Hubbard, M., Meidinger, N., Miller, E., Molendi, S., et al., “Enhanced simulations on the Athena/Wide Field Imager instrumental background,”Journal of astronomical telescopes, instruments, and systems7(3), 034001–034001 (2021)

    2021

  17. [17]

    Interactive supercomputing on 40,000 cores for machine learning and data analysis,

    Reuther, A., Kepner, J., Byun, C., Samsi, S., Arcand, W., Bestor, D., Bergeron, B., Gadepally, V., Houle, M., Hubbell, M., Jones, M., Klein, A., Milechin, L., Mullen, J., Prout, A., Rosa, A., Yee, C., and Michaleas, P., “Interactive supercomputing on 40,000 cores for machine learning and data analysis,” in [2018 IEEE High Performance extreme Computing Con...

    2018

  18. [18]

    Slurm: Simple linux utility for resource management,

    Yoo, A. B., Jette, M. A., and Grondona, M., “Slurm: Simple linux utility for resource management,” in [Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing], Feitelson, D., Rudolph, L., and Schwiegelshohn, U., eds., 44–60, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg (2003)

    2003

  19. [19]

    Geant4 Version 11.4.0 Release Notes

    Geant4 Collaboration, “Geant4 Version 11.4.0 Release Notes.”https://geant4.web.cern.ch/download/ release-notes/notes-v11.4.0.html(2026). Accessed: 2026-06-10

    2026

  20. [20]

    Geant4 Advanced Course 2025 @ CERN (3–7 November 2025)

    Geant4 Collaboration, “Geant4 Advanced Course 2025 @ CERN (3–7 November 2025).”https://indico. cern.ch/event/1584130/(2025). Event dates: 3–7 Nov 2025; accessed 2026-06-10

    arXiv 2025