Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 15 references

Latest neutrino results from the FASER experiment and their implications for forward hadron production

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read FASER's forward neutrino measurements at the LHC find a 300-600 GeV excess of neutrino events over all hadronic generators, and a charm-driven deficit above 1 TeV, giving the first direct LHC constraints on the forward pion, kaon, and…

desk verdict A solid, honest FASER status update with useful new generator comparisons, but the energy-bin discrepancies are qualitative and lack significance. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23552 v1 pith:7LSIFIWJ submitted 2025-07-31 hep-ex

FASER Collaboration: Roshan Mammen Abraham , Xiaocong Ai , Saul Alonso Monsalve , John Anders , Claire Antel , Akitaka Ariga , Tomoko Ariga , Jeremy Atkinson
show 111 more authors
Florian U. Bernlochner Tobias Boeckh Jamie Boyd Lydia Brenner Angela Burger Franck Cadoux Roberto Cardella David W. Casper Charlotte Cavanagh Xin Chen Dhruv Chouhan Andrea Coccaro Stephane Débieux Ansh Desai Sergey Dmitrievsky Radu Dobre Monica D'Onofrio Sinead Eley Yannick Favre Jonathan L. Feng Carlo Alberto Fenoglio Didier Ferrere Max Fieg Wissal Filali Elena Firu Haruhi Fujimori Edward Galantay Ali Garabaglu Stephen Gibson Sergio Gonzalez-Sevilla Yuri Gornushkin Yotam Granov Carl Gwilliam Daiki Hayakawa Michael Holzbock Shih-Chieh Hsu Zhen Hu Giuseppe Iacobucci Tomohiro Inada Luca Iodice Sune Jakobsen Hans Joos Enrique Kajomovitz Hiroaki Kawahara Alex Keyken Felix Kling Daniela Köck Pantelis Kontaxakis Umut Kose Rafaella Kotitsa Peter Krack Susanne Kuehn Thanushan Kugathasan Sebastian Laudage Lorne Levinson Botao Li Jinfeng Liu Yi Liu Margaret S. Lutz Jack MacDonald Chiara Magliocca Toni Mäkelä Lawson McCoy Josh McFayden Andrea Pizarro Medina Matteo Milanesio Théo Moretti Keiko Moriyama Mitsuhiro Nakamura Toshiyuki Nakano Laurie Nevay Ken Ohashi Hidetoshi Otono Lorenzo Paolozzi Pawan Pawan Brian Petersen Titi Preda Markus Prim Michaela Queitsch-Maitland Juan Rojo Hiroki Rokujo André Rubbia Jorge Sabater-Iglesias Osamu Sato Paola Scampoli Kristof Schmieden Matthias Schott Christiano Sebastiani Anna Sfyrla Davide Sgalaberna Mansoora Shamim Savannah Shively Yosuke Takubo Noshin Tarannum Ondrej Theiner Simon Thor Eric Torrence Oscar Ivan Valdes Martinez Svetlana Vasina Benedikt Vormwald Yuxiao Wang Eli Welch Monika Wielers Benjamin James Wilson Jialin Wu Johannes Martin Wuthrich Yue Xu Daichi Yoshikawa Stefano Zambito Shunliang Zhang Xingyu Zhao
This is my paper
classification hep-ex
keywords forwardneutrinofluxFASERhadronicinteractionmodelsmuonpuzzlecosmic-rayairshowerscharmhadronproductionpionandkaonLHCphysics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

FASER, a detector 480 m downstream of the LHC collision point, catches neutrinos produced by forward decays of charged pions, kaons, and charm mesons, a region no other LHC experiment sees directly. Using 9.5 inverse femtobarns of emulsion-detector data and 65.6 inverse femtobarns of electronic-detector data, the paper compares measured electron- and muon-neutrino interaction rates with the latest hadronic generators, including EPOS-LHCr, SIBYLL 2.3e, and QGSJET 3. Overall the models agree with the measured fluxes, but in every model the neutrino events in the 300-600 GeV energy window are under-predicted, while antineutrino events are not, and models that include charm production over-predict neutrinos above 1 TeV. These discrepancies matter because forward pion, kaon, and charm yields are the same physics behind the long-standing excess of muons in ultra-high-energy cosmic-ray air showers.

What carries the argument

The measurement uses charged-current neutrino interactions in a 324.1 kg tungsten-emulsion target as the detector, selecting neutral vertices with an electromagnetic shower for electron-neutrino candidates or a penetrating muon track for muon-neutrino candidates. Because only a handful of events is available, the flux is not unfolded directly: a single energy-averaged scale factor $\mu$ (Eq. 2) multiplies the predicted neutrino and antineutrino fluxes, and its posterior is sampled by a Bayesian Markov-chain Monte Carlo with nuisance parameters for neutral-hadron and neutral-current backgrounds. That scale factor converts the observed event count into an interaction-rate spectrum while preserving the energy and rapidity shape of the baseline Monte Carlo flux, so the energy-binned comparison is only as good as that assumed shape.

What would settle it

Re-analyze the full Run-3 emulsion and electronic-detector data (about 150 inverse femtobarns) with neutrinos and antineutrinos binned separately: if the 300-600 GeV excess persists and the above-1 TeV deficit narrows as the sample grows, the paper's interpretation is supported; if the excess is absorbed by updated cross-section or flux-shape systematics, or becomes consistent once the nine-model shape bias is recalculated with an independent flux model, the claim would be weakened.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

FASER's forward neutrino measurements at the LHC are reaching the precision where they can begin to discriminate among hadronic interaction models. The paper reports $N^{\rm int}(\nu_e+\bar\nu_e)=12.2^{+8.7}_{-6.4}$ and $N^{\rm int}(\nu_\mu+\bar\nu_\mu)=36.0^{+16.1}_{-13.2}$ measured interactions in the FASER$\nu$ target, and when these are binned in energy the data sit above every generator prediction in the 300-600 GeV range while falling below the charm-inclusive predictions above 1 TeV. The paper notes that electron-neutrino flux measurements can uniquely constrain kaon and charm hadron production, so the discrepancies are read as the first direct LHC constraints on forward pion, kaon, and charm yields, the same quantities implicated in the cosmic-ray muon puzzle.

Load-bearing premise

The measurement assumes that the energy and rapidity shape of the neutrino flux is the one predicted by the baseline simulation, so a single scale factor can turn the observed event count into an interaction-rate spectrum; if the real pion-to-kaon ratio differs from that simulation, the energy-binned comparisons would be biased even if the total rate came out right.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The overall agreement of EPOS-LHCr, SIBYLL 2.3e, and QGSJET 3 with the measured fluxes means that forward hadron production models are broadly correct in total rate while missing details in specific energy ranges.
  • The 300-600 GeV excess of neutrino events common to all models indicates under-predicted forward pion and kaon production in that energy window, and it does not come from antineutrinos.
  • Charm-inclusive generators over-produce neutrinos above 1 TeV, so FASER data prefer models without charm at those energies or require reduced forward charm production.
  • These comparisons provide a new, model-discriminating input for tuning hadronic interaction models used in cosmic-ray air-shower simulations and for testing the kaon-enhancement scenario of the muon puzzle.
  • Only 33% of electronic and 3% of emulsion data are used; the stated expectation is that the full Run-3 dataset and later the Forward Physics Facility will refine these comparisons with finer bins and multi-differential analyses.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the 300-600 GeV excess persists with full statistics, adjusting generators to raise forward pion and kaon yields in that energy window would also change predicted muon rates in air showers, plausibly in the direction needed for the muon puzzle.
  • The shape-blind scale-factor method is tested against nine flux models from the same generator family; a more severe test would use data-driven pion-to-kaon ratios or a model with a genuinely different pion-to-kaon ratio.
  • Because the emulsion sample is only 3% of collected data, the statistical reach grows by roughly a factor of 30 soon, so the discrepancy could sharpen, move, or disappear with that sample.
  • The rapidity spectrum shows no strong tension, suggesting the disagreement is primarily in energy dependence; separate neutrino and antineutrino rapidity spectra would localize whether the excess is a pion versus kaon effect.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports the latest FASER neutrino measurements and compares them with hadronic interaction models relevant to forward particle production and the cosmic-ray muon puzzle. Using 9.5 fb^-1 of FASERnu emulsion data, the authors extract electron- and muon-neutrino interaction rates by fitting a single energy-averaged signal strength mu to the observed event counts, with nuisance parameters handled through a Bayesian MCMC likelihood. They combine these rates with previously published FASER electronic-detector measurements of the muon-neutrino energy and pseudorapidity spectra, and compare all results with EPOS-LHC(r), SIBYLL 2.3d/e, QGSJET 2.04/3, and the FASER baseline model. The paper finds that predictions are generally consistent with the measurements, but reports an apparent excess of neutrino (not antineutrino) events around 300-600 GeV and a tendency for charm-including generators to overpredict neutrinos above 1 TeV, interpreting these as motivations for improved forward hadron production models.

Significance. The paper is a useful conference-style summary that brings together the latest FASER neutrino interaction rates and differential spectra and places them side by side with the most recent hadronic interaction models. Its strengths are the clear description of the likelihood and MCMC procedure, the use of official FASER results, and the explicit bias study with nine alternative flux models. If the reported discrepancies were quantitatively established, the comparison would provide valuable validation of pion, kaon, and charm production in forward kinematics and could inform the cosmic-ray muon puzzle. However, the paper's new contribution is largely qualitative: the discrepancies are identified visually in figures and stated in words, but no statistical significance, likelihood-ratio test, or covariance-based comparison is provided. The paper itself acknowledges the limited analyzed dataset and the preliminary character of the results, which tempers the conclusions, but the title's promise of 'implications' needs quantitative support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4] The central claims that 'in all cases, there is an excess of neutrino events at energies between 300 GeV to 600 GeV' and that 'generators including charm hadron production predict more high-energy neutrinos than observed' are presented without any quantitative statistical test. No p-value, confidence level, or likelihood-ratio statistic is given for any generator or energy bin. Because the number of events in individual bins is limited and the systematic uncertainties are substantial, a visual excess in one or two bins can easily arise from a fluctuation. The fact that the excess appears for several generators does not add independent statistical power, since the generator predictions in those bins are highly correlated. A quantitative comparison, including the published covariance of the data points and the bin-to-bin correlations, is required to support the claimed model discrimination. This is load-bearing because Section 5 bases its motivation on these discrepancies.
  2. [Section 3.3, Eq. (2)] The FASERnu interaction rate N_int is computed by fitting a single scale factor mu to the total observed event count and then multiplying the baseline-model flux by this factor. Consequently, N_int is a normalization measurement whose energy and rapidity shapes are inherited from the baseline model. The paper's bias check with nine flux models is useful, but those models are all built from the same family of hadronic generators and do not cover alternative spectral shapes such as a different pion-to-kaon ratio. The comparison of the left panel of Fig. 1 to generators should therefore be described as a test of the overall normalization only, not as a spectral constraint. This does not invalidate the differential energy and pseudorapidity spectra from the electronic detector, which are separate measurements, but the manuscript should be explicit about the limited interpretation of N_int.
  3. [Fig. 1 and Section 4] The caption notes that the data points in the center and right panels are correlated because they use the same dataset, yet no covariance information is used when comparing the measurements with generator predictions. The statement that a discrepancy appears 'in all cases' across generators is a visual observation, not a statistical one; it does not account for the strong correlations among the model predictions. To make the claimed excess and deficit operational, the authors should provide a quantitative goodness-of-fit measure, such as a chi-square or profile-likelihood ratio, for each generator using the full covariance matrix, along with the resulting p-values. Without this, the implications for forward hadron production are not yet established.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The abstract states that 'the latest measurements of electron and muon neutrino fluxes are presented,' but the paper mostly reinterprets previously reported FASERnu event rates and combines them with previously published FASER electronic-detector results. The wording should distinguish new results from a new interpretation of existing data.
  2. [Eq. (3) and Section 3.3] The likelihood in Eq. (3) includes Poisson priors P_k for background Monte Carlo fluctuations, but the text does not describe how these are implemented (e.g., as scaling factors with Poisson constraints). A short explanation would improve reproducibility.
  3. [Table 1] The 'other syst' uncertainty is the dominant source for muon neutrinos in Table 1, but Section 3.3 later states that the neutrino detection efficiency uncertainty dominates. The relation between 'other syst' and the detection-efficiency uncertainty should be clarified.
  4. [Fig. 1] The y-axis labels in the three panels of Fig. 1 are inconsistent: the left panel uses 'Number of Interactions' while the center and right panels use 'Number of Interactions per cm^2.' The units and target volumes should be stated consistently in the caption and axes.
  5. [Section 4 and Fig. 2] The text says that EPOS-LHCr underestimates events at 300-600 GeV where 'pi+ and kaons contribute.' This should be expanded to 'charged pions and charged/neutral kaons' to match the production-mode decomposition in Fig. 2.
  6. [References] References [8] and [27] cite 'in this proceedings' without article numbers. For an ICRC proceedings paper, the PoS article numbers (e.g., PoS(ICRC2025)358 and PoS(ICRC2025)1182) should be included in the reference list.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The energy-binned FASERν 'data' points are defined as μ times the baseline-model prediction, so the claimed 300–600 GeV excess is a baseline-vs-generator comparison rather than an independent measurement.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.3, Eq. (2); Section 4, Fig. 1 comparison]
    ""To infer the neutrino flux, an energy-averaged signal strength μ, common to both neutrinos and antineutrinos, is defined by φ_obs = μ φ_predict ... After determining μ, the total number of neutrino interactions, N_int, is computed for comparison with the flux predictions as [Eq. 2]" and "In all cases, there is an excess of neutrino events (but not anti-neutrino events) at energies between 300 GeV to 600 GeV in data compared to the generator predictions.""

    Because N_int is defined as μ times the baseline-model flux integral (Eq. 2) and μ is fitted to the total observed event count, the energy-binned N_int values inherit the baseline model's energy shape. The 'excess' at 300–600 GeV relative to, e.g., EPOS-LHCr is therefore just the statement that baseline EPOS-LHC+POWHEG predicts a larger fraction of events in that bin than EPOS-LHCr; the observed event energies never enter that bin's data point independently. The model-discrimination conclusion is built into the definition of the data points rather than measured.

full rationale

The paper defines the measured neutrino interaction rate through an energy-averaged signal strength μ, with φ_obs = μ φ_predict and N_int = μ ∫ (φ_predict σ) dE. Since μ is fitted to the total observed event count, the normalization of N_int is data-driven, but the energy and rapidity shapes are taken from the baseline Monte Carlo model. Thus the energy-binned FASERν points displayed in Fig. 1 (left) are, by construction, proportional to the baseline prediction in each bin. The claimed excess at 300–600 GeV is therefore not an independent measurement of the neutrino spectrum; it is a comparison between the baseline model's bin fractions and those of the other generators. This is a genuine circular step in the model-discrimination argument. However, not all of the paper's comparisons suffer from this issue: the FASER electronic detector measurements in the center and right panels of Fig. 1 are based on reconstructed neutrino energies and rapidities, so the reported >1 TeV deficit relative to charm-inclusive generators retains independent experimental content. The total event counts N_int are also legitimate data-driven normalizations. The lack of a quantitative significance for the few-event bin discrepancies is a statistical concern rather than a circularity. Overall, partial circularity is present in the energy-differential FASERν comparison, but the paper still contains independent information, supporting a score of 6 rather than a higher value.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The measurement relies on predicted neutrino fluxes, Standard Model cross-sections, and simulated detection efficiencies. The central analysis introduces a single energy-averaged signal strength μ fitted to the observed event count; no new particles or forces are introduced. The main model dependence is the shape of the neutrino flux used to project the measured total rate into energy bins.

free parameters (1)
  • Signal strength μ (per flavor) = not quoted; inferred N_int = 12.2 (νe), 36.0 (νμ)
    Scale factor multiplying the baseline predicted neutrino flux to match observed event counts (Eq. 2).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Standard Model neutrino-nucleus cross-sections are used to convert event rates to fluxes.
    Eq. (1) uses predicted σ(E,x); the flux is inferred assuming these cross-sections.
  • domain assumption Detection efficiency ε is taken from simulation evaluated in Ref. [14].
    The analysis relies on the efficiency parametrization from the earlier FASERν analysis.
  • domain assumption The baseline model (EPOS-LHC for light hadrons, POWHEG+PYTHIA for charm) provides the flux shape used to distribute the measured interaction rate.
    The μ-scaled flux inherits the energy and rapidity shape of the baseline prediction, as in Eq. (2).
  • standard math Poisson likelihood and Metropolis-Hastings MCMC are used for statistical inference.
    Standard Bayesian statistical methods, described in Sec. 3.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Latest neutrino results from the FASER experiment and their implications for forward hadron production." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7LSIFIWJ

@misc{pith2026250723552,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Latest neutrino results from the FASER experiment and their implications for forward hadron production},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7LSIFIWJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23552}
}
abstract

The muon puzzle -- an excess of muons relative to simulation predictions in ultra-high-energy cosmic-ray air showers -- has been reported by many experiments. This suggests that forward particle production in hadronic interactions is not fully understood. Some of the scenarios proposed to resolve this predict reduced production of forward neutral pions and enhanced production of forward kaons (or other particles). The FASER experiment at the LHC is located 480 m downstream of the ATLAS interaction point and is sensitive to neutrinos and muons, which are the decay products of forward charged pions and kaons. In this study, the latest measurements of electron and muon neutrino fluxes are presented using the data corresponding to 9.5 $\mathrm{fb^{-1}}$ and 65.6 $\mathrm{fb^{-1}}$ of proton-proton collisions with $\sqrt{s}=13.6~\mathrm{TeV}$ by the FASER$\nu$ and the FASER electronic detector, respectively. These fluxes are compared with predictions from recent hadronic interaction models, including EPOS-LHCr, SIBYLL 2.3e, and QGSJET 3. The predictions are generally consistent with the measured fluxes from FASER, although some discrepancies appear in certain energy bins. More precise flux measurements with additional data will follow soon, enabling validation of pion, kaon, and charm meson production with finer energy binning, reduced uncertainties, and multi-differential analyses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23552 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of Cosmic Ray Monte Carlos to FASER data. The number of neutrino interactions in the respective target volumes as measured by FASER𝜈 (left), as measured by FASER as a function of the neutrino energy (center), and by FASER as a function of rapidity (right) are shown. The measured values are compared to prediction by EPOS-LHC [4], EPOS-LHCr [7], SIBYLL 2.3d [5], SIBYLL 2.3e, QGSJET 2.04 [6], QGSJET 3 [9], a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of EPOS-LHCr, split by production modes, to FASER data. charm decays. EPOS-LHCr overestimates the event rate of 𝜈𝜇 + 𝜈¯𝜇 above 1 TeV, where kaon and charm mesons contribute. However, it underestimates neutrino events at energies between 300 GeV and 600 GeV, where 𝜋 + and kaons contribute. This indicates that the FASER results can further improve the latest hadronic interaction models. 5. Conclusion and fu… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [3]

    Piparo et al.,Measurement of the forward𝜂meson production rate in p-p collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the LHCf-Arm2 detector,JHEP10(2023) 169 [2305.06633]

    G. Piparo et al.,Measurement of the forward𝜂meson production rate in p-p collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the LHCf-Arm2 detector,JHEP10(2023) 169 [2305.06633]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [4]

    Pierog, I

    T. Pierog, I. Karpenko, J.M. Katzy, E. Yatsenko and K. Werner,EPOS LHC: Test of collective hadronization with data measured at the CERN Large Hadron Collider,Phys. Rev. C92(2015) 034906 [1306.0121]

    arXiv 2015

  3. [5]

    Riehn, R

    F. Riehn, R. Engel, A. Fedynitch, T.K. Gaisser and T. Stanev,Hadronic interaction model Sibyll 2.3d and extensive air showers,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 063002 [1912.03300]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [6]

    Ostapchenko,Monte Carlo treatment of hadronic interactions in enhanced Pomeron scheme: I

    S. Ostapchenko,Monte Carlo treatment of hadronic interactions in enhanced Pomeron scheme: I. QGSJET-II model,Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 014018 [1010.1869]

    arXiv 2011

  5. [7]

    Pierog and K

    T. Pierog and K. Werner,EPOS LHC-R : up-to-date hadronic model for EAS simulations, PoSICRC2023(2023) 230

    work page 2023

  6. [8]

    Pierog and K

    T. Pierog and K. Werner,Epos lhc-r : a global approach to solve the muon puzzle, inthis proceedings, p. PoS(ICRC2025)358, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [9]

    Ostapchenko,QGSJET-III model of high energy hadronic interactions

    S. Ostapchenko,QGSJET-III model of high energy hadronic interactions. II. Particle production and extensive air shower characteristics,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 094019 [2403.16106]. [10]EAS-MSU, IceCube, KASCADE-Grande, NEVOD-DECOR, Pierre Auger, SUGAR, Telescope Array , Yakutsk EAS Arraycollaboration,Update on the Combined Analysis 7 Latest neutrino results ...

    arXiv 2024

  8. [11]

    Anchordoqui, C.G

    L.A. Anchordoqui, C.G. Canal, F. Kling, S.J. Sciutto and J.F. Soriano,An explanation of the muon puzzle of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays and the role of the Forward Physics Facility for model improvement,JHEAp34(2022) 19 [2202.03095]. [12]FASERcollaboration,First Measurement of the Muon Neutrino Interaction Cross Section and Flux as a Function of Energy at...

    arXiv 2022

Show all 15 references
  1. [20]

    Gregory,Markov chain monte carlo, inBayesian Logical Data Analysis for the Physical Sciences: A Comparative Approach with Mathematica®Support, p

    P. Gregory,Markov chain monte carlo, inBayesian Logical Data Analysis for the Physical Sciences: A Comparative Approach with Mathematica®Support, p. 312–351, Cambridge University Press (2005), DOI

    2005

  2. [21]

    Dembinski, P

    H. Dembinski, P. Ongmongkolkul, C. Deil, H. Schreiner, M. Feickert, C. Burr et al., scikit-hep/iminuit, 2025

    2025

  3. [22]

    L.Buonocore, F.Kling, L.RottoliandJ.Sominka,Predictionsforneutrinosandnewphysics from forward heavy hadron production at the LHC,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 363 [2309.12793]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [23]

    Dembinski, A

    H. Dembinski, A. Fedynitch and A. Prosekin,Chromo: An event generator frontend for particle and astroparticle physics,PoSICRC2023(2023) 189

    2023

  5. [24]

    Cosmic ray monte carlo package, crmc

    R. Ulrich, T. Pierog and C. Baus, “Cosmic ray monte carlo package, crmc.” 10.5281/zenodo.5270381, Aug., 2021. 10.5281/zenodo.5270381. [25]FASERcollaboration,Prospects and Opportunities with an upgraded FASER Neutrino Detector during the HL-LHC era: Input to the EPPSU,2503.19775

    2021 arXiv

  6. [26]

    Adhikary et al.,Scientific program for the Forward Physics Facility,Eur

    J. Adhikary et al.,Scientific program for the Forward Physics Facility,Eur. Phys. J. C85 (2025) 430 [2411.04175]

    2025 arXiv

  7. [27]

    Ettore Pancini

    D. Soldin, I. Coronado, E. Waters and F. Kling,Predictions of neutrino fluxes at the forward physicsfacilityatthehigh-luminositylhc,inthisproceedings,p.PoS(ICRC2025)1182,2025. 8 Latest neutrino results from FASER and their implications for forward hadron productionKen Ohashi F...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.