Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Antihydrogen beam intensity rises 100-fold, and the beam's velocity and binding-energy distributions are measured in enough detail to plan a ground-state hyperfine measurement.

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 ↗

ASACUSA reports a 100x more intense antihydrogen beam, measures its velocity and Rydberg-state distribution, and estimates a 16% ground-state fraction useful for future hyperfine spectroscopy.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid direct measurements; the 16% ground-state fraction is a simulation extrapolation with a tuned cutoff, so treat the 50-hour hyperfine projection with skepticism. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.02583 v1 pith:UWHADQDZ submitted 2025-08-28 physics.ins-det hep-exphysics.plasm-ph

Measured Properties of an Antihydrogen Beam

E. D. Hunter , M. Bumbar , C. Amsler , M. N. Bayo , H. Breuker , M. Cerwenka , G. Costantini , R. Ferragut
show 24 more authors
M. Giammarchi A. Gligorova G. Gosta M. Hori C. Killian V. Kraxberger N. Kuroda A. Lanz M. Leali G. Maero C. Malbrunot V. Mascagna Y. Matsuda S. Migliorati D. J. Murtagh M. Rom\'e R. E. Sheldon M. C. Simon M. Tajima V. Toso S. Ulmer L. Venturelli A. Weiser E. Widmann
This is my paper
classification physics.ins-det hep-exphysics.plasm-ph
keywords antihydrogen beamCusp trapRydberg atomsfield ionizationtime-of-flight spectrometryground-state fractionhyperfine spectroscopyantiproton plasma
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 reading

The paper reports a factor-of-100 increase in the intensity of the antihydrogen beam emerging from ASACUSA's Cusp trap: 320 atoms detected per 15-minute run. By chopping and ramping the ionizing field, the authors measure a time-of-flight velocity distribution consistent with a 1D Maxwellian at about 1500 K, close to the antiproton plasma temperature, and find that most ionizable atoms sit between principal quantum numbers n=20 and 50. They report the first evidence that lower-n atoms are slower. A classical-trajectory simulation reproduces the measured binding-energy distribution and predicts that about 16% of formed atoms may be in the ground state; combining this with the velocity distribution suggests roughly 50 slow ground-state atoms per run, enough in principle for a first in-beam measurement of the antihydrogen ground-state hyperfine splitting in about 50 hours of beam time.

Core claim

The central claim is that the antihydrogen beam is now intense enough and well enough characterized to plan a beam-based measurement of the ground-state hyperfine splitting. The measured beam delivers 320 atoms per 15-minute run downstream of the Cusp trap, a 100-fold increase over previous antihydrogen-beam experiments. Time-of-flight and field-ionization data yield a 1D Maxwellian axial velocity distribution with a temperature near 1500 K, a binding-energy distribution concentrated at n≈20–50, a newly observed correlation between lower n and lower velocity, and a simulation-based estimate that about 16% of formed atoms are in the ground state. The authors also demonstrate that detected cou

What carries the argument

The Cusp trap's double anti-Helmholtz coils create two magnetic nulls that focus low-field-seeking atoms into a beam of fractional solid angle 2.1e-4. Two in-trap field ionizers and an external ionizer selectively ionize Rydberg atoms; the conversion from field strength to principal quantum number n follows the classical threshold range 1/(7.7 n^4) < F < 1/(2.6 n^4). Three protocols—pulsed without blocking, pulsed with blocking, and a triangle-wave ramp—turn beam intensity into time-of-flight and binding-energy distributions. A Monte Carlo formation simulation, fed by plasma temperature, density, transit time, blackbody radiation temperature, and an upper principal-quantum-number cutoff, con

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulation's prediction of a 16 percent ground-state fraction is sound, even though matching the measured data requires setting an upper principal-quantum-number cutoff near 45 and the simulation omits how the Cusp magnet's field gradients remove high-n atoms; if that omission biases the ground-state yield, the projected 50 slow ground-state atoms per run and the 50-hour spectroscopy timeline would be wrong.

What would settle it

The ground-state estimate comes from a simulation with an unmodeled loss channel, so the decisive check is a direct count of ground-state atoms. One concrete way: insert the spectroscopy apparatus in the beam and look for the hyperfine resonance signal; if the observed per-run rate of slow ground-state atoms is far from about 50, the 16% fraction is wrong. A quicker experimental check would be to add an extra magnetic-field-gradient section between trap and detector and measure whether the n=1 yield changes by more than the quoted few percent; if it does, the omission is not benign.

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

If this is right

  • A first in-beam measurement of the antihydrogen ground-state hyperfine splitting could be feasible with about 200 15-minute runs, or roughly 50 hours, assuming about 50 slow ground-state atoms are detected per run.
  • Over 30% of the beam atoms have axial velocities below 1500 m/s and are slow enough for the ASACUSA spectrometer.
  • Because detected intensity scales linearly with the number of antiprotons over an order of magnitude, increasing the antiproton number toward 10^7 per run should raise the beam intensity correspondingly.
  • The newly observed correlation between lower principal quantum number and lower velocity implies that ground-state atoms tend to be the slowest, which is favorable for beam spectroscopy.
  • The ionizable part of the beam peaks at n ≈ 20–50, consistent with formation by three-body recombination followed by collisional deexcitation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the unmodeled loss of high-n atoms in the Cusp field gradients also removes a different fraction of low-n atoms, the simulated 16% ground-state fraction could be biased; a direct measurement of the n=1 population would settle whether the 50-hour projection is realistic.
  • The n-v correlation suggests a possible lever: deliberately selecting low-n atoms by tuning the field ionizer could enrich the slow, spectroscopically useful part of the beam, at the cost of intensity.
  • The linear rate scaling with antiproton number is measured over about one order of magnitude; whether it extends to 10^7 antiprotons depends on plasma-related losses that the paper defers to future work.
  • Applying the same pulsed-field-ionization time-of-flight method to hydrogen should provide a calibration of the simulation's ground-state fraction under similar plasma conditions, since the atomic physics is identical.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a factor-of-100 increase in the antihydrogen beam intensity downstream of ASACUSA's Cusp trap, with 320 atoms detected per 15-minute run, and characterizes the beam using field ionization and time-of-flight methods. A 1D Maxwellian velocity distribution with T_m ≈ 1500 K fits the ToF data, the ionizable atoms mostly have n between 20 and 50, and a lower-n/lower-velocity correlation is inferred. A classical-trajectory Monte Carlo simulation is used to estimate that about 16% of formed atoms may be in the ground state, and this figure feeds a projection that an in-beam hyperfine measurement may be feasible in about 50 hours. The beam intensity is also shown to scale linearly with the antiproton number over one order of magnitude.

Significance. If the direct measurements stand, this is a major step for antihydrogen beam spectroscopy: the 100-fold intensity increase, the careful field-ionization calibration validated at three ionizer positions, the bootstrap uncertainties, and the open data are all concrete strengths. However, the 16% ground-state fraction is not measured but derived from a simulation whose upper cutoff n_lim is effectively tuned to match a detected n distribution that has already been filtered by unmodeled magnetic-field-gradient losses. The feasibility projection for hyperfine spectroscopy therefore rests on an extrapolation with unquantified systematic uncertainty. The paper is still well within the scope of physics.ins-det and the direct measurements are likely correct, but the ground-state fraction claim needs substantial strengthening before acceptance.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, 'We compare the simulation result with Fig. 2(c)...'] The statement that the ground-state prediction 'does not depend on any free parameters' is not supported. The simulation's normalization depends on n_lim, and the text says best agreement with the measured n distribution occurs for n_lim≈45, while n_lim≈80 would be physically expected. Only n_lim = 40, 50, 60 are shown in Fig. 3. Because the probability is normalized to the sum up to n_lim, the 16±2% ground-state fraction could depend strongly on this cutoff; the sensitivity to n_lim≈80 has not been explored. Please provide this sensitivity analysis or clearly rephrase the claim as conditional on n_lim.
  2. [§3, 'One possible explanation is that the B gradients in the Cusp remove atoms with a large magnetic moment...'] The paper explicitly states that magnetic-field-gradient removal of high-n atoms is not included in the simulation. Yet the measured n distribution used to validate the simulation is obtained after this same loss process. Using that truncated distribution to choose n_lim and then normalizing the ground-state fraction over the truncated range risks a circular argument. A quantitative estimate of the gradient-loss bias, or at least a model bounding the effect on the 16% figure, is needed before this number can support the 50-hour spectroscopy projection.
  3. [§3, protocols (a) and (b), fitted T_m values] The claimed lower-n/lower-velocity correlation is based on T_m = 1510±190 K for protocol (a) and 1150±140 K for protocol (b), a difference of about 1.5σ, plus an indirect delay estimate. This is suggestive but not yet a robust observation. Since the paper later uses 'ground state atoms will also be the slowest atoms' as a premise for the 50 slow-atom-per-run projection, the correlation needs either a stronger statistical statement or explicit hedging in the conclusion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §3] The abstract says 'about 16% of the atoms may be in the ground state' but the body gives 16±2% as an averaging result over four simulation models. Please make the provisional nature consistent, and explain why the four models are averaged rather than used to define a systematic range.
  2. [Fig. 3] The right-hand axis label 'Binding energy (K)' is not defined in the caption. Specify the conversion from principal quantum number n to binding energy in kelvin.
  3. [Appendix B] The analysis uses the B=0.35 T ionization curve as a 'conservative estimate' for the in-trap FIs, although the field ranges from 0.1 to 0.35 T. State explicitly whether this choice introduces a systematic offset in the n ranges, and why it is conservative for both the intensity and the n-velocity correlation.
  4. [Data availability, Ref. [46]] The Zenodo link contains a long preview token and may be embargoed. Please provide a stable DOI link without private tokens.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the beam measurements are direct and the 16% ground-state simulation is a forward CTMC calculation validated against, not fitted to, the measured n-distribution.

full rationale

The paper's central measurements—320 atoms per run, ToF temperature ~1500 K, binding-energy distribution, and the n-velocity correlation—are direct detector observations analyzed with standard models; none are defined in terms of the conclusions. The 16% ground-state fraction is taken from a classical-trajectory Monte Carlo simulation [33] using measured plasma inputs; the simulation is not fitted to the ground-state number, and the comparison with Fig. 2(c) is a validation of the modeled n distribution, not a fit to the target quantity. The n_lim parameter is varied over 40–60 (plus a 300 K case) and the reported spread is ~2%; the paper explicitly identifies the B-gradient loss of high-n atoms as an unmodeled effect that may explain why n_lim≈45 is lower than the physically expected ~80. That is an acknowledged limitation and a correctness risk for the 50-hour projection, but not circular reasoning: the ground-state fraction is not forced by the measured data by construction. The only self-citation in the chain (Ref. [33], with coauthor overlap) supplies a published simulation, not an imported uniqueness theorem, and the present paper checks its output against independent FI measurements. The direct experimental results are self-contained and externally benchmarked, so no circularity score is warranted.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The experimental counts and most error bars are direct. The main additional weight is carried by: two fitted Maxwellian temperatures, a fitted delay, and a hand-varied simulation cutoff n_lim; plus assumptions on the velocity distribution shape, the formation simulation, and the electron/positron plasma density. No invented entities.

free parameters (4)
  • T_m (protocol a) = 1510 +/- 190 K
    Parameter of the 1D Maxwellian velocity distribution fitted to the pulsed ToF signal without downstream blocking (protocol a).
  • T_m (protocol b) = 1150 +/- 140 K
    Parameter of the 1D Maxwellian fitted to the pulsed ToF signal with downstream FI blocking 27<n<36 (protocol b).
  • Triangle-wave time delay = 0.65 +/- 0.05 ms
    Delay between FI voltage ramp and detector signal, fitted by minimizing residual sum of squares in protocol (c); used to estimate mean velocity.
  • Simulation upper limit n_lim = varied 40, 50, 60; best agreement near 45
    Cutoff for the principal quantum number distribution in the formation simulation; hand-chosen because the simulation is normalized to n_lim, and the data comparison favors a value (about 45) lower than the physically expected survival limit (about 80).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The antihydrogen velocity distribution along the beam axis is a 1D Maxwellian, exp[-v^2/(2 v_t^2)].
    Stated in the ToF analysis section; used to fit T_m and derive the fraction of slow atoms. Supported by the argument that antiprotons must pass an axial barrier, but it is a modeling assumption.
  • domain assumption The classical-trajectory Monte Carlo simulation of Radics et al. (Ref. [33]) correctly describes Hbar formation from mixing plasmas and is a valid basis for the ground-state fraction estimate.
    The paper does not re-derive the simulation; it uses it to extrapolate from measured Rydberg states to n=1.
  • domain assumption The positron plasma density is 1.8e8 cm^-3, calculated from known plasma and trap properties rather than measured directly in this run.
    This density is an input to the formation simulation; its uncertainty is not propagated into the 16% ground-state estimate.
  • standard math The classical field-ionization thresholds computed for H in magnetic fields up to 0.35 T correctly map FI voltages to principal quantum number ranges.
    Validated against the B=0 expression of Rakovic and Chu (Ref. [29]) and cross-checked with three ionizer configurations in Appendix B.
  • domain assumption The 80 count/run background measured with the gate valve closed is treated as representative for all mixing runs.
    The paper states this background is known only at the highest antiproton number; the Fig. 4 linear fit therefore does not subtract it.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measured Properties of an Antihydrogen Beam." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UWHADQDZ

@misc{pith2026250902583,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measured Properties of an Antihydrogen Beam},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UWHADQDZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02583}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

We report a factor of $100$ increase in the antihydrogen beam intensity downstream of ASACUSA's Cusp trap: $320$ atoms detected per $15$-minute run. The beam contains many Rydberg atoms, which we selectively ionize to determine their velocity and binding energy. The time of flight signal is modeled using a $1\mathrm{D}$ Maxwellian velocity distribution with a temperature of $1500\,\mathrm{K}$, which is close to the measured antiproton plasma temperature. A numerical simulation reproduces the observed distribution of binding energies and suggests that about $16\%$ of the atoms may be in the ground state.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02583 by A. Gligorova, A. Lanz, A. Weiser, C. Amsler, C. Killian, C. Malbrunot, D. J. Murtagh, E. D. Hunter, E. Widmann, G. Costantini, G. Gosta, G. Maero, H. Breuker, L. Venturelli, M. Bumbar, M. Cerwenka, M. C. Simon, M. Giammarchi, M. Hori, M. Leali, M. N. Bayo, M. Rom\'e, M. Tajima, N. Kuroda, R. E. Sheldon, R. Ferragut, S. Migliorati, S. Ulmer, V. Kraxberger, V. Mascagna, V. Toso, Y. Matsuda.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Simplified cross section of the experiment (a) and calculated magnetic field 𝐵 along the axis of symmetry (b). Scale drawing in (a) is sized to match the axial positions 𝑧 in (b). The downstream direction corresponds to increasing 𝑧. Abbreviations: upstream (US) and downstream (DS) field ionizer (FI), gate valve (GV), external FI (EFI), bismuth germanium oxide crystal (BGO), scintillating bars (Hodoscope),… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Detector counts vs. time for three periodic ionization protocols: (a) pulsed without blocking, (b) pulsed with blocking, (c) triangle wave. Detector counts (“Data”) are summed for each period and averaged over about 100 mixing runs, with bins centered at their means and extending vertically by one standard deviation of the mean in both directions. A constant background of 80 counts/run is observed during m… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Simulated cumulative probability distribution for 𝑛 and comparison with FI measurements (yellow band). Four conditions are shown: 𝑛lim = 40,50,60 for 15K blackbody radiation, and 𝑛lim = 60 for 300K. Data from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Total number of detector counts per mixing run as a function of the number of p. Points and error bars are the mean and the standard deviation of the mean for data taken in 9 different experimental conditions. The background rate (with GV closed) is not subtracted because it is only known for the highest number of p. The trendline is fit using York’s algorithm [42, 43], which correctly accounts for the sim… 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

47 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Ahmadi, B.X.R

    M. Ahmadi, B.X.R. Alves, C.J. Baker, W. Bertsche, E. Butler, A. Capra, C. Carruth, C.L. Cesar, M. Charlton, S. Cohen, R. Collister, S. Eriksson, A. Evans, N. Evetts, J. Fajans,et al., Observation of the hyperfine spectrum of antihydrogen, Nature 548 (2017), pp. 66–69, Available athttps: //doi.org/10.1038/nature23446

    work page doi:10.1038/nature23446 2017

  2. [2]

    S.G.Karshenboim, Precisionphysicsofsimpleatoms: Qedtests,nuclearstructureandfundamental constants, Phys. Rep. 422 (2005), pp. 1–63, Available athttps://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0370157305003637

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Nowak, C

    L. Nowak, C. Malbrunot, M. Simon, C. Amsler, S. Arguedas Cuendis, S. Lahs, A. Lanz, A. Nanda, M. Wiesinger, T. Wolz, and E. Widmann,Cpt and lorentz symmetry tests with hydrogen using a novel in-beam hyperfine spectroscopy method applicable to antihydrogen experiments, Phys. Lett. B858(2024),p.139012,Availableat https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2024.139012

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Widmann, R

    E. Widmann, R. Hayano, M. Hori, and T. Yamazaki,Measurement of the hyperfine structure of antihydrogen, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B 214 (2004), pp. 31–34, Available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168583X03019116, low En- ergy Antiproton Physics (LEAP’03)

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    Widmann, M

    E. Widmann, M. Diermaier, B. Juhász, C. Malbrunot, O. Massiczek, C. Sauerzopf, K. Suzuki, B. Wünschek, J. Zmeskal, S. Federmann, N. Kuroda, S. Ulmer, and Y. Yamazaki,Measurement of the hyperfine structure of antihydrogen in a beam, Hyperfine Interact. 215 (2013), pp. 1–8

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Gabrielse, A

    G. Gabrielse, A. Speck, C.H. Storry, D. LeSage, N. Guise, D. Grzonka, W. Oelert, G. Schepers, T. Sefzick, H. Pittner, J. Walz, T.W. Hänsch, D. Comeau, and E.A. Hessels,First measurement of the velocity of slow antihydrogen atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004), p. 073401, Available at https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.073401

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.93.073401 2004

  7. [7]

    Gabrielse, N.S

    G. Gabrielse, N.S. Bowden, P. Oxley, A. Speck, C.H. Storry, J.N. Tan, M. Wessels, D. Grzonka, W. Oelert, G. Schepers, T. Sefzick, J. Walz, H. Pittner, T.W. Hänsch, and E.A. Hessels,Driven productionofcoldantihydrogenandthefirstmeasureddistributionofantihydrogenstates ,Phys.Rev. Lett.89(2002),p.233401,Availableat https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLet...

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett 2002

  8. [8]

    Gligorova, H

    B.Kolbinger,C.Amsler,S.A.Cuendis,H.Breuker,A.Capon,G.Costantini,P.Dupré,M.Fleck,A. Gligorova, H. Higaki, Y. Kanai, V. Kletzl, N. Kuroda, A. Lanz, M. Leali, V. Mäckel, C. Malbrunot, V.Mascagna,O.Massiczek,Y.Matsuda,D.J.Murtagh,Y.Nagata,A.Nanda,L.Nowak,B.Radics, C.Sauerzopf,M.C.Simon,M.Tajima,H.A.Torii,U.UggerhØj,S.Ulmer,L.Venturelli,A.Weiser, M. Wiesinger,...

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    Ahmadi, B.X.R

    M. Ahmadi, B.X.R. Alves, C.J. Baker, W. Bertsche, E. Butler, A. Capra, C. Carruth, C.L. Cesar, M. Charlton, S. Cohen, R. Collister, S. Eriksson, A. Evans, N. Evetts, J. Fajans, T. Friesen, M.C. Fujiwara, D.R. Gill, A. Gutierrez, J.S. Hangst, W.N. Hardy, M.E. Hayden, C.A. Isaac, A. Ishida, M.A.Johnson, S.A.Jones, S.Jonsell, L.Kurchaninov, N.Madsen, M.Mathe...

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    Maury, W

    S. Maury, W. Oelert, W. Bartmann, P. Belochitskii, H. Breuker, F. Butin, C. Carli, T. Eriksson, S. Pasinelli,andG.Tranquille, Elena: theextralowenergyanti-protonfacilityatcern ,HyperfineInter- act. 229 (2014), pp. 105–115, Available athttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10751-014-1067-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s10751-014-1067-y 2014

  11. [11]

    A. Lanz, C. Amsler, H. Breuker, M. Bumbar, S. Chesnevskaya, G. Costantini, R. Ferragut, M. Giammarchi, A. Gligorova, G. Gosta, H. Higaki, C. Killian, V. Kraxberger, N. Kuroda, M. Leali, G. Maero, C. Malbrunot, V. Mascagna, Y. Matsuda, V. Mäckel, S. Migliorati, D. Murtagh, A. Nanda, L. Nowak, F. Parnefjord Gustafsson, S. Rheinfrank, M. Romé, M. Simon, M. T...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.06133 2023

  12. [12]

    Gabrielse, S.L

    G. Gabrielse, S.L. Rolston, L. Haarsma, and W. Kells,Possible antihydrogen production using trappedplasmas,HyperfineInteract.44(1989),pp.287–293,Availableat https://doi.org/10. 1007/bf02398677

    work page 1989

  13. [13]

    F. Robicheaux,Atomic processes in antihydrogen experiments: a theoretical and computational perspective,J.Phys.B:At.,Mol.Opt.Phys.41(2008),p.192001,Availableat https://doi.org/ 10.1088/0953-4075/41/19/192001

    work page doi:10.1088/0953-4075/41/19/192001 2008

  14. [14]

    F.Robicheaux, Simulationsofantihydrogenformation ,Phys.Rev.A70(2004),p.022510,Available at https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.70.022510

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.70.022510 2004

  15. [15]

    Gosta, H

    C.Amsler,H.Breuker,S.Chesnevskaya,G.Costantini,R.Ferragut,M.Giammarchi,A.Gligorova, G. Gosta, H. Higaki, E.D. Hunter, C. Killian, V. Kletzl, V. Kraxberger, N. Kuroda, A. Lanz, M. Leali, V. Mäckel, G. Maero, C. Malbrunot, V. Mascagna, Y. Matsuda, S. Migliorati, D.J. Murtagh, Y.Nagata,A.Nanda,L.Nowak,E.Pasino,M.Romé,M.C.Simon,M.Tajima,V.Toso,S.Ulmer,L. Vent...

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    Leali, G

    E.D.Hunter,M.Bumbar,C.Amsler,M.Bayo,H.Breuker,M.Cerwenka,G.Costantini,R.Ferragut, M.Giammarchi,A.Gligorova,G.Gosta,H.Higaki,C.Killian,V.Kraxberger,N.Kuroda,A.Lanz, M. Leali, G. Maero, C. Malbrunot, V. Mascagna, Y. Matsuda, S. Migliorati, D.J. Murtagh, A. Nanda,L.Nowak,M.Romé,R.Sheldon,M.C.Simon,M.Tajima,V.Toso,S.Ulmer,L.Venturelli, A. Weiser, E. Widmann, ...

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Zmeskal,andE.Widmann, In-beammeasurementofthehydrogenhyperfinesplittingandprospects for antihydrogen spectroscopy, Nat

    M.Diermaier,C.B.Jepsen,B.Kolbinger,C.Malbrunot,O.Massiczek,C.Sauerzopf,M.C.Simon,J. Zmeskal,andE.Widmann, In-beammeasurementofthehydrogenhyperfinesplittingandprospects for antihydrogen spectroscopy, Nat. Commun. 8 (2017), p. 15749, Available athttps://doi. org/10.1038/ncomms15749

    doi:10.1038/ncomms15749 2017

  18. [18]

    Vrinceanu, B.E

    D. Vrinceanu, B.E. Granger, R. Parrott, H.R. Sadeghpour, L. Cederbaum, A. Mody, J. Tan, and G. Gabrielse, Strongly magnetized antihydrogen and its field ionization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004), p. 133402, Available athttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.133402

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.92.133402 2004

  19. [19]

    Nagata and Y

    Y. Nagata and Y. Yamazaki,A novel property of anti-helmholz coils for in-coil syntheses of anti- hydrogen atoms: formation of a focused spin-polarized beam, New J. Phys. 16 (2014), p. 083026, Available athttps://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/16/8/083026

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/8/083026 2014

  20. [20]

    Nagata, Y

    Y. Nagata, Y. Kanai, N. Kuroda, H. Higaki, Y. Matsuda, and Y. Yamazaki,The development of the superconducting double cusp magnet for intense antihydrogen beams, J. Phys.:Conf. Ser. 635 (2015), p. 022062, Available athttps://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/635/2/022062

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/635/2/022062 2015

  21. [21]

    Sellner, M

    S. Sellner, M. Besirli, M. Bohman, M.J. Borchert, J. Harrington, T. Higuchi, A. Mooser, H. Nagahama, G. Schneider, C. Smorra, T. Tanaka, K. Blaum, Y. Matsuda, C. Ospelkaus, W. Quint, J. Walz,Y.Yamazaki,andS.Ulmer, Improvedlimitonthedirectlymeasuredantiprotonlifetime ,New J. Phys. 19 (2017), p. 083023, Available athttps://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/aa7e73

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/aa7e73 2017

  22. [22]

    Mathad, S

    C.J.Baker,W.Bertsche,A.Capra,C.Carruth,C.L.Cesar,M.Charlton,A.Christensen,R.Collister, A.C. Mathad, S. Eriksson, A. Evans, N. Evetts, J. Fajans, T. Friesen, M.C. Fujiwara, D.R. Gill, P. Grandemange,P.Granum,J.S.Hangst,W.N.Hardy,M.E.Hayden,D.Hodgkinson,E.Hunter,C.A. Isaac, M.A. Johnson, J.M. Jones, S.A. Jones, S. Jonsell, A. Khramov, P. Knapp, L. Kurchanin...

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    Baker, W

    C.J. Baker, W. Bertsche, A. Capra, C. Carruth, C.L. Cesar, M. Charlton, A. Christensen, R. Collister, A. Cridland Mathad, S. Eriksson, A. Evans, N. Evetts, J. Fajans, T. Friesen, M.C. Fujiwara, D.R. Gill, P. Grandemange, P. Granum, J.S. Hangst, W.N. Hardy, M.E. Hayden, D. Hodgkinson, E. Hunter, C.A. Isaac, M.A. Johnson, J.M. Jones, S.A. Jones, S. Jonsell,...

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    Hunter, C

    E.D. Hunter, C. Amsler, H. Breuker, M. Bumbar, S. Chesnevskaya, G. Costantini, R. Ferragut, M. Giammarchi,A.Gligorova,G.Gosta,H.Higaki,C.Killian,V.Kraxberger,N.Kuroda,A.Lanz,M. Leali, G. Maero, C. Malbrunot, V. Mascagna, Y. Matsuda, V. Mäckel, S. Migliorati, D. Murtagh, A. Nanda, L. Nowak, F. Parnefjord Gustafsson, S. Rheinfrank, M. Romé, M. Simon, M. Taj...

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Nagata, N

    Y. Nagata, N. Kuroda, C. Sauerzopf, B. Kolbinger, C. Malbrunot, A. Capon, P. Dupre, B. Radics, M. Tajima, C. Kaga, M. Leali, E. Lodi Rizzini, V. Mascagna, O. Massiczek, T. Matsudate, M. Simon, H.Breuker,H.Higaki,Y.Kanai,Y.Matsuda,L.Venturelli,E.Widmann,andY.Yamazaki, The development of the antihydrogen beam detector: Toward the three dimensional tracking ...

    work page doi:10.7566/jpscp.18.011038 2017

  26. [26]

    Kolbinger, C

    B. Kolbinger, C. Amsler, H. Breuker, M. Diermaier, P. Dupré, M. Fleck, A. Gligorova, H. Higaki, Y. Kanai, T. Kobayashi, M. Leali, V. Mäckel, C. Malbrunot, V. Mascagna, O. Massiczek, Y. Matsuda, D. Murtagh, Y. Nagata, C. Sauerzopf, M. Simon, M. Tajima, S. Ulmer, N. Kuroda, L. Venturelli, E. Widmann, Y. Yamazaki, and J. Zmeskal,Recent developments from ASAC...

    work page arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    Gligorova, G

    V.Kraxberger,C.Amsler,H.Breuker,S.Chesnevskaya,G.Costantini,R.Ferragut,M.Giammarchi, A. Gligorova, G. Gosta, H. Higaki, E. Hunter, C. Killian, V. Kletzl, N. Kuroda, A. Lanz, M. Leali, V. Mäckel, G. Maero, C. Malbrunot, V. Mascagna, Y. Matsuda, S. Migliorati, D. Murtagh, Y. Nagata, A. Nanda, L. Nowak, E. Pasino, M. Romé, M. Simon, M. Tajima, V. Toso, S. Ul...

    work page arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    S.Jonsell,D.P.v.d.Werf,M.Charlton,andF.Robicheaux, Simulationoftheformationofantihydro- gen in a nested penning trap: effect of positron density, J. Phys. B:At., Mol. Opt. Phys. 42 (2009), p. 215002, Available athttps://doi.org/10.1088/0953-4075/42/21/215002

    work page doi:10.1088/0953-4075/42/21/215002 2009

  29. [29]

    Rakovic and S.I

    M.J. Rakovic and S.I. Chu,Ionization of hydrogen atoms by static and circularly polarized fields: Classical adiabatic theory, J. Phys. B:At., Mol. Opt. Phys. 31 (1998), pp. 1989–2005, Available at https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-4075/31/9/014

    work page doi:10.1088/0953-4075/31/9/014 1998

  30. [30]

    Fluids B 4 (1992), pp

    D.L.Eggleston,C.F.Driscoll,B.R.Beck,A.W.Hyatt,andJ.H.Malmberg, Parallelenergyanalyzer for pure electron plasma devices, Phys. Fluids B 4 (1992), pp. 3432–3439, Available athttps: //doi.org/10.1063/1.860399

    work page doi:10.1063/1.860399 1992

  31. [31]

    J.L.Hurt,P.T.Carpenter,C.L.Taylor,andF.Robicheaux, Positronandelectroncollisionswithanti- protonsinstrongmagneticfields ,J.Phys.B:At.,Mol.Opt.Phys.41(2008),p.165206,Availableat https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-4075/41/16/165206

    work page doi:10.1088/0953-4075/41/16/165206 2008

  32. [32]

    B.Efron, Bootstrapmethods: Anotherlookatthejackknife ,Ann.Stat.7(1979),pp.1–26,Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2958830

    arXiv 1979

  33. [33]

    Radics, D.J

    B. Radics, D.J. Murtagh, Y. Yamazaki, and F. Robicheaux,Scaling behavior of the ground-state antihydrogenyieldasafunctionofpositrondensityandtemperaturefromclassical-trajectorymonte carlosimulations,Phys.Rev.A90(2014),p.032704,Availableat https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.90.032704

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.90.032704 2014

  34. [34]

    A. Christensen, Exploiting electron magnetron motion in a penning-malmberg trap to measure patchpotentials,misalignment,andmagneticfields ,Ph.D.diss.,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley, 2024, Available athttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/9v9320jv

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Robicheaux, Three-body recombination for electrons in a strong magnetic field: Magnetic moment, Phys

    F. Robicheaux, Three-body recombination for electrons in a strong magnetic field: Magnetic moment, Phys. Rev. A 73 (2006), p. 033401, Available athttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.73.033401

    work page 2006

  36. [36]

    Gallagher,Rydberg atoms, Springer, 1994

    T.F. Gallagher,Rydberg atoms, Springer, 1994

    work page 1994

  37. [37]

    Lundmark, C

    R. Lundmark, C. Malbrunot, Y. Nagata, B. Radics, C. Sauerzopf, and E. Widmann,Towards a precise measurement of the antihydrogen ground state hyperfine splitting in a beam: the case of in-flight radiative decays, J. Phys. B:At., Mol. Opt. Phys. 48 (2015), p. 184001, Available at https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-4075/48/18/184001

    work page doi:10.1088/0953-4075/48/18/184001 2015

  38. [38]

    Bojtar, Y

    L. Bojtar, Y. Dutheil, B. Lefort, D. Gamba, B. Dupuy, P. Freyermuth, L. Ponce, L. Joergensen, and S. Pasinelli, A review of the 2023 antiproton physics run in the CERN antimatter fac- tory, TUPC08 (2024), pp. 1010–1013, Available athttps://indico.jacow.org/event/63/ contributions/3742

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    Hori,Photocathode microwire monitor for nondestructive and highly sensitive spatial profile measurements of ultraviolet, x-ray, and charged particle beams, Rev

    M. Hori,Photocathode microwire monitor for nondestructive and highly sensitive spatial profile measurements of ultraviolet, x-ray, and charged particle beams, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 76 (2005), p. 12 113303, Available athttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.2130931

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2130931 2005

  40. [40]

    Hunter, J

    E.D. Hunter, J. Fajans, N.A. Lewis, A.P. Povilus, C. Sierra, C. So, and D. Zimmer,Plasma temperature measurement with a silicon photomultiplier (SiPM), Rev. Sci. Instrum. 91 (2020), p. 103502, Available athttps://doi.org/10.1063/5.0006672

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0006672 2020

  41. [41]

    Cripe,Summer student project report: counting antiprotons in ASACUSA’s Cusp trap, Tech

    M.G. Cripe,Summer student project report: counting antiprotons in ASACUSA’s Cusp trap, Tech. Rep., CERN, 2024, Available athttps://repository.cern/records/25vgy-xv954

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    York,Least-squares fitting of a straight line, Can

    D. York,Least-squares fitting of a straight line, Can. J. Phys. 44 (1966), pp. 1079–1086, Available at https://doi.org/10.1139/p66-090

    doi:10.1139/p66-090 1966

  43. [43]

    Vermeesch,Isoplotr: A free and open toolbox for geochronology, Geosci

    P. Vermeesch,Isoplotr: A free and open toolbox for geochronology, Geosci. Front. 9 (2018), pp. 1479–1493, Available athttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2018.04.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.gsf.2018.04.001 2018

  44. [44]

    Weiss,Simulating antihydrogen annihilation distributions in asacusa’s cusp trap, Tech

    A.S. Weiss,Simulating antihydrogen annihilation distributions in asacusa’s cusp trap, Tech. Rep., CERN, 2022, Available athttps://repository.cern/records/jwr6y-ydf19

    work page 2022

  45. [45]

    Malbrunot, M

    C. Malbrunot, M. Diermaier, M. Simon, C. Amsler, S. Arguedas Cuendis, H. Breuker, C. Evans, M. Fleck, B. Kolbinger, A. Lanz, M. Leali, V. Maeckel, V. Mascagna, O. Massiczek, Y. Matsuda, Y. Nagata, C. Sauerzopf, L. Venturelli, E. Widmann, M. Wiesinger, Y. Yamazaki, and J. Zmeskal, A hydrogen beam to characterize the asacusa antihydrogen hyperfine spec- tro...

    work page 2019

  46. [46]

    Hunter, ASACUSA field ionization analysis (2025)

    E.D. Hunter, ASACUSA field ionization analysis (2025). Available at https: //zenodo.org/records/16352148?preview=1&token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzUxMiJ9. eyJpZCI6ImM5MWRjOTllLTY0YWMtNGU5Zi1iNDFiLWJlZTQzYzBmNjg0YiIsImRhdGEiOnt9LCJyYW5kb20iOiI1M2QwZjg3NjQ0NDg4YmQ0N2VlYzNiYzRjY2JhOTUxNyJ9. mHK_VvIE7wPAqIsqfH5HoaihXVzKxyBiNLDsewe_d_9Zyb6dYwNKLuhh_ 9xvn9ud0JzPJyaJIdeZi2Q...

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    NullDump

    A.L. Garcia,Numerical methods for physics, Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2000. A Detector data Figure A1 summarizes the energy and beam profile data acquired using the detector for 272H mixing runs (a,d), 18p extraction runs (b,e), and 11 GV-closed mixing runs plus 4 runs of only cosmic rays (c,f). Panels(a,c)include“NullDump"runswhere pareextracted...

    work page 2000

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.