Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

A shifted gas target at the LHC would deliver thousands of neutrino interactions inside the CMS and ATLAS calorimeters, potentially marking the first detection of neutrinos in a general-purpose LHC detector.

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

2026-08-04 10:01 UTC pith:2AAIAXDS

load-bearing objection A clean, honest simulation-based rate estimate for neutrinos from the SHIFT fixed target in CMS/ATLAS; the physics opportunity is real, but the 'first observation' claim overreaches until detector-level reconstruction with pileup is demonstrated. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.11816 v2 pith:2AAIAXDS submitted 2025-10-13 hep-ph hep-ex

A SHIFT of Perspective: Observing Neutrinos at CMS and ATLAS

Alfonso Garcia-Soto , Jeremi Niedziela This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords neutrino detectionLHCfixed targetSHIFT@LHCCMSATLASforward hadron productioncharged-current interactions
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 the SHIFT@LHC proposal—a gaseous fixed target placed about 160 m upstream of the CMS or ATLAS interaction point—would produce a flux of neutrinos from forward pion and kaon decays, and that this flux would cause on the order of ten thousand muon-neutrino and one thousand electron-neutrino charged-current interactions inside the two detectors' calorimeters using only 1% of the LHC Run-4 integrated luminosity. If the estimate holds, it would be the first detection of neutrinos in a general-purpose LHC detector, and it would open a window onto hadron production in the pseudorapidity range 5 to 8, a region inaccessible to existing LHC detectors and directly relevant to atmospheric-neutrino experiments. The authors present the detector-response treatment as a deliberate simplification: a neutrino interaction is counted as observable if the charged lepton carries more than 3 GeV and the hadronic shower more than 10 GeV, with reconstruction efficiency and pileup left to future work.

Core claim

Using a simulation chain of proton-gas collisions at 6.8 TeV, hadron propagation through rock, and neutrino-nucleus interactions, the paper estimates that with 1% of Run-4 luminosity (about 4x10^25 protons-on-target), CMS and ATLAS calorimeters would record O(10^4) muon-neutrino and O(10^3) electron-neutrino charged-current events with energies from 20 GeV to about 1 TeV. The dominant source is kaon decay, with pion decay contributing below 15 GeV. The interaction rate varies by roughly ±30% when the target is moved ±30 m from the nominal position, and the location of the interaction vertex in the calorimeter provides a proxy for the pseudorapidity of the parent hadron, with ATLAS reaching u

What carries the argument

The central object is the SHIFT@LHC gaseous fixed target: a low-density gas volume placed about 160 m upstream of the CMS or ATLAS interaction point, in a relatively empty section of the LHC tunnel. Forward-going pions and kaons produced in proton-gas collisions decay in flight along the beam line; the resulting neutrinos traverse the rock and interact via charged-current deep inelastic scattering inside the calorimeters, whose different absorber materials (brass, lead-tungstate, tungsten/copper, steel) act as targets. The mapping between the interaction vertex position and the parent hadron's pseudorapidity is what turns the detectors into instruments for forward hadron production.

Load-bearing premise

The whole yield estimate rests on the simplification that any neutrino interaction with a >3 GeV charged lepton and >10 GeV hadronic shower is detectable; if low-energy leptons and jets cannot be reconstructed in the calorimeters under real LHC pileup conditions, the thousands of interactions would not become a usable neutrino sample.

What would settle it

A full simulation of CMS/ATLAS detector response with pileup overlay applied to the simulated neutrino events: if the reconstruction efficiency for 3–10 GeV leptons and jets in the calorimeters falls below roughly 10%, the expected observable sample would shrink from O(10^4) to O(10^3) or less, invalidating the paper's first-detection claim.

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

If this is right

  • First neutrino detection in a general-purpose LHC detector, demonstrating that neutrino measurements are feasible in this environment.
  • Access to hadron production in pseudorapidity 5–8, a kinematic region invisible to CMS/ATLAS in nominal pp collisions and only partially covered by dedicated forward detectors.
  • A non-negligible sample of electron-neutrino events, enabling flavor-dependent cross-section studies in a regime relevant to atmospheric-neutrino experiments.
  • Changing the gas species would allow nuclear effects in hadron production to be studied, relevant for neutrino flux predictions.
  • The muons accompanying neutrino production could serve as an in-situ calibration of the flux and as a probe of hadron-induced muon multiplicities.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the simplified observability condition survives realistic reconstruction, the same geometry could be used at full luminosity, pushing the sample to O(10^6) events and opening the possibility of precision cross-section measurements on multiple target nuclei.
  • The pseudorapidity-to-vertex mapping suggests a new way to measure forward hadron production: instead of instrumenting the forward region, one uses the calorimeter position as a detector, which could be extended to neutral-current events and lower energies with better reconstruction.
  • The estimate depends linearly on luminosity and target distance; a dedicated optimization of the target position could increase the yield beyond the ±30% shown, and a full tunnel-geometry simulation might reveal better locations.
  • The same fixed target, if combined with a small dedicated neutrino detector near the beam line, could cross-check the calorimeter-based measurement and provide a clean flux measurement.

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 manuscript estimates the neutrino flux and charged-current interaction rates in the CMS and ATLAS detectors from the proposed SHIFT@LHC gaseous fixed target, located 160 m upstream of the interaction points. Using PYTHIA8 for proton–proton collisions, GEANT4 for hadron propagation in rock, and GENIE for neutrino interactions, the authors report O(10^4) muon-neutrino and O(10^3) electron-neutrino CC interactions in the calorimeters for 1% of Run-4 luminosity, with energies from 20 GeV to 1 TeV. They argue that this configuration provides access to forward hadron production at pseudorapidity 5 < η < 8, and claim this would constitute the first observation of neutrinos in a general-purpose LHC detector.

Significance. The proposal is novel and timely: it repurposes the SHIFT fixed target as a neutrino source, accessing a pseudorapidity and energy region complementary to FASER and SND@LHC. The analysis is transparent, uses externally validated simulation packages (PYTHIA8, GEANT4, GENIE), and makes concrete, falsifiable predictions of event rates and energy distributions. The principal weakness is that the detection efficiency and background rejection are not simulated; the authors acknowledge this, but it limits the strength of the 'first observation' claim. If the observability question can be addressed, the physics potential for forward hadron production and flavor-dependent cross sections is real.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II and Sec. III (Table I)] The central claim that O(10^4) neutrino interactions 'would occur' is supported as an interaction-rate estimate, but the abstract and Sec. V go further and assert that this 'would mark the first detection of neutrinos in a general-purpose LHC detector.' The detection step rests entirely on the Sec. II simplification that an interaction is observable if the outgoing charged lepton has >3 GeV and the hadronic shower >10 GeV. The paper itself states that reconstruction efficiency at these energies is 'typically low', that electrons produced inside calorimeters 'will be difficult to measure', and that muon/pileup separation is 'a central challenge' (Sec. IV). Without a detector-level simulation or a quantitative efficiency/fake-rate model, the title and conclusions overstate what is demonstrated. The manuscript should be reframed as an interaction-rate estimate, or supplemented with a feasib
  2. [Sec. III, Table I and Fig. 3] The quoted rates are central values without any uncertainty estimate. The result depends on the PYTHIA8 default tune, the GENIE cross-section model, the rock geometry, and the target position. The distance dependence alone is shown in Fig. 3 to be about ±30% for ±30 m in target placement. An 'O(10^4)' claim should be accompanied by at least a dominant-systematics estimate; as written, the reader cannot judge whether the number is stable at the factor-of-two level or only at the order-of-magnitude level. The label 'conservative estimates' in Sec. V is not quantified.
  3. [Sec. II] The tunnel is modeled as uniform standard rock, while the actual 160 m region contains crab cavities, warm magnets, supports, pipes, and cables. The authors acknowledge this, but since the decay-in-flight component (case b) depends on how quickly hadrons are absorbed, a non-uniform material budget could shift the flux. This is a recognized limitation, but it should be quantified or explicitly listed as a leading systematic rather than deferred to 'future work' in Sec. V. A simple envelope calculation with a low-density path would help bound the effect.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I] The column structure for CMS and ATLAS is difficult to parse; the meaning of the dash entries (e.g., '1−' and '−') should be defined in the caption (zero or negligible).
  2. [Fig. 3] The axis labels appear garbled ('1 102 10 [GeV] νE100 −80...'). Please fix the axis-limit and label formatting.
  3. [Sec. III] Typo: 'cooper' should be 'copper' (two occurrences). In Sec. IV, 'calorimieters' should be 'calorimeters'.
  4. [Sec. II] The target is described as a 'stationary proton target' and later as a gas; clarify whether the nominal scenario is hydrogen gas and note the dependence on gas species, which is relevant for the nuclear-effect discussion in Sec. IV.
  5. [Sec. III] The relation between 7.15 fb^-1 and ≈4×10^25 protons-on-target should be stated explicitly, and the assumption of 1% of Run-4 luminosity from [16] should be flagged as an input assumption rather than a derived result.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation; the predicted neutrino rate is a forward Monte Carlo output, and the only overlapping self-citation is the SHIFT setup input from [16].

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward simulation: PYTHIA8 for proton–gas collisions, GEANT4 for hadron propagation in rock, and GENIE for charged-current neutrino interactions in CMS/ATLAS detector volumes. No parameter is fitted to the target O(10^4) interaction estimate, and the >3 GeV lepton / >10 GeV shower criteria are applied as a detector-level proxy rather than fitted to reproduce the result. The only citation to prior work by one of the present authors is [16], the SHIFT@LHC proposal, which supplies the nominal target location (160 m upstream) and the 1% Run-4 integrated luminosity assumption; that paper does not itself contain or assume the neutrino rates reported here, so it is an input configuration rather than a self-derived constraint. The reconstruction-efficiency and pileup limitations acknowledged in Sections II and IV weaken the step from 'interactions occur' to 'neutrinos would be observed', but they are transparent caveats, not circular reasoning. The comparison with FASER and SND@LHC projections provides external context. Overall, no step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's estimates rely on established simulation codes and proposed-geometry assumptions rather than new theoretical constructs. The main unvalidated choices are PYTHIA/GENIE model applicability in this forward fixed-target regime, the simplified material model of the 160 m tunnel section, and the assumption that events passing simple energy thresholds can be reconstructed.

free parameters (3)
  • Target-to-IP distance = 160 m upstream (varied by ±30 m)
    Chosen from the original SHIFT proposal [16]; directly controls the hadron decay path and neutrino yield.
  • Run-4 luminosity fraction = 1% of Run-4 (7.15 fb^-1)
    Assumed allocation following [16]; all event counts scale linearly with this number.
  • Energy thresholds = E_lepton > 3 GeV, E_hadron > 10 GeV, E_nu > 20 GeV
    Author-chosen selection defining the fiducial 'detectable signal' proxy; changing thresholds changes interaction counts and pseudorapidity coverage.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption PYTHIA8 default settings reproduce forward pion/kaon production in 6.8 TeV p-on-proton collisions
    The entire neutrino flux originates from PYTHIA8 hadronization/decay; no validation against fixed-target data is shown (Sec. II).
  • domain assumption GENIE tunes G18_02a and GHE19_00b correctly describe CC DIS in the 20 GeV-1 TeV range
    Rates above 20 GeV rely on these tunes; no validation for the specific target nuclei is shown (Sec. II).
  • domain assumption Only rock between target and detector matters; all hadrons are absorbed within 1 m of rock
    Crab cavities, warm magnets, and supports are mentioned but not simulated; decays deeper than 1 m in rock are discarded (Sec. II).
  • domain assumption Phase-1 detector geometry approximates Phase-2 for this purpose
    Stated in footnote 1: 'The impact of the slightly different Phase-2 geometries on neutrino measurements is expected to be minor.'
  • domain assumption The gas target can be modeled as a stationary proton target at 6.8 TeV beam energy
    Nominal p-p simulation; the option of injecting other gases is deferred to the discussion (Sec. II and IV).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 3086 in / 3591 out tokens · 130503 ms · 2026-08-04T10:01:55.998218+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The SHIFT@LHC proposal introduced a novel shifted gaseous fixed-target concept at the LHC to search for exotic particles. In this letter, we explore an entirely different physics opportunity enabled by this setup: the observation of neutrinos in general-purpose LHC detectors. Using simulations of proton-gas collisions, hadron propagation, and neutrino interactions, we estimate that $O(10^4)$ muon-neutrino and $O(10^3)$ electron-neutrino interactions, with energies from 20 GeV to 1 TeV, would occur in the CMS and ATLAS detectors with 1% of the LHC Run 4 integrated luminosity ($\approx4\cdot10^{25}$ protons-on-target). This unique configuration provides access to hadron production in the pseudorapidity range $5<\eta<8$, complementary to existing LHC detectors. If realized, this would mark the first detection of neutrinos in a hadron collider detector, demonstrating the feasibility of such measurements in this experimental environment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.11816 by Alfonso Garcia-Soto, Jeremi Niedziela.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Distribution of the production and interaction vertices of neutrinos with the gaseous target placed 160 meters away from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Energy distribution of neutrino and antineutrino CC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Relative change in the electron- and muon-neutrino [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Parent pseudorapidity and radial distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Expected energy distribution of muon neutri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.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

49 extracted references · 32 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    De Rujula and R

    A. De Rujula and R. Ruckl, inSSC Workshop: Supercon- ducting Super Collider Fixed Target Physics(1984) pp. 571–596

    1984

  2. [2]

    Abreuet al.(F ASER), Phys

    H. Abreuet al.(F ASER), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 031801 (2023), arXiv:2303.14185 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Abbaneoet al.(SND@LHC), Phys

    D. Abbaneoet al.(SND@LHC), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 231802 (2025), arXiv:2411.18787 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Kling and L

    F. Kling and L. J. Nevay, Phys. Rev. D104, 113008 (2021), arXiv:2105.08270 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Francener, V

    R. Francener, V. P. Goncalves, F. Kling, P. Krack, and J. Rojo, arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2506.13889 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Mammen Abrahamet al.(F ASER), Phys

    R. Mammen Abrahamet al.(F ASER), Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 021802 (2024), arXiv:2403.12520 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Mammen Abrahamet al.(F ASER), Phys

    R. Mammen Abrahamet al.(F ASER), Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 211801 (2025), arXiv:2412.03186 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Abreuet al.(F ASER), Phys

    H. Abreuet al.(F ASER), Phys. Lett. B848, 138378 (2024), arXiv:2308.05587 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Mammen Abrahamet al.(F ASER), JHEP01, 199, arXiv:2410.10363 [hep-ex]

    R. Mammen Abrahamet al.(F ASER), JHEP01, 199, arXiv:2410.10363 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [10]

    J. L. Fenget al., J. Phys. G50, 030501 (2023), arXiv:2203.05090 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    N. W. Kamp, C. A. Arg¨ uelles, A. Karle, J. Thomas, and T. Yuan, Lake- and Surface-Based Detectors for Forward Neutrino Physics (2025), arXiv:2501.08278 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Ariga, S

    A. Ariga, S. Barwick, J. Boyd, M. Fieg, F. Kling, T. M¨ akel¨ a, C. Vendeuvre, and B. Weyer, JHEP07, 270, arXiv:2501.06142 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [13]

    Mammen Abraham and M

    R. Mammen Abraham and M. Fieg, Phys. Rev. D112, 015005 (2025), arXiv:2501.09071 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Foldenauer, F

    P. Foldenauer, F. Kling, and P. Reimitz, Phys. Rev. D 104, 113005 (2021), arXiv:2108.05370 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    K. J. Kelly, P. A. N. Machado, A. Marchionni, and Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, JHEP08, 087, arXiv:2103.00009 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    Niedziela, JHEP10, 204, arXiv:2406.08557 [hep-ph]

    J. Niedziela, JHEP10, 204, arXiv:2406.08557 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [17]

    Hadjidakiset al., Phys

    C. Hadjidakiset al., Phys. Rept.911, 1 (2021), arXiv:1807.00603 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Franzoso (LHCb), EPJ Web Conf.259, 13010 (2022)

    E. Franzoso (LHCb), EPJ Web Conf.259, 13010 (2022)

    2022

  19. [19]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), JINST3, S08003

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), JINST3, S08003

  20. [20]

    Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), JINST3, S08004

    S. Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), JINST3, S08004

  21. [21]

    W. K. Sakumotoet al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A294, 179 (1990)

    1990

  22. [22]

    Altegoeret al.(NOMAD), Nucl

    J. Altegoeret al.(NOMAD), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 404, 96 (1998)

    1998

  23. [23]

    Eskutet al.(CHORUS), Nucl

    E. Eskutet al.(CHORUS), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A401, 7 (1997)

    1997

  24. [24]

    D. A. Harriset al.(NuTeV), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A447, 377 (2000), arXiv:hep-ex/9908056

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  25. [25]

    Ableset al.(MINOS),P-875: A Long Baseline Neu- trino Oscillation Experiment at Fermilab(1995)

    E. Ableset al.(MINOS),P-875: A Long Baseline Neu- trino Oscillation Experiment at Fermilab(1995)

    1995

  26. [26]

    Adrian-Martinezet al.(KM3Net), J

    S. Adrian-Martinezet al.(KM3Net), J. Phys. G43, 084001 (2016), arXiv:1601.07459 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  27. [27]

    Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Astropart

    R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Astropart. Phys.35, 615 (2012), arXiv:1109.6096 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  28. [28]

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube-PINGU),Letter of In- tent: The Precision IceCube Next Generation Upgrade (PINGU)(2014) arXiv:1401.2046 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  29. [29]

    Abiet al.(DUNE), JINST15(08), T08008, arXiv:2002.02967 [physics.ins-det]

    B. Abiet al.(DUNE), JINST15(08), T08008, arXiv:2002.02967 [physics.ins-det]. 6

    arXiv 2002

  30. [30]

    Abeet al.,Letter of Intent: The Hyper-Kamiokande Experiment — Detector Design and Physics Potential — (2011) arXiv:1109.3262 [hep-ex]

    K. Abeet al.,Letter of Intent: The Hyper-Kamiokande Experiment — Detector Design and Physics Potential — (2011) arXiv:1109.3262 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  31. [31]

    Sj¨ ostrandet al., Computer Physics Communications 191, 159–177 (2015)

    T. Sj¨ ostrandet al., Computer Physics Communications 191, 159–177 (2015)

    2015

  32. [32]

    O. S. Bruning, P. Collier, P. Lebrun, S. Myers, R. Osto- jic, J. Poole, and P. Proudlock, eds.,LHC Design Report Vol.1: The LHC Main Ring(2004)

    2004

  33. [33]

    Agostinelliet al., Nucl

    S. Agostinelliet al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506, 250 (2003)

    2003

  34. [34]

    Andreopouloset al., Nucl

    C. Andreopouloset al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A614, 87 (2010), arXiv:0905.2517 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  35. [35]

    Tena-Vidalet al.(GENIE), Phys

    J. Tena-Vidalet al.(GENIE), Phys. Rev. D104, 072009 (2021), arXiv:2104.09179 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Garcia, R

    A. Garcia, R. Gauld, A. Heijboer, and J. Rojo, JCAP 09, 025, arXiv:2004.04756 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  37. [37]

    Bodek, I

    A. Bodek, I. Park, and U.-k. Yang, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.139, 113 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0411202

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  38. [38]

    Cooper-Sarkar, P

    A. Cooper-Sarkar, P. Mertsch, and S. Sarkar, JHEP08, 042, arXiv:1106.3723 [hep-ph]. [39]The CMS hadron calorimeter project, Technical design report. CMS (CERN, Geneva, 1997). [40]The CMS electromagnetic calorimeter project, Technical design report. CMS (CERN, Geneva, 1997). [41]ATLAS tile calorimeter, Technical design report. ATLAS (CERN, Geneva, 1996). [...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  39. [44]

    J. G. Layter (CMS),The CMS muon project, Technical design report. CMS (CERN, Geneva, 1997)

    1997

  40. [45]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), JINST14(12), P12006, arXiv:1908.00005 [hep-ex]

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), JINST14(12), P12006, arXiv:1908.00005 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1908

  41. [46]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Eur

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C81, 578 (2021), arXiv:2012.00578 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  42. [47]

    Chekhovskyet al.(CMS), JINST20(04), P04021, arXiv:2412.17590 [hep-ex]

    V. Chekhovskyet al.(CMS), JINST20(04), P04021, arXiv:2412.17590 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [48]

    Elmetenawee (CMS), PoSVER TEX2023, 074 (2024), arXiv:2312.08017 [hep-ex]

    W. Elmetenawee (CMS), PoSVER TEX2023, 074 (2024), arXiv:2312.08017 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [49]

    Tom´ aset al., JACoWIP AC2022, 1846 (2022)

    R. Tom´ aset al., JACoWIP AC2022, 1846 (2022)

    2022

  45. [50]

    Chatrchyanet al.(CMS, TOTEM), Eur

    S. Chatrchyanet al.(CMS, TOTEM), Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 3053 (2014), arXiv:1405.0722 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  46. [51]

    Adamsonet al.(MINOS), Phys

    P. Adamsonet al.(MINOS), Phys. Rev. D81, 072002 (2010), arXiv:0910.2201 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  47. [52]

    Wuet al.(NOMAD), Phys

    Q. Wuet al.(NOMAD), Phys. Lett. B660, 19 (2008), arXiv:0711.1183 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  48. [53]

    Onengutet al.(CHORUS), Phys

    G. Onengutet al.(CHORUS), Phys. Lett. B632, 65 (2006)

    2006

  49. [54]

    Tzanovet al.(NuTeV), Phys

    M. Tzanovet al.(NuTeV), Phys. Rev. D74, 012008 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0509010

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006