Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 101 references

The paper argues that the existing 21 km UNK tunnel, through the magnetic-rigidity relation, can host a muon collider with 10–20 TeV centre-of-mass energy—reaching the international 10 TeV reference with conventional dipoles and exceeding i

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 19:34 UTC pith:HHQQNKXI

load-bearing objection A mostly-review paper with an honest UNK siting extrapolation; the Eq. (4) luminosity scaling error is real but fixable, and the energy claim rests on an assumed packing fraction that the paper itself caveats. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.16904 v1 pith:HHQQNKXI submitted 2026-07-18 hep-ph

The muon collider: expected physics, technological solutions, and the prospect of a 21 km ring at the UNK site

L. V. Dudko This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords muon colliderenergy frontierionization coolingmagnetic rigiditydipole packing fractionhigh-temperature superconductor magnetsHiggs self-couplingthermal WIMP dark matter
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.

Muons lose far less energy to synchrotron radiation than electrons, so a circular collider can store them at multi-TeV energies and deliver the full beam energy in clean, point-like collisions. The paper surveys the physics case—sub-percent Higgs couplings, the trilinear and quartic Higgs self-couplings, electroweak and top measurements, and near-complete coverage of weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) dark matter—and the technologies needed to build such a machine, especially ionization cooling, which has now been demonstrated. Its central new contribution is a site-specific estimate: the existing, fully excavated but never-equipped 21 km UNK tunnel maps realistic dipole fields onto centre-of-mass energies of about 8–11 TeV with conventional magnets and 12–21 TeV with high-temperature-superconductor dipoles. That puts a 10 TeV reference collider within reach using existing tunnel infrastructure, and the paper argues a dedicated design study is the right next step. It also notes the same muon-beam complex would support non-collider science at every stage.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the existing 21 km UNK ring is quantitatively plausible as a muon-collider site on energy-reach grounds. The magnetic-rigidity relation p[GeV/c]=0.2998 B[T]ρ[m], with two beams (√s=2p), radius R≈3306 m, and dipole packing fractions f=0.59 (as-built), f=0.66 (matching the international 10 TeV reference), and f=0.8 (optimistic), maps conventional 7–8.3 T dipoles to √s≈8–11 TeV and 10–16 T high-temperature-superconductor (HTS) dipoles to √s≈12–21 TeV. The paper stresses this is an extrapolation, not a design, intended to motivate a dedicated design study; the open questions it names are the achievable packing fraction in a 5.1 m bore and neutrino-radiation miti

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the magnetic-rigidity relation p = 0.2998 B ρ, combined with the dipole packing fraction f—the fraction of the ring circumference occupied by bending magnets, the rest being interaction regions, RF systems, and neutrino-mitigation inserts. The machinery works in three steps: the fixed circumference fixes the geometric radius R ≈ 3306 m; the field B and packing fraction f set the effective bending radius ρ = fR; and two beams of momentum p give √s = 2p. The paper calibrates f against an as-built 3 TeV proton-ring design (f≈0.59) and the international 10 TeV muon-collider reference lattice (f≈0.66), then tabulates the resulting energies for conventional and HTS dipol

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a muon-collider lattice can fit in the 21 km tunnel with the assumed fractions of the ring occupied by bending magnets (0.59 to 0.80); if the real fraction is lower because of the 5.1 m bore, interaction regions, and neutrino shielding, the conventional-dipole energy drops below the 10 TeV reference.

What would settle it

A dedicated lattice and siting study for the 21 km tunnel would settle the claim: if it finds an achievable dipole packing fraction below about 0.55, or that the 5.1 m bore cannot accommodate the dipoles, cryostats, and neutrino shielding together, the conventional-dipole scenario falls below about 9 TeV and the claim that conventional magnets reach the 10 TeV reference fails. Finding f ≥ 0.66 at 8.3 T, together with an acceptable off-site neutrino dose after beam sweeping, would confirm it.

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

If this is right

  • A 10 TeV reference muon-collider program can be reached in a pre-existing 21 km ring with series-produced conventional dipoles, removing the largest long-lead civil-engineering item.
  • With 10–16 T high-temperature-superconductor dipoles the same ring reaches 12–21 TeV, where the trilinear Higgs coupling precision improves to about 2–3% and both the thermal wino and higgsino dark-matter targets are covered.
  • The luminosity penalty of the large fixed circumference (roughly 0.55 of the reference at 10 TeV) is compensated by running at the top of the energy range, because the number of stored turns depends only on the average bending field.
  • Neutrino-radiation mitigation becomes the leading siting constraint: the flux is more forward-peaked and energetic at higher centre-of-mass energy, the tunnel is shallower than reference assumptions, and the surfacing distance of decay-plane neutrinos crosses populated districts, so a site-specific dose study is mandatory.
  • The same muon-source complex yields non-collider physics—muon-catalyzed fusion, muography, muonic-atom analysis, muon spin spectroscopy, and a high-energy neutrino beamline—so scientific payoff does not wait for the collider.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: If the option proceeds, the ring's fixed circumference makes the top of its energy range the natural operating point; the design study's priority should therefore be high-field HTS dipoles and their cryogenics in a 5.1 m bore, not optimizing a 10 TeV baseline.
  • Editorial: The same magnetic-rigidity framework applied to other large existing tunnels would allow a systematic comparison of tunnel-reuse options; the paper mentions a 27 km tunnel reuse scenario only in passing.
  • Editorial: The paper's reframing of the neutrino flux as a potential aimed neutrino beamline suggests a testable siting criterion: survey exit corridors for a depopulated azimuth where a straight section could serve a parasitic high-energy neutrino detector.
  • Editorial: The luminosity-scaling argument implies that a future lattice study should report the achievable packing fraction as a headline number; if f falls below about 0.55, the conventional-dipole scenario drops below 9 TeV and HTS becomes necessary rather than an upgrade.

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This review argues that the existing 21 km UNK tunnel at Protvino could house a multi-TeV muon collider. It first summarizes the physics case and technology status of the IMCC muon-collider programme, then derives the centre-of-mass energy of a muon collider in the UNK ring from the magnetic-rigidity relation with adopted dipole packing factors f=0.59/0.66/0.8, obtaining √s≈8.2–25.4 TeV depending on field and filling. It extends the published energy-dependent physics reach to these energies, flags the luminosity and neutrino-mitigation caveats, and reviews muon-beam applications. The explicit message is that the estimates motivate a dedicated design study rather than substitute for one.

Significance. If the energy-reach estimate holds, the paper establishes a concrete, quantitatively grounded reason to consider reusing the UNK tunnel: with IMCC-consistent packing and HTS dipoles the ring reaches 13–21 TeV, above the IMCC 10 TeV reference. The paper is honest about its limitations — no conceptual design, no UNK-specific lattice, luminosity is assumed via the reference-programme scaling — and the rigidity arithmetic in Table 5 is correct. The review also usefully consolidates the physics/technology case and the non-collider applications. These strengths make it a valuable contribution despite the issues below.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.3, Eq. (4)] The luminosity-scaling derivation contains an algebra error. From n_turns ∝ \bar{B} (Eq. 3) and L ∝ n_turns f_rev with f_rev=c/C, one has L ∝ \bar{B}/C. At fixed √s, the rigidity relation gives \bar{B}∝1/C, so L|_{fixed√s} ∝ 1/C^2, not ∝1/C as stated in Eq. (4). The quoted penalty factor C_ref/C_UNK≈0.55 for a 20.8 km ring at 10 TeV should be (C_ref/C_UNK)^2≈0.30. The subsequent discussion of the deficit closing at higher energy is accordingly too optimistic: at √s≈21 TeV (\bar{B}≈10.5 T), L is ≈(10.5/20.8)/(9.2/11.4)≈0.63 of the 10 TeV reference for equal brightness and bunch intensity, even though the per-fill turn count is larger. Please correct Eq. (4), the penalty estimate, and the surrounding text in §4.3 and Table 6.
  2. [§4.2, Table 5; Abstract] The claim that conventional dipoles reach the IMCC 10 TeV reference depends on the assumed packing factor. The only UNK-anchored value, the as-built UNK-II f=0.59, gives √s=9.7 TeV for 8.3 T NbTi — just below 10 TeV. The IMCC-consistent f=0.66 is transferred from a 11.4 km lattice with 14 T dipoles and is not derived for the 5.1 m UNK bore, its interaction regions, RF, injection, and neutrino-mitigation inserts. Since the abstract and conclusion present the 10–20 TeV range as the central justification, the abstract's 'reaching the IMCC 10 TeV reference with conventional dipoles' is not yet supported unless f≳0.60. Please either provide a UNK-specific packing-factor estimate (or an explicit lattice-informed bound) or soften the headline to 'around the IMCC reference', and state that the as-built f=0.59 places conventional dipoles below 10 TeV.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.3] After correcting Eq. (4), the Table 6 note 'L ∝ 1/C (Eq. 4)' must be updated to L ∝ 1/C^2.
  2. [§4.2] The terms 'packing factor' and 'filling factor' are used interchangeably; define one and use it consistently.
  3. [Figure 5] The figure legend is clear, but it would help to label the dashed/dotted curves directly with f values in the plot area.
  4. [§4.4] The sentence 'the muon collider is the only route that places a full-energy point-like collision at the frontier' is a strong statement; a qualifying phrase such as 'among the proposals considered here' would be more precise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the UNK energy-reach estimate is an external rigidity calculation with transparently labeled packing factors, and the physics-reach table is an explicitly labeled interpolation of published studies.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained and not circular. Section 4.2 computes UNK energy reach from the external PDG magnetic-rigidity relation (Eq. 1), the fixed UNK circumference (R = 3306 m), and a dipole packing factor f. The three f values are not fitted to the target energy: f = 0.59 is quoted from the as-built UNK-II calibration [76], f = 0.66 is obtained by inverting the external IMCC 10 TeV reference parameters (B = 14 T, C = 11.4 km), and f = 0.8 is explicitly labeled an optimistic upper value. The resulting Table 5 is arithmetic from those inputs. The physics-reach entries in Table 6 are explicitly described as interpolations or energy-extrapolations of published energy-dependent studies, not as outputs of a fit, and every row carries the luminosity caveat. The luminosity penalty Eq. (4) is derived independently from the muon lifetime and rigidity relation, not from the target claim. The paper repeatedly states that no UNK conceptual design report exists and that the estimates are meant to motivate a design study. The weakest assumption, the transferred packing fraction, is an honest engineering uncertainty rather than a claim that reduces to its own input. There are no self-citations carrying the argument and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central estimate rests on the standard rigidity relation, assumed packing fractions f, the assumed luminosity target scaling, and external physics-reach curves. No new particles, forces, or invented entities are introduced; the only 'new' object is a site-specific parameter choice, which is honestly labeled as an extrapolation.

free parameters (3)
  • Dipole packing fraction f = 0.66 = 0.66
    Adopted as 'IMCC-consistent' by inverting the IMCC 10 TeV reference ring parameters; applied to the UNK ring without a UNK lattice design. Table 5 energies scale linearly with f.
  • Dipole packing fraction f = 0.8 = 0.8
    Chosen as an optimistic upper value; the paper notes it would require re-boring beyond the existing arc geometry.
  • Reference luminosity scaling integral Ldt = 10 ab^-1 * (sqrt(s)/10 TeV)^2 = 17, 29, 44 ab^-1 at 13, 17, 21 TeV
    Borrowed from the IMCC reference programme and applied to all UNK energies in Table 6; explicitly flagged as an assumption that a fixed 21 km ring has not been shown to satisfy.
axioms (4)
  • standard math Magnetic rigidity p[GeV/c] = 0.2998 B[T] rho[m] for a stored beam (Eq. 1)
    Standard accelerator-physics relation from the PDG review (Ref. [78]); used to map UNK circumference and dipole field to sqrt(s).
  • domain assumption The UNK tunnel has circumference 20,772 m, bore 5.1 m, depth 20–60 m, and was fully excavated
    Factual premise for all UNK numbers, taken from a 1995 conference report (Ref. [76]) and not independently verified in the paper.
  • domain assumption Luminosity of a muon collider at fixed beam brightness and bunch intensity scales as L ∝ n_turns f_rev
    Imported from Refs. [1,26] and used for Eq. (4); the subsequent substitution is where the algebraic slip occurs.
  • domain assumption Published energy-dependent muon-collider sensitivity curves extrapolate to UNK energies
    Table 6 interpolates the Higgs, WIMP, and reach projections from Refs. [26,28,41,42,49,55,56] to 13, 17, and 21 TeV; the paper states these are not dedicated UNK simulations.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 24657 in / 14796 out tokens · 160904 ms · 2026-08-01T19:34:35.488479+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

A multi-TeV muon collider has emerged as one of the most compelling options for the post-LHC energy frontier. Because the muon is an elementary particle that radiates $\sim\!10^9$ times less synchrotron power than an electron of the same energy, a circular muon collider delivers the full beam energy to the hard collision in a remarkably compact ring, combining the energy reach of a $100$~TeV-class proton machine with the clean final states of a lepton collider. This review summarizes the expected physics results -- Higgs couplings and self-couplings, electroweak and vector-boson-fusion processes, the top quark, a broad beyond-the-Standard Model programme, and a near-complete closure of the thermal window for electroweak WIMP dark matter -- and the status of the enabling technologies, emphasizing for each challenge how it is being solved and where the solution is documented: muon production, ionization cooling (demonstrated in the transverse plane by MICE), rapid acceleration, high-field HTS magnets, the machine-detector interface, and the neutrino-flux constraint. Building on this foundation, this review examines the prospect of housing a muon collider in the existing 21~km UNK tunnel near Protvino, where the magnetic-rigidity relation maps realistic arc fields onto a centre-of-mass energy of order $10$-$20$ TeV -- reaching the IMCC 10~TeV reference with conventional dipoles and exceeding it with high-temperature-superconductor dipoles. It closes with a discussion of non-collider applications of the intense muon beams such a facility would develop -- muon-catalyzed fusion, muography, muonic-atom isotopic analysis, and muon spin spectroscopy -- several with a long tradition in the Russian physics institutes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16904 by L. V. Dudko.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic energy dependence of the two production mechanisms at a muon collider: s￾channel annihilation falls as 1/s, while vector-boson fusion grows with energy and dominates above a few TeV. Illustrative curves; the qualitative crossover follows Ref. [4] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Projected precision on the trilinear Higgs self-coupling λ3 as a function of √ s, from the energy-dependent reach of Refs. [26, 28, 41] (markers at 3, 10 and 30 TeV). The shaded band indicates the centre-of-mass energy reachable in the 21 km UNK ring (Section 4). grow with energy, and any deviation from the Standard Model cancellation is amplified; global fits in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Thermal electroweak-WIMP mass targets (the higgsino doublet at 1.1 TeV and the wino triplet at 2.9 TeV) compared with the disappearing/soft-track reach of the 3 and 10 TeV muon-collider stages, after Refs. [55, 56]. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic of the muon-collider accelerator complex: a multi-megawatt proton driver produces pions on a target inside a high-field capture solenoid; the pions decay to muons, which are cooled in six dimensions by ionization cooling, rapidly accelerated, and injected into the collider ring. Adapted from the IMCC design [5, 20]. 3.1. Muon production and capture The challenge. Muons do not exist as a stationar… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Centre-of-mass energy of a muon collider in the fixed 21 km UNK ring as a function of arc dipole field, from the magnetic-rigidity relation. The shaded band spans dipole packing factors f = 0.59–0.80; the dash-dotted line is the as-built UNK-II calibration f = 0.59, the solid line is the IMCC-consistent f = 0.66, the dashed line the optimistic f = 0.8, and the dotted line the unphysical geometric bound f =… 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

101 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    J. P. Delahaye, M. Diemoz, K. Long, B. Mansouli´ e, N. Pastrone, L. Rivkin, D. Schulte, A. Skrin- sky, A. Wulzer, Muon colliders, arXiv:1901.06150 [physics.acc-ph] (2019).doi:10.48550/arXiv. 1901.06150

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1901.06150 1901

  2. [2]

    Al Ali, et al., The muon smasher’s guide, Rept

    H. Al Ali, et al., The muon smasher’s guide, Rept. Prog. Phys. 85 (2022) 084201.doi:10.1088/ 1361-6633/ac6678

    2022

  3. [3]

    K. Long, D. Lucchesi, M. Palmer, N. Pastrone, D. Schulte, V. Shiltsev, Muon colliders to expand frontiers of particle physics, Nat. Phys. 17 (2021) 289–292.doi:10.1038/s41567-020-01130-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-020-01130-x 2021

  4. [4]

    Costantini, et al., Vector boson fusion at multi-TeV muon colliders, JHEP 09 (2020) 080

    A. Costantini, et al., Vector boson fusion at multi-TeV muon colliders, JHEP 09 (2020) 080. doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2020)080

    doi:10.1007/jhep09(2020)080 2020

  5. [5]

    Accettura, et al., Towards a muon collider, Eur

    C. Accettura, et al., Towards a muon collider, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 864.doi:10.1140/ epjc/s10052-023-11889-x

    2023

  6. [6]

    F. F. Tikhonin, On the effects at colliding muon beams, Tech. Rep. JINR-P2-4120, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, in Russian; digitised as arXiv:0805.3961 (1968).doi:10.48550/ arXiv.0805.3961

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.0805.3961 1968

  7. [7]

    G. I. Budker, Accelerators and colliding beams, in: Proceedings of the 7th International Confer- ence on High-Energy Accelerators, Yerevan, 1969, pp. 33–39, reprinted in AIP Conf. Proc. 352 (1996) 4. URLhttps://inspirehep.net/literature/931295

    1969

  8. [8]

    Y. M. Ado, V. I. Balbekov, Use of ionization friction in the storage of heavy particles, Sov. Atom. Energy 31 (1971) 731–736, [At. Energ. 31 (1971) 40].doi:10.1007/BF01123390. 21 L. V. Dudko Natural Science Review0000 (2026)

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01123390 1971

  9. [9]

    A. N. Skrinsky, V. V. Parkhomchuk, Cooling methods for beams of charged particles, Sov. J. Part. Nucl. 12 (1981) 223–247, [Fiz. Elem. Chast. Atom. Yadra 12 (1981) 557]

    1981

  10. [10]

    Neuffer, Principles and applications of muon cooling, Part

    D. Neuffer, Principles and applications of muon cooling, Part. Accel. 14 (1983) 75–90, fERMILAB-FN-0378.doi:10.2172/1156195

    work page doi:10.2172/1156195 1983

  11. [11]

    J. C. Gallardo, R. B. Palmer, A. V. Tollestrup, et al.,µ+µ− collider: A feasibility study, Tech. Rep. BNL-52503, FERMILAB-CONF-96-092, LBNL-38946, BNL / Fermilab / LBNL, eConf C960625, R4 (1996). URLhttps://inspirehep.net/literature/422722

    1996

  12. [12]

    C. M. Ankenbrandt, et al., Status of muon collider research and development and future plans, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 2 (1999) 081001.doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTAB.2.081001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevstab.2.081001 1999

  13. [13]

    R. B. Palmer, Muon colliders, Rev. Accel. Sci. Tech. 7 (2014) 137–159.doi:10.1142/ S1793626814300072

    2014

  14. [14]

    Bogomilov, et al., Demonstration of cooling by the Muon Ionization Cooling Experiment, Nature 578 (2020) 53–59.doi:10.1038/s41586-020-1958-9

    M. Bogomilov, et al., Demonstration of cooling by the Muon Ionization Cooling Experiment, Nature 578 (2020) 53–59.doi:10.1038/s41586-020-1958-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-1958-9 2020

  15. [15]

    Bogomilov, et al., Transverse emittance reduction in muon beams by ionization cooling, Nat

    M. Bogomilov, et al., Transverse emittance reduction in muon beams by ionization cooling, Nat. Phys. 20 (2024) 1558–1563.doi:10.1038/s41567-024-02547-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-024-02547-4 2024

  16. [16]

    CERN Council, 2020 Update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics, Tech. Rep. CERN- ESU-015-2020, CERN (2020).doi:10.17181/ESU2020

    doi:10.17181/esu2020 2020

  17. [17]

    Adolphsen, et al., European Strategy for Particle Physics — Accelerator R&D Roadmap, CERN Yellow Rep

    C. Adolphsen, et al., European Strategy for Particle Physics — Accelerator R&D Roadmap, CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr. 1 (2022) 1–270.doi:10.23731/CYRM-2022-001

    doi:10.23731/cyrm-2022-001 2022

  18. [18]

    Accettura, et al., Interim report for the International Muon Collider Collaboration, Tech

    C. Accettura, et al., Interim report for the International Muon Collider Collaboration, Tech. Rep. CERN-2024-002, CERN (2024).doi:10.23731/CYRM-2024-002

    doi:10.23731/cyrm-2024-002 2024

  19. [19]

    C.Accettura, etal., Themuoncollider, arXiv:2504.21417[physics.acc-ph](2025).doi:10.48550/ arXiv.2504.21417

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.21417 2025

  20. [20]

    Taylor, et al., MuCol Milestone Report No

    R. Taylor, et al., MuCol Milestone Report No. 7: consolidated parameters, arXiv:2510.27437 [physics.acc-ph] (2025).doi:10.48550/arXiv.2510.27437

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.27437 2025

  21. [21]

    rep., DOE/NSF HEPAP (2023)

    Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel (P5), Exploring the Quantum Universe: Pathways to Innovation and Discovery in Particle Physics, Tech. rep., DOE/NSF HEPAP (2023). URLhttps://www.usparticlephysics.org/2023-p5-report/

    2023

  22. [22]

    K. M. Black, et al., Muon collider forum report, JINST 19 (2024) T02015.doi:10.1088/ 1748-0221/19/02/T02015

    2024

  23. [23]

    Begel, et al., United States muon collider community white paper for the European Strat- egy for Particle Physics update, arXiv:2503.23695 [hep-ex] (2025).doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503

    M. Begel, et al., United States muon collider community white paper for the European Strat- egy for Particle Physics update, arXiv:2503.23695 [hep-ex] (2025).doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503. 23695

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.23695 2025

  24. [24]

    de Gouvˆ ea, et al., US national input to the 2026 update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics, arXiv:2602.15295 [hep-ex] (2026).doi:10.48550/arXiv.2602.15295

    A. de Gouvˆ ea, et al., US national input to the 2026 update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics, arXiv:2602.15295 [hep-ex] (2026).doi:10.48550/arXiv.2602.15295

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.15295 2026

  25. [25]

    rep., The National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2025)

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Elementary Particle Physics: Progress and Promise, Tech. rep., The National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2025). doi:10.17226/28909

    work page doi:10.17226/28909 2025

  26. [26]

    Buttazzo, R

    D. Buttazzo, R. Franceschini, A. Wulzer, Two paths towards precision at a very high energy lepton collider, JHEP 05 (2021) 219.doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2021)219

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2021)219 2021

  27. [27]

    Roser, et al., Report of the Snowmass 2021 collider implementation task force, JINST 18 (2023) P05018.doi:10.1088/1748-0221/18/05/P05018

    T. Roser, et al., Report of the Snowmass 2021 collider implementation task force, JINST 18 (2023) P05018.doi:10.1088/1748-0221/18/05/P05018

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/18/05/p05018 2021

  28. [28]

    Aim` e, et al., Muon collider physics summary, arXiv:2203.07256 [hep-ph] (2022).doi:10

    C. Aim` e, et al., Muon collider physics summary, arXiv:2203.07256 [hep-ph] (2022).doi:10. 48550/arXiv.2203.07256

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.07256 2022

  29. [29]

    T. Han, D. Liu, I. Low, X. Wang, Electroweak scattering at the muon shot, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 013005.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.013005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.013005 2024

  30. [30]

    T. Han, Y. Ma, K. Xie, High energy leptonic collisions and electroweak parton distribution functions, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) L031301.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.L031301. 22 L. V. Dudko Natural Science Review0000 (2026)

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.l031301 2021

  31. [31]

    Arduini, et al., Comparative evaluation of future collider options, CERN Yellow Rep

    G. Arduini, et al., Comparative evaluation of future collider options, CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr. CERN-2025-011 (2025).doi:10.23731/CYRM-2025-0011

    work page doi:10.23731/cyrm-2025-0011 2025

  32. [32]

    V. D. Barger, M. S. Berger, J. F. Gunion, T. Han, Higgs boson physics in the s-channel atµ+µ− colliders, Phys. Rept. 286 (1997) 1–51.doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(96)00041-5

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(96)00041-5 1997

  33. [33]

    Forslund, P

    M. Forslund, P. Meade, Precision Higgs width and couplings with a high energy muon collider, JHEP 01 (2024) 182.doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2024)182

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep01(2024)182 2024

  34. [34]

    Castelli, Higgs physics at the muon collider, Physics 8 (2025) 28.doi:10.3390/ physics8010028

    L. Castelli, Higgs physics at the muon collider, Physics 8 (2025) 28.doi:10.3390/ physics8010028

    2025

  35. [35]

    Andreetto, et al., Higgs physics at a√s= 3TeV muon collider with detailed detector simu- lation, Eur

    P. Andreetto, et al., Higgs physics at a√s= 3TeV muon collider with detailed detector simu- lation, Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (2025) 221.doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-13923-6

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-13923-6 2025

  36. [36]

    Celada, T

    E. Celada, T. Han, W. Kilian, N. Kreher, Y. Ma, F. Maltoni, D. Pagani, J. Reuter, T. Striegl, K. Xie, Probing Higgs-muon interactions at a multi-TeV muon collider, JHEP 08 (2024) 021. doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2024)021

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep08(2024)021 2024

  37. [37]

    Buttazzo, P

    D. Buttazzo, P. Paradisi, Probing the muong−2anomaly with the Higgs boson at a muon collider, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 075021.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.075021

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.075021 2021

  38. [38]

    P. Li, Z. Liu, K.-F. Lyu, Higgs width and couplings at high energy muon colliders with forward muon detection, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 073009.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.073009

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.073009 2024

  39. [39]

    Ruhdorfer, E

    M. Ruhdorfer, E. Salvioni, A. Wulzer, Why detect forward muons at a muon collider, Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) 053010.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.053010

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.053010 2025

  40. [40]

    FCC Collaboration, Future Circular Collider Feasibility Study Report: Volume 1 — Physics, Experiments, Detectors, Tech. Rep. CERN-FCC-PHYS-2025-0001, CERN, arXiv:2505.00272 (2025).doi:10.48550/arXiv.2505.00272

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.00272 2025

  41. [41]

    de Blas, et al., The physics case of a 3 TeV muon collider stage, arXiv:2203.07261 [hep-ph] (2022).doi:10.48550/arXiv.2203.07261

    J. de Blas, et al., The physics case of a 3 TeV muon collider stage, arXiv:2203.07261 [hep-ph] (2022).doi:10.48550/arXiv.2203.07261

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.07261 2022

  42. [42]

    Chiesa, F

    M. Chiesa, F. Maltoni, L. Mantani, B. Mele, F. Piccinini, E. Vryonidou, Measuring the quar- tic Higgs self-coupling at a multi-TeV muon collider, JHEP 09 (2020) 098.doi:10.1007/ JHEP09(2020)098

    2020

  43. [43]

    Cornet-Gomez, V

    F. Cornet-Gomez, V. Miralles, M. Miralles L´ opez, M. Moreno Ll´ acer, M. Vos, Future collider constraints on top-quark operators, JHEP 10 (2025) 156.doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2025)156

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep10(2025)156 2025

  44. [44]

    T. Han, D. Liu, S. Wang, Top-quark electroweak dipole moment at a high-energy muon collider, Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) 035015.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.035015

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.035015 2025

  45. [45]

    Frixione, et al., Precision phenomenology at multi-TeV muon colliders, JHEP 09 (2025) 036

    S. Frixione, et al., Precision phenomenology at multi-TeV muon colliders, JHEP 09 (2025) 036. doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2025)036

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2025)036 2025

  46. [46]

    T. Han, M. Low, T. A. Wu, K. Xie, Colorful particle production at high-energy muon colliders, JHEP 06 (2025) 109.doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2025)109

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep06(2025)109 2025

  47. [47]

    Franceschini, G

    R. Franceschini, G. Greco, Higgs and BSM physics at the future muon collider, Symmetry 13 (2021) 851.doi:10.3390/sym13050851

    work page doi:10.3390/sym13050851 2021

  48. [48]

    R. Bedi, T. Gherghetta, S. Kumar, P. Li, Z. Liu, Heavy QCD axions at high-energy muon colliders, JHEP 01 (2026) 003.doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2026)003

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep01(2026)003 2026

  49. [49]

    Asadi, H

    P. Asadi, H. Bagherian, K. Fraser, S. Homiller, Q. Lu, Lepton flavor violation: from muon decays to muon colliders, Phys. Rev. D 113 (2026) 015003.doi:10.1103/bg4z-dmgb

    work page doi:10.1103/bg4z-dmgb 2026

  50. [50]

    Dehghani, M

    P. Dehghani, M. Frank, B. Fuks, Vector boson fusion signatures of superheavy Majorana neutri- nos at muon colliders, Phys. Rev. D 112 (2025) 035020.doi:10.1103/3sxk-glsw

    work page doi:10.1103/3sxk-glsw 2025

  51. [51]

    S. C. ˙Inan, A. V. Kisselev, Probe of a Randall-Sundrum-like model from muon pair production at a high energy muon collider, J. Phys. G 52 (2025) 025004.doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ada173

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ada173 2025

  52. [52]

    Amarkhail, S

    H. Amarkhail, S. C.˙Inan, A. V. Kisselev, Probing anomalousγγγγcouplings at a future muon collider, Nucl. Phys. B 1005 (2024) 116592.doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2024.116592

    arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    Amarkhail, S

    H. Amarkhail, S. C.˙Inan, A. V. Kisselev, Probing anomalousZγγγcouplings at a future muon 23 L. V. Dudko Natural Science Review0000 (2026) collider, J. Phys. G 52 (2025) 015001.doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ad8cf3

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ad8cf3 2026

  54. [54]

    S. C. ˙Inan, A. V. Kisselev, Probe of axion-like particles in vector boson scattering at a muon collider, J. Phys. G 50 (2023) 105002.doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ace3df

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ace3df 2023

  55. [55]

    Capdevilla, F

    R. Capdevilla, F. Meloni, R. Simoniello, J. Zurita, Hunting wino and higgsino dark matter at the muon collider with disappearing tracks, JHEP 06 (2021) 133.doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2021)133

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep06(2021)133 2021

  56. [56]

    Capdevilla, F

    R. Capdevilla, F. Meloni, J. Zurita, Discovering electroweak interacting dark matter at muon colliders using soft tracks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (2025) 181802.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134. 181802

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134 2025

  57. [57]

    Franceschini, X

    R. Franceschini, X. Zhao, Going all the way in the search for WIMP dark matter at the muon collider through precision measurements, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 552.doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-023-11724-3

    doi:10.1140/epjc/ 2023

  58. [58]

    T. Han, Z. Liu, L.-T. Wang, X. Wang, WIMPs at high energy muon colliders, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 075004.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.075004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.075004 2021

  59. [59]

    Braathen, M

    J. Braathen, M. Gabelmann, T. Robens, P. Stylianou, Probing the inert doublet model via vector-boson fusion at a muon collider, JHEP 05 (2025) 055.doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2025)055

    doi:10.1007/jhep05(2025)055 2025

  60. [60]

    Aliberti, et al., The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model: an update, Phys

    R. Aliberti, et al., The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model: an update, Phys. Rept. 1143 (2025) 1–158.doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2025.08.002

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2025.08.002 2025

  61. [61]

    D. P. Aguillard, et al., Measurement of the positive muon anomalous magnetic moment to 127 ppb, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135 (2025) 101802.doi:10.1103/7clf-sm2v

    doi:10.1103/7clf-sm2v 2025

  62. [62]

    R.Capdevilla, D.Curtin, Y.Kahn, G.Krnjaic, No-losetheoremfordiscoveringthenewphysicsof (g−2) µ atmuoncolliders, Phys.Rev.D105(2022)015028.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.015028

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.015028 2022

  63. [63]

    R. Ding, A. Ruzi, S. Qian, A. Levin, Y. Wu, Q. Li, Quantum entanglement between gauge boson pairs at a muon collider, arXiv:2504.09832 [hep-ph] (2025).doi:10.48550/arXiv.2504.09832

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.09832 2025

  64. [64]

    Bell, et al., MAIA: a new detector concept for a 10 TeV muon collider, arXiv:2502.00181 [physics.ins-det] (2025).doi:10.48550/arXiv.2502.00181

    C. Bell, et al., MAIA: a new detector concept for a 10 TeV muon collider, arXiv:2502.00181 [physics.ins-det] (2025).doi:10.48550/arXiv.2502.00181

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.00181 2025

  65. [65]

    Andreetto, et al., MUSIC: a multi-purpose detector concept for physics at the 10 TeV muon collider, Eur

    P. Andreetto, et al., MUSIC: a multi-purpose detector concept for physics at the 10 TeV muon collider, Eur. Phys. J. C 86 (2026) 554.doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-026-15654-8

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-026-15654-8 2026

  66. [66]

    Stratakis, N

    D. Stratakis, N. Mokhov, M. Palmer, et al., A muon collider facility for physics discovery, arXiv:2203.08033 [physics.acc-ph] (2022).doi:10.48550/arXiv.2203.08033

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.08033 2022

  67. [67]

    Al-Harthy, FLUKA-based optimization of muon production target design, arXiv:2602.16672 [physics.acc-ph] (2026).doi:10.48550/arXiv.2602.16672

    R. Al-Harthy, FLUKA-based optimization of muon production target design, arXiv:2602.16672 [physics.acc-ph] (2026).doi:10.48550/arXiv.2602.16672

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.16672 2026

  68. [68]

    Hamada, R

    Y. Hamada, R. Kitano, R. Matsudo, H. Takaura,µTRISTAN, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2022 (5) (2022) 053B02.doi:10.48550/arXiv.2201.06664

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2201.06664 2022

  69. [69]

    Stratakis, Essay: A path for the construction of a muon collider, Phys

    D. Stratakis, Essay: A path for the construction of a muon collider, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (2025) 160001.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.160001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.160001 2025

  70. [70]

    Magnet R&D for the Muon Collider -- European Strategy Input

    L. Bottura, et al., Magnet R&D for the muon collider: a European Strategy input, arXiv:2503.21185 [physics.acc-ph] (2025).doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503.21185

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.21185 2025

  71. [71]

    The 2025 Roadmaps for the US Magnet Development Program

    L. Cooley, et al., The 2025 roadmaps for the US Magnet Development Program, arXiv:2508.19220 [physics.acc-ph] (2025).doi:10.48550/arXiv.2508.19220

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.19220 2025

  72. [72]

    Bartosik, et al., Simulated detector performance at the muon collider, arXiv:2203.07964 [hep- ex] (2022).doi:10.48550/arXiv.2203.07964

    N. Bartosik, et al., Simulated detector performance at the muon collider, arXiv:2203.07964 [hep- ex] (2022).doi:10.48550/arXiv.2203.07964

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.07964 2022

  73. [73]

    D. Ally, L. Carpenter, T. Holmes, L. Lee, P. Wagenknecht, Strategies for beam-induced back- ground reduction at muon colliders, arXiv:2203.06773 [physics.ins-det] (2022).doi:10.48550/ arXiv.2203.06773

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.06773 2022

  74. [74]

    Casarsa, D

    M. Casarsa, D. Lucchesi, L. Sestini, Experimentation at a muon collider, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 74 (2024) 233–261.doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102622-011319

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102622-011319 2024

  75. [75]

    European Strategy Group, The European Strategy for Particle Physics: 2026 update — Recom- mendations by the European Strategy Group, Tech. Rep. CERN-ESU-2025-002, CERN, adopted 24 L. V. Dudko Natural Science Review0000 (2026) by the CERN Council on 22 May 2026 (2026). URLhttps://cds.cern.ch/record/2950671

    arXiv 2026

  76. [76]

    Gurov, UNK status and plans, in: Proceedings of the 1995 Particle Accelerator Conference (PAC’95), Dallas, IEEE, 1996, pp

    G. Gurov, UNK status and plans, in: Proceedings of the 1995 Particle Accelerator Conference (PAC’95), Dallas, IEEE, 1996, pp. 416–418. URLhttps://proceedings.jacow.org/p95/ARTICLES/MPG/MPG06.PDF

    1995

  77. [77]

    Neuffer, V

    D. Neuffer, V. Shiltsev, On the feasibility of a pulsed 14 TeV c.m.e. muon collider in the LHC tunnel, JINST 13 (2018) T10003.doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/10/T10003

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/10/t10003 2018

  78. [78]

    R. L. Workman, et al., Review of Particle Physics, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2022 (2022) 083C01. doi:10.1093/ptep/ptac097

    doi:10.1093/ptep/ptac097 2022

  79. [79]

    N. V. Mokhov, A. Van Ginneken, Neutrino radiation at muon colliders and storage rings, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 37 (sup1) (2000) 172–179.doi:10.1080/00223131.2000.10874869

    arXiv 2000

  80. [80]

    Geer, Neutrino beams from muon storage rings: Characteristics and physics potential, Phys

    S. Geer, Neutrino beams from muon storage rings: Characteristics and physics potential, Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 6989–6997, [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 59, 039903 (1999)].doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.57.6989

    1998

Showing first 80 references.