Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 36 references

FASER reports zero quirk candidates in 186 fb−1 of LHC data, excluding for the first time quirk masses above the weak scale for infracolor confinement scales from 300 eV to 100 keV.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 00:29 UTC pith:XHJHUNZF

load-bearing objection First dedicated LHC quirk search at FASER: clean null result, well-executed, but mass reach leans on a benchmark radiation probability that the paper only varies by ±30%. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26195 v1 pith:XHJHUNZF submitted 2026-07-28 hep-ex hep-ph

First Search for Quirks at the LHC with FASER

FASER Collaboration This is my paper
classification hep-ex hep-ph
keywords quirksinfracolorFASERlong-lived particlesexclusion limitsLHC Run 3forward physicstiming detectors
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 is the first dedicated LHC search for quirks—hypothetical particles that carry ordinary weak charge and also feel a new QCD-like 'infracolor' force. Using FASER, located 480 m downstream of the LHC collision point, the search looks for slow, electrically charged pairs that oscillate under their confining infracolor interaction and arrive out of time relative to speed-of-light muons. Zero candidate events are observed in a nearly background-free sample. This is interpreted as the first direct exclusion of quirk masses above the weak scale for infracolor confinement scales Λ between 300 eV and 100 keV, with masses up to 179 GeV excluded for Λ = 10 keV. A sympathetic reader would care because it narrows the parameter space of a motivated hidden-sector theory and demonstrates a new experimental path for slow, long-lived charged particles at the LHC.

Core claim

Using 186 fb−1 of 13.6 TeV proton-proton collisions collected in 2022–2024, the FASER detector selects events with two slow, heavy, electrically charged particles by requiring a doubly charged scintillator signal, an elliptical tracker pattern, and out-of-time arrival after the nominal 25 ns bunch spacing. No events pass all selections. A fully frequentist CLs analysis then sets 95% CL upper limits on the effective fiducial cross section and signal strength. For the benchmark model with the infracolor gauge group SU(2) and quirk electric charge ±1, the observed limit excludes quirk masses up to 179 GeV at Λ = 10 keV, and excludes quirk masses above the electroweak scale over the broad confin

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the confining infracolor string that binds each quirk–anti-quirk pair. Because Λ << m_Q, the pair oscillates about its center of mass, with amplitude roughly 1 cm × (m_Q/100 GeV)(1 keV/Λ)², redirecting longitudinal momentum into transverse motion and making the pair propagate slower than light. The detector exploits this slowness through scintillator timing (extracting arrival time t0 modulo 25 ns and speed β) and scintillator charge (about twice a minimum-ionizing muon). Signal propagation through 480 m of material is modeled with survival probabilities parameterized by m_Q, Λ, and pair energy, with the IC glueball-emission probability per oscillation set to ε = 0.1

Load-bearing premise

The exclusion limits depend on the assumption that a produced quirk pair loses energy at a modest rate while traveling the 480 m to the detector; if the new-force radiation is much stronger than the ε = 0.1 simulation, the pairs would stop or annihilate before arriving, and the absence of events would not rule them out.

What would settle it

Finding even one candidate event in the defined signal region in the remaining Run 3 data would contradict the 95% exclusion claim for the benchmark model; a lattice or analytic calculation showing an IC glueball-emission probability per oscillation well above 0.1 would also cast the quoted mass reach into doubt.

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

If this is right

  • Quirk models in the benchmark representation with masses up to 179 GeV are excluded at 95% CL for Λ = 10 keV, and a wide mass band above the weak scale is closed for 300 eV < Λ < 100 keV.
  • The analysis establishes that a small, forward, timing-capable detector can perform dedicated searches for slow charged particles that central LHC detectors are not optimized to trigger on.
  • The tabulated effective-fiducial cross section limits (included in HEPData) can be reinterpreted for other quirk representations or similar long-lived charged states, extending the paper's reach beyond its exact benchmark.
  • Because the analyzed data represent roughly half of the LHC Run 3 sample, the same search procedure can be directly applied to the remaining data to extend the mass coverage, given the low expected background of about 0.16 events.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same out-of-time, doubly charged signature could be repurposed to constrain other electrically charged long-lived particles produced in forward directions—such as heavy stable charged leptons—though the paper does not explore this.
  • The quoted mass reach is parameterized by the IC glueball-emission probability ε = 0.1; if a more precise calculation of infracolor energy loss yields ε significantly larger, the true mass limits would be weaker than quoted.
  • With the full Run 3 dataset or a future forward detector of larger aperture, this timing-based method could probe lower quirk masses or confinement scales outside the range studied here.

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 paper reports the first dedicated LHC search for quirks, performed with the FASER detector using 186 fb^-1 of pp collisions at sqrt(s)=13.6 TeV recorded in 2022-2024. The signal model is a benchmark quirk scenario with an SU(2) infracolor interaction, quirk electric charge +/-1, and no QCD color. The analysis selects slow quirk pairs through scintillator charge and timing information, with an ABCD estimate for the through-going-muon background and a power-law extrapolation for the kinked-background contribution. No events are observed in the final signal region. A fully frequentist CLs analysis sets upper limits on the effective fiducial cross section and on the signal strength, excluding quirk masses up to 179 GeV for Lambda = 10 keV and excluding masses above the electroweak scale over approximately 300 eV < Lambda < 100 keV.

Significance. If the result holds, this is the first direct LHC exclusion of quirk models in a wide region of the (m_Q, Lambda) parameter space, substantially extending the Tevatron-era limits and providing a benchmark for future forward-detector searches. The paper is careful in several respects: the background estimates are data-driven, the statistical treatment uses the CLs method with all major experimental and theoretical uncertainties propagated, the detector simulation is validated through dedicated Geant4 extensions, and the numerical limits are made available via HEPData. The main strength is the well-matched use of FASER's timing capabilities to a signature that is otherwise very difficult to trigger and reconstruct at the LHC. The central caveat, discussed below, is the model dependence of the IC glueball-emission probability, which enters the signal acceptance and therefore the mass reach at large Lambda.

major comments (2)
  1. [Signal simulation and systematic uncertainties (paragraphs on propagation and on systematics)] The acceptance at large Lambda relies on the assumed IC glueball-emission probability per oscillation, epsilon = 0.1, quoted from Refs. [12,17]. The text states that energy loss from IC glueball radiation and quirk-pair deflection are included via survival probabilities parameterized by m_Q, Lambda, and energy, and that the associated systematic is '1-20%, relevant only for Lambda >~ 30 keV and derived by modifying the radiation probability epsilon by +/-30%.' This is a load-bearing point: for Lambda >~ 30 keV the number of oscillations over the 480 m propagation is enormous, so the survival probability and hence the high-Lambda boundary of the excluded region can depend exponentially on epsilon. A +/-30% scan does not, by itself, demonstrate that epsilon = 0.1 brackets the theoretical uncertainty in the radiation rate; physically plausible variations could be larger. I request a sensiti
  2. [Definition of sigma_eff_fid and Fig. 5] The effective fiducial cross section is defined by weighting the fiducial production cross section with the theoretically calculated survival probability. The upper limits on sigma_eff_fid in Fig. 4 are therefore meaningful only in combination with sigma_pred_fid, which itself depends on the same epsilon-dependent survival probability. This is not a statistical circularity, but it means the observed limit in the top panel of Fig. 4 and the exclusion contours in Fig. 5 are not independent of the signal-propagation model. The paper should state explicitly that both sigma_pred_fid and the inferred mass reach inherit the epsilon dependence, and that the quoted 1-20% systematic is not a full model-uncertainty band.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3] The word 'Preliminary' appears in both panels of Fig. 3. Since this is a journal submission, either remove it or explain what remains preliminary in the final analysis.
  2. [Fig. 8 / kinked-background section] The variable n used to scale the 1-sigma timing ellipse is never defined in an equation. It is used both for the main exclusion ellipse (n=10.0) and the kinked-background control region (n>5.5) in Fig. 8. A short explicit definition would improve reproducibility.
  3. [Appendix A] The Geant4 quirk extension is validated with three checks, but the upstream analytical propagation for Lambda>3 keV is not cross-checked against a stepwise simulation in the same appendix. A brief statement of the validation of the analytical treatment would be useful, especially since the survival probabilities are a central ingredient.
  4. [References] Several references are missing volume/page information (e.g., Refs. [4,7,11,16] shown only as JHEP with no volume/year in the arXiv version). Standard journal reference formatting should be applied.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the search result is an independent experimental measurement; signal-model parameters are inputs, not fit to observed data.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an experimental search: observed data, zero candidates in a signal region defined by timing/charge, a CLs upper limit on an effective fiducial cross section, and comparison with a theoretical prediction. The signal prediction is built from Drell-Yan production, quirk propagation with an assumed IC glueball-emission probability epsilon=0.1, and Geant4 detector simulation. None of these inputs are fitted to the FASER data used for the final signal region; the epsilon=0.1 assumption is explicitly taken from prior literature (Refs. [12,17]) and its impact is treated as a systematic uncertainty (1-20%, via +/-30% variation of epsilon). The self-citations to Ref. [17] provide the benchmark model, but this is a model choice, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and the observed null result is independent of the model's origin. No equation in the paper reduces to an input by construction, and no load-bearing claim is justified solely by a self-citation. The possible model-dependence of epsilon is a physics/model uncertainty, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central result depends on four tuned/fitted analysis parameters (ε, the ellipse-scaling factors, and the kinked power-law fit) and on theory/modeling assumptions from the prior quirk literature. The key physics assumption is the IC radiation and string dynamics, which controls the signal acceptance. The timing/charge selection parameters are optimized against data but in a standard manner that does not by itself invalidate the limit since the background estimation uses control regions.

free parameters (4)
  • IC glueball emission probability per oscillation, ε = 0.1
    Set following Refs. [12, 17], not measured in this paper. It directly affects the survival probability of quirk pairs over 480 m and hence the signal acceptance and derived limits.
  • Timing ellipse scale factor, n (main in-time region) = 10.0
    Chosen to maximize expected signal significance against the background model in the (t0, β) plane; a selection-optimization parameter, not physically derived.
  • Timing ellipse scale factor, n (satellite regions) = 4.1 (2022-2023), 4.4 (2024)
    Tuned separately for the two data-taking periods to maximize significance against satellite-bunch backgrounds. This parameter defines the signal region boundary.
  • Power-law exponent and normalization for kinked-background extrapolation = Not quoted in text; fitted to data events with n > 5.5
    The kinked-background density is modeled as a power law in the ellipse-scaling variable n and fitted to preselected data (Fig. 8); the fit parameters determine the extrapolated background in the signal region.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Benchmark quirk model: SU(N_IC) with N_IC = 2, quirks in (1,1,-1,N_IC) representation of SU(3)_C × SU(2)_L × U(1)_Y × SU(N_IC).
    The search is optimized and interpreted for this specific benchmark model (following Ref. [17]). If quirks have different SM charges or N_IC, the production rate, oscillation dynamics, and detector signature could change substantially; the limits do not apply directly.
  • domain assumption Drell-Yan production at leading order with Pythia8 parton shower and LHCb-tune ISR/FSR modeling.
    Signal kinematics, especially the pT of the quirk pair, determines the forward acceptance. The sensitivity to ISR is acknowledged via a 25% systematic from shower-scale variations; this is an assumption about the production modeling.
  • domain assumption Quirk dynamics: the IC force binds the pair as a string; the oscillation amplitude is ~1 cm × (m_Q/100 GeV)(1 keV/Λ)^2; radiation of IC glueballs each oscillation with probability ε = 0.1.
    The entire acceptance calculation relies on these assumptions. They are taken from the cited quirk literature and applied in the propagation simulation (see propagation paragraph and Appendix A). If the IC string breaks, quirks decay, or radiation rates differ, the expected signal changes.
  • domain assumption FLUKA muon flux modeling for background validation.
    The kinked and through-going muon backgrounds are validated against FLUKA simulations. The background estimates themselves are data-driven (ABCD and power-law extrapolation), but the simulation is used to understand the sources of kinked events.
invented entities (1)
  • Infracolor gauge group SU(2) and quirk particles no independent evidence
    purpose: The hypothetical new force and particles that the search targets.
    The paper does not claim to discover or provide new evidence for inracolor/quirks; the model is assumed from prior theory. The search only constrains the parameter space. The entity is invented in the original theory papers, not this one; this paper provides a falsifiable constraint but no independent positive evidence.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11777 in / 8667 out tokens · 62286 ms · 2026-08-01T00:29:48.389252+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present the first LHC search for quirks, particles with Standard Model and a QCD-like infracolor (IC) interactions. The analysis uses data collected in 2022--2024 by FASER, with a $186~\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ integrated luminosity of proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}=13.6\,\mathrm{TeV}$. Scintillator charge and timing information are used to search for slow pairs of quirks with no QCD color and electric charge $\pm 1$. No events are seen in this nearly background-free search, resulting in the first exclusion of quirks with masses above the weak scale for IC confinement scales in the broad range of $300 \mathrm{eV}<\Lambda<100\mathrm{keV}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26195 by FASER Collaboration.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic of a quirk pair propagating through various components of the FASER detector. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Scintillator time vs. position for a selected event in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Preselected data (blue) and three representative signal models, each containing 300 events (green, red, purple) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Top: Observed (black) and expected (green) 95% CL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Observed (solid blue) and expected (dashed blue) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Measured timing resolutions for a 2024 data run. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Calibrated scintillator times for a candidate kinked [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.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

36 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Chacko, H.-S

    Z. Chacko, H.-S. Goh, and R. Harnik, The twin higgs: Natural electroweak breaking from mirror sym- metry, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 231802 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0506256

    arXiv 2006

  2. [2]

    Burdman, Z

    G. Burdman, Z. Chacko, H.-S. Goh, and R. Harnik, Folded supersymmetry and the lep paradox, JHEP02, 009, arXiv:hep-ph/0609152

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    Batell, M

    B. Batell, M. Low, E. T. Neil, and C. B. Verhaaren, Re- view of neutral naturalness, Phys. Rept.1165, 1 (2026), arXiv:2203.05531 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    Kang and M

    J. Kang and M. A. Luty, Macroscopic Strings and ’Quirks’ at Colliders, JHEP11, 065, arXiv:0805.4642 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [5]

    J. E. Juknevich, D. Melnikov, and M. J. Strassler, A Pure-Glue Hidden Valley I. States and Decays, JHEP 07, 055, arXiv:0903.0883 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [6]

    Asadi, G

    P. Asadi, G. D. Kribs, and M. A. Luty, Quirks live in cool universes, JHEP05, 092, arXiv:2512.20696 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    Cai, H.-C

    H. Cai, H.-C. Cheng, and J. Terning, A Quirky Little Higgs Model, JHEP05, 045, arXiv:0812.0843 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [8]

    DØ Collaboration, Search for New Fermions (’Quirks’) at the Fermilab Tevatron Collider, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 211803 (2010), arXiv:1008.3547 [hep-ex]. 9

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  9. [9]

    Burdman, Z

    G. Burdman, Z. Chacko, H.-S. Goh, R. Harnik, and C. A. Krenke, The Quirky Collider Signals of Folded Supersym- metry, Phys. Rev. D78, 075028 (2008), arXiv:0805.4667 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  10. [10]

    Farina and M

    M. Farina and M. Low, Constraining Quirky Tracks with Conventional Searches, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 111801 (2017), arXiv:1703.00912 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

    Knapen, H

    S. Knapen, H. K. Lou, M. Papucci, and J. Setford, Track- ing down Quirks at the Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. D96, 115015 (2017), arXiv:1708.02243 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    J. A. Evans and M. A. Luty, Stopping Quirks at the LHC, JHEP06, 090, arXiv:1811.08903 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [13]

    Shaet al., Learning to reconstruct quirky tracks, Phys

    Q. Shaet al., Learning to reconstruct quirky tracks, Phys. Rev. D114, 015005 (2026), arXiv:2410.00269 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  14. [14]

    Forsyth, M

    J. Forsyth, M. Low, C. Tenney, and C. B. Verhaaren, Visible collider signals of natural quirks, Phys. Rev. D 111, 115021 (2025), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 113, 079901 (2026)], arXiv:2504.02940 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Curtinet al., Soft-unclustered-energy patterns from quirks, Phys

    D. Curtinet al., Soft-unclustered-energy patterns from quirks, Phys. Rev. D113, 015010 (2026), arXiv:2506.11192 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    Cid Vidalet al., Searching for quirks at LHCb, JHEP 26, 037, arXiv:2601.09023 [hep-ph]

    X. Cid Vidalet al., Searching for quirks at LHCb, JHEP 26, 037, arXiv:2601.09023 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [17]

    J. L. Feng, J. Li, X. Liao, J. Ni, and J. Pei, Discovering quirks through timing at F ASER and future forward ex- periments at the LHC, JHEP06, 197, arXiv:2404.13814 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    F ASER Collaboration, The F ASER detector, JINST19 (05), P05066, arXiv:2207.11427 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv

  19. [19]

    J. Li, J. Pei, L. Ran, and W. Zhang, The quirk signal at F ASER and F ASER 2, JHEP12, 109, arXiv:2108.06748 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    J. Alwallet al., The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations, JHEP07, 079, arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    Sjostrand, S

    T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, A Brief Intro- duction to PYTHIA 8.1, Comput. Phys. Commun.178, 852 (2008), arXiv:0710.3820 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  22. [22]

    Mea- surement of charged hadron production inZ-tagged jets in proton-proton collisions at √s= 8 TeV

    LHCb Collaboration, Supplemental Material for “Mea- surement of charged hadron production inZ-tagged jets in proton-proton collisions at √s= 8 TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 232001 (2019), Supplemental Material, arXiv:1904.08878 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    LHCb Collaboration, Precision measurement of forward Zboson production in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV, JHEP07, 026, arXiv:2112.07458 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  24. [24]

    Welch, PreF ASERQuirkSim (2026), software

    E. Welch, PreF ASERQuirkSim (2026), software

    2026

  25. [25]

    J. Li, T. Li, J. Pei, and W. Zhang, Uncovering quirk signal via energy loss inside tracker, Phys. Rev. D102, 056006 (2020), arXiv:1911.02223 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    Agostinelliet al.(GEANT4), GEANT4 - A Simulation Toolkit, Nucl

    S. Agostinelliet al.(GEANT4), GEANT4 - A Simulation Toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506, 250 (2003)

    2003

  27. [27]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Athena (2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    Ferrari, P

    A. Ferrari, P. R. Sala, A. Fass` o, and J. Ranft,FLUKA: A Multi-Particle Transport Code (Program Version 2005), Tech. Rep. CERN-2005-010 (CERN, 2005)

    2005

  29. [29]

    Battistoniet al., Overview of the FLUKA code, An- nals of Nuclear Energy82, 10 (2015)

    G. Battistoniet al., Overview of the FLUKA code, An- nals of Nuclear Energy82, 10 (2015)

    2015

  30. [30]

    Jeffet al., Measurement of Satellite Bunches at the LHC, Conf

    A. Jeffet al., Measurement of Satellite Bunches at the LHC, Conf. Proc.C1205201, MOEPPB010 (2012)

    2012

  31. [31]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Luminosity determination inpp collisions at √s= 13 TeV using the ATLAS detec- tor at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 982 (2023), arXiv:2212.09379 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Preliminary luminosity calibra- tion of the ATLAS 13.6 TeV data recorded in 2024 and combination with the 2022 and 2023 measurements, Tech. Rep. ATL-DAPR-PUB-2025-001 (CERN, Geneva, 2025)

    2024

  33. [33]

    A. L. Read, Modified frequentist analysis of search results (theCL s method), CERN Report 10.5170/CERN-2000- 005.81 (2000)

    work page doi:10.5170/cern-2000- 2000

  34. [34]

    CMS Collaboration, The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool:Combine, Comput. Softw. Big Sci.8, 19 (2024), arXiv:2404.06614 [physics.data-an]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    CMS Collaboration, Search for decays of stopped exotic long-lived particles produced in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV, JHEP05, 127, arXiv:1801.00359 [hep- ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    F ASER Collaboration, HEPData for First Search for Quirks at the LHC with F ASER (2026)

    2026