Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Neutrino Fluxes at a Muon Collider

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper calculates that a 10 TeV muon collider would produce about $10^{19}$ muon neutrinos and electron antineutrinos per year from beam decays in its straight sections—roughly 120 times previous estimates—plus all-flavor neutrinos…

desk verdict The muon-decay flux update is solid, but the 'several tau neutrinos' claim relies on a shower pT scale that looks wrong. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02714 v1 pith:AUDDC6TY submitted 2026-08-03 hep-ph hep-ex

Francis M. Burk , Tao Han , Wolfgang Kilian , Felix Kling , Joachim Kopp , Zahra Tabrizi This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords muoncolliderneutrinofluxbeamdecayelectromagneticshowerneutrinostauforwarddetectordeepinelasticscatteringMuColν
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper re-establishes the neutrino radiation of a 10 TeV muon collider as a scientific resource rather than a background. Using the current v0.8 interaction-region design, it simulates beam muon trajectories and decays through the roughly 500 m straight sections and finds about $10^{19}$ muon neutrinos and electron antineutrinos per year in the forward direction, roughly 120 times the previous estimate. It then adds three previously neglected production modes—electromagnetic showers from Michel electrons in the tungsten shielding, secondary neutrino interactions in rock, and $\mu^+\mu^-$ collisions—which jointly produce all three neutrino flavors at non-negligible rates. The bottom line is that a compact ton-scale forward detector placed 500 m from the interaction point would record about $10^{10}$ charged-current neutrino interactions per ton-year, including roughly 2.5 $\nu_\tau+\bar\nu_\tau$ events per ton over ten years. If correct, this flux would enable a broad program of QCD structure, electroweak precision, and new-physics searches at the intensity frontier.

What carries the argument

The central object is the v0.8 interaction-region simulation: a Monte Carlo that propagates sampled 5 TeV muon trajectories through the beam pipe, focusing quadrupoles, chicane dipoles, and curved ring, then decays them in Pythia8.3 to obtain the beam-neutrino flux. Around it sits a recursive electromagnetic shower algorithm for the Michel electrons that adds rare Bethe–Heitler $\gamma N\to\tau^+\tau^- N$ conversion, photo-nuclear $\gamma g\to c\bar c$ charm production, and $D$-meson hadronization and decay, converting the otherwise two-flavor muon-decay beam into all-flavor neutrino production. For the collider-source term, the paper uses DGLAP-resummed photon PDFs for $\gamma\gamma\to\tau^+\tau^-$ and $\gamma\gamma\to c\bar c$, cross-checked against fixed-order Whizard calculations, and GENIE-based neutrino-nucleus cross sections to turn fluxes into detector event rates.

What would settle it

Place a 100 kg vertex tracker 500 m downstream of the v0.8 interaction region and count $\nu_\mu$ and $\bar\nu_e$ charged-current events for one year: the paper predicts about $10^9$ events, whereas the previous 10 m straight-section estimate predicts roughly $10^7$; a factor-of-few deficit would falsify the flux enhancement. Separately, measure $\gamma N\to\tau^+\tau^- N$ and photoproduced charm cross sections on tungsten with a multi-GeV electron beam and reweight the shower simulation; if the reweighted tau-neutrino expectation falls below one per ton, the shower contribution is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a 10 TeV muon collider with the v0.8 interaction-region geometry is a far more intense neutrino source than previously believed. Beam muon decays along the roughly 500 m straight sections, with the beam becoming more collimated away from the interaction point, yield approximately $10^{19}$ $\nu_\mu$ and $\bar\nu_e$ per year—about 120 times the flux estimated using the earlier 10 m straight-section assumption. The paper further shows that electron-induced electromagnetic showers in the tungsten shielding produce about $10^{12}$ neutrinos per year through Bethe–Heitler tau-pair conversion and photon–gluon charm photoproduction, that neutrino interactions in rock add about $10^{11}$ neutrinos per year through charm decays, and that $\mu^+\mu^-$ collisions contribute of order $10^9$ neutrinos. Summing all sources, a 100 kg forward detector at 500 m with a 25 cm radius would see about $10^9$ $\nu_\mu$ charged-current events per year, corresponding to about $10^{10}$ interactions per ton-year, with roughly 2.5 $\nu_\tau+\bar\nu_\tau$ events per ton over ten years.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted few tau-neutrino events per ton depend on the assumption that electrons from muon decay start electromagnetic showers inside the tungsten shielding and that those showers convert photons and gluons to tau pairs and charm mesons as often as the simplified algorithm assumes; if that conversion rate is wrong by an order of magnitude, the tau signal drops below one event per ton.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 100 kg forward detector would collect about $10^9$ $\nu_\mu$ charged-current events per year from beam decays, matching the largest existing neutrino deep-inelastic-scattering datasets within hours and exceeding HERA-scale electron-scattering statistics by roughly two orders of magnitude over a decade.
  • The predicted $10^7$ elastic neutrino–electron scattering events would constrain $\sin^2\theta_W$ between momentum transfers of 10 MeV and 1 GeV to about 0.03% and could reveal neutrino charge radii for the first time.
  • The subdominant sources supply several interactions per ton of every flavor over ten years, including roughly 2.5 $\nu_\tau+\bar\nu_\tau$ events per ton, opening a controlled TeV-scale tau-neutrino interaction program.
  • If the flux increase holds, the projected constraints on non-standard neutrino interactions improve by about an order of magnitude for diagonal couplings and a factor of four for off-diagonal couplings relative to earlier flux assumptions.
  • The absolute rates scale with the interaction-region design: the earlier v0.6 layout produces about half the beam-decay flux but roughly five times the shower-neutrino flux, so the all-flavor program is robust to O(1) design changes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same simulation machinery could be rerun for other proposed muon collider energies to map how the decay-neutrino flux, oscillation probabilities, and detector acceptance scale with beam energy and straight-section length.
  • Because the shower-neutrino yield is governed by Bethe–Heitler tau conversion and photoproduced charm on tungsten, a dedicated electron-beam test of those cross sections could shrink the dominant uncertainty and turn the predicted several tau events per ton into a verifiable benchmark.
  • The strong forward collimation of beam-decay neutrinos suggests that a smaller detector placed farther downstream with a proportionally larger radius could match the physics reach, decoupling the neutrino program from the final interaction-region geometry.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper re-evaluates the neutrino flux from a 10 TeV muon collider using the MuCol v0.8 interaction-region design. The authors find that beam-muon decays along the ~500 m straight sections produce about 10^19 muon neutrinos and electron antineutrinos per year, roughly 120 times larger than earlier estimates. They also compute subdominant contributions from muon-antimuon collisions, electromagnetic showers induced by Michel electrons, and neutrino interactions in rock. For a 100 kg forward detector placed 500 m downstream, they predict about 10^10 charged-current events per ton-year from beam decays plus subdominant all-flavor contributions, including approximately 2.5 tau-neutrino and tau-antineutrino events per ton over 10 years. The paper discusses physics opportunities in QCD, electroweak precision, and BSM searches.

Significance. If the predicted fluxes hold, the paper turns the unavoidable neutrino radiation of a muon collider into a genuinely unique neutrino beam, with event rates orders of magnitude above existing and planned neutrino experiments. The calculation is a forward prediction from standard-model processes and accelerator parameters, with no fitting to the target results. The authors use established tools (BDSIM, Pythia8.3, Whizard, GENIE) and provide useful cross-checks, e.g., the EPA versus DGLAP photon PDFs and fixed-order Whizard comparisons agree to within about 10%. The explicit comparison of lattice designs v0.6 and v0.8 is a valuable check of design sensitivity. The main weakness is that the custom electromagnetic-shower treatment is not validated for the rare tau and charm processes that drive the subdominant fluxes, and no uncertainties are propagated to the final event tables.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.3, Eqs. (2.7)-(2.8) and text after 'We simulate the tau kinematics in the same manner as for electrons'] The transverse-momentum smearing for pair production in the shower code is defined with b = m_e^2 for pair production. If the same b is used for gamma N -> tau+ tau- N, then tau leptons are sampled with an opening-angle scale set by the electron mass rather than the tau mass. For E_tau ~ 1 TeV, the physical Bethe-Heitler scale gives theta ~ m_tau/E_tau ~ 1.8 mrad, while the detector's 0.5 mrad acceptance would then reject most taus; using m_e instead would make the taus artificially collinear and can overestimate the accepted tau-neutrino flux by orders of magnitude. Because less than 1% of shower neutrinos pass the angular cut and because the tau-neutrino entries in Table 1 are dominated by the electromagnetic-shower channel, this scale choice is load-bearing for the central claim of 'several tau neutrino events per ton.' The manuscript must specify the pT-smearing scale used for tau pair production; if m_tau^2 is used, that should be stated explicitly, and if m_e^2 is used, the calculation should be redone with the correct scale. The revised Table 1 should report both rates.
  2. [Sections 2.2, 2.3, and Table 1] No uncertainties are quoted for any of the headline numbers. The beam-muon-decay flux is based on 1000 sampled trajectories, with no statistical error; the electromagnetic-shower algorithm is a simplified recursive model with no stated uncertainty on the tau and charm production extensions; and the acknowledged O(1) sensitivity to the interaction-region design is discussed qualitatively but not propagated into Table 1 or the abstract's 'several tau neutrino events' claim. The factor of 120 enhancement over previous estimates and the ~2.5 tau events per ton are presented as point values. The authors should provide error bars or at least an explicit sensitivity band, including the effect of varying the shower energy threshold E_min = 10 GeV and the angular smearing cutoff theta_max = 0.1.
  3. [Section 2.4 and Table 1] The neutrino-induced shower contribution relies on the statement that 'the probability for a TeV-energy neutrino to produce charm is about 10%,' but no reference or uncertainty is given for this number. This channel contributes significantly to the high-energy electron-neutrino and muon-antineutrino rates at the forward detector after the 500 GeV cut (Figure 5), and it is a non-negligible part of the total rates in Table 1. The 10% charm-production probability should be documented with a source and varied over a reasonable range to assess the impact on the final event rates.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2.11)] The density of standard rock is written as rho = 2.6 g/cm^2, but the unit should be g/cm^3.
  2. [Figure 5 caption] The caption states 'We have assumed 10 years of operation, corresponding to 10^-10 of integrated luminosity'; this should presumably read '10 ab^-1'.
  3. [Section 2.4, first paragraph] The sentence 'we have simulated the kinematics deep-inelastic neutrino scattering' is missing a preposition; it should read 'the kinematics of deep-inelastic neutrino scattering'.
  4. [Section 3, first paragraph] There is a duplicated 'have have' in 'for neutrinos originating from mu+ mu- collisions have have assumed an integrated luminosity'.
  5. [Note Added and reference [83]] The Note Added says 'we learned about independent work by [83]'; it would be clearer to spell out the authors or use a proper citation format.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the predicted fluxes and event rates are forward calculations from SM process rates and accelerator geometry; self-citations are used only as tool validation, not as load-bearing evidence.

full rationale

The paper derives neutrino fluxes from first-principles Standard Model decay and interaction kinematics plus the specified v0.8 interaction-region geometry. The dominant beam-decay flux is computed by propagating muon trajectories with BDSIM tracking matrices and sampling muon decays with Pythia, with no parameter fitted to the target event rates. The subdominant shower-induced fluxes are computed from explicit Bethe–Heitler, photo-nuclear, and charm production cross sections, again without fitting. The cross-section inputs (Whizard, Pythia, GENIE, published PDFs) are external. Self-citations appear as tool provenance (Refs. [37] and [42] for tracking and shower code) and as prior physics studies (Refs. [20], [21]), but none of these citations is the load-bearing justification for the central flux or event-rate numbers; the reported flux is instead a direct simulation outcome. The comparison with earlier estimates is a contrast, not a fit. The skeptic concern about the shower code's transverse-momentum smearing scale is a physics-modeling assumption, and even if incorrect it would not make the derivation circular: the prediction would be wrong, not equivalent to an input by construction. No equation or parameter is defined in terms of the final event rates, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and exhibits no circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or mediators. The free parameters are standard scale choices, external fragmentation parameters, and a simulation cutoff. The key domain assumption is that the evolving v0.8 machine design is representative; the key ad hoc assumption is the simplified shower geometry.

free parameters (4)
  • Factorization scale Q for photon PDF = ≈ sqrt(s)/4
    Used in place of Qmax in the EPA formula to match the Whizard fixed-order calculation to within 10%; residual scale uncertainty is not propagated to the final flux.
  • Minimum shower energy threshold E_min = 10 GeV
    Chosen as the cutoff below which shower particles are assumed to produce negligible neutrino flux; no sensitivity study is presented.
  • D-meson momentum distribution parameters (a, n, b) = a=14, n=3.9, b=1
    Taken from charm photoproduction data (Refs. [55,56]); used in Eq. (2.10) for PGF charm production.
  • Charm fragmentation fractions (c to D0, D+, Ds+, Lambda_c+) = 61%, 24%, 8.1%, 6.1%
    From external charm fragmentation measurements (Refs. [53,54]).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Standard Model accurately describes muon decay, tau decay, and neutrino production processes.
    All flux calculations use SM matrix elements and branching fractions; BSM contributions are neglected.
  • domain assumption The MuCol v0.8 interaction-region design (straight sections ~500 m, chicane layout, 0.6 mrad IP divergence) is representative of the final machine.
    Section 2.2 and Appendix A; the paper notes the design is still evolving and fluxes change by an O(1) factor.
  • ad hoc to paper The electromagnetic shower develops entirely inside the tungsten shielding.
    Section 2.3 states 'we assume the entire shower to develop inside the shielding'; this simplifies the shower geometry and affects the angular and energy distribution of shower neutrinos.
  • domain assumption Neutrino-nucleon cross sections from GENIE/Bodek-Yang are reliable in the TeV range and agree with other calculations to ~6%.
    Section 3, used for detector event rates; based on Ref. [58].
  • standard math DGLAP evolution and the Equivalent Photon Approximation provide an adequate description of the lepton PDFs at small x.
    Section 2.1; cross-checked with the Whizard fixed-order calculation to within 10%.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutrino Fluxes at a Muon Collider." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AUDDC6TY

@misc{pith2026260802714,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutrino Fluxes at a Muon Collider},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AUDDC6TY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02714}
}
abstract

While muon colliders are primarily considered precision machines for new physics searches at the energy frontier, they are also intense sources of high-energy neutrinos. Large fluxes of electron and muon neutrinos are produced in the decay of beam muons, especially along the straight sections around the experiments. In this work, we re-evaluate these neutrino fluxes using the latest design of a \SI{10}{TeV} muon collider and find that fluxes around the interaction region are almost two orders of magnitude higher than earlier estimates. We also compute the fluxes of neutrinos produced in $\mu^+\mu^-$ collisions, electromagnetic showers induced by electrons from muon decay, and interactions of neutrinos close to the collider ring. We find that these additional neutrino sources are non-negligible and would lead to a sizable number of neutrino interactions of all flavors, including several tau neutrino events, in a ton-scale detector placed in the forward direction. We discuss the physics opportunities offered by muon collider neutrinos in the context of QCD and nuclear physics, electroweak precision measurements, and searches for new physics.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    J.L. Feng, I. Galon, F. Kling and S. Trojanowski,ForwArd Search ExpeRiment at the LHC,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 035001 [1708.09389]. [9]F ASERcollaboration,Detecting and Studying High-Energy Collider Neutrinos with F ASER at the LHC,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 61 [1908.02310]. – 27 – [10]F ASERcollaboration,First neutrino interaction candidates at the LHC,Phys. Re...

    arXiv 2018

  2. [16]

    King,Neutrino physics at a muon collider,AIP Conf

    B.J. King,Neutrino physics at a muon collider,AIP Conf. Proc.435(1998) 334 [hep-ex/9907033]. [17]International Muon Collidercollaboration,Interim report for the International Muon Collider Collaboration (IMCC),CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr.2/2024(2024) 176 [2407.12450]

    arXiv 1998

  3. [18]

    Bojorquez-Lopez, M

    L. Bojorquez-Lopez, M. Hostert, C.A. Arg¨ uelles and Z. Liu,Muon Colliders and the Neutrino Slice, Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025) 091803 [2412.14115]

    arXiv 2025

  4. [19]

    de Gouvˆ ea and A

    A. de Gouvˆ ea and A. Thompson,Electroweak observables in neutrino-electron scattering from a muon storage ring,JHEP12(2025) 098 [2505.00152]

    work page arXiv 2025

  5. [20]

    Kling, Y

    F. Kling, Y. Ma, K. Mekala, J. Reuter and Z. Tabrizi,Non-standard neutrino interactions at a muon collider neutrino detector,JHEP05(2026) 050 [2508.00761]

    arXiv 2026

  6. [21]

    Adhikary, K.J

    J. Adhikary, K.J. Kelly, F. Kling and S. Trojanowski,Neutrino-portal dark matter detection prospects at a future muon collider,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 075019 [2412.10315]. [22]MuCoLcollaboration,MuCol Milestone Report No. 5: Preliminary Parameters,2411.02966. [23]MuCoLcollaboration,MuCol Milestone Report No. 7: Consolidated Parameters,2510.27437

    arXiv 2025

  7. [24]

    T. Han, Y. Ma and K. Xie,High energy leptonic collisions and electroweak parton distribution functions,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) L031301 [2007.14300]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [25]

    Garosi, D

    F. Garosi, D. Marzocca and S. Trifinopoulos,LePDF: Standard Model PDFs for high-energy lepton colliders,JHEP09(2023) 107 [2303.16964]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 57 references
  1. [26]

    Chakrabarty, T

    N. Chakrabarty, T. Han, Z. Liu and B. Mukhopadhyaya,Radiative Return for Heavy Higgs Boson at a Muon Collider,Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 015008 [1408.5912]

    2015 arXiv

  2. [27]

    Dahl´ en, M

    B. Dahl´ en, M. L¨ oschner, K. Mekala, J. Reuter and P. Stylianou,EV Aluation of the Equivalent Vector boson Approximation at highest energy colliders,JHEP11(2025) 002 [2507.19285]

    2025

  3. [28]

    Budnev, I.F

    V.M. Budnev, I.F. Ginzburg, G.V. Meledin and V.G. Serbo,The Two photon particle production mechanism. Physical problems. Applications. Equivalent photon approximation,Phys. Rept.15 (1975) 181

    1975

  4. [29]

    Kilian, T

    W. Kilian, T. Ohl and J. Reuter,WHIZARD: Simulating Multi-Particle Processes at LHC and ILC, Eur. Phys. J. C71(2011) 1742 [0708.4233]

    2011 arXiv

  5. [30]

    Moretti, T

    M. Moretti, T. Ohl and J. Reuter,O’Mega: An Optimizing matrix element generator, hep-ph/0102195. – 28 –

    arXiv

  6. [31]

    Sj¨ ostrand, S

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Ask, J.R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten et al.,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2,Comput. Phys. Commun.191(2015) 159 [1410.3012]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [32]

    Bierlich et al.,A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3,SciPost Phys

    C. Bierlich et al.,A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3,SciPost Phys. Codeb.2022(2022) 8 [2203.11601]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [33]

    T. Han, Y. Ma and K. Xie,Quark and gluon contents of a lepton at high energies,JHEP02(2022) 154 [2103.09844]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [34]

    Skoufaris, C

    K. Skoufaris, C. Carli, D. Schulte and P. Raimondi,First design of a 10 TeV centre of mass energy muon collider,JACoWIP AC2023(2023) MOPL064

    2023

  10. [35]

    [36]MAIAcollaboration,MAIA: A new detector concept for a 10 TeV muon collider,2502.00181

    CERN,”a common optics repository for the cern accelerator complex”, . [36]MAIAcollaboration,MAIA: A new detector concept for a 10 TeV muon collider,2502.00181

    arXiv

  11. [37]

    Kling and L.J

    F. Kling and L.J. Nevay,Forward neutrino fluxes at the LHC,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 113008 [2105.08270]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [38]

    Nevay et al.,BDSIM: An accelerator tracking code with particle–matter interactions,Comput

    L.J. Nevay et al.,BDSIM: An accelerator tracking code with particle–matter interactions,Comput. Phys. Commun.252(2020) 107200 [1808.10745]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [39]

    Nevay et al.,BDSIM Documentation, Release 1.3.2,

    L.J. Nevay et al.,BDSIM Documentation, Release 1.3.2,

  14. [40]

    Skoufaris, C

    K. Skoufaris, C. Carli and D. Schulte,10 TeV Center of Mass Energy Muon Collider,JACoW IP AC2022(2022) 515

    2022

  15. [41]

    Jackson,Classical Electrodynamics, Wiley (1998)

    J.D. Jackson,Classical Electrodynamics, Wiley (1998)

    1998

  16. [42]

    Kling, T

    F. Kling, T. M¨ akel¨ a and J. McFayden,Antielectron neutrinos at high-energy neutrino experiments: Identification strategies and physics potential,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 013004 [2507.00262]

    2026

  17. [43]

    Salvat,PENELOPE 2018: A Code System for Monte Carlo Simulation of Electron and Photon Transport, OECD Publishing, Paris (2019), 10.1787/32da5043-en

    F. Salvat,PENELOPE 2018: A Code System for Monte Carlo Simulation of Electron and Photon Transport, OECD Publishing, Paris (2019), 10.1787/32da5043-en. [44]Particle Data Groupcollaboration,Review of particle physics,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 030001

    2019 doi

  18. [45]

    Klein,Suppression of Bremsstrahlung and pair production due to environmental factors,Rev

    S. Klein,Suppression of Bremsstrahlung and pair production due to environmental factors,Rev. Mod. Phys.71(1999) 1501 [hep-ph/9802442]

    1999 arXiv

  19. [46]

    Stanev, C

    T. Stanev, C. Vankov, R.E. Streitmatter, R.W. Ellsworth and T. Bowen,Development of ultrahigh-energy electromagnetic cascades in water and lead including the landau-pomeranchuk-migdal effect,Phys. Rev. D25(1982) 1291

    1982

  20. [47]

    Landau and I

    L.D. Landau and I. Pomeranchuk,The Limits of Applicability of the Theory of Bremsstrahlung by Electrons and of the Creation of Pairs at Large Energies,Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR92(1953)

    1953

  21. [48]

    Landau and I

    L.D. Landau and I. Pomeranchuk,Electron cascade process at very high-energies,Dokl. Akad. Nauk Ser. Fiz.92(1953) 735

    1953

  22. [49]

    Migdal,Bremsstrahlung and pair production in condensed media at high energies,Phys

    A.B. Migdal,Bremsstrahlung and pair production in condensed media at high energies,Phys. Rev. 103(1956) 1811

    1956

  23. [50]

    Bethe and W

    H. Bethe and W. Heitler,On the Stopping of fast particles and on the creation of positive electrons, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A146(1934) 83

    1934

  24. [51]

    Bethe and L.C

    H.A. Bethe and L.C. Maximon,Theory of Bremsstrahlung and Pair Production. 1. Differential Cross Section,Phys. Rev.93(1954) 768. – 29 –

    1954

  25. [52]

    Davies, H.A

    H. Davies, H.A. Bethe and L.C. Maximon,Theory of Bremsstrahlung and Pair Production. 2. Integral Cross Section for Pair Production,Phys. Rev.93(1954) 788

    1954

  26. [53]

    Lisovyi, A

    M. Lisovyi, A. Verbytskyi and O. Zenaiev,Combined analysis of charm-quark fragmentation-fraction measurements,Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 397 [1509.01061]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [54]

    Bhattacharya, F

    A. Bhattacharya, F. Kling, I. Sarcevic and A.M. Stasto,Forward neutrinos from charm at the Large Hadron Collider,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 014040 [2306.01578]. [55]The Tagged Photon Spectrometer Collaborationcollaboration,Charm photoproduction, Phys. Rev. Lett.62(1989) 513

    2024 arXiv

  28. [56]

    Filipponi and Y

    S. Filipponi and Y. Srivastava,Hadronic masses and Regge trajectories,Phys. Rev. D58(1998) 016003 [hep-ph/9712204]

    1998 arXiv

  29. [57]

    Andreopoulos et al.,The GENIE Neutrino Monte Carlo Generator,Nucl

    C. Andreopoulos et al.,The GENIE Neutrino Monte Carlo Generator,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A614 (2010) 87 [0905.2517]. [58]F ASERcollaboration,Neutrino rate predictions for F ASER,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 012009 [2402.13318]

    2010 arXiv

  30. [59]

    Bodek and U.K

    A. Bodek and U.K. Yang,Modeling deep inelastic cross-sections in the few GeV region,Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.112(2002) 70 [hep-ex/0203009]

    2002 arXiv

  31. [60]

    Candido, A

    A. Candido, A. Garcia, G. Magni, T. Rabemananjara, J. Rojo and R. Stegeman,Neutrino Structure Functions from GeV to EeV Energies,JHEP05(2023) 149 [2302.08527]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [61]

    Jeong and M.H

    Y.S. Jeong and M.H. Reno,Neutrino cross sections: Interface of shallow- and deep-inelastic scattering for collider neutrinos,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 113010 [2307.09241]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [62]

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

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

    2025 arXiv

  34. [63]

    Salin et al.,F ASER2: Detector Design and Performance,

    O. Salin et al.,F ASER2: Detector Design and Performance, . [64]FPFcollaboration,The forward physics facility: Physics opportunities and conceptual design,Nucl. Phys. B1026(2026) 117398 [2510.26260]. [65]NuTeVcollaboration,High energy neutrino scattering results from NuTeV,Nuc...

    2026 arXiv

  35. [66]

    Berge et al.,A Measurement of Differential Cross-Sections and Nucleon Structure Functions in Charged Current Neutrino Interactions on Iron,Z

    J.P. Berge et al.,A Measurement of Differential Cross-Sections and Nucleon Structure Functions in Charged Current Neutrino Interactions on Iron,Z. Phys. C49(1991) 187. [67]NOMADcollaboration,Prediction of neutrino fluxes in the NOMAD experiment,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A515(2003) ...

    1991 arXiv

  36. [69]

    Faura, S

    F. Faura, S. Iranipour, E.R. Nocera, J. Rojo and M. Ubiali,The Strangest Proton?,Eur. Phys. J. C 80(2020) 1168 [2009.00014]

    2020 arXiv

  37. [70]

    Abdul Khalek et al.,Science Requirements and Detector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report,Nucl

    R. Abdul Khalek et al.,Science Requirements and Detector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report,Nucl. Phys. A1026(2022) 122447 [2103.05419]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [71]

    Forte, M.L

    S. Forte, M.L. Mangano and G. Ridolfi,Polarized parton distributions from charged current deep inelastic scattering and future neutrino factories,Nucl. Phys. B602(2001) 585 [hep-ph/0101192]. – 30 – [72]COMPASScollaboration,The COMPASS experiment at CERN,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A5...

    2001 arXiv

  39. [73]

    Accardi et al.,Electron Ion Collider: The Next QCD Frontier: Understanding the glue that binds us all,Eur

    A. Accardi et al.,Electron Ion Collider: The Next QCD Frontier: Understanding the glue that binds us all,Eur. Phys. J. A52(2016) 268 [1212.1701]

    2016 arXiv

  40. [74]

    Cruz-Martinez, M

    J.M. Cruz-Martinez, M. Fieg, T. Giani, P. Krack, T. M¨ akel¨ a, T.R. Rabemananjara et al.,The LHC as a Neutrino-Ion Collider,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 369 [2309.09581]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [75]

    Mammen Abraham, J

    R. Mammen Abraham, J. Adhikary, J.L. Feng, M. Fieg, F. Kling, J. Li et al.,FPF@FCC: neutrino, QCD, and BSM physics opportunities with far-forward experiments at a 100 TeV Proton Collider, JHEP01(2025) 094 [2409.02163]

    2025 arXiv

  42. [76]

    Marzocca, F

    D. Marzocca, F. Montagno, M. Morales-Alvarado and A. Wulzer,Quark mixing from muon collider neutrinos,JHEP05(2026) 069 [2511.23288]

    2026

  43. [77]

    Mathur, I.M

    V. Mathur, I.M. Shoemaker and Z. Tabrizi,Using DUNE to shed light on the electromagnetic properties of neutrinos,JHEP10(2022) 041 [2111.14884]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [78]

    Mammen Abraham, S

    R. Mammen Abraham, S. Foroughi-Abari, F. Kling and Y.-D. Tsai,Neutrino electromagnetic properties and the weak mixing angle at the LHC Forward Physics Facility,Phys. Rev. D111 (2025) 015029 [2301.10254]

    2025 arXiv

  45. [79]

    Altmannshofer, T

    W. Altmannshofer, T. M¨ akel¨ a, S. Sarkar, S. Trojanowski, K. Xie and B. Zhou,Discovering neutrino tridents at the Large Hadron Collider,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 072018 [2406.16803]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [80]

    W. Bai, M. Diwan, M.V. Garzelli, Y.S. Jeong and M.H. Reno,Far-forward neutrinos at the Large Hadron Collider,JHEP06(2020) 032 [2002.03012]

    2020 arXiv

  47. [81]

    Kling,Probing light gauge bosons in tau neutrino experiments,Phys

    F. Kling,Probing light gauge bosons in tau neutrino experiments,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 015007 [2005.03594]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [82]

    P.S.B. Dev, B. Dutta, T. Han and D. Kim,Anomalous tau neutrino appearance from light mediators in short-baseline neutrino experiments,Phys. Lett. B850(2024) 138500 [2304.02031]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [83]

    The forward neutrino flux and its secondaries at a 10 tev muon collider

    J.-Y. Choi, M. Hostert, P. Li and Z. Liu, “The forward neutrino flux and its secondaries at a 10 tev muon collider.” Aug 04, 2026. – 31 –

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.