Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

Neutrino-Portal Dark Matter Detection Prospects at a Future Muon Collider

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 10 kg neutrino detector downstream of a future muon collider could reach neutrino-portal dark matter.

desk verdict A careful sensitivity forecast for a wrong-sign muon search at a forward MuCol neutrino detector; the physics case is solid, but the claimed reach depends on an unquantified muon charge mis-ID rate that needs a number before the bound can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10315 v2 pith:6SY37PQ4 submitted 2024-12-13 hep-ph hep-ex

Jyotismita Adhikary , Kevin J. Kelly , Felix Kling , Sebastian Trojanowski This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords neutrino-portaldarkmattermuoncolliderneutrinophilicscalarmediatormono-neutrinoscatteringwrong-signsearchthermalfreeze-outfreeze-insterileneutrinoforwarddetector
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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's central proposal is that a future 3 TeV muon collider is also a uniquely clean source of high-energy neutrinos: stored muons decay into a nearly pure, tightly collimated beam of $\nu_\mu$ and $\bar{\nu}_e$, with flux uncertainties far below those of proton-sourced neutrino beams. The authors argue that a compact detector ("MuCol$\nu$") placed about 100 m downstream of the interaction point can exploit this beam to search for a neutrinophilic scalar $\phi$ that couples to neutrinos and dark matter, using the mono-neutrino process $\nu_\mu N \to \mu^+ \phi X$ with a wrong-sign positive muon in the final state. Their central claim is that even a 10 kg-year exposure, analyzed with kinematic cuts and a boosted decision tree, can probe values of the neutrino–$\phi$ coupling that reach the relic-abundance targets for thermal freeze-out (Dirac fermion and complex scalar) dark matter and for freeze-in sterile-neutrino dark matter, for $\phi$ masses from roughly 1 MeV to 10 GeV, surpassing the projected reach of DUNE, FLArE, and IceCube-Gen2. If this is right, neutrino-portal dark matter—one of the least constrained ways dark matter could couple to ordinary matter—could be tested with a detector roughly the size of a shoebox in the first year of a future muon collider.

What carries the argument

The central object is the lepton-number-carrying scalar $\phi$—the neutrinophilic mediator—produced through $\nu_\mu N\to\mu^+\phi X$; because $\phi$ escapes the detector and carries lepton number, the event appears as an apparent lepton-number-violating process with a positively charged muon and missing energy. The argument is carried by the combination of a nearly pure $\nu_\mu$ beam (with the corresponding anti-$\nu_\mu$ directed away from the detector), a magnetized spectrometer that assigns the muon charge sign, a set of energy and transverse-momentum discriminants, and a boosted decision tree that reduces neutrino-induced backgrounds by roughly six orders of magnitude while keeping 20–40% of signal events. For small $\phi$ masses the cross section scales approximately as $\sigma\simeq 10^{-37}\,\mathrm{cm}^2 \times \lambda^2 \times (E_\nu/\mathrm{TeV})$, so the projected sensitivity is driven directly by the large, well-understood muon-collider neutrino flux rather than by a large detector.

What would settle it

Measure the charge-misidentification rate for high-energy $\mu^-$ in the proposed magnetized spectrometer (10 m, 1 T) with a 1.5 TeV test beam: if the rate exceeds roughly $10^{-4}$, the ~$3\times10^4$ CC events with an energetic $\mu^-$ that the analysis rejects would produce several fake signal events per year, comparable to or larger than the ~2 surviving background events, and the claimed $\lambda_{\mu\mu}$ limits would not hold. A full detector simulation that includes charge mis-ID and pion misidentification, run through the same BDT, would either reproduce the projected $S/\sqrt{B}>2$ reach or show it degrade below the discovery threshold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery claim is that the $\nu_\mu N\to\mu^+\phi X$ mono-neutrino process, recognized by an apparent lepton-number-violating wrong-sign $\mu^+$ without an accompanying energetic $\mu^-$, is observable above Standard Model backgrounds in a 10 kg detector sitting in the forward neutrino beam of a 3 TeV muon collider. With the selection described—$E_{\mu^+}>100$ GeV, no $\mu^-$ above 30 GeV, $E_{\mu^+}/E_{\text{vis}}>0.5$, a charm veto, transverse-momentum correlations, and a BDT cut—the paper projects that backgrounds fall by more than six orders of magnitude while signal efficiency remains at 20–40%, yielding sensitivity to $\lambda_{\mu\mu}$ values as low as about $10^{-2}$ with the 10 kg detector and about $10^{-3}$ with a 10 ton detector in the few-hundred-MeV mass range. At these couplings, the model can simultaneously explain the thermal relic abundance of Dirac-fermion or complex-scalar dark matter, or populate sterile-neutrino dark matter through enhanced neutrino self-interactions. The paper further recasts Higgs-to-invisible decays at the muon collider to bound $\lambda_{\mu\mu} \gtrsim 0.09$, confirming that the neutrino-scattering channel is the more sensitive one.

Load-bearing premise

The whole projected reach depends on perfect muon sign identification for every muon above the energy thresholds, with no charge-misidentification rate modeled; even a tiny probability of misreading a high-energy negative muon as positive would put ordinary charged-current events into the signal sample and erase the six-order-of-magnitude background suppression.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 10 kg-year exposure is enough to reach the thermal freeze-out relic-abundance lines for Dirac-fermion and complex-scalar dark matter and the freeze-in sterile-neutrino target for $\phi$ masses from about 1 MeV to 10 GeV.
  • For a 10 ton detector (equivalently 1 ton operating for 10 years), the projected coupling limits improve by roughly an order of magnitude, reaching $\lambda_{\mu\mu} \lesssim 10^{-3}$ in the few-hundred-MeV range.
  • In the mass range where DUNE, FLArE, and IceCube-Gen2 are projected to have their best sensitivity, MuCol$\nu$ is projected to be more sensitive or comparable, and it exceeds the reach of invisible-Higgs searches at the HL-LHC and at the muon collider itself.
  • The search requires only a compact detector whose 10 kg target mass is similar to existing forward neutrino detectors at the LHC, so the necessary instrumentation is close to demonstrated designs.
  • Because the neutrino flux comes from well-understood muon decays, the flux systematic uncertainties are much smaller than for proton-sourced neutrino beams, so the projected limit is not dominated by flux-normalization error.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same wrong-sign-muon channel would also be a clean probe of neutrino trident production at TeV energies, which the paper mentions as a guaranteed physics case, and of nuclear parton distributions at high $x$.
  • Beyond the paper, the unmodeled charge-misidentification rate is the most direct way the projection could fail; a test of the magnetized spectrometer with a 1.5 TeV muon beam would determine whether the required $\mu^+$–$\mu^-$ separation is achievable.
  • Beyond the paper, a null 10 kg-year result would exclude the neutrinophilic-scalar explanation of the relic abundance over most of the 1 MeV–10 GeV window, pushing neutrino-portal models toward heavier or more weakly coupled regions that would need a higher-energy muon collider.
  • Beyond the paper, this analysis assumes only the $\lambda_{\mu\mu}$ coupling is nonzero; a future detector with tau identification could use the same neutrino beam to search the $\lambda_{\tau\tau}$ channel.
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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a forward neutrino detector (MuColν) at a 3 TeV muon collider and studies its sensitivity to a neutrinophilic scalar φ that couples to muon neutrinos through the dimension-six operator in Eq. (1) and interacts with dark matter. The signal is the mono-neutrino process ν_μ N → μ^+ φ X, identified by requiring a high-energy positive muon and no high-energy negative muon. The authors simulate signal and Standard Model backgrounds with MadGraph/Pythia, validate the signal cross section against the semi-analytic estimate in Eq. (4), and present both a cut-based analysis and a Boosted Decision Tree analysis, with event counts summarized in Table I. They derive projected exclusion bounds for 10 kg and 10 ton detectors, compare them with DUNE, FLArE, IceCube-Gen2, and Higgs-invisible-width searches, and argue that even a 10 kg-yr exposure can probe thermal freeze-out (Dirac fermion and complex scalar) and sterile-neutrino freeze-in targets for m_φ from roughly 1 MeV to 20 GeV.

Significance. If the projection holds, this is a valuable and timely physics case for a forward neutrino detector at a muon collider: the muon-decay neutrino flux is theoretically very well understood, the wrong-sign-muon signature is a clean and motivated probe of lepton-number-carrying mediators, and the projected reach in λ_μμ would exceed other terrestrial projections in the few-MeV to 10-GeV window. The paper has several concrete strengths: the signal cross sections are checked against Eq. (4), the background rejection is presented step-by-step in Table I, the BDT is trained and tested on separate event samples, and the sensitivity curves are obtained from parameter scans over first-principles cross sections rather than from fits to data. These features make the analysis internally consistent and the central claim concrete, provided the detector-performance assumptions, especially muon charge identification, are quantitatively justified.

major comments (1)
  1. The assumption of perfect muon sign identification is load-bearing and currently unquantified. The background suppression to 2.23 events after the full BDT chain rests on selecting a μ+ above 100 GeV and vetoing all μ− above 30 GeV. With 1.89×10^7 CC ν_μ events per year in the 10 kg detector, a charge-misidentification rate of 10^-3 would inject roughly 1.9×10^4 fake signal candidates before kinematic cuts, and a rate of 10^-4 would inject roughly 1.9×10^3, comparable to or larger than the 6.93×10^3 baseline background after the μ+ and μ− requirements. The manuscript states, 'For simplicity, we assume perfect muon sign identification within this setup and above the energy threshold,' and emphasizes that sign identification is crucial, but it does not assign a misidentification rate, does not show that the Evis, pT-Δφ, charm-tag, and BDT selections remove such fakes, and does not train or evaluate the BDT on a mis-ID-inclusive sample. Since the quoted λ bounds and the claimed sensitivity to thermal freeze-out and freeze-in targets depend on a final background of O(2) events, the authors should either provide a realistic charge-misidentification model for the proposed magnetized spectrometer or derive the maximum tolerable mis-ID rate as a function of the BDT cut and demonstrate that this requirement is compatible with the detector concept.
minor comments (5)
  1. The 'All Events' row appears to have missing entries: for seven numerical columns it lists only five numbers, so the NC displaced event rate (and possibly the 'All' total) is absent. Please complete the table so that the initial background totals are transparent and sum consistently with the later rows.
  2. The 10 ton detector projection is described only by the statement that a stronger BDT cut of >0.90 is used and that the background after the BDT cut is O(100) events. A table analogous to Table I for the 10 ton detector, or a clear scaling argument from the 10 kg results, would make the advertised order-of-magnitude improvement in Fig. 1 verifiable.
  3. The sensitivity criterion is given as S/√B > 2 with S > 3, but the curves are not labeled with a confidence level or a statistical procedure (e.g., Poisson exclusion with nuisance parameters). Please state the statistical interpretation explicitly.
  4. There are several typos and style inconsistencies: 'neutrophilic' appears where 'neutrinophilic' is meant in Sec. I, and 'asssumed' appears instead of 'assumed' in Sec. III in the discussion of the hadronic calorimeter. A careful proofread would remove these.
  5. The statement that a 1.5 TeV muon bends by approximately 2 cm in a 10 m, 1 T magnet is not by itself a demonstration of sign identification; the charge-sign resolution is set by the sagitta measurement and hit resolution. A sentence clarifying the assumed sagitta precision and its implication for the charge-misidentification rate would strengthen the detector-performance discussion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sensitivity reach is computed from first-principles cross sections and scanned couplings, with relic-density targets used only as external comparison benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central projection—the 10 kg-yr exclusion reach in the (m_phi, lambda_mumu) plane—is produced by an explicit calculation chain: the Lagrangian in Eqs. (1)-(3), MadGraph5 with nCTEQ15 and Pythia8 for signal and background simulation, the sequential cuts and BDT described in Sec. III, and the S/sqrt(B) > 2, S > 3 significance criterion. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then reported as a prediction; lambda and m_phi are scanned, and signal rates scale as lambda^2 from the matrix element. The relic-abundance lines for Dirac fermion, complex scalar, and sterile-neutrino freeze-in are imported from prior work (Refs. [5,7-9]) and used only as targets for comparison, so the sensitivity projection would be unchanged if those target lines were replaced by any other benchmark. The self-citations to Refs. [4,5,18] define the model and earlier similar analyses, but the event rates here are recomputed with MadGraph and validated against an analytic expression, not inherited by construction. The invisible-Higgs recast in Sec. IV is an independent analytic evaluation of the decay width, with agreement to Ref. [4] noted as a check. The explicitly flagged assumption of perfect muon sign identification (Sec. III, Analysis: 'For simplicity, we assume perfect muon sign identification within this setup and above the energy threshold. It is important to emphasize that muon sign identification is crucial for the analysis presented below.') is a detector-performance assumption and a feasibility limitation, but it does not define the signal rate or coupling reach, so it is not a circular reduction. Overall, the derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks and no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central sensitivity forecast rests on external design parameters (IMCC flux), prior model and relic calculations, and idealized detector performance. The detector-performance assumptions are the least constrained and the most consequential for the projected reach.

free parameters (7)
  • lambda_mumu (neutrino-scalar coupling)
    Scanned over when producing sensitivity curves; not fitted to data.
  • Dark matter coupling y = 1
    Assumed to draw thermal relic target curves from Ref. [5]; changing y shifts the required lambda.
  • m_phi / m_chi mass ratio = 3
    Assumed for relic target curves; the paper notes that m_phi = 10 m_chi shifts targets upward.
  • charm tagging efficiency = 80%
    Assumed for prompt background rejection; no measured detector performance.
  • muon charge identification efficiency = 100% (perfect)
    Assumed for the baseline muon cuts; explicitly stated to be crucial.
  • energy resolution = 10% Gaussian smearing
    Applied to all measured particle energies; affects kinematic cuts and the BDT.
  • BDT score threshold = 0.7 for 10 kg, 0.90 for 10 ton
    Chosen via a coarse scan to maximize sensitivity.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The dimension-6 operator (L_alpha H)(L_beta H) phi / Lambda^2 generates nu nu phi and nu nu phi h couplings; only lambda_mumu is nonzero.
    Model input from prior literature (Refs. 3, 4); if the flavor structure differs, sensitivity changes.
  • domain assumption MuCol design from IMCC: 3 TeV, 4.5 km ring, 10^13 muons/s, 10 m straight sections produce about 10^10 neutrinos/s.
    Taken from Ref. [1]; all event rates scale with this flux.
  • domain assumption nCTEQ15 nuclear PDFs and Pythia8 model neutrino-iron scattering accurately at TeV energies.
    Used for signal and background event generation; cross-section uncertainties are assumed negligible.
  • ad hoc to paper The detector concept from Ref. [28] with magnetized spectrometer, calorimeter, and hadronic calorimeter containment is realizable with 10% energy resolution.
    No prototype exists; the analysis depends on these performance levels.
  • ad hoc to paper Perfect muon sign identification above E_mu+ > 100 GeV and veto of E_mu- > 30 GeV.
    Central to background rejection; no misidentification probability is modeled.
  • domain assumption Standard cosmology and relic abundance calculations from Ref. [5] with y = 1 and m_phi = 3 m_chi.
    The DM target curves are not computed in this paper but are used as benchmarks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutrino-Portal Dark Matter Detection Prospects at a Future Muon Collider." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6SY37PQ4

@misc{pith2026241210315,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutrino-Portal Dark Matter Detection Prospects at a Future Muon Collider},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6SY37PQ4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10315}
}
abstract

With no concrete evidence for non-gravitational interactions of dark matter to date, it is natural to wonder whether dark matter couples predominantly to the Standard Model (SM)'s neutrinos. Neutrino interactions (and the possible existence of additional neutrinophilic mediators) are substantially less understood than those of other SM particles, yet this picture will change dramatically in the coming decades with new neutrino sources. One potential new source arises with the construction of a high-energy muon collider (MuCol) -- due to muons' instability, a MuCol is a source of high-energy collimated neutrinos. Importantly, since the physics of muon decays (into neutrinos) is very well-understood, this leads to a neutrino flux with systematic uncertainties far smaller than fluxes from conventional high-energy (proton-sourced) neutrino beams. In this work, we study the capabilities of a potential neutrino detector, "MuCol$\nu$," placed ~100 m downstream of the MuCol interaction point. The MuCol$\nu$ detector would be especially capable of searching for a neutrinophilic mediator $\phi$ through the mono-neutrino scattering process $\nu_\mu N \to \mu^+ \phi X$, exceeding searches from other terrestrial approaches for $m_\phi$ in the ~few MeV -- ten GeV range. Even with a 10 kg-yr exposure, MuCol$\nu$ is capable of searching for well-motivated classes of thermal freeze-out and freeze-in neutrino-portal dark matter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10315 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Distributions of selected kinematic variables used in the analysis of neutrino-nucleus interactions within a proposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Two-dimensional distributions of transverse observables used in the analysis, depicting the correlation between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Neutrino Fluxes at a Muon Collider

    hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The neutrino flux around a 10 TeV muon collider is about 120 times higher than earlier estimates, with non-negligible additional sources from showers, rock interactions, and collisions.

  2. The Neutrino Slice at Muon Colliders

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Beam-induced neutrinos at a muon collider would yield around 10^11 interactions per year in the main detector, enabling precision electroweak and neutrino measurements.

  3. New Constraints on Neutrino-Dark Matter Interactions: A Comprehensive Analysis

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Most benchmark neutrino-dark matter couplings adopted in previous studies are excluded when laboratory meson and Z decay bounds are combined with cosmological and astrophysical constraints, leaving only special galact...

  4. Searching for neutrino self-interactions at future muon colliders

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A forward detector at a future muon collider could detect neutrinophilic scalar production via wrong-sign muons, improving neutrino self-interaction limits by about two orders of magnitude.

  5. The Forward Neutrino Flux and its Secondaries at a 10 TeV Muon Collider

    hep-ph 2026-08

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Interim report for the International Muon Collider Collaboration (IMCC),

    International Muon ColliderCollaboration, C. Accettura et al., “Interim report for the International Muon Collider Collaboration (IMCC),” arXiv:2407.12450 [physics.acc-ph]

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    MuCol Milestone Report No. 5: Preliminary Parameters,

    MuCoL Collaboration, C. Accettura et al., “MuCol Milestone Report No. 5: Preliminary Parameters,” arXiv:2411.02966 [physics.acc-ph]

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    Neutrino self-interactions: A white paper,

    J. M. Berryman et al., “Neutrino self-interactions: A white paper,” Phys. Dark Univ.42 (2023) 101267, arXiv:2203.01955 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Lepton-Number-Charged Scalars and Neutrino Beamstrahlung,

    J. M. Berryman, A. De Gouvˆ ea, K. J. Kelly, and Y. Zhang, “Lepton-Number-Charged Scalars and Neutrino Beamstrahlung,” Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) no. 7, 075030, arXiv:1802.00009 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Mononeutrino at DUNE: New Signals from Neutrinophilic Thermal Dark Matter,

    K. J. Kelly and Y. Zhang, “Mononeutrino at DUNE: New Signals from Neutrinophilic Thermal Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) no. 5, 055034, arXiv:1901.01259 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Sterile-neutrinos as dark matter,

    S. Dodelson and L. M. Widrow, “Sterile-neutrinos as dark matter,” Phys. Rev. Lett.72 (1994) 17–20, arXiv:hep-ph/9303287

    arXiv 1994

  7. [7]

    Dodelson-Widrow Mechanism in the Presence of Self-Interacting Neutrinos,

    A. De Gouvˆ ea, M. Sen, W. Tangarife, and Y. Zhang, “Dodelson-Widrow Mechanism in the Presence of Self-Interacting Neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. Lett.124 (2020) no. 8, 081802, arXiv:1910.04901 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Intimate Relationship between Sterile Neutrino Dark Matter and ∆Neff,

    K. J. Kelly, M. Sen, and Y. Zhang, “Intimate Relationship between Sterile Neutrino Dark Matter and ∆Neff,” Phys. Rev. Lett.127 (2021) no. 4, 041101, arXiv:2011.02487 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Origin of sterile neutrino dark matter via secret neutrino interactions with vector bosons,

    K. J. Kelly, M. Sen, W. Tangarife, and Y. Zhang, “Origin of sterile neutrino dark matter via secret neutrino interactions with vector bosons,” Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no. 11, 115031, arXiv:2005.03681 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Can Neutrino Self-interactions Save Sterile Neutrino Dark Matter?,

    R. An, V. Gluscevic, E. O. Nadler, and Y. Zhang, “Can Neutrino Self-interactions Save Sterile Neutrino Dark Matter?,” Astrophys. J. Lett.954 (2023) no. 1, L18, arXiv:2301.08299 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Constraining the Self-Interacting Neutrino Interpretation of the Hubble Tension,

    N. Blinov, K. J. Kelly, G. Z. Krnjaic, and S. D. McDermott, “Constraining the Self-Interacting Neutrino Interpretation of the Hubble Tension,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123 (2019) no. 19, 191102, arXiv:1905.02727 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Inflation might be caused by the right: Handed neutrino,

    G. Barenboim, “Inflation might be caused by the right: Handed neutrino,” JHEP 03 (2009) 102, arXiv:0811.2998 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Revisiting neutrino self-interaction constraints from Z and τ decays,

    V. Brdar, M. Lindner, S. Vogl, and X.-J. Xu, “Revisiting neutrino self-interaction constraints from Z and τ decays,” Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) no. 11, 115001, arXiv:2003.05339 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    New Laboratory Constraints on Neutrinophilic Mediators,

    P. S. B. Dev, D. Kim, D. Sathyan, K. Sinha, and Y. Zhang, “New Laboratory Constraints on Neutrinophilic Mediators,” arXiv:2407.12738 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Search for three body pion decays π+→l+νX ,

    PIENU Collaboration, A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al., “Search for three body pion decays π+→l+νX ,” Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) no. 5, 052006, arXiv:2101.07381 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Search for K + decays to a muon and invisible particles,

    NA62 Collaboration, E. Cortina Gil et al., “Search for K + decays to a muon and invisible particles,” Phys. Lett. B 816 (2021) 136259, arXiv:2101.12304 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Probing secret interactions of astrophysical neutrinos in the high-statistics era,

    I. Esteban, S. Pandey, V. Brdar, and J. F. Beacom, “Probing secret interactions of astrophysical neutrinos in the high-statistics era,” Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) no. 12, 123014, arXiv:2107.13568 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Probing neutrino-portal dark matter at the Forward Physics Facility,

    K. J. Kelly, F. Kling, D. Tuckler, and Y. Zhang, “Probing neutrino-portal dark matter at the Forward Physics Facility,” Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) no. 7, 075026, arXiv:2111.05868 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Constraining neutrinophilic mediators at F ASERν, FLArE and F ASERν2,

    W. Bai, J. Liao, and H. Liu, “Constraining neutrinophilic mediators at F ASERν, FLArE and F ASERν2,” arXiv:2409.01826 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Leptonic Scalars at the LHC,

    A. de Gouvˆ ea, P. S. B. Dev, B. Dutta, T. Ghosh, T. Han, and Y. Zhang, “Leptonic Scalars at the LHC,” JHEP 07 (2020) 142, arXiv:1910.01132 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    µTRISTAN,

    Y. Hamada, R. Kitano, R. Matsudo, H. Takaura, and M. Yoshida, “µTRISTAN,” PTEP 2022 (2022) no. 5, 053B02, arXiv:2201.06664 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Probing Lepton Number Violation at Same-Sign Lepton Colliders,

    C. H. de Lima, D. McKeen, J. N. Ng, M. Shamma, and D. Tuckler, “Probing Lepton Number Violation at Same-Sign Lepton Colliders,” arXiv:2411.15303 [hep-ph]. 12

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Detecting and Studying High-Energy Collider Neutrinos with F ASER at the LHC,

    F ASERCollaboration, H. Abreu et al., “Detecting and Studying High-Energy Collider Neutrinos with F ASER at the LHC,” Eur. Phys. J. C80 (2020) no. 1, 61, arXiv:1908.02310 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    SND@LHC: the scattering and neutrino detector at the LHC,

    SND@LHC Collaboration, G. Acampora et al., “SND@LHC: the scattering and neutrino detector at the LHC,” JINST 19 (2024) no. 05, P05067, arXiv:2210.02784 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    The Forward Physics Facility at the High-Luminosity LHC,

    J. L. Feng et al., “The Forward Physics Facility at the High-Luminosity LHC,” J. Phys. G50 (2023) no. 3, 030501, arXiv:2203.05090 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    FPF@FCC: Neutrino, QCD, and BSM Physics Opportunities with Far-Forward Experiments at a 100 TeV Proton Collider,

    R. Mammen Abraham, J. Adhikary, J. L. Feng, M. Fieg, F. Kling, J. Li, J. Pei, T. R. Rabemananjara, J. Rojo, and S. Trojanowski, “FPF@FCC: Neutrino, QCD, and BSM Physics Opportunities with Far-Forward Experiments at a 100 TeV Proton Collider,” arXiv:2409.02163 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Lepton-flavor-violating ALP signals with TeV-scale muon beams,

    B. Batell, H. Davoudiasl, R. Marcarelli, E. T. Neil, and S. Trojanowski, “Lepton-flavor-violating ALP signals with TeV-scale muon beams,” Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) no. 7, 075039, arXiv:2407.15942 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Neutrino physics at a muon collider,

    B. J. King, “Neutrino physics at a muon collider,” AIP Conf. Proc.435 (1998) no. 1, 334–348, arXiv:hep-ex/9907033

    1998 arXiv

  21. [29]

    First Direct Observation of Collider Neutrinos with F ASER at the LHC,

    F ASERCollaboration, H. Abreu et al., “First Direct Observation of Collider Neutrinos with F ASER at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131 (2023) no. 3, 031801, arXiv:2303.14185 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Observation of Collider Muon Neutrinos with the SND@LHC Experiment,

    SND@LHC Collaboration, R. Albanese et al., “Observation of Collider Muon Neutrinos with the SND@LHC Experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131 (2023) no. 3, 031802, arXiv:2305.09383 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    First Measurement of νe and νµ Interaction Cross Sections at the LHC with F ASER’s Emulsion Detector,

    F ASERCollaboration, R. Mammen Abraham et al., “First Measurement of νe and νµ Interaction Cross Sections at the LHC with F ASER’s Emulsion Detector,” Phys. Rev. Lett.133 (2024) no. 2, 021802, arXiv:2403.12520 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Neutrino Experiments at the Large Hadron Collider,

    A. Ariga, J. Boyd, F. Kling, and A. De Roeck, “Neutrino Experiments at the Large Hadron Collider,” arXiv:2501.10078 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Searching for neutrino self-interactions at future muon colliders,

    H. Liu and D. Ueda, “Searching for neutrino self-interactions at future muon colliders,” arXiv:2412.11910 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,” JHEP ...

    2014 arXiv

  27. [35]

    nCTEQ15 - Global analysis of nuclear parton distributions with uncertainties in the CTEQ framework,

    K. Kovarik et al., “nCTEQ15 - Global analysis of nuclear parton distributions with uncertainties in the CTEQ framework,” Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) no. 8, 085037, arXiv:1509.00792 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2,

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and P. Z. Skands, “An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2,” Comput. Phys. Commun.191 (2015) 159–177, arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Review of particle physics,

    Particle Data GroupCollaboration, S. Navas et al., “Review of particle physics,” Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) no. 3, 030001

    2024

  30. [38]

    Neutrino Structure Functions from GeV to EeV Energies,

    A. Candido, A. Garcia, G. Magni, T. Rabemananjara, J. Rojo, and R. Stegeman, “Neutrino Structure Functions from GeV to EeV Energies,” JHEP 05 (2023) 149, arXiv:2302.08527 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    The LHC as a Neutrino-Ion Collider,

    J. M. Cruz-Martinez, M. Fieg, T. Giani, P. Krack, T. M¨ akel¨ a, T. R. Rabemananjara, and J. Rojo, “The LHC as a Neutrino-Ion Collider,” Eur. Phys. J. C84 (2024) no. 4, 369, arXiv:2309.09581 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Electron Ion Collider: The Next QCD Frontier: Understanding the glue that binds us all,

    A. Accardi et al., “Electron Ion Collider: The Next QCD Frontier: Understanding the glue that binds us all,” Eur. Phys. J. A52 (2016) no. 9, 268, arXiv:1212.1701 [nucl-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Technical Proposal for F ASER: ForwArd Search ExpeRiment at the LHC,

    F ASERCollaboration, A. Ariga et al., “Technical Proposal for F ASER: ForwArd Search ExpeRiment at the LHC,” arXiv:1812.09139 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    Calorimetry at FCC-ee,

    M. Aleksa, F. Bedeschi, R. Ferrari, F. Sefkow, and C. G. Tully, “Calorimetry at FCC-ee,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus136 (2021) no. 10, 1066, arXiv:2109.00391 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python,

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay, “Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python,” Journal of Machine Learni...

    2011

  36. [44]

    A Combination of preliminary electroweak measurements and constraints on the standard model,

    LEP , ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OP AL, LEP Electroweak W orking Group, SLD Electroweak Group, SLD Heavy Flavor GroupCollaboration, t. S. Electroweak, “A Combination of preliminary electroweak measurements and constraints on the standard model,” arXiv:hep-ex/0312023

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    Measurement of the W -boson mass in pp collisions at√s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

    A TLASCollaboration, M. Aaboud et al., “Measurement of the W -boson mass in pp collisions at√s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) no. 2, 110, arXiv:1701.07240 [hep-ex]. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 78, 898 (2018)]

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Searches for invisible decays of the Higgs boson in pp collisions at √s = 7, 8, and 13 TeV,

    CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al., “Searches for invisible decays of the Higgs boson in pp collisions at √s = 7, 8, and 13 TeV,” JHEP 02 (2017) 135, arXiv:1610.09218 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Invisible Higgs boson decay from forward muons at a muon collider,

    M. Ruhdorfer, E. Salvioni, and A. Wulzer, “Invisible Higgs boson decay from forward muons at a muon collider,” Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) no. 9, 095038, arXiv:2303.14202 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Technical Proposal: F ASERnu,

    F ASERCollaboration, H. Abreu et al., “Technical Proposal: F ASERnu,” arXiv:2001.03073 [physics.ins-det]

    2001 arXiv

  41. [49]

    The F ASER detector,

    F ASERCollaboration, H. Abreu et al., “The F ASER detector,” JINST 19 (2024) no. 05, P05066, arXiv:2207.11427 [physics.ins-det]

    2024

  42. [50]

    SND@LHC - Scattering and Neutrino Detector at the LHC,

    C. Ahdida et al., “SND@LHC - Scattering and Neutrino Detector at the LHC,”. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2750060

  43. [51]

    The Forward Physics Facility: Sites, experiments, and physics potential,

    L. A. Anchordoqui et al., “The Forward Physics Facility: Sites, experiments, and physics potential,” Phys. Rept. 968 (2022) 1–50, arXiv:2109.10905 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Science and Project Planning for the Forward Physics Facility in Preparation for the 2024-2026 European Particle Physics Strategy Update,

    J. Adhikary et al., “Science and Project Planning for the Forward Physics Facility in Preparation for the 2024-2026 European Particle Physics Strategy Update,” arXiv:2411.04175 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Neutrino trident scattering at the LHC energy regime,

    R. Francener, V. P. Goncalves, and D. R. Gratieri, “Neutrino trident scattering at the LHC energy regime,” Eur. Phys. J. C84 (2024) no. 9, 923, arXiv:2406.13593 [hep-ph]. 13

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Discovering neutrino tridents at the Large Hadron Collider,

    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. D 110 (2024) no. 7, 072018, arXiv:2406.16803 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Tau Tridents at Accelerator Neutrino Facilities,

    I. Bigaran, P. S. B. Dev, D. Lopez Gutierrez, and P. A. N. Machado, “Tau Tridents at Accelerator Neutrino Facilities,” arXiv:2406.20067 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.