Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 36 references

A Long-Baseline Atom Interferometer at CERN LHC Point 4: Implementation Study

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The PX46 access shaft at LHC Point 4 can be prepared during Long Shutdown 3 to host a vertical 100-metre atom interferometer, running concurrently with the High-Luminosity LHC.

desk verdict A competent, honest CERN engineering implementation study whose central claim rests on internal RP reports—fair as a project enabler, less satisfying as a standalone paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.09694 v1 pith:AXN4D2AZ submitted 2025-08-13 physics.ins-det astro-ph.IMgr-qchep-exphysics.atom-phquant-ph

G. Arduini , O. Buchmüller , T.A. Bud , S. Calatroni , O. Crespo-Lopez , A. Devienne , J. Ellis , T. Hakulinen
show 3 more authors
A. Infantino D. Lafarge A.P. Marion
This is my paper
classification physics.ins-detastro-ph.IMgr-qchep-exphysics.atom-phquant-ph
keywords atominterferometrylong-baselineinterferometerLHCPoint4PX46shaftradiationshieldingaccesscontrolLongShutdown3ultralightdarkmatter
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

This implementation study argues that the PX46 access shaft at LHC Point 4 can be prepared during Long Shutdown 3 so that a vertical atom interferometer about 100 metres long can be installed and run while the High-Luminosity LHC continues to operate. It gives detailed engineering designs and costs for the required civil works: an 80-centimetre concrete shielding wall in the connecting gallery, a motorised 4-by-4-metre shielding door, interlocked personnel access doors, fire and oxygen-deficiency alarms, and a battery-backed elevator platform that doubles as the evacuation route. The study concludes that no fundamental obstacles exist and that, from formal approval, all interventions fit within about a year and a half, with field work placed in a window from August 2027 to the end of 2028. The point is to decouple site preparation from experiment construction, so the interferometer can be built and commissioned in parallel with normal machine operation.

What carries the argument

The shielding-wall system in gallery TX46 is the central mechanism: an 80-cm cast-in-place concrete wall with a roughly 28 m² opening, 16 m² of which is a motorised movable door of concrete blocks (opening 4 m by 4 m), plus stacked concrete blocks for the remaining 12 m², and two interlocked LASS access doors behind a 0.8 m chicane. The wall does the argument's work by separating the PX46 shaft from the LHC's interlocked radiological zone, converting an accidental beam-loss dose that would otherwise exceed the annual 20 mSv limit into Supervised Radiation Area levels. The battery-backed elevator platform is the second load-bearing element, providing routine access to all levels and a control

What would settle it

A radiation-transport calculation for the exact TX46 geometry, or a measurement behind a prototype wall exposed to a test beam, that gives an ambient dose equivalent at the base of PX46 above the yearly Supervised Radiation Area limit would falsify the concurrent-access claim. The paper's estimate rests on the RP simulations referenced as [41] and [42] rather than on measurements made in this report.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the PX46 shaft at LHC Point 4 can be adapted during LS3 to accommodate installation and operation of a vertical long-baseline atom interferometer during Run 4 without impeding HL-LHC operations. The essential step is decoupling the shaft from the interlocked LHC access zone: a 0.8 m cast-in-place concrete wall in gallery TX46, with a motorised movable door covering a 4-by-4-metre opening and two interlocked access doors through a chicane, reduces the radiological classification of PX46 to a Supervised Radiation Area even for an accidental HL-LHC beam loss. With that wall, PX46 leaves the LASS-interlocked zone; a new elevator platform provides access to all levels an

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that an 80-cm cast-in-place concrete wall in gallery TX46, together with its motorised 4-by-4-metre shielding door, reduces an accidental HL-LHC beam-loss dose at the base of PX46 to Supervised Radiation Area levels; if this dose calculation is wrong, regular access during beam operation is not allowed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the study is right, the host laboratory can approve the LS3 works and have PX46 ready for atom-interferometer installation by Run 4 without compromising the HL-LHC schedule.
  • The radiation shielding would allow personnel to enter the shaft during beam operation under supervised-area procedures, so experiment construction and commissioning can overlap with LHC running.
  • The elevator platform gives routine access and a guaranteed two-minute evacuation, covering fire and helium-release scenarios in the safety case.
  • The cost and schedule estimates (about 1.2 MCHF, 1.5 years from approval) provide a concrete planning basis for integrating these works into the LS3 master schedule.
  • Subsequent experiment construction, including the laser laboratory and services, can be postponed and built later in parallel because the site is already radiological and access-separated.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 1.2 MCHF estimate explicitly excludes experiment-only infrastructure such as new chilled-water plant and laser-laboratory services, so a full 30–50 MCHF experiment would carry additional integration costs beyond this study's scope.
  • If the shaft is reclassified as a non-interlocked area like other LHC experiment areas, the same engineering template could plausibly be reused for other long-baseline quantum sensors in other LHC shafts, provided their radiation and logistics profiles are comparable.
  • The radiation-shielding claim rests on simulated accidental beam losses; a direct validation would be to measure dose rates behind the installed wall during a controlled early beam-abort test, which would also calibrate the RP model for future reuse of the shaft.
  • The 1.5-year window assumes timely formal approval and available resources; if approval slips past the identified August 2027–end 2028 field window, the next convenient opportunity may be a later shutdown, delaying the interferometer's start.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an implementation study for adapting the PX46 access shaft at LHC Point 4 so that it can host a ~100 m vertical atom interferometer during HL-LHC Run 4, with preparation work performed during Long Shutdown 3 (2026-2030). The study specifies civil-engineering modifications (0.8 m concrete shielding wall with a movable 4 m x 4 m door), an access-control and alarm system based on the existing LHC LASS infrastructure, a custom elevator platform for both normal access and emergency evacuation, and supporting HVAC/electrical services. It provides a Class 4 cost estimate of approximately 1.2 MCHF and a schedule claim that, from formal approval, all interventions can be completed within a 1.5-year window. The central conclusion is that no fundamental obstacles exist and that concurrent operation of the AI experiment and HL-LHC is achievable.

Significance. If the engineering and radiation-protection premises hold, this is a valuable, concrete roadmap for deploying a long-baseline atom interferometer at CERN, with a detailed cost breakdown and integration into the LHC LS3 schedule. The study explicitly builds on a prior feasibility report and uses established CERN systems (LASS, fire detection, alarm conventions) rather than inventing new ones. The paper is also honest about the estimate class and uncertainty ranges. Its main weakness is that the decisive radiation-shielding results are taken from non-public internal notes, so the 'no fundamental obstacles' claim cannot be independently verified from the manuscript alone.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5, Fig. 6, refs [41,42]] The claim that PX46 can be classified as a Supervised Radiation Area during HL-LHC operation—and thus that regular personnel access is possible—is load-bearing for the entire 'concurrent operation' conclusion. The only numerical support is Fig. 6, which is stated to be the result of RP studies [41,42]; these are internal CERN documents not reproduced here. The accidental beam-loss source term, geometry, transport code, and shielding parameters (including the 4 m x 4 m movable door) are not given. Without this information, the central claim cannot be checked. Please either include a reproducible summary of the RP analysis (or its key inputs and outputs) or explicitly state that this result is taken from the cited internal notes and is not part of the present study.
  2. [Sec. 7.2] The movable shielding door is described as 'completely shielded, including inside the frame', but no quantitative radiation-streaming or gap analysis is provided. This door is to be opened during LHC technical stops and for in-day equipment replacement; its performance is therefore equally load-bearing as the fixed wall. The statement that a preliminary design 'demonstrates the feasibility' based on HIE-ISOLDE experience is not a substitute for showing the design satisfies the dose constraints. Please add the relevant engineering/radiation calculations or a reference to a document that contains them.
  3. [Sec. 10, Table 2] The paper gives a Class 4 estimate with uncertainty ranges of -15/-30% to +20/+50% and notes that no contingency is included. Yet the abstract and conclusions state that the refined estimate 'confirms' all interventions can be completed within a 1.5-year window. With this uncertainty and no contingency, the confirmatory language is stronger than the estimate supports. Please soften to 'is consistent with' or add a contingency and risk analysis, and ensure the conclusions do not overstate the precision of the cost number.
  4. [Sec. 10, Fig. 16] The schedule claim of '1.5 years from formal approval' is not fully substantiated. The identified LS3 window is August 2027 to end 2028, roughly 16 months, and the Gantt chart does not show a clear date scale or the critical-path dependencies (approval, tendering, civil works, door installation, LASS commissioning, elevator installation, fire detection). Please provide a clearer critical-path analysis and state the assumptions about the approval date and the exact LS3 window used.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2] Typo: 'AIs offer interesting prospects for for searches' — remove duplicate 'for'.
  2. [Sec. 4] Grammar: 'The 2-minute evacuation time as been assessed' should be 'has been assessed'.
  3. [Sec. 11] Cost unit inconsistency: the conclusions state '1.2 MCF' whereas the executive summary and Table 2 use 'MCHF'.
  4. [Fig. 6] The figure is not legible in the manuscript version; the contour lines for the Supervised Radiation Area limit are hard to distinguish. Please provide a higher-resolution version and explicitly state the numerical dose values at the bottom of PX46.
  5. [References [41,42]] Refs [41,42] are internal documents; if they cannot be made public, consider adding a note in the text indicating that these are CERN-internal and available on request, and include their EDMS identifiers in the reference list.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the implementation study's cost/schedule/civil-engineering conclusions are new and independent; the load-bearing radiation-shielding inputs rest on overlapping-author internal notes, which is a verification caveat rather than a definitional circularity.

full rationale

The paper is an engineering implementation study, not a derivation of a physics result from an equation. Its central claims—that PX46 can be prepared during LS3, that the civil works are feasible, and that the cost is ~1.2 MCHF within a 1.5-year window—are supported by new, itemized engineering analysis (Secs. 5–10): concrete wall geometry, LASS modifications, elevator platform design by an external consultancy [47], Class 4 cost table, and Gantt schedule. None of these is defined in terms of the 'no showstoppers' conclusion. The radiation-shielding premise (80 cm wall + 4x4 m movable door reducing accidental beam-loss dose to Supervised Radiation Area levels) is imported from refs [41,42], which share an author with this report, and from the earlier feasibility study [1]; Fig. 6 is not regenerated here. This is a load-bearing reliance on overlapping-author internal documentation, and it should be verified before approval. But it is not a circular step in the sense of Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction: the cited RP simulations are separate inputs, not outputs of this report, and the report's own engineering conclusions would stand or fall on their accuracy independently. Accordingly the circularity score is low (2), reflecting the self-citation pattern without alleging a definitional or constructional circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The report's central feasibility conclusion depends on a chain of prior analyses and internal plans: radiation transport calculations, site noise measurements, helium release behavior, LS3 scheduling, and a confidential elevator design. These are treated as inputs, not derived here. The cost and design parameters are hand-estimated engineering values. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Shielding wall thickness = 0.8 m concrete
    Chosen on the basis of RP simulations [41,42] to keep PX46 at Supervised Radiation Area dose levels; central to the claim that concurrent access is safe.
  • Movable shielding opening area = 28 m2 (16 m2 frequent, 12 m2 one-time)
    Design compromise between LHC equipment transport and radiation shielding; directly controls the radiation dose at the base of the shaft.
  • Movable door opening = 4 m x 4 m
    Set by the requirement to replace failed UX45 equipment within a day during LHC operation.
  • Elevator evacuation descent speed = 70 m/min
    Chosen so the platform can descend 143 m in under 2 minutes for emergency evacuation as required in [1].
  • Total cost estimate = 1.21 MCHF (Class 4, no contingency)
    Hand-estimated line items; the 'feasible within budget' conclusion depends on these figures.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Radiation transport calculations in refs [41,42] correctly predict dose levels for the proposed shielding configuration.
    Sec. 5, Fig. 6; the dose contours are taken from earlier RP studies, not recomputed here.
  • domain assumption The seismic and electromagnetic noise measurements reported in [1] remain representative of the PX46 site during LS3 and Run 4.
    Sec. 4 summarizes conclusions from [1]; the science case depends on site suitability.
  • domain assumption Existing helium relief routes and door systems behave as described for the PX46 and UX45 configuration.
    Sec. 4 relies on refs [45,46] for helium release paths and past incident behavior.
  • domain assumption The draft LS3 master schedule [49] correctly identifies August 2027 to end 2028 as a suitable installation window.
    Sec. 10, Gantt chart; if the window shifts, the 1.5-year completion claim may fail.
  • domain assumption The confidential elevator platform design [47] meets EN1495 and achieves the 2-minute evacuation requirement.
    Sec. 7.1; the platform performance is not independently verified in this report.
  • domain assumption No additional ODH detection is needed beyond existing top-of-shaft equipment given the assessed low probability of a large helium release in PX46.
    Sec. 6.2; this is an engineering judgment based on past incidents [46].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Long-Baseline Atom Interferometer at CERN LHC Point 4: Implementation Study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AXN4D2AZ

@misc{pith2026250809694,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Long-Baseline Atom Interferometer at CERN LHC Point 4: Implementation Study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AXN4D2AZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.09694}
}
read the original abstract

Building on the feasibility study in CERN-PBC Report-2018-002 (Arduini et al. 2018), this report supported by the Physics Beyond Colliders (PBC) Study Group describes the technical implementation of modifications to the PX46 shaft at LHC Point 4 during LS3 (June 2026 - June 2030) that would enable it to accommodate the installation and operation of a vertical long-baseline Atom Interferometer during Run 4 without affecting LHC operations. We specify in detail the necessary civil-engineering work, installation of bespoke radiation shielding, deployment of access-control systems and safety alarms, and design of a mobile elevator platform. Our comprehensive technical assessment identifies no fundamental obstacles or showstoppers to implementation. Refined cost estimates and a critical-path schedule confirm that, from formal approval, all interventions can be completed within a 1.5-year window. These preparations would ensure seamless, concurrent operation of the Atom Interferometer experiment and the HL-LHC, with all technical challenges successfully addressed through established engineering solutions.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A Long-Baseline Atom Interferometer at CERN: Conceptual Feasibility Study,

    G. Arduini et al. , “A Long-Baseline Atom Interferometer at CERN: Conceptual Feasibility Study,” CERN, Geneva, Tech. Rep., 2023, 51 pages, 39 figures, version with higher resolution figures available from https://cds.cern.ch/record/2851946/. [Online]. Available: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2851946

    work page arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    AION: An Atom Interferometer Observatory and Network,

    L. Badurina et al., “AION: An Atom Interferometer Observatory and Network,” JCAP, vol. 05, p. 011, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    (2025) Long-term schedule for the cern accelerator complex

    Jean-Philippe Tock et al. (2025) Long-term schedule for the cern accelerator complex. [Online]. Available: https://edms.cern.ch/document/2311633

    work page arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    An Atomic Gravitational Wave Interferometric Sensor (AGIS),

    S. Dimopoulos, P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, M. A. Kasevich, and S. Rajendran, “An Atomic Gravitational Wave Interferometric Sensor (AGIS),” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 78, p. 122002, 2008

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Observation of a gravitational Aharonov-Bohm effect,

    C. Overstreet, P. Asenbaum, J. Curti, M. Kim, and M. A. Kasevich, “Observation of a gravitational Aharonov-Bohm effect,”Science, vol. 375, no. 6577, p. abl7152, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    AION-10: Technical Design Report for a 10m Atom Interferom- eter in Oxford,

    K. Bongs et al., “AION-10: Technical Design Report for a 10m Atom Interferom- eter in Oxford,” arXiv:2508.03491, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Matter-wave interferometry for inertial sensing and tests of fundamental physics,

    D. Schlippert et al., “Matter-wave interferometry for inertial sensing and tests of fundamental physics,” in CPT AND LORENTZ SYMMETRY: Proceedings of the Eighth Meeting on CPT and Lorentz Symmetry . World Scientific, 2020, pp. 37– 40

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Development of an atom gravimeter and status of the 10-meter atom interferometer for precision gravity measurement,

    L. Zhou, Z. Xiong, W. Yang, B. Tang, W. Peng, K. Hao, R. Li, M. Liu, J. Wang, and M. Zhan, “Development of an atom gravimeter and status of the 10-meter atom interferometer for precision gravity measurement,” General Relativity and Gravitation, vol. 43, pp. 1931–1942, 2011

    work page 1931

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Terrestrial very-long-baseline atom interferometry: Workshop summary,

    S. Abend et al. , “Terrestrial very-long-baseline atom interferometry: Workshop summary,” A VS Quantum Science, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 024701, May 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1116/5.0185291

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Terrestrial Very-Long-Baseline Atom Interferometry: summary of the second workshop,

    A. Abdalla et al., “Terrestrial Very-Long-Baseline Atom Interferometry: summary of the second workshop,” EPJ Quantum Technology , vol. 12, no. 1, p. 42, Apr

  3. [11]

    Matter-wave Atomic Gradiometer Interferometric Sensor (MAGIS- 100),

    M. Abe et al., “Matter-wave Atomic Gradiometer Interferometric Sensor (MAGIS- 100),” Quantum Sci. Technol., vol. 6, no. 4, p. 044003, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Exploring gravity with the MIGA large scale atom interferome- ter,

    B. Canuel et al., “Exploring gravity with the MIGA large scale atom interferome- ter,” Sci. Rep., vol. 8, no. 1, p. 14064, 2018. 28

    2018

  5. [28]

    Ultralight dark matter searches at the sub-Hz frontier with atom multigradiometry,

    L. Badurina, V . Gibson, C. McCabe, and J. Mitchell, “Ultralight dark matter searches at the sub-Hz frontier with atom multigradiometry,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 107, no. 5, p. 055002, 2023

    2023

  6. [29]

    MICROSCOPE Mission: Final Results of the Test of the Equiv- alence Principle,

    P. Touboul et al., “MICROSCOPE Mission: Final Results of the Test of the Equiv- alence Principle,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 129, no. 12, p. 121102, 2022

    2022

  7. [30]

    Violation of the equivalence principle from light scalar dark matter,

    A. Hees, O. Minazzoli, E. Savalle, Y . V . Stadnik, and P. Wolf, “Violation of the equivalence principle from light scalar dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 98, no. 6, p. 064051, 2018

    2018

  8. [31]

    Constraints on dark photon dark matter using data from LIGO’s and Virgo’s third observing run,

    R. Abbott et al., “Constraints on dark photon dark matter using data from LIGO’s and Virgo’s third observing run,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 105, no. 6, p. 063030, 2022

    2022

  9. [32]

    Search for an Ultralight Scalar Dark Matter Candidate with the AURIGA Detector,

    A. Branca et al., “Search for an Ultralight Scalar Dark Matter Candidate with the AURIGA Detector,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 118, no. 2, p. 021302, 2017

    2017

  10. [33]

    Improved limits on the coupling of ultralight bosonic dark matter to photons from optical atomic clock comparisons,

    M. Filzinger et al. , “Improved limits on the coupling of ultralight bosonic dark matter to photons from optical atomic clock comparisons,” arXiv:2301.03433

    arXiv

  11. [34]

    Quadratic coupling of the axion to photons,

    C. Beadle, S. A. R. Ellis, J. Quevillon, and P. N. Hoa Vuong, “Quadratic coupling of the axion to photons,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 110, no. 3, p. 035019, 2024

    2024

  12. [35]

    Massive graviton dark matter searches with long-baseline atom interferometers,

    D. Blas, J. Carlton, and C. McCabe, “Massive graviton dark matter searches with long-baseline atom interferometers,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 111, no. 11, p. 115020, 2025

    2025

  13. [36]

    Testing Gravity with Cold-Atom Interferometers,

    G. W. Biedermann, X. Wu, L. Deslauriers, S. Roy, C. Mahadeswaraswamy, and M. A. Kasevich, “Testing Gravity with Cold-Atom Interferometers,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 91, no. 3, p. 033629, 2015

    2015

  14. [37]

    Quantum test of the equivalence principle for atoms in superpositions of internal energy eigenstates,

    G. Rosi, G. D’Amico, L. Cacciapuoti, F. Sorrentino, M. Prevedelli, M. Zych, C. Brukner, and G. M. Tino, “Quantum test of the equivalence principle for atoms in superpositions of internal energy eigenstates,”Nature Commun., vol. 8, p. 5529, 2017

    2017

  15. [38]

    Probing Dark Energy with Atom Interferometry,

    C. Burrage, E. J. Copeland, and E. A. Hinds, “Probing Dark Energy with Atom Interferometry,” JCAP, vol. 03, p. 042, 2015

    2015

  16. [39]

    Atom- interferometry constraints on dark energy,

    P. Hamilton, M. Jaffe, P. Haslinger, Q. Simmons, H. Müller, and J. Khoury, “Atom- interferometry constraints on dark energy,” Science, vol. 349, pp. 849–851, 2015

    2015

  17. [40]

    Experiment to detect dark energy forces using atom interferometry,

    D. O. Sabulsky, I. Dutta, E. A. Hinds, B. Elder, C. Burrage, and E. J. Copeland, “Experiment to detect dark energy forces using atom interferometry,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 123, no. 6, p. 061102, 2019

    2019

  18. [41]

    Preliminary RP evaluation of the AION experiment in LHC Point 4,

    A. Infantino and M. Maietta, “Preliminary RP evaluation of the AION experiment in LHC Point 4,” EDMS 2333747, 2020. 30

    2020

  19. [42]

    Updated RP studies for the AION100 experiment at LHC Point 4: evaluation of different shielding options,

    L. Elie and A. Infantino and H. Vincke, “Updated RP studies for the AION100 experiment at LHC Point 4: evaluation of different shielding options,” CERN- PBC-Notes-2022-003, 2022

    2022

  20. [43]

    Zonage radiologique au CERN,

    D. Forkel-Wirth, “Zonage radiologique au CERN,” EDMS 810149, 2007

    2007

  21. [44]

    II.2.3 - Fire safety,

    CERN , “II.2.3 - Fire safety,” EDMS Node LHC-0000006238, 2013

    2013

  22. [45]

    Doors for LHC operation: Control and release of Helium, radiation and radioactive air management,

    Ch. Gaignant, S. Weisz, “Doors for LHC operation: Control and release of Helium, radiation and radioactive air management,” LHC-SQ-EY-0001 v.1.4, 2021

    2021

  23. [46]

    Helium venting in P4: ODH levels and alarms logged during the event,

    T. Hakulinen, N. Broca, “Helium venting in P4: ODH levels and alarms logged during the event,” LHC CSAP #52 10.11.2022, 2022

    2022

  24. [47]

    CERN AION-100 Plateforme de travail,

    XLIndustries, “CERN AION-100 Plateforme de travail,” Confidential, 2023

    2023

  25. [48]

    Cost Estimating Guide,

    M. Frank, “Cost Estimating Guide,” US DoE, Tech. Rep. DOE G 413.3-21A,

  26. [49]

    (2025) Master Schedule of the Long Shutdown 3

    CERN Facility and Technical Coordinators. (2025) Master Schedule of the Long Shutdown 3. (CERN access only). [Online]. Available: https: //edms.cern.ch/document/3222266. 31 A Definitions of acronyms AI: Atom Interferometer/Interferometry AION: Atom Interferometer Observatory a...

    2025

  27. [2018]

    Available: https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives-documents/ 400-series/0413.3-EGuide-21A

    [Online]. Available: https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives-documents/ 400-series/0413.3-EGuide-21A

  28. [2025]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjqt/s40507-025-00344-3

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjqt/s40507-025-00344-3

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.