Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 131 references

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

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Realistic beam optics, not decay kinematics, set the size and shape of the forward neutrino beam at a 10 TeV muon collider, and this determines what a forward detector can measure.

desk verdict First beam-dynamics-aware forward neutrino flux for a 10 TeV muon collider, with a robust headline rate and a real but curable soft spot in the single private lattice input. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02718 v1 pith:LVMRJ4EY submitted 2026-08-03 hep-ph hep-ex

Ju-Yeol Choi , Matheus Hostert , Peiran Li , Zhen Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords muoncolliderforwardneutrinofluxbeamdynamicsinteractionssecondarymuonsheavyneutralleptonstauneutrinosscattering
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

Muon decays in a 10 TeV muon collider ring create an intense, flavor-pure neutrino beam with energies up to several TeV. This paper argues that a realistic treatment of the muon beam dynamics, rather than simple decay kinematics, determines what a forward detector actually sees, and it quantifies the consequences. With a benchmark detector 5 km from the interaction point, the flux gives about $10^{9}$ neutrino-nucleus interactions per year in a 3.2 tonne fiducial volume, with a beam spot size of about a meter set by the muon beam divergence. The same calculation predicts a steady stream of highly polarized secondary muons from neutrino interactions in the rock, and it shows that the large neutrino exposure can probe heavy neutral leptons in parameter space that other experiments have not covered. The bottom line is that the forward neutrino program is a quantitative, real physics opportunity of the muon collider, but its geometry is controlled by accelerator optics.

What carries the argument

The central engine is MINT, a Monte Carlo that places muon decays along the central orbit of the supplied collider lattice, samples transverse offsets and angles from Gaussian envelopes set by the local optics parameters (beta functions, emittance, dispersion), and propagates the decay neutrinos to detector planes. Beam divergence enters through the local angular width of the muon beam, so the neutrino profile is the convolution of the intrinsic 1/gamma decay cone with the muon angular spread; an accompanying semi-analytic convolution in the appendix gives the same picture. The same machinery, extended with deep-inelastic-scattering kinematics, charm production, muon propagation with energy loss and multiple Coulomb scattering, and heavy-neutral-lepton upscattering cross sections, produces all the secondary and new-physics rates.

What would settle it

Measure the transverse profile and energy-radius correlation of the forward neutrino beam at a 5 km detector in a real 10 TeV muon collider. If the neutrino spot turns out to be set by the intrinsic 1/gamma opening angle (about a few centimeters at 5 km) rather than by the 0.1-1 mrad muon-beam divergence (about a meter), and if the energy-angle prism correlation survives, then the claim that beam dynamics dominate the forward flux is wrong. A cheaper check: replace the hybrid lattice with a hypothetical straight-section lattice with 100 times larger beta function at the interaction point and recompute the radial flux; the paper's own argument predicts the prism effect would reappear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the forward neutrino beam from muon decays in the 10 TeV muon collider ring is shaped more by the accelerator lattice than by the decay kinematics. Because the muon beam is strongly focused at the interaction point, its angular divergence reaches 0.1-1 mrad, far above the intrinsic 1/gamma ~ 0.02 mrad opening angle of the decay, so the neutrino spot at a 5 km detector is about a meter wide and the energy-angle 'prism' correlation is washed out. With a 3.2 tonne fiducial volume (a compact vertex tracker plus gaseous argon TPCs), the benchmark detector records roughly $10^{9}$ neutrino-nucleus interactions per year from about 7 x $10^{18}$ neutrinos crossing its face. Neutrino interactions in the upstream rock generate about two highly polarized (>0.999) TeV secondary muons crossing the detector per bunch crossing, a secondary tau-neutrino flux of roughly 0.2 charged-current events per year across both detectors, and wrong-sign neutrino rates at the $10^{-9}$ level relative to the primary beam. The same neutrino-on-target exposure gives event-yield targets for heavy neutral leptons produced by mixing or dipole-portal upscattering that can reach unexplored parameter space at masses up to tens of GeV.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the specific arrangement of magnets and straight sections used to model the beam is representative of the eventual 10 TeV muon collider; that arrangement was supplied privately and is not varied in the study, so a different final design could change the neutrino spot size, the loss of the energy-angle correlation, and every downstream rate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 5 km forward detector with a 3.2 tonne fiducial volume will record about 10^9 neutrino-nucleus interactions per year, with roughly 5 x 10^5 neutrino-electron scattering events, opening precision electroweak and QCD measurements.
  • The neutrino spot size is set by the 0.1-1 mrad muon beam divergence rather than by 1/gamma, so detector apertures must match a roughly meter-scale beam and the energy-angle prism correlation cannot be used to tag neutrino energies.
  • About two high-energy, highly polarized (P > 0.999) secondary muons cross each detector per bunch crossing, so vetoes must reject them event by event rather than bunch by bunch.
  • Secondary tau neutrinos from neutrino interactions in the rock give only about 0.2 charged-current events per year across both detectors at 5 km, making tau-appearance studies from rock interactions likely out of reach.
  • A ten-year exposure yields event-yield targets for heavy neutral leptons, reaching mixings as low as |U_muN|^2 ~ 2 x 10^-11 near m_N ~ 15 GeV and dipole couplings down to roughly 4 x 10^-10 GeV^-1 near m_N ~ 6 GeV, before detector backgrounds are applied.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the prism effect is as thoroughly washed out as claimed, forward detectors will need tracking calorimetry or other energy estimators rather than radial position to reconstruct neutrino energy, a consequence the paper leaves implicit.
  • Beyond the paper: the same beam-optics sensitivity makes the neutrino spot a design lever; a dedicated straight section with much larger beta function could shrink the spot and restore the energy-angle correlation, at the cost of larger apertures, and the paper explicitly leaves that feasibility study to future work.
  • Beyond the paper: the highly polarized, roughly 1.2 TeV secondary muon beam, about 10^12 muons per year, is itself a physics resource, effectively a fixed-target polarized muon source, though the paper only notes the comparison and does not develop an experimental program around it.
  • Beyond the paper: since wrong-sign neutrino rates are at most 10^-9 of the primary rate, any observed excess of wrong-sign flavor would be a sharp new-physics indicator, a conclusion the paper does not draw explicitly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper computes the forward neutrino flux produced by muon decays in the straight section and nearby arcs of a 10 TeV muon collider, using a new Monte Carlo code MINT that combines a MAD-X/IMCC lattice description of the muon orbit and optics with standard muon-decay kinematics. The central results are: at a 5 km benchmark detector, the neutrino spot is set by the muon-beam divergence (0.1-1 mrad) rather than by 1/gamma, so the energy-angle "prism" effect is washed out; the benchmark detector with a 3.2 t fiducial volume accumulates about 10^9 neutrino-nucleus interactions per year; roughly two high-energy secondary muons per bunch crossing reach each detector from neutrino interactions in the upstream rock; secondary tau-neutrino and wrong-sign neutrino fluxes are small; and neutrino upscattering in rock or detector can give interesting event-yield targets for heavy neutral leptons with mixing or dipole couplings. The paper includes appendices on the neutrino angular distribution, the Courant-Snyder beam dynamics used in MINT, and validation of the muon energy-loss treatment with nuPyProp.

Significance. If the quoted rates hold, this is a useful quantitative basis for the forward-physics program of a 10 TeV muon collider. The paper has clear strengths: MINT is made public; the Standard Model calculation is parameter-free in the sense that no fitted quantity enters the flux or rate; the cross sections use CT18NNLO PDFs and standard CC/NC formulas; and the muon propagation is validated against nuPyProp in Appendix C. The identification of beam-divergence-dominated spot size and the washout of the prism effect is a concrete, falsifiable prediction that goes beyond earlier simplified flux estimates. The secondary-muon, wrong-sign neutrino, and tau-neutrino calculations are useful reference predictions, and the HNL event-yield maps are explicitly framed as targets for future detector and background studies. The main caveat is that the numerical results are anchored to a single non-public, unvaried IMCC lattice, and a few secondary claims rest on estimates that are less fully developed than the primary flux calculation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. II.A; Figs. 3 and 7; Ref. [15]] The headline numbers - the ~1 m neutrino spot, the 60% detector acceptance, the O(10^9) interactions/year, the washout of the prism effect in Fig. 7, and the roughly two secondary muons per bunch crossing - all depend on a single hybrid v0.6+v0.9 IMCC lattice supplied as a private communication (Ref. [15]). The lattice file is not released with MINT and no variation over beta*, emittance, chicane bending angles, or straight-section length is presented. The constant-divergence curves in Fig. 5 are useful for understanding the role of divergence, but they are not an optics scan: they replace the full lattice by a single Gaussian width rather than perturbing the actual lattice parameters. Because the beam divergence and chicane/arc geometry set the angular profile, a factor-of-two change in the straight-section divergence would change both the spot area and the accepted flux, and a substantially larger beta* could partially restore the energy-angle correlation that Fig. 7 uses to demonstrate washout. I ask the authors to either release the lattice input (or a parameterized surrogate) together with MINT, or add a systematic scan over the relevant optics parameters and report how the event rate, acceptance, spot size, and secondary-muon rate vary. Without this, the numerical claims are tied to a single unverifiable external input.
  2. [Sec. III.A; Fig. 12; Appendix C] The paper advertises the secondary muons as "highly polarized" in the abstract and concludes |P_mu| > 0.999, but the supporting estimate is a single sentence: folding the Highland angle over the rock column gives a flux-averaged depolarization of ~2 x 10^-4. No formula for the spin precession, no treatment of energy-dependent depolarization during stochastic energy losses, and no uncertainty estimate are given, and the text itself concedes that a dedicated simulation would be needed. Since the polarization enters the abstract, the conclusions, and the positron spectrum in Fig. 12, this claim should either be backed by a quantitative spin-depolarization calculation or softened to "expected to remain highly polarized, pending a dedicated simulation study."
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figures 6, 10, 13 and text] Several labels render the mu-minus symbol as "mu box" (e.g., Figs. 6, 10, 13 and the "mu box beam" labels); please fix the glyph encoding throughout.
  2. [Sec. II.A, p. 3] The sentence "The lattice accounts for about 1.5 km of the entire ring, which we assume to be total circumference of 10 km" is ambiguous: clarify that MINT propagates the 1.5 km lattice segment and that the multi-turn storage and 85% decay fraction are folded in through the stated normalization, or describe the alternative procedure explicitly.
  3. [Eq. (25)] The integration measure in Eq. (25) uses dPi and dL without definitions; please define the phase-space and propagation-length variables, or simplify the notation.
  4. [Fig. 7 caption] The two panels use different x-axis ranges and color scales; the caption notes this, but a common scale or an inset would help readers compare the prism effect before and after including beam dynamics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the forward-flux prediction follows from standard decay kinematics, external lattice optics, and public SM calculators, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central result — O(10^9) neutrino-nucleus interactions per year in a 3.2 t fiducial volume at 5 km with an O(1) m spot — is obtained by simulating muon decays along the IMCC hybrid lattice (Ref. [15], an external private communication) and convolving the resulting flux with SM cross sections. No parameter is fitted to the headline rates; the detector aperture (1.3 m radius) is explicitly set to contain about 60% of the simulated flux, which is a transparent design choice rather than a hidden fit. The washing out of the energy-angle prism effect is a derived consequence of the lattice optics (Figs. 2 and 7) and is independently captured by the analytic convolution in Appendix A. The secondary-muon and tau-neutrino fluxes use standard DIS/IMD cross sections and the public nuPyProp propagation tool, with the Highland multiple-scattering supplement validated in Appendix C. The HNL and dipole estimates use the public DarkNews and NEPTUNE calculators (whose authors include paper co-authors) and are explicitly labeled as event-yield targets before detector efficiencies and backgrounds, not as sensitivity projections. Self-citations such as Ref. [14] are contextual and not load-bearing. The only material caveat is that the unvaried private IMCC lattice is an external input whose representativeness affects the exact rates and spot size; that is a correctness and robustness risk, not circularity.

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

The central flux prediction rests on machine parameters from the IMCC baseline and on a private lattice file, plus standard-model cross sections. No parameters are fitted to the final event rates, so the circularity burden is low. The main free inputs are the collider parameters, detector geometry, and charm fragmentation choices; the first two are externally supplied design assumptions, while the last affects only the secondary tau-neutrino estimate.

free parameters (6)
  • Muon beam intensity (N_mu, rate, duty factor) = N_mu=2e12/bunch, 5 Hz, 1e7 s/year
    IMCC baseline inputs; the neutrino flux and all quoted event rates scale linearly with these.
  • Normalized transverse emittance and beta* = epsilon_N=25e-6 m rad, beta*=1.5 mm
    Sets the beam divergence, about 0.6 mrad at the IP and 0.1-0.2 mrad in the straight section, which determines the neutrino spot size and the washing-out of the prism effect.
  • Charm fragmentation pT width parameter beta = 1.21 GeV^-2
    Sampled from dn/dpT^2 proportional to exp(-beta pT^2); the paper states the secondary tau-neutrino acceptance is mostly dictated by this choice.
  • Charm fragmentation parameter epsilon_P = 0.20
    Peterson fragmentation parameter used for charm quark to D meson fragmentation in Sec. III.B; affects the D meson energy and therefore the tau-neutrino flux.
  • Upstream rock integration length = 2.5 km
    The slab of rock in which secondary muons are produced; muons produced further upstream lose too much energy to reach the detector.
  • Benchmark detector aperture radius and column density = 1.3 m radius, 43 g/cm2
    Detector definition in Sec. II.B; event rates and accepted secondary fluxes scale with area and fiducial mass.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Standard Model neutrino cross sections with CT18NNLO PDFs describe TeV scattering (Eqs. 4-8, 13-18).
    Used throughout for CC and NC rates and secondary production; taken from Refs [53-56].
  • domain assumption The IMCC hybrid v0.6+v0.9 lattice is a representative design for the 10 TeV muon collider interaction region.
    Lattice file provided by M. Vanwelde via private communication [15]; the central orbit and Twiss functions are inputs to MINT in Sec. II.A.
  • domain assumption The muon beam is described by Courant-Snyder envelopes with Gaussian transverse distributions, neglecting individual particle tracking and transverse correlations.
    Appendix B implements this approximation; the paper argues correlations are negligible at large distances and that this is sufficient for flux-level predictions.
  • domain assumption The rock upstream of the detector is uniform standard rock (rho=2.65 g/cm3), and secondary muon production is dominated by CC DIS and inverse muon decay; hadronic and electromagnetic cascades are neglected.
    Sec. III.A uses these assumptions for muon propagation and rates; the paper lists full hadronic and electromagnetic simulation as future work.
  • domain assumption Muon beams are unpolarized for the analytic angular distribution; MINT uses boosted decay kinematics without beam polarization.
    Appendix A sets P_mu=0, and beam polarization is not part of the IMCC baseline; a nonzero polarization would tilt the neutrino spectrum.
  • domain assumption Heavy neutral leptons are described by the minimal type-I seesaw mixing model and the dimension-5 dipole operator (Eqs. 22 and 27).
    Sec. IV relies on these standard BSM Lagrangians, with widths and cross sections from Refs [73, 76, 88].
  • standard math Charm hadronization and fragmentation are described by the Peterson function and hadronization fractions from Ref [65].
    Used in Sec. III.B to estimate secondary tau-neutrino fluxes from D and D_s decays; these are empirical inputs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Forward Neutrino Flux and its Secondaries at a 10 TeV Muon Collider." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LVMRJ4EY

@misc{pith2026260802718,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Forward Neutrino Flux and its Secondaries at a 10 TeV Muon Collider},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LVMRJ4EY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02718}
}
abstract

Muon decays in a muon collider ring would produce TeV neutrino and antineutrino beams of electron and muon flavor. We study this flux in the forward $\mu^+$ and $\mu^-$ beam directions at a 10 TeV muon collider, introducing MINT, a dedicated Monte Carlo simulation to model neutrino fluxes including the muon beam dynamics. We find that a benchmark detector at 5 km from the interaction point would see about $\mathcal{O}(10^{9})$ neutrino interactions per year in a $\sim3$ tonne fiducial volume with a beam spot size of $\mathcal{O}(1)$ meter. We calculate the number of secondary muons and neutrinos generated by neutrino interactions in the rock upstream of the forward detectors and find that about two secondary high-energy and highly polarized muons from the rock would cross each detector per bunch crossing. Neutrino productions of charmed mesons and taus in the rock generate a small $\nu_\tau+\bar\nu_\tau$ secondary flux, with $\mathcal{O}(0.2)$ events per year in the detectors, likely too small to be observed. Wrong-sign neutrinos from similar processes, such as $\nu_e+\bar\nu_\mu$ in the $\mu^-$ beam, are more numerous but still of $\mathcal{O}(10^{-9})$ of the number of TeV neutrino interactions. Finally, we outline how the large forward neutrino exposure can be used to search for beyond-the-Standard-Model particles produced in neutrino interactions, with examples of heavy neutral leptons coupled to electron and muon flavors through mixing or electromagnetic dipole operators.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02718 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The collider ring geometry near the interaction point (0,0) of the hybrid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The beta function (green, top panel), transverse beam envelope size (blue, middle panel), and the beam divergence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. A schematic of the aspirational benchmark detector layout considered here, to scale. The neutrino beam enters from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The neutrino event rate in the fiducial volume of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The neutrino energy spectrum at a muon collider [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The two-dimensional distribution of neutrino energies and radius of interaction on the detector plane for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The neutrino production point along the lattice central orbit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The neutrino interaction rate for various neutrino scattering channels for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The neutrino interaction rate for various neutrino scattering channels for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The energy spectrum of the positrons from sec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Transverse distribution of secondary muons at the detector face for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Secondary flux of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Arrival-time delay of accepted secondary parti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. The ratio of wrong-sign (secondaries) to right-sign (primaries) neutrino CC interactions in the detector as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Estimated event-rate reach for HNLs mixed with electron ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. Estimated event-rate reach for a dipole-portal HNL at a 10 TeV MuC for the benchmark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. Angular distribution of the neutrino flux at a radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21. The energy loss (left) and angular deflection (right) of muons propagating through standard rock as a function of their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22. The survival probability of muons propagating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_22.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

131 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [15]

    Accetturaet al., Eur

    C. Accetturaet al., Eur. Phys. J. C83, 864 (2023), [Er- ratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 84, 36 (2024)], arXiv:2303.08533 [physics.acc-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    We neglect the smaller contribution from NC charm produc- tion [59]

    Charm production followed by leptonic decays of charmed mesons and taus, c→D ± (s) → (−) ντ +τ ±.(9) The tau lepton subsequently decays to produce a second tau neutrino,τ ± → (−) ντ +X. We neglect the smaller contribution from NC charm produc- tion [59]

  3. [2]

    10□11 10□9 10□7 dN/dEe [e+ / year / GeV] Pµ+ = +1 Pµ+ = 0 101 102 103 Ee [GeV] 1 2pol

    Inverse tau decay, ¯νee− →τ − ¯ντ ,(10) giving two tau neutrinos per event, one from the primary interaction and one from the tau decay. 10□11 10□9 10□7 dN/dEe [e+ / year / GeV] Pµ+ = +1 Pµ+ = 0 101 102 103 Ee [GeV] 1 2pol. / unpolarized FIG. 12. The energy spectrum of the positrons from sec- ondaryµ + decays that happen between the rock and the back of t...

  4. [3]

    We neglect di-tau production, which has a much smaller cross section (see Figs

    Neutrino trident production of taus, ναA→ℓ − α τ +ντ A, α=e, µ,(11) and the corresponding antineutrino processes. We neglect di-tau production, which has a much smaller cross section (see Figs. 9 and 10)

  5. [4]

    InverseD ∗ s decay, ¯νee− →D ∗− s →γ(D − s →τ − ¯ντ ).(12) The correspondingD ∗ production can be safely ne- glected. Secondary tau neutrino production in the rock is a sim- ilar physical mechanism behind ultra-high-energy tau- neutrino appearance during propagation through the Earth [60], adapted here to the TeV energies and short baselines of a muon-col...

  6. [5]

    Charm production The largest secondary tau-neutrino flux is produced by CC charm production. We account for both theD ± andD s contributions, but the latter dominates theν τ flux due to the larger branching fractionB(D s →τ ντ )≃ 13 −4 −2 0 2 4 x [m] −4 −2 0 2 4 y [m] µ+ beam (z = 5 km) −4 −2 0 2 4 x [m] µ□ beam (z = −5 km) 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 µ± / b...

  7. [6]

    (8) withℓ=τ

    Inverse Tau Decay The cross section is given by Eq. (8) withℓ=τ. At the 10 TeV MuC, only the high-energy fraction of the ¯νe flux is above the thresholdE ν >3.09 TeV. The two- body production kinematics are sampled in the center-of- mass frame with the amplitude|M| 2 ∝(k ¯νe ·k ¯ντ )(pe ·p τ ), followed by a polarizedτ − decay withP=−1. The large Lorentz ...

  8. [7]

    Despite being sup- pressed byα 2 and the multi-body phase space, trident events produce two tau neutrinos per event, one from the primary interaction and one from the tau decay

    Neutrino Trident Tau Production Neutrino trident production of taus via CC is another source of secondary tau neutrinos. Despite being sup- pressed byα 2 and the multi-body phase space, trident events produce two tau neutrinos per event, one from the primary interaction and one from the tau decay. The prompt tau neutrino is typically harder than the neutr...

Show all 131 references
  1. [8]

    neutrinos-on-target

    InverseD ∗ s Decay Resonant production ofD ∗ s mesons in ¯νee− scattering is yet another source of secondaryτ. Following Ref. [52], we consider the vector mesonD ∗ s , which decays toD sγ, followed byD s →τ ντ . Resonant pseudoscalarD s pro- duction is helicity suppressed and ...

  2. [8]

    neutrinos-on-target

    InverseD ∗ s Decay Resonant production ofD ∗ s mesons in ¯νee− scattering is yet another source of secondaryτ. Following Ref. [52], we consider the vector mesonD ∗ s, which decays toD sγ, followed byD s→τν τ. Resonant pseudoscalarD s pro- duction is helicity suppressed and neg...

  3. [9]

    Acciarriet al.(DUNE), (2016), arXiv:1601.05471 [physics.ins-det]

    R. Acciarriet al.(DUNE), (2016), arXiv:1601.05471 [physics.ins-det]

    2016

  4. [10]

    Al Aliet al., Rept

    H. Al Aliet al., Rept. Prog. Phys.85, 084201 (2022), arXiv:2103.14043 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [11]

    K. M. Blacket al., JINST19, T02015 (2024), arXiv:2209.01318 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Adolphsenet al., CERN Yellow Rep

    C. Adolphsenet al., CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr.1, 1 (2022), arXiv:2201.07895 [physics.acc-ph]

    2022

  7. [13]

    Stratakiset al.(Muon Collider), (2022), 10.2172/1881942, arXiv:2203.08033 [physics.acc-ph]

    D. Stratakiset al.(Muon Collider), (2022), 10.2172/1881942, arXiv:2203.08033 [physics.acc-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Hamada, R

    Y. Hamada, R. Kitano, R. Matsudo, H. Takaura, and M. Yoshida, PTEP2022, 053B02 (2022), arXiv:2201.06664 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Accetturaet al.(International Muon Collider), CERN Yellow Rep

    C. Accetturaet al.(International Muon Collider), CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr.2/2024, 176 (2024), arXiv:2407.12450 [physics.acc-ph]

    2024

  10. [17]

    Abeet al.(T2K, J-PARC Neutrino Facility Group), (2019), arXiv:1908.05141 [physics.ins-det]

    K. Abeet al.(T2K, J-PARC Neutrino Facility Group), (2019), arXiv:1908.05141 [physics.ins-det]

    2019

  11. [18]

    D. A. Harris and K. S. McFarland, AIP Conf. Proc.435, 376 (1998), arXiv:hep-ex/9804009

    1998 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Abeet al.(Hyper-Kamiokande Working Group) (2014) arXiv:1412.4673 [physics.ins-det]

    K. Abeet al.(Hyper-Kamiokande Working Group) (2014) arXiv:1412.4673 [physics.ins-det]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [20]

    J. P. Delahaye, C. M. Ankenbrandt, S. A. Bogacz, P. Huber, H. G. Kirk, D. Neuffer, M. A. Palmer, R. Ryne, and P. V. Snopok, JINST13, T06003 (2018), arXiv:1803.07431 [physics.acc-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [21]

    B. J. King, AIP Conf. Proc.530, 165 (2000), arXiv:hep- ex/0005006

    2000

  15. [22]

    Mokhov and A

    N. Mokhov and A. Van Ginneken, J. Nucl. Sci. Tech. 37, 172 (2000)

    2000

  16. [23]

    Bojorquez-Lopez, M

    L. Bojorquez-Lopez, M. Hostert, C. A. Arg¨ uelles, and Z. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 091803 (2025), arXiv:2412.14115 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Vanwelde, private communication

    M. Vanwelde, private communication

  18. [25]

    Geer, Phys

    S. Geer, Phys. Rev. D57, 6989 (1998), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 59, 039903 (1999)], arXiv:hep-ph/9712290

    1998 arXiv

  19. [26]

    B. J. King, AIP Conf. Proc.435, 334 (1998), arXiv:hep- ex/9907033

    1998

  20. [27]

    N. W. Kamp and G. Putnam, (2025), arXiv:2508.09249 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [28]

    D. A. Harris and K. S. McFarland, AIP Conf. Proc.435, 505 (1998), arXiv:hep-ex/9804010

    1998 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Quigg, AIP Conf

    C. Quigg, AIP Conf. Proc.435, 242 (1998), arXiv:hep- ph/9803326

    1998

  23. [30]

    B. J. King, AIP Conf. Proc.530, 142 (2000), arXiv:hep- ex/0005007

    2000

  24. [31]

    I. I. Y. Bigiet al., Phys. Rept.371, 151 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0106177

    2002 arXiv

  25. [32]

    M. L. Manganoet al., , 185 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0105155

    2001

  26. [33]

    Huber, A

    P. Huber, A. Bross, and M. Palmer, (2014), arXiv:1411.0629 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Adhikary, K

    J. Adhikary, K. J. Kelly, F. Kling, and S. Trojanowski, Phys. Rev. D111, 075019 (2025), arXiv:2412.10315 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Liu and D

    H. Liu and D. Ueda, Phys. Lett. B868, 139748 (2025), arXiv:2412.11910 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [36]

    H. T. Klest, Phys. Rev. D112, L051504 (2025), arXiv:2506.19301 [nucl-ex]

    2025

  30. [37]

    Accetturaet al.(International Muon Collider), (2025), arXiv:2504.21417 [physics.acc-ph]

    C. Accetturaet al.(International Muon Collider), (2025), arXiv:2504.21417 [physics.acc-ph]

    2025

  31. [38]

    de Gouvˆ ea and A

    A. de Gouvˆ ea and A. Thompson, JHEP12, 098 (2025), arXiv:2505.00152 [hep-ph]

    2025

  32. [39]

    Kling, Y

    F. Kling, Y. Ma, K. Mekala, J. Reuter, and Z. Tabrizi, JHEP05, 050 (2026), arXiv:2508.00761 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Marzocca, F

    D. Marzocca, F. Montagno, M. Morales-Alvarado, and A. Wulzer, JHEP05, 069 (2026), arXiv:2511.23288 [hep-ph]

    2026

  34. [41]

    Cesarotti, S

    C. Cesarotti, S. Homiller, R. K. Mishra, and M. Reece, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 071803 (2023), arXiv:2202.12302 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Cesarotti and R

    C. Cesarotti and R. Gambhir, JHEP05, 283 (2024), arXiv:2310.16110 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Batell, H

    B. Batell, H. Davoudiasl, R. Marcarelli, E. T. Neil, and S. Trojanowski, Phys. Rev. D110, 075039 (2024), arXiv:2407.15942 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Davoudiasl, H

    H. Davoudiasl, H. Liu, R. Marcarelli, Y. Soreq, and S. Trifinopoulos, JHEP03, 046 (2025), arXiv:2412.13289 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Adhikaryet al., Eur

    J. Adhikaryet al., Eur. Phys. J. C85, 430 (2025), arXiv:2411.04175 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Sakaki and D

    Y. Sakaki and D. Ueda, (2026), arXiv:2603.05086 [hep- ph]

    2026

  40. [47]

    S. Das, L. Kupari, M. H. Reno, and S. Trojanowski, (2026), arXiv:2606.05406 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  41. [48]

    P. B. Denton and J. Gehrlein, Nucl. Phys. B1012, 116818 (2025), arXiv:2407.02572 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Kitano, J

    R. Kitano, J. Sato, and S. Sugama, JHEP12, 014 (2024), arXiv:2407.05807 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [50]

    P. B. Denton, J. Gehrlein, and C.-F. Kong, Nucl. Phys. B1018, 117040 (2025), arXiv:2502.14027 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Abreuet al.(FASER), Eur

    H. Abreuet al.(FASER), Eur. Phys. J. C80, 61 (2020), arXiv:1908.02310 [hep-ex]. 26

    2020 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Acamporaet al.(SND@LHC), JINST19, P05067 (2024), arXiv:2210.02784 [hep-ex]

    G. Acamporaet al.(SND@LHC), JINST19, P05067 (2024), arXiv:2210.02784 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [53]

    J. L. Fenget al., J. Phys. G50, 030501 (2023), arXiv:2203.05090 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Houet al., Phys

    T.-J. Houet al., Phys. Rev. D103, 014013 (2021), arXiv:1912.10053 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Calzolari, C

    D. Calzolari, C. Ahdida, C. Carli, H. Guerin, A. Lech- ner, G. Lerner, J. Manczak, D. Schulte, M. Vanwelde, and D. Lucchesi, inProceedings of the 17th Interna- tional Particle Accelerator Conference (IPAC’26)(JA- CoW Publishing, Deauville, France, 2026) pp. 161–164

    2026

  49. [56]

    F. M. Burk, T. Han, W. Kilian, F. Kling, J. Kopp, and Z. Tabrizi, on arXiv (2026), Aug 04, 2026

    2026

  50. [57]

    “MINT,” https://github.com/jchoi55/MINT

  51. [58]

    Grote and F

    H. Grote and F. Schmidt, inProceedings of the 20th IEEE Particle Accelerator Conference (PAC 2003) (IEEE, Portland, OR, USA, 2003) pp. 3497–3499, re- port No. CERN-AB-2003-024-ABP

    2003

  52. [59]

    Update about IR lattice design and re- maining challenges,

    M. Vanwelde, “Update about IR lattice design and re- maining challenges,” Talk at the IMCC and MuCol An- nual Meeting 2026, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland (2026), Presented June 23, 2026

    2026

  53. [60]

    Bogaczet al., inSnowmass 2021(2022) arXiv:2203.08094 [hep-ph]

    A. Bogaczet al., inSnowmass 2021(2022) arXiv:2203.08094 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Brdar, A

    V. Brdar, A. de Gouvˆ ea, P. A. N. Machado, and R. Plestid, Phys. Rev. D105, 093004 (2022), arXiv:2112.03283 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Gandhi, C

    R. Gandhi, C. Quigg, M. H. Reno, and I. Sarcevic, Phys. Rev. D58, 093009 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9807264

    1998 arXiv

  56. [63]

    De Lellis, P

    G. De Lellis, P. Migliozzi, and P. Santorelli, Phys. Rept. 399, 227 (2004), [Erratum: Phys.Rept. 411, 323–324 (2005)]

    2004

  57. [64]

    P. L. R. Weigel, J. M. Conrad, and A. Garcia-Soto, Phys. Rev. D111, 043044 (2025), arXiv:2408.05866 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Tomalak, K

    O. Tomalak, K. Borah, R. J. Hill, K. S. McFarland, and D. Ruterbories, Phys. Rev. D107, 093005 (2023), arXiv:2211.15947 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  59. [66]

    Garget al., JCAP01, 041 (2023), arXiv:2209.15581 [astro-ph.HE]

    D. Garget al., JCAP01, 041 (2023), arXiv:2209.15581 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  60. [67]

    V. L. Highland, Nucl. Instrum. Meth.129, 497 (1975)

    1975

  61. [68]

    Altonet al.(NuTeV), Phys

    A. Altonet al.(NuTeV), Phys. Rev. D64, 012002 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0008068

    2001 arXiv

  62. [69]

    A. G. Soto, P. Zhelnin, I. Safa, and C. A. Arg¨ uelles, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 171101 (2022), arXiv:2112.06937 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  63. [70]

    A. O. Bazarkoet al.(CCFR), Z. Phys. C65, 189 (1995), arXiv:hep-ex/9406007

    1995 arXiv

  64. [71]

    Kretzer, D

    S. Kretzer, D. Mason, and F. Olness, Phys. Rev. D65, 074010 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0112191

    2002 arXiv

  65. [72]

    Ballett, T

    P. Ballett, T. Boschi, and S. Pascoli, JHEP03, 111 (2020), arXiv:1905.00284 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  66. [73]

    Peterson, D

    C. Peterson, D. Schlatter, I. Schmitt, and P. M. Zerwas, Phys. Rev. D27, 105 (1983)

    1983

  67. [74]

    De Lellis, F

    G. De Lellis, F. Di Capua, and P. Migliozzi, Phys. Lett. B550, 16 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0210383

    2002 arXiv

  68. [75]

    T. K. Gaisser, R. Engel, and E. Resconi,Cosmic Rays and Particle Physics: 2nd Edition(Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2016)

    2016

  69. [76]

    Ballett, M

    P. Ballett, M. Hostert, S. Pascoli, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, Z. Tabrizi, and R. Zukanovich Funchal, JHEP01, 119 (2019), arXiv:1807.10973 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  70. [77]

    Neptune: Neutrino leptonic and semilep- tonic scattering processes,

    M. Hostert, “Neptune: Neutrino leptonic and semilep- tonic scattering processes,” (2026), gitHub repository, accessed July 26, 2026

    2026

  71. [78]

    de Gouvea and J

    A. de Gouvea and J. Jenkins, Phys. Rev. D74, 033004 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0603036

    2006 arXiv

  72. [79]

    Fern´ andez-Mart´ ınez, M

    E. Fern´ andez-Mart´ ınez, M. Gonz´ alez-L´ opez, J. Hern´ andez-Garc´ ıa, M. Hostert, and J. L´ opez- Pav´ on, JHEP09, 001 (2023), arXiv:2304.06772 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  73. [80]

    J. M. Berryman, A. de Gouvea, P. J. Fox, B. J. Kayser, K. J. Kelly, and J. L. Raaf, JHEP02, 174 (2020), arXiv:1912.07622 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  74. [81]

    S. R. Mishraet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.59, 1397 (1987)

    1987

  75. [82]

    Coloma, E

    P. Coloma, E. Fern´ andez-Mart´ ınez, M. Gonz´ alez-L´ opez, J. Hern´ andez-Garc´ ıa, and Z. Pavlovic, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 78 (2021), arXiv:2007.03701 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  76. [83]

    Breitbach, L

    M. Breitbach, L. Buonocore, C. Frugiuele, J. Kopp, and L. Mittnacht, JHEP01, 048 (2022), arXiv:2102.03383 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  77. [84]

    Albaneseet al.(SHiP),BDF/SHiP at the ECN3 high-intensity beam facility, Tech

    R. Albaneseet al.(SHiP),BDF/SHiP at the ECN3 high-intensity beam facility, Tech. Rep. (CERN, Geneva, 2023)

    2023

  78. [85]

    A. M. Abdullahiet al., J. Phys. G50, 020501 (2023), arXiv:2203.08039 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  79. [86]

    Minkowski, Phys

    P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B67, 421 (1977)

    1977

  80. [87]

    Yanagida, Conf

    T. Yanagida, Conf. Proc. C7902131, 95 (1979)

    1979

  81. [88]

    Gell-Mann, P

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, Conf. Proc. C790927, 315 (1979), arXiv:1306.4669 [hep-th]

    1979 arXiv

  82. [89]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 912 (1980)

    1980

  83. [90]

    Ovchynnikov, T

    M. Ovchynnikov, T. Schwetz, and J.-Y. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D107, 055029 (2023), arXiv:2210.13141 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  84. [91]

    Vilainet al.(CHARM II), Phys

    P. Vilainet al.(CHARM II), Phys. Lett. B343, 453 (1995)

    1995

  85. [92]

    A. M. Abdullahiet al.(MicroBooNE), Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 121804 (2026), arXiv:2502.10900 [hep-ex]

    2026 arXiv

  86. [93]

    P. Li, Z. Liu, and K.-F. Lyu, JHEP03, 231 (2023), arXiv:2301.07117 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  87. [94]

    Mekala, J

    K. Mekala, J. Reuter, and A. F. ˙Zarnecki, Phys. Lett. B841, 137945 (2023), arXiv:2301.02602 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  88. [95]

    T. H. Kwok, L. Li, T. Liu, and A. Rock, Phys. Rev. D 110, 075009 (2024), arXiv:2301.05177 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  89. [96]

    Q.-H. Cao, K. Cheng, and Y. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 021801 (2025), arXiv:2403.06561 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  90. [97]

    A. M. Abdullahi, J. Hoefken Zink, M. Hostert, D. Mas- saro, and S. Pascoli, Comput. Phys. Commun.297, 109075 (2024), arXiv:2207.04137 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  91. [98]

    Schwetz, A

    T. Schwetz, A. Zhou, and J.-Y. Zhu, JHEP21, 200 (2020), arXiv:2105.09699 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  92. [99]

    Ismail, S

    A. Ismail, S. Jana, and R. M. Abraham, Phys. Rev. D 105, 055008 (2022), arXiv:2109.05032 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  93. [100]

    Magill, R

    G. Magill, R. Plestid, M. Pospelov, and Y.-D. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D98, 115015 (2018), arXiv:1803.03262 [hep- ph]

    2018 arXiv

  94. [101]

    R. A. Gustafson, R. Plestid, and I. M. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. D106, 095037 (2022), arXiv:2205.02234 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  95. [102]

    Brdar, A

    V. Brdar, A. Greljo, J. Kopp, and T. Opferkuch, JCAP 01, 039 (2021), arXiv:2007.15563 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  96. [103]

    S. N. Gninenko and N. V. Krasnikov, Phys. Lett. B450, 165 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9808370

    1999 arXiv

  97. [104]

    S. N. Gninenko, Phys. Rev. D83, 015015 (2011), arXiv:1009.5536 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  98. [105]

    Coloma, P

    P. Coloma, P. A. N. Machado, I. Martinez-Soler, and I. M. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 201804 (2017), 27 arXiv:1707.08573 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  99. [106]

    Jod lowski and S

    K. Jod lowski and S. Trojanowski, JHEP05, 191 (2021), arXiv:2011.04751 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  100. [107]

    C. A. Arg¨ uelles, N. Foppiani, and M. Hostert, Phys. Rev. D105, 095006 (2022), arXiv:2109.03831 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  101. [108]

    Ballett, M

    P. Ballett, M. Hostert, and S. Pascoli, Phys. Rev. D 101, 115025 (2020), arXiv:1903.07589 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  102. [109]

    Ovchynnikov and J.-Y

    M. Ovchynnikov and J.-Y. Zhu, JHEP07, 039 (2023), arXiv:2301.08592 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  103. [110]

    Barducci and A

    D. Barducci and A. Dondarini, JHEP10, 165 (2024), arXiv:2404.09609 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  104. [111]

    Beltr´ an, P

    R. Beltr´ an, P. D. Bolton, F. F. Deppisch, C. Hati, and M. Hirsch, JHEP07, 153 (2024), arXiv:2405.08877 [hep- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  105. [112]

    for a review). The transverse coordinates of a muon areu(s) andu ′(s), wheresthe position along the central reference orbit,u=x, yare the transverse position, and u′ =du/ds= tanθtheir rate of change withs. The an- gleθis the angle of a given muon trajectory with respect to the...

  106. [112]

    for a review). The transverse coordinates of a muon areu(s) andu ′(s), wheresthe position along the central reference orbit,u=x,yare the transverse position, and u′ =du/ds= tanθtheir rate of change withs. The an- gleθis the angle of a given muon trajectory with respect to the ...

  107. [113]

    Duarte, D

    L. Duarte, D. C. Maisian, and T. Urruzola, J. Phys. G 52, 065001 (2025), arXiv:2501.07618 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  108. [114]

    Brdar, Y.-Y

    V. Brdar, Y.-Y. Li, S. R. Mir, and Y.-L. Wang, JHEP 10, 230 (2025), arXiv:2502.07024 [hep-ph]

    2025

  109. [115]

    Batell, M

    B. Batell, M. Pospelov, and B. Shuve, JHEP08, 052 (2016), arXiv:1604.06099 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  110. [116]

    Bertuzzo, S

    E. Bertuzzo, S. Jana, P. A. N. Machado, and R. Zukanovich Funchal, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 241801 (2018), arXiv:1807.09877 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  111. [117]

    Ballett, S

    P. Ballett, S. Pascoli, and M. Ross-Lonergan, Phys. Rev. D99, 071701 (2019), arXiv:1808.02915 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  112. [118]

    Abbonet al.(COMPASS), Nucl

    P. Abbonet al.(COMPASS), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 577, 455 (2007), arXiv:hep-ex/0703049

    2007 arXiv

  113. [119]

    M. R. Adamset al.(E665), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A291, 533 (1990)

    1990

  114. [120]

    E. D. Courant and H. S. Snyder, Annals Phys.3, 1 (1958)

    1958

  115. [121]

    Wiedemann,Particle Accelerator Physics, Graduate Texts in Physics (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2015)

    H. Wiedemann,Particle Accelerator Physics, Graduate Texts in Physics (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2015)

    2015

  116. [122]

    Lipari and T

    P. Lipari and T. Stanev, Phys. Rev. D44, 3543 (1991)

    1991

  117. [123]

    Gutjahret al., Eur

    P. Gutjahret al., Eur. Phys. J. C82, 1143 (2022), [Er- ratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 83, 12 (2023)], arXiv:2208.11902 [astro-ph.IM]

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.