Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 40 references

Absolute intensity measurement of pulsed muon beams using in-beam activation

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-27 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read The natAg (μ-, νμ x) 107mPd reaction serves as a useful reference for absolute muon number calibration in pulsed beams.

desk verdict The paper measures new branching ratios for muon capture on natural Cu, Zn, and Ag and recommends the natAg reaction to 107mPd as a calibration reference, but the abstract supplies no numbers or analysis details. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.09920 v1 pith:RVLOC44P submitted 2026-06-07 physics.ins-det nucl-ex

R. Mizuno , M. Niikura , T. Matsuzaki , A.D. Hillier , K. Ishida , S. Kawase , T. Kawata , K. Kitafuji
show 1 more author
D. Tomono
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-detnucl-ex
keywords muonbeamspulsedin-beamactivationcapturebranchingratio107mPdabsoluteintensitycalibration
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 establishes that the in-beam activation method can determine the absolute number of negative muons in pulsed beams by measuring the yield of beta-delayed gamma rays from residual nuclei after muon capture. It addresses the difficulty of this measurement at high intensities by using isotopes with short lifetimes. Measurements of production branching ratios were performed for natural Cu, Zn, and Ag, identifying the natAg reaction leading to 107mPd as suitable based on branching ratio strength, muon capture probability, detection efficiency, and low background from surrounding materials.

What carries the argument

The in-beam activation method, which employs the yield of β-delayed γ rays from short-lived residual nuclei produced in muon nuclear capture reactions to determine absolute muon numbers.

What would settle it

A significant discrepancy between the muon numbers determined by this activation method and those from an independent technique such as direct counting or another activation reaction on the same pulsed beam.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The reaction natAg (μ-, νμ x) 107mPd is found to be a useful reference for the muon number calibration because of its favorable production branching ratio and other practical factors, enabling absolute intensity measurements of pulsed muon beams using in-beam activation.

Load-bearing premise

The measured production branching ratios are accurate enough for absolute muon number determination, with well-characterized detector efficiencies, negligible backgrounds from surrounding materials, and reliable muon capture probabilities for the chosen isotopes.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript measures production branching ratios for muon nuclear capture reactions on natural Cu, Zn, and Ag targets via the in-beam activation method using short-lived isotopes. It evaluates these for suitability in absolute pulsed muon beam intensity calibration and recommends the natAg(μ−, νμ x)107mPd reaction based on BR strength, muon capture probability, practical detection efficiency, and low abundance of the target material in surrounding structures.

Significance. If the BR measurements prove accurate with quantified uncertainties, the work would provide a practical new reference reaction for calibrating high-intensity pulsed muon beams, addressing a documented experimental need at accelerator facilities where direct intensity measurement is challenging.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results] Results section: The manuscript states that branching ratios were measured for the three targets but provides no numerical BR values, error bars, data tables, or description of analysis methods and systematics, preventing evaluation of whether the Ag reaction's BR is sufficiently accurate and well-characterized for absolute muon number determination.
  2. [Discussion] Discussion of the recommended reaction: No quantitative assessment or uncertainty budget is given for detector efficiencies, backgrounds from surrounding materials, or muon capture probabilities, which are load-bearing for the central claim that the natAg reaction enables reliable absolute calibration (directly matching the weakest assumption identified in the stress-test).
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that the Ag reaction 'is found to be a useful reference' would be strengthened by including the measured BR values or at least their relative magnitudes for the three targets.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive comments, which highlight important areas for improving the clarity and completeness of our manuscript. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results] Results section: The manuscript states that branching ratios were measured for the three targets but provides no numerical BR values, error bars, data tables, or description of analysis methods and systematics, preventing evaluation of whether the Ag reaction's BR is sufficiently accurate and well-characterized for absolute muon number determination.

    Authors: We agree that the numerical branching ratio values, uncertainties, data tables, and detailed analysis methods/systematics were not presented in the submitted manuscript. This omission prevents proper evaluation of the results. In the revised version, we will add a dedicated Results subsection containing the measured BR values for natCu, natZn, and natAg (with error bars), a summary table, and a description of the analysis procedures and systematic uncertainties. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Discussion] Discussion of the recommended reaction: No quantitative assessment or uncertainty budget is given for detector efficiencies, backgrounds from surrounding materials, or muon capture probabilities, which are load-bearing for the central claim that the natAg reaction enables reliable absolute calibration (directly matching the weakest assumption identified in the stress-test).

    Authors: We acknowledge that a quantitative uncertainty budget and assessments for detector efficiencies, backgrounds from surrounding materials, and muon capture probabilities are required to support the recommendation of the natAg reaction. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the Discussion section to include these quantitative evaluations and an explicit uncertainty budget based on the experimental data and setup. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: pure experimental BR measurements with no derivations or fitted predictions

full rationale

The paper measures production branching ratios for natCu, natZn, and natAg targets via muon capture and selects natAg(μ−,νμx)107mPd as useful based on the measured BR values plus practical factors (capture probability, efficiency, material rarity). No equations, models, ansatze, or parameter fits are present; the central claim is a direct experimental result. No self-citations are load-bearing, and the derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs by construction. This matches the default case of a self-contained experimental study.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on experimental measurements of branching ratios rather than theoretical derivations. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Muon nuclear capture on the tested nuclei produces beta-delayed gamma rays whose yields can be used to determine absolute muon numbers when branching ratios are known.
    This is the foundational premise of the in-beam activation method stated in the abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Absolute intensity measurement of pulsed muon beams using in-beam activation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RVLOC44P

@misc{pith2026260609920,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Absolute intensity measurement of pulsed muon beams using in-beam activation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RVLOC44P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.09920}
}
abstract

The absolute number of negative muons contained in a beam is essential for many experiments at accelerator facilities, but determining it in pulsed beams has been difficult, particularly at high intensities. The method utilizing the yield of the $\beta$ delayed $\gamma$ rays from the residual nuclei after the muon nuclear capture reaction has recently been developed to determine the muon number in the pulsed muon beam. In particular, the in-beam activation method employs isotopes with short lifetimes, enabling the beam intensity to be measured over a short period with irradiating muon beams. However, only a limited number of isotopes have reliable measurements of production branching ratios (BRs), which are required to determine the absolute muon number in the pulsed beam. To search for new candidate isotopes that are suitable for in-beam activation method, the production branching ratio after the muon nuclear capture reaction was measured for natural abundance Cu, Zn, and Ag. Considering the strength of the BR, the muon capture probability, the practical detection efficiency of the detector, and rarity of the target material in the surrounding structures, the reaction $^\mathrm{nat}$Ag ($\mu^-, \nu_\mu x$) $^{107m}$Pd is found to be a useful reference for the muon number calibration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.09920 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Photograph of the detector setup at Port 4 of the RIKEN-RAL muon facility [10]. The plastic scintillator is placed upstream of the target, and the germanium detector is positioned at 0 ◦ with respect to the beam direction. The targets were installed 1 mm downstream of the plastic scintillator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Gamma-ray energy spectra obtained with (a) natCu, (b) natZn, and (c) natAg targets. were observed in the present study, and their contributions were therefore not included. 3. Results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. BR of the isomeric and ground state of 70Cu observed using natZn target. The blue and red lines correspond to the BR of isomeric states (blue: 70𝑚1Cu(3 − ), red: 70𝑚2Cu(1 + )) when the BR of the ground state is fixed on the value shown in the horizontal axis. 833 keV component was calculated from the production BR of 66Cu. The production BRs of 70,70𝑚Cu from the natZn target were evaluated with the following procedu… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Niikura, T

    M. Niikura, T. Y. Saito, T. Matsuzaki, K. Ishida, A. Hillier, Mea- surement of the production branching ratios following nuclear muon capture for palladium isotopes using the in-beam activation method, Phy. Rev. C 109 (2024) 014328

    2024

  2. [2]

    B. D. Sierawski, B. Bhuva, R. Reed, N. Tam, B. Narasimham, K.Ishida,A.Hillier,M.Trinczek,E.Blackmore,S.-J.Wen,R.Wong, Biasdependenceofmuon-inducedsingleeventupsetsin28nmstatic random access memories, in: 2014 IEEE International Reliability Physics Symposium, IEEE, 2014, pp. 2B.2.1–2B.2.5

    2014

  3. [3]

    Dal Maso, F

    G. Dal Maso, F. Barchetti, M. Francesconi, L. Galli, U. Greuter, M. Hildebrandt, A. Hofer, P.-R. Kettle, A. Knecht, L. Künzi, S. Ritt, A. Stoykov, E. Valetov, A. Papa, Beam monitoring detectors for high intensity muon beams, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 1047 (2023) 167739

    2023

  4. [4]

    M.Bonesini,R.Benocci,R.Bertoni,R.Mazza,A.deBari,A.Mene- golli, M. C. Prata, M. Rossella, L. Tortora, E. Mocchiutti, A. Vacchi, E. Vallazza, The upgraded beam monitor system of the FAMU ex- periment at RIKEN–RAL, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 936 (2019) 592–594

    2019

  5. [5]

    S. Cook, R. D’Arcy, A. Edmonds, M. Fukuda, K. Hatanaka, Y. Hino, Y. Kuno, M. Lancaster, Y. Mori, T. Ogitsu, H. Sakamoto, A. Sato, N. H. Tran, N. M. Truong, M. Wing, A. Yamamoto, M. Yoshida, Delivering the world’s most intense muon beam, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 20 (3) (2017) 030101

    2017

  6. [6]

    Zhang, J

    M. Zhang, J. Liu, R. Fan, A. Huang, Y. Bao, Y. Guo, B. Tang, Y. Lv, Direct measurement of pulsed surface muon beam intensity using plastic scintillator detector and current shape discrimination method, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 1081 (2026) 170871

    2026

  7. [7]

    Hashimoto, A

    R.Mizuno,M.Niikura,T.Y.Saito,T.Matsuzaki,S.Abe,H.Fukuda, M. Hashimoto, A. D. Hillier, K. Ishida, N. Kawamura, S. Kawase, T. Kawata, K. Kitafuji, F. Minato, M. Oishi, A. Sato, K. Shimomura, P. Strasser, S. Takeshita, D. Tomono, Y. Watanabe, Measurement of R. Mizuno et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 7 of 9 Absolute intensity measurement of pulsed mu...

    2025

  8. [8]

    Matsuzaki, K

    T. Matsuzaki, K. Ishida, K. Nagamine, I. Watanabe, G. H. Eaton, W. G. Williams, The RIKEN-RAL pulsed muon facility, Nucl. In- strum. Methods Phys. Res. A 465 (2-3) (2001) 365–383

    2001

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    A. D. Hillier, J. S. Lord, K. Ishida, C. Rogers, Muons at ISIS, Philos. Trans. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 377 (2137) (2018) 20180064

    2018

  2. [10]

    Mizuno, Muon nuclear capture of 27Al and 28,29,30Si, Ph.D

    R. Mizuno, Muon nuclear capture of 27Al and 28,29,30Si, Ph.D. thesis, University of Tokyo (2026)

    2026

  3. [11]

    T.Suzuki,D.F.Measday,J.P.Roalsvig,Totalnuclearcaptureratesfor negative muons, Phys. Rev. C Nucl. Phys. 35 (6) (1987) 2212–2224

    1987

  4. [12]

    Mizuno, M

    R. Mizuno, M. Niikura, S. Akamatsu, T. Fujiie, K. Ishida, T. Ito, T. Kikuchi, T. Matsuzaki, F. Minato, J. Murata, T. Naito, K. Shimo- mura,S.Takeshita,I.Umegaki,Y.Yamaguchi,Lifetimemeasurement of the muonic atoms of enriched si isotopes, Phys. Rev. C. 112 (2) (2025) 024307

    2025

  5. [13]

    Meija, T

    J. Meija, T. B. Coplen, M. Berglund, W. A. Brand, P. De Bièvre, M. Gröning, N. E. Holden, J. Irrgeher, R. D. Loss, T. Walczyk, T. Prohaska, Isotopic compositions of the elements 2013 (IUPAC technical report), Pure Appl. Chem. 88 (3) (2016) 293–306

    2013

  6. [14]

    Asari, S

    R.Mizuno,M.Niikura,T.Y.Saito,T.Matsuzaki,H.Sakurai,A.Am- ato, S. Asari, S. Biswas, I. Chiu, L. Gerchow, Z. Guguchia, G. Janka, K. Ninomiya, N. Ritjoho, A. Sato, K. von Schoeler, D. Tomono, K. Terada, C. Wang, Development of wide range photon detection systemformuonicX-rayspect...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Agostinelli, J

    S. Agostinelli, J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, H. Araujo, P. Arce, M. Asai, D. Axen, S. Banerjee, G. Barrand, F. Behner, R. Mizuno et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 8 of 9 Absolute intensity measurement of pulsed muon beams using in-beam activation L. Bellagamba...

    2003

  8. [16]

    Allison, K

    J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, H. Araujo, P. Arce Dubois, M. Asai, G. Barrand, R. Capra, S. Chauvie, R. Chytracek, G. A. P. Cirrone, G. Cooperman, G. Cosmo, G. Cuttone, G. G. Daquino, M.Donszelmann,M.Dressel,G.Folger,F.Foppiano,J.Generowicz, V.Grichine,S.Guatelli,P.Gump...

    2006

  9. [17]

    Allison, K

    J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, P. Arce, M. Asai, T. Aso, E. Bagli, A. Bagulya, S. Banerjee, G. Barrand, B. R. Beck, A. G. Bogdanov, D. Brandt, J. M. C. Brown, H. Burkhardt, P. Canal, D. Cano-Ott, S. Chauvie, K. Cho, G. A. P. Cirrone, G. Cooper- man, M. A. Cortés-Giraldo...

    2016

  10. [18]

    Data Sheets 204 (2025) 1–373

    B.Singh,H.Xiaolong,W.Xianghan,Nuclearstructureanddecaydata for A=62 isobars, Nucl. Data Sheets 204 (2025) 1–373

    2025

  11. [19]

    Chen, Nuclear structure and decay data for A=65 isobars, Nucl

    J. Chen, Nuclear structure and decay data for A=65 isobars, Nucl. Data Sheets 202 (2025) 57–496

    2025

  12. [20]

    Browne, J

    E. Browne, J. K. Tuli, Nuclear data sheets for a = 66, Nucl. Data Sheets 111 (4) (2010) 1093–1209

    2010

  13. [21]

    Data Sheets 106 (2) (2005) 159–250

    H.Junde,H.Xiaolong,J.K.Tuli,Nucleardatasheetsfora=67,Nucl. Data Sheets 106 (2) (2005) 159–250

    2005

  14. [22]

    E. A. McCutchan, Nuclear data sheets for a = 68, Nucl. Data Sheets 113 (6-7) (2012) 1735–1870

    2012

  15. [23]

    C. D. Nesaraja, Nuclear data sheets for A=69, Nucl. Data Sheets 115 (2014) 1–134

    2014

  16. [24]

    Gürdal, E

    G. Gürdal, E. A. McCutchan, Nuclear data sheets for a = 70, Nucl. Data Sheets 136 (2016) 1–162

    2016

  17. [25]

    J.Blachot,Nucleardatasheetsfora=107,Nucl.DataSheets109(6) (2008) 1383–1526

    2008

  18. [26]

    Kumar, J

    S. Kumar, J. Chen, F. G. Kondev, Nuclear data sheets for a = 109, Nucl. Data Sheets 137 (2016) 1–286

    2016

  19. [27]

    C. D. Nesaraja, Nuclear data sheets for A=69, Nucl. Data Sheets 207 (2026) 1–350

    2026

  20. [28]

    D. F. Measday, The nuclear physics of muon capture, Phys. Rep. 354 (4) (2001) 243–409

    2001

  21. [29]

    Yamaguchi, M

    Y. Yamaguchi, M. Niikura, R. Mizuno, M. Tampo, M. Harada, N. Kawamura, I. Umegaki, S. Takeshita, K. Haga, Measurement of radionuclide production probabilities in negative muon nuclear cap- ture and validation of monte carlo simulation model, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B...

    2025

  22. [30]

    Wyttenbach, P

    A. Wyttenbach, P. Baertschi, S. Bajo, J. Hadermann, K. Junker, S.Katcoff,E.A.Hermes,H.S.Pruys,Probabilitiesofmuoninduced nuclear reactions involving charged particle emission, Nucl. Phys. A 294 (3) (1978) 278–292

    1978

  23. [31]

    A. W. quoted by Nimai C Mukhopadhyay, Nuclear muon capture, Physics Reports 30 (1) (1977) 1–144, see note 9 added in proof

    1977

  24. [32]

    Heisinger, D

    B. Heisinger, D. Lal, A. J. T. Jull, P. Kubik, S. Ivy-Ochs, K. Knie, E.Nolte,Productionofselectedcosmogenicradionuclidesbymuons:

  25. [33]

    capture of negative muons, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 200 (3) (2002) 357–369

    2002

  26. [34]

    T. Sato, K. Niita, N. Matsuda, S. Hashimoto, Y. Iwamoto, S. Noda, T.Ogawa,H.Iwase,H.Nakashima,T.Fukahori,K.Okumura,T.Kai, S. Chiba, T. Furuta, L. Sihver, Particle and heavy ion transport code system,PHITS,version2.52,J.Nucl.Sci.Technol.50(9)(2013)913– 923

    2013

  27. [35]

    S.-I. Abe, T. Sato, Implementation of muon interaction models in PHITS, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 54 (1) (2017) 101–110

    2017

  28. [36]

    Watanabe, D

    Y. Watanabe, D. N. Kadrev, Extension of quantum molecular dy- namics for production of light complex particles in nucleon-induced reactions, in: ND2007, EDP Sciences, Les Ulis, France, 2007, pp. 1121–1124

    2007

  29. [37]

    Uesaka, T

    Y. Uesaka, T. Naito, S. Ebata, M. Niikura, Comprehensive table of calculated huff factors, arXiv [nucl-th] (Feb. 2026)

    2026

  30. [38]

    bnl.gov/ensdf/, accessed: 2026

    Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data File (ENSDF),https://www.nndc. bnl.gov/ensdf/, accessed: 2026

    2026

  31. [39]

    Decay Data Evaluation Project (DDEP),http://www.lnhb.fr/ nuclear-data/nuclear-data-table/, accessed: 2026

    2026

  32. [40]

    M.Kellett,O.Bersillon,TheDecayDataEvaluationProject(DDEP) and the JEFF-3.3 radioactive decay data library, EPJ Web of Confer- ences 146 (2017) 02009.doi:10.1051/epjconf/201714602009. R. Mizuno et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 9 of 9

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed June 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.