Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 3 cited by

Search for hadronic decays of feebly-interacting particles at NA62

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Recording $1.4\times10^{17}$ protons on dump, NA62 observes zero events in seven hadronic final states and excludes new dark photon, dark scalar, and axion-like particle parameter space.

desk verdict Clean first NA62 hadronic beam-dump search; the null result is robust, and the exclusion contours carry an admitted but unquantified theory uncertainty in the meson-mixing channel. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04241 v2 pith:YLLQG7FV submitted 2025-02-06 hep-ex hep-ph

NA62 Collaboration This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-exhep-ph
keywords NA62beamdumpdarkphotonscalaraxion-likeparticlefeebly-interactingparticleshadronicdecaysexclusionlimits
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

NA62 reports a search for feebly-interacting particles produced by dumping 400 GeV protons onto an absorber, using $1.4\times10^{17}$ protons on dump collected in 2021. Seven hadronic final states are studied: $\pi^+\pi^-$, $\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$, $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$, $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0\pi^0$, $\pi^+\pi^-\eta$, $K^+K^-$, and $K^+K^-\pi^0$. After unmasking the signal and control regions, zero events are observed, against expected backgrounds below $0.05$ events in every channel. Combining this null result with the earlier di-lepton search on the same data excludes new regions of dark photon, dark scalar, and axion-like particle parameter space, extending beyond previous beam-dump and collider limits.

What carries the argument

The signal yield is governed by $N_{\rm exp} = N_{\rm POT}\,\chi^i_{pp\to X}(m_X)\,P^i_{\rm RD}(m_X,\tau_X)\,A^{ij}_{\rm acc}(m_X,\tau_X)$, where $\chi^i_{pp\to X}$ is the production probability per proton on dump for production process $i$ (B-meson decays, light-meson decays and mixing, bremsstrahlung, or Primakoff), $P^i_{\rm RD}$ is the probability that the particle traverses the dump and decays inside the 105–180 m fiducial volume, and $A^{ij}_{\rm acc}$ is the acceptance for decay channel $j$. The hadronic branching ratios are set to unity at the reference stage, making the measured event counts model-independent before interpretation; the model-dependent exclusion contours are then produced with a public signal-yield and likelihood tool [16] using the CLs method [23]. Signal and control regions in the $(Z_{\rm TAX},\mathrm{CDA}_{\rm TAX})$ plane, derived from the backward-extrapolated production vertex, are masked until the background estimates are validated.

What would settle it

Measure the inclusive B-meson production cross section in 400 GeV proton–nucleus collisions and carry out a complete meson-mixing calculation for dark-photon and axion production; if either lowers the expected signal counts by more than the 20% proton-on-target uncertainty, the quoted exclusion contours would move inward, and a future higher-statistics beam-dump run would be needed to restore them.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the NA62 beam-dump data contain no evidence of new particles decaying hadronically, and that this absence excludes parameter space that previous searches had left open. In the dark photon benchmark, the 90% CL observed contour in the $(m_{A'},\varepsilon)$ plane combines hadronic and di-lepton channels and reaches couplings below those probed by earlier proton and electron beam-dump experiments for sub-GeV masses. The dark scalar limit on $\sin^2\theta$ is similarly extended, and for axion-like particles new limits are set on fermion and gluon couplings assuming a UV scale $\Lambda=1$ TeV. In all benchmark cases the observed contours extend beyond the previous limits, with mass windows around the $\pi^0$, $\eta$, $\eta'$, $\rho$, $\omega$, and $\phi$ resonances excluded from the interpretation because the expected signal is not reliable there.

Load-bearing premise

The limits stand on how often the dump is assumed to produce dark photons, dark scalars, and axion-like particles; if the true production rates are lower than assumed, the excluded regions shrink, and the paper does not fold theory uncertainty into the contours.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dark-photon and dark-scalar 90% CL contours now cover coupling values below the reach of earlier proton and electron beam-dump experiments for sub-GeV masses.
  • The gluon-coupled axion-like-particle benchmark is constrained almost entirely through hadronic channels, since its di-lepton widths are small.
  • The dominant background, $K^+\to\pi^+\pi^+\pi^-$, contributes only about 0.007 expected events in the signal region, so the search is not background-limited at the current sample size.
  • Updating the light-meson production spectra and adding mixing and time-like form-factor production also strengthens the earlier NA62 di-lepton-only bounds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the assumed production rates are accurate, the null result disfavors dark photons and dark scalars as the dominant dark-sector mediators over the newly excluded mass–coupling region, narrowing the parameter space for models that use these portals.
  • Because the analysis is essentially background-free at $10^{18}$ protons on dump, a larger dataset would gain mainly from statistics; production-model uncertainties, which are not propagated into the contours, would then become the limiting systematic.
  • A complete calculation of light-meson mixing kinematics for dark photons and axion-like particles could shift the contours, so the quoted excluded regions may need revision once such a treatment exists.
  • The seven hadronic final states are defined model-independently, so the same event selection can be reused to constrain any new particle decaying to those final states, not only the three benchmark models considered here.
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

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports a search for long-lived feebly-interacting particles (dark photons, dark scalars, and axion-like particles) decaying to hadronic final states in the NA62 beam-dump configuration. Using a 2021 dataset corresponding to (1.4±0.3)×10^17 protons on the TAX dump, the analysis selects events with two oppositely charged hadronic tracks and possible photons, reconstructing final states such as π+π−, π+π−γ, π+π−π0, π+π−π0π0, π+π−η, K+K−, and K+K−π0. The signal and control regions are kept masked until background estimates are validated. The expected background in the signal region is below 0.04 events for all channels, dominated by K+ → π+π+π− decays; zero events are observed after unmasking. The null result is interpreted with the public ALPINIST framework to set 90% CL exclusion limits for several benchmark models, combining the hadronic channels with previously published di-lepton results. The paper reports new excluded regions for dark scalars, dark photons, and axion-like particles.

Significance. The central experimental observation—zero candidates against a validated background expectation below 0.04 events—is robust and constitutes the paper's main result. The analysis is carefully blinded, the background is estimated with data-driven methods (notably via single-track Q1 samples and PUMAS+GEANT4 simulation), and the systematic budget is clearly presented. The exclusion limits improve on previous beam-dump searches in significant parts of the parameter space, and the use of the public ALPINIST framework makes the interpretation reproducible. The main limitation is that the limits inherit the theoretical uncertainties of the production models, and in particular the meson-mixing channel for dark photons and ALPs is treated with an approximation for which no complete literature treatment exists; this is explicitly acknowledged in Sec. 3.3. This limitation does not affect the null observation and is normal for model-dependent searches.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eq. (1)] The meson-mixing production channel for dark photons and ALPs uses an approximate treatment with no assigned systematic uncertainty; since the contours in the right panels of Figs. 7 and 10 include this channel, the authors should add a sentence in Section 5 or in the figure captions stating explicitly that those exclusion contours are subject to this approximation.
  2. [Figure 6, bottom panel] The mass axis is labelled 'mA′ [MeV/c2]' but the plotted range and context indicate that the label should be GeV/c2 rather than MeV/c2.
  3. [Figure 3] The axis labels are rendered inconsistently (e.g., ' [m] TAX Z' and ' [mm] TAX CDA'); please use the same notation as in the text, namely Z_TAX and CDA_TAX.
  4. [Section 5 and Abstract] The statement that 'new regions ... are excluded' would benefit from a brief reminder that the exclusions are model-dependent and do not include theory uncertainties in the production processes, as already acknowledged in Section 3.3 and in the figure captions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the null observation is fully data-driven and the limit setting uses external, independently published production models.

full rationale

The paper's central result is an observed event count in a signal region. The selection, background estimation, and expected-signal calculation are laid out directly in Sections 3.1-3.3: no parameter is fitted to the unmasked signal-region data, and the zero observed events are not an input to Eq. (1). The expected number of signal events N_exp is the product of N_POT, a production probability, a decay-in-flight probability, and an acceptance, each evaluated from GEANT4-based simulation and published theoretical cross sections. The conversion to exclusion contours uses the public ALPINIST framework [16] and production calculations [12, 15, 18], several of which share authors with the NA62 collaboration, but those are published, parameter-free external calculations that do not embed the present paper's null result. The paper explicitly states an approximation in the meson-mixing production channel ('there is no complete treatment of this effect available in the literature. Therefore, the NP particle kinematics is approximately evaluated as discussed in Ref. [16]'), but this is an admitted modeling limitation affecting theory robustness, not a circular reduction: the approximate kinematics are not defined in terms of the observed hadronic decay counts. Likewise, the 20% N_POT uncertainty and 3.3% acceptance uncertainties are estimated from independent calibrations and simulation statistics. No equation in the paper is equivalent by construction to the claimed exclusion, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. Under the rule that self-citation is not circularity when the cited result is independent and falsifiable outside the present paper's fitted values, the derivation chain is self-contained.

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

The paper postulates no new entities. It relies on standard statistical methods and on theoretical production models from the literature, some of which were authored by collaboration members. The central null observation is data-driven.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Monte Carlo generators (GEANT4, PYTHIA8, GENIE) accurately model detector response and particle production and interactions.
    Used throughout Section 3 to simulate signal acceptance and background; discrepancies would alter the expected yields.
  • domain assumption The benchmark models (dark photon, dark scalar, ALP) with their coupling Lagrangians are appropriate descriptions of hypothetical new physics.
    The limits are model-dependent; if the models differ, the excluded regions would not apply, as acknowledged in the benchmark classification in Section 1.
  • domain assumption The theoretical production cross sections and decay widths from Refs. [12,13,14,17,18,19,20,21,22] are correct within unspecified uncertainties.
    These enter Eq. (1) through chi_pp->X and Pi_RD; the paper explicitly does not propagate theory uncertainties into the limits (Section 3.3).
  • standard math The CLs method with a profile likelihood ratio provides valid statistical inference for setting upper limits.
    Used in Section 4 to derive 90% CL exclusion contours; this is a standard and accepted statistical technique.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Search for hadronic decays of feebly-interacting particles at NA62." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YLLQG7FV

@misc{pith2026250204241,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Search for hadronic decays of feebly-interacting particles at NA62},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YLLQG7FV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04241}
}
abstract

The NA62 experiment at CERN has the capability to collect data in a beam-dump mode, where 400 GeV protons are dumped on an absorber. In this configuration, New Physics particles, including dark photons, dark scalars, and axion-like particles, may be produced in the absorber and decay in the instrumented volume beginning approximately 80 m downstream of the dump. A search for these particles decaying in flight to hadronic final states is reported, based on an analysis of a sample of $1.4 \times 10^{17}$ protons on dump collected in 2021. No evidence of a New Physics signal is observed, excluding new regions of parameter spaces of multiple models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04241 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic side view of the NA62 achromat area in the standard (left) and beam-dump (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic side view of the NA62 setup in 2021. Information from KTAG, GTK, CHANTI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of fully reconstructed simulated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distributions of π +π − (black) and π +π −γ (red) data events in the plane (ZVTX, mππ(γ) ) when inverting the ANTI0 veto condition and removing the LAV veto condition. Vertical solid lines indicate the FV. The excluded 3σ window around the KS mass is indicated by horiz…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of simulated K + → π +π +π − decay events in the plane (ZTAX, CDATAX) without the LAV and ANTI0 veto conditions, scaled to the observed number of data events. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: summarises the information obtained using equation 1 and mass resolution for a dark photon produced via bremsstrahlung and decaying to a π +π − pair. 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 mA 0 [GeV/c 2 ] 10 20 10 18 10 16 10 14 10 12 A 0 [ G e V ] 10 8 10 10 10 12 Exp. events 0.5 1.…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Observed 90% CL exclusion contours in the plane ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The observed 90% CL exclusion contours in the plane ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The observed 90% CL exclusion contours in the plane ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The observed 90% CL exclusion contours in the plane ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Long-lived Axion-Like Particles from Tau Decays

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Leptophilic long-lived ALPs produced in tau decays are shown to yield new CHARM/BEBC constraints and improved future sensitivity, particularly at SHiP, extending reach to fa up to 10^8-10^9 GeV in LFV scenarios.

  2. Axion-Like Particle Search with a Hybrid Cherenkov-Scintillation Detector

    hep-ex 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A beam-dump experiment using a 10-ton hybrid Cherenkov-scintillation detector found no axion-like particles, but demonstrated background rejection about six times stronger than its predecessor, yielding improved exclu...

  3. Axion Searches at the CERN SPS: From Their Dawn to Current Prospects

    hep-ex 2025-07 unverdicted

    A review of axion and ALP searches at the CERN SPS, covering Barbiellini's 1982 proposal, the CHARM experiment, NA62/NA64 results, and future directions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [16]

    Jerhot, et al., JHEP07, 094 (2022)

    J. Jerhot, et al., JHEP07, 094 (2022). DOI 10.1007/JHEP07(2022)094. URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.13167444

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2022)094 2022

  2. [1]

    Antel, et al., Eur

    C. Antel, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C83(12), 1122 (2023). DOI 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12168-5

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12168-5 2023

  3. [2]

    Beacham, et al., J

    J. Beacham, et al., J. Phys. G47(1), 010501 (2020). DOI 10.1088/1361-6471/ab4cd2 11

    doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ab4cd2 2020

  4. [3]

    Cortina Gil, et al., JHEP09, 035 (2023)

    E. Cortina Gil, et al., JHEP09, 035 (2023). DOI 10.1007/JHEP09(2023)035

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2023)035 2023

  5. [4]

    Cortina Gil, et al., Phys

    E. Cortina Gil, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.133(11), 111802 (2024). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133. 111802

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133 2024

  6. [5]

    Cortina Gil, et al., JHEP02, 191 (2025)

    E. Cortina Gil, et al., JHEP02, 191 (2025). DOI 10.1007/JHEP02(2025)191

    doi:10.1007/jhep02(2025)191 2025

  7. [6]

    Rosenthal, et al., Int

    M. Rosenthal, et al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. A34(36), 1942026 (2019). DOI 10.1142/ S0217751X19420260

    work page 2019

  8. [7]

    Cortina Gil, et al., JINST12(05), P05025 (2017)

    E. Cortina Gil, et al., JINST12(05), P05025 (2017). DOI 10.1088/1748-0221/12/05/P05025

    doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/05/p05025 2017

Show all 41 references
  1. [8]

    Niess, A

    V . Niess, A. Barnoud, C. Cârloganu, E. Le Ménédeu, Comput. Phys. Commun.229, 54 (2018). DOI 10.1016/j.cpc.2018.04.001

    2018 doi

  2. [9]

    Agostinelli, et al., Nucl

    S. Agostinelli, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506, 250 (2003). DOI 10.1016/S0168-9002(03) 01368-8

    2003 doi

  3. [10]

    Andreopoulos, et al., Nucl

    C. Andreopoulos, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A614, 87 (2010). DOI 10.1016/j.nima.2009.12.009

    2010 doi

  4. [11]

    Bierlich, et al., SciPost Phys

    C. Bierlich, et al., SciPost Phys. Codeb.2022, 8 (2022). DOI 10.21468/SciPostPhysCodeb.8

    2022 doi

  5. [12]

    Schubert, B

    J.L. Schubert, B. Döbrich, J. Jerhot, T. Spadaro, JHEP01, 140 (2025). DOI 10.1007/JHEP02(2025) 140

    2025 doi

  6. [13]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, S. Renner, M. Schnubel, A. Thamm, JHEP09, 056 (2022). DOI 10.1007/ JHEP09(2022)056

    2022

  7. [14]

    Boiarska, K

    I. Boiarska, K. Bondarenko, A. Boyarsky, V . Gorkavenko, M. Ovchynnikov, A. Sokolenko, JHEP 11, 162 (2019). DOI 10.1007/JHEP11(2019)162

    2019 doi

  8. [15]

    Döbrich, J

    B. Döbrich, J. Jaeckel, T. Spadaro, JHEP05, 213 (2019). DOI 10.1007/JHEP05(2019)213. [Erra- tum: JHEP10, 046 (2020)]

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    Foroughi-Abari, A

    S. Foroughi-Abari, A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. D105(9), 095045 (2022). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.105. 095045

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Döbrich, J

    B. Döbrich, J. Jaeckel, F. Kahlhoefer, A. Ringwald, K. Schmidt-Hoberg, JHEP02, 018 (2016). DOI 10.1007/JHEP02(2016)018

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    Ilten, Y

    P. Ilten, Y . Soreq, M. Williams, W. Xue, JHEP06, 004 (2018). DOI 10.1007/JHEP06(2018)004

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    Aloni, Y

    D. Aloni, Y . Soreq, M. Williams, Phys. Rev. Lett.123(3), 031803 (2019). DOI 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.123.031803

    2019

  13. [21]

    Winkler, Phys

    M.W. Winkler, Phys. Rev. D99(1), 015018 (2019). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.015018

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    Dalla Valle Garcia, F

    G. Dalla Valle Garcia, F. Kahlhoefer, M. Ovchynnikov, A. Zaporozhchenko, Phys. Rev. D109(5), 055042 (2024). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.055042

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    Junk, Nucl

    T. Junk, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A434, 435 (1999). DOI 10.1016/S0168-9002(99)00498-2

    1999 doi

  16. [24]

    Bergsma, et al., Phys

    F. Bergsma, et al., Phys. Lett. B157, 458 (1985). DOI 10.1016/0370-2693(85)90400-9

    1985 doi

  17. [25]

    Blumlein, et al., Z

    J. Blumlein, et al., Z. Phys. C51, 341 (1991). DOI 10.1007/BF01548556 12

    1991 doi

  18. [26]

    Blumlein, et al., Int

    J. Blumlein, et al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. A7, 3835 (1992). DOI 10.1142/S0217751X9200171X

    1992 doi

  19. [27]

    Blümlein, J

    J. Blümlein, J. Brunner, Phys. Lett. B731, 320 (2014). DOI 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.02.029

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    Bjorken, S

    J.D. Bjorken, S. Ecklund, W.R. Nelson, A. Abashian, C. Church, B. Lu, L.W. Mo, T.A. Nunamaker, P. Rassmann, Phys. Rev. D38, 3375 (1988). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.38.3375

    1988 doi

  21. [29]

    Riordan, et al., Phys

    E.M. Riordan, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.59, 755 (1987). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.755

    1987 doi

  22. [30]

    Andreas, C

    S. Andreas, C. Niebuhr, A. Ringwald, Phys. Rev. D86, 095019 (2012). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD. 86.095019

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    Banerjee, et al., Phys

    D. Banerjee, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.125(8), 081801 (2020). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.081801

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    Banerjee, et al., Phys

    D. Banerjee, et al., Phys. Rev. D101(7), 071101 (2020). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.071101

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    Abreu, et al., Phys

    H. Abreu, et al., Phys. Lett. B848, 138378 (2024). DOI 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138378

    2024

  26. [34]

    Mammen Abraham, et al., JHEP01, 199 (2025)

    R. Mammen Abraham, et al., JHEP01, 199 (2025). DOI 10.1007/JHEP01(2025)199

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    Cortina Gil, et al., JHEP06, 093 (2021)

    E. Cortina Gil, et al., JHEP06, 093 (2021). DOI 10.1007/JHEP06(2021)093

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    Y . Afik, B. Döbrich, J. Jerhot, Y . Soreq, K. Tobioka, Phys. Rev. D108(5), 055007 (2023). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.055007

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Cortina Gil, et al., JHEP02, 201 (2021)

    E. Cortina Gil, et al., JHEP02, 201 (2021). DOI 10.1007/JHEP02(2021)201

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    Cortina Gil, et al., Phys

    E. Cortina Gil, et al., Phys. Lett. B850, 138513 (2024). DOI 10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138513

    2024

  31. [39]

    Artamonov, et al., Phys

    A.V . Artamonov, et al., Phys. Lett. B623, 192 (2005). DOI 10.1016/j.physletb.2005.07.057

    2005 doi

  32. [40]

    Artamonov, et al., Phys

    A.V . Artamonov, et al., Phys. Rev. D79, 092004 (2009). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.092004

    2009 doi

  33. [41]

    Ettore Pancini

    S. Gori, G. Perez, K. Tobioka, JHEP08, 110 (2020). DOI 10.1007/JHEP08(2020)110 13 The NA62 Collaboration Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium E. Cortina Gil , J. Jerhot *,1 , N. Lurkin TRIUMF, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada T. Numao , B. Velghe , V ...

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.