Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Searching for neutrino self-interactions at future muon colliders

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A future muon collider's forward detector, combined with its interaction-point detector, could probe the muon-neutrino coupling of a neutrinophilic scalar down to values roughly 100 times smaller than any current or planned experiment.

desk verdict A genuinely new forward-detector channel for neutrinophilic scalars at a muon collider, but the flagship reach depends on an unquantified charge-misidentification background and the posted text contains an unrelated pasted block. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11910 v1 pith:26KFVO4R submitted 2024-12-16 hep-ph hep-ex

Hongkai Liu , Daiki Ueda This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords neutrinoself-interactionsneutrinophilicscalarmuoncolliderforwarddetectorwrong-signbremsstrahlungfixed-targetexperimentlepton
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 proposes that a multi-TeV muon collider — which already produces an intense, highly collimated neutrino beam from muon decays — can double as a fixed-target experiment by placing a forward detector in the beam line. Using a neutrinophilic scalar φ that couples exclusively to Standard Model neutrinos as a benchmark, the authors show that wrong-sign muons from neutrino-bremsstrahlung events in the forward target, together with missing-energy events at the main detector, probe the muon-neutrino coupling down to values about two orders of magnitude below current bounds from meson and Z decays. If the projections hold, the muon collider would become a leading facility for studying neutrino self-interactions, outperforming the projected reaches of DUNE, FASERν2, and HL-LHC.

What carries the argument

The central object is the neutrinophilic scalar φ, a massive complex scalar with lepton number −2 that couples exclusively to neutrinos through (1/2)λ_μμ ν_μ^c P_L ν_μ φ. The argument's mechanism is a two-pronged search: neutrino bremsstrahlung on nucleons in a forward tungsten-emulsion target, where the radiated φ turns a ν_μ charged-current event into a wrong-sign μ+; and hard scattering at the interaction point, μ−μ+ → W− μ+ ν_μ φ*, where the reconstructed missing four-momentum has invariant mass above $m_φ^{2}$ and a forward/central pseudorapidity profile that background does not mimic. Acceptance cuts—muon energies between 100 GeV and 1 TeV and angles below 25 mrad—follow from the forward-detector design used by the paper, and event numbers are computed from Monte Carlo cross sections times the collimated neutrino flux from muon decays.

What would settle it

A realistic detector simulation of the proposed forward setup, counting the wrong-sign muon-like events that survive charge identification, energy, and angular cuts with no signal injected: if more than roughly 10 such events appear per run, the two-order-of-magnitude reach shown in Fig. 3 would shrink by a corresponding amount.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a neutrinophilic scalar φ that couples only to Standard Model neutrinos can be probed at a muon collider with sensitivity roughly two orders of magnitude better than the current best limits. The forward-detector channel ν_μ + N → φ* + μ+ + X produces a wrong-sign μ+ that magnetic tracking can identify for muon energies up to 1 TeV, while the interaction-point channel μ−μ+ → W− μ+ ν_μ φ* (with W → jj) yields a missing-mass peak that stands above Standard Model backgrounds. For the nominal 3 TeV (1 ab−1) and 10 TeV (10 ab−1) muon collider designs, the combined reach shown in Fig. 3 lies below constraints from meson and Z decays and beyond the projected sensitivities of FASERν2, DUNE, and HL-LHC.

Load-bearing premise

The forward-detector sensitivity assumes that all backgrounds—ν_μ charged-current events, charm-decay muons, beam-induced neutrinos, and cosmic rays—can be reduced below the roughly 10 signal events assumed in Fig. 3, but the paper only argues this qualitatively and defers a quantitative study to the detector-design phase.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the projections hold, the forward detector alone would set the best limits on sub-GeV neutrinophilic scalars coupled to muon neutrinos, provided backgrounds stay below the assumed ~10-event threshold.
  • The interaction-point search extends coverage to scalar masses of several TeV, complementing the forward detector's low-mass advantage.
  • At a 10 TeV collider with 10 ab−1, the reach in coupling improves substantially over the 3 TeV option for masses above ~1 GeV, while the 3 TeV option remains competitive for lighter scalars.
  • Charge identification of muons is the enabling capability: a design that keeps charge-ID reliable above 1 TeV, or lowers the energy threshold, would directly extend the exclusion region.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same forward-detector geometry and wrong-sign lepton technique should apply to other neutrino-coupled light mediators, including vectors and pseudoscalars, so the search strategy is not limited to the scalar benchmark used here.
  • If the collider's straight section grows beyond the assumed 10 m, the neutrino flux and thus the sensitivity scale roughly linearly, making the case stronger for designs with longer field-free regions.
  • A detector-level background simulation, deferred to the design phase in the paper, is the natural next step: whether it confirms the <10 background-event assumption will determine the realistic reach of the forward channel.
  • Muon colliders have often been considered primarily for high-energy collisions; this work reframes the unstable muon beam as a physics asset, suggesting that neutrino-beam physics should be part of the collider's science case from the 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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies the sensitivity of a future muon collider to a neutrinophilic scalar phi that couples exclusively to muon neutrinos, using two complementary channels: a forward fixed-target detector exposed to the intense neutrino beam produced by muon decays in a straight section, and the main detector at the interaction point where phi is produced in muon-antimuon collisions. The forward detector searches for wrong-sign muons from nu_mu N -> phi mu^+ X, while the main detector searches for mu^+ mu^- -> W^± mu^∓ nu phi using missing-mass and pseudorapidity information. Cross sections are computed with MadGraph5_aMC@NLO and FeynRules, and the neutrino flux follows standard muon-decay formulas with published muon-collider parameters. The authors derive sensitivity curves in the (m_phi, lambda) plane and claim improvements of about two orders of magnitude over current bounds from meson and Z decays, surpassing projected FASERnu2, DUNE, and HL-LHC sensitivities. The paper is framed as a feasibility study and explicitly defers quantitative background analysis for the forward detector to the detector-design phase.

Significance. The proposal is timely and identifies a genuinely new search channel for neutrino self-interactions at future muon colliders: the forward wrong-sign-muon signature from neutrino bremsstrahlung. The main strengths are that the signal cross sections are computed with established public tools and the neutrino flux is derived from first-principles decay kinematics and published machine parameters, so the reach inversion is not circular. The high-mass main-detector branch is a useful complement and appears technically sound as a first estimate. The low-mass reach, however, rests entirely on the forward-detector branch, whose background model is qualitative and whose required charge-misidentification suppression is several orders of magnitude stronger than any demonstrated performance cited in the paper. The headline two-order-of-magnitude improvement is therefore not fully supported until the forward-detector background budget is quantified; if that can be done, the paper would establish an important new sensitivity projection for neutrino self-interactions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IIIA, Eq. (2), Fig. 3] The forward-detector reach curves in Fig. 3 are drawn for N_sig = 10 and 100 signal events with no background term, yet the background discussion in Sec. IIIA is explicitly qualitative: the text states that backgrounds 'can be much reduced' and defers quantitative analysis to the detector-design phase. This is load-bearing because the forward detector is the branch that extends the reach at low m_phi. Using the paper's own parameters (N_nu = 7.7e17 for the 3 TeV machine, 1.2 t tungsten target, L_det = 1 m) and sigma_CC(E_nu ~ 1.5 TeV) ~ 1e-35 cm^2, the SM nu_mu charged-current rate is O(10^10) events per year. If a fraction as small as 1e-2 of the resulting mu^- pass the acceptance cuts (100 GeV < E_mu < 1 TeV, theta_mu < 25 mrad), the charge-misidentification probability must be below ~1e-9 to keep the wrong-sign background below one event. The 1e-7 tracking inefficiency quoted from FASER in Sec. IIIA is not a charge-assignment probability and does not certify this level. A surviving background of even O(10) events would shift the low-m_phi blue curves by a factor of a few in lambda, and a larger background would erode the claimed two-order-of-magnitude gain. This branch should either be supported by a quantitative background estimate or explicitly labeled as a background-free idealization.
  2. [Sec. IIIA, Fig. 3] The forward-detector curves are constant-signal-event contours, not statistical exclusion limits. The paper compares these contours directly with current 95% CL bounds and with future projections from FASERnu2, DUNE, and HL-LHC, but no confidence level is assigned to the N_sig = 10 or 100 threshold. A proper expected-exclusion limit in the zero-background limit would require roughly 3 events at 95% CL, while a discovery-style threshold of 10 events is a different statistical statement. With any surviving background, the required signal event count increases. The blue and light-blue curves in Fig. 3 should be recomputed as expected exclusion bounds (with background/systematics) or the comparison should be reframed as a discovery-reach estimate rather than an enhancement of existing limits.
  3. [Sec. IIIA, Sec. IIIB] The forward-detector analysis conflates two different detector technologies: the 1.2 t tungsten-emulsion target is modeled on FASERnu, while the acceptance and charge-identification assumptions appear to be based on the electronic spectrometer components of FASER. The text should clarify the actual detector concept for the muon-collider forward detector, including whether the magnetic spectrometer covers the full angular and energy acceptance used in Eq. (2), whether charge identification is available for the emulsion-track segment, and what charge-misidentification efficiency is assumed. This is not merely a presentation issue: the entire wrong-sign-muon signature depends on this capability, and the current text cites FASER tracking inefficiency as if it certified charge assignment.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (2)] In Eq. (2), the integration variable is written as dE_nu_mu in the flux factor; it should be dE_nu (or dE_nu_mu should be consistently defined). The same equation also uses dn_nu_mu/dE_nu_mu while the text defines the spectrum as a function of x = E_nu/E_mu.
  2. [Sec. II and throughout] The manuscript text contains a long inserted passage beginning 'The measurement of the charged-current (CC) neutrino interactions...' that belongs to a different paper, uses different notation (epsilon, omega, FLArE, FASERomega), and is repeated twice. This passage is inconsistent with the rest of the manuscript and must be removed or rewritten before the paper can be considered for publication.
  3. [Sec. IIIA] There are several typographical errors, including 'neutriophilic' for 'neutrinophilic' and 'Repetation rate' for 'Repetition rate'. These should be corrected in a final pass.
  4. [Sec. IIIB] The main-detector sensitivity is computed as S/sqrt(B) with no systematic uncertainties or detector-level efficiencies. This is acceptable for a first feasibility projection, but the text should state explicitly that the quoted 2-sigma bounds are statistical-only.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the reach curves are first-principles matrix-element projections, and the only self-citation provides a benchmark comparison rather than a load-bearing input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its central claim. The neutrino flux is computed from published muon-collider parameters (N_mu, L_straight, C_coll), the signal cross sections are computed with MadGraph5_aMC@NLO and FeynRules from the neutrinophilic-scalar Lagrangian in Eq. (1), and the event rate in Eq. (2) is a direct convolution of flux, cross section, target density, detector length, and acceptance. The sensitivity curves in Fig. 3 are then obtained by solving for the coupling that yields N_sig = 10 or 100 events (forward detector) or by optimizing S/sqrt(B) after parton-level cuts (main detector). No fitted parameter is fed back into the calculation, and there is no quantity that is defined in terms of the result it is supposed to predict. The paper explicitly defers quantitative background analysis to 'the phase of detector design,' and the forward-detector sensitivity therefore rests on an unvalidated assumption that backgrounds can be suppressed below about 10 events; this is a limitation and a correctness risk, but it is not circularity. The one self-citation, Ref. [23], is used only to draw the FASERnu2 projection line against which the paper compares its own reach. That benchmark does not enter the signal or background calculation, so the self-citation is minor and not load-bearing. The central projections are independently derived from standard matrix elements and public collider parameters, so no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The reach depends mainly on the assumed machine parameters (N_mu, straight-section length) and on the reducibility of backgrounds to below the signal threshold. The benchmark scalar model is borrowed from the literature. The 10-event threshold and the tuned cuts are the main hand-chosen elements.

free parameters (3)
  • Forward-detector signal event threshold N_sig = 10 and 100 events
    Reach curves are drawn by requiring 10 or 100 signal events. No background or significance calculation is performed, so this threshold is the defining choice for the projected limit.
  • Muon acceptance window = E_mu in [100 GeV, 1 TeV], theta_mu < 25 mrad
    Chosen from FASER detector performance; the combined efficiencies (0.38 to 0.87) depend on these hand-picked values.
  • Main detector cut parameters = pT,l > 150 (200) GeV, |eta_l| < 2.7 (0), |eta_miss| < 1.5, Mmiss windows
    The cuts are tuned to maximize S/sqrt(B); the Mmiss window depends on m_phi in an ad hoc way, and the 2 sigma bound is thus cut-dependent.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The muon collider delivers N_mu = 2.8e20 muons per year and a 10 m straight section with C_coll = 10 km, giving the quoted neutrino flux N_nu = 7.7e17 (3 TeV) and 2.8e17 (10 TeV).
    Section II. These are tentative International Muon Collider Collaboration parameters, not measured quantities.
  • domain assumption Backgrounds at the forward detector are reducible to a negligible level: nu_mu CC events are removed by charge identification, charm-decay muons are reduced, and cosmic rays are vetoed.
    Section IIIA. The paper explicitly defers 'further quantitative analysis' of these backgrounds to detector design.
  • standard math The neutrino energy and angular distributions from unpolarized muon decay are given by the Barger-Geer-Whisnant formulas.
    Section II, Ref [38].
  • standard math MadGraph5_aMC@NLO and FeynRules correctly compute the nu N to phi* mu X cross sections within the effective model.
    Section IIIA. Standard tooling assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching for neutrino self-interactions at future muon colliders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/26KFVO4R

@misc{pith2026241211910,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching for neutrino self-interactions at future muon colliders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/26KFVO4R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11910}
}
abstract

Multi-TeV muon colliders offer a powerful means of accessing new physics coupled to muons while generating clean and intense high-energy neutrino beams via muon decays. We study a fixed-target experiment leveraging the neutrino beams and a forward detector pointing at the interaction point of the muon collider. The sensitivity to neutrino self-interactions is analyzed as a feasibility study, focusing on the leptonic scalar $\phi$ exclusively coupled to the Standard Model neutrinos. Our work shows that projections from both the main and forward detectors can enhance the existing limits by two orders of magnitude, surpassing other future experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11910 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Feynman diagram for the neutrinophilic scalar radiation via neutrino bremsstrahlung. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The cross sections of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The bounds on the neutrinophilic scalar. The colored [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. The Neutrino Slice at Muon Colliders

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

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

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

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

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

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

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 10 kg forward neutrino detector at a 3 TeV muon collider could probe neutrinophilic scalar mediators down to couplings that reach thermal freeze-out and freeze-in dark matter relic targets.

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

    hep-ph 2026-08

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [61]

    Adhikary, K

    J. Adhikary, K. J. Kelly, F. Kling, and S. Trojanowski, (2024), arXiv:2412.10315 [hep-ph]. 6 0 20 40 60 80 1000.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0 500 1000 1500 2000 25000.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 FIG. S1. The distributions of final-stateµ+ angle θµ (left), and energyEµ (right) at the forward detector formϕ = 0.1 GeV (red) and mϕ = 10GeV (blu...

    arXiv 2024

  2. [23]

    W. Bai, J. Liao, and H. Liu, (2024), arXiv:2409.01826 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    Fukudaet al.(Super-Kamiokande), Phys

    Y. Fukudaet al.(Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1562 (1998), arXiv:hep-ex/9807003

    arXiv 1998

  4. [2]

    Q. R. Ahmadet al.(SNO), Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 011301 (2002), arXiv:nucl-ex/0204008

    arXiv 2002

  5. [3]

    Eguchiet al.(KamLAND), Phys

    K. Eguchiet al.(KamLAND), Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 021802 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0212021

    arXiv 2003

  6. [4]

    R. L. Workmanet al.(Particle Data Group), PTEP2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  7. [5]

    G. B. Gelmini and M. Roncadelli, Phys. Lett. B99, 411 (1981)

    1981

  8. [6]

    Chikashige, R

    Y. Chikashige, R. N. Mohapatra, and R. D. Peccei, Phys. Lett. B 98, 265 (1981)

    work page 1981

Show all 61 references
  1. [7]

    C. S. Aulakh and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Lett. B119, 136 (1982)

    1982

  2. [8]

    De Gouvêa, M

    A. De Gouvêa, M. Sen, W. Tangarife, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 081802 (2020), arXiv:1910.04901 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  3. [9]

    K. J. Kelly, F. Kling, D. Tuckler, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 105, 075026 (2022), arXiv:2111.05868 [hep-ph]. 5

    2022 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Lancaster, F.-Y

    L. Lancaster, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, L. Knox, and Z. Pan, JCAP 07, 033 (2017), arXiv:1704.06657 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  5. [11]

    C. D. Kreisch, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, and O. Doré, Phys. Rev. D 101, 123505 (2020), arXiv:1902.00534 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Blinov, K

    N. Blinov, K. J. Kelly, G. Z. Krnjaic, and S. D. McDermott, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 191102 (2019), arXiv:1905.02727 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Barenboim, P

    G. Barenboim, P. B. Denton, and I. M. Oldengott, Phys. Rev. D99, 083515 (2019), arXiv:1903.02036 [astro- ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  8. [14]

    P. S. Pasquini and O. L. G. Peres, Phys. Rev. D93, 053007 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 93, 079902 (2016)], arXiv:1511.01811 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [15]

    J.M.Berryman, A.DeGouvêa, K.J.Kelly, andY.Zhang, Phys. Rev. D97, 075030 (2018), arXiv:1802.00009 [hep- ph]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [16]

    P.S.B.Dev, D.Kim, D.Sathyan, K.Sinha, andY.Zhang, (2024), arXiv:2407.12738 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [17]

    C. P. Burgess and J. M. Cline, Phys. Rev. D49, 5925 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9307316

    1994 arXiv

  12. [18]

    K. Blum, Y. Nir, and M. Shavit, Phys. Lett. B785, 354 (2018), arXiv:1802.08019 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [19]

    F. F. Deppisch, L. Graf, W. Rodejohann, and X.-J. Xu, Phys. Rev. D102, 051701 (2020), arXiv:2004.11919 [hep- ph]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [20]

    K. J. Kelly and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D99, 055034 (2019), arXiv:1901.01259 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Brdar, M

    V. Brdar, M. Lindner, S. Vogl, and X.-J. Xu, Phys. Rev. D 101, 115001 (2020), arXiv:2003.05339 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [22]

    de Gouvêa, P

    A. de Gouvêa, P. S. B. Dev, B. Dutta, T. Ghosh, T. Han, and Y. Zhang, JHEP07, 142 (2020), arXiv:1910.01132 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [24]

    C. H. de Lima, D. McKeen, J. N. Ng, M. Shamma, and D. Tuckler, (2024), arXiv:2411.15303 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [25]

    J. P. Delahaye, M. Diemoz, K. Long, B. Mansoulié, N. Pas- trone, L. Rivkin, D. Schulte, A. Skrinsky, and A. Wulzer, (2019), arXiv:1901.06150 [physics.acc-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Bartosik et al

    N. Bartosik et al. , JINST 15, P05001 (2020), arXiv:2001.04431 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [27]

    K. Long, D. Lucchesi, M. Palmer, N. Pastrone, D. Schulte, and V. Shiltsev, Nature Phys.17, 289 (2021), arXiv:2007.15684 [physics.acc-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Bartosik et al

    N. Bartosik et al. (Muon Collider), (2022), arXiv:2203.07964 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Stratakis et al

    D. Stratakis et al. (Muon Collider), (2022), arXiv:2203.08033 [physics.acc-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [30]

    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]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [31]

    C.Accettura et al.(InternationalMuonCollider), 2/2024 (2024), 10.23731/CYRM-2024-002, arXiv:2407.12450 [physics.acc-ph]

    2024

  25. [32]

    Accettura et al

    C. Accettura et al. (MuCoL), (2024), 10.5281/zen- odo.13970100, arXiv:2411.02966 [physics.acc-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Hamada, R

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

    2022 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Aritomeet al., (2024), arXiv:2410.11367 [physics.acc- ph]

    S. Aritomeet al., (2024), arXiv:2410.11367 [physics.acc- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [35]

    J.deBlas et al.(MuonCollider), (2022),arXiv:2203.07261 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Aimeet al., (2022), arXiv:2203.07256 [hep-ph]

    C. Aimeet al., (2022), arXiv:2203.07256 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [37]

    De Rujula, M

    A. De Rujula, M. B. Gavela, and P. Hernandez, Nucl. Phys. B 547, 21 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9811390

    1999 arXiv

  31. [38]

    V. D. Barger, S. Geer, and K. Whisnant, Phys. Rev. D 61, 053004 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9906487

    2000 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Hernandez, O

    A.Cervera, A.Donini, M.B.Gavela, J.J.GomezCadenas, P. Hernandez, O. Mena, and S. Rigolin, Nucl. Phys. B 579, 17 (2000), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 593, 731–732 (2001)], arXiv:hep-ph/0002108

    2000 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Freund, P

    M. Freund, P. Huber, and M. Lindner, Nucl. Phys. B 615, 331 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0105071

    2001 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Albright et al

    C. Albright et al. (Neutrino Factory, Muon Collider), (2004), arXiv:physics/0411123

    2004 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Huber, M

    P. Huber, M. Lindner, M. Rolinec, and W. Winter, Phys. Rev. D 74, 073003 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0606119

    2006 arXiv

  36. [43]

    A. D. Bross, M. Ellis, S. Geer, O. Mena, and S. Pascoli, Phys. Rev. D77, 093012 (2008), arXiv:0709.3889 [hep- ph]

    2008 arXiv

  37. [44]

    S. Geer, O. Mena, and S. Pascoli, Phys. Rev. D 75, 093001 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0701258

    2007 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Huber and T

    P. Huber and T. Schwetz, Phys. Lett. B669, 294 (2008), arXiv:0805.2019 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Tang and W

    J. Tang and W. Winter, Phys. Rev. D81, 033005 (2010), arXiv:0911.5052 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Fernandez Martinez, T

    E. Fernandez Martinez, T. Li, S. Pascoli, and O. Mena, Phys. Rev. D81, 073010 (2010), arXiv:0911.3776 [hep- ph]

    2010 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Dighe, S

    A. Dighe, S. Goswami, and S. Ray, Phys. Rev. D86, 073001 (2012), arXiv:1110.3289 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Ballett and S

    P. Ballett and S. Pascoli, Phys. Rev. D86, 053002 (2012), arXiv:1201.6299 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Christensen, P

    E. Christensen, P. Coloma, and P. Huber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 061803 (2013), arXiv:1301.7727 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Bogacz et al

    A. Bogacz et al. , in Snowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.08094 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Kitano, J

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

    2024 arXiv

  46. [53]

    P. B. Denton and J. Gehrlein, (2024), arXiv:2407.02572 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Krnjaic, P

    G. Krnjaic, P. A. N. Machado, and L. Necib, Phys. Rev. D 97, 075017 (2018), arXiv:1705.06740 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  48. [55]

    J. M. Berryman et al., Phys. Dark Univ. 42, 101267 (2023), arXiv:2203.01955 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Mammen Abrahamet al.(FASER), Phys

    R. Mammen Abrahamet al.(FASER), Phys. Rev. D110, 012009 (2024), arXiv:2402.13318 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Abreuet al.(FASER), Phys

    H. Abreuet al.(FASER), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 031801 (2023), arXiv:2303.14185 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Alwall, M

    J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, and T. Stelzer, JHEP06, 128 (2011), arXiv:1106.0522 [hep- ph]

    2011 arXiv

  52. [59]

    N. D. Christensen and C. Duhr, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180, 1614 (2009), arXiv:0806.4194 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Mammen Abraham et al

    R. Mammen Abraham et al. (FASER), (2024), arXiv:2412.03186 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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