Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Experimental Measurements of the Muon $g-2$ and Searches for Charged Lepton Flavor Violation in the Muon Sector

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review argues that the 2020s are a decisive era for muon physics, anchored by a 0.20 ppm g-2 measurement that sits more than 5 sigma from the 2020 theory prediction and by charged-lepton-flavor-violation searches projected to probe…

desk verdict A useful but flawed proceedings snapshot of muon g-2 and CLFV, with no new results and several numerical/citation errors that need fixing before it can serve as a reference. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00211 v1 pith:XQLFQHBP submitted 2025-01-31 hep-ex

Sophie Middleton This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords muong-2anomalousmagneticmomentchargedleptonflavorviolationmuon-to-electronconversionMEG-IIMu3eCOMETMu2e
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This review argues that the 2020s are a decisive era for muon physics, anchored by two complementary probes. The Fermilab Muon g-2 experiment has produced a 0.20 ppm measurement of the muon's anomalous magnetic moment $a_\mu$ that differs from the 2020 Standard Model "White Paper" prediction by more than 5 $\sigma$, while a newer hybrid lattice-based prediction sits closer to the data, leaving the tension unresolved. In parallel, the MEG-II, Mu3e, COMET, and Mu2e experiments are searching for charged lepton flavor violation in the decays $\mu^+\to e^+\gamma$, $\mu^+\to e^+e^-e^+$, and $\mu^-N\to e^-N$; if their projected sensitivities are reached, they will constrain new physics at effective mass scales up to $10^4$ TeV/c$^2$, far beyond direct collider reach. The article's aim is to present the experimental signatures, background challenges, current limits, and projected sensitivities that define this program.

What carries the argument

The argument turns on two measured observables. In the storage-ring method, the anomalous precession frequency $\omega_a = \omega_s - \omega_c = a_\mu qB/m$ is read off the time-modulation of decay positrons from stored, spin-polarized muons; with a 7.1 m radius ring and a 1.45 T field, the Fermilab experiment reaches 0.20 ppm on $a_\mu$. For flavor violation, the discriminating signal is kinematic: a back-to-back $e^+\gamma$ pair at 52.83 MeV for MEG-II; three coplanar tracks with total energy equal to the muon mass and zero total momentum for Mu3e; and a mono-energetic conversion electron at $E_{\mu e}=m_\mu-E_{\rm BE,1s}-E_{\rm recoil}$ (about 104.97 MeV in aluminum) for Mu2e and COMET. Each apparatus is designed to suppress its dominant background class: accidental coincidences for $\mu\to e\gamma$, internal conversions for $\mu\to eee$, and decay-in-orbit, radiative pion capture, and cosmic rays for $\mu N\to eN$.

What would settle it

One settlement test: if Mu3e Phase-I or COMET Phase-I takes data and its observed sensitivity is an order of magnitude worse than the Table I projection, the $10^4$ TeV/c$^2$ reach claim is falsified for that channel even if no signal appears. A second, independent check is a lattice QCD calculation of the hadronic vacuum polarization with uncertainty below the experimental 0.20 ppm: where it lands decides whether the $g-2$ discrepancy is new physics or a theory artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that muon experiments now provide two high-sensitivity windows on the Standard Model, and both are on the verge of being decisive. On the magnetic-moment side, the Fermilab experiment's combined first-three-runs result is the most precise $a_\mu$ measurement to date, and its more-than-5-$\sigma$ separation from the 2020 White Paper prediction is described as an open question because newer theory estimates, particularly a hybrid lattice-dispersive calculation, fall much closer to the central value. On the flavor side, the paper asserts that the next-generation searches for $\mu^+\to e^+\gamma$, $\mu^+\to e^+e^-e^+$, and $\mu^-N\to e^-N$ will improve existing limits by one to four orders of magnitude and probe effective new-physics mass scales of $10^4$ TeV/c$^2$, an order of magnitude or more beyond direct searches at colliders.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every projected sensitivity in Table I will be met on schedule, meaning the beams will be intense enough, the background rejection will work as simulated, and no unforeseen systematic floor will appear, so the claim that this decade's muon program reaches $10^4$ TeV/c$^2$ holds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the projected sensitivities in Table I are achieved, a null result across all three CLFV channels would exclude or tightly constrain a broad class of Standard Model extensions at effective mass scales up to $10^4$ TeV/c$^2$, including SO(10) supersymmetry and scalar leptoquark models.
  • A confirmed $g-2$ discrepancy would have to be reconciled with whatever CLFV limits are set; the combination of a large $a_\mu$ deviation and strict CLFV bounds would favor new physics that couples to muons without inducing flavor-changing neutral currents.
  • MUonE's space-like measurement of the hadronic vacuum polarization would provide a theory-independent cross-check of the $g-2$ discrepancy, with a target statistical error of 0.3% and a 10 ppm systematic error.
  • J-PARC's ultra-cold muon beam, with 450 ppb statistical precision and a ring 20 times smaller, tests whether the storage-ring results are affected by electric-field focusing corrections.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's single '$10^4$ TeV/c$^2$' benchmark is an order-of-magnitude envelope, not a model-independent bound: the implied mass scale for a given operator depends on its coupling strength, so the reach for dipole-type new physics is generally lower than for four-fermion contact operators.
  • If Mu3e or COMET underperform their design beam rates, the qualitative conclusion that CLFV searches improve on current limits would survive, but the decade-scale claim of probing $10^4$ TeV/c$^2$ would have to be revised downward; the exact threshold in Table I is thus falsifiable before 2030.
  • A null CLFV result combined with a surviving $g-2$ discrepancy would push model-builders toward lepton-flavor-universal or second-generation-specific couplings, a direction the paper only hints at through its operator classification.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is a conference proceedings contribution reviewing the current and near-future experimental muon physics program. It reports the Fermilab Muon g-2 result from Runs 1-3, quoted as a_mu = 1.16592055(24) x 10^-11 at 0.20 ppm, and describes the tension with the 2020 White Paper prediction, mentioning newer lattice-based theory results. It introduces MUonE and J-PARC g-2 as complementary future measurements. The main body surveys the charged lepton flavor violation searches MEG-II (mu -> e gamma), Mu3e (mu -> e e e), and Mu2e/COMET (mu -> e conversion in nuclei), with descriptions of detectors, backgrounds, current limits, and projected sensitivities. The central claim, made in the abstract and conclusion, is that these experiments collectively probe new physics mass scales up to 10^4 TeV/c^2.

Significance. The paper contains no new experimental data or calculations; its value is as a concise, up-to-date survey for a workshop audience. The qualitative picture is sound, and the paper's strengths include clear descriptions of the experimental techniques, a generally complete set of references to primary measurements, and a balanced presentation of the current g-2 theory situation. It also usefully emphasizes the complementarity of the three CLFV channels. However, the quantitative reliability is currently compromised by several numerical and citation errors in the headline numbers and in Table I. These errors affect the traceability of the paper's central quantitative claims, so the manuscript needs correction before it can serve as a trustworthy reference.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II] The quoted value a_mu = 1.16592055(24) x 10^-11 is inconsistent with the physical anomalous magnetic moment, which is approximately 1.17 x 10^-3; the correct form is 1.16592055(24) x 10^-3 (or 0.00116592055(24)). With the stated exponent, the claimed 0.20 ppm relative precision cannot be reproduced. Please correct this value.
  2. [Table I and Section III.D] Table I lists the COMET Phase-I projected upper limit as 8 x 10^-15 (with Phase-II O(10^-17)), while Section III.D states that 'COMET Phase-I ... has a projected upper limit of 5 x 10^-15 at 90% C.L.' These two values are mutually inconsistent. They must be reconciled with the COMET collaboration references [37] and used consistently, as the summary claim of probing up to 10^4 TeV/c^2 is built on these projections.
  3. [Table I, Mu3e row] The future Mu3e projection in Table I cites reference [35], which is the 1988 SINDRUM paper reporting the current limit, not the Mu3e proposal. This makes the projection non-traceable from the cited source. The correct reference is the Mu3e proposal [19]. References [34] and [35] also appear to be duplicate entries for the same SINDRUM paper; please deduplicate and correct the citations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III.D] The quoted momentum resolution for the Mu2e tracker, 'less than 180 MeV/c', is physically implausible for a signal electron of energy 104.97 MeV; the intended value is almost certainly 180 keV/c. Please verify and correct.
  2. [Section II] In the phrase 'data totalling more than x21 that at BNL experiment', 'x21' should read '21 times'.
  3. [Section II, MUonE paragraph] The sentence 'This will allow a stat. error of 0.3% and 10 ppm sys. error. comparable with the results...' is grammatically incomplete and mixes units; please clarify whether 0.3% refers to the hadronic vacuum polarization contribution and 10 ppm to a_mu.
  4. [Section III.B] The text states 'The fitted track with information from the CDCH and SPX is propagated back to the stopping target'; the acronym SPX is not defined in the manuscript, unlike the pTC timing counter array. Please define all acronyms on first use.
  5. [General] There are several typographical issues: 'line of site' should be 'line of sight', 'appratus' in the Figure 2 caption should be 'apparatus', and 'The Mu2e experiment muon beam' should be 'The Mu2e experiment's muon beam'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the paper is a review whose quantitative claims trace to external measurements and collaboration projections; its two self-citations are side remarks, and the internal numerical/citation inconsistencies are accuracy issues, not circularity.

full rationale

This is a conference-review article, not a derivation, and I find no step in which a claimed prediction or result reduces by construction to an input of the same paper. The central g-2 number is quoted from the published Fermilab result [8] ('a_mu = 1.16592055(24) x 10^-11 (0.20 ppm) [8]'), and the "over 5 sigma" tension is attributed to the external 2020 White Paper [9]; the theory comparison in Fig. 1 is likewise attributed to [5]. The CLFV projections in Table I are presented as collaboration-sourced values, with references to MEG-II ([33]), Mu3e proposals ([19]/[35], despite the citation-error), COMET ([37]), and Mu2e ([38],[17]). The headline "up to 10^4 TeV/c^2" is supported at the point of assertion by the external review [2] ('current and projected constraints on muon CLFV channels are orders of magnitude beyond analogous constraints on tau channels. ... probe effective masses to 10^4 TeV/c^2 [2]'), so it is a restatement of an external phenomenological result, not a quantity fitted or derived here. The two self-citations are not load-bearing: [32] accompanies [30,31] in a side remark about nuclear-dependent conversion rates and complementary target materials, and [43] is the ordinary reference for the author's own Advanced Muon Facility proposal, explicitly described as being at an early, R&D-intensive stage. Neither citation is used to forbid alternatives or to justify the paper's main conclusions. The paper also contains honest limitation statements (MUonE analysis still in progress; AMF design 'in its infancy'), which weigh against any hidden circularity. I note for the correctness pass, not for circularity, that the manuscript has internal inconsistencies: Table I lists COMET Phase-I as 8 x 10^-15 while Sec. III.D states 'a projected upper limit of 5 x 10^-15 at 90% C.L.'; the Mu3e projection row cites the 1988 SINDRUM paper [35] rather than the Mu3e proposal; and the quoted value '1.16592055(24) x 10^-11' has the wrong power of ten relative to the physical a_mu ~ 1.17 x 10^-3. These are accuracy and traceability defects, not instances of a prediction being produced from its own inputs. The derivation chain, such as it is, is self-contained against external measurements, collaboration documents, and published theory comparisons, so the circularity score is low; the only reason it is not 0 is the presence of two minor self-citations, neither of which carries the argument.

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

This is a review paper, so the ledger is nearly empty. No parameters are fitted: a_mu is a published measurement, and all CLFV limits and projections are quoted from cited collaboration documents. The axioms are background physics (spin precession, oscillation-induced CLFV) and trust in the cited collaborations' sensitivity estimates. The only author-owned references, [32] and [43], describe the author's prior work on nuclear-dependent conversion rates and the proposed Advanced Muon Facility; neither functions as a load-bearing circular input. No new physical entities are postulated.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The anomalous precession frequency relation omega_a = a_mu q B / m (Eq. 1) correctly connects the measured spin frequency to the anomalous magnetic moment in the Fermilab storage ring.
    Section II, Eq. 1: the paper uses this standard spin-precession relation, established by the CERN and BNL predecessors, to justify deriving a_mu from the measured precession frequency and magnetic field. It is presupposed, not derived here.
  • domain assumption Neutrino oscillation induces charged lepton flavor violation at loop level with rates of order 10^-54, unobservably small.
    Section III, opening paragraph, citing [15]: this standard Standard Model result is what converts any future CLFV observation into proof of new physics.
  • domain assumption The projected sensitivities in Table I are accepted at face value from the cited collaboration documents.
    Sections III.A through III.D and Table I reproduce the Mu2e [38], COMET [37], Mu3e, and MEG-II [33] projections as published by the collaborations; the review performs no independent background or sensitivity calculation.
  • domain assumption The claimed 'over 5 sigma' discrepancy assumes the 2020 White Paper dispersive prediction [9] as the Standard Model reference.
    Section II and Figure 1: the paper acknowledges that the hybrid lattice prediction [5] sits much closer to the experimental value, so the magnitude and even existence of the tension depends on which theory reference is chosen.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Experimental Measurements of the Muon $g-2$ and Searches for Charged Lepton Flavor Violation in the Muon Sector." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XQLFQHBP

@misc{pith2026250200211,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Experimental Measurements of the Muon $g-2$ and Searches for Charged Lepton Flavor Violation in the Muon Sector},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XQLFQHBP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00211}
}
abstract

Since its discovery, the muon has proven to be an invaluable probe of the Standard Model (SM). Muons are readily available in tertiary beams in facilities around the world. They do not decay hadronically and have a lifetime of a few $\mu$ s; consequently, muon experiments offer clean, high-statistics environments to make precision measurements and search for new physics that could appear through deviations from the SM expectation. The 2020s have seen a renaissance in muon physics highlighted by the high-profile results from the Fermilab Muon $g - 2$ experiment which continues to provide successive measurements of the muon's anomalous magnetic moment with world-leading precision. In addition, a suite of experiments is coming online to search for new physics in the form of charged lepton flavor violation in the muon sector. These experiments will probe effective mass scales of new physics up to $10^4$ TeV/c$^2$, far beyond the reach of direct searches at colliders. This article explores the motivations, recent results, and status of these experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00211 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Comparison between experimental measurements of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. A schematic of the MEG-II appratus. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. A schematic of the Mu3e apparatus. A cone shaped [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. A schematic of the Mu2e apparatus . An intense [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. A schematic of the COMET apparatus. Phase-I and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [35]

    SINDRUM Collaboration Nuc. Phys. B 299 no. 1, (1988) 1–6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/0550321388904622

    arXiv 1988

  2. [19]

    Blondel and et al, 2013

    A. Blondel and et al, 2013. https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6113

    arXiv 2013

  3. [37]

    Abramishvili et al

    COMET Collaboration, R. Abramishvili et al. PTEP 2020 no. 3, (2020) 033C01, [ 1812.09018]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [34]

    Bellgardt et al

    SINDRUM Collaboration, U. Bellgardt et al. Nucl. Phys. B 299 (1988) 1–6

    work page 1988

  5. [1]

    C. D. Anderson and S. H. Neddermeyer Phys. Rev. 50 (Aug, 1936) 263–271. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.50.263

    doi:10.1103/physrev.50.263 1936

  6. [2]

    R. H. Bernstein Frontiers in Physics 7 (2019) 1. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/ fphy.2019.00001

    work page arXiv 2019

  7. [3]

    Muon g − 2 Collaboration, G. W. Bennett et al. Phys. Rev. D 73 (Apr, 2006) 072003. https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.73.072003

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.73.072003 2006

  8. [4]

    Bailey et al

    CERN-Mainz-Daresbury Collaboration, J. Bailey et al. Nucl. Phys. B 150 (1979) 1–75

    work page 1979

Show all 45 references
  1. [5]

    Boccaletti et al

    A. Boccaletti et al. [2407.10913]

    arXiv

  2. [6]

    Abi et al

    Muon g − 2 Collaboration, B. Abi et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 no. 14, (2021) 141801, [ 2104.03281]

    2021

  3. [7]

    Muon g − 2 Collaboration, D. P. Aguillard et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 no. 16, (2023) 161802, [ 2308.06230]

    2023

  4. [8]

    Muon g − 2 Collaboration, D. P. Aguillard et al. Phys. Rev. D 110 (Aug, 2024) 032009. https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.032009

    2024 doi

  5. [9]

    Aoyama et al

    T. Aoyama et al. Physics Reports 887 (Dec., 2020) 1–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2020.07.006

    2020 doi

  6. [10]

    https://muon-gm2-theory.illinois.edu/ . 7

  7. [11]

    Abbiendi et al

    G. Abbiendi et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 77 no. 3, (2017) 139, [1609.08987]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [12]

    The detector for the MUonE experiment at CERN,

    A. Driutti, “ The detector for the MUonE experiment at CERN,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1069 (2024) 169876

    2024

  9. [13]

    Iinuma J

    J-P ARC muong − 2/EDM Collaboration, H. Iinuma J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 295 (2011) 012032

    2011

  10. [14]

    Muon cooling at J-PARC,

    J-P ARC muong − 2/EDM Collaboration, S. Kamioka, “Muon cooling at J-PARC,” PoS Muon4F uture2023(2024) 008

    2024

  11. [15]

    W. J. Marciano, T. Mori, and J. M. Roney Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 58 (2008) 315–341

    2008

  12. [16]

    Abramishvili et al

    COMET Collaboration, R. Abramishvili et al. Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2020 no. 3, (03, 2020) 033C01. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptz125. 033C01

    2020 doi

  13. [17]

    Bartoszek et al

    Mu2e Collaboration, L. Bartoszek et al. [1501.05241]

    arXiv

  14. [18]

    A. M. Baldini and et al Eur. Phys. J. C 78 no. 5, (May,

  15. [20]

    Calibbi, P

    L. Calibbi, P. Paradisi, and R. Ziegler Eur. Phys. J. C 74 no. 12, (Dec, 2014) . http: //dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3211-x

    2014 doi

  16. [21]

    Calibbi, A

    L. Calibbi, A. Faccia, A. Masiero, and S. K. Vempati Phys. Rev. D 74 (Dec, 2006) 116002. https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.74.116002

    2006 doi

  17. [22]

    J. M. Arnold, B. Fornal, and M. B. Wise Phys Rev D 88 no. 3, (Aug, 2013) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.035009

    2013 doi

  18. [23]

    Heeck and D

    J. Heeck and D. Teresi Journal of High Energy Physics 2018 no. 12, (Dec, 2018) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2018)103

    2018 doi

  19. [24]

    T. Abe, R. Sato, and K. Yagyu Journal of High Energy Physics 2017 no. 7, (Jul, 2017) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2017)012

    2017 doi

  20. [25]

    Harnik, J

    R. Harnik, J. Kopp, and J. Zupan Journal of High Energy Physics 2013 no. 3, (Mar, 2013) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2013)026

    2013 doi

  21. [26]

    Hambye Nuc

    T. Hambye Nuc. Phys. B - Proceedings Supplements 248-250 (2014) 13–19. https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S092056321400005X. 1st Conference on Charged Lepton Flavor Violation

    2014

  22. [27]

    de Gouvˆ ea and P

    A. de Gouvˆ ea and P. Vogel Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.71 (2013) 75–92, [ 1303.4097]

    2013 arXiv

  23. [28]

    Davidson and B

    S. Davidson and B. Echenard Eur. Phys. J. C 82 no. 9, (2022) 836, [ 2204.00564]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [29]

    Calibbi and G

    L. Calibbi and G. Signorelli Riv. Nuovo Cim. 41 no. 2, (2018) 71–174, [ 1709.00294]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [30]

    Kitano, M

    R. Kitano, M. Koike, and Y. Okada Phys. Rev. D 66 (Nov, 2002) 096002. https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.66.096002

    2002 doi

  26. [31]

    Cirigliano, R

    V. Cirigliano, R. Kitano, Y. Okada, and P. Tuzon Phys. Rev. D 80 no. 1, (Jul, 2009) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.013002

    2009 doi

  27. [32]

    Borrel, D

    L. Borrel, D. G. Hitlin, and S. Middleton [ 2401.15025]

    arXiv

  28. [33]

    Afanaciev et al

    MEG II Collaboration, K. Afanaciev et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 84 no. 3, (2024) 216, [ 2310.12614]. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 84, 1042 (2024)]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [36]

    SINDRUM IICollaboration, W. H. Bertl et al. Eur. Phys. J. C47 (2006) 337–346

    2006

  30. [38]

    Abdi et al

    Mu2e Collaboration, F. Abdi et al. Universe 9 no. 1, (2023) 54, [ 2210.11380]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    MEG II Collaboration, A. M. Baldini et al. Symmetry 13 no. 9, (2021) 1591, [ 2107.10767]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Dzhilkibaev and V

    R. Dzhilkibaev and V. Lobashev Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 49 (1989) 384–385

    1989

  33. [41]

    Szafron and A

    R. Szafron and A. Czarnecki Phys. Lett. B 753 (2016) 61–64. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0370269315009399

    2016

  34. [42]

    Expression of Interest for Evolution of the Mu2e Experiment,

    Mu2eII Collaboration, “Expression of Interest for Evolution of the Mu2e Experiment,” 2018

    2018

  35. [43]

    Middleton, 2025

    S. Middleton, 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.15664. NuFact2024-08

    2025 arXiv

  36. [2018]

    https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5845-6

    380. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5845-6

    doi

  37. [2028]

    wait out

    In 2024, the experiment showed the first evidence of muon cooling and subsequent re-acceleration. A sys- tematic uncertainty on ωa of 70 ppb is expected, but statistical uncertainty of 450 ppb will limit the overall precision, estimated for a two year running period. III. SEAR...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.