Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

CODEX-b: Opening New Windows to the Long-Lived Particle Frontier at the LHC

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read CODEX-b, a proposed 10-meter cubic detector beside LHCb, can be built with roughly half its planned RPC panels while keeping performance comparable to the original baseline design.

desk verdict A transparent and useful ESPP status update for CODEX-b, with genuinely new cost and design-scenario detail, but the zero-background premise is still an assumption awaiting CODEX-β data. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05952 v1 pith:NQZYU627 submitted 2025-05-09 hep-ex

Giulio Aielli , Juliette Alimena , Saul Balcarcel-Salazar , Eli Ben Haim , András Barnabás Burucs , Roberto Cardarelli , Matthew J. Charles , Xabier Cid Vidal
show 45 more authors
Albert De Roeck Biplab Dey Silviu Dobrescu Ozgur Durmus Mohamed Elashri Vladimir V. Gligorov Rebeca Gonzalez Suarez Zarria Gray Conor Henderson Louis Henry Philip Ilten Daniel Johnson Jacob Kautz Simon Knapen Bingxuan Liu Yang Liu Saul López Soliño Pablo Eduardo Menéndez-Valdés Pérez Titus Mombächer Benjamin Nachman David T. Northacker Gabriel M. Nowak Michele Papucci Gabriella Pásztor María Pereira Martínez Michael Peters Jake Pfaller Luca Pizzimento Máximo Pló Casasús Gian Andrea Rassati Dean J. Robinson Emilio Xosé Rodríguez Fernández Debashis Sahoo Sinem Simsek Michael D. Sokoloff Joeal Subash James Swanson Abhinaba Upadhyay Riccardo Vari Carlos Vázquez Sierra Gábor Veres Nigel Watson Michael K. Wilkinson Michael Williams Eleanor Winkler (CODEX-b collaboration)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords long-livedparticlesCODEX-bdetectordisplacedvertexsearchesresistiveplatechambersbackgroundsuppressiongeometryoptimizationLHCbhigh-luminosityLHC
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 paper argues that CODEX-b—a proposed 10×10×10 m³ box of resistive-plate chambers placed about 25 m sideways from the LHCb interaction point to catch long-lived particles (LLPs) that decay far from the collision—can be built with performance comparable to the original baseline design while using roughly half the tracking panels and about half the money. This matters because a transverse detector covers a slice of LLP parameter space—light masses and long lifetimes—that the main LHC experiments and forward detectors cover poorly, and CODEX-b would do it with existing technology at a modest scale. The feasibility claim is grounded in an optimization framework showing that 350 RPC panels (or 250 plus scintillator) recover 50–90% of the baseline vertex-reconstruction efficiency, cutting the estimated cost from about €51M to about €24M and shrinking build time and crew. The paper also reports that the small demonstrator CODEX-β is already installed in the LHCb cavern, with its first job being to prove the site really is a zero-background environment—the assumption on which the whole physics case rests.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three mechanisms. The first is a fast-simulation and deterministic optimization framework—set-theoretic with branch-and-bound, scanning exponentially many panel configurations in linear time—whose efficiency-versus-panel-count curves show strong negative curvature: vertex-reconstruction efficiency plateaus well before hermetic coverage, so panels beyond a few hundred add little. The second is the background-suppression scheme: the 3 m concrete UXA wall (about 7 nuclear interaction lengths) and 4.5 m of lead (about 25 interaction lengths) kill primary hadron fluxes, while an active veto layer inside the shield catches the muons that stop short of the detector after producing neutral secondaries in the shielding material itself. The third is technology transfer: CODEX-b adopts the ATLAS Phase-II triplet RPC modules (1.03 × 1.88 m² BIS7-type singlets), and the 2×2×2 m³ CODEX-β demonstrator—42 such singlets already installed at IP8—provides the measured per-module cost, build time, and LHCb-integration experience from which all full-detector estimates are scaled.

What would settle it

Watch the CODEX-β demonstrator's first Run 3 data: it measures the neutral multitrack and soft-background rates in the shielded cavern, which are compared to the simulated predictions of Section III D. If the measured rates, scaled to the full 10×10×10 m³ volume behind the 4.5 m lead shield and active veto, exceed the zero-background expectation by even a handful of events per nominal year, the design basis fails and the Fig. 9 sensitivity curves become optimistic upper limits rather than projections.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

CODEX-b (COmpact Detector for EXotics at LHCb) is a proposed 10×10×10 m³ cube of resistive-plate chambers (RPCs), placed about 25 m transverse to the LHCb interaction point IP8 and shielded from collision debris by the existing 3 m concrete UXA wall plus a new 4.5 m lead shield with an embedded active veto. The paper's central assertion is that the full detector can be realized in the nominal location with performance comparable to the original baseline proposal: non-hermetic layouts using 350 RPC triplet panels—or 250 panels augmented with scintillator—retain 50–90% of the baseline vertex-reconstruction efficiency, which shifts the logarithmic sensitivity curves of Fig. 9 only slightly. These leaner configurations cost about €24M instead of €51M and need correspondingly less installation time and manpower, so the reduced-instrumentation design is presented not as a compromise but as the realistic route to construction. The case rests on the site being a zero-background environment, which the installed CODEX-β demonstrator is designed to validate during Run 3 before the collaboration commits to the full detector.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the site truly runs at zero background—the concrete and lead shield plus an active veto must keep muon-induced neutral secondaries and soft cavern noise so rare that nothing mimics an LLP decay over the experiment's lifetime; this is simulated in Section III D but not yet measured, and Section VII A lists demonstrating it as the first goal of the installed CODEX-β demonstrator.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The full CODEX-b detector can be installed in its nominal cavern location with 350 RPC triplet panels—or 250 panels plus scintillator—retaining 50–90% of the baseline vertex-reconstruction efficiency at a cost near €24M instead of €51M.
  • The baseline sensitivity curves of Fig. 9 remain plausible approximate upper limits for the leaner designs, so the projected reach for dark photons, dark Higgs scalars, axion-like particles, and heavy neutral leptons does not materially shrink.
  • If CODEX-β demonstrates zero-background operation and successful LHCb readout integration, the collaboration expects to finalize a Technical Design Report and begin staged construction, with a full install targeted for around 2030.
  • A recirculating eco-gas system would cut the dominant operational cost—the gas itself—by a large factor, with the final eco-mixture expected to be substantially cheaper than today's ECO65.
  • Because CODEX-b events are read out together with LHCb, any discovered LLP decay would come with matched vertex and flavor information from the main detector, aiding the interpretation of a signal.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The geometry-optimization approach—searching exponentially many layouts in linear time—should transfer to other proposed large-volume LLP detectors whose costs are dominated by hermetic tracking coverage, not just to CODEX-b.
  • If the zero-background claim holds, the physics case generalizes beyond the benchmark plots: CODEX-b would probe any LLP model decaying to two charged tracks with masses near 0.1–10 GeV and $c\tau$ from meters to hundreds of meters, a region where the main LHC experiments are trigger- and background-limited.
  • The CODEX-β plan to reconstruct $K^0_S$ decay vertices and extract the $K^0_S$ lifetime and boost distribution could turn a background-calibration measurement into a standalone physics result and a cross-check of the same quantities measured at the interaction point.
  • Because installation can proceed during LHC operation, a partially instrumented CODEX-b could start taking useful data—especially for shorter-lived LLPs—before the full cubic volume is complete, yielding physics return during construction.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This ESPP contribution from the CODEX-b collaboration summarizes the scientific case, simulation tools, detector design options, costs, timeline, and the status of the CODEX-β demonstrator for the proposed CODEX-b long-lived particle detector at LHCb. The central claim is that a full 10×10×10 m^3 detector can be realized in the nominal UXA cavern location using ATLAS Phase-II RPC modules in non-hermetic optimized configurations (scenarios 1–3) with 350–500 modules instead of the 800-module baseline, with vertex reconstruction efficiencies of 50–90% relative to the baseline and thus "performance comparable" to the original proposal, at substantially lower cost. The sensitivity projections (Fig. 9) are reproduced from the collaboration's earlier proposal and assume 100% vertex reconstruction efficiency and a zero-background environment, with background suppression to be provided by 3 m of concrete plus 4.5 m of lead and an active veto. The paper reports that CODEX-β is installed at IP8 and will be used to validate background rates, RPC performance, and LHCb readout integration.

Significance. If the central feasibility claim holds—in particular, once the zero-background environment is demonstrated and the optimized geometries achieve the quoted vertex reconstruction efficiencies—the paper makes a strong, cost-effective case for a transverse LLP detector complementary to the ATLAS/CMS/LHCb and forward programs. The manuscript's strengths are its transparency: it explicitly states the 100% vertex-efficiency assumption, quantifies the impact of realistic 40–90% efficiencies, lists the conservative assumptions in the background simulation, and provides a testable prediction (Table V) for CODEX-β. The construction cost and FTE estimates are grounded in the built CODEX-β demonstrator and are itemized with a stated contingency. The deterministic optimization framework of ref. [50] is a substantive methodological asset, although no code is bundled with this document. The main caveat is that the physics reach shown in Fig. 9 is an upper limit pending validation of the zero-background assumption; with that caveat stated, the document is a useful ESPP input rather than a claim of demonstrated sensitivity.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV A, Table I] The central claim that "a full detector may be realized ... with performance comparable to the original baseline proposal" is not fully supported by the numbers in Table I. The text states that "the studied configurations can achieve 50–90% relative vertex reconstruction efficiency," but Table I shows scenario 2 with relative efficiencies of 0.33(5) at m_S = 2.5 GeV and 0.22(4) at m_S = 4.0 GeV for the b→sS benchmark, and scenario 3 with 0.42(6) at 4.0 GeV. Because the baseline curves in Fig. 9 assume 100% vertex reconstruction efficiency, a relative efficiency of 0.22 corresponds to an absolute efficiency of only about 10–20% for realistic baseline efficiencies of 40–90%, which is not a small shift in the logarithmic sensitivity plots. The authors should either restrict the comparability claim to the benchmarks and scenarios that actually meet the 50–90% range, or quantify the effect of the lower efficiencies on the Fig. 9 curves.
  2. [Section III D; Fig. 9; Section VII A] The zero-background premise that underlies the Fig. 9 sensitivity curves is not yet validated. Section III D states that a full simulation including LHCb, cavern infrastructure, and machine-induced background "is being developed," and Section VII A lists "demonstrating that CODEX-b can be operated as a zero-background experiment" as an uncompleted goal of CODEX-β. Section IV A itself calls the baseline curves "plausible approximate upper limits," but Fig. 9 is presented as the reach without this caveat; moreover, Section VIII's statement that "most of the fundamental assertions from its 2017 proposal" have been confirmed is in tension with the unvalidated zero-background assertion. The authors should attach the upper-limit caveat to every appearance of Fig. 9, and should state explicitly what would change in the full-detector design if CODEX-β measures a non-zero background at a rate comparable to the Table V prediction rather than zero.
  3. [Section III D] The treatment of neutral secondaries produced by muons stopping in the shield—the channel identified as the most dangerous background—rests on a single-layer active veto that does not use tracking information, together with simulation assumptions (100% detector response to neutral secondary decays, no angular exploitation, and no inclusion of non-zero angles of incidence) that have not been checked against data. Table V provides a quantitative, testable anchor: (9.34 ± 2.10) × 10^4 four-or-more-track neutral events are predicted in the CODEX-β volume for Run 3 at 15 fb^-1 with only the concrete wall. The paper should identify this as the key validation milestone and specify what design changes would be required (e.g., segmented/directional vetoes or additional internal shielding) if the CODEX-β data exceed this prediction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II A; Appendix C] The main text refers repeatedly to "top left plot of fig. 9" and "bottom row of fig. 9," but Fig. 9 appears only in Appendix C; the cross-references should be adjusted or the figure should be moved into the main body.
  2. [Section VI] The gas mixture is spelled "ECO65" in most places but "EC065" in Section VI; the spelling should be made consistent.
  3. [Table I] The caption says the efficiencies are "cτ-averaged," but the averaging range and weighting are not specified; please state the lifetime range used.
  4. [Appendix B, Table VI] Table VI lists columns "baseline scenario 1 scenario 2," while the main text defines scenarios 1–3; the mapping should be clarified or the table columns renamed to match the main text.
  5. [Section III C] The simulation requirements (600 MeV minimum track momentum, 2 cm hit separation, 10 cm vertex resolution) are stated only after they are used in the optimization discussion; moving them to the start of the simulation description would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an ESPP summary whose sensitivity curves and feasibility claims rest on independent simulations and benchmarks, not on definitions or fitted inputs.

full rationale

The document is an ESPP update and summary rather than a new derivation. Its physics-reach curves (Fig. 9) are explicitly reproduced from the collaboration's own Expression of Interest, ref. [5], with updated exclusion limits from external experiments [2,13-15]; this is ordinary self-citation of an independently computed simulation study, not a reduction of the conclusion to its own input. The central feasibility claim, that non-hermetic scenarios 1-3 achieve 50-90% relative vertex reconstruction efficiency with fewer RPC panels, is based on the simulation and optimization framework of ref. [50] and on Table I, which states finite-statistics uncertainties and is compared against the baseline design of ref. [4] as an external benchmark. No parameter is fitted to the claimed output and then renamed as a prediction. The 'zero background environment' premise is presented as a design assumption supported by Geant4 shielding studies and by the 2018 measurement campaign, and Section VII.A explicitly lists 'demonstrating that CODEX-b can be operated as a zero-background experiment' as an uncompleted CODEX-beta goal; this is a falsifiable, testable prediction rather than a circular definition. The paper also admits that a full LHCb/cavern/MIB simulation is still being developed, which is a limitation but not circularity. The self-citations to refs. [4,5,50,52] are numerous, but none of them is used to forbid alternatives or to make a conclusion true by construction. Accordingly, no circular step meeting the evidentiary standard of quoting a specific reduction is present.

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

The paper's claims rest on three families of assumptions: (1) benchmark BSM models represent the LLP landscape; (2) the Geant4-based background simulation, with its stated conservative simplifications, captures the true cavern background; (3) cost and schedule scale linearly from the CODEX-β demonstrator. None of these are fitted; they are inherited from prior work or presented as planning assumptions.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The benchmark simplified models (dark photon, dark Higgs, ALP, HNL) adequately represent the phenomenology of BSM LLP theories.
    Section II A defines the physics case through these models; the sensitivity projections in Fig. 9 inherit their production and decay conventions from ref. [5].
  • domain assumption Geant4-based simulations with the stated conservative assumptions accurately predict background fluxes and secondary production in the cavern.
    Section III D; the zero-background design claim depends on the simulated suppression of primary hadrons and muon-induced secondaries by the shield and veto.
  • domain assumption Scaling of cost and personnel time from the CODEX-β demonstrator to the full detector is linear for modules, gas, and support structures.
    Sections V and VI; tables II and III scale from CODEX-β with a 20% contingency.
  • domain assumption RPC modules (ATLAS phase-II design) will perform in the CODEX-b configuration as they do in ATLAS, with the firmware and trigger integration completed.
    Sections III A and IV B; the tracking performance and vertex efficiency estimates rely on this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CODEX-b: Opening New Windows to the Long-Lived Particle Frontier at the LHC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NQZYU627

@misc{pith2026250505952,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CODEX-b: Opening New Windows to the Long-Lived Particle Frontier at the LHC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NQZYU627}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05952}
}
abstract

This document is written as a contribution to the European Strategy of Particle Physics (ESPP) update. We offer a detailed overview of current developments and future directions for the CODEX-b detector, which aims to detect long-lived particles beyond the Standard Model. We summarize the scientific motivation for this detector, advances in our suite of simulation and detector optimization frameworks, and examine expected challenges, costs, and timelines in realizing the full detector. Additionally, we describe the technical specifications for the smaller-scale demonstrator detector (CODEX-$\beta$) we have installed in the LHCb experimental cavern.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05952 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (top right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: (top) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [50]

    Geometry Optimization for Long-lived Particle Detectors

    T. Gorordo, S. Knapen, B. Nachman, D. J. Robinson and A. Suresh, Geometry optimization for long-lived particle detectors, JINST 18 (2023) P09012, [ 2211.08450]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Alimena et al., Searching for long-lived particles beyond the Standard Model at the Large Hadron Collider , J

    J. Alimena et al., Searching for long-lived particles beyond the Standard Model at the Large Hadron Collider , J. Phys. G 47 (2020) 090501, [ 1903.04497]

    arXiv 2020

  3. [2]

    CMS collaboration, A. Tumasyan et al., Search for long-lived particles decaying into muon pairs in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV collected with a dedicated high-rate data stream , JHEP 04 (2022) 062, [ 2112.13769]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  4. [3]

    Search for long-lived particles decaying in the CMS endcap muon detectors in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV

    CMS collaboration, A. Tumasyan et al., Search for Long-Lived Particles Decaying in the CMS End Cap Muon Detectors in Proton-Proton Collisions at √s =13 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) 261804, [ 2107.04838]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  5. [4]

    V. V. Gligorov, S. Knapen, M. Papucci and D. J. Robinson, Searching for Long-lived Particles: A Compact Detector for Exotics at LHCb , Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 015023, [ 1708.09395]

    arXiv 2018

  6. [5]

    Aielli et al., Expression of interest for the CODEX-b detector , Eur

    G. Aielli et al., Expression of interest for the CODEX-b detector , Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 1177, [ 1911.00481]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [6]

    B. Dey, J. Lee, V. Coco and C.-S. Moon, Background studies for the CODEX-b experiment: measurements and simulation, 1912.03846

    work page Pith review arXiv 1912

  8. [7]

    Beacham et al., Physics Beyond Colliders at CERN: Beyond the Standard Model Working Group Report , J

    J. Beacham et al., Physics Beyond Colliders at CERN: Beyond the Standard Model Working Group Report , J. Phys. G 47 (2020) 010501, [ 1901.09966]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 62 references
  1. [8]

    R. M. Schabinger and J. D. Wells, A Minimal spontaneously broken hidden sector and its impact on Higgs boson physics at the large hadron collider , Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 093007, [ hep-ph/0509209]

    2005 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Gopalakrishna, S

    S. Gopalakrishna, S. Jung and J. D. Wells, Higgs boson decays to four fermions through an abelian hidden sector , Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) 055002, [ 0801.3456]

    2008 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Curtin, R

    D. Curtin, R. Essig, S. Gori and J. Shelton, Illuminating Dark Photons with High-Energy Colliders , JHEP 02 (2015) 157, [1412.0018]

    2015 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Aaij et al., Search for long-lived scalar particles in B+ →K +χ(µ+µ−) decays, Phys

    LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Search for long-lived scalar particles in B+ →K +χ(µ+µ−) decays, Phys. Rev. D95 (2017) 071101, [ 1612.07818]

    2017 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Aaij et al., Search for hidden-sector bosons in B0 →K∗0µ+µ− decays, Phys

    LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Search for hidden-sector bosons in B0 →K∗0µ+µ− decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 161802, [ 1508.04094]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Hayrapetyan et al., Search for long-lived particles decaying in the CMS muon detectors in proton-proton collisions at s=13 TeV , Phys

    CMS collaboration, A. Hayrapetyan et al., Search for long-lived particles decaying in the CMS muon detectors in proton-proton collisions at s=13 TeV , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 032007, [ 2402.01898]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Hayrapetyan et al., Search for long-lived particles decaying to final states with a pair of muons in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13.6 TeV, JHEP 05 (2024) 047, [ 2402.14491]

    CMS collaboration, A. Hayrapetyan et al., Search for long-lived particles decaying to final states with a pair of muons in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13.6 TeV, JHEP 05 (2024) 047, [ 2402.14491]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [15]

    F ASERcollaboration, R. Mammen Abraham et al., Shining light on the dark sector: search for axion-like particles and other new physics in photonic final states with FASER , JHEP 01 (2025) 199, [ 2410.10363]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Dercks, J

    D. Dercks, J. De Vries, H. K. Dreiner and Z. S. Wang, R-parity Violation and Light Neutralinos at CODEX-b, FASER, and MATHUSLA, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) 055039, [ 1810.03617]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [17]

    J. C. Helo, M. Hirsch and Z. S. Wang, Heavy neutral fermions at the high-luminosity LHC , JHEP 07 (2018) 056, [1803.02212]. 12

    2018 arXiv

  11. [18]

    P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan and S. Rajendran, Cosmological Relaxation of the Electroweak Scale , Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 221801, [ 1504.07551]

    2015 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Flacke, C

    T. Flacke, C. Frugiuele, E. Fuchs, R. S. Gupta and G. Perez, Phenomenology of relaxion-Higgs mixing , JHEP 06 (2017) 050, [1610.02025]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Choi and S

    K. Choi and S. H. Im, Constraints on Relaxion Windows , JHEP 12 (2016) 093, [ 1610.00680]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Craig, S

    N. Craig, S. Knapen and P. Longhi, Neutral Naturalness from Orbifold Higgs Models , Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 061803, [1410.6808]

    2015 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Craig, A

    N. Craig, A. Katz, M. Strassler and R. Sundrum, Naturalness in the Dark at the LHC , JHEP 07 (2015) 105, [1501.05310]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Chacko, H.-S

    Z. Chacko, H.-S. Goh and R. Harnik, The Twin Higgs: Natural electroweak breaking from mirror symmetry , Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 231802, [ hep-ph/0506256]

    2006 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Chacko, H.-S

    Z. Chacko, H.-S. Goh and R. Harnik, A Twin Higgs model from left-right symmetry , JHEP 01 (2006) 108, [hep-ph/0512088]

    2006 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Craig, S

    N. Craig, S. Knapen, P. Longhi and M. Strassler, The Vector-like Twin Higgs , JHEP 07 (2016) 002, [ 1601.07181]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Tucker-Smith and N

    D. Tucker-Smith and N. Weiner, Inelastic dark matter , Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 043502, [ hep-ph/0101138]

    2001 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Izaguirre, G

    E. Izaguirre, G. Krnjaic and B. Shuve, Discovering Inelastic Thermal-Relic Dark Matter at Colliders , Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 063523, [ 1508.03050]

    2016 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Berlin and F

    A. Berlin and F. Kling, Inelastic Dark Matter at the LHC Lifetime Frontier: ATLAS, CMS, LHCb, CODEX-b, FASER, and MATHUSLA, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) 015021, [ 1810.01879]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [29]

    R. T. D’Agnolo, C. Mondino, J. T. Ruderman and P.-J. Wang, Exponentially Light Dark Matter from Coannihilation , JHEP 08 (2018) 079, [ 1803.02901]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [30]

    D. E. Kaplan, M. A. Luty and K. M. Zurek, Asymmetric Dark Matter , Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 115016, [ 0901.4117]

    2009 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Kim and K

    I.-W. Kim and K. M. Zurek, Flavor and Collider Signatures of Asymmetric Dark Matter , Phys. Rev. D89 (2014) 035008, [1310.2617]

    2014 arXiv

  25. [32]

    K. M. Zurek, Asymmetric Dark Matter: Theories, Signatures, and Constraints , Phys. Rept. 537 (2014) 91–121, [1308.0338]

    2014 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Hochberg, E

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, T. Volansky and J. G. Wacker, Mechanism for Thermal Relic Dark Matter of Strongly Interacting Massive Particles , Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 171301, [ 1402.5143]

    2014 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Hochberg, E

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, H. Murayama, T. Volansky and J. G. Wacker, Model for Thermal Relic Dark Matter of Strongly Interacting Massive Particles , Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 021301, [ 1411.3727]

    2015 arXiv

  28. [35]

    S.-M. Choi, Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, H. M. Lee, Y. Mambrini, H. Murayama et al., Vector SIMP dark matter , JHEP 10 (2017) 162, [ 1707.01434]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [36]

    S.-M. Choi, H. M. Lee, P. Ko and A. Natale, Resolving phenomenological problems with strongly-interacting-massive-particle models with dark vector resonances , Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 015034, [ 1801.07726]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [37]

    L. J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell and S. M. West, Freeze-In Production of FIMP Dark Matter , JHEP 03 (2010) 080, [0911.1120]

    2010 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Cui and R

    Y. Cui and R. Sundrum, Baryogenesis for weakly interacting massive particles , Phys. Rev. D87 (2013) 116013, [1212.2973]

    2013 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Cui and B

    Y. Cui and B. Shuve, Probing Baryogenesis with Displaced Vertices at the LHC , JHEP 02 (2015) 049, [ 1409.6729]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [40]

    McKeen and A

    D. McKeen and A. E. Nelson, CP Violating Baryon Oscillations , Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 076002, [ 1512.05359]

    2016 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Aitken, D

    K. Aitken, D. McKeen, T. Neder and A. E. Nelson, Baryogenesis from Oscillations of Charmed or Beautiful Baryons , Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 075009, [ 1708.01259]

    2017 arXiv

  35. [42]

    R. N. Mohapatra and J. W. F. Valle, Neutrino Mass and Baryon Number Nonconservation in Superstring Models , Phys. Rev. D34 (1986) 1642

    1986

  36. [43]

    Asaka, S

    T. Asaka, S. Blanchet and M. Shaposhnikov, The nuMSM, dark matter and neutrino masses , Phys. Lett. B 631 (2005) 151–156, [hep-ph/0503065]

    2005 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Asaka and M

    T. Asaka and M. Shaposhnikov, The νMSM, dark matter and baryon asymmetry of the universe , Phys. Lett. B 620 (2005) 17–26, [ hep-ph/0505013]

    2005 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Batell, T

    B. Batell, T. Han, D. McKeen and B. Shams Es Haghi, Thermal Dark Matter Through the Dirac Neutrino Portal , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 075016, [ 1709.07001]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Greljo, D

    A. Greljo, D. J. Robinson, B. Shakya and J. Zupan, R(D(∗)) fromW′ and right-handed neutrinos , JHEP 09 (2018) 169, [1804.04642]

    2018 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Asadi, M

    P. Asadi, M. R. Buckley and D. Shih, It’s all right(-handed neutrinos): a new W′ model for the R(D(∗)) anomaly, JHEP 09 (2018) 010, [ 1804.04135]

    2018 arXiv

  41. [48]

    D. J. Robinson, B. Shakya and J. Zupan, Right-handed neutrinos and R(D(∗)), JHEP 02 (2019) 119, [ 1807.04753]

    2019 arXiv

  42. [49]

    ATLAS collaboration, Technical Design Report for the Phase-II Upgrade of the ATLAS Muon Spectrometer , Tech. Rep. CERN-LHCC-2017-017. ATLAS-TDR-026, CERN, Geneva, Sep, 2017

    2017

  43. [51]

    Agostinelli et al., GEANT4: A Simulation toolkit , Nucl

    GEANT4 collaboration, S. Agostinelli et al., GEANT4: A Simulation toolkit , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506 (2003) 250–303

    2003

  44. [52]

    Aielli et al., Technical design report for the CODEX-β demonstrator, 2406.12880

    CODEX-b collaboration, G. Aielli et al., Technical design report for the CODEX-β demonstrator, 2406.12880

  45. [53]

    Proto, Study of environment friendly gas mixtures for the Resistive Plate Chambers of 13 the ATLAS phase-2 upgrade , Nucl

    ATLAS Muon collaboration, G. Proto, Study of environment friendly gas mixtures for the Resistive Plate Chambers of 13 the ATLAS phase-2 upgrade , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1070 (2025) 170014, [ 2503.05615]

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    K. C. Akiba et al., The HeRSCheL detector: high-rapidity shower counters for LHCb , JINST 13 (2018) P04017, [1801.04281]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Massa, The BIS78 Resistive Plate Chambers upgrade of the ATLAS Muon Spectrometer for the LHC Run-3 , JINST 15 (2020) C10026, [ 2004.12693]

    ATLAS Muon collaboration, L. Massa, The BIS78 Resistive Plate Chambers upgrade of the ATLAS Muon Spectrometer for the LHC Run-3 , JINST 15 (2020) C10026, [ 2004.12693]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Aielli et al., The Road Ahead for CODEX-b , 2203.07316

    G. Aielli et al., The Road Ahead for CODEX-b , 2203.07316. 14 Appendix A: CODEX-b Main documents The following are the main documents the CODEX-b collaboration has published. paper description V. V. Gligorov, S. Knapen, M. Papucci and D. J. Robinson, Searching for Long-lived P...

    2018 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Lessons from CODEX-β can be recycled, although a team of 2 experts should work 1.5 FTE/y

    Integration with LHCb: since we plan to use the LHCb triggers, we need to integrate CODEX-b with LHCb. Lessons from CODEX-β can be recycled, although a team of 2 experts should work 1.5 FTE/y. This task requires 3 FTE/y

  50. [58]

    This task will need a team of 3 experts working 2 FTE/y, for a total of 6 FTE/y

    CODEX-b ECS and DAQ : together with the integration in LHCb, we need to develop our data acquisition and experiment control system, to process data from the RPC readout, ensure synchronicity with the LHC and LHCb, and control the experiment. This task will need a team of 3 exp...

  51. [59]

    This will take a team of 3 people, at least 1 post-doc, working 0.5 years on the generation and 1.5 years on the simulation

    Simulation: A full simulation package should be developed, with Pythia/MadGraph generators and a complete Geant4 detector and shielding simulation. This will take a team of 3 people, at least 1 post-doc, working 0.5 years on the generation and 1.5 years on the simulation. Also...

  52. [60]

    Digitization: this task should be straightforward and will require 1 person working 0.5 FTE/y

  53. [61]

    Reconstruction: this task can be recycled from the work with CODEX- β, and will require 3 people working 0.5 FTE/y, totaling 1.5 FTE/y

  54. [62]

    This leads to the summary of table VI

    Data analysis: dedicated data analysis tools and automated DQM can be recycled from CODEX- β, and will require 2 people working 0.5 FTE/y, totaling 1 FTE/y. This leads to the summary of table VI. T ABLE VI: Personnel time estimate for CODEX-b software development and integrati...

Pith tools

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