Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Neutrinos from Stored Muons (nuSTORM)

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 nuSTORM's stored-muon ring would produce a neutrino beam with calculable spectra and flux known to 1%, supporting percent-level cross-section and BSM measurements.

desk verdict A credible and honest strategy paper making the nuSTORM physics case, but every quantitative projection rests on an asserted 1% flux uncertainty that is not derived; worth serious refereeing with that assumption as the key pressure point. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06137 v2 pith:UVZHIVAI submitted 2025-05-09 hep-ex nucl-exphysics.acc-ph

L. Alvarez Ruso , W. Chang , J. Franklin , P.R. Hobson , P.B. Jurj , R. Kamath , P. Kyberd , X. Lu
show 5 more authors
K. Long D. Pasari S. Ricciardi J. Turner A. Vogiatzi (on behalf of the nuSTORM collaboration)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-exnucl-exphysics.acc-ph
keywords nuSTORMstoredmuonneutrinobeamneutrino-nucleusscatteringsterileneutrinoschargedleptonflavourviolationlargeextradimensionssyntheticcolliderR&D
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 a facility storing muons of 1 to 6 GeV/c momentum in a storage ring would produce beams of $\nu_e$ and $\nu_\mu$ whose flavour content and energy spectra are known from decay kinematics, with the flux pinned by ring instrumentation to 1 percent or better. That precision would let physicists measure neutrino-nucleus cross-sections, especially the $\nu_e$ and $\bar{\nu}_e$ channels that today's hadron-beam experiments cannot isolate, at the percent level. Because DUNE and Hyper-K's CP-violation sensitivity is currently limited by electron-neutrino cross-section uncertainty, these measurements would break the flux-cross-section degeneracy in their near detectors. The same beam would also extend sterile-neutrino, large-extra-dimension, charged-lepton-flavour-violation, and neutrino-trident searches. If the 1 percent flux precision is real, the facility would materially shrink the leading systematics of the next long-baseline programme.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the muon storage ring itself: a roughly 616 m racetrack lattice using Fixed Field Alternating gradient (FFA) magnets that stores muon beams of 1 to 6 GeV/c with $\pm16\%$ momentum acceptance. From the stored muon beam, the neutrino flux is the known Michel decay of the muon, so the flavour composition is fixed (one electron-flavour and one muon-flavour neutrino per decay, with no opposite-charge contamination) and the spectrum is calculable from the beam optics. Storage-ring instrumentation measures the circulating muon current, which determines the integrated flux to $\lesssim 1\%$. A second component is the synthetic-beam technique: combining fluxes from several stored-muon momenta with weights chosen by a $\chi^2$ figure of merit produces quasi-monoenergetic beams (65% narrower FWHM) or arbitrary target spectra, a stored-muon analogue of off-axis PRISM. The detector suite, for example a magnetised liquid-argon TPC or a high-pressure gas TPC, provides charge identification and low tracking thresholds.

What would settle it

An end-to-end simulation of the storage-ring instrumentation, tracking the stored muon beam through the ring, folding in momentum acceptance, and reconstructing the neutrino flux from measured muon trajectories, would either confirm the $\lesssim 1\%$ flux normalisation or return a larger number; a cheaper check would compare the predicted $\nu_e/\nu_\mu$ ratio and energy spectrum against a well-known process such as inverse $\beta$ decay on a proton target and see whether deviations exceed 1%.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that nuSTORM can deliver a definitive neutrino-nucleus scattering programme because its beam is generated by the decay of muons circulating in a storage ring. Unlike hadron-decay beams, the electron-neutrino component is not a poorly understood background; for a stored $\mu^+$ beam, every neutrino is either $\nu_e$ or $\bar{\nu}_\mu$, with no $\bar{\nu}_e$ contamination. The neutrino-energy spectrum follows from the muon decay (Michel) spectrum and the ring optics, so it can be calculated rather than inferred, and the integrated flux can be measured to $\lesssim 1\%$ by instrumenting the storage ring. The paper argues this is enough to measure $\nu_e$A and $\nu_\mu$A cross-sections with percent-level precision, to probe nuclear dynamics through energy scans and synthetic beams, and to improve sensitivity to sterile neutrinos (notably $\bar{\nu}_\mu$ disappearance at $\Delta m^2_{41}\gtrsim 0.3$ eV$^2$), large extra dimensions, charged-lepton flavour violation in $\pi^+\to\mu^+\nu_e$, and neutrino trident production.

Load-bearing premise

Every quantitative physics claim rests on the assumed 1 percent systematic uncertainty on the neutrino flux, a number the paper states but does not derive from a detector simulation, instrument design, or demonstrated calibration.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Electron-neutrino and antineutrino cross-sections on argon and other nuclei would be measured at percent level over the 0.6-2.4 GeV range relevant to Hyper-K and DUNE, removing the main missing input for CP-violation analyses.
  • Hyper-K's $\nu_e/\bar{\nu}_e$ cross-section-ratio uncertainty could fall from 4.9% to 2.7%, which the paper cites as worth about 1$\sigma$ of CP-violation sensitivity or halving the run time to reach a 5$\sigma$ discovery.
  • The sterile-neutrino search would set the strongest disappearance limits in the $\bar{\nu}_\mu$ channel for $\Delta m^2_{41}\gtrsim 0.3$ eV$^2$ and in the $\nu_e$ channel for $\Delta m^2_{41}\sim 2$ to 6 eV$^2$.
  • The $\pi^+\to\mu^+\nu_e$ charged-lepton-flavour-violation limit would improve by roughly an order of magnitude over the current BEBC bound, to $7.1\times10^{-4}$.
  • As a technology test bed, the facility would demonstrate FFA storage rings and high-power stored muon beams, retiring the main accelerator risk for a future muon collider.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 1% flux claim is realized, the same instrumentation concept could be reused in any future muon-storage-ring neutrino facility, so the paper's contribution extends beyond nuSTORM itself.
  • The synthetic-beam method is testable in principle at the proposed facility: combining spectra from a few stored-muon momenta and checking the reconstructed flux against the Michel prediction would validate the method before the full detector programme.
  • One consequence the paper does not develop is that the exactly known $\nu_e/\nu_\mu$ ratio provides a beam diagnostic: deviations would expose ring losses or depolarisation, effectively turning the neutrino detector into an accelerator instrument.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper is a submitted input to the 2026 European Strategy Update on behalf of the nuSTORM collaboration. It describes a proposed facility at CERN in which pions from an SPS fast-extracted beam are captured, injected into a low-energy racetrack storage ring, and decay to produce equal fluxes of νe and νμ (or the corresponding antineutrinos) with precisely calculable spectra and no charge-conjugate contamination. The paper claims that storage-ring instrumentation will determine the integrated neutrino flux to 1% or better, and builds the scientific case on this claim: percent-level neutrino-nucleus cross-section measurements relevant to DUNE and Hyper-K (including a neutrino beam energy scan and synthetic beams), sensitivities to light sterile neutrinos and large extra dimensions via disappearance, a search for π+→μ+νe charged-lepton flavour violation, neutrino trident measurements, and a muon-collider technology test bed. Quantitative projections are obtained from simplified χ² calculations using uniform baselines of 50–250 m, an assumed 1% systematic uncertainty, NuSIM spectra, and event counts from the literature.

Significance. If the quoted flux precision and beam purity are achieved, nuSTORM would fill a genuine gap: direct GeV-scale νe cross-section data that could materially reduce the dominant systematic uncertainties in DUNE and Hyper-K oscillation analyses, and a clean environment for short-baseline disappearance searches. The paper's accelerator-side claims are anchored in existing engineering studies (the CERN PBC report, FLUKA horn simulations, BDSIM tracking, and a published lattice design), and the paper is explicit that detector and analysis concepts are still under development. The main fragility is that every numerical physics result in the paper inherits the assumed 1% systematic, which is nowhere derived; the sensitivity contours and table entries should therefore be read as target sensitivities rather than validated projections. The paper also correctly identifies the muon-cooling and FFA R&D value of the facility.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2 and §3.2] The central quantitative premise of the paper is asserted rather than derived: §2 says that 'appropriate instrumentation ... will be capable of determining the integrated neutrino flux with a precision of <~ 1%', and Fig. 6 normalizes NuSIM fluxes 'to protons on target', but no error budget connects the beam-current monitors, momentum acceptance and spread, angular divergence, decay-point distribution, POT accounting, or detector solid angle to the quoted 1%. This number is then used as the systematic input in Eqs. (2)–(4), in the captions of Figs. 3 and 4, and in Table 1 ('nuSTORM(1%)'). Because all projected sensitivities scale with this input, the paper should either derive it from an instrumented design or state the projections as a function of the assumed systematic.
  2. [§1.2, Fig. 4] The sterile-neutrino and LED disappearance analyses compare a spectral prediction to an assumed 1% systematic uncertainty, but disappearance searches are sensitive to spectral shape and energy-scale systematics, not only an overall normalization. The paper does not include energy-scale miscalibration, flux-shape uncertainties, or reconstruction-efficiency terms in the χ² calculation; a realistic treatment of these terms is necessary before the claimed improvements over SBN and reactor constraints can be assessed.
  3. [§1.2, Eq. (4), Table 1] The cLFV sensitivity uses a single systematic σνe on the intrinsic νe background, but the label 'nuSTORM(1%)' is not backed by a derivation of this quantity, and the statistics-only limit of 4.7×10⁻⁵ in Table 1 shows how strongly the quoted bound depends on the assumed systematic. The analysis also appears to use a single detector configuration with no explicit background or acceptance model, so the factor-of-11 improvement over BEBC is not yet established.
  4. [§1.2, sterile-neutrino analysis] Modelling neutrino production by 'uniformly sampling baselines in the range 50 m ≤ L ≤ 250 m' ignores the actual decay-point distribution along the production straight and the detector acceptance as a function of position; both affect the L/E distribution and therefore the oscillation probability. The projected contours should be recomputed with the NuSIM/BDSIM-based decay distribution and a detector response model before being compared with published experimental contours.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical and grammatical slips, including 'the the DUNE and Hyper-K collaborations', 'Prepared on on behalf', 'the the transition towards the deep-inelastic region', and 'will also benefit form precise measurements'; these should be corrected in a revised version.
  2. [§1.1, Eq. (1)] The figure-of-merit weighting parameters A and B are introduced but their chosen values, the target function f(Eν), and the resulting synthetic-beam FWHM are not specified; please provide the values used and an estimate of the sensitivity of the synthetic-beam width to these choices.
  3. [Fig. 2] The statement that the synthetic beam has a 65% narrower FWHM than the natural muon decay spectrum lacks a definition of the reference spectrum and the FWHM extraction procedure; a precise definition would improve reproducibility.
  4. [References] Some references lack standard bibliographic details, for example [8] is cited only via an arXiv URL and [53] has no author list; these should be completed for a formal publication version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the 1% systematic is an explicit input, and no prediction is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's quantitative projections (sterile-neutrino and LED exclusion contours, cLFV limits, cross-section precision claims) all explicitly rest on the stated assumption of a 1% systematic uncertainty on the neutrino flux. This number is an input, not a fitted or derived result, and the paper labels it as such: Figures 3 and 4 are captioned 'under the assumption of 1% systematic uncertainty' and Table 1 quotes 'nuSTORM(1%)' alongside 'Statistics only'. The neutrino-energy spectrum is grounded in standard muon-decay kinematics ('calculated precisely using the Michel parameters and the optics of the muon decay ring'), and the BSM analyses use external oscillation formulas (Eq. 2, with refs. [14,15]) and external cross-section calculations (ref. [48]). Self-citations provide simulation tools and prior design studies (NuSIM, ref. [1]; ring lattice, ref. [58]; BSM framework, ref. [11]), but the central argument does not reduce to those citations: the 1% flux capability is asserted as a design goal rather than derived from the projected sensitivities, and no equation in the paper is shown to be equal to its own input by construction. The absence of an error budget justifying the 1% figure is a correctness/readiness concern, not a circularity concern.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The physics case chains several assumptions: SPS performance, FLUKA and BDSIM modeling of pion capture, FFA ring behaviour, detector performance, and a 1 percent systematic ceiling. The only ad hoc numerical input that directly controls the headline projections is the 1 percent uncertainty; the other assumptions are borrowed from prior designs and simulations and are not re-derived here.

free parameters (4)
  • Assumed 1% systematic uncertainty = 1% (all channels)
    Central to all projected sensitivities (Figs. 3 and 4, Table 1) and to the percent-level cross-section claims; no derivation from detector simulation or instrument design is given, so it functions as a chosen precision ceiling.
  • FOM weighting parameters A and B = not specified
    Appear in Eq. (1) to shape synthetic-beam spectra; chosen by hand to balance the target function and not justified by data.
  • Protons on target (POT) = 10^21 POT
    Assumed beam exposure used to scale event yields and sensitivity contours; the accelerator performance needed to reach this value is not demonstrated in this paper.
  • Baseline range and detector distance = 50 m detector; L in [50, 250] m
    Uniform sampling of baselines in the sterile analysis and a fixed 50 m detector for the LED analysis; these geometry choices shape the resulting exclusion contours.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Muon decay neutrino spectra are given by the Michel parameters and the ring optics (Sec. 2).
    Standard weak-decay physics; the precise spectrum follows from known Michel parameters, assuming no exotic muon decay.
  • domain assumption Pion production and capture from a 100 GeV SPS proton beam are modeled correctly by FLUKA and BDSIM (Sec. 3.1.1).
    The facility's beam quality and flux rest on simulations not independently reproduced in this document.
  • domain assumption The storage ring can be built with the specified 1-6 GeV/c momentum range, 16% momentum spread, and 1 mm rad acceptance (Sec. 3.1.2, ref [58]).
    Rests on lattice design papers and ongoing BDSIM development; no end-to-end ring simulation is shown.
  • domain assumption DUNE and Hyper-K style detectors (magnetised LArTPC, HPgTPC, SuperFGD) can be deployed at nuSTORM and achieve the assumed efficiencies and charge identification.
    Detector concepts are borrowed from other experiments; their performance at nuSTORM is not simulated here.
  • ad hoc to paper Systematic uncertainties are 1 percent for the BSM and cross-section projections.
    The headline number is assumed in Figs. 3 and 4 and Table 1; it is not derived. If false, the projections change.
  • domain assumption No hadron-decay background contaminates the stored-muon beam decay region.
    Design feature relies on the beam dump and momentum selection; the paper states this as an advantage but shows no background simulation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutrinos from Stored Muons (nuSTORM)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UVZHIVAI

@misc{pith2026250506137,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutrinos from Stored Muons (nuSTORM)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UVZHIVAI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06137}
}
read the original abstract

The Neutrinos from Stored Muons, nuSTORM, facility has been designed to deliver a definitive neutrino-nucleus scattering programme using beams of ,{\nu}e- and ,{\nu}{\mu}- from the decay of muons confined within a storage ring. The facility is unique, it will be capable of storing {\mu} beams with a central momentum of between 1 GeV/c and 6 GeV/c and a momentum spread of 16%. This specification will allow neutrino-scattering measurements to be made over the kinematic range of interest to the DUNE and Hyper-K collaborations. At nuSTORM, the flavour composition of the beam and the neutrino-energy spectrum are both precisely known. The storage-ring instrumentation will allow the neutrino flux to be determined to a precision of 1% or better. With its existing proton-beam infrastructure, CERN is uniquely well-placed to implement nuSTORM. A summary of the proposed implementation of nuSTORM at CERN is presented below.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06137 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Model predictions of differential cross section in the transverse boosting angle, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Left) The flux from six different nuSTORM muon neutrino settings. (Right) a 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sensitivity to disappearance under the assumption of 1% systematic uncertainty for the normal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sensitivity to disappearance under the assumption of 1% systematic uncertainty. Comparison against [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematic of the nuSTORM storage ring lattice [58]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Neutrino flux distributions for different stored muon momenta. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Neutrino flux distributions for different pion energies (Pi Flash). The muons stored from the decay [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The muon collider: expected physics, technological solutions, and the prospect of a 21 km ring at the UNK site

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A muon collider in the existing 21 km UNK tunnel could reach 10–13 TeV with conventional magnets and 13–21 TeV with HTS dipoles, around or above the IMCC 10 TeV reference.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Neutrinos from stored muons (nustorm),

    L. A. Ruso, T. Alves, S. Boyd, A. Bross, P. R. Hobson, P. Kyberd, J. B. Lagrange, K. Long, X.-G. Lu, J. Pasternak, et al., “Neutrinos from stored muons (nustorm),” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.07545 (2022) , arXiv:2203.07545 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    nuSTORM at CERN: Feasibility Study,

    C. C. Ahdida et al., “nuSTORM at CERN: Feasibility Study,” CERN-PBC-REPORT-2019-003 (10,

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Physics potential of a long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiment using a J-PARC neutrino beam and Hyper-Kamiokande,

    Hyper-Kamiokande Proto- Collaboration, K. Abe et al., “Physics potential of a long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiment using a J-PARC neutrino beam and Hyper-Kamiokande,”PTEP 2015 (2015) 053C02, arXiv:1502.05199 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    Measurement of nuclear effects in neutrino interactions with minimal dependence on neutrino energy,

    X. G. Lu, L. Pickering, S. Dolan, G. Barr, D. Coplowe, Y . Uchida, D. Wark, M. O. Wascko, A. Weber, and T. Yuan, “Measurement of nuclear effects in neutrino interactions with minimal dependence on neutrino energy,” Phys. Rev. C 94 no. 1, (2016) 015503, arXiv:1512.05748 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Transport-theoretical Description of Nuclear Reactions,

    O. Buss, T. Gaitanos, K. Gallmeister, H. van Hees, M. Kaskulov, O. Lalakulich, A. B. Larionov, T. Leitner, J. Weil, and U. Mosel, “Transport-theoretical Description of Nuclear Reactions,”Phys. Rept. 512 (2012) 1–124, arXiv:1106.1344 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    Lepton-induced reactions on nuclei in a wide kinematical regime,

    U. Mosel and K. Gallmeister, “Lepton-induced reactions on nuclei in a wide kinematical regime,” Phys. Rev. D 109 no. 3, (2024) 033008, arXiv:2308.16161 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) Near Detector Conceptual Design Report,

    DUNE Collaboration, V . Heweset al., “Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) Near Detector Conceptual Design Report,” Instruments 5 no. 4, (2021) 31, arXiv:2103.13910 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Letter of Intent to Construct a nuPRISM Detector in the J-PARC Neutrino Beamline,

    S. Bhadra, A. Blondel, S. Bordoni, A. Bravar, C. Bronner, J. Caravaca-Rodriguez, M. Dziewiecki, T. Feusels, G. A. Fiorentini-Aguirre, M. Friend, L. Haegel, M. Hartz, R. Henderson, T. Ishida, M. Ishitsuka, C. K. Jung, A. C. Kaboth, H. Kakuno, H. Kamano, A. Konaka, Y . Kudenko, M. Kuze, T. Lindner, K. Mahn, J. F. Martin, J. Marzec, K. S. McFarland, S. Nakay...

    arXiv

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Simulation and study of the nuSTORM (neutrinos from Stored Muons) experiment,

    R. Kamath, “Simulation and study of the nuSTORM (neutrinos from Stored Muons) experiment,” JACoW IPAC2024(2024) TUAD3

    2024

  2. [10]

    Physics with NOvA: a half-time review,

    P. Shanahan and P. Vahle, “Physics with NOvA: a half-time review,”European Physical Journal: Special Topics 230 no. 24, (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    New physics at nustorm,

    K. Chakraborty, S. Goswami, and K. Long, “New physics at nustorm,” Physical Review D 103 no. 7, (Apr., 2021) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.075009

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    The Hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter,

    N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali, “The Hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter,” Phys. Lett. B 429 (1998) 263–272, arXiv:hep-ph/9803315

    1998 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Phenomenology, astrophysics and cosmology of theories with submillimeter dimensions and TeV scale quantum gravity,

    N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali, “Phenomenology, astrophysics and cosmology of theories with submillimeter dimensions and TeV scale quantum gravity,”Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 086004, arXiv:hep-ph/9807344. 11

    1999 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Baseline and other effects for a sterile neutrino at DUNE,

    J. T. Penedo and J. a. Pulido, “Baseline and other effects for a sterile neutrino at DUNE,” Phys. Rev. D 107 no. 7, (2023) 075026, arXiv:2207.02331 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Sterile Neutrino Oscillations: The Global Picture,

    J. Kopp, P. A. N. Machado, M. Maltoni, and T. Schwetz, “Sterile Neutrino Oscillations: The Global Picture,” JHEP 05 (2013) 050, arXiv:1303.3011 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Search for neutrino oscillations at 15-meters, 40-meters, and 95-meters from a nuclear power reactor at bugey,

    Y . Declaiset al., “Search for neutrino oscillations at 15-meters, 40-meters, and 95-meters from a nuclear power reactor at bugey,”Nucl. Phys. B 434 (1995) 503–534

    1995

  9. [17]

    Study of reactor anti-neutrino interaction with proton at Bugey nuclear power plant,

    Y . Declais, H. de Kerret, B. Lefievre, M. Obolensky, A. Etenko,et al., “Study of reactor anti-neutrino interaction with proton at Bugey nuclear power plant,” Phys.Lett. B338 (1994) 383–389

    1994

  10. [18]

    Neutrino Oscillation Experiments at the Gosgen Nuclear Power Reactor,

    CALTECH-SIN-TUM Collaboration, G. Zacek et al., “Neutrino Oscillation Experiments at the Gosgen Nuclear Power Reactor,” Phys. Rev. D 34 (1986) 2621–2636

    1986

  11. [19]

    Search for neutrino oscillations at a fission reactor,

    H. Kwon, F. Boehm, A. Hahn, H. Henrikson, J. Vuilleumier, et al., “Search for neutrino oscillations at a fission reactor,” Phys.Rev. D24 (1981) 1097–1111

    1981

  12. [20]

    DETECTION OF ANTI-NEUTRINOS IN THE FLUX FROM TWO REACTORS,

    G. Vidyakin, V . Vyrodov, I. Gurevich, Y . Kozlov, V . Martemyanov,et al., “DETECTION OF ANTI-NEUTRINOS IN THE FLUX FROM TWO REACTORS,”Sov.Phys.JETP 66 (1987) 243–247

    1987

  13. [21]

    Results of a two position reactor neutrino oscillation experiment,

    Z. D. Greenwood et al., “Results of a two position reactor neutrino oscillation experiment,” Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 6054–6064

    1996

  14. [22]

    Measuring the anti-electron-neutrino + p -¿ n + e+ cross-section and beta decay axial constant in a new experiment at Rovno NPP reactor. (In Russian),

    A. Kuvshinnikov, L. Mikaelyan, S. Nikolaev, M. Skorokhvatov, and A. Etenko, “Measuring the anti-electron-neutrino + p -¿ n + e+ cross-section and beta decay axial constant in a new experiment at Rovno NPP reactor. (In Russian),”JETP Lett. 54 (1991) 253–257

    1991

  15. [23]

    A Study of the Reaction ¯νe +P→e+ +N on a Nuclear Reactor,

    A. I. Afonin, S. N. Ketov, V . I. Kopeikin, L. A. Mikaelyan, M. D. Skorokhvatov, and S. V . Tolokonnikov, “A Study of the Reaction ¯νe +P→e+ +N on a Nuclear Reactor,” Sov. Phys. JETP 67 (1988) 213–221

    1988

  16. [24]

    Active to sterile neutrino mixing limits from neutral-current interactions in MINOS,

    MINOS Collaboration, P. Adamson et al., “Active to sterile neutrino mixing limits from neutral-current interactions in MINOS,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 011802, arXiv:1104.3922 [hep-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A Search for Muon-neutrino Oscillations in the ∆m2 Range 0.3-eV2 to 90-eV2,

    F. Dydak et al., “A Search for Muon-neutrino Oscillations in the ∆m2 Range 0.3-eV2 to 90-eV2,” Phys. Lett. B 134 (1984) 281

    1984

  18. [26]

    Four-neutrino mass spectra and the Super-Kamiokande atmospheric up-down asymmetry,

    S. M. Bilenky, C. Giunti, W. Grimus, and T. Schwetz, “Four-neutrino mass spectra and the Super-Kamiokande atmospheric up-down asymmetry,” Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 073007, arXiv:9903454 [hep-ph]

    1999

  19. [27]

    Dual baseline search for muon antineutrino disappearance at 0.1eV2< ∆m2< 100eV2,

    MiniBooNE, SciBooNE Collaboration, G. Cheng et al., “Dual baseline search for muon antineutrino disappearance at 0.1eV2< ∆m2< 100eV2,” Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 052009, arXiv:1208.0322 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Muon decay and physics beyond the standard model,

    Y . Kuno and Y . Okada, “Muon decay and physics beyond the standard model,”Rev. Mod. Phys. 73 (2001) 151–202, hep-ph/9909265

    2001 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Charged Lepton Flavor Violation: An Experimenter’s Guide,

    R. H. Bernstein and P. S. Cooper, “Charged Lepton Flavor Violation: An Experimenter’s Guide,” Phys. Rept. 532 (2013) 27–64, arXiv:1307.5787 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  22. [30]

    A call for new physics: The muon anomalous magnetic moment and lepton flavor violation,

    M. Lindner, M. Platscher, and F. S. Queiroz, “A call for new physics: The muon anomalous magnetic moment and lepton flavor violation,”Phys. Rept. 731 (2018) 1–82, arXiv:1610.06587 [hep-ph] . 12

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Charged lepton flavour violation: An experimental and theoretical introduction,

    L. Calibbi and G. Signorelli, “Charged lepton flavour violation: An experimental and theoretical introduction,” Riv. Nuovo Cim. 41 (2018) 71–174, arXiv:1709.00294 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Search for the lepton flavour violating decayµ+→ e+γ with the full dataset of the MEG experiment,

    MEG Collaboration, A. M. Baldini et al., “Search for the lepton flavour violating decayµ+→ e+γ with the full dataset of the MEG experiment,” Eur. Phys. J. C76 no. 8, (2016) 434, arXiv:1605.05081 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    The Mu2e Experiment,

    Mu2e Collaboration, R. H. Bernstein, “The Mu2e Experiment,” Front. in Phys. 7 (2019) 1, arXiv:1901.11099 [physics.ins-det]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Limits on Neutrino - Anti-neutrinos Transitions From a Study of High-energy Neutrino Interactions,

    A. M. Cooper-Sarkar, J. G. Guy, A. G. Michette, M. Tyndel, and W. Venus, “Limits on Neutrino - Anti-neutrinos Transitions From a Study of High-energy Neutrino Interactions,”Phys. Lett. B 112 (1982) 97–99

    1982

  27. [35]

    An Experimental Limit on the Decay K+→µ+νe,

    L. Lyons, C. Albajar, and G. Myatt, “An Experimental Limit on the Decay K+→µ+νe,” Z. Phys. C 10 (1981) 215

    1981

  28. [36]

    Review of Particle Physics,

    Particle Data Group Collaboration, R. L. Workman et al., “Review of Particle Physics,”PTEP 2022 (2022) 083C01

    2022

  29. [37]

    Could SBND-PRISM probe lepton flavor violation?,

    G. F. S. Alves, R. Z. Funchal, and P. A. N. Machado, “Could SBND-PRISM probe lepton flavor violation?,” Phys. Rev. D 110 no. 3, (2024) 035031, arXiv:2405.00777 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Neutrino production of lepton pairs through the point four-fermion interaction,

    W. Czyz, G. C. Sheppey, and J. D. Walecka, “Neutrino production of lepton pairs through the point four-fermion interaction,” Nuovo Cim. 34 (1964) 404–435

    1964

  31. [39]

    Kinematical distributions of neutrino-produced lepton triplets,

    J. Lovseth and M. Radomiski, “Kinematical distributions of neutrino-produced lepton triplets,” Phys. Rev. D 3 (1971) 2686–2706

    1971

  32. [40]

    The self-coupling of weak lepton currents in high-energy neutrino and muon reactions,

    K. Fujikawa, “The self-coupling of weak lepton currents in high-energy neutrino and muon reactions,” Annals Phys. 68 (1971) 102–162

    1971

  33. [41]

    Neutrino production of lepton pairs. 1. -,

    K. Koike, M. Konuma, K. Kurata, and K. Sugano, “Neutrino production of lepton pairs. 1. -,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 46 (1971) 1150–1169

    1971

  34. [42]

    First observation of neutrino trident production,

    CHARM-II Collaboration, D. Geiregat et al., “First observation of neutrino trident production,” Phys. Lett. B 245 (1990) 271–275

    1990

  35. [43]

    Neutrino Tridents and W Z Interference,

    CCFR Collaboration, S. R. Mishra et al., “Neutrino Tridents and W Z Interference,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991) 3117–3120

    1991

  36. [44]

    Neutrino trident production from NuTeV,

    NuTeV Collaboration, T. Adams et al., “Neutrino trident production from NuTeV,” in29th International Conference on High-Energy Physics, pp. 631–634. 7, 1998. arXiv:hep-ex/9811012

    1998 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Intermediate boson. i. theoretical production cross-sections in high-energy neutrino and muon experiments,

    R. W. Brown, “Intermediate boson. i. theoretical production cross-sections in high-energy neutrino and muon experiments,” Phys. Rev. D 3 (1971) 207

    1971

  38. [46]

    Neutrino trident production: A powerful probe of new physics with neutrino beams,

    M. P. W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori and I. Yavin, “Neutrino trident production: A powerful probe of new physics with neutrino beams,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 091801, arXiv:1406.2332

    2014 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Neutrino trident production at the intensity frontier,

    G. Magill and R. Plestid, “Neutrino trident production at the intensity frontier,” Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 073004, arXiv:1612.05642. 13

    2017 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Neutrino Trident Scattering at Near Detectors,

    P. Ballett, M. Hostert, S. Pascoli, Y . F. Perez-Gonzalez, Z. Tabrizi, and R. Zukanovich Funchal, “Neutrino Trident Scattering at Near Detectors,” JHEP 01 (2019) 119, arXiv:1807.10973 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    nuSTORM and A Path to a Muon Collider,

    D. Adey, R. Bayes, A. Bross, and P. Snopok, “nuSTORM and A Path to a Muon Collider,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 65 (2015) 145–175

    2015

  42. [50]

    Towards a muon collider,

    C. Accettura, D. Adams, R. Agarwal, C. Ahdida, C. Aim `e, N. Amapane, D. Amorim, P. Andreetto, F. Anulli, R. Appleby,et al., “Towards a muon collider,”Eur. Phys. J. C83 no. 9, (2023) 864

    2023

  43. [51]

    Interim report for the international muon collider collaboration (imcc),

    C. Accettura, S. Adrian, R. Agarwal, C. Ahdida, C. Aim ´e, A. Aksoy, G. Alberghi, S. Alden, N. Amapane, D. Amorim, et al., “Interim report for the international muon collider collaboration (imcc),” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.12450 (2024) , arXiv:2407.12450 [physics.acc-ph]

    2024

  44. [52]

    Demonstration of cooling by the muon ionization cooling experiment,

    M. Bogomilov, R. Tsenov, G. Vankova-Kirilova, Y . P. Song, J. Y . Tang, Z. H. Li, R. Bertoni, M. Bonesini, F. Chignoli, R. Mazza, V . Palladino, A. de Bari, D. Orestano, L. Tortora, Y . Kuno, H. Sakamoto, A. Sato, S. Ishimoto, M. Chung, C. K. Sung, F. Filthaut, D. Jokovic, D. ...

    2020

  45. [53]

    Transverse emittance reduction in muon beams by ionization cooling,

    “Transverse emittance reduction in muon beams by ionization cooling,” Nat. Phys. 20 (2024) 1558–1563

    2024

  46. [54]

    Overview of the FLUKA code,

    G. Battistoni et al., “Overview of the FLUKA code,” Annals Nucl. Energy 82 (2015) 10–18

    2015

  47. [55]

    New Capabilities of the FLUKA Multi-Purpose Code,

    C. Ahdida et al., “New Capabilities of the FLUKA Multi-Purpose Code,” Front. in Phys. 9 (2022) 788253

    2022

  48. [56]

    Recent BDSIM Related Developments and Modeling of Accelerators,

    L. Nevay et al., “Recent BDSIM Related Developments and Modeling of Accelerators,” JACoW IPAC2021(2021) THPAB214

    2021

  49. [57]

    Simulating Beamline Optics for nuSTORM,

    T. Alves, “Simulating Beamline Optics for nuSTORM,” MSc thesis, Imperial College London (2022) . https://www.nustorm.org/trac/raw-attachment/wiki/Communication/ TechnicalNotes/2022/nuSTORM-TN-01.pdf

    2022

  50. [58]

    Racetrack FFAG muon decay ring for nuSTORM with triplet focusing,

    J.-B. Lagrange, R. Appleby, J. Garland, J. Pasternak, and S. Tygier, “Racetrack FFAG muon decay ring for nuSTORM with triplet focusing,” JINST 13 no. 9, (2018) P09013, arXiv:1806.02172 [physics.acc-ph]. 14

    2018 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Physics and Performance of the Upgraded T2K’s Near Detector,

    A. Blanchet, “Physics and Performance of the Upgraded T2K’s Near Detector,” Phys. At. Nucl. 84 no. 4, (2021) 519–523

    2021

  52. [60]

    Neutrino Physics with an Opaque Detector,

    LiquidO Collaboration, A. Cabrera et al., “Neutrino Physics with an Opaque Detector,” Commun. Phys. 4 (2021) 273, arXiv:1908.02859 [physics.ins-det] . 15

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

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