Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Proposal from the NA61/SHINE Collaboration for update of European Strategy for Particle Physics

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This proposal argues that NA61/SHINE's measured excess of charged over neutral kaon production in central Ar+Sc collisions at 11.9 GeV indicates a genuine violation of isospin symmetry, and lays out a light-ion scan designed to test it.

desk verdict A well-scoped NA61/SHINE strategy proposal; the R_K anomaly is its load-bearing physics case and that case is not yet independently secured. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08602 v1 pith:SGFJFTEX submitted 2025-07-11 nucl-ex hep-ex

NA61/SHINE Collaboration: H. Adhikary , P. Adrich , K.K. Allison , N. Amin , E.V. Andronov , I.-C. Arsene , M. Bajda , Y. Balkova
show 122 more authors
D. Battaglia A. Bazgir S. Bhosale M. Bielewicz A. Blondel M. Bogomilov Y. Bondar W. Brylinski J. Brzychczyk M. Buryakov A.F. Camino Y.D. Chandak M. Csanad J. Cybowska T. Czopowicz C. Dalmazzone N. Davis A. Dmitriev P. von Doetinchem W. Dominik J. Dumarchez R. Engel G.A. Feofilov L. Fields Z. Fodor M. Friend M. Gazdzicki K.E. Gollwitzer O. Golosov V. Golovatyuk M. Golubeva K. Grebieszkow F. Guber P.G. Hurh S. Ilieva A. Ivashkin N. Karpushkin M. Kie{l}bowicz V.A. Kireyeu R. Kolesnikov D. Kolev Y. Koshio S. Kowalski B. Koz{l}owski A. Krasnoperov W. Kucewicz M. Kuchowicz P. Lasko A. Laszlo M. Lewicki G. Lykasov J.R. Lyon V.V. Lyubushkin M. Mackowiak-Paw{l}owska B. Maksiak A.I. Malakhov A. Marcinek A.D. Marino T. Matulewicz V. Matveev G.L. Melkumov A. Merzlaya L. Mik S. Morozov Y. Nagai R. Nagy T. Nakadaira S. Nishimori A. Olivier V. Ozvenchuk O. Panova V. Paolone I. Pidhurskyi R. P{l}aneta P. Podlaski B.A. Popov B. Pórfy D.S. Prokhorova D. Pszczel S. Pu{l}awski L. Ren V.Z. Reyna Ortiz D. Röhrich M. Roth L. Rozp{l}ochowski M. Rumyantsev A. Rustamov M. Rybczynski A. Rybicki D. Rybka K. Sakashita K. Schmidt P. Seyboth U.A. Shah Y. Shiraishi A. Shukla M. S{l}odkowski P. Staszel G. Stefanek J. Stepaniak L. Swiderski J. Szewinski R. Szukiewicz A. Taranenko A. Tefelska D. Tefelski V. Tereshchenko R. Tsenov L. Turko T.S. Tveter M. Unger M. Urbaniak D. Veberic O. Vitiuk A. Wickremasinghe K. Witek K. Wojcik O. Wyszynski A. Zaitsev E. Zherebtsova E.D. Zimmerman A. Zviagina
This is my paper
classification nucl-exhep-ex
keywords NA61/SHINEisospinsymmetrykaonproductionquark-gluonplasmalight-ioncollisionscharm-anticharmcorrelationsneutrinofluxcosmic-raycrosssections
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 is a proposal from the NA61/SHINE collaboration to continue its fixed-target hadron-production program after CERN Long Shutdown 3, and it rests on a single strong physics claim: in the 10% most central Ar+Sc collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 11.9$ GeV, the ratio $R_K = (\langle K^+ \rangle + \langle K^- \rangle)/(2 \langle K^0_S \rangle)$ was measured to be $1.184(61)$, well above the charge-symmetry expectation of 1, with models that include known isospin-breaking effects failing to describe it. If the excess is real, it means isospin (flavor) symmetry is violated in nuclear collisions far beyond the small up-down quark mass effects, an observation no current model explains. To test this, the collaboration proposes a scan of three $N=Z$ light-ion systems, $^{10}$B+$^{10}$B, $^{16}$O+$^{16}$O, and $^{24}$Mg+$^{24}$Mg, at 13, 30, and 150 $A$GeV/c, together with charm-anticharm correlation measurements in Pb+Pb that would probe the locality of heavy-quark pair production. A sympathetic reader would care because the proposal outlines the only currently planned experimental path to confirm or refute a potential breakdown of a fundamental QCD symmetry in nuclear matter.

What carries the argument

The central object is the ratio $R_K = (\langle K^+ \rangle + \langle K^- \rangle)/(2 \langle K^0_S \rangle)$, a charge-symmetric observable that isolates isospin breaking in kaon production; the proposed machinery is a three-by-three scan of $N=Z$ systems ($^{10}$B, $^{16}$O, $^{24}$Mg) at 13, 30, and 150 $A$GeV/c, chosen to span the resonance, string, and quark-gluon plasma regimes. The ratio works because averaging $K^+$ and $K^-$ against $K^0_S$ cancels the dominant flavor-blind production mechanism, so any deviation from 1 directly exposes isospin-noninvariant contributions. The second piece of machinery is the azimuthal-angle difference $\Delta\phi$ distribution of charm-anticharm hadron pairs, which, because the mean pair multiplicity is near one, distinguishes local, independent, and correlated emission from the freeze-out hypersurface.

What would settle it

Measure $R_K$ in one of the proposed $N=Z$ light-ion systems (e.g., $^{10}$B+$^{10}$B at 30 $A$GeV/c) using two independent reconstruction paths for charged and neutral kaons: if the ratio returns to 1 within uncertainties in a system with no proton-neutron asymmetry, the Ar+Sc excess is tied to initial-state isospin imbalance; if every $N=Z$ system also shows $R_K \approx 1.18$, the excess is a common bias in kaon identification or acceptance rather than a symmetry violation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the measured value $R_K = 1.184(61)$ in central Ar+Sc collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 11.9$ GeV is evidence for an unexpected violation of isospin (flavor) symmetry in hadron production, beyond the small effects from $m_u \neq m_d$ that models already include. Charge symmetry in a collision of nuclei with equal proton and neutron numbers requires $\langle K^+ \rangle = \langle K^0 \rangle$ and $\langle K^- \rangle = \langle \bar{K}^0 \rangle$, hence $R_K = 1$; the data give a value systematically larger than one across the SPS energy range, and the compared transmission and statistical models fail to reproduce it. The proposed resolution is to map the violation as a function of system size and energy: three light-ion systems with $N=Z$, at three beam momenta spanning the resonance-dominated, string-dominated, and quark-gluon-plasma-dominated regimes, would locate where the excess appears and how it scales. The related charm program claims that in central Pb+Pb collisions the mean number of $c\bar{c}$ pairs is expected to be about one, making the azimuthal correlation of charm and anticharm hadrons a direct test of whether charm quarks are produced locally and how they move through the medium.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the measured $R_K = 1.184(61)$ excess in Ar+Sc collisions is genuine physics rather than an unaccounted systematic bias in charged-versus-neutral kaon reconstruction, a risk the paper does not exclude because the confirming point at 8.8 GeV comes from the same analysis chain.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the $R_K$ excess is confirmed, the light-ion scan will show whether the isospin violation grows with system size and peaks in the energy region where QGP production begins, giving a first handle on its physical origin.
  • A confirmed charm-anticharm correlation signal in central Pb+Pb would constrain how far charm quarks travel from their production point and how they interact with the collectively flowing medium.
  • The strangeness and multi-strangeness measurements would extend the existing $K^+/\pi^+$ horn data to light systems, testing the onset of deconfinement at SPS energies.
  • The low-energy beamline measurements would reduce atmospheric and accelerator neutrino flux uncertainties by more than a factor of two in the sub-GeV to multi-GeV range.
  • The antiproton and antideuteron cross-section data at 300 GeV/c would settle whether the AMS-02 antideuteron candidates can be explained by known astrophysical backgrounds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the proposed light-ion systems all have equal proton and neutron numbers, they provide a clean control: if $R_K$ is still above 1 there, the violation cannot be blamed on the neutron excess of Ar+Sc and must arise from the collision dynamics itself; if it disappears, the effect is tied to initial-state isospin asymmetry.
  • The planned $c\bar{c}$ correlation measurement depends on the mean pair multiplicity being near one in central Pb+Pb; a direct extension would be to measure the same correlation in Xe+La, where the multiplicity is below one, to check how the signal degrades with pair number.
  • If the low-energy beamline is built, it would enable a direct measurement of pion- and kaon-induced interactions on nitrogen, which would improve atmospheric neutrino flux models more than any current input, and would also feed spallation-neutron source simulations.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript is the NA61/SHINE Collaboration's input to the 2026 update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics. It proposes a Run-4 program of fixed-target measurements at the CERN SPS after Long Shutdown 3, organized around six objectives: light-ion collisions to study the onset of deconfinement and a claimed violation of isospin (flavor) symmetry; charm-anticharm correlation measurements in central Pb+Pb collisions; strangeness and multi-strangeness production; cosmic-ray-relevant cross sections and antinuclei production; hadron production for accelerator neutrino fluxes; and low-energy hadron production for atmospheric neutrinos and spallation sources. The document also describes the required detector and beamline upgrades: a new silicon-based tracking system to increase the data-taking rate to 10 kHz, and a new low-energy branch of the H2 beamline. The central quantitative anchor is the published R_K = 1.184(61) measurement in Ar+Sc collisions at sqrt(s_NN) = 11.9 GeV, which is presented as evidence for isospin symmetry violation beyond known effects; the planned light-ion scan with B, Mg, and O beams is designed to test this anomaly.

Significance. If the R_K anomaly is genuine, it would be a striking observation of flavor-symmetry violation in nuclear collisions, and this proposal would offer a well-designed experimental program to test it. The manuscript also builds on several concrete achievements that strengthen its credibility: the first direct open-charm measurement in nucleus-nucleus collisions at SPS energies [2], peer-reviewed publication of the R_K result [3], high-statistics replica-target data sets for T2K and LBNF/DUNE, and a demonstrated pilot measurement of carbon fragmentation [6]. The neutrino and cosmic-ray components are broadly aligned with community roadmaps and have external support, including the November 2024 letter to CERN management for the low-energy beamline. The charm-correlation physics case is novel and potentially important for understanding charm production locality, but its quantitative projections depend on theory papers by collaboration members and on preliminary, unreferenced Monte Carlo studies. Overall, the proposal is scientifically attractive, but the flagship isospin claim needs stronger quantitative support before it can carry the weight assigned to it.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (1) and Fig. 1] The entire light-ion isospin program rests on the claim that R_K = 1.184(61) in the 10% most central Ar+Sc collisions at sqrt(s_NN) = 11.9 GeV is a genuine isospin-violation signal beyond known effects. The manuscript states that the models in Ref. [3] include Q/B and other known isospin-breaking effects and still fail to describe the data, but it does not show the model predictions or quote the size of the known-effects correction. Since Ar+Sc is not a self-conjugate system (Z=39, N=46 in the summed projectile and target), the baseline R_K = 1 in Eq. (1) is not directly applicable. The argument therefore depends entirely on an unshown model comparison. The proposal should display, for the relevant collisions, the model predictions with their uncertainties, the expected R_K after accounting for the net charge asymmetry, and the residuals of the data relative to those predictions. Without this, a 3.0-sigma excess (0.184/0.061) cannot be assessed as evidence for new physics rather than an under-estimated model correction.
  2. [Sec. 2.1, Ref. [9]] The preliminary confirmation point at sqrt(s_NN) = 8.8 GeV comes from the same collaboration, the same detector, and the same reconstruction and analysis chain as the 11.9 GeV result. It therefore shares any systematic issues in the K0_S selection (V0 finding, invariant-mass window, Lambda rejection) and in the charged-kaon acceptance and particle-identification corrections. A few-percent systematic in the charged-to-neutral kaon efficiency ratio could produce the entire observed excess. The proposal should either provide a dedicated breakdown of the systematic uncertainties in the R_K measurement, including the ratio of charged-to-neutral kaon efficiencies, or point to an independent measurement or cross-check that would resolve this concern. As written, the 8.8 GeV point does not independently corroborate the anomaly.
  3. [Sec. 2.2, Fig. 2 and Sec. 3.1] The projected sensitivity of the charm-anticharm correlation measurement depends on the theoretical models of Refs. [16,17], both authored by collaboration members, with Ref. [16] listed as 'to be published' and Ref. [17] as an arXiv preprint. The proposal should summarize the assumptions entering those models (e.g., the freeze-out hypersurface and the correlated-emission width sigma = 2 fm), state what distinguishes 'local', 'independent', and 'correlated' emission in a falsifiable way, and specify the expected statistical significance of the discrimination for the proposed Run-4 data sample. In addition, the performance figures quoted for the new silicon detector — momentum resolution of 0.7% and acceptance of nearly 40% — are attributed only to 'preliminary Monte Carlo studies' with no reference; a technical note or a more detailed description of the simulation and its validation should be provided.
  4. [Sec. 2.5.1, Fig. 3] The claim that the NA61/SHINE-LE measurements can reduce atmospheric neutrino flux uncertainties by more than a factor of two is a central quantitative argument for the low-energy beamline. In the current manuscript this is supported only by an external plot attributed to L. Cook and the Bartol flux group, with no reference to a public document, calculation, or method. Since this is a headline projection for the neutrino program, it should be substantiated with a citable analysis or at least a description of the underlying hadron-production uncertainties, the phase-space coverage assumed, and how the new measurements are folded into the flux calculation. Without that, the factor-of-two reduction is not independently verifiable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (1)] The phrase 'interactions of ions with n = p' is awkward and should be rewritten, for example as 'collisions of ions with equal numbers of protons and neutrons (N = Z)'.
  2. [Sec. 2.2] The term 'subliminal transport' appears in the sentence about charm and anticharm in the dense medium; this is likely a typo for 'subthreshold transport' or 'subsequent transport' and should be corrected.
  3. [Sec. 3.1] The text says the technology of the large-area MPGDs is 'yet to be specified' and gives two timeline scenarios (during LS3 or two years into Run 4). The proposal would benefit from a clearer statement of the baseline scenario and the decision point that would select between them.
  4. [Sec. 4] The operating cost of approximately 500 kCHF per year is stated, but the capital cost of the silicon tracking detector and the low-energy beamline is not estimated; an indicative cost range for the upgrades would help the ESPP evaluate the request.
  5. [References] Refs. [16] and [17] should be updated to their final journal status if they are accepted by the time of the final version, and Ref. [9] should include a stable citation rather than an Indico contribution alone.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the proposal's physics case rests on a published measurement and external model comparisons; in-house theory is used as a testable hypothesis, not as a derivation.

full rationale

This is a programmatic proposal, not a derivation chain. The central observable R_K is defined by Eq. (1) and its value 1.184(61) is a measured result from a peer-reviewed publication (Ref. [3]); it is not obtained by fitting a parameter within this paper. The assertion that models fail to describe the data is an external comparison against published model calculations; no equation in this proposal reduces to another by construction, and no fitted input is renamed as a prediction. The charm-correlation section invokes in-house theory papers (Refs. [16,17]) to motivate the proposed measurement, but the measurement is designed to test those predictions, not to claim they have been verified. Self-citations to the collaboration's own data and to its own theory papers are present, but they function as evidence or motivation rather than as the output of a derivation chain. The concern that the R_K excess may carry unaccounted systematics, or that Refs. [16,17] are not yet peer-reviewed, is a correctness or risk issue, not a circularity issue. Therefore no specific circular step can be exhibited under the defined criteria.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proposal's argument rests on one measured number (R_K = 1.184(61), from the collaboration's own published Ar+Sc analysis), one simulation parameter from the authors' own not-yet-published model (sigma = 2 fm for correlated charm emission), and five background assumptions: charge symmetry of N=Z collisions, smallness of known isospin breaking, the SMES statistical-model framework, the charm freeze-out model of refs [16,17], and coalescence-model validity for antideuterons. No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are postulated; the H-hyperfragment search in Sec. 2.3 targets a state predicted in prior literature (ref [21]), and the silicon tracker and low-energy beamline are engineered infrastructure. The ledger is typical of an experimental proposal: the new content is a measurement program, and its justification imports physical frameworks from prior literature, with the notable wrinkle that the two most novel claims (isospin violation, charm correlation sensitivity) rest on the collaboration's own analyses and models.

free parameters (2)
  • R_K excess value = 1.184 +/- 0.061 (Ar+Sc, 10% central, sqrt(s_NN) = 11.9 GeV)
    Central fitted quantity from the cited NA61/SHINE analysis (ref [3]). The entire isospin-violation motivation is the 1.184 versus 1.0 deviation, so the proposal's flagship claim stands or falls on this fitted value and its uncertainty.
  • Correlated charm emission width sigma = sigma = 2 fm (simulation input, Fig. 2)
    The azimuthal correlation distributions used to motivate the charm program (Fig. 2) compare local, independent, and correlated emission with sigma = 2 fm; the projected experimental discrimination depends on this model parameter from refs [16,17].
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption In N=Z (equal proton and neutron number) nuclear collisions, QCD charge symmetry forces the mean charged-to-neutral kaon ratio R_K (Eq. 1) to 1.
    This is the baseline against which the 1.184 excess is judged; it assumes initial-state charge symmetry survives the collision dynamics and that final-state and acceptance effects average out in the measured ratio.
  • standard math Known isospin-breaking effects (quark mass difference mu = 2.16 MeV, md = 4.70 MeV, meson mass splittings of order 0.017 and 0.004) account for only a few percent, so the measured excess is beyond known effects.
    Standard PDG inputs invoked in Sec. 2.1 to size the expected symmetry breaking; the argument assumes these are the only relevant known sources.
  • domain assumption The statistical model SMES prediction of a K+/pi+ maximum at the deconfinement onset (ref [7]) frames the phase-transition measurement program.
    Sec. 2.1 adopts the SMES prediction as the physics framework for the light-ion scan; it is a theoretical prior from the literature, not tested by this document.
  • domain assumption The freeze-out and transport model of refs [16,17] correctly predicts that azimuthal charm-anticharm correlations are sensitive to production locality at SPS energies.
    Sec. 2.2 and Fig. 2 build the entire charm correlation case on these simulations, authored by collaboration members, with one reference still to be published; an incorrect model would erase the claimed sensitivity.
  • domain assumption Coalescence-model relations (ref [22]) connect p+p antiproton spectra and source sizes to antideuteron formation, so new cross-section data can reduce the astrophysical background uncertainty to 10%.
    Sec. 2.4.1 assumes coalescence is the correct antideuteron formation mechanism for the relevant momentum range, which is required for the p+p data to translate into an antideuteron background model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Proposal from the NA61/SHINE Collaboration for update of European Strategy for Particle Physics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SGFJFTEX

@misc{pith2026250708602,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Proposal from the NA61/SHINE Collaboration for update of European Strategy for Particle Physics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SGFJFTEX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08602}
}
read the original abstract

Building on the current program's success and driven by new physics challenges, the NA61/SHINE Collaboration proposes to continue measuring hadron production properties in reactions induced by hadron and ion beams after CERN Long Shutdown 3. These measurements are of significant interest to the heavy-ion, cosmic-ray, and neutrino physics communities and will focus on: - Investigating hadron production in the light-ion systems to explore the diagram of high-energy nuclear collisions, and to obtain new insight into the unexpected violation of isospin (flavor) symmetry recently observed by the experiment; - Measuring charm-anticharm correlations to gain unique insights into the production locality of charm and anticharm quark pairs; - Examining strangeness and multi-strangeness production to improve our understanding of the early Universe's evolution and neutron star formation; - Measuring cross sections relevant for cosmic-ray measurements, significantly boosting searches for new physics in our Galaxy; - Conducting hadron production measurements with proton, pion, and kaon beams for neutrino physics, enhancing the precision of hadron production data needed for initial neutrino flux predictions in neutrino oscillation experiments; - Measuring hadron production processes relevant for understanding the flux of atmospheric neutrinos, as well as neutrinos and muons from spallation sources. To achieve these objectives, a detector upgrade and a beam upgrade are required, with data-taking planned for the period 2029-2032 and beyond.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08602 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top left: Energy dependence of ⟨K +⟩/⟨π +⟩ mean multiplicity ratio. Top right: System size dependence of mid-rapidity K +/π + ratio at √ sNN = 16.8 (17.3) GeV. Bottom: Energy dependence of RK (see Eq. 1). could be seen. The system size and energy scan of NA61/SHINE aimed to further study the hadron pro￾duction mechanism at intermediate system sizes. The results obtained within the scan in p+p, Be+Be, Ar+Sc, and Xe+L… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of charm-anticharm hadron pairs in the difference of azimuthal angles ∆ϕ simulated for central Pb+Pb collisions at 150A GeV/c for local, independent and correlated (σ = 2 fm) emission models; see Ref. [16, 17] for detail. Thus, measurements of the correlation between charm and anticharm hadrons in central Pb+Pb colli￾sions at the top CERN SPS energy should provide a unique input verifying assumptions co… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Atmospheric neutrino flux uncertainties coming from the p + N → π ± + X process for muon neutrinos. Only the uncertainties due to < 30 GeV/c hadronic interactions are considered. The plot shows uncertainty with (pink) and without (green) new low-energy (low-E) NA61/SHINE measurements. Plot by L. Cook and the Bartol flux group. NA61/SHINE collects high-statistics data sets on replica targets for T2K and LBNF/DUNE dur… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Proposed low-energy branch for NA61/SHINE. The new magnets for the low-energy particles appear in green, while a rail system would allow the changeover between this low-energy and the normal high-energy configuration. More details on the proposed implementation can be …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The future fixed-target program at the CERN SPS

    nucl-ex 2026-07 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

    Planned SPS experiments NA60+/DiCE and NA61/SHINE are projected to measure thermal dileptons, open charm, and charmonium in 5–17 GeV Pb–Pb collisions, mapping the QCD phase diagram at high baryon density.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [2]

    First $D^0+\overline{D}^0$ measurement in heavy-ion collisions at SPS energies with NA61/SHINE

    A. Merzlaya, [NA61/SHINE Collab.]EPJ Web Conf.316 (2025) 04004,arXiv:2410.24014 [nucl-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [3]

    Adhikaryet al., [NA61/SHINE and others Collab.] Nature Commun.16no

    H. Adhikaryet al., [NA61/SHINE and others Collab.] Nature Commun.16no. 1, (2025) 2849, arXiv:2312.06572 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  3. [6]

    Measurement of the mass-changing, charge-changing and production cross sections of $^{11}$C, $^{11}$B and $^{10}$B nuclei in $^{12}$C+p interactions at 13.5 GeV/c per nucleon

    H. Adhikaryet al., [NA61/SHINE Collab.] arXiv:2410.18273 [nucl-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  4. [16]

    Gazdzicki, D

    M. Gazdzicki, D. Kikola, I. Pidhurskyi, and L. Tinti arXiv:2305.00212 [hep-ph]. To be published in Commun. Phys

    work page arXiv

  5. [17]

    Apparent teleportation of indistinguishable particles

    M. Gazdzicki, D. Kikola, I. Pidhurskyi, and L. Tinti arXiv:2503.10565 [nucl-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  6. [1]

    Abgrallet al., [NA61/SHINE Collab.]JINST9(2014) P06005,arXiv:1401.4699 [physics.ins-det]

    N. Abgrallet al., [NA61/SHINE Collab.]JINST9(2014) P06005,arXiv:1401.4699 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2014

  7. [4]

    Recent results from NA61/SHINE

    A. Rybicki, [NA61/SHINE Collab.]EPJ Web Conf.316 (2025) 01008,arXiv:2409.19763 [nucl-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  8. [5]

    Abgrallet al., [NA61/SHINE Collab.]Nucl

    N. Abgrallet al., [NA61/SHINE Collab.]Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A701(2013) 99–114,arXiv:1207.2114 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2013

Show all 33 references
  1. [7]

    R. V . Poberezhnyuk, M. Gazdzicki, and M. I. Gorenstein Acta Phys. Polon. B46no. 10, (2015) 1991, arXiv:1502.05650 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Andronov, M

    E. Andronov, M. Kuich, and M. Ga´ zdzickiUniverse9 no. 2, (2023) 106,arXiv:2205.06726 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [9]

    News on strangeness production from the NA61/SHINE experiment,

    Y. Balkova and T. Susa, “News on strangeness production from the NA61/SHINE experiment,” in XXXI International Conference on Ultra-relativistic Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions (Quark Matter 2025). 2025. https://indico.cern.ch/event/1334113/ contributions/6308940

    2025

  4. [10]

    Addendum to the NA61/SHINE Proposal: Request for light ions beams in Run 4,

    H. Adhikaryet al., [NA61/SHINE Collab.], “Addendum to the NA61/SHINE Proposal: Request for light ions beams in Run 4,” tech. rep., CERN, Geneva, 2023. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2867952

    2023

  5. [11]

    van Hees and R

    H. van Hees and R. RappPhys. Rev. C71(2005) 034907, arXiv:nucl-th/0412015

    2005 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Blaizot and M

    J.-P . Blaizot and M. A. EscobedoJHEP06(2018) 034, arXiv:1711.10812 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [13]

    X. Zhu, M. Bleicher, S. L. Huang, K. Schweda, H. Stoecker, N. Xu, and P . ZhuangPhys. Lett. B647 (2007) 366–370,arXiv:hep-ph/0604178

    2007 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Cao, G.-Y

    S. Cao, G.-Y. Qin, and S. A. BassarXiv:1505.01869 [nucl-th]

    arXiv

  9. [15]

    He and R

    M. He and R. RappPhys. Rev. Lett.124no. 4, (2020) 042301,arXiv:1905.09216 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Report from the NA61/SHINE experiment at the CERN SPS,

    H. Adhikaryet al., [NA61/SHINE Collab.], “Report from the NA61/SHINE experiment at the CERN SPS,” tech. rep., CERN, Geneva, 2024. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2916893

    2024

  11. [19]

    WittenPhys

    E. WittenPhys. Rev. D30(1984) 272–285

    1984

  12. [20]

    Altet al., [NA49 Collab.]Phys

    C. Altet al., [NA49 Collab.]Phys. Rev. C77(2008) 024903,arXiv:0710.0118 [nucl-ex]

    2008 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Adamet al., [ALICE Collab.]Phys

    J. Adamet al., [ALICE Collab.]Phys. Lett. B752(2016) 267–277,arXiv:1506.07499 [nucl-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Reichert, J

    T. Reichert, J. Steinheimer, V . Vovchenko, B. Dönigus, and M. BleicherPhys. Rev. C107no. 1, (2023) 014912, arXiv:2210.11876 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Acharyaet al., [ALICE Collab.]Phys

    S. Acharyaet al., [ALICE Collab.]Phys. Lett. B832(2022) 137242,arXiv:2112.09482 [nucl-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Kluger, V

    Y. Kluger, V . Koch, J. Randrup, and X.-N. WangPhys. Rev. C57(1997) 280–290,arXiv:nucl-th/9704018

    1997 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Lee, Y.-Y

    D.-S. Lee, Y.-Y. Charng, and K.-W. NgPhys. Lett. B705 (2011) 487–492,arXiv:1105.5696 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Maurinet al.arXiv:2503.16173 [astro-ph.HE]

    D. Maurinet al.arXiv:2503.16173 [astro-ph.HE]

  19. [27]

    Cosmic Anti-Deuterons,

    Y.-H. Chang, “Cosmic Anti-Deuterons,” in44th COSP AR Scientific Assembly. Held 16-24 July, vol. 44, p. 2082. July, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Aduszkiewiczet al., [NA61/SHINE Collab.]Physical Report D100no

    A. Aduszkiewiczet al., [NA61/SHINE Collab.]Physical Report D100no. 11, (2019) 112001,arXiv:1909.03351 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Adhikaryet al., [NA61/SHINE Collab.]Phys

    H. Adhikaryet al., [NA61/SHINE Collab.]Phys. Rev. D 107no. 7, (2023) 072004,arXiv:2211.00183 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Adhikaryet al., [NA61/SHINE Collab.]Phys

    H. Adhikaryet al., [NA61/SHINE Collab.]Phys. Rev. D 108(2023) 072013,arXiv:2306.02961 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A New Tertiary Branch of the H2 beamline for low-energy particle beams,

    N. Charitonidis and C. Mussolini, “A New Tertiary Branch of the H2 beamline for low-energy particle beams,” tech. rep., CERN, 2023. https://edms.cern.ch/document/2803011

    2023

  24. [32]

    Addendum to the NA61/SHINE Proposal: A Low-Energy Beamline at the SPS H2,

    A. Acharyaet al., [NA61/SHINE and others Collab.], “Addendum to the NA61/SHINE Proposal: A Low-Energy Beamline at the SPS H2,” tech. rep., CERN, 2021.https://cds.cern.ch/record/2783037

    2021

  25. [33]

    Additional Information concerning the Low Energy beam project,

    NA61/SHINE and others, “Additional Information concerning the Low Energy beam project,” tech. rep., CERN, 2022.https://cds.cern.ch/record/2810696. 14 The NA61/SHINE Collaboration H. Adhikary 11, P . Adrich 13, K.K. Allison 24, N. Amin 4, E.V . Andronov 21, I.-C. Arsene 10, M. ...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.