Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 23 references

A prototype LYSO active converter for a future muon-decay photon detector achieves 25 ps timing and 10^4 photoelectrons, beating the design requirements and pointing to <30 ps photon timing.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 13:25 UTC pith:2SRAJKPG

load-bearing objection Beam-test characterization of an LYSO active converter is solid and meets component requirements, but the <30 ps photon-timing prediction relies on an unvalidated extrapolation from selected single MIPs to conversion pairs; worth refereeing with a request for a quantitative system-level study. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2512.24209 v3 pith:2SRAJKPG submitted 2025-12-30 physics.ins-det hep-ex

Performance of an LYSO-Based Active Converter for a Conversion Spectrometer aiming for 52.8 MeV photon detection in Future μ^+ to e^+ γ Search Experiments

Sei Ban , Lukas Gerritzen , Fumihito Ikeda , Toshiyuki Iwamoto , Wataru Ootani , Atsushi Oya , Rei Sakakibara , Rintaro Yokota This is my paper
classification physics.ins-det hep-ex
keywords muon to electron gammacharged lepton flavor violationphoton pair spectrometerLYSO active convertersilicon photomultiplierscintillator timinglight yield52.8 MeV photon
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper aims to show that a small LYSO crystal bar can act as the heart of a photon pair-spectrometer for future muon-to-electron-gamma decay searches: it would convert each 52.8 MeV photon into an electron-positron pair, measure the pair's energy, and time the conversion precisely. Beam tests of 50 mm x 5 mm x 3 mm bars read out by silicon photomultipliers yield a single-particle time resolution of 25 ps and a light yield around 10^4 photoelectrons, both well past the design targets of 40 ps and 700 photoelectrons. The authors conclude that this active-converter component can deliver the <30 ps photon timing and ~200 keV energy resolution that the search requires, with photoelectron statistics contributing less than 50 keV. A reader should care because this removes a key technological obstacle for reaching a branching-ratio sensitivity of 10^-15 in the muon-to-electron-gamma channel.

Core claim

The central claim is that a 50 mm x 5 mm x 3 mm LYSO crystal bar, read out at both ends by silicon photomultipliers, can serve as the active converter of a pair-spectrometer for 52.8 MeV photons: it converts each photon into an electron-positron pair, measures the pair's energy deposit, and stamps the conversion time. Beam-test measurements on such bars give a single-particle time resolution of 25 ps and a light yield of about 10^4 photoelectrons per minimum-ionizing particle. Both numbers better the stated design requirements of 40 ps and 700 photoelectrons (the latter translates to a 2500-photoelectron requirement at the 10 MeV maximum deposit). The authors therefore conclude that the conv

What carries the argument

The active converter concept: an LYSO scintillator bar that does double duty as photon converter and detector. Incident photons convert to electron-positron pairs inside the crystal; the pair then deposits energy in the same crystal before entering a tracker. The photon energy is reconstructed as the sum of the two measured track momenta plus the crystal's energy deposit, E_gamma = E_e+ + E_e- + E_dep, and the conversion time is reconstructed from the two hit times with time-of-flight corrections. The LYSO's fast scintillation and high light yield, read out by SiPMs at both ends, provide the timing precision; the bar's 3 mm thickness and 5 mm x 50 mm segmentation minimize energy leakage and

Load-bearing premise

The beam-test performance measured with single 3 GeV electrons is assumed to represent the timing and light collection for the higher-energy electron-positron pairs produced by 52.8 MeV photons, and the pair tracker is assumed to correct the position-dependent time offsets.

What would settle it

Measure the LYSO time resolution with electron beams at several energies spanning 1 to 10 MeV (the range of conversion-pair deposits) and with real 52.8 MeV photons; the central claim would be falsified if the resolution degrades with deposit energy beyond the 40 ps budget, or if the reconstructed photon time resolution exceeds 30 ps when including tracker-based corrections.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The 25 ps single-particle timing is below the 40 ps budget, so combining electron and positron timings leaves room for the 30 ps photon-time target.
  • The 10^4 photoelectron light yield at the typical deposit is well above the 700 p.e. requirement, keeping photoelectron statistics below 50 keV of the 200 keV energy budget.
  • The 3 mm thickness and 5 mm x 50 mm segmentation keep the signal efficiency at about 2.2% and make pileup negligible up to 10^11 muons/s.
  • The timing requirement is satisfied across beam-hit positions, incident angles, SiPM models, and readout schemes, so the choice of readout can be driven by cost and channel count.
  • A single-sided readout still meets the timing requirement (about 35 ps), allowing a full-scale detector to halve its readout channels.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the 25 ps timing carries over to real conversion pairs, the same active-converter technique could improve photon timing in other rare-decay searches or in positron-emission tomography, where tens-of-picosecond timing is valuable.
  • The 50 ps position-dependent timing offsets imply that the pair tracker must reconstruct the conversion point to the few-millimeter level; if it cannot, the sub-30 ps photon timing may be unattainable.
  • The measured crystal-to-crystal light-yield variation of up to a factor 1.3 suggests that production quality control, not the scintillator itself, will dominate energy-resolution performance in a full detector.
  • A dedicated beam test with tagged 52.8 MeV photons would directly test whether the single-MIP calibration transfers to the multi-MeV, multi-track deposits of conversion pairs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents the development and beam-test characterization of an LYSO-based active converter for a photon pair-spectrometer aimed at future μ+→e+γ searches at the 10^-15 sensitivity level. The active converter concept combines pair conversion with energy and timing measurement in 50 mm × 5 mm × 3 mm LYSO bars read out by SiPMs. Geant4 simulations motivate the converter material and segmentation, and give a required light yield of 2500 photoelectrons for a 10 MeV deposit (corresponding to 700 p.e. for a 2.7 MeV MIP). In a 3 GeV electron beam at KEK PF-AR, the authors measure a single-MIP time resolution of 25 ps and a light yield of about 10^4 photoelectrons, both exceeding the requirements. Using Eq. (3) for the photon conversion time, they conclude that a <30 ps photon time resolution is achievable at 52.8 MeV. The paper also examines the dependence of timing on incident position, angle, SiPM type, and readout scheme.

Significance. The direct beam-test measurements appear sound and are carefully presented. The single-photoelectron gain calibration, time-walk correction, and event selection are standard and documented. The measured 25 ps resolution and 10^4 p.e. light yield, if they hold under operating conditions, would satisfy the component-level requirements for the active converter. The paper's systematic comparison with CMS MTD LYSO bars (Refs. 22–24) adds confidence. The weakness is the gap between the measured single-MIP performance and the system-level <30 ps photon time-resolution claim, which relies on an unquantified extrapolation to conversion-pair deposits and on pair-tracker corrections that are acknowledged to be out of scope.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 4, Sec. 5.2, Sec. 7.1, Eq. (3)] The central claim that a 30 ps photon time resolution is achievable rests on extrapolating the 25 ps single-MIP resolution to conversion e± deposits. The measurement in Sec. 5.2 is performed on a highly selected sample: events are required to be compatible with a single MIP and the time resolution is evaluated only for light yields within ±FWHM of the MPV of the charge distribution. Figure 20 shows a clear degradation of timing for smaller photoelectron numbers. In the actual pair-spectrometer, the conversion-pair deposit ranges from ~0 to 10 MeV (Fig. 10) with a spread of incident angles and positions; the paper does not simulate this distribution. The statement in Sec. 4 that a 3 GeV MIP 'deposits energy comparable to or smaller than' a typical conversion particle is qualitative and not quantified. To support the <30 ps claim, the authors should either measure or simulate the resolutio
  2. [Sec. 5.3.2, Sec. 7.2, Eq. (3)] The reconstructed photon time in Eq. (3) uses t_{e±,hit} at the re-entry points after a half-turn in the magnetic field. The position-dependent time offset within a crystal is up to 50 ps (Sec. 5.3.2) and must be corrected using the hit positions measured by the pair tracker. However, the pair-tracker resolution and efficiency needed for this correction, and for the 200 keV energy resolution, are explicitly beyond the scope of this paper (Sec. 7.2). Until the tracker-based position correction is demonstrated, the residual offset uncertainty remains an uncontrolled contribution to the 30 ps budget. The authors should quantify the required tracker position resolution and include it in the error budget, or explicitly state the system-level claim as conditional.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 5.2] The phrase 'within ±FWHM of the MPV' is ambiguous; the authors likely mean a window of one full-width-at-half-maximum centered on the MPV. Please clarify.
  2. [Sec. 5.3.1, Fig. 21] The error bars are not defined; state whether they are statistical only and how they were computed.
  3. [Sec. 6.1] The high-to-low gain ratio of 47.7 ± 2.4% should specify whether the uncertainty is relative and how it propagates to the systematic error on the light yield.
  4. [Sec. 7.3] In the phrase '54.70 mm 3', the superscript for cubic millimeters is missing; should be 54.70 mm³.
  5. [Eq. (2), Eq. (3)] The notation E_{e±} and t_{e±,hit} is not defined explicitly in the text; clarify that E_{e±} are the momenta measured by the tracker and t_{e±,hit} the hit times of the two pair particles.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: beam-test measurement is external; the 30 ps photon claim is an explicit extrapolation, not a derivation from its inputs.

full rationale

The load-bearing numbers (25 ps time resolution, 10^4 photoelectrons) are measured with a 3 GeV electron beam against reference counters, not derived from the claimed conclusion. The photon-time prediction uses Eq. (3) as a reconstruction formula, but the 40 ps per-hit requirement and the measured 25 ps are independent comparisons; Sec. 7.1 explicitly states that the 30 ps result combines two 40 ps measurements and that tracker/calibration contributions remain to be added. The only self-cited element is the SiPM saturation model [21] (one co-author), used to convert detected charge to photoelectrons in Sec. 6.1. That model is published separately, uses manufacturer parameters, and is not fitted to the paper's 10^4 p.e. or 25 ps results, so under the review rules it counts as independent support rather than circularity. The extrapolation from a single-MIP Landau-core measurement to 52.8 MeV conversion pairs is an unvalidated physical assumption (acknowledged in Secs. 4 and 7.2), but it is a correctness/scope risk, not a circular reduction: no equation in the paper defines the predicted timing in terms of the measured timing, and the paper explicitly lists the pair-tracker and calibration work as out of scope. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no uniqueness/ansatz claim is imported from the authors' prior work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The direct beam measurements are nearly parameter-free; the paper's extrapolation to a full pair-spectrometer depends on the assumptions listed above. The design requirements (40 ps, 700 p.e.) are derived internally from the target (30 ps, 200 keV), not fitted to data, so they are not free parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • Leading-edge threshold = -600 mV (2024 data; Fig. 18a)
    Optimal threshold chosen by scanning to minimize measured time resolution; a free analysis choice that affects the 25 ps number.
  • Single-MIP light-yield selection window = +/-FWHM around MPV of the charge distribution (Sec. 5.2)
    Events outside this window are excluded; quoted resolution is conditional on this choice.
  • Time-walk correction function coefficients = not quoted numerically; fitted per channel (Fig. 17)
    Calibration functions fitted to (charge/TOT vs time offset) and used to correct leading-edge times before computing resolution.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Poisson photoelectron statistics govern the converter energy resolution (Eq. 7: 1/sqrt(N_pe) <= 2%).
    Used to convert the target energy resolution into a light-yield requirement; ignores non-Poisson and calibration terms.
  • ad hoc to paper Uniform 2 T magnetic field in the pair-tracker and converter.
    Sec. 3 states 2 T is assumed although the value has not been finalized; affects the pair-track topology and efficiency simulations.
  • domain assumption Geant4 physics accurately simulates 52.8 MeV pair conversion and energy deposition in LYSO.
    Simulation optimization in Sec. 3 relies on Geant4; no validation against data for 52.8 MeV photons is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper A 3 GeV single-MIP electron deposit (~2.7 MeV) is representative of a conversion e+/- deposit in the operating detector.
    Sec. 4: 'such a particle deposits energy comparable to or smaller than that of a typical conversion particle re-entering the converter after being bent by the magnetic field.' This premise bridges beam test to signal.
  • domain assumption The pair-tracker can achieve <200 keV momentum resolution and 85% tracking efficiency.
    Benchmark estimate in Sec. 3.1 and Sec. 7.2; the paper explicitly states the pair-tracker is beyond the scope of this paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17084 in / 19634 out tokens · 199418 ms · 2026-08-03T13:25:19.559491+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

To facilitate future $\mu^+ \to e^+ \gamma$ search experiments with a branching-ratio sensitivity of $10^{-15}$, we are developing a conversion spectrometer that incorporates an active LYSO converter. The converter generates $e^+e^-$ pairs from incident photons while simultaneously measuring their energy deposition and timing, thereby enabling precise reconstruction of 52.8 MeV photons. The design goals include a time resolution of 30 ps and an energy resolution of 200 keV for the detection of 52.8 MeV photons. Based on simulation studies, we optimized the converter thickness and segment dimensions, followed by the fabrication of prototype LYSO segments. The single-MIP detection performance of these prototypes was evaluated using an electron beam at the KEK PF-AR test beamline. The prototypes demonstrated excellent performance, achieving a time resolution of 25 ps and a light yield of $10^4$ photoelectrons, both of which significantly exceed the design requirements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.24209 by Atsushi Oya, Fumihito Ikeda, Lukas Gerritzen, Rei Sakakibara, Rintaro Yokota, Sei Ban, Toshiyuki Iwamoto, Wataru Ootani.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Principle of energy and timing measurement by photon pair￾spectrometer with active converter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A schematic overview of a possible future µ + → e +γ exper￾iment detector layout. A magnetic field is applied in the z-axis, defined in the figure. the measurement of the energy loss of electron–positron pairs traversing inside the converter while providing high conversion probability. The energy of an incident photon is then recon￾structed as Eγ = Ee + + Ee − + Edep, (2) where Ee ± denotes the momenta mea… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulated Eγ spectra for signal photons converted in LYSO at different depths x, defined as the distance from the conversion point to the surface on the pair-tracker side. The red line corresponds to events with 0 mm < x < 1 mm, while the blue line corresponds to events with 5 mm < x < 6 mm. 3.2. Active converter material and thickness The thickness and material of the converter directly affect εphys, whic… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Events where the conversion particle re-enters the same cell in which the conversion occurred. (a) After a half turn. This can be identified by the pair-tracker (green shaded region) and are rejected, not contributing to the energy spectrum in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulated εtopo value with various converter cell dimen￾sions, at two different signal photon injection angles θγ. The length (width) is oriented along the z (ϕ) direction in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Simulated Eγ spectra for photons from the radiative decay of muons, compared between two different converter segmentation sizes. segmentation, providing further support for the choice of this baseline design. Our final consideration regarding the segmentation is the rate capability, which is determined by the pile-up of coincident background photons detected simultaneously within the same converter cell. I… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Scatter plot of the total energy deposit inside the converter vs. the conversion depth, namely x defined in Eq. 5. / ndf 2 χ 5348 / 886 constant 1.072e+04 ± 3.709e+01 MPV 2.745 ± 0.001 sigma 0.1853 ± 0.0005 2 4 6 8 10 Deposit energy [MeV] 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Events / (10 keV) / ndf 2 χ 5348 / 886 constant 1.072e+04 ± 3.709e+01 MPV 2.745 ± 0.001 sigma 0.1853 ± 0.0005 [PITH_FULL… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Simulated energy deposit inside a 3 mm-thick LYSO for a perpendicularly injected 3 GeV electron beam. A Landau fit is overlaid as the red curve. electron beam is sufficient. This is because such a particle de￾posits energy comparable to or smaller than that of a typical conversion particle re-entering the converter after being bent by the magnetic field . Therefore, achieving a time resolution of 40 ps at… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Average waveforms in the low- and high-gain channels of the converter prototype. The high-gain waveform is clipped at −1000 mV because of the dynamic range of the DRS4 digitizer. together with the year in which each beam test was conducted. 4.1.2. Readout electronics Triggering and data acquisition were performed using a Wave￾DREAM board [19], which integrates two DRS4 waveform digitizer chips [20] along … view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Schematics of the setups for the (a) beam hit position scan and (b) beam incident angle scan. charge, pulse height, and leading-edge timing. The baseline voltage was first estimated for each waveform from the pre￾pulse region of each waveform. The pulse height was then defined as the difference between the peak voltage and the baseline. The pulse charge was calculated by integrating the baseline-subtracte… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Charge distribution of the downstream reference counter. Events with charges within the blue shaded region were selected. −3 −2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 e] 9 converter charge [× 10 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Events Before event selection (US) After event selection (US) Before event selection (DS) After event selection (DS) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Charge distribution of the converter prototypes before and after the event selection. prototype than in the upstream one, indicating that most such events originate from showering in the upstream converter pro￾totype. Although this excess is largely suppressed by the se￾lection, a small residual remains in the downstream converter prototype. 5. Timing performance 5.1. Calibration The time calibration invo… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Time resolution at different leading-edge thresholds, with the dependence on TOT (for walk correction) also shown in (b). tLYSO denotes the timing measured by the channel, and tref denotes the ref￾erence time. In the time resolution evaluation, the optimal threshold found here (−600 mV for (a)) was used. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Time difference between the upstream converter proto￾type and the reference counters, measured using configuration (I) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: This range corresponds to the core of the single-MIP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Time resolution of the upstream (downstream) LYSO crys￾tal at different beam impact positions, measured using configuration (I) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Offset of left-right averaged time at different beam impact positions, measured with configuration (I) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: as a function of the beam incident angle relative to the converter surface. Here, the incident angle is defined as shown in Fig. 14b to match the definition of θγ in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Time resolution with different types of SiPMs, listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_25.png] view at source ↗
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: Distribution of the number of photoelectrons detected at the right end of the crystal bar, with configuration (I) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_28.png] view at source ↗
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: Light yield measured at different beam impact positions using configuration (I) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_29.png] view at source ↗
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: Light yield at different beam incident angles with the con￾figuration (I) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_30.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. T. Petcov, The Processesµ→e+γ,µ→e+ e,ν′→ν+γ in the Weinberg-Salam Model with Neutrino Mixing, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 25 (1977) 340, [Erratum: Sov.J.Nucl.Phys. 25, 698 (1977), Erratum: Yad.Fiz. 25, 1336 (1977)]

    1977

  2. [2]

    Kuno, Rare lepton decays, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 82 (2015) 1–20.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2015.01.003

    Y . Kuno, Rare lepton decays, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 82 (2015) 1–20.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2015.01.003. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0146641015000046

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2015.01.003 2015

  3. [3]

    Barbieri, L

    R. Barbieri, L. J. Hall, Signals for supersymmetric unifica- tion, Phys. Lett. B 338 (1994) 212–218.arXiv:hep-ph/ 9408406,doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)91368-4

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)91368-4 1994

  4. [4]

    Hisano, T

    J. Hisano, T. Moroi, K. Tobe, M. Yamaguchi, Lepton flavor violation via right-handed neutrino Yukawa cou- plings in supersymmetric standard model, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 2442–2459.arXiv:hep-ph/9510309,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.53.2442

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  5. [5]

    Hisano, T

    J. Hisano, T. Moroi, K. Tobe, M. Yamaguchi, Exact event rates of lepton flavor violating processes in supersymmet- ric SU(5) model, Phys. Lett. B 391 (1997) 341–350, [Er- ratum: Phys.Lett.B 397, 357 (1997)].arXiv:hep-ph/ 9605296,doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(96)01473-6

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(96)01473-6 1997

  6. [6]

    Hisano, D

    J. Hisano, D. Nomura, Y . Okada, Y . Shimizu, M. Tanaka, Enhancement ofµ→eγin the supersymmetric SU(5) GUT at large tan Beta, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 116010.arXiv:hep-ph/9805367,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.58.116010

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  7. [7]

    Hisano, D

    J. Hisano, D. Nomura, Solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations and lepton flavor violation in supersymmet- ric models with the right-handed neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 116005.arXiv:hep-ph/9810479,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.59.116005

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  8. [8]

    Antusch, E

    S. Antusch, E. Arganda, M. J. Herrero, A. M. Teixeira, Impact ofθ 13 on lepton flavour violating processes within SUSY seesaw, JHEP 11 (2006) 090.arXiv:hep-ph/ 0607263,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/11/090

    work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/11/090 2006

  9. [9]

    Calibbi, A

    L. Calibbi, A. Faccia, A. Masiero, S. K. Vempati, Lep- ton flavour violation from SUSY-GUTs: Where do we stand for MEG, PRISM/PRIME and a super flavour fac- tory, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 116002.arXiv:hep-ph/ 0605139,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.116002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.74.116002 2006

  10. [10]

    Moroi, M

    T. Moroi, M. Nagai, T. T. Yanagida, Lepton Flavor Viola- tions in High-Scale SUSY with Right-Handed Neutrinos, Phys. Lett. B 728 (2014) 342–346.arXiv:1305.7357, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.11.058

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  11. [11]

    Hirao, T

    K. Hirao, T. Moroi, Leptonic CP and flavor violations in SUSY GUT with right-handed neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D 104 (3) (2021) 035038.arXiv:2102.04070,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.035038. [12]πE5 Beam Line. URLhttps://www.psi.ch/en/sbl/pie5-beamline

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [13]

    Afanaciev, et al., New limit on theµ + →e +γdecay with the MEG II experimentarXiv:2504.15711

    K. Afanaciev, et al., New limit on theµ + →e +γdecay with the MEG II experimentarXiv:2504.15711

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [14]

    Afanaciev, et al., Operation and performance of the MEG II detector, Eur

    K. Afanaciev, et al., Operation and performance of the MEG II detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2) (2024) 190.arXiv:2310.11902,doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-024-12415-3

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [15]

    Eichler, et al., IMPACT conceptual design report (2022)

    R. Eichler, et al., IMPACT conceptual design report (2022). URLhttps://www.dora.lib4ri.ch/psi/ islandora/object/psi%3A41209

    2022

  15. [16]

    Aiba, et al., Science Case for the new High-Intensity Muon Beams HIMB at PSIarXiv:2111.05788

    M. Aiba, et al., Science Case for the new High-Intensity Muon Beams HIMB at PSIarXiv:2111.05788

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [17]

    P. W. Cattaneo, G. D. Maso, M. De Gerone, W. Ootani, A. Oya, A. Papa, F. Renga, A. Schöning, Future perspec- tives forµ +→e +γsearchesarXiv:2504.18831. 14

    arXiv

  17. [18]

    Y . Kuno, Y . Okada, Muon decay and physics be- yond the standard model, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73 (2001) 151–202.arXiv:hep-ph/9909265,doi:10.1103/ RevModPhys.73.151

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  18. [19]

    Galli, U

    L. Galli, U. Hartmann, F. Morsani, D. Nicolò, S. Ritt, A new generation of integrated trigger and read out sys- tem for the MEG II experiment, in: 2014 IEEE Nu- clear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Confer- ence (NSS/MIC), 2014, pp. 1–3.doi:10.1109/NSSMIC. 2014.7431218

    arXiv 2014

  19. [20]

    S. Ritt, The DRS chip: cheap waveform digitizing in the GHz range, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detec- tors and Associated Equipment 518 (1) (2004) 470–471, frontier Detectors for Frontier Physics: Proceedin.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2003.11.059. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/scie...

    doi:10.1016/j.nima.2003.11.059 2004

  20. [21]

    Tsuji, T

    N. Tsuji, T. Murata, W. Ootani, Novel method to study saturation of silicon photomultiplier in scintillation detector, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Re- search Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 1064 (2024) 169431.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2024.169431. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/...

    arXiv 2024

  21. [22]

    R. Abbott, et al., Test beam characterization of sensor prototypes for the CMS Barrel MIP Timing Detector, JINST 16 (07) (2021) P07023.arXiv:2104.07786, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/07/P07023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [23]

    Addesa, et al., Optimization of LYSO crystals and SiPM parameters for the CMS MIP timing detector, JINST 19 (12) (2024) P12020.arXiv:2410.08738, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/12/P12020

    F. Addesa, et al., Optimization of LYSO crystals and SiPM parameters for the CMS MIP timing detector, JINST 19 (12) (2024) P12020.arXiv:2410.08738, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/12/P12020

    arXiv 2024

  23. [24]

    F. Addesa, et al., The CMS barrel timing layer: test beam confirmation of module timing performance, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Asso- ciated Equipment 1081 (2026) 170823.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2025.170823. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0168...

    arXiv 2026