Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 35 references

A day of muon data could probe lepton-flavor-violating scalar couplings to 10^-5.

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

2026-08-01 14:42 UTC pith:5OPE6FH2

load-bearing objection A well-motivated LFV scalar search at HIAF, but the central cross-section normalization looks double-counted, so the headline reach is probably too optimistic by a factor of a few. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18669 v1 pith:5OPE6FH2 submitted 2026-07-21 hep-ph

Production of lepton-flavor-violating scalars through resonant positive-muon annihilation on atomic electrons

Jinhong Shen , Youpeng Wu , Zijian Wang , Leyun Gao , Qite Li , Chen Zhou , Qiang Li , Yu Xu
show 5 more authors
Xueheng Zhang Liangwen Chen He Zhao Zhiyu Sun Ruihu Zhu
This is my paper
classification hep-ph MSC 81V1081T80 PACS 13.10.+q14.80.-j
keywords lepton flavor violationmuon fixed-target experimentinvisible scalarresonant productionbound-state Dirac wave functionHIAFmu+e- annihilationdark sector
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.

This paper proposes a new way to search for lepton-flavor violation: a positively charged muon annihilates with an atomic electron to produce a new invisible scalar particle. The authors calculate the production rate using relativistic bound-electron wave functions, showing that atomic motion broadens the resonance line shape in a material-dependent way. For a proposed fixed-target experiment at HIAF, they find that less than one day of data could constrain the muon-electron coupling g_phi to the 10^-5 level near resonance, making this the most sensitive probe in the 100–200 MeV mass range. This would provide a direct, complementary test of physics beyond the Standard Model that is not accessible through other channels.

Core claim

The paper demonstrates that resonant muon annihilation on bound atomic electrons, mu+ e- -> phi, can be a powerful probe of lepton-flavor-violating scalar interactions. Using relativistic Dirac bound-state wave functions for the target electrons, the authors compute the production cross section and show that atomic-motion effects broaden the resonance line shape in a target-dependent way, reducing the peak cross section relative to the electron-at-rest approximation. They then combine this cross section with detailed Geant4 simulations of the proposed HIAF-PKMu experiment, including a four-cut selection that suppresses backgrounds by more than 99.999%, and derive projected 90% confidence-lev

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the relativistic bound-state Dirac spinor treatment of target electrons. The bound electron is described by Dirac wave functions with large and small radial components (f and g) and spinor spherical harmonics, and the squared Feynman amplitude is computed by summing over bound-electron magnetic quantum numbers. This yields a first-principles cross-section formula that naturally includes the electron momentum distribution, replacing the electron-at-rest approximation. The authors compare this with the Compton-profile convolution method and show that the new treatment predicts a slightly lower peak cross section because the bound-electron momentum also modifies the amp

Load-bearing premise

The projected sensitivity assumes the produced scalar decays invisibly (Br(phi->chi chi-bar) = 1), which requires a dark-sector particle chi with a coupling larger than g_phi; if the scalar instead decays visibly to e+ mu-, the quoted limits do not apply.

What would settle it

A direct calculation of the signal yield for the visible decay mode phi -> e+ mu- using the same detector geometry and veto logic: if the projected limits for the visible mode are significantly weaker than the invisible-mode limits, the headline claim of 10^-5 reach would not hold for models where the scalar has a large visible branching ratio. Alternatively, a precise measurement of the mu+ e- -> phi cross section on a thin lead target at a known beam energy would test the absolute normalization of Eq. (2.14).

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

If this is right

  • If correct, the HIAF experiment would become the world-leading probe of electron-muon lepton-flavor-violating scalars in the 100–200 MeV mass window, a region with no current competitive limits.
  • With only 10 minutes of data, the projected limit already surpasses the full-dataset result of NA64 mu, and one hour rivals the 2000-hour DREAMuS projection.
  • The material-dependent resonance broadening implies that target choice matters: experiments can tune the target material to optimize sensitivity for a given beam energy and scalar mass.
  • The relativistic bound-state formalism can be applied to other processes involving bound electrons, such as precision muon-electron scattering at MUonE, potentially improving theoretical predictions there.
  • If no signal is seen, the experiment would place strong constraints on models that explain the muon g-2 anomaly through a leptophilic scalar, closing a favored parameter space region.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper implicitly assumes that the invisible decay channel dominates; if the scalar visibly decays to e+ mu-, the downstream-veto topology changes and the quoted g_phi limits would need to be re-derived. A testable extension would be to compute limits for the visible decay mode using the same detector simulation.
  • The sensitivity claim relies on the absolute normalization of the cross-section formula in Eq. (2.14), which is not fully derived in the text. A dedicated derivation or independent numerical check could verify this normalization, as it directly sets the signal yield.
  • The use of RHF wave functions for all 82 electrons of lead is a strong approximation; a more complete treatment with exact Dirac-Fock wave functions or including electron-electron correlation might shift the resonance shape. This could be tested by comparing with future precision measurements if a signal were found.
  • The paper does not discuss the potential interference between the resonant mu+ e- -> phi production and the Standard Model background (e.g., mu+ e- -> anything). If such interference is non-negligible, it could alter the signal yield even away from the resonance peak; this would be a natural follow-up calculation.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a hypothetical lepton-flavor-violating scalar φ with an off-diagonal e–μ Yukawa coupling g_φ and an additional dark-sector coupling g_D. It computes the resonant production cross section μ+ e− → φ on bound atomic electrons in a lead target, using relativistic Dirac bound-state wave functions (with RHF f,g functions supplied by a co-author and to appear in Ref. [17]). The authors find a material-dependent resonance broadening that differs from both the electron-at-rest approximation and the Compton-profile folding method. They then simulate the proposed HIAF-PKMu detector with Geant4 and derive projected 90% CL limits on g_φ, claiming that less than one day of running (6×10^10 MOT) can probe couplings at the 10^−5 level near resonance, assuming the φ decays invisibly, Br(φ→χχ̄)≈1.

Significance. If the normalization is correct, the paper offers a genuinely more rigorous treatment of bound-electron effects for this process than the Compton-profile convolution, and it gives a concrete, falsifiable experimental projection for a facility that is currently under construction. The strengths are the use of Dirac bound-state amplitudes, the attempt to sum all occupied subshells of lead, a detailed Geant4 simulation, and a profile-likelihood treatment of detector-efficiency systematics. However, the absolute normalization of the central cross section is not transparent, and there is a likely double-counting of the (2j+1) magnetic degeneracy. Because the headline coupling reach scales as g_φ ∝ σ_Pb^{−1/2}, this issue directly affects the paper's central claim and must be resolved before the projections can be trusted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.4, Eqs. (2.14) and (2.17)] The absolute normalization appears to double-count the magnetic degeneracy. Eq. (2.9) defines |M|^2_κ with an explicit sum over m, and Eq. (2.11) evaluates that sum as proportional to (2j+1). Thus σ_nκ in Eq. (2.14) is already the full-subshell cross section. Eq. (2.17) then multiplies by N_nκ = 2j+1 for a closed subshell, counting the same m-states twice. The normalization in Eq. (2.5), sum_m ∫ U†U d^3k/(2π)^3 = 2E_A, is a spinor normalization, not a number-density normalization to Z; it does not repair the overcount. Either average over m in Eq. (2.9) and keep N_nκ, or drop N_nκ in Eq. (2.17). Since g_φ ∝ σ^{-1/2}, the projected limits in Figs. 4 and 5 are shifted by a factor up to O(√(2j+1)), and the subshell weighting in Fig. 2 also changes.
  2. [§2.4, Eqs. (2.13)–(2.16)] The jump from the squared amplitude to the integrated cross section is not shown. Eq. (2.14), including the denominator 8 p_B^2 E_A k_A, the x0 substitution, and the kinematic limits in Eq. (2.16), is asserted without derivation. The absolute normalization therefore cannot be independently checked from the text. Please provide the full phase-space integration, including the treatment of the energy δ-function and the flux factor for a bound electron, and demonstrate that the free/rest and Compton-profile limits are recovered. This is load-bearing because the projected reach depends directly on the absolute value of σ_Pb.
  3. [§2.1 and §2.4, f,g functions] The numerical f and g functions are not given in the manuscript; the acknowledgments state they were supplied by Prof. Luc Darmé and will appear in companion paper Ref. [17]. Since Fig. 2 and all sensitivity projections depend on these functions, the calculation is not reproducible from the present text. Please include the RHF radial functions or a numerical parametrization, or make the values publicly available, so that Eq. (2.14) can be evaluated independently.
  4. [§2, invisible branching ratio] The headline sensitivity assumes Br(φ→χχ̄)≃1, which requires g_D > g_φ and the existence of a dark state χ. If the scalar instead decays visibly to e± μ∓, the downstream veto removes signal and the quoted g_φ limits do not apply. The abstract's claim of probing 'couplings at the 10^-5 level' is therefore contingent on a dark-sector parameter. Please state this assumption explicitly in the abstract and summary, and either present the reach as a function of (g_φ, g_D, Br) or specify the benchmark g_D used. As written, the world-leading probe claim is broader than what the analysis actually constrains.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2.9)–(2.10)] The projector is miswritten: it should be sum_s v(P_B,s) ar v(P_B,s) = /P_B − m_B, not sum_s ar v(P_B,s) v(P_B,s). As printed, the first factor is a scalar and cannot be multiplied into the trace in Eq. (2.12).
  2. [Eq. (2.6) and Eq. (2.14)] The notation 'X Z' in Eq. (2.6) is confusing; Z is elsewhere defined as atomic number. It should be written as a sum over occupied subshells or over electrons. There is also a stray bracket/typographical imbalance in the numerator of Eq. (2.14).
  3. [Fig. 4 and text] The horizontal axis is labeled 'm (MeV)' but the figures and text use m_φ; the plotted range 105–140 MeV is narrower than the quoted 100–200 MeV window. Please make the mass label and range consistent.
  4. [Table 1] The header 'Signal(×10−4)' is unclear, and the table does not state the reference coupling at which the signal sample is generated or how the reweighting to arbitrary g_φ is implemented. Please clarify.
  5. [Ref. [17]] Since Ref. [17] supplies the central numerical f,g input, the placeholder 'To appear (2026)' is insufficient. Provide a fuller reference or, preferably, make the data available in this paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular reduction found; minor self-citation/reproducibility debt only.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense: Eq. (2.8) defines the amplitude from the effective LFV interaction, Eqs. (2.9)-(2.13) square it using Dirac spinor completeness with the (2j+1) degeneracy, Eq. (2.14) performs the phase-space integration, and Eq. (2.17) sums over occupied subshells with RHF occupation numbers. The projected limits in Sec. 4 come from a profile likelihood with Asimov data, not by fitting g_phi to the reach curve. No output equation is equivalent to an input by construction. The only self-referential element is the numerical f,g input: Sec. 2 states 'We further use relativistic atomic Dirac spinors leveraging the techniques from [22] as will be discussed in [17]', and the acknowledgments state Prof. Darmé supplied the f,g values. Since [17] is a companion paper with overlapping authorship containing the concrete numerical wave functions, this is an external-reproducibility debt, but it is an omitted/forthcoming input, not a circular reduction of the cross-section claim. The Br(phi -> chi chi-bar) ~ 1 assumption is a stated physical input, not a fitted output. The alleged (2j+1) double-counting between Eqs. (2.11), (2.14), and (2.17) is a possible normalization/correctness issue affecting the absolute reach, but it does not make the prediction equal to its input; it would change the limit by a constant factor. The comparison against the Compton-profile and free/rest treatments provides an independent cross-check. Thus no circular step is exhibited; score 2 reflects the minor non-load-bearing self-citation and reproducibility debt.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central sensitivity projection depends on model and detector assumptions rather than on fitted data. There are no genuine data-fitting free parameters, but several hand-chosen benchmark values (g_D, Br, detector efficiencies, beam parameters) enter directly into the quoted reach, and the experimental input values are taken from feasibility studies.

free parameters (6)
  • g_D (dark-sector coupling) = 1e-4 (benchmark)
    Chosen so that Br(phi->chi chi-bar) is approximately 1 at g_phi=1e-5; the invisible branching fraction and all quoted limits depend on this choice.
  • Br(phi->chi chi-bar) = ~1 (assumed)
    Set to 1 throughout the analysis in Section 2; if the invisible fraction is smaller, the signal yield and g_phi reach degrade.
  • RPC single-plane efficiency epsilon_RPC,0 = 95%
    Assumed central detector efficiency in the simulation; controls the residual background after the downstream veto.
  • RPC efficiency uncertainty delta_epsilon_RPC = 0.01% and 1%
    Hand-chosen calibration uncertainty widths used as nuisance-prior sigma values in Appendix A and Figure 5.
  • Scintillator efficiency epsilon_S,0 = 99%
    Assumed veto efficiency for the optional scintillator layer in Section 4.1.
  • HIAF beam parameters = 7.5e5 mu+/s, sigma_x=sigma_y=30 mm, delta E/E=2%
    Taken from the HIAF feasibility study [33]; fixed inputs in all projections and not varied as systematic uncertainties on g_phi.
axioms (6)
  • ad hoc to paper The only SM interaction of phi is the effective LFV coupling L_int = -g_phi phi ebar mu (plus the dark coupling to chi).
    Defines the signal model in Section 2; no UV completion or other flavor couplings are specified.
  • domain assumption The bound electron is represented by momentum-space Dirac spinors U_E kappa m built from RHF radial functions f,g; the muon is a free external scattering state.
    Central method of Section 2.1; assumes an independent-particle atomic ground state and no target-recoil or environment effects.
  • domain assumption All occupied atomic electrons contribute incoherently and the total cross section is a sum over subshells with occupation numbers N_nk summing to Z=82.
    Used in Eq. (2.17); ignores coherence between electron states and possible Pauli-blocking or screening corrections.
  • ad hoc to paper phi decays invisibly with Br(phi->chi chi-bar) approximately 1.
    Required for the downstream-veto signal topology; stated in Section 2 but not derived from a full dark-sector model.
  • domain assumption Geant4 with the FTFP_BERT physics list plus 89 supplementary background processes accurately predicts the relevant backgrounds.
    Used in Section 3.2 to obtain the residual background of 387 events; no real-data validation is available.
  • standard math The profile-likelihood ratio with background-only Asimov data and unit Gaussian priors yields valid 90% CL limits.
    Standard LHC-style statistical procedure in Section 4.2; assumes the nuisance-parameter model is correct.
invented entities (2)
  • phi (e-mu LFV scalar) no independent evidence
    purpose: Mediates lepton-flavor-violating e-mu interactions; produced resonantly in mu+ e- -> phi.
    Not observed; the particle is inherited from Refs. [1,2], but all projected sensitivity refers to it. No unique mass or coupling prediction beyond the scanned window.
  • chi (dark-sector particle) no independent evidence
    purpose: Invisible decay final state that makes phi->chi chi-bar dominate and the signal invisible.
    Introduced via L_dark = -g_D phi chi-bar chi; no independent phenomenology is specified, and only its role in setting Br~1 is used.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11668 in / 26894 out tokens · 238771 ms · 2026-08-01T14:42:50.715756+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate an invisible lepton-flavor-violating scalar $\phi$ with exclusive $e-\mu$ couplings and study its resonant production via $\mu^+e^-\to\phi$ in fixed-target experiments. Since the effective center-of-mass energy is determined by the momentum of the initial-state bound electrons, atomic effects can significantly affect the resonance behavior. We therefore employ relativistic bound-state electron wave functions to calculate the production cross section and reveal a material-dependent broadening of the resonance lineshape. For the proposed HIAF experiment, fewer than one day of data taking ($6\times10^{10}$ MOT) can probe couplings at the $10^{-5}$ level at 90\% confidence level near resonance, demonstrating that high-intensity muon fixed-target experiments provide a powerful complementary probe of lepton-flavor violation.

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

35 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. N. Gninenkoet al.[NA64], Leptonic scalar portal: Origin of muong−2 anomaly and dark matter?, Phys. Rev. D106, no.1, 015003 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.015003 [arXiv:2202.04410 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Chenet al., DREAMuS: Dark matter REsearch with Advanced Muon Source, [arXiv:2604.10257 [hep-ph]]

    X. Chenet al., DREAMuS: Dark matter REsearch with Advanced Muon Source, [arXiv:2604.10257 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    Baldini, Y

    A.M. Baldini, Y. Bao, E. Baracchini,et al., Search for the lepton flavour violating decay µ+ →e +γwith the full dataset of the MEG experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 434 (2016), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4271-x

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4271-x 2016

  4. [4]

    MEG II Collaboration, New limit on theµ + →e +γdecay with the MEG II experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1177 (2025), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14906-3

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14906-3 2025

  5. [5]

    Bertl, S

    W. Bertl, S. Egli, R. Eichler,et al., Search for the decayµ + →e +e+e−, Nucl. Phys. B260, 1–31 (1985), doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90308-6

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90308-6 1985

  6. [6]

    Bertl, R

    W. Bertl, R. Engfer, E.A. Hermes,et al., A search forµ-e conversion in muonic gold, Eur. Phys. J. C47, 337–346 (2006), doi:10.1140/epjc/s2006-02582-x

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s2006-02582-x 2006

  7. [7]

    Willmann, P.V

    L. Willmann, P.V. Schmidt, H.P. Wirtzet al., New Bounds from a Search for Muonium to Antimuonium Conversion, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 49–52 (1999), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.49. – 14 –

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.82.49 1999

  8. [8]

    A. Y. Bai, H. J. Cai, C. L. Chenet al., Conceptual design of the muonium-to-antimuonium conversion experiment (MACE), Nucl. Sci. Tech.37, 57 (2026). doi:10.1007/s41365-025-01876-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s41365-025-01876-0 2026

  9. [9]

    L. Gao, C. e. Liu, Q. Li, C. Zhou, Q. Li, L. Chen, X. Zhang, Y. Xu and Z. Sun, Probing and knocking with muons, Mod. Phys. Lett. A40(2025) no.24, 2530008 doi:10.1142/S0217732325300083 [arXiv:2503.22956 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Probing and knocking with muons and new physics exploration,

    C. e. Liu, L. Gao, Z. Wang, J. Li, M. Fan, Z. Qin, R. Zhang, Y. Xu, X. Zhang and Q. Li,et al.“Probing and knocking with muons and new physics exploration,” Chin. Sci. Bull.71 (2025) no.4, 894-903 doi:10.1360/CSB-2025-5452

    work page doi:10.1360/csb-2025-5452 2025

  11. [11]

    X. Yu, Z. Wang, C. e. Liu, Y. Feng, J. Li, X. Geng, Y. Zhang, L. Gao, R. Jiang and Y. Wu, et al.Proposed Peking University muon experiment for muon tomography and dark matter search, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.1, 016017 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.016017 [arXiv:2402.13483 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    C. e. Liu, R. Zhang, Z. Wang, A. M. Levin, L. Gao, J. Li, M. Fan, Y. Wu, Z. Qin, Y. Banet al., Probing Cosmic Ray Composition and Muonphilic Dark Matter via Muon Tomography, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, no.15, 151001 (2026) doi:10.1103/5jh7-fxf4

    work page doi:10.1103/5jh7-fxf4 2026

  13. [13]

    F. An, D. Bai, H. Cai, S. Chen, X. Chen, H. Duyang, L. Gao, S. F. Ge, S. Ge and J. He,et al.High-Precision Physics Experiments at Huizhou Large-Scale Scientific Facilities, Chin. Phys. Lett.42(2025) no.11, 110102 doi:10.1088/0256-307X/42/11/110102 [arXiv:2504.21050 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Arias-Arag´ on, L

    F. Arias-Arag´ on, L. Darm´ e, G. G. di Cortona and E. Nardi, Production of Dark Sector Particles via Resonant Positron Annihilation on Atomic Electrons, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, no.26, 261801 (2024) [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.133, no.21, 219901 (2024)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.261801 [arXiv:2403.15387 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Arias-Arag´ on, G

    F. Arias-Arag´ on, G. G. di Cortona and E. Nardi, Unveiling atomic electron motion effects in e+e− high energy collisions at NA64, JHEP10, 174 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2025)174 [arXiv:2507.08941 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Arias-Arag´ on, L

    F. Arias-Arag´ on, L. Darm´ e, G. G. di Cortona and E. Nardi, Atoms as Electron Accelerators for Measuring the Cross Section ofe +e− →Hadrons, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 061802 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.061802

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.061802 2025

  17. [17]

    Darm´ e, Q

    L. Darm´ e, Q. Li, H.-S. Shao, J. Shen, Y. Wu, To appear (2026)

    2026

  18. [18]

    Plestid and M

    R. Plestid and M. ˜B. Wise, Atomic binding corrections for high-energy fixed target experiments, Phys. Rev. D110, 056032 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.056032

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.056032 2024

  19. [19]

    Ignatov, R

    F. Ignatov, R. N. Pilato, T. Teubner and G. Venanzoni, An alternative evaluation of the leading-order hadronic contribution to the muong−2 with MUonE, Phys. Lett. B848 (2024), 138344 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138344 [arXiv:2309.14205 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Abbiendi, Status of the MUonE experiment, Phys

    G. Abbiendi, Status of the MUonE experiment, Phys. Scr.97, 054007 (2022), doi:10.1088/1402-4896/ac6297

    work page doi:10.1088/1402-4896/ac6297 2022

  21. [21]

    M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory, 1st ed., Addison-Wesley (1995), isbn:978-0-201-50397-5

    1995

  22. [22]

    Gardner and J

    S. Gardner and J. Piekarewicz, Relativistically generated asymmetry in the missing-momentum distribution from the (e,e’p) reaction, Phys. Rev. C50, 2822 (1994) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.50.2822. – 15 –

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.50.2822 1994

  23. [23]

    Biggs, L

    F. Biggs, L. B. Mendelsohn, and J. B. Mann, Hartree-Fock Compton profiles for the elements, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables16, 201–309 (1975) doi:10.1016/0092-640X(75)90030-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0092-640x(75)90030-3 1975

  24. [24]

    Huzinaga, Gaussian-Type functions for polyatomic systems

    S. Huzinaga, Gaussian-Type functions for polyatomic systems. I, J. Chem. Phys.42, 1293–1302 (1965) doi:10.1063/1.1696113

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1696113 1965

  25. [25]

    Steinborn and K

    E.O. Steinborn and K. Ruedenberg, Rotation and Translation of Regular and Irregular Solid Spherical Harmonics, Adv. Quantum Chem.7, 1–81 (1973) doi:10.1016/S0065-3276(08)60558-4

    work page doi:10.1016/s0065-3276(08)60558-4 1973

  26. [26]

    Clementi and C

    E. Clementi and C. Roetti, Roothaan-Hartree-Fock atomic wavefunctions: Basis functions and their coefficients for ground and certain excited states of neutral and ionized atoms, Z≤ 54, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables14, 177–478 (1974) doi:10.1016/S0092-640X(74)80016-1

    work page doi:10.1016/s0092-640x(74)80016-1 1974

  27. [27]

    Kaijser and V

    P. Kaijser and V. H. Smith, Jr., Evaluation of Momentum Distributions and Compton Profiles for Atomic and Molecular Systems, Adv. Quantum Chem.10, 37–76 (1977) doi:10.1016/S0065-3276(08)60578-X

    work page doi:10.1016/s0065-3276(08)60578-x 1977

  28. [28]

    Filter and E

    E. Filter and E. O. Steinborn, Extremely compact formulas for molecular two-center one-electron integrals and Coulomb integrals over Slater-type atomic orbitals, Phys. Rev. A 18, 1–11 (1978) doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.18.1

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.18.1 1978

  29. [29]

    D. K. Maretis, Talmi transformation and the multicenter integrals of harmonic oscillator functions, J. Chem. Phys.71, 917–921 (1979) doi:10.1063/1.438381

    work page doi:10.1063/1.438381 1979

  30. [30]

    E. J. Weniger and E. O. Steinborn, The Fourier transforms of some exponential-type basis functions and their relevance to multicenter problems, J. Chem. Phys.78, 6121–6132 (1983) doi:10.1063/1.444574

    work page doi:10.1063/1.444574 1983

  31. [31]

    E. J. Weniger, Weakly convergent expansions of a plane wave and their use in Fourier integrals, J. Math. Phys.26, 276–291 (1985) doi:10.1063/1.526970

    work page doi:10.1063/1.526970 1985

  32. [32]

    Zhou and J

    X. Zhou and J. Yang, Status of the High Intensity Heavy-Ion Accelerator Facility in China, AAPPS Bull.32, 35 (2022) doi:10.1007/s43673-022-00064-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s43673-022-00064-1 2022

  33. [33]

    Xuet al., Feasibility study of a GeV-energy muon source based on the High Intensity Heavy-Ion Accelerator Facility, Phys

    Y. Xuet al., Feasibility study of a GeV-energy muon source based on the High Intensity Heavy-Ion Accelerator Facility, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams28, 053401 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.28.053401

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevaccelbeams.28.053401 2025

  34. [34]

    Cesarottiet al., Sensitivity potential to a light flavor-changing scalar boson with DUNE and NA64µ, Eur

    C. Cesarottiet al., Sensitivity potential to a light flavor-changing scalar boson with DUNE and NA64µ, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 775 (2023) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11891-3 [arXiv:2306.07405 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Abiet al.[Muong-2], Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.46 ppm, Phys

    B. Abiet al.[Muong-2], Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.46 ppm, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 141801 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.141801 [arXiv:2104.03281 [hep-ex]]. – 16 –

    arXiv 2021