Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 91 references

A compact frozen-spin trap for the search for the electric dipole moment of the muon

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By freezing the muon's spin precession, a compact solenoid trap aims to detect a muon electric dipole moment at sensitivities down to 6×10^-23 e·cm, a three-thousandfold improvement over the current direct limit.

desk verdict A serious, honest design study for a compact muon EDM experiment; the projected sensitivity is conditional on unvalidated injection efficiency. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18979 v1 pith:MPQ3AYDL submitted 2025-01-31 hep-ex

A. Adelmann , A.R. Bainbridge , I. Bailey , A. Baldini , S. Basnet , N. Berger , C. Calzolaio , L. Caminada
show 52 more authors
G. Cavoto F. Cei R. Chakraborty C. Chavez Barajas M. Chiappini A. Crivellin C. Dutsov A. Ebrahimi M. Francesconi L. Galli G. Gallucci M. Giovannozzi H. Goyal M. Grassi A. Gurgone M. Hildebrandt M. Hoferichter D. Höhl T. Hu T. Hume J.A. Jaeger P. Juknevicius H.C. Kästli A. Keshavarzi K.S. Khaw K. Kirch A. Kozlinskiy M. Lancaster B. Märkisch L. Morvaj A. Papa M. Paraliev D. Pasciuto J. Price F. Renga M. Sakurai D. Sanz-Becerra P. Schmidt-Wellenburg Y. Z. Shang Y. Takeuchi M.E. Tegano T. Teubner F. Trillaud D. Uglietti D. Vasilkova A. Venturini B. Vitali C. Voena J. Vossebeld F. Wauters G.M. Wong Y. Zeng
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex PACS 13.40.Em14.60.Ef11.30.Er
keywords electricdipolemomentmuonEDMfrozen-spintechniquecompactstoragetrapThomas-BMTequationCPviolationtime-reversalspinprecession
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

The paper argues that the muon's electric dipole moment can be searched for with a compact, table-top-scale storage trap using the frozen-spin technique, reaching a statistical sensitivity of 4×$10^{-21}$ e·cm in a 200-day first phase and 6×$10^{-23}$ e·cm in a later phase. The trick is to store muons of about 23 MeV/c in a 2.5 T solenoid and apply a radial electric field that cancels the muon's g-2 spin precession, so that any remaining spin precession out of the orbit plane can only be due to an EDM. A positive result would be the first direct measurement of a muon EDM and would probe sources of CP violation beyond the Standard Model; a null result would improve the current best limit about 45-fold in Phase I and about 3000-fold in Phase II. The paper lays out the experimental design, detector system, and analysis methods that would achieve this.

What carries the argument

The central object is the frozen-spin condition derived from the Thomas-BMT equation: a radial electric field E_f = aBcβγ² is tuned to zero the anomalous spin precession, leaving only EDM-driven precession ω_e = 2d_µ β c B/ℏ around the rest-frame electric field. The carrying mechanism is a compact 2.5 T solenoid (5 T in Phase II) with a weakly-focusing field, into which muons are longitudinally injected through magnetically shielded tubes and stopped by a pulsed magnetic kicker; a segmented ground/HV electrode pair supplies the radial E-field, and the CHeT fiber tracker measures the decay-positron asymmetry along and opposite to the B-field. The analysis uses an energy-threshold and angular-binned W-method to maximize the figure of merit F = ᾱ√(N_e+/N_µ+).

What would settle it

Commission the Phase I apparatus and measure the actual stored-muon rate and the residual spin-precession frequency as a function of the applied radial electric field; a stored rate well below 500/s, or a failure to observe the expected linear zero-crossing of the precession frequency at the predicted frozen-spin field, would invalidate the claimed sensitivity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This paper establishes the feasibility of a direct muon EDM search using a compact frozen-spin trap at a high-intensity surface-muon beamline. It claims that with 4×$10^{6}$ muons/s at 28 MeV/c, a stored rate of 500/s, and 200 days of data, statistics give σ(d) ≤ 4×$10^{-21}$ e·cm; with 1.2×$10^{8}$ muons/s at 125 MeV/c, a stored rate of $10^{5}$/s, the sensitivity reaches σ(d) ≤ 6×$10^{-23}$ e·cm. The underlying claim is that the frozen-spin condition E ≈ aBcβγ² can be realized and maintained well enough that systematic effects stay below statistical sensitivity, with the dominant systematic uncertainties controlled by alternating clockwise and counter-clockwise injection with magnetic-field reversal.

Load-bearing premise

The projected sensitivity scales as one over the square root of the number of stored muons, and the stored rates used in the projections rest on Monte-Carlo-simulated injection efficiencies (0.45% in Phase I) and channel transmission (3%) that have not yet been demonstrated in a real apparatus; if the achieved injection efficiency is lower, the sensitivity degrades proportionally.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the design works, Phase I would improve the direct muon EDM limit of 1.8×10^-19 e·cm by about 45 times.
  • Phase II would reach 6×10^-23 e·cm, probing phases of order one in the Wilson coefficient of the muon dipole operator in beyond-Standard-Model effective field theories.
  • A null result would constrain scenarios with chiral enhancement and lepton-flavor symmetries that predict a large muon EDM.
  • The demonstration would establish the frozen-spin technique in a compact storage trap as a general tool for charged-lepton EDM searches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the simulated injection efficiency proves lower in practice, the Phase I sensitivity could still be recovered by extending the data-taking period, since the 200-day figure scales linearly with the stored-muon rate.
  • The staged approach de-risks the measurement: Phase I's primary goal is to demonstrate the frozen-spin and injection methods, and only if that succeeds does the 3000-fold improvement of Phase II become plausible.
  • The systematic budget leans heavily on the clockwise/counter-clockwise reversal; any residual difference in beam momentum or initial spin phase between the two injection modes is the main constraint on the final sensitivity.
  • The same frozen-spin trap concept could be adapted to other charged particles with sufficiently long lifetimes or to a complementary search for the muon anomalous magnetic moment by detuning the electric field from the frozen-spin condition.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a conceptual design for a compact frozen-spin storage trap to search for the muon electric dipole moment at PSI. The experiment would store muons in a solenoidal magnetic field and apply a radial electric field tuned to the frozen-spin condition, so that the muon spin precesses only under the influence of an EDM. The manuscript derives the statistical sensitivity from the Thomas-BMT equation and Michel-decay kinematics, defines figures of merit for different analysis methods (simple counting, T-method, W-method), and describes the proposed Phase I and Phase II instrumentation: injection channels with magnetic shielding, a pulsed kicker, segmented frozen-spin electrodes, muon detectors, a positron tracker, and the DAQ system. The stated central claims are a Phase I statistical sensitivity of σ(d) ≤ 4×10^-21 e·cm in 200 days and a Phase II sensitivity of σ(d) ≤ 6×10^-23 e·cm. The paper also includes a systematic-effect table and references a companion paper for detailed spin-precession systematic studies.

Significance. If realized, the proposed experiment would improve the current direct muon EDM limit by a factor of about 45 in Phase I and about 3000 in Phase II, reaching a region of interest for several beyond-Standard-Model scenarios. The paper's main strengths are its transparent analytical framework: Appendix A gives a self-contained derivation of the statistical sensitivity, Section IIIA derives the analyzing-power figures of merit from Michel decay kinematics, and the design parameters are specified with enough detail to be simulated or checked. The manuscript also reports component-level prototype work (muon beam monitor, ToF detectors, entrance trigger, segmented electrodes, pulse-coil prototype), which lends credibility to the hardware concept. The central weakness is that the two efficiency numbers that convert the measured beam flux into a stored-muon rate—the channel transmission and the spiral-injection efficiency—are Monte-Carlo-derived and not yet experimentally validated; the paper itself labels the injection efficiency as a baseline 'subject to further refinement'.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (5) and Appendix A, Eq. (A12)] The statistical-sensitivity formula printed as Eq. (5) is not the formula derived in Appendix A. Eq. (5) places N, γτ, and α~ together under a square root, σ(dμ) = ħ/(2P0βcB sqrt(N γτ α~)), whereas Eq. (A12) gives σ(dμ) = ħ/(2cβB α~ P) × 1/(γτ sqrt(N)), with α~ and γτ outside the square root. The main text states that Eq. (5) is used to obtain the quoted numbers, so the two must be reconciled: if Eq. (5) is intended, the scaling with N, lifetime, and analyzing power is different and the quoted Phase I/II sensitivities need to be re-derived; if Eq. (A12) is intended, Eq. (5) is a typographical error that must be corrected before publication.
  2. [Table I and Sec. IVB (Tables IV)] The central Phase I projection σ(d)≤4×10^-21 e·cm in 200 days is a statistical limit that scales as 1/sqrt(N). The assumed detected-positron rate N=400/s is the product of the measured 4×10^6/s beam flux and two Monte-Carlo-derived quantities: channel transmission of 0.03 and injection efficiency of 0.004 (Tables I and IV). The injection efficiency is explicitly described in Sec. IVB as a baseline 'subject to further refinement', and the solenoid field map used for the injection simulation was reconstructed by fitting a limited set of measured data to an ANSYS model (Sec. IVB1). No stored-muon rate has been demonstrated in a prototype or beam test. A factor-f shortfall in the injection efficiency degrades the Phase I sensitivity by sqrt(f); for example, a factor-4 shortfall moves the projection from 4×10^-21 to about 8×10^-21 e·cm. The paper should either provide an end-to-end validation of the storage rate or present the sensitivity as a simulation-conditioned projection with an explicit efficiency-uncertainty band instead of an unconditional 'expected sensitivity'.
  3. [Table III and Sec. IIIB] Table III lists expected values for many systematic-effect parameters—radial B-field of 5 µT at 100 kHz, azimuthal current below 10 mA, CW/CCW momentum difference of 0.2%, initial-polarization difference of 25 mrad, orbit displacement of 1 mm, and pitch below 1 mrad—and totals them to 0.75×10^-21 e·cm (Phase I) and 1.7×10^-23 e·cm (Phase II). Several of these entries are design targets rather than measured or otherwise demonstrated quantities, and the text does not state which entries have prototype validation. Since the conclusion claims the experiment is 'meeting the requirements to control systematic effects accordingly', the manuscript should distinguish requirements from validated capabilities and give, for each Table III row, the source of the expected value (measurement, simulation, or assumption).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I] The quoted detection rate and number of detections per 200 days are inconsistent: 400/s × 200 days = 6.9×10^9, not 5.8×10^9 as listed; the origin of the 16% reduction (dead time, duty factor, or analysis cuts) should be stated.
  2. [Eq. (3) and Sec. II.A] For γ≈1 the coefficient (a−1/(γ^2−1)) in Eq. (3) is negative, while the text immediately below writes E_f = aBcβγ^2 with a positive sign; the radial orientation or sign convention should be defined so that the two expressions agree.
  3. [Table IV] The units in Table IV mix current densities (A/mm^2) for the correction coils and weak-focusing coil with a total current (A) for the pulse coil; the table should state the geometry over which each current density is applied.
  4. [Sec. II.B] The text says single measurements are repeated 'about 400 times per second', while Table I lists a muon storage rate of 500/s and a positron detection rate of 400/s; the relationship between these three rates should be clarified.
  5. [Fig. 13 caption] The caption contains the typo 'anti-Helmoltz'; it should read 'anti-Helmholtz'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the EDM sensitivity is a Poisson-scaled Thomas-BMT/Michel-decay projection, and its rate inputs are stated as simulated baselines rather than as quantities fitted to an EDM.

full rationale

The central sensitivity formula, Eq. (5) and its Appendix A derivation Eq. (A12), is derived from the Thomas-BMT precession equation and the Michel decay asymmetry; no EDM value, posterior, or fitted parameter enters the derivation. The frozen-spin condition, Eq. (3), is obtained algebraically from the Thomas-BMT equation, and the paper explicitly plans to set the electric field by measuring Omega(E_rho) and interpolating to zero, i.e., by calibration rather than by assuming the target EDM. The statistical reach sigma(d) <= 4e-21 e.cm does depend on N, the number of detected positrons, and N is built from the measured beam flux (4e6/s) times MC-derived channel transmission (3%) and injection efficiency (0.45%), which are labeled in Table I and Table IV as 'deduced in MC simulations' and 'baseline, subject to further refinement.' These are unvalidated performance assumptions, not fitted inputs disguised as predictions; if the real storage rate is lower, the sensitivity degrades as 1/sqrt(N), exactly as the paper's formula states. The self-citations (Refs. [51], [60], [71]) are supporting: the frozen-spin technique is also referenced to the external works [49,50], the systematic limits in Table III are delegated to a separately published EPJC study, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. Therefore no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The sensitivity derivation is analytically sound but depends on several unverified experimental performance parameters (injection efficiency, transmission) and on design-goal thresholds for systematic control. No new particles or forces are introduced. The physics inputs (Thomas-BMT, Michel decay) are standard.

free parameters (3)
  • Phase I injection efficiency = 0.45% (baseline from MC)
    Simulated spiral injection efficiency (Table IV) determines the muon storage rate and directly scales the statistical sensitivity; not yet experimentally demonstrated.
  • Phase I channel transmission = 3% (baseline from MC)
    Transmission through the shielded injection tube from G4Beamline simulation (Table I, Sec. IVB2); multiplies the beam flux to give the muon flux entering the trap.
  • T-method energy threshold u0 = 0.626 (Phase I), 0.183 (Phase II)
    Energy threshold chosen to maximize the figure of merit F (Sec. IIIA); an analysis optimization, not a fit to a target EDM, but it affects the projected sensitivity.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Thomas-BMT spin precession equation
    Used to derive the frozen-spin condition and EDM-induced precession (Eq. 2); standard accelerator physics result taken as established.
  • domain assumption Michel decay spectrum
    Used to compute the decay positron asymmetry and figure of merit (Eq. 7); standard electroweak decay distribution, with radiative corrections from Ref. [67].
  • domain assumption Neglect of decoherence in sensitivity estimate
    Eq. (4) assumes P(t) ≈ P0 ω_e t, neglecting spin decoherence during storage; depolarization from momentum spread is discussed separately in Sec. IIIB.
  • domain assumption Zero correlation between forward and backward positron counts
    Appendix A assumes ρ = 0 between Na and Nc when computing the variance of the asymmetry; the paper states the correlation is expected to be small for small EDM.
  • ad hoc to paper Achievability of systematic-effect limits
    Table III requires radial B-field stability, electric field stability (10^-4), and alignment tolerances that are design goals, not yet demonstrated experimentally; the limits are needed to keep false EDM signals below the statistical sensitivity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A compact frozen-spin trap for the search for the electric dipole moment of the muon." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MPQ3AYDL

@misc{pith2026250118979,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A compact frozen-spin trap for the search for the electric dipole moment of the muon},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MPQ3AYDL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18979}
}
abstract

The electric dipole moments~(EDM) of fundamental particles inherently violate parity~(P) and time-reversal~(T) symmetries. By virtue of the CPT theorem in quantum field theory, the latter also implies the violation of the combined charge-conjugation and parity~(CP) symmetry. We aim to measure the EDM of the muon using the frozen-spin technique within a compact storage trap. This method exploits the high effective electric field, \$E \approx 165\$ MV/m, experienced in the rest frame of the muon with a momentum of about 23 MeV/c when it passes through a solenoidal magnetic field of \$|\vec{B}|=2.5\$ T. In this paper, we outline the fundamental considerations for a muon EDM search and present a conceptual design for a demonstration experiment to be conducted at secondary muon beamlines of the Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland. In Phase~I, with an anticipated data acquisition period of 200 days, the expected sensitivity to a muon EDM is 4E-21 ecm. In a subsequent phase, Phase~II, we propose to improve the sensitivity to 6E-23 ecm using a dedicated instrument installed on a different beamline that produces muons of momentum 125 MeV/c}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18979 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Contours of dµ as a function of a potential BSM effect in the AMM ∆a BSM µ vs. the phase of the associated Wilson coefficient [28]. In theories with a flavor structure beyond the MFV paradigm, the simple scaling can be circumvented allowing for the possibility of a sizable muon EDM. Within a general model-independent effective-field￾theory (EFT) approach, the imaginary part of the Wilson coefficient of the relevant … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sketch, not to scale, of the compact superconducting solenoid and the experimental setup for the search [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spin precession of a muon stored on a circular orbit of radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (22 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Statistical sensitivity for muon EDM searches over 200 days of data taking, assuming a single-muon “on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Energy spectrum of decay positrons N, rate of change of asymmetry ∂ΘA evaluated for the spin parallel, ϕ = 0, and anti-parallel, (ϕ = π), respectively for (a) Phase I, with p = 23 MeV/c and (b) Phase II with p = 125 MeV/c. The green dashed line shows the forward-backwa…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Schematic of the kinematic variables used to derive the muon decay asymmetry. Uppercase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Integral FoM considering the T-method as a function of the threshold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Binned analysis using the W-method for the (a) Phase I experiment at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Polarization, averaged over all detected muon decays, as a function of dilated muon lifetimes (a) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Computer rendered overview of the experimental setup for Phase I. See text for a description of all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) Horizontal and (b) vertical muon beam profile for muons with a momentum of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (a) Longitudinal (upper), Bz, and radial (lower), Br, magnetic field for r = 30 mm. Continuous gray (dashed blue) line shows magnetic field with(out) weakly focusing and correction coils. (b) Magnetic field, B⃗ , along the injection tube with (dashed lines) and withou…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Pulse coils prototype (a), made of four quadrant coils. The copper tracks are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Pulse current profiles simulated using an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: A segmented electrode prevents eddy current shielding of the magnetic pulse, while preserving the required [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Photographs of the prototype beam monitor with eight rectangular tiles. All tiles are a stack of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: 3D view of the CAD design for the TOF detectors (left). The TOF detectors during the assembly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Limit on the longitudinal E-field, Ez, when considering alternating CW/CCW injections, where the difference in mean momentum averaged over all injected muons for injections of CW and CCW beams is fixed at ∆p = 0.5%. The limit is shown as a function of the initial phas…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: (a) Timing resolution of one 100 µm and one 50 µm detector pair, mounted back-to-back with a distance of a few millimeters, and a (b) time of flight measurement of positrons using a 50 µm thick scintillator upstream and a 50 µm scintillator thick scintillator downstre…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Performance of a longitudinal TPC for the reconstruction of injected muons. (a) Reconstructed momentum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: (a) CAD sketch of the entrance trigger. On the left, the muons exit the collimation tube shielded by a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Prototype of the muon exit detector. Six hexagonal scintillating tiles cover the radial range [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Geometry implemented in the Geant4 simulation. The muons enter from the left through the injection channel (not shown here). D. Positron detection A detailed model of the experiment in Geant4, shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: (a) A 3D view of the CHeT detector inside the magnet. (b) Frontal projection of the CHeT with highlighted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: CHeT acceptance as a function of momentum and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_25.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The coils are made of multi-filament Nb-Ti cable and the magnetic field can reach5 T

    Magnetic field For the demonstration experiments in Phase I we will use an existing superconducting solenoid, with mechanical bore dimensions of200 mmdiameter and 1000 mmlength. The coils are made of multi-filament Nb-Ti cable and the magnetic field can reach5 T. In addition to the principal solenoid coil, a split coil pair also made of Nb-Ti cancels seco...

    2025

  2. [2]

    Magnetically shielded injection The muon transport into the solenoid bore is shielded from the fringe magnetic field along the two injection tubes to make deflection negligible and to maximize the muon transmission from the exit of the beam line. Baseline parameters for the magnetically shielded injection tubes are a diameterdinj = 15 mmand length ℓ = 800...

  3. [3]

    IVC, at the exit of the injection channels generates a trigger signal for every muon within the storage phase space

    Magnetic field pulse A gate detector in combination with an active aperture, described in Sec. IVC, at the exit of the injection channels generates a trigger signal for every muon within the storage phase space. As the muons approach the storage region, their remaining longitudinal momentum,pz < 1 MeV/c, is significantly reduced from the initial value of ...

    2025

  4. [4]

    Maximum Integrated Data Acquisition System

    Frozen-spin electrodes The radial electric field will be applied using cylindrical concentric electrodes that surround the muon orbit atrb = 35 mm (grounded) andra = 25 mm (high voltage). A voltage of approximately1.8 kVwill be required so that the field strengthEf≈ 1.8 kV/cm is applied at the nominal orbit radius,ρ, to achieve the frozen-spin condition. ...

    2000

  5. [5]

    G. Lüders. ‘Proof of the TCP theorem.’ Ann. Phys., 2(1957) 1. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ 0003-4916(57)90032-5

    1957

  6. [6]

    Kobayashi and T

    M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa. ‘CP Violation in the Renormalizable Theory of Weak Interaction.’ Prog. Theor. Phys., 49(1973) 652. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1143/PTP.49.652

    doi:10.1143/ptp.49.652 1973

  7. [7]

    Jarlskog

    C. Jarlskog. ‘Commutatorof the QuarkMass Matrices in theStandard ElectroweakModel anda Measure of Max- imal CP Nonconservation.’ Phys. Rev. Lett., 55(1985) 1039. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 55.1039

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett 1985

  8. [8]

    Navaset al

    S. Navaset al. ‘Review of particle physics.’ Phys. Rev. D, 110(2024) 030001. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    2024

Show all 91 references
  1. [9]

    Hocker, H

    A. Hocker, H. Lacker, S. Laplace, and F. Le Diberder. ‘A New approach to a global fit of the CKM matrix.’ Eur. Phys. J. C, 21(2001) 225. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s100520100729. hep-ph/0104062

    2001 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Bona et al

    M. Bona et al. ‘The 2004 UTfit collaboration report on the status of the unitarity triangle in the standard model.’ JHEP, 07(2005) 028. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2005/07/028. hep-ph/0501199

    2005 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Pospelov and A

    M. Pospelov and A. Ritz. ‘CKM benchmarks for electron electric dipole moment experiments.’ Phys. Rev. D, 89(2014) 056006. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.056006. 1311.5537

    2014 arXiv

  4. [12]

    C.-Y. Seng. ‘Reexamination of The Standard Model Nucleon Electric Dipole Moment.’ Phys. Rev. C, 91(2015) 025502. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.91.025502. 1411.1476

    2015 arXiv

  5. [13]

    ’t Hooft

    G. ’t Hooft. ‘Symmetry Breaking through Bell-Jackiw Anomalies.’ Phys. Rev. Lett., 37(1976) 8. URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.37.8

    1976 doi

  6. [14]

    C. Abel, S. Afach, N. J. Ayres,et al. ‘Measurement of the Permanent Electric Dipole Moment of the Neutron.’ Phys. Rev. Lett., 124(2020) 081803. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.124.081803

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    R. J. Crewther, P. Di Vecchia, G. Veneziano, and E. Witten. ‘Chiral Estimate of the Electric Dipole Moment of the Neutron in Quantum Chromodynamics.’ Phys. Lett. B, 88(1979) 123. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ 0370-2693(79)90128-X. [Erratum: Phys. Lett. B91, 487 (1980)]

    1979

  8. [16]

    Dragos, T

    J. Dragos, T. Luu, A. Shindler,et al.‘Confirming the Existence of the strong CP Problem in Lattice QCD with the Gradient Flow.’ Phys. Rev. C, 103(2021) 015202. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.103.015202. 1902.03254

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Alexandrou, A

    C. Alexandrou, A. Athenodorou, K. Hadjiyiannakou, and A. Todaro. ‘Neutron electric dipole moment using lattice QCD simulations at the physical point.’ Phys. Rev. D, 103(2021) 054501. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevD.103.054501. 2011.01084

    2021

  10. [18]

    Bhattacharya, V

    T. Bhattacharya, V. Cirigliano, R. Gupta,et al. ‘Contribution of the QCD Θ-term to the nucleon electric dipole moment.’ Phys. Rev. D, 103(2021) 114507. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.114507. 2101.07230

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ghosh and R

    D. Ghosh and R. Sato. ‘Lepton electric dipole moment and strong CP violation.’ Phys. Lett. B, 777(2018) 335. URL http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2017.12.052

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    A. D. Sakharov. ‘Violation of CP invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the Universe.’ JETP Lett., 5(1967) 24. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1070/PU1991v034n05ABEH002497

    1967 doi

  13. [21]

    J. H. Smith, E. M. Purcell, and N. F. Ramsey. ‘Experimental Limit to the Electric Dipole Moment of the Neutron.’ Phys. Rev., 108(1957) 120. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.108.120

    1957 doi

  14. [22]

    Berley, R

    D. Berley, R. L. Garwin, G. Gidal, and L. M. Lederman. ‘Electric Dipole Moment of the Muon.’ Phys. Rev. Lett., 1(1958) 144. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.1.263.3

    1958 doi

  15. [23]

    Jungmann

    K. Jungmann. ‘Searching for electric dipole moments.’ Ann. Phys., 525(2013) 550

    2013

  16. [24]

    T. E. Chupp, P. Fierlinger, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and J. T. Singh. ‘Electric dipole moments of atoms, molecules, nuclei, and particles.’ Rev. Mod. Phys., 91(2019) 015001. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.91. 015001

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    W. B. Cairncross and J. Ye. ‘Atoms and molecules in the search for time-reversal symmetry violation.’ Nat. Rev. Phys., 1(2019) 510. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s42254-019-0080-0. 30

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    Cirigliano, B

    V. Cirigliano, B. Grinstein, G. Isidori, and M. B. Wise. ‘Minimal flavor violation in the lepton sector.’ Nucl. Phys. B, 728(2005) 121. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.08.037. hep-ph/0507001

    2005 arXiv

  19. [27]

    R. S. Chivukula, H. Georgi, and L. Randall. ‘A Composite Technicolor Standard Model of Quarks.’ Nucl. Phys. B, 292(1987) 93. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(87)90638-9

    1987 doi

  20. [28]

    L. J. Hall and L. Randall. ‘Weak scale effective supersymmetry.’ Phys. Rev. Lett., 65(1990) 2939. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.65.2939

    1990 doi

  21. [29]

    A.J.Buras, P.Gambino, M.Gorbahn, et al.‘Universalunitaritytriangleandphysicsbeyondthestandardmodel.’ Phys. Lett. B, 500(2001) 161. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00061-2. hep-ph/0007085

    2001 arXiv

  22. [30]

    D’Ambrosio, G

    G. D’Ambrosio, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori, and A. Strumia. ‘Minimal flavor violation: An Effective field theory approach.’ Nucl. Phys. B, 645(2002) 155. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(02)00836-2. hep- ph/0207036

    2002

  23. [31]

    T. S. Roussy, L. Caldwell, T. Wright,et al. ‘An improved bound on the electron’s electric dipole moment.’ Science, 381(2023) 46. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.adg4084. 2212.11841

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Crivellin, M

    A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, and P. Schmidt-Wellenburg. ‘Combined explanations of (g-2)µ,e and implications for a large muon EDM.’ Phys. Rev. D, 98(2018) 113002. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.113002. 1807.11484

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    D. P. Aguillardet al. ‘Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.20 ppm.’ Phys. Rev. Lett., 131(2023) 161802. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.161802. 2308.06230

    2023

  26. [34]

    D. P. Aguillardet al. ‘Detailed report on the measurement of the positive muon anomalous magnetic moment to 0.20 ppm.’ Phys. Rev. D, 110(2024) 032009. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.032009. 2402.15410

    2024

  27. [35]

    Aoyama, N

    T. Aoyama, N. Asmussen, M. Benayoun,et al. ‘The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model.’ Phys. Rep., 887(2020) 1. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2020.07.006. 2006.04822

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Colangeloet al

    G. Colangeloet al. ‘Prospects for precise predictions ofaµ in the Standard Model.’ (2022). 2203.15810

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    J. L. Feng, K. T. Matchev, and Y. Shadmi. ‘Theoretical expectations for the muon’s electric dipole moment.’ Nucl. Phys., B613(2001) 366. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(01)00383-2. hep-ph/0107182

    2001 arXiv

  30. [38]

    X. G. He, G. C. Joshi, H. Lew, and R. R. Volkas. ‘NEW Z-prime PHENOMENOLOGY.’ Phys. Rev. D, 43(1991)

    1991

  31. [39]

    URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.43.R22

    doi

  32. [40]

    R. Foot. ‘New Physics From Electric Charge Quantization?’ Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 6(1991) 527. URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0217732391000543

    1991 doi

  33. [41]

    X.-G. He, G. C. Joshi, H. Lew, and R. R. Volkas. ‘Simplest Z-prime model.’ Phys. Rev. D, 44(1991) 2118. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.44.2118

    1991 doi

  34. [42]

    Altmannshofer, M

    W. Altmannshofer, M. Carena, and A. Crivellin. ‘Lµ− Lτ theory of Higgs flavor violation and(g− 2)µ.’ Phys. Rev. D, 94(2016) 095026. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.095026. 1604.08221

    2016 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Bigaran and R

    I. Bigaran and R. R. Volkas. ‘Reflecting on chirality: CP-violating extensions of the single scalar-leptoquark solutions for the (g-2)e,µ puzzles and their implications for lepton EDMs.’ Phys. Rev. D, 105(2022) 015002. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.015002. 2110.03707

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Crivellin and M

    A. Crivellin and M. Hoferichter. ‘Consequences of chirally enhanced explanations of (g− 2)µ for h→ µµ and Z → µµ.’ JHEP, 07(2021) 135. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2021)135. [Erratum: JHEP 10, 030 (2022)], 2104.03202

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    G. M. Pruna. ‘Leptonic CP violation in the charged sector and effective field theory approach.’ PoS, FPCP2017(2017) 016. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.22323/1.304.0016. 1710.08311

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Crivellin and M

    A. Crivellin and M. Hoferichter. ‘Combined explanations of (g− 2)µ, (g− 2)e and implications for a large muon EDM.’ arXiv e-prints, (2019) arXiv:1905.03789. URL https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/ 2019arXiv190503789C. 1905.03789

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    G. W. Bennett, B. Bousquet, H. N. Brown,et al. ‘Improved limit on the muon electric dipole moment.’ Phys. Rev. D, 80(2009) 052008. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.052008. 0811.1207

    2009 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Andreev, D

    V. Andreev, D. Ang, D. DeMille,et al. ‘Improved limit on the electric dipole moment of the electron.’ Nature, 562(2018) 355. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0599-8

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    Inamiet al

    K. Inamiet al. ‘An improved search for the electric dipole moment of theτ lepton.’ JHEP, 04(2022) 110. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2022)110. 2108.11543

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Bernabéu, G

    J. Bernabéu, G. A. González-Sprinberg, and J. Vidal. ‘CP violation and electric-dipole-moment at low energy tau production with polarized electrons.’ Nucl. Phys. B, 763(2007) 283. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. nuclphysb.2006.11.023. hep-ph/0610135

    2007 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Crivellin, M

    A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, and J. M. Roney. ‘Toward testing the magnetic moment of the tau at one part per million.’ Phys.Rev.D,106(2022)093007. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.093007. 2111.10378

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    A. G. Grozin, I. B. Khriplovich, and A. S. Rudenko. ‘Electric dipole moments, from e to tau.’ Phys. Atom. Nucl., 72(2009) 1203. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S1063778809070138. 0811.1641

    2009 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Y. Ema, T. Gao, and M. Pospelov. ‘Improved Indirect Limits on Muon Electric Dipole Moment.’ Phys. Rev. Lett., 128(2022) 131803. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.131803. 2108.05398

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    I. B. Khriplovich. ‘Feasibility of search for nuclear electric dipole moments at ion storage rings.’ Phys. Lett. B, 444(1998) 98. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(98)01353-7. hep-ph/9809336

    1998 arXiv

  47. [55]

    F. J. M. Farley, K. Jungmann, J. P. Miller,et al. ‘A New method of measuring electric dipole moments in storage rings.’ Phys. Rev. Lett., 93(2004) 052001. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.052001. hep-ex/0307006

    2004 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Adelmann, K

    A. Adelmann, K. Kirch, C. J. G. Onderwater, and T. Schietinger. ‘Compact storage ring to search for the muon electric dipole moment.’ J. Phys. G, 37(2010) 085001. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/37/8/ 085001. 31

    2010 doi

  49. [57]

    D. Barna. ‘High field septum magnet using a superconducting shield for the Future Circular Collider.’ Phys. Rev. Acc. Beams, 20(2017) 041002. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.20.041002

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    Graner, Y

    B. Graner, Y. Chen, E. G. Lindahl, and B. R. Heckel. ‘Reduced Limit on the Permanent Electric Dipole Moment of Hg199.’ Phys. Rev. Lett., 116(2016) 161601. 1601.04339

    2016 arXiv

  51. [59]

    N. J. Ayres, G. Ban, L. Bienstman,et al.‘The design of the n2EDM experiment.’ Eur. Phys. J. C, 81(2021) 512. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09298-z

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    N. F. Ramsey. ‘A Molecular Beam Resonance Method with Separated Oscillating Fields.’ Phys. Rev., 78(1950) 695

    1950

  53. [61]

    L. Thomas. ‘I. The kinematics of an electron with an axis.’ The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Phil. Mag. Jour. Sci., 3(1927) 1. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14786440108564170

    1927 doi

  54. [62]

    Bargmann, L

    V. Bargmann, L. Michel, and V. L. Telegdi. ‘Precession of the Polarization of Particles Moving in a Homogeneous Electromagnetic Field.’ Phys. Rev. Lett., 2(1959) 435. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.2.435

    1959 doi

  55. [63]

    M.Abe, S.Bae, G.Beer, et al.‘Anewapproachformeasuringthemuonanomalousmagneticmomentandelectric dipole moment.’ Prog. Theo. Exp. Phys., 2019(2019) 053C02. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptz030. 1901.03047

    2019 arXiv

  56. [64]

    B. Abi, T. Albahri, S. Al-Kilani,et al. ‘Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.46 ppm.’ Phys. Rev. Lett., 126(2021) 141801. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.141801

    2021 doi

  57. [65]

    Adelmann, M

    A. Adelmann, M. Backhaus, C. Chavez Barajas, et al. ‘Search for a muon EDM using the frozen-spin technique.’ PSI Letter Of Intent, (2021) arXiv:2102.08838. URL https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/ 2021arXiv210208838A. 2102.08838

    2021 arXiv

  58. [66]

    W. B. Dress, P. D. Miller, J. M. Pendlebury,et al. ‘Search for an electric dipole moment of the neutron.’ Phys. Rev. D, 15(1977) 9. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.15.9

    1977 doi

  59. [67]

    Iinuma, H

    H. Iinuma, H. Nakayama, K. Oide,et al.‘Three-dimensional spiral injection scheme for the g-2/EDM experiment at J-PARC.’ Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. A, 832(2016) 51. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2016. 05.126

    2016 doi

  60. [68]

    L. Michel. ‘Interaction between Four Half-Spin Particles and the Decay of theµ-Meson.’ Proc. Phys. Soc. A, 63(1950) 514. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0370-1298/63/5/311

    1950 doi

  61. [69]

    Bouchiat and L

    C. Bouchiat and L. Michel. ‘Theory ofµ-Meson Decay with the Hypothesis of Nonconservation of Parity.’ Phys. Rev., 106(1957) 170. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.106.170

    1957 doi

  62. [70]

    Kinoshita and A

    T. Kinoshita and A. Sirlin. ‘Polarization of Electrons in Muon Decay with General Parity-Nonconserving Inter- actions.’ Phys. Rev., 108(1957) 844. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.108.844

    1957 doi

  63. [71]

    Kinoshita and A

    T. Kinoshita and A. Sirlin. ‘Radiative Corrections to Fermi Interactions.’ Phys. Rev., 113(1959) 1652. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.113.1652

    1959 doi

  64. [72]

    Banerjee, A

    P. Banerjee, A. Coutinho, T. Engel,et al. ‘High-precision muon decay predictions for ALP searches.’ SciPost Phys., 15(2023) 021. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.15.1.021

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

    L. S. Brown and G. Gabrielse. ‘Precision spectroscopy of a charged particle in an imperfect Penning trap.’ Phys. Rev. A, 25(1982) 2423. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.25.2423

    1982 doi

  66. [74]

    J. M. Pendlebury, W. Heil, Y. Sobolev,et al. ‘Geometric-phase-induced false electric dipole moment signals for particles in traps.’ Phys. Rev. A, 70(2004) 032102. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.70.032102

    2004 doi

  67. [75]

    M. V. Berry. ‘Quantal phase factors accompanying adiabatic changes.’ Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., A392(1984) 45. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1984.0023

    1984

  68. [76]

    Cavoto, R

    G. Cavoto, R. Chakraborty, A. Doinaki,et al. ‘Anomalous spin precession systematic effects in the search for a muon EDM using the frozen-spin technique.’ Eur. Phys. J. C, 84(2024). URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1140/ epjc/s10052-024-12604-0

    2024

  69. [77]

    Sedlak, R

    K. Sedlak, R. Scheuermann, T. Shiroka,et al. ‘MusrSim and MusrSimAna - Simulation Tools forµSR Instru- ments.’ Phys. Proc., 30(2012) 61. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phpro.2012.04.040

    2012 doi

  70. [78]

    Agostinelli, J

    S. Agostinelli, J. Allison, K. Amako,et al. ‘Geant4—a simulation toolkit.’ Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. A, 506(2003) 250. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0168-9002(03)01368-8

    2003 doi

  71. [79]

    Roberts, K

    T. Roberts, K. Beard, S. Ahmed,et al.‘G4beamline Particle Tracking in Matter Dominated Beam Lines.’ Conf. Proc. C, 110328(2011) 373

    2011

  72. [80]

    K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan. ‘A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II.’ IEEE Trans. Evo. Comp., 6(2002) 182. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1109/4235.996017

    2002

  73. [81]

    A. Papa, F. Barchetti, F. Gray, et al. ‘A multi-purposed detector with silicon photomultiplier readout of scintillating fibers.’ Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. A, 787(2015) 130 . URLhttp://dx.doi.org/https://doi. org/10.1016/j.nima.2014.11.074. New Developments in Photodetection NDIP14

    2015 doi

  74. [82]

    M. Sakurai. Towards a Search for the Muon Electric Dipole Moment using the Frozen-Spin Technique. Ph.D. thesis, ETH Zürich (2022). DISS. ETH NO. 28992

    2022

  75. [83]

    H. Noma, T. Shioda, and Y. Yoshizawa. ‘Circular hole iron septum magnet.’ Nucl. Instr. Meth., 184(1981) 587. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0029-554X(81)90769-2

    1981 doi

  76. [84]

    Barna, M

    D. Barna, M. Novák, K. Brunner,et al. ‘NbTi/Nb/Cu multilayer shield for the superconducting shield (SuShi) septum.’ IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., 29(2018) 4900108. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TASC.2018. 2872860. 1809.04330

    2018 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Nagasaki, M

    Y. Nagasaki, M. Solovyov, and F. Gomory. ‘Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Shielding Perfor- mance of Superconducting Magnetic Shields Using Coated Conductor Tapes.’ IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, 28(2018) 2808374. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TASC....

    2018

  78. [86]

    Doinaki, C

    A. Doinaki, C. Calzolaio, R. Chakraborty, et al. ‘Superconducting shield for the injection channel of the muEDM experiment at PSI.’ Jour. Instr., 18(2023) C10011. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/ 18/10/C10011. 32

    2023 doi

  79. [87]

    B. Shen, F. Grilli, and T. Coombs. ‘Overview of H-Formulation: A Versatile Tool for Modeling Electromagnetics in High-Temperature Superconductor Applications.’ IEEE Access, 8(2020) 100403. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2996177

    2020

  80. [88]

    Llopart, R

    X. Llopart, R. Ballabriga, M. Campbell,et al. ‘Timepix, a 65k programmable pixel readout chip for arrival time, energy and/or photon counting measurements.’ Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. A, 581(2007) 485. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2007.08.079

    2007 doi

  81. [89]

    Giomataris, P

    Y. Giomataris, P. Rebourgeard, J. Robert, and G. Charpak. ‘MICROMEGAS: a high-granularity position- sensitive gaseous detector for high particle-flux environments.’ Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associ...

    1996 doi

  82. [90]

    Hiller, K

    G. Hiller, K. Huitu, T. Ruppell, and J. Laamanen. ‘A Large Muon Electric Dipole Moment from Flavor?’ Phys. Rev. D, 82(2010) 093015. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.093015. 1008.5091

    2010 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Hiller, C

    G. Hiller, C. Hormigos-Feliu, D. F. Litim, and T. Steudtner. ‘Model building from asymptotic safety with Higgs and flavor portals.’ Phys. Rev. D, 102(2020) 095023. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.095023. 2008.08606. 33 Appendix A: Derivation of the statistical sensit...

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.