Abstract: The stringent experimental bound on μ-> e gamma is compatible with a simultaneous and sizable new physics contribution to the electron and muon anomalous magnetic moments (g – 2)(l) (l = e, mu), only if we assume a non-trivial flavor structure of the dipole operator coefficients. We propose a mechanism in which the realization of the (g – 2)(l) correction is manifestly related to the mass generation through a flavor symmetry. A radiative flavon correction to the fermion mass gives a contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment. In this framework, we introduce a chiral enhancement from a non-trivial O(1) quartic coupling of the scalar potential. We show that the muon and electron anomalies can be simultaneously explained in a vast region of the parameter space with predicted vector-like mediators of masses as large as M chi is an element of [0.6, 2.5] TeV.

Abstract: The CALICE collaboration is developing highly granular electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters for detectors at future energy frontier electron-positron colliders. After successful tests of a physics prototype, a technological prototype of the Analog Hadron Calorimeter has been built, based on a design and construction techniques scalable to a collider detector. The prototype consists of a steel absorber structure and active layers of small scintillator tiles that are individually read out by directly coupled SiPMs. Each layer has an active area of 72 x 72 cm2 and a tile size of 3 x 3 cm2. With 38 active layers, the prototype has nearly 22, 000 readout channels, and its total thickness amounts to 4.4 nuclear interaction lengths. The dedicated readout electronics provide time stamping of each hit with an expected resolution of about 1 ns. The prototype was constructed in 2017 and commissioned in beam tests at DESY. It recorded muons, hadron showers and electron showers at different energies in test beams at CERN in 2018. In this paper, the design of the prototype, its construction and commissioning are described. The methods used to calibrate the detector are detailed, and the performance achieved in terms of uniformity and stability is presented.

Abstract: Purpose: A surface electronic brachytherapy (EBT) device is in fact an x-ray source collimated with specific applicators. Low-energy (<100 kVp) x-ray beam dosimetry faces several challenges that need to be addressed. A number of calibration protocols have been published for x-ray beam dosimetry. The media in which measurements are performed are the fundamental difference between them. The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface dose rate of a low-energy x-ray source with small field applicators using different calibration standards and different small-volume ionization chambers, comparing the values and uncertainties of each methodology. Methods: The surface dose rate of the EBT unit Esteya (Elekta Brachytherapy, The Netherlands), a 69.5 kVp x-ray source with applicators of 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 mm diameter, was evaluated using the AAPM TG-61 (based on air kerma) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) TRS-398 (based on absorbed dose to water) dosimetry protocols for low-energy photon beams. A plane parallel T34013 ionization chamber (PTW Freiburg, Germany) calibrated in terms of both absorbed dose to water and air kerma was used to compare the two dosimetry protocols. Another PTW chamber of the same model was used to evaluate the reproducibility between these chambers. Measurements were also performed with two different Exradin A20 (Standard Imaging, Inc., Middleton, WI) chambers calibrated in terms of air kerma. Results: Differences between surface dose rates measured in air and in water using the T34013 chamber range from 1.6% to 3.3%. No field size dependence has been observed. Differences are below 3.7% when measurements with the A20 and the T34013 chambers calibrated in air are compared. Estimated uncertainty (with coverage factor k = 1) for the T34013 chamber calibrated in water is 2.2%-2.4%, whereas it increases to 2.5% and 2.7% for the A20 and T34013 chambers calibrated in air, respectively. The output factors, measured with the PTW chambers, differ by less than 1.1% for any applicator size when compared to the output factors that were measured with the A20 chamber. Conclusions: Measurements using both dosimetric protocols are consistent, once the overall uncertainties are considered. There is also consistency between measurements performed with both chambers calibrated in air. Both the T34013 and A20 chambers have negligible stem effect. Any x-ray surface brachytherapy system, including Esteya, can be characterized using either one of these calibration protocols and ionization chambers. Having less correction factors, lower uncertainty, and based on measurements, performed in closer to clinical conditions, the TRS-398 protocol seems to be the preferred option.