Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 42 references

Dynamics of Hot QCD Matter 2024 -- New facilities and instrumentation

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

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

Pith's one-line read A redesigned GEM foil with single conical holes and a thicker lower copper layer is claimed to raise gain, cut ion backflow, and strengthen the foil.

desk verdict The paper's central GEM improvement claim is contradicted by its own gain numbers, and the rest is competent but incremental proceedings material. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08187 v1 pith:ZE3WVT6J submitted 2025-02-12 hep-ex

Amal Sarkar , Prabhakar Palni , Santosh K. Das , Jaideep Kalani , Ganesh J. Tambve , Saptarshi Datta , Saloni Atreya , Sachin Rana
show 7 more authors
Md Kaosor Ali Mondal Poojan Angiras Anusree Vijay Ganapati Dash Prafulla Kumar Behera Deepak Samuel Theertha C
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex PACS 12.38.-t12.38.Aw
keywords GasElectronMultiplierGEMfoilgeometryionbackflowmicropatterngaseousdetectorsdetectorsimulationLowGainAvalancheDiodemuong-2/EDM
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

Standard Gas Electron Multiplier (GEM) foils lose performance because their holes trap ions and limit electron gain. The paper proposes a different foil geometry—a single conical hole with a wider lower opening and a thicker lower copper layer—and uses field and avalanche simulations to show that it raises gain, lowers ion backflow, and makes the foil sturdier. This matters because GEM detectors are widely used for particle tracking, and ion backflow is one of the main effects that degrades their rate capability and signal quality. The rest of the proceedings covers supporting detector developments, including fast silicon timing sensors, MICROMEGAS simulations, silicon sensor characterization, and a muon magnetic-moment experiment, but the GEM geometry is the central new design claim.

What carries the argument

The central object is the GEM foil hole profile. The proposed geometry is a single conical hole, 50 µm across at the upper copper surface and 70 µm at the lower surface, with the lower copper layer thickened from 5 µm to 20 µm. The mechanism is geometric: a wider lower opening enlarges the avalanche volume and lets ions escape into the lower electrode instead of accumulating on the Kapton insulator, while the thicker lower copper absorbs more of the back-drifting ions. The quantitative machinery is a two-stage simulation chain: a finite-element electric-field solution for each geometry, followed by a microscopic gas-avalanche simulation of a single ionizing electron that outputs gain and ion-backflow counts.

What would settle it

Build a foil with the proposed single conical hole (50 µm upper, 70 µm lower) and a 10 µm lower copper layer, run it in 70% argon / 30% CO2, and measure gain and ion backflow versus voltage; if the measured ion-backflow-to-gain ratio does not drop below the standard foil's 0.267, or if the gain does not improve, the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that two changes to the GEM foil—using a single conical hole instead of the standard bi-conical hole, with 50 µm upper and 70 µm lower diameters, and increasing the lower copper layer from 5 µm to 20 µm—improve all three figures of merit at once. The wider lower opening gives the electron avalanche more room and reduces ion trapping on the Kapton surface, while the thicker lower electrode collects more of the ions produced in the avalanche, lowering ion backflow. With the voltage across the GEM held constant, the ion-backflow-to-gain ratio falls from 0.185 at 5 µm copper to 0.144 at 10 µm, compared with 0.267 for the standard foil, before rising again at larger thicknesses. With the electric field held constant instead, the ratio falls monotonically over the studied range, reaching 0.138 at 15 µm copper. The thicker copper layer also adds mechanical stability, so the claim is that gain, ion backflow, and durability improve simultaneously.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulated field maps and avalanche statistics represent a real, fabricated GEM foil closely enough that the predicted gains and ion-backflow ratios will hold when the device is actually built.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • GEM-based tracking detectors could run at higher gain without a proportional rise in ion space-charge distortion, improving rate capability in high-luminosity environments.
  • A thicker lower copper layer could extend foil lifetime by reducing ion accumulation on the Kapton surface and by making the structure mechanically sturdier.
  • The gain optimum found when the outer hole diameter approaches the Kapton thickness gives a simple design rule for future GEM foils.
  • The simulation chain used here can scan other hole shapes and copper thicknesses, so the proposed design is a starting point rather than a single fixed configuration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If a prototype reproduces the simulated ratios, a 10 µm lower copper layer under constant voltage would put the ion-backflow-to-gain ratio near 0.144, about 46 percent below the standard foil's 0.267—a concrete specification for detector builders.
  • The same geometric idea, widening the exit aperture and thickening the exit electrode, could be tested in other hole-type gaseous detectors such as MICROMEGAS, although the paper does not make that claim.
  • A small experimental campaign measuring gain and ion backflow versus copper thickness would be the fastest way to turn this design into a practical recommendation, since the paper reports no measured detector data.
  • Radiation damage is the natural stress test not covered here: irradiated foils change surface charging and gas chemistry, and it is an open question whether the single-cone advantage survives high fluence.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This conference proceeding summarizes detector R&D presented at Hot QCD Matter 2024. It contains seven sections: simulation of LGAD sensors for timing applications (Section 1), simulation of MICROMEGAS detectors (Section 2), simulation and geometry optimization of GEM detectors (Section 3), characterization of MALTA monolithic pixel sensors (Sections 4-5), characterization of CMS prototype silicon strip sensors (Section 6), and an overview of the J-PARC muon g-2/EDM experiment (Section 7). The central novel claim is in Section 3, where a single-conical GEM hole geometry with increased lower copper thickness is proposed to improve electron gain, reduce ion backflow, and enhance foil durability. The other sections present preliminary simulation results or routine characterization studies.

Significance. If the GEM geometry claims were correct, they would be of practical interest to the MPGD community, as they address gain, ion backflow, and mechanical robustness. The paper also provides useful, if preliminary, overviews of ongoing work, including MALTA sensor threshold studies and CMS strip sensor characterization, as well as a concise status summary of the J-PARC muon g-2/EDM experiment. However, the central GEM claim is undermined by internal numerical contradictions in Section 3.3, and the simulation-based quantitative results in Sections 2 and 3 lack error estimates and experimental validation. The paper also exhibits inconsistent figure numbering that obscures the results. These issues substantially reduce the reliability of the paper's main contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3] The central claim of improved gain is contradicted by the paper's own numbers. The text states: "The gain for the bi-conical and single conical shaped holes is 15.6 and 2.3, respectively, when a single electron enters the GEM hole, implying a 53% increase in gain." A change from 15.6 to 2.3 is a decrease of about 85%, not a 53% increase; even reversing the comparison (2.3 to 15.6) gives a 578% increase. This is not a typographical slip because the same ordering appears earlier in the same section: "For the standard GEM and the new single conical-shaped GEM, the gain for one-line spectra is 15.6 and 2.3 respectively." The claimed 53% improvement is therefore arithmetically impossible and the central result is unsupported.
  2. [Section 3.3] The ion backflow-to-gain ratios are also reported with an incorrect sign of the change. The standard geometry has a ratio of 0.2673; the single-cone design with 10 µm lower copper thickness in Case I has a ratio of 0.1437, which is a 46% reduction. Yet the text states "the optimal ion backflow to gain ratio was observed to increase by 46% for single conical holes compared to bi-conical holes for a 10 µm copper thickness in Case I." Similarly, for Case II, the ratios 0.1609, 0.1383, and 0.1583 are all smaller than 0.2673, corresponding to reductions of about 40%, 48%, and 41%, while the text says "the ratios increased to 40%, 48% and 41%." These contradictions directly undermine the claim of reduced ion backflow.
  3. [Section 3.3] The results are not verifiable because the figure callouts are wrong. The text refers to "the black curve in the left panel of Figure 3" and "the right panel of Figure 3" and to "Figure 4" for the GEM results, but Figures 3 and 4 in the manuscript are in Section 1 (LGAD time resolution and gain as functions of temperature and bias). The GEM results actually appear in Figures 20 and 21. This misnumbering makes it impossible for the reader to associate the reported gain and ion-backflow values with the plotted curves.
  4. [Section 3.3] The gain values quoted in the text (15.6 and 2.3) are inconsistent with the plotted gain ranges in Figure 20, where the gains for varying lower-copper thickness are shown on a scale extending to roughly 140. No error bars, statistical uncertainties, or convergence criteria are provided for any of the GARFIELD++ simulations, so the reader cannot assess whether the differences between geometries are significant. Given that the paper's main quantitative claim depends on these numbers, this lack of uncertainty quantification is a load-bearing omission.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 1.2.2] The text says "With an increase in the detector thickness the time resolution increases almost linearly as can be seen in figure 3," but Figure 3 shows time resolution versus temperature, not thickness; the thickness dependence is in Figure 2.
  2. [Section 1.1] There is a typo: "LGAD based detectors are planned to to be used" should read "planned to be used."
  3. [Section 3.3] The hole geometry is sometimes called "single conical" and sometimes "bi-conical" without a clear definition of the difference; the paper should define the baseline (standard GEM) and the proposed geometry precisely, including hole diameters and copper thicknesses in a single table.
  4. [Section 7.9] The J-PARC summary states that the experiment "will not require an E-field for focussing, unlike the Fermilab experiment," but the earlier text (Section 7.2) explains that the J-PARC experiment uses weak magnetic focusing; this is clear, but the wording could be refined to avoid implying no focusing at all.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; the GEM gain claim is internally inconsistent but not circular.

full rationale

The paper is a collection of independent simulation and characterization studies. Section 3 builds GEM geometries in ANSYS and computes gain and ion backflow with GARFIELD++; these are forward simulations with stated geometries and voltages, not fits to the quantities they are used to claim. Similarly, Section 1 uses WeightField2 for LGAD timing/gain studies, Section 2 uses ANSYS/GARFIELD++ for Micromegas, and Sections 4-6 report measurements of MALTA and CMS prototype sensors. No load-bearing result is obtained by defining one quantity in terms of the quantity it is supposed to predict, and no central premise is justified only by a self-citation. The citation to the Hot QCD Matter 2022 proceedings [1] is background, not an argument. The GEM section does contain a serious internal inconsistency: it reports gains of 15.6 and 2.3 for standard and single-conical geometries and then states this implies a 53% gain increase, which is arithmetically impossible; the ion-backflow-to-gain ratio text similarly contradicts the tabulated ratio for 10 micrometer copper thickness. However, these are consistency/correctness problems in the reported simulation outputs, not circular reductions of the derivation to its own inputs. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

All quantitative results come from simulations with no experimental validation; the main free parameters are geometry and operating conditions chosen by the authors. No new physical entities are proposed.

free parameters (5)
  • Gain implant doping concentration = 4.01e16 cm^-3 (temperature study); 2.301e16 cm^-3 (fluence study)
    Fixed values in WeightField2 simulations; not fitted, but chosen and affects gain/time resolution.
  • Single conical GEM hole diameters = 50 um upper, 70 um lower
    Chosen geometry for the proposed GEM foil; central to the claimed gain improvement.
  • Lower copper thickness = 5-20 um (scanned)
    Scanned parameter controlling gain and ion backflow in the GEM design.
  • Bias voltage = 300-800 V (LGAD); micromesh values (micromegas)
    Operational parameters scanned in simulations.
  • Sensor thickness (LGAD) = 20-300 um
    Scanned to find optimal timing.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Simulation tools (WeightField2, ANSYS, GARFIELD++) accurately model semiconductor and gas detector physics.
    All quantitative claims are based on these tools, with no experimental cross-check (Sections 1-3).
  • domain assumption Gas mixture properties and Townsend coefficients used in GARFIELD++ are correct.
    The gain calculations depend on these inputs (Section 2.3.1).
  • domain assumption The J-PARC experiment's projected parameters are based on prior engineering reports.
    Section 7 relies on cited design studies without independent verification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamics of Hot QCD Matter 2024 -- New facilities and instrumentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZE3WVT6J

@misc{pith2026250208187,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamics of Hot QCD Matter 2024 -- New facilities and instrumentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZE3WVT6J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08187}
}
abstract

This part of the conference proceeding provides a detailed overview of cutting-edge advancements in detector technologies, focusing on their optimization, characterization, and applications in particle physics experiments. Building on the insights and developments presented at the Hot QCD Matter 2022 conference, this section of the Hot QCD Matter 2024 proceedings highlights significant advancements in detector technologies. The development of Low Gain Avalanche Diodes (LGADs) into Ultra-Fast Silicon Detectors is explored, demonstrating their potential for superior timing resolution in future high-energy experiments. Simulation studies of Micropattern Gaseous Detectors (MPGDs), including MICROMEGAS and Gas Electron Multiplier (GEM) detectors, provide insights into their performance under high-radiation environments using tools like ANSYS and GARFIELD$^{++}$. A novel GEM foil geometry is proposed for improved gain and durability. Characterization of semiconductor detectors, such as Monolithic MALTA pixel detectors and CMS prototype silicon sensors, is also presented, highlighting their radiation tolerance, imaging capabilities, and structural integrity. These studies underscore the critical role of silicon sensors in ensuring detector reliability and performance. Additionally, the J-PARC muon g-2/EDM experiment is reviewed, showcasing its precision measurements to test Standard Model predictions and explore potential physics beyond. By addressing the interplay between detector development, simulation, and characterization, this proceeding showcases a collective effort toward advancing detector technologies and their pivotal role in pushing the boundaries of modern particle physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08187 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of an LGAD with the gain implant layer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Variation of time resolution of PIN diode and LGAD with sensor bulk thickness 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 Temperature (K) 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 Time Resolution (ps) Gain = 10 Linear Fit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Gain of the sensor as a func￾tion of sensor bias voltage at different fluences 0 10 20 30 40 50 )2 neq/cm 14 Fluence (10 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Time Resolution (ps) Bias Voltage 350 V Bias Voltage 370 V Bias Voltage 380 V Bias Voltage 400 V [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Defining single unit cell [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Geometry constructed using mechanical APDL via script writing. Thin green portion is micromesh [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Average Electric Field in Drift Region as function of Hole Size at Strip width of 15µm 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Hole Diameter (µm) 4265 4270 4275 4280 4285 4290 4295 3 ×10 Electric Field in Avalanche Region(V/m) Strip width=15µm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Average Electric Field in the Drift Region vs Hole Size of the gaps for three different strip width. Red, green and blue lines denote the Strip width of 15µm, 20µm and 25µm re￾spectively. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Hole Diameter (µm) 4265 4270 4275 4280 4285 4290 4295 3 ×10 …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Average Electric Field in Avalanche Region vs width of Avalanche region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_16.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Gain of GEM for various outer hole diameters with fixed inner hole diam￾eters. Green, red, and black lines denote the inner hole diameter of 60 µm, 50 µm, and 40 µm, respectively. Single conical shape hole: For standard GEM holes, ions are trapped on the lower side of…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: In both plots, the black line represents Case I: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: In Case I (black line), the potential difference ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Malta set up at IITM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: The distribution of ITHR for IDB = 80 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_23.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: The distribution of ICASN for IDB = 100 6. Characterization of proto-type silicon sensor for CMS Detector Saloni Atreya, Anusree Vijay, Prafulla Kumar Behera The silicon strip detector in the outer tracker of the CMS experiment will be upgraded for the HL-LHC run, whi…
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: Manual Probe station (Cascade Microtech Summit 11000M) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_27.png]
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: Gap between two strips [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_29.png]
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: Measurement of current as a function of applied voltage for the strips [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_32.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. K. Das et al., International Journal of Modern Physics E , vol. 31 p. 12 2022, 2250097 doi: 10.1142/S0218301322500975

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218301322500975 2022

  2. [2]

    Design optimization of ultra-fast silicon detectors,

    N. Cartiglia et al., “Design optimization of ultra-fast silicon detectors,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A , vol. 796, pp. 141–148, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    RD50 Collaboration, available at: https://rd50.web.cern.ch/rd50

    work page

  4. [4]

    Fabrication of Silicon Sensors Based on Low- Gain Avalanche Diodes,

    reference G. Giacomini, “Fabrication of Silicon Sensors Based on Low- Gain Avalanche Diodes,” Frontiers in Physics , vol. 9, p. 29, 2021, doi: 10.3389/fphy.2021.618621

    work page arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    An Intro- duction to Ultra-Fast Silicon Detectors,

    M. Ferrero, R. Arcidiacono, M. Mandurrino, V. Sola, and N. Cartiglia, “An Intro- duction to Ultra-Fast Silicon Detectors,” CRC Press, 2021, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN, and Boca Raton, FL

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Effect of deep gain layer and Carbon infusion on LGAD radiation hardness,

    R. Padilla et al., “Effect of deep gain layer and Carbon infusion on LGAD radiation hardness,” JINST, vol. 15, p. P10003, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Weightfield2: A fast simulator for silicon and diamond solid state detector,

    F. Cenna et al., “Weightfield2: A fast simulator for silicon and diamond solid state detector,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A , vol. 796, pp. 149–153, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Sauli and A

    F. Sauli and A. Sharma, ”Micropattern gaseous detectors,” , vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 341–388, 1999

    work page 1999

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    X. D. Zhang et al., ”Simulation of micromegas detector by garfield program,” , 2007

    2007

  2. [10]

    Thompson and J

    M. Thompson and J. Thompson, ANSYS mechanical APDL for finite element anal- ysis, 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    , ”Overview of digital design and finite-element analysis,” , 2020

    Jørgensen et al. , ”Overview of digital design and finite-element analysis,” , 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Ciubotaru et al

    D. Ciubotaru et al. , ”A new fast simulation tool for the micromegas detectors,” , vol. , pp. , 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Progress with the gas electron multiplier

    Fabio Sauli. Progress with the gas electron multiplier. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A, 522(1-2):93–98, 2004. February 21, 2025 2:36 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE merged-ws-ijmpe 26 A. Sarkar et al

    2004

  6. [14]

    Micropattern gaseous detectors

    Fabio Sauli and Archana Sharma. Micropattern gaseous detectors. Annual Review of Nuclecriticalar and Particle Science, 49(1):341–388, 1999

    1999

  7. [15]

    Optimum geometry for strip cathodes or grids in mwpc for avalanche localization along the anode wires

    E Gatti et al. Optimum geometry for strip cathodes or grids in mwpc for avalanche localization along the anode wires. Nuclear Inst. and Methods, 163(1):83–92, 1979

    1979

  8. [16]

    Ansys maxwell software for electro- magnetic field calculations

    Andrey S Martyanov and Nikolay I Neustroyev. Ansys maxwell software for electro- magnetic field calculations. Eastern European Scientific Journal, (5), 2014

    2014

  9. [17]

    ANSYS mechanical APDL for finite element analysis

    Mary Kathryn Thompson and John Martin Thompson. ANSYS mechanical APDL for finite element analysis. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Schindler

    H. Schindler. Garfield++ User Guide, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Milou van Rijnbach , Radiation hardness of MALTA2 monolithic CMOS imaging sen- sors on Czochralski substrates, THE EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL C (2024) 84:251 https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12601-3

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    C. Solans S´ anchez,MALTA monolithic pixel sensors in TowerJazz 180 nm technol- ogy, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 1057 (2023) 168787 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2023.168787

    2023

  13. [21]

    Cardella, Roberto, CMOS detector and system developments for LHC detector up- grades, CERN-THESIS-2019-224 218

    2019

  14. [22]

    Abhishek Sharma, Latest developments and characterisation results of the MALTA sensors in TowerJazz 180nm for the HighLuminosity LHC , POS (EPS-HEP2021) 818

  15. [23]

    Flores et al., Latest developments and characterisation results of DMAPS in Tow- erJazz 180nm for High Luminosity LHC , JPCS 2374 (2022) 012169

    L. Flores et al., Latest developments and characterisation results of DMAPS in Tow- erJazz 180nm for High Luminosity LHC , JPCS 2374 (2022) 012169

    2022

  16. [24]

    C. Jain, S. Saumya, A. Abhijeet, S. Sondh, A. Kumar, G. Jain, A. Bhardwaj, K. Ranjan, A. Messineo, M. A. Ciocci, M. T. Grippo, S. Parolia, and K. Androsov, ”Performance of silicon sensor quality control centre developed at the University of Delhi,” in 2019 IEEE Nuclear Science...

    2019

  17. [25]

    Available: https://cds.cern.ch/ record/2272264

    CMS collaboration, ”The Phase-2 Upgrade of the CMS Tracker,” CERN, Geneva, CERN-LHCC-2017-009, CMS-TDR-014, 2017. Available: https://cds.cern.ch/ record/2272264. doi: 10.17181/CERN.QZ28.FLHW

    2017

  18. [26]

    A. La Rosa, ”The Upgrade of the CMS Tracker at HL-LHC,” in Proceedings of the 29th International Workshop on Vertex Detectors (VERTEX2020) , Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, June 2021. doi: 10.7566/jpscp.34.010006

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    Ceccarelli, ”The CMS Experiment Tracker Upgrade for High Luminosity LHC,” CERN, Geneva, CMS-CR-2023-266, 2023

    R. Ceccarelli, ”The CMS Experiment Tracker Upgrade for High Luminosity LHC,” CERN, Geneva, CMS-CR-2023-266, 2023. Available: https://cds.cern.ch/ record/2881703. doi: 10.1393/ncc/i2024-24095-x

    2023

  20. [28]

    The quantum theory of the electron,

    Dirac, P. A. M., “The quantum theory of the electron,” *Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character*, vol. 117, no. 778, pp. 610–624, 1928

    1928

  21. [29]

    Quantum electrodynamics. III. The electromagnetic properties of the electron—radiative corrections to scattering,

    Schwinger, J., “Quantum electrodynamics. III. The electromagnetic properties of the electron—radiative corrections to scattering,” *Physical Review*, vol. 76, no. 6, pp. 790, 1949

    1949

  22. [30]

    Final report on the CERN muon storage ring including the anoma- lous magnetic moment and the electric dipole moment of the muon, and a direct test of relativistic time dilation,

    Bailey, J. et al., “Final report on the CERN muon storage ring including the anoma- lous magnetic moment and the electric dipole moment of the muon, and a direct test of relativistic time dilation,” *Nuclear Physics B*, vol. 150, pp. 1–75, 1979

    1979

  23. [31]

    Detailed report on the measurement of the positive muon anomalous magnetic moment to 0.20 ppm,

    Aguillard, D. P. et al., “Detailed report on the measurement of the positive muon anomalous magnetic moment to 0.20 ppm,” *Physical Review D*, vol. 110, no. 3, pp. 032009, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    A new approach for measuring the muon anomalous magnetic moment and electric dipole moment,

    Abe, M. et al., “A new approach for measuring the muon anomalous magnetic moment and electric dipole moment,” *Progress of Theoretical and Experimental February 21, 2025 2:36 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE merged-ws-ijmpe Dynamics of Hot QCD Matter 2024 - New facilities and instrumenta...

    2025

  25. [33]

    Simulation study of laser ionization of muonium by 1S-2S excitation for the muon g-2/EDM experiment at J-PARC,

    Zhang, C. et al., “Simulation study of laser ionization of muonium by 1S-2S excitation for the muon g-2/EDM experiment at J-PARC,” *Proceedings of the 3rd J-PARC Symposium (J-PARC2019)*, pp. 011125, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Development of a muon linac for the J-PARC Muon g-2/EDM ex- periment,

    Takeuchi, Y., “Development of a muon linac for the J-PARC Muon g-2/EDM ex- periment,” *Nuclear and Particle Physics Proceedings*, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Demonstration of Three-dimensional Spiral Injection for the J-PARC Muon g–2/EDM Experiment,

    Matsushita, R. et al., “Demonstration of Three-dimensional Spiral Injection for the J-PARC Muon g–2/EDM Experiment,” *Journal of Physics: Conference Series*, vol. 2687, no. 2, pp. 022035, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Evaluation of the Magnetic Field Error Due to Manufacturing Tolerance of Superconducting Magnet for the J-PARC Muon g − 2/EDM Experi- ment,

    Oyama, S. et al., “Evaluation of the Magnetic Field Error Due to Manufacturing Tolerance of Superconducting Magnet for the J-PARC Muon g − 2/EDM Experi- ment,” *IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity*, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 1-5, 2023, doi: 10.1109/TASC.2023.3241828

    2023

  29. [37]

    Design of the Positron Tracking Detector for the Muon g- 2/EDM Experiment at J-PARC,

    Nishimura, S. et al., “Design of the Positron Tracking Detector for the Muon g- 2/EDM Experiment at J-PARC,” *Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Science at J-PARC—Unlocking the Mysteries of Life, Matter and the Universe—*, pp. 025015, 2015

    2015

  30. [38]

    Track seeding and labelling with embedded-space graph neural networks,

    Choma, N. et al., “Track seeding and labelling with embedded-space graph neural networks,” *arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.00149*, 2020

    2007 arXiv

  31. [39]

    GPU-based Track Finding in the J-PARC muon g-2/EDM exper- iment,

    Chetri, H. et al., “GPU-based Track Finding in the J-PARC muon g-2/EDM exper- iment,” *16th International Conference on Heavy Quarks and Leptons*, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    GNN based track finding for J-PARC muon g-2/EDM ex- periment,

    Nandakumar, S. et al., “GNN based track finding for J-PARC muon g-2/EDM ex- periment,” *16th International Conference on Heavy Quarks and Leptons*, pp. 74, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model,

    Aoyama, T. et al., “The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model,” *Physics reports*, vol. 887, pp. 1–166, 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    Muon g-2 Theory Initiative,

    Muon g-2 Theory Initiative, “Muon g-2 Theory Initiative,” Available: https:// muon-gm2-theory.illinois.edu/ . Accessed: 2024-10-31

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.