Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 50 references

The ILD Detector: A Versatile Detector for an Electron-Positron Collider at Energies up to 1 TeV

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The ILD detector concept claims it can meet the precision targets needed to resolve Higgs, electroweak, and top-quark physics at a future electron-positron collider, using particle flow and mostly demonstrated technologies.

desk verdict A mature, honest detector concept paper whose real news is incremental—ParticleNet, dN/dx, and a 15% Higgs self-coupling projection—and whose main open risk (FCC-ee Z-pole TPC space charge) is disclosed, not solved. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06030 v1 pith:Q5WNVSIQ submitted 2025-06-06 hep-ex physics.ins-det

H. Abramowicz , D. Ahmadi , J. Alcaraz , O. Alonso , L. Andricek , J. Anguiano , O. Arquero , F. Arteche
show 271 more authors
D. Attie O. Bach M. Basso J. Baudot A. Bean T. Behnke A. Bellerive Y. Benhammou M. Berggren G. Bertolone M. Besancon A. Besson O. Bezshyyko G. Blazey B. Bliewert J. Bonis R. Bosley V. Boudry C. Bourgeois I. Bozovic Jelisavcic D. Breton J.-C. Brient B. Brudnowski V. Buescher K. Buesser P. Buhmann M. Böhler S. Callier E. Calvo Alamillo M. Cepeda S. Chen G. Claus P. Colas C. Colledani C. Combaret R. Cornat F. Corriveau J. Cvach C. De La Taille K. Desch H. Diao A. Dieguez R. Diener A. Dorokhov A. Drutskoy B. Dudar A. Dyshkant I. Echeverria U. Einhaus Z. El Bitar A. Escalante del Valle M. Fernandez M. Firlej T. Fiutowski I. Fleck N. Fourches M.C. Fouz K. Francis C. Fu K. Fujii T. Fusayasu J. Fuster K. Gadow F. Gaede J. Galindo A. Gallas S. Ganjour E. Garutti I. Giomataris M. Goffe A. Gonnin F. González O. Gonzalez Lopez I. Gregor G. Grenier P. Göttlicher F. Hartjes J. Heilman C. Hensel S. Hidalgo A. Himmi Y. Horii R. Hosokawa C. Huo-Guo M. Idzik M. Iglesias F. Ikeda A. Irles A. Ishikawa M. Iwasaki K. Jaaskelainen R. Jaramillo D. Jeans J. Jeglot L. Jönsson G. Kacarevic M. Kachel J. Kalinowski J. Kaminski Y. Kamiya T. Kamiyama Y. Kato K. Kawagoe S. A. Khan J. Klamka P. Kluit M. Kobayashi K. Kong A. Korol P. Koppenburg K. Krüger M. Kuriki J. Kvasnicka D. Lacour I. Laktineh A. Laudrain F. LeDiberder A. Levy I. Levy W. Li B. List J. List J. Liu A. Lopez Virto M. Lopez Y. Lu B. Lundberg J. Maalmi B. Madison T. Madlener A. Martens S. Martens I. Masamune L. Masetti H. Mathez A. Matsushita K. McDonald K. Mekala G. Milutinovic Dumbelovic W. Minori L. Mirabito W. Mitaroff V. Mitsou U. Mjörnmark T. Mogi G. Moortgat-Pick F. Morel T. Mori S. Morimasa J. Moron D. Moya T. Murata E. Musumeci J. Márquez Hernández J. Nakajima E. Nakano J. Nanni S. Narita J. Nilsson J. Ninkovic D. Ntounis T. Nunez H. Ogawa K. Oikawa Y. Okugawa T. Omori H. Ono W. Ootani C. Orero A. Oskarsson L. Osterman Q. Ouyang T. Pasquier G. Pellegrini H. Pham J. Piedrafita I. Polak A. Pradas V. Prahl T. Price J. Puerta Pelayo R. Pöschl H. Qi Y. Radkhorrami G. Raven L. Reichenbach M. Reinecke E. Reynolds F. Richard R. Richter S. Ritter C. Rogan J. Rolph A. Rosmanitz C. Royon M. Ruan S. Rudrabhatla A. Ruiz-Jimeno A. Sajbel R. Sakakibara I. Salehinia T. Sanuki H. Sato C. Schmitt T. Schoerner-Sadenius M. Schumacher V. Schwan O. Schäfer F. Sefkow T. Seino S. Senyukov R. Settles Z. Shen A. Shoji F. Simon I. Smiljanic M. Specht T. Suehara R. Sugawara A. Sugiyama Z. Sun P. Svihra K. Swientek T. Takahashi T. Takatsu T. Takeshita S. Tapprogge P. Terlecki A. Thiebault J. Tian J. Timmermans M. Titov L. Tomasek J. Torndal B. Tuchming M. Tytgat W. Vaginay I. Valin C. Vallee R. van Kooten H. van der Graaf C. Vernieri I. Vidakovic H. Videau I. Vila A. Vilà M. Vos N. Vukasinovic J. Wang R. Wanke K. Watanabe T. Watanabe N. Watson J. Wellhausen U. Werthenbach G. Wilson M. Wing A. Winter M. Winter H. Yamamoto K. Yamamoto R. Yonamine T. Yonemoto J. Zalesak A. F. Zarnecki C. Zeitnitz K. Zembaczynski D. Zerwas Y. Zhang F. Zomer V. Zutshi
This is my paper
classification hep-exphysics.ins-det
keywords InternationalLargeDetectorparticleflowtimeprojectionchamberhigh-granularitycalorimetervertexHiggsfactoryelectron-positroncolliderR&D
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 makes the case that the International Large Detector (ILD) can deliver the precision required for a future electron-positron collider operating between 90 GeV and about 1 TeV. Its three headline targets are an impact parameter resolution of $5\,\mu\mathrm{m} \oplus 10\,\mu\mathrm{m}/[p\,(\mathrm{GeV}/c)\,\sin^{3/2}\theta]$, an asymptotic inverse momentum resolution of $2\times10^{-5}\,(\mathrm{GeV}/c)^{-1}$, and a jet energy resolution of 3% or better for light-quark jets. The argument is that these targets can be met by a design organized around particle flow, combining a low-mass pixel vertex detector, a large gaseous TPC with silicon layers, and highly granular sampling calorimeters inside a 3.5 T solenoid. A sympathetic reader would care because reaching these numbers is what lets measurements of the Higgs boson, the W and Z bosons, and the top quark reach the precision that can reveal deviations from the Standard Model. The paper also claims the concept transfers to both linear and circular colliders, with re-optimization still needed for FCC-ee Z-pole running.

What carries the argument

The machinery is particle flow: the detector tries to reconstruct every charged particle as a track and every neutral particle as a calorimeter cluster, then combine the two without double-counting energy. This requires a tracker with many high-precision points, namely a TPC providing up to 220 points with single-hit resolution better than 100 $\mu$m in $r\phi$, plus silicon layers with about 10 $\mu$m resolution, and a calorimeter with high transverse and longitudinal granularity, namely 30 ECAL layers with $5\times5\,\mathrm{mm}^2$ silicon pads and 48 HCAL layers with $3\times3\,\mathrm{cm}^2$ tiles or $1\times1\,\mathrm{cm}^2$ RPC pads. The whole system sits inside a 3.5 T solenoid, and the low material budget in front of the calorimeters is what preserves the momentum and impact-parameter performance.

What would settle it

Run a full-scale TPC prototype under FCC-ee Z-pole ionization rates and check whether the resulting space-charge distortions, predicted to reach about 1 cm, can be corrected well enough to recover the asymptotic inverse momentum resolution of $2\times10^{-5}\,(\mathrm{GeV}/c)^{-1}$; if they cannot, the central performance claim for circular-collider operation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the ILD concept, as modeled in full simulation and validated against prototype and test-beam results, meets its defined performance targets: $5\,\mu\mathrm{m}\oplus 10\,\mu\mathrm{m}/[p\sin^{3/2}\theta]$ impact parameter resolution, $2\times10^{-5}\,(\mathrm{GeV}/c)^{-1}$ asymptotic inverse momentum resolution, and 3% or better jet energy resolution for light-quark jets. The paper states this performance is achieved by particle flow plus a low material budget of about 0.15% radiation length per vertex layer and about 10% radiation length for the TPC. It further claims the relevant technologies, including silicon pixel sensors, MPGD-based TPC readout, silicon-tungsten and scintillator-strip ECAL options, and SiPM-on-tile and RPC HCAL options, have been demonstrated at prototype scale, so the detector is ready for engineering rather than basic R&D. For the circular collider case, the paper acknowledges that continuous readout raises power dissipation by about a factor of 100 and that Z-pole operation may require a weaker magnetic field, with space-charge distortions in the TPC potentially reaching about 1 cm; it presents these as open integration questions rather than solved problems.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the performance measured in simulation and in prototypes will survive in a fully built detector operating at a real collider, especially at a circular collider, where TPC space-charge distortions could reach about 1 cm at the Z pole and continuous readout would raise power dissipation by about a factor of 100 compared with linear-collider mode.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the performance targets hold, the Higgs recoil mass measurement at 250 GeV will be limited by beam energy spread rather than tracker momentum resolution.
  • The 3% jet energy resolution would let hadronic W, Z, and Higgs decays be separated on a statistical basis, supporting precision electroweak and Higgs-coupling measurements.
  • The vertex performance would sustain b/c flavour tagging at the level assumed in projections for the direct measurement of the Higgs self-coupling, giving about 15% precision on the trilinear coupling at 550 GeV.
  • Because the concept is offered for both linear and circular colliders, choosing between the two collider types would not require a new detector concept, only re-optimization of the forward region and tracking for Z-pole running.
  • Full-simulation studies with realistic backgrounds give concrete sensitivity numbers that can be used in collider project comparisons, including the impact of charged-hadron identification on new-physics discrimination.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If confirmed, the particle-flow design would become the natural reference point for any future Higgs factory detector, since the 3% jet-energy target is reached without a dual-readout or crystal calorimeter.
  • The FCC-ee Z-pole operation is the least protected part of the readiness claim: space-charge distortions near 1 cm and the roughly 100-fold power increase from continuous readout could push the design toward a silicon-only tracker or a lower magnetic field, a trade-off the paper leaves open.
  • A testable extension of the timing work is that a 100 ps time-of-flight layer at the front of the ECAL could make kaon/pion separation effective up to several GeV, reducing the dependence on TPC cluster counting and possibly allowing a shorter TPC.
  • Because the beamstrahlung and forward-background patterns differ strongly between linear and circular machines, the forward calorimeter layout will likely need a dedicated redesign for FCC-ee; the paper says work has started but does not give a solution.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents the International Large Detector (ILD) concept for a future electron-positron collider with center-of-mass energies from 90 GeV to about 1 TeV. The design is driven by the particle-flow paradigm and targets an impact parameter resolution of 5 µm ⊕ 10 µm/(p sin^(3/2) θ), an asymptotic inverse momentum resolution of 2×10^-5 (GeV/c)^-1, and a jet energy resolution of 3% or better for light-quark jets. The detector comprises a MAPS-based vertex detector, a hybrid silicon+TPC tracker, highly granular silicon and scintillator calorimeters, and a forward system for luminosity and hermeticity. Performance is based on full Geant4 simulation and test-beam validated prototypes, mainly from the ILD Interim Design Report. The paper also discusses adaptations needed for the FCC-ee circular collider, acknowledging ongoing work on TPC space charge, power dissipation, and forward-region design. The conclusion is that ILD is a well-developed concept proposed for both linear and circular colliders.

Significance. If the claimed performance is realized, ILD would enable the precision Higgs, electroweak, and top-quark physics program envisioned for a future lepton collider. The paper's strengths are its reliance on full simulation with Geant4, validation of key technologies (MAPS, TPC, CALICE calorimeters) against test-beam results, and a community-developed software stack (iLCSoft/Key4hep) with reproducible simulation models. The concept has a large international collaboration, a detailed integration plan, and cost estimates. The honest enumeration of remaining R&D items adds credibility. The paper serves as a useful status report and reference for the ILD concept, though it is not a new technical design with fresh quantitative results.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.B] The paper claims ILD is proposed for FCC-ee, but the quantitative performance targets are not demonstrated for FCC-ee Z-pole running. Section III.B states that at a luminosity of up to 2×10^36 cm^-2 s^-1, ionization-induced space charge in the TPC can cause distortions "of the order of 1 cm", while the TPC single-hit resolution is quoted as better than 100 µm in rϕ. A distortion two orders of magnitude larger than the single-hit resolution would directly degrade the impact-parameter and momentum resolutions that are central to the physics case (Section II). The paper only says "studies are ongoing" and "on the Z further studies are needed", without presenting any quantitative simulation or calibration strategy that would recover the quoted resolutions. Since the Z-pole run is a principal FCC-ee operating point, this is a load-bearing gap in the claim that ILD meets its performance envelope at a circular collider. The authors should either provide such studies (even preliminary) or explicitly scope the performance claim to linear-collider conditions.
  2. [Sections II.B and III.C] The power and cooling constraints for FCC-ee are acknowledged but their impact on the central performance metrics is not quantified. Section II.B states that continuous readout increases power dissipation by about a factor of 100 relative to linear collider operation, and Section III.C says that preliminary conclusions "hint strongly at the need for an active cooling, especially for the ECAL", with only the start of studies for a thin and uniform cooling solution. The low material budget of the tracker and calorimeters is a key design driver (Sections III.A and III.C) and is essential for the quoted momentum and jet-energy resolutions. Active cooling will inevitably add material in front of the calorimeter and potentially inside the tracking volume. Without a quantitative assessment of the added material and its effect on the performance figures, the claim that the quoted resolutions hold under FCC-ee conditions is not supported.
  3. [Section II and Figures 3-5] The performance curves that support the headline numbers (impact parameter, momentum resolution, and jet energy resolution) are all taken from the ILC-oriented Interim Design Report [11], and the paper presents no FCC-ee-specific full-simulation results. Figures 3-5 are reproductions from [11]. The abstract and introduction state that ILD is "proposed both for linear and circular lepton collider" without explicit qualification. To avoid overclaiming, the paper should clearly separate the validated performance (valid for ILC-like bunch-train operation) from the expected performance at FCC-ee, which is currently the subject of ongoing studies. This is more than a wording issue: it affects the interpretation of the central claim of versatility.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section II.B] The first bullet contains a typo: "signficantly" should be "significantly".
  2. [Section III (before Table I)] The sentence "including demonstartion of its performance with prototypes" contains a typo: "demonstartion" should be "demonstration".
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The caption contains missing spaces in expressions like "fromdE/dxand from timing" and inconsistent notation "π/K, dEdx" versus "π/K, dE/dx" in the text. Please harmonize.
  4. [Section V] The sentence "First physics studies has also been completed" has a subject-verb agreement error; should be "have also been completed".
  5. [Figure 1 caption] The caption contains the garbled expression "at ¯tevent", which should read "a t-bar-t event" or "top-antitop event".
  6. [Section II] In the momentum resolution bullet, "ensuring that it’s resolution" should be "ensuring that its resolution".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ILD performance claims are anchored to test-beam-benchmarked simulation rather than to the stated requirements by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard detector-concept validation loop: physics-driven requirements are stated first (Section II: 5 um plus 10 um/[p sin^(3/2) theta] impact parameter, 2e-5 (GeV/c)^-1 inverse momentum resolution, 3% jet energy resolution), then a concrete implementation is described and its simulated performance is compared with those targets. This is not circular: the requirements are justified externally ('This resolution allows hadronic decays of the W, Z and Higgs bosons to be distinguished on a statistical basis' for the jet-energy goal; the momentum goal is 'driven by the Higgs recoil mass measurement'), rather than being defined as whatever the simulation achieves. The performance numbers themselves are traceable to external prototype and test-beam programs: the paper states that 'The key performance numbers for the vertexing, tracking and calorimeter systems are all based on results from test beam experiments' and that 'The detector model used for the ILD studies was tested against performance of the prototype detectors' (Section V). Vertex-detector MAPS technology is grounded in STAR and ALICE deployments, the TPC in LCTPC test-beam results, and the calorimeters in CALICE prototypes, so the central feasibility claim does not reduce to the paper's own assumptions. The only self-referential element is that key figures and Table I parameters are 'taken from [11]' (the collaboration's own Interim Design Report) and '[12]' (the ILC TDR), but those documents are in turn externally benchmarked, so this is minor self-citation rather than load-bearing circularity. The paper also contains explicit, honest limitations, which are feasibility gaps rather than circular steps: Section III.B states that at FCC-ee Z-pole luminosities ionization space charge in the TPC can cause distortions 'that can reach the order of 1 cm' and that 'On the Z further studies are needed'; Section II.B notes that continuous operation 'significantly increases (by about a factor of 100) the power dissipation'; and Section III.C says the 'preliminary conclusions hint strongly at the need for an active cooling, especially for the ECAL.' These are unvalidated extrapolations for FCC-ee operation and belong in a correctness-risk assessment, not in a circularity finding.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central design claim rests on several domain assumptions about simulation fidelity and extrapolation from test-beam prototypes to a full-scale detector. The performance targets are design inputs chosen by the collaboration, not derived quantities. The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or invented entities.

free parameters (4)
  • Solenoid magnetic field = 3.5 T
    Chosen by design to separate charged and neutral calorimeter impacts and to contain the tracking and calorimetry inside the coil; a design input, not fitted to data.
  • Jet energy resolution target = 3% or better
    Defined as the RMS of the inner 90% of the energy distribution for light-quark jets; used to set calorimeter granularity and particle-flow requirements.
  • Impact parameter resolution target = 5 um + 10 um/[p sin^(3/2) theta]
    Set as a design goal for vertexing; drives the layout and material budget of the pixel vertex detector.
  • Momentum resolution target = 2 x 10^-5 (GeV/c)^-1 asymptotic
    Requirement derived from the Higgs recoil mass measurement; used to specify the combined silicon-TPC tracking performance.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Geant4 full simulation with the DD4hep ILD model accurately represents the real detector response.
    Invoked throughout Section IV and in all performance figures; the simulation is validated against test-beam prototypes, but the extrapolation to the full detector is assumed.
  • domain assumption The particle flow reconstruction algorithm maintains its 3% jet energy resolution when scaled to the full detector and in the presence of backgrounds.
    The design is driven by particle flow, and the jet energy resolution results in Fig. 4 come from simulation, not from a full-scale experimental demonstration.
  • domain assumption Background overlays from beamstrahlung and photo-production used in simulations represent realistic collider conditions at both ILC and FCC-ee.
    Used in Section IV to claim tracking efficiency above 99.9%; the overlay models are standard but not experimentally validated at the target facilities.
  • domain assumption Prototype test-beam results for the TPC and the CALICE calorimeters extrapolate to the full-size ILD systems.
    Sections III.B and III.C state that the technologies are demonstrated; scaling from prototypes to the final detector size and integration is assumed, not experimentally proven.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The ILD Detector: A Versatile Detector for an Electron-Positron Collider at Energies up to 1 TeV." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q5WNVSIQ

@misc{pith2026250606030,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The ILD Detector: A Versatile Detector for an Electron-Positron Collider at Energies up to 1 TeV},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q5WNVSIQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06030}
}
read the original abstract

The International Large Detector, ILD, is a detector concept for an experiment at a future high energy lepton collider. The detector has been optimised for precision physics in a range of energies from 90~GeV to about 1~TeV. ILD features a high precision, large volume combined silicon and gaseous tracking system, together with a high granularity calorimeter, all inside a central solenoidal magnetic field. The paradigm of particle flow has been the guiding principle of the design of ILD. ILD is based mostly on technologies which have been demonstrated by extensive research and test programs. The ILD concept is proposed both for linear and circular lepton collider, be it at CERN or elsewhere. The concept has been developed by a group of nearly 60 institutes from around the world, and offers a well developed and powerful environment for science and technology studies at lepton colliders. In this document, the required performance of the detector, the proposed implementation and the readiness of the different technologies needed for the implementation are discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06030 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Left: Single quadrant view of the ILD detector. Right: Event display of a simulated hadronic decay of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Left: Purity of the flavour tag as a function of the efficiency, for different flavours tagged. Right: Cumulative material [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Left: Simulated resolution in 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The iron return yoke of the detector, located outside of the coil, is instrumented to act as a tail catcher and as a muon identification system. Several technologies are possible for the instrumented layers. Both RPC chambers and scintillator strips readout with SiPMs …
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Left: Three-dimensional rendering of the barrel calorimeter system, with one ECAL module partially extracted. Right: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Left: b-tagging performance in the ZHH analysis for the LCFIPlus framework [45] and new algorithm based on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Left: statistical discrimination power between different gauge-Higgs unification (GHU) scenarios and the SM, for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Locations of the ILD member institutes, as of March 2025. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [7]

    ECF A Higgs/Electroweak/Top Factory Study,

    Christos Leonidopoulos and Aidan Robson (eds.), “ECF A Higgs/Electroweak/Top Factory Study,” In preparation (2025)

    work page 2025

  2. [11]

    Start” and “Stop

    for a review of the optimization). A quadrant view of the detector model is shown in Fig. 1 (left), together with an event display in this detector of at ¯tevent (right). The ILD concept from its inception has been open to new technologies. No final decision on subdetector technologies has been taken at this time, and in many cases several options are cur...

    arXiv

  3. [1]

    The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 1: Executive Summary,

    Ties Behnke, James E. Brau, Brian Foster, Juan Fuster, Mike Harrison, James McEwan Paterson, Michael Peskin, Marcel Stanitzki, Nicholas Walker, and Hitoshi Yamamoto, “The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 1: Executive Summary,” (2013), arXiv:1306.6327 [physics.acc-ph]

    arXiv 2013

  4. [2]

    A Linear Collider Vision for the Future of Particle Physics,

    H. Abramowiczet al., “A Linear Collider Vision for the Future of Particle Physics,” (2025), arXiv:2503.19983 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  5. [3]

    FCC-ee Collider Design Overview,

    K. D. J. Andr´ e, M. Benedikt, K. Oide, and F. Zimmermann (FCC-ee), “FCC-ee Collider Design Overview,” PoS ICHEP2024, 830 (2025)

    work page 2025

  6. [4]

    HALHF: a hybrid, asymmetric, linear Higgs factory using plasma- and RF-based acceleration,

    Erik Adliet al.(HALHF), “HALHF: a hybrid, asymmetric, linear Higgs factory using plasma- and RF-based acceleration,” (2025), arXiv:2503.19880 [physics.acc-ph]. 11

    arXiv 2025

  7. [5]

    Linear Collider R&D liaison report,

    Jan Strube and Maxim Titov, “Linear Collider R&D liaison report,”http://linearcollider.org/physics-detectors/ working-group-detector-rd-liaison(2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [6]

    ECF A detector R&D roadmap,

    Didier Contardo, “ECF A detector R&D roadmap,” PoSEPS-HEP2023, 005 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    Physics Case for the 250 GeV Stage of the International Linear Collider,

    Keisuke Fujiiet al., “Physics Case for the 250 GeV Stage of the International Linear Collider,” (2017), arXiv:1710.07621 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  2. [9]

    The international linear collider: A global project,

    James Brau andet.al., “The international linear collider: A global project,”http://ilchome.web.cern.ch/sites/ ilchome.web.cern.ch/files/ILC_Global_Project_Final.pdf(2018)

    2018

  3. [10]

    Proposal for the ILC Preparatory Laboratory (Pre-lab),

    “Proposal for the ILC Preparatory Laboratory (Pre-lab),” (2021), 10.5281/zenodo.4742043, arXiv:2106.00602 [physics.acc- ph]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    International Large Detector: Interim Design Report,

    Halina Abramowiczet al.(ILD Concept Group), “International Large Detector: Interim Design Report,” (2020), arXiv:2003.01116 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 4: Detectors,

    Halina Abramowiczet al., “The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 4: Detectors,” (2013), arXiv:1306.6329 [physics.ins-det]

    2013 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Development of CMOS Pixel Sensors fully adapted to the ILD Vertex Detector Requirements,

    Marc Winteret al., “Development of CMOS Pixel Sensors fully adapted to the ILD Vertex Detector Requirements,” in International Workshop on Future Linear Colliders(2012) arXiv:1203.3750 [physics.ins-det]

    2012 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Timepix4, a large area pixel detector readout chip which can be tiled on 4 sides providing sub-200 ps timestamp binning,

    X. Llopart, J. Alozy, R. Ballabriga, M. Campbell, R. Casanova, V. Gromov, E.H.M. Heijne, T. Poikela, E. Santin, V. Sriskaran, L. Tlustos, and A. Vitkovskiy, “Timepix4, a large area pixel detector readout chip which can be tiled on 4 sides providing sub-200 ps timestamp binning...

    2022

  8. [16]

    A MAPS based vertex detector for the STAR experiment at RHIC,

    L. Greiner, E. Anderssen, H.S. Matis, H.G. Ritter, J. Schambach,et al., “A MAPS based vertex detector for the STAR experiment at RHIC,” Nucl.Instrum.Meth.A650, 68–72 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    The ultralight DEPFET pixel detector of the Belle II experiment,

    Florian Luetticke (DEPFET), “The ultralight DEPFET pixel detector of the Belle II experiment,”Proceedings, 14th Vienna Conference on Instrumentation (VCI 2016): Vienna, Austria, February 15-19, 2016, Nucl. Instrum. Meth.A845, 118–121 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Recent status of FPCCD vertex detector R&D,

    S. Murai, A. Ishikawa, T. Sanuki, A. Miyamoto, Y. Sugimoto, C. Constantino, H. Sato, H. Ikeda, and H Yamamoto, “Recent status of FPCCD vertex detector R&D,” inProceedings, International Workshop on Future Linear Colliders (LCWS15): Whistler, B.C., Canada, November 02-06, 2015(...

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    PLUME collaboration: Ultra-light ladders for linear collider vertex detector,

    A. Nomerotskiet al.(PLUME), “PLUME collaboration: Ultra-light ladders for linear collider vertex detector,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A650, 208–212 (2011)

    2011

  12. [20]

    TPC Development by the LCTPC Collaboration for future Higgs factories,

    Jochen Kaminski and Michael Lupberger, “TPC Development by the LCTPC Collaboration for future Higgs factories,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1047, 167819 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Development of a TPC for an ILC Detector,

    R. Diener (LCTPC), “Development of a TPC for an ILC Detector,”Proceedings, 2nd International Conference on Tech- nology and Instrumentation in Particle Physics 2011: Chicago, Illinois, 9-14 Jun 2011, Phys. Procedia37, 456–463 (2012), arXiv:1203.2074 [physics.ins-det]

    2012 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Particle ID with dE/dx at the TESLA-TPC,

    M. Hauschild, “Particle ID with dE/dx at the TESLA-TPC,”Physics and Experiments with Future Linear e+ e- Colliders: Proceedings, 5th International Linear Collider Workshop (LCWS 2000) Batavia, Illinois, October 24-28, 2000, AIP Conf. Proc.578, 878 (2001)

    2001

  15. [23]

    A Time Projection Chamber with GEM-Based Readout,

    David Attieet al.(LCTPC), “A Time Projection Chamber with GEM-Based Readout,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth.A856, 109–118 (2017), arXiv:1604.00935 [physics.ins-det]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Bulk micromegas detectors for large TPC applications,

    J. Bouchezet al., “Bulk micromegas detectors for large TPC applications,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth.A574, 425–432 (2007)

    2007

  17. [25]

    Experimental Tests of Particle Flow Calorimetry,

    Felix Sefkow, Andy White, Kiyotomo Kawagoe, Roman Poeschl, and Jose Repond, “Experimental Tests of Particle Flow Calorimetry,” Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 015003 (2016), arXiv:1507.05893 [physics.ins-det]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Technological Prototypes and Result Highlights of Highly Granular Calorimeters,

    Gerald Grenier (CALICE), “Technological Prototypes and Result Highlights of Highly Granular Calorimeters,”Proceedings, 2017 European Physical Society Conference on High Energy Physics (EPS-HEP 2017): Venice, Italy, July 5-12, 2017, PoS EPS-HEP2017, 497 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Performance of the electromagnetic pixel calorimeter prototype Epical-2,

    J. Almeet al., “Performance of the electromagnetic pixel calorimeter prototype Epical-2,” JINST18, P01038 (2023), arXiv:2209.02511 [physics.ins-det]

    2023

  20. [28]

    Development and commissioning of a technological prototype of a highly-granular scintillator-based electro- magnetic calorimeter,

    Yazhou Niu, Shensen Zhao, Naoki Tsuji, Anshun Zhou, Yukun Shi, Yunlong Zhang, Zhigang Wang, Zhongtao Shen, Mingyi Dong, Ruijie Wang, Ryunosuke Masuda, Tatsuki Murata, Jianbei Liu, Shubin Liu, Wataru Ootani, Tohru Takeshita, and Yong Liu, “Development and commissioning of a tec...

    2025

  21. [29]

    Beam Test Results with Highly Granular Hadron Calorimeters for the ILC,

    Frank Simon (CALICE), “Beam Test Results with Highly Granular Hadron Calorimeters for the ILC,”Proceedings, 24th International Symposium on Lepton-Photon Interactions at High Energy (LP09): Hamburg, Germany, August 17-22, 2009, Conf. Proc.C0908171, 539–541 (2009), arXiv:1002.1...

    2009 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Construction of a technological semi-digital Hadronic calorimeter prototype for ILC,

    I. Laktineh (CALICE), “Construction of a technological semi-digital Hadronic calorimeter prototype for ILC,” inProceed- ings, 2010 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC 2010): Knoxville, Tennessee, October 30-November 6, 2010(2010) pp. 1800–1803

    2010

  23. [31]

    Design of cooling systems for tungsten / carbon fibre and for hadron calorimeter structures,

    D. Grondin, K. Kr¨ uger, and J. Giraud, “Design of cooling systems for tungsten / carbon fibre and for hadron calorimeter structures,”https://cds.cern.ch/record/2228602(2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    A highly granular SiPM-on-tile calorimeter prototype,

    Felix Sefkow and Frank Simon (CALICE), “A highly granular SiPM-on-tile calorimeter prototype,” in18th Interna- tional Conference on Calorimetry in Particle Physics (CALOR 2018) Eugene, Oregon, USA, May 21-25, 2018(2018) arXiv:1808.09281 [physics.ins-det]. 12

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Forward Instrumentation for ILC Detectors,

    H. Abramowiczet al., “Forward Instrumentation for ILC Detectors,” JINST5, P12002 (2010), arXiv:1009.2433 [physics.ins- det]

    2010 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Metrology Requirements for the Integrated Luminosity Measurement Using Small-Angle Bhabha Scattering at ILC,

    Ivan Smiljani´ c, Ivanka Boˇ zovi´ c, Goran Kaˇ carevi´ c, Mirko Radulovi´ c, and Jasna Stevanovi´ c, “Metrology Requirements for the Integrated Luminosity Measurement Using Small-Angle Bhabha Scattering at ILC,” PTEP2025, 023H03 (2025), arXiv:2407.03024 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    iLCSoft Project Page,

    iLCSoft authors, “iLCSoft Project Page,”https://github.com/iLCSoft(2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    The Key4hep turnkey software stack,

    Valentin V¨ olklet al.(Key4hep), “The Key4hep turnkey software stack,” PoSICHEP2022, 234 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    DD4hep: A Detector Description Toolkit for HEP Experiments,

    Markus Frank, F. Gaede, C. Grefe, and P. Mato, “DD4hep: A Detector Description Toolkit for HEP Experiments,”20th Int. Conf. on Computing in HEP and Nuc. Phys. (CHEP 2013), J. Phys. Conf. Ser.513, 022010 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    WHIZARD: Simulating Multi-Particle Processes at LHC and ILC,

    Wolfgang Kilian, Thorsten Ohl, and Jurgen Reuter, “WHIZARD: Simulating Multi-Particle Processes at LHC and ILC,” Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1742 (2011), arXiv:0708.4233 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  31. [39]

    SGV 3.0 - a fast detector simulation,

    Mikael Berggren, “SGV 3.0 - a fast detector simulation,” inInternational Workshop on Future Linear Colliders (LCWS11) (2012) arXiv:1203.0217 [physics.ins-det]

    2012 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Focus topics for the ECF A study on Higgs / Top / EW factories,

    Jorge de Blaset al., “Focus topics for the ECF A study on Higgs / Top / EW factories,” (2024), arXiv:2401.07564 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Kinematic fitting for ParticleFlow Detectors at Future Higgs Factories,

    Yasser Radkhorrami and Jenny List, “Kinematic fitting for ParticleFlow Detectors at Future Higgs Factories,” PoSEPS- HEP2021, 761 (2022), arXiv:2110.13731 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Impact of Advances in Detector Techniques on Higgs Measurements at Future Higgs Factories,

    Ulrich Einhaus, Bohdan Dudar, Jenny List, Yasser Radkhorrami, and Julie Torndal, “Impact of Advances in Detector Techniques on Higgs Measurements at Future Higgs Factories,” PoSICHEP2022, 538 (2022), arXiv:2212.07264 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Application of Particle Transformer to quark flavor tagging in the ILC project,

    Risako Tagami, Taikan Suehara, and Masaya Ishino, “Application of Particle Transformer to quark flavor tagging in the ILC project,” EPJ Web Conf.315, 03011 (2024), arXiv:2410.11322 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    High Level Reconstruction with Deep Learning using ILD Full Simulation,

    Taikan Suehara, Risako Tagami, Lai Gui, Tatsuki Murata, Tomohiko Tanabe, Wataru Ootani, and Masaya Ishino (ILD), “High Level Reconstruction with Deep Learning using ILD Full Simulation,” PoSICHEP2024, 1019 (2025), arXiv:2410.08772 [physics.data-an]

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    ParticleNet: Jet Tagging via Particle Clouds,

    Huilin Qu and Loukas Gouskos, “ParticleNet: Jet Tagging via Particle Clouds,” Phys. Rev. D101, 056019 (2020), arXiv:1902.08570 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    LCFIPlus: A Framework for Jet Analysis in Linear Collider Studies,

    Taikan Suehara and Tomohiko Tanabe, “LCFIPlus: A Framework for Jet Analysis in Linear Collider Studies,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A808, 109–116 (2016), arXiv:1506.08371 [physics.ins-det]

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    thesis, Hamburg U., Hamburg (2016)

    Claude Fabienne D¨ urig,Measuring the Higgs Self-coupling at the International Linear Collider, Ph.D. thesis, Hamburg U., Hamburg (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    Probing gauge-Higgs unification models at the ILC with quark–antiquark forward–backward asymmetry at center-of-mass energies above the Z mass,

    A. Irles, J. P. M´ arquez, R. P¨ oschl, F. Richard, A. Saibel, H. Yamamoto, and N. Yamatsu, “Probing gauge-Higgs unification models at the ILC with quark–antiquark forward–backward asymmetry at center-of-mass energies above the Z mass,” Eur. Phys. J. C84, 537 (2024), arXiv:240...

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    LHC signals of theSO(5)× U(1) gauge-Higgs unification,

    Shuichiro Funatsu, Hisaki Hatanaka, Yutaka Hosotani, Yuta Orikasa, and Takuya Shimotani, “LHC signals of theSO(5)× U(1) gauge-Higgs unification,” Phys. Rev. D89, 095019 (2014), arXiv:1404.2748 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  42. [50]

    GUT inspiredSO(5)×U(1)× SU(3) gauge-Higgs unification,

    Shuichiro Funatsu, Hisaki Hatanaka, Yutaka Hosotani, Yuta Orikasa, and Naoki Yamatsu, “GUT inspiredSO(5)×U(1)× SU(3) gauge-Higgs unification,” Phys. Rev. D99, 095010 (2019), arXiv:1902.01603 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.