pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.23805 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-26 · ✦ hep-ex

Recognition: unknown

Initial Performance of the E320 Tracker

Oleksandr Borysov , S\'ebastien Corde , Gal Evenzur , Alexander Knetsch , Alon Levi , Sebastian Meuren , Nathaly Nofech-Mozes , Ivan Rajkovic
show 7 more authors
Sheldon Rego David A. Reis Arka Santra Tania Smorodnikova Doug W. Storey Noam Tal Hod Roman Urmanov
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 04:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ex
keywords ALPIDE trackerpositron detectionnonlinear Breit-WheelerE320 experimentBremsstrahlung proxyhigh background densitytrack reconstruction
0
0 comments X

The pith

The E320 tracker prototype measures positrons at a rate of 0.12 per shot under a background density of 1.7 hits per square millimeter.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper demonstrates that a scaled-down five-layer ALPIDE pixel tracker can detect and count single positrons produced near the interaction point of an electron beam. The positrons are created when Bremsstrahlung photons convert in a thin beryllium foil, acting as a proxy for the particles expected from nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production in the main E320 experiment. The detector records a signal rate of (1.20 ± 0.06 statistical ± 0.56 systematic) × 10^{-1} positrons per beam shot despite an extreme background hit density of ~1.7 per mm², which exceeds the density planned for the full run. Removing the foil reduces the false-positive rate by four orders of magnitude, confirming effective rejection. The ~5-micron spatial resolution also permits reconstruction of the positron energy spectrum, with results matching simulations.

Core claim

Using positrons generated through Bremsstrahlung photon conversion in a thin beryllium foil as a proxy for nonlinear Breit-Wheeler positrons, the five-layer ALPIDE prototype measures a signal rate of (1.20 ± 0.06_stat ± 0.56_syst) × 10^{-1} positrons per shot at a background hit density of ~1.7/mm². The Hough-transform seeding followed by a straight-line fit reconstructs tracks with ~5 micron resolution, enabling spectral characterization, and the measured rate is comparable to the expected nonlinear Breit-Wheeler yield in the main experiment while the foil-retracted false-positive rate is four orders of magnitude smaller.

What carries the argument

Five-layer ALPIDE pixel detector using Hough-transform seeding algorithm followed by straight-line track fitting within the detector volume.

Load-bearing premise

The positrons produced by Bremsstrahlung conversion in the beryllium foil have kinematics, angular distributions, and accompanying backgrounds sufficiently similar to those from nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production that detection efficiency and background rejection transfer directly.

What would settle it

Observing a positron rate more than a factor of two below the expected nonlinear Breit-Wheeler value (after efficiency corrections) in the full E320 run, or a false-positive rate above 10^{-4} per shot when the foil is retracted, would indicate the tracker does not enable the intended measurement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.23805 by Alexander Knetsch, Alon Levi, Arka Santra, David A. Reis, Doug W. Storey, Gal Evenzur, Ivan Rajkovic, Nathaly Nofech-Mozes, Noam Tal Hod, Oleksandr Borysov, Roman Urmanov, Sebastian Meuren, S\'ebastien Corde, Sheldon Rego, Tania Smorodnikova.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A schematic illustration of the E320 experimental setup in the Bremsstrahlung mode, from the IP chamber to the dump, focusing on the key elements related to the signal positrons detection. The positrons are produced either in the Beryllium (Be) window upstream of the IP chamber or in the Aluminum (Al) foil in it. For comparison with the E320 setup related to electron-laser collision, see view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The ALPIDE chip carrier (left) and the 9CA board (right) with one carrier mounted. One can also see the digital and analog power lines as the red and black wires with orange connector, as well as the TwinAx readout and control cable in blue. The 9CA and the five carriers are enclosed in an Aluminum box that serves as a mechanical support as well as a Faraday cage. Specifically, the chip carriers are fixed … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The detector assembly design (left) seen from the side and back with the main elements highlighted: the beampipe, the vacuum exit window (of the positrons) just above it, the breadboard, the bracket, the two stages, the detector box and the range-limiting safety plate below it. The actual detector installed (right) is pictured from the tunnel aisle side looking upstream approximately. This picture was take… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The detector pictured from the vacuum exit window looking downstream (left) and from the top when the detector is rotated to face the sky (right). The different dimensions, which are relevant for the tracking are marked in view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A scaled down illustration showing the side (𝑦–𝑧) view of the detector area, focusing on the different distances that are relevant for tracking setup. 3. Datasets Following its installation in Aug 2024 in the FACET–II tunnel, the detector saw its first beam operations in Nov 2024. A winter shutdown separated this initial run from the Feb 2025 campaign, providing an opportunity to implement a new beam orbit… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The pixel spatial distribution from a short run (250 BXs) with the Al foil during the Nov 2024 campaign. This picture is similar between all layers of the detector view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The pixel spatial distribution from a set of short consecutive sub-runs (∼1000 BXs, each) of Run 490 with the Al foil, while changing the quadrupoles focusing parameters during the Feb 2025 campaign. The beam orbit is different than the one of Nov 2024 seen in view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: An illustration of the three relevant coordinate systems for this study. The right plot shows the picture in the EUDAQ frame as in view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Example of five clusters belonging to the same track in the five detector layers. The (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) values in the left table indicate the clusters position in the TRK frame. The plots on the middle and right show the corresponding waves in the 𝑧–𝑥 and 𝑧–𝑦 Hough-spaces. In trying to answer the question of how to efficiently search this 4D Hough space for “cells” with 2 × 10 intersections, when there are ∼700 cl… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left: an illustration of the seed-tunnel concept for a typical scenario similar to Run 502, with ∼700 (mostly) random clusters per layer (blue points). The “good” clusters (red points) are shown together with the central prediction (red line) and the tunnel (green areas) defined by the five rectangles in the five layers. Middle and right: the impact of the LUT binning on the size of the tunnel. In the coa… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The distribution of the tracks’ 2D residuals during step 2 of the alignment process, before applying the respective cut as well as the 𝜒 2 inf and spot cuts. the residuals distribution of one or more layers. We isolate this peak by applying a rectangular cut around it, so the tails are removed. In our case this cut corresponds to 0.02<𝑥trk TRK −𝑥 cls TRK<0.08 mm and −0.07<𝑦trk TRK −𝑦 cls TRK<−0.03 mm in A… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The evolution of the tracks’ ̃𝜒 2 inf distribution (defined using the inflated clusters errors) after step 2 of the alignment process, excluding the 13< ̃𝜒2 inf<20 cut. respect to that. The metric to be minimized is defined as = 1  𝑁 ∑ trgs 𝑖=1 𝑁 ∑trks 𝑗=1 NLL𝑖𝑗, = 𝑁 ∑ trgs 𝑖=1 𝑁 ∑trks 𝑗=1 1, (4) where the sums run over the number of BXs (or triggers) in the sample (𝑁trgs), the number of fitted tracks … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The distribution of the tracks’ ̃𝜒 2 , defined using the proper clusters errors, at the end of the alignment process, excluding the tight ̃𝜒 2 cut. The fit is using a 𝜒 2 probability distribution function. −0.03 −0.02 −0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 [mm] cls -x trk x 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Tracks µ = -0.07±0.06 µm σ = 5.22±0.06 µm Residuals in x −0.03 −0.02 −0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 [mm] cls -y trk y 0 200 400 6… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The inclusive residuals distribution in 𝑥TRK (top-left) and 𝑦TRK (top-right), and the pulls distribution in 𝑥TRK (bottom-left) and 𝑦TRK (bottom-right) of the five layers at the end of the alignment process, including the ̃𝜒 2<3 cut. and 𝑦LAB–𝑧LAB planes. With this, the subsequent analysis uses the alignment fit result, the proper clusters’ errors and respective ̃𝜒 2 . A breakdown of the different ensemble… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Left: the positron-like tracks in Run 502, before global alignment and without the apertures and spot cuts. Right: the result of the toy MC (using Xsuite) with 250,000 initial particles generated as discussed in the text, assuming the “as designed” scenario, for particles traversing exactly five layers. Before determining the actual shift in 𝑥LAB and 𝑦LAB, we need to look at another useful quantities that… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The angle in the 𝑥LAB–𝑧LAB plane (left) and in the 𝑦LAB–𝑧LAB plane (right) of the positron￾like tracks in Run 502, before global alignment from all tracks, without the spot cut. The shaded band represents the uncertainty due to the local alignment. To determine the angle between the detector and the beamline in the 𝑦–𝑧 plane, we first rewrite Eq. 5 explicitly such that 𝜙=𝜃 max 𝑦𝑧 − 𝜃 beam−det 𝑦𝑧 . We then… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The transverse positions of the positron-like tracks in Run 502 at the dipole exit plane. Left: after partial global alignment, with only the 𝑦–𝑧 tilt. Right: after full global alignment, including the tilt and two shifts. All cuts are applied, excluding the spot cut, which is replaced by a looser square outliers cut. 8. Results: Tracking in a dense background environment The local and global alignment re… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The transverse positions of the positron-like tracks at the dipole exit plane after full global alignment and after the full selection, including the spot cut (see Eq. 6) for the Be window Run 502 (left) and the dump-only Run 503 (right). We furthermore plot in view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The tracking evolution after full global alignment and after the full selection, including the spot cut (see Eq. 6) for the Be window Run 502 (top) and the dump-only Run 503 (bottom). To qualitatively compare the measured signal rate with the equivalent extracted from a full GEANT4 [46, 47, 48] simulation of the full experimental area, we have generated 2.6×1010 primary O. Borysov et al.: Preprint submitt… view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: The 𝑝𝑧 spectra of positron-like tracks (per BX) after full global alignment and after the full selection, including the spot cut (see Eq. 6) for the Be window Run 502 and the dump-only Run 503. The spectra are compared to both Xsuite toy MC (generated as discussed in Sec. 7) and full GEANT4 simulation (with biased cross sections). The simulated shapes are normalized such that their maxima are equal to tha… view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: The schematic of the powering scheme, readout and trigger system for the prototype detector. The key elements are grouped by location, either in the tunnel or in the Klystron gallery above. The different connection types and lengths are specified. digital channels, are manageable at this distance. To ensure stable operation, a custom low-dropout regulator (LDO) board stabilizes the power input to a fixed … view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: MOSAIC board VME crate placement in the FACET–II accelerator tunnel. The setup is shielded by protective layers of lead and PE. Left: view of the setup from the accelerator aisle. Right: view of the setup from the alcove wall. Direction of the accelerator beam and the MOSAIC board connections are shown. the readout coincides with the peak occupancy of the chips following the beam arrival view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: The average occupancy in the chips as a function of the trigger delay. A trigger delay of −96 𝜇s is adequate to ensure fully efficient data-taking. PCs at the Weizmann Institute of Science to meet DAQ requirements and enable remote control of the setup. The DAQ PC runs dedicated software, which controls and reads out the detector. The software is built within the EUDAQ2 framework [33, 34], which operates … view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: A flow diagram of the control and data in E320 EUDAQ2 setup. Once the threshold is set, a fake hit rate scan is performed to identify and mask pixels that falsely signal activity in the absence of external stimuli. These faulty pixels, typically caused by defects in the digital circuitry, are detected by repeatedly reading the pixel matrix under idle conditions and marking those that consistently return a… view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Turnaround time distribution of the Producer-to-server transactions. Once the detector is configured, data collection begins. The Producer continuously monitors the MOSAIC board for arrival of new triggers. When the trigger arrives, it sends a readout requests after a delay of (𝜇s) to collect chip data from the on-board memory. Simultaneously, the Producer queries the FACET–II server to log the accelerat… view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Examples of the monitors evolution throughout Run 502 before applying the cleaning algorithm. The pixel occupancy of the first tracking layer is plotted on the left vertical axis in black, while on the right axis the different red curves correspond to the different FACET–II monitors of the same kind, where applicable. O. Borysov et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 44 of 45 view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: Examples of the monitors evolution throughout Run 503 before applying the cleaning algorithm. The pixel occupancy of the first tracking layer is plotted on the left vertical axis in black, while on the right axis the different red curves correspond to the different FACET–II monitors of the same kind, where applicable. O. Borysov et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 45 of 45 view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Our recent study discussed the prospects for measuring single positrons produced in electron-laser collisions via the nonlinear Breit-Wheeler deep-tunneling process in the SLAC Experiment 320 at the FACET-II RF LINAC. In this work, we demonstrate how a tracking detector, that is a scaled-down version of the one discussed in the prospective simulation study, enables the measurement. This prototype detector, installed in Aug 2024, is built out of five layers of single ALPIDE chips. The data are taken from several standalone runs completed in Nov 2024 and Feb 2025. We use positrons generated through conversion of Bremsstrahlung photons as a proxy to the nonlinear Breit-Wheeler process. These positrons are produced by the beam electrons in a thin Beryllium foil close to the experiment's interaction point. The tracking approach used in this initial work is based on a Hough-Transform seeding algorithm followed by a straight line fit confined to the detector volume. Even with this relatively simple approach, we are able to measure a signal rate of $(1.20\pm0.06_{stat.}\pm0.56_{syst.})\times10^{-1}$ positrons per shot. This signal rate is comparable to the nonlinear Breit-Wheeler rate expected in the main experiment. Notably, the measurement is achieved under an extreme, unprecedented background hit density of ~1.7/mm$^2$, unlike the main experiment, where at least a twice lower density is expected. This large background is mostly due to secondary particles produced when the large flux of Bremsstrahlung photons interacts with the material of the beamline elements. When the foil is retracted, the false-positive signal rate is shown to be four orders of magnitude smaller than the signal rate. We further show that the high spatial tracking resolution of ~5 micron allows to characterize the positrons' spectra. The results are compared to simulations, which are found to be compatible with the data.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes the initial performance of a prototype tracker for SLAC Experiment E320, consisting of five layers of ALPIDE silicon pixel detectors. The authors use positrons from Bremsstrahlung photon conversion in a thin Beryllium foil as a proxy for nonlinear Breit-Wheeler positrons expected in electron-laser collisions. Employing a Hough-transform-based seeding algorithm followed by a straight-line fit, they report a measured signal rate of (1.20 ± 0.06_stat ± 0.56_syst) × 10^{-1} positrons per shot at a background density of ~1.7/mm². Foil retraction demonstrates a four-order-of-magnitude reduction in false positives, a spatial resolution of approximately 5 microns is achieved, and the data are found to be compatible with simulations.

Significance. This result demonstrates the tracker's ability to extract a signal at the rate level expected for the primary nonlinear Breit-Wheeler measurement, even under background conditions more severe than those anticipated in the main run. The strong suppression of fakes upon foil retraction and the reported resolution provide concrete evidence supporting the detector's suitability. Compatibility with simulations further bolsters confidence in the analysis methodology for future data taking.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results and systematic uncertainties] The systematic uncertainty is nearly an order of magnitude larger than the statistical uncertainty. The manuscript should explicitly list and quantify the individual contributions to the systematic error (e.g., from efficiency, background subtraction, or proxy modeling) in a dedicated subsection or table. This is necessary to evaluate the robustness of the rate measurement and its extrapolation to the main experiment.
  2. [Proxy validation and discussion] The paper relies on the Be-foil positrons as a proxy, but differences in production mechanism (Bremsstrahlung conversion vs. nonlinear BW pair production) imply potential differences in kinematics and correlated backgrounds. The absence of a data set with varied foil parameters or direct comparison to simulated nonlinear BW events means that any tracking biases specific to the main-experiment kinematics would not be apparent. This limits the strength of the claim that the demonstrated performance directly translates to the primary E320 measurement.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'Our recent study' should be replaced with a specific citation to the referenced work for improved traceability.
  2. [Methods] Clarify whether the straight-line fit is performed in 3D or projected, and provide the exact definition of the 'detector volume' used for the fit confinement.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript describing the initial performance of the E320 tracker prototype. We appreciate the recognition of the significance of our results in demonstrating the detector's capabilities under challenging conditions. We address each major comment below and have made revisions to the manuscript to strengthen it.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The systematic uncertainty is nearly an order of magnitude larger than the statistical uncertainty. The manuscript should explicitly list and quantify the individual contributions to the systematic error (e.g., from efficiency, background subtraction, or proxy modeling) in a dedicated subsection or table. This is necessary to evaluate the robustness of the rate measurement and its extrapolation to the main experiment.

    Authors: We agree that providing a detailed breakdown of the systematic uncertainties will enhance the transparency and allow better evaluation of our results. In the revised manuscript, we have added a dedicated subsection in the Results section that explicitly lists and quantifies the individual contributions to the systematic uncertainty. This includes estimates from tracking efficiency (derived from both data and simulation), background subtraction procedures, uncertainties in the proxy modeling, alignment, and material budget effects. A summary table is also included for clarity. These additions directly address the need to assess the robustness for extrapolation to the primary E320 measurement. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The paper relies on the Be-foil positrons as a proxy, but differences in production mechanism (Bremsstrahlung conversion vs. nonlinear BW pair production) imply potential differences in kinematics and correlated backgrounds. The absence of a data set with varied foil parameters or direct comparison to simulated nonlinear BW events means that any tracking biases specific to the main-experiment kinematics would not be apparent. This limits the strength of the claim that the demonstrated performance directly translates to the primary E320 measurement.

    Authors: We acknowledge the referee's point regarding the differences in production mechanisms and the resulting implications for kinematics and backgrounds. Our study is an initial performance demonstration using the available proxy data, which was chosen because it provides positrons at rates comparable to the expected nonlinear Breit-Wheeler signal while operating under higher background densities than planned for the main experiment. This serves as a stringent test of the tracking algorithm's ability to handle high occupancy. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the discussion to explicitly address potential differences in kinematics and their possible impact on tracking performance, drawing on comparisons between proxy simulations and expected nonlinear BW kinematics. We also note the limitations due to the current dataset and outline plans for future validation with varied configurations. While we cannot claim identical conditions, the demonstrated performance under more severe backgrounds provides strong evidence for the tracker's suitability, with the added discussion clarifying the extrapolation. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • The current dataset does not include measurements with varied foil parameters or direct experimental comparisons to simulated nonlinear Breit-Wheeler events, which cannot be added without new data taking.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: pure experimental measurement with direct data extraction

full rationale

This is an experimental instrumentation paper reporting measured positron rates from beam data. The central result (signal rate of (1.20±0.06_stat±0.56_syst.)×10^{-1} positrons/shot) is obtained by applying an explicitly described Hough-transform seeding plus straight-line fit algorithm to recorded hits, with background subtraction validated by foil-retracted runs. No derivation chain, first-principles prediction, or fitted parameter is presented that reduces to its own inputs by construction. The proxy use of Bremsstrahlung positrons is an experimental choice whose validity is external to the measurement itself; the paper does not claim a derivation or uniqueness theorem. Self-reference to a prior simulation study is limited to detector design context and is not load-bearing for the reported rates. The result is self-contained against external benchmarks (data, retracted runs, simulation comparison).

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions about silicon detector response and track reconstruction in high-background environments, plus the domain-specific assumption that the chosen proxy process adequately represents the target nonlinear Breit-Wheeler positrons for performance validation.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Positrons from Bremsstrahlung conversion in the Be foil have detection and tracking properties sufficiently similar to nonlinear Breit-Wheeler positrons for the purpose of validating the prototype.
    Invoked when using the foil data as a proxy for the main experiment's expected signal and background.
  • domain assumption The Hough-transform seeding algorithm followed by a straight-line fit confined to the detector volume correctly identifies and reconstructs true positron tracks at background densities of ~1.7/mm².
    Basis for the tracking approach used to extract the signal rate.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5726 in / 1848 out tokens · 46975 ms · 2026-05-08T04:51:38.833472+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Borysov, A

    O. Borysov, A. Levi, S. Meuren, et al., Prospects for the production and detection of Breit-Wheeler tunneling positrons in Experiment 320 at the FACET–II accelerator, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1083 (2026) 171144.arXiv:2506.04992,doi:10.1016/j.nima.2025.171144

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2025.171144 2026

  2. [2]

    On gauge invariance and vac- uum polarization,

    J. Schwinger, On gauge invariance and vacuum polarization, Phys. Rev. 82 (1951) 664–679.doi:10.1103/PhysRev.82.664. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.82.664

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.82.664 1951

  3. [3]

    F. Sauter, Über das verhalten eines elektrons im homogenen elektrischen feld nach der relativistischen theorie diracs, Zeitschrift für Physik 69 (11) (1931) 742–764.doi:10.1007/BF01339461. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/BF01339461

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01339461 1931

  4. [4]

    C. N. Danson, et al., Petawatt and exawatt class lasers worldwide, High Power Laser Science and Engineering 7 (2019) e54.doi: 10.1017/hpl.2019.36

    work page doi:10.1017/hpl.2019.36 2019

  5. [5]

    Yakimenko, et al., FACET-II Accelerator Research with Beams of Extreme Intensities, in: Proc

    V. Yakimenko, et al., FACET-II Accelerator Research with Beams of Extreme Intensities, in: Proc. of International Particle Accelerator Conference(IPAC’16),Busan,Korea,May8-13,2016,no.7inInternationalParticleAcceleratorConference,JACoW,Geneva,Switzerland, 2016, pp. 1067–1070, doi:10.18429/JACoW-IPAC2016-TUOBB02.doi:doi:10.18429/JACoW-IPAC2016-TUOBB02. URLh...

    work page doi:10.18429/jacow-ipac2016-tuobb02.doi:doi:10.18429/jacow-ipac2016-tuobb02 2016

  6. [6]

    Altarelli, R

    M. Altarelli, R. Brinkmann, M. Chergui, The european x-ray free-electron laser. technical design report, DESY Publication Database (2007). doi:doi:10.3204/DESY_06-097. URLhttps://bib-pubdb1.desy.de/record/77248/

    work page doi:10.3204/desy_06-097 2007

  7. [7]

    Weber, S

    S. Weber, S. Bechet, S. Borneis, et al., P3: An installation for high-energy density plasma physics and ultra-high intensity laser–matter interaction at eli-beamlines, Matter and Radiation at Extremes 2 (4) (2017) 149–176

    2017

  8. [8]

    S.Gales,K.Tanaka,D.Balabanski,etal.,Theextremelightinfrastructure—nuclearphysics(eli-np)facility:newhorizonsinphysicswith10 pw ultra-intense lasers and 20 mev brilliant gamma beams, Reports on Progress in Physics 81 (9) (2018) 094301

    2018

  9. [9]

    D.Papadopoulos,J.Zou,C.LeBlanc,etal.,Theapollon10pwlaser:experimentalandtheoreticalinvestigationofthetemporalcharacteristics, High Power Laser Science and Engineering 4 (2016) e34

    2016

  10. [10]

    J. W. Yoon, Y. G. Kim, I. W. Choi, et al., Realization of laser intensity over 1023 w/cm2, Optica 8 (5) (2021) 630–635

    2021

  11. [11]

    URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41566-024-01550-8

    M.Mirzaie,C.I.Hojbota,D.Y.Kim,etal.,All-opticalnonlinearcomptonscatteringperformedwithamulti-petawattlaser,NaturePhotonics 18 (11) (2024) 1212–1217.doi:10.1038/s41566-024-01550-8. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41566-024-01550-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41566-024-01550-8 2024

  12. [12]

    N. Zaïm, A. Sainte-Marie, L. Fedeli, et al., Light-matter interaction near the schwinger limit using tightly focused doppler-boosted lasers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024) 175002.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.175002. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.175002 O. Borysov et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 35 of 45 Initial Performance of t...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.175002 2024

  13. [13]

    Matheron, I

    A. Matheron, I. Andriyash, X. Davoine, et al., Self-triggered strong-field qed collisions in laser-plasma interaction, Phys. Rev. Res. 7 (2025) L032011.arXiv:2408.13238,doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.7.L032011. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.7.L032011

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.7.l032011 2025

  14. [14]

    Collaboration, Technical design report for the luxe experiment, The European Physical Journal Special Topics (10 2024).doi:10.1140/ epjs/s11734-024-01164-9

    L. Collaboration, Technical design report for the luxe experiment, The European Physical Journal Special Topics (10 2024).doi:10.1140/ epjs/s11734-024-01164-9. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1140/epjs/s11734-024-01164-9

    work page doi:10.1140/epjs/s11734-024-01164-9 2024

  15. [15]

    Bamber, et al., Studies of nonlinear QED in collisions of 46.6-GeV electrons with intense laser pulses, Phys

    C. Bamber, et al., Studies of nonlinear QED in collisions of 46.6-GeV electrons with intense laser pulses, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 092004. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.092004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.60.092004 1999

  16. [16]

    Collaboration, Technical Design Report for the Upgrade of the ALICE Inner Tracking System, J

    A. Collaboration, Technical Design Report for the Upgrade of the ALICE Inner Tracking System, J. Phys. G41 (2014) 087002.doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/41/8/087002

    work page doi:10.1088/0954-3899/41/8/087002 2014

  17. [17]

    Rinella on behalf of the ALICE collaboration,The ALPIDE sensor chip for the upgrade of the ALICE In- ner Tracking System, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, vol

    G.AglieriRinella,Thealpidepixelsensorchipfortheupgradeofthealiceinnertrackingsystem,NIM.A.845(2017)583–587,proceedings of the Vienna Conference on Instrumentation 2016.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2016.05.016. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168900216303825

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2016.05.016 2017

  18. [18]

    X. Ai, C. Allaire, N. Calace, et al., A common tracking software project, Computing and Software for Big Science 6 (1) (2022) 8. doi:10.1007/s41781-021-00078-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s41781-021-00078-8 2022

  19. [19]

    C.Accettura,etal.,Towardsamuoncollider,Eur.Phys.J.C83(9)(2023)864,[Erratum:Eur.Phys.J.C84,36(2024)].arXiv:2303.08533, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11889-x

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11889-x 2023

  20. [20]

    C.Emma,N.Majernik,K.K.Swanson,etal.,Experimentalgenerationofextremeelectronbeamsforadvancedacceleratorapplications,Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (2025) 085001.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.085001. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.085001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.085001 2025

  21. [21]

    Yakimenko, L

    V. Yakimenko, L. Alsberg, E. Bong, et al., Facet-ii facility for advanced accelerator experimental tests, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 22 (2019) 101301.doi:10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.22.101301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevaccelbeams.22.101301 2019

  22. [22]

    Storey, C

    D. Storey, C. Zhang, P. San Miguel Claveria, et al., Wakefield generation in hydrogen and lithium plasmas at facet-ii: Diagnostics and first beam-plasma interaction results, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 27 (2024) 051302.doi:10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.27.051302. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.27.051302

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevaccelbeams.27.051302 2024

  23. [23]

    Collaboration, The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC, Journal of Instrumentation 3 (08) (2008) S08002–S08002.doi:10.1088/ 1748-0221/3/08/s08002

    A. Collaboration, The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC, Journal of Instrumentation 3 (08) (2008) S08002–S08002.doi:10.1088/ 1748-0221/3/08/s08002. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/s08002

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/s08002 2008

  24. [24]

    Acharya, et al., ALICE upgrades during the LHC Long Shutdown 2, JINST 19 (05) (2024) P05062.arXiv:2302.01238,doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/P05062

    S. Acharya, et al., ALICE upgrades during the LHC Long Shutdown 2, JINST 19 (05) (2024) P05062.arXiv:2302.01238,doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/P05062

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/p05062 2024

  25. [25]

    Ravasenga, Commissioning and Performance of the New ALICE Inner Tracking System in the First Phase of LHC Run 3, JPS Conf

    I. Ravasenga, Commissioning and Performance of the New ALICE Inner Tracking System in the First Phase of LHC Run 3, JPS Conf. Proc. 42 (2024) 011002.arXiv:2302.00432,doi:10.7566/JPSCP.42.011002

    work page doi:10.7566/jpscp.42.011002 2024

  26. [26]

    S. Senyukov, et al., Charged particle detection performances of cmos pixel sensors produced in a 0.18𝜇m process with a high resistivity epitaxial layer, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment730(2013)115–118,proceedingsofthe9thInternationalConferenceonRadiationEffectso...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2013.03.017 2013

  27. [27]

    Aglieri Rinella, G

    G. Aglieri Rinella, G. Chaosong, A. di Mauro, et al., Charge collection properties of towerjazz 180nm cmos pixel sensors in dependence of pixel geometries and bias parameters, studied using a dedicated test-vehicle: The investigator chip, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated E...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2020.164859 2021

  28. [28]

    Dannheim, A

    D. Dannheim, A. Fiergolski, J. van Hoorne, et al., Comparison of small collection electrode cmos pixel sensors with partial and full lateral depletionofthehigh-resistivityepitaxiallayer,NuclearInstrumentsandMethodsinPhysicsResearchSectionA:Accelerators,Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 927 (2019) 187–193.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima....

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2019.02.049 2019

  29. [29]

    M. Mager, ALPIDE, the Monolithic Active Pixel Sensor for the ALICE ITS upgrade, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 824 (2016) 434 – 438, frontier Detectors for Frontier Physics: Proceedings of the 13th Pisa Meeting on Advanced Detectors.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2015.09.057 2016

  30. [30]

    T. H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, R. L. Rivest, C. Stein, Introduction to Algorithms, 3rd Edition, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2009

    2009

  31. [31]

    E.F.Moore,Theshortestpaththroughamaze,in:ProceedingsoftheInternationalSymposiumontheTheoryofSwitching,HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge, MA, 1959, pp. 285–292

    1959

  32. [32]

    K. L. Brown, A first- and second-order matrix theory for the design of beam transport systems and charged particle spectrometers, Report SLAC-75, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (June 1982).doi:10.2172/4742148. URLhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/4742148

    work page doi:10.2172/4742148 1982

  33. [33]

    Ahlburg, S

    P. Ahlburg, S. Arfaoui, J.-H. Arling, et al., EUDAQ—a data acquisition software framework for common beam telescopes, JINST 15 (01) (2020) P01038–P01038.doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/01/p01038. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/15/01/p01038

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/01/p01038 2020

  34. [34]

    Y. Liu, M. Amjad, P. Baesso, et al., EUDAQ2—a flexible data acquisition software framework for common test beams, Journal of Instrumentation 14 (10) (2019) P10033–P10033.doi:10.1088/1748-0221/14/10/p10033. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/14/10/p10033 O. Borysov et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 36 of 45 Initial Performance of the E320 Tracker

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/14/10/p10033 2019

  35. [35]

    Santra, N

    A. Santra, N. Tal Hod, A derivation of the electric field inside MAPS detectors from beam-test data and limited TCAD simulations, JINST 18 (05) (2023) P05007.arXiv:2209.03457,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/18/05/P05007

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/18/05/p05007 2023

  36. [36]

    P. V. C. Hough, Machine Analysis of Bubble Chamber Pictures, Conf. Proc. C 590914 (1959) 554–558

    1959

  37. [37]

    P. V. Hough, Method and means for recognizing complex patterns, uS Patent (12 1962). URLhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/4746348

    work page arXiv 1962

  38. [38]

    Mankel, Pattern recognition and event reconstruction in particle physics experiments, Reports on Progress in Physics 67 (4) (2004) 553

    R. Mankel, Pattern recognition and event reconstruction in particle physics experiments, Reports on Progress in Physics 67 (4) (2004) 553. doi:10.1088/0034-4885/67/4/R03. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/67/4/R03

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/67/4/r03 2004

  39. [39]

    R.Frühwirth,A.Strandlie,PatternRecognition,TrackingandVertexReconstructioninParticleDetectors,ParticleAccelerationandDetection, Springer, 2020.doi:10.1007/978-3-030-65771-0

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-65771-0 2020

  40. [40]

    N.Amram,HoughTransformTrackReconstructionintheCathodeStripChambersinATLAS,Master’sthesis,TelAviv,TelAvivUniversity (2008)

    2008

  41. [41]

    C. Cheshkov, Fast Hough-transform track reconstruction for the ALICE TPC, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A:Accelerators,Spectrometers,DetectorsandAssociatedEquipment566(1)(2006)35–39,tIME2005.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.nima.2006.05.036. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168900206008059

    2006

  42. [42]

    Storaci, Optimization of the LHCb track reconstruction, J

    B. Storaci, Optimization of the LHCb track reconstruction, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 664 (7) (2015) 072047.doi:10.1088/1742-6596/664/7/ 072047. URLhttps://cds.cern.ch/record/2017850

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/664/7/ 2015

  43. [43]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas, et al., Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110 (3) (2024) 030001.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024

  44. [44]

    V. Blobel, Software alignment for tracking detectors, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 566 (1) (2006) 5–13

    2006

  45. [45]

    Iadarola, et al., Xsuite: An Integrated Beam Physics Simulation Framework, JACoW HB2023 (2024) TUA2I1.arXiv:2310.00317, doi:10.18429/JACoW-HB2023-TUA2I1

    G. Iadarola, et al., Xsuite: An Integrated Beam Physics Simulation Framework, JACoW HB2023 (2024) TUA2I1.arXiv:2310.00317, doi:10.18429/JACoW-HB2023-TUA2I1

    work page doi:10.18429/jacow-hb2023-tua2i1 2024

  46. [46]

    Allison, K

    J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, et al., Recent developments in Geant4, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 835 (2016) 186–225

    2016

  47. [47]

    Agostinelli, J

    S. Agostinelli, J. Allison, K. Amako, et al., Geant4—a simulation toolkit, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 506 (3) (2003) 250–303

    2003

  48. [48]

    Allison, K

    J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, et al., Geant4 developments and applications, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 53 (1) (2006) 270–278.doi:10.1109/TNS.2006.869826

    work page doi:10.1109/tns.2006.869826 2006

  49. [49]

    URLhttp://sunba2.ba.infn.it/MOSAIC/ALICE-ITS/Documents/ALPIDE-operations-manual-version-0_3.pdf

    ALICE ITS ALPIDE development team, Alpide operations manual version: 0.3, (7 2016). URLhttp://sunba2.ba.infn.it/MOSAIC/ALICE-ITS/Documents/ALPIDE-operations-manual-version-0_3.pdf

    2016

  50. [50]

    Abovyan, et al., Test of low-dropout voltage regulators with neutrons and protons, JINST 17 (05) (2022) C05006.doi:10.1088/ 1748-0221/17/05/C05006

    S. Abovyan, et al., Test of low-dropout voltage regulators with neutrons and protons, JINST 17 (05) (2022) C05006.doi:10.1088/ 1748-0221/17/05/C05006

    2022

  51. [51]

    Robertis, G. De, Fanizzi, G., Loddo, F., Manzari, V., Rizzi, M., A MOdular System for Acquisition, Interface and Control (MOSAIC) of detectors and their related electronics for high energy physics experiment, EPJ Web Conf. 174 (2018) 07002.doi:10.1051/epjconf/ 201817407002. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/201817407002

    work page doi:10.1051/epjconf/ 2018

  52. [52]

    L. R. Dalesio, A. Kozubal, M. Kraimer, Epics architecture, Tech. rep., Los Alamos National Lab., NM (United States) (1991)

    1991

  53. [53]

    MOSAIC User’s Manual (7 2015). URLhttps://sunba2.ba.infn.it/MOSAIC/General/Documents/UserManual_V33.pdf Appendix A Power, Trigger & DAQ A schematic overview of the powering scheme, trigger and readout system of the prototype detector is provided in Fig. 21, illustrating the key components, their locations, and connection lengths. The9CAisconnectedtoanoff-...

    2015