The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2607.06353 · v1 · pith:AFF47JK6 · submitted 2026-07-07 · hep-ex

Efficiency measurements of GEM GE1/1 chambers in the upgraded CMS Endcap Muon System using 2023 collision data at sqrt{s}=13.6 TeV

M. Abbas , S. Abbott , M. Abbrescia , H. Abdalla , A. Abdelalim , S. AbuZeid , D. Aebi , A. Ahmad
show 179 more authors
W. Ahmed C. Aim\`e T. Akhter G. Alasfour M. Ali B. Alsufyani A. Aravind C. Aruta I. Asghar P. Aspell C. Avila Y. Ban R. Band S. Bansal N. Beni L. Benussi T. Beyrouthy V. Bhatnagar M. Bianco S. Bianco K. Black O. Bouhali S. Brachet A. Braghieri M. Brunoldi M. Buonsante S. Butalla A. Cagnotta S. Calzaferri R. Campagnola M. Caponero F. Cassese N. Cavallo B. Chauhan S. S. Chauhan B. Choudhary M. Citron S. Colafranceschi A. Colaleo A. Conde Garcia A. Datta P. Danev A. De Iorio G. De Lentdecker G. De Robertis W. Dharmaratna C. Di Fraia D. Dobur E. Ehlert R. Erbacher P. Everaerts F. Fabozzi F. Fallavollita L. Favilla M. Franco C. Galloni L. Generoso Y. Gharbia P. Giacomelli S. G. Gigli J. Gilmore G. Gokbulut R. Hadjiiska T. Hebbeker K. Hoepfner M. Hohlmann H. Hoorani T. Huang P. Iaydjiev A. Iorio F. Ivone W. Jang J. Jaramillo E. Juska B. Kailasapathy T. Kamon Y. Kang P. Karchin S. Keshri D. Kim H. Kim J. Kim M. Kim S. Kim A. Kumar S. Kumar N. Lacalamita J. S. H. Lee Q. Li Z. Li F. Licciulli L. Lista K. Liyanage F. Loddo L. Longo M. Luhach M. Maggi N. Majumdar K. Malagalage S. Malhotra S. Martiradonna M. Merschmeyer M. Misheva G. Mitev G. Mocellin S. Muhammad S. Mukhopadhyay M. Naimuddin F. Nenna S. Nuzzo R. Oliveira S. Ostrom M. Otkur E. Paoletti P. Paolucci I. C. Park G. Passeggio A. Pellecchia N. Perera L. Petre B. Philipps D. Piccolo D. Pierluigi C. Prakash R. Radogna A. Ranieri D. Rathjens B. Regnery C. Riccardi M. Rodr\'iguez B. Rossi P. Rout A. A. Ruales J. D. Ruiz-\`Alvarez A. Russo A. Safonov A. K. Sahota M. Saini D. Saltzberg G. Saviano A. Schmidt A. Sharma T. Sheokand M. Shopova F. M. Simone J. Singh K. Skovpen U. Sonnadara A. Stamerra G. Sultanov Z. Szillasi D. Teague R. Tesauro D. Teyssier S. Thakur D. Troiano M. Tytgat I. Vai R. Venditti P. Verwilligen W. Vetens A. K. Virdi P. Vitulo A. Wajid D. Wang A. Warden I. J. Watson N. Wickramage D. D. C. Wickramarathna E. Yanes U. Yang Y. Yang H. D. Yoo I. Yoon Z. You I. Yu S. Zaleski A. Zaza C. Zhou
This is my paper

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel 2026-07-08 08:37 UTCglm-5.2pith:AFF47JK6record.jsonopen to challenge →

classification hep-ex
keywords CMSGEM detectorGE1/1muon detection efficiencytriple-GEMLHC Run 3pile-upback-propagation
0
0 comments X

The pith

New CMS muon detectors hit 96% efficiency in first collision test

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

This paper reports the first full-system measurement of how efficiently the newly installed GE1/1 triple-GEM muon detectors in the CMS experiment register muon tracks, using 17.8 inverse femtobarns of 2023 proton-proton collision data at 13.6 TeV. The authors use a back-propagation technique: they reconstruct muon tracks from other detectors (silicon tracker, cathode strip chambers, resistive plate chambers) without any GE1/1 hits, then project those tracks onto the GE1/1 surface and check whether a GE1/1 hit appears within 4 cm of the predicted position. Across 137 operational chambers, the average detection efficiency is 93.3%. For the 78 chambers free of electrical shorts and operated at their designed high voltage, the average efficiency rises to 96%, meeting the 97% design target closely enough to validate the system for the High Luminosity LHC era. Efficiency shows no dependence on pile-up—the number of simultaneous proton-proton collisions per bunch crossing—up to the levels observed in 2023 data. The dominant causes of suboptimal efficiency are electrical shorts on GEM foils (each short drops a chamber's efficiency by roughly 7-10 percentage points) and optical readout failures from adhesive outgassing on opto-hybrid boards. The paper argues that with hardware refurbishment planned for the 2026-2030 long shutdown, the system will meet its performance goals.

Core claim

The central finding is that the GE1/1 triple-GEM chamber system, newly installed in the CMS forward muon region, achieves an average per-chamber muon detection efficiency of approximately 96% when operating under nominal conditions (no shorts, full high voltage), measured for the first time with real LHC collision data. This is within reach of the 97% design specification. The efficiency is stable against pile-up, meaning the detectors do not lose performance as collision density increases. The gap between the 93.3% all-chamber average and the 96% best-case average is attributable to identifiable hardware problems—foil shorts and optical connection failures—rather than any fundamental limit,

What carries the argument

The triple-GEM chamber: a gaseous ionization detector using three stacked polyimide foils perforated with microscopic holes, each held at successively lower amplification voltage, immersed in an Ar/CO2 gas mixture. Ionization electrons drift through the foils, undergo avalanche multiplication at each stage, and induce a readout signal on strip electrodes. The back-propagation method is the measurement tool: muon tracks reconstructed from other subdetectors are extrapolated to the GE1/1 surface, and a hit within a 4 cm window in RΔφ counts as a successful detection.

If this is right

  • The 96% efficiency for fault-free chambers at nominal voltage validates the GE1/1 design for the High Luminosity LHC, where muon fluxes in the forward region will be roughly an order of magnitude higher than in Run 3.
  • The pile-up independence observed in 2023 data, if it persists at HL-LHC pile-up levels (140-200 interactions per crossing), would mean GE1/1 can serve as a reliable trigger and reconstruction station without efficiency corrections for collision density.
  • The clear correlation between foil shorts and efficiency loss (roughly 7-10% per short) provides a quantitative basis for quality control: chambers with shorts can be identified and refurbished before HL-LHC operation, potentially bringing the system-wide average close to the 96-97% target.
  • The VFAT-level efficiency map identifies specific readout sectors with reduced performance, enabling targeted repairs during Long Shutdown 3 rather than full chamber replacement.
  • The back-propagation method demonstrated here can be reused for future GE1/1 efficiency monitoring and extended to the GE2/1 and ME0 GEM stations currently under construction.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the 32 chambers with shorts and the 7 turned-off chambers are refurbished during Long Shutdown 3, the system-wide average efficiency could rise from 93.3% to approximately 96%, assuming no new faults develop. This would bring the full system within 1 percentage point of the 97% design goal.
  • The pile-up independence was measured at 2023 pile-up levels (roughly 50-70 interactions per crossing). Whether it holds at HL-LHC levels (140-200) depends on whether the dominant inefficiency sources—readout bandwidth, cluster overlap, and electronic deadtime—scale with hit rate rather than with the number of interactions. The paper's data cannot confirm this extrapolation directly.
  • The ~1% gap between the 96% measured efficiency and the 97% design target may reflect the combined effect of the fiducial region definition, the 4 cm matching window, and residual track extrapolation uncertainties. A tighter matching window or improved alignment could narrow or close this gap, but the paper does not decompose the residual inefficiency into these components.
  • The fact that optical connection failures from adhesive outgassing caused entire VFAT sectors to be excluded suggests that the readout chain, not the GEM gas amplification itself, is the primary operational risk for the system. This implies that reliability engineering on the opto-hybrid boards may matter more for long-term performance than further optimization of chamber high-voltage settings.

Load-bearing premise

The back-propagation method assumes that muon tracks reconstructed without GE1/1 hits provide an unbiased and accurate prediction of where each muon actually crossed the GE1/1 surface, and that a hit within 4 cm of that prediction is a genuine GEM detection rather than background. If track extrapolation has systematic biases from multiple scattering, detector alignment errors, or magnetic field non-uniformities in the endcap region, the measured efficiency could be shifted in

What would settle it

If future measurements with improved track reconstruction or independent calibration sources (e.g., cosmic ray muons, or tracks reconstructed with GE1/1 included and then cross-checked) yield efficiencies that differ systematically from the back-propagation results by more than a few percent, the method's assumption of unbiased extrapolation would be challenged.

read the original abstract

The CMS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider employs Gas Electron Multiplier (GEM) detectors, a technology based on gaseous ionization, as one of the muon detectors. The muon spectrometer is being upgraded to handle the increased muon flux in the forward region. This study analyzes muon detection efficiency in the GE1/1 triple-GEM detector, using 2023 proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s}=13.6$ TeV. A dataset enriched with muons from Z boson decay, with a total recorded luminosity of 17.8 fb$^{-1}$ has been used for this study. The detection efficiency of 137 GEM detectors are measured using muon trajectories established using other detectors in the tracking and muon systems, without use of the GEM detectors. The average efficiency of 137 GEM detectors is $\sim$93.3$\%$. A subset of 108 detectors that had no shorts were operated at the nominal HV working point with average efficiency of $\sim$96$\%$. Efficiency is found to be unaffected by the number of p-p interactions per bunch crossing (pile-up).

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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports the first full-system efficiency measurement of the CMS GE1/1 triple-GEM chambers using 2023 pp collision data at sqrt(s) = 13.6 TeV. The measurement uses a back-propagation technique: global muon tracks are re-fitted without GE1/1 hits and extrapolated to the GE1/1 surface, where a matched hit within a +/-4 cm R*Delta*phi window defines a successful detection. The average efficiency across 137 operational chambers is ~93.3%, and for a subset of 78 chambers without electrical shorts operated at nominal high voltage, the average efficiency is ~96%, meeting the design specification. Efficiency is found to be independent of pile-up. The methodology is sound and the results represent an important milestone for the CMS muon upgrade program.

Significance. This is the first comprehensive efficiency characterization of the full GE1/1 system installed in CMS, and as such it is a significant contribution to the detector physics literature. The measurement validates the GE1/1 design specification (~97% efficiency) for the subset of optimally operating chambers, which is a key result for the HL-LHC muon program. The VFAT-level efficiency maps and the characterization of short-circuit impacts provide valuable operational diagnostics. The back-propagation methodology using an external tracking benchmark (CSC+tracker tracks without GEM hits) is a standard and appropriate tag-and-probe approach, and the result is free of fitted parameters or circular logic. The paper would be substantially strengthened by the addition of a quantitative uncertainty budget, which is currently absent.

major comments (3)
  1. Abstract: The abstract states 'A subset of 108 detectors that had no shorts were operated at the nominal HV working point with average efficiency of ~96%.' However, Table 2 in Section 3.8 shows that 108 chambers were operated at nominal HV, of which 30 had shorts, leaving 78 good chambers. The ~96% efficiency figure applies to the 78 good chambers, not 108. This is a factual error in the abstract that misrepresents the central result and must be corrected.
  2. Sections 3.4, 3.8, and all efficiency figures (Figs. 9, 10, 13, 14, 15): No uncertainties are reported on any efficiency value. The paper presents ~93.3% and ~96% as point estimates with no statistical or systematic uncertainties. At minimum, binomial statistical uncertainties should be reported for the average efficiencies and on the per-chamber values in Fig. 9. Without any uncertainty, one cannot assess whether the ~96% result is statistically consistent with the 97% design specification cited in Section 2.3, or whether the pile-up independence shown in Figs. 13/15 is statistically meaningful rather than visually flat. This is load-bearing for the central claims.
  3. Section 3.3: The +/-4 cm R*Delta*phi matching window is the sole parameter controlling hit-track association, yet no systematic study of the efficiency dependence on window size is presented. A scan of efficiency versus matching window (or at least a comparison of results for a smaller window, e.g. +/-2 cm) would demonstrate that the result is not sensitive to background contamination from delta rays or punch-through within the window. Additionally, no systematic uncertainty is assigned for potential track extrapolation biases from multiple scattering, alignment uncertainties, or magnetic field non-uniformities in the endcap region. A quantitative assessment of these sources, or at minimum an estimate of their magnitude, is needed to validate the efficiency value itself.
minor comments (6)
  1. Section 3.3, Fig. 8: The residual R*Delta*phi distributions are described as being shown for 'entire rings of chambers' but the caption mentions 'four individual chambers.' Please clarify whether these are per-chamber or per-ring distributions.
  2. Section 3.7: The efficiencies for chambers with 1, 2, 3, and 4 shorts (~89%, ~79%, ~69%, ~54%) are presented without specifying whether these are averages and without uncertainty estimates. Please state the number of chambers in each category and add uncertainties.
  3. Fig. 9: The shaded chambers with shorts are difficult to distinguish from unshaded ones in the current plot. Consider using a more distinct marker or color for better clarity.
  4. Section 2.3: The design specification is stated as '97% efficiency for detecting minimum ionizing particles.' Please clarify in Section 3.8 whether the ~96% measured efficiency is directly comparable to this specification (same definition, same particle spectrum) or whether differences in methodology should be noted when the comparison is made.
  5. Section 3.6, Fig. 13: The pile-up independence claim would be strengthened by reporting the slope of a linear fit or the chi-square of a flat-line hypothesis, rather than relying on visual inspection alone.
  6. The paper would benefit from a brief statement of the total number of propagated tracks and matched hits used in the efficiency calculation, and the pT threshold of the trigger (24 GeV) versus the offline selection (pT > 10 GeV) should be clarified to explain the track sample composition.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive and well-targeted comments. All three major points are well taken. Below we address each in turn.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: The abstract states 'A subset of 108 detectors that had no shorts were operated at the nominal HV working point with average efficiency of ~96%.' However, Table 2 shows that 108 chambers were operated at nominal HV, of which 30 had shorts, leaving 78 good chambers. The ~96% efficiency applies to the 78, not 108. This is a factual error.

    Authors: The referee is correct. This is a factual error in the abstract. The number 108 refers to the total number of chambers operated at nominal HV (column A in Table 2), which includes 30 chambers with shorts. The ~96% average efficiency applies to the 78 chambers that were operated at nominal HV and had no shorts (column A−B). The abstract will be corrected to read: 'A subset of 78 detectors that were operated at the nominal HV working point and had no electrical shorts showed an average efficiency of ~96%.' We will also review the full text for any other instances where the 108 and 78 figures might be conflated. revision: yes

  2. Referee: No uncertainties are reported on any efficiency value, including the ~93.3% and ~96% averages and per-chamber values in Fig. 9. Binomial statistical uncertainties should be reported at minimum.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of uncertainties is a significant omission that weakens the paper's central claims. We will add a quantitative uncertainty budget in the revised manuscript. Specifically: (1) For the average efficiencies (93.3% and 96%), we will report binomial statistical uncertainties computed as sqrt(ε(1−ε)/N), where N is the number of probe tracks. Given the large sample sizes from 17.8 fb⁻¹ of Z-enriched data, these statistical uncertainties are expected to be at the level of a few ×10⁻³ or smaller. (2) For the per-chamber efficiencies in Fig. 9, we will add binomial error bars. (3) For the pile-up dependence plots (Figs. 13 and 15), we will add statistical error bars to each bin so that the flatness of the efficiency versus pile-up can be assessed quantitatively. (4) We will also add a systematic uncertainty component, as discussed in our response to the third comment below. The total uncertainty will be quoted with each central value, and the consistency with the 97% design specification will be explicitly discussed. revision: yes

  3. Referee: No systematic study of efficiency dependence on the ±4 cm RΔφ matching window is presented, and no systematic uncertainty is assigned for track extrapolation biases from multiple scattering, alignment, or magnetic field non-uniformities.

    Authors: We agree that a systematic assessment of the matching window dependence and extrapolation-related biases is needed. In the revised manuscript we will add the following: (1) A scan of average efficiency versus matching window size, comparing results at ±2 cm, ±3 cm, ±4 cm, and ±5 cm. Based on the residual distributions shown in Fig. 8, which are well-contained within ±4 cm with prominent central peaks, we expect the efficiency to be stable for windows of ±3 cm and larger, with a possible slight decrease at ±2 cm if the window begins to exclude genuine matches near the tails. This scan will be included as a new figure and discussed in Section 3.3. (2) The difference in efficiency between the ±4 cm and ±2 cm windows will be taken as a systematic uncertainty associated with the matching criterion. (3) For extrapolation biases, we will estimate the systematic uncertainty from multiple scattering and alignment by examining the residual distribution widths and their centrality (the residuals in Fig. 8 are well-centered at zero, indicating no significant bias), and by noting that the back-propagation uses the full Kalman-filter track fit including material effects. We will provide a summary table of systematic uncertainty sources and their estimated magnitudes. We note that a full alignment-based systematic study using dedicated alignment constants is beyond the scope of this paper, but the residual distributions themselves provide a direct empirical constraint on the magnitude of any extrapolation bias, and we will state this explicitly. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found: direct experimental measurement with no fitted parameters or self-citation chain.

full rationale

This paper presents a direct experimental measurement of GE1/1 chamber efficiency, defined as the ratio of matched hits to total back-propagated tracks (§3.4). No parameters are fitted to data and then presented as predictions. The efficiency values (~93.3% for all 137 chambers, ~96% for the 78 optimal chambers) are straightforward ratios computed from data, not derived quantities that reduce to their inputs by construction. The ~97% design benchmark cited in §2.3 comes from the GEM Technical Design Report [9], an external design document, not a value the authors fit and then 'predict.' The back-propagation technique (§3.3) is cited from Ref. [23] (a CMS conference proceedings), but this is a methodological reference describing a tracking technique, not a result being circularly verified. The measurement is self-contained against external benchmarks (CSC+tracker muon tracks from Z boson decays). The paper has legitimate issues (missing uncertainty quantification, abstract misstatement about 108 vs 78 chambers), but these are correctness/completeness concerns, not circularity. The derivation chain is: define efficiency as matched/total tracks → propagate muon tracks without GE1/1 hits → match within ±4 cm window → compute ratio. No step reduces to its own input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities, particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. No free parameters are fitted to data to produce the efficiency result — the only parameter is the matching window cut, which is a standard analysis choice. The axioms are standard domain assumptions for a tag-and-probe efficiency measurement. The paper is a detector performance measurement, not a theoretical derivation.

free parameters (1)
  • RΔφ matching window = ±4 cm
    The matching window for associating GEM hits to propagated tracks is set at ±4 cm. This is a cut parameter, not a fitted constant, but it directly affects the efficiency numerator. No scan or justification is provided.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Global muon tracks re-fitted without GE1/1 hits provide an unbiased estimate of the true muon position at the GE1/1 surface
    Invoked in §3.3 and §3.4. The entire efficiency measurement depends on the back-propagated track position being an unbiased predictor. Systematic biases from multiple scattering, alignment, or field non-uniformities are not quantified.
  • domain assumption The Z-boson decay muon sample provides a high-purity, unbiased probe sample
    Invoked in §3.2. Tight muon ID criteria (Table 1) are assumed to reject backgrounds sufficiently. No purity estimate or background systematic is provided.
  • standard math Standard CMS muon reconstruction algorithms and calibration are correct for Run-3 conditions
    Invoked throughout §3.2. This is a standard assumption for CMS papers, supported by Ref. [22].

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 16688 in / 2403 out tokens · 409983 ms · 2026-07-08T08:37:21.768528+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

24 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Bruning, P

    O.S. Bruning, P. Collier, P. Lebrun, S. Myers, R. Ostojic, J. Poole and P. Proudlock eds.,LHC Design Report,vol. 1: The LHC Main Ring, CERN, (2004), 548 p., doi:10.5170/CERN-2004-003-V-1

    work page doi:10.5170/cern-2004-003-v-1 2004

  2. [2]

    Evans and P

    L. Evans and P. Bryant,LHC Machine, JINST 3, (2008) S08001, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08001

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/s08001 2008

  3. [3]

    Apollinari, I

    G. Apollinari, I. Béjar Alonso, O. Brüning, P. Fessia, M. Lamont, L. Rossi and L. Tavian, High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider (HL-LHC): Technical Design Report V.0.1, CERN-2017-007-M, (2017), 599 p, doi:10.23731/CYRM-2017-004

    work page doi:10.23731/cyrm-2017-004 2017

  4. [4]

    Schmidt,The High-Luminosity upgrade of the LHC: Physics and Technology Challenges for the Accelerator and the Experiments, J

    B. Schmidt,The High-Luminosity upgrade of the LHC: Physics and Technology Challenges for the Accelerator and the Experiments, J. Phys.: Conf. Series 706 (2016) 022002, doi:10.1088/1742-6596/706/2/022002

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/706/2/022002 2016

  5. [5]

    CMS Collaboration,The CMS Experiment at the CERN LHC, JINST 3 (2008) S08004, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/s08004 2008

  6. [6]

    CMS Collaboration,CMS Physics: Technical Design Report Volume 1: Detector Performance and Software, CERN-LHCC-2006-001, CMS-TDR-8-1 (2006), 590 p., https://cds.cern.ch/record/922757

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    CMS Collaboration,The Compact Muon Solenoid Technical Proposal, CERN-LHCC-94-38, LHCC-P-1 (1994), 254 p., https://cds.cern.ch/record/290969

    work page 1994

  8. [8]

    CMS Collaboration,CMS Technical Design Report for the Muon Endcap GEM Upgrade, CERN-LHCC-2015-012; CMS-TDR-013 (2015), 212 p., https://cds.cern.ch/record/2021453. – 15 –

    work page arXiv 2015

  9. [9]

    [10]LHC Long Term Schedule(2024), http://lhc-commissioning.web.cern.ch/schedule/LHC-long-term.htm

    CMS Collaboration,The Phase-2 Upgrade of the CMS Muon Detectors, CERN-LHCC-2017-012, CMS-TDR-016 (2017), 217 p., https://cds.cern.ch/record/2283189. [10]LHC Long Term Schedule(2024), http://lhc-commissioning.web.cern.ch/schedule/LHC-long-term.htm

    work page arXiv 2017

  10. [10]

    Calzaferrion behalf of the CMS Muon Group,Study of discharges observed in the CMS GE1/1 station during LHC Run-3, Nucl

    S. Calzaferrion behalf of the CMS Muon Group,Study of discharges observed in the CMS GE1/1 station during LHC Run-3, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 1075 (2025) 170330, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2025.170330

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2025.170330 2025

  11. [11]

    CMS GEM Collaboration,Performance of a triple-GEM demonstrator in pp collisions at the CMS detector, JINST 16 (2021) P11014, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/11/P11014

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/11/p11014 2021

  12. [12]

    CMS Collaboration,Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, JINST 13 (2018) P06015, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/p06015

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/p06015 2018

  13. [13]

    CMS Collaboration,Performance of the CMS drift tube chambers with cosmic rays, JINST 5 (2010), T03015, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/5/03/T03015

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/5/03/t03015 2010

  14. [14]

    Acosta et al.,Large CMS Cathode Strip Chambers: Design and Performance, Nucl

    D. Acosta et al.,Large CMS Cathode Strip Chambers: Design and Performance, Nucl. Instrum. Methods. A 453 (2000) 182-187, doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(00)00627-6

    work page doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(00)00627-6 2000

  15. [15]

    Paolucci, R

    P. Paolucci, R. Hadjiiska, et al.,CMS Resistive Plate Chamber overview, from the present system to the upgrade phase I, JINST 8 (2013) P04005, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/8/04/P04005

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/8/04/p04005 2013

  16. [16]

    Sauli,The gas electron multiplier (GEM): Operating principles and applications, Nucl

    F. Sauli,The gas electron multiplier (GEM): Operating principles and applications, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 805 (2016) 2-24, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2015.07.060

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2015.07.060 2016

  17. [17]

    Bachmann, A

    S. Bachmann, A. Bressan, M. Capeáns, M. Deutel, S. Kappler, B. Ketzer, A. Polouektov, L. Ropelewski, F. Sauli, E. Schulte, L. Shekhtman and A. Sokolov,Discharge studies and prevention in the gas electron multiplier (GEM), Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 479 (2002) 418–424, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(01)00931-7

    work page doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(01)00931-7 2002

  18. [18]

    Colaleo et al.,The GEM detectors for the CMS muon system upgrade, Nucl

    A. Colaleo et al.,The GEM detectors for the CMS muon system upgrade, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 824 (2016) 736–738, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2015.09.023

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2015.09.023 2016

  19. [19]

    CMS Collaboration,Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3, JINST 19 (2024) P05006, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/P0506

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/p0506 2024

  20. [20]

    Abbaneo et al.,The CMS GEM detector electronics system, JINST 16 (2021) C01038, doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/16/01/C01038

    D. Abbaneo et al.,The CMS GEM detector electronics system, JINST 16 (2021) C01038, doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/16/01/C01038

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/01/c01038 2021

  21. [21]

    Hayrapetyan et al.,Performance of CMS muon reconstruction from proton-proton to heavy ion collisions, JINST 19 (2024) P09012, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/09/P09012

    A. Hayrapetyan et al.,Performance of CMS muon reconstruction from proton-proton to heavy ion collisions, JINST 19 (2024) P09012, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/09/P09012

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/09/p09012 2024

  22. [22]

    Kim,The CMS GEM alignment with a new back-propagation method, PoS (ICHEP2022) (2023) 933, https://doi.org/10.22323/1.414.0933

    H. Kim,The CMS GEM alignment with a new back-propagation method, PoS (ICHEP2022) (2023) 933, https://doi.org/10.22323/1.414.0933

    work page doi:10.22323/1.414.0933 2023

  23. [23]

    Ivone,Commissioning results and operational experience of the first triple-GEM station of the CMS muon system, CMS-CR-2022-263, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2843746

    F. Ivone,Commissioning results and operational experience of the first triple-GEM station of the CMS muon system, CMS-CR-2022-263, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2843746

    work page arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    G.DeLentdeckeronbehalfoftheCMScollaboration,PerformanceoftheCMSGE1/1systematLHC Run-3 and prospects of the future ME0 system, JINST 20 (2025) C03038, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/20/03/C03038. – 16 –

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/20/03/c03038 2025