Particle Identification at Future Colliders

Roberto Preghenella

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 24 references

Particle Identification at Future Colliders

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dedicated particle identification remains a prerequisite for future collider physics, and this review argues that compact Cherenkov detectors, cluster-counting drift chambers, and precision-timing silicon sensors will supply it.

desk verdict A clean, accurate review of future-collider PID R&D — nothing new, but a useful snapshot; the stress-test worry about the 40 GeV/c ARC reach is real but minor for a survey. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11028 v2 pith:BBH33TNI submitted 2026-08-11 hep-ex

Roberto Preghenella This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ex

keywords particleidentificationCherenkovdetectorsRICHclustercountingdriftchambersLGADfuturecollidersElectron-IonCollider

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

This review argues that charged hadrons cannot be separated by calorimetry, tracking, or muon systems alone, so future Higgs factories and the Electron-Ion Collider still require dedicated velocity measurements. It surveys the representative technologies now being developed: compact dual-radiator RICH counters, cluster-counting drift chambers, timing-enhanced Cherenkov systems, and low-gain avalanche diode (LGAD) precision timing. The paper's claim is that these concepts can satisfy the momentum coverage, material-budget, radial-envelope, and integration constraints of the next generation of collider detectors. The reader comes away with a map of the viable hadron-ID options and the performance anchors—around $40\,\mathrm{GeV}/c$ for one compact Cherenkov design, around $20\,\mathrm{GeV}/c$ for cluster counting, near 20 ps for silicon timing—on which those options currently rest.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is velocity measurement—through Cherenkov emission angle, primary ionisation cluster density, or time of flight—combined with momentum from the tracking system to infer the particle mass. Three object families carry the argument: dual-radiator Cherenkov imaging systems with silicon-photomultiplier readout; cluster-counting drift chambers that count primary ionisation clusters to escape the statistical fluctuation limit of $\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x$; and low-gain avalanche diodes (LGADs and AC-coupled LGADs) that provide simultaneous timing and position. These mechanisms extend $\pi/K$ separation into the momentum ranges future experiments require: up to about $40\,\mathrm{GeV}/c$ for the compact ARC cells, up to about $20\,\mathrm{GeV}/c$ for cluster counting, and low-momentum coverage for time-of-flight, with timing-enhanced Cherenkov detectors bridging the gap.

What would settle it

Build a full-scale prototype of an ARC cell with aerogel and $C_4F_{10}$ radiators and SiPM readout, and measure $\pi/K$ separation in a test beam at $20\,\mathrm{GeV}/c$, $30\,\mathrm{GeV}/c$, and $40\,\mathrm{GeV}/c$: if the measured separation is markedly worse than the simulated values on which the paper relies, its central performance claim fails. Similarly, a cluster-counting drift chamber with final electronics that does not improve on $\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x$ at $20\,\mathrm{GeV}/c$ would falsify that direction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that particle identification remains a key ingredient of future collider programmes, and that the field is converging on complementary techniques rather than a single solution. The examples it develops are: the dual-radiator RICH at the Electron-Ion Collider, combining aerogel and gas radiators with silicon-photomultiplier readout; the ARC array of compact RICH cells for FCC-ee, with a radial envelope of about $20\,\mathrm{cm}$ and a material budget below about $0.1\,X_0$; cluster counting in the helium-based drift chamber of the IDEA detector concept, measuring primary ionisation clusters instead of $\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x$; the timing-enhanced TORCH and internally-reflected-Cherenkov (DIRC) concepts; and LGAD/AC-LGAD silicon sensors with timing near 20 ps and few-micron spatial resolution. The reported performance numbers—ARC $\pi/K$ separation up to about $40\,\mathrm{GeV}/c$ from simulation, cluster counting up to approximately $20\,\mathrm{GeV}/c$ from simulation and beam tests, and LGAD timing near 20 ps—are taken from the cited studies and support the conclusion that hadron identification can be integrated within the tight constraints of future detectors.

Load-bearing premise

The review's case rests on performance numbers taken from simulation and small-scale prototypes or beam tests—ARC's $\pi/K$ separation up to about $40\,\mathrm{GeV}/c$ and cluster counting up to about $20\,\mathrm{GeV}/c$—none of which have been demonstrated in a final full-scale detector with realistic backgrounds and systematic uncertainties.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the ARC simulation holds, FCC-ee flavour analyses gain $\pi/K$ separation up to about $40\,\mathrm{GeV}/c$ inside a roughly $20\,\mathrm{cm}$ radial envelope and below $0.1\,X_0$ of material, which is what exclusive channels such as $B_s^0\to D_s^\pm K^\mp$ and $\Lambda_b^0\to J/\psi pK^-$ need.
If cluster counting performs as simulated and beam-tested, a drift chamber can deliver PID inside the tracker, outperforming $\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x$ up to about $20\,\mathrm{GeV}/c$ with no extra material from a dedicated RICH layer.
If LGAD timing stays near 20 ps, time-of-flight becomes useful at higher momenta than in past colliders, and AC-LGADs could provide position and time in a single silicon layer.
Timing-enhanced Cherenkov detectors such as TORCH show that photon arrival time can be used alongside imaging to reduce ambiguities, pointing to a future where timing is a standard PID axis.
At hadron and muon colliders, the same precision timing and fine segmentation that serve PID will also reject beam-induced backgrounds, while radiation tolerance becomes a primary design constraint.

Reading between the lines

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

If the reported performance numbers survive full-system validation, the boundary between tracking and dedicated PID will blur: cluster counting could cover low and intermediate momenta inside the tracker, leaving Cherenkov systems for the high-momentum tail—an allocation the paper describes but does not explicitly argue.
The convergence of single-photon avalanche diodes (SPADs), silicon photomultipliers, LGADs, and AC-LGADs hints that a single silicon layer might eventually serve as tracker, time-stamper, and photodetector; this is an extrapolation beyond the paper's survey.
A testable extension would be a common simulation of ARC, cluster counting, and TOF in the same FCC-ee flavour sample, mapping where each technique supplies the required separation power and where the gap near $1\,\mathrm{GeV}/c$ must be closed by timing.
Because the cited performance anchors are prototype- or simulation-level, the deciding factor among these options is likely to be system-level cost—cooling, power, material, and integration—rather than intrinsic PID performance.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague —

This is an invited-talk proceedings piece, not a research claim. If you are looking for new physics or new detector designs, it is not here. What you get is a competent, well-written survey of current PID R&D for FCC-ee and the EIC. The paper is honest about its scope — it explicitly says it highlights representative examples rather than reviewing everything — and it accurately attributes the key numbers to the cited works. dRICH, hpDIRC, TORCH, ARC, cluster counting, LGAD/AC-LGAD all come from the literature, and the text says so.

What it does well: it is a clear entry point for someone who wants to know the current directions. The figures are well chosen, the prose is straight, and the technical descriptions are accurate. It also does a good job of separating the physics drivers — flavour physics at FCC-ee versus SIDIS at the EIC — which explains why the detector requirements differ.

Soft spots, in order of size. First, the performance numbers are quoted without their systematic caveats. The ARC claim of π/K separation up to 40 GeV/c comes from a single simulation study [10]; the paper does not say whether that is 3σ or 5σ, which fraction of acceptance, or what systematic effects are included. Same for the cluster-counting "up to ~20 GeV/c" figure. A careful reader will have to dig into the original papers to find these details. This is a minor complaint for a review, not a fatal one — the survey's main claim does not stand or fall on whether ARC reaches 40 or 30 GeV/c. Second, and even softer: the author cites his own R&D papers (refs 6,7,8,16), but that is normal in this field and does not distort the message. The stress-test note worries about the uncorroborated numbers, but for a review the author's job is to represent the literature, not to validate it.

Bottom line: for a graduate student or a senior physicist outside detector R&D wanting a quick map of where PID is heading for FCC-ee/EIC, this paper is fine. If you are looking for original research, skip it. It deserves to be published as conference proceedings, and a light referee pass to check citation accuracy would be appropriate, but it does not need a heavy review.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This proceedings paper, based on the invited LHCP 2026 talk, is a selective review of charged-hadron particle identification (PID) for future collider experiments. It argues that PID remains essential for the physics programmes of future Higgs factories (FCC-ee, CEPC, ILC, CLIC) and of the Electron-Ion Collider, citing flavour-physics channels and semi-inclusive deep-inelastic-scattering measurements as drivers. It then surveys four current directions: compact Cherenkov detectors (the ePIC dRICH, the proposed ARC concept for FCC-ee, the hpDIRC, and TORCH); cluster counting in the helium-based IDEA drift chamber; precision timing using thin LGAD sensors and AC-LGADs; and enabling technologies including SiPMs, SPAD arrays, and radiation-tolerance studies, with additional remarks on FCC-hh and muon-collider environments. No new data or derivations are presented; all quantitative claims are explicitly attributed to primary sources (e.g., [10] for ARC, [14] for cluster counting, [18] for LGAD timing). The abstract explicitly limits the scope to 'selected representative examples rather than a comprehensive review,' and I weigh the paper on that basis.

Significance. The survey claim, if accurate as a representation of the field, is well supported by the cited literature: compact RICH concepts (ePIC dRICH, ARC, hpDIRC), primary-cluster counting in drift chambers, and sub-30 ps timing are indeed active R&D lines for FCC-ee, the EIC, and beyond. The paper's strengths are the accurate attribution of quantitative claims (spot-checks confirm that the roughly 40 GeV/c ARC reach [10], the roughly 20 GeV/c cluster-counting reach [14], and the roughly 20 ps LGAD figure [18] are quoted as in the sources), the explicit hedging of concept-stage results ('proposed', 'simulation studies indicate'), and its self-declared scope as a selective review. It introduces no free parameters, invented entities, or new derivations, so there is no internal-consistency or circularity burden. Its value is documentary and bibliographic: a useful entry point for non-specialists and for detector-concept groups. The principal weakness is the imprecision of two simulation-derived reach numbers, addressed in the major comments; because those numbers are correctly cited and the central survey claim is multi-supported, I do not regard this as invalidating the paper's conclusions.

major comments (2)

[Section 3.2 (also reflected in Section 6)] The most load-bearing quantitative claim in the review is the ARC statement that 'simulation studies indicate' continuous pi/K separation 'at the level required for FCC-ee flavour physics, with a momentum reach extending up to about 40 GeV/c' [10]. The paper never states the separation criterion behind this number: it could be a 3-sigma or 5-sigma reach, for a fraction or the whole of the detector acceptance, and it is not clear whether the cited simulation included systematics such as aerogel refractive-index dispersion, mirror misalignment, SiPM dark-count and crosstalk noise, or the magnetic field. Because the sentence adds the evaluative phrase 'at the level required for FCC-ee flavour physics,' it goes beyond reporting the source; a reader who cites this review for the viability of ARC would inherit that evaluation without being able to assess it. The surrounding text is properly hedged ('has been proposed', 'simulation studies indicate'), so I do not regard this as a misattribution, but the reach number needs one clarifying sentence stating the separation criterion and explicitly noting that it is a concept-stage simulation estimate. This is the one place where the stress-test concern about unquantified external evidence actually lands.
[Section 4 (also reflected in Section 6)] The cluster-counting endorsement rests on two quantitative statements: 'excellent pi/K separation over a broad momentum range, with a narrow region around 1 GeV/c where complementary timing information may be required,' and confirmation 'up to momenta of approximately 20 GeV/c' from Garfield++/Geant4 simulations and beam tests [14]. The first sentence carries no citation, and the second does not report the achieved separation power or the beam-test conditions (energy range, prototype size, gas mixture, digitisation scheme). Since Section 6 presents cluster counting as one of the three representative current directions, these numbers deserve the same precision as the timing figures in Section 5.1: at least the sigma-level of the claimed pi/K separation and a one-line description of the cited beam-test configuration would let the reader judge the claim without retrieving [14].

minor comments (5)

[Section 4] The sentence 'Analytical calculations predict excellent pi/K separation over a broad momentum range, with a narrow region around 1 GeV/c where complementary timing information may be required' needs an inline citation, presumably to [13] (the IDEA Study Group document), so that the analytical claim is traceable.
[References] Reference [9] is cited only by a DOI-URL (https://doi.org/10.17181/6entj-pmm10); please format it as a proper citable entry (authors, title, date, DOI) so that it is findable in citation databases.
[Section 5.1] The phrase 'modern thin LGAD sensors routinely reach values close to 20 ps' is stronger than the cited prototype results warrant; 'have been measured to reach values close to 20 ps [18]' would be more accurate.
[Figure 1 caption] The caption should state explicitly that the two panels come from different experiments and analyses and are shown only to illustrate the qualitative benefit of dedicated PID, so that the reader does not infer a controlled comparison.
[Section 2.1] The motivating decay channels (B_s to D_s K, Lambda_b to J/psi p K) are LHCb channels; adding an FCC-ee-specific example (for instance, B to DK or tau decays) would strengthen the Higgs-factory framing of the physics drivers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a review with no derivation chain; its self-citations are background support, not load-bearing inputs.

full rationale

This manuscript is a conference-proceedings review of particle-identification techniques for future colliders. It does not present a derivation, fit, or quantitative model, and therefore none of the enumerated circularity patterns apply. The central claim—that compact Cherenkov detectors, cluster-counting drift chambers, and precision-timing silicon sensors are representative current directions—is a qualitative survey statement supported by citations to external simulation, beam-test, and design studies. The only self-citations (refs. [6,7,8,16]) concern SiPM properties and LGAD/AC-LGAD silicon-sensor development; these are background technological claims about device performance, not premises from which the survey conclusion is forced. Even if those papers were set aside, the review's conclusion would still rest on the many other cited external results, such as the ePIC dRICH design [5], the ARC simulation [10], the hpDIRC paper [11], and the IDEA cluster-counting studies [13,14]. The ARC 'up to about 40 GeV/c' and cluster-counting 'up to approximately 20 GeV/c' numbers are quoted from external studies; their accuracy is an external-evidence question, not a circularity. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The reviewing rule about flagging limitation statements was applied, but the text contains no passage admitting a circular step or missing derivation. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

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

The paper is a review, so it carries no fitted parameters or invented entities. Its load-bearing premises are the accuracy of the cited performance numbers and the applicability of the standard velocity-to-mass inference; both are inherited from the cited literature rather than demonstrated here.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Charged hadron mass can be inferred from momentum plus a velocity-sensitive measurement, such as Cherenkov angle, time of flight, or ionisation cluster count.
Foundational principle used throughout Section 1 and the following sections; standard detector physics treated as given.
domain assumption The quantitative performance figures quoted from cited detector R&D papers accurately represent those papers, e.g., ARC pi/K separation to about 40 GeV/c [10], cluster counting to about 20 GeV/c [14], and LGAD timing about 20 ps [18].
The review does not reproduce the simulations or beam tests; it endorses the cited numbers as evidence of viability. Inaccurate numbers would weaken the survey's usefulness.
domain assumption Future collider programmes (FCC-ee, EIC, FCC-hh, muon colliders) and their PID requirements are as stated in refs [2-4,10,13,22].
The motivation in Sections 2 and 5 depends on external programme documents; these are not independently assessed in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Particle Identification at Future Colliders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BBH33TNI

@misc{pith2026260811028,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Particle Identification at Future Colliders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BBH33TNI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11028}
}

read the original abstract

Particle identification (PID) remains a key ingredient of the physics programmes of future collider experiments. While traditional collider detectors rely on calorimetry, tracking and muon systems for particle classification, the identification of charged hadrons requires dedicated measurements of particle velocity through Cherenkov radiation, ionisation or time-of-flight techniques. Future facilities such as FCC-ee and the Electron-Ion Collider place demanding requirements on momentum coverage, detector integration and material budget, motivating the development of novel PID concepts. This contribution reviews several approaches currently under investigation, including compact Ring-Imaging Cherenkov detectors, cluster-counting drift chambers, timing-enhanced Cherenkov detectors and precision timing systems based on advanced silicon sensors. The role of emerging photodetector technologies and radiation-tolerance considerations for future collider environments is also discussed. This contribution summarises the main topics presented in the invited LHCP 2026 talk and focuses on selected representative examples rather than a comprehensive review of the field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11028 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Invariant-mass spectra of reconstructed Λ 0 𝑏 → 𝐽/𝜓 𝑝 𝐾− candidates used in pentaquark studies. The comparison between ATLAS, without dedicated hadron PID, and LHCb, with dedicated PID capabilities, illustrates the impact of particle identification on signal purity and background suppression. capabilities can provide substantial improvements in reconstruction performance compared with detector systems relying solely… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Particle-identification requirements at the Electron–Ion Collider. The broad momentum and rapidity coverage required for identified hadrons motivates the use of multiple complementary PID technologies. large active areas and compatibility with modern solid-state photodetectors. As a consequence, significant effort is being devoted to the development of new Cherenkov detector concepts that extend the capabilities of… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Examples of compact RICH concepts for future collider experiments. (top) The dual-radiator RICH (dRICH) detector developed for the ePIC experiment at the Electron–Ion Collider, combining aerogel and gas radiators for charged-hadron identification over a broad momentum range in the hadron-going direction. (bottom) One cell of the ARC detector concept for future Higgs factories, where a compact dual-radiator optical s… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Examples of compact Cherenkov detectors for future collider experiments. (top) High-performance DIRC detector based on fused-silica radiators and precision photon imaging. (bottom) The TORCH concept, which combines Cherenkov imaging and precision timing to provide low-…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The IDEA detector concept and the cluster-counting technique. Particle identification is performed directly within the drift chamber through the measurement of the number of primary ionisation clusters rather than the total deposited energy. 5. Emerging Technologies an…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 13 linked inside Pith

[10]

Pezzulo, R

S. Pezzulo, R. Cardinale, A. Tolosa-Delgado, R. Forty, S. Malde, M. Tat and G. Wilkinson, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1086(2026), 171327 doi:10.1016/j.nima.2026.171327

arXiv 2026
[14]

Caputo, G

C. Caputo, G. Chiarello, A. Corvaglia, F. Cuna, B. D’Anzi, N. De Filippis, W. Elmetenawee, E. Gorini, F. Grancagnolo and M. Greco,et al.Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1048(2023), 167969 doi:10.1016/j.nima.2022.167969 [arXiv:2211.04220 [hep-ex]]

arXiv 2023
[18]

Carnesecchi, S

F. Carnesecchi, S. Strazzi, A. Alici, R. Arcidiacono, G. Borghi, M. Boscardin, N. Cartiglia, M.CentisVignali,D.CavazzaandG.F.DallaBetta,etal.Eur.Phys.J.Plus138(2023)no.1, 99 doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03619-1 [arXiv:2208.05717 [physics.ins-det]]. 11 Particle Identification at Future CollidersRoberto Preghenella

arXiv 2023
[1]

Lippmann, Nucl

C. Lippmann, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A666(2012), 148-172 doi:10.1016/j.nima.2011.03.009 [arXiv:1101.3276 [hep-ex]]

arXiv 2012
[2]

Wilkinson, Eur

G. Wilkinson, Eur. Phys. J. Plus136(2021) no.8, 835 doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-01810-4 [arXiv:2106.01253 [physics.ins-det]]

arXiv 2021
[3]

C.Chatterjee[ePIC],PoSDIS2024(2025),266doi:10.22323/1.469.0266[arXiv:2410.20410 [physics.ins-det]]

arXiv 2025
[4]

Abdul Khalek, A

R. Abdul Khalek, A. Accardi, J. Adam, D. Adamiak, W. Akers, M. Albaladejo, A. Al- bataineh, M.G.Alexeev, F.AmeliandP.Antonioli,etal.Nucl.Phys.A1026(2022), 122447 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2022.122447 [arXiv:2103.05419 [physics.ins-det]]. 10 Particle Identification at Future CollidersRoberto Preghenella

arXiv 2022
[5]

Anjali, P

M.Contalbrigo,B.R.Achari,J.Agarwala,N.Agrawal,M.Alexeev,C.Alice,R.Ammendola, S. Anjali, P. Antonioli and C. Baldanza,et al.Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1088(2026), 171537 doi:10.1016/j.nima.2026.171537

arXiv 2026

Show all 24 references

[6]

L. P. Rignanese, P. Antonioli, R. Preghenella and E. Scapparone, Riv. Nuovo Cim.47(2024) no.5, 299-349 [erratum: Riv. Nuovo Cim.47(2024) no.5, 351] doi:10.1007/s40766-024- 00056-x

2024 doi
[7]

R.Preghenella,M.Alexeev,P.Antonioli,C.Baldanza,L.Barion,M.Chiosso,M.Contalbrigo, F.Cossio,S.DallaTorreandM.D.DaRochaRolo,etal.Nucl.Instrum.Meth.A1046(2023), 167661 doi:10.1016/j.nima.2022.167661

2023
[8]

R.Preghenella,M.Alexeev,P.Antonioli,C.Baldanza,L.Barion,M.Chiosso,M.Contalbrigo, F.Cossio,S.DallaTorreandM.D.DaRochaRolo,etal.Nucl.Instrum.Meth.A1056(2023), 168578 doi:10.1016/j.nima.2023.168578

2023
[9]

Cardinale,et al.https://doi.org/10.17181/6entj-pmm10 (2024)

R. Cardinale,et al.https://doi.org/10.17181/6entj-pmm10 (2024)

2024 doi
[11]

Kalicy, Nucl

G. Kalicy, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1062(2024), 169168 doi:10.1016/j.nima.2024.169168

2024
[12]

M. J. Charleset al.[LHCb], Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A639(2011), 173-176 doi:10.1016/j.nima.2010.09.021 [arXiv:1009.3793 [physics.ins-det]]

2011 arXiv
[13]

Abbresciaet al.[IDEA Study Group], [arXiv:2502.21223 [physics.ins-det]]

M. Abbresciaet al.[IDEA Study Group], [arXiv:2502.21223 [physics.ins-det]]

arXiv
[15]

H. F. W. Sadrozinski, S. Ely, V. Fadeyev, Z. Galloway, J. Ngo, C. Parker, B. Petersen, A. Seiden, A. Zatserklyaniy and N. Cartiglia,et al.Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A730(2013), 226-231 doi:10.1016/j.nima.2013.06.033

2013 doi
[16]

Preghenella [ALICE], PoSLHCP2020(2021), 078 doi:10.22323/1.382.0078 [arXiv:2010.06913 [physics.ins-det]]

R. Preghenella [ALICE], PoSLHCP2020(2021), 078 doi:10.22323/1.382.0078 [arXiv:2010.06913 [physics.ins-det]]

2021 arXiv
[17]

Lange, M

J. Lange, M. Carulla, E. Cavallaro, L. Chytka, P. M. Davis, D. Flores, F. Förster, S. Grin- stein, S. Hidalgo and T. Komarek,et al.JINST12(2017) no.05, P05003 doi:10.1088/1748- 0221/12/05/P05003 [arXiv:1703.09004 [physics.ins-det]]

2017 arXiv
[19]

Apresyan, W

A. Apresyan, W. Chen, G. D’Amen, K. F. Di Petrillo, G. Giacomini, R. Heller, H. Lee, S. Los, C. S. Moon and A. Tricoli, JINST15(2020) no.09, P09038 doi:10.1088/1748- 0221/15/09/P09038 [arXiv:2006.01999 [physics.ins-det]]

2020 arXiv
[20]

Carnesecchi, B

F. Carnesecchi, B. Sabiu, S. Strazzi, G. Vignola, N. Agrawal, A. Alici, P. Antonioli, S. Arcelli, F. Bellini and D. Cavazza,et al.Eur. Phys. J. Plus138(2023) no.9, 788 doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-023-04397-0 [arXiv:2305.17762 [physics.ins-det]]

2023 arXiv
[21]

Garutti and Y

E. Garutti and Y. Musienko, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A926(2019), 69-84 doi:10.1016/j.nima.2018.10.191 [arXiv:1809.06361 [physics.ins-det]]

2019 arXiv
[22]

Accettura, D

C. Accettura, D. Adams, R. Agarwal, C. Ahdida, C. Aimè, N. Amapane, D. Amorim, P. An- dreetto, F. Anulli and R. Appleby,et al.Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) no.9, 864 [erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C84(2024)no.1,36]doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11889-x[arXiv:2303.08533 [physics.acc-ph]]

2023 arXiv
[23]

Bellet al.[MAIA], [arXiv:2502.00181 [physics.ins-det]]

C. Bellet al.[MAIA], [arXiv:2502.00181 [physics.ins-det]]

arXiv
[24]

Andreetto, N

P. Andreetto, N. Bartosik, A. Bersani, D. Calzolari, M. Casarsa, V. L. Ciccarella, E. Di Meco, R. Gargiulo, A. Gianelle and C. Giraldin,et al.Eur. Phys. J. C86(2026) no.5, 554 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-026-15654-8 [arXiv:2511.23273 [hep-ex]]. 12

2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [10]

Pezzulo, R

S. Pezzulo, R. Cardinale, A. Tolosa-Delgado, R. Forty, S. Malde, M. Tat and G. Wilkinson, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1086(2026), 171327 doi:10.1016/j.nima.2026.171327

arXiv 2026

[2] [14]

Caputo, G

C. Caputo, G. Chiarello, A. Corvaglia, F. Cuna, B. D’Anzi, N. De Filippis, W. Elmetenawee, E. Gorini, F. Grancagnolo and M. Greco,et al.Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1048(2023), 167969 doi:10.1016/j.nima.2022.167969 [arXiv:2211.04220 [hep-ex]]

arXiv 2023

[3] [18]

Carnesecchi, S

F. Carnesecchi, S. Strazzi, A. Alici, R. Arcidiacono, G. Borghi, M. Boscardin, N. Cartiglia, M.CentisVignali,D.CavazzaandG.F.DallaBetta,etal.Eur.Phys.J.Plus138(2023)no.1, 99 doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03619-1 [arXiv:2208.05717 [physics.ins-det]]. 11 Particle Identification at Future CollidersRoberto Preghenella

arXiv 2023

[4] [1]

Lippmann, Nucl

C. Lippmann, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A666(2012), 148-172 doi:10.1016/j.nima.2011.03.009 [arXiv:1101.3276 [hep-ex]]

arXiv 2012

[5] [2]

Wilkinson, Eur

G. Wilkinson, Eur. Phys. J. Plus136(2021) no.8, 835 doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-01810-4 [arXiv:2106.01253 [physics.ins-det]]

arXiv 2021

[6] [3]

C.Chatterjee[ePIC],PoSDIS2024(2025),266doi:10.22323/1.469.0266[arXiv:2410.20410 [physics.ins-det]]

arXiv 2025

[7] [4]

Abdul Khalek, A

R. Abdul Khalek, A. Accardi, J. Adam, D. Adamiak, W. Akers, M. Albaladejo, A. Al- bataineh, M.G.Alexeev, F.AmeliandP.Antonioli,etal.Nucl.Phys.A1026(2022), 122447 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2022.122447 [arXiv:2103.05419 [physics.ins-det]]. 10 Particle Identification at Future CollidersRoberto Preghenella

arXiv 2022

[8] [5]

Anjali, P

M.Contalbrigo,B.R.Achari,J.Agarwala,N.Agrawal,M.Alexeev,C.Alice,R.Ammendola, S. Anjali, P. Antonioli and C. Baldanza,et al.Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1088(2026), 171537 doi:10.1016/j.nima.2026.171537

arXiv 2026