Search for Microscopic Black Hole Signatures at the Large Hadron Collider

CMS Collaboration

REVIEW

Search for Microscopic Black Hole Signatures at the Large Hadron Collider

CMS Collaboration

High Energy Physics - Experiment · Submitted 15 Dec 2010 · 39 references

Pith's verdict: A genuine first: a clean, honest, data-driven search that turns microscopic black holes from a thought experiment into a bounded scenario, with the main soft spot being the multiplicity extrapolation of the QCD background — which the authors price in and the data partly police.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 10, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 2 major objections · 7 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID1012.3375 (version 1)

Pith IDGIISC2T5, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationCMS Collaboration. "Search for Microscopic Black Hole Signatures at the Large Hadron Collider." arXiv:1012.3375 (2010). https://pith.science/paper/GIISC2T5

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

This is the paper that made microscopic black holes an experimental subject rather than a seminar joke. CMS took 35 pb^-1 of 7 TeV data, selected high-S_T multi-object events, saw nothing above a data-derived QCD background, and set 95% CL lower limits of 3.5–4.5 TeV on the minimum black hole mass for M_D up to 3.5 TeV. The 'first direct limits' claim in [abstract:s4] holds up; no prior dedicated collider search is cited, and I don't know of one. The model-independent cross section times acceptance limits in Fig. 5 are the part with the longest shelf life — they outlive the specific ADD benchmarks and are usable against string balls, R-parity violating gluinos, and whatever else produces high-multiplicity high-S_T final states. That is the real contribution, and it is done properly: object definitions, trigger, fit ansatz with two alternates, normalization window, nuisance parameters and priors are all stated, and Table 1 gives signal, background, data, and both observed and expected limits at every working point. The paper is also unusually candid about model dependence — the BlackMax/CHARYBDIS cross section spread (1.36–1.78) and the M_D convention factor (up to 9.29 for n=6) are stated in the text rather than buried. That is good practice and I wish more searches did it. The soft spot is the one the stress-test names: the N>=4 and N>=5 backgrounds are never fit directly, only extrapolated from N=2 and N=3 fits under the S_T shape-invariance assumption, and the 6–125% systematic is the honest price of that. But I'd push back on how much weight the concern carries. The physical argument — that S_T in QCD is set by the hard 2->2 scattering and is therefore insensitive to how the event fragments — is sound, not just an empirical fit, and the observed N>=5 data in Fig. 2c sits on or below the predicted curve in the signal region. Since a signal can only add, a shape error making the background too low would have to be cancelled by a real deficit, which is not a serious possibility here. The concern is real but bounded by the data itself, and the authors have already paid for it in the systematic band. Minor points: the abstract rounds 34.7 to 35 pb^-1, and there is no comparison to indirect M_D bounds from astrophysics or precision tests, which would have been useful context. Neither is a problem. This deserves referees and should be published; it is the reference point for every black hole search that follows. I'd cite it.

Referee report

Significance

If the result holds, it is a genuine and durable contribution: the first collider constraint on a striking low-scale-gravity signature, delivered on 35 pb^-1 of early LHC data. Several features deserve explicit credit. The background is derived from data rather than from simulation, which is the right choice for a QCD-dominated search and removes the largest source of theoretical uncertainty. The signal modelling is cross-checked between two independent generators, with the BlackMax/CHARYBDIS cross-section ratio quoted explicitly (1.36, 1.59, 1.78 for n = 2, 4, 6), and the limits are shown for non-rotating, rotating, and stable-remnant evaporation scenarios in Fig. 4, so the model dependence is displayed rather than asserted. The model-independent limits of Fig. 5 are a reusable asset for the community and are correctly advertised as such. I also checked the arithmetic of Table 1 against the quoted luminosity and acceptances (n_sig = sigma A L reproduces the listed values) and the crossing points of the Table 1 cross sections with the sigma_95 column against the mass limits quoted in the text and Fig. 3; they agree. The paper is internally consistent on the points where a reader is

Major objections (2)

[Background normalization paragraph preceding Figs. 2a–c] The normalization procedure for the N ≥ 4 and N ≥ 5 predictions is stated ambiguously, and the ambiguity bears directly on the quoted systematic. The text says the solid curves are 'found by normalizing the fits of the N = 2 and 3 S_T distributions to the range S_T = 1000−1100 GeV', which does not say whether the N ≥ 4 and N ≥ 5 curves are normalized to their own data in that window or inherit the N = 2,3 normalization. This matters because the stated 4–12% normalization uncertainty, 'dominated by the statistics in the normalization region', is plausible for the high-statistics N = 2,3 samples but would be far larger if computed from the N ≥ 5 sample, where Fig. 2c shows of order one event per 100 GeV bin. Please state the procedure explicitly for each multiplicity and, if the normalization is per-multiplicity, quote the observed event counts in the 1000–1100 GeV window for N ≥ 3, 4, and 5 so the reader can verify the quoted normalization uncertainty at the working points that drive the 4.2 and 4.5 TeV limits.
[Multiplicity-independence of the S_T shape; Figs. 2b,c and Table 1] The extrapolation of the S_T shape from N = 2,3 to N ≥ 4,5 is the least-tested link in the mass limit, and the 6–125% systematic band is derived from alternate ansatz functions plus the N = 2 versus N = 3 difference, i.e. a two-point check at adjacent multiplicities. The authors acknowledge the assumption and price it in, which is the right response, but the paper would be stronger if the size of the effect at the actual working points were shown rather than left implicit in a band. Concretely: for the N ≥ 5 working point (S_T^min = 2.9 TeV, Table 1), what is the predicted background under each of the three ansatz functions, and by how much does the 4.5 TeV limit move across the extremes of the band? A second, cleaner test is available and not used: the N ≥ 4 and N ≥ 5 samples have a signal-free region below S_T ≈ 1100 GeV (the turn-on is only N × 50 GeV), so the shape could be fitted directly there and compared with the N = 2,3 extrapolation. As it stands, the agreement visible in Fig. 2c above 1100 GeV is in the signal region and therefore cannot separate a shape error from a signal deficit.

Minor objections (7)

[Table 1 caption and column headers] The selection columns are printed as 'N ≥ N_min' and 'S_min^T'; please state in the caption that events are counted with N ≥ N_min and S_T > S_T^min, and repeat the definitional asymmetry that N counts only objects with E_T > 50 GeV while S_T also includes missing transverse energy when it exceeds 50 GeV.
[Fit ansatz paragraph] The default ansatz is printed as P0(1+x)^P1 / x^P2+P3 log(x), whose grouping is ambiguous as typeset; please render it so that the exponent of x is unambiguously P2 + P3 log x, and give the fitted parameter values and a goodness-of-fit measure (chi-squared per degree of freedom) for the N = 2 and N = 3 fits so the reader can judge the ansatz independently of the two alternates.
[Signal modelling paragraph] The assumptions of no energy loss to gravitational shock waves and no graviton emission are stated but their direction of effect on the limits is not. Since both assumptions maximize the signal for a given M_BH^min, the resulting limits are conservative in that direction; saying so explicitly would help the reader interpret Fig. 4.
[Trigger paragraph] The statement that the trigger is 'fully efficient for the offline analysis selections described below' should be quantified, for example as a measured plateau efficiency with its uncertainty, since the HLT jet thresholds varied between 20 and 30 GeV across the run.
[Abstract versus data-set paragraph] The abstract quotes 35 pb^-1 while the text quotes 34.7 ± 3.8 pb^-1; harmonize the two so the luminosity uncertainty is visible where the number first appears.
[References [12] and [13]] Reference [13] duplicates the collaboration name ('CMS Collaboration, CMS Collaboration') and its DOI appears truncated as 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.21180 where the article number is 211801. Reference [12] lists J. Phys. G37 (2010) 105108 but a DOI ending 37/10/105008; please check the page number against the DOI.
[Fig. 5 axis labels and systematic paragraph] The axis labels of Fig. 5 appear garbled in the version I read ('b)rho A (x) minT > ST (S sigma'); please check them in proof. There is also a typographical error, 'uncertainy', in the paragraph assigning the 6% to 125% background systematic, and the date '2018/10/22' on the title page appears to be a template artifact.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

Using 35 inverse picobarns of 7 TeV proton collisions, CMS finds no excess of high-multiplicity, high-transverse-energy events and turns that null result into the first direct collider limits on microscopic black hole production, excluding

The reading

If gravity becomes strong at the TeV scale, as models with large flat extra dimensions propose, then protons colliding at 7 TeV should occasionally collapse into microscopic black holes that evaporate into a dozen or so energetic particles at once. The CMS collaboration looks for exactly that: events whose total transverse energy $S_T$ is spread over many jets, leptons, and photons, in 35 pb$^{-1}$ of 2010 data. Nothing stands out above the expected quantum-chromodynamic multijet background, so the paper converts the null result into 95% confidence upper limits on black hole production. The payoff is a first direct, accelerator-based exclusion of the low-mass end of that parameter space, together with a set of limits that do not depend on any particular black hole model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the total transverse energy $S_T$, the scalar sum of $E_T$ over all selected objects above 50 GeV (plus missing transverse energy when it exceeds 50 GeV), combined with the object multiplicity $N$. The argument rests on a claimed shape invariance: because $S_T$ in QCD events is set almost entirely by the hard $2→2$ parton scattering, the shape of its distribution should not depend on how many jets, leptons, or photons end up reconstructed. That lets the collaboration fit the $S_T$ spectrum of the low-multiplicity $N=2$ and $N=3$ samples between 600 and 1100 GeV with an ansatz $P_0(1+x)^{P_1}/(x^{P_2}+P_3x^{P_3})$ — actually $P_0(1+x)^{P_1}/(x^{P_2}+P_3x^{P_3})$ in the paper's form $P_0(1+x)^{P_1}/(x^{P_2}+P_3x^{P_3})$ — and then normalize that fit in the signal-free window $S_T = 1000$–$1100$ GeV to predict the background at $N$≥4 and $N$≥5. The same shape is checked against two alternative fit functions, against Monte Carlo multijet generators, and against the mutual agreement of the $N=2$ and $N=3$ fits; the resulting background systematic spans 6% to 125% across the $S_T$ range used.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that in $pp$ collisions at $7$ TeV, the observed $S_T$ spectra for events with $N=2$, $N=3$, $N=4$, and $N=5$ reconstructed objects agree with a background predicted from the data themselves, dominated by QCD multijet production. No excess appears, so the collaboration sets 95% confidence upper limits on the black hole production cross section as a function of the minimum black hole mass. For the three benchmark points $(M_D, n) = (1.5~TeV, 6)$, $(2.0~TeV, 4)$, $(3.0~TeV, 2)$, the observed lower limits on $M_{BH}^{min}$ are 3.5, 4.2, and 4.5 TeV (expected 3.2, 4.0, and 4.5 TeV). Translated into the ADD parameter space, this excludes black holes with minimum mass 3.5–4.5 TeV for multidimensional Planck scales up to 3.5 TeV at 95% CL, with similar reach for rotating black holes and for the stable-remnant scenario. The paper also publishes model-independent upper limits on cross section times acceptance for inclusive $N$≥3, 4, 5 final states above a threshold $S_T^{min}$. The authors describe these as the first direct limits on black hole production at a particle accelerator.

Load-bearing premise

The background expected in four- and five-object events is obtained by fitting the two- and three-object spectra and extrapolating that shape to higher multiplicity, which assumes the total-transverse-energy distribution does not change with the number of reconstructed objects — an assumption the paper checks with generators and with the agreement of its own $N=2$ and $N=3$ fits, but never with signal-free data at $N$≥4, and which is why it assigns a background systematic as large as 125%.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

ADD models with multidimensional Planck scale up to 3.5 TeV and minimum black hole mass between 3.5 and 4.5 TeV are excluded at 95% confidence, closing the region where black hole production at the LHC would have been copious.
Because rotating black holes, non-rotating black holes, and the stable non-interacting remnant scenario all give similar exclusions, the limit is not an artifact of one particular evaporation model.
The model-independent $\sigma \times A$ limits can be reused to constrain any new physics that yields energetic, high-multiplicity final states, including high-mass $t\bar{t}$ resonances, R-parity-violating gluino decays into three jets, and string balls.
The analysis defines the template — data-driven multijet background plus $S_T$-and-multiplicity counting — that later searches at higher energy and luminosity inherit.

Reading between the lines

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

The shape-invariance premise is itself testable with the same data at higher integrated luminosity: once the $N$≥4 samples accumulate enough events in the 600–1100 GeV window, the background can be fitted directly there instead of extrapolated.
Since the geometric production cross section falls steeply with $M_{BH}^{min}$, the reach of this search is limited more by collected luminosity than by collision energy at the low-mass end, so a modest increase in dataset buys a modest increase in excluded mass rather than a step change.
The insensitivity of the limits to rotation and to remnant formation suggests that high multiplicity plus high $S_T$ is a fairly generic signature of any TeV-scale gravity that liberates many hard partons, which is why the model-independent limits travel further than the specific ADD benchmarks.
Quantum black holes that decay promptly to two jets are invisible to this analysis by construction — the paper explicitly defers them to dedicated dijet searches — so a joint multiplicity-plus-dijet combination would close a gap that neither analysis covers alone.

Original abstract

A search for microscopic black hole production and decay in pp collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 7 TeV has been conducted by the CMS Collaboration at the LHC, using a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35 inverse picobarns. Events with large total transverse energy are analyzed for the presence of multiple high-energy jets, leptons, and photons, typical of a signal expected from a microscopic black hole. Good agreement with the expected standard model backgrounds, dominated by QCD multijet production, is observed for various final-state multiplicities. Limits on the minimum black hole mass are set, in the range 3.5 -- 4.5 TeV, for a variety of parameters in a model with large extra dimensions, along with model-independent limits on new physics in these final states. These are the first direct limits on black hole production at a particle accelerator.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,359 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.95 · states limitation 0.52 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.55 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.98 · compares with prior results 0.49 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

A search for microscopic black hole production and decay in pp collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 7 TeV has been conducted by the CMS Collaboration at the LHC, using a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35 inverse picobarns. Events with large total transverse energy are analyzed for the presence of multiple high-energy jets, leptons, and photons, typical of a signal expected from a microscopic black hole. Good agreement with the expected standard model backgrounds, dominated by QCD multijet production, is observed for various final-state multiplicities. Limits on the minimum black hole mass are set, in the range 3.5 -- 4.5 TeV, for a variety of parameters in a model with large extra dimensions, along with model-independent limits on new physics in these final states. These are the first direct limits on black hole production at a particle accelerator.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	A search for microscopic black hole production and decay in pp collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 7 TeV has been conducted by the CMS Collaboration at the LHC, using a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35 inverse picobarns.	contribution 0.56	0.94	0.04	asserted 0.99
s1	Events with large total transverse energy are analyzed for the presence of multiple high-energy jets, leptons, and photons, typical of a signal expected from a microscopic black hole.	method 0.98	0.86	0.03	asserted 0.84
s2	Good agreement with the expected standard model backgrounds, dominated by QCD multijet production, is observed for various final-state multiplicities.	result 1.00	0.92	0.19	asserted 0.98
s3	Limits on the minimum black hole mass are set, in the range 3.5 -- 4.5 TeV, for a variety of parameters in a model with large extra dimensions, along with model-independent limits on new physics in these final states.	result 1.00	0.96	0.74	asserted 1.00
s4	These are the first direct limits on black hole production at a particle accelerator.	interpretation 0.52	0.68	0.20	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 1.00 · evidence from observation or experiment 0.80.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** Total transverse energy ST, for events with the multiplicities of a) N = 2, and b) N = 3 objects in the final state. Data are depicted as solid circles with error bars; the shaded band is the background prediction obtained from data (solid line) with its uncertainty. Non-multijet backgrounds are shown as colored histograms. Also shown is the predicted black hole signal for three different parameter sets. tainties arising from using various ansatz fit functions and the difference between the shapes obtained from the N = 2 and N = 3 samples. The integrated luminosity is measured with…

**Figure 2.** Total transverse energy ST, for events with multiplicities a) N ≥ 3, b) N ≥ 4, and c) N ≥ 5 objects in the final state. Data are depicted as solid circles with error bars; the shaded band is the background prediction (solid line) with its uncertainty. Also shown are black hole signals for three different parameter sets

**Figure 3.** The 95% confidence level upper limits on the black hole production cross section

**Figure 4.** The 95% confidence level limits on the black hole mass as a function of the multi

**Figure 5.** Model-independent 95% confidence level upper limits on a signal cross section times

Figures reproduced from arXiv:1012.3375 by the authors.

References

Works cited (39)

[1]

S. Dimopoulos and G. Landsberg, “Black Holes at the LHC”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 161602, arXiv:hep-ph/0106295. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.161602

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[2]

S. Giddings and S. Thomas, “High-energy colliders as black hole factories: The end of short distance physics”, Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 056010, arXiv:hep-ph/0106219. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.056010

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[3]

N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. Dvali, “The Hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter”, Phys. Lett. B429 (1998) 263. doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00466-3

View on Pith doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(98)00466-3 1998
[4]

N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. Dvali, “Phenomenology, astrophysics and cosmology of theories with submillimeter dimensions and TeV scale quantum gravity”, Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 086004. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.086004

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.59.086004 1999
[5]

Particle Data Group Collaboration, “The Review of Particle Physics”, J. Phys. G37 (2010) 075021. doi:10.1088/0954-3899/37/7A/075021

View on Pith doi:10.1088/0954-3899/37/7a/075021 2010
[6]

R. Myers and M. Perry, “Black Holes in Higher Dimensional Space-Times”, Ann. Phys. 172 (1986) 304. doi:10.1016/0003-4916(86)90186-7

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0003-4916(86)90186-7 1986
[7]

P . Argyres, S. Dimopoulos, and J. March-Russell, “Black holes and submillimeter dimensions”, Phys. Lett. B441 (1998) 96. doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)01184-8

View on Pith doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(98)01184-8 1998
[8]

S. Hawking, “Particle Creation by Black Holes”, Commun. Math. Phys. 43 (1975) 199. doi:10.1007/BF02345020

View on Pith doi:10.1007/bf02345020 1975
[9]

R. Emparan, G. Horowitz, and R. Myers, “Black holes radiate mainly on the brane”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 499, arXiv:hep-th/0003118. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.499

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[10]

P . Meade and L. Randall, “Black Holes and Quantum Gravity at the LHC”, JHEP 05 (2008) 003, arXiv:0708.3017. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/05/003

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[11]

X. Calmet, W. Gong, and S. Hsu, “Colorful quantum black holes at the LHC”, Phys. Lett. B668 (2008) 20, arXiv:0806.4605. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.08.011

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[12]

D. Gingrich, “Quantum black holes with charge, colour, and spin at the LHC”, J. Phys. G37 (2010) 105108, arXiv:0912.0826. doi:10.1088/0954-3899/37/10/105008

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[13]

CMS Collaboration, “Search for Dijet Resonances in 7 TeV pp Collisions at CMS”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 211801, arXiv:1010.0203. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.21180

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[14]

CMS Collaboration, CMS Collaboration, “Search for Quark Compositeness with the Dijet Centrality Ratio in pp Collisions at√s = 7 TeV”. 2010. arXiv:1010.4439. 11

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[15]

P . Kanti, “Black holes in theories with large extra dimensions: A Review”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A19 (2004) 4899, arXiv:hep-ph/0402168. doi:10.1142/S0217751X04018324

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[16]

G. Landsberg, “Black Holes at Future Colliders and Beyond”, J. Phys. G32 (2006) R337, arXiv:hep-ph/0607297. doi:10.1088/0954-3899/32/9/R02

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[17]

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

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/s08004 2008
[18]

CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of CMS Luminosity”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-EWK-10-004 (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[19]

M. Cacciari, G. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti- kT jet clustering algorithm”, JHEP 04 (2008) 063. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063 2008
[20]

CMS Collaboration, “Jet Energy Corrections determination at 7 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-10-010 (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[21]

CMS Collaboration, “Missing Transverse Energy Performance in Minimum-Bias and Jet Events from Proton-Proton Collisions at√s = 7 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-10-004 (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[22]

P . Adzic et al., “Energy resolution of the barrel of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter”, JINST 2 (2007) P04004. doi:10.1088/1748-0221/2/04/P04004

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1748-0221/2/04/p04004 2007
[23]

D.-C. Dai, G. Starkman, D. Stojkovic et al., “BlackMax: A black-hole event generator with rotation, recoil, split branes, and brane tension”, Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 076007. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.076007

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.076007 2008
[24]

T. Sj ¨ostrand, S. Mrenna, and P . Skands, “PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual”, JHEP 05 (2006) 026. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026 2006
[25]

D. Orbaker, “Fast Simulation of the CMS Detector”, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 219 (2010) 032053. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/219/3/032053

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1742-6596/219/3/032053 2010
[26]

GEANT 4 Collaboration, “GEANT4 – a simulation toolkit”, Nucl. Instr. and Methods A506 (2003) 250. doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8

View on Pith doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(03)01368-8 2003
[27]

A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne et al., “Heavy-quark mass dependence in global PDF analyses and 3- and 4-ﬂavour parton distributions”, Eur. Phys. J. C70 (2010) 51, arXiv:1007.2624. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1462-8

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[28]

C. M. Harris, P . Richardson, and B. R. Webber, “CHARYBDIS: A black hole event generator”, JHEP 08 (2003) 033, arXiv:hep-ph/0307305

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[29]

J. Frost et al., “Phenomenology of Production and Decay of Spinning Extra- Dimensional Black Holes at Hadron Colliders”, JHEP 10 (2009) 014, arXiv:0904.0979. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/10/014

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[30]

J. Alwall et al., “MadGraph/MadEvent v4: The New Web Generation”, JHEP 09 (2007)

View on Pith 2007
[31]

doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/028

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/028 2007
[32]

CTEQ Collaboration, “Implications of CTEQ global analysis for collider observables”, Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) 013004. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.013004. 12

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.78.013004 2008
[33]

M. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini et al., “ALPGEN, a generator for hard multiparton processes in hadronic collisions”, JHEP 07 (2003) 001, arXiv:hep-ph/0206293. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2003/07/001

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[34]

I. Bertram, G. Landsberg, J. Linnemann et al., “A Recipe for the construction of conﬁdence limits”, technical report, 2000. FERMILAB-TM-2104

View on Pith 2000
[35]

K. Agashe, A. Belyaev, T. Krupovnickas et al., “LHC Signals from Warped Extra Dimensions”, Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 015003. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.015003

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.015003 2008
[36]

R. Chivukula, M. Golden, and E. Simmons, “Six jet signals of highly colored fermions”, Phys. Lett. B257 (1991) 403. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(91)91915-I

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0370-2693(91)91915-i 1991
[37]

R. Chivukula, M. Golden, and E. Simmons, “Multi-jet physics at hadron colliders”, Nucl. Phys. B363 (1991) 83. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(91)90235-P

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0550-3213(91)90235-p 1991
[38]

B. Dobrescu, K. Kong, and R. Mahbubani, “Massive color-octet bosons and pairs of resonances at hadron colliders”, Phys. Lett. B670 (2008) 119, arXiv:arXiv:0709.2378v3 [hep-ph] . doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.10.048

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[39]

S. Dimopoulos and R. Emparan, “String balls at the LHC and beyond”, Phys. Lett. B526 (2002) 393, arXiv:hep-ph/0108060. doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01525-8. 13 A The CMS Collaboration Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia V . Khachatryan, A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan Institut f ¨ ur Hochenergiephysik der OeAW, Wien, Austria W. Adam, T. Bergauer, M. Dragi...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Calculation of High Energy Neutrino-Nucleon Cross Sections and Uncertainties Using the MSTW Parton Distribution Functions and Implications for Future Experiments
hep-ph 2011-02 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Using MSTW 2008 PDFs, the authors find neutrino-nucleon cross section uncertainties above 10^8 GeV are much larger than earlier estimates, and forecast that roughly 100 events at a future detector could constrain extr...
Universality of high-energy absorption cross sections for black holes
gr-qc 2011-01 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The high-energy absorption cross section of any static spherically symmetric black hole with a photon sphere oscillates as a sine-cardinal function whose period and amplitude are fixed by the photon sphere's orbital p...
The CMS trigger system
physics.ins-det 2016-09 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

The CMS two-level trigger reduced the LHC collision rate from 40 MHz to about 400 Hz stored events during Run 1, with measured per-object efficiencies and rates documented across the full luminosity range.

How later papers used it

45 later papers cite it

Evidence: substantial. 33 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 6 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 10 of the 85 citing sentences, choosing only those whose citation markers point at this paper alone, and wrote the paraphrases from them. The summary, the counts, the evidence level, the links and the quotes come from code; the summary counts the papers listed below. A later paper is listed under a label when Pith's citation classifier gives one of its sentences that label at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), Pith's reading finds that the citing paper itself did it, and a second check confirms the paraphrase against the sentence. This section lists uses only. It does not list criticism or disagreement, so their absence here says nothing about how the paper has been received. Papers that share an author with this one are listed apart, under "By the same authors". A quote is the citing authors' own sentence, shown when their paper's licence is CC BY, CC BY-SA or CC0. JSON

1 paper by the same authors is listed below: 1 built on it and 1 used its method or tool. It appears under more than one label.

Builds on it 1 of 2 papers with this label · 1 by the same authors

By the same authors

Set dedicated limits on semiclassical and quantum black hole and string-ball production for a specific subset of the black hole models probed by this paper, using counting experiments with optimized and N selections.

Search for microscopic black holes in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV (2012) (same authors) · 0.88 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

Uses its method or tool 1 of 10 papers with this label · 1 by the same authors

By the same authors

Estimated backgrounds for the dominant QCD background from the observed data using the multiplicity invariance method of this paper.

Search for microscopic black holes in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV (2012) (same authors) · 0.97 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

43 arXiv papers cite this in 83 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 42 sentences without a confident label

Contests it 1 paper

We critically re-examined the recent microscopic black hole search by the CMS collaboration at the LHC [ref] and found that the claimed excluded range of microscopic black hole mass is not justified by currently available theoretical studies unfortunately.

Critical comment on the recent microscopic black hole search at the LHC · conclusions · contest 0.89

Builds on it 2 papers

For a specific subset of the black hole models [ref] that are being probed, we also set dedicated limits on semiclassical and quantum black hole and string-ball production performing counting experiments using optimized and $N$ selections.

Search for microscopic black holes in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV · Results · 0.88
We present an extension of previous searches for microscopic semiclassical black holes [ref] , quantum black holes [ref] , and string balls [ref] conducted by the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) Collaboration at the CERN LHC [ref] .

Search for microscopic black holes in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV · Introduction · 0.94

Uses its method or tool 9 papers

The first CMS black hole search in multijet final states [ref] introduced a novel technique that relies entirely on data to predict the dominant multijet background.

Search for new physics in events with high jet multiplicity and low missing transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV · Analysis strategy · 0.83
The SM background is completely dominated by QCD multijet production and is estimated directly from data using a method based on $$ multiplicity invariance [ref] .

Search for microscopic black holes in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV · Analysis method · 0.90
For the dominant QCD background, however, we estimate backgrounds from the observed data using the multiplicity invariance method [ref] .

Search for microscopic black holes in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV · Analysis method · 0.97

Uses its data or values 2 papers

The ratio of the minimum black hole mass and the fundamental scale which was excluded by the CMS data is in the range [ref]

Critical comment on the recent microscopic black hole search at the LHC · Validity of semi-classical approximation in the CMS result · 0.96
The ratio of the minimum black hole mass and the fundamental scale, which was excluded by the CMS data, is in the range [ref]

Black holes and the LHC: A review · Recent CMS results · 0.91

Compares with it 2 papers

The present model-independent limits are roughly $0.6$fb for high values of , representing a two orders of magnitude improvement over the limits reported in our first publication [ref] .

Search for microscopic black holes in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV · Results · 0.95
This is in contrast to models with black hole geometric cross sections [ref] that have been used to parameterize the results of LHC searches for high multiplicity final states [ref] .

Jet Extinction from Non-Perturbative Quantum Gravity Effects · Introduction · 0.86

Cites it as support 2 papers

We investigated whether the GUP can explain the formation of black holes at energies higher than the energy scales of LHC to explain the recent experimental results that were obtained at LHC [ref] .

No Existence of Black Holes at LHC Due to Minimal Length in Quantum Gravity · Conclusions · 0.96
This might change the conventional signatures for black hole detection in particle accelerators [ref] and explain the reason why latest data tend to exclude their observation [ref] .

Self-completeness and spontaneous dimensional reduction · Dilaton gravity · 0.96

Cites it as background 13 papers

In fact, it has been suggested that microscopic black holes could be created in particle accelerators [ref] and numerous studies have been carried out to determine the feasibility of their production [ref] and to characterize their observational signatures [ref] .

Semiclassical geons at particle accelerators · Introduction · 0.93
Since 2010, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is collecting data at a center of mass energy of $√(s)=7$ TeV and first searches for physics beyond the Standard Model (SM) have been published [ref] .

Discovery Potential of Selectron or Smuon as the Lightest Supersymmetric Particle at the LHC · Introduction · 0.95
Detailed descriptions of each model can be found in Refs. [ref] .

Search for microscopic black holes in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV · Event reconstruction and Monte Carlo samples · 0.81

What it cites · 18 sentences without a confident label

Uses the method or tool of 1 paper

We confirmed the assumption of the $S_T$ shape invariance of $N$ using MC generators capable of simulating multijet final states from either matrix elements [ref] or parton showers [ref] .

ALPGEN, a generator for hard multiparton processes in hadronic collisions · Introduction · 0.97

Compares with 2 papers

In addition we compare the BlackMax results with those of the CHARYBDIS 2 MC generator (v1.0.3) [ref] .

Phenomenology of Production and Decay of Spinning Extra-Dimensional Black Holes at Hadron Colliders · Introduction · 0.91
In addition we compare the BlackMax results with those of the CHARYBDIS 2 MC generator (v1.0.3) [ref] .

CHARYBDIS: A Black Hole Event Generator · Introduction · 0.91

Cites as background 7 papers

One of the exciting predictions of theoretical models with extra spatial dimensions and low-scale quantum gravity is the possibility of copious production of microscopic black holes in particle collisions at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) [ref] .

High Energy Colliders as Black Hole Factories: The End of Short Distance Physics · Introduction · 0.87
One of the exciting predictions of theoretical models with extra spatial dimensions and low-scale quantum gravity is the possibility of copious production of microscopic black holes in particle collisions at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) [ref] .

Black Holes at the LHC · Introduction · 0.87
There are also models [ref] of quantum black holes that decay before they thermalize, mainly into two-jet final states.

Black Holes and Quantum Gravity at the LHC · Introduction · 0.93

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

S. Dimopoulos and G. Landsberg, “Black Holes at the LHC”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 161602, arXiv:hep-ph/0106295. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.161602

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[2] [2]

S. Giddings and S. Thomas, “High-energy colliders as black hole factories: The end of short distance physics”, Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 056010, arXiv:hep-ph/0106219. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.056010

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[3] [3]

N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. Dvali, “The Hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter”, Phys. Lett. B429 (1998) 263. doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00466-3

View on Pith doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(98)00466-3 1998

[4] [4]

N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. Dvali, “Phenomenology, astrophysics and cosmology of theories with submillimeter dimensions and TeV scale quantum gravity”, Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 086004. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.086004

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.59.086004 1999

[5] [5]

Particle Data Group Collaboration, “The Review of Particle Physics”, J. Phys. G37 (2010) 075021. doi:10.1088/0954-3899/37/7A/075021

View on Pith doi:10.1088/0954-3899/37/7a/075021 2010

[6] [6]

R. Myers and M. Perry, “Black Holes in Higher Dimensional Space-Times”, Ann. Phys. 172 (1986) 304. doi:10.1016/0003-4916(86)90186-7

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0003-4916(86)90186-7 1986

[7] [7]

P . Argyres, S. Dimopoulos, and J. March-Russell, “Black holes and submillimeter dimensions”, Phys. Lett. B441 (1998) 96. doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)01184-8

View on Pith doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(98)01184-8 1998

[8] [8]

S. Hawking, “Particle Creation by Black Holes”, Commun. Math. Phys. 43 (1975) 199. doi:10.1007/BF02345020

View on Pith doi:10.1007/bf02345020 1975

[9] [9]

R. Emparan, G. Horowitz, and R. Myers, “Black holes radiate mainly on the brane”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 499, arXiv:hep-th/0003118. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.499

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[10] [10]

P . Meade and L. Randall, “Black Holes and Quantum Gravity at the LHC”, JHEP 05 (2008) 003, arXiv:0708.3017. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/05/003

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[11] [11]

X. Calmet, W. Gong, and S. Hsu, “Colorful quantum black holes at the LHC”, Phys. Lett. B668 (2008) 20, arXiv:0806.4605. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.08.011

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[12] [12]

D. Gingrich, “Quantum black holes with charge, colour, and spin at the LHC”, J. Phys. G37 (2010) 105108, arXiv:0912.0826. doi:10.1088/0954-3899/37/10/105008

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[13] [13]

CMS Collaboration, “Search for Dijet Resonances in 7 TeV pp Collisions at CMS”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 211801, arXiv:1010.0203. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.21180

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[14] [14]

CMS Collaboration, CMS Collaboration, “Search for Quark Compositeness with the Dijet Centrality Ratio in pp Collisions at√s = 7 TeV”. 2010. arXiv:1010.4439. 11

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[15] [15]

P . Kanti, “Black holes in theories with large extra dimensions: A Review”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A19 (2004) 4899, arXiv:hep-ph/0402168. doi:10.1142/S0217751X04018324

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[16] [16]

G. Landsberg, “Black Holes at Future Colliders and Beyond”, J. Phys. G32 (2006) R337, arXiv:hep-ph/0607297. doi:10.1088/0954-3899/32/9/R02

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[17] [17]

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

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/s08004 2008

[18] [18]

CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of CMS Luminosity”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-EWK-10-004 (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[19] [19]

M. Cacciari, G. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti- kT jet clustering algorithm”, JHEP 04 (2008) 063. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063 2008

[20] [20]

CMS Collaboration, “Jet Energy Corrections determination at 7 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-10-010 (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[21] [21]

CMS Collaboration, “Missing Transverse Energy Performance in Minimum-Bias and Jet Events from Proton-Proton Collisions at√s = 7 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-10-004 (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[22] [22]

P . Adzic et al., “Energy resolution of the barrel of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter”, JINST 2 (2007) P04004. doi:10.1088/1748-0221/2/04/P04004

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1748-0221/2/04/p04004 2007

[23] [23]

D.-C. Dai, G. Starkman, D. Stojkovic et al., “BlackMax: A black-hole event generator with rotation, recoil, split branes, and brane tension”, Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 076007. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.076007

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.076007 2008

[24] [24]

T. Sj ¨ostrand, S. Mrenna, and P . Skands, “PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual”, JHEP 05 (2006) 026. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026 2006

[25] [25]

D. Orbaker, “Fast Simulation of the CMS Detector”, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 219 (2010) 032053. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/219/3/032053

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1742-6596/219/3/032053 2010

[26] [26]

GEANT 4 Collaboration, “GEANT4 – a simulation toolkit”, Nucl. Instr. and Methods A506 (2003) 250. doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8

View on Pith doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(03)01368-8 2003

[27] [27]

A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne et al., “Heavy-quark mass dependence in global PDF analyses and 3- and 4-ﬂavour parton distributions”, Eur. Phys. J. C70 (2010) 51, arXiv:1007.2624. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1462-8

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[28] [28]

C. M. Harris, P . Richardson, and B. R. Webber, “CHARYBDIS: A black hole event generator”, JHEP 08 (2003) 033, arXiv:hep-ph/0307305

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[29] [29]

J. Frost et al., “Phenomenology of Production and Decay of Spinning Extra- Dimensional Black Holes at Hadron Colliders”, JHEP 10 (2009) 014, arXiv:0904.0979. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/10/014

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[30] [30]

J. Alwall et al., “MadGraph/MadEvent v4: The New Web Generation”, JHEP 09 (2007)

View on Pith 2007

[31] [31]

doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/028

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/028 2007

[32] [32]

CTEQ Collaboration, “Implications of CTEQ global analysis for collider observables”, Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) 013004. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.013004. 12

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.78.013004 2008

[33] [33]

M. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini et al., “ALPGEN, a generator for hard multiparton processes in hadronic collisions”, JHEP 07 (2003) 001, arXiv:hep-ph/0206293. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2003/07/001

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[34] [34]

I. Bertram, G. Landsberg, J. Linnemann et al., “A Recipe for the construction of conﬁdence limits”, technical report, 2000. FERMILAB-TM-2104

View on Pith 2000

[35] [35]

K. Agashe, A. Belyaev, T. Krupovnickas et al., “LHC Signals from Warped Extra Dimensions”, Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 015003. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.015003

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.015003 2008

[36] [36]

R. Chivukula, M. Golden, and E. Simmons, “Six jet signals of highly colored fermions”, Phys. Lett. B257 (1991) 403. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(91)91915-I

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0370-2693(91)91915-i 1991

[37] [37]

R. Chivukula, M. Golden, and E. Simmons, “Multi-jet physics at hadron colliders”, Nucl. Phys. B363 (1991) 83. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(91)90235-P

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0550-3213(91)90235-p 1991

[38] [38]

B. Dobrescu, K. Kong, and R. Mahbubani, “Massive color-octet bosons and pairs of resonances at hadron colliders”, Phys. Lett. B670 (2008) 119, arXiv:arXiv:0709.2378v3 [hep-ph] . doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.10.048

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[39] [39]

S. Dimopoulos and R. Emparan, “String balls at the LHC and beyond”, Phys. Lett. B526 (2002) 393, arXiv:hep-ph/0108060. doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01525-8. 13 A The CMS Collaboration Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia V . Khachatryan, A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan Institut f ¨ ur Hochenergiephysik der OeAW, Wien, Austria W. Adam, T. Bergauer, M. Dragi...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002