Top quark mass measurements at and above threshold at CLIC

Frank Simon; Katja Seidel; Michal Tesar; Stephane Poss

REVIEW

Top quark mass measurements at and above threshold at CLIC

Katja Seidel, Frank Simon, Michal Tesar, Stephane Poss

High Energy Physics - Experiment · Submitted 15 Mar 2013 · 45 references

Pith's verdict: A careful full-simulation CLIC study whose above-threshold result holds up; the 34 MeV threshold number is a toy closure resting on a flat efficiency measured at one energy, and that gap is the one the authors don't flag.

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 →

· 4 major objections · 9 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID1303.3758 (version 3)

Pith IDH7BOLO6R, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationFrank Simon, Katja Seidel, Michal Tesar, Stephane Poss. "Top quark mass measurements at and above threshold at CLIC." arXiv:1303.3758 (2013). https://pith.science/paper/H7BOLO6R

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

Two things to know. The 500 GeV direct-reconstruction result (80 MeV statistical, Table 2) is properly supported and honestly framed. The threshold number (34 MeV, Table 3) is a sensitivity estimate from a toy in which the pseudo-data are generated with the same efficiency and background the fit templates use, so it recovers the input mass by construction and reflects Poisson fluctuations only. That is fine as far as it goes, but it is not a test of the model, and the abstract's 'total uncertainties of around 100 MeV' reads as if it were. The one modeling input the authors do not flag is the flat efficiency: 70.2% signal and 73 fb residual background, both measured at 352 GeV, applied unchanged across 344 to 353 GeV (Section 6.2). Near threshold the tops are nearly at rest, jets are soft and close together, and b-tagging and kinematic-fit success will move with energy. A few percent variation distorts the turn-on and shifts the fitted mass and alpha_s. Worth asking for a coarse efficiency-versus-energy scan, or at least a statement of how much variation the fit tolerates. The luminosity-spectrum term (75 MeV for a 20% RMS change, Section 6.3.2) is larger and is acknowledged, so the 'below 100 MeV' total is conditional on two inputs, one admitted and one not. Note also that the classifier found no stated limitations in the abstract; the body is considerably more candid than that, and the refusal to call the invariant-mass value a theory-usable mass is exactly right. What is genuinely new is the execution: full GEANT4 CLIC_ILD with overlaid photon-photon hadron background at the CLIC rate, particle flow, kinematic fit, flavour tagging, likelihood rejection. And the CLIC-versus-ILC luminosity-spectrum comparison (Tables 3 and 4) is a real result, handled well: the 20% statistical edge at ILC is shown to be irrelevant once systematics dominate. That is the useful message for the design community. Send it out. The physics message, that a linear collider reaches the 100 MeV scale and that systematics set the floor, survives; the specific threshold number needs the efficiency assumption tested before anyone uses it as a design target.

Referee report

Significance

The study is a careful and unusually complete feasibility estimate: it is not a generator-level exercise but a full chain of GEANT4 simulation, beam-induced background overlay (300 bunch crossings of γγ→hadrons), particle-flow reconstruction, flavour tagging, kinematic fitting, and likelihood-based background rejection, applied consistently to signal and to the WW, ZZ, qq̄ and WWZ backgrounds listed in Table 1. The comparison of the CLIC and ILC luminosity spectra within the same analysis chain is a genuinely useful addition, and the paper is candid that the direct-reconstruction result is a PYTHIA generator mass whose conversion to a short-distance scheme is not under control, which is exactly the right caveat to state. The authors also acknowledge, rather than hide, that the luminosity-spectrum uncertainty has not been fully investigated and that colour-reconnection effects are outside the scope of the paper. If the threshold-scan number holds up, it is a meaningful statement about the physics reach of a staged linear collider, and the paper's framing of the two methods as complementary — the threshold measurement constraining the non-perturbative interpretation of the invariant-

Major objections (4)

[§6.2] The ten pseudo-data points are built from a single signal selection efficiency of 70.2% and a single residual background cross section of 73 fb, both determined from fully simulated events at 352 GeV and then applied unchanged over the whole 344–353 GeV range ('adding background events assuming a constant level over the considered energy range of 10 GeV'). Near threshold the top quarks are nearly at rest, jets are soft and overlapping, and the b-tagging and kinematic-fit success rates plausibly differ from their 352 GeV values; an efficiency that varies with energy distorts the shape of the cross-section turn-on, which is precisely the observable that carries the mass sensitivity. Because the same constant efficiency and background enter the fit templates, the toy cannot reveal this effect. The 34 MeV of Table 3 is therefore conditional on an unquantified modelling assumption. The authors should either simulate two or three additional energy points to bound the variation of efficiency and background across the scan, or demonstrate by an explicit distortion test (e.g. injecting a few-percent linear or threshold-shaped efficiency slope) that the fitted mass is insensitive at the quoted precision.
[§6.3.2 and §7] The paper states that a 20% uncertainty on the RMS width of the main luminosity peak produces a top mass uncertainty of approximately 75 MeV, that 'a full investigation has not yet been performed', and then concludes in §7 that the total uncertainty is 'below 100 MeV'. The luminosity-spectrum term alone is more than twice the 34 MeV statistical error and, added in quadrature with the 5–8 MeV theory normalization and the 18 MeV background-subtraction term, leaves very little headroom under the quoted ceiling. The conclusion should be supported by an explicit error-budget table in which each contribution is listed with its assumed input and combined in quadrature, and the abstract and §7 should say 'expected to be below 100 MeV under the assumed luminosity-spectrum control' rather than presenting the number as achieved. As written, the abstract sentence 'total uncertainties of around 100 MeV are achieved' overstates what the body of the paper establishes.
[§5.2] The 80 MeV combined statistical precision of Table 2 is smaller than every jet-energy-scale bias quoted in §5.2: a 2% shift of all jets gives 200 MeV and a 2% shift of b-jets alone gives 350 MeV. The paper argues that in-situ calibration from the reconstructed W mass and from Z→bb̄ in di-boson and radiative-return events will bring the jet energy scale to better than 1% and the resulting top mass systematics below 50 MeV, but this is asserted rather than demonstrated, and no event yield or expected calibration precision is shown. Since the central claim of the 500 GeV analysis is an experimental uncertainty 'around 100 MeV', the calibration performance is load-bearing. The authors should present the required jet-energy-scale precision explicitly as a requirement on the detector and reconstruction, state the assumed integrated luminosity and event sample on which the calibration would rest, and make clear in the abstract and conclusions that the 80 MeV is a statistical figure whose systematic counterpart depends on achieving that calibration.
[§6.3 and Fig. 6] The statement that 'the fit itself does not introduce a bias on the results', illustrated by the 5000-trial closure of Fig. 6, holds only within the model that generated the pseudo-data: the same TOPPIK cross section, the same ISR folding, the same luminosity spectrum, and the same constant efficiency and background are used for both the pseudo-data and the templates. This is a legitimate and standard sensitivity estimate, but it should be labelled as such, because a reader could otherwise read the closure as evidence that the extracted 1S mass is unbiased against realistic mismodelling. A short explicit sentence in §6.2 or §6.3 stating that the toy is a closure and that modelling biases are addressed separately (or not at all) would remove the ambiguity.

Minor objections (9)

[§1] The word 'non-perturbartive' appears in the sentence beginning 'Given the influence of non-perturbartive effects on the invariant mass'; it should read 'non-perturbative'.
[References] Reference [14] (SiD) is given as arXiv:0911.006, which is not a valid identifier; the correct number is arXiv:0911.0006.
[§5.2] The bias test using a 175 GeV / 1.5 GeV sample is described as showing deviations 'less than the statistical uncertainty', but the text also notes that the statistical uncertainty on the resolution parameters is comparable to the overall statistical uncertainty. The test therefore has limited discriminating power, and the paper should say so rather than concluding that 'there is no indication for a bias' without qualification.
[Table 2] The semi-leptonic mass, 174.293 ± 0.137 GeV, deviates from the generator value by about 2σ. The paper notes the deviation but does not discuss whether it points to an inadequacy of the fit function (for example the single-Gaussian tail or the fixed resolution parameters) or is simply a fluctuation; a brief statement would help the reader judge the reliability of the quoted central value and error.
[§4.5 and §6] The fit success rates quoted in §4.5 (37% fully-hadronic, 47% semi-leptonic at 500 GeV) and in §6 (95% at threshold) refer to different fit-quality criteria, since at threshold converged fits are accepted regardless of fit probability. This is explained, but the two numbers are far enough apart that a one-sentence reminder at the point where the 95% figure is used would prevent confusion.
[Eqs. (5)–(7)] It should be stated explicitly whether y_sig and y_bgd in Eq. (7) are event yields or normalizations, and whether the tail fraction f and the tail Gaussian parameters are fixed from the signal-only sample or floated in the final fit. The text implies they are fixed, but the reader should not have to infer this.
[§6.3.2] The background-mismodelling study quotes an 18 MeV shift in the top mass for a 5% variation in the subtracted background. It should be stated whether this is to be interpreted as a systematic uncertainty (i.e. 5% is the expected precision on the background) or as a sensitivity coefficient; the two readings imply different entries in the error budget.
[§6.2] The expected number of selected signal and background events per scan point is not given. Providing these numbers, even in a small table, would let the reader judge the Poisson behaviour of Fig. 5 directly and would make the statistical precision of Table 3 easier to verify.
[Fig. 1] The figure shows normalized distributions for the fully-hadronic and semi-leptonic W candidates, but the vertical axis label and the legend do not make clear that the semi-leptonic entry includes the neutrino-related smearing discussed in §4.4; a short addition to the caption would help.

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

The paper

The paper claims

A simulated 500 GeV CLIC stage could pin the top quark mass to roughly 100 MeV, and the threshold scan does it in a mass scheme that theory can actually interpret.

The reading

The paper asks how precisely the top quark mass could be measured at a first-stage linear electron-positron collider built on CLIC technology, running at 500 GeV and around the top-pair threshold near 350 GeV, with 100 inverse femtobarns of data. Two routes are simulated in full: reconstructing the invariant mass of the top decay products above threshold, and scanning the rise of the top-pair cross section across the threshold. The direct reconstruction reaches a combined statistical precision of 80 MeV, but that number is a parameter of the PYTHIA event generator, and the authors say plainly that the theoretical bridge from a generator mass to a well-defined mass scheme is not yet built to match it. The threshold scan reaches 34 MeV statistical on the mass, simultaneously with the strong coupling at 0.0009, and because the cross-section shape is computed in the 1S mass scheme with next-to-next-to-leading-order QCD, the result lands in a scheme that can be translated into other conventions. The paper's real message is thus a comparison of two kinds of precision: experimental precision that theory cannot yet absorb, and a slower measurement whose precision theory can absorb.

What carries the argument

Two pieces of machinery carry the argument. The first is the kinematic fit: it enforces three-dimensional energy and momentum conservation including the beam crossing angle, fixes both $W$ masses to 80.4 GeV, and forces the top and anti-top masses to be equal, varying jet and lepton four-momenta within their measured resolutions; this both sharpens the mass distribution and rejects more than 97 percent of the $qbar{q}$ background. The second is the threshold template fit: the top-pair cross section near threshold is computed with the TOPPIK code at next-to-next-to-leading order in the 1S mass scheme, folded with initial-state radiation and with the machine's luminosity spectrum, and the simulated data points are compared against a grid of templates in mass and $alpha_{s}$ spaced by 50 MeV and 0.0007 respectively. The luminosity spectrum is the pivot of the comparison with ILC: beamstrahlung smears the threshold rise, so the shape of that spectrum is itself a systematic input to the mass.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a 500 GeV CLIC stage with 100 inverse femtobarns delivers a top quark mass with a total uncertainty around or below 100 MeV by two independent routes, and that the threshold route is the one with a defensible theoretical interpretation. Above threshold, a kinematic fit imposing energy-momentum conservation, the nominal $W$ mass of 80.4 GeV, and equal masses for top and anti-top, followed by a binned-likelihood background rejection, yields clean fully-hadronic and semi-leptonic samples; an unbinned fit of a Breit-Wigner convolved with a three-Gaussian resolution function and a background tail gives $m_{t} = 174.133$ GeV with a combined statistical error of 80 MeV and a width of $1.55$ GeV with an error of 220 MeV. At threshold, ten energy points spaced by 1 GeV from 344 to 353 GeV, 10 inverse femtobarns each, are fitted against NNLO cross-section templates in the 1S scheme, giving a statistical mass error of 34 MeV and a strong coupling error of 0.0009, with a theory normalization uncertainty worth only 5 to 8 MeV on the mass. Repeating the threshold analysis with the ILC luminosity spectrum, which has a sharper main peak, tightens the statistical error to 27 MeV, a difference far below the systematic uncertainties.

Load-bearing premise

The threshold-scan precision rests on the assumption that the signal selection efficiency of 70.2 percent and the residual background cross section of 73 femtobarns, both measured from fully simulated events at a single energy of 352 GeV, stay constant across the entire 344 to 353 GeV scan range, even though near threshold the event kinematics and the kinematic-fit success rate change quickly with energy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A threshold scan at a linear collider would deliver the top mass in the 1S scheme, which can be converted into other mass conventions, unlike the generator mass extracted from invariant-mass reconstruction.
The same scan determines the strong coupling to about 0.0009, comparable to the current world-average uncertainty, so $alpha_{s}$ need not be taken as an external input.
Because the direct-reconstruction and threshold masses would be measured at the same machine, their difference becomes a handle on non-perturbative and colour-reconnection effects in the invariant-mass interpretation.
The comparison of CLIC and ILC luminosity spectra shows the sharper ILC peak buys only about 20 percent in statistical precision, so the choice between technologies is not decided by the threshold-scan mass error.
A ten-point scan of 100 inverse femtobarns total would already be limited by systematics rather than statistics, with the luminosity-spectrum shape the largest single worry.
A six-point scan from 344 to 349 GeV, 60 inverse femtobarns, degrades the mass error to 40 MeV and the coupling error to 0.0013, showing the region above threshold matters mainly for $alpha_{s}$.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's two numbers point in opposite directions for strategy: the 80 MeV invariant-mass result is cheaper in luminosity but currently unusable for precision physics, while the 34 MeV threshold result is only meaningful if the machine's luminosity spectrum is known to better than roughly 20 percent in RMS width, so accelerator diagnostics become a physics deliverable.
If the flat-efficiency assumption across the scan range fails, the distortion enters as a shape change in the cross-section rise, which is degenerate with a mass shift; a single additional simulated point at 344 GeV would test this cheaply.
The 350 MeV shift from a 2 percent b-jet energy scale error, versus under 100 MeV from light jets, suggests the b-jet calibration programme (using $Z \to b\bar{b}$ in di-boson and radiative-return events) is the binding experimental systematic for the above-threshold measurement.
A future comparison of a threshold-scan 1S mass with a hadron-collider Monte Carlo mass would test the size of the non-perturbative correction directly, rather than inferring it from generator comparisons.

Original abstract

We present a study of the expected precision of the top quark mass determination, measured at a linear e+ e- collider based on CLIC technology. GEANT4-based detector simulation and full event reconstruction including realistic physics and beam-induced background levels are used. Two different techniques to measure the top mass are studied: The direct reconstruction of the invariant mass of the top quark decay products and the measurement of the mass together with the strong coupling constant in a threshold scan, in both cases including first studies of expected systematic uncertainties. For the direct reconstruction, experimental uncertainties around 100 MeV are achieved, which are at present not matched by a theoretical understanding on a similar level. With a threshold scan, total uncertainties of around 100 MeV are achieved, including theoretical uncertainties in a well-defined top mass scheme. For the threshold scan, the precision at ILC is also studied to provide a comparison of the two linear collider technologies.

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, 4,942 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.84 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.13 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.97 · compares with prior results 0.83 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v3. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We present a study of the expected precision of the top quark mass determination, measured at a linear e+ e- collider based on CLIC technology. GEANT4-based detector simulation and full event reconstruction including realistic physics and beam-induced background levels are used. Two different techniques to measure the top mass are studied: The direct reconstruction of the invariant mass of the top quark decay products and the measurement of the mass together with the strong coupling constant in a threshold scan, in both cases including first studies of expected systematic uncertainties. For the direct reconstruction, experimental uncertainties around 100 MeV are achieved, which are at present not matched by a theoretical understanding on a similar level. With a threshold scan, total uncertainties of around 100 MeV are achieved, including theoretical uncertainties in a well-defined top mass scheme. For the threshold scan, the precision at ILC is also studied to provide a comparison of the two linear collider technologies.

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	We present a study of the expected precision of the top quark mass determination, measured at a linear e+ e- collider based on CLIC technology.	contribution 1.00	0.81	0.06	asserted 0.91
s1	GEANT4-based detector simulation and full event reconstruction including realistic physics and beam-induced background levels are used.	method 1.00	0.79	0.02	asserted 0.99
s2	Two different techniques to measure the top mass are studied: The direct reconstruction of the invariant mass of the top quark decay products and the measurement of the mass together with the strong coupling constant in a threshold scan, in both cases including first studies of expected systematic uncertainties.	method 0.65	0.80	0.08	asserted 0.96
s3	For the direct reconstruction, experimental uncertainties around 100 MeV are achieved, which are at present not matched by a theoretical understanding on a similar level.	result 0.93	0.76	0.18	asserted 1.00
s4	With a threshold scan, total uncertainties of around 100 MeV are achieved, including theoretical uncertainties in a well-defined top mass scheme.	result 1.00	0.82	0.34	asserted 1.00
s5	For the threshold scan, the precision at ILC is also studied to provide a comparison of the two linear collider technologies.	contribution 0.90	0.78	0.04	asserted 0.92

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: simulation study 1.00 · evidence from simulation or computation 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v3

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.** Distribution of the reconstructed mass of the W bosons for a signal-only sample after the classification into fully-hadronic and semileptonic candidates before further event selection for collisions at 500 GeV. The distributions are normalized to allow a shape comparison. 4.4 Jet pairing For both analysis branches (6-jet fully-hadronic and 4-jet semi-leptonic candidates), the two jets with the highest btag values are classified as jets created by a b-quark (b-jets). All other jets in the event are classified as light jets (created by u, d, s or c-quarks) originating from the W…

**Figure 2.** Reconstructed top mass for signal-only events selected in the fully hadronic branch with and without kinematic fit for collisions at 500 GeV. For both distributions only events with a successful kinematic fit are shown. the jet pairing into W candidates and the kinematic fit are repeated for unsuccessful kinematic fits after exchanging the b-jet with the lower b-tag value and the light jet with the highest b-tag value. This procedure increases the number of successful kinematic fits by approximately 20%. Overall, 37% of the signal events classified as fully-hadronic candidates and…

**Figure 3.** Distribution of reconstructed top mass for events classified as fully-hadronic (left) and semi-leptonic (right). The data points include signal and background for an integrated luminosity of 100 fb−1 . The pure background contribution contained in the global distribution is shown by the green solid histogram. The top mass is determined with an unbinned likelihood fit of this distribution, which is shown by the solid line. 5.1 Determination of top quark mass and width In this analysis, the distribution of the reconstructed invariant mass for signal and background events after…

**Figure 4.** Top pair production cross section from theory calculations, with the luminosity spectrum (LS) of CLIC at 350 GeV and ISR as well as for all effects combined. with an integrated luminosity of 10 fb−1 each, resulting in a total integrated luminosity of 100 fb−1 . 6.1 The tt¯ threshold at CLIC The top-pair signal cross section is determined using full NNLO calculations provided by the code TOPPIK [8, 38]. The top mass input is set to 174 GeV in the 1S mass scheme [8]. The strong coupling constant αs is taken to be 0.118. Since TOPPIK provides the cross section in units of R, the ratio…

**Figure 5.** Background-subtracted simulated cross section measurements for 10 fb−1 per data point, together with the cross section for the generator mass of 174 GeV as well as for a shift in mass of ±200 MeV. 6.2 Generation of data points The signal and background efficiencies are determined using fully simulated events as outlined in Section 3. The kinematic fit and the likelihood-based background rejection are used to eliminate the majority of the non-tt¯ background. Overall, a signal selection efficiency of 70.2%, including the branching fractions of the considered fully-hadronic and…

**Figure 7.** Background-subtracted simulated cross section measurements with the ILC luminosity spectrum for 10 fb−1 per data point, together with the cross section for the generator mass of 174 GeV as well as for a shift in mass of ±200 MeV. 1S top mass and αs combined 2D fit mt stat. error 27 MeV mt theory syst. (1%/3%) 5 MeV / 9 MeV αs stat. error 0.0008 αs theory syst. (1%/3%) 0.0007 / 0.0022

Showing 6 of the paper's 7 figures. See all figures in the PDF ↗ Figures reproduced from arXiv:1303.3758 by the authors.

References

Works cited (45)

[1]

G. Isidori, G. Ridolﬁ, A. Strumia, Nucl.Phys. B609, 387 (2001)

View on Pith 2001
[2]

G. Degrassi, S. Di Vita, J. Elias-Miro, J.R. Espinosa, G.F. Giudice, et al., JHEP 1208, 098 (2012)

View on Pith 2012
[3]

T. Aaltonen, et al., Phys. Rev. D86, 092003 (2012)

View on Pith 2012
[4]

The ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, ATLAS-CONF- 2012-095, CMS-PAS-TOP-12-001 (2012)

View on Pith 2012
[5]

J.E. Brau, R.M. Godbole, F.R. Le Diberder, M. Thom- son, H. Weerts, et al., arXiv:1210.0202 [hep-ex] (2012)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[6]

S. Fleming, A.H. Hoang, S. Mantry, I.W. Stewart, Phys.Rev. D77, 074010 (2008)

View on Pith 2008
[7]

S. Fleming, A.H. Hoang, S. Mantry, I.W. Stewart, Phys.Rev. D77, 114003 (2008)

View on Pith 2008
[8]

A.H. Hoang, T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D60, 114027 (1999)

View on Pith 1999
[9]

M. Aicheler, P. Burrows, M. Draper, T. Garvey, P. Le- brun, K. Peach, N. Phinney, H. Schmickler, D. Schulte, N. Toge, CERN-2012-007 (2012)

View on Pith 2012
[10]

S. Agostinelli, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506, 250 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[11]

P. Lebrun, L. Linssen, A. Lucaci-Timoce, D. Schulte, F. Simon, et al., arXiv:1209.2543 [physics.ins-det] (2012)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[12]

L. Linssen, A. Miyamoto, M. Stanitzki, H. Weerts, arXiv:1202.5940 [physics.ins-det] (2012)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[13]

T. Abe, et al., arXiv:1006.3396 [hep-ex] (2010)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[14]

H. Aihara, P. Burrows, M. Oreglia, et al., arXiv:0911.006 [physics.ins-det] (2009)

View on Pith 2009
[15]

T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, P.Z. Skands, JHEP 0605, 026 (2006)

View on Pith 2006
[16]

W. Kilian, T. Ohl, J. Reuter, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1742 (2011)

View on Pith 2011
[17]

P. Mora de Freitas, H. Videau, LC-TOOL-2003-010 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[18]

J. Marshall, A. Munnich, M. Thomson, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A700, 153 (2013)

View on Pith 2013
[19]

S.D. Ellis, D.E. Soper, Phys. Rev. D48, 3160 (1993)

View on Pith 1993
[20]

M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, Phys. Lett. B641, 57 (2006)

View on Pith 2006
[21]

M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C72, 1896 (2012)

View on Pith 2012
[22]

D. Bailey, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A610, 573 (2009)

View on Pith 2009
[23]

M. Beckmann, B. List, J. List, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A624, 184 (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[24]

K. Ackerstaff, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C1, 425 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[25]

G. Gustafson, U. Pettersson, P. Zerwas, Phys. Lett. B209, 90 (1988)

View on Pith 1988
[26]

T. Sjostrand, V .A. Khoze, Z. Phys.C62, 281 (1994)

View on Pith 1994
[27]

V .A. Khoze, T. Sjostrand, Phys. Lett.B328, 466 (1994)

View on Pith 1994
[28]

V .A. Khoze, T. Sjostrand, Eur. Phys. J. direct C2, 1 (2000)

View on Pith 2000
[29]

S. Schael, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C47, 309 (2006)

View on Pith 2006
[30]

J. Abdallah, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C55, 1 (2008)

View on Pith 2008
[31]

P. Achard, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C45, 569 (2006)

View on Pith 2006
[32]

G. Abbiendi, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C45, 307 (2006)

View on Pith 2006
[33]

S. Schael, et al., arXiv:1202.3415 [hep-ex] (2013)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[34]

V .S. Fadin, V .A. Khoze, JETP Lett.46, 525 (1987)

View on Pith 1987
[35]

V .S. Fadin, V .A. Khoze, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 48, 309 (1988)

View on Pith 1988
[36]

M.J. Strassler, M.E. Peskin, Phys.Rev. D43, 1500 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[37]

M. Martinez, R. Miquel, Eur. Phys. J. C27, 49 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[38]

A.H. Hoang, T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D58, 114023 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[39]

M. Skrzypek, S. Jadach, Z. Phys. C49, 577 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[40]

A. Hoang, M. Stahlhofen, arXiv:1111.4486 [hep-ph] (2011) 14

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[41]

S. Bethke, arXiv:1210.0325 [hep-ex] (2012)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[42]

R. Assmann, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C39, 253 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[43]

G. Abbiendi, et al., Phys.Lett. B604, 31 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[44]

S. Boogert, M. Hildreth, D. Käfer, J. List, K. Mönig, et al., JINST 4, P10015 (2009)

View on Pith 2009
[45]

A. Hinze, K. Mönig, eConf C050318, 1109 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

Forward citations

Cited by 15 Pith papers

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

Next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order QCD prediction for the top anti-top S-wave pair production cross section near threshold in e+ e- annihilation
hep-ph 2015-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The complete third-order QCD correction to top-antitop production near threshold cuts the theoretical uncertainty to about 3 percent and to about 60 MeV on the position of the cross-section peak.
Toponium: the smallest bound state and simplest hadron in quantum mechanics
hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Using the b-quark production ratio at sqrt(s) near 341 GeV, a simulated CEPC experiment could discover toponium at over 5 sigma and measure the top 1S mass to about 33 MeV.
Top-Quark Physics at the CLIC Electron-Positron Linear Collider
hep-ex 2018-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Full detector simulation shows a staged 380 GeV to 3 TeV electron-positron collider could measure the top-quark mass to about 20 MeV and constrain top-philic new physics at multi-TeV scales.
Standard Model-Axion-Seesaw-Higgs Portal Inflation. Five problems of particle physics and cosmology solved in one stroke
hep-ph 2016-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A single new physics scale near 10^11 GeV, tied to a Peccei-Quinn symmetry, is claimed to solve five open problems of particle physics and cosmology simultaneously.
The MSR Mass and the ${\cal O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD})$ Renormalon Sum Rule
hep-ph 2017-04 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

An analytic sum rule extracts the O(Lambda_QCD) renormalon normalization of any perturbative series from its known coefficients, giving N_1/2 = 0.526, 0.492, 0.446 for 3, 4, 5 massless flavors.

Show 10 more citing papers

Possible Futures of Electroweak Precision: ILC, FCC-ee, and CEPC
hep-ph 2014-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A simplified electroweak fit indicates that CEPC's Z-pole program would reach S and T sensitivities comparable to the ILC's, and that the W mass and the effective weak mixing angle are the two measurements that most i...
Third-order correction to top-quark pair production near threshold I. Effective theory set-up and matching coefficients
hep-ph 2013-12 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

The paper assembles the complete set of NRQCD matching coefficients and PNRQCD potentials, including previously unpublished order-epsilon terms, required for a third-order QCD calculation of the top-antitop threshold ...
First Look at the Physics Case of TLEP
hep-ex 2013-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A proposed 80-100 km circular electron-positron collider, TLEP, could produce orders of magnitude more Higgs, Z, W and top events than linear colliders, enabling sub-percent Higgs and electroweak measurements, with a ...
ILC Operating Scenarios
hep-ex 2015-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

The ILC Parameters Joint Working Group defines four twenty-year running scenarios with realistic ramp-up and upgrade timelines and recommends H-20: start at 500 GeV, then 350 and 250 GeV, upgrade luminosity, then run ...
The International Linear Collider: A Global Project
hep-ex 2019-03 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

The ILC collaboration reports that a 250 GeV superconducting linear collider is technically ready and would measure the Higgs mass to about 10 MeV and its major couplings to roughly 1%, model-independently.
High precision fundamental constants at the TeV scale
hep-ph 2014-05 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

The report compiles 2014 determinations of the strong coupling and the top quark mass, shows that independent extractions scatter beyond their quoted uncertainties, and recommends a standing working group plus scheme-...
Physics at the CLIC e+e- Linear Collider -- Input to the Snowmass process 2013
hep-ex 2013-07 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

A staged 350 GeV to 3 TeV electron-positron collider would measure Higgs couplings to roughly 1-2%, the Higgs self-coupling to about 10%, and probe new physics to tens of TeV, according to the full-simulation studies ...
The Future Circular Collider: a Summary for the US 2021 Snowmass Process
hep-ex 2022-03 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

The FCC program, an electron-positron Higgs factory followed by a 100 TeV proton collider in a shared 90 km tunnel, would deliver sub-percent Higgs couplings, parts-per-million electroweak tests, and direct searches u...
Physics at the e+ e- Linear Collider
hep-ph 2015-04 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

A staged electron-positron collider from 250 GeV to 1 TeV would measure Higgs couplings to about 1 percent model-independently, the top mass to 100 MeV, and electroweak precision observables an order of magnitude beyo...
Snowmass 2013 Top quark working group report
hep-ph 2013-11 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

The report compiles community projections showing that a future lepton collider can measure the top mass to about 100 MeV and top couplings an order of magnitude better than the high-luminosity LHC.

How later papers used it

56 later papers cite it

Evidence: substantial. 48 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 10 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 24 of the 101 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

2 later papers by other authors are listed below: 1 used its method or tool and 2 used its data or values. 1 of them appears under more than one label. 3 more papers by the same authors are listed: 1 built on it, 3 used its method or tool and 1 used its data or values. 2 of them appear under more than one label.

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

By the same authors

Extended the analysis discussed in detail in this paper to provide a first look at the impact of the NNNLO scale uncertainties on the top quark mass measurement in a threshold scan.

A First Look at the Impact of NNNLO Theory Uncertainties on Top Mass Measurements at the ILC (2016) (same authors) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

Uses its method or tool 4 of 7 papers with this label · 3 by the same authors

Performed a fit to the cross-section measurement according to the method proposed in this paper, using a predefined function obtained from the double-top calculation at NNLO.

Study of single top production at high energy electron positron colliders (2014) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

By the same authors

Combined the results of NNNLO QCD calculations with the experimental techniques developed in this paper to perform a first preliminary analysis of the impact of scale uncertainties on the top mass extraction.

A First Look at the Impact of NNNLO Theory Uncertainties on Top Mass Measurements at the ILC (2016) (same authors) · 0.86 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Corrected its theory cross section for initial state radiation and for the luminosity spectrum of the collider as described in this paper.

Scanning Strategies at the Top Threshold at ILC (2019) (same authors) · 0.99 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Used the methodology described in this paper with state-of-the-art NNNLO QCD calculations of ttbar production as input to account for the ILC luminosity spectrum, initial state radiation, signal efficiencies and background contributions.

The Potential of the ILC for Discovering New Particles (2017) (same authors) · 0.99 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

Uses its data or values 3 of 10 papers with this label · 1 by the same authors

Expected an 18 MeV variation in the extracted top-quark mass for a 5% shift of the estimated background contribution, citing this paper.

Optimising top-quark threshold scan at CLIC using genetic algorithm (2021) · 0.93 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Followed the energy range and top quark mass choices in this paper.

Study of single top production at high energy electron positron colliders (2014) · 0.87 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

By the same authors

Assumed a signal efficiency of 70.2% for the cross section measurement, with an effective background level after all selection cuts of 73 fb, following this paper.

Scanning Strategies at the Top Threshold at ILC (2019) (same authors) · 0.98 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

56 arXiv papers cite this in 101 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 whose main result relates to this one's

Found among the papers closest to this one by title and main claim. Pith's classifier compared each pair's main results and a second model family confirmed the relation; checked against two further families, shown conflicts agreed 118 times in 120 and shown same results 218 times in 239. The quoted sentence is the other paper's main claim.

States the same result 1 paper

A careful analysis suggests that the top quark mass can be extracted from a threshold scan at NLC with an accuracy of about 100 MeV.

On t anti-t threshold and top quark mass definition · 0.89

Papers citing it · 70 sentences without a confident label

Builds on it 2 papers

To provide a first look at the impact of the NNNLO scale uncertainties on the measurement of the top quark mass in a threshold scan, the analysis discussed in detail in [ref] has been extended, as discussed in the following.

A First Look at the Impact of NNNLO Theory Uncertainties on Top Mass Measurements at the ILC · A threshold scan analysis with NNNLO scale uncertainties · 1.00
In this contribution, the analysis described in [ref] is extended to two-dimensional extractions of the top quark mass and width and of the mass and the Yukawa coupling.

Scanning Strategies at the Top Threshold at ILC · Introduction · 1.00

Uses its method or tool 7 papers

Here, the results of these calculations are combined with the experimental techniques developed in [ref] to perform a first preliminary analysis of the impact of the scale uncertainties on the top mass extraction.

A First Look at the Impact of NNNLO Theory Uncertainties on Top Mass Measurements at the ILC · Introduction · 0.86
The present study builds on the technique developed in [ref] , obtaining simulated cross section measurements from a combination of the NNNLO top pair production cross section with the signal reconstruction efficiencies and expected background levels from full detector simulations performed slightly above the top pair production threshold.

Scanning Strategies at the Top Threshold at ILC · The simulation study · 0.84
According to the method proposed in [ref] , a fit is performed to the cross-section measurement, using a predefined function obtained from the double-top calculation at NNLO.

Study of single top production at high energy electron positron colliders · Analysis of top mass at threshold · 1.00

Uses its data or values 10 papers

Following [ref] , a signal efficiency of 70.2% is assumed for the cross section measurement, with an effective background level after all selection cuts of 73 fb.

Scanning Strategies at the Top Threshold at ILC · The simulation study · 0.98
When generating simulated measurements (pseudo-data), the overall top-pair event reconstruction efficiency of 70.2% (including the relevant branching fractions) was assumed, and the background contribution remaining after the event selection procedure corresponding to the cross section of 73 fb [ref] .

Optimising top-quark threshold scan at CLIC using genetic algorithm · Reference scenario · 1.00
In summary, for a 300 fb$^-1$ threshold scan, the total expected uncertainty on the top quark mass is $∼100$ MeV, resulting from the sum in quadrature of the following contributions: a statistical uncertainty of order 30 MeV (from Ref. [ref] , confirmed to be possible also with 100 fb$^-1$ from a 2-parameter fit in a recent study in Ref. [ref] ), 35 MeV (beam energy), 50 MeV (luminosity spectrum) and 80 MeV (from the conversion of $s_res$ into $m_t$ according Eq. [ref]).

Determination of the top quark mass circa 2013: methods, subtleties, perspectives · Threshold $tt̅$ production at $e^+e^-$ colliders: experimental simulations · 0.87

Compares with it 2 papers

This uncertainty is comparable in size to the uncertainty derived for a naive 3% scale uncertainty in the theory in [ref] .

A First Look at the Impact of NNNLO Theory Uncertainties on Top Mass Measurements at the ILC · Systematic uncertainties derived from scale variations · 0.99
As data events are recorded at the most efficient single energy point, 7 MeV statistical uncertainty can be achieved within 50 $fb^-1$ effective integrated luminosity, which is about half of that comparing to the 10 average distributed points scheme used in [ref] with an equal total integrated luminosity.

An optimal scheme for top quark mass measurement near $t\bar{t}$ threshold at future $e^{+}e^{-}$ colliders · Summary · 1.00

Cites it as support 1 paper

In the context of Higgs boson and top quark physics, this is for example beneficial for the rejection of physics background in hadronic and semi-leptonic final states, for the kinematic reconstruction of particle masses and for the constraints on the jet energy scales, as shown for top quark pair events in [ref] .

Higgs and top physics reconstruction challenges and opportunities at FCC-ee · Particle flow and beyond : reconstructing individual particles, jets, and global event kinematics · 1.00

Cites it as background 4 papers

Actually, relative studies [ref] have already been made to simulate the threshold scan at future $e^+e^-$ colliders.

An optimal scheme for top quark mass measurement near $t\bar{t}$ threshold at future $e^{+}e^{-}$ colliders · Top mass measurement scheme · 0.95
Recent reanalyses include realistic beam energy spectra for the ILC and CLIC [ref] and beam polarization [ref] .

Study of single top production at high energy electron positron colliders · Analysis of top mass at threshold · 0.87
The CLIC has been extensively studied for interactions beyond the SM [ref] .

Probe of electromagnetic moments of the tau lepton in gamma-gamma collisions at the CLIC · Introduction · 0.94

What it cites · 6 sentences without a confident label

Uses the method or tool of 1 paper

For the present analyses, the 500 GeV version of the CLIC_ILD [ref] detector is used.

Physics and Detectors at CLIC: CLIC Conceptual Design Report · Experimental conditions and detectors at CLIC · 0.96

Uses data or values from 1 paper

However, an additional systematic uncertainty of 20 MeV on the mass arises from the precision of $α_s$, when assuming the current uncertainty of the world average of 0.0007 [ref] .

World Summary of $\alpha_s$ (2012) · Alternative scenarios · 1.00

Cites as background 2 papers

More information on the beam induced backgrounds can be found in [ref] .

Physics and Detectors at CLIC: CLIC Conceptual Design Report · Event generation, simulation and reconstruction · 0.92
The project is foreseen to be implemented in several stages [ref] to provide optimal luminosity conditions at lower energies.

The CLIC Programme: Towards a Staged e+e- Linear Collider Exploring the Terascale : CLIC Conceptual Design Report · Experimental conditions and detectors at CLIC · 0.88

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]

G. Isidori, G. Ridolﬁ, A. Strumia, Nucl.Phys. B609, 387 (2001)

View on Pith 2001

[2] [2]

G. Degrassi, S. Di Vita, J. Elias-Miro, J.R. Espinosa, G.F. Giudice, et al., JHEP 1208, 098 (2012)

View on Pith 2012

[3] [3]

T. Aaltonen, et al., Phys. Rev. D86, 092003 (2012)

View on Pith 2012

[4] [4]

The ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, ATLAS-CONF- 2012-095, CMS-PAS-TOP-12-001 (2012)

View on Pith 2012

[5] [5]

J.E. Brau, R.M. Godbole, F.R. Le Diberder, M. Thom- son, H. Weerts, et al., arXiv:1210.0202 [hep-ex] (2012)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[6] [6]

S. Fleming, A.H. Hoang, S. Mantry, I.W. Stewart, Phys.Rev. D77, 074010 (2008)

View on Pith 2008

[7] [7]

S. Fleming, A.H. Hoang, S. Mantry, I.W. Stewart, Phys.Rev. D77, 114003 (2008)

View on Pith 2008

[8] [8]

A.H. Hoang, T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D60, 114027 (1999)

View on Pith 1999

[9] [9]

M. Aicheler, P. Burrows, M. Draper, T. Garvey, P. Le- brun, K. Peach, N. Phinney, H. Schmickler, D. Schulte, N. Toge, CERN-2012-007 (2012)

View on Pith 2012

[10] [10]

S. Agostinelli, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506, 250 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[11] [11]

P. Lebrun, L. Linssen, A. Lucaci-Timoce, D. Schulte, F. Simon, et al., arXiv:1209.2543 [physics.ins-det] (2012)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[12] [12]

L. Linssen, A. Miyamoto, M. Stanitzki, H. Weerts, arXiv:1202.5940 [physics.ins-det] (2012)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[13] [13]

T. Abe, et al., arXiv:1006.3396 [hep-ex] (2010)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[14] [14]

H. Aihara, P. Burrows, M. Oreglia, et al., arXiv:0911.006 [physics.ins-det] (2009)

View on Pith 2009

[15] [15]

T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, P.Z. Skands, JHEP 0605, 026 (2006)

View on Pith 2006

[16] [16]

W. Kilian, T. Ohl, J. Reuter, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1742 (2011)

View on Pith 2011

[17] [17]

P. Mora de Freitas, H. Videau, LC-TOOL-2003-010 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[18] [18]

J. Marshall, A. Munnich, M. Thomson, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A700, 153 (2013)

View on Pith 2013

[19] [19]

S.D. Ellis, D.E. Soper, Phys. Rev. D48, 3160 (1993)

View on Pith 1993

[20] [20]

M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, Phys. Lett. B641, 57 (2006)

View on Pith 2006

[21] [21]

M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C72, 1896 (2012)

View on Pith 2012

[22] [22]

D. Bailey, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A610, 573 (2009)

View on Pith 2009

[23] [23]

M. Beckmann, B. List, J. List, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A624, 184 (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[24] [24]

K. Ackerstaff, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C1, 425 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[25] [25]

G. Gustafson, U. Pettersson, P. Zerwas, Phys. Lett. B209, 90 (1988)

View on Pith 1988

[26] [26]

T. Sjostrand, V .A. Khoze, Z. Phys.C62, 281 (1994)

View on Pith 1994

[27] [27]

V .A. Khoze, T. Sjostrand, Phys. Lett.B328, 466 (1994)

View on Pith 1994

[28] [28]

V .A. Khoze, T. Sjostrand, Eur. Phys. J. direct C2, 1 (2000)

View on Pith 2000

[29] [29]

S. Schael, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C47, 309 (2006)

View on Pith 2006

[30] [30]

J. Abdallah, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C55, 1 (2008)

View on Pith 2008

[31] [31]

P. Achard, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C45, 569 (2006)

View on Pith 2006

[32] [32]

G. Abbiendi, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C45, 307 (2006)

View on Pith 2006

[33] [33]

S. Schael, et al., arXiv:1202.3415 [hep-ex] (2013)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[34] [34]

V .S. Fadin, V .A. Khoze, JETP Lett.46, 525 (1987)

View on Pith 1987

[35] [35]

V .S. Fadin, V .A. Khoze, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 48, 309 (1988)

View on Pith 1988

[36] [36]

M.J. Strassler, M.E. Peskin, Phys.Rev. D43, 1500 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[37] [37]

M. Martinez, R. Miquel, Eur. Phys. J. C27, 49 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[38] [38]

A.H. Hoang, T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D58, 114023 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[39] [39]

M. Skrzypek, S. Jadach, Z. Phys. C49, 577 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[40] [40]

A. Hoang, M. Stahlhofen, arXiv:1111.4486 [hep-ph] (2011) 14

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[41] [41]

S. Bethke, arXiv:1210.0325 [hep-ex] (2012)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[42] [42]

R. Assmann, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C39, 253 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[43] [43]

G. Abbiendi, et al., Phys.Lett. B604, 31 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[44] [44]

S. Boogert, M. Hildreth, D. Käfer, J. List, K. Mönig, et al., JINST 4, P10015 (2009)

View on Pith 2009

[45] [45]

A. Hinze, K. Mönig, eConf C050318, 1109 (2005)

View on Pith 2005