Energy calibration and resolution of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV

CMS Collaboration

REVIEW

Energy calibration and resolution of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV

CMS Collaboration

High Energy Physics - Experiment · Submitted 9 Jun 2013 · 53 references

Pith's verdict: A solid, candid calibration reference paper; the electron resolution and absolute scale are measured directly and hold up, while the abstract's H→γγ photon numbers are smeared-MC extrapolations the body itself labels upper limits.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on October 29, 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 →

· 3 major objections · 10 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID1306.2016 (version 2)

Pith ID6CGK3PET, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationCMS Collaboration. "Energy calibration and resolution of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV." arXiv:1306.2016 (2013). https://pith.science/paper/6CGK3PET

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

Short version: this is the reference paper for how CMS calibrated the ECAL on 2011 data, and it holds up. The numbers you will actually use — sub-2% electron resolution in the central barrel, 0.4%/0.8% absolute scale in barrel/endcaps — are measured directly from Z→e+e− with error bars and cross-checked four ways. Read it for the calibration chain, not for the Higgs numbers. What is genuinely new relative to the earlier PAS notes is the full in-situ determination on 5 fb−1: the laser-monitoring correction validated against η→γγ, W→eν E/p and Z lineshape stability (Figs. 3–5), the combination of φ-symmetry, π0/η and E/p intercalibrations with per-method uncertainties extracted from pairwise variances (Sec. 4.2.4), and the quantified data-to-MC resolution gap. The E/p stability of 0.12% (EB) and 0.35% (EE) through 2011 is a real operational result and is shown, not asserted. Soft spots, in order of how much they matter. The abstract's H→γγ photon resolution [abstract:s4] is not a measurement; it comes from MC with a Gaussian smearing tuned to the Z→e+e− data–MC difference at ET≈45 GeV and applied at 60 GeV. Section 5.3 says the smearing assumes that difference sits in the constant term, then immediately notes it likely has an ET-dependent material component, and labels the smeared numbers an upper limit. The abstract drops that caveat. It is bounded — the direction is conservative — but the headline reads more solid than the body supports. Second, the endcap effective α=1.16 is tuned by optimizing Z mass resolution and stability, and the endcap resolution is then quoted as the achieved result; the paper quantifies the α-spread contribution (≈1.5% average in EE, up to 2.5% at |η|≈2.5), so the effect is disclosed and bounded, but it is a closure loop. Third, minor: G is set by matching the fitted Z peak in data to MC, which is standard and fine, but it makes the 0.4% a relative rather than absolute statement. One correction to the reader's report: the classifier says no limitations are stated. That is wrong — Section 5.4 lists four specific open issues and Section 5.3 explicitly flags the upper-limit status. The paper is more candid than most. Who should read it: anyone using CMS photon or electron energy scales, and anyone building a crystal calorimeter calibration chain. It deserves a serious referee, and it already had one at JINST.

Referee report

Significance

This is a careful, well-instrumented detector-performance paper, and its central claims are supported by an unusually broad set of cross-checks. The intercalibration is not asserted from a single method: four handles with different systematics are combined, and the per-method uncertainties are extracted by solving three simultaneous equations for the pairwise variances (Section 4.2.4), then validated against beam-test and pre-calibration constants. The response corrections are cross-checked with eta -> gamma gamma (Fig. 3), with the E/p stability over 2011 (Fig. 4), and with the Z mass resolution versus time (Fig. 5). The photon scale is independently verified with Z -> mu mu gamma (Fig. 12). The paper is also candid about what it does not understand: the data-to-MC resolution discrepancy is stated openly, its likely origin in upstream material is identified, and the smeared H -> gamma gamma numbers are explicitly labelled an upper limit in Section 5.3. The falsifiable content is real: resolution versus eta and R9 in Figs. 13 and 15, and the linearity band of -0.2% to +0.2% over 30-110 GeV in Section 4.5.2, are predictions that later data can and did test.

Major objections (3)

[Abstract [abstract:s4] versus Section 5.3] The abstract states without qualification that 'the derived energy resolution for photons from 125 GeV Higgs boson decays varies across the barrel from 1.1% to 2.6% and from 2.2% to 5% in the endcaps.' Section 5.3 is more careful: 'In this approach the difference in resolution between data and simulation, observed using electrons of ET ~ 45 GeV from Z-boson decays, has been ascribed to the constant term in the resolution function. With this assumption, the results with smearing shown in Fig. 15 should be regarded as an upper limit to the resolution for photons from H -> gamma gamma decays.' The abstract therefore presents as a determination what the body presents as an upper limit resting on an energy-independence assumption. The paper itself flags the risk two sentences later: 'a component of the data to MC simulation difference is related to the interaction of electrons and photons with the material in front of ECAL, whose effect on the resolution has also an ET dependence.' Since the smearing is transported from ET ~ 45 GeV to ET ~ 60 GeV, a stochastic component in the difference would bias the quoted numbers. The abstract should carry the upper-limit caveat, or the numbers should be quoted with the ET-extrapolation assumption made explicit.
[Section 4.5.1 and abstract [abstract:s5]] The abstract says 'The calibration of the absolute energy is determined from Z to e+e- decays to a precision of 0.4% in the barrel and 0.8% in the endcaps.' Section 4.5.1 makes clear that G is not determined absolutely from Z -> e+e-: it is adjusted 'such that the fitted Z -> e+e- peak agrees with that of the MC simulation', and the MC absolute scale in turn descends from the beam-test equalization of a 5x5 matrix to the electron beam energy. The Z -> e+e- comparison is thus a transfer of the beam-test scale to the collision data, and the 0.4%/0.8% figures are the uncertainty on that transfer, dominated by the imperfect knowledge of F_e in the reference region. This is a sound procedure, but the abstract wording overstates its independence. I would ask that the abstract say the scale is transferred from the beam-test-calibrated simulation and cross-checked with Z -> e+e-, with 0.4%/0.8% the uncertainty on the transfer.
[Section 4.1.1 and Section 5.2] In the endcaps the response correction uses an 'effective' alpha of 1.16 for all BTCP crystals, chosen because it 'was shown to give the most stable and optimal mass resolution as a function of time by minimizing the resolution of the invariant mass for Z -> e+e- decays.' The same Z -> e+e- sample is then used in Section 5.2 and Table 1 to quote the endcap resolution. The paper does quantify the residual uncertainty on alpha (about 10%, translating to roughly 1.5% on average and up to 2.5% at |eta| ~ 2.5), which is commendable, but it does not state whether the alpha optimization and the resolution extraction use disjoint event samples or whether the optimization could bias the quoted resolution downward. A sentence clarifying the independence of the two steps, or a demonstration that the quoted endcap resolution is stable under a small variation of alpha around 1.16, would close this gap.

Minor objections (10)

[Section 4.1.1] The text states that alpha values of 1.52 and 1.0 were measured for BTCP and SIC crystals respectively, but the endcap correction is described as using an effective alpha of 1.16 'for all BTCP crystals.' It would help to state explicitly which producer's crystals populate the endcaps and what alpha is applied to any non-BTCP crystals there.
[Section 4.5.1] The statement 'In EE, the scaling is amplified by the reciprocal of the mean fractional energy deposited in EE' is too compressed to follow. Please add one sentence explaining why the endcap scale factor requires this amplification and what fraction is used.
[Abstract [abstract:s3] versus Fig. 13] The abstract says the electron resolution is '2-5% elsewhere,' but Fig. 13 shows bins in the endcaps for R9 < 0.94 reaching about 6%. Either the abstract range should be widened or the figure's high-eta behaviour should be reconciled with the quoted range in the text.
[Section 5.1] The text says the dielectron mass resolution is related to the single-electron resolution 'by an approximate scaling factor of sqrt(2).' It would be clearer to write the relation explicitly as sigma_E/E = sqrt(2) sigma_M/M for equal-energy electrons, which is what Eq. (7) implies, so the reader does not have to invert the factor.
[Section 4.3, Eq. (4)] The preshower coefficient G_ES is quoted as 0.023 +/- 0.002 (stat.) +/- 0.001 (syst.) GeV/MIP, with the systematic 'calculated assuming an uncertainty of 4% on the EE shower energy.' A brief indication of how that 4% was estimated would make the preshower error budget self-contained.
[Section 4.5.2] There is a typographical error: 'the mass resolution in Z -> e+e+ decays' should read 'Z -> e+e-'.
[Figure 14 caption] The caption reads 'ECAL Encaps'; this should be 'ECAL Endcaps'.
[Section 4.3] There is a missing space in 'therequired channel-to-channel calibration precision is 5%.'
[Reference [51]] The entry 'ATLAS and CMS Collaboration, M. Aleksa and M. Diemoz' mixes a collaboration name with individual author names in a way that is inconsistent with the rest of the bibliography; please regularize the format.
[Section 5] The constant-term budget is assembled piecewise across Sections 3, 4.1.2, 4.2.5 and 5.4 (temperature, high voltage, monitoring, alpha spread, intercalibration, residual response instability). A single consolidated table of these contributions, with their eta dependence, would make the resolution claims much easier to audit.

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

The paper

The paper claims

Using about 5 inverse femtobarns of 7 TeV proton-proton collisions, the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter achieves an electron energy resolution better than 2% in the central barrel and an absolute energy scale known to 0.4% there, with 2-5%e

The reading

The paper sets out to show that the CMS lead-tungstate electromagnetic calorimeter can be calibrated and its energy resolution measured from real 7 TeV proton-proton collisions, not just from beam tests, and that the calibration survives the radiation environment inside CMS. Using about 5 fb$^{-1}$ of 2010–2011 data, the collaboration ties the absolute energy scale to the Z boson mass and uses $Z$ decays, $W$ decays, and $�pi^0$ and $�eta$ mesons to equalize channels and track response changes. The payoff is a percent-level electron energy resolution and a known absolute scale, the ingredients that make the $H�to�gamma�gamma$ mass peak narrow enough to observe. The paper also reports that the simulation predicts a better resolution than the data, and it repairs the difference with an extra Gaussian smearing term whose size depends on pseudorapidity and shower shape.

What carries the argument

The organizing device is the factorized supercluster energy in Eq. (2), $E_{e,�gamma}=F_{e,�gamma}[G�sum_i S_i(t) C_i A_i + E_{�mathrm{ES}}]$, where $A_i$ is the pulse amplitude, $C_i$ the intercalibration constant, $S_i(t)$ the time-dependent response correction, $G$ the absolute ADC-to-GeV scale, $F_{e,�gamma}$ the shower-containment and material correction, and $E_{�mathrm{ES}}$ the preshower energy. The load-bearing sub-mechanism is the laser-monitoring relation $S(t)/S_0=(R(t)/R_0)^�alpha$, which converts a measured change in laser-light response into a correction for scintillation-light response; the exponent $�alpha$ is taken from beam tests for barrel crystals and replaced by an effective value fitted to collision data in the endcaps. Around this core sit the intercalibration methods—$�phi$ symmetry, $�pi^0/�eta�to�gamma�gamma$, and $E/p$—and the Z-boson lineshape fit that fixes $G$ and extracts $�sigma_{�mathrm{CB}}$.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, after in-situ calibration and radiation-response corrections, the CMS ECAL achieves an electron energy resolution better than 2% in the central barrel ($|�eta|<0.8$) and 2–5% elsewhere for electrons from Z boson decays, with an absolute energy scale determined from $Z�to e^+e^-$ to 0.4% in the barrel and 0.8% in the endcaps. The quoted photon resolution for 125 GeV Higgs boson decays, obtained from simulated $H�to�gamma�gamma$ events after applying the data-to-simulation smearing, ranges from 1.1% to 2.6% across the barrel and from 2.2% to 5% in the endcaps. The calibration chain combines single-channel intercalibration from $�phi$ symmetry, $�pi^0/�eta$ decays, and $E/p$ with laser-monitoring corrections for crystal transparency loss; the Z lineshape is fitted with a Breit–Wigner convolved with a Crystal Ball function to extract scale and resolution. The paper is explicit that the simulation alone gives a better resolution than data and that the quoted photon numbers include an additional smearing term derived from the electron data.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the change in each crystal's scintillation response can be inferred from its laser-light response through a power law with a single exponent per crystal—or, in the endcaps, a single effective exponent—so that the correction remains accurate as radiation damage accumulates.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The $H�to�gamma�gamma$ bump width used in the 125 GeV discovery can be quoted with an understood detector term, with photon resolution of 1.1–2.6% in the barrel and 2.2–5% in the endcaps after data-driven smearing.
The absolute energy scale is known to 0.4% in the barrel and 0.8% in the endcaps from $Z�to e^+e^-$, bounding the systematic error on resonance masses built from electrons and photons.
The laser-monitoring plus intercalibration chain provides a reusable procedure for maintaining calibration as radiation damage accumulates in later LHC runs.
The measured data-to-simulation resolution difference, and the need for an extra smearing term, identifies material modeling and shower simulation as the limiting ingredients for future improvements.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the endcap correction uses one effective $�alpha$ and the paper assigns a 0.5–2.5% resolution contribution from its uncertainty, the endcap photon resolution quoted here is likely dominated by calibration systematics rather than by the crystal calorimeter's intrinsic stochastic term.
If per-crystal $�alpha$ values were measured with the larger 2012 dataset, the endcap resolution could improve without any hardware change; that is a testable extrapolation of the monitoring method.
The fact that the $Z�to�mu�mu�gamma$ photon scale agrees with the electron-derived scale suggests the calibration is not electron-specific, but the 0.3% fitting-method uncertainty leaves room for a common photon scale shift at that level.

Original abstract

The energy calibration and resolution of the electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL) of the CMS detector have been determined using proton-proton collision data from LHC operation in 2010 and 2011 at a centre-of-mass energy of sqrt(s)=7 TeV with integrated luminosities of about 5 inverse femtobarns. Crucial aspects of detector operation, such as the environmental stability, alignment, and synchronization, are presented. The in-situ calibration procedures are discussed in detail and include the maintenance of the calibration in the challenging radiation environment inside the CMS detector. The energy resolution for electrons from Z-boson decays is better than 2% in the central region of the ECAL barrel (for pseudorapidity abs(eta)<0.8) and is 2-5% elsewhere. The derived energy resolution for photons from 125 GeV Higgs boson decays varies across the barrel from 1.1% to 2.6% and from 2.2% to 5% in the endcaps. The calibration of the absolute energy is determined from Z to e+e- decays to a precision of 0.4% in the barrel and 0.8% in the endcaps.

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, 5,181 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.02 · states limitation 0.23 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.03 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.99 · compares with prior results 0.07 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

The energy calibration and resolution of the electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL) of the CMS detector have been determined using proton-proton collision data from LHC operation in 2010 and 2011 at a centre-of-mass energy of sqrt(s)=7 TeV with integrated luminosities of about 5 inverse femtobarns. Crucial aspects of detector operation, such as the environmental stability, alignment, and synchronization, are presented. The in-situ calibration procedures are discussed in detail and include the maintenance of the calibration in the challenging radiation environment inside the CMS detector. The energy resolution for electrons from Z-boson decays is better than 2% in the central region of the ECAL barrel (for pseudorapidity abs(eta)<0.8) and is 2-5% elsewhere. The derived energy resolution for photons from 125 GeV Higgs boson decays varies across the barrel from 1.1% to 2.6% and from 2.2% to 5% in the endcaps. The calibration of the absolute energy is determined from Z to e+e- decays to a precision of 0.4% in the barrel and 0.8% in the endcaps.

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	The energy calibration and resolution of the electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL) of the CMS detector have been determined using proton-proton collision data from LHC operation in 2010 and 2011 at a centre-of-mass energy of sqrt(s)=7 TeV with integrated luminosities of about 5 inverse femtobarns.	method 0.51	0.94	0.08	asserted 1.00
s1	Crucial aspects of detector operation, such as the environmental stability, alignment, and synchronization, are presented.	method 0.79	0.60	0.03	asserted 0.92
s2	The in-situ calibration procedures are discussed in detail and include the maintenance of the calibration in the challenging radiation environment inside the CMS detector.	method 0.98	0.72	0.03	asserted 0.96
s3	The energy resolution for electrons from Z-boson decays is better than 2% in the central region of the ECAL barrel (for pseudorapidity abs(eta)<0.8) and is 2-5% elsewhere.	result 1.00	0.94	0.27	asserted 1.00
s4	The derived energy resolution for photons from 125 GeV Higgs boson decays varies across the barrel from 1.1% to 2.6% and from 2.2% to 5% in the endcaps.	result 1.00	0.94	0.13	asserted 1.00
s5	The calibration of the absolute energy is determined from Z to e+e- decays to a precision of 0.4% in the barrel and 0.8% in the endcaps.	result 0.99	0.95	0.18	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 0.98 · evidence from observation or experiment 0.59.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

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.** Layout of the CMS ECAL, showing the barrel supermodules, the two endcaps and

**Figure 2.** Relative response to laser light during 2011, normalized to data at the start of 2011.

**Figure 3.** Left: An example of the η-meson peak reconstructed from the invariant mass of photon pairs in EB, with the result of the fit with a Gaussian distribution (continuous line) and a polynomial function (dotted line); Right: Stability of the η → γγ mass measurement in EB as a function of time, over a period of 60 hours, for data recorded in September 2011. The plot shows the data with (green points) and without (red points) LM corrections applied. Isolated electrons from W-boson decays are used to provide an energy scale to validate response corrections over periods of days to weeks.…

**Figure 4.** Relative energy response variation for EB (top) and EE (bottom) determined from

**Figure 5.** Mass resolution for the reconstructed Z-boson peak, from Z

**Figure 6.** The intercalibration precision obtained in 2011 using

**Figure 7.** Energy scale factors from the E/p analysis of isolated electrons as a function of η for data and MC simulation. The shaded regions, corresponding to the EB/EE interface regions, are usually excluded from the acceptance for physics analyses. The relative differences between MC simulation and data, as a function of η, are used to derive a set of relative energy scale calibrations to be applied to data. limit of the electron and photon acceptance at |η| = 2.5. The variation of the precision with pseudorapidity arises partly from the size of the data sample, and partly from the amount…

**Figure 8.** Reconstructed invariant mass from Z → e +e − decays, for single-channel corrections set to unity (blue), for final intercalibration (red), and for both final intercalibration and LM corrections (black), in the EB (left) and the EE (right). 4.3 Calibration of the preshower The precision required for the calibration of the preshower is largely determined by the fraction of energy deposited in the ES with respect to that in the EE. Approximately 6–8% of the shower energy (decreasing with e/γ energy) is deposited in the ES. As a consequence, to limit the contribution to the combined EE+E

**Figure 9.** (left) shows the average value of the Fe correction function as a function of supercluster pseudorapidity evaluated from data using electrons from W-boson decays. Events with both low and high values of R9 are shown. The steep increase in the average value of the energy corrections between |η| ≈ 1 and |η| ≈ 2 is dominated by the effects of the tracker material

**Figure 10.** Reconstructed dielectron invariant mass for electrons from Z

**Figure 11.** The dielectron invariant mass distribution for Z-boson decays with both electrons

**Figure 12.** Invariant mass distribution of Z → µµγ events. Plots show MC simulation (top row) and data (bottom row) for EB photons with R9 ≥ 0.94, EB inclusive and EE inclusive categories. The relative mean deviation of the reconstructed photon energy from that expected from the decay kinematics, δ, and the mean energy resolution of the selected events are listed. The continuous lines show the fit results for the Z-boson lineshape convolved with a response function modelled from MC samples (see text for details)

**Figure 13.** Relative electron energy resolution in data and MC events unfolded in bins of

**Figure 14.** Distribution of the dielectron invariant mass for the default MC simulation (filled

**Figure 15.** Photon energy resolution in bins of pseudorapidity

Figures reproduced from arXiv:1306.2016 by the authors.

References

Works cited (53)

[1]

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
[2]

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

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/s08001 2008
[3]

C. Seez et al., “Photon decay modes of the intermediate mass Higgs”, in Proceedings of the Large Hadron Collider Workshop, G. Jarlskog and D. Rein, eds., p. 474. 1990. CERN References 31 90-10-V-2/ECFA 90-133-V-2

View on Pith 1990
[4]

CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC”, Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021

View on Pith doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021 2012
[5]

CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at√s = 7 and 8 TeV”, JHEP 06 (2013) 081, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2013)081

View on Pith doi:10.1007/jhep06(2013)081 2013
[6]

CMS Collaboration, “The Electromagnetic Calorimeter Project: Technical Design Report”, Technical Report CERN-LHCC-1997-033; CMS-TDR-4, (1997)

View on Pith 1997
[7]

CMS Collaboration, “Commissioning of the CMS Experiment and the Cosmic Run at Four Tesla”, JINST 5 (2010) T03001, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/5/03/T03001

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1748-0221/5/03/t03001 2010
[8]

CMS Collaboration, “Time reconstruction and performance of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter”, JINST 5 (2010) T03011, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/5/03/T03011

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1748-0221/5/03/t03011 2010
[9]

CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the muon stopping power of lead tungstate”, JINST 5 (2010) P03007, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/5/03/P03007

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1748-0221/5/03/p03007 2010
[10]

CMS Collaboration, “Performance and operation of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter”, JINST 5 (2010) T03010, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/5/03/T03010

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1748-0221/5/03/t03010 2010
[11]

S. Baccaro et al., “Radiation damage effect on avalanche photodiodes”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 426 (1999) 206, doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(98)01493-4

View on Pith doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(98)01493-4 1999
[12]

Z. Antunovic et al., “Radiation hard avalanche photodiodes for the CMS detector”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 537 (2005) 379, doi:10.1016/j.nima.2004.08.047

View on Pith doi:10.1016/j.nima.2004.08.047 2005
[13]

K. W. Bell et al., “Vacuum phototriodes for the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter endcap”, IEEE T rans. Nucl. Sci. 51 (2004) 2284, doi:10.1109/TNS.2004.836053

View on Pith doi:10.1109/tns.2004.836053 2004
[14]

E. Auffray et al., “Status of the PWO crystal production from Russia for CMS-ECAL”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 486 (2002) 111, doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(02)00685-X

View on Pith doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(02)00685-x 2002
[15]

R. H. Mao, L. Y. Zhang, and R. Y. Zhu, “Quality of mass-produced lead tungstate crystals”, IEEE T rans. Nucl. Sci. 51 (2004) 1777, doi:10.1109/TNS.2004.832561

View on Pith doi:10.1109/tns.2004.832561 2004
[16]

P . Adzic et al., “Radiation hardness qualiﬁcation of PbWO4 scintillation crystals for the CMS Electromagnetic Calorimeter”, JINST 5 (2010) P03010, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/5/03/P03010

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1748-0221/5/03/p03010 2010
[17]

CMS Collaboration, D. E. Leslie, “The effect of pulse rate on VPT response and the use of an LED light to improve stability”, in Proceedings of the 11th ICATPP Conference on Astroparticle, Particle, Space Physics, Detectors and Medical Applications . 2009

View on Pith 2009
[18]

M. Anfreville et al., “Laser monitoring system for the CMS lead tungstate crystal calorimeter”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 594 (2008) 292, doi:10.1016/j.nima.2008.01.104

View on Pith doi:10.1016/j.nima.2008.01.104 2008
[19]

L.-Y. Zhang et al., “Performance of the monitoring light source for the CMS lead tungstate crystal calorimeter”, IEEE T rans. Nucl. Sci. 52 (2005) 1123, doi:10.1109/TNS.2005.852661. 32 References

View on Pith doi:10.1109/tns.2005.852661 2005
[20]

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
[21]

P . Adzic et al., “Intercalibration of the barrel electromagnetic calorimeter of the CMS experiment at start-up”, JINST 3 (2008) P10007, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/10/P10007

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/10/p10007 2008
[22]

E. Auffray et al., “Crystal conditioning for high-energy physics detectors”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 486 (2002) 22, doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(02)00670-8

View on Pith doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(02)00670-8 2002
[23]

GEANT4 Collaboration, “GEANT4—a simulation toolkit”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8

View on Pith doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(03)01368-8 2003
[24]

J. Allison et al., “Geant4 developments and applications”, IEEE T rans. Nucl. Sci. 53 (2006) 270, doi:10.1109/TNS.2006.869826

View on Pith doi:10.1109/tns.2006.869826 2006
[25]

CMS Collaboration, “Electromagnetic calorimeter commissioning and ﬁrst results with 7 TeV data”, CMS Note CMS-NOTE-2010-012, (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[26]

CMS Collaboration, D. A. Petyt, “Anomalous APD signals in the CMS Electromagnetic Calorimeter”, in Proceedings of the International Conference on New Developments in Photodetection, NIPD11. 2012. doi:10.1016/j.nima.2011.10.025

View on Pith doi:10.1016/j.nima.2011.10.025 2012
[27]

P . Baillon et al., “Performance of the cooling system of the CMS ECAL”, in Proceedings of the 8th conference on Astroparticle, Particle and Space Physics, Detectors and Medical Applications, p. 203. World Scientiﬁc, 2003. doi:10.1142/9789812702708_0031

View on Pith doi:10.1142/9789812702708_0031 2003
[28]

A. Bartoloni et al., “High voltage system for the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 582 (2007) 462, doi:10.1016/j.nima.2007.08.220

View on Pith doi:10.1016/j.nima.2007.08.220 2007
[29]

P . Adzic et al., “Reconstruction of the signal amplitude of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter”, Eur. Phys. J. C 46 (2006) 23, doi:10.1140/epjcd/s2006-02-002-x

View on Pith doi:10.1140/epjcd/s2006-02-002-x 2006
[30]

CMS Collaboration, “CMS Physics: Technical Design Report Vol. 1: Detector Performance and Software”, TDR CERN-LHCC-2006-001; CMS-TDR-1, (2006)

View on Pith 2006
[31]

S. Bafﬁoni et al., “Electron reconstruction in CMS”, Eur. Phys. J. C 49 (2007) 1099, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-006-0175-5

View on Pith doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-006-0175-5 2007
[32]

CMS Collaboration, “Electron Reconstruction and Identiﬁcation at √s = 7 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-EGM-10-004, (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[33]

CMS Collaboration, “Search for the standard model Higgs boson decaying into two photons in pp collisions at√s = 7 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 710 (2012) 403, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.03.003

View on Pith doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.03.003 2012
[34]

A. Van Lysebetten and P . Verrecchia, “Performance and measurements of the light monitoring system for CMS-ECAL from 2002 test beam data”, CMS Rapid Note CMS-RN-2004-001, (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[35]

P . Adzic et al., “Results of the ﬁrst performance tests of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter”, Eur. Phys. J. C 44 (2006) 1, doi:10.1140/epjcd/s2005-02-011-3

View on Pith doi:10.1140/epjcd/s2005-02-011-3 2006
[36]

A. Ghezzi et al., “Analysis of the response evolution of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter under electron and pion irradiation”, CMS Note CMS-NOTE-2006-038, (2006). References 33

View on Pith 2006
[37]

F.-X. Gentit, “Litrani: a general purpose Monte-Carlo program simulating light propagation in isotropic or anisotropic media”, Nucl. Instr. Meth. A 486 (2002) 35, doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(02)00671-X

View on Pith doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(02)00671-x 2002
[38]

CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of inclusive W and Z cross sections in pp collisions at√s = 7 TeV”, JHEP 1101 (2011) 080, doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2011)080

View on Pith doi:10.1007/jhep01(2011)080 2011
[39]

M. J. Oreglia, “A study of the reactions ψ′→ γγψ”. PhD thesis, Stanford University,

View on Pith
[40]

CMS Collaboration, “Electromagnetic calorimeter calibration with 7 TeV data”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-EGM-10-003, (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[41]

D. Futyan and C. Seez, “Intercalibration of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter crystals in φ using symmetry of energy deposition”, J. Phys. G 29 (2003) 1299, doi:10.1088/0954-3899/29/6/326

View on Pith doi:10.1088/0954-3899/29/6/326 2003
[42]

U. Chaturvedi et al., “Results of L3 BGO calorimeter calibration using an RFQ accelerator”, IEEE T rans. Nucl. Sci. 47 (2000) 2101, doi:10.1109/23.903855

View on Pith doi:10.1109/23.903855 2000
[43]

L. Agostino et al., “Intercalibration of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter with isolated electrons”, J. Phys. G 33 (2007) N67, doi:10.1088/0954-3899/34/3/N02

View on Pith doi:10.1088/0954-3899/34/3/n02 2007
[44]

P . Aspell et al., “Results from the 1999 Beam Test of a Preshower Prototype”, CMS Note CMS-NOTE-2000-001, (2000)

View on Pith 2000
[45]

CMS Collaboration, “Photon reconstruction and identiﬁcation at √s = 7 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-EGM-10-005, (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[46]

Particle Data Group, J. Beringer et al., “Review of Particle Physics”, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 010001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.010001

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.86.010001 2012
[47]

CMS Collaboration, “Altered scenarios of the CMS Tracker material for systematic uncertainties studies”, CMS Note CMS-NOTE-2010-010, (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[48]

CMS Collaboration, “Studies of Tracker Material in the CMS Detector”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-TRK-10-003, (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[49]

M. Rosenblatt, “Remarks on some nonparametric estimates of a density function”, Ann. Math. Statist. 27 (1956) 832, doi:10.1214/aoms/1177728190

View on Pith doi:10.1214/aoms/1177728190 1956
[50]

E. Parzen, “On estimation of a probability density function and mode”, Ann. Math. Statist. 33 (1962) 1065, doi:10.1214/aoms/1177704472

View on Pith doi:10.1214/aoms/1177704472 1962
[51]

ATLAS and CMS Collaboration, M. Aleksa and M. Diemoz, “Discussion of the electromagnetic calorimeters of ATLAS and CMS”, in Proceedings of the 13th Vienna Conference on Instrumentation, VCI 2013 . 2013. doi:10.1016/j.nima.2013.05.195i

View on Pith doi:10.1016/j.nima.2013.05.195i 2013
[52]

CMS Collaboration, T. Tabarelli de Fatis, “Role of the CMS Electromagnetic Calorimeter in the hunt for the Higgs boson in the two-gamma channel”, in Proceedings of the XVth International Conference on Calorimetry in High Energy Physics, CALOR2012 . 2012. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/404/1/012002. 34 References 35 A The CMS Collaboration Yerevan Physics Institute...

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1742-6596/404/1/012002 2012
[1980]

SLAC Report SLAC-R-236, see Appendix D

View on Pith

Forward citations

Cited by 45 Pith papers

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

A No-Lose Theorem for Discovering the New Physics of $(g-2)_\mu$ at Muon Colliders
hep-ph 2021-01 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

Under perturbative unitarity, flavour protection, and naturalness assumptions, the lightest new charged particle explaining the muon g-2 anomaly must lie below roughly 10 TeV, within reach of a proposed multi-TeV muon...
Search for the associated production of the Higgs boson with a top-quark pair
hep-ex 2014-08 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

Combining six CMS search channels, the ttH production rate is measured at 2.8 +/- 1.0 times the standard model value, a 3.4 standard deviation excess over background that is driven mainly by same-sign dimuon events.
Letter of intent for ALICE 3: A next-generation heavy-ion experiment at the LHC
physics.ins-det 2022-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

ALICE proposes a silicon-only, high-rate, wide-acceptance detector that would extend heavy-flavour, dilepton and ultra-soft-photon measurements of the quark-gluon plasma down to transverse momenta no current LHC exper...
Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC
hep-ex 2020-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

CMS measures 2 to 5% electron energy resolution, sub-0.1% barrel energy scale uncertainty, and 200 ps timing for electrons from Z decays across 136 fb^-1 of 13 TeV Run 2 data.
A measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the diphoton decay channel
hep-ex 2020-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

CMS measures the Higgs boson mass in the diphoton channel to be 125.78 ± 0.26 GeV and, combined with other channels and Run 1 data, 125.38 ± 0.14 GeV.

Show 40 more citing papers

Search for a standard model-like Higgs boson in the mass range between 70 and 110 GeV in the diphoton final state in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 8 and 13 TeV
hep-ex 2018-11 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Combining 8 and 13 TeV CMS diphoton data, no significant excess is found between 80 and 110 GeV; limits reach 0.17 to 1.13 times the standard-model Higgs rate, with a 2.8 sigma local bump at 95.3 GeV.
Search for a charged Higgs boson decaying to charm and bottom quarks in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV
hep-ex 2018-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

No charged Higgs boson decaying to charm and bottom quarks is observed in 8 TeV CMS data, and 95% CL upper limits of 0.8-0.5% are set on B(t -> H+ b) for masses 90-150 GeV.
Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV
hep-ex 2016-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

CMS achieves a jet energy scale uncertainty of 0.32% for 165-330 GeV central jets at 8 TeV, with a complete correlated uncertainty model and a measured jet energy resolution of 15-20% at 30 GeV falling to 5% at 1 TeV.
Study of W boson production in pPb collisions at sqrt(s[NN]) = 5.02 TeV
nucl-ex 2015-03 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The first W boson measurement in proton-lead collisions at 5.02 TeV yields differential cross sections and charge and forward-backward asymmetries that agree only marginally with nuclear-modified parton distribution p...
Performance of the CMS missing transverse energy reconstruction in pp data at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV
physics.ins-det 2014-11 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Two pileup-mitigated missing transverse energy algorithms and a chi-squared significance variable are calibrated on 19.7 fb^-1 of 8 TeV CMS data, cutting the pileup dependence of the resolution while remaining well de...
Search for Displaced Supersymmetry in events with an electron and a muon with large impact parameters
hep-ex 2014-09 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

No excess of displaced opposite-charge electron-muon pairs appears in 19.7 inverse femtobarns of 8 TeV CMS data, excluding pair-produced top squarks below 790 GeV for lifetimes near c tau = 2 cm at 95% confidence.
Observation of the diphoton decay of the Higgs boson and measurement of its properties
hep-ex 2014-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

CMS observes the Higgs boson decaying to two photons at 5.7 sigma local significance and measures its mass to 124.70 +/- 0.34 GeV and signal strength to 1.14 +0.26/-0.23 relative to the standard model.
Measurement of the properties of a Higgs boson in the four-lepton final state
hep-ex 2013-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

CMS reports mass 125.6 GeV, width below 3.4 GeV, signal strength 0.93 times the Standard Model, and spin-parity consistent with a scalar for the new boson in H to ZZ to 4l.
Measurement of associated W + charm production in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV
hep-ex 2013-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

CMS reports the first LHC measurement of W plus charm-jet production, giving total cross sections of 107.7 and 84.1 pb for two lepton thresholds and a W+/W- ratio near 0.95, the first direct LHC constraint on proton s...
Simplified fast detector simulation in MadAnalysis 5
hep-ph 2020-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A transfer-function detector emulator built into MadAnalysis 5 reproduces Delphes 3 predictions to about ten percent for Standard Model and supersymmetry samples, at lower CPU cost and much smaller output size.
Probing the Scale of New Physics in the $ZZ\gamma$ Coupling at $e^+e^-$ Colliders
hep-ph 2019-02 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Angular distributions and beam polarization in e+e- to Z gamma let future lepton colliders probe the dimension-8 ZZ-gamma new-physics scale up to roughly 2 to 3 TeV.
Search for resonant $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ production in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV
hep-ex 2018-10 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No resonance appears in the top-antitop mass spectrum of 35.9 inverse femtobarns of 13 TeV CMS data, excluding leptophobic Z-prime bosons up to 3.80, 5.25, and 6.65 TeV for widths of 1, 10, and 30 percent, and Kaluza-...
Tricking Landau-Yang: How to obtain the diphoton excess from a vector resonance
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A new Z' boson decaying to a photon plus a GeV-scale scalar, whose two photons merge in the calorimeter, can reproduce the 750 GeV diphoton excess without violating the Landau-Yang theorem.
Rays of light from the LHC
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A lone 750 GeV resonance cannot account for the LHC diphoton excess; at least one additional new state is required, and four concrete model classes are viable.
Search for vector-like charge 2/3 T quarks in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV
hep-ex 2015-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

No excess of vector-like T quark pairs is observed in five CMS final states at 8 TeV, and a statistical combination excludes T quark masses below 720 to 920 GeV at 95% confidence depending on decay branching fractions.
Search for resonant t t-bar production in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV
hep-ex 2015-06 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No resonant excess appears in 19.7 fb^-1 of 8 TeV CMS data, excluding narrow topcolor Z' resonances below 2.4 TeV, 10%-width Z' below 2.9 TeV, and Randall-Sundrum Kaluza-Klein gluons below 2.8 TeV at 95% confidence.
Searches for third-generation squark production in fully hadronic final states in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV
hep-ex 2015-03 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No excess appears in three complementary CMS hadronic searches, and top squarks below about 560 GeV and bottom squarks below about 650 GeV are excluded at 95% confidence when the lightest neutralino is nearly massless.
Performance of photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV
physics.ins-det 2015-02 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

CMS achieves roughly 1% photon energy resolution in the ECAL barrel for unconverted or late-converting photons from H to gamma gamma decays at 8 TeV, with data-to-simulation identification efficiencies agreeing at the...
Search for long-lived particles that decay into final states containing two electrons or two muons in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV
hep-ex 2014-11 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No displaced dilepton events were observed in 19.6-20.5 fb^-1 of 8 TeV CMS data, yielding 95% CL upper limits of roughly 0.2-50 fb on long-lived particle production across lifetimes of 0.01-100 cm.
Search for new phenomena in monophoton final states in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV
hep-ex 2014-10 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No excess over standard-model predictions in monophoton events; 95% CL upper limits of 14 fb on the cross section, plus new bounds on dark matter, ADD extra dimensions, and branon models.
Search for a standard model-like Higgs boson in the mu+ mu- and e+ e- decay channels at the LHC
hep-ex 2014-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

CMS observes no Higgs decays to muon or electron pairs at 125 GeV and sets 95% CL upper limits of 7.4 times (muons) and about 3.7e5 times (electrons) the Standard Model rate.
Identification techniques for highly boosted W bosons that decay into hadrons
hep-ex 2014-10 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

A pruned jet mass window of 60 to 100 GeV plus N-subjettiness tau2/tau1 below 0.5 tags boosted hadronic W bosons with about 65% efficiency and 96% background rejection at 500 GeV, with a data-to-simulation efficiency ...
Searches for electroweak neutralino and chargino production in channels with Higgs, Z, and W bosons in pp collisions at 8 TeV
hep-ex 2014-09 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No evidence for electroweak higgsino or chargino-neutralino pair production in 8 TeV CMS data; 95% CL limits exclude higgsinos below 380 GeV in the ZZ topology and chargino-neutralino masses up to 210 GeV for a light LSP.
Search for physics beyond the standard model in final states with a lepton and missing transverse energy in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV
hep-ex 2014-08 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No deviation from the standard model is seen in the lepton plus missing-energy channel, giving a 95% CL lower limit of 3.28 TeV on a sequential-standard-model W' boson and limits on contact interactions, dark matter, ...
Measurement of jet fragmentation in PbPb and pp collisions at sqrt(s[NN]) = 2.76 TeV
nucl-ex 2014-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Jets produced in central lead-lead collisions fragment differently from jets in proton-proton collisions, with a roughly 50% excess of charged particles below 3 GeV inside the jet cone.
Search for top-squark pairs decaying into Higgs or Z bosons in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV
hep-ex 2014-05 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No excess over standard model backgrounds is seen in LHC 8 TeV data for heavy top-squark pairs decaying via Higgs or Z bosons, excluding m_stop2 below 575 GeV for m_stop1 below 400 GeV at 95% confidence.
Search for massive resonances decaying into pairs of boosted bosons in semi-leptonic final states at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV
hep-ex 2014-05 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No resonance appears in semi-leptonic WW, ZZ, or WZ final states; 95% CL upper limits on bulk graviton production fall from 700 to 10 femtobarns as the resonance mass rises from 600 to 2500 GeV.
Measurement of Higgs boson production and properties in the WW decay channel with leptonic final states
hep-ex 2013-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

CMS observes a 4.3-sigma excess in H to WW with a signal strength of 0.72 relative to the standard model, and finds the data favor spin-parity 0+ over 2+ or 0-.
Inclusive search for a vector-like T quark with charge 2/3 in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV
hep-ex 2013-11 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No evidence for a vector-like T quark appears in 19.5 fb^-1 of 8 TeV CMS data, and masses between 687 and 782 GeV are excluded across all branching fractions to bW, tZ, and tH.
Measurement of the differential and double-differential Drell-Yan cross sections in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV
hep-ex 2013-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

CMS reports differential and first-of-kind double-differential Drell-Yan cross sections in 7 TeV pp collisions, with the Z-peak cross section at 986.4 pb and spectra compared to NNLO QCD using several PDF sets.
Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3
physics.ins-det 2023-09 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

The CMS Collaboration documents the Run 3 configuration of its detector, covering the replaced innermost pixel layer, new calorimeter and muon electronics, an added GEM station, and a GPU-based high-level trigger, tog...
Measurement of the differential Drell-Yan cross section in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV
hep-ex 2018-12 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

CMS measured the Drell-Yan dilepton differential cross section at 13 TeV over 15 to 3000 GeV and found it agrees with NNLO standard-model predictions within uncertainties.
Measurements of Higgs boson properties in the diphoton decay channel in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV
hep-ex 2018-04 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

The Higgs boson signal strength in the diphoton channel is measured to be 1.18 (+0.17/-0.14) relative to the standard model, with per-production-mode strengths and coupling modifiers also extracted.
Search for two Higgs bosons in final states containing two photons and two bottom quarks in proton-proton collisions at 8 TeV
hep-ex 2016-03 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

No excess of Higgs boson pairs in the two-photon plus two-bottom-quark final state is observed in 8 TeV CMS data, and 95% confidence limits exclude a radion below 980 GeV and an RS1 KK graviton between 325 and 450 GeV.
Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV
physics.ins-det 2015-02 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

CMS achieves sub-0.3% electron momentum scale calibration and 1.7-4.5% momentum resolution for Z boson electrons at 8 TeV, with data and simulation agreeing within about 10%.
Search for dark matter, extra dimensions, and unparticles in monojet events in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV
hep-ex 2014-08 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

No excess of monojet events was observed in 19.7 fb^-1 of 8 TeV CMS data, and the resulting limits improve on previous collider constraints for dark matter, large extra dimensions, and unparticles.
Search for new physics in the multijet and missing transverse momentum final state in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV
hep-ex 2014-02 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

No excess over standard model backgrounds was observed in 36 multijet-plus-missing-momentum search regions, excluding gluino masses up to about 1.2 TeV and squark masses below 780 GeV in simplified supersymmetry models.
Measurement of inclusive W and Z boson production cross sections in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV
hep-ex 2014-02 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

CMS measures inclusive W and Z production cross sections at 8 TeV: 12.21 nanobarns for W and 1.15 nanobarns for Z, both consistent with NNLO QCD predictions.
Overview of high-density QCD studies with the CMS experiment at the LHC
nucl-ex 2024-05 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

CMS synthesizes its 2010-2018 heavy-ion results into a single case that the quark-gluon plasma is a strongly coupled liquid, that jets and quarkonia are suppressed in it in ordered ways, and that collective behavior e...
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

110 later papers cite it

Evidence: substantial. 23 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 13 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 29 of the 159 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

14 papers by the same authors are listed below: 11 used its method or tool and 4 used its data or values. 1 of them appears under more than one label.

Uses its method or tool 11 of 53 papers with this label · 11 by the same authors

By the same authors

The energy of a photon is calculated by summing the calibrated and corrected energy [ref] of all crystals in the associated supercluster, and the energy deposited in the preshower in the region $1.65 <η < 2.6$ covered by this detector.

A measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the diphoton decay channel (2020) (same authors) · Photon energy calibration · 0.95
Reconstructed photon candidates from ECAL energy deposits by grouping its channels into superclusters as in this paper.

Measurement of differential cross sections for the production of a pair of isolated photons in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV (2014) (same authors) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
The energy of photons is computed from the sum of the energy of the clustered crystals, calibrated and corrected for changes in the response over time [ref] and considered in the clustering procedure.

Measurements of Higgs boson properties in the diphoton decay channel in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV (2018) (same authors) · Photon energy · 0.98
Assessed its corrections using dielectron events, comparing data and simulation invariant mass across four eta regions and two electron categories over 50 running periods, following this paper's procedure.

Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV (2015) (same authors) · 0.95 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
The energy of photons is computed from the sum of the energies of the clustered crystals, calibrated and corrected for degradation in the crystal response over time [ref] .

Measurement of differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon and photon+jet production in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV (2018) (same authors) · The CMS detector · 0.95
Calibrated and corrected calorimeter signals for several detector effects as in this paper to obtain the best energy resolution.

Observation of the diphoton decay of the Higgs boson and measurement of its properties (2014) (same authors) · 0.97 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
The energy scale is extracted for data and simulation from the mean of the distribution of a per-event estimator [ref] defined as $s=(m_^2-m_^2)/(m_^2-m_^2))-1$, where $m_$ denotes the nominal boson mass.

Performance of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV (2024) (same authors) · The ECAL energy scale and resolution performance · 0.96
Calibrated the ECAL by exploiting the phi symmetry of the energy flow and using photons and electrons from decays, as in this paper.

Search for diphoton resonances in the mass range from 150 to 850 GeV in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV (2015) (same authors) · 0.95 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Derived corrections as a function of time to account for time-dependent crystal transparency loss as in this paper.

Measurement of the properties of a Higgs boson in the four-lepton final state (2013) (same authors) · 0.90 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Started offline electron reconstruction by building superclusters in the ECAL as in this paper to collect bremsstrahlung energy radiated in the tracker material.

Measurement of the differential and double-differential Drell-Yan cross sections in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV (2013) (same authors) · 0.99 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Extracted an electron energy scale correction by fitting the energy-to-momentum ratio of electrons in a pure control sample as in this paper.

Study of Z boson production in pPb collisions at sqrt(s[NN]) = 5.02 TeV (2015) (same authors) · 0.98 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

Uses its data or values 4 of 30 papers with this label · 4 by the same authors

By the same authors

Used this paper's ECAL scale uncertainty of 0.5% for electrons at eta below 2.4 in determining the JES relative to muons, electrons and photons.

Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV (2016) (same authors) · 0.98 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Used this paper's result that photon energy resolution is better than 5% over the relevant range.

A study of final-state radiation in decays of Z bosons produced in pp collisions at 7 TeV (2015) (same authors) · 0.87 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Used this paper's average measured drop in energy response before crystal calibrations of about 2% to 3% in the barrel, rising to 20% for 2.1 to 2.5 in pseudorapidity.

Measurement of the properties of a Higgs boson in the four-lepton final state (2013) (same authors) · 0.81 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Estimated the lepton energy scale uncertainty by varying electron energy scale by plus or minus 0.5%, as estimated from measured and simulated Z-boson comparisons in this paper.

Measurements of the t t-bar charge asymmetry using the dilepton decay channel in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV (2014) (same authors) · 0.95 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

102 arXiv papers cite this in 149 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 · 48 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 51 papers

The energy of a photon is calculated by summing the calibrated and corrected energy [ref] of all crystals in the associated supercluster, and the energy deposited in the preshower in the region $1.65 <η < 2.6$ covered by this detector.

A measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the diphoton decay channel · Photon energy calibration · 0.95
The absolute energy scale and the residual long term drifts in the response are further corrected using $→$ decays [ref] .

Measurement of differential cross sections for the production of a pair of isolated photons in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV · Photon reconstruction · 0.96
The energy of photons is computed from the sum of the energy of the clustered crystals, calibrated and corrected for changes in the response over time [ref] and considered in the clustering procedure.

Measurements of Higgs boson properties in the diphoton decay channel in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV · Photon energy · 0.98

Uses its data or values 28 papers

The JES is determined relative to precisely measured muons, electrons, and photons, with a tracker scale uncertainty of 0.2% for muons at $η<2.4$ [ref] , an ECAL scale uncertainty of 0.5% for electrons at $η<2.4$ [ref] , and 0.2% for photons at $η<1.3$ [ref] .

Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV · $$+jet and $γ$+jet balance · 0.98
The photon energy resolution is better than 5% for the range of pertinent to this analysis [ref] .

A study of final-state radiation in decays of Z bosons produced in pp collisions at 7 TeV · The CMS detector and event samples · 0.87
The accounted systematic uncertainties include $$ energy resolution (JER) (10%) [ref] , photon energy resolution (PER) (0.5%) [ref] , jet energy scale (JES) ($1.0-1.4%$) [ref] , photon energy scale (PES) (1.5%) [ref] , and uncertainty in the integrated luminosity (2.6%) [ref] .

Search for excited quarks in the photon+jet final state in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV · Results · 0.95

Compares with it 2 papers

It is also a factor of 1.5–2 better than the performance of the state-of-the-art homogeneous crystal ECALs in CMS [ref] and Belle [ref] experiments.

Prospects for $B^0_{(s)}\to\pi^0\pi^0$ and $B^0_{(s)}\to\eta\eta$ modes and corresponding $CP$ asymmetries at Tera-$Z$ · Simulation samples and detector modeling · 0.94
These resolutions are significantly worse than those of crystal ECALs [ref] .

The Future Circular Collider: a Summary for the US 2021 Snowmass Process · Calorimetry · 0.89

Cites it as background 3 papers

The energy calibration and resolution in the ECAL were discussed in Ref. [ref] , and general issues in track reconstruction in Ref. [ref] .

Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV · Introduction · 0.99
While the principles and methods of the ECAL calibration have not changed and are described in Ref. [ref] , a brief summary and update is given here to help discuss the results.

Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3 · Channel calibration and synchronization · 0.86
Using electrons for the absolute energy calibration of an electromagnetic calorimeters is a widely used approach [ref] .

Calibration of the photon spectrometer PHOS of the ALICE experiment · Calibration using identified electrons · 0.80

What it cites · 15 sentences without a confident label

Uses the method or tool of 1 paper

Electrons are selected if their transverse energy is larger than 25as described in [ref] .

Measurements of Inclusive W and Z Cross Sections in pp Collisions at sqrt(s)=7 TeV · Energy scale calibration with $→$ events · 0.92

Cites as support 2 papers

The achievements on the energy resolution played a vital part in enabling CMS to observe a new boson with a mass of 125 [ref] .

Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC · Conclusions · 0.97
The achievements on the energy resolution played a vital part in enabling CMS to observe a new boson with a mass of 125 [ref] .

Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 and 8 TeV · Conclusions · 0.97

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]

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

[2] [2]

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

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/s08001 2008

[3] [3]

C. Seez et al., “Photon decay modes of the intermediate mass Higgs”, in Proceedings of the Large Hadron Collider Workshop, G. Jarlskog and D. Rein, eds., p. 474. 1990. CERN References 31 90-10-V-2/ECFA 90-133-V-2

View on Pith 1990

[4] [4]

CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC”, Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021

View on Pith doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021 2012

[5] [5]

CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at√s = 7 and 8 TeV”, JHEP 06 (2013) 081, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2013)081

View on Pith doi:10.1007/jhep06(2013)081 2013

[6] [6]

CMS Collaboration, “The Electromagnetic Calorimeter Project: Technical Design Report”, Technical Report CERN-LHCC-1997-033; CMS-TDR-4, (1997)

View on Pith 1997

[7] [7]

CMS Collaboration, “Commissioning of the CMS Experiment and the Cosmic Run at Four Tesla”, JINST 5 (2010) T03001, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/5/03/T03001

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1748-0221/5/03/t03001 2010

[8] [8]

CMS Collaboration, “Time reconstruction and performance of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter”, JINST 5 (2010) T03011, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/5/03/T03011

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1748-0221/5/03/t03011 2010

[9] [9]

CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the muon stopping power of lead tungstate”, JINST 5 (2010) P03007, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/5/03/P03007

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1748-0221/5/03/p03007 2010

[10] [10]

CMS Collaboration, “Performance and operation of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter”, JINST 5 (2010) T03010, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/5/03/T03010

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1748-0221/5/03/t03010 2010

[11] [11]

S. Baccaro et al., “Radiation damage effect on avalanche photodiodes”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 426 (1999) 206, doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(98)01493-4

View on Pith doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(98)01493-4 1999

[12] [12]

Z. Antunovic et al., “Radiation hard avalanche photodiodes for the CMS detector”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 537 (2005) 379, doi:10.1016/j.nima.2004.08.047

View on Pith doi:10.1016/j.nima.2004.08.047 2005

[13] [13]

K. W. Bell et al., “Vacuum phototriodes for the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter endcap”, IEEE T rans. Nucl. Sci. 51 (2004) 2284, doi:10.1109/TNS.2004.836053

View on Pith doi:10.1109/tns.2004.836053 2004

[14] [14]

E. Auffray et al., “Status of the PWO crystal production from Russia for CMS-ECAL”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 486 (2002) 111, doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(02)00685-X

View on Pith doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(02)00685-x 2002

[15] [15]

R. H. Mao, L. Y. Zhang, and R. Y. Zhu, “Quality of mass-produced lead tungstate crystals”, IEEE T rans. Nucl. Sci. 51 (2004) 1777, doi:10.1109/TNS.2004.832561

View on Pith doi:10.1109/tns.2004.832561 2004

[16] [16]

P . Adzic et al., “Radiation hardness qualiﬁcation of PbWO4 scintillation crystals for the CMS Electromagnetic Calorimeter”, JINST 5 (2010) P03010, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/5/03/P03010

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1748-0221/5/03/p03010 2010

[17] [17]

CMS Collaboration, D. E. Leslie, “The effect of pulse rate on VPT response and the use of an LED light to improve stability”, in Proceedings of the 11th ICATPP Conference on Astroparticle, Particle, Space Physics, Detectors and Medical Applications . 2009

View on Pith 2009

[18] [18]

M. Anfreville et al., “Laser monitoring system for the CMS lead tungstate crystal calorimeter”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 594 (2008) 292, doi:10.1016/j.nima.2008.01.104

View on Pith doi:10.1016/j.nima.2008.01.104 2008

[19] [19]

L.-Y. Zhang et al., “Performance of the monitoring light source for the CMS lead tungstate crystal calorimeter”, IEEE T rans. Nucl. Sci. 52 (2005) 1123, doi:10.1109/TNS.2005.852661. 32 References

View on Pith doi:10.1109/tns.2005.852661 2005

[20] [20]

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

[21] [21]

P . Adzic et al., “Intercalibration of the barrel electromagnetic calorimeter of the CMS experiment at start-up”, JINST 3 (2008) P10007, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/10/P10007

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/10/p10007 2008

[22] [22]

E. Auffray et al., “Crystal conditioning for high-energy physics detectors”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 486 (2002) 22, doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(02)00670-8

View on Pith doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(02)00670-8 2002

[23] [23]

GEANT4 Collaboration, “GEANT4—a simulation toolkit”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8

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

[24] [24]

J. Allison et al., “Geant4 developments and applications”, IEEE T rans. Nucl. Sci. 53 (2006) 270, doi:10.1109/TNS.2006.869826

View on Pith doi:10.1109/tns.2006.869826 2006

[25] [25]

CMS Collaboration, “Electromagnetic calorimeter commissioning and ﬁrst results with 7 TeV data”, CMS Note CMS-NOTE-2010-012, (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[26] [26]

CMS Collaboration, D. A. Petyt, “Anomalous APD signals in the CMS Electromagnetic Calorimeter”, in Proceedings of the International Conference on New Developments in Photodetection, NIPD11. 2012. doi:10.1016/j.nima.2011.10.025

View on Pith doi:10.1016/j.nima.2011.10.025 2012

[27] [27]

P . Baillon et al., “Performance of the cooling system of the CMS ECAL”, in Proceedings of the 8th conference on Astroparticle, Particle and Space Physics, Detectors and Medical Applications, p. 203. World Scientiﬁc, 2003. doi:10.1142/9789812702708_0031

View on Pith doi:10.1142/9789812702708_0031 2003

[28] [28]

A. Bartoloni et al., “High voltage system for the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 582 (2007) 462, doi:10.1016/j.nima.2007.08.220

View on Pith doi:10.1016/j.nima.2007.08.220 2007

[29] [29]

P . Adzic et al., “Reconstruction of the signal amplitude of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter”, Eur. Phys. J. C 46 (2006) 23, doi:10.1140/epjcd/s2006-02-002-x

View on Pith doi:10.1140/epjcd/s2006-02-002-x 2006

[30] [30]

CMS Collaboration, “CMS Physics: Technical Design Report Vol. 1: Detector Performance and Software”, TDR CERN-LHCC-2006-001; CMS-TDR-1, (2006)

View on Pith 2006

[31] [31]

S. Bafﬁoni et al., “Electron reconstruction in CMS”, Eur. Phys. J. C 49 (2007) 1099, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-006-0175-5

View on Pith doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-006-0175-5 2007

[32] [32]

CMS Collaboration, “Electron Reconstruction and Identiﬁcation at √s = 7 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-EGM-10-004, (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[33] [33]

CMS Collaboration, “Search for the standard model Higgs boson decaying into two photons in pp collisions at√s = 7 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 710 (2012) 403, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.03.003

View on Pith doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.03.003 2012

[34] [34]

A. Van Lysebetten and P . Verrecchia, “Performance and measurements of the light monitoring system for CMS-ECAL from 2002 test beam data”, CMS Rapid Note CMS-RN-2004-001, (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[35] [35]

P . Adzic et al., “Results of the ﬁrst performance tests of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter”, Eur. Phys. J. C 44 (2006) 1, doi:10.1140/epjcd/s2005-02-011-3

View on Pith doi:10.1140/epjcd/s2005-02-011-3 2006

[36] [36]

A. Ghezzi et al., “Analysis of the response evolution of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter under electron and pion irradiation”, CMS Note CMS-NOTE-2006-038, (2006). References 33

View on Pith 2006

[37] [37]

F.-X. Gentit, “Litrani: a general purpose Monte-Carlo program simulating light propagation in isotropic or anisotropic media”, Nucl. Instr. Meth. A 486 (2002) 35, doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(02)00671-X

View on Pith doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(02)00671-x 2002

[38] [38]

CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of inclusive W and Z cross sections in pp collisions at√s = 7 TeV”, JHEP 1101 (2011) 080, doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2011)080

View on Pith doi:10.1007/jhep01(2011)080 2011

[39] [39]

M. J. Oreglia, “A study of the reactions ψ′→ γγψ”. PhD thesis, Stanford University,

View on Pith

[40] [40]

CMS Collaboration, “Electromagnetic calorimeter calibration with 7 TeV data”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-EGM-10-003, (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[41] [41]

D. Futyan and C. Seez, “Intercalibration of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter crystals in φ using symmetry of energy deposition”, J. Phys. G 29 (2003) 1299, doi:10.1088/0954-3899/29/6/326

View on Pith doi:10.1088/0954-3899/29/6/326 2003

[42] [42]

U. Chaturvedi et al., “Results of L3 BGO calorimeter calibration using an RFQ accelerator”, IEEE T rans. Nucl. Sci. 47 (2000) 2101, doi:10.1109/23.903855

View on Pith doi:10.1109/23.903855 2000

[43] [43]

L. Agostino et al., “Intercalibration of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter with isolated electrons”, J. Phys. G 33 (2007) N67, doi:10.1088/0954-3899/34/3/N02

View on Pith doi:10.1088/0954-3899/34/3/n02 2007

[44] [44]

P . Aspell et al., “Results from the 1999 Beam Test of a Preshower Prototype”, CMS Note CMS-NOTE-2000-001, (2000)

View on Pith 2000

[45] [45]

CMS Collaboration, “Photon reconstruction and identiﬁcation at √s = 7 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-EGM-10-005, (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[46] [46]

Particle Data Group, J. Beringer et al., “Review of Particle Physics”, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 010001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.010001

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.86.010001 2012

[47] [47]

CMS Collaboration, “Altered scenarios of the CMS Tracker material for systematic uncertainties studies”, CMS Note CMS-NOTE-2010-010, (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[48] [48]

CMS Collaboration, “Studies of Tracker Material in the CMS Detector”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-TRK-10-003, (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[49] [49]

M. Rosenblatt, “Remarks on some nonparametric estimates of a density function”, Ann. Math. Statist. 27 (1956) 832, doi:10.1214/aoms/1177728190

View on Pith doi:10.1214/aoms/1177728190 1956

[50] [50]

E. Parzen, “On estimation of a probability density function and mode”, Ann. Math. Statist. 33 (1962) 1065, doi:10.1214/aoms/1177704472

View on Pith doi:10.1214/aoms/1177704472 1962

[51] [51]

ATLAS and CMS Collaboration, M. Aleksa and M. Diemoz, “Discussion of the electromagnetic calorimeters of ATLAS and CMS”, in Proceedings of the 13th Vienna Conference on Instrumentation, VCI 2013 . 2013. doi:10.1016/j.nima.2013.05.195i

View on Pith doi:10.1016/j.nima.2013.05.195i 2013

[52] [52]

CMS Collaboration, T. Tabarelli de Fatis, “Role of the CMS Electromagnetic Calorimeter in the hunt for the Higgs boson in the two-gamma channel”, in Proceedings of the XVth International Conference on Calorimetry in High Energy Physics, CALOR2012 . 2012. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/404/1/012002. 34 References 35 A The CMS Collaboration Yerevan Physics Institute...

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1742-6596/404/1/012002 2012

[53] [1980]

SLAC Report SLAC-R-236, see Appendix D

View on Pith