Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Beam-beam effects on the luminosity measurement at FCC-ee

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read FCC-ee beam-beam fields will bias the luminosity measurement by about 0.19% at the Z pole, and the paper shows how two in-situ observables can bring the residual below 10^-4.

desk verdict A careful, internally consistent simulation study that quantifies the beam-beam luminosity bias at FCC-ee and proposes two plausible correction methods, but the claimed sub-1e-4 residual rests on an Acol calibration that has not yet been shown to survive LumiCal acceptance and clustering. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01698 v3 pith:4YYYURNZ submitted 2019-08-05 hep-ex physics.acc-ph

Georgios Voutsinas , Emmanuel Perez , Mogens Dam , Patrick Janot This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-exphysics.acc-ph
keywords beam-beameffectsluminositymeasurementBhabhascatteringFCC-eeLumiCalacollinearityZpolesystematicuncertainty
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that at FCC-ee the strong electromagnetic fields of the counter-rotating bunches focus the outgoing electrons and positrons of low-angle Bhabha scattering toward the beam axis, so fewer leptons enter the LumiCal acceptance than the Bhabha cross-section predicts. At the Z pole this acceptance loss biases the measured luminosity by about $0.19\%$, roughly twenty times the $10^{-4}$ target precision, and the bias shifts when bunch parameters change during a fill. The paper claims that the bias is tightly and linearly correlated with two measurable observables: the transverse-momentum kick the initial-state particles receive from the opposite bunch (which effectively enlarges the crossing angle) and an acollinearity variable $A_{\rm col}$ defined by the azimuthal modulation of the final-state lepton directions. It then proposes two ways to turn one of those observables into a correction: a dimuon-based measurement of the crossing-angle increase in the central detector, and an in-situ measurement of $A_{\rm col}$ with the luminometer alone, extrapolated during the machine ramp-up. Each method determines the correction factor with $1$--$2\%$ relative accuracy, leaving a residual absolute luminosity uncertainty below $10^{-4}$, which would remove a dominant systematic obstacle to the FCC-ee Z-line-shape programme.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the angular focusing $\Delta\theta_{\rm FS}$ of a final-state Bhabha lepton in the field of the opposite-charge bunch, computed with a particle-tracking simulation and cross-checked by a numerical integration of the averaged Lorentz force from a Gaussian bunch. Equation (3.2) converts the deflection at the acceptance edges into the fractional luminosity bias, so the entire correction ultimately rests on how accurately $\Delta\theta_{\rm FS}$ is known as a function of polar angle, azimuth, energy, and bunch parameters. The measurement side is carried by the acollinearity variable $A_{\rm col}$, defined as the difference in the mean electron--positron acollinearity between the two azimuthal hemispheres; it is dominated by the initial-state $p_x$ kick and is mapped to the luminosity bias through calibration curves computed with the same simulation chain. A supporting relation is the power law $A_{\rm col}\propto N_m/\sigma_m^a$ with $a\simeq 0.72$, which lets ramp-up data be extrapolated to nominal conditions while separating the beam-induced component from a constant misalignment component.

What would settle it

A concrete check would be to measure $A_{\rm col}$ and the Bhabha counting rate during the ramp-up at several bunch intensities and test whether the bias extracted from the simulated $A_{\rm col}$-to-bias mapping agrees with the measured rate changes; a disagreement larger than the quoted uncertainties, or a visible curvature in the bias-versus-$p_x$ relation, would falsify the linear-calibration claim. A complementary simulation check would be to run the radiative Bhabha sample through a full LumiCal cluster reconstruction and verify that the resulting bias falls between the leading-order and loose-cut brackets used in the paper.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Stated on the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that beam-beam focusing reduces the LumiCal counting rate for Bhabha events at the Z pole by about $0.19\%$, twenty times the $10^{-4}$ precision target, and that this bias can be corrected rather than merely estimated. The reduction is governed by Eq. (3.2), which translates the simulated angular deflection of final-state leptons at the acceptance edges into a relative rate change. The paper shows that the bias is a single-valued, essentially linear function of the initial-state $p_x$ kick and of the acollinearity observable $A_{\rm col}$ across wide variations of bunch intensity, bunch length, transverse sizes, beam offsets, and vertical crossing-angle errors, with all simulated points inside a $\pm 10^{-4}$ band around a straight line. It therefore concludes that a measurement of either observable---the dimuon crossing-angle increase in one case, $A_{\rm col}$ in the other---determines the luminosity correction factor with a relative accuracy of $1$--$2\%$, and that combining the methods leaves the absolute luminosity uncertainty below $10^{-4}$ and the point-to-point uncertainty on the Z-energy scan near $10^{-5}$.

Load-bearing premise

The correction strategy assumes that the simulated calibration curves---computed with a Gaussian-bunch model and nominal beam parameters, using radiative events that are bracketed but not fully cluster-simulated---correctly transfer to the real machine for every fill, and if that transfer fails the claimed residual below $10^{-4}$ would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $0.19\%$ acceptance bias would dominate the luminosity error if left uncorrected, so a working correction is a prerequisite for the Z-line-shape physics programme at FCC-ee.
  • A measurement of the crossing-angle increase from dimuon events, already needed for the centre-of-mass energy calibration, gives the luminosity correction factor to $2\%$ relative accuracy.
  • The $A_{\rm col}$ observable can be measured with the luminometer alone; a few hundred Bhabha events per azimuthal hemisphere already provide $5\%$ statistical precision, allowing per-fill in-situ monitoring.
  • During the machine ramp-up, $A_{\rm col}$ scales as $N_m/\sigma_m^{0.72}$, so a linear fit separates the beam-induced component from a constant misalignment component and determines the beam-induced slope with $1$--$2\%$ precision.
  • Pilot bunches at reduced intensity can perform the same separation in about ten minutes while losing less than $0.5\%$ of the luminosity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper itself, the same $A_{\rm col}$-versus-bias calibration could be validated early in commissioning by comparing the corrected luminosity from two independent acceptance settings or from a movable luminometer edge, giving a data-driven check before precision running starts.
  • The linear bias-versus-$p_x$ mapping suggests that the method transfers to the higher-energy FCC-ee stages, where beam parameters differ but the same ramp-up extrapolation can be repeated; the radiative-bracket uncertainty should be re-evaluated there.
  • An implication the paper leaves implicit is that $A_{\rm col}$ measurements can double as a continuous alignment monitor: any measured component that does not scale with bunch intensity can be converted into an equivalent horizontal displacement of the luminometer, with a $5\,\mu$m scale at which the misalignment contribution becomes negligible.
  • A full simulation of radiative Bhabha events with LumiCal cluster reconstruction is the most direct way to close the gap between the leading-order and loose-cut brackets; the paper's residual-uncertainty claim depends on the true value lying inside that band.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper quantifies the effect of the electromagnetic fields of the counter-rotating bunches on the low-angle Bhabha cross section used for the FCC-ee luminosity measurement. The authors derive Eq. (3.2), which converts the simulated focusing deflection at the acceptance edges into a luminosity bias; with the nominal Z-pole parameters this bias is about -0.19%, roughly twenty times the target precision. They validate the deflection calculation with two independent tools, Guinea-Pig and a Bassetti-Erskine numerical integration, study convergence with slice number and integration time, and show a linear correlation between the bias and both the initial-state px kick (Fig. 10) and an acollinearity variable Acol (Fig. 12). They propose two correction schemes: measuring the crossing-angle increase with dimuon events (Section 4) and measuring Acol with the LumiCal during the machine ramp-up or with pilot bunches (Section 5). The claimed outcome is a residual absolute luminosity uncertainty below 10^-4.

Significance. If the claimed residual precision is met, the paper solves a critical systematic for the FCC-ee Z-pole programme. The central calculation is credible: Eq. (3.2) follows from the 1/theta^3 counting integral and reproduces the quoted 0.19% bias with the stated deflections, and the agreement between two independent field calculations to better than about 10%, with documented convergence checks, gives confidence in the size and sign of the effect. The proposal of two experimentally measurable observables, the initial-state px kick and Acol, is a genuine step beyond a purely simulation-based correction. However, the headline claim that the correction can be determined with 1-2% relative accuracy, and hence with residual below 10^-4, is currently supported only by calibrations computed inside the same simulation framework and without a full LumiCal acceptance and clustering study for radiative Bhabha events. The required additional work is specific and, in my view, feasible; it does not undermine the main physics message but does affect the strength of the final claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1, Eq. (5.1), Fig. 12] The Acol calibration is built from generated-level, pre-LumiCal quantities: Section 3.3.3 states that the BHWIDE-based points are obtained from final-state charged leptons with only a 5 GeV cut, ignoring LumiCal clustering. The actual Acol is measured from events that pass the LumiCal asymmetric acceptance and cluster reconstruction. Because the total beam-induced deflection is strongly azimuth-dependent (about +150 microrad at phi=0 and -50 microrad at phi=pi for theta*=64 mrad, as shown in Fig. 11), the acceptance cut removes a phi-dependent subset of the event sample, so the mean Delta(theta+-) over the selected events is not the same as the mean over the generated theta* distribution used for Fig. 12. This selection distortion is not quantified. Since a 1% shift in Acol corresponds to roughly 2e-5 in the luminosity bias through the Fig. 12 mapping, the residual below 10^-4 claim requires either demonstrating that the distortion is negligible or including it in the calibration.
  2. [Section 3.3.3] The bracketing assumption that the true luminosity bias and Acol for radiative Bhabha events lie between the leading-order and the loose-cut BHWIDE determinations is stated as an expectation, not derived or checked. Cluster merging may compensate for collinear radiation, but clustering-dependent losses near the LumiCal inner and outer edges need not fall between those two extremes. Because both proposed correction methods use this assumption when converting a measured observable into a bias, the paper should either provide the LumiCal-level simulation with cluster reconstruction or explicitly include the unquantified bracket as a systematic uncertainty in the final residual budget.
  3. [Section 5.2.1, Fig. 15] The ramp-up demonstration is a closure test rather than a validation: the text states that the fitted slope and intercept are equal to the input values by construction. Likewise, the +/-10^-4 bands shown in Figs. 10 and 12 are envelopes of simulated parameter variations, not estimates of the absolute accuracy of the Guinea-Pig/Bassetti-Erskine model. The claimed 1-2% accuracy of the correction therefore still depends on the unvalidated fidelity of the bunch-field model for the real machine. An externally anchored cross-check, or a quantitative model-dependence study, is needed before the residual below 10^-4 statement can be accepted.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 13] The fit annotation in Fig. 13 is garbled in the printed caption and axis label; please restate the fitted function explicitly and label the normalization and the exponent separately.
  2. [Section 5.1] The statement that a few hundreds of events suffice for a 5% relative Acol measurement should quote the assumed Bhabha rate and the polar-angle resolution explicitly, so the reader can check the statistical scaling.
  3. [Section 4, Eq. (4.1)] Please define Ebeam immediately before Eq. (4.1) and state whether it is the nominal beam energy or the energy including the kick; the sign convention for kx is also not specified.
  4. [Section 3.1.1] The description of the default Guinea-Pig settings is ambiguous: after describing one grid with 750 slices and seven grids with 300 slices, the phrase 'the latter setting' should be rephrased to identify the intended configuration explicitly.
  5. [Section 2] The fiducial angular range is given as 62-88 mrad and the narrow acceptance as 64-86 mrad; please state explicitly that these are the wide and narrow acceptances, respectively, to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the beam-beam luminosity bias, the initial-state kick, and Acol are distinct observables linked by an explicit simulation calibration, not by definition.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: compute the final-state angular focusing ΔθFS with Guinea-Pig and with the Bassetti-Erskine numerical integration, insert it into Eq. (3.2) to obtain the counting-rate bias, and then correlate that bias with two independently measurable observables, the initial-state px kick (via dimuon crossing-angle measurements) and the Bhabha acollinearity Acol (Eq. 5.1), using the calibration curves of Figs. 10 and 12. None of these quantities is defined in terms of the luminosity bias, and the correlation is a simulated prediction rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a measurement. Acol is a measurable angular difference between the e− and e+ final states, while the bias is an edge-counting acceptance effect; the Fig. 12 relation is therefore an in-model calibration, not an identity. The dimuon method of Section 4 cites Ref. [15] for the 2% accuracy on the crossing-angle increase; although one author overlaps, that measurement is external to the present paper's fitted values and uses a different final state, so it is independent support rather than a circular import. Section 3.3.3 explicitly defers full LumiCal clustering simulation and brackets radiative-Bhabha effects between leading-order and loose-cut BHWIDE determinations; this is an acknowledged model-dependence and uncertainty limitation, not a circular step. The Fig. 15 closure test even labels its fitted slope and intercept as equal to the input values 'by construction', but that is a validation of the fitting procedure, not the source of the physical prediction. The remaining concerns about simulation validity for the real machine belong to correctness risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities; Acol is a constructed observable rather than an invented object. The free-parameter content is modest: two power-law fit constants and the calibration slopes, all obtained from the paper's own simulations. The heavier assumptions are the Gaussian-bunch field model, the validity of the simulation calibrations for the real machine, the radiation bracket, and the imported delta_alpha accuracy from Ref. [15].

free parameters (3)
  • Exponent a of the Acol scaling law, Acol proportional to Nm/sigma_m^a = a = 0.727 +- 0.008 (power-law fit in Fig. 13)
    Fitted to Guinea-Pig predictions of Acol versus bunch length; the ramp-up extrapolation in Section 5.2.1 scales the beam-induced component with sigma_s to the power a, and the paper assigns an uncertainty of +-0.03 on a to propagate a 2% systematic on the fitted slope.
  • Normalization constant of the Acol power-law fit = 1.335 +- 0.026 (fit in Fig. 13)
    Companion fitted constant of the same power law; it enters the definition of the scaled variable Nm/sigma_m^a normalised to its nominal value.
  • Slopes of the linear calibrations between the bias and the px kick (Fig. 10) and between the bias and Acol (Fig. 12) = Not quoted numerically
    These fitted slopes are the conversion factors that turn the measured observables into the luminosity correction; the +-10^-4 residual band around the fits is treated as the calibration's systematic envelope.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The bunches are Gaussian, so Bassetti-Erskine formulas give the coherent fields, and all beam-beam effects are described by the classical Lorentz force on test particles.
    Used by the numerical integration (Section 3.1.2) and, in discretized macro-particle form, by Guinea-Pig (Section 3.1.1). Never directly verified against data because the machine does not exist yet; the two codes agree to about 10%.
  • domain assumption The ultra-relativistic (beta = 1) approximation for beam particles, so electric and magnetic forces from the opposite-charge bunch add and forces from the same-charge bunch cancel.
    Stated in the Section 2 footnote; it is the basis for the focusing picture in Fig. 1 and for the px kick of Section 3.2.
  • domain assumption Guinea-Pig's single-grid setting with linear-charge continuation outside the grid reproduces the deflection within about 10% for the LumiCal angular range.
    Justified internally in Section 3.3.2 by agreement with the numerical integration; the convergence in slice count (about 700 slices) and tracking time (0.7 sigma_s/c) is documented.
  • ad hoc to paper For radiative Bhabha events, the true luminosity bias and Acol lie between the leading-order and the loose-cut BHWIDE determinations.
    Stated as an expectation in Section 3.3.3 because the full LumiCal simulation with cluster reconstruction is deferred; the final precision claims inherit this bracket.
  • ad hoc to paper Acol separates linearly into a misalignment part, independent of bunch intensity, and a beam-induced part proportional to Nm/sigma_m^a.
    Central ansatz of Section 5.2.1, used to fit the ramp-up data; justified by the linearity of the Lorentz force in N and validated only within Guinea-Pig (Fig. 14 closure test).
  • domain assumption The dimuon-based measurement of the beam-beam crossing-angle increase delta_alpha reaches about 2% relative accuracy.
    Imported from Ref. [15], a companion paper with overlapping authorship; Section 4 uses it to claim 2% accuracy on the luminosity correction factor without rederiving it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beam-beam effects on the luminosity measurement at FCC-ee." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4YYYURNZ

@misc{pith2026190801698,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beam-beam effects on the luminosity measurement at FCC-ee},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4YYYURNZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01698}
}
abstract

The first part of the physics programme of the integrated FCC (Future Circular Colliders) proposal includes measurements of Standard Model processes in $e^+e^-$ collisions (FCC-ee) with an unprecedented precision. In particular, the potential precision of the Z lineshape determination calls for a very precise measurement of the absolute luminosity, at the level of 1E-4, and the precision on the relative luminosity between energy scan points around the Z pole should be an order of magnitude better. The luminosity is principally determined from the rate of low-angle Bhabha interactions, $e^+e^- \to e^+e^-$, where the final state electrons and positrons are detected in dedicated calorimeters covering small angles from the outgoing beam directions. Electromagnetic effects caused by the very large charge density of the beam bunches affect the effective acceptance of these luminometers in a nontrivial way. If not corrected for, these effects would lead, at the Z pole, to a systematic bias of the measured luminosity that is more than one order of magnitude larger than the desired precision. In this note, these effects are studied in detail, and methods to measure and correct for them are proposed.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. An Optimal Transportation Approach for Improved Confidence Intervals

    stat.ME 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Optimal-transport couplings are used to construct confidence intervals that reduce coverage error relative to classical quantile-based intervals, with consistency theory and data-driven hyperparameters.

  2. Beam-beam effects on the luminosity measurement at LEP and the number of light neutrino species

    hep-ex 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Beam-beam focusing of Bhabha final-state leptons biased LEP luminosity measurements by about 0.1%, and correcting it raises the LEP light-neutrino count from 2.9840 ± 0.0082 to 2.9918 ± 0.0081.

  3. Electromagnetic deflection effects in the integrated luminosity measurement at the CEPC

    hep-ex 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Beam-induced electromagnetic deflection would shift CEPC's Z-pole luminosity count by ~6×10⁻³ if uncorrected — about 60 times the 10⁻⁴ precision target — with corrections computable from simulation and anchored on a µ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Future Circular Collider - European Strategy Update Documents: The FCC integrated programme (FCC-int)

    M. Benedikt, A. Blondel, O. Brunner, M. Capeans Garrido, F. Cerutti, J. Gutleber et al., “Future Circular Collider - European Strategy Update Documents: The FCC integrated programme (FCC-int).”https://cds.cern.ch/record/2653673, Jan, 2019

    work page arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Abada et al.,FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider, The European Physical Journal Special Topics228 (Jun, 2019) 261–623

    FCC collaboration, A. Abada et al.,FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider, The European Physical Journal Special Topics228 (Jun, 2019) 261–623

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Abbiendi et al.,Precision luminosity for Z0 line shape measurements with a silicon tungsten calorimeter, Eur

    OPALcollaboration, G. Abbiendi et al.,Precision luminosity for Z0 line shape measurements with a silicon tungsten calorimeter, Eur. Phys. J.C14 (2000) 373–425, [hep-ex/9910066]

    arXiv 2000

  4. [4]

    B. F. L. Ward, S. Jadach, W. Placzek, M. Skrzypek and S. A. Yost,Path to the0.01% Theoretical Luminosity Precision Requirement for the FCC-ee (and ILC), inInternational – 21 – Workshop on Future Linear Colliders (LCWS 2018) Arlington, Texas, USA, October 22-26, 2018, 2019, 1902.05912

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Rimbault, P

    C. Rimbault, P. Bambade, K. Monig and D. Schulte,Impact of beam-beam effects on precision luminosity measurements at the ILC, JINST 2 (2007) P09001

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Beam-Beam Simulations with GUINEA-PIG

    D. Schulte, “Beam-Beam Simulations with GUINEA-PIG.” CERN-PS-99-014-LP, http://cds.cern.ch/record/382453, Mar, 1999

    1999

  7. [7]

    M. Boscolo et al.,Machine detector interface for thee+e− future circular collider, in Proceedings, 62nd ICFA Advanced Beam Dynamics Workshop on High Luminosity Circular e+e− Colliders (eeFACT2018): Hong Kong, China, September 24-27, 2018, p. WEXBA02, 2019, 1905.03528, DOI

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    J. F. Crawford, E. B. Hughes, L. H. O’Neill and R. E. Rand,A Precision Luminosity Monitor for Use at electron-Positron Storage Rings, Nucl. Instrum. Meth.127 (1975) 173–182

    work page 1975

Show all 19 references
  1. [9]

    Barbiellini, B

    G. Barbiellini, B. Borgia, M. Conversi and R. Santonico,A monitoring system to measure the absolute luminosity of a machine operating withe+e− colliding beams, Atti Accad. Naz. Lincei 144 (1968) 233

    1968

  2. [10]

    Jadach, W

    S. Jadach, W. Placzek and B. F. L. Ward,BHWIDE 1.00: O(alpha) YFS exponentiated Monte Carlo for Bhabha scattering at wide angles for LEP-1 / SLC and LEP-2, Phys. Lett. B390 (1997) 298–308, [hep-ph/9608412]

    1997 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Closed Expression for the Electrical Field of a Two-dimensional Gaussian Charge

    M. Bassetti and G. A. Erskine, “Closed Expression for the Electrical Field of a Two-dimensional Gaussian Charge.” CERN-ISR-TH/80-06, https://cds.cern.ch/record/122227, 1980

    1980

  4. [12]

    Beam-beam dynamics

    E. Keil, “Beam-beam dynamics.” CERN-SL-94-78-AP, Advanced accelerator physics. Proceedings, 5th Course of the CERN Accelerator School, Rhodos, Greece, September 20-October 1, 1993. Vol. 1, 2,Conf. Proc.C9309206 (1993) 539–547, https://cds.cern.ch/record/269336

    1993

  5. [13]

    Hahn,CUBA: A Library for multidimensional numerical integration, Comput

    T. Hahn,CUBA: A Library for multidimensional numerical integration, Comput. Phys. Commun. 168 (2005) 78–95, [hep-ph/0404043]

    2005 arXiv

  6. [14]

    T. M. Karbach, G. Raven and M. Schiller,Decay time integrals in neutral meson mixing and their efficient evaluation, 1407.0748

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Blondel, P

    A. Blondel, P. Janot, J. Wenninger, R. Assman, S. Aumon, P. Azzurri et al.,Polarization and Centre-of-mass Energy Calibration at FCC-ee, 1909.12245

    1909 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Agostinelli et al.,GEANT4: A Simulation toolkit, Nucl

    GEANT4 collaboration, S. Agostinelli et al.,GEANT4: A Simulation toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506 (2003) 250–303

    2003

  9. [17]

    Sadeh,Luminosity Measurement at the International Linear Collider, Ph.D

    I. Sadeh,Luminosity Measurement at the International Linear Collider, Ph.D. thesis, Tel Aviv U., 2010.1010.5992

    2010

  10. [18]

    Zimmermann,Collider Beam Physics, Rev

    F. Zimmermann,Collider Beam Physics, Rev. Accel. Sci. Tech.7 (2014) 177–205

    2014

  11. [19]

    Voutsinas, E

    G. Voutsinas, E. Perez, M. Dam and P. Janot,Beam-beam effects on the luminosity measurement at LEP and the number of light neutrino species,to be published in Phys. Lett. B., 1908.01704. – 22 –

    1908 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.