Physics Performance and Detector Requirements at an Asymmetric Higgs Factory

Antoine Laudrain; Benno List; Carl Mikael Berggren; Christian Schwanenberger; Christophe Grojean; Frank Gaede; Jenny List; J\"urgen Reuter; Karsten Buesser; Ties Behnke

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Physics Performance and Detector Requirements at an Asymmetric Higgs Factory

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An asymmetric Higgs factory can run with a detector largely clear of beam-induced backgrounds.

desk verdict Solid, honest detector R&D milestone for HALHF: new geometry and full simulation clear simulated beam backgrounds, but quantitative rates and accelerator-beam parameter feasibility are still unquantified. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14313 v1 pith:6OPUBXMW submitted 2024-11-21 hep-ex physics.ins-det

Antoine Laudrain , Ties Behnke , Carl Mikael Berggren , Karsten Buesser , Frank Gaede , Christophe Grojean , Benno List , Jenny List

show 2 more authors

Jürgen Reuter Christian Schwanenberger

This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-exphysics.ins-det

keywords HALHFplasmawakefieldaccelerationasymmetricHiggsfactorybeam-inducedbackgroundselectron-positronpairsILDdetectorforwardoptimizationfullsimulation

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

HALHF is a proposed Higgs factory that would collide a 500 GeV electron beam (accelerated by plasma wakefields) with a 31.3 GeV positron beam to reach $\sqrt{s}=250$ GeV in a facility roughly 3--4 km long instead of the 20 km ILC. That energy asymmetry makes the physics boosted and fills the detector with low-momentum electron-positron pairs from the beam-beam interaction. This paper argues that with an updated, asymmetric set of beam parameters and with a detector derived from the ILD but extended and reshaped in the forward region, the bulk of those backgrounds stays clear of the active detector, with a small safety margin. It also reports that this improved layout has been implemented in a full simulation, opening the way to further forward-region improvements such as a dedicated additional magnetic field. The practical significance is a detector-level check that a compact, cheaper asymmetric Higgs factory is not blocked by beam backgrounds.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the apex-trajectory map: beam-induced electron-positron pairs have low transverse momentum, so in the experiment's 5 T solenoidal field they spiral; plotting the apex of each trajectory in the $x$--$z$ plane shows exactly where, if anywhere, a pair would hit the detector. The optimized object is the 'improved e-ILD' layout, a modified forward-extended version of the ILD; the map is the criterion that fixes its dimensions --- doubled TPC length, lengthened barrel calorimeters, forward vertex-detector extension, rescaled forward tracking disks, downstream-shifted forward calorimeters, and a 5 mm clearance around the beam pipe. The same machinery allows quick checks of alternative forward layouts and, because the layout has been carried into a full simulation, exploration of non-solenoidal field components in the forward region.

What would settle it

Run the paper's beam-background simulation at the stated nominal parameters plus realistic pulse-to-pulse jitter (for example $N_e$ increased by 20% or $\sigma_{z,p}$ shortened to $200\,\mu$m) and overlay the pair apex map on the improved e-ILD geometry: if any apex falls inside the 5 mm clearance band or hits a detector element, the claimed margin does not survive realistic beam jitter.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is that an 'improved e-ILD' detector --- the ILD with a doubled TPC (4700 mm versus 2350 mm), longer barrel calorimeters, an extended forward vertex detector, rescaled forward tracking disks, forward calorimeters moved downstream, and a 5 mm clearance around the beam pipe --- clears the detector of the bulk of beam-induced pairs for the chosen HALHF beam parameters ($N_e=3\times10^{10}$, $N_p=1.33\times10^{10}$, $\sigma_{z,e}=75\,\mu$m, $\sigma_{z,p}=300\,\mu$m) at 5 T, with a small margin. The pair background consists of low-transverse-momentum electron-positron pairs created in the beam-beam interaction; plotting the apex of their spiral trajectories in the $x$--$z$ plane shows that they hit the standard ILD but miss the improved geometry. The improved layout has been implemented in a modified ILD full simulation, and boosted $Z(\mu\mu)H$ Monte Carlo samples have been produced, allowing realistic reconstruction studies to follow. The paper presents this as a milestone toward a full simulation study of HALHF, including a possible second magnetic field in the forward region to improve muon momentum resolution.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands on the assumption that the plasma-based electron accelerator and the conventional positron linac can actually deliver and keep stable the chosen beam parameters ($N_e=3\times10^{10}$, $N_p=1.33\times10^{10}$, $\sigma_{z,e}=75\,\mu$m, $\sigma_{z,p}=300\,\mu$m); if those beams cannot be produced as specified, the background pattern, and with it the claimed clearance, changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At the specified beam parameters, the HALHF interaction region can operate without saturating its central tracker or forward calorimeters with beam-induced pairs, so physics analyses such as $e^+e^- \to Z(\mu\mu)H$ can proceed in the boosted topology.
The earlier fast-simulation finding that doubling the barrel length recovers most of the lost physics performance (benchmarked on the Higgs mass measurement) is carried over to the improved layout, since the TPC and barrel calorimeters are the doubled-size ones.
With the full simulation in place, the forward muon lever arm can be increased by introducing a second magnetic field, and the effect on reconstruction can be studied realistically.
Boosted versions of existing ILC Monte Carlo samples can be reused at HALHF, so the large sample production effort does not have to be repeated from scratch.

Reading between the lines

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

If the background clearance survives realistic beam jitter, the same apex-map method could be used to push the detector even closer to the interaction point, which would extend forward acceptance further than the current layout.
The success of the boosted-sample reuse suggests a practical division of labor: a plasma-based Higgs factory could share event generation and reconstruction tooling with the ILC, lowering the software cost of the smaller machine.
A second forward magnetic field designed to improve muon momentum would itself bend pair backgrounds; a natural next test would be to re-run the apex map with the combined field map to check that the clearance margin is preserved.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a genuine, useful step for HALHF detector studies, and the paper is honest about what is still missing. The new content is real: an updated e-ILD geometry (doubled TPC, extended VXD/FTD, repositioned forward calorimeters, 5 mm clearance) and a full Geant4/DD4HEP implementation, with beam parameters tweaked to push backgrounds out of the detector volume. The apex plot in Fig. 2 is a clean visual demonstration that the bulk of Guinea-Pig pair backgrounds miss the improved layout, and the event display shows the extended tracking volume working. The claim is modest, not overreaching - reconstruction with boosted events is explicitly ongoing work. Credit where due: standard simulation chain, external benchmarks from ILD studies, no suspicious fitting of outputs to inputs, and the self-citation to [4] is appropriate because they are extending their own prior layout.

The soft spots are the ones you'd expect from an ICHEP proceedings, but they are soft, not fatal. First, there is no quantitative occupancy or dose rate anywhere. The apex plot is suggestive, not a specification; a detector can be free of pair hits at the vertex region and still have unacceptable hit rates in forward calorimeters or on the beam pipe. Second, the beam parameters N_e=3e10, N_p=1.33e10, sigma_z,e=75 um, sigma_z,p=300 um are presented as chosen without an accelerator-dynamics citation. That is a legitimate gap: the whole clearance claim depends on those numbers, and the stress-test note is right that they may not be deliverable by the PWFA electron arm and RF positron linac as designed. But I wouldn't call it a load-bearing flaw in the paper, since the paper is a detector study and explicitly assumes HALHF R&D succeeds; it would just be much better to label these as provisional and give the source or the uncertainty. Third, the physics-performance recovery from the earlier Higgs-mass benchmark is deferred, so the title promises more than the content delivers - though the text says this clearly.

The citation pattern looks fine. The paper is a milestone for HALHF detector work, not a final answer. Its main value is for the HALHF collaboration and for detector folks working on asymmetric or forward-boosted colliders. A serious referee should see it; the right outcome is publication after the authors add a few numbers (pair rates per bunch, minimum distance of approach, a sentence on beam-parameter uncertainty) and soften the title or clarify that physics benchmarks are future work. I'd bring it to a reading group as a good example of detector-background-driven optimization done in public, but I wouldn't cite it in my own work yet, since the quantitative answer is still pending.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper describes a detector concept for the proposed HALHF asymmetric Higgs factory, where 500 GeV electrons from a plasma wakefield accelerator collide with 31 GeV positrons from a conventional RF linac. Starting from the ILD detector and an earlier "extended-ILD" fast-simulation study, the authors define an updated set of beam parameters (N_e=3e10, N_p=1.33e10, sigma_z,e=75 um, sigma_z,p=300 um) and an "improved e-ILD" geometry with a longer TPC, extended barrel calorimeters, a more forward vertex detector, rescaled forward tracking disks, and relocated forward calorimeters. Using Guinea-Pig simulations of beam-induced electron-positron pairs, they show apex plots suggesting that the improved layout clears the detector of the bulk of such pairs. They also report implementation of the modified detector in a Geant4/DD4HEP full simulation, and mention ongoing work on boosted ILC datasets and forward-region magnetic-field optimization. No quantitative physics performance results are presented.

Significance. If the background-clearance claim is quantitatively confirmed, the paper provides a valuable first concrete detector layout for HALHF and demonstrates a path from fast simulation to full simulation, including a detector geometry that can later support an additional forward magnetic field. The authors use standard, widely accepted simulation tools (Guinea-Pig, SGV, DD4HEP/Geant4) and benchmark against ILD experience, which lends credibility to the qualitative picture. The main value is as a proof-of-concept milestone for detector design at an asymmetric Higgs factory, but the current evidence is predominantly visual and lacks the quantitative metrics needed to support the central claim.

major comments (4)

[Section 2, Fig. 2] The central claim that the improved e-ILD layout "cleared the detector of the bulk of beam backgrounds, even adding a small margin" is supported only by an apex plot of pair trajectories. No quantitative occupancy, hit density, energy deposition, dose rate, or safety factor is reported for any subdetector or for the beam pipe. Without these numbers, the clearance claim is not established; the apex position alone does not show how many pairs enter the TPC, VXD, or calorimeters, nor whether the 5 mm clearance is sufficient given uncertainties in the simulation. Please provide quantitative background rates and compare them to detector occupancy and radiation-damage limits.
[Section 2, paragraph 2] The updated beam parameters (N_e=3e10, N_p=1.33e10, sigma_z,e=75 um, sigma_z,p=300 um) are presented as a choice made to reduce backgrounds, but no accelerator or beam-dynamics reference is given to show that the HALHF PWFA electron arm and the RF positron linac can deliver these values. The background pattern and the claimed clearance margin depend directly on these parameters. If, for example, the electron bunch length or charge cannot be held at these values, the Guinea-Pig pair distribution and the 5 mm clearance in Fig. 2 may change qualitatively. Please either cite a feasibility study for these parameters or present a sensitivity scan around them and explicitly state that they are provisional assumptions.
[Section 3, paragraph 1] The full Geant4 simulation is implemented only for a symmetric modification of ILD, while the beam-background optimization in Section 2 is aimed at the forward region of an asymmetric detector. The paper states that "implementing an asymmetric detector using the modified ILD full simulation is not straightforward," but it does not explain whether the symmetric implementation is a conservative approximation or could mask important forward/backward differences. Moreover, no quantitative comparison is shown between the fast-simulation background prediction and the full-simulation detector response for the improved e-ILD. Please add at least a validation of the background rates in the full simulation and a discussion of how the symmetric approximation affects the conclusions.
[Section 4, conclusion] The conclusion states that "extending the detector in the forward region recovers most of the performance compared to symmetric collisions," but no physics performance result is shown in this paper. The abstract promises benchmarking against flagship Higgs factory analyses, but the manuscript contains no reconstructed mass resolution, cross-section, or statistical sensitivity numbers. Since the title and abstract claim physics performance, please either include the relevant benchmark results or explicitly reframe the paper as a detector-background and simulation-infrastructure study with performance work in progress.

minor comments (6)

[Section 1, Figure 1] The facility layout figure is informative, but the caption does not explain the quoted cost saving of "around 25% of the ILC"; a reference to the HALHF paper [1] is given, yet a one-sentence justification would help the reader assess the claim.
[Section 2, Figure 2] The caption states the plot is shown "in the forward half," but the figure appears to show a longitudinal section with both forward and backward regions; please clarify what is plotted and add axis labels and a scale.
[Section 2, paragraph 3] The phrase "a few pairs hitting the detector" is not quantified; stating the actual number of hits in the unmodified e-ILD layout would make the improvement much more concrete.
[Section 3, paragraph 1] There is a typo: "An other idea" should be "Another idea." Also, "a suitable detector" in Section 4 should be "a suitable detector" (missing article) or "suitable detectors."
[References] Reference [4] has the same title as this paper, which is confusing because it is a prior EPS-HEP proceedings contribution; please clarify in the text that it is the predecessor study and refer to it by a distinct label.
[Section 3, paragraph 2] The sentence "This validates the proof-of-concept for exploring further this modified ILD Geant4 simulation" is unclear: validation of a proof-of-concept should be tied to a specific test, and the preceding sentences only state that boosted datasets have been created and that work is ongoing. Please specify what has actually been validated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the beam-background and detector-geometry results are produced by independent simulation codes (Guinea-Pig, Geant4) with openly stated input assumptions, and the self-citation to the authors' prior work is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper is a simulation-based detector-design study, not a derivation from first principles, and its central claims do not reduce to their inputs by construction. The beam-induced pair background is simulated with Guinea-Pig ([5]), an external code, and the resulting pair pattern is shown directly in Figure 2. The beam parameters (N_e=3e10, N_p=1.33e10, sigma_z,e=75 um, sigma_z,p=300 um) are explicitly introduced as a chosen input set ('An updated set of beam parameters was chosen...') rather than as a predicted output; using assumed parameters in a simulation is not circular, though their accelerator-physics feasibility is a legitimate weakness. The improved e-ILD geometry is also openly iterated against the simulated pair distribution ('ensuring a 5 mm clearance between the pairs and the beam pipe'), so the statement that the layout clears the detector is a description of a design constraint met in simulation, not a fitted quantity renamed as an independent prediction. The only self-citation is to the authors' previous paper [4], which supplies the earlier SGV-based 'extended-ILD' starting point and previous Guinea-Pig studies; the present background-clearance result is regenerated in this paper with Guinea-Pig and implemented in Geant4, so [4] is not used to establish the central claim. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or hidden parameter is imported from the authors' prior work in a load-bearing way. Therefore, under the given circularity criteria, no circular step is present; the relevant concerns (deliverability of the chosen beam parameters) are feasibility risks rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on several modeling and design assumptions: the feasibility of PWFA on the stated timescale, the accuracy of Guinea-Pig and Geant4 simulations, the validity of using boosted ILC events for HALHF, and the choice of beam parameters and geometry. No new entities are introduced. The free parameters are hand-chosen design values that directly influence the background-clearance result.

free parameters (5)

Updated bunch charge asymmetry (N_e, N_p) = N_e = 3e10, N_p = 1.33e10
Chosen in Section 2 to reduce beam backgrounds and allow the detector closer to the IP; not derived from an accelerator design.
Bunch length asymmetry (sigma_z,e, sigma_z,p) = 75 um electrons, 300 um positrons
Introduced in Section 2 as part of the updated beam parameter set affecting pair background production.
Solenoidal magnetic field strength = 5 T (experimental field, vs 3.5 T baseline)
Figure 2 and Section 3 use 5 T to compress background pair trajectories; this changes which particles reach the detector.
TPC length = 4700 mm (doubled from 2350 mm)
Section 2 lists doubling the TPC as part of the improved detector geometry that clears backgrounds.
Beam-pipe clearance = 5 mm
Section 2 states ensuring 5 mm clearance between pairs and beam pipe as a design criterion; it is an input, not an output.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Plasma wake-field acceleration will reach the performance needed for a 500 GeV electron linac within the next ten to fifteen years.
Stated in the abstract and Introduction as a premise for HALHF; if false, the whole facility design is moot.
domain assumption Guinea-Pig simulation accurately reproduces beam-induced electron-positron pair backgrounds and their trajectories in the detector.
Section 2 uses Guinea-Pig output to determine which particles hit the detector; no cross-check against other codes or data is provided.
domain assumption The apex of the pair trajectory in the x-z plane is a sufficient criterion for deciding whether a background particle hits the detector.
Section 2 states this 'simple approach' and uses it to draw the clearance conclusions; magnetic field and tracker geometry are approximated at this stage.
ad hoc to paper Modifying both forward and backward ILD parts symmetrically is a valid first step toward an asymmetric detector.
Section 3 says the original ILD implementation assumes a symmetric detector and both sides were modified symmetrically while studying only the forward region; this approximation is acknowledged but unvalidated.
domain assumption Boosting ILC Monte Carlo events by the HALHF boost is equivalent to simulating HALHF collisions.
Section 3 says boosted datasets were created and validation is ongoing; the equivalence is assumed before full reconstruction is demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Physics Performance and Detector Requirements at an Asymmetric Higgs Factory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6OPUBXMW

@misc{pith2026241114313,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Physics Performance and Detector Requirements at an Asymmetric Higgs Factory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6OPUBXMW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14313}
}

abstract

The Hybrid Asymmetric Linear Higgs Factory (HALHF) proposes a shorter and cheaper design for a future Higgs factory. It reaches a $\sqrt{s} = 250$ GeV using a 500 GeV electron beam accelerated by an electron-driven plasma wake-field, and a conventionally-accelerated 31 GeV positron beam. Assuming plasma acceleration R&D challenges are solved in a timely manner, the asymmetry of the collisions brings additional challenges regarding the detector and the physics analyses, from forward boosted topologies and beam backgrounds. This contribution will detail the impact of beam parameters on beam-induced backgrounds, and provide a first look at what modification compared to e.g. the ILD can improve the physics performance at such a facility. The studies will be benchmarked against some flagship Higgs Factory analyses for comparison.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14313 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Baseline layout of the HALHF facility [1]. The consequence of the beam energy asymmetry is the introduction of a boost of to the collisions (𝛾 ∼ 2.13 for this set of beam energies). Designing a detector for such a facility must therefore take into account such boosted topologies. 2. Beam background constraints The detector design is constrained by the precision required to achieve the physics goals (mainly, but not … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Apex of the trajectory of the electron (red) and positron (blue) from the beam backgrounds in asymmetric beams collisions with 𝐸𝑒 = 500 GeV, 𝐸𝑝 = 31.3 GeV, 𝑁𝑒 = 3 × 1010 , 𝑁𝑝 = 1.33 × 1010 , 𝜎𝑧,𝑒 = 75 µm, 𝜎𝑧, 𝑝 = 300 µm. in the forward half. The beam backgrounds are simulated using GuineaPig [5]. On the left, the standard ILD detector (with the exception of using an experimental magnetic field of 5 T instead of 3.5… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Display of the ILD (left) and the improved e-ILD (right) Geant4 implementation. 4. Conclusion The HALHF facility could decrease the ecological footprint and cost of a future linear Higgs factory by using plasma wake-field acceleration to accelerate the electrons. Such a facility introduces asymmetric beam energies, leading to a boost in the collisions which requires an suitable detector. An initial detector configur… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Reconstructed 𝑍(𝜇𝜇)𝐻 event in the ILD (left) and in the improved e-ILD (right, same event). The beam parameters assumed the ILC configuration, i.e. symmetric beams energies (so no boost in the collision) in both cases. showing that extending the detector in the forward…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Custodial Naturalness
hep-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Custodial Naturalness uses classical scale invariance plus a custodial SO(6) symmetry to make the Higgs a naturally light pseudo-Goldstone boson, with testable new particle predictions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

9 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[4]

ILD Concept Group collaboration, International Large Detector: Interim Design Report , https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.01116 2003.01116

arXiv 2003
[1]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION blank.sep after.quote 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry output.state after.quoted.block = 'skip 'add.period if write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip output.state after.quote = after.quoted.block 'output.state := after.block 'output.state := if if FUNCTION new.sentence out...
[2]

Foster, R

B. Foster, R. D'Arcy and C.A. Lindstr m, A hybrid, asymmetric, linear Higgs factory based on plasma-wakefield and radio-frequency acceleration , https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/acf395 New J. Phys. 25 (2023) 093037 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.10150 2303.10150 ]

arXiv 2023
[3]

Adolphsen et al., The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 3.II: Accelerator Baseline Design , https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.6328 1306.6328

C. Adolphsen et al., The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 3.II: Accelerator Baseline Design , https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.6328 1306.6328

arXiv
[5]

Laudrain, T

A. Laudrain, T. Behnke, C.M. Berggren, K. Buesser, F. Gaede, C. Grojean et al., Physics Performance and Detector Requirements at an Asymmetric Higgs Factory , in Proceedings of The European Physical Society Conference on High Energy Physics PoS(EPS-HEP2023) , vol. 449, p. 556, 2023, DOI https://doi.org/10.22323/1.449.0556

work page doi:10.22323/1.449.0556 2023
[6]

Schulte, S tudy of E lectromagnetic and H adronic B ackground in the I nteraction R egion of the TESLA C ollider , dissertation, Universität Hamburg, 1997

D. Schulte, S tudy of E lectromagnetic and H adronic B ackground in the I nteraction R egion of the TESLA C ollider , dissertation, Universität Hamburg, 1997

work page 1997
[7]

Berggren, SGV 3.0 - a fast detector simulation , in International Workshop on Future Linear Colliders (LCWS11) , 3, 2012 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.0217 1203.0217 ]

M. Berggren, SGV 3.0 - a fast detector simulation , in International Workshop on Future Linear Colliders (LCWS11) , 3, 2012 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.0217 1203.0217 ]

arXiv 2012
[8]

Frank, F

M. Frank, F. Gaede, M. Petric and A. Sailer, Aidasoft/dd4hep, Oct., 2018. 10.5281/zenodo.592244

doi:10.5281/zenodo.592244 2018

Show all 9 references

[9]

NAF collaboration, The NAF: National Analysis Facility at DESY , https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/219/5/052007 J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 219 (2010) 052007

2010 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [4]

ILD Concept Group collaboration, International Large Detector: Interim Design Report , https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.01116 2003.01116

arXiv 2003

[2] [1]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION blank.sep after.quote 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry output.state after.quoted.block = 'skip 'add.period if write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip output.state after.quote = after.quoted.block 'output.state := after.block 'output.state := if if FUNCTION new.sentence out...

[3] [2]

Foster, R

B. Foster, R. D'Arcy and C.A. Lindstr m, A hybrid, asymmetric, linear Higgs factory based on plasma-wakefield and radio-frequency acceleration , https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/acf395 New J. Phys. 25 (2023) 093037 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.10150 2303.10150 ]

arXiv 2023

[4] [3]

Adolphsen et al., The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 3.II: Accelerator Baseline Design , https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.6328 1306.6328

C. Adolphsen et al., The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report - Volume 3.II: Accelerator Baseline Design , https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.6328 1306.6328

arXiv

[5] [5]

Laudrain, T

A. Laudrain, T. Behnke, C.M. Berggren, K. Buesser, F. Gaede, C. Grojean et al., Physics Performance and Detector Requirements at an Asymmetric Higgs Factory , in Proceedings of The European Physical Society Conference on High Energy Physics PoS(EPS-HEP2023) , vol. 449, p. 556, 2023, DOI https://doi.org/10.22323/1.449.0556

work page doi:10.22323/1.449.0556 2023

[6] [6]

Schulte, S tudy of E lectromagnetic and H adronic B ackground in the I nteraction R egion of the TESLA C ollider , dissertation, Universität Hamburg, 1997

D. Schulte, S tudy of E lectromagnetic and H adronic B ackground in the I nteraction R egion of the TESLA C ollider , dissertation, Universität Hamburg, 1997

work page 1997

[7] [7]

Berggren, SGV 3.0 - a fast detector simulation , in International Workshop on Future Linear Colliders (LCWS11) , 3, 2012 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.0217 1203.0217 ]

M. Berggren, SGV 3.0 - a fast detector simulation , in International Workshop on Future Linear Colliders (LCWS11) , 3, 2012 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.0217 1203.0217 ]

arXiv 2012

[8] [8]

Frank, F

M. Frank, F. Gaede, M. Petric and A. Sailer, Aidasoft/dd4hep, Oct., 2018. 10.5281/zenodo.592244

doi:10.5281/zenodo.592244 2018