Proton reconstruction with the TOTEM Roman pot detectors for high-$\beta^*$ LHC data

CMS Collaboration; TOTEM Collaboration

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 23 references

Proton reconstruction with the TOTEM Roman pot detectors for high-$\beta^*$ LHC data

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 By fitting binary strip clusters as overlapping bands in the intercept–slope plane, this paper reconstructs scattered protons in Roman pots to 6–7 µm, an order of magnitude finer than the 66 µm strip pitch.

desk verdict Solid, unusually concrete methods paper from CMS+TOTEM; the new polygon-area tracklet fit and alignment pipeline are real, and the 6–7 µm resolution claim is credible, but it rests on a fixed-width cluster model that the validating simulation shares. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19749 v2 pith:X52BC67Y submitted 2024-11-29 hep-ex physics.ins-det

CMS Collaboration , TOTEM Collaboration This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-exphysics.ins-det

keywords Romanpotdetectorssiliconstripdetectorprotontrackreconstructionpolygonfitalignmentefficiencycentralexclusiveproductionbeamoptics

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

This paper claims that the trajectory of a scattered proton crossing a Roman pot silicon detector can be determined to 6–7 µm—about ten times finer than the 66 µm strip pitch—by treating each binary strip cluster as a band of allowed straight-line parameters and taking the polygon where five bands overlap. It argues that this polygon fit, combined with tag-and-probe strip efficiency measurements and run-by-run alignment, provides the optimal proton reconstruction for the high-$\beta^*$ 13 TeV LHC data recorded in 2018. The payoff is tighter momentum balance between the two forward protons and the centrally produced particles, which is exactly the discriminant that central exclusive production analyses rely on.

What carries the argument

The central object is the common polygon in the intercept–slope $(b,a)$ plane. A straight track through the five layers of one strip orientation is parametrised by intercept $b$ and slope $a$; for each layer, the assumption that the true hit lies within a fixed width of the measured binary cluster centre turns into a pair of inequalities bounding a band in this plane. The track is reconstructed as the intersection of the five bands, with the polygon centroid and moment of inertia used as the best value and resolution; when no common intersection exists, a penalty function that sums the excess distances $|d-w|$ is minimised with the downhill simplex method. The same tracklet fit yields the relative layer misalignments, while the absolute run-by-run alignment is solved from a linear system of 16 horizontal and 12 vertical constraints expressing the symmetry of interaction-point coordinates and momentum sums.

What would settle it

Measure the actual track-to-cluster residual distribution in a detector layer using an independent reference, such as a high-granularity pixel plane or analog charge readout behind the same strips; if the residuals are not flat-topped with half-width $w$, or if $w$ varies by layer, strip, or run, then the polygon widths, the 6–7 µm resolution claim, and the associated uncertainties are biased.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that binary strip information alone is sufficient for micrometre-level proton tracking. For each detector layer, a one-strip cluster is known to lie within 0.4475 strip widths of the true hit and a two-strip cluster within 0.0525 strip widths, so each layer restricts the straight track to a narrow band in the intercept–slope plane; the intersection of five such bands is a small polygon whose centroid and moment of inertia provide the track intercept and its uncertainty. Applied to the 2018 high-$\beta^*$ data, the method gives an average spatial resolution of about 0.10 strip-width units, i.e. 6–7 µm, and the time-dependent alignment of the eight Roman pots reaches 3 µm accuracy in the horizontal and 60 µm in the vertical direction. The reconstructed interaction-point locations and the four-particle momentum sums are centred on zero, which the paper presents as the validation that the whole calibration chain is consistent.

Load-bearing premise

The result hinges on the model that every binary cluster is centred uniformly within a fixed width $w$ of the true hit, with $w = 0.0525$ strip widths taken from the global two-strip cluster fraction; since the validating simulation uses the same rectangular model, data–simulation agreement does not independently test this shape.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Local spatial resolution improves to 6–7 µm, an order of magnitude below the 66 µm strip width, so proton kinematics and the reconstructed interaction-point coordinate $x^*$ carry far smaller position uncertainties.
Strip-level efficiencies, including layers that change by up to 20% over time, are folded into joint tracklet weights, recovering signal in regions where trigger-road boundaries cause up to 50% local efficiency loss.
Run-by-run alignment absorbs apparent ±50 µm horizontal and ±0.5 mm vertical shifts that track the drifting LHC beam orbit, so the detectors themselves need not be moved to preserve momentum balance.
Near–far hit covariances give measured effective lengths consistent with the nominal beam optics, validating the reconstruction frame used for momentum balance in central exclusive events.
Momentum-sum distributions for two scattered protons plus two central hadrons are well centred on zero, giving a clean separation between elastic, central exclusive, and inelastic background event classes.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct extension is to apply the band-intersection logic to any binary strip detector without analog readout; wherever clusters come in one- or two-strip widths, the same polygon method should beat the naive $\mathrm{pitch}/\sqrt{12}$ resolution bound, and a test beam with analog charge readout could verify this layer by layer.
A testable consequence is that if the cluster residual shape is not rectangular or the width $w$ varies with layer or run, the polygon's 6–7 µm resolution and its uncertainty estimates will be biased; comparing per-layer two-strip fractions with per-layer polygon widths would expose such variations.
The alignment scheme, driven by the symmetry of interaction-point coordinates and momentum sums rather than by external surveys, transfers to other forward-proton spectrometers provided elastic or central-exclusive events exist for the symmetry constraints.
Applied to future LHC runs with higher instantaneous luminosity, the tighter momentum balance from this reconstruction should sharpen the missing-mass spectrum of central exclusive production and may reveal background tails that the 2018 statistics could not expose.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a solid, unusually concrete methods paper from CMS+TOTEM, and the headline claims are probably right. The genuinely new pieces are the polygonal-area tracklet fit in the intercept–slope plane, the pattern-database tag-and-probe extraction of strip efficiencies, and the run-by-run absolute alignment using 16 horizontal and 12 vertical constraints. The newness relative to the earlier TOTEM reconstruction papers checks out.

What the paper does well: the tracklet fit is clearly explained and mathematically natural. A binary strip cluster defines a band in intercept–slope space; the intersection of five bands is a polygon whose centroid and moment of inertia give track parameters and uncertainties. The simplex fallback for incompatible hits is sensible. Relative alignment is cross-checked with an independent tracklet-counting method, and the 0-track and 2-track data sets give consistent shifts and efficiencies. The beam-optics section is honest: the first comparison with nominal optics is poor, and only after run-by-run alignment does it improve. The paper explicitly admits that not all alignment constraints can be satisfied at once and that the momentum sums are prioritized. That disclosure is good.

The main soft spot is the fixed-width rectangular cluster model. Section 3.1 sets w from the global two-strip fraction via f2 = 2w and uses one w for all layer groups, although Fig. 4 shows layer-to-layer spread. The validating simulation uses that same model, so the good agreement in Fig. 8 is a consistency check, not an independent test. If the residual shape is not rectangular, or if w varies by layer, the polygon centroid, the uncertainty from the moment of inertia, and the alignment derived from minimizing the penalty could all be biased. The independent Arm1–Arm2 correlation in x* is quoted only as a global width and does not validate the per-tracklet uncertainties that drive alignment and event weighting. This is a real weakness but not a fatal one: the detector is binary with no analog readout, the rectangular model is a natural prior, the two-strip fraction is measured, and the cross-checks show no sign of a large discrepancy. A referee should ask for a sensitivity test that varies w and the residual shape.

Who this is for: forward-physics experimentalists, especially those working with TOTEM/CMS Roman pots or similar near-beam detectors. The data, the cross-checks, and the citation pattern look solid. I would send it to a serious referee rather than desk-reject; the cluster-model assumption is the one question worth pressing.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper describes the reconstruction of scattered protons in the TOTEM Roman pot detectors for the 2018 high-$\beta^*$ LHC run, combining a new tracklet reconstruction method, strip-level efficiency measurements, beam-optics cross-checks, and time-dependent detector alignment. The key methodological novelty is a polygon-based tracklet fit in the intercept--slope plane that uses the binary strip-cluster information in a hard-band form, instead of a least-squares fit. The authors report a spatial resolution of 6--7 $\mu$m, an order of magnitude below the 66 $\mu$m strip pitch, and alignment position accuracies of 3 $\mu$m horizontally and 60 $\mu$m vertically. They validate the reconstruction with a simulation that uses the same cluster model, with cross-checks against an alternative tracklet-counting alignment method and against arm-to-arm correlations of the reconstructed interaction-point coordinate. The paper is written as an instrumentation/methods paper supporting central-exclusive-production analyses with the CMS and TOTEM data.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a substantial technical advance for forward-proton spectrometry at the LHC. The polygon method exploits binary cluster information more fully than conventional fits and, together with the alignment pipeline, achieves micron-level position resolution in a silicon-strip Roman pot system with no analog readout. The paper is careful in many respects: it includes 0-track vs 2-track comparisons, a tag-and-probe efficiency extraction, run-by-run alignment checks, and a direct arm--arm correlation that gives a model-independent handle on the global $x^*$ resolution. The main weakness is that the validating simulation embeds the same measured two-strip cluster fraction and the same rectangular band model used in the fit, so the agreement with data is largely a consistency check rather than an independent test of the assumptions underlying the resolution and per-tracklet uncertainty estimates. Because the headline resolution and the uncertainty used for event weighting depend on those assumptions, this needs to be addressed before the claims can be taken at face value.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.1, Eq. (2) and Section 3.2, simulation paragraph] The resolution claim of 6--7 $\mu$m and the per-tracklet uncertainty $\sigma_u$ rest on the assumption that the trajectory--hit residual is a uniform band of width $w$ for one-strip clusters and $w$ for two-strip clusters, with a single global value $w=0.0525$ pitch determined from $f_2=2w$. The simulation described in Section 3.2 'Hit creation follows the measured fraction of two-strip clusters' and uses the same straight-line model, so the agreement shown in Fig. 8 is a consistency check, not an independent validation. Figure 4 shows considerable layer-to-layer dispersion of $f_2$, including outliers; a single $w$ for all 16 layer groups may not be adequate. If the true residual shape has smeared edges, or if $w$ varies by layer, the polygon centroid, the moment-of-inertia resolution, and the alignment derived by minimising $c$ would all be biased. Please quantify the systematic uncertainty by varying $w$ within the observed $f_2$ spread, by fitting $w$ per layer group, or by validating with a simulation using a non-rectangular residual shape.
[Section 4.4, Fig. 21] The arm1--arm2 correlation of $x^*$ provides the most model-independent support for the global resolution, but it is used only as a global width (e.g., $\sigma_2 \approx 9.5$ $\mu$m for TB), and it is not compared to the per-tracklet uncertainty $\sigma_u$ that the polygon method assigns. The decomposition of the observed width into a beam-spot component and a resolution component relies on the fitted ellipse parameters; a binned comparison of the predicted $\sigma_u$ with the arm--arm difference as a function of $\sigma_u$ would directly test whether the per-tracklet uncertainties are correctly calibrated. As it stands, the claim that the resolution is 6--7 $\mu$m is supported only by the global minor-axis width, while the event weighting and alignment use the per-tracklet $\sigma_u$ values.
[Section 3.2, relative alignment cross-check] The relative alignment of the inner layers is obtained by minimising the joint penalty $c$ with the same fixed $w$, and the cross-check by 'counting the number of tracklets with $c = 0$' uses the same $w$ through the definition of $c$. Thus the two methods are not independent probes of the band-width model. The consistency between 0-track and 2-track data is reassuring, but it does not address a common bias in $w$. The paper should give an explicit systematic uncertainty on the deduced $\delta_i$ that accounts for the uncertainty in $w$ and for the layer-to-layer variation of $f_2$ seen in Fig. 4.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and Section 4.3] The phrase 'position accuracy of 3 $\mu$m in the horizontal and 60 $\mu$m in the vertical directions' is not defined. It should be specified whether this is the statistical uncertainty of the mean shift, the spread of run-by-run shifts, or a total systematic uncertainty including the alignment procedure.
[Section 3.1, Eq. (2)] After Eq. (2) the text says 'two-strip clusters provide better spatial resolution by a factor of $(1-f_2)/f_2 \approx 8.5$'; this factor is the ratio of the allowed widths for one-strip versus two-strip clusters only if the two-strip width is $w$ and the one-strip width is $1/2-w$, which is true only under the assumed rectangular model. It may be worth stating that this is a model-dependent statement.
[Section 3.2, Fig. 8] In the lower panel of Fig. 8 the blue histogram for the simplex cases is shown as a peak at 0.3, but the vertical arrow marks the average value; the text should clarify what fraction of tracklets require the simplex branch and how the 0.3 value was chosen beyond the stated smoothness/monotonicity argument.
[Section 4.1, Eqs. (8)--(11)] The derivation of Eqs. (8)--(11) assumes that the measurement noise on $x_n$ and $x_f$ is uncorrelated and that the beam-spot and divergence contributions factor in a specific way; a sentence stating these assumptions and their approximate validity would help the reader assess the cross-check.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The 6–7 µm resolution and its simulation validation are driven by the cluster-width parameter w fitted from the same data (f2 = 2w), but the claim retains independent support from the arm–arm x* correlation and the σΣpx consistency check.

fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1 (Eq. 2), Section 3.2 (Fig. 8), Section 5 Summary]
"For two-strip clusters f2 = 2w, hence w ≈ 0.0525. ... The average spatial resolution is 0.10 units, i.e., about 6–7 µm. ... Hit creation follows the measured fraction of two-strip clusters ... A reasonable agreement between the simulated and measured tracklet joint penalty and σu distributions (Fig. 8, right column) is achieved."

Band half-width w is fitted from the global two-strip cluster fraction (f2 = 2w, w ≈ 0.0525, Fig. 4). The polygon tracklet resolution ⟨σu⟩ = 0.10 pitch is the moment of inertia of the intersection of bands whose half-widths are set by this same w (Eq. 2), so the headline '6–7 µm resolution' is a geometric consequence of the fitted w under the assumed rectangular-residual model, not an independently measured quantity. The validating simulation generates hits with the same fitted f2 and the same model, so the data/simulation agreement in σu (0.102 vs 0.100) is a consistency check: a wrong w or a non-rectangular residual shape would shift both sides equally and would not be detected by Fig. 8. The claim is only partially circular because the arm–arm x* correlation (Fig.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is largely self-contained. The optics cross-check (Eqs. 8–11, Table 4) re-derives effective lengths from near–far hit covariances using only the magnifications vx from the earlier TOTEM calibration [19,20]; those are same-collaboration inputs but are not predictions of this paper, and the agreement is checked against new data. The absolute alignment (Eqs. 12–15, Section 4.3) is anchored in independent physics—momentum conservation (∑px, ∑py) and IP-coordinate symmetry—and the quoted 3 µm (horizontal) and 60 µm (vertical) accuracy comes from the residual spread of those data-driven constraints (Fig. 18), not from the cluster model. The one genuine reduce-by-construction element is the internal validation loop around the cluster model: w is fitted from f2, the polygon σu is computed from w, and the simulation used to 'validate' σu is built with the same fitted f2 and the same rectangular model, so Fig. 8 cannot test the model itself. The simplex-case σ = 0.3 is likewise a disclosed tuning choice for Fig. 22 rather than a hidden input. Because the paper's strongest claim (6–7 µm) is independently corroborated by the arm–arm correlation in Fig. 21 and by the momentum-sum scaling in Fig. 22, the central claim does not reduce to its inputs; the circularity is confined to the self-consistency validation of one fitted parameter. A moderate score of 4 reflects this: partial circularity in a supporting validation step with independent content in the main result. No uniqueness-theorem import, ansatz-via-citation, or renaming pattern is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on the cluster model (w) and the beam-optics inputs; no new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters w and sigma_b are data-driven or hand-picked but are not the target of a physics derivation, so they slightly reduce the first-principles quality of the method.

free parameters (2)

Two-strip cluster width w = 0.0525 pitch units
Obtained from the measured two-strip cluster fraction f2 = 0.105 via f2 = 2w (Section 3.1). Used to set the width of the band constraints in the tracklet fit.
Simplex uncertainty sigma_b = 0.3 strip-width units
Assigned to tracklets where no common polygon exists; chosen by hand to make the momentum-sum resolution relation smooth and monotonic (Section 3.1).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Linearized beam optics transport relation (xn=vx,n x* + Lx,n theta* + Dx,n dp/p and analogous for far station).
Used in Section 4.1 to derive x*, theta* and px; coefficients are taken from MAD-X and prior TOTEM optics calibration, not measured independently here.
domain assumption Rectangular hit-residual model for binary strip clusters: cluster centers are uniformly distributed within 1-w (one-strip) or w (two-strip) of the true hit.
Defines the band constraints and the f2 = 2w relation used for the tracklet fit and resolution estimate (Section 3.1).
domain assumption Straight-line tracklet model with multiple scattering negligible inside the Roman pot (estimated shifts 15 nm to 3 um).
The 5-layer tracklet is fit as a straight line; material effects are quantified and neglected in Section 2.3.
domain assumption Symmetry and momentum conservation: the means of x*, y* and the proton momentum sums are zero for elastic and exclusive events.
This is the basis of the absolute run-by-run alignment in Section 4.3; if beam-beam effects or detector biases shift these means, the alignment is biased.
standard math Gauge fixing of weak alignment modes by setting the outer layer shifts delta1 = delta5 = 0.
Common translation and shear are weak modes; fixing the outermost layers removes them (Section 3.1).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Proton reconstruction with the TOTEM Roman pot detectors for high-$\beta^*$ LHC data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X52BC67Y

@misc{pith2026241119749,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Proton reconstruction with the TOTEM Roman pot detectors for high-$\beta^*$ LHC data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X52BC67Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19749}
}

abstract

The TOTEM Roman pot detectors are used to reconstruct the transverse momentum of scattered protons and to estimate the transverse location of the primary interaction. This paper presents new methods of track reconstruction, measurements of strip-level detection efficiencies, cross-checks of the LHC beam optics, and detector alignment techniques, along with their application in the selection of signal collision events. The track reconstruction is performed by exploiting hit cluster information through a novel method using a common polygonal area in the intercept-slope plane. The technique is applied in the relative alignment of detector layers with $\mu$m precision. A tag-and-probe method is used to extract strip-level detection efficiencies. The alignment of the Roman pot system is performed through time-dependent adjustments, resulting in a position accuracy of 3 $\mu$m in the horizontal and 60 $\mu$m in the vertical directions. The goal is to provide an optimal reconstruction tool for central exclusive physics analyses based on the high-$\beta^*$ data-taking period at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in 2018.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19749 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Left: The eight RP units in Arm 1 and Arm 2 with the beam line, along with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Schematic displays of four events with hits and projections of reconstructed local [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (21 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Left: Fraction of two-strip clusters for each detector layer, in groups of similarly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Examples of tracklet fits. The colour represents the value of the tracklet penalty [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Deduced alignment parameters for inner layers ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: One-dimensional line scans of the relative shifts ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Upper: Distribution of the tracklet penalty function with the slope [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Strip hit efficiency from data, determined with a tag-and-probe method. Shown here [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Strip hit efficiencies as functions of the run number for strip #350 in layers 1–5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Tracklet reconstruction efficiency (colour scale) as a function of tracklet location at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Efficiency-corrected distribution of proton hit locations in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Correlation of proton hit locations in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Correlation of proton hit locations in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png]

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Correlation of proton hit locations in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png]

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: Deduced displacements of RPs in the x (top) and y (bottom) directions as a function of run number. Statistical uncertainties are shown with vertical bars. The LHC fills are indicated by grey areas. and the transformation itself is Ay   δy1nT δy1fT δy1nB δ…

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: Cross-check of the full alignment, shown here for run #319311. From top to bottom: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_17.png]

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: The measured residuals (red symbols) and those expected from the extracted dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_18.png]

**Figure 19.** Figure 19: Effective lengths at the location of the near ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_19.png]

**Figure 20.** Figure 20: Location of the primary pp interaction in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_20.png]

**Figure 21.** Figure 21: Joint distribution of x ∗ (or y ∗ ) coordinates deduced using RPs in Arm 1 and 2 (subscripts 1 and 2), shown for various trigger configurations (TB, BT, TT, and BB, in rows). The two columns on the left side refer to the 2-track data set, whereas the two on the right…

**Figure 22.** Figure 22: Left: Standard deviation of the momentum sum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_22.png]

**Figure 23.** Figure 23: Left: Distribution of the sum of scattered proton momenta [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_23.png]

**Figure 24.** Figure 24: Distribution of the sum of scattered proton and central hadron momenta and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_24.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

[1]

Timing measurements in the vertical Roman pots of the TOTEM experiment

TOTEM Collaboration, “Timing measurements in the vertical Roman pots of the TOTEM experiment”, 2014. CERN-LHCC-2014-020, TOTEM-TDR-002. https://cds.cern.ch/record/1753189

work page arXiv 2014
[2]

Potential of central exclusive production studies in high β∗ runs at the LHC with CMS-TOTEM

K. ¨Osterberg on behalf of the TOTEM Collaboration, “Potential of central exclusive production studies in high β∗ runs at the LHC with CMS-TOTEM”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29 (2014) 1446019, doi:10.1142/S0217751X14460191

work page doi:10.1142/s0217751x14460191 2014
[3]

Nonresonant central exclusive production of charged-hadron pairs in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

CMS and TOTEM Collaborations, “Nonresonant central exclusive production of charged-hadron pairs in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV”, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 112013, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.112013, arXiv:2401.14494

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[4]

CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at√s = 13 TeV

CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at√s = 13 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002, 2018

work page 2018
[5]

Particle accelerator physics: basic principles and linear beam dynamics

H. Wiedemann, “Particle accelerator physics: basic principles and linear beam dynamics”. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013. ISBN 9783662029039. 34

work page 2013
[6]

Central Exclusive Particle Production at High Energy Hadron Colliders

M. G. Albrow, T. D. Coughlin, and J. R. Forshaw, “Central exclusive particle production at high energy hadron colliders”, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 65 (2010) 149, doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2010.06.001, arXiv:1006.1289

work page Pith review arXiv 2010
[7]

High-beta optics and running prospects

H. Burkhardt, “High-beta optics and running prospects”, Instruments 3 (2019) 22, doi:10.3390/instruments3010022

work page doi:10.3390/instruments3010022 2019
[8]

The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC

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

doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/s08004 2008

Show all 23 references

[9]

The TOTEM experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider

TOTEM Collaboration, “The TOTEM experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider”, JINST 3 (2008) S08007, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08007

2008 doi
[10]

Performance of the TOTEM Detectors at the LHC

TOTEM Collaboration, “Performance of the TOTEM Detectors at the LHC”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28 (2013) 1330046, doi:10.1142/S0217751X13300469, arXiv:1310.2908

2013 arXiv
[11]

Review of particle physics

Particle Data Group, S. Navas et al., “Review of particle physics”, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 030001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

2024 doi
[12]

The CMS trigger system

CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”, JINST 12 (2017) P01020, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366

2017 arXiv
[13]

Application of Kalman filtering to track and vertex fitting

R. Fr ¨uhwirth, “Application of Kalman filtering to track and vertex fitting”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 262 (1987) 444, doi:10.1016/0168-9002(87)90887-4

1987 doi
[14]

Simultaneous pattern recognition and track fitting by the Kalman filtering method

P . Billoir and S. Qian, “Simultaneous pattern recognition and track fitting by the Kalman filtering method”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 294 (1990) 219, doi:10.1016/0168-9002(90)91835-Y

1990 doi
[15]

Pattern recognition, tracking and vertex reconstruction in particle detectors

R. Fr ¨uhwirth and A. Strandlie, “Pattern recognition, tracking and vertex reconstruction in particle detectors”. Particle Acceleration and Detection. Springer, 2020. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-65771-0 , ISBN 978-3-030-65770-3, 978-3-030-65771-0

2020 doi
[16]

Measurements of inclusive W and Z cross sections in pp collisions at √s = 7 TeV

CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of inclusive W and Z cross sections in pp collisions at √s = 7 TeV”, JHEP 01 (2011) 080, doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2011)080, arXiv:1012.2466

2011 arXiv
[17]

On the calculation of arbitrary moments of polygons

C. Steger, “On the calculation of arbitrary moments of polygons”, Technical Report FGBV–96–05, Forschungsgruppe Bildverstehen (FG BV), Informatik IX, Technische Universit¨at M ¨unchen, 1996

1996
[18]

A simplex method for function minimization

J. A. Nelder and R. Mead, “A simplex method for function minimization”, Comput. J. 7 (1965) 308, doi:10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308

1965 doi
[19]

LHC optics measurement with proton tracks detected by the Roman pots of the TOTEM experiment

TOTEM Collaboration, “LHC optics measurement with proton tracks detected by the Roman pots of the TOTEM experiment”, New J. Phys. 16 (2014) 103041, doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/10/103041, arXiv:1406.0546

2014 arXiv
[20]

Elastic scattering of protons at the TOTEM experiment at the LHC

F. J. Nemes, “Elastic scattering of protons at the TOTEM experiment at the LHC”. PhD thesis, E¨otv¨os U., 2015. CERN-THESIS-2015-293

2015
[21]

A MAD-X primer

W. Herr and F. Schmidt, “A MAD-X primer”, in CERN Accelerator School and DESY Zeuthen: Accelerator Physics , p. 505. 2004. CERN-AB-2004-027-ABP

2004
[22]

An introduction to particle accelerators

E. Wilson, “An introduction to particle accelerators”. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2001. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198508298.001.0001, ISBN 9780198508298. References 35

2001
[23]

Reconstruction of protons in the TOTEM Roman pot detectors at the LHC

H. Niewiadomski, “Reconstruction of protons in the TOTEM Roman pot detectors at the LHC”. PhD thesis, Manchester U., 2008. CERN-THESIS-2008-080. 36 37 A The CMS Collaboration Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia A. Hayrapetyan, A. Tumasyan1 Institut f ¨ ur Hochenergieph...

2008

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Timing measurements in the vertical Roman pots of the TOTEM experiment

TOTEM Collaboration, “Timing measurements in the vertical Roman pots of the TOTEM experiment”, 2014. CERN-LHCC-2014-020, TOTEM-TDR-002. https://cds.cern.ch/record/1753189

work page arXiv 2014

[2] [2]

Potential of central exclusive production studies in high β∗ runs at the LHC with CMS-TOTEM

K. ¨Osterberg on behalf of the TOTEM Collaboration, “Potential of central exclusive production studies in high β∗ runs at the LHC with CMS-TOTEM”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29 (2014) 1446019, doi:10.1142/S0217751X14460191

work page doi:10.1142/s0217751x14460191 2014

[3] [3]

Nonresonant central exclusive production of charged-hadron pairs in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

CMS and TOTEM Collaborations, “Nonresonant central exclusive production of charged-hadron pairs in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV”, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 112013, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.112013, arXiv:2401.14494

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at√s = 13 TeV

CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at√s = 13 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002, 2018

work page 2018

[5] [5]

Particle accelerator physics: basic principles and linear beam dynamics

H. Wiedemann, “Particle accelerator physics: basic principles and linear beam dynamics”. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013. ISBN 9783662029039. 34

work page 2013

[6] [6]

Central Exclusive Particle Production at High Energy Hadron Colliders

M. G. Albrow, T. D. Coughlin, and J. R. Forshaw, “Central exclusive particle production at high energy hadron colliders”, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 65 (2010) 149, doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2010.06.001, arXiv:1006.1289

work page Pith review arXiv 2010

[7] [7]

High-beta optics and running prospects

H. Burkhardt, “High-beta optics and running prospects”, Instruments 3 (2019) 22, doi:10.3390/instruments3010022

work page doi:10.3390/instruments3010022 2019

[8] [8]

The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC

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

doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/s08004 2008