Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 64 references

On the Utility Function of Experiments in Fundamental Science

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the global utility functions needed for AI-driven experiment design are not only possible but already implicitly present in how multipurpose experiments allocate trigger bandwidth and running time.

desk verdict Convincing conceptual argument that experiment-wide utility functions already exist in practice, but the only quantitative demo is idealised and needs sensitivity checks. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13544 v1 pith:2EZYAGCO submitted 2025-01-23 hep-ex

Tommaso Dorigo , Michele Doro , Max Aehle , Nicolas R. Gauger , Muhammad Awais , Rafael Izbicki , Jan Kieseler , Luca Masserano
show 2 more authors
Federico Nardi Luis Recabarren Vergara
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords utilityfunctionmultipurposeexperimentsdetectordesignoptimizationParetofrontgradient-basedtriggersystemsexperimentrunschedulinggamma-rayobservatorylayout
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 is trying to establish that the main conceptual obstacle to AI-driven design of large physics experiments—agreeing on the relative scientific worth of different goals—is not actually an obstacle. It argues that multipurpose experiments already perform this weighting implicitly whenever they decide which events to store, which trigger thresholds to raise, or how many days to spend at each beam energy. The paper makes the weighting explicit as a sum of utility terms and shows that gradient-based optimization of a gamma-ray observatory layout can beat expert benchmark arrays on targeted performance measures. Its conclusion is that defining a global utility function is possible, is in many cases already done, and should not block automated exploration of design spaces.

What carries the argument

The central object is the additive utility function $U = \lambda_1 U_1 + \lambda_2 U_2 + \cdots$, where each $U_i$ measures one scientific goal and each $\lambda_i$ states the experiment's relative priority. The numerical demonstration uses $U_1 = \lambda_{GF}U_{GF} + \lambda_{IR}U_{IR} + \lambda_{PR}U_{PR}$ for flux precision, energy resolution, and pointing resolution, moved by gradient-ascent updates $x_i \to x_i + \eta_i\, dU/dx_i$. Dynamic scaling factors $w_i$ balance the disparate gradient magnitudes so that no single term such as flux dominates the layout updates. A closed-form parametrization of the ground density of shower particles makes all gradients computable, which is what allows the authors to search the layout space continuously instead of sampling a handful of benchmark designs.

What would settle it

Re-run the same layout optimization with a realistic detector response—finite efficiency, imperfect gamma/hadron separation, trigger thresholds, and mis-reconstructed background events—and compare the optimized array's utility against the benchmark layouts; if the advantage shrinks or reverses, the demonstration that utility-weighted gradients are sufficient for global design optimization would collapse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an experiment-wide utility function can be written down as a weighted sum of scientific goals, and that large collaborations already make exactly such weighted choices in practice. The paper reconstructs the implicit utility of a hadron-collider experiment from the citation counts of its publications, finding that the trigger streams that produced the highest-impact results were not the ones consuming the most bandwidth, and it quotes the published run plan of an electron-positron collider experiment as a case where the collaboration tabulates precise days and luminosities per energy point according to physics motivation. In the numerical part, the paper optimizes the layout of a high-altitude water Cherenkov gamma-ray array by gradient ascent on $U = \lambda_{GF}U_{GF} + \lambda_{IR}U_{IR} + \lambda_{PR}U_{PR}$, against the benchmark layouts, and finds gains of roughly $+19\%$ on integrated energy resolution and $+35\%$ on pointing resolution when optimizing a two-term utility. The same machinery shows that the optimal layout depends on the assumed energy spectrum of the source, with cross-spectrum utility losses of about 8–10%. The paper concludes that a global utility function is not only possible but already implicit in many experimental situations, and therefore should not be considered a significant hindrance to global optimization programs.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the idealized numerical setup—perfect detector efficiency, perfect separation of gamma-ray events from hadronic background, and a closed-form shower model—preserves the layout trade-offs of a real water Cherenkov array; the paper asserts this but does not demonstrate it with a realistic simulation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A collaboration can explicitly write down an experiment-wide utility function with weights, because an existing collider experiment's published run schedule already allocates data-taking days by scientific goal.
  • Gradient-based movement of detector units, driven by a weighted utility sum, can improve energy resolution and pointing resolution by roughly 19% and 35% over expert benchmark layouts without degrading the third component.
  • The optimal detector layout is tied to the scientific prior on the source energy spectrum; choosing the wrong prior costs about 8–10% of the array's utility on the actual spectrum.
  • Staged construction that locks in an early layout prevents the extended array from reaching the performance of a layout optimized from the start for the final science goals.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Implicit extension: because the utility machinery is layout-agnostic, the same weighted-sum-plus-gradient approach could be transferred to other sparse arrays (radio telescopes, cosmic-ray networks, seismic or gravitational-wave configurations) where the cost of moving elements is high.
  • Implicit in the citation analysis: the utility encoded in trigger menus can drift from the collaboration's stated priorities, so periodically re-weighting the $\lambda$ terms as science evolves may matter as much as the initial specification.
  • Not pursued by the paper: an observatory facing unknown source spectra could hedge by optimizing over a mixture of plausible spectra, or by choosing a layout that minimizes the worst-case utility loss across spectra, before committing construction funds.
  • Testable outside the paper: a collaboration that publishes its provisional global utility and invites external gradient-based proposals could compare those proposals in full simulation against internal designs, providing a direct test of whether practical obstacles remain.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper argues that multi-purpose experiments in fundamental science can, and implicitly already do, define a global utility function that weights their different scientific goals. The argument is developed through three case studies: the CDF trigger system, where bandwidth allocation forced quantitative trade-offs among physics goals; the BES-III run schedule, which explicitly allocates run days and luminosities to different center-of-mass energies; and a SWGO-like water Cherenkov array, where the authors use their own idealized shower model and gradient-based optimization to show that different energy spectra lead to different optimized layouts. The paper concludes that the definition of a global utility function is not only possible but already implicit in many experimental situations, and therefore should not be a significant hindrance to global optimization programs.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a useful conceptual bridge between the multi-objective nature of large experiments and the gradient-based, AI-assisted design-space exploration advocated in Sec. 1. The historical examples (CDF trigger meetings, BES-III run-schedule table) are concrete and externally grounded, and the SWGO demonstration, despite its simplifications, is an actual working example of optimizing a multi-component utility over a continuous layout space. The paper also honestly acknowledges several limitations, including the ill-defined nature of the citation-based proxies in Sec. 2.3 and the 'considerable simplification' of the SWGO model in Sec. 3.1. The main weakness is that the only quantitative demonstration of the full design-optimization link rests on an idealized detector model whose robustness to realistic detector effects is asserted but not tested.

major comments (3)
  1. [Secs. 3 and 3.1] The quantitative demonstration that a multi-target utility can drive useful design optimization relies entirely on an idealized detector model: 100% detection efficiency, perfect discrimination between the soft and hard shower components, and a closed-form radial shower parametrization from the authors' prior work [66]. The paper states in Sec. 3.1 that 'the conclusions we drew above on the complexity of the task are not affected by those simplifications,' but no sensitivity study or argument is provided to show that realistic efficiency, imperfect particle identification, or the approximate shower model preserve the layout trade-offs. This is load-bearing because the central conclusion in Sec. 4 extrapolates from this idealized SWGO example to real experiments; without a robustness check or a clearly scoped claim, the transfer is not established.
  2. [Sec. 2.3 and Table 1] The CDF citation-fraction analysis is explicitly acknowledged to carry 'a much more significant additional error from their ill-defined nature,' and the actual trigger bandwidth allocations are admitted to be unknown ('those numbers are not easy to determine with precision'). Consequently, the derived relative values of 57.0%, 18.2%, and 24.7% for the three trigger classes are at best qualitative. The paper itself concedes this in Sec. 2.3, but the conclusion in Sec. 4 still leans on these examples as demonstrations that a global utility is 'implicitly done already.' The qualitative lesson is sound, but the quantitative framing should either be removed or replaced with a clearly labeled illustration.
  3. [Secs. 1.2, 3.1, and Eq. (3)] The utility function in Eq. (3) depends on free coefficients λ_GF, λ_IR, λ_PR, and on the gradient-scaling factors w_GF, w_IR, w_PR, with no procedure given for how a collaboration would arrive at these numbers from its stated scientific priorities. The BES-III run-schedule example (Table 3) shows that collaborations can agree on discrete allocations of run days, but it does not demonstrate agreement on the differential weights needed for a differentiable scalar utility over a continuous O(10^3)-dimensional design space. The paper's central inference from 'collaborations can agree on run days' to 'a consensus utility over design parameters can be defined and optimized' therefore needs either a concrete elicitation procedure or a more modest conclusion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 2.2] Typo: 'impedence' should be 'impedance'.
  2. [Table 1] Typo in the caption: 'citiations' should be 'citations'.
  3. [Sec. 2.3] Two typos: 'whooping' should be 'whopping' in the discussion of QCD triggers, and 'affering' should be 'belonging' (or similar) in the sentence about the three publications in the broad QCD category.
  4. [References] Reference [4] appears in the reference list without a title or source; either complete it or remove the citation.
  5. [Sec. 2.4] The text says 'electro-positron collisions'; the standard term is 'electron-positron collisions.'
  6. [Sec. 3.2] The sentence 'by only examining the utility values of those eight solutions one might be led to believe that they lay close to the Pareto front' is clear, but Figure 3 would be easier to interpret if the axes were labeled and the benchmark points were identified by name in the figure itself.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central claim is anchored in external BES-III/CDF examples, with the SWGO demonstration reusing the authors' own [66] model only as a supporting existence proof.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that defining a global utility function is possible and implicitly done already—is supported primarily by external, non-circular evidence. The CDF trigger discussion (Sec. 2.2) and the BES-III run-schedule table (Table 3, quoting Ref. [47]) describe real collaborations making quantitative trade-off decisions, and these observations are not derived from the paper's own assumptions. The quantitative SWGO demonstration (Sec. 3) does reuse a closed-form shower parametrization and the U1 utility function from the authors' prior work [66] ('we use a closed-form parametrization ... which we have developed to study the optimization of the SWGO array in [66]'; 'We rewrite the utility function discussed in [66] below'), and that model is idealized (100% efficiency, perfect hadron discrimination) with no independent validation in the present paper. However, this demonstration functions as an existence proof: given any differentiable multi-component utility, gradient ascent can be run and yields layouts that depend on the energy prior (Table 4). The central claim does not reduce by construction to [66], because the possibility of defining utility is anchored in the external BES-III and CDF examples, and the specific shower model is not the target of the paper's conclusion. The asserted robustness to the simplifications ('However, the conclusions we drew above on the complexity of the task are not affected by those simplifications') is an unverified limitation, but that is a correctness or robustness risk, not a circularity. No equation or fitted parameter in the paper is reused as a prediction of the same quantity, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation chain. The self-citation to [66] is real but supporting rather than definitionally load-bearing, warranting a low score.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central argument depends on modeling assumptions (idealized detectors, closed-form shower parametrization, citation counts as value proxies) and on user-supplied weights in the utility function, rather than on fitted constants.

free parameters (5)
  • lambda_GF, lambda_IR, lambda_PR
    Weighting multipliers in the SWGO utility (Eq. 3); values are not given and must be chosen by the experiment to encode scientific priorities.
  • w_GF, w_IR, w_PR
    Gradient-scaling factors in Eqs. 4-5, adjusted dynamically to balance gradient magnitudes; no concrete adjustment schedule is specified.
  • S spectral index = varied from 1.0 to -1.0
    Controls the gamma-ray energy distribution in Eq. 6; scanned to create different optimization targets, not fitted.
  • macro-tank cluster size M = 19
    Each macro-tank includes 19 tightly packed detector units, reducing dimensionality; follows prior work [66].
  • trigger threshold N = 50 detectors
    Simulated trigger requires signals in at least 50 detectors; affects optimized layouts in Sec. 3.3.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Citation counts are a valid, though imperfect, proxy for the scientific worth of different experimental goals.
    Sec. 2.3 uses citation fractions (57.0/18.2/24.7%) to reconstruct the relative value of CDF trigger families, acknowledging the metric is ill-defined but treating it as indicative.
  • domain assumption The idealized SWGO detector model with 100% efficiency and perfect hadron discrimination preserves the layout trade-offs relevant to optimization.
    Sec. 3 states this asymptotic model is used to remove confounders; the claim that simplifications do not affect conclusions is asserted, not demonstrated.
  • domain assumption The closed-form radial shower parametrization from [66] is accurate enough for conclusions about array layout.
    All SWGO examples depend on this parametrization; it is not re-derived or validated in this paper.
  • domain assumption The BES-III run-time allocation table reflects the experiment's relative scientific priorities.
    Sec. 2.4 interprets Table 3 as a good illustration of a global utility function; no independent measurement of priorities is used.
  • domain assumption Gradient ascent with dynamically adjusted scaling factors converges to useful Pareto-front solutions for the SWGO problem.
    Eqs. 2/4/5 and the 1000-epoch runs are reported without convergence guarantees or a concrete schedule for the w parameters.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Utility Function of Experiments in Fundamental Science." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2EZYAGCO

@misc{pith2026250113544,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Utility Function of Experiments in Fundamental Science},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2EZYAGCO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13544}
}
read the original abstract

The majority of experiments in fundamental science today are designed to be multi-purpose: their aim is not simply to measure a single physical quantity or process, but rather to enable increased precision in the measurement of a number of different observable quantities of a natural system, to extend the search for new phenomena, or to exclude a larger phase space of candidate theories. Most of the time, a combination of the above goals is pursued; this breadth of scope adds a layer of complexity to the already demanding task of designing the measurement apparatus in an optimal way, by defining suitable geometries and choosing the most advantageous materials and appropriate detection technologies. The precise definition of a global optimality criterion may then require experimentalists to find a consensus on the relative scientific worth of those goals. In this work, we discuss the problem of formulating a utility function for multipurpose experiments, as an enabling step to employ artificial intelligence tools to explore the design space and assist humans in finding solutions at the Pareto front.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13544 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Reduction in the estimated relative uncertainty in event [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Transverse momentum distribution of electron candidates collected by inclusive electron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Value of the three components of the utility for 330 19-tank macro-units. The 8 benchmark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution on the ground of 60 macro-units resulting from the optimization of the utility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: From left to right, the graphs show: evolution of the total utility U1 as a function of epoch number; evolution of the three components of the utility versus epoch; generated and reconstructed spectrum of gamma-ray energies; and angle between the gradient vector of pai…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [66]

    Toward the End-To-End Optimization of the SWGO Array Layout

    T. Dorigo et al. , ” Toward the End-To-End Optimization of the SWGO Array Layout , arXiv:2310.01857v2[astro-ph.IM] (2024), https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.01857v2

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.01857 2024

  2. [1]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. , Review of Particle Physics , Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) no.3, 030001, https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024

  3. [2]

    Calafiura, D

    P. Calafiura, D. Rousseau, and K. Terao (eds.), Artificial Intelligence for High-Energy Physics , World Scientific, Singapore 2022, https://doi.org/10.1142/12200

    work page doi:10.1142/12200 2022

  4. [3]

    Coccaro, F.A

    A. Coccaro, F.A. Di Bello, S. Giagu, and L. Rambelli, Fast Neural Network Inference on FPGAs for Triggering on Long-Lived Particles at Colliders , Mach. Learn. Sci. and Tech. 4 (2023) 4, https://doi.org/10.1088/2632-2153/ad087a. [4]

    work page doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ad087a 2023

  5. [5]

    See https://mode-collaboration.github.io

    work page

  6. [6]

    Dorigo et al., Toward the end-to-end optimization of particle physics instruments with differ- entiable programming, Rev

    T. Dorigo et al., Toward the end-to-end optimization of particle physics instruments with differ- entiable programming, Rev. in Phys. 10 (2023) 100085, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.revip. 2023.100085

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Progress in End-to-End Optimization of Detectors for Fundamental Physics with Differentiable Programming

    M. Aehle et al. , Progress in End-to-End Optimization of Detectors for Fundamental Physics with Differentiable Programming, arXiv:2310.05673[physics.ins-det] (2023), https://doi.org/ 10.48550/arXiv.2310.05673

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.05673 2023

  8. [8]

    Dorigo, Toward artificial-intelligence assisted design of experiments , Nucl

    T. Dorigo, Toward artificial-intelligence assisted design of experiments , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A 1047 (2023) 167873, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2022.167873

    work page arXiv 2023

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    See https://eucaif.org

  2. [10]

    Cranmer, J

    K. Cranmer, J. Brehmer, and G. Louppe, The frontier of simulation-based inference, PNAS 117 (2020) 48, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912789117

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    Agostinelli et al., Geant4 - A Simulation Toolkit , Nucl

    S. Agostinelli et al., Geant4 - A Simulation Toolkit , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506 (2003) 250-303, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8

    2003 doi

  4. [12]

    Heck et al

    D. Heck et al. , CORSIKA: A Monte Carlo code to simulate extensive air showers , FZKA-6019 (1998)

    1998

  5. [13]

    Abbiendi et al

    G. Abbiendi et al. , Letter of Intent: The MUonE Project , CERN-SPSC-2019-026/SPSC-I-252 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Dorigo, Geometry Optimization of a Muon-Electron Scattering Detector, Phys

    T. Dorigo, Geometry Optimization of a Muon-Electron Scattering Detector, Phys. Open 4 (2020) 100022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physo.2020.100022

    2020

  7. [15]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. , Observation of the diphoton decay of the Higgs boson and measure- ment of its properties , Eur. Phys. J. C74, 3076 (2014), https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/ s10052-014-3076-z

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    Kim et al

    D. Kim et al. , Performance of 3D printed plastic scintillators for gamma-ray detection , Nucl. Engineer. Tech. 52, 12 (2020) 2910-2917, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2020.05.030; Q. Weitzel et al. , 3D-printing of transparent granulate materials for light guides and scintilla...

    2020

  9. [17]

    Cartiglia et al., Design optimization of ultra-fast silicon detectors, Nucl

    N. Cartiglia et al., Design optimization of ultra-fast silicon detectors, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A796 (2015) 141-148, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2015.04.025; F. Siviero et al., Optimization of the gain layer design of ultra-fast silicon detectors , Nucl. Instrum. ...

    2015

  10. [19]

    Haber and G.L

    H.E. Haber and G.L. Kane, The search for supersymmetry: Probing physics beyond the standard model, Phys. Rep. 117,2 (1985) 75-263, https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(85)90051-1

    1985 doi

  11. [20]

    Giudice and S

    G.F. Giudice and S. Raby, A new paradigm for the revival of technicolor theories , Nucl. Phys. B 368, 2 (1992) 221, https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(92)90526-H

    1992 doi

  12. [21]

    Ashmanskas et al

    B. Ashmanskas et al. , The CDF Silicon Vertex Trigger , Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. A 518 (2004) 532, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2003.11.078

    2004 doi

  13. [22]

    Abe et al

    F. Abe et al. , Observation of top quark production in ¯pp collisions, Phys.Rev.Lett. 74 (1995) 2626-2631, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.2626

    1995 doi

  14. [23]

    Abe et al

    F. Abe et al. , The CDF Detector: An Overview , Nucl.Instrum.Meth.A 271 (1988) 387-403, https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-9002(88)90298-7

    1988 doi

  15. [24]

    Abe et al

    F. Abe et al. , Evidence for top quark production in ¯pp collisions at √s = 1.8 TeV, Phys.Rev.D 50 (1994) 2966-3026, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.50.2966

    1994 doi

  16. [25]

    Abe et al

    F. Abe et al. , Evidence for Top Quark Production in ¯pp collisions at √s = 1 .8 TeV, Phys.Rev.Lett. 73 (1994) 225-231, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.73.225

    1994 doi

  17. [26]

    Abe et al., The Topology of three jet events in ¯pp collisions at √s = 1.8 TeV, Phys.Rev.D 45 (1992) 1448-1458, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.45.1448

    F. Abe et al., The Topology of three jet events in ¯pp collisions at √s = 1.8 TeV, Phys.Rev.D 45 (1992) 1448-1458, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.45.1448

    1992 doi

  18. [27]

    Abe et al

    F. Abe et al. , J/ψ and ψ(2S) production in ¯pp collisions at √s = 1.8 TeV, Phys.Rev.Lett. 79 (1997) 572-577, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.572

    1997 doi

  19. [28]

    Abe et al., Observation of the Bc meson in ¯pp collisions at √s = 1.8 TeV, Phys.Rev.Lett

    F. Abe et al., Observation of the Bc meson in ¯pp collisions at √s = 1.8 TeV, Phys.Rev.Lett. 81 (1998) 2432-2437, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.2432

    1998 doi

  20. [29]

    Abe et al

    F. Abe et al. , Measurement of the ¯pp Total Cross-Section at √s = 546 GeV and 1800 GeV, Phys.Rev.D 50 (1994) 5550-5561, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.50.5550

    1994 doi

  21. [30]

    Abe et al

    F. Abe et al. , Inclusive J/ψ, ψ(2S) and b quark production in ¯pp collisions at √s = 1.8 TeV, Phys.Rev.Lett. 69 (1992) 3704-3708, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.3704

    1992 doi

  22. [31]

    Abe et al., Double parton scattering in ¯pp collisions at √s = 1.8 TeV, Phys.Rev.D 56 (1997) 3811-3832, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.56.3811

    F. Abe et al., Double parton scattering in ¯pp collisions at √s = 1.8 TeV, Phys.Rev.D 56 (1997) 3811-3832, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.56.3811

    1997 doi

  23. [32]

    Abe et al

    F. Abe et al. , Inclusive jet cross section in ¯pp collisions at √s = 1 .8 TeV, Phys.Rev.Lett. 77 (1996) 438-443, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.438

    1996 doi

  24. [33]

    Abe et al., The CDF Central and Endwall Hadron Calorimeter , Nucl

    F. Abe et al., The CDF Central and Endwall Hadron Calorimeter , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 267 (1988) 301-314, https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-9002(88)90476-7 . 24

    1988 doi

  25. [34]

    Abe et al

    F. Abe et al. , Production of J/ψ mesons from χc meson decays in ¯pp collisions at √s = 1 .8 TeV, Phys.Rev.Lett. 79 (1997) 578-583, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.578

    1997 doi

  26. [35]

    Affolder et al., Charged Jet Evolution and the Underlying Event in ¯pp collisions at √s = 1.8 TeV, Phys.Rev.D 65 (2002) 092002, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.65.092002

    T. Affolder et al., Charged Jet Evolution and the Underlying Event in ¯pp collisions at √s = 1.8 TeV, Phys.Rev.D 65 (2002) 092002, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.65.092002

    2002 doi

  27. [36]

    Abe et al., Transverse Momentum Distributions of Charged Particles Produced in ¯pp interac- tions at √s = 630 and 1800 GeV, Phys.Rev.Lett

    F. Abe et al., Transverse Momentum Distributions of Charged Particles Produced in ¯pp interac- tions at √s = 630 and 1800 GeV, Phys.Rev.Lett. 61 (1988) 1819, https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.61.1819

    1988

  28. [37]

    Abe et al., Observation of Bc mesons in ¯pp collisions at √s = 1.8 TeV, Phys.Rev.D 58 (1998) 112004, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.58.112004

    F. Abe et al., Observation of Bc mesons in ¯pp collisions at √s = 1.8 TeV, Phys.Rev.D 58 (1998) 112004, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.58.112004

    1998 doi

  29. [38]

    Abe et al

    F. Abe et al. , The Silicon Vertex Detector of the Collider Detector at Fermilab , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 350 (1994) 73-130, https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-9002(94)91156-8

    1994 doi

  30. [39]

    Abe et al., A Measurement of the W boson mass, Phys.Rev.Lett

    F. Abe et al., A Measurement of the W boson mass, Phys.Rev.Lett. 65 (1990) 2243-2246, https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.65.2243

    1990 doi

  31. [40]

    F. Abe et al., Study of four jet events and evidence for double parton interactions in ¯pp collisions at √s = 1.8 TeV, Phys.Rev.D 47 (1993) 4857-4871, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.47. 4857

    1993 doi

  32. [41]

    Abe et al

    F. Abe et al. , A Measurement of the W boson mass in 1.8 TeV ¯pp collisions, Phys.Rev.D 43 (1991) 2070-2093, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.43.2070

    1991 doi

  33. [42]

    Bisello et al., Search for Z Decays to b Quark Pairs in the Inclusive Electron Dataset , CDF- note 4320 (1998), unpublished

    D. Bisello et al., Search for Z Decays to b Quark Pairs in the Inclusive Electron Dataset , CDF- note 4320 (1998), unpublished

    1998

  34. [43]

    Dorigo A Trigger Breakdown of the Inclusive Central Electron Dataset, CDF-note 4079 (1997), unpublished

    T. Dorigo A Trigger Breakdown of the Inclusive Central Electron Dataset, CDF-note 4079 (1997), unpublished

    1997

  35. [44]

    Dorigo, Anomaly! Collider Physics and the Quest for New Phenomena at Fermilab , World Scientific, Singapore (2016), https://doi.org/10.1142/q0032

    T. Dorigo, Anomaly! Collider Physics and the Quest for New Phenomena at Fermilab , World Scientific, Singapore (2016), https://doi.org/10.1142/q0032

    2016 doi

  36. [45]

    Ablikim et al., Design and Construction of the BESIII Detector , Nucl

    M. Ablikim et al., Design and Construction of the BESIII Detector , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A614 (2010) 345-399, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2009.12.050

    2010 doi

  37. [47]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. , Future Physics Programme of BESIII , Chin.Phys.C 44 (2020) 4, 040001, https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/44/4/040001

    2020 doi

  38. [48]

    Ablikim et al., Observation of a Charged Charmoniumlike Structure Zc(4020 and Search for the Zc(3900) in e+e− → π+π−hc, Phys.Rev.Lett

    M. Ablikim et al., Observation of a Charged Charmoniumlike Structure Zc(4020 and Search for the Zc(3900) in e+e− → π+π−hc, Phys.Rev.Lett. 111 (2013) 24, 242001, https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.111.242001

    2013

  39. [49]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. , Observation of a charged charmoniumlike structure in e+e− → (D∗ ¯D∗)±π∓ at √s = 4 .26GeV, Phys.Rev.Lett. 112 (2014) 13, 132001, https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.112.132001. 25

    2014

  40. [51]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. , Measurement of the e+e− → π+π− cross section between 600 and 900 MeV using initial state radiation , Phys.Lett.B 753 (2016) 629-638, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. physletb.2015.11.043

    2016 doi

  41. [52]

    Ablikim et al., Precise measurement of the e+e− → π+π−J/ψ cross section at center-of-mass energies from 3.77 to 4.60 GeV , Phys.Rev.Lett

    M. Ablikim et al., Precise measurement of the e+e− → π+π−J/ψ cross section at center-of-mass energies from 3.77 to 4.60 GeV , Phys.Rev.Lett. 118 (2017) 9, 092001, https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.118.092001

    2017

  42. [53]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. , Observation of e+e− → γX (3872) at BESIII , Phys.Rev.Lett. 112 (2014) 9, 092001, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.092001

    2014 doi

  43. [54]

    Ablikim et al., Observation of a Near-Threshold Structure in the K + Recoil-Mass Spectra in e+e− → K +(D− s D∗0 + D∗− s D0), Phys.Rev.Lett

    M. Ablikim et al., Observation of a Near-Threshold Structure in the K + Recoil-Mass Spectra in e+e− → K +(D− s D∗0 + D∗− s D0), Phys.Rev.Lett. 126 (2021) 10, 102001, https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.126.102001

    2021

  44. [55]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. , Evidence of Two Resonant Structures in e+e− → π+π−hc, Phys.Rev.Lett. 118 (2017) 9, 092002, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.092002

    2017 doi

  45. [56]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. , Precision measurement of the integrated luminosity of the data taken by BESIII at center of mass energies between 3.810 GeV and 4.600 GeV , Chin.Phys.C 39 (2015) 9, 093001, https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/39/9/093001

    2015 doi

  46. [57]

    Ablikim et al., Confirmation of the X(1835) and observation of the resonances X(2120) and X(2370) in J/ψ → γπ +π−η′, Phys.Rev.Lett

    M. Ablikim et al., Confirmation of the X(1835) and observation of the resonances X(2120) and X(2370) in J/ψ → γπ +π−η′, Phys.Rev.Lett. 106 (2011) 072002, https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.106.072002

    2011

  47. [58]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. , Polarization and Entanglement in Baryon-Antibaryon Pair Production in Electron-Positron Annihilation, Nature Phys. 15 (2019) 631-634, https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41567-019-0494-8

    2019

  48. [59]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. , Search for hadronic transition χcJ → ηcπ+π− and observation of χcJ → KKπππ , Phys.Rev.D 87 (2013) 1, 012002, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.87.012002

    2013 doi

  49. [60]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. , Measurements of absolute hadronic branching fractions of Λ+ c baryon, Phys.Rev.Lett. 116 (2016) 5, 052001, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.052001

    2016 doi

  50. [61]

    Ablikim et al., Observation of Zc(3900)0 in e+e− → π0π0J/ψ, Phys.Rev.Lett

    M. Ablikim et al., Observation of Zc(3900)0 in e+e− → π0π0J/ψ, Phys.Rev.Lett. 115 (2015) 11, 112003, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.112003

    2015 doi

  51. [62]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. , Measurement of the integrated luminosities of the data taken by BESIII at √s=3.650 and 3.773 GeV , Chin.Phys.C 37 (2013) 123001, https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1674-1137/37/12/123001

    2013

  52. [63]

    Ablikim et al., Branching fraction measurements of χc0 and χc2 to π0π0 and ηη, Phys.Rev.D 81 (2010) 052005, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.052005

    M. Ablikim et al., Branching fraction measurements of χc0 and χc2 to π0π0 and ηη, Phys.Rev.D 81 (2010) 052005, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.052005. 26

    2010 doi

  53. [64]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. , Observation of e+e− → π0π0hc and a Neutral Charmoniumlike Structure Zc(4020)0, Phys.Rev.Lett. 113 (2014) 21, 212002, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 113.212002

    2014 doi

  54. [65]

    Barres de Almeida [SWGO], The Southern Wide-Field Gamma-ray Observatory , As- tron

    U. Barres de Almeida [SWGO], The Southern Wide-Field Gamma-ray Observatory , As- tron. Nachr. 342 (2021) no.1-2, 431-437, https://doi.org/10.1002/asna.202113946, arXiv:2012.13740 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  55. [67]

    See https://www.almaobservatory.org/en/science-highlights/

  56. [68]

    Rossi and K

    B. Rossi and K. Greisen, Cosmic-Ray Theory , Rev. Mod. Phys. 13, no. 4, 240-309 (1941), https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.13.240 27

    1941 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.