Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Performance of short and long bent crystals for the TWOCRYST experiment at the Large Hadron Collider

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The three TWOCRYST bent crystals can channel hadrons at 180 GeV, but the two long crystals reach only about half the efficiency predicted for a perfect crystal.

desk verdict Useful new data on long bent crystals, but the TCCP suitability claim ignores the paper's own critical-radius bound at LHC energies. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14365 v1 pith:DAS7SJAH submitted 2025-05-20 hep-ex physics.ins-det

L. Bandiera , R. Cai , S. Carsi , S. Cesare , K.A. Dewhurst , M. D'Andrea , D. De Salvador , P. Gandini
show 22 more authors
V. Guidi P. Hermes G. Lezzani L. Malagutti D. Marangotto C. Maccani A. Mazzolari A. Merli D. Mirarchi P. Monti-Guarnieri C.E. Montanari R. Negrello N. Neri M. Prest S. Redaelli M. Romagnoni A. Selmi G. Tonani E. Vallazza D. Veres F. Zangari M. Zielinska
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-exphysics.ins-det
keywords bentcrystalplanarchannellingefficiencyTWOCRYSTtorsionanodicbondingLHCfixed-targetspinprecession
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 characterises three bent silicon crystals built for the TWOCRYST experiment, a planned demonstration of double-channelling at the Large Hadron Collider. It reports measured channelling efficiencies at 180 GeV/c of $61.9\pm0.5\%$ for the short splitting crystal and $15.8\pm0.1\%$ and $15.7\pm0.2\%$ for two long precession crystals, while a perfect-crystal simulation predicts $74.8\%$, $36.6\%$ and $29.2\%$. The authors conclude that, despite the large gap for the long crystals, both the short and the baseline long crystal are suitable for installation and that the long-crystal results expose limits in current simulation tools. The results matter because the long crystals are the first of their kind intended to deflect short-lived charmed baryons and induce spin precession, a step toward dipole-moment measurements at the LHC.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is planar channelling in bent crystals: positively charged hadrons entering within one Lindhard angle $\theta_L$ of the lattice planes are trapped in the interplanar potential and follow the mechanical curvature, emerging deflected by the bend angle $\theta_b$. The efficiency extraction relies on tracking each particle's incoming and outgoing angle, selecting particles within $\pm\theta_L/2$ of the best-aligned direction, and counting those in the channelling peak. For the long crystals, a two-dimensional torsion map $\theta_0(x,y)$ is fitted bin-by-bin on the entrance face and used to shift the incoming angles; this correction is what separates the reported $15.8\%$ and $15.7\%$ efficiencies from lower raw values.

What would settle it

Measure the same crystals at TeV energies in the LHC: if the long-crystal efficiencies come close to the perfect-crystal simulation values of 36.6% and 29.2% rather than the measured ~16%, then the 180 GeV characterisation and its conclusion about a length-dependent simulation gap would be cast in doubt; a dedicated torsion-free long crystal of the same 70 mm length and ~7 mrad bend would separate mounting effects from intrinsic long-crystal dechannelling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the three bent silicon crystals manufactured for TWOCRYST perform well enough for installation, with quantitatively different outcomes: the short 4 mm splitting crystal channels $61.9\pm0.5\%$ of well-aligned 180 GeV hadrons, comparable to existing collimation crystals; the two 70 mm precession crystals, one clamped in a metallic holder and one anodically bonded to a curved glass lens, channel only $15.8\pm0.1\%$ and $15.7\pm0.2\%$, about half the $36.6\%$ and $29.2\%$ predicted by simulations of a perfect crystal. The paper argues that the short crystal meets expectations, that the discrepancy for the long crystals cannot be blamed on detector resolution or bend-radius variation alone, and that both the short and the baseline long crystal are nevertheless suitable for the TWOCRYST installation. The anodic-bonded crystal, although not planned for use in TWOCRYST, is reported to show five times lower torsion and a similar efficiency at nearly double the bend angle, which the authors read as a promising technology for future long crystals.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that a first-order, position-dependent angular shift $\theta_0(x,y)$, fitted per bin on the crystal entrance face, fully removes the effect of torsion on the quoted long-crystal efficiencies; the paper itself notes that second-order torsion and a non-uniform bending radius leave the TCCP peak not perfectly centred, so the assumption is acknowledged to be imperfect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Both TCCS and TCCP are deemed suitable for installation, so TWOCRYST can proceed to demonstrate proton double-channelling at TeV energies.
  • Any spin-precession measurement built on these long crystals has to live with about 16% channelling efficiency, not the 30-37% that a perfect-crystal simulation suggests.
  • The 6.9-13.3 mrad deflections produced by 70 mm crystals remain far beyond what conventional magnets can deliver in that space, keeping the fixed-target scheme viable.
  • Because the simulation shortfall does not scale with bend-radius uniformity, the cause is more likely tied to crystal length and unmodelled local imperfections than to the average bending profile.
  • The anodic-bonded crystal reaches the same efficiency as the clamped long crystal at nearly double the bend angle, with five times lower torsion, marking that mounting technique as promising for future long crystals.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the measured shortfall grows with crystal length, extrapolating perfect-crystal simulations to multi-TeV LHC energies could overestimate the physics reach; comparing ALADDIN-style sensitivity estimates computed with 16% versus 36% efficiency would quantify the impact.
  • Because the torsion correction maximizes per-bin efficiency by construction, the reported long-crystal values are upper limits under the assumed first-order torsion model; refining the correction or testing a torsion-free long crystal would reveal any residual bias.
  • A controlled length scan with crystals of the same technology at, say, 4, 35, and 70 mm would separate length-dependent dechannelling from mounting effects and give simulation developers a direct benchmark.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the pre-installation characterisation of three bent silicon crystals for the TWOCRYST experiment at the LHC: the short TCCS, the long TCCP, and the anodic-bonded TCCPA. It presents X-ray diffraction measurements of the bending radius and torsion maps, as well as 180 GeV/c SPS hadron-beam measurements of the channelling efficiency, with the deflection-angle peak used to extract the bend angle. The measured efficiencies are 61.9±0.5% (TCCS), 15.8±0.1% (TCCP), and 15.7±0.2% (TCCPA), against Xsuite perfect-crystal predictions of 74.8%, 36.6%, and 29.2%. The paper concludes that both the TCCS and the TCCP are suitable for installation in the LHC for TWOCRYST, while the TCCPA is not planned for use but demonstrates the promise of anodic bonding.

Significance. The core measurements are valuable: they provide the first high-energy hadron-beam characterisation of an anodic-bonded bent crystal, quantify the torsion maps of long crystals, and extend the benchmarking of Xsuite to crystals an order of magnitude longer than those previously simulated. The independent analyses at CERN and INFN Milano lend confidence to the measured values. However, the central suitability claim for the TCCP at LHC energies is not supported by the paper's own critical-radius formula, and the reported efficiencies carry only statistical errors despite an analysis procedure that maximises a bin-by-bin alignment parameter. If the measured efficiencies and torsion maps are correct, the paper would still need a clear statement of the TWOCRYST operational energy and a check of the channelling condition at that energy.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (3); Section 7] The conclusion that the TCCP is suitable for installation in the LHC is not supported by the paper's own critical-radius condition. With U'(xc)=5.7 GeV/cm for Si(110), Eq. (3) gives rho_c ≈ 11.4 m at 6.5 TeV and ≈ 11.9 m at 6.8 TeV, both larger than the TCCP bend radius of rho ≈ 10.1 m (L=70 mm, theta_b=6.9 mrad). In this regime the factor (1-rho_c/rho) in Eq. (2) is negative, so the Lindhard angle is not real and planar channelling cannot occur. The paper never states the operational energy of TWOCRYST or verifies the condition rho > rho_c before deeming the TCCP suitable. Unless the experiment is restricted to energies below about 5.7 TeV, the TCCP cannot channel LHC protons at all; for the TCCPA (rho ≈ 5.3 m) the restriction is even more severe. The suitability claim and the related statement that anodic bonding is promising for multi-TeV applications need to be revised or explicitly conditioned on an energy that satisfies Eq. (3).
  2. [Section 5.2.2] The bin-by-bin torsion correction can bias the quoted channelling efficiencies upward. For each impact bin, the angular shift theta_0(x,y) is varied until the maximum efficiency is found; statistical fluctuations in the deflection-angle distribution are then partly fitted as signal, so the maximised efficiency is an overestimate that is not reflected in the quoted statistical errors. The paper also acknowledges that the TCCP peak is not perfectly centred at zero after the correction, attributing this to second-order torsion effects and a non-uniform bending radius along z. This is an explicit admission that the first-order correction is incomplete, and the resulting systematic uncertainty should be propagated to the quoted values (15.8% for TCCP, 15.7% for TCCPA) before they are used to claim suitability or to benchmark simulations.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 2; Table 3; Section 6.2.2; Section 7] The TCCPA efficiency is quoted inconsistently: 15.7±0.2% in Table 2, 15.9% in Section 6.2.2 and Table 3, and ≈15.8% in the conclusions. One consistent value should be used throughout.
  2. [Table 3 note] The table note states that 'two different values of the interplanar crystal potential are used in simulations', but no such variation is described in the text, and only one set of simulated efficiencies is reported. Either remove the note or document the two potential values and the resulting spread.
  3. [Section 6.2.1 and Figure 12] The Gaussian fit mean is given as 49.8 µrad in the text but 49.7 µrad in the figure caption; these should be harmonised.
  4. [Section 7] There is a typo in the conclusions ('larger channelign efficiencies'), and the phrase 'These results in fact strengthen further the need' is awkward; a language edit is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: measured efficiencies are extracted from data and simulations are independent, not tuned to match them.

full rationale

The derivation chain is non-circular. The target quantities ϵch are defined by Eq. (4) and obtained by Gaussian fits to deflection-angle histograms (Figs. 8 and 11), with Ntot restricted by Lindhard angles from Eq. (2). The Lindhard angle is computed using external textbook values (U0 = 16 eV, U′(xc) = 5.7 GeV cm−1 from [1]) and is not adjusted to the measured efficiencies. The torsion correction θ0(x, y) is fitted bin-by-bin to maximize per-bin channelling efficiency in Section 5.2, but this is a nuisance alignment correction applied before reporting the global efficiency curve; the reported efficiencies (61.9%, 15.8%, 15.7%) are not outputs of that fit and the fit does not define or predict them. The Xsuite simulations use beam distributions measured from the reference dataset, a detector-resolution estimate, and a perfect-crystal model; the simulated efficiencies (74.8%, 36.6%, 29.2%) are compared with the measurements, not adjusted to them. The paper explicitly reports that the discrepancies cannot be explained by resolution effects and proposes further benchmarking, which is evidence that the simulation is not forced to agree with the data. Self-citations (Xsuite, previous H8 analyses, collimation studies) support the methodology, but the suitability conclusion rests primarily on measured efficiency and prior collimation experience, not on a self-citation chain. No equation reduces to its own input and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The absence of an LHC-energy critical-radius check is a correctness/completeness concern, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or fitted physical constants. Its quantitative outputs rest on standard channeling-theory inputs (U0 and U'(xc)), a definition of the channelling denominator, and a perfect-crystal simulation model that the authors themselves flag as an upper bound. The main fitted nuisance is the bin-wise torsion shift θ0, which is optimized against the data. These are acceptable for an engineering characterization but should be included in the uncertainty budget.

free parameters (2)
  • Torsion alignment offset θ0(x,y) per impact bin = Not reported numerically; maps in Figure 9
    Fit by maximizing channelling efficiency in each bin before quoting the peak efficiency (Section 5.2.2). A nuisance parameter whose optimization can bias efficiencies upward; its uncertainty is not propagated.
  • Gaussian fit range for the channelled peak = 40 to 80 µrad for TCCS
    Chosen by hand to isolate the channelled peak (Figure 8). Affects Nch and hence the quoted efficiency; a similar range choice is made for the long crystals without a stated rule.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Lindhard planar-channeling potential constants: U0 = 16 eV and U'(xc) = 5.7 GeV/cm for Si(110), giving the θL values in Table 1.
    Used in Section 3 and Table 1 to compute Lindhard angles that define the channelling denominator Ntot. Constants are taken from Biryukov et al. [1]; if wrong, the quoted efficiencies shift.
  • domain assumption Channelling efficiency is defined with the denominator equal to particles entering within ±θL/2 of the crystal plane orientation (Eq. 4).
    Section 3 and Section 5.2; quoted efficiencies are ratios to this window. Alternative denominator definitions would change the numbers.
  • domain assumption Xsuite perfect-crystal simulation (uniform bend, no torsion, no miscut, no amorphous layers) provides an upper bound on measured efficiency.
    Section 6.1 states this explicitly. The simulation is used to benchmark crystal quality, but real crystal imperfections are not modeled.
  • domain assumption The 12% pion/proton dechannelling-length difference supports the 3% downward correction to simulated long-crystal efficiencies.
    Section 6.1; no reference is given for the 12% value. If this scaling is wrong, the simulation comparison shifts by a small amount.
  • domain assumption The simulated detector angular resolutions of 4.5 µrad (incoming) and 7.2 µrad (outgoing) are representative of the H8 setup.
    Section 6.1; these resolutions are used to convolve simulated distributions. The authors show the TCCS comparison is sensitive to this choice.
  • domain assumption A first-order torsion model, with a per-bin angular offset θ0(x,y), is sufficient to correct torsion for the long crystals.
    Section 5.2.2; residual second-order effects are noted for the TCCP. This is the weakest premise for the quoted long-crystal efficiencies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Performance of short and long bent crystals for the TWOCRYST experiment at the Large Hadron Collider." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DAS7SJAH

@misc{pith2026250514365,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Performance of short and long bent crystals for the TWOCRYST experiment at the Large Hadron Collider},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DAS7SJAH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14365}
}
read the original abstract

This study investigates the performance of bent silicon crystals intended to channel hadrons in a fixed-target experiment at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The phenomenon of planar channelling in bent crystals enables extremely high effective bending fields for positively charged hadrons within compact volumes. Particles trapped in the potential well of high-purity, ordered atomic lattices follow the mechanical curvature of the crystal, resulting in macroscopic deflections. Although the bend angle remains constant across different momenta (i.e., the phenomenon is non-dispersive), the channelling acceptance and efficiency still depend on the particle momentum. Crystals with lengths from 5 cm to 10 cm, bent to angles between 5 mrad and 15 mrad, are under consideration for measurements of the electric and magnetic dipole moments of short-lived charmed baryons, such as the Lambda_c^+. Such large deflection angles over short distances cannot be achieved using conventional magnets. The principle of inducing spin precession through bent crystals for magnetic dipole moment measurements was first demonstrated in the 1990s. Building on this concept, experimental layouts are now being explored at the LHC. The feasibility of such measurements depends, among other factors, on the availability of crystals with the mechanical properties required to achieve the necessary channelling performance. To address this, a dedicated machine experiment, TWOCRYST, has been installed in the LHC to carry out beam tests in the TeV energy range. The bent crystals for TWOCRYST were fabricated and tested using X-ray diffraction and high-momentum hadron beams at 180 GeV/c at the CERN SPS. This paper presents an analysis of the performance of these newly developed crystals, as characterised by these measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14365 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Supports for the deformation of the silicon crys [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. TCCS bent silicon crystal clamped by its U [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Possible particle interactions with the lat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Initial laser alignment of the TCCS crystal. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Experimental layout employed on the H8 beam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Angular deflection of the particles impacting the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of the angular deflection of par [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Torsion map of the entrance surface of the TCCP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Distribution of the angular deflection of par [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: TCCP (top) and TCCPA (bottom) crystal effi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Xsuite simulation result, showing the angular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Biryukov, Y.A

    V.M. Biryukov, Y.A. Chesnokov, V.I. Kotov, Crystal Channeling and Its Application at High-Energy Acceler- ators. Accelerator Physics (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1997). DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-03407-1. URL http: //link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-662-03407-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-662-03407-1 1997

  2. [2]

    Br¨ uning, P

    O.S. Br¨ uning, P. Collier, P. Lebrun, S. Myers, R. Os- tojic, J. Poole, P. Proudlock, LHC Design Re- port. Tech. rep., CERN, Geneva (2004). DOI 10. 5170/CERN-2004-003-V-1. URL http://cds.cern.ch/ record/782076. Series: CERN Yellow Reports: Mono- graphs

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    D’Andrea, O

    M. D’Andrea, O. Aberle, A. Abramov, L. Bandiera, R. Bruce, R. Cai, M. Calviani, Q. Demassieux, K.A. Dewhurst, M. Di Castro, L.S. Esposito, Y. Gavrikov, S. Gilardoni, V. Guidi, P.D. Hermes, Y. Ivanov, B.H.F. Lindstr¨ om, A. Lechner, A. Mazzolari, E. Matheson, 12 D. Mirarchi, J.B. Potoine, S. Redaelli, G. Ricci, M. Ro- magnoni, R. Seidenbinder, S. Solis Pai...

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Garattini, D

    M. Garattini, D. Annucci, O. Blanco-Garc ´ ıa, P. Gi- anotti, S. Guiducci, A. Liedl, M. Raggi, P. Valente, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 25(3), 033501 (2022). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.25.033501. URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.25. 033501. Publisher: American Physical Society

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevaccelbeams.25.033501 2022

  5. [5]

    Velotti, L.S

    F.M. Velotti, L.S. Esposito, M.A. Fraser, V. Kain, S. Gi- lardoni, B. Goddard, M. Pari, J. Prieto, R. Rossi, W. Scandale, L.S. Stoel, F. Galluccio, M. Garat- tini, Y. Gavrikov, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 22(9), 093502 (2019). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams. 22.093502. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevAccelBeams.22.093502. Publisher: American Physi...

    doi:10.1103/physrevaccelbeams 2019

  6. [7]

    Mazzolari, E

    A. Mazzolari, E. Bagli, L. Bandiera, V. Guidi, H. Backe, W. Lauth, V. Tikhomirov, A. Berra, D. Lietti, M. Prest, E. Vallazza, D. De Salvador, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112(13), 135503 (2014). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett. 112.135503. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.112.135503. Publisher: American Physical Society

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett 2014

  7. [8]

    Afonin, V.T

    A.G. Afonin, V.T. Baranov, M.K. Bulgakov, I.S. Voinov, V.B. Ganenko, V.N. Gorlov, I.V. Ivanova, I.V. Kir- illin, V.A. Maisheev, S.F. Reshetnikov, D.A. Savin, E.A. Syshchikov, V.I. Terekhov, V.I. Truten’, Y.A. Ches- nokov, P.N. Chirkov, N.F. Shul’ga, I.A. Yazynin, In- strum Exp Tech 59(2), 196 (2016). DOI 10.1134/ S0020441216020019. URL https://doi.org/10....

    work page 2016

  8. [9]

    Jaeckel, M

    J. Jaeckel, M. Lamont, C. Vall´ ee, Nat. Phys. 16(4), 393 (2020). DOI 10.1038/s41567-020-0838-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-020-0838-4 2020

Show all 56 references
  1. [10]

    Barschel, J

    C. Barschel, J. Bernhard, A. Bersani, C. Bos- colo Meneguolo, R. Bruce, M. Calviani, V. Carassiti, F. Cerutti, P. Chiggiato, G. Ciullo, P. Di Nezza, M. Ferro- Luzzi, A. Fomin, F. Galluccio, M. Garattini, M. Giovan- nozzi, C. Hadjidakis, A. Kurepin, N. Kurepin, P. Lenisa, M. Ma...

    2019

  2. [11]

    Afonin, V.T

    A.G. Afonin, V.T. Baranov, V.M. Biryukov, V.N. Chep- egin, Y.A. Chesnokov, Y.S. Fedotov, A.A. Kardash, V.I. Kotov, V.A. Maisheev, V.I. Terekhov, E.F. Troy- anov, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Re- search Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 234(1),...

    2005 doi

  3. [13]

    Baryshevsky, Physics Letters B 757, 426 (2016)

    V.G. Baryshevsky, Physics Letters B 757, 426 (2016). DOI 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.04.025. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0370269316300983

    2016 doi

  4. [14]

    Stocchi, et al., Physics Beyond Colliders Kickoff Work- shop, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland (2016)

    A. Stocchi, et al., Physics Beyond Colliders Kickoff Work- shop, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland (2016)

    2016

  5. [15]

    Botella, L.M

    F.J. Botella, L.M. Garcia Martin, D. Marangotto, F. Martinez Vidal, A. Merli, N. Neri, A. Oyanguren, J. Ruiz Vidal, Eur. Phys. J. C 77(3), 181(1 (2017). DOI 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4679-y. URL https:// doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4679-y

    2017 doi

  6. [16]

    Bagli, L

    E. Bagli, L. Bandiera, G. Cavoto, V. Guidi, L. Henry, D. Marangotto, F. Martinez Vidal, A. Mazzolari, A. Merli, N. Neri, J. Ruiz Vidal, Eur. Phys. J. C 77(12), 828(1 (2017). DOI 10.1140/epjc/ s10052-017-5400-x. URL https://doi.org/10.1140/ epjc/s10052-017-5400-x

    2017 doi

  7. [17]

    Fomin, A.Y

    A.S. Fomin, A.Y. Korchin, A. Stocchi, O.A. Bezshyyko, L. Burmistrov, S.P. Fomin, I.V. Kirillin, L. Massac- rier, A. Natochii, P. Robbe, W. Scandale, N.F. Shul’ga, J. High Energ. Phys. 2017(8), 120(1 (2017). DOI 10.1007/JHEP08(2017)120. URL https://doi.org/10. 1007/JHEP08(2017)120

    2017 doi

  8. [18]

    Fomin, S

    A.S. Fomin, S. Barsuk, A.Y. Korchin, E. Kou, V.A. Kovalchuk, M. Liul, A. Natochii, E. Niel, P. Robbe, A. Stocchi, Eur. Phys. J. C 80(5), 358 (2020). DOI 10. 1140/epjc/s10052-020-7891-0. URL https://doi.org/ 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7891-0

    2020 doi

  9. [19]

    Aiola, L

    S. Aiola, L. Bandiera, G. Cavoto, F. De Benedetti, J. Fu, V. Guidi, L. Henry, D. Marangotto, F. Martinez Vidal, V. Mascagna, J. Mazorra de Cos, A. Mazzolari, A. Merli, N. Neri, M. Prest, M. Romagnoni, J. Ruiz Vidal, M. Sol- dani, A. Sytov, V. Tikhomirov, E. Vallazza, Phys. Rev...

    2021 doi

  10. [20]

    Akiba, F

    K. Akiba, F. Alessio, M. Benettoni, M. Bizzeti, F. Bor- gato, F. Bucci, R. Cardinale, S. Cesare, M. Citte- rio, V. Coco, P. Collins, E. Dall’Occo, M. Ferro-Luzzi, A. Fomin, R. Forty, J. Fu, P. Gandini, M. Giorgi, J. Grabowski, S.J. Jaimes Elles, S. Jakobsen, E. Kou, G. Lamanna...

    2024

  11. [21]

    Scandale, G

    W. Scandale, G. Arduini, F. Cerutti, M. D’Andrea, L.S. Esposito, M. Garattini, S. Gilardoni, D. Mirarchi, S. Montesano, A. Natochii, S. Redaelli, R. Rossi, G.I. Smirnov, L. Burmistrov, S. Dubos, V. Puill, A. Stoc- chi, F. Addesa, F. Murtas, F. Galluccio, A.D. Ko- valenko, A.M....

    2021

  12. [22]

    Hermes, et al., PoS Proceedings of ICHEP2024, Prague, Czech Republic, 844 (2025)

    P. Hermes, et al., PoS Proceedings of ICHEP2024, Prague, Czech Republic, 844 (2025). DOI 10.22323/ 1.476.0844

    2025

  13. [23]

    Mirarchi, Crystal collimation for LHC

    D. Mirarchi, Crystal collimation for LHC. Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College London, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland (2015)

    2015

  14. [24]

    Mazzolari, M

    A. Mazzolari, M. Romagnoni, R. Camattari, E. Bagli, L. Bandiera, G. Germogli, V. Guidi, G. Cavoto, Eur. Phys. J. C 78(9), 720 (2018). DOI 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6196-z. URL https: //epjc.epj.org/articles/epjc/abs/2018/09/10052_ 2018_Article_6196/10052_2018_Article_6196.html. ...

    2018 doi

  15. [25]

    Lietti, A

    D. Lietti, A. Berra, M. Prest, E. Vallazza, NIM- A 729, 527 (2013). DOI 10.1016/j.nima.2013.07

    2013 doi

  16. [26]

    Garattini

    M. Garattini. Overview of crystal performance at SPS-H8 (2018). URL https://indico.cern.ch/event/752062/ contributions/3114845/

    2018

  17. [27]

    Rossi, L.S

    R. Rossi, L.S. Esposito, M. Garattini, T.O. James, M. Pesaresi, G. Hall, W. Scandale, J. Inst. 16(05), P05017 (2021). DOI 10.1088/1748-0221/16/05/P05017. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/16/05/ P05017. Publisher: IOP Publishing

    2021 doi

  18. [28]

    Mazzolari, M

    A. Mazzolari, M. Romagnoni, E. Bagli, L. Bandiera, S. Baricordi, R. Camattari, D. Casotti, M. Tamis- ari, A. Sytov, V. Guidi, G. Cavoto, S.M. Carturan, D. De Salvador, A. Balbo, G. Cruciani, T.N. Tran Cal- iste, R. Verbeni, N. Pastrone, L. Lanzoni, A. Rossall, J.A. van den Ber...

    2021 doi

  19. [29]

    Baricordi, V

    S. Baricordi, V. Guidi, A. Mazzolari, D. Vincenzi, M. Fer- roni, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41(24), 245501 (2008). DOI 10.1088/0022-3727/41/24/245501. URL https:// dx.doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/41/24/245501

    2008 doi

  20. [30]

    Akbari, X

    H. Akbari, X. Altuna, S. Bardin, R. Bellazzini, V. Biryukov, A. Brez, M.P. Bussa, L. Busso, A. Cal- caterra, G. Carboni, F. Costantini, R. De Sangro, K. Elsener, F. Ferioli, A. Ferrari, G.P. Ferri, F. Fer- roni, G. Fidecaro, A. Freund, R. Guinand, M. Gyr, W. Herr, A. Hilaire, ...

    1993

  21. [31]

    Lapadatu, H

    A.C. Lapadatu, H. Jakobsen, in Handbook of Sil- icon Based MEMS Materials and Technologies (Second Edition) , ed. by M. Tilli, T. Motooka, V.M. Airaksinen, S. Franssila, M. Paulasto-Kr¨ ockel, V. Lindroos, Micro and Nano Technologies (William Andrew Publishing, Boston, 2015), ...

    2015 doi

  22. [32]

    Demassieux, K.A

    Q. Demassieux, K.A. Dewhurst, A. Fomin, P.D. Hermes, D. Mirarchi, S. Redaelli, R. Seidenbinder. [TCCS/TCCP] Functional and Operational Conditions for the Double- Crystal setup in the LHC IR3 (2022). URL https:// edms.cern.ch/document/2742008/1.0. Restricted access

    2022

  23. [33]

    Lindhard, Kongel

    J. Lindhard, Kongel. Dan. Vidensk. Selsk., Mat.-Fys. Medd. 34(14) (1965). URL https://www.osti.gov/ biblio/4536390

    1965

  24. [34]

    Moliere, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Naturforschung A 2(3), 133 (1947)

    G. Moliere, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Naturforschung A 2(3), 133 (1947). DOI 10.1515/zna-1947-0302. URL https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/ zna-1947-0302/html . Publisher: De Gruyter

    1947 doi

  25. [35]

    Scandale, A

    W. Scandale, A. Vomiero, S. Baricordi, P. Dalpiaz, M. Fiorini, V. Guidi, A. Mazzolari, R. Milan, G.D. Mea, G. Ambrosi, B. Bertucci, W.J. Burger, P. Zuc- con, G. Cavoto, R. Santacesaria, P. Valente, E. Val- lazza, A.G. Afonin, Y.A. Chesnokov, V.A. Maisheev, I.A. Yazynin, A.D. K...

    2009

  26. [37]

    Gibson, I.J

    W.M. Gibson, I.J. Kim, M. Pisharody, S.M. Salman, C.R. Sun, G.H. Wang, R. Wijayawardana, J.S. Forster, I.V. Mitchell, T.S. Nigmanov, E.N. Tsyganov, S.I. Baker, R.A. Carrigan, T.E. Toohig, V.V. Avde- ichikov, J.A. Ellison, P. Siffert, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics ...

    1984

  27. [38]

    T.N.C.G.A.e. Al, Eur. Phys. J. C 10(4), 605 (1999). DOI 10.1007/s100520050601. URL http://dx.doi.org/10. 1007/s100520050601. Publisher: EDP Sciences

    1999 doi

  28. [39]

    Rossi, G

    R. Rossi, G. Cavoto, D. Mirarchi, S. Redaelli, W. Scan- dale, NIM-B 355, 369 (2015). DOI 10.1016/j.nimb. 2015.03.001. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0168583X15002013

    2015 doi

  29. [40]

    G. Hall, G. Auzinger, J. Borg, T. James, M. Pe- saresi, M. Raymond, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spec- trometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 924, 394 (2019). DOI 10.1016/j.nima.2018.08.060. URL https://www.sciencedirect.c...

    2019 doi

  30. [41]

    Scandale, F

    W. Scandale, F. Andrisani, G. Arduini, F. Cerutti, M. Garattini, S. Gilardoni, A. Masi, D. Mirarchi, S. Mon- tesano, S. Petrucci, S. Redaelli, P. Schoofs, R. Rossi, D. Breton, D. Chaumat, S. Dubos, J. Maalmi, A. Na- tochii, V. Puill, A. Stocchi, E. Bagli, L. Bandiera, G. Ger- ...

    2018

  31. [42]

    Bonfanti, The high resolution silicon telescope of the INSULAB group

    S. Bonfanti, The high resolution silicon telescope of the INSULAB group. Ph.D. thesis, Insubria U., Como (2012). URL http://cds.cern.ch/record/1523716

    2012

  32. [43]

    Barbiellini, G

    G. Barbiellini, G. Fedel, F. Liello, F. Longo, C. Pontoni, M. Prest, M. Tavani, E. Vallazza, NIM-A 490(1), 146 (2002). DOI 10.1016/S0168-9002(02)01062-8. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0168900202010628

    2002 doi

  33. [44]

    Prest, G

    M. Prest, G. Barbiellini, G. Bordignon, G. Fedel, F. Liello, F. Longo, C. Pontoni, E. Vallazza, Nu- clear Instruments and Methods in Physics Re- search Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 501(1), 280 (2003). DOI 10.1016/S0168-9002(02)0204...

    2003 doi

  34. [45]

    Klienwort, V

    C. Klienwort, V. Blobel. Millepede-II (2024). URL https://gitlab.desy.de/claus.kleinwort/ millepede-ii

    2024

  35. [46]

    URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0370269309010089

  36. [47]

    Scott, Biometrika 66(3), 605 (1979)

    D.W. Scott, Biometrika 66(3), 605 (1979). DOI 10. 1093/biomet/66.3.605. URL https://doi.org/10.1093/ biomet/66.3.605

    1979

  37. [48]

    Gholamy, V

    A. Gholamy, V. Kreinovich, Departmental Technical Re- ports (CS) (2017). URL gh

    2017

  38. [49]

    Blobel, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detec- tors and Associated Equipment 566(1), 5 (2006)

    V. Blobel, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detec- tors and Associated Equipment 566(1), 5 (2006). DOI 10.1016/j.nima.2006.05.157. URL https://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0168900206007984

    2006 doi

  39. [50]

    Mirarchi, S

    D. Mirarchi, S. Redaelli, W. Scandale, CERN Yel- low Reports: Conference Proceedings pp. 91–108 (2018). DOI 10.23732/CYRCP-2018-002.91. URL https://e-publishing.cern.ch/index.php/CYRCP/ article/view/1132

    2018 doi

  40. [51]

    D’Andrea, A

    M. D’Andrea, A. Mereghetti, D. Mirarchi, V. Olsen, S. Redaelli, pp. 2648–2651 (2021). DOI 10.18429/ JACoW-IPAC2021-WEPAB024. URL https://cds. cern.ch/record/2783804

    2021

  41. [52]

    Redaelli (ed.)

    S. Redaelli (ed.). Proceedings,ICF A Mini-Workshop on Tracking for Collimation in Particle Accelerators: Geneva, Switzerland, October 30, 2015, CERN Yellow Reports: Conference Proceedings, vol. 2/2018 (CERN, Geneva, 2018). DOI 10.23732/CYRCP-2018-002

    2015 doi

  42. [53]

    Demetriadou, A

    D. Demetriadou, A. Abramov, G. Iadarola, F. Van der Veken, in Proc. of the 14th Int. Particle Accelerator Conf. (JACoW, Venice, Italy, 2023), pp. 2801–2804. DOI 10.18429/JACOW-IPAC2023-WEPA066. URL https: //jacow.org/ipac2023/doi/jacow-ipac2023-wepa066 . WEPA066

    2023 doi

  43. [54]

    Van Der Veken, A

    F. Van Der Veken, A. Abramov, G. Broggi, F. Cerutti, M. D’Andrea, D. Demetriadou, L.S. Esposito, G. Hugo, G. Iadarola, B. Lindstr¨ om, S. Redaelli, V. Rodin, N. Triantafyllou, in Proceedings of the 68th Adv. Beam Dyn. Workshop High-Intensity High-Brightness Hadron Beams (CERN,...

    2024 doi

  44. [55]

    Iadarola, R

    G. Iadarola, R. De Maria, S. Lopaciuk, A. Abramov, X. Buffat, D. Demetriadou, L. Deniau, P. Hermes, P. Kic- siny, P. Kruyt, A. Latina, L. Mether, K. Paraschou, Sterbini, F. Van Der Veken, P. Belanger, P. Nieder- mayer, D. Di Croce, T. Pieloni, L. Van Riesen-Haupt. Xsuite: an i...

    2023 doi arXiv

  45. [56]

    Matheson, et al

    E. Matheson, et al. TCPC – Crystal Choice for YETS22- 23 Installation. Presentation at the TCPC 2022 Crystal Selection Meeting

    2022

  46. [58]

    Dewhurst, F

    K. Dewhurst, F. Van der Veken, P. Hermes, D. Mirar- chi, S. Redaelli, pp. 1148–1151 (2024). DOI 10.18429/ JACOW-IPAC2024-TUPC65. URL https://jacow. org/ipac2024/doi/jacow-ipac2024-tupc65 . Artwork Size: 1148-1151 pages, 0.66 MB ISBN: 9783954502479 Medium: PDF Publisher: JACoW ...

    2024

  47. [66]

    URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0168900213010784

  48. [128]

    URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0168583X04014235

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.