A dump leakage calorimeter to measure the flux of high-energy electrons and photons

Advait Kanekar; Antonios Athanassiadis; Beate Heinemann; Felipe Pe\~na; Ivo Schulthess; Jenny List; Jonas Bj\"orklund Svensson; Jonathan Wood; Lewis Boulton; Louis Helary

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 36 references

A dump leakage calorimeter to measure the flux of high-energy electrons and photons

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A lead-glass calorimeter reads the shower leaking from a beam dump to measure electron bunch charge with few-percent accuracy and beam position to tens of micrometers, without intercepting the beam.

desk verdict A credible, useful dump-leakage calorimeter diagnostic whose few-percent charge accuracy claim rests on calibration details the abstract doesn't show. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.17991 v2 pith:26OOGYSA submitted 2025-08-25 hep-ex

Antonios Athanassiadis , Ties Behnke , Jonas Björklund Svensson , Oleksandr Borysov , Maryna Borysova , Lewis Boulton , Sarawit Chindaratchakul , Beate Heinemann

show 13 more authors

Louis Helary Ruth Jacobs Advait Kanekar Jenny List Tianyun Long Tanguy Marsault Felipe Peña Stefan Schmitt Sarah Schröder Ivo Schulthess Stephan Wesch Matthew Wing Jonathan Wood

This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ex

keywords beamdumplead-glasscalorimeterelectromagneticshowerbunchchargemeasurementpositionmonitornon-interceptingdiagnostichigh-energyelectronsphotons

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 a beam dump can be turned into a precision diagnostic. The authors built a lead-glass calorimeter that catches the electromagnetic shower leaking out of the beam dump where high-energy electrons are disposed of, and they show that the shower signal reliably tracks the incident bunch charge and the beam's transverse position. If correct, this gives accelerator facilities a non-intercepting way to monitor high-power or high-energy beams that cannot be stopped or inserted. The demonstrated precision is about 10% per bunch with accuracy at the few-percent level for charge, and tens of micrometers for position, with the same method extendable to photon beams.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is shower-leakage calorimetry: high-energy electrons or photons hitting the beam dump produce an electromagnetic shower, a cascade of secondary particles; a fraction of that shower escapes the dump material and is absorbed in a lead-glass calorimeter, where it produces Cherenkov light proportional to the deposited energy. That light is the signal. The calorimeter's response to the leakage is the proxy for the incident bunch charge, and the distribution of signal across its cells carries position information.

What would settle it

Install a calibrated current transformer or integrating current transformer upstream of the dump and compare its charge measurement with the calorimeter's leakage-based reconstruction over a scan of beam charges, energies, and spot sizes; if the two disagree by more than the claimed few-percent accuracy under controlled conditions, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the leakage of an electromagnetic shower from a beam dump carries enough information to serve as a beam diagnostic. A prototype lead-glass calorimeter placed near the FLASHForward beam dump measured the Cherenkov light produced by shower particles escaping the dump, and from that signal the authors reconstructed the electron bunch charge with a typical precision of about 10% and accuracy at the few-percent level, and the beam position with a precision of tens of micrometers. The paper further claims the method works for high-energy photons, where the same electromagnetic-shower mechanism is initiated by photon conversion.

Load-bearing premise

The leakage signal from the beam dump is a stable, reproducible, and sufficiently linear proxy for the incident bunch charge and position, so that known and unknown backgrounds can be calibrated away.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Beam dumps in existing and future accelerator facilities can be instrumented as non-intercepting charge and position monitors, removing the need for destructive beam stops during tuning.
High-power beams that would damage intercepting diagnostics can be monitored continuously by reading the dump leakage.
Photon beams, which are difficult to measure non-interceptingly, become measurable through the same electromagnetic-shower mechanism.
The few-percent accuracy on charge suggests the leakage signal is sufficiently linear and reproducible to be a quantitative flux monitor, not just a relative indicator.

Reading between the lines

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

If the leakage signal's proportionality to bunch charge holds over a wide dynamic range, the same technique could be extended to bunch-by-bunch or even time-resolved monitoring by fast sampling of the calorimeter output.
The position resolution of tens of micrometers may come from the transverse segmentation of the calorimeter; with finer segmentation or a more sophisticated reconstruction the resolution could improve, though beam physics backgrounds would need testing.
The method could be combined with beam-loss monitors to distinguish genuine loss-induced signals from the intended dump leakage, potentially making it a safety-relevant tool for high-power facilities.
A direct test against an independent, calibrated charge monitor (such as a current transformer) under varying beam energy, spot size, and dump temperature would establish the generic validity of the few-percent accuracy claim.

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

This is a solid instrumentation paper: a lead-glass calorimeter that reads electromagnetic shower leakage from a beam dump to measure bunch charge and position non-interceptively. That is genuinely new and practical—dumps are normally dead ends, and turning one into a diagnostic is clever. The FLASHForward prototype looks well-placed, and claiming sensitivity to photons as well as electrons broadens the value. If the numbers hold, this is a useful addition to beam instrumentation.

The headline claims—10% precision, few-percent accuracy on charge, tens-of-micrometer position resolution—are plausible but unverified from the abstract alone. The stress-test note hits the right worry: shower leakage is position-dependent, so the charge measurement can be biased by position unless you deconvolve the two. The abstract doesn't say how that is handled. That's not fatal; it's exactly the kind of thing a calibration run with an independent charge monitor would resolve. But the paper needs to show that calibration, along with the error budget, background subtraction, and how the position measurement is extracted. Without those, the accuracy claim is an assertion, not a result.

I also want to see how these numbers were benchmarked—against a current transformer or a calibrated diode, over how many bunches, and whether the few-percent accuracy is systematic or statistical. The reader's soundness score of 4 is fair for an abstract-only review; it's not a knock on the work, just a reflection of missing information.

This is a paper for accelerator physicists and beam-diagnostics specialists. It doesn't reshape the field, but it solves a real problem in a new way. The full text is likely to address the calibration concerns, and if it does, this is a citable reference for dump diagnostics. It deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject.

Send it to peer review, and make sure the referee is someone who will push on the charge-position deconvolution and the calibration methodology. That's the load-bearing point.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper describes a novel lead-glass calorimeter that measures the flux of high-energy electrons or photons by detecting the electromagnetic shower leakage from a beam dump. The authors report a prototype installed at the FLASHForward experiment at DESY and claim that the detector can measure electron bunch charge with a precision of about 10% and an accuracy at the few-percent level, while also determining beam position with tens-of-micrometers precision. Applicability to high-energy photons is also asserted.

Significance. If the claims are fully substantiated, the device would provide a non-intercepting, beam-dump-integrated diagnostic for bunch charge and position at high-energy electron/photon facilities, potentially complementing existing beam instrumentation. The reported performance numbers are attractive for accelerator operations and experiments. However, the abstract alone provides no technical detail on the measurement methodology, calibration, systematic uncertainties, or cross-checks, so the significance of the work cannot currently be assessed beyond the plausibility of the concept.

major comments (3)

[Abstract] The abstract claims a typical precision on the order of 10% and an accuracy at the few-percent level for bunch charge without defining the statistical or systematic uncertainty, the measurement conditions, or the number of bunches used. These numbers are load-bearing for the central claim but are unverifiable from the abstract. A full experimental section with error budgets, run-to-run variations, and comparison to an independent charge monitor is required.
[Abstract] The simultaneous claims of tens-of-micrometer position resolution and few-percent charge accuracy raise a concern about crosstalk between position and charge reconstruction. Shower leakage is position-sensitive, and the same gradients that provide position information can bias the integrated charge signal. The abstract does not explain how the analysis separates the two parameters (e.g., via multi-channel readout and a two-parameter fit) or how the residual position-dependent response is corrected. Without this, the few-percent accuracy claim is not supported.
[Abstract] No calibration procedure or validation against known beam parameters is described. The abstract states 'we show' but does not indicate whether the quoted accuracy is an absolute calibration against an independent charge/position monitor, a Monte-Carlo-driven calibration, or a self-referenced measurement. A calibration that defines the conversion from shower leakage to bunch charge is a free parameter; its uncertainty and sensitivity to beam energy, dump material, and ambient conditions must be reported.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract would benefit from stating whether the precision and accuracy figures refer to single-bunch measurements or averages over many bunches, and over what beam-energy range the results apply.
[Abstract] The abstract contains no references to prior work on dump-leakage or non-intercepting beam diagnostics. A brief contextual statement or citations would help situate the claimed novelty.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found in the available text; the claims are empirical and benchmarked against independent beam parameters.

full rationale

The only text provided is the abstract. It reports a prototype calorimeter that measures electron bunch charge and beam position from electromagnetic shower leakage in a beam dump. There is no derivation chain shown, no fitted parameter being relabeled as a prediction, and no self-citation in the abstract. The stated accuracies are empirical claims that would be established by comparing the calorimeter response with independent beam charge monitors or calibrated sources. The absence of calibration details is a completeness or verifiability concern, not evidence of circularity. Without equations or a description of how the calibration was performed, there is no specific reduction to exhibit, and the rules require quoting the paper and showing the exact circular step. Therefore the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on domain assumptions about shower-leakage linearity, detector stability, and background control. The only obvious free parameter is the calibration constant, the value of which is not reported in the abstract. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

Calibration constant converting shower leakage light to bunch charge = Not stated in abstract
The few-percent accuracy claim depends on calibrating the measured leakage signal against an independent bunch-charge measurement. This constant is not derived from first principles and would be fitted to data.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Shower leakage from the beam dump scales monotonically with incident electron or photon flux.
This is the underlying detection principle stated in the abstract. If the leakage is nonlinear or saturated, the charge measurement fails.
domain assumption The lead-glass calorimeter response is linear and stable over the measurement range.
The precision and accuracy claims assume a well-behaved detector response. Radiation damage, temperature effects, or rate effects would violate this.
domain assumption Background signals at the dump can be subtracted or are negligible.
Accurate charge measurement requires separating the shower leakage signal from ambient radiation and other backgrounds. The abstract does not describe how this is done.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A dump leakage calorimeter to measure the flux of high-energy electrons and photons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/26OOGYSA

@misc{pith2026250817991,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A dump leakage calorimeter to measure the flux of high-energy electrons and photons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/26OOGYSA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.17991}
}

read the original abstract

We developed a novel apparatus based on a lead-glass calorimeter that can measure the flux of high-energy electrons or photons. Our detector uses the electromagnetic shower leakage from the beam dump, where the particles are disposed of at the beamline's end. A prototype of such a calorimeter was set up at the FLASHForward experiment at DESY. We show that it can measure the electron bunch charge with a typical precision on the order of 10% and an accuracy at the few-percent level. Additionally, it is capable of determining the beam's position with a precision on the order of tens of micrometers. Finally, we demonstrate applicability to high-energy photons.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

[1]

write newline

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

Abramowicz, U.H

H. Abramowicz, U.H. Acosta, M. Altarelli, R. Assmann, Z. Bai, T. Behnke et al., Conceptual Design Report for the LUXE Experiment , https://doi.org/10.1140/epjs/s11734-021-00249-z The European Physical Journal Special Topics 230 (2021) 2445 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.02032 2102.02032 ]

arXiv 2021
[3]

Abramowicz, M

LUXE Collaboration , H. Abramowicz, M. Almanza Soto, M. Altarelli, R. A mann, A. Athanassiadis et al., Technical Design Report for the LUXE experiment , The European Physical Journal Special Topics (2024) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjs/s11734-024-01164-9

doi:10.1140/epjs/s11734-024-01164-9 2024
[4]

Abela, A

R. Abela, A. Aghababyan , M. Altarelli , C. Altucci , G. Amatuni , P. Anfinrud et al., XFEL : The European X-Ray Free-Electron Laser - Technical Design Report , 2006. 10.3204/DESY\_06-097

doi:10.3204/desy 2006
[5]

Schulthess and F

I. Schulthess and F. Meloni, New Physics Search with the Optical Dump Concept at Future Colliders , Mar., 2025. 10.48550/arXiv.2503.20996

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.20996 2025
[6]

Beacham, C

J. Beacham, C. Burrage, D. Curtin, A. De Roeck, J. Evans, J.L. Feng et al., Physics beyond colliders at CERN : Beyond the Standard Model working group report , https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6471/ab4cd2 Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 47 (2020) 010501

doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ab4cd2 2020
[7]

Lensch, D

T. Lensch, D. Lipka, R. Neumann and M. Werner, Comparison of Different Bunch Charge Monitors Used at the ARES Accelerator at DESY , in Journals of Accelerator Conferences Website , (Saskatoon, Canada), pp. 169--173, JACoW Publishing, 2023, DOI https://doi.org/10.18429/JACOW-IBIC2023-TU3I04

work page doi:10.18429/jacow-ibic2023-tu3i04 2023
[8]

Fleck, N

K. Fleck, N. Cavanagh and G. Sarri, Conceptual Design of a High-flux Multi-GeV Gamma-ray Spectrometer , https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-66832-x Scientific Reports 10 (2020)

work page doi:10.1038/s41598-020-66832-x 2020

Show all 36 references

[9]

Cavanagh, K

N. Cavanagh, K. Fleck, M.J.V. Streeter, E. Gerstmayr, L.T. Dickson, C. Ballage et al., Experimental characterization of a single-shot spectrometer for high-flux, GeV-scale gamma-ray beams , https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevresearch.5.043046 Physical Review Research 5 (2023)

2023 doi
[10]

D'Arcy, A

R. D'Arcy, A. Aschikhin, S. Bohlen, G. Boyle, T. Br \"u mmer, J. Chappell et al., FLASHForward : Plasma wakefield accelerator science for high-average-power applications , https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0392 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, P...

2018
[11]

Schreiber and B

S. Schreiber and B. Faatz, The free-electron laser FLASH , https://doi.org/10.1017/hpl.2015.16 High Power Laser Science and Engineering 3 (2015) e20

2015 doi
[12]

Faatz, E

B. Faatz, E. Pl \"o njes, S. Ackermann, A. Agababyan, V. Asgekar, V. Ayvazyan et al., Simultaneous operation of two soft x-ray free-electron lasers driven by one linear accelerator, https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/18/6/062002 New Journal of Physics 18 (2016) 062002

2016 doi
[13]

Lindstr m, J

C.A. Lindstr m, J. Beinortait \.e , J. Bj \"o rklund Svensson, L. Boulton, J. Chappell, S. Diederichs et al., Emittance preservation in a plasma-wakefield accelerator, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-50320-1 Nature Communications 15 (2024) 6097

2024 doi
[14]

Lytkarino Optical Glass Factory, JSC , `` TF1 glass type.''
[15]

Binon, V

F. Binon, V. Buyanov, S. Donskov, P. Duteil, M. Gouanere, A. Inyakin et al., Hodoscope multiphoton spectrometer GAMS-2000 , https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-9002(86)90501-2 Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and As...

1986 doi
[16]

PHOTONIS S.A.S , Photomultiplier Tubes Catalogue , 2007

2007
[17]

HERMES Collaboration and D. Ryckbosch, The HERMES RICH detector , https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(99)00356-3 Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 433 (1999) 98

1999 doi
[18]

CAEN SpA , DS3153 - 730 Digitizer Family 16/8 Channel 14-bit 500 MS /s Data Sheet , Nov., 2019

2019
[19]

de Jong , `` CAEN-v1730-DAQ .'' https://github.com/samdejong86/CAEN-v1730-DAQ, June, 2023

S. de Jong , `` CAEN-v1730-DAQ .'' https://github.com/samdejong86/CAEN-v1730-DAQ, June, 2023

2023
[20]

Hensler and K

O. Hensler and K. Rehlich, DOOCS : A distributed object oriented control system , in 15th Conference on Charged Particle Accelerators, pp. 308--315, 1996

1996
[21]

Karstensen, S

S. Karstensen, S. Bohlen, J. Dale, M. Dinter, J. M \"u ller, P. Niknejadi et al., FLASHForward : DOOCS Control System for a Beam-Driven Plasma-Wakefield Acceleration Experiment , https://doi.org/10.18429/JACOW-IPAC2018-TUPMF082 Proceedings of the 9th Int. Particle Accelerator ...

2018 doi
[22]

Treyer, R

D.M. Treyer, R. Baldinger, R. Ditter, B. Keil, W. Koprek, G. Marinkovic et al., Design and Beam Test Results of Button BPMs for the European XFEL , in International Beam Instrumentation Conference IBIC 2013 , (Oxford, UK), pp. 723--726, 2013

2013
[23]

Baboi, H.T

N. Baboi, H.T. Duhme and B. Lorbeer, Beam Position Monitoring of Multi-bunch Electron Beams at the FLASH Free Electron Laser ,
[24]

Werner, R

M. Werner, R. Neumann, J. Lund-Nielsen and N. Wentowski, Sensitivity Optimization Of The Standard Beam Current Monitors For XFEL and FLASH II , in European Workshop on Beam Diagnostics and Instrumentation for Particle Accelerators DIPAC2011 , (Hamburg, Germany), pp. 197--199, 2011

2011
[25]

Wiebers, M

C. Wiebers, M. Holz, G. Kube, D. Noelle, D. N \"o lle and G. Priebe, Scintillating Screen Monitors for Transverse Electron Beam Profile Diagnostics at the European XFEL , in International Beam Instrumentation Conference IBIC 2013 , (Oxford, UK), pp. 807--810, 2013

2013
[26]

Schulthess, ``Ivoschulthess/ dumpLeakageCalorimeter : V1.0.'' Zenodo, 2025

I. Schulthess, ``Ivoschulthess/ dumpLeakageCalorimeter : V1.0.'' Zenodo, 2025. 10.5281/zenodo.15281065

2025 doi
[27]

Schulthess, A

I. Schulthess, A. Athanassiadis and L. Helary, Raw data of the measurements and simulations of the dump leakage calorimeter, June, 2025. 10.5281/zenodo.14029383

2025 doi
[28]

Boggs and J.R

P.T. Boggs and J.R. Donaldson, Orthogonal Distance Regression , NIST Publications 89 (1989) 20

1989
[29]

Schr \"o der, K

S. Schr \"o der, K. Ludwig, A. Aschikhin, R. D'Arcy, M. Dinter, P. Gonzalez et al., Tunable and precise two-bunch generation at FLASHForward , https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1596/1/012002 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1596 (2020) 012002

2020 doi
[30]

Roberts and Muons, Inc

T. Roberts and Muons, Inc. , ``G4beamline Users Guide 3.08.'' https://www.muonsinc.com/Website1/Muons/G4beamlineUsersGuide.pdf, Aug., 2022

2022
[31]

Agostinelli, J

S. Agostinelli, J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, H. Araujo, P. Arce et al., Geant4---a simulation toolkit, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8 Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Eq...

2003 doi
[32]

Allison, K

J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, H. Araujo, P. Arce Dubois, M. Asai et al., Geant4 developments and applications, https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2006.869826 IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 53 (2006) 270

2006
[33]

Allison, K

J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, P. Arce, M. Asai, T. Aso et al., Recent developments in Geant4 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2016.06.125 Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 835 ...

2016 doi
[34]

J.B. Birks, Scintillations from Organic Crystals : Specific Fluorescence and Relative Response to Different Radiations , https://doi.org/10.1088/0370-1298/64/10/303 Proceedings of the Physical Society. Section A 64 (1951) 874

1951 doi
[35]

, PHOTOMULTIPLIER TUBES Basics and Applications , Hamamatsu Photonics K.K., fourth edition ed

Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. , PHOTOMULTIPLIER TUBES Basics and Applications , Hamamatsu Photonics K.K., fourth edition ed. (2017)

2017
[36]

10.3789/ansi.niso.z39.104-2022

NISO CRediT Working Group , ANSI / NISO Z39 .104-2022, CRediT , Contributor Roles Taxonomy , Feb., 2022. 10.3789/ansi.niso.z39.104-2022

2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

write newline

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

[2] [2]

Abramowicz, U.H

H. Abramowicz, U.H. Acosta, M. Altarelli, R. Assmann, Z. Bai, T. Behnke et al., Conceptual Design Report for the LUXE Experiment , https://doi.org/10.1140/epjs/s11734-021-00249-z The European Physical Journal Special Topics 230 (2021) 2445 [ https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.02032 2102.02032 ]

arXiv 2021

[3] [3]

Abramowicz, M

LUXE Collaboration , H. Abramowicz, M. Almanza Soto, M. Altarelli, R. A mann, A. Athanassiadis et al., Technical Design Report for the LUXE experiment , The European Physical Journal Special Topics (2024) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjs/s11734-024-01164-9

doi:10.1140/epjs/s11734-024-01164-9 2024

[4] [4]

Abela, A

R. Abela, A. Aghababyan , M. Altarelli , C. Altucci , G. Amatuni , P. Anfinrud et al., XFEL : The European X-Ray Free-Electron Laser - Technical Design Report , 2006. 10.3204/DESY\_06-097

doi:10.3204/desy 2006

[5] [5]

Schulthess and F

I. Schulthess and F. Meloni, New Physics Search with the Optical Dump Concept at Future Colliders , Mar., 2025. 10.48550/arXiv.2503.20996

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.20996 2025

[6] [6]

Beacham, C

J. Beacham, C. Burrage, D. Curtin, A. De Roeck, J. Evans, J.L. Feng et al., Physics beyond colliders at CERN : Beyond the Standard Model working group report , https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6471/ab4cd2 Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 47 (2020) 010501

doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ab4cd2 2020

[7] [7]

Lensch, D

T. Lensch, D. Lipka, R. Neumann and M. Werner, Comparison of Different Bunch Charge Monitors Used at the ARES Accelerator at DESY , in Journals of Accelerator Conferences Website , (Saskatoon, Canada), pp. 169--173, JACoW Publishing, 2023, DOI https://doi.org/10.18429/JACOW-IBIC2023-TU3I04

work page doi:10.18429/jacow-ibic2023-tu3i04 2023

[8] [8]

Fleck, N

K. Fleck, N. Cavanagh and G. Sarri, Conceptual Design of a High-flux Multi-GeV Gamma-ray Spectrometer , https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-66832-x Scientific Reports 10 (2020)

work page doi:10.1038/s41598-020-66832-x 2020