Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 4 cited by

Beam-beam effects on the luminosity measurement at LEP and the number of light neutrino species

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read LEP luminosity was underestimated by ~0.1% because bunch fields deflected Bhabha leptons out of the luminometer; correcting it raises the light-neutrino count to 2.9918 ± 0.0081.

desk verdict A credible reanalysis claiming a ~0.1% beam-beam bias in LEP luminosity, shifting Nν from 2.9840 to 2.9918 and reducing the deficit from 2σ to 1σ; the main soft spot is the unproven premise that the LEP experiments did not already include this effect. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01704 v4 pith:4OLHVP2Z submitted 2019-08-05 hep-ex hep-phphysics.acc-ph

Georgios Voutsinas , Emmanuel Perez , Mogens Dam , Patrick Janot This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-exhep-phphysics.acc-ph
keywords beam-beameffectsluminositymeasurementBhabhascatteringLEPlightneutrinospeciesZresonanceelectromagneticfocusing
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 claims that a small but systematic bias corrupted the luminosity measurements at LEP: the electromagnetic field of the oncoming bunch deflects the electrons and positrons from low-angle Bhabha scattering toward the beam axis, so a fraction of events that should fall inside the LumiCal acceptance is focused just outside it. The result is an underestimation of the integrated luminosity by about 0.1%, larger than the quoted experimental uncertainties. Because the Z-peak hadronic cross section is inversely proportional to the luminosity, this bias shifts the number of light neutrino species $N_\nu$ extracted from the Z lineshape. Correcting it raises the LEP combination from $2.9840 \pm 0.0082$ to $2.9918 \pm 0.0081$, moving the long-standing deficit with respect to three neutrino families from about $2\sigma$ to about $1\sigma$. If the correction is right, most of the LEP-only tension disappears without invoking new physics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the focusing Lorentz force exerted by the incoming opposite-charge bunch on the final-state leptons of a Bhabha event. In the laboratory frame the electric and magnetic fields of the opposite bunch act in the same direction on a moving charge, so the deflection adds; the particle's own bunch contributes opposing electric and magnetic forces and is negligible. The deflection is computed with the Guinea-Pig beam-beam simulation, which tracks Bhabha final states through the time-varying field of the colliding bunches, and is cross-checked against a numerical integration using the Bassetti-Erskine closed expression for the field of a Gaussian bunch. The conversion from deflection to bias is carried by the counting integral: with the Bhabha rate $\propto \int \theta^{-3}\,d\theta$, a small deflection $\Delta\theta_{\rm FS}$ toward the beam axis changes the accepted count by an amount dominated by the inner-edge term $2\Delta\theta_{\rm FS}(\theta_{\min})/\theta_{\min}^3$, giving the closed-form bias of Eq. (3) and, for the OPAL 1994 example, $-0.1059\%$.

What would settle it

Audit the simulation chains behind the four published LEP luminosity measurements: if any experiment's Monte Carlo (for example, BHLUMI events passed through a full detector simulation) already applied a deflection of final-state leptons by the opposite-bunch field, the 0.1% correction proposed here would be double-counted. On the data side, the predicted signatures are a modulation of the Bhabha counting rate with azimuthal angle $\phi$ and a $\sim 0.03\%$ asymmetry between electron counts with positive and negative primary-vertex $z$; the paper estimates expected significances of only $0.8\sigma$ and $1.4\sigma$ for these checks, so a null result would weaken but not decisively falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At LEP, the luminosity was determined from the rate of small-angle Bhabha scattering in calorimeters covering polar angles of roughly 25–60 mrad. This paper shows that the final-state electron and positron, while crossing the oncoming bunch, are deflected toward the beam axis by the bunch's electromagnetic field, with average angular deflections of order 10–13 µrad at the acceptance edges. Because the Bhabha rate falls steeply with angle, the deflection moves more events out of the acceptance at the inner edge than it brings in at the outer edge, producing a luminosity bias of about $-0.1\%$, with per-experiment, per-year values ranging from $-0.039\%$ (DELPHI 1993) to $-0.109\%$ (ALEPH 1994). Applying these corrections to the four published LEP results, together with updated Standard Model inputs, yields a corrected number of light neutrino species $N_\nu = 2.9918 \pm 0.0081$, a peak hadronic cross section reduced by 40 pb to $41.500 \pm 0.037$ nb, and a Z width increased by 0.3 MeV to $2.4955 \pm 0.0023$ GeV.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the four LEP experiments did not already include this beam-beam focusing effect in their published luminosity corrections; the paper asserts this only 'to our knowledge,' and if any experiment's Monte Carlo acceptance already contained the deflection, the proposed 0.1% correction would be double-counted and the $N_\nu$ shift spurious.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The measured number of light neutrino species becomes $N_\nu = 2.9918 \pm 0.0081$, bringing the LEP value within about one standard deviation of the three-family expectation.
  • The Z-peak hadronic cross section shifts down by 40 pb to $41.500 \pm 0.037$ nb and the Z width up by 0.3 MeV to $2.4955 \pm 0.0023$ GeV, while the Z mass changes by only 22 keV; other electroweak observables (asymmetries, branching-fraction ratios) are unaffected.
  • Any other LEP cross-section measurement normalized to the integrated luminosity would be reduced by about 0.1%, inheriting the same correction in the opposite direction.
  • The same focusing mechanism must be included in precision luminosity determinations at future $e^+e^-$ colliders, where the effect is expected to differ in size because of different beam parameters and energies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The scaling of the bias with bunch charge, horizontal beam size, and beam energy found in this paper (roughly $\propto N \sigma_x^{-0.8} E^{-1}$) could be used to estimate the size of the correction at other $e^+e^-$ machines, including ones with crossing angles or crab-waist schemes, before a dedicated simulation is run.
  • A full reanalysis by the LEP collaborations, processing BHLUMI events through their complete detector simulations with and without the beam fields, would settle whether any part of the effect was already absorbed in their acceptance corrections; the published cross-checks have insufficient statistical power to do so.
  • The 15-minute LEP operation records mentioned by the authors would allow a time-dependent version of this calculation, replacing the yearly luminosity-weighted averages; such an analysis could shrink the largest systematic term (the $\pm 5\%$ allowance for 'other effects') and slightly tighten the $N_\nu$ uncertainty.
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

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper argues that the electromagnetic field of the opposing bunch deflects final-state Bhabha leptons at LEP, focusing them to smaller polar angles and thereby reducing the effective acceptance of the LumiCal in the luminosity measurement. Using Guinea-Pig simulations with 1993-1995 LEP beam parameters, the authors compute a luminosity bias of about -0.1% for each of the four LEP experiments, apply BHLUMI-based k-factors for higher-order corrections, and propagate the bias through the published relation δNν ≈ -7.465 ΔL/L to the combined LEP value of the number of light neutrino species. After systematic corrections, they obtain Nν = 2.9918 ± 0.0081, reducing the 2σ deficit with respect to three families to about 1σ. They also derive shifts in σ0_had and ΓZ, and propose two data-driven cross-checks with expected significances of 0.8σ and 1.4σ.

Significance. If correct, this is a notable legacy correction to precision electroweak results at LEP, moving Nν closer to 3 and changing a long-standing tension. Strengths: the numerical calculation is cross-checked with an independent Bassetti-Erskine integration (agreement 0.4%, Fig. 3); the systematic-error budget is detailed (Table 5); the k-factor treatment uses BHLUMI event samples; the paper suggests concrete (if low-significance) falsifiable cross-checks. The principal weaknesses are the unverified premise that the LEP experiments did not already include this effect, and the use of average deflection in the bias formula without a direct validation against event-by-event counting.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 1, paragraph 4] The entire correction to Nν in Eq. (10) rests on the premise that the four LEP experiments did not already account for beam-beam focusing of Bhabha final-state leptons in their luminosity acceptances. The paper supports this only with 'To our knowledge' (Section 1, paragraph 4) and provides no examination of the LEP luminosity Monte Carlo descriptions (e.g., the OPAL BHLUMI + detector simulation in Ref. [7]) to show that the effect is absent. If this effect was already included, the -0.1% bias is double-counted and the +0.0078 shift in Eq. (10) is spurious. Please provide evidence from the LEP experiment documents, or, failing that, explicitly frame the result as conditional on this assumption and reduce the strength of the conclusion.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (3)] Eq. (3) computes the bias from the average deflections <ΔθFS> at the acceptance edges, but Fig. 2 (left) shows that ΔθFS has a broad two-peaked distribution with a width comparable to its mean. The number of events lost at the lower edge is the fraction with final angle below θmin, which is not a linear function of the mean deflection unless the distribution is a delta function. The authors should validate Eq. (3) by counting accepted Bhabha events in Guinea-Pig with and without the beam fields, or by integrating over the full ΔθFS distribution; if the difference between these and Eq. (3) exceeds the quoted ±0.6% technical uncertainty, the bias and hence Eq. (10) would need revision.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 2] The description of the 'extra grids' used for tracking Bhabha leptons is difficult to follow; please clarify how the granularity changes with each successive grid and how the largest grid is constructed.
  2. [Section 4, Table 3] The DELPHI 1993 entry uses a first-generation LumiCal, but the k factor is presumably derived for the second-generation STIC acceptance; please state explicitly whether the same k factor is applied to the 1993 SAT measurement.
  3. [Section 4, Eq. (8)] The coefficient 7.465 ± 0.005 in Eq. (8) is quoted from Ref. [1] but its derivation is not shown; a brief derivation from Eq. (1) would make the paper more self-contained.
  4. [Section 4] The two proposed data cross-checks (the 0.8σ φ modulation and the 1.4σ z_vtx asymmetry) are acknowledged to be statistically limited, but this limitation should be stated more prominently, as it means the paper's central claim cannot be validated by the data it proposes.
  5. [Section 5] The relation σy ∼ σx × βy*/βx* is said to assume equal horizontal and vertical beam-beam tune shifts; this assumption should be stated explicitly in the text rather than only in the list of systematic studies.
  6. [References] Refs. [3] and [21] contain the typo 'commnunication' instead of 'communication'; the URL in Ref. [15] also contains an odd '?r=1&r=1' string that should be cleaned up.
  7. [Figure 2] The axis labels in Fig. 2 are hard to read; please reformat the label 'rad) μ (FSθ ∆' and similar to clearly indicate the units and quantity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the luminosity bias is computed from beam-beam simulation and external beam parameters, not fitted to the Nν result.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained and non-circular. The luminosity bias is obtained from Guinea-Pig simulations using independently measured LEP beam parameters (Table 2) and BHLUMI event kinematics, with the acceptance-deformation formula given in Eq. (3); it is not fitted to any LEP luminosity measurement or to the number of neutrino species. The conversion from luminosity bias to δNν uses the published sensitivity relation Eq. (8), quoted from the external LEP Electroweak Working Group report [1], and the final value Eq. (10) follows arithmetically from Eq. (2), the simulated biases of Table 4, and the systematic corrections of Table 5. The paper's own methodological citations, notably the companion FCC-ee study [9], are used for technical details of the numerical integration and simulation setup, not as an authority that establishes the LEP result; the calculation is cross-checked within the paper against an independent numerical integration (Fig. 3). The main vulnerability flagged by the skeptic is the premise, stated only as 'To our knowledge' in Section 1, that the LEP experiments did not already include this beam-beam acceptance effect in their luminosity corrections. That premise is an external factual assumption whose failure would make the correction double-counted, but it is not a case where the paper's output is equivalent to its inputs by construction, nor is it established by self-citation. The admitted low statistical significance of the proposed data cross-checks (0.8σ and 1.4σ) is a limitation of empirical verification, not circularity. Accordingly, the paper merits a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The central calculation is a simulation using measured or inferred beam parameters and standard electroweak inputs. No number is fitted to the target result (N_nu); the only hand-chosen elements are the inferred vertical bunch size and the yearly averaging procedure, both with assigned systematic uncertainties.

free parameters (2)
  • Vertical bunch size sigma_y = ~4 µm, inferred from sigma_x * beta*_y / beta*_x
    Not directly measured; inferred from an approximate relation (Section 5). A 30% change in sigma_y alters the luminosity bias by +0.8% ± 0.4%.
  • Yearly luminosity-weighted averages of N, sigma_x, sigma_z = Table 2 entries
    The per-15-minute measured values are replaced by yearly averages assumed constant; time dependence is treated as a separate estimated correction of -0.7% ± 0.4% (Section 5).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The relation between the number of light neutrino species and the hadronic Z peak cross section (Eq. 1), and the sensitivity delta N_nu = -7.465 * Delta L / L (Eq. 8), from the LEP Electroweak Working Group are valid.
    Taken from Ref. [1] and used to convert the luminosity bias into the N_nu shift; not rederived in this paper.
  • standard math The angular distribution of leading-order Bhabha events is proportional to 1/theta^3 over the LumiCal acceptance, as used in Eq. 3.
    Standard QED result; stated in Section 3.
  • domain assumption The Guinea-Pig simulation correctly models beam-beam fields and final-state lepton tracking, and BHLUMI 4.04 correctly describes ISR/FSR in Bhabha events.
    Partially validated against numerical integration (Fig. 3, 0.4% agreement), but no full detector simulation is performed; a conservative ±5% uncertainty covers unmodeled shower and clustering effects (Section 5).
  • domain assumption The published LEP luminosity and N_nu values [1,16-19] and their stated uncertainties are reliable inputs.
    The paper corrects these values but does not reanalyze the underlying event data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beam-beam effects on the luminosity measurement at LEP and the number of light neutrino species." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4OLHVP2Z

@misc{pith2026190801704,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beam-beam effects on the luminosity measurement at LEP and the number of light neutrino species},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4OLHVP2Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01704}
}
abstract

In $e^+ e^-$ collisions, electromagnetic effects caused by large charge density bunches modify the effective acceptance of the luminometer system of the experiments. These effects consequently bias the luminosity measurement from the rate of low-angle Bhabha interactions $e^+ e^- \to e^+ e^- $. Surprisingly enough, the magnitude of this bias is found to yield an underestimation of the integrated luminosity measured by the LEP experiments by about 0.1%, significantly larger than the reported experimental uncertainties. When accounted for, this effect modifies the number of light neutrino species determined at LEP from the measurement of the hadronic cross section at the Z peak.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01704 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the effect of the focusing Lorentz force experienced by the charged [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Distribution of the angular focusing ∆θFS for 45.6 GeV electrons produced at θ ∗ = 31.3 mrad, as predicted by Guinea-Pig, for (full black line) all events, (dash-dotted blue line) events corresponding to “late” interactions and (dashed red line) events corresponding to “early” interactions. The latter (former) interactions occur by definition at a time t < −σt ( t > σt ), with σt = σz/ √ 2c, the origin being g… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: ∆θFS for 45.6 GeV electrons produced at an angle θ ∗ = 31.3 mrad, as a function of their azimuthal angle, as predicted by Guinea-Pig and by a numerical integration of the average Lorentz force felt by the electrons. Right: Electric field strength E created by a bunch in the laboratory frame, shown as a function of the (x, y) coordinates in any transverse cross section, and normalized to the maximum field stren… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. New Physics contamination to precision luminosity measurements at future $e^+e^-$ colliders

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Heavy new physics four-fermion operators can bias small-angle Bhabha luminosity calibration at future e+e- colliders at the level of the design precision, and luminosity-independent Bhabha asymmetries can constrain th...

  2. Precision measurement of the Z boson to electron neutrino coupling at the future circular colliders

    hep-ph 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The t-channel W exchange interference in e+e- to nu nu-bar gamma at FCC-ee allows the Z-nu_e coupling to be measured with about 1% statistical error, a factor twenty better than current knowledge.

  3. Beam-beam effects on the luminosity measurement at FCC-ee

    hep-ex 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Beam-beam deflection biases the FCC-ee small-angle Bhabha luminosity measurement by about 0.19% at the Z pole, and the proposed in-situ acollinearity and dimuon-based calibrations can reduce the residual to below the ...

  4. The Higgs boson through the lens of electroweak precision data

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    Updated Gfitter EW fit with new MW average yields SM-consistent indirect observables and, via kappa_V from oblique parameters plus LHC signal strengths, determines Gamma_H to ~10% precision under leading-log assumptions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [7]

    Precision Luminosity for Z0 Lineshape Measurements with a Silicon-Tungsten Calorimeter

    OPAL Collaboration, G. Abbiendi et al.,Precision luminosity for Z 0 line shape measurements with a silicon tungsten calorimeter, Eur. Phys. J.C14 (2000) 373–425, [hep-ex/9910066]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2000

  2. [1]

    Schael et al.,Precision electroweak measurements on the Z resonance, Phys

    ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak Group, SLD Hea vy Fla vour Group, S. Schael et al.,Precision electroweak measurements on the Z resonance, Phys. Rept.427 (2006) 257–454, [hep-ex/0509008]. 17

    arXiv 2006

  3. [2]

    Tanabashi et al.,Review of Particle Physics (Electroweak Model and Constraints on New Physics from J

    Particle Data Group, M. Tanabashi et al.,Review of Particle Physics (Electroweak Model and Constraints on New Physics from J. Erler and A. Freitas), Phys. Rev.D98 (2018) 030001

    work page 2018

  4. [3]

    Erler and A

    J. Erler and A. Freitas.Private commnunication

    work page

  5. [4]

    Buskulic et al.,Performance of the ALEPH detector at LEP, Nucl

    ALEPH Collaboration, D. Buskulic et al.,Performance of the ALEPH detector at LEP, Nucl. Instrum. Meth.A360 (1995) 481–506

    work page 1995

  6. [5]

    Luminosity measurement in 1994 with the STIC detector

    T. Camporesi, V. Obratzsov, M. Paganoni, F. Terranova, M. Bigi, I. Gouz et al., “Luminosity measurement in 1994 with the STIC detector.”https://cds.cern.ch/record/2629467, 1997

    work page arXiv 1994

  7. [6]

    I. C. Brock, A. Engler, T. Ferguson, F. Filthaut, R. W. KrÃďmer, M. Merk et al.,Luminosity Measurement in the L3 Detector at LEP, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., A381 (Jun, 1996) 236–266

    work page 1996

  8. [8]

    Rimbault, P

    C. Rimbault, P. Bambade, K. Mönig and D. Schulte,Impact of beam-beam effects on precision luminosity measurements at the ILC, JINST 2 (2007) P09001

    work page 2007

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Voutsinas, E

    G. Voutsinas, E. Perez, M. Dam and P. Janot,Beam-beam effects on the luminosity measurement at FCC-ee, Journal of High Energy Physics 2019 (Oct, 2019) 225, [1908.01698]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Brandt, H

    D. Brandt, H. Burkhardt, M. Lamont, S. Myers and J. Wenninger, Accelerator physics at LEP, Rept. Prog. Phys.63 (2000) 939–1000

    2000

  3. [11]

    Beam-Beam Simulations with GUINEA-PIG

    D. Schulte, “Beam-Beam Simulations with GUINEA-PIG.” CERN-PS-99-014-LP, http://cds.cern.ch/record/382453, Mar, 1999

    1999

  4. [12]

    Closed Expression for the Electrical Field of a Two-dimensional Gaussian Charge

    M. Bassetti and G. A. Erskine, “Closed Expression for the Electrical Field of a Two-dimensional Gaussian Charge.” CERN-ISR-TH/80-06, https://cds.cern.ch/record/122227, 1980. 18

    1980

  5. [13]

    Beam-beam dynamics

    E. Keil, “Beam-beam dynamics.” CERN-SL-94-78-AP, Advanced accelerator physics. Proceedings, 5th Course of the CERN Accelerator School, Rhodos, Greece, September 20-October 1, 1993. Vol. 1, 2, Conf. Proc.C9309206 (1993) 539–547, https://cds.cern.ch/record/269336

    1993

  6. [14]

    Jadach, W

    S. Jadach, W. Placzek, E. Richter-Was, B. F. L. Ward and Z. Was, Upgrade of the Monte Carlo program BHLUMI for Bhabha scattering at low angles to version 4.04, Comput. Phys. Commun.102 (1997) 229–251

    1997

  7. [15]

    The performance of the DELPHI SAT Tracker during 1991 and its contribution to the absolute luminosity measurement

    L. Bugge, T. Buran, A. L. Read and E. Wilhelmsen, “The performance of the DELPHI SAT Tracker during 1991 and its contribution to the absolute luminosity measurement.” https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/ _Public/25/050/25050129.pdf?r=1&r=1, Jan, 1994

    1991

  8. [16]

    Barate et al.,Measurement of the Z resonance parameters at LEP, Eur

    ALEPH Collaboration, R. Barate et al.,Measurement of the Z resonance parameters at LEP, Eur. Phys. J.C14 (2000) 1–50

    2000

  9. [17]

    Abreu et al.,Cross-sections and leptonic forward backward asymmetries from theZ 0 running of LEP, Eur

    DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu et al.,Cross-sections and leptonic forward backward asymmetries from theZ 0 running of LEP, Eur. Phys. J.C16 (2000) 371–405

    2000

  10. [18]

    Acciarri et al.,Measurements of cross-sections and forward backward asymmetries at theZ resonance and determination of electroweak parameters, Eur

    L3 Collaboration, M. Acciarri et al.,Measurements of cross-sections and forward backward asymmetries at theZ resonance and determination of electroweak parameters, Eur. Phys. J.C16 (2000) 1–40, [hep-ex/0002046]

    2000 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Abbiendi et al.,Precise determination of the Z resonance parameters at LEP: ’Zedometry’, Eur

    OPAL Collaboration, G. Abbiendi et al.,Precise determination of the Z resonance parameters at LEP: ’Zedometry’, Eur. Phys. J.C19 (2001) 587–651, [hep-ex/0012018]

    2001 arXiv

  12. [20]

    B. Pietrzyk,High precision measurements of the luminosity at LEP, in LAPP-EXP-94-18, Proceedings, Tennessee International Symposium on Radiative Corrections: Status and Outlook, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, pp. 138–152, June 27 - July 1, 1994, http://cds.cern.ch/record/271909

    1994

  13. [21]

    Burkhardt.Private commnunication

    H. Burkhardt.Private commnunication. 19

  14. [22]

    What is the maximum bunch current we can collide at 45 GeV?

    H. Burkhardt, “What is the maximum bunch current we can collide at 45 GeV?.”CERN SL/95-08-DI, Proceedings of the fifth workshop on LEP performance, Chamonix, January 13-18, 1995, http://hbu.web.cern.ch/hbu/cham95mb.pdf

    1995

  15. [23]

    Performance in physics

    H. Burkhardt, “Performance in physics.”CERN SL/96-005-DI, Proceedings of the sixth workshop on LEP performance, Chamonix, January 15-19, 1996, pp. 160-163, http://hbu.web.cern.ch/hbu/cham96pp.pdf

    1996

  16. [24]

    LEP-1 operation, 1989-1995

    G. Arduini et al., “LEP-1 operation, 1989-1995.” Proceedings, 5th European Conference, EPAC 96, Sitges, Spain, Vol. 1-3,Conf. Proc. C960610 (1996) 286-288, https://cds.cern.ch/record/307303

    1996

  17. [25]

    Measured primary vertex smearing values in ALEPH

    M. Maggi, “Measured primary vertex smearing values in ALEPH.” http://aleph.web.cern.ch/aleph/aleph_general/kin/SVRT.html, 1999

    1999

  18. [26]

    G. J. Barker,b-Quark Physics with the LEP collider: The Development of Experimental Techniques for b-Quark Studies from Z0 Decays, vol. 236, page 76.Springer Track in Modern Physics, 2010, 10.1007/978-3-642-05279-8

    2010 doi

  19. [27]

    Beam-beam tune shift, Emittance, and Lifetime

    H. Burkhardt, “Beam-beam tune shift, Emittance, and Lifetime.” CERN SL/94-06-DI, Proceedings of the fourth workshop on LEP performance, Chamonix, January 17-21, 1994, pp. 413-419, https://cds.cern.ch/record/261537

    1994

  20. [28]

    Luminosity optimisation using beam-beam deflections at LEP

    C. Bovet, M. D. Hildreth, M. Lamont, H. Schmickler and J. Wenninger, “Luminosity optimisation using beam-beam deflections at LEP.” CERN-SL-96-025-OP, Proceedings of the 5th European Conference, EPAC 96, Sitges, Spain, June 10-14, 1996. Vol. 1-3, Conf. Proc. C960610 (1996), pp. ...

    1996

  21. [29]

    LEP Operation in 1993 with the Pretzel Scheme

    R. Bailey, T. Bohl, F. Bordry, H. Burkhardt, P. Collier, K. Cornelis et al., “LEP Operation in 1993 with the Pretzel Scheme.” Proceedings of 4th European Particle Accelerator Conference, London, UK, 27 Jun - 1 Jul 1994, pp.439,https://cds.cern.ch/record/921985, 1994. 20

    1993

  22. [30]

    Abreu et al.,Improved Measurements of Cross-Sections and Asymmetries at theZ 0 Resonance, Nucl

    DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu et al.,Improved Measurements of Cross-Sections and Asymmetries at theZ 0 Resonance, Nucl. Phys. B 418 (Feb, 1994) 403–430

    1994

  23. [31]

    Acciarri et al.,Measurement of cross sections and leptonic forward-backward asymmetries at the Z pole and determination of electroweak parameters, Z

    L3 Collaboration, M. Acciarri et al.,Measurement of cross sections and leptonic forward-backward asymmetries at the Z pole and determination of electroweak parameters, Z. Phys. C62 (Mar, 1994) 551–576. 21

    1994

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.