Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Toward a Measurement of the Higgs Boson Mass with Natural-Width Precision at FCC-ee

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A future electron-positron collider could pin the Higgs boson mass to 4 MeV, equal to its natural width, by measuring the recoil of a Z boson.

desk verdict A credible and transparent 4 MeV m_H projection at FCC-ee, but the headline number is gated by an assumed 2 MeV sqrt(s) calibration that needs validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12071 v1 pith:FCDKCEOR submitted 2026-08-12 hep-ex

Jan Eysermans , Ang Li , Gregorio Bernardi , Christoph Paus , Emmanuel Perez , Michele Selvaggi This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords HiggsbosonmassFCC-eerecoilZHproductionnaturalwidthelectronYukawacouplingbeamenergycalibrationfuturecollider
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 argues that FCC-ee, a proposed electron-positron collider, can measure the Higgs boson mass with a total uncertainty of 4 MeV, matching the Higgs boson's natural width of about 4 MeV. Using events where a Z boson is produced alongside a Higgs boson and then decays to an electron or muon pair, the Higgs mass is inferred from the recoil mass. Achieving this precision would remove the Higgs mass as a limiting input to global electroweak fits and would enable a dedicated run at the Higgs mass to directly probe the electron Yukawa coupling. The authors show that a 3.1 MeV statistical uncertainty is achievable with 10.8 $ab^{-1}$ of data at 240 GeV, and that the main systematic, a 2.2 MeV effect from the uncertainty in the average collision energy, can be controlled if the beam energy is calibrated to 2 MeV.

What carries the argument

The central object is the recoil mass, defined by $m_{\mathrm{recoil}}^2 = (\sqrt{s} - E_{f\bar{f}})^2 - p_{f\bar{f}}^2$, where the higgs is not directly reconstructed but inferred from the measured Z boson and the known collision energy. Events are categorized by the lepton polar angles into central and forward regions, which have different momentum resolutions, and the spectra are fitted simultaneously with Crystal Ball and Bernstein functions in an unbinned maximum likelihood. The dominant systematic is the uncertainty on $\sqrt{s}$, which enters linearly in the recoil mass and is assumed to be calibrated to 2 MeV using data-driven fermion-pair production measurements.

What would settle it

If a future beam-energy calibration at FCC-ee, for instance using fermion-pair production, measures the average center-of-mass energy with an uncertainty larger than 2 MeV, the projected total uncertainty on the Higgs mass would exceed 4 MeV; alternatively, a detailed simulation showing that electron bremsstrahlung recovery cannot achieve the assumed momentum-resolution penalty would weaken the electron-channel combination.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper demonstrates, using fast simulation, that the recoil-mass technique in Higgsstrahlung events with Z decays to electrons and muons can determine the Higgs boson mass with a precision of 4.0 MeV including systematic uncertainties, and 3.1 MeV statistically, at a center-of-mass energy of 240 GeV with 10.8 $ab^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity. The measurement combines the muon and electron channels with angular categorization, improving sensitivity by about 22% over the muon channel alone. Reaching this precision requires control of the average center-of-mass energy to 2 MeV, a 1% relative uncertainty on the beam-energy spread, and a $10^{-5}$ lepton momentum scale calibration. This precision matches the Higgs natural width and would enable a future resonant s-channel measurement of the electron Yukawa coupling.

Load-bearing premise

The 4.0 MeV total uncertainty depends on the average collision energy $\sqrt{s}$ being known to 2 MeV; if the real accelerator calibration uncertainty is larger, the projected precision cannot be reached.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Higgs boson mass uncertainty would drop from about 100 MeV at the LHC and 20 MeV at the HL-LHC to 4 MeV, making it negligible in global Higgs and electroweak fits.
  • A sub-10 MeV Higgs mass enables sub-percent determinations of Higgs boson couplings, particularly the partial widths that depend on phase space.
  • The measurement would provide a decay-independent mass reference and an absolute benchmark for exclusive Higgs reconstruction channels.
  • It would enable a dedicated run at $\sqrt{s} = m_H$ to measure the electron Yukawa coupling via resonant s-channel Higgs production.
  • The study sets concrete performance targets for detector tracking material, magnetic field, electron bremsstrahlung recovery, and beam-energy calibration at FCC-ee.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the beam-energy spread at FCC-ee were reduced below the nominal 0.185%, the statistical uncertainty could approach the ideal-detector limit of about 1.7 MeV, making accelerator parameters the dominant limitation.
  • The electron channel's contribution to the combination (22% improvement) suggests that further improvements in bremsstrahlung recovery could make the electron channel nearly as powerful as the muon channel, potentially lowering the combined uncertainty.
  • A 4 MeV measurement of the Higgs mass would allow future experiments to use exclusive Higgs decay channels, such as $H \to b\bar{b}$, as cross-checks of the recoil result, testing the consistency of different mass determination methods.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This Letter studies the precision with which the FCC-ee can measure the Higgs boson mass using the recoil-mass technique in leptonic ZH events at sqrt(s) = 240 GeV with an integrated luminosity of 10.8 ab^-1. The analysis is based on WHIZARD/PYTHIA event generation, DELPHES fast simulation of the IDEA detector concept, an event selection adapted from a previous ZH cross-section study, angular categorization, and an unbinned maximum-likelihood fit in the Combine framework. The reported statistical-only precision is 3.1 MeV for the combined muon and electron channels, which increases to 4.0 MeV after including systematic uncertainties. The dominant systematic is a 2.2 MeV contribution from the assumed 2 MeV uncertainty on the average center-of-mass energy, taken from a data-driven calibration proposal in Ref. [27]. The paper also studies the dependence of the precision on tracker material, magnetic field, electron resolution, and beam-energy spread.

Significance. If the quoted precision is achieved, the measurement would be scientifically important: it would reduce the Higgs boson mass uncertainty to the few-MeV level, remove m_H as a limiting input to global electroweak and Higgs fits, and provide the prerequisite knowledge of m_H for resonant s-channel Higgs production and a direct electron-Yukawa measurement. The paper is careful and transparent in presenting the statistical extraction, the event selection, and the systematic budget, and it gives concrete performance targets for both the detector and the accelerator. Its main strength is the explicit tabulation of detector and beam-related uncertainties and the use of a fit framework that propagates systematics as nuisance parameters. The principal weakness is that the headline total uncertainty depends on an assumed, not demonstrated, calibration capability for the center-of-mass energy; the paper would be substantially strengthened by a validation of that assumption.

major comments (2)
  1. [Table I and Fig. 3, together with the systematic discussion near Eq. (1)] The total uncertainty of 4.0 MeV is dominated by the 2.2 MeV contribution assigned to the uncertainty on the average center-of-mass energy, which is entered in Eq. (1) as an assumed 2 MeV calibration uncertainty taken from Ref. [27]. Because Eq. (1) couples m_H and sqrt(s) directly, the ZH recoil data themselves cannot determine both quantities; an external energy calibration is a prerequisite, not a detail. The paper does not show a simulation of the radiative-return fermion-pair calibration at 240 GeV under realistic beam, background, and detector conditions, nor does it document how the 2 MeV figure would be derived. If the true calibration uncertainty were 3 MeV rather than 2 MeV, the total uncertainty would rise to about 4.7 MeV, and the abstract's '4 MeV, including statistical and systematic uncertainties' claim would no longer hold. The authors should either provide a concrete validation of the calibration assumption or explicitly present the result as a conditional projection in the abstract and conclusions.
  2. [Supplemental Eq. (4) and the fit description in 'Monte Carlo samples and fast detector simulation'] The mass extraction relies on an unbinned maximum-likelihood fit with a signal model containing 11 parameters (two Crystal Ball functions plus a Gaussian), but the paper gives no closure test, pull distribution, or study of fit bias. For a measurement that claims a total precision of 4 MeV, a toy-level validation demonstrating that the maximum-likelihood estimator is unbiased at the sub-MeV level and that the quoted uncertainty is correct is needed. The 'Pull' panel in Supplemental Fig. 9 is not described in the text, so it does not currently serve as such a validation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Discussion of beam-energy-spread systematic] The 0.9 MeV contribution from the beam-energy-spread uncertainty is based on the assumption of a 1% relative determination, which is reasonable but also taken from Ref. [17] without a demonstration; the paper's statement that a more conservative 6% uncertainty changes the contribution only to 1 MeV is helpful and should be kept.
  2. [Signal model description in 'Monte Carlo samples and fast detector simulation'] The text states that 'The dependence on m_H is determined from dedicated simulated signal samples' but does not specify whether the 11 signal-shape parameters are fixed from simulation or floated in the fit; please clarify this in the text or the supplemental material.
  3. [Minor typographical issues] There are several missing spaces before citations, for example 'on√sfrom' in the systematic discussion and 'mH from' elsewhere; these should be corrected.
  4. [Figure captions] The pull panel in Supplemental Fig. 9 and the 'MS only' labels in Fig. 5 are not explained in the captions; a one-sentence description would improve readability.
  5. [Abstract] The abstract's '4 MeV' statement is stronger than what the body supports, since the value is conditional on the stated but unvalidated accelerator-calibration assumptions; a qualified phrasing would better match the content.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Statistical precision is a genuine fit output, but the quoted 4.0 MeV 'including systematics' is gated by a self-cited 2 MeV sqrt(s) calibration assumption.

  1. self citation load bearing [Systematic-uncertainty paragraph following Table I (page 4); Eq. (1) propagation.]
    "Conservatively assuming an uncertainty of 2 MeV on √s from data-driven measurements of fermion-pair production [27], the corresponding uncertainty in mH is estimated to be 2.2 MeV."

    The 4.0 MeV total (Table I, Fig. 3) is not an independent systematic result: the largest term, 2.2 MeV, is the direct propagation through Eq. (1) of an assumed 2 MeV uncertainty on √s taken from Ref. [27], whose author list overlaps with this paper (E. Perez; related work [7] shares P. Azzurri et al.). The momentum-scale term (1.0 MeV) is taken from the authors' own note [17]. Thus the abstract's 'including statistical and systematic uncertainties' claim is the quadrature sum of the simulated statistical fit (3.1 MeV) and self-cited systematic inputs, not a demonstrated measurement. The assumption is load-bearing: changing the √s calibration from 2 to 3 MeV raises the total to about 4.5 MeV and invalidates the '4 MeV precision' headline.

full rationale

The core statistical result (3.1 MeV combined, Table I) is an honest output of an unbinned maximum-likelihood fit to simulated recoil-mass templates and is not circular: the detector resolution, beam-energy spread, backgrounds, and luminosity enter as inputs, but the fitted mass uncertainty is a computed result. The circularity concern is concentrated in the systematic budget. The largest systematic (2.2 MeV) is obtained by propagating a 2 MeV uncertainty on the average center-of-mass energy that is taken from Ref. [27], a proposal with overlapping authorship, and the momentum-scale contribution (1.0 MeV) is taken from the authors' own note [17]. The headline '4 MeV, including statistical and systematic uncertainties' is therefore the quadrature sum of the simulated statistical uncertainty and assumed/self-cited systematic inputs; if the calibration input were relaxed from 2 to 3 MeV, the total would exceed 4 MeV. This is load-bearing self-citation rather than a full equation-level circle, because the statistical projection is independent and the systematic assumptions are stated explicitly. No other step in the paper reduces to its inputs by construction.

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

The central claim is a sensitivity extrapolation built from simulated detector response and assumed accelerator parameters. The largest systematic comes from an assumed 2 MeV sqrt(s) calibration, and the detector resolution ratios come from the collaboration's own full-simulation studies, so the ledger is mostly domain assumptions and calibration targets rather than fitted physics constants.

free parameters (6)
  • Signal-shape parameters (double Crystal Ball + Gaussian) = 11 parameters per angular category
    Parameters of Eq. (4) are fitted to dedicated simulated signal samples for each category; they are nuisance parameters, not physics constants.
  • Pair-selection chi-square weights A and B = A = 0.6, B = 0.4
    Hand-chosen in Eq. (3) to weight dilepton mass and recoil mass compatibility; the final precision is not very sensitive to these values.
  • Assumed sqrt(s) calibration uncertainty = 2 MeV
    Conservatively assumed from Ref [27]; directly drives the dominant 2.2 MeV systematic on m_H through Eq. (1).
  • Assumed beam-energy-spread determination uncertainty = 1% relative on sigma_Eb = 222 MeV
    Taken from Ref [17]; contributes 0.9 MeV to the m_H uncertainty (about 1 MeV if relaxed to 6%).
  • Assumed lepton momentum scale uncertainty = 1e-5 relative
    Taken from Ref [17]; contributes 1.0 MeV to the m_H uncertainty.
  • Event-selection cut values = p > 20 GeV, 86 < m_ll < 96 GeV, 20 < p_ll < 70 GeV, 120 < m_recoil < 140 GeV, |cos(theta_miss)| < 0.98
    Hand-chosen requirements inherited with minor modifications from the authors' model-independent ZH cross-section analysis [5].
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption e+e- -> ZH Higgsstrahlung is the dominant Higgs production at 240 GeV and the recoil mass formula Eq. (1) reconstructs m_H
    Core experimental technique; standard electroweak process at lepton colliders, accepted by prior literature.
  • domain assumption The WHIZARD/PYTHIA/DELPHES/Key4HEP fast-simulation chain faithfully represents FCC-ee detector response
    All quantitative results rely on this chain; no data validation is possible yet.
  • domain assumption The electron momentum resolution is only 25% worse than muons after bremsstrahlung recovery, from full-simulation studies [25]
    Electron-channel sensitivity and the 22% combination gain depend on this assumption; a large deviation would reduce the combined precision.
  • domain assumption FCC-ee beam-energy spread is 0.185% at sqrt(s) = 240 GeV as in the FCC Feasibility Study Report [16]
    Sets the accelerator-limited resolution floor and enters Eq. (2).
  • domain assumption The unbinned likelihood fit with double Crystal Ball signal and Bernstein background is unbiased for the recoil-mass peak position
    No toy-level closure tests or pull distributions are shown in the Letter.
  • domain assumption Initial-state radiation modeling in the simulation is accurate
    ISR creates the asymmetric high-mass tail; the authors state its modeling has negligible impact on m_H, but do not quantify with alternative generators.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Toward a Measurement of the Higgs Boson Mass with Natural-Width Precision at FCC-ee." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FCDKCEOR

@misc{pith2026260812071,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Toward a Measurement of the Higgs Boson Mass with Natural-Width Precision at FCC-ee},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FCDKCEOR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12071}
}
read the original abstract

Higgs boson mass measurements with sub-10 MeV precision enable sub-percent determinations of Higgs boson couplings and prevent the Higgs boson mass from becoming a limiting input to electroweak fits. Probing the electron Yukawa coupling through resonant Higgs boson production requires a precision comparable to the Higgs boson natural width of approximately 4 MeV. Using the leptonic ZH recoil channels, we show that FCC-ee can reach a Higgs boson mass precision of 4 MeV, including statistical and systematic uncertainties, thereby enabling this unique measurement. We identify the detector and accelerator performance required to reach this precision.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12071 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Normalized recoil-mass distributions for the muon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Recoil-mass distribution after the full event selection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Uncertainty on m [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Muon transverse-momentum resolution for drift [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Recoil-mass distribution in the electron channel af [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Event-selection cutflows for the muon (top) and elec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Recoil-mass distributions in the muon channel for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [27]

    Collaboration, The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool: COMBINE, Comput

    C. Collaboration, The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool: COMBINE, Comput. Softw. Big Sci. 8 (2024) 19.arXiv:2404.06614,doi:10.1007/ s41781-024-00121-4

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1.arXiv:1207.7214,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012. 08.020

    arXiv 2012

  3. [2]

    As an accelerator benchmark, setting the beam-energy spread to zero in the simulation improves the statistical precision to 1.7 MeV

    In this scenario, the combined Higgs boson mass pre- cision degrades only moderately, from 3.1 to 3.2 MeV, indicating that the measurement remains largely driven by the muon channel. As an accelerator benchmark, setting the beam-energy spread to zero in the simulation improves the statistical precision to 1.7 MeV. Since the beam-energy spread is an intrin...

    work page

  4. [3]

    CMS Collaboration, Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30.arXiv:1207.7235,doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021

    arXiv 2012

  5. [4]

    Benedikt, et al., Future Circular Collider Feasibility Study Report: Volume 1, Physics, Experiments, Detec- tors (4 2025).arXiv:2505.00272,doi:10.17181/CERN

    M. Benedikt, et al., Future Circular Collider Feasibility Study Report: Volume 1, Physics, Experiments, Detec- tors (4 2025).arXiv:2505.00272,doi:10.17181/CERN. 9DKX.TDH9

    arXiv 2025

  6. [5]

    Del Vecchio, J

    A. Del Vecchio, J. Eysermans, L. Gouskos, G. Iako- vidis, A. Maloizel, G. Marchiori, M. Selvaggi, Preci- sion measurements of Higgs hadronic decay modes at the FCC-ee, JHEP 04 (2026) 181.arXiv:2511.23149, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2026)181

    arXiv 2026

  7. [6]

    A. Li, J. Eysermans, G. Bernardi, K. Dewyspelaere, M. Selvaggi, C. Paus, Model-independent ZH production 6 cross section at FCC-ee (2025).arXiv:2512.21290. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2512.21290

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  8. [7]

    Morange, I

    N. Morange, I. Combes, Higgs width measurement in the ZH, H to ZZ* final state at FCC-ee (Oct. 2023).doi: 10.17181/ysabc-wm427. URLhttps://doi.org/10.17181/ysabc-wm427

    work page doi:10.17181/ysabc-wm427 2023

Show all 29 references
  1. [8]

    Azzurri, G

    P. Azzurri, G. Bernardi, S. Braibant, D. d’Enterria, J. Eysermans, P. Janot, A. Li, E. Perez, A special Higgs challenge: measuring the mass and production cross section with ultimate precision at FCC-ee, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137 (1) (2022) 23.arXiv:2106.15438, doi:10.1140/epjp/s...

    2022 arXiv

  2. [9]

    d’Enterria, A

    D. d’Enterria, A. Poldaru, G. Wojcik, Measuring the electron Yukawa coupling via resonant s-channel Higgs production at FCC-ee, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137 (2) (2022) 201.arXiv:2107.02686,doi:10.1140/epjp/ s13360-021-02204-2

    2022 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Fatehi, R

    A. Fatehi, R. J. Seyedabad, A. Amiri, K. Azizi, D. d’Enterria, L. Portales, M. Selvaggi, Probing the elec- tron Yukawa coupling via resonant Higgs boson produc- tion at FCC-ee viae +e−→H→WW ∗ in lepton-plus- jets final states (4 2026).arXiv:2604.24152

    2026 arXiv

  4. [11]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Combined Measurement of the Higgs Boson Mass from theH→γγandH→ZZ ∗→ 4ℓDecay Channels with the ATLAS Detector Using√s= 7,8,and 13 TeVppCollision Data, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 251802.arXiv:2308.04775,doi:10. 1103/PhysRevLett.131.251802

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    CMS Collaboration, Measurement of the Higgs boson mass and width using the four-lepton final state in proton–proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV, Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) 092014.arXiv:2409.13663,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.111.092014

    2025 arXiv

  6. [13]

    URLhttps://cds.cern.ch/record/2652762

    ATLAS Collaboration, Projections for measurements of Higgs boson cross sections, branching ratios, coupling pa- rameters and mass with the ATLAS detector at the HL- LHC, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2018-054 (2018). URLhttps://cds.cern.ch/record/2652762

    2018

  7. [14]

    Collaboration, Projection of the Higgs boson mass and on-shell width measurements inH→ZZ→4ℓde- cay channel at the HL-LHC, Tech

    C. Collaboration, Projection of the Higgs boson mass and on-shell width measurements inH→ZZ→4ℓde- cay channel at the HL-LHC, Tech. rep., CERN, Geneva (2022). URLhttps://cds.cern.ch/record/2804004

    2022

  8. [15]

    J. Yan, S. Watanuki, K. Fujii, A. Ishikawa, D. Jeans, J. Strube, J. Tian, H. Yamamoto, Measurement of the Higgs boson mass ande +e− →ZHcross section us- ingZ→µ +µ− andZ→e +e− at the ILC, Phys. Rev. D 94 (11) (2016) 113002, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 103, 099903 (2021)].arXiv:1604.07...

    2016 arXiv

  9. [16]

    An, et al., Precision Higgs physics at the CEPC, Chin

    F. An, et al., Precision Higgs physics at the CEPC, Chin. Phys. C 43 (4) (2019) 043002.arXiv:1810.09037,doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/43/4/043002

    2019 arXiv

  10. [17]

    F. Zimmermann, et al., Future Circular Collider Feasi- bility Study Report: Volume 2, Accelerators, Technical Infrastructure and Safety (4 2025).arXiv:2505.00274, doi:10.17181/CERN.EBAY.7W4X

    2025 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Eysermans, G

    J. Eysermans, G. Bernardi, A. Li, Higgs boson mass and model-independent ZH cross- section at FCC-ee in the di-electron and di-muon final states (Mar. 2025).doi: 10.17181/c5dn3-c0s73. URLhttps://doi.org/10.17181/c5dn3-c0s73

    2025 doi

  12. [19]

    Kilian, T

    W. Kilian, T. Ohl, J. Reuter, WHIZARD: Simulating Multi-Particle Processes at LHC and ILC, Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1742.arXiv:0708.4233,doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-011-1742-y

    2011 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Sjostrand, S

    T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, P. Z. Skands, PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual, JHEP 05 (2006) 026. arXiv:hep-ph/0603175,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/ 2006/05/026

    2006 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Sj¨ ostrand, S

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. De- sai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, P. Z. Skands, An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Com- put. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159.arXiv:1410.3012, doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024

    2015 arXiv

  15. [22]

    de Favereau, C

    J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaˆ ıtre, A. Mertens, M. Selvaggi, DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic col- lider experiment, JHEP 02 (2014) 057.arXiv:1307.6346, doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2014)057

    2014 arXiv

  16. [23]

    A. Sailer, et al., The Key4hep software stack: Beyond Future Higgs factories, in: 21th International Work- shop on Advanced Computing and Analysis Techniques in Physics Research: AI meets Reality, 2023.arXiv: 2312.08151

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Gaudio, The IDEA detector concept for FCCee, PoS ICHEP2022 (2022) 337.doi:10.22323/1.414.0337

    G. Gaudio, The IDEA detector concept for FCCee, PoS ICHEP2022 (2022) 337.doi:10.22323/1.414.0337

    2022 doi

  18. [25]

    Antonello, IDEA: A detector concept for future lep- tonic colliders, Nuovo Cim

    M. Antonello, IDEA: A detector concept for future lep- tonic colliders, Nuovo Cim. C 43 (2-3) (2020) 27.doi: 10.1393/ncc/i2020-20027-2

    2020 doi

  19. [26]

    Perez, M

    E. Perez, M. Selvaggi, Recovery of bremsstrahlung pho- tons in a FCC-ee detector (2023).doi:10.17181/ 87nyk-0rg63

    2023

  20. [28]

    Blondel, P

    A. Blondel, P. Janot, J. Wenninger, R. Aßmann, S. Au- mon, P. Azzurri, D. P. Barber, M. Benedikt, A. V. Bo- gomyagkov, E. Gianfelice-Wendt, D. E. Kerchen, I. A. Koop, M. Koratzinos, E. Levitchev, T. Lefevre, A. Mi- lanese, N. Muchnoi, S. A. Nikitin, K. Oide, E. Perez, R. Rossm...

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Bacchetta, et al., CLD – A Detector Concept for the FCC-ee (11 2019).arXiv:1911.12230

    N. Bacchetta, et al., CLD – A Detector Concept for the FCC-ee (11 2019).arXiv:1911.12230. 7 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Event selection and cutflow The event-selection cutflows for the muon and electron channels, including the evolution of the dominant back- ground contributions thr...

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.