Did an undergrad spot an LHC bug that the pros missed?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


A Princeton University undergraduate working on her senior thesis found a bug in one of the detectors at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the gargantuan particle accelerator set to come back online before the end of the year. The Daily Princetonian reported this week that Xiaohang Quan "discovered errors that were leading to the appearances of double images" in the LHC's Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) experiment and that Quan presented suggestions for how to fix the problem to scientists at CERN, the European lab for particle physics that operates the collider near Geneva, Switzerland.

But how common are such errors, and how worried should we be that a student, rather than a professional physicist, stumbled across one?

John S. Conway, a University of California, Davis, physicist (and Cosmic Variance blogger) who is part of the CMS team, says that finding such glitches is common and not cause for concern. He says Quan found "a bug in the software we use to reconstruct events" that "would have been found very quickly by any one of hundreds of other people who are testing our software every day." All the same, Conway says, "clearly this is a talented undergrad."

He adds that, alas, researchers working on the LHC "still have many, many software errors to find and correct in the coming months and years." The big ones, such as the snag Quan uncovered, will become apparent quickly. "Other bugs lead to rare or subtle effects that frankly we probably won't see until we start getting real data," Conway says. "But we will, and we will fix them."

Princeton physicist Christopher Tully, Quan's thesis adviser, sounded a similar tone in the Princetonian. He told the paper that "improvements to the algorithms are part of a normal process of scientific investigation that serve to improve the performance of the detectors." This kind of work, Tully added, "is business as usual for the physicists."

Photo of part of the CMS under construction in 2007 © CERN

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe