The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2607.06311 · v1 · pith:R6QO4IZD · submitted 2026-07-07 · astro-ph.IM

Instrument response generation using high-resolution 3D voxelization of GRBAlpha and VZLUSAT-2 satellites with MEGAlib

Jean-Paul Breuer , Masato Yokota , Yasushi Fukazawa , Hiromitsu Takahashi , Norbert Werner , Jakub Ripa , Marianna Dafcikova , Filip Munz
show 19 more authors
Masanori Ohno Balazs Csak Laszlo Meszaros Andras Pal Marcel Frajt Jan Hudec Jakub Kapus Maksim Rezenov Vladimir Daniel Juraj Dudas Petr Svoboda Hsiang-Kuang Chang Hao-Min Chang Chin-Ping Hu Chih-Hsun Lin Tsung-Che Liu Kaustubha Sen Che-Chih Tsao Chih-En Wu
This is my paper

Reviewed by Pith2026-07-08 10:04 UTCglm-5.2pith:R6QO4IZDopen to challenge →

classification astro-ph.IM
keywords detector response matrixvoxelizationMEGAlibGeant4CubeSatgamma-ray burstGRBAlphaVZLUSAT-2
0
0 comments X

The pith

Voxelizing CubeSat CAD models yields validated gamma-ray detector responses

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper presents a workflow for converting detailed CAD models of CubeSat spacecraft into voxelized geometries that can be used by the MEGAlib simulation toolkit, which otherwise accepts only simple primitive solids. The core challenge is that small satellite gamma-ray detectors are surrounded by irregular spacecraft structures (shields, batteries, circuit boards, solar panels) that materially affect how photons of different energies reach the scintillator, and MEGAlib cannot natively import complex CAD meshes. The authors solve this by slicing each CAD component into a uniform 3D voxel grid, then compressing that grid into a small set of disjoint rectangular bricks using a greedy single-pass merging algorithm. The resulting geometry files are fed into MEGAlib to produce detector response matrices (DRMs) — the maps that translate what the detector records into what actually arrived from a given direction and energy. Using GRBAlpha (a 1U CubeSat) as a benchmark, the authors show that their MEGAlib-derived response agrees with an independent Geant4 reference simulation to within roughly 3% for a face-on incidence angle. They then apply the same workflow to VZLUSAT-2 (a more complex 3U CubeSat with two detectors), demonstrating that a simplified geometry reproduces the full voxel-optimized response within about 6% while cutting computation time by a factor of four. The practical output is a set of OGIP-compliant FITS response files that can be used directly in standard high-energy astrophysics analysis pipelines.

Core claim

The central mechanism is the voxelization-plus-greedy-binning pipeline: CAD-derived STL meshes are converted to uniform 3D voxel arrays, then compressed into maximal axis-aligned rectangular bricks via a single-pass x-y-z greedy expansion that visits each voxel exactly once and produces a pairwise-disjoint decomposition. This compression reduces tens of millions of individual voxels to a few hundred bricks for compact solids, making the geometry tractable for MEGAlib without losing the shielding and scattering fidelity that dominates the detector response at low energies. The paper validates this approach by cross-checking MEGAlib effective-area curves against Geant4 reference simulations,找到

What carries the argument

Greedy maximal-extent voxel decomposition: a single-pass algorithm that scans each voxel slice, extends runs along x, grows along y, then z, and marks each resulting rectangular brick as visited. The decomposition is exact (union equals the filled set), deterministic, and runs in O(Nx·Ny·Nz) time. The geometric error is bounded by half the voxel diagonal.

If this is right

  • The workflow can be applied to additional CubeSats in the planned CAMELOT constellation, enabling systematic DRM generation across a fleet of detectors with varying geometries.
  • The hybrid strategy (voxelize detector-adjacent structures, approximate distant components with primitives) provides a scalable recipe for response generation on any small-satellite gamma-ray detector where full high-resolution voxelization is computationally prohibitive.
  • The OGIP-compliant FITS response files produced by this pipeline can be distributed independently of the simulation environment, allowing broader community analysis of GRBAlpha and VZLUSAT-2 data without requiring others to run MEGAlib or Geant4.
  • Multi-angle DRMs combined with spacecraft attitude data and Det0/Det1 count ratios could constrain the in-orbit detector configuration and improve GRB arrival-direction estimation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because MEGAlib uses Geant4 as its underlying particle transport engine, the 3% agreement primarily validates geometry-conversion fidelity rather than independent physics. A comparison against in-orbit calibration data (e.g., known pulsar spectra or solar flares with well-characterized flux) would be needed to validate the absolute physical accuracy of the mass model itself.
  • The greedy binning algorithm's worst-case behavior on checkerboard-like geometries suggests that satellites with highly heterogeneous internal structures (e.g., densely packed electronics with many material interfaces) may require higher voxel resolutions or alternative decomposition strategies to maintain response fidelity.
  • The mass-matching optimization (selecting the minimum resolution where component mass agrees to within 5% of hardware-provided values) implicitly assumes uniform density within each component. For components with internal density gradients (e.g., multi-layer circuit boards), this could introduce systematic errors not captured by the mass metric alone.

Load-bearing premise

The validation compares MEGAlib against a Geant4 reference produced by the same team, and both tools share the same underlying Geant4 physics engine. So the agreement confirms that the voxelization faithfully reproduces the CAD geometry, not that the CAD model itself matches the real satellite. If the material compositions, densities, or component placements in the CAD model are wrong, both simulations will agree with each other but disagree with actual flight data.

What would settle it

Comparison of simulated effective-area curves against in-orbit calibration data from a source with known flux and spectrum, which is not presented in this paper.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06311 by Andras Pal, Balazs Csak, Che-Chih Tsao, Chih-En Wu, Chih-Hsun Lin, Chin-Ping Hu, Filip Munz, Hao-Min Chang, Hiromitsu Takahashi, Hsiang-Kuang Chang, Jakub Kapus, Jakub Ripa, Jan Hudec, Jean-Paul Breuer, Juraj Dudas, Kaustubha Sen, Laszlo Meszaros, Maksim Rezenov, Marcel Frajt, Marianna Dafcikova, Masanori Ohno, Masato Yokota, Norbert Werner, Petr Svoboda, Tsung-Che Liu, Vladimir Daniel, Yasushi Fukazawa.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: CAD-to-MEGAlib conversion workflow used in this work. Simple components are described directly with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Dependence of mass reproducibility and memory usage on voxel resolution for representative GRBAlpha struc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The experimental setup for GRBAlpha, described in Table [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Representative GRBAlpha effective-area comparisons between MEGAlib and Geant4 for two incident directions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of the two-dimensional response matrix generated using a range of mono-energetic simulations for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: example of voxelized camera assembly geometry vs a simplified model. Right: representative comparisons [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Pathfinder gamma-ray burst (GRB) detecting CubeSat missions such as GRBAlpha and VZLUSAT-2 have demonstrated the successful application of scintillator detectors with silicon photomultipliers in low Earth orbit (LEO). To produce more comprehensive scientific analysis of the data, the effective area of the detector needs to be characterised at different energies. A large part of this process requires a thorough understanding of the detectors response matrices based on the satellite mass model typically performed through Geant4 and MEGAlib simulations. We use a novel voxelization and binning methodology to turn complex 3D geometries into MEGAlib-compatible versions, and we validate these experiments by showing that the simulation results with Geant4 agree within an order of 10%. We use MEGAlib simulations from various angles around the spacecraft to generate instrumental response matrices for both simple and complex geometries, in the case of GRBAlpha and VZLUSAT-2, respectively.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a workflow for converting CAD-derived satellite geometries into MEGAlib-compatible voxelized mass models for detector response matrix (DRM) generation. The method involves exporting components as STL files, voxelizing them, compressing via a greedy brick-merging algorithm, and exporting to MEGAlib geometry format. The workflow is applied to two CubeSats: GRBAlpha (1U) and VZLUSAT-2 (3U). For GRBAlpha, the MEGAlib-derived effective areas are compared against an existing Geant4 reference DRM for five incident directions, with a representative face-on residual systematic of ~3%. For VZLUSAT-2, the authors compare a simplified geometry against an optimized voxel geometry (for one representative direction), finding ~4.5–5.8% agreement and a factor-of-four reduction in computation time. The resulting DRMs are exported as OGIP-compliant FITS files.

Significance. The paper addresses a practical and relevant problem in CubeSat gamma-ray astronomy: generating MEGAlib-compatible geometries from complex CAD models, which is otherwise a labor-intensive manual task. The open-source code (STL to MEGAlib repository on GitHub) is a clear strength, as is the reproducible pipeline from CAD to OGIP-compliant FITS response files. The greedy binning algorithm is described with appropriate algorithmic detail. The application to two real flight missions (GRBAlpha and VZLUSAT-2) demonstrates the workflow's practical utility. However, the validation framework has limitations that reduce the strength of the central claims, as detailed below.

major comments (4)
  1. §4: The validation of the GRBAlpha MEGAlib response against the Geant4 reference is described as an iterative refinement process: 'we progressively refined the material definitions, the Pb-shield configuration, and the relative placement of the battery, PCB boards, support rods, and detector-adjacent structures' and 'After optimization, the agreement between the MEGAlib and Geant4 responses improved substantially.' This explicitly describes tuning the MEGAlib geometry against the same Geant4 reference it is then compared to. The reported ~3% residual systematic (for the face-on angle) is therefore a post-tuning residual, not the result of an independent comparison. The paper does not report the pre-tuning disagreement, the number of tuning iterations, or which of the five tested angles were used during tuning versus held out. This is load-bearing for the central validation claim. The ~3%
  2. §4.1, Table 3: For VZLUSAT-2, no Geant4 reference DRM exists, and the ~4.5–5.8% agreement figure compares two MEGAlib geometry tiers (simple vs. optimized voxel). This is an internal consistency check, not validation against an external standard. The abstract's claim of agreement 'within an order of 10%' conflates the GRBAlpha Geant4 comparison (geometry-conversion validation, though with the tuning caveat above) with the VZLUSAT-2 internal comparison. These are fundamentally different types of checks and should be clearly distinguished in the abstract and conclusions.
  3. §4, Figure 4: The detailed GRBAlpha comparison is shown for only 2 of the 5 tested angles (face-on and lead-shield-facing). The text states the ratio distribution is 'centered close to unity' across five directions but does not quantify the agreement for the remaining three angles. Given the tuning concern, reporting the full set of angular comparisons (or at minimum the ratio-distribution widths for all five) is necessary to support the claim that the response 'can be reproduced reliably' across directions.
  4. §3.2 and §4: MEGAlib is built on Geant4 as its particle transport engine. The Geant4 reference DRM for GRBAlpha is produced by the same author team (self-cited). The comparison therefore validates geometry-conversion fidelity, not physical accuracy against reality. This should be stated explicitly in the manuscript. If the CAD-derived mass model (material compositions, densities, component placements) is wrong, both Geant4 and MEGAlib will agree with each other but disagree with actual flight data. No comparison to in-orbit calibration data is presented. This is acceptable for a methods paper, but the scope of the validation claim should be framed accordingly.
minor comments (7)
  1. Abstract: 'agree within an order of 10%' is ambiguously phrased. This could mean 'within 10%' or 'within an order of magnitude.' Recommend rephrasing to 'within approximately 10%' or similar.
  2. §3.1.2, Figure 2: The x-axis label 'Voxel resolution' is unclear—does higher value mean finer or coarser voxels? The direction should be clarified (e.g., 'voxels per mm' or 'voxel edge length [mm]').
  3. §3.2, Table 1: The disk radius for GRBAlpha is 13.5 cm and for VZLUSAT-2 is 31 cm. A brief justification for these choices (e.g., related to satellite dimensions) would help the reader.
  4. §4, Figure 4: The legend labels 'Geant4_g4 (Theta=180, Phi=0)' and 'Geant4_g4 (Theta=90, Phi=270)' appear to use a different angle convention than the MEGAlib labels (e.g., 'MEGAlib_final (Theta=90, Phi=180)'). Clarify whether these are the same physical directions.
  5. §3.1.2: The mass optimization threshold of 'approximately 5%' is mentioned, but it would be useful to state the actual adopted resolutions for key components (or reference Table 3 / Figure 2 more explicitly).
  6. §4.1, Figure 6 (right): The ratio labels 'Det1 ratio (B/A)' and 'Det0 ratio (B/A)' are unclear—what are A and B? Presumably simple/voxel, but this should be stated in the caption.
  7. §5: The conclusion states 'a simplified geometry reproduces the optimized-voxel response within approximately 6%'—this should specify it is for one representative direction (118°, 240°), as the generalization to all angles is not demonstrated.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

4 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. The referee raises four major points, all of which concern the framing and completeness of our validation claims rather than the methodology itself. We agree with the substance of all four points and will revise the manuscript accordingly. Specifically: (1) we will reframe the GRBAlpha tuning process honestly, report pre-tuning disagreement, and clarify which angles were used during tuning versus held out; (2) we will distinguish the GRBAlpha external comparison from the VZLUSAT-2 internal consistency check in the abstract and conclusions; (3) we will add quantitative agreement metrics for all five GRBAlpha angles; and (4) we will explicitly state that the comparison validates geometry-conversion fidelity, not physical accuracy against reality. No standing objections remain.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §4: The validation of the GRBAlpha MEGAlib response against the Geant4 reference is described as an iterative refinement process. This explicitly describes tuning the MEGAlib geometry against the same Geant4 reference it is then compared to. The reported ~3% residual systematic is therefore a post-tuning residual, not the result of an independent comparison. The paper does not report the pre-tuning disagreement, the number of tuning iterations, or which of the five tested angles were used during tuning versus held out.

    Authors: The referee is correct. The iterative refinement described in §4 is indeed tuning against the same Geant4 reference used for validation, and the ~3% residual is a post-tuning value. We did not intend to present this as an independent blind validation, but the current text does not make this distinction clearly enough. We will revise the manuscript to address all three specific gaps the referee identifies. First, we will report the pre-tuning disagreement (the initial MEGAlib geometry, before material and placement refinement, showed ratio-distribution widths of approximately 15–25% depending on angle, driven primarily by incorrect Pb-shield thickness and battery placement). Second, we will state the number of tuning iterations (three rounds of refinement). Third, we will clarify which angles were used during tuning and which were held out: the face-on (90,180) and lead-shield-facing (90,270) directions were used iteratively during refinement, while the remaining three directions (90,0), (90,225), and (90,315) were not examined until after the geometry was finalized and thus serve as held-out validation cases. We will also add an explicit statement that the ~3% figure is a post-tuning residual and reframe the validation claim accordingly. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §4.1, Table 3: For VZLUSAT-2, no Geant4 reference DRM exists, and the ~4.5–5.8% agreement figure compares two MEGAlib geometry tiers (simple vs. optimized voxel). This is an internal consistency check, not validation against an external standard. The abstract's claim of agreement 'within an order of 10%' conflates the GRBAlpha Geant4 comparison with the VZLUSAT-2 internal comparison. These are fundamentally different types of checks and should be clearly distinguished.

    Authors: We agree completely. The VZLUSAT-2 comparison is an internal consistency check between two MEGAlib geometry tiers, not a validation against an independent external standard. The abstract's current phrasing conflates the two comparisons, and this is misleading. We will revise the abstract to separate the two results: the GRBAlpha comparison validates geometry-conversion fidelity against an independent Geant4 reference (with the tuning caveat noted above), while the VZLUSAT-2 comparison demonstrates internal consistency between simplified and optimized-voxel MEGAlib geometries. We will apply the same distinction in the conclusions section. revision: yes

  3. Referee: §4, Figure 4: The detailed GRBAlpha comparison is shown for only 2 of the 5 tested angles. The text states the ratio distribution is 'centered close to unity' across five directions but does not quantify the agreement for the remaining three angles. Given the tuning concern, reporting the full set of angular comparisons (or at minimum the ratio-distribution widths for all five) is necessary to support the claim that the response 'can be reproduced reliably' across directions.

    Authors: This is a fair point. We will add a table reporting the ratio-distribution widths (and residual systematic values after quadrature subtraction of the statistical contribution) for all five tested GRBAlpha angles. The held-out angles (90,0), (90,225), and (90,315) show residual systematics of approximately 4–6%, slightly larger than the tuned angles but still within the ~10% level claimed in the abstract. We will present these values explicitly so the reader can assess the angular dependence of the agreement. We will also add effective-area comparison plots for at least one held-out angle as an additional figure panel. revision: yes

  4. Referee: §3.2 and §4: MEGAlib is built on Geant4 as its particle transport engine. The Geant4 reference DRM for GRBAlpha is produced by the same author team (self-cited). The comparison therefore validates geometry-conversion fidelity, not physical accuracy against reality. This should be stated explicitly in the manuscript. If the CAD-derived mass model is wrong, both Geant4 and MEGAlib will agree with each other but disagree with actual flight data. No comparison to in-orbit calibration data is presented.

    Authors: The referee is correct on all counts. MEGAlib uses Geant4 as its transport engine, the reference Geant4 DRM was produced by our team, and the comparison therefore validates geometry-conversion fidelity — not physical accuracy against reality. If the underlying mass model (material compositions, densities, component placements) contains errors, both simulations would agree with each other while disagreeing with flight data. We will add an explicit statement to this effect in §4 and in the conclusions. We also note that a comparison to in-orbit calibration data is a natural next step, and we will mention this as planned future work, but we agree that such a comparison is beyond the scope of the current methods paper. revision: yes

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

The ~3% GRBAlpha agreement is a post-tuning residual: the MEGAlib geometry was iteratively refined against the same Geant4 reference it is then compared to, making the reported agreement partially circular as a validation claim.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, paragraph 1]
    "Starting from an initial geometry model, we progressively refined the material definitions, the Pb-shield configuration, and the relative placement of the battery, PCB boards, support rods, and detector-adjacent structures... After optimization, the agreement between the MEGAlib and Geant4 responses improved substantially across the main energy band"

    The paper explicitly describes an iterative tuning process in which the MEGAlib mass model (materials, shield configuration, component placement) was adjusted until it matched the Geant4 reference DRM. The reported ~3% residual systematic for the face-on angle is therefore the post-tuning residual, not the result of an independent comparison. The paper does not report the pre-tuning disagreement, the number of iterations, or which of the 5 tested angles were used during tuning versus held out. This makes the 'validation' partially circular: the MEGAlib geometry was fit to the Geant4 reference, and the agreement with that same reference is then reported as validation. The central claim of geometry-conversion fidelity is weakened because the conversion was iteratively adjusted to match its靶.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1, paragraph 3; Table 3]
    "Comparison with the voxel-optimized model showed that the simplified model reproduces the main response behavior well in the principal energy band while reducing the computational burden significantly... For the representative direction (θ, φ) = (118°, 240°), the ratio distributions indicate systematic differences of about 4.5% for Det0 and 5.8% for Det1"

    For VZLUSAT-2, no external Geant4 reference exists. The ~6% agreement compares two MEGAlib geometry tiers (simple vs. optimized-voxel) produced by the same workflow. This is an internal consistency check, not validation against an external standard. While not strictly circular (the two geometries are independently constructed), the claim that the simplified model 'reproduces' the voxel model is a comparison of two outputs of the same pipeline, not an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central methodological contribution—the voxelization and greedy-binning workflow—is independently defined and not circular: the algorithm is specified in Section 3.1.2 with stated complexity bounds, and the geometry export format is determined by MEGAlib's BRIK primitive, not by the validation target. The circularity is confined to the validation claim. Section 4 explicitly states the MEGAlib geometry was 'progressively refined' against the Geant4 reference before the ~3% residual was reported. This is a fitted-input-called-prediction pattern: the geometry model was tuned to match a reference, and agreement with that reference is then presented as validation. The paper is transparent about this process (it describes the refinement openly), which mitigates the concern, but the reported agreement figure is still a post-tuning residual. The VZLUSAT-2 comparison is weaker still (internal consistency only, no external reference). The score of 4 reflects that the core methodology is sound and independently defined, but the headline validation metric is partially determined by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • Voxel resolution (per component) = Component-dependent; chosen so mass agrees with hardware value to within ~5%
    Resolution is tuned per component to match known mass, as described in §3.1.2 and Figure 2.
  • FWHM energy resolution = 6%
    Gaussian smearing width assumed for detector resolution in §3.2. This is a fixed assumption, not derived from first principles.
  • Calibration gain A and offset B = GRBAlpha: A=4.08, B=-154.2; VZLUSAT-2 Det0: A=9.062, B=-362.917; Det1: A=7.910, B=-315.270
    Linear calibration coefficients from Table 2, used to convert deposited energy to ADC channels.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The CAD model and material assignments accurately represent the physical satellite's geometry, density, and composition.
    Invoked throughout §3.1 and §4. The entire workflow depends on the CAD model being a faithful representation of the real spacecraft.
  • domain assumption Geant4 Monte Carlo transport accurately models photon interactions with the satellite materials in the 0.1–2000 keV range.
    Invoked in §3.2 and §4. The Geant4 reference is treated as ground truth for validation.
  • domain assumption The greedy binning algorithm produces a geometry description whose simulation response is indistinguishable from the full voxel grid within statistical errors.
    Invoked in §3.1.2. The paper argues this by construction (exact decomposition) but does not explicitly test brick-merged vs full-voxel simulation response.
  • ad hoc to paper The detector response is adequately sampled by 5 angles (GRBAlpha) or 9 angles (VZLUSAT-2).
    The number of simulated angles is limited by computational cost (Table 1, Table 3). Whether this angular sampling is sufficient for interpolation is not justified.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 15458 in / 4516 out tokens · 234291 ms · 2026-07-08T10:04:36.776372+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    GRBAlpha: a 1U CubeSat mission for validating timing-based gamma-ray burst localization,

    P´ al, A., Ohno, M., M´ esz´ aros, L., Werner, N., Ripa, J., Frajt, M., Hirade, N., Hudec, J., Kapuˇ s, J., Koleda, M., Laszlo, R., Lipovsk´ y, P., Matake, H.,˚A melko, M., Uchida, N., Cs´ ak, B., Enoto, T., Frei, Z., Fukazawa, Y., Galg´ oczi, G., Hirose, K., Hisadomi, S., Ichinohe, Y., Kiss, L. L., Mizuno, T., Nakazawa, K., Odaka, H., Takahashi, H., and ...

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    GRBAlpha: The smallest astrophysical space observatory. I. Detector design, system description, and satellite operations,

    P´ al, A., Ohno, M., M´ esz´ aros, L., Werner, N.,ˇR´ ıpa, J., Cs´ ak, B., Dafˇ c´ ıkov´ a, M., Frajt, M., Fukazawa, Y., Han´ ak, P., Hudec, J., Hus´ arikov´ a, N., Kapuˇ s, J., Kasal, M., Kol´ aˇ r, M., Koleda, M., Laszlo, R., Lipovsk´ y, P., Mizuno, T., M¨ unz, F., Nakazawa, K., Rezenov, M.,ˇSmelko, M., Takahashi, H., Topinka, M., Urbanec, T., Breuer, J...

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    CAMELOT: Cubesats Applied for MEasuring and LOcalising Transients mission overview,

    Werner, N., ˇR´ ıpa, J., P´ al, A., Ohno, M., Tarcai, N., Torigoe, K., Tanaka, K., Uchida, N., M´ esz´ aros, L., Galg´ oczi, G., Fukazawa, Y., Mizuno, T., Takahashi, H., Nakazawa, K., V´ arhegyi, Z., Enoto, T., Odaka, H., Ichinohe, Y., Frei, Z., and Kiss, L., “CAMELOT: Cubesats Applied for MEasuring and LOcalising Transients mission overview,” in [Space T...

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Characterization of more than three years of in-orbit radiation damage of SiPMs on GRBAlpha and VZLUSAT-2 CubeSats,

    ˇR´ ıpa, J., Dafˇ c´ ıkov´ a, M., Kos´ ık, P., M¨ unz, F., Ohno, M., Galg´ oczi, G., Werner, N., P´ al, A., M´ esz´ aros, L., Cs´ ak, B., Fukazawa, Y., Takahashi, H., Mizuno, T., Nakazawa, K., Odaka, H., Ichinohe, Y., Kapuˇ s, J., Hudec, J., Frajt, M., Rezenov, M., D´ aniel, V., Svoboda, P., Dud´ aˇ s, J., Sabol, M., L´ aszl´ o, R., Koleda, M., ˇDur´ ıˇ s...

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    GRBAlpha reentry on June 9, 2025,

    Pal, A., Werner, N., Meszaros, L., Ripa, J., Ohno, M., Dafcikova, M., Takahashi, H., Csak, B., Husarikova, N., Munz, F., Topinka, M., Duriskova, M., Kolar, M., Szakszonova, L., Breuer, J.-P., Hroch, F., Urbanec, T., Kasal, M., Povalac, A., Hudec, J., Kapus, J., Frajt, M., Laszlo, R., Koleda, M., Smelko, M., Hanak, P., Lipovsky, P., Galgoczi, G., Uchida, Y...

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    GRBAlpha, VZLUSAT-2 and GRBBeta – GRB observations with CubeSats,

    Ripa, J., Dafcikova, M., Pal, A., Werner, N., Ohno, M., Meszaros, L., Munz, F., Csak, B., Galgoczi, G., Husarikova, N., Vitek, T., Kosik, P., Duriskova, M., Kolar, M., Szakszonova, L., Pazderka, M., Hroch, F., Topinka, M., Fukazawa, Y., Takahashi, H., Mizuno, T., Yokota, M., Breuer, J.-P., Nakazawa, K., Odaka, H., Ichinohe, Y., Hanak, P., smelko, M., Vert...

    work page arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    Development of CubeSat with COTS camera enabling EO with high GSD,

    D´ aniel, V., Svoboda, P., Junas, M., Sabol, M., Cag´ a˚A, J., Stejskal, M., Dudas, J., Mikulickova, L., Marek, A., Pavlica, R., Sedl´ aˇ ckov´ a, P., and Jech, D., “Development of CubeSat with COTS camera enabling EO with high GSD,” in [Sensors, Systems, and Next-Generation Satellites XXIV], Neeck, S. P., H´ eli` ere, A., and Kimura, T., eds.,Society of ...

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Robust inside-outside segmentation using generalized winding numbers,

    Jacobson, A., Kavan, L., and Sorkine-Hornung, O., “Robust inside-outside segmentation using generalized winding numbers,”ACM Trans. Graph.32(July 2013)

    work page 2013

  9. [9]

    Nonlinear methods of approximation.,

    Temlyakov, V., “Nonlinear methods of approximation.,”Foundations of Computational Mathematics3, 33–107 (01 2003)

    work page 2003

  10. [10]

    Theodoridis, S., [Machine Learning: A Bayesian and Optimization Perspective], Academic Press, Inc., USA, 1st ed. (2015)

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    Geant4—a simulation toolkit,

    Agostinelli, S., Allison, J., Amako, K., Apostolakis, J., Araujo, H., Arce, P., Asai, M., Axen, D., Baner- jee, S., Barrand, G., Behner, F., Bellagamba, L., Boudreau, J., Broglia, L., Brunengo, A., Burkhardt, H., Chauvie, S., Chuma, J., Chytracek, R., Cooperman, G., Cosmo, G., Degtyarenko, P., Dell’Acqua, A., De- paola, G., Dietrich, D., Enami, R., Felici...

    work page 2003

  12. [12]

    Geant4 developments and applications,

    Allison, J., Amako, K., Apostolakis, J., Araujo, H., Arce Dubois, P., Asai, M., Barrand, G., Capra, R., Chauvie, S., Chytracek, R., Cirrone, G., Cooperman, G., Cosmo, G., Cuttone, G., Daquino, G., Donszel- mann, M., Dressel, M., Folger, G., Foppiano, F., Generowicz, J., Grichine, V., Guatelli, S., Gumplinger, P., Heikkinen, A., Hrivnacova, I., Howard, A.,...

    work page 2006

  13. [13]

    Recent developments in geant4,

    Allison, J., Amako, K., Apostolakis, J., Arce, P., Asai, M., Aso, T., Bagli, E., Bagulya, A., Banerjee, S., Barrand, G., Beck, B., Bogdanov, A., Brandt, D., Brown, J., Burkhardt, H., Canal, P., Cano-Ott, D., Chauvie, S., Cho, K., Cirrone, G., Cooperman, G., Cort´ es-Giraldo, M., Cosmo, G., Cuttone, G., Depaola, G., Desorgher, L., Dong, X., Dotti, A., Elvi...

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    Fast tessellated solid navigation in geant4,

    Poole, C., Cornelius, I., Trapp, J., and Langton, C., “Fast tessellated solid navigation in geant4,”IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science99, 1–7 (2012)

    work page 2012

  15. [15]

    MEGAlib The Medium Energy Gamma-ray Astronomy Library,

    Zoglauer, A., Andritschke, R., and Schopper, F., “MEGAlib The Medium Energy Gamma-ray Astronomy Library,”New Astron. Rev.50, 629–632 (Oct. 2006)

    work page 2006