Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 39 references

Study of the Radiation Hardness of the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter Optical Instrumentation with Run 2 data

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Run 2 data imply that the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter's plastic optics will lose about half their light output by the end of the HL-LHC, with the most exposed cells losing 69%.

desk verdict Solid Run 2 measurement of TileCal optics degradation; HL-LHC projection is an honestly labeled extrapolation whose key power-law exponent uncertainty is not reported. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15944 v2 pith:T7UAUHRY submitted 2024-12-20 physics.ins-det hep-ex

J. Abdallah , M.N. Agaras , A. Ahmad , G.Arabidze , P. Bartos , A. Berrocal Guardia , D. Bogavac , F. Carrio Argos
show 48 more authors
L. Cerda Alberich B. Chargeishvili P. Conde Muiño A. Cortes-Gonzalez A. Gomes T. Davidek T. Djobava A. Durglishvili S. Epari G. Facini J. Faltova L. Fiorini M. Fontes Medeiros S. Fracchia J. Glatzer A.J. Gomez Delegido S. Harkusha A.M. Henriques Correia M. Kholodenko P. Klimek I. Korolkov A. Maio F.M. Pedro Martins J.G. Saraiva S. Menke K. Mihule I.A. Minashvili M. Mlynarikova M. Mosidze N. Mosulishvili S. Nemecek R. Pedro B.C. Pinheiro Pereira V. Pleskot S. Polacek Y. Qin V. Rossetti R. Rosten H. Santos D. Schaefer F. Scuri Y Smirnov C.A. Solans Sanchez A.A. Solodkov O.V. Solovyanov A. Valero H.G. Wilkens T. Zakareishvili
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-dethep-ex PACS 29.40.Vj29.40.Mc
keywords ATLASTileCalorimeterradiationdamageplasticscintillatorswavelength-shiftingfibresdose-rateeffectscaesiumcalibrationlight-outputdegradationHL-LHCextrapolation
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 measures how radiation damage degraded the plastic scintillators and wavelength-shifting fibres of the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter during LHC Run 2 (2015–2018), using the caesium-source, laser, and minimum-bias calibration systems to separate the optical light-output change from the photomultiplier response. By the end of Run 2, the most exposed barrel cells, A12 and A13, had lost about 11% of their light output, while the gap/crack scintillators E4 lost about 30% and the inner MBTS counters nearly 90%. The data are described by an exponential loss with dose, $I/I_0=p_0 e^{-d/p_1}$, in which the decay constant $p_1$ grows with dose rate following a power law. Extrapolating that model to the HL-LHC's 4000 fb$^{-1}$ and sevenfold higher dose rate predicts that the A-layer will lose roughly half its light response, with A12 losing 69%, at a relative uncertainty near 50%. This matters because the scintillators and fibres cannot be replaced before the HL-LHC, so the prediction determines whether the calorimeter can maintain its energy resolution and particle-identification performance.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the relative light output $I/I_0$, defined as the ratio of the caesium-source or minimum-bias response to the laser response, which isolates scintillator and wavelength-shifting-fibre degradation from photomultiplier gain drift. The argument is carried by the exponential damage law $I/I_0 = p_0 e^{-d/p_1}$ combined with a dose-rate-dependent decay constant $p_1(R)$ fitted as a power law, motivated by an oxygen-diffusion model in which permanent damage comes from colour centres formed when oxygen reacts with radiation-induced radicals. The dose and dose-rate inputs come from a Geant4 simulation of the total ionising dose in 4 × 4 cm$^2$ bins in the $(r,z)$ plane, averaged over azimuth with mirror symmetry; the per-cell average dose and the average instantaneous luminosity set the dose rate used in the fit.

What would settle it

Compare the model's Run 3 prediction with new caesium and laser data: at about 530 fb$^{-1}$ the model predicts A12 and A13 will retain roughly 67–70% of their Run 2 light output, and a measured value outside the reported ~5% Run-3 uncertainty would falsify the model. A second check is to measure the actual integrated dose at A12/A13 with in-situ dosimeters and compare it with the Geant4 map; a discrepancy larger than the assumed 20% dosimeter accuracy would require re-scaling every cell's dose axis and refitting $p_1$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the light output of the TileCal optics follows a simple exponential in accumulated ionising dose, $I/I_0 = p_0 e^{-d/p_1}$, and that the decay constant $p_1$ is not fixed but increases with dose rate according to a power law, so higher dose rates cause less damage per unit dose. The paper derives this by forming the ratio of the caesium or minimum-bias response to the laser response, which cancels the photomultiplier contribution and leaves the scintillator-plus-fibre light loss. Fitting each cell's measured $I/I_0$ against a simulated dose map gives a degradation rate that anticorrelates with the cell's average dose rate, in quantitative agreement with the CMS Hadron Endcap Calorimeter. On that basis, the paper predicts that after the HL-LHC integrated luminosity of 4000 fb$^{-1}$, with dose rates seven times higher than in Run 2, typical A-layer cells will retain about 40–52% of their initial light output and A12 and A13 will retain about 31% and 34%, respectively.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulated per-cell total ionising dose map is accurate enough to set both the average dose and the average dose rate for every cell; a bias in that simulation would shift every fitted $p_1$ and therefore the entire HL-LHC light-loss extrapolation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • By the end of Run 3, around 530 fb$^{-1}$, A-layer cells are expected to lose up to 28% of their light output, and A12/A13 up to about 33%, while most B/BC- and D-layer cells stay below 10% loss.
  • At the end of the HL-LHC, the A-layer is predicted to lose roughly half its light output, with A12 at 69% and A13 at 66%; the relative uncertainty on these predictions is about 50%.
  • B/BC- and D-layer cells are expected to lose no more than about 25% by the HL-LHC, except for the gap-adjacent cells B9, C10, B11 and B12, which may lose up to around 40%.
  • During Run 2 the cell-to-cell response uniformity stayed within the 6–9% specification, but the data indicate that non-uniformity will grow as individual tiles within a cell age at different rates.
  • Simulating an extreme 50% light loss shows muon detection efficiency in A-cells would drop by about 5% from 70%, with no significant effect in D-cells, so the foreseen degradation is tolerable for muon reconstruction but will affect energy resolution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the simulated dose map is biased, every fitted $p_1$ shifts coherently; a future cross-check with in-situ dosimetry could rescale the dose axis and reduce the roughly 50% uncertainty on the HL-LHC prediction.
  • Because the model ignores annealing during long shutdowns, actual HL-LHC losses could be smaller than the quoted 50–69% if recovery is significant.
  • The TileCal and CMS HE Cal points trace a common $p_1(R)$ trend, suggesting the oxygen-diffusion power law may be a general property of polystyrene-based scintillators and could be reused for other detectors without new irradiation campaigns.
  • The MBTS inner counters show the exponential loss slowing above about 15 kGy; if the same saturation mechanism operates in barrel cells at the much smaller HL-LHC doses, the exponential model would overestimate the loss.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes Run 2 (2015–2018) TileCal calibration data to measure radiation-induced degradation of the scintillator and WLS-fibre light output. Using Cs, laser, and minimum-bias integrator data, it isolates the optics response I/I0 and reports end-of-Run-2 losses up to about 11% in the most exposed A12/A13 barrel cells, with larger losses in the E-cells and the MBTS counters. A Geant4 TID map is used to fit each cell with I/I0 = p0 exp(-d/p1) and to fit the resulting p1 values as a power law in dose rate, p1 = 3.1e5 R^0.5. Extrapolating to 4000 fb^-1 with a sevenfold higher instantaneous luminosity, the paper predicts that A12 loses 69% of its light response and that the A-layer loses roughly half, with a quoted relative uncertainty around 50%. The paper also presents per-tile amplitude studies, cell response uniformity, and a simulation-based assessment of the impact of 50% light loss on muon performance.

Significance. The Run 2 measurements are a solid and useful characterization: the separation of PMT effects via laser calibration, the use of independent Cs/MB systems, and the per-tile amplitude method are strengths, and the qualitative agreement with the CMS HE Cal dose-rate trend in Figures 15 and 16 lends external support. The paper is transparent that the HL-LHC numbers are extrapolations and that annealing is not modeled. However, the central projection is not an independent test of the model: it is built from the same data used to determine p1 and from a power-law dose-rate relation whose uncertainty is not reported. A global multiplicative bias in the simulated dose map would largely cancel in the d/p1 ratio used for the extrapolation, but the exponent uncertainty, the functional-form uncertainty, and the annealing exclusion are not captured by the quoted 50% relative uncertainty. The result is therefore better described as a model-dependent projection than as a quantitative prediction, and the requested revisions concern making that conditionality explicit and quantitative.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.4.1, Figure 15] The power-law fit p1 = 3.1e5 R^0.5 is the decisive input for the HL-LHC projection, but the paper does not report the uncertainty on the exponent or on the normalisation, nor whether the highly correlated vertical error bars were used as weights. With the quoted p1 = 630 Gy at R = 4.1e-6 Gy/s and extrapolation to R = 2.9e-5 Gy/s, changing the exponent from 0.5 to 0.4 or 0.6 shifts the predicted A13 light loss by roughly 7 percentage points (from about 57% to 64% or 50%); this is not negligible relative to the quoted uncertainties. The fit covariance must be propagated through Eq. (3) into Figure 17, Table 2, and Figure 18.
  2. [Section 5.4.2, Figure 17 and Table 2] The paper explicitly states that the extrapolation model does not include 'any possible scintillator recovery or annealing influences.' The headline numbers (A12 at 69% loss, A-layer around 50% loss) are therefore no-annealing projections, and the quoted 50% relative uncertainty covers only the measurement and dose-spread inputs, not this model choice. The figures and table should either label these values as an upper bound on light loss or include an annealing allowance, for example based on the recovery rates visible in Figure 6(a).
  3. [Section 5.1.1, Eq. (3), and Figure 17] The Run 2 A13 data extend to about 65 Gy while p1 is about 630 Gy, so the data constrain only the initial linear regime of the exponential (d/p1 about 0.1). The high-dose behaviour is taken from laboratory irradiations that the paper itself describes as 'not fully comparable' because they used bare scintillators and measurements after one month of recovery. Since the HL-LHC projection reaches d/p1 around 2, the single-exponential form is not tested in the extrapolation region; the authors should either test alternative damage curves (for example two-component or saturating forms) or state explicitly that the projection is conditional on this functional form.
  4. [Section 5.4.1, Figure 16] The agreement with the low-dose-rate B/BC/D cells and the high-dose-rate E-cells is shown only by overplotting; the fit is performed only on the most exposed barrel cells, and the text does not state how the large, very correlated uncertainties were treated in the fit. A short description of the fit (for example, ordinary least squares in log space, with or without weights) and the resulting residuals would allow a reader to assess whether the power-law exponent is actually supported by the data.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figures 15 and 16] The legend text 'R510×3.1' is not readable as a formula; the captions should spell out p1 = 3.1e5 R^0.5 with units, and the same convention should be used for the function shown in Figure 17.
  2. [Section 5.4.2 and Table 2] There are several typos: 'degadation' should be 'degradation', 'integraded' in the Table 2 caption should be 'integrated', and 'accummulating' in the Figure 15 caption should be 'accumulating'.
  3. [Section 4, Figure 9] The paper uses the within-cell dose RMS as a systematic band, but it does not discuss the effect of a global multiplicative bias in the simulated dose map; for the d/p1 ratio used in the HL-LHC extrapolation such a bias largely cancels, and a sentence to this effect would preempt a common concern.
  4. [Section 5.1.1] For the roughly 35% of cells whose degradation is at the 1% level, the text says the precision does not allow a conclusion; it would be clearer to quote an upper limit on the degradation for these cells rather than presenting the value as a measurement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the HL-LHC projection is an explicitly labelled extrapolation of a two-stage fit to Run 2 data, not a prediction reducible to its own inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (1) measure cell light output I/I0 from Cs/MB data with PMT response removed via laser data (Eq. 2); (2) fit each cell to a single exponential I/I0 = p0 exp(-d/p1) (Eq. 3); (3) fit the resulting p1 values as a power law in simulated average dose rate R; (4) evaluate that model at HL-LHC dose and dose-rate values. No step is self-definitional: Eq. 3 is fitted to data, and the p1(R) power law is fitted to the resulting p1 values, not to the HL-LHC endpoint. The HL-LHC light-loss numbers (e.g. 69% for A12) are not fitted quantities or renamed inputs; they are predictions at dose and dose-rate points outside the Run 2 range, and the paper repeatedly and honestly calls them extrapolations ('extrapolations to future scenarios are drawn based on current data', Section 5.4.2). The comparison with CMS HE Cal data and with lower-dose TileCal cells provides independent checks rather than circular support. The paper also flags the model's limitations, including the absence of annealing ('the extrapolation model does not take into account any possible scintillator recovery or annealing influences') and the imperfect comparability of the earlier lab irradiations. The reader's concern that the HL-LHC number 'reduces to fitted parameters' is a concern about extrapolation uncertainty, not about circularity: every empirical model forecast is a function of fitted parameters. The unreported uncertainty on the power-law exponent is a reporting weakness, but it does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs by construction. The self-citations to prior TileCal notes and the ATLAS Run 2 paper are contextual and not load-bearing in the argument; the fits, measurements, and extrapolations in this paper are performed on the data presented here. I therefore find no circular step under the rubric and assign score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement is a fit to calibration data with a phenomenological exponential model. The extrapolation rests on fitted p1 values and a fitted power-law in dose rate, plus the simulated dose map. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • p0 per cell = ~1.0
    Relative light output before irradiation in Eq. (3), fitted per cell to Run 2 data.
  • p1 per cell = 63 to 1600 Gy depending on cell (e.g. 630 Gy for A13)
    Exponential decay constant in Eq. (3), fitted per cell to Run 2 data.
  • Power-law coefficient and exponent for p1(R) = Shown in Figure 15 legend; exponent approximately 0.5
    The dose-rate model p1 = A R^b is fitted to the 17 most exposed cells in Figure 15.
  • MBTS two-exponential parameters = 0.86 e^{-d/3.0} + 0.14 e^{-d/26}
    Empirical fit to inner MBTS counters in Figure 14; parameters not derived from a model.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Scintillator light output follows an exponential decay with dose, I/I0 = p0 exp(-d/p1)
    Standard empirical model from ref. [37], assumed without derivation for each cell in Eq. (3).
  • domain assumption The Geant4 simulation of total ionising dose per fb^-1 is accurate for all cells
    Section 4 uses a 4x4 cm^2 phi-averaged, z-mirror-symmetric TID map; no systematic uncertainty from the simulation is propagated.
  • domain assumption Dividing the caesium or minimum-bias response by the laser response isolates the optics degradation
    Eq. (2) assumes the PMT response is common to both light sources and that the ratio is a faithful measure of scintillator and fibre light output.
  • ad hoc to paper The dose-rate effect follows a power law motivated by oxygen diffusion
    The power-law fit in Figure 15 is empirical; the paper cites oxygen diffusion as a mechanism but does not derive the functional form.
  • ad hoc to paper A single average dose and average dose rate per cell is sufficient for Eq. (3)
    The paper acknowledges a 30 to 50 percent RMS spread of dose within cells and folds it into uncertainties, but the model itself uses one average value per cell.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Study of the Radiation Hardness of the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter Optical Instrumentation with Run 2 data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T7UAUHRY

@misc{pith2026241215944,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Study of the Radiation Hardness of the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter Optical Instrumentation with Run 2 data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T7UAUHRY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15944}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents a study of the radiation hardness of the hadronic Tile Calorimeter of the ATLAS experiment in the LHC Run 2. Both the plastic scintillators constituting the detector active media and the wavelength-shifting optical fibres collecting the scintillation light into the photodetector readout are elements susceptible to radiation damage. The dedicated calibration and monitoring systems of the detector (caesium radioactive sources, laser and minimum bias integrator) allow to assess the response of these optical components. Data collected with these systems between 2015 and 2018 are analysed to measure the degradation of the optical instrumentation across Run 2. Moreover, a simulation of the total ionising dose in the calorimeter is employed to study and model the degradation profile as a function of the exposure conditions, both integrated dose and dose rate. The measurement of the relative light output loss in Run 2 is presented and extrapolations to future scenarios are drawn based on current data. The impact of radiation damage on the cell response uniformity is also analysed.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Tile Calorimeter: Technical Design Report, ATLAS-TDR-3; CERN-LHCC-96-042, 1996,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/331062

    work page 1996

  2. [2]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Readiness of the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter for LHC collisions, Eur. Phys. J. C70(2010) 1193, arXiv:1007.5423 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2010

  3. [3]

    ATLAS Collaboration, The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, JINST3 (2008) S08003

    2008

  4. [4]

    Evans and P

    L. Evans and P. Bryant,LHC Machine, JINST3 (2008) S08001

    2008

  5. [5]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Operation and performance of the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter in Run 1, Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) 987, arXiv:1806.02129 [hep-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Operation and performance of the ATLAS tile calorimeter in LHC Run 2, (2024), arXiv:2401.16034 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    J. Abdallah et al., The Production and Qualification of Scintillator Tiles for the ATLAS Hadronic Calorimeter, ATL-TILECAL-PUB-2007-010, ATL-COM-TILECAL-2007-026, 2007, url: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1075711

    work page arXiv 2007

  8. [8]

    Zorn, A pedestrian’s guide to radiation damage in plastic scintillators, Nuclear Physics B Proc

    C. Zorn, A pedestrian’s guide to radiation damage in plastic scintillators, Nuclear Physics B Proc. Suppl.32(1993) 377,issn: 0920-5632

    work page 1993

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Z. Li et al.,Properties of plastic scintillators after irradiation, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment552 (2005) 449,issn: 0168-9002

    2005

  2. [10]

    Zurbano Fernandez et al., High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider (HL-LHC): Technical design report,10/2020(2020)

    I. Zurbano Fernandez et al., High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider (HL-LHC): Technical design report,10/2020(2020). 27

    2020

  3. [11]

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Tile Calorimeter Phase-II Upgrade: Technical Design Report, ATLAS-TDR-028; CERN-LHCC-2017-019, 2017, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2285583

    2017

  4. [12]

    C. Fischer and on behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration, Study of TileCal Scintillator Irradiation using the Minimum Bias Integrators, Journal of Physics: Conference Series928 (2017) 012006

    2017

  5. [13]

    R. Pedro on behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration,Optics robustness of the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter, Journal of Physics: Conference Series1162 (2019) 012004, arXiv: 1905.01160 [physics.ins-det]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Pereira on behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration, Radiation hardness of the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter optical components, Journal of Physics: Conference Series1690 (2020) 012053

    B. Pereira on behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration, Radiation hardness of the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter optical components, Journal of Physics: Conference Series1690 (2020) 012053

    2020

  7. [15]

    V. Khachatryan et al.,Dose rate effects in the radiation damage of the plastic scintillators of the CMS hadron endcap calorimeter, JINST11 (2016) T10004, [Erratum: JINST 14, E08001 (2019)], arXiv: 1608.07267 [physics.ins-det]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Luminosity determination in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV using the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 982, arXiv:2212.09379 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Abdallah et al.,Mechanical construction and installation of the ATLAS tile calorimeter, JINST8 (2013) T11001

    J. Abdallah et al.,Mechanical construction and installation of the ATLAS tile calorimeter, JINST8 (2013) T11001

    2013

  10. [18]

    Tile Calorimeter collaboration,Tile Calorimeter Run 2 segmentation map, https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/AtlasPublic/PublishedTilecalFigures# Detector_Reference_Figures_and_S

  11. [19]

    Abdallah et al.,The optical instrumentation of the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter, JINST8 (2013) P01005

    J. Abdallah et al.,The optical instrumentation of the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter, JINST8 (2013) P01005

    2013

  12. [20]

    A. N. Karyukhin, S. V. Kopikov, M. E. Kostrikov, V. Lapin and A. Zaitsev, Injection modling scintillator for ATLAS Tile calorimeter, (1996)

    1996

  13. [21]

    Burdin et al.,The quality control of WLS fibres in Pisa, ATL-TILECAL-99-013, ATL-COM-TILECAL-99-019, CERN-ATL-TILECAL-99-013, 1999, url: https://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/683905

    S. Burdin et al.,The quality control of WLS fibres in Pisa, ATL-TILECAL-99-013, ATL-COM-TILECAL-99-019, CERN-ATL-TILECAL-99-013, 1999, url: https://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/683905

    1999

  14. [22]

    David, A

    M. David, A. Gomes, A. Maio, J. Pina and M. J. Varanda, Acceptance quality control of the Tilecal WLS fibres performed in Lisbon, ATL-TILECAL-2002-004, ATL-COM-TILECAL-2002-005, CERN-ATL-TILECAL-2002-004, 2002, url: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/685360

    2002

  15. [23]

    Saraiva, A

    J. Saraiva, A. Wemans, M. Maneira, A. Maio and J. Patriarca, The aluminization of 600 k WLS fibers for the TileCal/ATLAS/LHC, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science51(2004) 1235

    2004

  16. [24]

    Artikov et al.,Properties of the Ukrainian polystyrene-based plastic scintillator UPS 923A, Nucl

    A. Artikov et al.,Properties of the Ukrainian polystyrene-based plastic scintillator UPS 923A, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A555 (2005) 125

    2005

  17. [25]

    Sidoti, Minimum Bias Trigger Scintillators in ATLAS Run II, JINST9 (2014) C10020

    A. Sidoti, Minimum Bias Trigger Scintillators in ATLAS Run II, JINST9 (2014) C10020

    2014

  18. [26]

    Anderson et al.,Design of the front-end analog electronics for the ATLAS tile calorimeter, Nucl

    K. Anderson et al.,Design of the front-end analog electronics for the ATLAS tile calorimeter, Nucl. Instrum. Meth.A551 (2005) 469. 28

    2005

  19. [27]

    Abolins et al.,The ATLAS Data Acquisition and High Level Trigger system, JINST11(2016) P06008

    M. Abolins et al.,The ATLAS Data Acquisition and High Level Trigger system, JINST11(2016) P06008

    2016

  20. [28]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Operation of the ATLAS trigger system in Run 2, JINST15 (2020) P10004, arXiv: 2007.12539 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    González Parra, Integrator based readout in Tile Calorimeter of the ATLAS experiment, Phys

    G. González Parra, Integrator based readout in Tile Calorimeter of the ATLAS experiment, Phys. Procedia37(2012) 266

    2012

  22. [30]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Luminosity determination in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 8TeV using the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 653, arXiv:1608.03953 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    G. Blanchot et al.,The Cesium Source Calibration and Monitoring System of the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter: Design, Construction and Results, JINST15(2020) P03017, arXiv: 2002.12800 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    M. N. Agaras et al.,Laser calibration of the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter during LHC Run 2, JINST18 (2023) P06023, arXiv:2303.00121 [physics.ins-det]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    and others,The Laser calibration of the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter during the LHC run 1, JINST11 (2016) T10005

    Abdallah, J. and others,The Laser calibration of the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter during the LHC run 1, JINST11 (2016) T10005

    2016

  26. [34]

    P. L. Y. Gris,Upgrade of the LASER calibration system of the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter, ATL-TILECAL-INT-2016-004, 2016,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2217913

    2016

  27. [35]

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Radiation Simulation, https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/ view/AtlasPublic/RadiationSimulationPublicResults, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider: A Description of the Detector Configuration for Run 3, JINST19(2024) P05063, arXiv: 2305.16623 [physics.ins-det]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Zorn, Plastic and liquid organic scintillators, in Instrumentation in High Energy Physics (by F

    C. Zorn, Plastic and liquid organic scintillators, in Instrumentation in High Energy Physics (by F. Sauli), 1992, eprint:https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/1356

    1992 doi

  30. [38]

    P. C. Trimmer, J. B. Schlenoff and K. F. Johnson,Spatially resolved UV-VIS characterization of radiation-induced color centers in poly(styrene) and poly(vinyltoluene), Radiation Physics and Chemistry41(1993) 57,issn: 0969-806X

    1993

  31. [39]

    Busjan, K

    W. Busjan, K. Wick and T. Zoufal,Shortlived absorption centers in plastic scintillators and their influence on the fluorescence light yield, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms152 (1999) 89,issn: 0168-583X. 29

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.