Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Quality Assurance and Quality Control of the $26~\text{m}^2$ SiPM production for the DarkSide-20k dark matter experiment

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read DarkSide-20k's cryogenic SiPM wafer production exceeds its target: 93.2% of tested wafers pass 77 K screening, beating the 80% plan.

desk verdict A genuinely important engineering dataset for SiPM-based dark matter detectors, with a real but non-fatal inconsistency in the goodness-of-fit screening statistics. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18867 v2 pith:RHTTWNEC submitted 2024-12-25 physics.ins-det

F. Acerbi , P. Adhikari , P. Agnes , I. Ahmad , S. Albergo , I. F. Albuquerque , T. Alexander , A. K. Alton
show 284 more authors
P. Amaudruz M. Angiolilli.E. Aprile M. Atzori Corona D. J. Auty M. Ave I. C. Avetisov O. Azzolini H. O. Back Z. Balmforth A. Barrado Olmedo P. Barrillon G. Batignani P. Bhowmick M. Bloem S. Blua V. Bocci W. Bonivento B. Bottino M. G. Boulay A. Buchowicz S. Bussino J. Busto M. Cadeddu M. Cadoni R. Calabrese V. Camillo A. Caminata N. Canci A. Capra M. Caravati M. Cardenas-Montes N. Cargioli M. Carlini P. Castello P. Cavalcante S. Cebrian J. Cela Ruiz S. Chashin A. Chepurnov L. Cifarelli D. Cintas B. Cleveland Y. Coadou V. Cocco D. Colaiuda E. Conde Vilda L. Consiglio B. S. Costa M. Czubak S. D'Auria M. D. Da Rocha Rolo G. Darbo S. Davini R. de Asmundis S. De Cecco G. Dellacasa A. V. Derbin F. Di Capua L. Di Noto P. Di Stefano L. K. Dias C. Dionisi G. Dolganov F. Dordei V. Dronik A. Elersich E. Ellingwood T. Erjavec N. Fearon M. Fernandez Diaz A. Ficorella G. Fiorillo P. Franchini D. Franco H. Frandini Gatti E. Frolov F. Gabriele D. Gahan C. Galbiati G. Galiski G. Gallina G. Gallus M. Garbini P. Garcia Abia A. Gawdzik A. Gendotti G. K. Giovanetti V. Goicoechea Casanueva A. Gola L. Grandi G. Grauso G. Grilli di Cortona A. Grobov M. Gromov M. Gulino C. Guo B. R. Hackett A. Hallin A. Hamer M. Haranczyk T. Hessel S. Horikawa J. Hu F. Hubaut J. Hucker T. Hugues E. V. Hungerford A. Ianni G. Ippoliti V. Ippolito A. Jamil C. Jillings R. Keloth N. Kemmerich A. Kemp Carlos E. Kester M. Kimura K. Kondo G. Korga L. Kotsiopoulou S. Koulosousas A. Kubankin P. Kunze M. Kuss M. Kuźniak M. Kuzwa M. La Commara M. Lai E. LeGuirriec E. Leason A. Leoni L. Lidey M. Lissia L. Luzzi O. Lychagina O. Macfadyen I. N. Machulin S. Manecki I. Manthos A. Marasciulli G. Margutti S. M. Mari C. Mariani J. Maricic M. Martinez C. J. Martoff G. Matteucci K. Mavrokoridis E. Mazza A. B. McDonald S. Merzi A. Messina R. Milincic S. Minutoli A. Mitra J. Monroe E. Moretti M. Morrocchi T. Mroz V. N. Muratova M. Murphy M. Murra C. Muscas P. Musico R. Nania M. Nessi G. Nieradka K. Nikolopoulos E. Nikoloudaki J. Nowak K. Olchanski A. Oleinik V. Oleynikov P. Organtini A. Ortiz de Solrzano M. Pallavicini L. Pandola E. Pantic E. Paoloni D. Papi G. Pastuszak G. Paternoster P. A. Pegoraro K. Pelczar R. Perez V. Pesudo S. Piacentini N. Pino G. Plante A. Pocar M. Poehlmann S. Pordes P. Pralavorio E. Preosti D. Price S. Puglia M. Queiroga Bazetto F. Ragusa Y. Ramachers A. Ramirez S. Ravinthiran M. Razeti A. L. Renshaw M. Rescigno S. Resconi F. Retiere L. P. Rignanese A. Rivetti A. Roberts C. Roberts G. Rogers L. Romero M. Rossi A. Rubbia D. Rudik M. Sabia P. Salomone O. Samoylov S. Sanfilippo D. Santone R. Santorelli E. Moura Santos C. Savarese E. Scapparone F. G. Schuckman II G. Scioli D. A. Semenov A. Sheshukov M. Simeone P. Skensved M. D. Skorokhvatov O. Smirnov T. Smirnova B. Smith A. Sotnikov F. Spadoni M. Spangenberg R. Stefanizzi A. Steri V. Stornelli S. Stracka S. Sulis A. Sung C. Sunny Y. Suvorov A. M. Szelc O. Taborda R. Tartaglia A. Taylor J. Taylor G. Testera K. Thieme A. Thompson S. Torres-Lara A. Tricomi E. V. Unzhakov M. Van Uffelen T. Viant S. Viel A. Vishneva R. B. Vogelaar J. Vossebeld B. Vyas M. Wada M. Walczak Y. Wang H. Wang S. Westerdale L. Williams R. Wojaczyski M. M. Wojcik M. Wojcik T. Wright Y. Xie C. Yang J. Yin A. Zabihi P. Zakhary A. Zani Y. Zhang T. Zhu A. Zichichi G. Zuzel M. P. Zykova
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-det
keywords siliconphotomultiplierscryogenictestingwaferyieldqualityassurancegoodness-of-fitcorrelatedavalanchenoiseDarkSide-20kliquidargonmatter
topics Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports the quality-assurance results for the silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) wafer production that will instrument the DarkSide-20k liquid-argon dark matter detector, and claims the production is on track: $93.2\pm2.5\%$ of wafers pass cryogenic screening, above the $80\%$ yield assumed in the original production plan. To reach this number, the authors built a wafer-level 77 K probe station and defined a goodness-of-fit test that compares each die's reverse-bias current-voltage curve to a single reference curve after a per-die scaling factor. The central assertion is that this shape comparison is a sufficient wafer-level proxy for the correlated avalanche noise (optical crosstalk and afterpulsing) that would otherwise require slow single-photon pulse counting on every die. If the claim is correct, DarkSide-20k has enough screened, production-grade dice to instrument its two optical planes and veto detectors, and the same QA approach could scale to the much larger SiPM surfaces planned for next-generation noble-liquid detectors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the goodness-of-fit (GOF) parameter, a chi-square statistic comparing each die's reverse-bias IV curve $I_i$ to a fixed production reference IV curve after alignment in breakdown voltage and scaling by a constant $k$. The scaling factor is chosen analytically, $k = \frac{\sum_i (I_i \bar{I}_i/\sigma_i^2)}{\sum_i \bar{I}_i^2/\sigma_i^2}$, and the sum runs over bias points starting $0.7~\mathrm{V}$ above the reference breakdown voltage; $\sigma_i$ is the reference curve's point-to-point uncertainty ($22\%$). The underlying identity is Eq. 5: if two SiPMs have identical photodetection efficiency, gain, and correlated-noise voltage dependencies and negligible dark count rate compared with the illumination, the point-to-point ratio of their currents is a voltage-independent constant equal to the ratio of the photon fluxes they see. The GOF converts shape mismatch into a pass/fail cut ($\mathrm{GOF}\le20$, set at a claimed $3\sigma$ level) that is meant to guarantee similar correlated avalanche noise across all accepted dice. The cryogenic probe station at 77 K is the supporting measurement platform, and standard process-capability indices track the stability of the screening campaign.

What would settle it

Measure optical crosstalk and afterpulse probabilities directly on a sample of production dice that passed the $\mathrm{GOF}\le20$ cut, using single-photoelectron pulse counting at 77 K, and compare the spread and absolute levels with the reference die and with the DarkSide-20k correlated-noise specification. If accepted dice show a spread in crosstalk or afterpulse substantially wider than the reference, or if a deliberately noisy batch can be made to match the reference curve after scaling and still pass, the GOF screen as implemented is not sufficient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the full $26\,\text{m}^2$ SiPM production for DarkSide-20k can be qualified at wafer level at 77 K with four electrical criteria — breakdown voltage $V_{\mathrm{bd}}=27.19\pm0.05~\mathrm{V}$, quenching resistor $R_q=3.34\pm0.15~\mathrm{M\Omega}$, leakage current $I_L=6.6\pm2.2~\mathrm{pA}$, and a goodness-of-fit $\mathrm{GOF}=1.36\pm1.49$ against a production reference — and that the resulting wafer yield is $93.2\pm2.5\%$, comfortably exceeding the $80\%$ specification. The GOF criterion is the key new element: it assumes that after scaling by a fitted constant $k$, any die whose reverse-bias IV curve matches the reference curve point-to-point has the same photodetection efficiency, gain, and correlated avalanche noise as the reference, so the screen controls noise without measuring crosstalk and afterpulsing directly. The paper further reports that more than $99\%$ of dice passing supplier room-temperature measurements of breakdown voltage and quenching resistance also pass the 77 K requirements, although the statistics of failing dice are too small to certify room-temperature screening as a substitute.

Load-bearing premise

The acceptance screen assumes that every die whose reverse-bias current curve matches a chosen reference curve after scaling by one constant has the same acceptable level of optical crosstalk and afterpulsing as that reference, which means an entire batch with uniformly higher correlated noise, or a reference that is itself too noisy, could pass the screen.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the $93.2\pm2.5\%$ wafer yield holds for the remaining ~6% of production wafers, DarkSide-20k will have enough production-grade dice, screened at 77 K, to populate both 10.5 m$^2$ TPC optical planes and the veto photosensitive surfaces.
  • The largest single source of yield loss is the goodness-of-fit cut at roughly 5%, so correlated avalanche noise, not breakdown voltage or quenching resistance, is the binding constraint on production.
  • Since dice within a Lot are statistically interchangeable and Lot-to-Lot variation dominates for the quenching resistor (61.8% of variance), tiles can be assembled by freely mixing dice within a Lot without special matching.
  • Because supplier room-temperature measurements of breakdown voltage and quenching resistor correlate with the 77 K values and more than 99% of room-temperature-compliant dice also pass at 77 K, a cheaper room-temperature pre-screen could reduce the cryogenic test load, though the paper cautions that failing-die statistics are too small to prove it catches all failures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: if future experiments validate the GOF screen against direct crosstalk and afterpulse measurements, the same reference-curve technique could replace pulse-counting QA for planned detectors with more than 100 m$^2$ of SiPM area, because it runs at wafer throughput rather than per-device pulse statistics.
  • Editorial extension: the reference-IV approach as described fixes one die as the reference for the entire campaign; a natural hardening step, not discussed in the paper, would be to track reference drift over time or use a set of references, since a drifting reference would directly shift the GOF acceptance boundary.
  • Editorial extension: the four dice per wafer not reachable by the probe card are routed to tile assembly and tested at tile level, so the final system-level yield could differ slightly from the 93.2% wafer-level number; the paper presents only the wafer-level accounting.
  • Editorial extension: the demonstrated 300 K/77 K correlation in breakdown voltage and quenching resistance suggests extending the GOF concept to room temperature may be possible with a newly designed probe card, which would let suppliers screen correlated-noise outliers before cryogenic testing.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports the wafer-level QA/QC campaign for the DarkSide-20k FBK NUV-HD-cryo SiPM production. A custom cryogenic probe station measures forward and reverse IV curves at 77 K on 264 dice per wafer; from these curves the collaboration extracts breakdown voltage, quenching resistance, leakage current, and a goodness-of-fit parameter intended to control correlated avalanche noise. As of March 2025, 1314 of 1400 production wafers have been tested, and the reported wafer yield is 93.2 ± 2.5%, exceeding the 80% yield assumed in the DS-20k production plan. The paper also presents variance component analyses, a room-temperature to 77 K correlation study, and process capability monitoring.

Significance. If correct, the result is practically important: it demonstrates that the DS-20k SiPM production, screened at 77 K, has enough production-grade dice to instrument the full detector and even provides margin over the original plan. The paper's strengths are its scale (359,040 SiPMs, 1,314 wafers), the explicit VCA decomposition of lot/wafer/site variability, the SPC monitoring, and the honest statement that room-temperature screening cannot yet be validated as a replacement for cryogenic screening. The main measured values (Vbd = 27.19 ± 0.05 V, Rq = 3.34 ± 0.15 MΩ, IL = 6.6 ± 2.2 pA) are straightforward IV extractions and appear internally consistent. The load-bearing weakness is the goodness-of-fit screen, which is the largest source of yield loss but is not calibrated against direct correlated-noise measurements and has an internally inconsistent statistical justification.

major comments (2)
  1. [4.4.1, Eq. (6)] The GOF statistic in Eq. (6) is written as a reduced chi-square, with a denominator sigma_i^2 (N-1), but the acceptance threshold GOF ≤ 20 is justified by stating that a chi-square distribution with 5 degrees of freedom has 99.87% of its probability below 20. These two statements are incompatible: with N equal to the number of voltage points (much larger than 5), the reduced chi-square threshold of 20 corresponds to an essentially zero tail probability, not a 0.13% failure rate. The observed failure fraction is also much larger than 0.13%: Fig. 23 attributes roughly 5% yield loss to the GOF cut, and Fig. 17 shows 9261 of 359040 SiPMs outside the plotted range. Please state the actual degrees of freedom after fitting k, and calibrate the GOF threshold against the observed distribution or against a labeled sample with known correlated-noise properties.
  2. [4.4.1, Eqs. (3)-(5)] The claim that the GOF screen ensures all production-graded SiPMs have similar correlated avalanche noise relies on the assumption that all SiPMs share identical PDE, gain, and DCR voltage dependence, so that any difference between two IV curves is a voltage-independent scale factor k. A batch with uniformly elevated crosstalk or afterpulsing, but with the same voltage dependence as the reference SiPM, would be absorbed into k and would pass the screen. The paper does not calibrate GOF against direct crosstalk or afterpulse measurements on production dice or on dice spanning the GOF range. Please add such a calibration, or explicitly weaken the claim to state that GOF controls shape deviations from a chosen reference, not the absolute correlated-noise level.
minor comments (5)
  1. [4.4.1, Eq. (6)] The notation in Eq. (6) uses I_i for both the measured SiPM current and the reference current; please use distinct symbols such as I_i and R_i (or I_i^ref) to avoid ambiguity, and define the alignment procedure preceding the sum more clearly.
  2. [6, Figs. 17 and 23] The GOF failure rate is internally inconsistent: Fig. 17 reports 9261 SiPMs outside the plotted range (2.6% of 359040), while Fig. 23 attributes roughly 5% yield loss to the GOF cut; because the histogram range ends at GOF = 100, the 9261 number does not directly measure the GOF > 20 failure count. Please report the exact number of dice failing each individual requirement and reconcile the Pareto percentages.
  3. [4.4.2, Fig. 19] The text states that the leakage-current upper limit was set at the 4-sigma level, i.e. 99.99% of the data meet the specification, but Fig. 19 shows 2403 of 359040 SiPMs outside the plot range (0.67%); please clarify what quantity the 99.99% refers to or correct the statement.
  4. [6, Fig. 22] The paper should clarify whether 93.2 ± 2.5% is the median of the per-wafer yield distribution or the pooled fraction of passing dice, and how the four unprobed dice per wafer enter the yield and sufficiency calculation.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues, including 'Breakdwon Voltage' in Fig. 16, 'will be used to instruments' in Sec. 8, and 'actstg' in the acknowledgments; these should be corrected in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the reported wafer yield is a direct count against external DS-20k specifications, not a quantity derived from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is: (1) acceptance criteria for Vbd, Rq, IL, and GOF are taken from DS-20k requirements or justified from pre-production dispersion; (2) forward and reverse IV curves are measured at 77 K on every die; (3) the wafer yield is the counted fraction of dice passing all criteria; (4) the central claim compares that counted fraction to the 80% planning value from the original DS-20k production plan. No step produces the outcome from its own inputs. The per-SiPM scaling factor k in Eq. 7 is fitted only as a normalization for illumination differences inside the GOF shape test, and the GOF statistic is an acceptance criterion, not a predicted quantity used to compute the yield. The GOF screen's validity as a correlated-noise proxy is not calibrated against direct crosstalk or afterpulse measurements, and the quoted 3-sigma / 99.87% threshold justification is inconsistent with the observed roughly 2.6% failure rate; these are validation and statistical-consistency concerns, not circularity, because the acceptance cut is an input specification rather than an output derived from the data. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. 7, 15, 33) provide background, technology context, and the IV/gain model, but the central yield result does not reduce to those citations. No self-definitional step, fitted-input-called-prediction step, or imported uniqueness argument was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical claims rest on measured IV curves and external DS-20k specifications. The only explicitly fitted quantity is k in GOF. The main unstated load-bearing assumptions are the validity of the reference-IV proxy and the chi-square threshold.

free parameters (3)
  • GOF scaling factor k = per SiPM, from Eq. 7
    Fitted for every device to scale its IV curve to the reference; absorbs illumination differences, so GOF is a shape test after a one-parameter fit.
  • Reference IV curve uncertainty sigma_i = 22% of reference current
    Set from average point-to-point fluctuation of the reference IV curve; normalizes GOF and directly changes which devices pass.
  • GOF acceptance threshold = 20
    Chosen as a '3 sigma' one-tailed cut, claimed to match chi-square with 5 dof; the paper does not derive this from Eq. 6 and the empirical GOF failure fraction is inconsistent with 99.87% passing.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SiPM reverse-bias current follows I(V) = f(V) * [PDE(V) * Phi + R_DCR] with f(V) proportional to gain times (1 + correlated noise).
    Sec. 4.4.1, Eq. 3; underlies the ratio test used for GOF.
  • domain assumption All production SiPMs have identical PDE, gain and correlated-noise voltage dependence, and DCR is negligible compared with photon flux.
    Sec. 4.4.1, Eq. 5; needed for the IV ratio to be a constant k.
  • domain assumption A single reference SiPM IV curve is representative of acceptable production quality for the entire campaign.
    Sec. 4.4.1; the reference's identity and stability are not documented.
  • ad hoc to paper GOF follows a chi-square distribution with 5 degrees of freedom.
    Sec. 4.4.1; no derivation connects Eq. 6's (N-1) normalization to 5 dof, and the observed GOF failure fraction contradicts the 3-sigma statement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quality Assurance and Quality Control of the $26~\text{m}^2$ SiPM production for the DarkSide-20k dark matter experiment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RHTTWNEC

@misc{pith2026241218867,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quality Assurance and Quality Control of the $26~\textm^2$ SiPM production for the DarkSide-20k dark matter experiment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RHTTWNEC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18867}
}
abstract

DarkSide-20k is a novel liquid argon dark matter detector currently under construction at the Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso (LNGS) of the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN) that will push the sensitivity for Weakly Interacting Massive Particle (WIMP) detection into the neutrino fog. The core of the apparatus is a dual-phase Time Projection Chamber (TPC), filled with \SI{50} {tonnes} of low radioactivity underground argon (UAr) acting as the WIMP target. NUV-HD-cryo Silicon Photomultipliers (SiPM)s designed by Fondazione Bruno Kessler (FBK) (Trento, Italy) were selected as the photon sensors covering two $10.5~\text{m}^2$ Optical Planes, one at each end of the TPC, and a total of $5~\text{m}^2$ photosensitive surface for the liquid argon veto detectors. This paper describes the Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) plan and procedures accompanying the production of FBK~NUV-HD-cryo SiPM wafers manufactured by LFoundry s.r.l. (Avezzano, AQ, Italy). SiPM characteristics are measured at 77~K at the wafer level with a custom-designed probe station. As of March~2025, 1314 of the 1400 production wafers (94% of the total) for DarkSide-20k were tested. The wafer yield is $93.2\pm2.5$\%, which exceeds the 80\% specification defined in the original DarkSide-20k production plan.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Cryogenic SiPMs for the Optical Readout of DarkSide-20k

    physics.ins-det 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The DarkSide-20k PDU, a 20x20 cm cryogenic SiPM module, achieves single-photon resolution and stable performance, enabling the planned optical readout of the experiment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

129 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Acerbi and S

    F. Acerbi and S. Gundacker. Understanding and simulating sipms. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A, 926:16–35, 5 2019

    2019

  2. [2]

    Gallina et al

    G. Gallina et al. Characterization of SiPM Avalanche Trig- gering Probabilities. IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices , 66(10):4228–4234, 2019

    2019

  3. [3]

    Baudis et al

    L. Baudis et al. Characterisation of Silicon Photomultipli- ers for liquid xenon detectors. Journal of Instrumentation , 13(10):P10022, 2018

    2018

  4. [4]

    Meg2 Collaboration, A. M. Baldini, et al. The design of the meg2 experiment: Meg2 collaboration. European Physical Journal C , 78, 5 2018

    2018

  5. [5]

    Falcone et al

    A. Falcone et al. Cryogenic sipm arrays for the dune photon de- tection system. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Re- search Section A, 985:164648, 2021

    2021

  6. [6]

    Jamil, et al

    nEXO collaboration, A. Jamil, et al. VUV-Sensitive Silicon Pho- tomultipliers for Xenon Scintillation Light Detection in nEXO. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 65(11):2823–2833, 2018

    2018

  7. [7]

    DarkSide Collaboration, C. E. Aalseth, et al. DarkSide-20k: A 20 tonne two-phase LAr TPC for direct dark matter detection at LNGS. The European Physical Journal Plus, 133(3):131, 2018

    2018

  8. [8]

    Aaron and et al

    E. Aaron and et al. Measurement of isotopic separation of argon with the prototype of the cryogenic distillation plant aria for dark matter searches. The European Physical Journal C, 83(5), 2023

    2023

Show all 129 references
  1. [9]

    Benson et al

    C. Benson et al. Measurements of the intrinsic quantum efficiency and absorption length of tetraphenyl butadiene thin films in the vacuum ultraviolet regime. The European Physical Journal C , 78:329, 4 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. First results from the DarkSide-50 dark matter experiment at Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso. Phys. Lett. B, 743:456–466, April 2015

    2015

  3. [11]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. DarkSide-50 532-day dark matter search with low-radioactivity argon. Phys. Rev. D, 98(10):102006, November 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    D. Santone. The DARKSIDE-20k veto readout system: PDUs construction and characterization. Proceedings of XVIII Inter- national Conference on Topics in Astroparticle and Underground Physics — PoS(TAUP2023), 441:027, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Piemonte et al

    C. Piemonte et al. Performance of nuv-hd silicon photomultiplier technology. IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, 63(3):1111– 1116, 2016

    2016

  6. [14]

    Acerbi et al

    F. Acerbi et al. Cryogenic Characterization of FBK HD Near- UV Sensitive SiPMs. IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices , 64(2):521–526, feb 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Gola et al

    A. Gola et al. Nuv-sensitive silicon photomultiplier technologies developed at fondazione bruno kessler. Sensors, 19:308, 1 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    D’Incecco et al

    M. D’Incecco et al. Development of a novel single-channel, 24 cm 2 , sipm-based, cryogenic photodetector. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 65:591–596, 1 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Kugathasan

    R. Kugathasan. A low-power mixed-signal ASIC for readout of SiPM at cryogenic temperature. PoS, TWEPP2019:011, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Franchini

    P. Franchini. Darkside-20k veto photon-detector units: construc- tion and characterization. volume 19, page C05013. IOP Publish- ing, may 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Arlon pcb

    Arlon. Arlon pcb. https://www.arlonemd.com

  12. [20]

    Razeto et al

    A. Razeto et al. Very large sipm arrays with aggregated output. Journal of Instrumentation, 17:P05038, 5 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Organtini et al

    P. Organtini et al. Industrial exploitation of sipm technology de- veloped for basic research. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detec- tors and Associated Equipment, 978:164410, 2020. 19

    2020

  14. [22]

    Consiglio

    L. Consiglio. The nuova officina assergi: future perspectives beyond darkside-20k. Proceedings of XVIII International Con- ference on Topics in Astroparticle and Underground Physics — PoS(TAUP2023), page 310, 12 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Kochanek

    I. Kochanek. Packaging strategies for large sipm-based cryogenic photo-detectors. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Re- search Section A, 980:164487, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Consiglio and et al

    L. Consiglio and et al. Nuova officina assergi: a novel infrastruc- ture for the production of cryogenic and radiopure si-based pho- todetectors. Frontiers in Physics, 12, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Cascade FormFactor PAC200 probe system

    FormFactor. Cascade FormFactor PAC200 probe system. https://www.formfactor.com/product/probe-systems/ wafer-multi-chip-cryogenic-systems/pac200/

  18. [26]

    htt Probecard

    htt. htt Probecard. https://www.httgroup.eu/en/ probecards/htt_probecards/

  19. [27]

    S550 semiconductor-test-systems

    keithley. S550 semiconductor-test-systems. https://www.tek.com/en/products/ keithley/semiconductor-test-systems/ parametric-test-systems

  20. [28]

    Maximum Integrated Data Acquisition System

    MIDAS Collaboration. Maximum Integrated Data Acquisition System. https://midas.triumf.ca

  21. [29]

    Nagai et al

    A. Nagai et al. Characterisation of a large area silicon photomul- tiplier. oct 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Gallina, et al

    nEXO collaboration, G. Gallina, et al. Characterization of the Hamamatsu VUV4 MPPCs for nEXO. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A, 940:371–379, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Searle et al

    Shayle R. Searle et al. Variance Components , volume 10.1002/9780470316856. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., mar 1992

    1992 doi

  24. [32]

    A. N. Otte, D. Garcia, T. Nguyen, and D. Purushotham. Charac- terization of three high efficiency and blue sensitive silicon pho- tomultipliers. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Re- search Section A, 846:106–125, 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    Gallina et al

    G. Gallina et al. Performance of novel vuv-sensitive silicon photo- multipliers for nexo. The European Physical Journal C, 82:1125, 12 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Hurkx et al

    G.A.M. Hurkx et al. A new analytical diode model including tun- neling and avalanche breakdown. IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, 39(9):2090–2098, 1992

    1992

  27. [35]

    G. Gallina. Development of a single vacuum ultra-violet photon- sensing solution for nEXO . PhD thesis, University of British Columbia, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. Sensitivity of future liquid argon dark matter search experiments to core-collapse supernova neutrinos.Journal of Cos- mology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021:043, 3 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. Darwin: towards the ultimate dark matter detector. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics , 2016:017–017, 11 2016

    2016

  30. [38]

    L. J. van der PAUW. A method of measuring specific resistivity and hall effect of discs of arbitrary shape. Philips Research Re- ports, 13(1):1–9, 1958

    1958

  31. [39]

    Springer New York, New York, NY , 2008

    Q-Q Plot (Quantile to Quantile Plot) , pages 437–439. Springer New York, New York, NY , 2008

    2008

  32. [40]

    Heckert et al

    N. Heckert et al. Handbook 151: Nist/sematech e-handbook of statistical methods, 2002-11-01 00:11:00 2002. 20 The DarkSide-20k Collaboration F. Acerbi1, P. Adhikari2, P. Agnes3,4 , I. Ahmad 5, S. Albergo 6,7 , I. F. Albuquerque8, T. Alexander9, A. K. Alton 10, P. Amaudruz11, M...

    2002

  33. [41]

    Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Povo 38123, Italy

  34. [42]

    Department of Physics, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada

  35. [43]

    Gran Sasso Science Institute, L’Aquila 67100, Italy

  36. [44]

    INFN Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso, Assergi (AQ) 67100, Italy

  37. [45]

    AstroCeNT, Nicolaus Copernicus Astronomical Center of the Polish Academy of Sciences, 00-614 Warsaw, Poland

  38. [46]

    INFN Catania, Catania 95121, Italy

  39. [47]

    Universit `a of Catania, Catania 95124, Italy

  40. [48]

    Instituto de F ´ısica, Universidade de S˜ao Paulo, S˜ao Paulo 05508-090, Brazil

  41. [49]

    Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, W A 99352, USA

  42. [50]

    Physics Department, Augustana University, Sioux Falls, SD 57197, USA

  43. [51]

    TRIUMF, 4004 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 2A3, Canada

  44. [52]

    Physics Department, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA

  45. [53]

    INFN Cagliari, Cagliari 09042, Italy

  46. [54]

    Physics Department, Universit `a degli Studi di Cagliari, Cagliari 09042, Italy

  47. [55]

    Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R3, Canada

  48. [56]

    Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology, Moscow 125047, Russia

  49. [57]

    INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Legnaro, Legnaro (Padova) 35020, Italy

  50. [58]

    Savannah River National Laboratory, Jackson, SC 29831, United States

  51. [59]

    Department of Physics, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham TW20 0EX, UK

  52. [60]

    CIEMAT, Centro de Investigaciones Energ ´eticas, Medioambientales y Tecnol´ogicas, Madrid 28040, Spain

  53. [61]

    Centre de Physique des Particules de Marseille, Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS/IN2P3, CPPM, Marseille, France

  54. [62]

    INFN Pisa, Pisa 56127, Italy

  55. [63]

    Physics Department, Universit `a degli Studi di Pisa, Pisa 56127, Italy

  56. [64]

    University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 2JD, United Kingdom

  57. [65]

    INFN Torino, Torino 10125, Italy

  58. [66]

    Department of Electronics and Telecommunications, Politecnico di Torino, Torino 10129, Italy

  59. [67]

    INFN Sezione di Roma, Roma 00185, Italy

  60. [68]

    Physics Department, Universit `a degli Studi di Genova, Genova 16146, Italy

  61. [69]

    INFN Genova, Genova 16146, Italy

  62. [70]

    Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, Politecnico di Milano, Milano 20133, Italy

  63. [71]

    INFN Milano, Milano 20133, Italy

  64. [72]

    Institute of Radioelectronics and Multimedia Technology, Warsaw University of Technology, 00-661 Warsaw, Poland

  65. [73]

    INFN Roma Tre, Roma 00146, Italy 21

  66. [74]

    INFN Napoli, Napoli 80126, Italy

  67. [75]

    Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, V A 24061, USA

  68. [76]

    Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Universit `a degli Studi di Cagliari, Cagliari 09123, Italy

  69. [77]

    Centro de Astropart ´ıculas y F´ısica de Altas Energ´ıas, Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza 50009, Spain

  70. [78]

    Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow 119234, Russia

  71. [79]

    INFN Bologna, Bologna 40126, Italy

  72. [80]

    Department of Physics and Astronomy, Universit `a degli Studi di Bologna, Bologna 40126, Italy

  73. [81]

    Department of Physics and Astronomy, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON P3E 2C6, Canada

  74. [82]

    SNOLAB, Lively, ON P3Y 1N2, Canada

  75. [83]

    Universit `a degli Studi dell’Aquila, L’Aquila 67100, Italy

  76. [84]

    Smoluchowski Institute of Physics, Jagiellonian University, 30-348 Krakow, Poland

    M. Smoluchowski Institute of Physics, Jagiellonian University, 30-348 Krakow, Poland

  77. [85]

    Federico II

    Department of Structures for Engineering and Architecture, Universit `a degli Studi “Federico II” di Napoli, Napoli 80126, Italy

  78. [86]

    Physics Department, Universit `a degli Studi di Milano, Milano 20133, Italy

  79. [87]

    Physics Department, Sapienza Universit `a di Roma, Roma 00185, Italy

  80. [88]

    G. Natta

    Chemistry, Materials and Chemical Engineering Department “G. Natta”, Politecnico di Milano, Milano 20133, Italy

  81. [89]

    Saint Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina 188350, Russia

  82. [90]

    Federico II

    Physics Department, Universit `a degli Studi “Federico II” di Napoli, Napoli 80126, Italy

  83. [91]

    Department of Physics, Engineering Physics and Astronomy, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada

  84. [92]

    Physics Department, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA

  85. [93]

    National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Moscow 123182, Russia

  86. [94]

    Radiation Physics Laboratory, Belgorod National Research University, Belgorod 308007, Russia

  87. [95]

    Department of Physics, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA

  88. [96]

    Physics Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YB, UK

  89. [97]

    APC, Universit ´e de Paris Cit´e, CNRS, Astroparticule et Cosmologie, Paris F-75013, France

  90. [98]

    Department of Physics, University of Liverpool, The Oliver Lodge Laboratory, Liverpool L69 7ZE, UK

  91. [99]

    Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk 630090, Russia

  92. [100]

    Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche Enrico Fermi, Roma 00184, Italy

  93. [101]

    Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK

  94. [102]

    Institute for Particle Physics, ETH Z ¨urich, Z¨urich 8093, Switzerland

  95. [103]

    Williams College, Physics Department, Williamstown, MA 01267 USA

  96. [104]

    Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Hawai’i, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA

  97. [105]

    Department of Physics and Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA

  98. [106]

    INFN Laboratori Nazionali del Sud, Catania 95123, Italy

  99. [107]

    Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

  100. [108]

    School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FD, UK

  101. [109]

    Department of Physics, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204, USA

  102. [110]

    Federico II

    Pharmacy Department, Universit `a degli Studi “Federico II” di Napoli, Napoli 80131, Italy

  103. [111]

    Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Riverside, CA 92507, USA

  104. [112]

    Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna 141980, Russia

  105. [113]

    National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow 115409, Russia

  106. [114]

    School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, B15 2TT, Birmingham, UK

  107. [115]

    Institute of Experimental Physics, University of Hamburg, Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761, Hamburg, Germany

  108. [116]

    LFoundry S.r.l, Via Antonio Pacinotti 7, Avezzano AQ 67051, IT

  109. [117]

    Physics Department, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA

  110. [118]

    University of Warwick, Department of Physics, Coventry CV47AL, UK

  111. [119]

    Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Roma 00186, Italia

  112. [120]

    Amherst Center for Fundamental Interactions and Physics Department, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA

  113. [121]

    Federico II

    Chemical, Materials, and Industrial Production Engineering Department, Universit `a degli Studi “Federico II” di Napoli, Napoli 80126, Italy

  114. [122]

    Department of Mechanical, Chemical, and Materials Engineering, Universit `a degli Studi, Cagliari 09042, Italy

  115. [123]

    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

  116. [124]

    Physics and Astronomy Department, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA

  117. [125]

    Department of Physics and Engineering, Fort Lewis College, Durango, CO 81301, USA

  118. [126]

    Institute of Applied Radiation Chemistry, Lodz University of Technology, 93-590 Lodz, Poland

  119. [127]

    Science & Technology Facilities Council (STFC), Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Technology, Harwell Oxford, Didcot OX11 0QX, UK

  120. [128]

    Engineering and Architecture Faculty, Universit `a di Enna Kore, Enna 94100, Italy

  121. [129]

    Center for Experimental Nuclear Physics and Astrophysics, and Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, W A 98195, USA

Pith tools

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