Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Design and Performance of a Universal SiPM Readout System for X- and Gamma-Ray Missions

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single COTS-based readout board handles 64 SiPM channels at 1.8 W and passed space qualification tests, giving small gamma-ray missions a reusable front end.

desk verdict A genuinely useful 64-channel SiPM readout paper whose only real overreach is calling the design 'space qualified' on the basis of a single limited proton run. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07758 v2 pith:QO3PE3WR submitted 2025-01-14 astro-ph.IM

Merlin Kole , Nicolas De Angelis , Nicolas Produit , Philipp Azzarello , Franck Cadoux , Yannick Favre , Jochen Greiner , Vishal Kumar
show 10 more authors
Johannes Hulsman Sebastian Kusyk Hancheng Li Dominik Rybka Jerome Stauffer Adrien Stil Jianchao Sun Jan Swakon Damian Wrobel Xin Wu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords SiPMreadoutelectronicsgamma-raydetectorCOTSspacePOLAR-2scintillatorGAGGspectrometerqualificationfront-endASIC
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 is trying to establish that one compact, mostly commercial-off-the-shelf readout board can serve as a reusable front end for a wide range of scintillator-plus-SiPM gamma-ray instruments, not just the POLAR-2 polarimeter it was built for. It reports a 64-channel system that draws about 1.8 W, costs roughly 3000 USD excluding SiPMs, reads out both fast plastic and slower high-Z GAGG scintillators with useful energy resolution, and survived thermal vacuum, proton irradiation, vibration, and shock tests. The broader claim is that a flexible, low-power COTS design can remove much of the cost, mass, and export-control burden that has made small gamma-ray missions difficult. If the design holds up, an instrument builder can take this board, change the SiPM layout or scintillator type, and get a flight-capable readout without starting from scratch.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the FEE itself, a rigid-flex assembly of three PCBs: a SiPM board carrying filters, temperature sensors, and heating resistors; a main board with the ASICs, FPGA, ADCs, DACs, and DC/DC converter; and a connector board with LVDS data lines, power, and Peltier/heater drivers. Two Citiroc 1A ASICs give each of 32 channels separate high- and low-gain amplifiers plus charge and time thresholds, and the IGLOO FPGA implements the trigger logic and data packaging. The LT3482 DC/DC converter supplies the SiPM bias from 0 to 90 V and can keep up with the dark-current increase caused by radiation damage. The key performance mechanism is the pairing of high-gain and low-gain outputs, which allows sub-keV-level photo-electron counting at low energies while extending the readable range into the hundreds of keV without switching modes.

What would settle it

Take an unirradiated FEE and expose it to proton beams of different energies and dose rates, continuing past 0.76 Gy total dose while logging the LT3482 output voltage, FPGA configuration integrity, ADC baseline noise, and ASIC gain; if any component fails or performance drifts before a mission-equivalent dose for a chosen orbit, the general space-qualification claim is falsified. A quicker test is to couple the same board to a slow scintillator such as BGO and see whether the 12.5 ns shaping time still yields usable spectra.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the front-end readout electronics (FEE), built around two Citiroc 1A 32-channel ASICs, one IGLOO FPGA, and an LT3482 DC/DC converter on a rigid-flex three-board assembly, reads out 64 SiPM channels at 1.78 W with no significant electronic noise or crosstalk. In the authors' own characterization, the design allows readout of 64 SiPM channels with typical power consumption of 1.8 W and cost, excluding SiPMs, of about 3000 USD. With plastic scintillators it keeps a charge-trigger threshold below 10 keV and resolves individual photo-electron peaks; with GAGG it reaches a 3.75 keV threshold, a dynamic range beyond 600 keV, and energy resolution comparable to earlier GAGG/SiPM instruments. The same trigger logic can be simplified for spectrometry, and the board passed thermal vacuum cycling, stepwise 58 MeV proton irradiation equivalent to about 11 years in low Earth orbit under POLAR-2 shielding, and launch-level vibration and shock tests.

Load-bearing premise

The qualification claim rests on the assumption that one stepwise proton irradiation run at 58 MeV, with a total dose of 0.76 Gy under POLAR-2-like shielding, plus the thermal, vibration, and shock tests, is representative of years in orbit for any mission; the paper itself states that the 11-year low-Earth-orbit equivalence cannot be directly translated to other missions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One board can serve as the front end for POLAR-2's 6400-channel array within the 300 W mission power budget, while the same board with a changed SiPM layout becomes a CubeSat spectrometer.
  • With GAGG, the system delivers a trigger threshold near 3.75 keV and a low-gain dynamic range beyond 600 keV; adjusting the ASIC gain DACs should push the high end toward MeV energies.
  • At rates of several kHz the system can record bright gamma-ray bursts such as GRB 170127C without significant dead time, and only exceptional events like GRB 221009A would exceed its rate capability.
  • Because nearly all components are COTS, procurement cost and export restrictions shrink, and the paper encourages other groups to reuse or modify the design for small space missions.
  • Planned upgrades such as the 64-channel Radioroc 2 ASIC, linearly graded SiPMs, and cryogenic SiPM readout are natural extensions of the same architecture rather than redesigns.

Reading between the lines

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

  • As an editor's extrapolation, the architecture's value would rise most if the proposed Radioroc 2 upgrade works: the same board organization could then read 128 channels, roughly doubling channel density under the same power envelope.
  • The 'universal' label is so far bounded by the scintillator types tested; slow BGO and other long-decay crystals have not yet been measured, so the design's generality should be read as covering fast and medium-speed scintillators until those tests run.
  • If a mission targets an orbit outside POLAR-2's 383 km LEO conditions, the 11-year-equivalent irradiation result is not sufficient by itself; a mission-specific proton-energy and dose-rate test is the natural next step, as the paper itself cautions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper describes a 64-channel SiPM readout system (front-end electronics, FEE) built around two Citiroc-1A ASICs and a Microsemi IGLOO FPGA, with COTS power, ADC, and connector components. It reports the system's power consumption (~1.8 W), channel-gain uniformity, electronic noise, rate capability, crosstalk, and spectral performance with plastic (EJ-248M) and high-Z (GAGG:Ce) scintillators. It also reports thermal-vacuum, proton-irradiation, vibration, and shock tests, and concludes that the design is 'space qualified' and suitable for missions such as POLAR-2, BSD, and CubeSat spectrometers.

Significance. If accepted as stated, the paper would provide a useful, reusable front-end design for small gamma-ray and X-ray missions: 64 channels at about 1.8 W and roughly 3 kUSD, using COTS parts and avoiding export restrictions. The bench characterizations are direct measurements rather than simulations, including noise pedestals, gain uniformity, crosstalk correlations, and rate limits, and the scintillator spectra show the system can serve both fast plastic and slower high-Z scintillators. The main weakness is that the 'space qualified' conclusion rests on a single, limited radiation campaign, so the generalizable qualification claim is not yet supported by the evidence.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; §6.2; Conclusion] The abstract and conclusion claim the design is 'space qualified' and 'capable of surviving both launch conditions as well as long-duration operation in orbit.' This is broader than the evidence in §6.2. The proton irradiation used one board, a single beam energy (58 MeV), six partial-illumination steps totaling 0.76 Gy, with data acquisition runs only between steps, and the text itself states that the 11-year LEO equivalence 'cannot be directly translated to other missions.' No single-event effects (SEU, latch-up, or DC/DC burnout) were tested, and the COTS FPGA, ADCs, and LT3482 have no independent radiation qualification. Please either temper the language to 'qualified for the POLAR-2 LEO environment' or add powered, multi-energy irradiation and SEE testing to support the general claim.
  2. [§6.3; Conclusion] The launch-survivability conclusion is based on vibration and shock tests of a single functional unit mounted in a POLAR-2-specific mechanical frame with rubber dampers. The authors acknowledge in §6.3 that the damping is specific to the POLAR-2 prototype, but the Conclusion still states the system can survive 'launch conditions' without that caveat. Please include the caveat in the conclusion, or test the electronics in a more generic mounting configuration if a broader claim is intended.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The caption of Table 1 is a placeholder text 'Your caption.' This must be replaced with a descriptive caption before publication.
  2. [§3.4] The photon flux quoted for GRB 221009A appears as '1020 ph cm−2 s−1', which is likely a typesetting error; if it is meant to be 10^20 it is physically implausible, and if it is meant to be 10^4 or another value the notation should be corrected.
  3. [Keywords] The keyword line contains stray superscripts after 'X-ray' and 'Gamma-Ray' (shown as 'X-ray 1, Gamma-Ray 2'), which appear to be formatting artifacts and should be removed.
  4. [§6.1] The thermal vacuum test description gives a total duration of one week and a temperature cycling period of 1600 seconds, but it would be clearer to state the number of thermal cycles performed and the dwell time at each temperature.
  5. [§5.3] The claim that the energy resolution is comparable to reference [35] could be strengthened by adding a direct numerical comparison or an overlay of the measured resolution values with those from the cited work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central performance and qualification claims rest on direct measurements reported in this paper.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claims—64-channel readout at ~1.8 W, low electronic noise and crosstalk, kHz-level rate capability, useful spectra with plastic and GAGG scintillators, and successful thermal-vacuum, irradiation, vibration, and shock tests—are supported by direct measurements and test campaigns described in Sections 3–6, not derived from the quantities they claim to establish. The few derived figures (e.g., the 3.75 keV threshold, 2.3 p.e./keV light yield, and SiPM saturation curves) are calibration conversions obtained from measured ADC peak positions, finger spacings, and datasheet parameters; they are descriptive rather than circular predictions. The paper cites earlier work by the same authors for context and supporting calibrations: [24] for SiPM radiation damage annealing, [25] for POLAR-2 calibration details, [31] for beam-test response, [32] for optical light-yield optimization, and [33] for the finger-width relation. These citations are not load-bearing in the sense that the present paper's conclusions reduce to them; the key qualification and performance data are contained in this manuscript, and the cited results are independent companion studies rather than fitted inputs renamed as predictions. The 'space qualified' claim is supported by the qualification tests in Section 6, with the paper itself explicitly noting that the 11-year LEO equivalence 'cannot be directly translated to other missions.' Whether that single irradiation campaign suffices for a general space-qualified statement is a correctness or generality concern, not a circularity of the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on commercial component specifications, datasheet parameters, simulation-based radiation equivalence, and calibration choices. No new particles, forces, or physical constants are introduced. The listed free parameters are instrument settings and fit parameters that characterize performance rather than theoretical inputs.

free parameters (4)
  • SiPM over-voltage = 3.0 V
    Chosen for all 64 channels to obtain about 50% photon detection efficiency with under 10% crosstalk; a tuning choice, not derived from first principles. Stated in Section 4.
  • Charge threshold = 250 ADC, corresponding to 3.75 keV and 8.3 p.e. in the GAGG test
    Set empirically so the dark-noise trigger rate is around a few Hz; no per-channel threshold fine-tuning was applied. Reported in Section 5.4.
  • Finger fit parameters = 49 ADC/p.e., sigma_e = 11.9 ADC, sigma_1 = 3.4 ADC
    Free parameters in the Gaussian fit of the first 12 photo-electron peaks in the plastic scintillator spectrum; they describe one channel rather than predict behavior.
  • Shaping time = 12.5 ns
    Kept at the minimum value previously found optimal for plastic scintillators; not varied during GAGG tests, as stated in Section 5.5.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Citiroc 1A ASIC provides the described two-threshold, two-gain readout behavior and has the claimed radiation tolerance (TRL 8).
    Section 2.2.5: the trigger logic and multiplexed output design depend on the ASIC's specified features; radiation tolerance is taken from the manufacturer's TRL 8 claim.
  • domain assumption Hamamatsu S13361 datasheet values for PDE, crosstalk, and microcell count are accurate enough for the saturation calculation.
    Section 5.5 uses these datasheet values to compute linearity versus energy for three SiPM versions.
  • domain assumption The POLAR-2 radiation environment simulation (0.0789 Gy/yr at 383 km altitude) and the shielding model are correct.
    Section 6.2 converts the proton test dose into approximately 11 years in low Earth orbit; the authors state this translation is not valid for other missions.
  • domain assumption The scintillation yield of GAGG is about 60 optical photons per keV.
    Section 5.4 uses this literature value to argue that an optimized light yield of at least 3 p.e./keV should be achievable.
  • standard math Gaussian and error-function fits adequately describe the measured pedestal, photo-electron, and threshold distributions.
    Sections 3.3, 4.3, and 5.4 use these fits to extract noise widths, finger positions, and the threshold position.
  • domain assumption The SiPM saturation relation from reference [24] applies to this system.
    Section 5.5 uses N_p.e. = N_microcell (1 - exp(-N_opt.ph PDE (1+mu)/N_microcell)) to estimate nonlinearity without an independent validation in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Design and Performance of a Universal SiPM Readout System for X- and Gamma-Ray Missions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QO3PE3WR

@misc{pith2026250107758,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Design and Performance of a Universal SiPM Readout System for X- and Gamma-Ray Missions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QO3PE3WR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07758}
}
read the original abstract

The advent of both multi-messenger and time-domain astrophysics over the last decade has seen a large interest in the development of small-scale, cheap, and robust gamma-ray detectors. This has been further encouraged by the availability of CubeSat platforms. Of particular interest are detectors capable of producing spectral and localization measurements of X and gamma-ray transients to allow for accurate follow-up measurements at different wavelengths. A vast number of the instruments developed for such purposes in the last years use a combination of scintillators and Silicon Photomultipliers (SiPMs) for photon detection. Here, we present the design, performance, and space qualification of a readout system capable of reading out 64 SiPM channels. This low-power and low-cost system was originally designed for the POLAR-2 mission, a large scale gamma-ray polarimeter. However, its flexible design makes it equally suitable for use on various CubeSat missions. The system was found to perform well when reading out both plastic and high Z scintillators using a total of 1.8~W. The space qualified design furthermore relies on commercial off-the-shelf components, thereby also removing most international export issues. In this paper, we will present the overall design, the performance of the electronics, its performance when reading out various scintillators and the successful space-qualification of this design.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07758 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The FEE design in its current form as used for POLAR-2. The two sides are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Image of how the front-end electronics is, as of the design in 2023, mechanically [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A schematic overview of the trigger logic implemented using the 2 Citiroc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: The high gain ADC spectrum from channel 0 for a measurement where charges were injected directly into the ASIC. For this test, charges ranging from 20 mV to 360 mV, with incrementing steps of 20 mV were injected. Right: The gain in ADC/mV for the 32 channels of t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: The distribution of the high gain ADC values for one channel for 5000 forced readouts without any high voltage. The distribution is fitted with a Gaussian function where the width indicates the electronically induced noise. Right: The σ values extracted from the …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: The measured time between recorded events for a measurement of the dark noise. The inset shows the lower time region where the ADC readout-induced limit of 9µs can be observed. Right: The measured time between recorded events for a measurement where a charge is i…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: An example of an optical crosstalk measurement acquired using an array of GAGG scintillator crystals that are poorly insulated. The correlation is fitted with a linear function which indicates a crosstalk of the order of 10%. Right: The correlation of the ADC val…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The energy spectra, in ADC, after pedestal subtraction both in the high gain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The energy spectra, in ADC, here before pedestal subtraction both in the high [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The low energy part of the high gain ADC spectrum fitted using a sum of 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The GAGG array used to study the behavior of the system at the LARIX-A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The spectra as measured using a single channel for both the high gain (top) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The energy resolution (in FWHM) as measured using both the pedestal sub [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: A detailed view of the high gain spectrum achieved using a 30 keV beam with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The linearity, computed as the relative signal height produced by a SiPM over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The temperatures as measured on the FPGA (NTC1) and on the SiPM PCB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Top and bottom view of the electronics showing the 6 irradiated areas. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Definition of the X-Y-Z frame with respect to system. The Z axis is defined [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbott, et al., Gravitational Waves and Gamma-rays from a Binary Neutron Star Merger: GW170817 and GRB 170817A, Astro- phys. J. Lett. 848 (2) (2017) L13. arXiv:1710.05834, doi:10.3847/2041- 8213/aa920c

    arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    G. J. Fishman, C. A. Meegan, R. B. Wilson, M. N. Brock, J. M. Horack, C. Kouveliotou, S. Howard, W. S. Paciesas, M. S. Briggs, G. N. Pendle- ton, T. M. Koshut, R. S. Mallozzi, M. Stollberg, J. P. Lestrade, The First BATSE Gamma-Ray Burst Catalog, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement 92 (1994) 229. doi:10.1086/191968

    doi:10.1086/191968 1994

  3. [3]

    Meegan, G

    C. Meegan, G. Lichti, P. N. Bhat, E. Bissaldi, M. S. Briggs, V. Con- naughton, R. Diehl, G. Fishman, J. Greiner, A. S. Hoover, A. J. van der Horst, A. von Kienlin, R. M. Kippen, C. Kouveliotou, S. McBreen, W. S. Paciesas, R. Preece, H. Steinle, M. S. Wallace, R. B. Wilson, C. Wilson- Hodge, The Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor, The Astrophysical Journal 702 ...

    arXiv 2009

  4. [4]

    Produit, T

    N. Produit, T. Bao, T. Batsch, T. Bernasconi, I. Britvich, F. Cadoux, I. Cernuda, J. Chai, Y. Dong, N. Gauvin, W. Hajdas, M. Kole, M. Kong, R. Kramert, L. Li, J. Liu, X. Liu, R. Marcinkowski, S. Orsi, M. Pohl, D. Rapin, D. Rybka, A. Rutczynska, H. Shi, P. Socha, J. Sun, L. Song, J. Szabelski, I. Traseira, H. Xiao, R. Wang, X. Wen, B. Wu, L. Zhang, L. Zhan...

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Pál, et al., GRBAlpha: The smallest astrophysical space observatory - I

    A. Pál, et al., GRBAlpha: The smallest astrophysical space observatory - I. Detector design, system description, and satellite operations, As- tron. Astrophys. 677 (2023) A40. arXiv:2302.10048, doi:10.1051/0004- 6361/202346182

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Münz, et al., GRBAlpha and VZLUSAT-2: GRB observations with CubeSats after 3 years of operations, Proc

    F. Münz, et al., GRBAlpha and VZLUSAT-2: GRB observations with CubeSats after 3 years of operations, Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 13093 (2024) 130936J. arXiv:2407.12555, doi:10.1117/12.3025855. 43

    work page arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    A. A. Myers, et al., BurstCube: a CubeSat for gravitational wave counterparts, Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 13093 (2024) 130932F. doi:10.1117/12.3020456

    work page doi:10.1117/12.3020456 2024

  8. [8]

    J. E. Grove, et al., Glowbug, a Low-Cost, High-Sensitivity Gamma-Ray Burst Telescope, in: 71st Yamada Conference: Gamma-ray Bursts in the Gravitational Wave Era 2019, 2020. arXiv:2009.11959

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Rahin, L

    R. Rahin, L. Moleri, A. Vdovin, A. Feigenboim, S. Margolin, S. Tarem, E. Behar, M. Ghelman, A. Osovizky, GALI: a gamma-ray burst localiz- ing instrument, in: J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, K. Nakazawa (Eds.), Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray...

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Laviron, Développement d’un prototype de télescope Compton et astronomie gamma, Ph.D

    A. Laviron, Développement d’un prototype de télescope Compton et astronomie gamma, Ph.D. thesis, Laboratoire de Physique des 2 Infinis Irène Joliot-Curie, France (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Murphy, A

    D. Murphy, A. Ulyanov, S. McBreen, M. Doyle, R. Dunwoody, J. Man- gan, J. Thompson, B. Shortt, A. Martin-Carrillo, L. Hanlon, A compact instrument for gamma-ray burst detection on a CubeSat platform I: De- sign drivers and expected performance, Exper. Astron. 52 (1-2) (2021) 5...

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    L. J. Mitchell, B. F. Phlips, R. S. Woolf, A. L. Hutcheson, W. N. John- son, M. Johnson-Rambert, On-orbit results of the GAGG radiation in- struments, in: O. H. Siegmund, K. Hoadley (Eds.), UV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XXIII, Vol. 12678 of Socie...

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Wen, et al., GRID: a student project to monitor the transient gamma- ray sky in the multi-messenger astronomy era, Exper

    J. Wen, et al., GRID: a student project to monitor the transient gamma- ray sky in the multi-messenger astronomy era, Exper. Astron. 48 (1) (2019) 77–95. arXiv:1907.06842, doi:10.1007/s10686-019-09636-w

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Chang, et al., The Gamma-ray Transients Monitor (GTM) on board Formosat-8B and its GRB detection efficiency, Adv

    H.-K. Chang, et al., The Gamma-ray Transients Monitor (GTM) on board Formosat-8B and its GRB detection efficiency, Adv. Space Res. 69 (2022) 1249–1255. doi:10.1016/j.asr.2021.10.044. 44

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    Vestrand, P

    T. Vestrand, P. Bloser, A. Hoover, L. Parker, J. Wren, The Mini Astro- physical MeV Background Observatory (MAMBO): A CubeSat for Mea- suring the MeV Extragalactic Gamma-Ray Background, PoS ICRC2019 (2020) 608. doi:10.22323/1.358.0608

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    L. J. Mitchell, B. F. Phlips, R. S. Woolf, T. T. Finne, W. N. John- son, Strontium iodide radiation instrumentation II (SIRI-2), in: O. H. Siegmund (Ed.), UV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumenta- tion for Astronomy XXI, Vol. 11118 of Society of Photo-Optical In- strumentati...

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    P. Lv, S. L. Xiong, X. L. Sun, J. G. Lv, Y. G. Li, A low-energy sensitive compact gamma-ray detector based on LaBr3 and SiPM for GECAM, Journal of Instrumentation 13 (8) (2018) P08014. arXiv:1803.07803, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/08/P08014

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    R. S. Woolf, D. Kocevski, J. E. Grove, M. S. Briggs, E. Burns, J. M. Davis, T. T. Finne, C. Fletcher, A. Goldstein, R. K. Hamburg, B. Hohl, B. A. Hristov, C. M. Hui, P. A. Jenke, M. T. Kerr, J. E. Stump, C. M. Vaughan, P. Veres, C. Wilson-Hodge, J. R. Wood, Development of the ...

    2024

  11. [19]

    Produit, et al., POLAR-2, the next generation of GRB po- larization detector, PoS ICRC2023 (2023) 550

    N. Produit, et al., POLAR-2, the next generation of GRB po- larization detector, PoS ICRC2023 (2023) 550. arXiv:2309.00518, doi:10.22323/1.444.0550

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    H. Li, R. Walter, N. Produit, F. Hubert, Measuring the cosmic x-ray background accurately, Experimental Astronomy 56 (1) (2023) 141–170. doi:10.1007/s10686-023-09896-7

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    Produit, H

    N. Produit, H. Li, R. Walter, The Cosmic X-ray Background explorer (CXBe), PoS ICRC2023 (2023) 911. doi:10.22323/1.444.0911. 45

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Zhang, et al., The enhanced X-ray Timing and Polarimetry mis- sion—eXTP, Sci

    S.-N. Zhang, et al., The enhanced X-ray Timing and Polarimetry mis- sion—eXTP, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 62 (2) (2019) 29502. arXiv:1812.04020, doi:10.1007/s11433-018-9309-2

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    A. Gola, K. Majumdar, G. Casse, K. Mavrokoridis, S. Merzi, L. P. Franca, First Demonstration of the Use of LG-SiPMs for Optical Read- out of a TPC, JINST 15 (12) (2020) P12017. arXiv:2009.05086, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/12/P12017

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    De Angelis, et al., Temperature dependence of radiation damage an- nealing of Silicon Photomultipliers, Nucl

    N. De Angelis, et al., Temperature dependence of radiation damage an- nealing of Silicon Photomultipliers, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1048 (2023) 167934. arXiv:2212.08474, doi:10.1016/j.nima.2022.167934

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    De Angelis, Development of the next generation space-based compton polarimeter and energy resolved polarization analysis of gamma-ray bursts prompt emission, Ph.D

    N. De Angelis, Development of the next generation space-based compton polarimeter and energy resolved polarization analysis of gamma-ray bursts prompt emission, Ph.D. thesis, Département de Physique Nucléaire et Corpusculaire, Université de Genève (2023). doi:10.13097/archive-...

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Fleury, S

    J. Fleury, S. Callier, C. de La Taille, N. Seguin, D. Thienpont, F. Du- lucq, S. Ahmad, G. Martin, Petiroc and Citiroc: front-end ASICs for SiPM read-out and ToF applications, JINST 9 (2014) C01049. doi:10.1088/1748-0221/9/01/C01049

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    Contino, et al., An ASIC front-end for fluorescence and Cherenkov light detection with SiPM for space and ground applications, Nucl

    G. Contino, et al., An ASIC front-end for fluorescence and Cherenkov light detection with SiPM for space and ground applications, Nucl. In- strum. Meth. A 980 (2020) 164510. doi:10.1016/j.nima.2020.164510

    2020

  20. [28]

    Mitchell, B

    L. Mitchell, B. Phlips, W. N. Johnson, M. Johnson-Rambert, R. Woolf, A. Mazzi, A. Gola, Radiation damage assessment of sipms for scintillation detectors, Nuclear Instruments and Meth- ods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrome- ters, Detectors and Associated Eq...

    2022

  21. [29]

    Merzi, F

    S. Merzi, F. Acerbi, C. Aicardi, D. Fiore, V. Goiffon, A. G. Gola, O. Marcelot, A. Materne, O. Saint-Pe, Radiation damage on silicon photomultipliers from ionizing and non-ionizing radiation of low-earth 46 orbit operations, Sensors 24 (15) (2024). doi:10.3390/s24154990. URLht...

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    Ripa, et al., The peak flux of GRB 221009A measured with GRBAlpha, Astron

    J. Ripa, et al., The peak flux of GRB 221009A measured with GRBAlpha, Astron. Astrophys. 677 (2023) L2. arXiv:2302.10047, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346128

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Kole, et al., Response of the first POLAR-2 prototype to po- larized beams, JINST 19 (08) (2024) P08002

    M. Kole, et al., Response of the first POLAR-2 prototype to po- larized beams, JINST 19 (08) (2024) P08002. doi:10.1088/1748- 0221/19/08/P08002

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    N. De Angelis, et al., Optimizing the light output of a plastic scintillator and SiPM based detector through optical characterization and simula- tion: A case study for POLAR-2, Accepted in JINST (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    N. De Angelis, Master thesis, département de physique nucléaire et cor- pusculaire, université de genève, studies of readout electronics and op- tical elements for a gamma-ray telescope (2019). URLhttps://cds.cern.ch/record/2683289

    2019

  26. [34]

    Virgilli, F

    E. Virgilli, F. Frontera, V. Valsan, V. Liccardo, V. Carassiti, S. Squerzanti, M. Statera, M. Parise, S. Chiozzi, F. E. an d E. Car- oli, J. Stephen, N. Auricchio, S. Silvestri, A. Basili, F. C. ssese, L. Re- canatesi, V. Guidi, V. Bellucci, R. Camattari, C. Ferrari, A. Zappet...

    2013

  27. [35]

    Yoneyama, J

    M. Yoneyama, J. Kataoka, M. Arimoto, T. Masuda, M. Yoshino, K. Ka- mada, A. Yoshikawa, H. Sato, Y. Usuki, Evaluation of GAGG:Ce scin- tillators for future space applications, JINST 13 (02) (2018) P02023. doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/02/P02023

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    Weeroc (2025). [link]. URLhttps://www.weeroc.com/read_out_chips/citiroc-1a/ 47

    2025

  29. [37]

    Pearce, et al., Science prospects for SPHiNX – A small satel- lite GRB polarimetry mission, Astropart

    M. Pearce, et al., Science prospects for SPHiNX – A small satel- lite GRB polarimetry mission, Astropart. Phys. 104 (2019) 54–63. arXiv:1808.05384, doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2018.08.007. 48

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.