Performance studies of the CE-65v2 MAPS prototype structure

(2) University of Tokyo; (3) Universit\'e de Strasbourg; (4) University of Tsukuba; (5) Hiroshima University; (6) European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN); (7) Czech Technical University (CTU) in Prague; 8); (8) Vrije Universiteit Brussel); A. Besson (3); A. Dorokhov (3)

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 12 references

Performance studies of the CE-65v2 MAPS prototype structure

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The CE-65v2 sensor's standard process achieves spatial resolution below 3 µm (below 2 µm at 15 µm pitch) at seed thresholds around 150–170 electrons with >99% hit efficiency, meeting a future lepton collider's vertex detector target.

desk verdict New test-beam data on a 65 nm MAPS prototype plausibly show the STD process meeting the FCC-ee 3 µm resolution target, but missing uncertainty budgets and a shaky telescope-resolution subtraction keep the quantitative claims from being fully established. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04070 v5 pith:LEK3HVHF submitted 2025-02-06 physics.ins-det hep-ex

A. Ilg (1) , A. Lorenzetti (1) , H. Baba (2) , J. Baudot (3) , A. Besson (3) , S. Bugiel (3) , T. Chujo (4) , C. Colledani (3)

show 33 more authors

A. Dorokhov (3) Z. El Bitar (3) M. Goffe (3) T. Gunji (2) C. Hu-Guo (3) K. Jaaskelainen (3) T. Katsuno (5) A. Kluge (6) A. Kostina (7) A. Kumar (3) A. Macchiolo (1) M. Mager (6) J. Park (4) E. Ploerer (1 8) S. Sakai (4) S. Senyukov (3) H. Shamas (3) D. Shibata (4) W. Snoeys (6) P. Stanek (7) M. Suljic (6) L. Tomasek (7) I. Valin (3) R. Wada (5) Y. Yamaguchi (5) ((1) University of Zurich (2) University of Tokyo (3) Université de Strasbourg (4) University of Tsukuba (5) Hiroshima University (6) European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) (7) Czech Technical University (CTU) in Prague (8) Vrije Universiteit Brussel)

This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.ins-dethep-ex PACS 29.40.Gx29.40.Wk

keywords Particletrackingdetectors(solid-statedetectors)MonolithicActivePixelSensors65nmCMOSprocesschargesharingspatialresolutionCE-65v2testbeam

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 reports test-beam measurements of the CE-65v2, a second-generation monolithic active pixel sensor (MAPS) prototype built in a 65 nm CMOS process, asking whether such a sensor can reach the 3 µm spatial-resolution target of a future lepton-collider vertex detector. On its own terms it establishes that the standard (STD) process does: it reaches about 3 µm resolution at a seed threshold near 150 electrons, and the conclusion reports resolutions below 2 µm for a 15 µm pitch and below 3 µm for a 22.5 µm pitch, all at hit efficiencies above 99%. The reason is diffusion-dominated charge sharing, which spreads each particle's charge over neighbouring pixels so the hit position can be estimated much more finely than the pixel pitch. The paper also maps efficiency and positional accuracy inside individual pixels, showing that the STD process's resolution is fairly uniform while its efficiency dips at pixel edges, and that the alternative gap (GAP) process has the opposite behaviour: flat efficiency but poor corner resolution. A high-resolution vertex detector built from such sensors would be thinner and lighter than hybrid designs, which is why the 3 µm target matters.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is diffusion-dominated charge sharing in the STD process. When a particle crosses the sensor, the deposited charge spreads over several neighbouring pixels because the depletion layer does not extend to the pixel boundaries; a cluster is defined by grouping pixels above the seed threshold, and the hit position is computed as the centre of gravity of the cluster charges, optionally including all charges in a 3×3 window around the seed (the window method). The in-pixel study is the tool that makes the mechanism visible: it superimposes the hit information of every pixel (excluding the two outermost rows and columns) so efficiency and the mean absolute deviation between reconstructed and track positions can be plotted as a function of the hit position inside a pixel. Comparing STD with GAP isolates the effect of the process-level charge-collection profile on the achievable resolution.

What would settle it

Recompute the device-under-test resolution using a telescope resolution estimated internally from the test-beam data, for example from the scatter of reference-plane residuals around their track-fit pulls, and check whether the 15 µm STD pitch still gives a sub-2 µm value after that self-consistent subtraction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This paper claims that the CE-65v2, a 48×24 pixel monolithic active pixel sensor made in a 65 nm CMOS imaging process, can meet the 3 µm spatial-resolution requirement of a future lepton-collider vertex detector. In the standard (STD) process, where the depletion region stops short of the pixel edges and charge spreads by diffusion, the sensor reaches about 3 µm resolution at a seed threshold near 150 electrons and, according to the conclusion, below 2 µm for the 15 µm pixel pitch and below 3 µm for the 22.5 µm pitch, with hit efficiency above 99%. The alternative gap (GAP) process, which adds a low-dose n-type layer with gaps between pixels to steer charge by drift, collects charge faster but shares less; it reaches about 3.3 µm resolution. The in-pixel maps, made by superimposing many tracks relative to each pixel centre, show the STD process gives uniform positional accuracy across the pixel while efficiency drops at edges and corners, whereas the GAP process is uniformly efficient but loses positional accuracy at edges and corners.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 2.2 µm telescope resolution used for the quadrature subtraction is not an overestimate and that the reference-track and device residuals are uncorrelated; if the telescope is actually more precise than 2.2 µm, the reported sub-3 µm sensor resolutions are too optimistic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A vertex detector layer built from STD CE-65v2-type sensors could in principle meet the 3 µm requirement at around 99% efficiency, with the 15 µm pitch providing a sub-2 µm margin.
The GAP process, which trades resolution for faster charge collection and better radiation tolerance, reaches about 3.3 µm; reducing the pixel pitch is a plausible route to bring it below the 3 µm target.
In-pixel maps indicate that a single cluster-position algorithm may not suit both processes: STD needs help at edges and corners where efficiency drops, while GAP needs help there where positional accuracy drops.
Operating at 4 V reverse bias improves STD resolution relative to 10 V but can lower efficiency at high seed thresholds, so the operating point must balance resolution against efficiency.
Exploiting charge-sharing information from a 3×3 window is what allows resolutions below $\mathrm{pitch}/\sqrt{12}$; a readout that discards neighbour charges would forfeit the STD process's main advantage.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: if the STD process is chosen for a vertex detector, the dominant engineering problem shifts to the readout — digitising and transporting neighbour-charge information at high hit rates without adding material; the paper's own outlook implies this, and the in-pixel maps make it concrete.
Editorial inference: the efficiency dip at STD pixel corners suggests a digital implementation might need a position-dependent seed threshold or a cluster-weighting scheme that treats corner hits specially, since charge is split four ways there.
Editorial inference: the 4 V versus 10 V comparison suggests reverse bias could be tuned continuously to trade resolution against efficiency; a future bias scan would map this trade-off quantitatively.
Editorial inference: applying the same in-pixel technique to the untested 18 µm pitch and the modified-without-gap process would show whether diffusion sharing or a smaller pitch is the more robust route to the 3 µm target, extending the paper's stated next steps.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a solid, incremental test-beam paper from the ALICE MAPS R&D program. The new pieces are the 4 V reverse-bias points and the in-pixel efficiency and mean-absolute-deviation maps. The in-pixel maps are the most useful part: they show where the STD process loses efficiency at edges and corners, and how the GAP process trades resolution for uniformity. That kind of detail is exactly what pixel designers need.

The central result—STD process reaching ~3 µm at ~99% efficiency at a seed threshold around 150 e−—is plausible and consistent with the figures. I see no red flags in the analysis itself; the cluster/window methods are standard, Corryvreckan is a known quantity, and the paper openly builds on the prior characterization in [8]. So the measurement is likely right.

The soft spots are real but not disqualifying. First, no uncertainties are quoted for the efficiency or resolution numbers. For a result being compared against a 3 µm requirement, that is a significant omission. Second, the telescope resolution is subtracted in quadrature as 2.2 µm, with no uncertainty and no check that the DUT and telescope residuals are independent and Gaussian. Since the quoted DUT resolutions sit in the same 2–5 µm range, a 0.3 µm misestimate of the telescope resolution changes the conclusion. The stress-test note is on point: if the true telescope resolution were 1.8 µm, a measured 3.0 µm would become 3.2 µm after subtraction. This needs to be addressed. Third, the conclusion says resolutions below 2 µm are achieved, but the results section clearly establishes 3 µm at ~150 e−; the sub-2 µm claim needs a specified operating point. The paper should also state which resolution estimator (RMS vs Gaussian sigma) is used, because non-Gaussian tails matter at these thresholds.

Citation pattern is fine: it references [8] as the previous characterization and says so up front. No circularity issue.

Who is this for? People doing pixel detector R&D for ALICE ITS3, FCC-ee, or similar. It is a conference proceedings, not a definitive study, but it deserves a serious referee. Recommendation: send it to peer review, but ask for uncertainty estimates, a telescope-resolution sensitivity check, and a clearer statement of the sub-2 µm operating point. If those are added, it will be a useful contribution.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports test-beam measurements of the CE-65v2 monolithic active pixel sensor (MAPS) prototype fabricated in the 65 nm TPSCo CMOS process. It compares the standard (STD) and modified-with-gap (GAP) process variants, pixel pitches of 15 and 22.5 µm, and reverse biases of 4 and 10 V. The authors measure global hit efficiency and spatial resolution as functions of seed threshold, and present in-pixel maps of efficiency and mean absolute deviation. The central claim is that the STD process reaches the FCC-ee vertex detector requirement of 3 µm spatial resolution at a seed threshold of about 150 e-, with about 99% efficiency, and the conclusion states that resolutions below 2 µm (3 µm) are achieved with 15 µm (22.5 µm) pitch while maintaining over 99% efficiency.

Significance. If confirmed, the result is significant for future lepton collider vertex detectors: it demonstrates that a large-pitch MAPS sensor relying on diffusion-dominated charge sharing can meet the 3 µm spatial resolution requirement of FCC-ee. The in-pixel efficiency and resolution maps provide valuable insight into charge-sharing behavior and process-dependent performance. The paper uses an established analysis framework (Corryvreckan) and builds on prior characterization, and the measured trends are physically plausible. However, the quantitative claims lack uncertainty propagation and depend on a telescope-resolution subtraction that is not independently validated, so the headline numbers are not yet fully established.

major comments (3)

[Section 3] The telescope resolution is quoted as 2.2 µm with no uncertainty or validation, and the DUT resolution is obtained by subtracting this value in quadrature. Because the reported DUT resolutions are in the 2–5 µm range, the subtraction is highly sensitive: a 0.3 µm misestimate of the telescope resolution would shift a nominal 3.0 µm result to 3.2 µm or 2.7 µm, moving it across the FCC-ee threshold. The authors should report the uncertainty on the telescope resolution, describe how it was determined, and provide a check that the residuals are Gaussian and independent of the DUT residuals. This is required to support the quantitative claim that the STD process meets the 3 µm requirement.
[Section 4, Figs. 1c and 1d] The paper does not define the spatial-resolution estimator (RMS, Gaussian sigma, or median-based) and shows no uncertainties on the efficiency or resolution points. Without this information, the statement that the STD process 'achieves the target resolution of 3 µm' cannot be evaluated statistically. The authors should specify the estimator, add statistical and systematic uncertainties at least for the quoted operating points, and explain how the efficiency values at the quoted threshold are obtained.
[Section 6 vs Section 4] The conclusion claims 'resolutions < 2 µm (< 3 µm) are achieved with a pitch of 15 µm (22.5 µm), while still operating with over 99% efficiency,' but Section 4 only supports a 3 µm resolution at ~150 e- for both pitches. The reverse bias and seed threshold for the stronger conclusion are not specified, nor is it clear that these points appear in Figs. 1c and 1d. The authors should either reconcile the conclusion with the presented figures or specify the exact operating conditions (bias, threshold) and show the corresponding efficiency, so that the claim is traceable and reproducible.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3] The beam energy '120 GeV' should specify the momentum unit (e.g., 120 GeV/c), and the footnote giving a website for the telescope optimizer should be replaced by a formal reference or a description of the method.
[Section 4] The lowest seed threshold is set to three times the noise RMS, but the actual noise value is not reported; please state it to make the threshold scale meaningful.
[Section 5, Figs. 2 and 3] The color scales of the in-pixel maps are not described in the text or captions; please add units and numerical ranges. Also, the mean absolute deviation (MAD) plotted in Fig. 3 is a different metric from the RMS spatial resolution in Fig. 1; the text should clarify that the two are not directly comparable.
[Section 5] The paper states that 'a large amount of statistics was collected' but does not report the number of tracks or events used in the analysis; including this number would help the reader judge the statistical precision of the in-pixel maps.
[Section 6] The statement that the GAP process 'enables resolutions of ~3.3 µm' should specify the pixel pitch and operating conditions, since the resolution is strongly pitch- and threshold-dependent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CE-65v2 results are test-beam measurements compared against an external FCC-ee requirement; the telescope resolution and calibration inputs are independent of the headline DUT resolution claims.

full rationale

The paper is an experimental characterization study, not a derivation. The headline claims — sub-3 µm spatial resolution for the STD process and the FCC-ee requirement comparison — are based on measured hit residuals in a test beam, not on a fitted parameter that is then renamed as a prediction. The telescope resolution of 2.2 µm is an input that is subtracted in quadrature, and it is stated to be evaluated with a telescope optimiser on the reference telescope; it is not fitted to the DUT data or defined in terms of the target result. The lab calibration with a 55Fe source and the use of the Corryvreckan framework also enter as independent analysis tools. Self-citations appear for context ([3] for the FCC-ee vertex detector requirement and [8] for the previous CE-65v2 campaign), but the requirement is an external benchmark and the previous campaign provides independent prior measurements rather than the result being derived from it. The cited works are not invoked to forbid alternatives or to supply the central resolution numbers. The identified weakness — no quoted uncertainty on the 2.2 µm telescope resolution and no explicit Gaussianity/independence check — is a legitimate systematic-correctness concern, but it does not make the measurement circular: an input with unknown error can weaken a claim without turning the claim into its own premise. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is an experimental performance study with no derivation. The central quantitative claims depend on (1) the calibration of the sensor response with 55Fe, (2) the reference telescope resolution and its quadrature subtraction, and (3) the cluster reconstruction model. No new physical entities are introduced. The charge collection model for the two process variants is taken from prior literature, so it is treated as a domain assumption.

free parameters (2)

55Fe charge calibration constant = not stated (determined in [8])
Used to express seed thresholds in electrons (90-390 e-). If this calibration is inaccurate, the quoted operating points (150 e-, 170 e-) and the corresponding efficiency values shift.
Reference telescope resolution = 2.2 µm
Evaluated using the telescope optimiser from data, then subtracted in quadrature from the DUT resolution. An overestimate here would make the DUT appear better than it is.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The reference telescope resolution is 2.2 µm and is uncorrelated with the DUT residuals, so quadrature subtraction is valid.
Section 3: all reported DUT resolutions are obtained by subtracting the telescope resolution in quadrature. If the telescope resolution is misestimated or correlated with DUT measurements, the reported numbers are biased.
domain assumption The 55Fe calibration of the sensor gain, performed before the test beam, remains valid during the test beam data taking.
Section 3: 'Lab characterisation was performed prior to the test beam using a 55Fe source to calibrate the sensor response [8].' The electron-equivalent thresholds rely on this transfer.
domain assumption The charge collection model of the STD and GAP processes, taken from reference [7], correctly describes the efficiency and resolution differences.
Section 2 attributes the STD process performance to 'diffusion-dominated charge collection' and the GAP process to 'drift' due to the n-type blanket. These mechanisms are cited from prior work and used to interpret the measured trends.
domain assumption Centre-of-gravity cluster reconstruction with the chosen neighbour thresholds yields unbiased hit positions.
Section 3 describes two cluster methods; the resolutions assume that the reconstructed cluster position is an unbiased estimator of the true hit position, including at pixel edges.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Performance studies of the CE-65v2 MAPS prototype structure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LEK3HVHF

@misc{pith2026250204070,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Performance studies of the CE-65v2 MAPS prototype structure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LEK3HVHF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04070}
}

abstract

With the next upgrade of the ALICE inner tracking system (ITS3) as its primary focus, a set of small MAPS test structures have been developed in the 65 nm TPSCo CMOS process. The CE-65 focuses on the characterisation of the analogue charge collection properties of this technology. The latest iteration, the CE-65v2, was produced in different processes (standard, with a low-dose n-type blanket, and blanket with gap between pixels), pixel pitches (15, 18, 22.5 $\mu$m), and pixel arrangements (square or staggered). The comparatively large pixel array size of $48\times24$ pixels in CE-65v2 allows the uniformity of the pixel response to be studied, among other benefits. The CE-65v2 chip was characterised in a test beam at the CERN SPS. A first analysis showed that hit efficiencies of $\geq 99\%$ and spatial resolution better than 5 $\mu$m can be achieved for all pitches and process variants. For the standard process, thanks to larger charge sharing, even spatial resolutions below 3 $\mu$m are reached, in line with vertex detector requirements for the FCC-ee. This contribution further investigates the data collected at the SPS test beam. Thanks to the large sensor size and efficient data collection, a large amount of statistics was collected, which allows for detailed in-pixel studies to see the efficiency and spatial resolution as a function of the hit position within the pixels. Again, different pitches and process variants are compared.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

12 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

[8]

Snoeys, G

W. Snoeys, G. Aglieri Rinella, A. Andronic, M. Antonelli, R. Baccomi, R. Ballabriga Sune et al., Optimization of a 65 nm CMOS imaging process for monolithic CMOS sensors for high energy physics , https://doi.org/10.22323/1.420.0083 PoS Pixel2022 (2023) 083

work page doi:10.22323/1.420.0083 2023
[1]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION blank.sep after.quote 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry output.state after.quoted.block = 'skip 'add.period if write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip output.state after.quote = after.quoted.block 'output.state := after.block 'output.state := if if FUNCTION new.sentence out...
[2]

ALICE collaboration, Technical Design report for the ALICE Inner Tracking System 3 - ITS3 ; A bent wafer-scale monolithic pixel detector , Tech. Rep. CERN-LHCC-2024-003 https://cds.cern.ch/record/2890181, CERN, Geneva (2024)

arXiv 2024
[3]

FCC Collaboration , FCC-ee : The lepton collider: Future circular collider conceptual design report volume 2 , https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2019-900045-4 EPJ ST 228 (2019) 261–623

doi:10.1140/epjst/e2019-900045-4 2019
[4]

A. Ilg, A. Macchiolo and F. Palla, The vertexing challenge at FCC-ee , to appear in Pixel2024 proc. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2502.04071

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.04071
[5]

Ilg, Design and Performance of the IDEA Vertex Detector at FCC-ee in Full Simulation , https://doi.org/10.22323/1.449.0600 PoS EPS-HEP2023 (2023) 600

A. Ilg, Design and Performance of the IDEA Vertex Detector at FCC-ee in Full Simulation , https://doi.org/10.22323/1.449.0600 PoS EPS-HEP2023 (2023) 600

work page doi:10.22323/1.449.0600 2023
[6]

Gautam and A

K. Gautam and A. Kumar, Characterisation of analogue MAPS fabricated in 65 nm technology for the ALICE ITS3 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2024.169787 NIMA 1068 (2024) 169787

work page arXiv 2024
[7]

Bugiel, A

S. Bugiel, A. Dorokhov, M. Aresti, J. Baudot, S. Beole, A. Besson et al., Charge sensing properties of monolithic CMOS pixel sensors fabricated in a 65 nm technology , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2022.167213 NIMA 1040 (2022) 167213

work page arXiv 2022

Show all 12 references

[9]

Ploerer, H

E. Ploerer, H. Baba, J. Baudot, A. Besson, S. Bugiel, T. Chujo et al., Characterisation of analogue MAPS produced in the 65 nm TPSCo process , https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/20/01/c01019 JINST 20 (2025) C01019

2025 doi
[10]

Banerjee, J

D. Banerjee, J. Bernhard, M. Brugger, N. Charitonidis, N. Doble, L. Gatignon et al., The North Experimental Area at the CERN Super Proton Synchrotron , 2021. doi: 10.17181/CERN.GP3K.0S1Y https://cds.cern.ch/record/2774716?ln=en

2021
[11]

Aglieri Rinella, A

G. Aglieri Rinella, A. Andronic, M. Antonelli, M. Aresti, R. Baccomi, P. Becht et al., Digital pixel test structures implemented in a 65 nm CMOS process , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2023.168589 NIMA 1056 (2023) 168589

2023
[12]

Dannheim, K

D. Dannheim, K. Dort, L. Huth, D. Hynds, I. Kremastiotis, J. Kr\" o ger et al., Corryvreckan: a modular 4d track reconstruction and analysis software for test beam data, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/16/03/p03008 JINST 16 (2021) P03008

2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [8]

Snoeys, G

W. Snoeys, G. Aglieri Rinella, A. Andronic, M. Antonelli, R. Baccomi, R. Ballabriga Sune et al., Optimization of a 65 nm CMOS imaging process for monolithic CMOS sensors for high energy physics , https://doi.org/10.22323/1.420.0083 PoS Pixel2022 (2023) 083

work page doi:10.22323/1.420.0083 2023

[2] [1]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION blank.sep after.quote 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry output.state after.quoted.block = 'skip 'add.period if write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip output.state after.quote = after.quoted.block 'output.state := after.block 'output.state := if if FUNCTION new.sentence out...

[3] [2]

ALICE collaboration, Technical Design report for the ALICE Inner Tracking System 3 - ITS3 ; A bent wafer-scale monolithic pixel detector , Tech. Rep. CERN-LHCC-2024-003 https://cds.cern.ch/record/2890181, CERN, Geneva (2024)

arXiv 2024

[4] [3]

FCC Collaboration , FCC-ee : The lepton collider: Future circular collider conceptual design report volume 2 , https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2019-900045-4 EPJ ST 228 (2019) 261–623

doi:10.1140/epjst/e2019-900045-4 2019

[5] [4]

A. Ilg, A. Macchiolo and F. Palla, The vertexing challenge at FCC-ee , to appear in Pixel2024 proc. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2502.04071

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.04071

[6] [5]

Ilg, Design and Performance of the IDEA Vertex Detector at FCC-ee in Full Simulation , https://doi.org/10.22323/1.449.0600 PoS EPS-HEP2023 (2023) 600

A. Ilg, Design and Performance of the IDEA Vertex Detector at FCC-ee in Full Simulation , https://doi.org/10.22323/1.449.0600 PoS EPS-HEP2023 (2023) 600

work page doi:10.22323/1.449.0600 2023

[7] [6]

Gautam and A

K. Gautam and A. Kumar, Characterisation of analogue MAPS fabricated in 65 nm technology for the ALICE ITS3 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2024.169787 NIMA 1068 (2024) 169787

work page arXiv 2024

[8] [7]

Bugiel, A

S. Bugiel, A. Dorokhov, M. Aresti, J. Baudot, S. Beole, A. Besson et al., Charge sensing properties of monolithic CMOS pixel sensors fabricated in a 65 nm technology , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2022.167213 NIMA 1040 (2022) 167213

work page arXiv 2022