Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Generative Models for Fast Simulation of Cherenkov Detectors at the Electron-Ion Collider

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Trained generative models can reproduce Cherenkov detector hit patterns for pion and kaon tracks at a small fraction of Geant4's cost, and a discrete normalizing flow gives the best speed-fidelity trade-off.

desk verdict A useful open fast-simulation package, but the track-level fidelity claim needs a test that actually sees tracks. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19042 v1 pith:IVS75PCC submitted 2025-04-26 physics.ins-det cs.AIcs.LGhep-exnucl-ex

James Giroux , Michael Martinez , Cristiano Fanelli This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-detcs.AIcs.LGhep-exnucl-ex PACS 29.40.Ka
keywords DiscreteNormalizingFlowMatchingDiffusionModelsCherenkovdetectorsFastsimulationhpDIRCElectron-IonColliderParticleidentification
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 argues that the slow part of Cherenkov detector simulation—the detailed transport of hundreds of optical photons through reflective bars—can be replaced by directly sampling photon hit positions and arrival times from a generative model conditioned on the parent track's momentum and polar angle. The payoff, if true, is that particle-identification studies for the Electron-Ion Collider's high-performance DIRC detector could generate effectively unlimited training and reference data on a single GPU, without storing large Geant4 datasets. The authors build a suite of five model families and benchmark them with ratio plots, photon-yield closure tests, and a FastDIRC-style pion-kaon separation study. They find that the discrete normalizing flow reproduces the Cherenkov ring structure with the lowest resampling fraction and the fastest generation, about 0.03 seconds per track and about 2 microseconds per detected photon, several orders of magnitude below Geant4.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the translation of a track-level simulation problem into a photon-level tabular generation problem. Each Cherenkov photon is treated as approximately independent of the others given the parent track's kinematics, so the model learns a posterior over a photon's coordinates and arrival time; a look-up table sampled from training data supplies the number of photons per track. The pixelized readout is mapped to continuous coordinates through index transformations and a small uniform smearing during training, and a physical prior resamples any generated photon that falls outside the detector's active area or PMT boundaries. Among the five model families tested—discrete normalizing flows, continuous normalizing flows, flow matching, DDPM, and score-based diffusion—the discrete normalizing flow, a chain of invertible transformations from a Gaussian-mixture latent space to the photon-coordinate space, is selected as the best baseline because it combines exact likelihood training with the fastest generation and the lowest resampling fraction.

What would settle it

Generate a fixed-kinematic sample of tracks from both the fast simulator and Geant4, then train a classifier on per-track hit patterns without summing over tracks; if the classifier separates the two sources with high accuracy, the smoothing and missed discrete effects are large enough to matter for particle identification. A simpler version is to compare the per-track distribution of arrival-time gaps or pixel preferences, which the paper acknowledges differ through effects such as the kaleidoscopic pixel preferences at the readout.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that Cherenkov-photon hit patterns in a DIRC detector can be learned as conditional distributions over position and arrival time given track momentum and polar angle, with each photon drawn independently and aggregated into tracks. Under this decomposition, generative models—especially a discrete normalizing flow—produce high-fidelity simulations: the authors report an order-of-magnitude speedup at the track level and multiple orders of magnitude at the photon level, with closure tests showing agreement with Geant4 in histogram ratios and photon yields. A GPU version of FastDIRC built on the fast-simulated reference PDFs reaches pion-kaon separation approaching the EIC requirement of 3σ at 6 GeV/c, about one to two standard deviations below the Geant4-based references because the generative models smooth the distributions. The authors conclude that this makes on-the-fly, virtually unlimited simulation practical for developing and benchmarking deep-learning-based particle identification.

Load-bearing premise

The framework rests on treating each Cherenkov photon as independent of the others once the track's momentum and polar angle are fixed, and on a simplified working point without azimuthal dependence or magnetic field; if photon-photon correlations or those omitted effects shape the readout pattern, the generated tracks will not fully match Geant4.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • FastDIRC and time-imaging reconstruction can build per-track reference PDFs in real time, removing the need to store large Geant4 reference datasets.
  • Researchers without a Geant4/ROOT software stack can produce hpDIRC training data on demand with a single GPU, lowering the barrier to deep-learning-based particle identification.
  • Because the generative models smooth the pion and kaon distributions, fast-simulated separation power is slightly below Geant4-based values; the paper's closure tests indicate the gap is about one percent in full-phase-space AUC and one to two sigma in fixed-kinematics separation.
  • The same modular pipeline—tabular photon generation, yield look-up table, physical resampling prior—is designed to be retrained for other detector geometries and to be extended to include azimuthal dependence and magnetic field.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If photon-level correlations, such as arrival-time correlations among photons from the same track, turn out to matter for particle identification, the independence decomposition is the first point to test; a per-track likelihood comparison between fast and full simulation would reveal it.
  • The current working point fixes azimuth and omits the magnetic field, so the strongest test of the framework's generality is whether the same models hold once those degrees of freedom are added to the conditioning.
  • The residual smoothing could be measured directly: a classifier trained to distinguish fast-simulated from Geant4 track-level hit patterns in a fixed kinematic bin would quantify how much information the generative model loses, beyond what histogram ratios show.
  • The conditional-photon formulation may transfer to other imaging Cherenkov detectors, but the pixel mapping, smearing width, and physical prior would each need to be re-derived for a new readout geometry.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an open, GPU-accelerated fast simulation toolkit for the High-Performance DIRC (hpDIRC) detector at the Electron-Ion Collider, based on a suite of deep generative models: Discrete Normalizing Flows, Continuous Normalizing Flows, Flow Matching, Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models, and Score-Based Models. Following the decomposition approach of Fanelli et al., each track is replaced by an independent bag of Cherenkov photons conditioned on the parent track kinematics (momentum |p| and polar angle theta), with photon multiplicity sampled from a lookup table (LUT) fitted to training data. The models are compared via marginal density ratio plots in x, y, and time, through generation-time and resampling-fraction benchmarks, and via downstream particle-identification proxies: a GPU-ported FastDIRC separation study at fixed momenta and a full-phase-space Delta-Log-Likelihood (DLL) AUC test. The DNF is selected as the best model. The paper claims order-of-magnitude track-level speedups, multiple orders-of-magnitude photon-level speedups, and 'high-fidelity simulations' of Cherenkov detector responses.

Significance. If the track-level fidelity claim were established, this would be a practically useful tool for PID research at the EIC and for lowering the entry barrier for deep-learning researchers working on Cherenkov detectors. The manuscript has several concrete strengths: it ships open code, evaluates five generative architectures in a common framework, provides a GPU implementation of FastDIRC, and is explicit about the restricted working point (fixed azimuth, no magnetic field, no dark rate). The computational speedups reported are credible and clearly quantified. However, the paper's central claim of 'high-fidelity simulations' at the track level is not directly supported by the presented evidence: all quantitative validations exercise only per-photon marginals or per-photon likelihood sums, which are insensitive to the independence approximation that underlies the track decomposition. The photon-yield LUT validation also carries a circularity risk. These gaps are fixable with additional closure tests, so the contribution is defensible in principle but needs major revision before the advertised claims can be endorsed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2, Sec. 3.1, Sec. 6] The headline claim that the generated samples are 'high-fidelity simulations' at the track level is not tested by the presented metrics. Section 2 and Section 3.1 replace each track by conditionally independent photons, with multiplicity drawn from a LUT, and the generators model only the marginal density p(x, y, t ||p|, theta). Every quantitative validation is invariant to photon-photon correlations within a track: the ratio plots in Figs. 3/4 and Appendices A/C show one-dimensional marginals; the FastDIRC DLL in Eq. (21) sums per-photon log-likelihoods under a diagonal covariance; and the full-phase-space AUC in Fig. 8 uses the same per-hit log-likelihood sum. Consequently, the observed 2.91 sigma vs. 3.71 sigma deficit at 6 GeV/c in Fig. 6 cannot be attributed solely to smoothing, as claimed in Section 4; it could equally reflect the independence decomposition. Please add at least one track-level closure test that is sensitive to joint structure, e.g., the per-track hit-multiplicity distribution, two-point correlation functions of hits within a track, or the distribution of a track-level discriminator (such as a DeepRICH-style embedding) evaluated on generated versus Geant4 tracks on held-out kinematics.
  2. [Sec. 3.4, Fig. 7] The photon-yield LUT is constructed 'using our training datasets' in bins of 100 MeV/c and 1 degree, and the closure test in Fig. 7 compares the sampled yields to the Geant4 reference distribution without specifying whether the comparison uses the held-out test split. As presented, this demonstrates only that the LUT reproduces the training histogram, not that it generalizes to unseen kinematics. Please evaluate the LUT on the held-out test set and report a quantitative distributional distance (e.g., chi-square per bin or Wasserstein distance) separately for train and test, with uncertainties.
  3. [Sec. 4, Figs. 6 and 8] Several load-bearing quantitative claims are reported without uncertainties or statistical significance. The separation values in Fig. 6 (e.g., 2.91 vs. 3.71 sigma) and the AUC values in Fig. 8 (0.933 vs. 0.943) are single numbers with no error bars; the claim that fast simulation differs from Geant4 'on the order of O(1%)' is therefore not statistically grounded. Given the finite Monte Carlo samples, bootstrap confidence intervals should be provided, and the 6 GeV/c separation deficit should be decomposed into the contributions of smoothing versus the independence/LUT approximations, using an analysis sensitive to each.
  4. [Sec. 2, Sec. 6, Abstract] The abstract and conclusions state the toolkit supports strategies 'spanning the full acceptance of the hpDIRC' and EIC-wide PID, while the actual generative scheme conditions only on |p| and theta with fixed azimuth, no magnetic field, and no dark rate, as acknowledged in Section 2. This is a mismatch between the stated scope and the demonstrated working point. Either add a validation that covers the azimuthal dependence and magnetic field, or soften the acceptance and EIC-wide claims to match the current restricted working point.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] Reference [16] contains a typo in the title: 'Deep er) reconstruction' should likely read 'Deep(er) reconstruction'.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (17)] In the paragraph following Eq. (17), the notation 'e_theta(xt,t,k)' should be 'epsilon_theta(xt,t,k)' for consistency with the loss expression.
  3. [Sec. 3.3] The text contains a typo: 'phsysical limitations' should be 'physical limitations'.
  4. [Fig. 5] The timing comparison in Fig. 5 mixes a single GPU (Nvidia A40) for the generative models with a single CPU core (AMD EPYC 7313P) for Geant4; while the caption states this, a per-core or equivalent-resource scaling estimate would make the 'order-of-magnitude speedup' claim more robust and less hardware-dependent.
  5. [Figs. 3/4 and Appendices A/C] The ratio plots would be much more informative with statistical uncertainty bands on the ratios; as presented, deviations in the tails cannot be distinguished from Poisson fluctuations.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Core fidelity claims are benchmarked against held-out Geant4 data and are not circular; only the photon-yield LUT closure test is weakened by being an in-sample fit.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.4 (Photon Yield Sampling) and Section 4 (Photon Yield Sampling evaluation)]
    "Specifically, we form a LUT for the photon yield using our training datasets in bins of ∆( |⃗ p|)∼ 100 MeV/c, ∆(θ)∼ 1◦. For each bin, we obtain the corresponding frequencies (probability) of each photon yield with respect to all possible values (contained in our reference dataset). ... First, we compare at the histogram level the generated photon yield to the ground truth from Geant4."

    The LUT is constructed by tabulating empirical photon-yield frequencies from the training/reference dataset, smoothed with a Gaussian kernel. The validation is a closure test comparing samples drawn from this LUT to 'ground truth from Geant4,' with no statement that a held-out split is used. If the reference includes the training sample, the agreement is guaranteed by construction: the LUT is a smoothed histogram of exactly the data it is compared against. The closure test therefore demonstrates self-consistency rather than predictive accuracy. This is a minor issue because the paper's main fidelity claim is supported by out-of-sample ratio plots and FastDIRC comparisons against independent Geant4 reference populations.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained: conditional generative models are trained on Geant4 photon-level data with an explicit 70/15/15 train/validation/test split, and the headline fidelity claims are checked by comparing fast-simulated marginal distributions (x, y, time) and FastDIRC/DLL separation against independent Geant4 reference samples. These benchmarks are external to the fitted models and would fail if the generative models merely memorized training data, so the core claim is not circular. The paper's reliance on the authors' prior work [16] supplies the photon-level decomposition, resampling prior, and DLL evaluation method, but these are adopted as design choices with independent rationale (e.g., the combinatorial argument in Section 3.1), not as an unverified uniqueness theorem, so self-citation is not load-bearing in a circular way. The only circularity-adjacent element is the photon-yield LUT: it is fitted to training-data frequencies and then validated by a closure test against Geant4 'ground truth' without an explicit statement that the comparison uses held-out data; as described, that particular closure test reduces to checking the LUT against its own input. This does not undermine the overall fidelity argument, which also shows LUT-based yield sampling leaves full-phase-space AUC unchanged, but it should be read as an in-sample consistency check rather than independent validation.

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

The pipeline rests on the prior Geant4 simulation of the hpDIRC, the photon-independence decomposition from [16], and a set of explicit working-point choices (fixed azimuth, no magnetic field, no dark rate). The only new data-fitted ingredient is the photon-yield lookup table.

free parameters (4)
  • Photon-yield lookup table (LUT) = Data-derived histogram over bins of 100 MeV/c and 1 degree, smoothed with an unspecified Gaussian kernel
    Section 3.4: photon yield is sampled from this LUT built from training data; it is a fitted component of the pipeline.
  • CNF trainable integration window = Learned upper time bound; 12 RK4 steps during training, 20 during generation
    Section 3.2: the integration upper bound is trained jointly with the CNF; generation-time step counts are hand-set.
  • Mixture-of-Gaussians base distribution with k=40 = 40 components
    Section 3.2: the number of Gaussian components is a hand-chosen hyperparameter; authors note similar performance in a range but no systematic scan is shown.
  • Model architecture sizes and diffusion schedules = e.g., 20 affine bijections for DNF, 4-6 residual blocks for diffusion/score models, 100 time steps with cosine noise…
    Section 3.2: hyperparameters are selected by hand with limited ablation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Approximate independence of Cherenkov photons at the track level.
    Used in Section 2 to decompose track-level photon data into a tabular format, one row per photon, conditioned on parent track kinematics. If photon hits are correlated beyond the yield, per-track generation is inaccurate.
  • domain assumption Azimuthal symmetry of the hpDIRC; generation at the central region of an individual bar.
    Section 2: the azimuthal coordinate is fixed and conditioning is only on |p| and theta. This ignores possible phi dependence of the detector response.
  • domain assumption Working point with no magnetic field and no PMT dark rate.
    Section 2: training data are generated without magnetic field and without dark rate; users can add dark rate later, but the trained models do not include B-field effects.
  • standard math Probability theory for normalizing flows, neural ODEs, and diffusion SDEs.
    Standard change-of-variables, stochastic differential equation, and flow-matching results are invoked throughout Section 3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generative Models for Fast Simulation of Cherenkov Detectors at the Electron-Ion Collider." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IVS75PCC

@misc{pith2026250419042,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generative Models for Fast Simulation of Cherenkov Detectors at the Electron-Ion Collider},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IVS75PCC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19042}
}
read the original abstract

The integration of Deep Learning (DL) into experimental nuclear and particle physics has driven significant progress in simulation and reconstruction workflows. However, traditional simulation frameworks such as Geant4 remain computationally intensive, especially for Cherenkov detectors, where simulating optical photon transport through complex geometries and reflective surfaces introduces a major bottleneck. To address this, we present an open, standalone fast simulation tool for Detection of Internally Reflected Cherenkov Light (DIRC) detectors, with a focus on the High-Performance DIRC (hpDIRC) at the future Electron-Ion Collider (EIC). Our framework incorporates a suite of generative models tailored to accelerate particle identification (PID) tasks by offering a scalable, GPU-accelerated alternative to full Geant4-based simulations. Designed with accessibility in mind, our simulation package enables both DL researchers and physicists to efficiently generate high-fidelity large-scale datasets on demand, without relying on complex traditional simulation stacks. This flexibility supports the development and benchmarking of novel DL-driven PID methods. Moreover, this fast simulation pipeline represents a critical step toward enabling EIC-wide PID strategies that depend on virtually unlimited simulated samples, spanning the full acceptance of the hpDIRC.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19042 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Optical box output: Individual tracks leave sparse hit patterns (red points) integrated over time on the hpDIRC readout plane. The denser hit pattern is obtained by accumulating multiple tracks with the same kinematics . Gun samples (i.e., simulations of individual tracks with specified kinematics), provide full control over the generated phase-space, in which we generate charged pions and kaons approximately unifor… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Fast Simulation with Discrete Normalizing Flows: Fast Simulation of kaons (left column of plots), and pions (right column of plots) at 6 GeV/c and various polar angles using DNF. parameterize the data distribution and enforce bijectivity, they inherently preserve marginal consistency. This is in contrast to implicit generative models like diffusion models or flow matching, where marginals emerge from the learned joi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Ratio Plots at 6 GeV/c for kaons: Ratio plots for kaons using the various different models (a) Discrete Normalizing Flows (DNF), (b) Continuous Normalizing Flows (b), (c) Flow Matching, (d) Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models (DDPM), and (e) Score-Based Generative Models at 6 GeV/c, integrated over the polar angle. to consider that in the spatial components there exists multiple, and periodic “tails” due to PMT… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ratio Plots at 6 GeV/c for pions: Ratio plots pions using the various different models (a) Discrete Normalizing Flows (DNF), (b) Continuous Normalizing Flows (b), (c) Flow Matching, (d) Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models (DDPM), and (e) Score-Based Generative Mod…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average generation metrics for various models: Average generation metrics for the various models, (a) average generation time per track, (b) effective generation time per detected photon, and (c) average resampling fraction. Values are estimates from generations over t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FastDIRC Performance Comparison: Particle Identification performance of pions and kaons using FastDIRC with both fast simulated, and various sized Geant4 reference populations (indicated in the legend) at 3 GeV/c (top) and 6 GeV/c (bottom) for various values of the pol…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of Photon Yield Distributions as a function of the phase space: Histogram comparison of our photon yield sampling procedure to the ground truth from Geant4 as a function of momentum (left column), and polar angle (right column) for both kaons (a) and pions(b…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Performance Comparison over the entire Phase Space: Pion rejection as a function of kaon efficiency, integrated over the phase space (left), comparing the CNF performance on (i) fast simulated samples with photon yields matching those from the corresponding Geant4 trac…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Towards Foundation Models for Experimental Readout Systems Combining Discrete and Continuous Data

    cs.LG 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A single transformer with separate pixel and time vocabularies generates realistic Cherenkov detector hits and supports particle identification and noise filtering after fine-tuning.

  2. Physics of the Electron-Ion Collider in China

    hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A review of the EicC physics case argues that the proposed Chinese electron-ion collider, at 15-20 GeV collision energy, can complement the US EIC with high-precision measurements of sea-quark spin structure, proton m...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Mikuni V, Nachman B and Pettee M Fast point cloud generation with diffusion models in high energy physics 2023 Phys. Rev. D 108(3) 036025

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Araz J Y, Mikuni V, Ringer F, Sato N, Acosta F T and Whitehill R Point cloud-based diffusion models for the Electron-Ion Collider 2024 arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.22421

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Mikuni V and Nachman B OmniLearn: A method to simultaneously facilitate all jet physics tasks 2024 arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16091

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Birk J, Hallin A and Kasieczka G OmniJet-α: the first cross-task foundation model for particle physics 2024 Machine Learning: Science and Technology 5 035031

    2024

  5. [5]

    Birk J, Buhmann E, Ewen C, Kasieczka G and Shih D Flow matching beyond kinematics: Generating jets with particle identification and trajectory displacement information 2025 Physical Review D 111 052008

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Buhmann E, Kasieczka G and Thaler J EPiC-GAN: Equivariant point cloud generation for particle jets 2023 SciPost Phys. 15 130

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Birk J, Gaede F, Hallin A, Kasieczka G, Mozzanica M and Rose H OmniJet- {αC}: Learning point cloud calorimeter simulations using generative transformers 2025 arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.05534

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Krause C and Shih D Fast and accurate simulations of calorimeter showers with normalizing flows 2023 Physical Review D 107 ISSN 2470-0029

    work page 2023

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Krause C and Shih D Accelerating accurate simulations of calorimeter showers with normalizing flows and probability density distillation 2023 Phys. Rev. D 107(11) 113004

    2023

  2. [10]

    Favaro L, Ore A, Palacios Schweitzer S and Plehn T CaloDREAM–Detector response emulation via attentive flow matching 2025 SciPost Physics 18 088

    2025

  3. [11]

    Paganini M, de Oliveira L and Nachman B CaloGAN: Simulating 3D high energy particle showers in multilayer electromagnetic calorimeters with generative adversarial networks 2018 Physical Review D 97 ISSN 2470-0029

    2018

  4. [12]

    Mikuni V and Nachman B Score-based generative models for calorimeter shower simulation 2022 Physical Review D 106 ISSN 2470-0029

    2022

  5. [13]

    Diefenbacher S, Eren E, Gaede F, Kasieczka G, Krause C, Shekhzadeh I and Shih D L2LFlows: generating high-fidelity 3D calorimeter images 2023 Journal of Instrumentation 18 P10017 ISSN 1748-0221

    2023

  6. [14]

    Fanelli C, Giroux J and Papandreou Z ‘Flux+ Mutability’: a conditional generative approach to one-class classification and anomaly detection 2022 Machine Learning: Science and Technology 3 045012

    2022

  7. [15]

    Devlin P, Qiu J W, Ringer F and Sato N Diffusion model approach to simulating electron- proton scattering events 2024 Physical Review D 110 016030

    2024

  8. [16]

    Fanelli C, Giroux J and Stevens J Deep er) reconstruction of imaging Cherenkov detectors with swin transformers and normalizing flow models 2025 Machine Learning: Science and Technology 6 015028

    2025

  9. [17]

    2020 Fast data-driven simulation of cherenkov detectors using generative adversarial networks Journal of Physics: Conference Series vol 1525 (IOP Publishing) p 012097

    Maevskiy A, Derkach D, Kazeev N, Ustyuzhanin A, Artemev M, Anderlini L, Collaboration L et al. 2020 Fast data-driven simulation of cherenkov detectors using generative adversarial networks Journal of Physics: Conference Series vol 1525 (IOP Publishing) p 012097

    2020

  10. [18]

    Kalicy G The high-performance DIRC for the ePIC detector at the EIC 2024 Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 169168

    2024

  11. [19]

    Dzhygadlo R et al. Time imaging reconstruction for the PANDA Barrel DIRC 2020 Journal of Instrumentation 15 C09050 Generative Models for Fast Simulation of Cherenkov Detectors at the Electron-Ion Collider 26

    2020

  12. [20]

    Hardin J and Williams M FastDIRC: a fast Monte Carlo and reconstruction algorithm for DIRC detectors 2016 J. Instrum. 11 P10007 (arXiv:1608.01180)

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Fanelli C and Pomponi J DeepRICH: learning deeply Cherenkov detectors 2020 Machine Learning: Science and Technology 1 015010

    2020

  14. [22]

    Dzhygadlo R 2024 EICDIRC accessed: 2025-03-22 URL https://github.com/rdom/eicdirc

    2024

  15. [23]

    Kalicy G Developing high-performance DIRC detector for the future Electron Ion Collider experiment 2020 Journal of Instrumentation 15 C11006

    2020

  16. [24]

    Dinh L, Sohl-Dickstein J and Bengio S 2017 Density estimation using Real NVP

    2017

  17. [25]

    He K, Zhang X, Ren S and Sun J 2016 Deep residual learning for image recognition Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition pp 770–778

    2016

  18. [26]

    Chen R T Q, Rubanova Y, Bettencourt J and Duvenaud D K 2018 Neural Ordinary Differential Equations Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems vol 31 ed Bengio S, Wallach H, Larochelle H, Grauman K, Cesa-Bianchi N and Garnett R (Curran Associates, Inc.)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Skilling J 1989 The Eigenvalues of Mega-dimensional Matrices Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods: Cambridge, England, 1988 (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands) pp 455– 466 ISBN 978-94-015-7860-8

    1989

  20. [28]

    Hutchinson M A stochastic estimator of the trace of the influence matrix for laplacian smoothing splines 1990 Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation 19 433–450 (arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/03610919008812866)

    1990 doi

  21. [29]

    Onken D, Fung S W, Li X and Ruthotto L 2021 OT-Flow: Fast and Accurate Continuous Normalizing Flows via Optimal Transport (arXiv: 2006.00104) URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2006.00104

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Evans L An introduction to mathematical optimal control theory version 0.2 2013

    2013

  23. [31]

    Grathwohl W, Chen R T Q, Bettencourt J, Sutskever I and Duvenaud D 2018 FFJORD: Free- form Continuous Dynamics for Scalable Reversible Generative Models (arXiv: 1810.01367) URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.01367

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Lipman Y, Chen R T Q, Ben-Hamu H, Nickel M and Le M 2023 Flow Matching for Generative Modeling (arXiv:2210.02747) URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.02747

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Tong A, Fatras K, Malkin N, Huguet G, Zhang Y, Rector-Brooks J, Wolf G and Bengio Y 2024 Improving and generalizing flow-based generative models with minibatch optimal transport (arXiv:2302.00482) URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.00482

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Sohl-Dickstein J, Weiss E A, Maheswaranathan N and Ganguli S 2015 Deep Unsupervised Learning using Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics (arXiv: 1503.03585) URL https:// arxiv.org/abs/1503.03585

    2015 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Ho J, Jain A and Abbeel P 2020 Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models (arXiv: 2006.11239) URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.11239

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Song Y, Sohl-Dickstein J, Kingma D P, Kumar A, Ermon S and Poole B 2021 Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations (arXiv: 2011.13456) URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.13456

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Science requirements and detector concepts for the electron-ion collider: EIC yellow report 2022 Nuclear Physics A 1026 122447

    Khalek R A et al. Science requirements and detector concepts for the electron-ion collider: EIC yellow report 2022 Nuclear Physics A 1026 122447

    2022

  30. [38]

    Va’vra J 2008 Simulation of the focusing DIRC optics with Mathematica 2008 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (IEEE) pp 2408–2412

    2008

  31. [39]

    Va’vra J Optical properties of RICH detectors 2014 Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 766 189–198 Generative Models for Fast Simulation of Cherenkov Detectors at the Electron-Ion Collid...

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.