Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 36 references

Photomultiplier Requirements and Pre-Calibration for the SABRE South Liquid Scintillator Veto

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pre-calibrated R5912 photomultiplier tubes allow the SABRE South liquid scintillator veto to reject 40K background deposits above 20–50 keV, supporting a low-threshold test of the DAMA/LIBRA dark matter annual modulation signal.

desk verdict Solid PMT pre-calibration for SABRE South's veto, but the low-threshold efficiency claim rests on an unmeasured 12 PE/keV light-yield assumption and in-sample ML scores. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10353 v3 pith:TZ5PCHRA submitted 2025-05-15 physics.ins-det hep-ex

L. J. Milligan , P. Urquijo , E. Barberio , V. U. Bashu , L. J. Bignell , I. Bolognino , S.S. Chhun , F. Dastgiri
show 27 more authors
T. Fruth G. Fu G. C. Hill Y. Hua R. S. James K. Janssens S. Kapoor G. J. Lane K. T. Leaver P. McGee L. J. McKie J. McKenzie P. C. McNamara W. J. D. Melbourne M. Mews W. H. Ng K. J. Rule Z. Slavkovská O. Stanley A. E. Stuchbery B. Suerfu G. N. Taylor D. Tempra T. Tunningley A. G. Williams Y. Y. Zhong M. J. Zurowski
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-dethep-ex
keywords photomultipliertubecharacterisationliquidscintillatorvetoSABRESouthdarkmatterannualmodulationlowenergythresholdpulseshapediscrimination40Kbackgroundsinglephotoelectronresponse
topics Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the 12 kL liquid scintillator veto of SABRE South, once its R5912 photomultiplier tubes are pre-calibrated, can veto 40K background decays in the sodium-iodide crystals down to tens of keV, supporting a low-threshold test of the DAMA/LIBRA annual modulation claim. Using a Monte Carlo model with a light yield of 12 photoelectrons per keV and 25% average photon-to-photoelectron conversion, the authors derive a position-averaged detection probability of 0.75 PE/keV and show that for most threshold requirements every energy deposit above 50 keV is detected, with the least strict requirements catching everything above 20 keV. The supporting measurements—single-photoelectron charge, gain, dark rate, timing, relative detection efficiency, afterpulsing, and spontaneous base-light emission—are presented as a pre-calibration campaign on up to 20 tubes. A small liquid scintillator prototype with the same PMT model shows that pulse-shape discrimination can separate neutrons from gammas even at about 100–400 pC, and a frequency-domain variable can flag electronic noise. If these results hold, the veto is the key component that lets SABRE South confront the DAMA/LIBRA signal with a background-rejection capability no previous NaI(Tl) experiment had.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the photoelectron-yield model: a Poisson distribution for the number of scintillation photons generated by an energy deposit, a binomial distribution for how many of those photons convert to photoelectrons at each PMT (quantum efficiency times a per-PMT, position-dependent hit probability map), and a sum over PMTs that yields the total detected-photoelectron distribution. This model produces the 0.75 PE/keV figure and the veto-efficiency table. The second key object is the single-photoelectron charge-response model, a two-Gaussian SPE fit for bulk gain calibration and a three-Gaussian model including pedestal and under-amplified pulses for simulation-grade digitisation; it gives the gain curve $\mu_{\text{gain}} = A V^{kN}$ and defines the charge scale used in thresholds and afterpulse counting. The pulse-shape work uses a machine-learning classifier over variables such as CAP25, CAP50, and charge ratio to establish that discrimination survives at low PE.

What would settle it

Fill the 12 kL veto with its final scintillator mixture and measure the position-averaged photoelectron yield using a calibrated gamma-ray source at known energy, or use the installed optical calibration system; if the yield falls below 0.75 PE/keV by more than the simulation's spatial spread, then a 20 keV deposit no longer produces the roughly 15 photoelectrons needed for the claimed veto thresholds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a liquid scintillator veto instrumented with the oil-proof R5912 PMTs can be operated at low photoelectron thresholds and thereby veto the dominant 40K background in NaI(Tl) crystals down to tens of keV. In simulation the veto achieves about 99.9% efficiency for all 40K-related energy deposits under a requirement of at least one triggered PMT with at least one photoelectron; the same requirement vetoes 100% of deposits in the 20–50 keV band and 92.5% in 0–20 keV. With a coincidence of at least four PMTs at one PE each, the 0–20 keV efficiency drops to 71% but the 20–50 keV band remains at 100%. The authors infer a 0.75 PE/keV position-averaged detection probability from a Poisson-binomial model with 12 PE/keV light yield and 25% detection efficiency, and their measured relative detection efficiency of 0.286 for the R5912 at 405 nm is consistent with that assumed 25% at 390 nm. The paper also claims that afterpulsing is rare enough (1.7e-4 per PE) and dark rate low enough that single-PE triggering is viable, and that prototype pulse-shape discrimination keeps neutron/gamma separation at keV-scale energies.

Load-bearing premise

The entire low-threshold veto claim rests on the assumed scintillator light yield of 12 photoelectrons per keV and an average photon-to-photoelectron conversion of 25%; if the real 12 kL detector delivers less, the energy threshold at which background is reliably vetoed rises.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With the 0.75 PE/keV position-averaged detection probability, a 20 keV deposit yields roughly 15 photoelectrons, enough for multi-PMT coincidence thresholds that reject 40K efficiently.
  • For most studied threshold requirements, 40K energy deposits above 50 keV are vetoed at 100% efficiency, and the least strict requirements veto all deposits above 20 keV.
  • The measured SPE charge, gain stability, timing, and relative detection efficiency allow single-PE thresholds to be set across the PMT array, which is necessary for the low-energy veto claims.
  • Prototype pulse-shape studies show neutron/gamma discrimination remains viable at about 100–400 pC (roughly 112–449 PE), implying effective veto particle identification down to hundreds of keV; the machine-learning classifier reaches about 90% efficiency at a 10% false-positive rate.
  • The afterpulsing probability of 1.7e-4 per PE and the temperature-dependent dark-rate measurements set the noise budget for low-threshold operation and for monitoring PMT degradation over time.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the real 12 kL detector's light yield or effective PMT efficiency falls below the assumed 12 PE/keV and 25% conversion, the quoted 20–50 keV thresholds scale linearly; a direct in-situ calibration of photoelectrons per keV would renormalize the thresholds.
  • Beyond the paper: the frequency-domain noise-rejection variable could be deployed not only in offline analysis but also as a data-compression or trigger-level filter in the full detector, reducing the low-amplitude electronic-noise rate that dominates low-PE samples.
  • Beyond the paper: if the additional PMTs bring the instrumented total to 32, the resulting denser photocathode coverage could push the practical veto threshold to 20 keV and open the door to supernova-neutrino detection and early-warning participation.
  • Beyond the paper: the prototype-trained machine-learning pulse-shape classifier may transfer to the full veto only after per-PMT retraining, and the observed loss of discrimination power with decreasing PE statistics suggests a per-detector PE threshold below which particle identification should not be trusted.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports the pre-calibration campaign for the Hamamatsu R5912 photomultiplier tubes that will instrument the 12 kL linear-alkylbenzene liquid scintillator veto of SABRE South. The measurements cover single-photoelectron charge and gain, temperature-dependent dark rate, timing and transit time spread, relative detection efficiency, linearity and saturation, afterpulsing, and spontaneous light emission from the oil-proof base. The paper also presents a Geant4-based simulation that translates PMT coincidence and photoelectron thresholds into veto efficiencies for 40K backgrounds, and a small prototype study of gamma/neutron pulse-shape discrimination using the same PMT model and liquid scintillator, including boosted decision trees and frequency-domain variables. The central claim is that, with the characterized PMTs, the veto can operate at low thresholds and efficiently veto background deposits down to tens of keV, with an expected 0.75 PE/keV and near-100% efficiency above 50 keV for several threshold configurations.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, the paper is a valuable reference for the SABRE South veto system and for low-threshold liquid scintillator veto operation generally. The PMT characterization is careful and useful: it covers twenty tubes, checks against Hamamatsu specifications, and includes effects such as afterpulsing, base light emission, and temperature-dependent dark rate that are often omitted from similar studies. The measured detection efficiency of 0.286 at 405 nm is reassuringly close to the assumed 25% quantum efficiency. The prototype PSD study is a sensible exploratory step toward particle identification in the final detector. However, the headline veto-efficiency numbers and the keV-scale conclusions rest on an unvalidated light-yield assumption and on in-sample machine-learning evaluation, so the quantitative significance of those specific claims is currently conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [Secs. 2.1–2.2, Table 1, Sec. 6] The quoted 0.75 PE/keV figure and every veto efficiency in Table 1 scale linearly with the assumed light yield LY = 12 PE/keV, cited to other LAB scintillators [16,17], together with an assumed average photon-collection probability of about 25%. No absolute light-yield measurement is reported for the SABRE fill or for the Sec. 5 prototype. This is load-bearing because the low-energy rows sit near the Poisson detection edge: with 0.75 PE/keV and 18 PMTs, a 50 keV deposit gives about 2.1 PE per PMT, and the "PMTs>=3, PEs>=3" row reports 100% efficiency in the 50-80 keV bin. If the true LY were a factor of two lower, the per-PMT mean would drop to about 1.0 PE, the probability that a PMT sees at least 3 PE falls from about 0.35 to about 0.09, and the same threshold would miss a substantial fraction of 50-80 keV deposits. Please provide a measured LY for the veto scintillator, or at least a sensitivity scan of Table 1 as a function of LY, and temper the conclusion accordingly.
  2. [Secs. 5.3.1, 5.4, 5.5] The machine-learning performance quoted in Sec. 5.3.1 and Sec. 5.5 (about 80% efficiency for the best single variable and about 90% for the BDT at 10% false-positive rate) is reported without any described train/test split or cross-validation. Evaluating a classifier on the same data used to train it inflates the reported discrimination. The same concern applies to the frequency-domain variable F of Eq. (5.4), which is normalized by dataset averages computed over the same events later scored by the BDT. Please add an out-of-sample evaluation, such as k-fold cross-validation or a held-out dataset, report the resulting ROC values, and reassess the claim in Sec. 5.5 that pulse-shape variables will remain effective down to the 100s-of-keV scale.
  3. [Eqs. (2.3)–(2.4)] The convolution of the Poisson photon-number distribution with the binomial detection process is written as an integral over d n, but n is an integer photon count and Pois(n; ...) is defined only for integer n. As written, the expression is not well defined. The compound distribution has the closed form Poisson(LY*E * sum_i QE_i P_Di) if the detection probabilities are independent and exclusive; please either write the sum over n or state the closed form and confirm that the simulation uses an equivalent implementation. This matters because these equations are the formal basis for Table 1.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.1)] The parameter N1PE is used as a mixing fraction between 0 and 1 but is described as a number of SPEs; renaming it to something like f_1PE would avoid confusion.
  2. [Sec. 4.5] The quoted DE_R5912 = 0.2862 +/- 0.0009 includes only the statistical error; the systematic uncertainty from the assumed R11065 QE of 0.3325, the DE=QE approximation, beam-splitter nonuniformity, and the applied charge and peak-height cuts should be estimated and reported.
  3. [Sec. 4.4] The measured transit time spread is compared with the Hamamatsu nominal value, but the laser trigger itself has a quoted spread of 5 +/- 3 ns; the text should state explicitly that this contribution is folded into the measured TTS.
  4. [Sec. 4.8] The fit to the spontaneous light emission rate versus bias voltage is described only as "loosely fitted"; if the curve is to be used quantitatively, give the fit function and parameters, otherwise label it as illustrative.
  5. [Sec. 6] The conclusion that "for most thresholds, energy deposits above 50 keV are guaranteed to be detected" is stronger than Table 1 supports: the "PMTs=18, PEs>=1" row shows 25.2% efficiency in the 50-80 keV bin and 58.0% in the 80-100 keV bin, and the "PMTs>=1, PEs>=6" row shows 72.6% in 50-80 keV. Please qualify the wording.
  6. [Sec. 5.2] The source is spelled both "Am-Be" and "Am-BE"; please use a single spelling throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the veto threshold predictions are forward simulations from externally referenced light yield and measured PMT response, not fitted inputs relabeled as predictions.

full rationale

The central efficiency numbers in Table 1 are obtained by a forward Monte Carlo calculation (Sec. 2.1–2.2): the light yield (12 PE/keV) is taken from measurements of other LAB-based scintillators [16,17], the photon hit probability is computed by Geant4 geometry, and the PMT conversion efficiency is taken from the Hamamatsu specification (25%) and then independently checked by the relative DE measurement (DE_R5912 = 0.286 at 405 nm, Eq. 4.5). The resulting 0.75 PE/keV and threshold efficiencies are not fitted to the quantity they are used to predict, so they do not reduce to their inputs by construction. The PMT calibration is benchmarked against a calibrated reference R11065 PMT and against Hamamatsu specifications, which is independent evidence. The Sec. 5 pulse-shape analysis defines F by normalizing to the dataset average (Eq. 5.4) and evaluates a BDT on the same dataset; this is an in-sample performance estimate and may be optimistic, but it is not a claimed derivation of the result from its own input. The paper's self-citations ([2,9,10]) provide context and prior simulation studies, while the specific threshold/veto claim is recomputed in this paper's own Geant4 simulation. No step was found where a fitted parameter, self-citation, or uniqueness theorem is load-bearing in a way that makes the output equivalent to the input.

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

The paper introduces no new entities. Its performance numbers scale linearly with the assumed light yield (12 PE/keV) and nominal QE (25%), and the PSD study assumes sufficiently pure tagged samples. Several fitted calibration parameters are used to describe each PMT, but none are used to force the main physics conclusions.

free parameters (4)
  • Gain model parameters A and k (Eq. 4.2) = Values are fitted per PMT and are not tabulated in the paper.
    Fitted to the gain-vs-bias-voltage curves for each of the 20 PMTs using the standard Hamamatsu parameterization.
  • SPE response parameters mu_1PE, sigma_1PE, mu_ped, sigma_ped, delta, N1, N2 (Eq. 4.3) = For one representative PMT at 1500 V, mu_1PE = 0.870 +/- 0.002 pC; other values are not tabulated.
    Fitted to laser-triggered charge spectra of one representative PMT at 1500, 1600 and 1700 V.
  • Dark rate fit parameters A and B = -e*psi/k_B (Eq. 4.4) = A and B are floated per PMT; the paper reports fitted curves rather than tabulated values.
    Floated in the Hamamatsu dark-current temperature model for each PMT and bias voltage.
  • Afterpulsing probability p_AP and intercept c (Eq. 4.8) = p_AP = (1.7 +/- 0.08)e-4 afterpulses per PE; c = 1.7e-4.
    Linear fit to afterpulse fraction versus pulse charge for two of the PMTs.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The liquid scintillator light yield is 12 PE/keV (Sec. 2.1).
    Taken from measurements of other LAB-based scintillators [16,17]; the simulated veto efficiencies and the 0.75 PE/keV number scale linearly with this value.
  • domain assumption The veto PMT quantum efficiency is 25% (Sec. 2.2).
    From Hamamatsu nominal QE for 390 nm; the measured relative DE at 405 nm (0.286 +/- 0.0009 for one PMT) is close but not identical, so the simulation uses the nominal value.
  • domain assumption The detection efficiency of the reference R11065 PMT equals its quantum efficiency (Sec. 4.5).
    The paper approximates 100% collection efficiency for the R11065 box-and-grid design to convert the relative measurement into an absolute DE for the R5912.
  • domain assumption Geant4 optical propagation with Lumirror reflectivity of about 90% reproduces photon transport in the veto vessel (Sec. 2.1).
    The probability maps PDi(x,y,z) and the expected 25% photon hit probability follow from the simulation geometry and reflectivity.
  • standard math Photoelectron detection follows Poisson and binomial statistics (Eqs. 2.1-2.4).
    Standard statistical model for photon generation and detection; no free parameters beyond light yield and QE.
  • domain assumption The tagged gamma and neutron samples in the prototype are sufficiently pure for PSD evaluation (Sec. 5.2).
    The neutron sample relies on a time-of-flight cut; the gamma sample is unshielded above ground and may contain neutron contamination, which the paper acknowledges.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Photomultiplier Requirements and Pre-Calibration for the SABRE South Liquid Scintillator Veto." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TZ5PCHRA

@misc{pith2026250510353,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Photomultiplier Requirements and Pre-Calibration for the SABRE South Liquid Scintillator Veto},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TZ5PCHRA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10353}
}
read the original abstract

We present a study of the oil-proof base Hamamatsu R5912 photomultiplier tubes that will be used in the SABRE South linear-alkylbenzene liquid scintillator veto. SABRE South is a dark matter direct detection experiment at the Stawell Underground Physics Laboratory, aiming to test the DAMA/LIBRA dark matter annual modulation signal. We discuss the requirements of the liquid scintillator system and its photomultipliers, outline the methods and analysis used for the characterisation measurements, and results from initial tests. We discuss the impact of these measurements on the performance of the active veto system and explore analysis methods to allow for low threshold operation. Finally, we include results from a small scale liquid scintillator detector prototype used to assess the future performance of pulse shape discrimination in the liquid scintillator veto, and how well accommodated it is by the R5912 PMTs.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bernabei et al.,First results from DAMA/LIBRA–phase2,Nucl

    R. Bernabei et al.,First results from DAMA/LIBRA–phase2,Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc.303-305 (2018) 74–79

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    The SABRE South Technical Design Report Executive Summary

    SABRE SouthCollaboration, E. Barberio et al.,The SABRE South technical design report executive summary,JINST 20(2025), no. 04 T04001, [arXiv:2411.13889]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    SABRECollaboration, Antonello, M. et al. [SABRE Collaboration],The SABRE project and the SABRE Proof-of-Principle,Eur. Phys. J.C79(2019), no. 4 363, [arXiv:1806.09340]

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Daya BayCollaboration, F. P. An et al.,The Detector System of The Daya Bay Reactor Neutrino Experiment,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A811 (2016) 133–161, [arXiv:1508.03943]

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Carlin et al.,COSINE-100 Full Dataset Challenges the Annual Modulation Signal of DAMA/LIBRA, arXiv:2409.13226

    COSINE-100Collaboration, N. Carlin et al.,COSINE-100 Full Dataset Challenges the Annual Modulation Signal of DAMA/LIBRA, arXiv:2409.13226

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Coarasa et al.,ANAIS–112 three years data: a sensitive model independent negative test of the DAMA/LIBRA dark matter signal,Commun

    ANAIS–112Collaboration, I. Coarasa et al.,ANAIS–112 three years data: a sensitive model independent negative test of the DAMA/LIBRA dark matter signal,Commun. Phys.7 (2024), no. 1 345, [arXiv:2404.17348]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Anderson et al.,Development, characterisation, and deployment of the SNO+ liquid scintillator, Journal of Instrumentation16(5, 2021) P05009

    M. Anderson et al.,Development, characterisation, and deployment of the SNO+ liquid scintillator, Journal of Instrumentation16(5, 2021) P05009

    2021

  8. [8]

    M. Li et al.,Separation of scintillation and cherenkov lights in linear alkyl benzene, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment830(11, 2015). – 28 –

    work page 2015

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Barberio et al.,Simulation and background characterisation of the SABRE south experiment,The European Physical Journal C83(Sept., 2023)

    SABRE SouthCollaboration, E. Barberio et al.,Simulation and background characterisation of the SABRE south experiment,The European Physical Journal C83(Sept., 2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    SABRECollaboration, Antonello, M. et al. [SABRE Collaboration],Monte Carlo simulation of the SABRE PoP background,Astropart. Phys.106(2019) 1–9, [arXiv:1806.09344]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Ha et al.,First direct search for inelastic boosted dark matter with cosine-100, Phys

    COSINE-100Collaboration, C. Ha et al.,First direct search for inelastic boosted dark matter with cosine-100, Phys. Rev. Lett.122(04, 2019) 131802

    2019

  4. [12]

    Adhikari et al.,First direct detection constraints on planck-scale mass dark matter with multiple-scatter signatures using the deap-3600 detector, Phys

    DEAP Collaboration, P. Adhikari et al.,First direct detection constraints on planck-scale mass dark matter with multiple-scatter signatures using the deap-3600 detector, Phys. Rev. Lett.128 (01, 2022) 011801

    2022

  5. [13]

    Al Kharusi et al.,SNEWS 2.0: a next-generation supernova early warning system for multi-messenger astronomy,New J

    SNEWSCollaboration, S. Al Kharusi et al.,SNEWS 2.0: a next-generation supernova early warning system for multi-messenger astronomy,New J. Phys.23(2021), no. 3 031201, [arXiv:2011.00035]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Abe et al.,Characterization of the Spontaneous Light Emission of the PMTs used in the Double Chooz Experiment,JINST11(2016), no

    Double ChoozCollaboration, Y. Abe et al.,Characterization of the Spontaneous Light Emission of the PMTs used in the Double Chooz Experiment,JINST11(2016), no. 08 P08001, [arXiv:1604.06895]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Agostinelli et al.,GEANT4 - A Simulation Toolkit,Nucl

    GEANT4Collaboration, S. Agostinelli et al.,GEANT4 - A Simulation Toolkit,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250–303

    2003

  8. [16]

    An et al.,Neutrino Physics with JUNO, J

    JUNOCollaboration, F. An et al.,Neutrino Physics with JUNO, J. Phys. G43 (2016), no. 3 030401, [arXiv:1507.05613]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Caravaca, B

    J. Caravaca, B. J. Land, M. Yeh, and G. D. Orebi Gann,Characterization of water-based liquid scintillator for Cherenkov and scintillation separation,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020), no. 9 867, [arXiv:2006.00173]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Hamamatsu photonics: Large cathode area photomultiplier tubes

    “Hamamatsu photonics: Large cathode area photomultiplier tubes.” https://www.hamamatsu.com/content/dam/hamamatsu-photonics/sites/documents/99_ SALES_LIBRARY/etd/LARGE_AREA_PMT_TPMH1376E.pdf, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    PLP-10 Laser diode head series

    Hamamatsu Photonics, “PLP-10 Laser diode head series.” https://www.hamamatsu.com/content/dam/hamamatsu-photonics/sites/documents/99_ SALES_LIBRARY/sys/SOCS0003E_PLP-10.pdf, Jan, 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    A7435 A7435 24 Channel 3.5 kV/3.5 mA (9W)

    CAEN S.p.A, “A7435 A7435 24 Channel 3.5 kV/3.5 mA (9W).” https://www.caen.it/products/A7435/, Sep, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    SY5527-SY5527LC Power Supply System User Manual UM2707

    CAEN S.p.A, “SY5527-SY5527LC Power Supply System User Manual UM2707.” https://www.caen.it/products/sy5527/, Apr, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    V1730/VX1730 & V1725/VX1725 User Manual UM2792

    CAEN S.p.A, “V1730/VX1730 & V1725/VX1725 User Manual UM2792.” https://www.caen.it/products/v1730/, May, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Scutti,Pyrate: a novel system for data transformations, reconstruction and analysis,J

    F. Scutti,Pyrate: a novel system for data transformations, reconstruction and analysis,J. Phys. Conf. Ser.2438 (2023), no. 1 012061

    2023

  16. [24]

    D-WAVE: Digitizer Waveform REcording Firmware

    CAEN S.p.A, “D-WAVE: Digitizer Waveform REcording Firmware.” https://www.caen.it/products/d-wave/, July, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    CoMPASSUserManualUM5960

    CAENS.p.A,“CoMPASSUserManualUM5960.” https://www.caen.it/products/dpp-psd/, Feb, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Verkerke and D

    W. Verkerke and D. P. Kirkby,The RooFit toolkit for data modeling,eConfC0303241 (2003) MOLT007, [physics/0306116]. – 29 –

    2003 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Photomultiplier tubes: Basics and applications

    “Photomultiplier tubes: Basics and applications.” https://www.hamamatsu.com/content/dam/hamamatsu-photonics/sites/documents/99_ SALES_LIBRARY/etd/PMT_handbook_v4E.pdf, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    Newville, T

    M. Newville, T. Stensitzki, D. B. Allen, and A. Ingargiola,Lmfit: Non-linear least-square minimization and curve-fitting for python, Zenodo, Oct., 2015

    2015

  21. [29]

    Eschle, A

    J. Eschle, A. Puig Navarro, R. Silva Coutinho, and N. Serra,zfit: scalable pythonic fitting, 10, 2019. arXiv:1910.13429

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Belver et al.,Cryogenic R5912-20Mod Photomultiplier Tube Characterization for the ProtoDUNE Dual Phase Detector, JINST13(2018), no

    D. Belver et al.,Cryogenic R5912-20Mod Photomultiplier Tube Characterization for the ProtoDUNE Dual Phase Detector, JINST13(2018), no. 10 T10006, [arXiv:1806.04571]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    SciPy: Open source scientific tools for Python

    E. Jones, T. Oliphant, P. Peterson, et al., “SciPy: Open source scientific tools for Python.” http://www.scipy.org/

  24. [32]

    Zhang et al.,Study of neutron production for 360 gev cosmic muons,Phys

    JNECollaboration, X. Zhang et al.,Study of neutron production for 360 gev cosmic muons,Phys. Rev. D110(Dec, 2024) 112017

    2024

  25. [33]

    Lombardi et al.,Distillation and stripping pilot plants for the JUNO neutrino detector: Design, operations and reliability, Nucl

    P. Lombardi et al.,Distillation and stripping pilot plants for the JUNO neutrino detector: Design, operations and reliability, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A925(2019) 6–17, [arXiv:1902.05288]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    239 (2020) 18008

    Kostal, Michal et al.,Validation of heavy water cross section using ambe neutron source,EPJ Web Conf. 239 (2020) 18008

    2020

  27. [35]

    ANAIS-112Collaboration,I.Coarasaetal., Improvinganais-112sensitivitytodama/librasignalwith machine learning techniques, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2022 (nov, 2022) 048

    2022

  28. [36]

    S. M. Lundberg and S.-I. Lee,A unified approach to interpreting model predictions, inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30(I. Guyon, U. V. Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett, eds.), pp. 4765–4774. Curran Associates, Inc., ...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.