Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 37 references

Dark Count Rate Stability of JUNO 20-inch PMTs in Mass Testing

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 The paper establishes that JUNO's NNVT PMTs keep cooling for about 52 h, with a settled dark count 44% below the 12-hour value, while HPK tubes settle near 83% in about 25 h, and that the two types have different dark-count temperature…

desk verdict A useful engineering characterization of JUNO PMT dark rates; the qualitative NNVT/HPK difference holds up, but the headline temperature coefficients rest on an unverified thermal-equilibrium assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15164 v2 pith:FNOCUWHZ submitted 2025-06-18 physics.ins-det hep-ex

Min Li , Narongkiat Rodphai , Caimei Liu , Zhimin Wang , Zhaoyuan Peng , Jun Wang , Nikolay Anfimov , Denis Korablev
show 12 more authors
Tobias Lachenmaier Alexander G. Olshevskiy Zhonghua Qin Tobias Sterr Alexander Felix Tietzsch Rong Zhao Wei Wang Kaile Wen Bjoern Soenke Wonsak Wan Xie Meihang Xu Yu Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-dethep-ex
keywords 20-inchphotomultipliertubesdarkcountrateJUNOcoolingtimetemperaturedependencePMTstabilityflashereventsmasstesting
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 establishes how the dark count rate (random pulses with no light) of two types of 20-inch photomultiplier tubes used in JUNO depends on cooldown time, temperature, and long-term operation. Using data from the JUNO PMT mass-testing containers, it finds that NNVT tubes are slower to settle and much more temperature-sensitive than HPK tubes: after the standard 12-hour cooling period, the NNVT dark count keeps falling to about 56% of the measured value over about 52 hours, while HPK reaches about 83% in about 25 hours. It also reports that roughly 20% of tested tubes show at least one dark-count spike during cooling, about 7% of 117 long-term monitored tubes are unstable, and some spikes are consistent with flasher events, including one MCP flasher imaged at elevated voltage. If these numbers hold, JUNO's acceptance procedure and dark-count noise budget should treat the 12-hour reading as provisional rather than the settled value.

What carries the argument

The central object is the normalized DCR-versus-time curve and the two-exponential cooling fit $y = (a_1/\tau_1)e^{-x/\tau_1} + (a_2/\tau_2)e^{-x/\tau_2} + c$, where the constant $c$ gives the asymptotic fraction of the 12-hour DCR (0.56 for NNVT, 0.83 for HPK), the fast component $\tau_1\approx 3$–4 h captures the light-exposure and thermal transient, and the slow component $\tau_2$ gives the stabilization time (about 25 h for HPK, 52 h for NNVT). The temperature coefficients are carried by normalized ratios $\mathrm{DCR}(T)/\mathrm{DCR}(21^\circ\mathrm{C})$ measured during HVAC step cycles, with the temperature read by sensors mounted inside the drawer beside each PMT and a 2–3 hour wait at each set point to approach thermal equilibrium.

What would settle it

Repeat the 14–28°C step cycle on a spare bare NNVT PMT with a thermocouple attached directly to the photocathode glass and to the microchannel-plate package; if the slope of DCR versus measured tube temperature differs materially from the slope computed against the drawer sensor, the reported 12%/°C bare-NNVT coefficient is an artifact of thermal lag.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At an operating gain of $1\times10^7$, the central claim is that the dark count rate of JUNO's 20-inch PMTs is not fully characterized by the standard 12-hour acceptance measurement. For potted NNVT tubes the DCR continues to decline after 12 hours, following a two-exponential decay that asymptotes at $c=0.56$ times the 12-hour value with a slow time constant near 52 hours; potted HPK tubes asymptote at $c=0.83$ with a slow time constant near 25 hours. The temperature dependence is also type-specific: bare NNVT tubes change by about 12%/°C (about 6 kHz/°C), potted NNVT by about 4%/°C (about 0.8–0.9 kHz/°C), and HPK by about 2%/°C (about 0.2–0.4 kHz/°C) over the 14–28°C range, with long-term room-temperature monitoring consistent with the short-term step tests. DCR monitoring further shows that about 20% of tubes have at least one spike above 50 kHz or 50% during cooling, about 7% of 117 long-term monitored tubes are unstable, and at least one NNVT flasher originating from the microchannel plate was imaged when the tube was operated 500 V above its nominal voltage.

Load-bearing premise

The temperature coefficients assume that the air-temperature sensor mounted beside each PMT in the drawer tracks the temperature that actually controls the dark count, and that waiting two to three hours at each set point brings the PMT itself into thermal equilibrium.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For NNVT tubes, a DCR quoted after the standard 12-hour cooldown overstates the settled dark count: the asymptotic rate is 44% lower than the 12-hour reading, so acceptance thresholds based on 12-hour values are conservative relative to steady-state operation.
  • DCR measurements with uncertainty below 1 kHz require a longer cooling period for NNVT tubes (about 50 hours) than for HPK tubes (about 7 hours).
  • With the measured temperature coefficients, controlling the detector temperature to about ±1°C keeps the DCR-induced contribution below 1 kHz across the studied temperature range.
  • The observed spike rate (about 20% during cooling) and long-term instability rate (about 7%) imply that acceptance testing should include a stability-monitoring window and a drawer or HV-divider swap step to separate electronics issues from intrinsic PMT problems.
  • Coincidence-rate analysis among neighboring PMTs and single-photon camera imaging can identify flasher candidates, as demonstrated for the NNVT tube imaged 500 V above nominal high voltage.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the asymptotic DCR fractions hold in the final detector environment, JUNO's in-situ NNVT noise floor after months of operation could be well below the acceptance-test value; early detector data would then show a slowly declining background as tubes settle.
  • The drop in NNVT temperature coefficient after potting (from about 12%/°C to about 4%/°C) suggests the bare-tube sensitivity may be dominated by the exposed glass envelope or divider rather than the MCP or photocathode itself; a test that heats only the envelope or only the photocathode would separate these contributions.
  • Because the spike search used 30-minute sampling with a >50 kHz or >50% threshold, continuous fast sampling would likely reveal shorter flashers that are averaged out, and correlating spikes with HVAC, HV, and drawer-swap timing would test whether many reported spikes are operational transients rather than intrinsic PMT behavior.
  • The +500 V flasher image suggests an accelerated screening strategy: briefly run NNVT tubes above nominal voltage in a dark box with coincidence or camera monitoring, and reject tubes showing MCP flashers before potting.
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. The manuscript reports an empirical characterization of the dark count rate (DCR) of the two types of 20-inch PMTs used in JUNO (HPK dynode and NNVT MCP-PMTs), based on data from the Pan-Asia mass-testing facility. It quantifies DCR evolution during post-loading cooling (Section 3.1), the dependence of DCR on temperature (Section 3.2), and long-term DCR stability including transient spikes (Section 3.3). A two-exponential fit to the normalized cooling curve yields asymptotic DCR fractions (56% for NNVT and 83% for HPK after 12 h normalization) and time constants (about 52 h and 25 h, respectively). Temperature coefficients are reported for bare and potted PMTs, with bare NNVT showing about 12%/°C, potted NNVT about 4%/°C, and HPK about 2%/°C. The paper also describes a preliminary investigation of DCR spikes, including flasher identification using coincidence counting and a single-photon camera.

Significance. If the reported coefficients hold, the paper provides valuable input for JUNO operations: the cooling-time curves justify different PMT-type-specific waiting periods, and the temperature coefficients inform the required temperature stability of the detector. The large-sample, real-world mass-testing context is a strength, as is the direct comparison of two PMT technologies under the same HVAC-controlled container system. The long-term monitoring of 117 PMTs and the short-term spike statistics give a useful baseline for DCR-related false triggers. However, the quantitative headline values (12%/°C, 4%/°C, 2%/°C and the 56%/83% asymptotic fractions) currently lack published uncertainties and rest on a thermal-equilibrium assumption that is not independently validated. The flasher identification is explicitly preliminary and appropriately framed. Overall, the paper is a useful experimental characterization, but the load-bearing temperature coefficients need additional support before the numbers can be taken at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.2.1, Figs. 6–8, Tables 2–3] The temperature coefficients are derived from drawer-mounted sensors ('inside the drawers aside the PMT'), not from measurements of the PMT bulb, photocathode, or MCP temperature. The text itself admits incomplete equilibrium: §3.2.1 states that NNVT PMTs 'require more time to achieve thermal equilibrium while cooling, particularly at the highest temperature', and §3.2.2 concedes that in the 14–21°C range 'the waiting time ... was shorter'. If the PMT temperature lags the sensor by 1–2°C, the steepest coefficient (bare NNVT, ~12%/°C or ~6 kHz/°C) would be biased by roughly 10–20%, and part of the heating/cooling asymmetry in Table 2 could be an artefact of the lag. Since §3.4's ±1°C recommendation is derived from this coefficient, the assumption is load-bearing. Please add a thermal-equilibration check (e.g., a dedicated measurement with a temperature sensor attached to a PMT, or a quantitative thermal model with estimated lag) or explicitly report the coefficients as effective sensitivities with the associated systematic uncertainty.
  2. [Tables 1–3 and Eq. (3.1)] The headline numbers—the asymptotic DCR fractions (c = 0.56 and 0.83), the stabilization times (25 h and 52 h), and the temperature coefficients (1.4–12.6%/°C)—are quoted without uncertainties, sample sizes, or goodness-of-fit statistics. Table 1 parameters are fit outputs, but no error bars or fit quality (e.g., χ²/ndf or residual plots) are given, and the extrapolation to an 'ideal DCR' is not validated against an independent data set. Please report the number of PMTs contributing to each average, the statistical uncertainty on each coefficient, and a measure of fit quality for Eq. (3.1).
  3. [3.1 and 3.4] The recommendation in §3.4 that 'a minimum of 7 hours is sufficient for HPK PMTs' appears inconsistent with the 25-hour stabilization time reported in §3.1 and Table 1 (τ2 ≈ 25 h). Please clarify the criterion used for 'sufficient' (e.g., time to reach a specified DCR drift threshold) and reconcile the two statements, or the reader cannot tell which operational guidance to follow.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and §1] The coverage figure is given as 'approximately 75%' in the abstract and 'exceed 78% (75% with LPMTs alone)' in §1; please make the numbers consistent.
  2. [Figure 7 caption] 'heeting' should be 'heating' in the caption.
  3. [§3.1] 'In the additional to the 12 hours DCR measurement...' is ungrammatical; please rephrase.
  4. [§3.3.1] The text says 117 PMTs were monitored, while §5 says 'around 110 PMTs'; please use the exact number consistently.
  5. [Tables 2 and 3] Please define how the 'variation ratio' (max. and min.) is computed and how the %/°C coefficient is extracted (e.g., linear regression over the full range, or average of point-to-point slopes).
  6. [§3.2] The statement that holding each set point for 2–3 h 'allowing the PMTs to achieve thermal equilibrium' is an assertion; consider softening to 'assumed to allow' or add a reference to a thermal-equilibration study.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Empirical DCR characterization with no circular derivation; the fits and temperature slopes are descriptive, not self-referential predictions.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical characterization of measured DCR. The double-exponential fit in Eq. 3.1 is fit to the same cooling curves it summarizes, and the fitted parameter c is simply the asymptotic value of those curves; the paper does not claim to validate c against an independent data set or to derive it from a quantity defined in terms of the result. Likewise, the temperature coefficients in Tables 2 and 3 are slopes of normalized DCR versus monitored drawer temperature, extracted from the same measurements they describe; they are descriptive fits rather than predictions forced by construction. The thermal-equilibrium caveat raised by the skeptic (drawer sensors adjacent to the PMT, 2-3 h wait times, and the paper's own admission of shorter waits at low temperature) is a measurement assumption that affects accuracy and interpretation, but it is not a circularity: the numbers still come from measured data under stated conditions. Self-citations to prior JUNO testing papers ([4], [15], [19]) supply context, system descriptions, and baseline numbers, but they are not load-bearing as derivational premises: no uniqueness theorem and no prior fitted result is invoked to force the present claims. The flasher investigation is a separate controlled experiment with artificial sparks and camera imaging, not a derivation from the DCR data. Overall, no step in the paper reduces to its own input by definition or by fitted-parameter renaming.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative outputs are all empirical fits: cooling curves (Eq 3.1, Table 1), temperature slopes (Tables 2-3), and spike statistics (Section 3.3). No new physical entity is introduced. The measurement rests on assumptions that pulse counting at 0.25-0.3 p.e. represents DCR, that drawer-side temperature sensors represent PMT temperature, that 2-3 hour waits give thermal equilibrium, and that bare versus potted comparisons are not confounded by different electronics and thresholds. These assumptions are not proven, and some are questionable (the bare/potted comparison spans containers A/B and D with different thresholds).

free parameters (12)
  • HPK cooling fit amplitude a1 = 1.42
    Fitted to normalized DCR vs cooling time using Eq 3.1 (Table 1).
  • HPK cooling time constant tau1 = 3.11 h
    Short cooling component in Eq 3.1 (Table 1).
  • HPK cooling fit amplitude a2 = 6.30
    Second component amplitude in Eq 3.1 (Table 1).
  • HPK cooling time constant tau2 = 24.99 h
    Long cooling component in Eq 3.1 (Table 1).
  • HPK asymptotic DCR fraction c = 0.83
    Asymptotic limit of Eq 3.1; used as the ideal DCR fraction after long cooling.
  • NNVT cooling fit amplitudes and time constants = a1=10.52, tau1=3.93 h, a2=20.19, tau2=51.74 h, c=0.56
    Fitted to NNVT normalized DCR cooling data (Eq 3.1, Table 1). The c value is used to state the ideal DCR is 56% of the 12 h value.
  • Bare HPK DCR temperature coefficient = 1.43%-1.60%/C, 0.22-0.24 kHz/C
    Fitted slope of DCR ratio vs temperature for bare HPK PMTs during heating and cooling (Table 2).
  • Bare NNVT DCR temperature coefficient = 11.67%-12.60%/C, 6.06-6.23 kHz/C
    Fitted slope for bare NNVT PMTs (Table 2); the steepest coefficient in the paper.
  • Potted HPK DCR temperature coefficient = 1.82%-2.04%/C, 0.36-0.43 kHz/C
    Fitted slope for potted HPK PMTs in two runs (Table 3).
  • Potted NNVT DCR temperature coefficient = 3.61%-4.17%/C, 0.76-0.90 kHz/C
    Fitted slope for potted NNVT PMTs in two runs (Table 3).
  • Room-temperature DCR variation slopes = HPK 0.35 kHz/C; NNVT 6.01 kHz/C
    Slopes from 250 h room-temperature monitoring in the 24-26 C range (Section 3.2.3, Fig 9).
  • DCR spike detection criterion = >50 kHz or >50% increase vs previous point
    Hand-chosen threshold in Section 3.3.2; directly determines the 20% and 0.2% spike statistics.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Pulse counting above a 0.25-0.3 p.e. discriminator threshold is a faithful proxy for PMT dark count rate relevant to JUNO energy resolution.
    Section 2.2 states DCR is counted at thresholds of 3±1 mV (A/B) and 2±0.1 mV (D); no correction is applied for the threshold difference when comparing containers.
  • domain assumption Drawer-mounted temperature sensors represent the PMT temperature relevant to DCR.
    Figure captions in Section 3.2 state temperature is measured inside drawers 'aside' the PMT; photocathode/MCP temperature may differ.
  • domain assumption Thermal equilibrium is reached after 2-3 hours at each temperature set point.
    Section 3.2 states the waiting time of 2-3 hours ensures thermal equilibrium, but no verification (e.g., DCR stabilization) is shown.
  • ad hoc to paper The two-exponential model (Eq 3.1) with constant c describes the DCR cooling curve and supports extrapolation to an 'ideal' DCR.
    Section 3.1 introduces the fit without a physical derivation; the asymptotic parameter c is then interpreted as the ideal DCR fraction.
  • domain assumption Bare and potted DCR differences are attributable to the waterproof potting rather than to sample populations or readout chain differences.
    Section 3.1, Figure 5 comparison does not specify same-PMT before/after potting and spans containers A/B (CAEN) vs D (1F3) with different thresholds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark Count Rate Stability of JUNO 20-inch PMTs in Mass Testing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FNOCUWHZ

@misc{pith2026250615164,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark Count Rate Stability of JUNO 20-inch PMTs in Mass Testing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FNOCUWHZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15164}
}
read the original abstract

The Jiangmen Underground Neutrino Observatory (JUNO) is an ambitious multipurpose neutrino experiment designed to determine the neutrino mass ordering, with an impressive energy resolution goal of at least 3% at 1 MeV. To achieve a photon detection coverage of approximately 75%, JUNO will utilize two types of 20-inch photomultiplier tubes (PMTs): the large PMT (LPMT) and the microchannel plate PMT (MCP-PMT). A significant concern in high-precision neutrino measurements is the dark count rate (DCR) of PMTs, which introduces noise that can adversely affect energy measurement accuracy. During the mass testing phase of the JUNO 20-inch PMTs, comprehensive measurements of the DCR were undertaken. These measurements not only captured the DCR values of individual PMTs but also examined the stability and temperature dependence of the DCR at an operating gain of (1x10^7). This paper presents a detailed characterization of the DCR of the JUNO 20-inch PMTs, investigating factors such as cooling time, temperature variations, and long-term stability using the JUNO Pan-Asia PMT testing facilities. The results reveal distinct DCR characteristics between the two types of PMTs, providing valuable insights into the nature of DCR and its implications for JUNO's scientific objectives. In addition to performance characterization, we implemented a monitoring system to track DCR stability over time. Notably, several spikes in DCR were identified, prompting a preliminary investigation into their causes. Potential factors contributing to these spikes, such as flasher events, were explored using coincidence rate analysis and complementary imaging techniques. The findings from this study are crucial for optimizing the performance of PMTs in JUNO, ultimately aiding the experiment in achieving its goals related to neutrino physics.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    An et al.,Neutrino physics with juno, Journal of Physics

    F. An et al.,Neutrino physics with juno, Journal of Physics. G, Nuclear and Particle Physics43 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    collaboration,JUNO physics and detector, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics123(2022) 103927

    J. collaboration,JUNO physics and detector, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics123(2022) 103927

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Abusleme et al.,The design and technology development of the juno central detector,Eur

    A. Abusleme et al.,The design and technology development of the juno central detector,Eur. Phys. J. Plus1128 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    JUNOcollaboration, Mass Testing and Characterization of 20-inch PMTs for JUNO,The European Physical Journal C82(2022) 1168 [2205.08629]

    work page arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    C. Cao et al.,Mass production and characterization of 3-inch pmts for the juno experiment,Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment1005 (2021) 165347

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    F.Suekane,K.Collaborationetal., Kamland,ProgressinParticleandNuclearPhysics 57(2006)106

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Alimonti, C

    G. Alimonti, C. Arpesella, H. Back, M. Balata, D. Bartolomei, A. De Bellefon et al.,The borexino detector at the laboratori nazionali del gran sasso,Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment600(2009) 568

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Boger, R

    J. Boger, R. Hahn, J. Rowley, A. Carter, B. Hollebone, D. Kessler et al.,The sudbury neutrino observatory,Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment449 (2000) 172

    work page 2000

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Fukuda, Y

    S. Fukuda, Y. Fukuda, T. Hayakawa, E. Ichihara, M. Ishitsuka, Y. Itow et al.,The super-kamiokande detector, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment501 (2003) 418

    2003

  2. [10]

    F. An, J. Bai, A. Balantekin, H. Band, D. Beavis, W. Beriguete et al.,The detector system of the daya bay reactor neutrino experiment,Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment811 (2016) 133

    2016

  3. [11]

    Zhang, Z

    H. Zhang, Z. Wang, F. jiao Luo, A. bo Yang, D. Wu, Y. Li et al.,Gain and charge response of 20” mcp and dynode pmts, Journal of Instrumentation16(2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Maekawa, C

    Y. Maekawa, C. Fujisawa and Y. Nishimura,Performance of 50 cm photomultiplier tube for hyper-kamiokande, in2021 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC), pp. 1–3, IEEE, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    G. Kim, J. Lee and H. Kim,Characterization of a 20-inch micro channel plate photomultiplier tube, New Physics: Sae Mulli72(2022) 436

    2022

  6. [14]

    Chang et al.,The r&d of the 20in

    Y. Chang et al.,The r&d of the 20in. mcp–pmts for juno,Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment824 (2016) 143. – 23 –

    2016

  7. [15]

    Wonsak, A

    B. Wonsak, A. Tietzsch, T. Sterr, T. Lachenmaier, N. Anfimov, D. Blum et al.,A container-based facility for testing 20’000 20-inch pmts for juno, Journal of Instrumentation16 (2021) T08001

    2021

  8. [16]

    Anfimov,Large photocathode 20-inch pmt testing methods for the juno experiment, Journal of Instrumentation 12 (2017) C06017

    N. Anfimov,Large photocathode 20-inch pmt testing methods for the juno experiment, Journal of Instrumentation 12 (2017) C06017

    2017

  9. [17]

    Wang et al.,Database system for managing 20,000 20-inch pmts at juno,NUCL SCI TECH33 (2022) 24

    J. Wang et al.,Database system for managing 20,000 20-inch pmts at juno,NUCL SCI TECH33 (2022) 24

    2022

  10. [18]

    Zhao et al.,Afterpulse measurement of JUNO 20-inch PMTs,arXiv: 2207.04995(2022) [2207.04995]

    R. Zhao et al.,Afterpulse measurement of JUNO 20-inch PMTs,arXiv: 2207.04995(2022) [2207.04995]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Liu et al.,Check on the features of potted 20-inch PMTs with 1F3 electronics prototype at Pan-Asia,arXiv: 2208.08264(2022) [2208.08264]

    C. Liu et al.,Check on the features of potted 20-inch PMTs with 1F3 electronics prototype at Pan-Asia,arXiv: 2208.08264(2022) [2208.08264]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Cao and K.-B

    J. Cao and K.-B. Luk,An overview of the daya bay reactor neutrino experiment, Nuclear Physics B 908 (2016) 62

    2016

  13. [22]

    S. Qian, F. Gao, L. Ma, Y. Zhu, S. Chen and P. Chen,The study on the 20 inch pmt flasher signal, Journal of Instrumentation15(2020) T06008

    2020

  14. [23]

    Zhang, Z

    Y. Zhang, Z. Wang, M. Li, Y. Zhang, Y. Wang, Z. Peng et al.,Study of 20-inch pmts dark count generated large pulses,Journal of Instrumentation17 (2022) P10048

    2022

  15. [24]

    Zhang, Z

    Y. Zhang, Z. Wang, M. Li, C. Liu, N. Rodphai, Y. Zhang et al.,Dark count of 20-inch pmts generated by natural radioactivity, Journal of Instrumentation19(2024) P02026

    2024

  16. [25]

    R12860 datasheet

    Hamamatsu Photonics K.K., “R12860 datasheet.”

  17. [26]

    Specification for GDB-6201 microchannel plate type photomultiplier PMT (in Chinese)

    N.N.V.T. Ltd., “Specification for GDB-6201 microchannel plate type photomultiplier PMT (in Chinese).”

  18. [27]

    Ren et al.,Study on the improvement of the 20-inch microchannel plate photomultiplier tubes for neutrino detector, Nucl

    L. Ren et al.,Study on the improvement of the 20-inch microchannel plate photomultiplier tubes for neutrino detector, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A977(2020) 164333

    2020

  19. [28]

    Wen et al.,A quantitative approach to select PMTs for large detectors, Nucl

    L. Wen et al.,A quantitative approach to select PMTs for large detectors, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A947 (2019) 162766 [1903.12595]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Zhang, J.-S

    S. Zhang, J.-S. Li, Y.-J. Su, Y.-M. Zhang, Z.-Y. Li and Z.-Y. You,A method for sharing dynamic geometry information in studies on liquid-based detectors, Nuclear Science and Techniques32 (2021) 1

    2021

  21. [30]

    Y. Yu, H. Lv, K. Tariq, D. Liu, X. Sheng and C. Feng,Study of the performance of photomultiplier tubes at high variable counting rates,Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment1008 (2021) 165433

    2021

  22. [31]

    Babicz et al.,Test and characterization of 400 hamamatsu r5912-mod photomultiplier tubes for the ICARUS t600 detector,Journal of Instrumentation13(2018) P10030

    M. Babicz et al.,Test and characterization of 400 hamamatsu r5912-mod photomultiplier tubes for the ICARUS t600 detector,Journal of Instrumentation13(2018) P10030

    2018

  23. [32]

    W.Chenetal., Lock-in-photon-counting-basedhighly-sensitiveandlarge-dynamicimagingsystemfor continuous-wave diffuse optical tomography,Biomedical Optics Express7 (2016) 499

    2016

  24. [33]

    H.Li, Q.Sen, Z.Ning, Y.Zhang, Q.Wu, L.Maetal., Studyonthestabilityof20inchphotomultiplier tubes based on microchannel plate,Journal of Instrumentation16(2021) T06015

    2021

  25. [34]

    S. Qian, F. Gao, L. Ma, Y. Zhu, S. Chen and P. Chen,The study on the 20 inch pmt flasher signal, Journal of Instrumentation15(2020) T06008. – 24 –

    2020

  26. [35]

    A. Yang, Z. Qin, Z. Wang, H. Chen, W. Wei, F. Luo et al.,Study and removal of the flash from the hv divider of the 20-inch pmt for juno,Journal of Instrumentation15(2020) T04006

    2020

  27. [36]

    Liu,Pmt evaluation for the daya bay neutrino experiment, IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium conference record

    D. Liu,Pmt evaluation for the daya bay neutrino experiment, IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium conference record. Nuclear Science Symposium(2008)

    2008

  28. [37]

    Z. Wang, M. Li, D. Wu et al.,Imaging of csi(tl) crystal event and double-slit young’s interference by a single photon sensitive camera,Eur. Phys. J. Plus138(2023)

    2023

  29. [38]

    Z. Wang, M. Li, D. Wu, J. Liu, Y. Zhang, X. Meng et al.,Imaging of muon track in csi(tl) crystal with single photon sensitive camera,Journal of Instrumentation18(2023) P09015. – 25 –

    2023

Pith tools

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