Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 19 references

Background Measurements and Simulations of the ComPair Balloon Flight

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Simulations confirm ComPair balloon telescope met its flight goals.

desk verdict A solid engineering benchmark for ComPair that validates the ACD veto and reconstruction, though the simulation comparison is qualitative and the hard-veto test is under-powered. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15916 v2 pith:RBJWVD37 submitted 2025-06-18 astro-ph.IM

Zachary Metzler , Nicholas Kirschner , Lucas Smith , Nicholas Cannady , Makoto Sasaki , Daniel Shy , Regina Caputo , Carolyn Kierans
show 26 more authors
Aleksey Bolotnikov Thomas J. Caligiure Gabriella A. Carini A. Wilder Crosier Jack Fried Priyarshini Ghosh Sean Griffin J. Eric Grove Elizabeth Hays Sven Herrmann Emily Kong Iker Liceaga-Indart Julie McEnery John Mitchell A. A. Moiseev Lucas Parker Jeremy Perkins Bernard Phlips Adam J. Schoenwald Clio Sleator D. J. Thompson Janeth Valverde Sambid Wasti Richard Woolf Eric Wulf Anna Zajczyk
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords gamma-rayastronomyComPairAMEGOballoonflightanti-coincidencedetectorMonteCarlosimulationMeVgapatmosphericbackground
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

ComPair, a prototype of a future medium-energy gamma-ray observatory, flew on a six-hour balloon campaign to show that a single instrument can detect both Compton-scattered and pair-produced gamma rays while rejecting the charged-particle background that dominates at balloon altitude. This paper compares the flight measurements with Monte Carlo simulations of the atmospheric background and finds that simulated event rates and spectra agree with the measured data well enough to conclude that the instrument worked as intended. The same comparison validates a “hard” anti-coincidence veto that discards charged-particle events onboard, which would cut downlink requirements for future flights. The result matters because it calibrates a simulation chain that can now be used to design ComPair-2 and other MeV-band missions.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the pairing of measurement with a full simulation chain: an atmospheric cosmic-ray spectrum model generates energy- and angle-dependent fluxes of eight particle species at the flight location and altitude; a Geant4-based Monte Carlo propagates those particles through a mass model of ComPair and a simplified gondola; and the instrument's Detector Effects Engine converts simulated interactions into raw-like data by adding trigger logic, dead time, thresholding, noise pedestals, and coincidence windows. The simulated data then passes through the same calibration, alignment, veto, and event-reconstruction pipeline as the flight data. The anti-coincidence detector (ACD) is the key hardware element being validated, and the two veto schemes, soft (veto applied offline) and hard (veto applied during data collection), are the controlled comparison that tests whether rejecting events on board changes the measured spectrum.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be to rerun the same simulation with a complete gondola mass model and the measured in-flight temperature profile: if the simulated total rate drops to within a few percent of the measured rate and the 500 keV muon-track feature appears, the benchmark is confirmed, whereas if the 20 percent excess and spectral mismatches persist, the agreement is only approximate and the instrument's validation claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the ComPair balloon flight satisfied its engineering goals: the instrument measured the gamma-ray background at about 40 km altitude, the anti-coincidence detector vetoed the charged-particle background, and Monte Carlo simulations reproduced the measured rates and spectra closely enough to serve as a benchmark. Before the veto, simulated protons and alpha particles dominate the event rate, with gamma rays contributing just under 15 percent; after the soft veto, gamma rays make up over 68 percent of simulated events. The measured total rate is about 20 percent higher than simulated, and the paper attributes the excess to passive material in the gondola not represented in the mass model, while a sharper simulated 511 keV line and a missing measured muon-track peak near 500 keV are attributed to unmodeled thermal effects and reconstruction inefficiencies. Despite these discrepancies, the reconstructed spectra agree, and an 11-minute hard-veto test produced spectra nearly identical to the soft-veto data, leading the authors to conclude that the hard veto can be used on future ComPair and AMEGO flights.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulation chain, including the atmospheric background model, the simplified gondola mass model, and the detector-response engine, is accurate enough that matching the flight data actually validates the instrument; the paper itself reports that the measured total rate is about 20 percent higher than simulated and that several spectral features differ.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future ComPair balloon flights can use the hard ACD veto without compromising the measured gamma-ray spectrum, reducing the data volume that must be downlinked.
  • The validated simulation chain gives a dependable background model for designing ComPair-2, whose active area is about 16 times larger, and for AMEGO-X.
  • The measured background spectra near 40 km provide a reference dataset for other MeV instruments flying on balloons.
  • The finding that over 99 percent of protons, muons, and alpha particles are vetoed while most gamma rays pass quantifies how well an ACD can clean the MeV band at float altitude.
  • About half of triggered gamma rays are vetoed, mostly high-energy photons whose showers reach the ACD, so future instruments should consider overriding the ACD for shower events.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 20 percent rate excess is indeed unmodeled passive mass, then a more complete gondola mass model should make the simulated total rate match the measured rate; testing that prediction would directly probe the simulation's realism.
  • The roughly 35 percent loss of ACD trigger primitives seen in the hard-veto test suggests that trigger-system diagnostics, not just veto logic, deserve attention in future flights.
  • The reconstruction misidentification of charged particles as Compton events, which the paper notes but does not fix, is a target for improved event classification in the next-generation instrument.
  • A long-duration flight comparing soft and hard vetoes over many hours would test whether the statistical agreement seen in 11 minutes holds under varying atmospheric conditions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports the background measurements from ComPair's 27 August 2023 balloon flight and compares them with Monte Carlo simulations built from EXPACS atmospheric spectra, a GEANT4/MEGAlib mass model of the instrument and a simplified gondola, and an internal Detector Effects Engine. The comparison is made at three levels: the total event rate before and after the ACD veto (Table 1), the reconstructed event rates by event type (Table 2), and deposited-energy spectra separated by reconstructed type (Figure 9). The paper also reports a final 11-minute test of a hard ACD veto against the standard soft veto (Figures 10 and 11). The authors conclude that the measurements and simulations agree well, that the ACD charged-particle rejection and event reconstruction are validated, and that the hard veto is safe for future ComPair or AMEGO flights.

Significance. The manuscript addresses a real need: an end-to-end comparison of an MeV telescope prototype with a full background simulation chain, including ACD veto performance, is valuable for ComPair-2 and AMEGO design. The authors use external, non-tuned inputs (EXPACS and GEANT4/MEGAlib) and pass simulated data through the same detector-effects and reconstruction pipeline as flight data; this is a genuine strength. The paper is also honest about known limitations, such as unmodeled gondola mass, thermal gain shifts, and trigger primitive inefficiency. However, the central 'good agreement' claim is currently qualitative: no uncertainties are quoted on the simulated rates, and the 20% normalization offset and several spectral discrepancies are explained post hoc. The hard-veto conclusion rests on 11 minutes of data, and a quantitative fluctuation test is missing. The engineering results are likely correct, but the manuscript overstates the strength of validation relative to the evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.1, Table 1 and 3.2, Table 2] The simulated total event rate in Table 1 (121.2 events/s) is compared with the measured 145.6 events/s with no quoted statistical or systematic uncertainty on the simulation, and the 20% difference is attributed to unmodeled passive mass and unknown Detector Effects Engine behavior. Since this comparison is the basis for the central claim that the instrument is benchmarked, the authors should provide a quantitative uncertainty budget for the simulated rates, for example from EXPACS model spread, geometry and mass-model variations, and DEE threshold choices, and they should state a quantitative agreement criterion. The same issue applies to the reconstructed rates in Table 2 (10.3 vs 8.9 events/s). Without this, 'good agreement' is not a testable claim.
  2. [3.2, Figure 9] The paper identifies three specific discrepancies: the simulated rate is lower by about 0.5 events/s below 200 keV, the simulated 511 keV line is sharper than the measured line, and the simulated MU spectrum lacks a measured feature near 500 keV, with hypothesized causes in thermal gain drift and unmodeled DEE inefficiencies. These discrepancies are load-bearing because they are the substance of the 'generally agree' conclusion. The authors should quantify the discrepancies, for example with residual spectra, line-width measurements, or a goodness-of-fit statistic, and should either test the proposed explanations, such as applying a thermal-smearing term to the simulation, or label them as untested hypotheses rather than explanations.
  3. [3.3, Figures 10 and 11] The recommendation to use the hard ACD veto for future flights is based on 11 minutes of data, during which the hard veto was not fully efficient, with roughly 35% of ACD primitives lost, and the post-reconstruction 'Hard + Soft' rate was higher than the soft-only rate. The statement that this is consistent with statistical fluctuations is not supported by any quantitative test. A Poisson rate comparison or a confidence interval on the hard/soft rate ratio should be provided, and the conclusion should otherwise be tempered to state that no obvious spectral change was observed in the 11-minute test.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3.3] The word 'validated' is used for the hard-ACD-veto test; given the 11-minute dataset and the reported primitive-loss inefficiency, 'consistent with' or 'suggests' would be more appropriate than 'validated.'
  2. [Section 2.2] The choice of a 15-minute exposure, 1-hour build-up, and 15-minute tracking for the activation simulation is not justified; please state the rationale or report the sensitivity of the results to these times.
  3. [Figure 9 caption] The caption should state explicitly that the simulated lines carry no uncertainty and that the real-data error bars are Poisson only, so that readers do not infer a comparison of equal statistical weight.
  4. [Table 1 and Figure 2] The table lists 'n0' while the text and Figure 2 use 'n' for neutrons; please harmonize the notation.
  5. [Throughout] Minor copyedits: 'Calorimeters' should be lowercase in Sections 2.1 and 3.1, 'Fort Sumner' needs the definite article in Section 2.3, and the text should be consistent about whether approximately 50% or 49.4% of gamma rays are vetoed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: measured flight data and the external simulation chain are independent, and the agreement claim is a benchmark rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is between measured flight data (independent measurements from the 2023 balloon flight) and a simulation chain built from EXPACS (an external atmospheric background model), GEANT4/MEGAlib Cosima (external particle-transport tools), and the internally developed Detector Effects Engine (DEE). The DEE is applied to simulated interactions to make them resemble raw detector output, but the paper does not fit any DEE parameter or simulation parameter to the measured rates or spectra. No equation defines a measured quantity in terms of a simulated quantity, and no simulated prediction is constructed from the flight data it is compared against. The self-citations to earlier ComPair subsystem papers and to Smith et al. 2024 provide instrument context and prior subsystem validation, but the load-bearing benchmarking result does not reduce to those citations; the measured data and the external background/transport codes carry the argument. The paper's own caveats (about a roughly 20% measured excess over the simulated total rate, unmodeled passive gondola mass, unmodeled thermal effects broadening the 511 keV line, and the short 11-minute hard-ACD-veto test) weaken the quantitative strength of the benchmark, but they are correctness and robustness limitations, not circularity. There is no fitted input disguised as a prediction and no uniqueness or ansatz smuggled in through self-citation, so no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's validation rests on the fidelity of the external background model and the internal simulation chain. No parameters are fitted to the flight data in this work, but the DEE and mass model are internal and not independently verified here.

free parameters (2)
  • Activation simulation times = 15 min exposure, 1 h build-up, 15 min tracking
    Hand-chosen approximations to the flight duration, not fitted to the measured data. Affect the simulated activation event rate in Tables 1 and 2.
  • EXPACS solar activity parameter (W) = 124
    Input to the EXPACS background model reflecting solar activity near solar maximum. Taken from external conditions, not fitted to the flight data.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption EXPACS provides an accurate prediction of the atmospheric particle flux at float altitude
    The background simulation relies on EXPACS spectra (Section 2.2) as the primary input; an incorrect background model would change the simulated event rates and the benchmark conclusion.
  • domain assumption GEANT4/MEGAlib Cosima correctly simulate particle interactions and the DEE realistically converts them to raw detector data
    The validation is based on agreement between flight data and this simulation chain (Section 2.2).
  • domain assumption The simplified mass model of the instrument and gondola is sufficiently accurate
    The paper itself attributes the 20% rate discrepancy to unmodeled passive material or DEE effects (Section 3.1), so the model fidelity is load-bearing.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Background Measurements and Simulations of the ComPair Balloon Flight." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RBJWVD37

@misc{pith2026250615916,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Background Measurements and Simulations of the ComPair Balloon Flight},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RBJWVD37}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15916}
}
abstract

ComPair, a prototype of the All-sky Medium Energy Gamma-ray Observatory (AMEGO), completed a short-duration high-altitude balloon campaign on August 27, 2023 from Fort Sumner, New Mexico, USA. The goal of the balloon flight was the demonstration of ComPair as both a Compton and Pair telescope in flight, rejection of the charged particle background, and measurement of the background $\gamma$-ray spectrum. This analysis compares measurements from the balloon flight with Monte Carlo simulations to benchmark the instrument. The comparison finds good agreement between the measurements and simulations and supports the conclusion that ComPair accomplished its goals for the balloon campaign. Additionally, two charged particle background rejection schemes are discussed: a soft ACD veto that records a higher charged particle event rate but with less risk of event loss, and a hard ACD veto that limits the charged particle event rate on board. There was little difference in the measured spectra from the soft and hard ACD veto schemes, indicating that the hard ACD veto could be used for future flights. The successes of ComPair's engineering flight will inform the development of the next generation of ComPair with upgraded detector technology and larger active area.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15916 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ComPair consists of four detector subsystems: a DSSD Tracker (purple), a CZT Calorimeter (blue), a CsI Calorimeter (orange), and a plastic scintillator ACD (green). The red box highlights the detector stack, which contains the active area of the Tracker and Calorimeters. On 27 August 2023, ComPair conducted a 6 h, 17 min high-altitude balloon flight from Fort Sumner, New Mexico, USA. The goals of this engineering fl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The angle-integrated particle background spectra for the ComPair balloon flight with 8 particle species as calculated with EXPACS [15]. EXPACS also provides azimuth-dependent spectra for each of these species, which were used to simulate the conditions during the flight with MEGAlib’s Cosima [13]. The settings used to produce this spectra are 34◦ latitude, −104◦ longitude, 40 km above sea level, 124 for the W value … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A schematic showing the steps performed on real and simulated data. Simulated interactions are produced with MEGAlib’s Cosima [13] and transformed by the DEE to resemble raw data. Real raw data comes directly from the detector subsystems. Both real and simulated raw data undergoes energy and position calibrations, event alignment, an ACD veto, and event reconstruction offline. Event reconstruction classifies the rem… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of MU, PA, and CO events from the balloon flight, where the triggered hits are shown as red dots. A MU event triggers the top ACD panel, consists of a single track, and is not used for imaging. A PA event consists of two tracks that intersect at a vertex, and …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Blue: the altitude throughout the balloon flight. Red: the number of unique event IDs produced per second during the flight. The times given are the local date and time in New Mexico, USA. The green bands indicate the times used to analyze the soft ACD veto, and the ye…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A comparison of the veto rates between the real and simulated data. The red line at 100% corresponds to all events being rejected. The first column shows the measured data, the second column shows the total of the simulated data, columns 3–10 show the simulation divide…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A spectrum of the incident energies of simulated photons that satisfied ComPair’s trigger conditions. The total spectrum is shown in blue, while the orange and green lines show the spectra for passed (not vetoed) and vetoed photons, respectively. This shows that the 50…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: An example event display of a simulated vetoed γ-ray with an incident energy of 29 GeV. The γ-ray’s initial direction is shown with a purple dashed line, and the red dots indicate interaction locations, although the order of interactions was not saved during the simula…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Spectra of the measured energy deposit per event after event reconstruction for the real and simulated data. The points are the real data with 1σ uncertainty within the histogram’s bins, and the lines are the simulations. The uncertainty was estimated assuming Poisson …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: b shows the event rates for the same categories after event reconstruction with Revan. At this stage, the “Hard + Soft” category has retained a higher event rate than the soft-only, which suggests that the event rate variations between the two vetoing schemes are due …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Spectra separated by reconstructed event type for events with soft veto only (squares) and a hard veto followed by soft veto (circles). The veto scheme did not compromise the measured spectra, validating the hardware implementation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    All-sky Medium Energy Gamma-ray Observatory: Exploring the Extreme Multimessenger Universe

    McEnery, J.; Barrio, J.A.; Agudo, I.; Ajello, M.; Álvarez, J.-M.; Ansoldi, S.; Anton, S.; Auricchio, N.; Stephen, J.B.; Baldini, L.; et al. All-sky Medium Energy Gamma-ray Observatory: Exploring the Extreme Multimessenger Universe. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1907.07558

    arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    AMEGO: Exploring the extreme multi-messenger universe

    Kierans, C.A. AMEGO: Exploring the extreme multi-messenger universe. In Proceedings of the Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray; den Herder, J.W.A., Nakazawa, K., Nikzad, S., Eds.; 13 December 2020; SPIE: Bellingham, WA, USA, 2020. [CrossRef]

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Development of the ComPair gamma-ray telescope prototype

    Shy, D.; Kierans, C.; Cannady, N.; Caputo, R.; Griffin, S.; Grove, J.E.; Hays, E.; Kong, E.; Kirschner, N.; Liceaga-Indart, I.; et al. Development of the ComPair gamma-ray telescope prototype. In Proceedings of the Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, Montreal, QC, Canada, 17–22 July 2022; den Herder, J.W.A., Nakazawa, K., ...

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    The Compton Pair telescope: A prototype for a next-generation MeV gamma-ray observatory

    Valverde, J.; Kirschner, N.; Metzler, Z.; Smith, L.D.; Cannady, N.W.; Caputo, R.; Kierans, C.; Liceaga-Indart, I.; Moiseev, A.; Parker, L.; et al. The Compton Pair telescope: A prototype for a next-generation MeV gamma-ray observatory. In Proceedings of the 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference—PoS(ICRC2023), Nagoya, Japan, 26 July–3 August 2023; Sissa...

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Development of a Silicon Tracker for the All-sky Medium Energy Gamma-ray Observatory Prototype

    Griffin, S.; the AMEGO Team. Development of a Silicon Tracker for the All-sky Medium Energy Gamma-ray Observatory Prototype. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1902.09380

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Current status of the ComPair silicon tracker

    Griffin, S.; Kierans, C.; Parker, L.; Schoenwald, A.; Shawhan, P .; Caputo, R.; McEnery, J.; Perkins, J. Current status of the ComPair silicon tracker. In Proceedings of the Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, Online, 13 December 2020; den Herder, J.W.A., Nikzad, S., Nakazawa, K., Eds.; International Society for Optics and...

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    The Double-Sided Silicon Strip Detector Tracker onboard the ComPair Balloon Flight

    Kirschner, N.; Kierans, C.; Wasti, S.; Schoenwald, A.J.; Caputo, R.; Griffin, S.; Liceaga-Indart, I.; Parker, L.; Perkins, J.S.; Zajczyk, A. The Double-Sided Silicon Strip Detector Tracker onboard the ComPair Balloon Flight. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2407.18737

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Modular Position-sensitive High-resolution Calorimeter for Use in Space Gamma-ray Instruments Based on Virtual Frisch-grid CdZnTe Detectors

    Hays, E.A.; Bolotnikov, A.; Kierans, C.; Moiseev, A.; Thompson, D. Modular Position-sensitive High-resolution Calorimeter for Use in Space Gamma-ray Instruments Based on Virtual Frisch-grid CdZnTe Detectors. PoS 2019, ICRC2019, 584. [CrossRef]

    work page 2019

Show all 19 references
  1. [9]

    Development of a CsI:Tl calorimeter subsystem for the All-Sky Medium-Energy Gamma-Ray Observatory (AMEGO)

    Woolf, R.S.; Grove, J.E.; Phlips, B.F.; Wulf, E.A. Development of a CsI:Tl calorimeter subsystem for the All-Sky Medium-Energy Gamma-Ray Observatory (AMEGO). arXiv 2019, arXiv:1901.05828

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Results from the CsI Calorimeter onboard the 2023 ComPair Balloon Flight

    Shy, D.; Woolf, R.S.; Sleator, C.; Phlips, B.; Grove, J.E.; Wulf, E.A.; Johnson-Rambert, M.; Davis, M.; Kong, E.; Caligiure, T.; et al. Results from the CsI Calorimeter onboard the 2023 ComPair Balloon Flight. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2405.06839

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    The Anti-Coincidence Detector Subsystem for ComPair.arXiv 2024, arXiv:2405.15974

    Metzler, Z.; Cannady, N.; Shy, D.; Caputo, R.; Kierans, C.; Woolf, R. The Anti-Coincidence Detector Subsystem for ComPair.arXiv 2024, arXiv:2405.15974. [CrossRef]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    The 2023 balloon flight of the ComPair instrument

    Smith, L.D.; Cannady, N.; Caputo, R.; Kierans, C.; Kirschner, N.; Liceaga-Indart, I.; McEnery, J.; Metzler, Z.; Moiseev, A.A.; Parker, L.; et al. The 2023 balloon flight of the ComPair instrument. In Proceedings of the Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Ultraviolet to ...

    2023

  5. [13]

    MEGAlib The Medium Energy Gamma-ray Astronomy Library

    Zoglauer, A.; Andritschke, R.; Schopper, F. MEGAlib The Medium Energy Gamma-ray Astronomy Library. New Astr. News 2006, 50, 629–632. [CrossRef]

    2006

  6. [14]

    Trigger system for the ComPair instrument

    Sasaki, M. Trigger system for the ComPair instrument. In Proceedings of the Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, Online, 13 December 2020 ; den Herder, J.W.A., Nikzad, S., Nakazawa, K., Eds.; International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE:...

    2020

  7. [15]

    Analytical model for estimating the Zenith Angle Dependence of terrestrial cosmic ray fluxes

    Sato, T. Analytical model for estimating the Zenith Angle Dependence of terrestrial cosmic ray fluxes. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0160390. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

    2016

  8. [16]

    Geant4—A simulation toolkit

    Agostinelli, S.; Allison, J.; Amako, K.; Apostolakis, J.; Araujo, H.; Arce, P .; Asai, M.; Axen, D.; Banerjee, S.; Barrand, G.; et al. Geant4—A simulation toolkit. Nucl. Instruments Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A Accel. Spectrometers Detect. Assoc. Equip. 2003, 506, 250–303. [CrossRef]

    2003

  9. [17]

    ComPair-2: A next-generation medium-energy gamma-ray telescope prototype

    Caputo, R.; Kierans, C.; Cannady, N.; Falcone, A.; Fukazawa, Y.; Jadhav, M.; Kerr, M.; Kirschner, N.; Kumar, K.; Laviron, A.; et al. ComPair-2: A next-generation medium-energy gamma-ray telescope prototype. In Proceedings of the Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Ultra...

    2024

  10. [18]

    AMEGO-X: MeV gamma-ray Astronomy in the Multimessenger Era

    Fleischhack, H. AMEGO-X: MeV gamma-ray Astronomy in the Multimessenger Era. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2108.02860

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    All-sky Medium Energy Gamma-ray Observatory eXplorer mission concept.J

    Caputo, R.; Ajello, M.; Kierans, C.A.; Perkins, J.S.; Racusin, J.L.; Baldini, L.; Baring, M.G.; Bissaldi, E.; Burns, E.; Cannady , N.; et al. All-sky Medium Energy Gamma-ray Observatory eXplorer mission concept.J. Astron. T elesc. Instruments Syst.2022, 8, 044003 . [CrossRef] ...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.