Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Benchmarking of Geant4 simulations for the COSI Anticoincidence System

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 Geant4 optical-physics simulations reproduce the measured COSI BGO response within 20% in energy resolution and 10% in spatial uniformity, enabling a correction matrix and bottom-crystal threshold predictions.

desk verdict Solid, transparent benchmark for the COSI ACS optical model, but the headline 20%/10% agreement figures are residuals from parameters tuned on the same measurements, so the correction matrix should be framed as provisional until validated on held-out data. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21275 v1 pith:2ACT4Z24 submitted 2025-07-28 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HE

Alex Ciabattoni , Valentina Fioretti , John A. Tomsick , Andreas Zoglauer , Parshad Patel , Lee Mitchell , Andrea Bulgarelli , Pierre Jean
show 5 more authors
Gabriele Panebianco Nicolò Parmiggiani Cristian Vignali Peter von Ballmoos Eric Wulf
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.HE
keywords COSIGeant4anticoincidencesystemBGOscintillatoropticalphotontransportenergyresolutioncorrectionmatrixgamma-raydetectorcalibration
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

The paper aims to show that a Geant4 simulation with full optical-photon transport can reproduce the measured response of the COSI anticoincidence system's BGO lateral wall closely enough to stand in for laboratory calibration. This matters because the ACS vetoes background, detects gamma-ray bursts, and helps localize them, yet standard mission simulations treat energy deposits as perfect measurements and ignore scintillation light losses. The authors benchmark the optical model against radioactive-source measurements from 60 to 1836 keV, tuning the BGO absorption length to 5 m and adding 21 keV electronic noise, and find agreement within 20% in energy resolution and 10% in light collection uniformity. They then compress the position- and energy-dependent response into a correction matrix for the lateral wall and use the validated model to predict that the smaller bottom crystals will have energy thresholds about 14-25% lower than the lateral wall. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that a realistic ACS response can be included in mission simulations at acceptable computational cost.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the correction matrix, together with the generating optical-physics simulation, that encodes what happens between a gamma-ray energy deposit in BGO and the energy actually read out by the SiPMs. The generating machinery is Geant4's optical-physics simulation: scintillation yield of 8.2 photons/keV, 300 ns decay time, measured emission spectrum, a UNIFIED-model treatment of the VM2000 and Tetratex reflective wrappings, and wavelength-dependent SiPM photon detection efficiency at 2.5 V overvoltage. The matrix stores, per spatial and energy bin, two fitted relations: a linear centroid shift (Eq. 3) and a three-term FWHM model (Eq. 4), yielding five parameters $\{m_{xy}, q_{xy}, a_{xy}, b_{xy}, c_{xy}\}$ per bin. It does the work of converting a simulated true energy deposit into a realistic measured energy without explicitly tracking the thousands of optical photons produced per keV.

What would settle it

Measure the energy threshold and photopeak centroid of a flight-like Z-crystal using 241Am (60 keV) or 109Cd (88 keV) in the same setup as the X-wall benchmark; if the threshold does not sit near the predicted 60-69 keV (i.e. 14-25% below the X-wall's 80 keV), or the 60 keV centroid disagrees with the simulation by more than the benchmarked roughly 10-20%, the extrapolation is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Geant4 optical-physics simulation, realized in a dedicated simulation framework, replicates the experimental ACS BGO response: simulated energy resolution matches laboratory values with maximum discrepancy 20% and the spatial light collection uniformity along the crystal matches within 10%. The tuned parameters are a BGO absorption length of 5 m and a Gaussian electronic noise of 21 keV FWHM, selected as a trade-off between the collimated spatial-response measurement and the uncollimated spectral measurement. On this basis the paper builds a correction matrix that bins the BGO face into $20 \times 10$ spatial bins and 8 logarithmic energy bins from 10 keV to 10 MeV, fitting each bin with a linear centroid model and a resolution model in five parameters, so that a true energy deposit and interaction position yield a realistic measured energy. The optical physics also makes the quantum detection efficiency position-dependent: enhanced by about 8% near the SiPMs and suppressed by about 2% in adjacent corners relative to the average. Applied to the bottom Z-crystals, the validated model predicts energy thresholds of roughly 62, 60, and 69 keV instead of 80 keV, reductions of about 22%, 25%, and 14%, with average energy-resolution improvements of 5-8%.

Load-bearing premise

The whole chain rests on assuming that the optical model tuned against the lateral wall's 60-1836 keV laboratory data, with BGO absorption length fixed at 5 m and electronic noise at 21 keV, remains correct for energies up to 10 MeV and for the smaller bottom-crystal geometries that were not part of the benchmark.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A detector-effects module for the ACS can now be built from the correction matrix, letting standard mission simulations include scintillation losses, position-dependent light collection, and electronic noise without the roughly 250 core-hours per 100,000 photons that full optical tracking costs.
  • The position-dependent quantum detection efficiency means the veto and GRB-detection efficiency of the lateral walls is not uniform: about 8% higher directly in front of the SiPMs and about 2% lower in adjacent corners, which should enter sensitivity calculations.
  • The bottom Z-crystals are predicted to have a lower effective energy threshold (about 60-69 keV if the X-wall threshold is 80 keV), so faint transients below the nominal 80 keV threshold may still be detectable in the bottom ACS.
  • Single-value energy calibrations bias the measured energy of events by up to about +22% in front of the SiPMs and -5% in adjacent corners at 487 keV; the correction matrix removes this bias when applied to simulated data.
  • The resolution model parameters from the benchmark imply that below about 100 keV the electronic noise term is comparable to the statistical light-production term, so low-energy ACS performance is limited by the SiPM electronics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 5 m absorption length and 21 keV noise remain valid for the smaller Z-crystals, the predicted threshold reductions imply the flight ACS may veto and trigger on events that a fixed 80 keV threshold would have missed; a dedicated laboratory measurement of a Z-crystal with 241Am or 109Cd would test this directly.
  • The same benchmarking recipe (collimated scans plus a few uncollimated lines, then a fitted correction matrix) transfers to any segmented scintillator veto, not only COSI, and could shorten calibration campaigns for future gamma-ray instruments.
  • The paper leaves the angular dependence of the SiPM photon detection efficiency unmodeled; near the edges of the crystals or at oblique incidences this could introduce a position-dependent bias of similar order to the 10% spatial response discrepancy, and it is testable by rotating the collimated beam.
  • The roughly 8% efficiency enhancement near the SiPMs acts like a spatially structured effective area, which could slightly modulate the GRB localization accuracy derived from comparing count rates among panels, a systematic effect worth quantifying in the transient pipeline.
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. The paper reports Geant4 optical-physics simulations of the COSI Anticoincidence System (ACS) BGO X-wall, benchmarked against laboratory calibration data from two campaigns (NRL and SSL). The authors tune two free parameters, the BGO absorption length (5 m) and an electronic-noise smearing (21 keV), and find maximum discrepancies of about 10% in the relative spatial response and 20% in the energy resolution over 60-1836 keV. They then use the tuned simulation to build a position- and energy-dependent correction matrix for the lateral ACS wall, reporting position-dependent centroid shifts up to ~22%, a quantum detection efficiency enhanced by ~8% near the SiPMs, and then apply the model to predict energy-threshold reductions of 14-25% and resolution improvements of 5-8% for the smaller bottom Z-crystals.

Significance. If the benchmarking were an independent validation, the paper would provide a valuable, computationally cheap Detector Effects Engine input for COSI, replacing explicit optical-photon tracking in standard MEGAlib simulations. The work's strengths are the detailed modeling of the experimental mass model, the use of two independent calibration campaigns, the transparent listing of simulation parameters in Table 3, and the clearly stated residuals for both the spatial response and the energy resolution. The Z-crystal threshold predictions are concrete and falsifiable in future calibration tests. The central limitation is that the two tuned parameters are adjusted to the very measurements used to define the agreement, so the reported 10% and 20% discrepancies are fit residuals rather than predictive errors. The paper is honest about this and about the planned further campaigns, but the abstract's claim that the simulations 'replicate' the experimental response overstates what has actually been demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.3, Table 3] The benchmarking procedure is not an independent validation. The BGO absorption length is selected in Sec. 3.3 as the 'optimal trade-off' that keeps both the relative-response residual and the energy-resolution residual within the 20% target, and the electronic noise (21 keV) is taken directly from the experimental value of the parameter a obtained by fitting Eq. (2) to the same energy-resolution data. Adding a Gaussian of that width to the simulated energies forces the simulated 'a' term to agree with the experimental one, so the reported maximum discrepancies of 10% and 20% are residuals of a two-parameter fit, not genuine prediction errors. Because these same two parameters are then used to build the correction matrix in Sec. 4 and the Z-crystal predictions in Sec. 5, the headline statement that the simulations 'replicate' the experimental response is not supported as stated. I recommend either performing a held-out validation (for example, tuning on one calibration campaign or source subset and testing on the other) or explicitly reframing the claim as a tuned interpolation with quantified uncertainty from the tuning parameters.
  2. [Sec. 4, Sec. 5, Conclusions] The correction matrix and the bottom-ACS predictions rest on an extrapolation beyond the benchmarked domain. The laboratory benchmark covers 60-1836 keV and a single 198x118x23 mm X-wall crystal, while the correction matrix is constructed for energies up to 10 MeV and the Z-crystal study changes the crystal geometry. The manuscript itself states in Sec. 4 and the Conclusions that additional simulation campaigns and further calibration data are planned and that the characterization is not yet fully validated. Given that the two free parameters were tuned to the same benchmark data, the current measurements provide no constraint on the model at 10 MeV or for the Z-crystal geometries. The predicted ~22% centroid shifts, ~8% efficiency enhancement, and 14-25% threshold reductions should be presented as model predictions with unquantified systematic uncertainty, or they should be supported by a dedicated validation measurement, such as a high-energy laboratory run or a comparison of the correction matrix against a second crystal.
  3. [Sec. 3.3.2, Fig. 13] The simulated and experimental energy-resolution models disagree in a way that is directly relevant to the position-dependence claim in Sec. 4. With electronic noise included, the simulated fit gives c = 0.06 ± 0.01, while the experimental fit gives c = 0.007 ± 0.004; the inhomogeneity term is experimentally negligible but is significant in the simulation. The paper does not explain this discrepancy, which is concerning because the correction matrix in Sec. 4 relies on the simulated position-dependent light collection. The 3-sigma discrepancy for the 511 keV line, attributed to Doppler broadening, is also left unmodeled. The authors should quantify how these discrepancies propagate into the correction-matrix parameters and the Z-crystal threshold predictions, or restrict the claims of agreement to the energy ranges where the model is actually consistent with data.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4, Fig. 21] The text states that the optical-physics correction enhances the quantum detection efficiency by at most ~8% close to the SiPMs and suppresses it by ~2% in the adjacent corners, but the color bar of the right panel of Fig. 21 spans only -6% to 6%. Please check whether the color scale is truncated or the text values are inconsistent.
  2. [Sec. 3.2.3, footnote 3] The footnote says 'Simulating 100000 photons at 511 keV requires approximately 250 core-hour'; this should read 'events' or 'primary particles' rather than 'photons', since each 511 keV photon generates thousands of optical photons.
  3. [Sec. 3.1.4] The parameter c in Eq. (2) is described as representing the position dependence of light transmission, but the experimental fit gives a value consistent with zero and the text calls this contribution negligible. A brief physical explanation of why c is so small would help the reader interpret the simulation's much larger c in Sec. 3.3.2.
  4. [Sec. 3.3.1, Fig. 11] The error bars in Fig. 11 include a systematic uncertainty that the authors later argue may be underestimated ('8 mm' in Sec. 3.3.1 and Fig. B4). Since the claim of agreement with the spatial response depends on this systematic assumption, state clearly in the main text which version of the error bars is used for the headline 10% maximum discrepancy.
  5. [Sec. 4, Fig. 18] The Gaussian fits used to extract centroids and FWHMs are shown for one spatial bin; for the large number of spatial and energy bins, the goodness of fit is not reported. Adding a representative chi-squared or residual summary would strengthen confidence in the five-parameter correction-matrix model.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The energy-resolution benchmark is partly self-referential: the electronic-noise parameter is taken from the same experimental resolution data, and the BGO absorption length is tuned to keep the same benchmark residuals under 20%, so the headline discrepancies are fit residuals rather than independent prediction errors.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.3 (Table 3) and Sec. 3.3.2 (Fig. 13), with Eq. (2) from Sec. 3.1.4]
    "We therefore incorporate the electronic noise in the simulation by adding a Gaussian smearing to the simulated energies, with a FWHM corresponding to the experimental value of a ≃ 21 keV. ... With the inclusion of the electronic noise, the new best-fit parameters are: a = 20.77 ± 0.69, b = 2.63 ± 0.06 and c = 0.06 ± 0.01. While b and c remain largely unchanged, the value of a increases significantly, becoming consistent with its experimental counterpart."

    In Eq. (2), R = sqrt(a^2 + b^2 E + c^2 E^2)/E, and the paper states that 'a describes the limiting electronic resolution.' The experimental value a = 20.98 ± 1.19 is obtained by fitting the same SSL/NRL energy-resolution data. Injecting a Gaussian of that width into the simulated energies and then refitting Eq. (2) forces the simulation's 'a' term to match the experimental one by quadrature construction. Therefore the 'particularly at low energies' agreement and the headline maximum 20% discrepancy in energy resolution are partly a restatement of an input copied from the target data, not an independent prediction. The b and c terms do retain some independent content because they differ from the experimental values, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.3 Simulation benchmarking, parameter selection for BGO absorption length]
    "The results presented in this section are based on simulations using a BGO absorption length of 5 m, selected as the optimal trade-off between agreement with collimated and uncollimated source measurements. ... We carried out this trade-off with the goal of limiting the discrepancy with the experiment to approximately 20%."

    The BGO absorption length is listed as a free parameter (Table 3) and is tuned so that both the relative-response and energy-resolution residuals stay within the chosen ~20% target. The paper then presents a 'maximum discrepancy of 20%' for energy resolution and '~10%' for relative response as evidence that the simulations 'replicate' the measurements. Those maxima are effectively the selection criteria used to choose 5 m, so they are residuals of a fit rather than out-of-sample prediction errors. The same tuned value is propagated into the Sec. 4 correction matrix and the Sec. 5 Z-crystal threshold predictions, meaning any bias absorbed by the absorption-length choice is invisible to the benchmark.

full rationale

The central benchmark claim is partially circular, but not wholly. Two free parameters—the BGO absorption length and the electronic noise—are set using the very experimental data that the paper then cites as evidence of agreement. The electronic-noise case is the clearest: the experimental resolution model defines 'a' as the electronic contribution, the simulation has no electronics, and the authors add Gaussian smearing with FWHM equal to that same experimental 'a', after which the simulated 'a' becomes consistent with the experimental value. The resulting low-energy agreement is therefore partly forced by construction. The absorption-length choice is similarly selected to keep both benchmark residuals below 20%, so the 20% and 10% success metrics are partly fit residuals. Importantly, the paper is transparent about these choices and about the planned follow-up: it states that 'we plan to launch further simulation campaigns to gather more statistics and extend the analysis to other BGO crystals, including the bottom crystals,' and that 'Future work will build on these results as we continue benchmarking simulations against new calibration data.' No load-bearing self-citation chain is present: BoGEMMS-HPC is cited as a framework, not as a uniqueness theorem, and the optical parameters other than the two tuned ones are taken from independent literature. The Sec. 4 correction matrix and Sec. 5 bottom-crystal threshold predictions are genuine applications of the tuned model rather than algebraic restatements of the input data, which is why the circularity score is moderate rather than severe. Score 4 reflects partial circularity: the validation metrics are not fully independent, but the correction matrix and Z-crystal predictions retain substantial independent modeling content.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The main tunable content is the BGO absorption length and electronic noise, both fitted to the same laboratory data used for benchmarking. The correction matrix parameters are fitted to simulation outputs and inherit the underlying optical and electronic assumptions.

free parameters (3)
  • BGO absorption length = 5 m (range 4-6 m considered)
    Chosen in Sec. 3.3 as the optimal trade-off between matching collimated relative response and energy resolution; uncertainty of about +/-1 m. It directly controls light collection uniformity and photopeak width.
  • Electronic noise = ~21 keV FWHM
    Set to the experimental a parameter from Eq. (2) and added as Gaussian smearing in the simulation (Sec. 3.3); controls low-energy resolution.
  • Per-bin correction matrix parameters {mxy, qxy, axy, bxy, cxy} = One set per 20x10 spatial bin, across 8 energy bins
    Fitted to simulated Emeas versus Etrue distributions in Sec. 4 to encode centroid shift and FWHM; not tuned to experiment but carry all simulation assumptions.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption BGO scintillation parameters from literature are accurate for the flown crystals (light yield 8.2/keV, decay time 300 ns, emission spectrum, refractive index 2.15).
    Used in Sec. 3.2 and Table 3; if the actual crystals differ, optical photon statistics and transport change.
  • domain assumption The UNIFIED surface model with VM2000 as a perfectly specular 99% reflector and Tetratex as a diffuse 94% reflector represents the wrapped BGO.
    Sec. 3.2; boundary reflection directly affects the spatial light collection map.
  • domain assumption SiPM PDE depends only on wavelength and not on incidence angle; the manufacturer PDE at 2.5 V overvoltage is applied uniformly.
    Stated in Sec. 3.2 and footnote 2; angular dependence could alter the position-dependent response near the SiPMs.
  • domain assumption Electronic noise is Gaussian, energy-independent, and identical for all crystals including the Z-crystals.
    Used in Sec. 3.3 for smearing and assumed for bottom crystals in Sec. 5.
  • domain assumption The simulated mass model of each laboratory environment captures the dominant scattering materials; wood density and unmodeled objects are neglected.
    Sec. 3.3.2 and Fig. 14 discuss background components; authors acknowledge wood density uncertainty and absent objects.
  • domain assumption For Z-crystal threshold predictions, the photon-energy relation is linear over 60-122 keV and the same readout chain applies to smaller crystals.
    Sec. 5 uses three monochromatic beams and linear fits to extrapolate the 80 keV threshold.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Benchmarking of Geant4 simulations for the COSI Anticoincidence System." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2ACT4Z24

@misc{pith2026250721275,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Benchmarking of Geant4 simulations for the COSI Anticoincidence System},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2ACT4Z24}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21275}
}
abstract

The Compton Spectrometer and Imager (COSI) is an upcoming NASA Small Explorer satellite mission, designed for all-sky observations in the soft gamma-ray domain with the use of germanium detectors (GeDs). An active Anticoincidence System (ACS) of BGO scintillators surrounds the GeDs to reduce the background and contribute to the detection of transient events. Accurately modeling the ACS performance requires simulating the intricate scintillation processes within the shields, which significantly increases the computational cost. We have encoded these effects into a correction matrix derived from dedicated Geant4 simulations with the inclusion of the optical physics. For this purpose, we use laboratory measurements for the energy and spatial response of the ACS lateral wall to benchmark the simulation and define instrument parameters, including the BGO absorption length and the electronic noise. We demonstrate that the simulations replicate the experimental energy resolution and light collection uniformity along the BGO crystal, with maximum discrepancies of 20% and 10%, respectively. The validated simulations are then used to develop the correction matrix for the lateral wall, accounting for the light collection efficiency and energy resolution based on the position within the crystal. The gamma-ray quantum detection efficiency is also position-dependent via the inclusion of the optical physics. It is enhanced by $\sim$8% close to the SiPMs and suppressed by $\sim$2% in the adjacent corners with respect to the average value. Finally, we explore the energy threshold and resolution of the bottom ACS, considering the impact of its smaller crystals compared with the lateral walls.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B3 On the left, simulated BGO relative response at 662 keV for different BGO absorption lengths (4, 5, 6 m), compared with the experimental one

    Tomsick, J., Boggs, S., Zoglauer, A., Hartmann, D.H., Ajello, M., Burns, E., Fryer, C., Karwin, C., Kierans, C., Lowell, A., Malzac, J., Roberts, J., Saint-Hilaire, P., Shih, A., Siegert, T., Sleator, C., Takahashi, T., Tavecchio, F., Wulf, E., Beechert, J., Gulick, H., Joens, A., Lazar, H., Neights, E., Martinez Oliveros, J.C., Mat- sumoto, S., Melia, T....

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.12362 2024

  2. [2]

    INTEGRAL Spectrometer SPI's GRB detection capabilities. GRBs detected inside SPI's FoV and with the anticoincidence system ACS

    von Kienlin, A., Beckmann, V., Rau, A., Arend, N., Bennett, K., McBreen, B., Connell, P., Deluit, S., Hanlon, L., Hurley, K., Kippen, M., Lichti, G.G., Moran, L., Preece, R., Roques, J.-P., Sch¨ onfelder, V., Skinner, G., Strong, A., Williams, R.: INTEGRAL Spectrometer SPI’s GRB detection capabilities. GRBs detected inside SPI’s FoV and with the anticoinc...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  3. [3]

    Perotti, F., Fiorini, M., Incorvaia, S., Mattaini, E., Sant’Ambrogio, E.: The agile 29 anticoincidence detector. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 556(1), 228–236 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2005.10.016

    doi:10.1016/j.nima.2005.10.016 2006

  4. [4]

    Astrophys

    Connaughton, V., Briggs, M.S., Goldstein, A., Meegan, C.A., Paciesas, W.S., Preece, R.D., Wilson-Hodge, C.A., Gibby, M.H., Greiner, J., Gruber, D., Jenke, P., Kippen, R.M., Pelassa, V., Xiong, S., Yu, H.-F., Bhat, P.N., Burgess, J.M., Byrne, D., Fitzpatrick, G., Foley, S., Giles, M.M., Guiriec, S., van der Horst, A.J., von Kienlin, A., McBreen, S., McGlyn...

    arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    BurstCube: Concept, Performance, and Status

    Smith, J.: BurstCube: Mission Concept, Performance, and Status. In: 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2019). International Cosmic Ray Conference, vol. 36, p. 604 (2019). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1907.11069

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.11069 2019

  6. [6]

    Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 1031, 166510 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2022.166510 arXiv:2203.00695 [astro-ph.IM]

    Beechert, J., Lazar, H., Boggs, S.E., Brandt, T.J., Chang, Y.-C., Chu, C.- Y., Gulick, H., Kierans, C., Lowell, A., Pellegrini, N., Roberts, J.M., Siegert, T., Sleator, C., Tomsick, J.A., Zoglauer, A.: Calibrations of the Comp- ton Spectrometer and Imager. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 1031, 166510 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/j....

    work page arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Agostinelli, S., Allison, J., Amako, K., Apostolakis, J., Araujo, H., Arce, P., Asai, M., Axen, D., Banerjee, S., Barrand, G., Behner, F., Bellagamba, L., Boudreau, J., Broglia, L., Brunengo, A., Burkhardt, H., Chauvie, S., Chuma, J., Chy- tracek, R., Cooperman, G., Cosmo, G., Degtyarenko, P., Dell’Acqua, A., Depaola, G., Dietrich, D., Enami, R., Feliciel...

    2003

  8. [8]

    IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 53(1), 270–278 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2006.869826

    Allison, J., Amako, K., Apostolakis, J., Araujo, H., Arce Dubois, P., Asai, M., Barrand, G., Capra, R., Chauvie, S., Chytracek, R., Cirrone, G.A.P., Cooper- man, G., Cosmo, G., Cuttone, G., Daquino, G.G., Donszelmann, M., Dressel, M., Folger, G., Foppiano, F., Generowicz, J., Grichine, V., Guatelli, S., Gumplinger, P., Heikkinen, A., Hrivnacova, I., Howar...

    arXiv 2006

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 835, 186–225 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima

    Allison, J., Amako, K., Apostolakis, J., Arce, P., Asai, M., Aso, T., Bagli, E., Bagulya, A., Banerjee, S., Barrand, G., Beck, B.R., Bogdanov, A.G., Brandt, D., Brown, J.M.C., Burkhardt, H., Canal, P., Cano-Ott, D., Chauvie, S., Cho, K., Cirrone, G.A.P., Cooperman, G., Cort´ e...

    2016

  2. [10]

    New Astron

    Zoglauer, A., Andritschke, R., Schopper, F.: MEGAlib The Medium Energy Gamma-ray Astronomy Library. New Astron. Rev. 50(7-8), 629–632 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newar.2006.06.049

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 946, 162643 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2019.162643 arXiv:1911.02992 [astro-ph.IM]

    Sleator, C.C., Zoglauer, A., Lowell, A.W., Kierans, C.A., Pellegrini, N., Beechert, J., Boggs, S.E., Brandt, T.J., Lazar, H., Roberts, J.M., Siegert, 31 T., Tomsick, J.A.: Benchmarking simulations of the Compton Spectrometer and Imager with calibrations. Nuclear Instruments an...

    2019

  4. [12]

    Parmiggiani, N., et al. in prep

  5. [13]

    Experimental Astronomy 24(1-3), 47–88 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10686-008-9135-4 arXiv:0812.2908 [astro-ph]

    Bissaldi, E., von Kienlin, A., Lichti, G., Steinle, H., Bhat, P.N., Briggs, M.S., Fish- man, G.J., Hoover, A.S., Kippen, R.M., Krumrey, M., Gerlach, M., Connaughton, V., Diehl, R., Greiner, J., van der Horst, A.J., Kouveliotou, C., McBreen, S., Meegan, C.A., Paciesas, W.S., Pr...

    2009 arXiv

  6. [14]

    In: den Herder, J.-W.A., Nikzad, S., Nakazawa, K

    Ciabattoni, A., Fioretti, V., Tomsick, J., Zoglauer, A., Jean, P., Alvarez Franco, D., von Ballmoos, P., Bulgarelli, A., Vignali, C., Parmiggiani, N., Panebianco, G., Castaldini, L.: Towards a response function for the COSI anticoincidence system: preliminary results from Gean...

    2024

  7. [15]

    In: Holland, A.D., Beletic, J.W

    Bulgarelli, A., Fioretti, V., Malaguti, P., Trifoglio, M., Gianotti, F.: BoGEMMS: the Bologna Geant4 multi-mission simulator. In: Holland, A.D., Beletic, J.W. (eds.) High Energy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy V. Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineer...

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    arXiv e-prints, 1605–01792 (2016) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1605.01792 arXiv:1605.01792 [physics.comp-ph]

    Dotti, A., Asai, M., Barrand, G., Hrivnacova, I., Murakami, K.: Extending Geant4 Parallelism with External Libraries (MPI, TBB) and Its Use on HPC Resources. arXiv e-prints, 1605–01792 (2016) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1605.01792 arXiv:1605.01792 [physics.comp-ph]

    2016 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    Geant4-collaboration: Physics Reference Manual. (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 35(1), 105–109 (1988) https://doi.org/10.1109/23.12684

    Holl, I., Lorenz, E., Mageras, G.: A measurement of the light yield of common inor- ganic scintillators. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 35(1), 105–109 (1988) https://doi.org/10.1109/23.12684

    1988 doi

  11. [19]

    Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research 188(2), 403– 409 (1981) https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-554X(81)90521-8

    Moszy´ nski, M., Gresset, C., Vacher, J., Odru, R.: Timing properties of BGO scintillator. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research 188(2), 403– 409 (1981) https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-554X(81)90521-8

    1981 doi

  12. [20]

    Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 640(1), 91–98 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2011.03.013

    Akchurin, N., Bedeschi, F., Cardini, A., Cascella, M., Ciapetti, G., De Pedis, D., Fasoli, M., Ferrari, R., Franchino, S., Fraternali, M., Gaudio, G., Hauptman, J., 32 Incagli, M., Lacava, F., La Rotonda, L., Lee, S., Livan, M., Meoni, E., Negri, A., Pinci, D., Policicchio, A....

    2011

  13. [21]

    Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express 5(3), 035033 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1088/2057-1976/ ab0f93

    Roncali, E., Kwon, S.I., Jan, S., Berg, E., Cherry, S.R.: Cerenkov light transport in scintillation crystals explained: realistic simulation with gate. Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express 5(3), 035033 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1088/2057-1976/ ab0f93

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    In: 1996 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium

    Levin, A., Moisan, C.: A more physical approach to model the surface treatment of scintillation counters and its implementation into detect. In: 1996 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record, vol. 2, pp. 702–7062 (1996). https://doi. org/10.1109/NSSMIC.1996.591410

    1996

  15. [23]

    IEEE Trans- actions on Nuclear Science 59(3), 490–497 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS

    Janecek, M.: Reflectivity Spectra for Commonly Used Reflectors. IEEE Trans- actions on Nuclear Science 59(3), 490–497 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS. 2012.2183385

    2012

  16. [24]

    Williams, P.A., Rose, A.H., Day, G.W., Hale, P.D., Lee, K.S., Conrad, D.C.: Optical, thermo-optic, electro-optic, and photoelastic properties of bismuth ger- manate (Bi 4Ge3O12). Appl. Opt. 35(19), 3562–3569 (1996) https://doi.org/10. 1364/AO.35.003562

    1996

  17. [25]

    Nakarmi, P., Ostrovskiy, I., Soma, A.K., Reti` ere, F., Al Kharusi, S., Alfaris, M., Anton, G., Arnquist, I.J., Badhrees, I., Barbeau, P.S., Beck, D., Belov, V., Bhatta, T., Blatchford, J., Breur, P.A., Brodsky, J.P., Brown, E., Brunner, T., Byrne Mamahit, S., Caden, E., Cao, ...

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Dorosz, P., Baszczyk, M., Glab, S., Kucewicz, W., Mik, L., Sapor, M.: Silicon photomultiplier’s gain stabilization by bias correction for compensation of the temperature fluctuations. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, D...

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    Jurnal Teknologi 77 (2015) https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v77.6860

    Ishak, N., Bakar, M., Abd Rahman, M., Rasib, A., Kanniah, K., Lau, A., Razak, K.: Estimating single tree stem and branch biomass using terrestrial laser scanning. Jurnal Teknologi 77 (2015) https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v77.6860

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    do Nascimento, E., Helene, O., Takiya, C., Vanin, V.R.: Doppler broadening of positron annihilation radiation: fitting the coincidence spectrum. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spec- trometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 538...

    2005 doi

Pith tools

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