arxiv: 2604.05893 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · ⚛️ physics.ins-det · hep-ex

Recognition: no theorem link

A Data-Driven Fast Simulation Approach for MAPS-based Detectors and their Optimization

Dumitru Vlad Berlea , Lucian Fasselt , Prafulla Behera , Daniela Bortoletto , Craig Buttar , Theertha Chembakan , Valerio Dao , Ganapati Dash

show 16 more authors

Sebastian Haberl Tomohiro Inada Fuat Kerem Isik Cigdem Issever Xuan Li Long Li Heinz Pernegger Petra Riedler Walter Snoeys Carlos Solans S\'anchez Anna Swoboda Ilkay Turk Cakir Milou van Rijnbach Anusree Vijay Julian Weick Steven Worm

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.ins-det hep-ex

keywords monolithic active pixel sensorspixel detector simulationdata-driven modelingMALTA sensorCMOS imaging processdetector optimizationhit merger

0 comments

The pith

A parametric simulation generates realistic pixel responses in MAPS detectors using only measurement data, without manufacturing process details.

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

The paper presents a simulation tool that builds a parametric model of pixel sensor behavior directly from experimental measurements. This replaces the need for detailed Technology Computer-Aided Design simulations that require proprietary process information. The approach is fast enough for large detector systems and high hit rates, and it is used to study periphery modifications on the MALTA2 sensor for the upcoming MALTA3 redesign. A sympathetic reader would care because the method lets designers iterate on sensor layouts and operating conditions more quickly and openly.

Core claim

A parametric simulation tool is presented that generates a realistic pixel response purely from measurement input for the MALTA2 monolithic active pixel sensor produced in the Tower 180 nm CMOS process. The tool is validated against data and then applied to evaluate changes to the hit merger and other periphery elements in order to optimize performance for tracking and calorimetry ahead of the MALTA3 redesign in the 65 nm process.

What carries the argument

The parametric model fitted to beam-test and other measurement data from the MALTA2 sensor, which reproduces charge collection and hit response for varied bias, threshold, and design choices.

If this is right

The simulation allows virtual testing of hit-merger modifications before fabrication.
Performance predictions become available for high hit-rate environments without running full TCAD.
Optimized sensor parameters for tracking and calorimetry can be identified faster than with process-dependent tools.
The same measurement-driven workflow supports redesigns across the 180 nm to 65 nm transition.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The method could shorten the design cycle for other MAPS-based detectors by letting teams test layout variants with existing measurement setups.
If the model generalizes across processes, it may reduce reliance on foundry-specific information in future collider experiments.
Extending the parametric fit to include radiation damage data would let the tool address long-term detector operation.

Load-bearing premise

The parametric model fitted to measurements from one sensor configuration will accurately predict responses for modified periphery designs and different operating conditions in the MALTA3 redesign.

What would settle it

Beam-test measurements of hit efficiency, time resolution, or cluster size on a fabricated MALTA3 prototype with the proposed periphery changes, compared directly to the simulation output under the same conditions.

read the original abstract

A parametric simulation tool for pixel sensors is presented. A realistic pixel response is simulated purely based on measurement input, without requiring detailed knowledge of the underlying manufacturing process. As such, it provides an efficient alternative to the use of Technology Computer-Aided Design simulations, which typically depend on proprietary process information. Due to its parametric approach, the package is fast and thus particularly useful for larger detector systems and high hit rate environments. This work presents measurements, simulation and its validation for the MALTA2 sensor. It is a small collection electrode monolithic active pixel sensor produced in the Tower 180nm Complementary Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor imaging process. Modifications to the sensor's periphery, mainly in the hit merger, are studied in order to optimize the performance for tracking and calorimetry. This optimization is of special interest as part of the MALTA3 sensor redesign in the 65nm Tower Partners Semiconductor Co. process.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives a practical measurement-based simulator for MALTA pixels that speeds up design work within one process node, but the MALTA3 predictions rest on untested parameter transfer to 65 nm.

read the letter

The core contribution is a parametric tool that builds a pixel response model directly from measurements on the MALTA2 sensor in the 180 nm Tower process. It avoids TCAD and proprietary process details, runs fast, and is applied to study hit-merger changes aimed at better tracking and calorimetry performance. The authors validate the model against MALTA2 data and then use it to explore periphery tweaks for the upcoming MALTA3 redesign in 65 nm. That combination of data-driven fitting and concrete optimization steps is the main new element here. It is useful because many groups lack full TCAD access and need quick iterations on sensor layouts for high-rate environments. The validation on the existing sensor gives a reasonable check that the parametric form can reproduce measured responses without fitting internal physics parameters. The approach is straightforward and the application to hit-merger optimization produces specific design suggestions that could be tested in hardware. The main limitation is the jump to MALTA3. The fitted parameters come from 180 nm data, yet the redesign moves to a different technology node with altered doping profiles and well geometries. No measurements on 65 nm prototypes are described, so the optimization results for MALTA3 depend on the assumption that the same parameters capture the relevant charge-collection and timing behavior across nodes. If process-specific effects matter more than the model allows, those predictions could shift. The paper would benefit from clearer discussion of that assumption and any planned cross-checks. This work is aimed at instrumentation teams developing MAPS for HEP tracking or calorimetry. Readers already following MALTA or similar monolithic sensors will find the method and the specific periphery studies directly relevant. It is solid enough on its own terms to deserve a serious referee, mainly to check the quantitative agreement metrics and to press on the cross-node transferability. I would send it to peer review rather than desk reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a parametric, data-driven simulation framework for monolithic active pixel sensors (MAPS) that generates realistic pixel responses directly from experimental measurements, without requiring detailed TCAD simulations or proprietary process information. It validates the model on the MALTA2 sensor fabricated in the Tower 180 nm CMOS process and applies it to optimize periphery modifications (primarily the hit merger) for improved tracking and calorimetry performance, with the results intended to inform the MALTA3 redesign in the 65 nm Tower process.

Significance. If the parametric model's transferability holds, the approach would provide a computationally efficient and accessible alternative to TCAD for rapid detector optimization in high-energy physics, particularly for large systems and high-rate environments. The data-driven nature and validation on MALTA2 represent a practical strength, enabling design studies that bypass manufacturing details.

major comments (2)

[Section describing MALTA3 optimization and periphery modifications] Optimization studies for MALTA3 redesign: The parametric model is fitted exclusively to MALTA2 180 nm measurement data, yet the central optimization results target periphery modifications and performance predictions for the MALTA3 sensor in the 65 nm node. No measurements, validation datasets, or cross-checks from 65 nm prototypes are presented to support transferability of the fitted parameters across technology nodes, where doping profiles, well geometries, and charge-collection physics differ. This assumption is load-bearing for the redesign claims.
[Validation and results section] Validation scope (results section): While the model reproduces MALTA2 responses, the manuscript does not quantify how well the parametric form captures variations in operating conditions or hit rates that would be relevant to the MALTA3 use case. Without such tests, the extrapolation risk remains unaddressed.

minor comments (2)

[Figures in validation section] Figure captions and legends: Several comparison plots between measurement and simulation lack quantitative metrics (e.g., chi-squared or residual distributions) to allow readers to assess agreement beyond visual inspection.
[Method section] Notation: The definition of the parametric response function should be stated explicitly with all free parameters listed, even if they are determined from data, to improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, with revisions made where feasible to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Optimization studies for MALTA3 redesign: The parametric model is fitted exclusively to MALTA2 180 nm measurement data, yet the central optimization results target periphery modifications and performance predictions for the MALTA3 sensor in the 65 nm node. No measurements, validation datasets, or cross-checks from 65 nm prototypes are presented to support transferability of the fitted parameters across technology nodes, where doping profiles, well geometries, and charge-collection physics differ. This assumption is load-bearing for the redesign claims.

Authors: We acknowledge that the model parameters are derived solely from MALTA2 180 nm data and that direct validation on 65 nm devices is not possible at this stage, as MALTA3 remains in the design phase with no prototypes yet available. The optimization targets modifications to the hit merger in the sensor periphery, which primarily concerns digital hit processing, timing, and data merging logic rather than the analog charge-collection physics that is most sensitive to technology node differences. In the revised manuscript we have added an explicit subsection in the discussion clarifying these assumptions, the scope of applicability, and the need for future validation once 65 nm prototypes exist. The presented results are therefore intended as design guidance rather than final performance predictions for the 65 nm implementation. revision: partial
Referee: Validation scope (results section): While the model reproduces MALTA2 responses, the manuscript does not quantify how well the parametric form captures variations in operating conditions or hit rates that would be relevant to the MALTA3 use case. Without such tests, the extrapolation risk remains unaddressed.

Authors: We have expanded the validation section to include quantitative assessments of the model under varied operating conditions (bias voltage, temperature) and across a range of simulated hit rates up to those expected in high-rate MALTA3 environments. New figures and metrics (hit efficiency, timing resolution, and occupancy as functions of these parameters) have been added to demonstrate robustness and to address extrapolation concerns for the intended use case. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved

Direct experimental validation of parameter transferability on 65 nm MALTA3 prototypes, as no such devices have been fabricated yet.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; simulation is explicitly measurement-driven from external data

full rationale

The paper's core method fits a parametric model directly to measured pixel responses from the MALTA2 sensor and uses it for simulation and optimization studies. No derivation step reduces a claimed prediction or first-principles result to the fitted inputs by construction, nor does any load-bearing premise rest on self-citation chains or imported uniqueness theorems. The extrapolation assumption to MALTA3 is a transferability claim (correctness risk) rather than a circular reduction. The approach remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are described; the model is asserted to be purely measurement-based.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5562 in / 1093 out tokens · 26480 ms · 2026-05-10T18:33:33.473933+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

JINST14(05), 05013 (2019) https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1748-0221/14/05/C05013

Munker, M.,et al.: Simulations of CMOS pixel sensors with a small collection elec- trode, improved for a faster charge col- lection and increased radiation tolerance. JINST14(05), 05013 (2019) https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1748-0221/14/05/C05013

work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/14/05/c05013 2019
[2]

NIMA1073, 170227 (2025) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2025.170227

Wennl¨ of, H.,et al.: Simulating mono- lithic active pixel sensors: A technology- independent approach using generic doping profiles. NIMA1073, 170227 (2025) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2025.170227

work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2025.170227 2025
[3]

Aad, G., et al.: The ATLAS Inner Detector commissioning and calibration. Eur. Phys. J. C70(787-821) (2010) https://doi.org/10. 1140/epjc/s10052-010-1366-7

2010
[4]

EPJ Web of Conferences316, 07003 (2025) https://doi

Li, X.,et al.: Fast timing silicon R&D for the future electron-ion collider. EPJ Web of Conferences316, 07003 (2025) https://doi. org/10.1051/epjconf/202531607003

work page doi:10.1051/epjconf/202531607003 2025
[5]

IEEE Trans

Piro, F., et al.: A 1µW radiation-hard front- end in a 0.18µm CMOS process for the MALTA2 monolithic sensor. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.69(6) (2022) https://doi.org/10. 1109/TNS.2022.3170729

work page arXiv 2022
[6]

JINST18(03), 03011 (2023) https:// doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/18/03/C03011

Gustavino, G.,et al.: Timing performance of radiation hard MALTA monolithic pixel sen- sors. JINST18(03), 03011 (2023) https:// doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/18/03/C03011

work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/18/03/c03011 2023
[7]

JINST15(02), 02005 (2020) https:// doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/15/02/P02005

Dyndal, M.,et al.: Mini-MALTA: radiation hard pixel designs for small-electrode mono- lithic CMOS sensors for the High Luminosity LHC. JINST15(02), 02005 (2020) https:// doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/15/02/P02005

work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/02/p02005 2020
[8]

IEEE Trans

Berlea, D.,et al.: Radiation Hardness of MALTA2, a Monolithic Active Pixel Sen- sor for Tracking Applications. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.70(10), 2303–2309 (2023) https: //doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2023.3313721

work page doi:10.1109/tns.2023.3313721 2023
[9]

Design of the Global Reconstruction Logic in the Belle II Level-1 Trigger system

Fasselt, L.,et al.: Charge reconstruction from binary hit data on irradiated MALTA2 Czochralski sensors. NIMA1080, 170747 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2025. 17 170747

work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2025 2025
[10]

NIMA1082, 170972 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2025.170972

Fasselt, L.,et al.: Charge calibra- tion of MALTA2, a radiation hard depleted monolithic active pixel sen- sor. NIMA1082, 170972 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2025.170972

work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2025.170972 2026
[11]

NIMA1063, 169262 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2024.169262

Berlea, D.V.,et al.: Depletion depth studies with the MALTA2 sensor, a depleted monolithic active pixel sensor. NIMA1063, 169262 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2024.169262

work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2024.169262 2024
[12]

Instrum.11, 05018 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/ 11/05/C05018

Fasselt, L.,et al.: Charge collection parame- terization of MALTA2, a depleted monolithic active pixel sensor. JINST21(04), 04001 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/ 21/04/C04001

work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/ 2026
[13]

GEANT4 — a simulation toolkit

Agostinelli, S.,et al.: Geant4—a simulation toolkit. NIMA506(3), 250–303 (2003) https: //doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8

work page doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(03)01368-8 2003
[14]

van Rijnbach, M.,et al.: Radiation hardness of MALTA2 monolithic CMOS imaging sen- sors on Czochralski substrates. Eur. Phys. J. C84(3), 251 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1140/ epjc/s10052-024-12601-3 arXiv:2308.13231

work page arXiv 2024
[15]

van Rijnbach, M.,et al.: Performance of the MALTA Telescope. Eur. Phys. J. C 83(7), 581 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1140/ epjc/s10052-023-11760-z arXiv:2304.01104

work page arXiv 2023
[16]

Kiehn, M., et al.: Proteus beam tele- scope reconstruction (2019) https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.2586736

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.2586736 2019
[17]

PoSVER TEX2025, 034 (2025) https://doi.org/10.22323/1.513.0034

Ripamonti, G.: Monolithic active pixel sen- sors based on the TPSCo 65 nm imaging CMOS technology: an overview of results and future challenges. PoSVER TEX2025, 034 (2025) https://doi.org/10.22323/1.513.0034

work page doi:10.22323/1.513.0034 2025
[18]

Colaleo, A.,et al.: The 2021 ECFA Detec- tor Research and Development Roadmap, (2021)

2021
[19]

Sensors22(18) (2022) https://doi

Allport, P., et al.: DECAL: A Reconfigurable Monolithic Active Pixel Sensor for Tracking and Calorimetry in a 180 nm Image Sensor Process. Sensors22(18) (2022) https://doi. org/10.3390/s22186848 18

work page doi:10.3390/s22186848 2022