Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Long-Delayed Afterpulse Measurement of JUNO 20-inch Photomultiplier Tubes

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Pith's one-line read JUNO's 20-inch photomultiplier tubes emit long-delayed afterpulses out to 20 ms, and the amount of delayed charge scales linearly with the size of the primary flash.

desk verdict A solid, honest measurement of long-delayed afterpulses: timing features are robust, but per-PE yields need a quantified linearity systematic before they are used in JUNO background modeling. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01943 v1 pith:OQMQYAT2 submitted 2026-08-03 hep-ex

classification hep-ex PACS 85.60.Ha
keywords photomultipliertubesafterpulselong-delayedafterpulsesJUNOMCP-PMTdynodePMTdetectorcharacterizationsliding-windowreadout
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

Large photomultiplier tubes (PMTs), the vacuum light sensors of the JUNO liquid-scintillator detector, continue to emit small secondary pulses, or afterpulses, for tens of milliseconds after a bright flash, not just in the few-microsecond range usually studied. This paper measures those long-delayed afterpulses in the two 20-inch PMT types used by JUNO—a dynode tube and a microchannel-plate (MCP) tube—and shows that their delay structure is different for the two designs: a broad component peaking near 260 $\mu$s for the dynode tube, and components near 90 $\mu$s, 550 $\mu$s, and a broad millisecond-scale tail for the MCP tube. The per-photoelectron yields in the microsecond-to-millisecond windows are at the $10^{-3}$ level and rise approximately linearly with primary light intensity, so after a high-energy event the accumulated delayed charge is sizeable. Understanding this instrumental response matters because delayed physics signals, such as neutron-capture gamma rays at about $220\,\mu$s after a cosmic muon, sit in exactly the time range where these afterpulses appear.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the long-window waveform readout combined with a per-photoelectron normalization. A direct 1.8 ms digitized window captures the first part of the delay spectrum, and a sliding-window strategy—driving the LED at a 20 ms period and the digitizer trigger at 20.01 ms, so the relative phase drifts—lets short 10 $\mu$s snapshots tile the full 20 ms delay axis while keeping 1 GS/s sampling. Afterpulse candidates are found by subtracting an averaged primary-pulse template (which removes the large-signal baseline undershoot and recovery), applying a fixed 3 mV threshold, and subtracting a uniform pre-peak dark-noise level. The primary photoelectron number is obtained from the integrated primary-pulse charge divided by the single-photoelectron charge from SPE calibration. This combination is what turns raw waveforms into time profiles and per-primary-PE yields.

What would settle it

Record the same LED-triggered PMT signal with a deep-memory oscilloscope capturing one contiguous 20 ms window and compare the reconstructed afterpulse profile and the 2–20 ms integrated probability with the sliding-window result; if the ~260 μs dynode peak, the ~90 μs MCP peak, and the ~$10^{-4}$ late probabilities do not reproduce, the extended profiles are a readout artefact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that long-delayed afterpulse components, previously seen only as short few-microsecond features in these tubes, extend to tens of milliseconds and are quantitatively non-negligible. In the 1.8 ms direct window, the authors identify a broad dynode afterpulse component peaking at about 260 $\mu$s, a pronounced MCP component near 90 $\mu$s, a weaker MCP structure near 550 $\mu$s, and, from the sliding-window extension to 20 ms, a small broadly distributed millisecond-scale component—centered near 6.9 ms for the MCP tube—whose integrated probability in the 2–20 ms window is $(7.01\pm0.36)\times10^{-5}$ per primary photoelectron for the dynode tube and $(2.23\pm0.15)\times10^{-4}$ for the MCP tube. The normalized yields in the selected 10 $\mu$s–1.8 ms windows are at the $10^{-3}$ level per primary photoelectron and increase approximately linearly with primary light intensity, demonstrating that these delayed pulses are correlated with the primary signal and not with dark noise.

Load-bearing premise

The primary pulse's photoelectron count is obtained by dividing its integrated charge by the single-photoelectron charge, which assumes the PMT and readout chain stay linear up to roughly $2\times10^4$ photoelectrons; if large-signal nonlinearity is significant there, every per-photoelectron yield is scaled wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • JUNO's reconstruction of neutron-capture signals after cosmic muons must include a correlated charge component from these afterpulses; the dynode peak near 260 μs falls close to the about 220 μs hydrogen-capture time.
  • Muon veto windows must be long enough or supplemented with afterpulse models: the MCP tube still shows afterpulses with a mean delay of 6.9 ms, so a veto of a few milliseconds will not clean the detector.
  • Because yields grow linearly with primary light intensity, the delayed background scales with event size; the largest signals produce proportionally more long-delayed activity.
  • PMT response simulations for JUNO should assign different long-delay spectra to dynode and MCP PMTs rather than one generic afterpulse shape.
  • The sliding-window readout offers a way to characterize long-delayed PMT afterpulses in other detectors whose digitizers cannot store millisecond-long contiguous waveforms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the hundreds-of-microsecond peaks are ion time-of-flight features, their centroids should move with the applied high voltage; a voltage scan that leaves the 90 μs and 260 μs peaks fixed would instead point to delayed electron emission or optical feedback.
  • The approximately linear intensity dependence suggests the ion-production probability per avalanche is roughly constant over the probed range; extending the measurement to lower intensities would check whether a threshold or saturation effect appears near the single-photon limit.
  • For future large detectors, these results imply that afterpulse contamination can be reduced at the source by choosing PMTs whose long-delayed components are smallest in the physics-critical windows—an optimization that the difference between the dynode and MCP patterns makes possible.
  • If the same sliding-window analysis were applied to LED-off or low-rate data from the running JUNO detector itself, it could turn the detector's own muon events into a large-statistics check of these laboratory yields.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a dedicated measurement of long-delayed afterpulses in two types of JUNO 20-inch PMTs: an HPK R12860 dynode PMT and an NNVT GDB-6201 MCP-PMT. Using high-intensity LED illumination (about 10^4 PE) and a 1.8 ms digitizer window, the authors reconstruct afterpulse time profiles after template subtraction and dark-noise subtraction. They observe a broad component peaking near 260 us in the dynode PMT and components near 90 us and 550 us plus a millisecond-scale tail in the MCP-PMT. A sliding-window readout extends the effective profile to 20 ms. Afterpulse yields in selected windows from 10 us to 1.8 ms are fitted to linear functions of the primary PE number, giving slopes at the 10^-3 level per primary PE, and integrated probabilities in the 2.0-20.0 ms window are reported. The authors discuss possible physical origins and explicitly acknowledge limitations from large-signal nonlinearity and gain suppression.

Significance. If the quantitative results hold, this is a valuable contribution to JUNO background modeling and to PMT characterization more generally. The timing features are robust: they appear in both the direct 1.8 ms window and the sliding-window data, and the LED-off subtraction and template subtraction are carefully implemented. The observed difference between dynode and MCP structures is a clean, falsifiable result. However, the absolute yields are not yet anchored to a stated systematic scale, because the primary-PE normalization relies on large-signal linearity that is acknowledged but not quantified, and the fixed 3 mV threshold imposes an amplitude-dependent detection efficiency. The paper would be strengthened by bounding these systematics or by scaling back the quantitative claims accordingly. The authors are to be credited for clearly separating the robust timing conclusions from the more uncertain yield normalization.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3 and Sec. 5.1] The primary-PE normalization is obtained by dividing the integrated primary-pulse charge by the mean SPE charge, assuming linear response up to about 2.8e4 PE for the dynode PMT and 1.8e4 PE for the MCP-PMT. The authors cite dedicated JUNO linearity measurements in Ref. [34] showing measurable charge nonlinearity in this regime and state that this could bias the yield normalization, but they do not quantify the effect. Since Table 2 and the integrated probabilities in Sec. 4.3 are central quantitative results, the paper should either propagate a systematic uncertainty from the measured nonlinearity curve in Ref. [34] or perform an explicit linearity check. Without this, the per-PE yields are not anchored to a stated systematic scale.
  2. [Sec. 3 and Table 2] The fixed 3 mV reconstruction threshold (0.6-0.67 times the mean SPE amplitude) is a hand-chosen value that directly affects the measured afterpulse yields. For the MCP-PMT, the additional ALD-related gain suppression after large signals, acknowledged in Sec. 5.1, can push small afterpulses below threshold and bias the yield low. The paper should provide a threshold scan or an efficiency correction based on the SPE amplitude distribution, and it should quantify the gain-suppression effect using the references cited. This is load-bearing for the absolute yield values and the linear dependence shown in Fig. 8.
  3. [Sec. 2.2 and Sec. 4.3] The sliding-window phase reconstruction is not fully specified. The text states that the delay axis was reconstructed according to the trigger sequence and that time stamps were used to identify missing triggers, but it does not explain how the absolute phase offset is anchored (for example, using events where the primary pulse appears in the window) or how missing triggers are handled in the phase assignment. If a trigger is missed, the phase offset for subsequent events would shift by 10 us, and without correction this would smear the reconstructed delay profile and bias the integrated probabilities in the 2.0-20.0 ms window. A detailed description of the phase reconstruction algorithm and the treatment of missing triggers, along with an estimate of the resulting timing uncertainty, is needed to support the 20 ms results.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3] The phrase 'pre-peak region' is used to estimate the residual background level, but the exact time range of this region is not defined; please specify the delay interval used for the background subtraction.
  2. [Fig. 8] The lower panels show relative deviations from the linear fits, but the error bars on the deviations are not displayed; please include them or state that the deviations are shown without uncertainties.
  3. [Table 2] The caption states no systematic uncertainties are included, but it would be clearer to explicitly repeat in the caption that the listed uncertainties are statistical only, as the text already notes.
  4. [Sec. 4.3] The mean delay of 6.9 ms and standard deviation of 2.6 ms for the MCP-PMT millisecond component are reported without uncertainties; please indicate how these were computed and provide their statistical precision.
  5. [Sec. 5.1] The sentence 'residual nonlinearity in the PMT or readout chain could underestimate the primary PE' mixes two distinct effects; the CAEN DT5751 digitizer linearity should be discussed separately from the PMT charge nonlinearity, ideally with a reference to the digitizer specifications.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the afterpulse measurement is a self-contained characterization using standard external calibration, and the fitted yields summarize the data rather than being deduced from the claims they support.

full rationale

This is a measurement paper rather than a derivation paper. The primary-PE normalization comes from an independent SPE calibration (Sec. 3), which follows the standard zero-photoelectron fraction method and is not constructed from the afterpulse yields. The afterpulse yields are obtained by counting reconstructed pulses in defined time windows and normalizing by the number of triggers; the linear fits in Fig. 8 and the slopes in Table 2 are descriptive summaries of the measured dependence, not predictions derived from the same data in a way that is forced by definition. The sliding-window extension to 20 ms is an independent readout strategy whose consistency with the 1.8 ms window is checked, not assumed. The paper explicitly flags residual large-signal nonlinearity and gain-recovery effects as unquantified systematics (Sec. 5.1), which is a correctness/robustness concern, not a circularity. No self-definitional steps, no fitted-input-called-prediction pattern, and no load-bearing self-citation chain are present. The cited external measurements of PMT nonlinearity are used as a cautionary cross-reference, not as the basis of the central result, and therefore do not create circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is an experimental characterization; the central numbers are measurements, not derivations. The main costs are the hand-chosen threshold and windows, the SPE calibration, the background-uniformity assumption, and the unquantified large-signal linearity.

free parameters (3)
  • Reconstruction threshold = 3 mV (approximately 0.6-0.67 SPE)
    Chosen by hand; determines which afterpulses are counted, directly affecting all reported yields.
  • Selected integration windows = 10-100 us and 100-1800 us (dynode); 10-50, 50-350, 350-1800 us (MCP)
    Chosen post hoc around the observed components; reported yields are integrals over these hand-picked windows.
  • SPE charge calibration = Gains in Table 1 (8e6 and 9e6)
    Used to convert primary charge to photoelectron count; any error in this calibration propagates into the per-PE yield normalization.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption PMT afterpulses arise from ion feedback and delayed electron emission.
    Standard PMT model invoked in Secs. 4.1 and 5.3 to interpret the components; not independently established for these long-delay components.
  • domain assumption The LED-off dark noise is uniform and the pre-peak region of LED-on data provides an unbiased background estimate.
    Sec. 3; underpins the background subtraction used for all yields.
  • domain assumption The PMT response is linear up to about 2e4 PE for the primary charge measurement.
    Secs. 3 and 5.1; the authors flag residual nonlinearity as a possible bias but proceed with the linear normalization.
  • domain assumption Sliding-window trigger phases drift stably and lost triggers are identified via timestamps.
    Sec. 2.2; the 20 ms profile reconstruction assumes the relative phase between LED and trigger advances by 10 us per event without uncorrected gaps.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Long-Delayed Afterpulse Measurement of JUNO 20-inch Photomultiplier Tubes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OQMQYAT2

@misc{pith2026260801943,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Long-Delayed Afterpulse Measurement of JUNO 20-inch Photomultiplier Tubes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OQMQYAT2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01943}
}
abstract

In large-scale liquid scintillator detectors such as the Jiangmen Underground Neutrino Observatory (JUNO), high-intensity events like cosmic muons induce photomultiplier tube (PMT) afterpulses that can interfere with the analysis of delayed physics signals. To systematically evaluate this instrumental background, we present a dedicated measurement of long-delayed afterpulses in two types of JUNO 20-inch PMTs: a dynode-based PMT and a microchannel-plate (MCP) PMT. The afterpulse time profiles were first characterized within a direct 1.8~ms waveform window and were further extended to 20~ms using a sliding-window readout strategy. Distinct long-delayed components are observed, revealing a strong dependence on the PMT multiplication structure. The dynode PMT exhibits a broad afterpulse component peaking at approximately 260~$\mu$s, whereas the MCP-PMT shows a pronounced peak around 90~$\mu$s, an additional component around 550~$\mu$s, and a much smaller, broadly distributed millisecond-scale component. For the microsecond-scale components, the afterpulse yield per primary photoelectron is at the $10^{-3}$ level in the selected delayed windows and increases approximately linearly with the primary light intensity. The accumulated delayed activity can therefore become non-negligible following high-intensity events. These quantitative findings provide critical inputs for PMT response characterization and for the accurate modeling of delayed correlated backgrounds in high-precision neutrino experiments.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    D. Wu, F. Luo, Z. Wang, M. Li, J. Xu, M. He et al.,Study on the linearity of 20” dynode and MCP PMTs,JINST18(2023) P05033 [2212.11514]

  2. [1]

    Kubetsky,Multiple amplifier,Proc

    L.A. Kubetsky,Multiple amplifier,Proc. IRE25(1937) 421

  3. [2]

    Zworykin, G.A

    V.K. Zworykin, G.A. Morton and L. Malter,The secondary emission multiplier—a new electronic device,Proc. IRE24(1936) 351

  4. [3]

    Editorial Committee,PHOTOMULTIPLIER TUBES: Basics and Applications

    Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. Editorial Committee,PHOTOMULTIPLIER TUBES: Basics and Applications. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K., Electron Tube Division, Japan, third ed., 2006

  5. [4]

    Renker,New developments on photosensors for particle physics,Nucl

    D. Renker,New developments on photosensors for particle physics,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A598 (2009) 207

  6. [5]

    Tsoulfanidis and S

    N. Tsoulfanidis and S. Landsberger,Measurement and Detection of Radiation, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, third ed. (2010)

  7. [6]

    Anger,Scintillation camera,Rev

    H.O. Anger,Scintillation camera,Rev. Sci. Instrum.29(1958) 27

  8. [7]

    Knoll,Radiation Detection and Measurement, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 3 ed

    G.F. Knoll,Radiation Detection and Measurement, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 3 ed. (1999). – 12 –

Show all 33 references
  1. [8]

    Alimonti et al.,The Borexino detector at the Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso,Nucl

    G. Alimonti et al.,The Borexino detector at the Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A600(2009) 568 [0806.2400]

  2. [9]

    Eguchi et al.,First results from KamLAND: Evidence for reactor antineutrino disappearance, Phys

    K. Eguchi et al.,First results from KamLAND: Evidence for reactor antineutrino disappearance, Phys. Rev. Lett.90(2003) 021802 [hep-ex/0212021]

  3. [10]

    JUNO collaboration,Neutrino physics with JUNO,J. Phys. G43(2016) 030401 [1507.05613]. [11]IceCubecollaboration,Evidence for High-Energy Extraterrestrial Neutrinos at the IceCube Detector, Science342(2013) 1242856 [1311.5238]. [12]LHAASOcollaboration,Ultrahigh-energyphotonsupto...

  4. [14]

    Godfrey, F.B

    T.N.K. Godfrey, F.B. Harrison and J.W. Keuffel,Satellite pulses from photomultipliers,Phys. Rev.84 (1951) 1248

  5. [15]

    Coates,The origins of afterpulses in photomultipliers,J

    P.B. Coates,The origins of afterpulses in photomultipliers,J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.6(1973) 1159

  6. [16]

    Coates,A theory of afterpulse formation in photomultipliers and the prepulse height distribution, J

    P.B. Coates,A theory of afterpulse formation in photomultipliers and the prepulse height distribution, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.6(1973) 1862

  7. [17]

    Akchurin and H

    N. Akchurin and H. Kim,A study on ion initiated photomultiplier afterpulses,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 574(2007) 121

  8. [18]

    Morozov, N.V

    V.A. Morozov, N.V. Morozova and P. Budzynski,Delayed electron emission in photomultiplier tubes, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1053(2023) 168323. [19]JUNOcollaboration,JUNO physics and detector,Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.123(2022) 103927 [2104.02565]

  9. [20]

    JUNO collaboration,Measurement of reactor neutrino oscillation with the first JUNO data,Nature 654(2026) 343

  10. [21]

    Genster,Studies on muon veto in the JUNO liquid scintillator neutrino detector,J

    C. Genster,Studies on muon veto in the JUNO liquid scintillator neutrino detector,J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1342(2020) 012116

  11. [22]

    X. Zhao, Z. Tang, C. Li, H. Chen, Y. Zhang, X. Li et al.,Afterpulse measurement for 8-inch candidate PMTs for LHAASO,JINST11(2016) T05002

  12. [23]

    Poleshchuk, B

    R. Poleshchuk, B. Lubsandorzhiev and R. Vasiliev,An observation of a new class of afterpulses with delay time in the range of 70–200𝜇s in classical vacuum photomultipliers,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 695(2012) 362

  13. [24]

    Tudyka and A

    K. Tudyka and A. Bluszcz,A study on photomultiplier afterpulses in TL/OSL readers,Radiat. Meas. 86(2016) 39. [25]IceCubecollaboration,Very Late Afterpulses and Search for the Neutron Echo in IceCube,PoS ICRC2025(2025) 1030 [2507.07042]

  14. [26]

    JUNO collaboration,Initial performance results of the JUNO detector,Chin. Phys. C50(2026) 043001. [27]JUNOcollaboration,Potential to identify neutrino mass ordering with reactor antineutrinos at JUNO, Chin. Phys. C49(2025) 033104 [2405.18008]

  15. [28]

    Zhao et al.,Afterpulse measurement of JUNO 20-inch PMTs,Nucl

    R. Zhao et al.,Afterpulse measurement of JUNO 20-inch PMTs,Nucl. Sci. Tech.34(2023) 12 [2207.04995]. – 13 –

  16. [29]

    Q. Wu, S. Qian, L. Ma, J. Xia, B.K. Lubsandorzhiev, Z. Wang et al.,Study of after-pulses in the 20-inch HQE-MCP-PMT for the JUNO experiment,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1003(2021) 165351

  17. [30]

    Liu et al.,JUNO 20-inch PMT and electronics system characterization using large pulses of PMT dark counts at the Pan-Asia testing platform,JINST20(2025) P12013 [2506.21179]

    C. Liu et al.,JUNO 20-inch PMT and electronics system characterization using large pulses of PMT dark counts at the Pan-Asia testing platform,JINST20(2025) P12013 [2506.21179]. [31]JUNOcollaboration,Masstestingandcharacterizationof20-inchPMTsforJUNO,Eur.Phys.J.C82 (2022) 1168

  18. [32]

    F. Luo, Z. Wang, A. Yang, Y. Heng, Z. Qin, M. Xu et al.,Design & optimization of the HV divider for JUNO 20-inch PMT,JINST20(2025) P07024

  19. [33]

    Dossi, A

    R. Dossi, A. Ianni, G. Ranucci and O.J. Smirnov,Methods for precise photoelectron counting with photomultipliers,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A451(2000) 623

  20. [35]

    Li et al.,Experimental investigation of saturation recovery behavior in MCP-PMT,Nucl

    K. Li et al.,Experimental investigation of saturation recovery behavior in MCP-PMT,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1074(2025) 170323

  21. [36]

    Melikyan et al.,Load capacity and recovery behaviour of ALD-coated MCP-PMTs,Nucl

    Y. Melikyan et al.,Load capacity and recovery behaviour of ALD-coated MCP-PMTs,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A949(2020) 162854

  22. [37]

    Komarek et al.,Timing resolution and rate capability of Photonis miniPlanacon XPM85212/A1-S MCP-PMT,Nucl

    T. Komarek et al.,Timing resolution and rate capability of Photonis miniPlanacon XPM85212/A1-S MCP-PMT,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A985(2021) 164705

  23. [38]

    Haser, F

    J. Haser, F. Kaether, C. Langbrandtner, M. Lindner, S. Lucht, S. Roth et al.,Afterpulse measurements of R7081 photomultipliers for the Double Chooz experiment,JINST8(2013) P04029

  24. [39]

    K. Ma, W. Kang, J. Ahn, S. Choi, Y. Choi, M. Hwang et al.,Time and amplitude of afterpulse measured with a large size photomultiplier tube,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A629(2011) 93

  25. [40]

    Bristow,Suppression of afterpulsing in photomultipliers by gating the photocathode,Appl

    M.P. Bristow,Suppression of afterpulsing in photomultipliers by gating the photocathode,Appl. Opt. 41(2002) 4975. – 14 –

Pith tools

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