Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 27 references

A reactor antineutrino detector based on hexagonal scintillator bars

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A compact detector of hexagonal plastic scintillator bars can identify about 10% of reactor antineutrinos while rejecting 96–98% of fast-neutron backgrounds, according to Monte Carlo simulation.

desk verdict A clean, self-contained Geant4 design study of a hexagonal plastic antineutrino detector whose 10% efficiency is an in-sample number and whose 96/98% background rejection does not yet amount to an above-ground background budget. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08117 v2 pith:IOTHUK2R submitted 2019-08-22 physics.ins-det

Mustafa Kandemir , Altan Cakir This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-det
keywords reactorantineutrinodetectioninversebetadecayplasticscintillatorhexagonalbarsdelayedcoincidenceeventselectionneutronbackgroundrejectionMonteCarlosimulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that a one-cubic-meter antineutrino detector made of hexagonal plastic scintillator bars, placed 20–30 meters from a reactor core, can tag about 10% of inverse beta decay events while rejecting 96% of single and 98% of multi-neutron correlated backgrounds. The claim is established through detailed Monte Carlo simulation of the detector's response, using event selection cuts on energy deposition patterns, hit multiplicity, and the time between prompt and delayed signals. If correct, the design would allow a compact, non-flammable, above-ground detector to monitor reactor power and fuel composition in real time, a capability directly relevant to nuclear safeguards. The central result is that segmentation alone, without pulse-shape discrimination, suffices to separate true antineutrino events from the dominant neutron-induced backgrounds.

What carries the argument

The central object is the hexagonal-bar segmented detector: 91 identical plastic scintillator bars, each 120 cm long with a 6 cm side, wrapped in gadolinium-coated mylar to shorten neutron capture time, arranged in a honeycomb with a 1.02 m³ active volume. The key mechanism is the inverse beta decay prompt-delayed coincidence, in which a positron produces an immediate energy deposit and the captured neutron yields a delayed gamma cascade. The argument is carried by the topological selection cuts that exploit the different hit patterns of the two signals: the prompt event is concentrated in one to three cells with a characteristic Compton-edge signature at 520 keV from annihilation gammas, while the delayed event spreads over three to six cells with lower per-cell energy ceilings. Together with the 4–200 microsecond coincidence window, these cuts form the discriminator that separates true antineutrino events from fast-neutron mimics.

What would settle it

Build a small prototype module of the hexagonal bars, expose it to a positron source such as sodium-22, and compare the measured energy resolution and light yield with the simulated 9% FWHM and 8% detection efficiency; if the real performance deviates substantially, the quoted 10% IBD efficiency and 96–98% background rejection rates would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is a set of event selection criteria that, applied to the simulated response of a 91-bar hexagonal plastic scintillator array, separate inverse beta decay events from the dominant above-ground backgrounds. The prompt positron signal is required to have total deposited energy between 2.5 and 8 MeV, a highest-cell energy between 1 and 6 MeV, a second-highest cell energy below 520 keV, and one to three hit cells. The delayed neutron-capture signal must have total energy between 3 and 8 MeV, per-cell energy ceilings of 6, 3, 2, and 1 MeV for the four highest-energy cells, three to six hit cells, and a time separation of 4 to 200 microseconds from the prompt signal. When these cuts are applied to 50,000 simulated inverse beta decay events, 10% survive; for single fast neutrons and multi-neutron events generated with a measured ground-level neutron spectrum, the same cuts reject 96% and 98% of events, respectively.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulated optical response, including light collection, detection efficiency, and the 9% energy resolution at 1 MeV, accurately matches the behavior of a real detector built from these bars.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Installation 20–30 meters from a 1.2 GW reactor would yield a few hundred antineutrino detections per day, enough to track the reactor's thermal power on a daily timescale.
  • The selection cuts reject 96% of single fast-neutron and 98% of multi-neutron correlated backgrounds, making above-ground operation feasible without an external cosmic-ray veto.
  • Because the bars are plastic and non-flammable, the detector can be placed inside a reactor building or transported in a vehicle, enabling mobile or short-notice reactor monitoring.
  • The 10% efficiency is reached within a 200-microsecond coincidence window, which suppresses random coincidences and simplifies trigger logic.
  • The detector's segmentation can be scaled by adding bars, and the 0.2 MeV per-bar threshold keeps the response uniform across channels.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One could infer that the same topological cut logic would transfer to other segmented plastic scintillator geometries, suggesting a general design principle: hit multiplicity and second-cell energy limits can suppress neutron backgrounds without pulse-shape discrimination.
  • A direct extension is to expose the detector to a tagged neutron beam to measure the actual single- and multi-neutron rejection rates, thereby calibrating the simulation's neutron transport and testing the 96% and 98% predictions.
  • Since the detector measures total energy rather than a full spectrum, its primary sensitivity is to antineutrino rate; a future version with better energy resolution could add burn-up monitoring via spectral shape.
  • The rate prediction scales with reactor power and distance, so the same detector could be repurposed for other reactors, though background rejection at shorter standoff distances would need re-verification.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a compact, cubic-meter-scale reactor antineutrino detector built from hexagonal EJ-200 plastic scintillator bars arranged in a honeycomb pattern, and evaluates its performance entirely through Geant4 Monte Carlo simulation. The detection method is inverse beta decay (IBD) with a prompt positron signal and a delayed neutron-capture signal. The authors develop a set of topology- and energy-based selection cuts on the prompt and delayed signals, estimate a total IBD detection efficiency of 10%, and simulate single and multiple fast-neutron backgrounds, reporting rejection efficiencies of 96% and 98%, respectively. Using the reactor power and fission-fraction model, they project a few hundred detected antineutrinos per day at 20-30 m from the Akkuyu reactor. The paper is presented as a design study, with the central quantitative claims being the 10% efficiency and the two background rejection figures.

Significance. If the simulation-based claims were validated experimentally, the hexagonal-bar geometry would be a genuine contribution: it achieves a compact 1 m^3 detector with fewer PMTs than comparable designs and a reduced neutron capture time, as reported in the authors' earlier work. The paper is also transparent in presenting the cut-by-cut efficiency budget and in using a high-precision neutron physics list (QGSP-BERT-HP) and a dedicated optical photon transport study from the authors' previous publication. However, the significance as a standalone result is limited by two gaps: the selection cuts are tuned on the same simulated sample used to compute the efficiency, and the background rejection numbers are conditional efficiencies with no absolute normalization to a surface-level cosmic-neutron flux. The paper does not yet demonstrate that the detector can actually operate above ground with a viable signal-to-background ratio.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Table 3] The 10% IBD detection efficiency is an in-sample estimate. The thresholds in Table 3 (e.g., 2.5 MeV < Etotal <= 8 MeV, E2nd <= 520 keV, 3 < Nhit <= 6) are chosen by inspecting the distributions from the same simulated IBD events on which the efficiency is then computed. No independent validation sample, cross-validation, or study of the sensitivity of the efficiency to each cut boundary is presented. Because the cuts are optimized and evaluated on the same data, the quoted 10% is likely optimistic, and this number directly enters the 'few hundred antineutrinos per day' projection in Fig. 10. An out-of-sample estimate or a scan over cut values is needed to support the central claim.
  2. [Section 3.2, Table 3, Fig. 10] The 96% and 98% background rejection efficiencies are conditional rejection rates for neutrons generated uniformly inside the active volume; they do not include the effect of the lead and borated-polyethylene shield, and no absolute surface-level neutron flux, muon rate, or surviving background rate per day is computed. A 96% or 98% rejection efficiency is insufficient by itself to establish above-ground operation: if the incident flux of cosmic-ray neutrons is large enough, the residual background can still dominate the few-hundred-per-day IBD signal from Fig. 10. The conclusion that fast-neutron backgrounds are 'effectively eliminated' is therefore a statement about the simulated sample, not about the detector's background budget at Akkuyu.
  3. [Section 3.2, multi-neutron paragraph] The multi-neutron background is simulated by combining two independent single-neutron events and treating one of the delayed signals as the prompt signal. This construction does not reproduce the space-time correlations of neutrons produced in a single cosmic-ray shower, where a single muon can generate several neutrons along its track within a compact time window. The reported 98% multi-neutron rejection efficiency may therefore not be representative of the real background topology. The authors should either simulate correlated neutron production from a muon track or justify why the independent-combination approach is conservative.
  4. [Sections 2.1 and 3.1] The absolute energy scale on which all cuts depend rests entirely on the optical photon simulation from reference [20], with no prototype measurement of light yield, collection efficiency, or energy calibration. The cuts are applied in MeV of deposited energy, and the quoted efficiencies would shift if the true light yield differs from the simulated 35% collection and 8% detection efficiency, or if the 9% FWHM energy resolution at 1 MeV is not reproduced. The paper adopts a '<20% systematic uncertainty' from the PANDA study [8] without demonstrating that this uncertainty applies to the present detector. A sensitivity study, a calibration plan, or a prototype measurement is needed to make the 10% efficiency claim robust.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 1, Introduction] There are several typographical errors: 'powerfull' should be 'powerful', 'arrangments' should be 'arrangements', and 'relases' should be 'releases'. The manuscript would benefit from a careful proofreading pass.
  2. [Section 3.1.1, Prompt signal] The text reads 'We set the threshold energy Etotat to 2.5 MeV'; 'Etotat' is a typo for 'Etotal'. The same section also refers to an upper limit of 6 MeV for the cell energy, but the caption of Table 3 states 2.5-8 MeV for the prompt Etotal window; please make the notation and threshold values consistent throughout.
  3. [Figure 5] The caption says 'Each red circle represents an independent event,' but the figure shows filled markers with no explicit color legend. Please clarify the marker convention and ensure the color scale in panel (a) is consistent with the printed numeric values.
  4. [Section 3.2, fast neutron simulation] The number of simulated neutron events used for the single- and multi-neutron background samples is not stated. Please report the event counts so the statistical precision of the 96% and 98% rejection efficiencies can be assessed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 10% efficiency and 96/98% rejection rates are Monte Carlo counts of simulated events passing explicit cuts; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central efficiency and background-rejection numbers are computed directly from Geant4 simulations: IBD events are generated from the expected reactor antineutrino spectrum and IBD kinematics, selection cuts are defined on simulated energy, hit, and timing distributions, and the reported 10% detection efficiency is simply the fraction of simulated IBD events satisfying those cuts (Table 3 and Section 4). The 96% and 98% rejection rates are likewise conditional fractions of simulated single- and multi-neutron events that fail the same cuts; no equation is fitted to the output and then re-predicted. The optical parameters (light collection 35%, detection 8%, 9% energy resolution) are taken from the authors' previous simulation paper [20], which is a self-citation, but it supplies an input parameter set rather than the target detection efficiency; the target result is not defined in terms of that citation. The absolute background-rate concern raised by a skeptical reader — that the neutron rejection is quoted only as a conditional efficiency with neutrons generated inside the active volume and no surface-level flux normalization — is a real validation/completeness limitation of the Monte Carlo study, but it is not a circularity: the rejection fraction is not assumed in order to derive itself. The paper is therefore self-contained in the sense that the reported efficiencies are the simulated pass/fail counts, with no load-bearing self-citation chain or fitted-input-called-prediction step.

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

The central performance numbers rest on the Geant4 simulation model, the hand-tuned selection thresholds, and imported uncertainty and spectrum assumptions. No new particles or forces are introduced, but the simulated energy scale and background model are unvalidated by experiment.

free parameters (12)
  • Prompt total energy window (Etotal) = 2.5 to 8 MeV
    Chosen from the simulated prompt energy distribution to reject ambient gammas; affects the prompt selection efficiency.
  • Delayed total energy window (Etotal) = 3 to 8 MeV
    Chosen from the simulated delayed energy distribution to select neutron-capture gamma cascades.
  • Prompt first-cell energy window (E1st) = 1 to 6 MeV
    Limits the positron energy deposit in the most active cell.
  • Prompt second-cell energy cut (E2nd) = 520 keV
    Used to tag the Compton edge of annihilation gammas at 324 keV.
  • Prompt hit multiplicity window (Nhit) = 1 to 3 cells
    Prompt positron energy is usually in one or two cells; larger multiplicities include annihilation gammas.
  • Delayed first-cell energy window (E1st) = 0.5 to 6 MeV
    Chosen from simulated delayed energy distribution for neutron capture events.
  • Delayed second-cell energy cut (E2nd) = 3 MeV
    Upper limit for the second highest energy cell in delayed events.
  • Delayed third-cell energy cut (E3th) = 2 MeV
    Upper limit for the third highest energy cell in delayed events.
  • Delayed fourth-cell energy cut (E4th) = 1 MeV
    Upper limit for the fourth highest energy cell in delayed events.
  • Delayed hit multiplicity window (Nhit) = 3 to 6 cells
    Gadolinium-capture gammas spread energy over several cells, unlike the prompt positron.
  • Prompt-delayed time window = 4 to 200 microseconds
    Chosen from the simulated neutron capture time distribution with a mean of 56 microseconds.
  • Per-bar energy threshold = 0.2 MeV
    Pre-selection threshold applied to each bar to enforce spectral uniformity across bars.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Geant4 with QGSP_BERT_HP physics list correctly simulates inverse beta decay products, neutron thermalization, and gadolinium capture in this geometry.
    Used for all prompt and delayed energy depositions and for the capture fractions in Table 2. No experimental benchmark is provided.
  • domain assumption The UNIFIED optical model and detector surface parameters from the authors' previous study [20] reproduce the real light collection.
    Sets the energy scale that all selection cuts depend on. No prototype measurement is reported.
  • ad hoc to paper The relative simulation-model uncertainty is bounded by 20%, as estimated for the PANDA detector in ref [8].
    Imported from a different detector design without re-validation and used to justify the quoted efficiencies.
  • domain assumption The Gordon ground-level cosmic-ray neutron spectrum [27] represents the neutron background at the Akkuyu site.
    Used to generate single and multi-neutron backgrounds. No site-specific measurement is cited.
  • domain assumption Fission fractions and energy release values from refs [25,26] describe the VVER-1200 fuel cycle.
    Inputs to the expected antineutrino rate evolution shown in Fig. 10.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A reactor antineutrino detector based on hexagonal scintillator bars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IOTHUK2R

@misc{pith2026190808117,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A reactor antineutrino detector based on hexagonal scintillator bars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IOTHUK2R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08117}
}
read the original abstract

This study presents a new concept of segmented antineutrino detector based on hexagonal plastic scintillator bars for detecting antineutrinos from a nuclear reactor core. The choice of hexagonal scintillator bars is original and provides compactness. The proposed detector detects antineutrinos via inverse beta decay (IBD) with the prompt-delayed double coincidence. Owing to its segmented structure, the background, which satisfies the delayed coincidence condition can be eliminated by applying proper event selection cuts. In this manner, the main focus is to determine proper selection criteria to precisely tag the true IBD events. Monte-Carlo simulation is carried out to understand the characteristic of the IBD interaction in the proposed detector by using Geant4 toolkit. A set of event selection criteria is established based on the simulated data. It is found that a detection efficiency of 10 % can be achieved with the selection condition applied. It is also shown that fast neutrons, which constitute the main background source for above-ground detection, can be effectively eliminated with these selection criteria. The motivation for this study is to install this compact detector at a short distance (<100 m) from the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant, which is expected to start operation in 2023.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08117 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The proposed segmented detector for monitoring nuclear reactor core activity. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Emission spectrum of scintillator, quantum efficiency of PMT, and reflectivity of reflector. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 1 MeV positron energy spectrum. 3. Detector simulation Monte Carlo based Geant4 simulation toolkit (version 4.10.4) is used to simulate the IBD event in the proposed detector. Antineutrino interaction vertex is created in a random point inside the active volume of the detector with the ν energy selected from the expected antineutrino spectrum (total spectrum in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Expected ν interaction rate for each fuel isotope. The distance between the detector and the reactor core is taken as 20 m in the calculation. background consists of a single physical process that results in two time-correlated signals, as in the antineutrino event. Fa…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) The mean energy deposited in each cell of the detector for prompt events. (b) Energy deposition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The triggered number of detector cells in prompt events. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Total deposited energy of all cell of the detector ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) The mean energy deposited in each cell of the detector for delayed events. (b) An example of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) The energy distribution of the four highest energy deposition cells for delayed events. (b) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The evolution of the detected antineutrino number over the course of the fuel cycle. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The impact of initial neutron energy used as input in the simulation on the number of events [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (a) The deposited energy distribution of single fast neutron background events which satisfy 2.5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Initial neutron energy distribution used in the simulation. The initial neutron energy is generated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [20]

    Kandemir, A

    M. Kandemir, A. Cakir, Simulation and Efficiency Studies of Optical Photon Transportation and Detection with Plastic Antineutrino Detector Modules, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A898 (2018) 30–39. doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2018.04.059

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2018.04.059 2018

  2. [8]

    Oguri, Y

    S. Oguri, Y. Kuroda, Y. Kato, R. Nakata, Y. Inoue, C. Ito, M. Minowa, Reactor antineutrino monitoring with a plastic scintillator array as a new safeguards method, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 757 (2014) 3339. doi:10.1016/j.nima.2014.04.065

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2014.04.065 2014

  3. [1]

    Y. V. Klimov, V. I. Kopeikin, L. A. Mikalyan, K. V. Ozerov, V. Sinev, Neutrino method remote measurement of reactor power and power output, Atomic Energy - AT ENERGY-ENGL TR 76 (1994) 123–127. doi:10.1007/BF02414355

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02414355 1994

  4. [2]

    Bernstein, Y.-f

    A. Bernstein, Y.-f. Wang, G. Gratta, T. West, Nuclear reactor safeguards and monitoring with anti- neutrino detectors, J. Appl. Phys. 91 (2002) 4672. doi:10.1063/1.1452775

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1452775 2002

  5. [3]

    Bowden, A

    N. Bowden, A. Bernstein, M. Allen, J. Brennan, M. Cunningham, J. Estrada, C. Greaves, C. Hagmann, J. Lund, W. Mengesha, T. Weinbeck, C. Winant, Experimental results from an antineutrino detector for cooperative monitoring of nuclear reactors, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associat...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2006.12.015 2007

  6. [4]

    Bernstein, N

    A. Bernstein, N. S. Bowden, A. Misner, T. Palmer, Monitoring the thermal power of nuclear reactors with a prototype cubic meter antineutrino detector, Journal of Applied Physics 103 (7) (2008) 074905. doi:10.1063/1.2899178

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2899178 2008

  7. [5]

    Bernstein, G

    A. Bernstein, G. Baldwin, B. Boyer, M. Goodman, J. Learned, J. Lund, D. Reyna, R. Svoboda, Nuclear security applications of antineutrino detectors: Current capabilities and future prospects, Science & Global Security 18 (3) (2010) 127192. doi:10.1080/08929882.2010.529785

    work page arXiv 2010

  8. [6]

    Battaglieri, R

    M. Battaglieri, R. Devita, G. Firpo, P. Neuhold, M. Osipenko, D. Piombo, G. Ricco, M. Ripani, M. Taiuti, An anti-neutrino detector to monitor nuclear reactors power and fuel composition, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 617 (1-3) (2010) 209213. doi:10.1016/j.nima...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2009.09.031 2010

Show all 27 references
  1. [7]

    Kuroda, S

    Y. Kuroda, S. Oguri, Y. Kato, R. Nakata, Y. Inoue, C. Ito, M. Minowa, A mobile antineutrino detector with plastic scintillators, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 690 (2012) 41 – 47. d...

    2012 doi

  2. [9]

    Mulmule, S

    D. Mulmule, S. Behera, P. Netrakanti, D. Mishra, V. Kashyap, V. Jha, L. Pant, B. Nayak, A. Saxena, A plastic scintillator array for reactor based anti-neutrino studies, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and As...

    2018 doi

  3. [10]

    Kashyap, L

    V. Kashyap, L. Pant, A. Mohanty, V. Datar, Simulation results of liquid and plastic scintillator detectors for reactor antineutrino detection - a comparison, Journal of Instrumentation 11 (03) (2016) P03005

    2016

  4. [11]

    Boireau, L

    G. Boireau, L. Bouvet, A. P. Collin, G. Coulloux, et al., Online monitoring of the osiris reactor with the nucifer neutrino detector, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 112006. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.112006

    2016 doi

  5. [12]

    Anjos, T

    J. Anjos, T. Abraho, T. Alvarenga, L. Andrade, G. Azzi, A. Cerqueira, P. Chimenti, J. Costa, T. Dor- nelas, P. Farias, F. Frana, L. Gonzalez, G. Guedes, E. Kemp, H. Lima, R. Machado, R. Nobrega, I. Pepe, A. Reis, D. Ribeiro, O. Rodrigues, L. Santos, S. Santos, E. S. Filho, M. ...

    2015

  6. [13]

    Haghighat, P

    A. Haghighat, P. Huber, S. Li, J. M. Link, C. Mariani, J. Park, T. Subedi, Observation of reactor antineutrinos with a rapidly-deployable surface-level detector (2018). arXiv:1812.02163

    2018 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Kandemir, A

    M. Kandemir, A. Cakir, Comparison of plastic antineutrino detector designs in the context of near field reactor monitoring, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 927 (2019) 353 – 361. doi:1...

    2019 doi

  8. [15]

    Agostinelli, J

    S. Agostinelli, J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, et al., Geant4a simulation toolkit, Nuclear In- 17 struments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 506 (3) (2003) 250 – 303. doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8

    2003 doi

  9. [16]

    com/products

    Eljen Technology, EJ-200 Plastic Scintillator, EJ-500 Optical Cement, http://www.eljentechnology. com/products

  10. [17]

    ET Enterprises Limited, 78 mm (3”) photomultiplier 9265B series data sheet, http:// et-enterprises.com/images/data_sheets/9265B.pdf

  11. [18]

    cern.ch/geant4-userdoc/UsersGuides/ForApplicationDeveloper/BackupVersions/V10.4/fo/ BookForAppliDev.pdf

    Geant4 Collaboration, Geant4: Book For Application Developpers, http://geant4-userdoc.web. cern.ch/geant4-userdoc/UsersGuides/ForApplicationDeveloper/BackupVersions/V10.4/fo/ BookForAppliDev.pdf

  12. [19]

    Nilsson, V

    J. Nilsson, V. Cuplov, M. Isaksson, Identifying key surface parameters for optical photon transport in geant4/gate simulations, Applied radiation and isotopes: including data, instrumentation and methods for use in agriculture, industry and medicine 103 (2015) 15–24. doi:10.10...

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    Vogel, J

    P. Vogel, J. F. Beacom, Angular distribution of neutron inverse beta decay, νe+ → p→ e+ +n, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 053003. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.053003

    1999 doi

  14. [22]

    A. G. Rib´ on, J. Apostolakis, A. Dotti, G. Folger, V. N. Ivanchenko, M. E. Kosov, V. V. Uzhinsky, D. H. Wright, Status of geant4 hadronic physics for the simulation of lhc experiments at the start of lhc physics program, 2010

    2010

  15. [23]

    Levin, C

    A. Levin, C. Moisan, A more physical approach to model the surface treatment of scintillation counters and its implementation into detect, Vol. 2, 1996. doi:10.1109/NSSMIC.1996.591410

    1996

  16. [24]

    R. Brun, F. Rademakers, Root an object oriented data analysis framework, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 389 (1) (1997) 81 – 86. doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(97)00048-X

    1997 doi

  17. [25]

    Bemporad, G

    C. Bemporad, G. Gratta, P. Vogel, Reactor-based neutrino oscillation experiments, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74 (2002) 297–328. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.74.297

    2002 doi

  18. [26]

    X. B. Ma, W. L. Zhong, L. Z. Wang, Y. X. Chen, J. Cao, Improved calculation of the energy release in neutron-induced fission, Physical Review C 88 (1). doi:10.1103/physrevc.88.014605

    doi

  19. [27]

    M. S. Gordon, P. Goldhagen, K. P. Rodbell, T. H. Zabel, H. H. K. Tang, J. M. Clem, P. Bailey, Measurement of the flux and energy spectrum of cosmic-ray induced neutrons on the ground, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 51 (6) (2004) 3427–3434. doi:10.1109/TNS.2004.839134. 18

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.