pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.02173 · v1 · pith:L4TSSRJRnew · submitted 2019-07-04 · 🌌 astro-ph.IM · astro-ph.HE· hep-ex

The on-orbit calibration of DArk Matter Particle Explorer

G. Ambrosi , Q. An , R. Asfandiyarov , P. Azzarello , P. Bernardini , M. S. Cai , M. Caragiulo , J. Chang
show 150 more authors
D. Y. Chen H. F. Chen J. L. Chen W. Chen M. Y. Cui T. S. Cui H. T. Dai A. D'Amone A. De Benedittis I. De Mitri M. Ding M. Di Santo J. N. Dong T. K. Dong Y. F. Dong Z. X. Dong D. Droz K. K. Duan J. L. Duan D. D'Urso R. R. Fan Y. Z. Fan F. Fang C. Q. Feng L. Feng P. Fusco V. Gallo F. J. Gan M. Gao S. S. Gao F. Gargano S. Garrappa K. Gong Y. Z. Gong J. H. Guo Y. M. Hu G. S. Huang Y. Y. Huang M. Ionica D. Jiang W. Jiang X. Jin J. Kong S. J. Lei S. Li X. Li W. L. Li Y. Li Y. F. Liang Y. M. Liang N. H. Liao C. M. Liu H. Liu J. Liu S. B. Liu W. Q. Liu Y. Liu F. Loparco M. Ma P. X. Ma S. Y. Ma T. Ma X. Q. Ma X. Y. Ma G. Marsella M.N. Mazziotta D. Mo X. Y. Niu X. Pan X. Y. Peng W. X. Peng R. Qiao J. N. Rao M. M. Salinas G. Z. Shang W. H. Shen Z. Q. Shen Z. T. Shen J. X. Song H. Su M. Su Z. Y. Sun A. Surdo X. J. Teng X. B. Tian A. Tykhonov S. Vitillo C. Wang H. Wang H. Y. Wang J. Z. Wang L. G. Wang Q. Wang S. Wang X. H. Wang X. L. Wang Y. F. Wang Y. P. Wang Y. Z. Wang Z. M. Wang S. C. Wen D. M. Wei J. J. Wei Y. F. Wei D. Wu J. Wu L. B. Wu S. S. Wu X. Wu K. Xi Z. Q. Xia Y. L. Xin H. T. Xu Z. H. Xu Z. L. Xu Z. Z. Xu G. F. Xue H. B. Yang P. Yang Y. Q. Yang Z. L. Yang H. J. Yao Y. H. Yu Q. Yuan C. Yue J. J. Zang D. L. Zhang F. Zhang J. B. Zhang J. Y. Zhang J. Z. Zhang L. Zhang P. F. Zhang S. X. Zhang W. Z. Zhang Y. Zhang Y. J. Zhang Y. Q. Zhang Y. L. Zhang Y. P. Zhang Z. Zhang Z. Y. Zhang H. Zhao H. Y. Zhao X. F. Zhao C. Y. Zhou Y. Zhou X. Zhu Y. Zhu S. Zimmer
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 09:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HEhep-ex
keywords DAMPEon-orbit calibrationcosmic ray detectorgamma ray detectordetector stabilitySouth Atlantic AnomalyBGO calorimetersilicon tracker
0
0 comments X

The pith

DAMPE satellite detectors remain stable after nearly two years of on-orbit operation.

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

The DAMPE mission, launched in late 2015, operates multiple sub-detectors to measure cosmic rays and gamma rays from space. This paper describes the calibration routines applied to the plastic scintillator detector, silicon-tungsten tracker, BGO calorimeter, and neutron detector during the first two years. Procedures rely on galactic cosmic rays, known bright gamma-ray sources, and periodic charge-injection tests, together with determinations of the South Atlantic Anomaly boundary, live time, and detector alignments. The reported results show that the response of each subsystem has stayed consistent, with no evidence of significant time-dependent changes.

Core claim

The on-orbit calibration of DAMPE demonstrates the stability of the Plastic Scintillator strip Detector, the Silicon-Tungsten tracKer-converter, the BGO imaging calorimeter, and the Neutron Detector throughout almost two years of operation, as established by consistent signals from galactic cosmic rays, known GeV gamma-ray sources, and charge-injection pulses.

What carries the argument

On-orbit calibration procedures that combine galactic cosmic-ray samples, known GeV gamma-ray sources, and front-end electronics charge injections to track detector response over time.

If this is right

  • Scientific data collected by DAMPE over the reported period can be used without additional time-dependent corrections beyond those already applied.
  • The measured live time and South Atlantic Anomaly boundary remain valid references for event selection throughout the two-year window.
  • Detector alignments derived from the same data set stay fixed, supporting consistent track reconstruction.
  • The absence of observed degradation supports continued operation of the same hardware without immediate hardware intervention.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Future satellite instruments could adopt the same combination of cosmic-ray and charge-injection monitoring to verify long-term stability without dedicated calibration beams.
  • The reported stability implies that radiation damage and thermal cycling effects have remained below the detection threshold of the chosen monitoring samples for at least the first two years.
  • If similar stability holds for later mission phases, accumulated exposure data could eventually constrain very slow aging processes not visible in the initial interval.

Load-bearing premise

That the chosen Galactic cosmic-ray samples, known GeV gamma-ray sources, and charge-injection pulses provide sufficient coverage and lack unknown time-dependent systematics that would invalidate the reported stability.

What would settle it

Detection of a monotonic drift in any detector's gain or resolution when the same cosmic-ray or gamma-ray events are compared across successive six-month intervals, exceeding the uncertainties quoted in the calibration tables.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.02173 by A. D'Amone, A. De Benedittis, A. Surdo, A. Tykhonov, C. M. Liu, C. Q. Feng, C. Wang, C. Yue, C. Y. Zhou, D. Droz, D. D'Urso, D. Jiang, D. L. Zhang, D. Mo, D. M. Wei, D. Wu, D. Y. Chen, F. Fang, F. Gargano, F. J. Gan, F. Loparco, F. Zhang, G. Ambrosi, G. F. Xue, G. Marsella, G. S. Huang, G. Z. Shang, H. B. Yang, H. F. Chen, H. J. Yao, H. Liu, H. Su, H. T. Dai, H. T. Xu, H. Wang, H. Y. Wang, H. Y. Zhao, H. Zhao, I. De Mitri, J. B. Zhang, J. Chang, J. H. Guo, J. J. Wei, J. J. Zang, J. Kong, J. L. Chen, J. L. Duan, J. Liu, J. N. Dong, J. N. Rao, J. Wu, J. X. Song, J. Y. Zhang, J. Z. Wang, J. Z. Zhang, K. Gong, K. K. Duan, K. Xi, L. B. Wu, L. Feng, L. G. Wang, L. Zhang, M. Caragiulo, M. Ding, M. Di Santo, M. Gao, M. Ionica, M. Ma, M. M. Salinas, M.N. Mazziotta, M. S. Cai, M. Su, M. Y. Cui, N. H. Liao, P. Azzarello, P. Bernardini, P. Fusco, P. F. Zhang, P. X. Ma, P. Yang, Q. An, Q. Wang, Q. Yuan, R. Asfandiyarov, R. Qiao, R. R. Fan, S. B. Liu, S. C. Wen, S. Garrappa, S. J. Lei, S. Li, S. S. Gao, S. S. Wu, S. Vitillo, S. Wang, S. X. Zhang, S. Y. Ma, S. Zimmer, T. K. Dong, T. Ma, T. S. Cui, V. Gallo, W. Chen, W. H. Shen, W. Jiang, W. L. Li, W. Q. Liu, W. X. Peng, W. Z. Zhang, X. B. Tian, X. F. Zhao, X. H. Wang, X. Jin, X. J. Teng, X. Li, X. L. Wang, X. Pan, X. Q. Ma, X. Wu, X. Y. Ma, X. Y. Niu, X. Y. Peng, X. Zhu, Y. F. Dong, Y. F. Liang, Y. F. Wang, Y. F. Wei, Y. H. Yu, Y. J. Zhang, Y. Li, Y. Liu, Y. L. Xin, Y. L. Zhang, Y. M. Hu, Y. M. Liang, Y. P. Wang, Y. P. Zhang, Y. Q. Yang, Y. Q. Zhang, Y. Y. Huang, Y. Z. Fan, Y. Z. Gong, Y. Zhang, Y. Zhou, Y. Zhu, Y. Z. Wang, Z. H. Xu, Z. L. Xu, Z. L. Yang, Z. M. Wang, Z. Q. Shen, Z. Q. Xia, Z. T. Shen, Z. X. Dong, Z. Y. Sun, Z. Y. Zhang, Z. Zhang, Z. Z. Xu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Typical PSD pedestal distributions of Dy5 (a) and Dy8 (b) of a PMT, together with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Variations of PSD pedestals in 15 months. The corresponding layer (L), bar (B), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The correlation between Dy5 (vertical axis) and Dy8 (horizontal axis) for a certain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Typical ADC distribution of MIPs (histogram), together with the fitting curve with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: MIP response as a function of time. 4.4. Light attenuation calibration The scintillation light will get attenuated during the propagation in the PSD bar. Therefore, the measured energy needs to be properly corrected. The attenuation correction depends on the hit position and hence the track of the incident particle. To ensure that a right track is selected, the MIP events with only one STK track are used. … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: ADC values (vertical axis) of MIPs versus the hit positions (horizontal axis). The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Reconstructed charge (vertical axis) versus the hit position (horizontal axis). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Peak positions in a reconstructed charge spectrum versus the nominal charge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Charge spectrum with 15 days of the flight data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: All ladder strip noise evolution since January 1 2016 (light blue points). The noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Ratio of STK channels with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Average noise of the 192 ladders of the STK, with respect to the average ladder [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Ladder average noise vs ladder average temperature, since August 17 2016. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Signal distribution for 6 VA140 chips belonging to the same ladder, after the VA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Smax response before (empty distribution) and after (filled distribution) the VA chip gain calibration for two different time intervals: January-February 2016 (left) and February￾March 2017 (right). 6. BGO calorimeter calibration The BGO calorimeter is designed to measure the energy of incident particles, to determine the direction of particles, and to separate electrons from protons [3, 4, 13]. The BGO c… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The pedestal distributions of Dy2 (left), Dy5 (middle), Dy8 (right) of a PMT. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The pedestal mean value (left) and width (right) as functions of time. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The MIP spectrum of a BGO bar. 31/12/1501/04/1601/07/1630/09/1631/12/1601/04/1701/07/17 MIPs MPV(ADC) 520 540 560 580 600 620 Time(Day/Month/Year) 31/12/15 01/04/16 01/07/16 30/09/16 31/12/16 01/04/17 01/07/17 C ) ° Temperature( 0 5 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Variations of the MIP MPV value (upper panel) and the BGO temperature (lower [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Evolution of temperature corrected total energy deposition of helium MIPs in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: The Dynode ratios Dy8/Dy5 (left panel) and Dy5/Dy2 (right panel) of a PMT. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: During the first 15-month’s operation of DAMPE in space, the ratios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Variations of dynode ratios Dy8/Dy5 (left panel) and Dy5/Dy2 (right panel) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: 6.5. Trigger threshold The BGO calorimeter also provides hit signals for the trigger system. The calorimeter front end electronics chip VATA160 is composed of the VA part and the TA part, both with 32 channels. The VA part is exactly the same as the VA160 chip, and the TA part is an advanced version of TA32CG ASIC to generate fast trigger [52]. The integrated pulse from the charge sensitive pre￾amplifier … view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: The light asymmetry measured in a typical BGO bar using shower events. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: The signals from one channel after the threshold setting. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: NUD response spectrum to protons with different setups of the gate opening time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_25.png] view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: The pedestal variation of a typical NUD channel in time. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_26.png] view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: The trigger rate at different geographic longitudes and latitudes. The red solid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_27.png] view at source ↗
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: The left panel shows a slight misalignment of a PSD bar from the designed po [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_28.png] view at source ↗
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: Residual distribution of projected minus measured hit position in a track after [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_29.png] view at source ↗
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: The RMS values of the major Gaussian in the fit of track-hit residuals shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_30.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The DArk Matter Particle Explorer (DAMPE), a satellite-based cosmic ray and gamma-ray detector, was launched on December 17, 2015, and began its on-orbit operation on December 24, 2015. In this work we document the on-orbit calibration procedures used by DAMPE and report the calibration results of the Plastic Scintillator strip Detector (PSD), the Silicon-Tungsten tracKer-converter (STK), the BGO imaging calorimeter (BGO), and the Neutron Detector (NUD). The results are obtained using Galactic cosmic rays, bright known GeV gamma-ray sources, and charge injection into the front-end electronics of each sub-detector. The determination of the boundary of the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA), the measurement of the live time, and the alignments of the detectors are also introduced. The calibration results demonstrate the stability of the detectors in almost two years of the on-orbit operation.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript documents the on-orbit calibration procedures and results for DAMPE's sub-detectors (PSD, STK, BGO, NUD) using Galactic cosmic rays, known GeV gamma-ray sources, and charge-injection pulses. It also covers SAA boundary determination, live-time measurement, and detector alignments, with the central claim being that the derived calibration constants demonstrate stability over nearly two years of operation since December 2015.

Significance. If the stability holds under the stated methods, the work is important for validating DAMPE's long-term data quality in cosmic-ray and gamma-ray observations. The multi-reference approach (external GCR samples, bright sources, and internal charge injection) is a strength that reduces reliance on any single method.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and results sections] Abstract and results sections: The stability claim rests on the assumption that the chosen GCR, gamma-source, and charge-injection samples are free of unknown time-dependent systematics (e.g., radiation damage or uncorrected SAA variations). No independent cross-check against a physics observable with a priori known absolute scale is presented that could falsify correlated hidden drifts.
  2. [Calibration results for each sub-detector] Calibration results for each sub-detector: Quantitative error budgets, statistical tests for constancy, or limits on possible drifts are not reported, making it impossible to assess whether the observed parameter constancy excludes drifts at the level relevant to DAMPE science goals.
minor comments (2)
  1. Figure captions and axis labels in the stability plots could explicitly state the time baseline and reference values used for normalization.
  2. A short table summarizing the number of events or sources used per calibration channel and per time bin would improve traceability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed review and constructive feedback on our manuscript documenting the on-orbit calibration of DAMPE. We address the two major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and results sections] Abstract and results sections: The stability claim rests on the assumption that the chosen GCR, gamma-source, and charge-injection samples are free of unknown time-dependent systematics (e.g., radiation damage or uncorrected SAA variations). No independent cross-check against a physics observable with a priori known absolute scale is presented that could falsify correlated hidden drifts.

    Authors: The manuscript demonstrates stability through consistency among three distinct calibration approaches: Galactic cosmic rays (external reference with known spectral properties), bright GeV gamma-ray sources (known energies), and charge-injection pulses (direct monitoring of front-end electronics). The SAA region is identified separately via count-rate thresholds and excluded from the calibration samples. While the work does not include an additional cross-check based on a physics observable possessing an a priori absolute scale, the agreement across independent methods over nearly two years supports the absence of significant correlated drifts. We will revise the discussion section to explicitly note this reliance on multi-method consistency and any associated limitations. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Calibration results for each sub-detector] Calibration results for each sub-detector: Quantitative error budgets, statistical tests for constancy, or limits on possible drifts are not reported, making it impossible to assess whether the observed parameter constancy excludes drifts at the level relevant to DAMPE science goals.

    Authors: We agree that the presentation would benefit from quantitative measures. In the revised manuscript we will add error estimates to the time series of calibration constants for each sub-detector, include statistical tests (such as chi-squared assessments of constancy), and report upper limits on any residual time-dependent drifts where the data permit. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: calibration results are direct empirical measurements against external references

full rationale

The paper documents on-orbit calibration procedures for DAMPE sub-detectors using Galactic cosmic rays, known GeV gamma-ray sources, and charge-injection pulses, then reports measured stability of constants over ~2 years. No derivation chain, fitted model, or prediction is presented that reduces to its own inputs by construction. All results are direct comparisons to independent external references. This matches the reader's assessment of low circularity burden; no load-bearing self-citation, ansatz, or self-definitional step exists in the provided text.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Calibration constants are fitted to cosmic-ray and charge-injection data; the paper does not enumerate them or state how many free parameters per sub-detector are adjusted. No invented entities or non-standard axioms are mentioned in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6532 in / 1009 out tokens · 22436 ms · 2026-05-25T09:37:39.817532+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Charge-dependent spectral softenings of primary cosmic-rays below the knee

    astro-ph.HE 2025-11 conditional novelty 7.0

    Direct measurements reveal charge-dependent spectral softenings in primary cosmic rays at a common rigidity of ~15 TV, rejecting mass-dependent softening at >99.999% confidence.

  2. A MINOT-based Study of Gamma-ray emission from SPT-CL J2012-5649/Abell 3667

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    MINOT modeling of Abell 3667 predicts hadronic gamma-ray flux roughly matching Fermi-LAT observations in the 1-300 GeV band but with a spectral index in tension with the data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Chang, J

    J. Chang, J. Wu, in: Proceedings of 31st International Cosmic Ray Confer- ence, V ol.1(2009) 1613. http://icrc2009.uni.lodz.pl/proc/pdf/icrc0823.pdf

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    J. Wu, J. Chang, in: Proceedings of 32nd International Cosmic Ray Con- ference, V ol.5(2011) 228

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Chang, Chin

    J. Chang, Chin. J. Spac. Sci. , 34 (2014) 550; http://www.cjss.ac.cn/CN/10.11728/cjss2014.05.550

    work page doi:10.11728/cjss2014.05.550 2014

  4. [4]

    The DArk Matter Particle Explorer mission

    J. Chang, et al., [The DAMPE collaboration], Astropartic. Phys., 95 (2017) 6; arXiv:1706.08453

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Y. H. Yu, et al., Astropartic. Phys., 94 (2017) 1; arXiv:1703.00098

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Wu et al., Proceedings of the 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference (PoS(ICRC2015)) (2015) 1192

    X. Wu et al., Proceedings of the 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference (PoS(ICRC2015)) (2015) 1192

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Azzarello, et al., Nucl

    P. Azzarello, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A , 831 (2016) 378

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Z. Y. Zhang, C. Wang, & J. Dong, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A , 836 (2016) 98

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    Z. Y. Zhang, Y. L. Zhang, & J. Dong, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods A , 780 (2015) 21

    work page 2015

  10. [10]

    J. N. Dong, Y. L. Zhang, & Z. Y. Zhang et al., Journal of Instrumentation , 12, May (2017). 33

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    M. He, T. Ma, & J. Chang, et al., Acta Astron. Sini. , 57 (2016) 1

    work page 2016

  12. [12]

    Yue, et al., Nucl

    C. Yue, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 856 (2017) 11

    work page 2017

  13. [13]

    Ambrosi, et al., [The DAMPE collaboration], Nature (2017) 63

    G. Ambrosi, et al., [The DAMPE collaboration], Nature (2017) 63

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    Z. L. Xu, et al., Res. Astron. Astrophys. 18 (2018) 27

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    K. K. Duan, et al., Res. Astron. Astrophys. to be submitted (2018)

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    P. X. Ma, et al., Res. Astron. Astrophys. submitted (2018); arXiv:1808.05720

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    T. K. Dong, et al., Astropart. Phys. submitted (2018)

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    Ding, et al., Res

    M. Ding, et al., Res. Astron. Astrophys. submitted (2018)

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    Liu, et al., PoS (ICRC2017) (2017) 232

    Y. Liu, et al., PoS (ICRC2017) (2017) 232

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    Wu, et al., PoS (ICRC2017) (2017) 926

    X. Wu, et al., PoS (ICRC2017) (2017) 926

    work page 2017

  21. [21]

    Vitillo, et al., PoS (ICRC2017) (2017) 240

    S. Vitillo, et al., PoS (ICRC2017) (2017) 240

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    C. Q. Feng, et al., PoS (ICRC2017) (2017) 925

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    J. J. Zang, et al., PoS (ICRC2017) (2017) 197

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    S. J. Lei, et al., PoS (ICRC2017) (2017) 616

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    Y. F. Liang, et al., PoS (ICRC2017) (2017) 603

    work page 2017

  26. [26]

    Yuan, et al., PoS (ICRC2017) (2017) 617

    Q. Yuan, et al., PoS (ICRC2017) (2017) 617

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    Fernanda, et al., PoS (ICRC2017) (2017) 709

    M. Fernanda, et al., PoS (ICRC2017) (2017) 709

    work page 2017

  28. [28]

    Yue, et al., PoS (ICRC2017) (2017) 1076

    C. Yue, et al., PoS (ICRC2017) (2017) 1076

    work page 2017

  29. [29]

    Gallo, et al., PoS (ICRC2017) (2017) 169

    V. Gallo, et al., PoS (ICRC2017) (2017) 169

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    Bringmann and C

    T. Bringmann and C. Weniger, Phys. Dark Univis. , 1 (2012) 194

    work page 2012

  31. [31]

    Y. F. Liang, et al., Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 103525

    work page 2016

  32. [32]

    Chang, et al., [The ATIC Collaboration], Nature 456 (2008) 362

    J. Chang, et al., [The ATIC Collaboration], Nature 456 (2008) 362

    work page 2008

  33. [33]

    Y. Z. Fan, B. Zhang, J. Chang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 19 (2010) 2011

    work page 2010

  34. [34]

    A. A. Abdo, et al. [Fermi-LAT collaboration], Astropart. Phys., 32 (2009) 193

    work page 2009

  35. [35]

    S. S. Gao, C. Q. Feng, Y. L. Zhang, D. L. Zhang, Z. T. Shen, D. Jiang, S. B. Liu & Q. An, Real Time Conference (RT), 2014 19th IEEE-NPSS, 2014 (DOI:10.1109/RTC.2014.7097422). 34

    work page doi:10.1109/rtc.2014.7097422 2014

  36. [36]

    Y. Zhou, Z. Y. Sun, Y. H. Yu, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 827 (2016) 79

    work page 2016

  37. [37]

    Y. Zhou, Z. Y. Sun, Y. H. Yu, et al., Nucl. Sci. Tech. 27 (2016) 70

    work page 2016

  38. [38]

    Integrated Detector Electronics AS (IDEAS), VA160 datasheet, (http://www.ideas.no)

    work page

  39. [39]

    Gallo, et al., Proceedings of the 34th International Cosmic Ray Confer- ence PoS (ICRC2015), 1199 (2015)

    V. Gallo, et al., Proceedings of the 34th International Cosmic Ray Confer- ence PoS (ICRC2015), 1199 (2015)

    work page 2015

  40. [40]

    Z. M. Wang, et al., Chin. Phys. C 41 (2017) 016001

    work page 2017

  41. [41]

    J. C. Patrignani, et al., (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C 40 (2016) 100001

    work page 2016

  42. [42]

    Y. P. Wang, et al., Chin. Phys. C , 41 (2017) 106001

    work page 2017

  43. [43]

    Zhang, et al., Chin

    F. Zhang, et al., Chin. Phys. C , 40 (2016) 116101

    work page 2016

  44. [44]

    Birks, Theory and Practice of Scintillation Counting, Pergamon Press, London, 1964

    J.B. Birks, Theory and Practice of Scintillation Counting, Pergamon Press, London, 1964

    work page 1964

  45. [45]

    Chang, et al

    J. Chang, et al. (The ATIC collaboration), Advances in Space Research, 42 (2008) 431

    work page 2008

  46. [46]

    Integrated Detector Electronics AS, http://www.ideas.no

    work page

  47. [47]

    Gallo et al, PoS (VERTEX2016) 010

    V. Gallo et al, PoS (VERTEX2016) 010

    work page

  48. [48]

    Jiang et al, PoS (ICRC2017) (2017) 228

    W. Jiang et al, PoS (ICRC2017) (2017) 228

    work page 2017

  49. [49]

    Tykhonov, et al., Nucl

    A. Tykhonov, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A , 893 (2018) 43

    work page 2018

  50. [50]

    Alpat, et

    B. Alpat, et. al. The internal alignment and position resolution of the AMS- 02 silicon tracker determined with cosmic-ray muons, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 613 (2010) 207

    work page 2010

  51. [51]

    S. S. Gao, C. Q. Feng, D. Jiang, S. B. Liu, Z. G. Zhang, K. Xi, & Q. An. Nucl. Sci. Tech. 25 (2014) 010402

    work page 2014

  52. [52]

    C. Q. Feng, D. L. Zhang, J. B. Zhang, et al. (2014) arXiv:1406.3886

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  53. [53]

    Casolino et al., Proceedings of the 30th International Cosmic Ray Con- ference (ICRC)

    M. Casolino et al., Proceedings of the 30th International Cosmic Ray Con- ference (ICRC). July 3 - 11, 2007, M´ erida, Yucat´ an, Mexico. Edited by Rogelio Caballero, Juan Carlos D’Olivo, Gustavo Medina-Tanco, Lukas Nellen, Federico A. S´ anchez, Jos´ e F. Vald´ es-Galicia. Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Mexico City, Mexico, 2008. Volume 1, p.709-712

    work page 2007

  54. [54]

    Ackermann, et al

    M. Ackermann, et al. [Fermi-LAT collaboration], Astrophysics. J. Supp. , 203 (2012) 4. 35

    work page 2012

  55. [55]

    G. P. Ginet, et al. Space Science Reviews, 179 (2013) 579-615

    work page 2013

  56. [56]

    Ajello, et al

    M. Ajello, et al. [Fermi-LAT collaboration], Astrophys. J. Suppl. 232 (2017) 18

    work page 2017

  57. [57]

    James and M

    F. James and M. Roos. Comput. Phys. Commun., 10 (1975) 343. 36

    work page 1975