Pixel Detectors ... where do we stand?

Norbert Wermes

RECORD

Pixel Detectors ... where do we stand?

Norbert Wermes

Instrumentation and Detectors · Submitted 27 Apr 2018

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim Now the move is towards larger integration and fully monolithic devices with to be expected spin-off into imaging again.

how it is stated · asserted 0.64 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,095 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.08 · human participants 0.05 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.05 · compares with prior results 0.08 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

Pixel detectors have been the working horse for high resolution, high rate and radiation particle tracking for the past 20 years. The field has spun off into imaging applications with equal uniqueness. Now the move is towards larger integration and fully monolithic devices with to be expected spin-off into imaging again. Many judices and prejudices that were around at times were overcome and surpassed. This paper attempts to give an account of the developments following a line of early prejudices and later insights.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	Pixel detectors have been the working horse for high resolution, high rate and radiation particle tracking for the past 20 years.	background 1.00	0.04	0.06	asserted 1.00
s1	The field has spun off into imaging applications with equal uniqueness.	background 1.00	0.06	0.04	asserted 1.00
s2	Now the move is towards larger integration and fully monolithic devices with to be expected spin-off into imaging again.	background 0.68	0.07	0.18	asserted 0.64
s3	Many judices and prejudices that were around at times were overcome and surpassed.	background 0.89	0.07	0.09	asserted 0.99
s4	This paper attempts to give an account of the developments following a line of early prejudices and later insights.	contribution 0.98	0.27	0.07	asserted 0.65

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: review 0.99 · evidence from literature 0.66.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper

Original abstract

Pixel detectors have been the working horse for high resolution, high rate and radiation particle tracking for the past 20 years. The field has spun off into imaging applications with equal uniqueness. Now the move is towards larger integration and fully monolithic devices with to be expected spin-off into imaging again. Many judices and prejudices that were around at times were overcome and surpassed. This paper attempts to give an account of the developments following a line of early prejudices and later insights.

Human review

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

How the literature uses it

What this paper does with the arXiv papers it cites

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

What it cites · 3 sentences without a confident label

Cites as support 1 paper

The early conception is about to change as has been successfully demonstrated for strip [ref] and pixel sensors [ref] .

Radiation hard pixel sensors using high-resistive wafers in a 150 nm CMOS processing line · Pixel sensors in high radiation environments · 0.98

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.