Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 27 references

A simulation framework for SiPMs

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a Python module can simulate the time behavior of dark counts, afterpulses, and optical crosstalk in silicon photomultipliers, extend the same noise model to large SiPM arrays and whole detector cameras, and…

desk verdict A genuinely useful array-level SiPM simulation module, but the validation is partly self-consistency and the fitted crosstalk parameter is unreported, so the predictive claims need tempering. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16710 v2 pith:VEQ2K5HS submitted 2024-11-22 physics.ins-det astro-ph.IM

J. Peña-Rodríguez , J. Förtsch , C. Pauly , K.-H. Kampert This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-detastro-ph.IM
keywords siliconphotomultiplierSiPMsimulationdarkcountratecrosstalkafterpulsingarraysmajorityvotingtriggerdetector
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 claims that a single Python module can generate realistic time-domain signals for silicon photomultipliers (SiPMs), covering dark counts, afterpulses, and optical crosstalk, and that the same module can simulate large arrays of SiPMs as used in RICH detectors, Cherenkov telescopes, and PET systems. The paper presents this array-level capability as its novelty, because existing simulation tools address individual sensors rather than full cameras. The framework is validated against data from four commercial SiPMs by comparing peak-amplitude spectra, DCR-versus-threshold curves, and relative-time distributions, and then applied to simulate majority-vote trigger systems for a RICH camera and a Cherenkov-telescope camera. If the claim is right, detector designers can study trigger thresholds and signal-to-noise behavior of SiPM cameras in simulation before building hardware.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a time-binned waveform synthesizer driven by four analytic distributions. The pulse shape is $A(1-e^{-t/\tau_R})e^{-t/\tau_F}$, with $\tau_R=R_S C_J$ the microcell discharge time and $\tau_F=R_Q C_J$ the recovery time; dark counts follow the exponential inter-arrival density $f_{\mathrm{DCR}}(t)=\frac{1}{\tau}e^{-t/\tau}$ with $\tau=1/\mathrm{DCR}$; afterpulses follow the release-time density in Eq. 3.3 with $\tau_{AP}$ constrained to $\tau_R<\tau_{AP}<\tau_{rec}$; and crosstalk multiplicities obey the geometric chain $P_{N_{\mathrm{pe}}}=(\alpha P_{CT})^N$. A peak-finder extracts amplitudes and inter-times from the synthesized trace exactly as from real data, and a camera wrapper places SiPM arrays in rows and columns, injects ring- or shower-like photon patterns, and applies a coincidence-window majority-vote trigger.

What would settle it

Simulate a SiPM not among the four characterized devices using independently measured DCR, crosstalk, afterpulse, and pulse-time parameters, then compare the simulated DCR-versus-threshold curve and relative-time distribution with data at an operating point that was not used to set any fitted constant, such as an intermediate bias voltage; if the model/data ratio departs substantially from the roughly 0.98–1.06 seen in the paper, or if the predicted majority-vote trigger efficiency for a known ring pattern disagrees with the measured camera response, the central claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a compact set of analytic models — an exponential rise/fall pulse, a Poisson dark-count process, a recovery-time-dependent afterpulse release distribution, and a geometric crosstalk chain — is sufficient to synthesize SiPM waveforms whose statistics match measured data. Concretely, the pulse is $A(1-e^{-t/\tau_R})e^{-t/\tau_F}$, dark counts arrive with exponential inter-times set by the DCR, afterpulses follow $f_{\mathrm{AP}}(t)=\frac{\tau_{\mathrm{rec}}+\tau_{\mathrm{AP}}}{\tau_{\mathrm{AP}}^2}(1-e^{-t/\tau_{\mathrm{rec}}})e^{-t/\tau_{\mathrm{AP}}}$, and the probability of crosstalk at or above $N$ photoelectrons is $(\alpha P_{\mathrm{CT}})^N$. Summing all components in a user-set time bin reproduces the amplitude spectra, DCR-versus-threshold curves, and inter-time or scatter distributions of the Broadcom AFBR-S4N66P024M, Hamamatsu S14160-6050HS, Onsemi MICROFC-60035, and FBK NUV-HD3 at the tested bias and temperature settings, with model/data ratios of about 1.06 and 0.98 in the DCR-versus-threshold comparisons. The same generated signals are then embedded in $20\times20$ and $10\times10$ arrays of $8\times8$ SiPM modules to test majority-vote trigger thresholds, where the paper concludes that about 4–5 hits per array gives a workable signal-to-noise compromise for the RICH and IACT examples.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the DCR, crosstalk probability, afterpulse fraction, recovery time, and release time supplied by the user are accurate for the device and operating condition being simulated, because the model does not predict these quantities from device physics and the validation feeds the same measured values back into the simulation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Users can synthesize dark-count, crosstalk, and afterpulse traces for arbitrary SiPM arrays and compare different trigger strategies before committing to hardware.
  • In the RICH example, a majority-vote threshold of five hits per SiPM array detects all twenty injected Cherenkov rings while rejecting 99.3% of the noise; a three-hit threshold creates false-positive rings and a ten-hit threshold misses some rings.
  • In the IACT example, a five-hit threshold detects the full simulated 500-photon shower while a ten-hit threshold loses details, leading the paper to recommend roughly four to five hits per array as the signal/noise compromise.
  • The DCR-versus-threshold output gives detector designers a direct map from photoelectron threshold to noise rate, with model/data ratios of about 1.06 and 0.98 at the tested operating points.
  • Because all sensor parameters (rise time, fall time, DCR, crosstalk, afterpulse rate, recovery time, releasing time) are user inputs, the same module can be configured for any characterized SiPM.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The validation is a self-consistency check rather than a true prediction: each device's measured DCR, crosstalk, and afterpulse values are fed into the simulation, so the agreement in the figures shows the model can reproduce what it is given, not that it anticipates noise at an untested operating point.
  • Unmodeled baseline electronic noise is visible in the valley filling of the amplitude spectra and in the sub-0.5 pe contamination of the inter-time scatter; a readout-noise term would be needed before using the simulator to optimize thresholds close to the electronic noise floor.
  • A stronger test of the framework would be to simulate the full DCR-versus-threshold and relative-time curves across a sweep of bias voltage and temperature, or to simulate a SiPM whose characterization data were not used anywhere in the paper.
  • The default assumption $\tau_{AP}=\tau_{rec}/3.7$ for the trap-release time is a convenient but device-dependent shortcut; the model's timing predictions would be more trustworthy if $\tau_{AP}$ were measured per device rather than defaulted.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a Python simulation framework for SiPMs, modeling uncorrelated noise (DCR) and correlated noise (crosstalk and afterpulsing) and extending the simulation to SiPM arrays for large-area detectors. The pulse shape is modeled with exponential rise/fall times, noise sources are generated probabilistically, and a peak-finding analysis is provided. The framework is compared with data from four commercial SiPMs (Broadcom AFBR-S4N66P024M, Hamamatsu S14160-6050HS, Onsemi MICROFC-60035, and FBK NUV-HD3), using amplitude spectra, DCR-vs-threshold curves, inter-time scatter plots, and relative-time distributions. Two application examples are shown: a RICH camera and an IACT camera with majority-voting triggers, where the authors recommend thresholds between 4 and 5 hits per SiPM array for acceptable signal/noise performance.

Significance. If the simulation framework is genuinely validated, it would be a useful open-source tool for detector design studies involving SiPM arrays, particularly for RICH and IACT applications where array-level trigger performance is important. The paper's strengths include a concrete implementation with a simple pulse-shape model, validation against four different SiPMs, and two realistic application examples. However, the validation is weakened by the use of measured noise parameters as simulation inputs, an unreported fitted crosstalk scaling factor, an unquantified valley mismatch in the amplitude spectra, and the absence of uncertainty estimates. These issues limit the current evidence for the framework's predictive power for new devices, though the central modeling concept is sound and the array-level simulation capability is a useful contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (3.4)] The crosstalk chain probability P_Npe = (alpha * P_CT)^N depends on a scaling factor alpha that is described as 'obtained from model fitting,' but the manuscript never reports the fitted alpha values, their uncertainties, or their dependence on device and operating conditions. Since P_CT is an input, alpha is a free parameter that directly shapes the amplitude spectrum and DCR-vs-threshold curves used for validation in Figs. 3 and 4. Without reporting alpha and demonstrating that it is stable across devices and operating conditions, the agreement shown in Figs. 3 and 4 could be the result of per-device tuning rather than a confirmation of the physical model.
  2. [Sec. 5, Figs. 3-6] The validation is partly circular: for each SiPM the measured DCR, crosstalk, and afterpulse values are fed back into the simulation as input parameters (e.g., 'the DCR was set to 11.23 MHz with a crosstalk probability of 34%' for AFBR-S4N66P024M). This makes the good model/data ratios (1.06 and 0.98) a self-consistency check of the pulse-shape and peak-finding analysis rather than an independent test of the noise models. To substantiate the claim of validation, the authors should either predict the noise parameters from independent characterization or quantify the sensitivity of the reported agreement to realistic variations in the input parameters and their uncertainties.
  3. [Sec. 5, Fig. 3 and Secs. 6-7] The authors explicitly state that baseline/electronic noise is not modeled and acknowledge that 'in the spectrum valleys, the ratio increases' for the amplitude spectra. Since the DCR-vs-threshold curves and the trigger applications in Secs. 6 and 7 use a 0.5 pe threshold, where baseline noise contaminates real data, the false-positive rates shown in Figs. 8-11 may be underestimated. The paper should quantify the valley discrepancy (e.g., model/data ratio at valley positions) and discuss how the unmodeled noise component would affect the trigger thresholds recommended in Secs. 6 and 7.
  4. [Table 2 and Sec. 3.2] The afterpulse releasing time default tau_AP = tau_rec/3.7 is asserted without a citation or a measured basis. Equation (3.3) makes the inter-time distribution in Fig. 5 sensitive to tau_AP, so the default should be justified with a reference or a measurement. The authors should also report how the validation results in Fig. 5 depend on tau_AP for the devices studied.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Table 1] The device name 'Hamamatsu S14160-636050HS' in the abstract does not match 'S14160-6050HS' used in the body; also Table 1 lists 'S14160-6050CS' for the same device. Please make the device names consistent throughout.
  2. [Table 1] The vendor entry for FBK NUV-HD3 is listed as 'FBZ' and the Broadcom device as 'AFBRS4N66P024'; these appear to be typos for 'FBK' and 'AFBR-S4N66P024M' respectively.
  3. [Sec. 6, text near Fig. 9] The sentence 'Figure6 shows the fraction of signal and noise depending on the applied threshold' refers to Fig. 9, not Fig. 6; the cross-reference is incorrect.
  4. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption says the distribution spans 'from 4x10^-9ns to 3x10^-6ns'; the unit should likely be seconds (s), not nanoseconds, and the text in Sec. 5 similarly writes '4x10^-9ns' and '3x10^-6ns'. Please correct the units.
  5. [Appendix A] The code listing has corrupted comments (e.g., 'I mp or ti ng the s i m u l a t i o n module') and an ellipsis continuation line ('T_rec , T_AP , W , R , sigma ,...') that suggests incomplete code; please provide a clean, complete code example.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Validation is partially circular: measured DCR/crosstalk/afterpulse values are fed back into the simulator and then compared to the same measurements, and Eq. 3.4 contains an unreported fitted scaling alpha.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (3.4) and Sec. 5 validation]
    "P_Npe = (alpha P_CT)^N, where P_Npe is the probability of crosstalk with amplitude above Npe after a primary avalanche, P_CT the total crosstalk probability, and alpha is a scaling factor obtained from model fitting."

    alpha is a free parameter fit to the data, but no fitted value, uncertainty, or device/overvoltage dependence is reported. Since P_CT is already a measured input, alpha directly shapes the amplitude spectrum and the DCR-vs-threshold curves used as validation in Sec. 5; agreement with those curves is therefore expected from the fit rather than an independent confirmation of the model.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 5 (DCR vs threshold and FBK relative-time validation)]
    "The AFBR-S4N66P024M DCR was set to 11.23MHz (0.5pe level) with a crosstalk probability of 34%. ... The model input parameters were a DCR of 26MHz, a crosstalk of 25%, a recovery of 150ns ..."

    The simulator is given the very measured DCR, crosstalk, and recovery values it is then claimed to 'predict' in the model/data comparisons. At the 0.5 pe point the model returns its own input DCR by construction; the reported 1.06 model/data ratio is a consistency check of the peak-counting algorithm, not an independent prediction.

full rationale

The framework itself is a Monte Carlo simulator with standard physical parameterizations and is not circular in its array/trigger applications; the circularity is confined to the validation section. Sec. 5 feeds the measured DCR, crosstalk, and afterpulse values back into the simulator and then compares the output to the same measurements; this is a self-consistency check. Eq. (3.4) introduces an unreported fitted parameter alpha that directly controls the crosstalk amplitude distribution, so the amplitude-spectrum and DCR-vs-threshold agreement cannot be read as independent validation. No load-bearing self-citation is present: the physics parameterizations cite external empirical and modeling work [16]-[19]. The afterpulse default tau_AP = tau_rec/3.7 (Table 2) and the unmodeled baseline noise are limitations for the 0.5 pe trigger studies, but they are correctness risks rather than definitional circularity. Overall the central 'validated against four SiPMs' claim is partially circular, so 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central simulation rests on standard statistical noise models from the SiPM literature; these are the background assumptions the paper uses without re-deriving them. The free parameters are user-settable or fitted constants the validation depends on. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Crosstalk scaling factor alpha = not stated (obtained from model fitting)
    Eq. 3.4 in Sec. 3.3; the crosstalk chain probability uses (alpha * P_CT)^N where alpha is obtained from model fitting, so the crosstalk amplitude distribution is partly fit rather than predicted.
  • Afterpulse releasing time tau_AP = default tau_rec/3.7; 14.8 ns in appendix example
    Sec. 3.2 and Table 2; user-settable parameter; the default ratio is a hand-chosen relation to recovery time and is not derived from first principles.
  • Amplitude variance sigma_A = 0.1 pe (default)
    Sec. 2; Gaussian spread of single-photoelectron amplitude is an adjustable default; the paper notes the model does not include baseline signal noise, so this width is a tuning parameter.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Pulse shape is a single exponential rise and fall: A(1 - exp(-t/tau_R)) exp(-t/tau_F), with tau_R = R_S*C_J and tau_F = R_Q*C_J.
    Eq. 2.1; standard RC-model approximation for SiPM avalanche and recharge; validation uses lab-measured rise and fall times rather than verifying R_S, C_J, and R_Q directly.
  • domain assumption Dark counts are an independent Poisson process with exponential inter-arrival times f_DCR(t) = (1/tau) exp(-t/tau).
    Sec. 3.1, Eq. 3.1; standard SiPM assumption, tested only indirectly through the inter-time distributions.
  • domain assumption Crosstalk follows a geometric chain process P_Npe = (alpha * P_CT)^N.
    Sec. 3.3, Eq. 3.4; alpha is described as obtained from model fitting, so the model has an adjustable constant rather than a first-principles derivation.
  • domain assumption Afterpulse timing follows Eq. 3.3 with tau_AP between tau_R and tau_rec and default tau_AP = tau_rec/3.7.
    Sec. 3.2 and Table 2; taken from Ref. [16]; the default ratio is chosen by hand.
  • ad hoc to paper Individual pulse amplitudes are Gaussian with default sigma_A = 0.1 pe.
    Sec. 2; adjustable default; the paper notes that baseline and signal noise are not simulated, so this width is a free choice.
  • domain assumption Signal waveforms are formed by linear superposition of all pulses in each time bin.
    Sec. 3 and Fig. 2; assumes no rate-dependent saturation or nonlinear pile-up effects beyond the described pulse shortening.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A simulation framework for SiPMs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VEQ2K5HS

@misc{pith2026241116710,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A simulation framework for SiPMs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VEQ2K5HS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16710}
}
read the original abstract

We present a Python module for simulating Silicon Photo-Multipliers, Avalanche Photo-Diodes, and Multi-Pixel Photon Counters. This module allows users to perform noise analyses: Dark Count Rate, crosstalk, and afterpulsing. Furthermore, the simulation framework novelty is the capability of simulating assemblies of SiPM arrays (MPPCa) for large area detectors like Ring Imaging Cherenkov detectors, Cherenkov Telescopes, Positron Emission Tomography, and any detector using SiPM arrays. Users can simulate ring- or shower-like-shaped signals based on the expected number of photons generated by the source. We validate the performance of the simulation module with data from four different SiPM: Broadcom AFBR-S4N66P024M, Hamamatsu S14160-636050HS, Onsemi MICROFC-60035, and FBK NUV-HD3.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H. Anderhub et al.,FACT—The first Cherenkov telescope using a G-APD camera for TeV gamma-ray astronomy,Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, – 11 – Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment639 (2011) 58–61

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    D. Neise et al.,FACT – Status and experience from five years of operation of the first G-APD Cherenkov Telescope,Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment876 (2017) 17–20

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    D. Depaoli et al.,Development of a SiPM Pixel prototype for the Large-Sized Telescope of the Cherenkov Telescope Array, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment1055 (2023) 168521

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Schwanke et al.,A versatile digital camera trigger for telescopes in the Cherenkov Telescope Array,NIM-A 782 (2015) 92

    U. Schwanke et al.,A versatile digital camera trigger for telescopes in the Cherenkov Telescope Array,NIM-A 782 (2015) 92

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    M.J. Basso et al.,A gaseous RICH detector for SiD or ILD,Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment1059 (2024) 168992

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Preghenella, M

    R. Preghenella, M. Alexeev, P. Antonioli, C. Baldanza, L. Barion, M. Chiosso et al.,A SiPM-based optical readout system for the eic dual-radiator rich,Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment1046(2023) 167661

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Lecoq and S

    P. Lecoq and S. Gundacker,SiPM applications in positron emission tomography: toward ultimate PET time-of-flight resolution,The European Physical Journal Plus136(2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Mehadji et al.,Monte Carlo simulation of SiPMs with GATE,Journal of Instrumentation17(2022) P09025

    B. Mehadji et al.,Monte Carlo simulation of SiPMs with GATE,Journal of Instrumentation17(2022) P09025

    work page 2022

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Acerbi and S

    F. Acerbi and S. Gundacker,Understanding and simulating SiPMs, Nuclear Instruments and Methods inPhysicsResearch SectionA:Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectorsand AssociatedEquipment 926 (2019) 16–35

    2019

  2. [10]

    Rosado and S

    J. Rosado and S. Hidalgo,Characterization and modeling of crosstalk and afterpulsing in Hamamatsu silicon photomultipliers,Journal of Instrumentation10 (2015) P10031–P10031

    2015

  3. [11]

    T. Niggemann et al.,G4SiPM: A novel silicon photomultiplier simulation package for Geant4, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment787 (2015) 344–347

    2015

  4. [12]

    Jha et al.,Simulating Silicon Photomultiplier Response to Scintillation Light,IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science60 (2013) 336–351

    A.K. Jha et al.,Simulating Silicon Photomultiplier Response to Scintillation Light,IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science60 (2013) 336–351

    2013

  5. [13]

    Gundacker and A

    S. Gundacker and A. Heering,The silicon photomultiplier: fundamentals and applications of a modern solid-state photon detector,Physics in Medicine and Biology65(2020) 17TR01

    2020

  6. [14]

    Hamamatsu, Technical note: MPPC, Tech. Rep. Hamamatsu Photonics K. K. (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Montaruli and A

    T. Montaruli and A. Nagai,Properties of large SiPM at room temperature, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 985(2021) 164609

    2021

  8. [16]

    F. Nagy et al.,Afterpulse and delayed crosstalk analysis on a STMicroelectronics silicon photomultiplier,Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment759 (2014) 44–49

    2014

  9. [17]

    Razeto and N

    A. Razeto and N. Rossi,Challenges for dark matter direct search with SiPMs,Frontiers in Physics11 (2024) . – 12 –

    2024

  10. [18]

    S. Vinogradov,Analytical models of probability distribution and excess noise factor of solid state photomultiplier signals with crosstalk, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment695(2012) 247–251

    2012

  11. [19]

    Gallego et al.,Modeling crosstalk in silicon photomultipliers, Journal of Instrumentation8 (2013) P05010–P05010

    L. Gallego et al.,Modeling crosstalk in silicon photomultipliers, Journal of Instrumentation8 (2013) P05010–P05010

    2013

  12. [20]

    Ambrosi, M

    G. Ambrosi, M. Ambrosio, C. Aramo, B. Bertucci, E. Bissaldi, M. Bitossi et al.,High-density near-ultraviolet silicon photomultipliers: Characterization of photosensors for cherenkov light detection, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, S...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Ghassemi et al.,Technical note: MPPC, Tech

    A. Ghassemi et al.,Technical note: MPPC, Tech. Rep. Hamamatsu Photonics K. K. (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Klochkov,The Compressed Baryonic Matter Experiment at FAIR, Nuclear Physics A1005 (2021) 121945

    V. Klochkov,The Compressed Baryonic Matter Experiment at FAIR, Nuclear Physics A1005 (2021) 121945

    2021

  15. [23]

    M. Becker et al.,Status of the development of the RICH detector for CBM including a mRICH prototype in mCBM,Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment1059 (2024) 168832

    2024

  16. [24]

    A. Hahn et al.,Direct comparison of SiPM and PMT sensor performances in a large-size imaging air Cherenkov telescope, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment1064 (2024) 169350

    2024

  17. [25]

    A. Berti et al.,Development and test of a SiPM cluster for a SiPM version of the Cherenkov Telescope Array LST camera, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment982 (2020) 164373

    2020

  18. [26]

    Lu et al.,Silicon Photomultiplier selection for Large Array of Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes,Journal of Instrumentation19 (2024) T01009

    R. Lu et al.,Silicon Photomultiplier selection for Large Array of Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes,Journal of Instrumentation19 (2024) T01009

    2024

  19. [27]

    Ambrosi and V

    G. Ambrosi and V. Vagelli,Applications of silicon photomultipliers in ground-based and spaceborne high-energy astrophysics, The European Physical Journal Plus137 (2022) . – 13 – A Using the SiPM Python module # I mp or ti ng the s i m u l a t i o n module import Si PM _M PP C ...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.