Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Demonstration of the light collection stability of a PEN-based wavelength shifting reflector in a tonne scale liquid argon detector

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 A 4 m² PEN-based wavelength-shifting reflector in a two-tonne liquid argon detector shows no evidence of performance deterioration over 12 days, making PEN a viable substitute for the standard TPB coating.

desk verdict First tonne-scale PEN stability test in LAr, but the 12-day claim really rests on an 8-day window and an unverified impurity assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17934 v1 pith:PKAFWBAD submitted 2024-11-26 physics.ins-det astro-ph.IMhep-exnucl-ex

V. Gupta , G. R. Araujo , M. Babicz , L. Baudis , P.-J. Chiu , S. Choudhary , M. Goldbrunner , A. Hamer
show 13 more authors
M. Kuźniak M. Kuźwa A. Leonhardt E. Montagna G. Nieradka H. B. Parkinson F. Pietropaolo T. R. Pollmann F. Resnati S. Schönert A. M. Szelc K. Thieme M. Walczak
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-detastro-ph.IMhep-exnucl-ex PACS 29.40.Mc
keywords wavelengthshifterspolyethylenenaphthalatePENliquidargondetectorslightyieldstabilityTPBreplacementscintillationdetectiondetectorinstrumentation
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

Liquid argon detectors need a wavelength shifter to convert 128 nm scintillation light into visible light, and the current standard TPB is hard to apply over the huge surfaces of next-generation detectors. This paper tests a 4 m² reflector made of commercial PEN film, which can be produced as thin sheets, inside a two-tonne liquid argon detector over about two weeks. Tracking light yield with alpha particles and cosmic-ray muons, it sees no evidence of performance deterioration over 12 days of data after correcting for impurity effects. If the result holds, PEN becomes a viable, much easier-to-install substitute for TPB in large liquid argon detectors.

What carries the argument

The central object is the PEN-based wavelength-shifting reflector (WLSR): a 25 µm sheet of commercial PEN backed by a specular reflector, mounted on the inner surface of a hexagonal cage inside the liquid argon. PEN converts argon scintillation VUV photons to visible light near 430 nm. The stability measurement works by tracking the daily light yield from two independent probes, 4.8 MeV alpha particles and cosmic-ray muons, and by applying a correction based on the measured triplet lifetime of argon to separate the effect of accumulating impurities from any true change in the PEN response.

What would settle it

Run the same large PEN reflector in a liquid argon detector with active purification and continuous impurity monitoring, so that the impurity level is known and held constant; if the days-8-11 decline rate of about 2.3% per day still appears, then the stability claim is falsified. A more direct test would be to expose a PEN sample to a controlled VUV flux while measuring its conversion efficiency in situ, with no other variables changing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a PEN-based wavelength-shifting reflector covering 4 m² of a tonne-scale liquid argon detector maintains a stable light yield over 12 days, with a fitted slope consistent with zero for both alpha and muon signals in the main dataset. It also reports that the light yield is uniform across the reflective cage volume, and that the inferred PEN conversion efficiency is around 45% relative to TPB, consistent with earlier small-sample measurements. The authors interpret the one declining segment of data as impurity buildup rather than PEN degradation, on the grounds that the degradation-only interpretation would imply a light-yield loss of 2.3±1.2% per day.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion depends on assuming that the light-yield decline seen in the second dataset (days 8–11) was caused by impurity buildup rather than by PEN itself deteriorating, without an independent impurity measurement to back that up.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Next-generation liquid argon detectors could cover their large surfaces with PEN foils instead of vacuum-deposited TPB, greatly simplifying instrumentation.
  • The paper equates the VUV exposure during the 12-day test to 1–3 years of operation in a deep underground rare-event search detector, implying the stability extends to those exposures if VUV dose is the main degradation driver.
  • The agreement between alpha- and muon-measured light yields indicates that the PEN response is uniform over the full cage volume, not just near the source.
  • The measured PEN efficiency of about 45% relative to TPB is consistent with small-sample results, so upscaling to tonne scale appears not to introduce an efficiency penalty.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The key uncertainty is whether impurity buildup truly explains the days 8–11 decline; a direct measurement of argon purity during the run would settle that, and the authors do not provide one.
  • The claimed equivalence between the test's VUV exposure and 1–3 years underground assumes VUV dose is the only degradation mechanism; other stressors such as temperature cycling, humidity, or chemical exposure could shorten PEN's usable lifetime in real detectors.
  • A natural next step is a head-to-head comparison of PEN and TPB in the same tonne-scale setup over months, which would quantify both the efficiency gap and any difference in long-term stability.
  • If PEN stability holds, the ease of manufacturing large sheets could reshape how photon detection systems are built, moving wavelength shifting from a deposited coating to a structural cladding.
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 reports a test of a 4 m^2 PEN-based wavelength-shifting reflector installed in a two-tonne liquid argon dewar at CERN. The light yield from 241Am alpha particles and cosmic-ray muons is tracked over roughly 17 days of operation, with a triplet-lifetime correction applied to the daily light yield. The authors report a stable light yield between days 12 and 19 and interpret a decline seen between days 8 and 11 as impurity buildup, while acknowledging that it could be PEN degradation. The paper concludes that PEN shows no evidence of performance deterioration over a period of 12 days and is therefore a viable substitute for TPB in large-scale liquid argon detectors.

Significance. If the stability claim holds, this is an important step toward using PEN as a large-area wavelength shifter in future liquid argon detectors, since PEN is substantially easier to instrument than TPB. The paper is the first to test a 4 m^2 PEN reflector over many days in a tonne-scale detector, and it uses two independent event classes (alpha particles and cosmic-ray muons) to cross-check the light yield. The authors are transparent about systematic uncertainties and the ambiguity in the days 8-11 decline. However, the central claim as stated is not fully supported: the stable window is only eight days long with two days excluded, and the attribution of the days 8-11 decline to impurities is not backed by an independent measurement. The paper is a valuable first large-scale stability study, but the conclusion needs to be tempered or supported with additional evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5] The abstract claims "no evidence of performance deterioration over a period of 12 days," but the quantitative support in Section 5 is limited to eight days (days 12-19), and the same 12-day window includes days 8-11, for which the paper reports a decline of 2.3±1.2% per day if interpreted as PEN degradation. The claim as stated is therefore not supported by the data as presented; the authors should either restrict the claim to the stable eight-day window or provide an independent impurity measurement that removes the ambiguity of the days 8-11 decline.
  2. [Section 5, second paragraph] The attribution of the days 8-11 light-yield decline to impurity buildup is not supported by any direct measurement. The triplet lifetime is stable over the same period (1.38-1.44 μs), which excludes triplet-quenching impurities but not VUV-absorbing impurities or PEN degradation. No independent impurity concentration, VUV-transparency measurement, or controlled exposure test is reported. Given that the paper explicitly states that a linear fit yields 2.3±1.2% per day loss under the PEN-degradation interpretation, the central stability conclusion requires resolving this ambiguity; the presented data cannot distinguish the two hypotheses.
  3. [Section 4.1 and Section 5] The triplet-lifetime correction factor η_i = (F_prompt + (1−F_prompt)·τ_0/τ_i) defined in Section 4.1 accounts only for impurities that take energy from triplet excimers, i.e., reduce the triplet lifetime. It does not correct for VUV-absorbing impurities, which reduce the light yield without changing the observed triplet lifetime. In Section 5, the days 8-11 decline is attributed to "impurities that absorb VUV light," a mechanism that is outside the scope of the applied correction. The paper should either justify why the triplet-lifetime correction is applicable to all impurity effects or provide an independent basis for the VUV-absorption scenario.
  4. [Section 4.1 and Figure 5 (left)] The stability conclusion rests on the eight-day window from days 12 to 19, from which two days (15 and 16) are excluded because of "a sudden unexplained high rate of correlated noise" that caused an "apparent increase" in the light yield. Excluding a quarter of the already short stable window without a demonstrated instrumental cause weakens the evidentiary basis for the stability claim. The authors should provide additional information about the noise event and, if possible, reanalyze the full window or justify the exclusion with an instrumental diagnostic.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3] The paper reports a 1% per day downward drift in the mean single-photoelectron charge but does not describe how this drift is corrected in the light-yield values. Figure 5 (left) distinguishes "µ events" from "µ events (without PMT calibration)"; please clarify which data are gain-corrected and how the correction was applied.
  2. [Section 4.2] The absolute PEN efficiency (ε_PEN=0.45 for center, 0.55 for edge) and the VUV absorption length (60 cm) are obtained by matching the simulation to the data, and these values are then used to compute the "Model expectation" bands in Fig. 5 (right). The authors should state explicitly that this is a fit to the same data and provide uncertainties on the extracted parameters, or present the comparison as a consistency check rather than a prediction.
  3. [Figure 5 (left) caption] The bracket notation indicating data taken with the oscilloscope is not defined in the caption; please add an explicit note in the caption or in the text.
  4. [Section 5, first paragraph] The statement that the VUV exposure over the measurement period is equivalent to 1-3 years of operation in a deep-underground detector is asserted without a derivation or uncertainty estimate; given that the degradation mechanism is not established, this equivalence should be presented as a rough scaling estimate with its assumptions stated.
  5. [Throughout] The extracted text contains many concatenated words (e.g., in the abstract) that appear to be a conversion artifact; please ensure the published version has proper spacing.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor fitted-parameter circularity in the model-expectation cross-check; the headline stability result is self-contained.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2 (Fig. 5 right) and Section 5 Discussion]
    "The expected LY at each source position is shown as shaded bands, where we used eq.3.1 with ϵPEN = 0.45. ... Matching the simulation to the center data points leads to a PEN efficiency of approximately 45%. If we match to the edge data instead, the efficiency would be 55%. The PEN efficiency is highly degenerate with the VUV absorption length, for which we took a rather low value in order to best match the data points at all positions."

    The 'model expectation' at the center position is not an independent prediction: ϵPEN=0.45 is obtained by matching the simulation to the center data points, and the VUV absorption length (60 cm) is also selected to match the data. Inserting these fitted values into eq. 3.1 therefore forces the central model band to coincide with the central measurement by construction. This circularity is limited to the absolute-LY cross-check in Fig. 5(right): the headline stability claim (relative day-to-day LY after triplet-lifetime correction) does not use ϵPEN or the VUV absorption length, so it remains self-contained.

full rationale

The paper's central stability conclusion is based on the time evolution of the relative light yield from alpha and muon events, corrected for triplet-lifetime variations; it does not depend on the absolute PEN conversion efficiency or on the simulated photon-collection efficiency. The only reduction-by-construction element is the 'model expectation' in Fig. 5(right), where ϵPEN=0.45 and a 60 cm VUV absorption length are fitted to the data and then used in eq. 3.1 to produce the expected bands; this makes the center-point agreement tautological, though the paper explicitly acknowledges the center/edge discrepancy and the degeneracy. The interpretation of the days 8-11 light-yield decline as impurity buildup rather than PEN degradation is an untested assumption but is transparently stated as a conditional ('If we assume that the decline is entirely due to PEN degradation...'), and it is a correctness/robustness caveat rather than a circular derivation. Prior PEN efficiency measurements are cited as independent earlier results, not as the sole justification for the stability claim. Overall, the headline result survives independently, so circularity is minor and peripheral.

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

The stability claim itself depends on few free parameters, but the absolute light-yield model uses three fitted/selected values (PEN efficiency, VUV absorption length, Fprompt) and several literature constants. The key ad hoc assumption is that the triplet-lifetime correction and the impurity attribution explain the days 8-11 decline without direct impurity measurements.

free parameters (3)
  • PEN conversion efficiency epsilon_PEN = 0.45 (center) to 0.55 (edge)
    Matching simulation to measured light yield yields approximately 45% if centered on center data and 55% if matched to edge data; used in the model expectation of Fig. 5(right).
  • VUV absorption length in LAr = ~60 cm
    Chosen as 'most consistent with our data, including the measured LAr triplet lifetime'; degenerate with PEN efficiency, so effectively a fitted parameter.
  • Fprompt median for correction = 0.78
    Median of the first run's Fprompt distribution, used in the triplet-lifetime-dependent correction factor eta_i.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption LAr scintillation yield Y = 40(8) ph/keV for electron recoils
    Taken from literature refs. [32-35] and used in eq. (3.1) to compute expected LY and absolute PEN efficiency.
  • domain assumption Alpha quenching factor q_alpha = 0.72(0.07)
    Taken from DEAP-3600 measurement, ref. [31], used in eq. (3.1).
  • domain assumption PMT quantum efficiency = 17(1)% at 430 nm
    Taken from ICARUS PMT characterization, ref. [24], used in the expected-light-yield model.
  • ad hoc to paper The triplet-lifetime correction eta_i = (Fprompt + (1-Fprompt)*tau_0/tau_i) fully captures impurity effects on light yield
    Introduced in Section 4.1 without independent validation; the paper notes the correction is applied to the PE yield for each day using a fixed Fprompt=0.78.
  • ad hoc to paper VUV exposure over the 12-day run is equivalent to 1-3 years in a deep-underground detector
    Stated in Section 5 based on source activity and muon rates, assuming VUV exposure is the main degradation driver; not independently measured in this work.
  • domain assumption Reflectivity of WLSR foil and Rayleigh scattering length of LAr from literature
    Used in GEANT4 simulations to determine eta_det, as stated in Section 3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Demonstration of the light collection stability of a PEN-based wavelength shifting reflector in a tonne scale liquid argon detector." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PKAFWBAD

@misc{pith2026241117934,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Demonstration of the light collection stability of a PEN-based wavelength shifting reflector in a tonne scale liquid argon detector},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PKAFWBAD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17934}
}
abstract

Liquid argon detectors rely on wavelength shifters for efficient detection of scintillation light. The current standard is tetraphenyl butadiene (TPB), but it is challenging to instrument on a large scale. Poly(ethylene 2,6-naphthalate) (PEN), a polyester easily manufactured as thin sheets, could simplify the coverage of large surfaces with wavelength shifters. Previous measurements have shown that commercial grades of PEN have approximately 50% light conversion efficiency relative to TPB. Encouraged by these results, we conducted a large-scale measurement using $4~m^2$ combined PEN and specular reflector foils in a two-tonne liquid argon dewar to assess its stability over approximately two weeks. This test is crucial for validating PEN as a viable substitute for TPB. The setup used for the measurement of the stability of PEN as a wavelength shifter is described, together with the first results, showing no evidence of performance deterioration over a period of 12 days.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W. M. Bonivento and F. Terranova. The science and technology of liquid argon detectors.Rev. Mod. Phys., 96:045001, 2024,arXiv:2405.01153. – 7 –

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Kuźniak and A

    M. Kuźniak and A. M. Szelc. Wavelength shifters for applications in liquid argon detectors. Instruments, 5(1), 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Agnes, I

    DarkSideCollaboration, P. Agnes, I. F. M. Albuquerque, T. Alexander, et al. DarkSide-50 532-day Dark Matter Search with Low-Radioactivity Argon.Phys. Rev. D, 98(10):102006, 2018, arXiv:1802.07198

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Design and construction of the DEAP-3600 dark matter detector.Astropart

    DEAP Collaboration, P A Amaudruz, M Baldwin, M Batygov, et al. Design and construction of the DEAP-3600 dark matter detector.Astropart. Phys., 108:1–23, 2019,arXiv:1712.01982

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Abi et al

    B. Abi et al. (ProtoDUNE collaboration). The single-phase ProtoDUNE technical design report. 2017, arXiv:1706.07081

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Acciarri, C

    R. Acciarri, C. Adams, R. An, et al. Design and construction of the MicroBooNE detector.JINST, 12 (02):P02017, 2017,arXiv:1612.05824

    arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    Calvo, C

    ArDMCollaboration, J. Calvo, C. Cantini, P. Crivelli, et al. Commissioning of the ArDM experiment at the Canfranc underground laboratory: first steps towards a tonne-scale liquid argon time projection chamber for dark matter searches.J. Cosmol. and Astropart. Phys., 2017(03):003–003, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    COHERENT 2018 at the Spallation Neutron Source

    D. Akimov, J. B. Albert, P. An, et al. COHERENT 2018 at the Spallation Neutron Source. 2018, arXiv:1803.09183

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Liquid Argon Instrumentation and Monitoring in LEGEND-200.EPJ Web Conf., 253, 2021

    Mario Schwarz, Patrick Krause, Andreas Leonhardt, et al. Liquid Argon Instrumentation and Monitoring in LEGEND-200.EPJ Web Conf., 253, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Abgrall et al

    LEGEND Collaboration, N. Abgrall et al. The Large Enriched Germanium Experiment for Neutrinoless𝛽𝛽 Decay: LEGEND-1000 Preconceptual Design Report. 2021,arXiv:2107.11462

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    DarkSide-20kCollaboration, C. E. Aalseth, F. Acerbi, P. Agnes, et al. DarkSide-20k: A 20 tonne two-phase LAr TPC for direct dark matter detection at LNGS.EPJ Plus, 133:131, 2018, arXiv:1707.08145

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    N. Canci. Instruments and methods for coating of wavelength-shifting materials used for noble liquid technology. JINST, 19(06):C06016, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    ApplicationoftheTPBWavelengthShiftertotheDEAP-3600 Spherical Acrylic Vessel Inner Surface .JINST, 12:04017, 2017,arXiv:1704.01882

    BBroerman, MGBoulay, BCai, etal. ApplicationoftheTPBWavelengthShiftertotheDEAP-3600 Spherical Acrylic Vessel Inner Surface .JINST, 12:04017, 2017,arXiv:1704.01882

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Nakamura, Y

    H. Nakamura, Y. Shirakawa, S. Takahashi, and H. Shimizu. Evidence of deep-blue photon emission at high efficiency by common plastic.EPL, 95(2):22001, 2011

    2011

  7. [15]

    Kuźniak, B

    M. Kuźniak, B. Broerman, T. Pollmann, and G. R. Araujo. Polyethylene naphthalate film as a wavelength shifter in liquid argon detectors.EPJ C, 79(4):291, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    M. G. Boulay, V. Camillo, N. Canci, et al. Direct comparison of PEN and TPB wavelength shifters in a liquid argon detector.EPJ C, 81(12):1099, 2021,arXiv:2106.15506

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    G. R. Araujo, L. Baudis, N. McFadden, et al. R&D of wavelength-shifting reflectors and characterization of the quantum efficiency of tetraphenyl butadiene and polyethylene naphthalate in liquid argon.EPJ C, 82(5):442, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Use of poly(ethylene naphthalate) as a self-vetoing structural material

    Y Efremenko, L Fajt, M Febbraro, et al. Use of poly(ethylene naphthalate) as a self-vetoing structural material. JPCS, 1468(1):012225, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Light Response of Poly(ethylene 2,6-napthalate) to Neutrons

    B Hackett, R deBoer, Y Efremenko, et al. Light Response of Poly(ethylene 2,6-napthalate) to Neutrons. 2022,arxiv:2204.02866

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Abraham, J

    Y. Abraham, J. Asaadi, V. Basque, et al. Wavelength-shifting performance of polyethylene naphthalate films in a liquid argon environment.JINST, 16(07):P07017, 2021,arXiv:2103.03232. – 8 –

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Abed Abud, B

    A. Abed Abud, B. Abi, R. Acciarri, et al. Scintillation light detection in the 6-m drift-length ProtoDUNE Dual Phase liquid argon TPC.EPJ C, 82(7):618, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Cennini et al

    P. Cennini et al. Argon purification in the liquid phase.Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 333:567–570, 1993

    1993

  15. [23]

    ICARUSCollaboration, C. Vignoli. The ICARUS T600 Liquid Argon Purification System.Phys. Procedia, 67:796–801, 2015

    2015

  16. [24]

    Babicz, L

    M. Babicz, L. Bagby, B. Baibussinov, et al. Test and characterization of 400 Hamamatsu R5912-MOD photomultiplier tubes for the ICARUS T600 detector.JINST, 13(10):P10030, 2018, arXiv:1807.08577

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Understanding optical emissions from electrically stressed insulating polymers: Electroluminescence in poly(ethylene terephthalate) and poly(ethylene 2,6-naphthalate) films

    D Mary, M Albertini, and C Laurent. Understanding optical emissions from electrically stressed insulating polymers: Electroluminescence in poly(ethylene terephthalate) and poly(ethylene 2,6-naphthalate) films. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 30(2):171–184, 1997

    1997

  18. [26]

    Measurement of the relative Quantum Efficiency of Hamamatsu model R5912-20MOD photomultiplier tubes at liquid argon temperature.JINST, 16(06), 2021, arxiv:2107.05323

    Qin Zhao, Mengyun Guan, Peng Zhang, et al. Measurement of the relative Quantum Efficiency of Hamamatsu model R5912-20MOD photomultiplier tubes at liquid argon temperature.JINST, 16(06), 2021, arxiv:2107.05323

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Luminescence decay in condensed argon under high energy excitation.J

    MJ Carvalho and G Klein. Luminescence decay in condensed argon under high energy excitation.J. Lumin., 18/19:487–490, 1979

    1979

  20. [28]

    Evidence for a triplet state of the self-trapped exciton states in liquid argon, krypton and xenon.J

    S Kubota, M Hishida, and J Raun. Evidence for a triplet state of the self-trapped exciton states in liquid argon, krypton and xenon.J. Phys. C, 11:2645, 1978

    1978

  21. [29]

    Argon, krypton, and xenon excimer luminescence: From the dilute gas to the condensed phase.J

    E Morikawa, R Reininger, P Gürtler, V Saile, and P Laporte. Argon, krypton, and xenon excimer luminescence: From the dilute gas to the condensed phase.J. Chem. Phys., 91(3):1469, 1989

    1989

  22. [30]

    Ion-beam excitation of liquid argon.EPJ C, 73(10):2618, 2013, arXiv:1511.07721

    M Hofmann, T Dandl, T Heindl, et al. Ion-beam excitation of liquid argon.EPJ C, 73(10):2618, 2013, arXiv:1511.07721

    2013 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Adhikari, M

    The DEAP Collaboration, P. Adhikari, M. Alpízar-Venegas, et al. Relative Measurement and Extrapolation of the Scintillation Quenching Factor of𝛼-Particles in Liquid Argon using DEAP-3600 Data. 2024, arXiv:2406.18597

    2024

  24. [32]

    Szydagis, J

    M. Szydagis, J. Balajthy, J. Brodsky, et al. Noble element simulation technique v2.0, July 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Estimation of absolute photon yields in liquid argon and xenon for relativistic (1 MeV) electrons.NIM A, 291(3):617–620, 1990

    T Doke, K Masuda, and E Shibamura. Estimation of absolute photon yields in liquid argon and xenon for relativistic (1 MeV) electrons.NIM A, 291(3):617–620, 1990

    1990

  26. [34]

    Absolute Scintillation Yields in Liquid Argon and Xenon for Various Particles.Jpn

    Tadayoshi Doke, Akira Hitachi, Jun Kikuchi, et al. Absolute Scintillation Yields in Liquid Argon and Xenon for Various Particles.Jpn. J. Appl. Phys., 41(Part 1, No. 3A):1538–1545, 2002

    2002

  27. [35]

    Properties of Liquid Argon Scintillation Light Emission.Phys

    E Segreto. Properties of Liquid Argon Scintillation Light Emission.Phys. Rev. D, 103(4):043001, 2021, arxiv:2012.06527

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Westerdale

    S. Westerdale. The DEAP-3600 liquid argon optical model and NEST updates. 2024, arXiv:2312.07712

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    An analytic technique for the estimation of the light yield of a scintillation detector

    E Segreto. An analytic technique for the estimation of the light yield of a scintillation detector. JINST, 7(05):P05008–P05008, 2012

    2012

  30. [38]

    Effects of Nitrogen and Oxygen contamination in liquid Argon.Nucl

    R Acciarri, M Antonello, B Baibussinov, et al. Effects of Nitrogen and Oxygen contamination in liquid Argon.Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl., 197(1):70–73, 2009

    2009

  31. [39]

    B. J. P. Jones, C. S. Chiu, J. M. Conrad, et al. A measurement of the absorption of liquid argon scintillation light by dissolved nitrogen at the part-per-million level.JINST, 8(07):P07011, 2013, arXiv:1306.4605. – 9 –

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

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