Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 54 references

First-Ever Deployment of a SiPM-on-Tile Calorimeter in a Collider: A Parasitic Test with 200 GeV $pp$ Collisions at RHIC

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 20x20 cm SiPM-on-tile calorimeter prototype was installed, calibrated, and operated for months in a 200 GeV proton-proton collider environment, absorbing about $10^{10}$ 1-MeV $n_{\mathrm{eq}}$/cm$^2$ while running at room temperature…

desk verdict First collider deployment of SiPM-on-tile is genuine and well documented; the MIP calibration provenance and unpublished fluence reference are the main caveats, but neither sinks the paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08586 v1 pith:QZP3RSSY submitted 2025-01-15 physics.ins-det hep-exnucl-ex

Weibin Zhang , Sean Preins , Jiajun Huang , Sebouh J. Paul , Ryan Milton , Miguel Rodriguez , Peter Carney , Ryan Tsiao
show 2 more authors
Yousef Abdelkadous Miguel Arratia
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-dethep-exnucl-ex
keywords SiPM-on-tilecalorimetrysiliconphotomultiplierminimum-ionizingparticlecalibrationradiationdamagehadroniccalorimeterproton-protoncollisionsElectron-IonColliderparasiticdetectortest
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 reports the first installation, commissioning, calibration, and long-term operation of a SiPM-on-tile calorimeter inside a working collider, carried out as a parasitic test during the 200 GeV proton-proton run. The $20\times20$ cm$^2$ iron-scintillator prototype, 24 radiation lengths deep, sat 8 m from the interaction point and was exposed to a fluence of roughly $10^{10}$ 1-MeV $n_{\mathrm{eq}}$/cm$^2$, estimated from the dark current of a reference silicon photomultiplier. The key operational claim is that a data-driven calibration using the minimum-ionizing-particle signature from beam collisions kept the detector calibrated channel by channel at room temperature without active cooling, with MIP peaks always separated from pedestals by more than a factor of three. A detector simulation based on standard event generators describes the measured energy and hit-multiplicity spectra reasonably well. If these results hold, room-temperature SiPM-on-tile calorimetry is a validated option for the high-granularity forward hadronic calorimeters of a future electron-ion collider.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the in situ MIP calibration: the second peak in each channel's beam-on high-gain ADC spectrum, interpreted as the minimum-ionizing-particle signature, is tracked run by run against a Gaussian-fit pedestal, and the low-gain scale is tied to it through a linear high-gain/low-gain correlation. This converts every channel's ADC output into a MIP-scale energy without any external test beam or cosmic-ray calibration. The radiation-exposure estimate rests on a separate monitor: the dark current of a reference silicon photomultiplier, mapped through a proton-irradiation benchmark to an equivalent 1-MeV neutron fluence. The reported health metric is the ratio of MIP peak to pedestal width, which stayed above six for all channels even after roughly $10^{10}$ 1-MeV $n_{\mathrm{eq}}$/cm$^2$, and the paper notes the pedestal width grows only as the square root of the dark current.

What would settle it

Take the same prototype during a beam-off period and calibrate the same channels with cosmic-ray muons or a tagged muon beam; if the beam-on second peak does not coincide with the true MIP response within the quoted $\pm10\%$ systematic uncertainty, the data-driven calibration assumption is falsified. Alternatively, compare the calorimeter's event energy spectra at high energies with a measurement that includes a verified beam-gas or beam-halo sample, to check whether the unexplained flattening beyond roughly 700 MIP is background.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a SiPM-on-tile calorimeter can be deployed, commissioned, calibrated, and operated for months in a collider environment, at radiation levels representative of the forward region of a future electron-ion collider, and still deliver a usable energy scale at room temperature with no active cooling. The evidence is a $20\times20$ cm$^2$ prototype with 192 readout channels and 20 sampling layers, installed near the beam line during the 2024 200 GeV proton-proton run. Channel-by-channel calibration was performed in situ from the minimum-ionizing-particle peak in the high-gain ADC spectra of real collisions, with the low-gain scale fixed by a dual-range intercalibration; the resulting calibration remained stable within $\pm10\%$ over time. The same beam-on data, after the same selection, is described 'reasonably well' by a full detector simulation, for hit energy spectra, hit multiplicity, and event energy spectra under two trigger topologies.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the second peak in the beam-on high-gain spectra is actually produced by minimum-ionizing particles from proton-proton collisions, because the parasitic setup had no external trigger reference to reject beam-gas and beam-halo backgrounds; if those backgrounds populate or shift that peak, the channel-by-channel energy scale and the simulation comparison would be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Room-temperature SiPM-on-tile calorimeters, without active cooling, can operate through fluences of about $10^{10}$ 1-MeV $n_{\mathrm{eq}}$/cm$^2$ and remain calibration-feasible.
  • Beam-collision MIP peaks are a viable rapid calibration source for such detectors, replacing dedicated cosmic-ray or test-beam calibration campaigns during a collider run.
  • A single reference SiPM's dark current can serve as a continuous, in-situ radiation-fluence monitor with annealing recovery visible over time.
  • The agreement of the detector simulation with beam-on data, under two trigger topologies, supports using the same simulation chain for designing the production calorimeters.
  • The same calibration procedure is expected, by the paper's square-root scaling argument, to work up to about $10^{11}$ 1-MeV $n_{\mathrm{eq}}$/cm$^2$, while $10^{12}$ becomes challenging except for the highest-gain channels.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the square-root scaling holds, a detector validated at $10^{10}$ could plausibly run several years at a future electron-ion collider before requiring annealing, which would simplify operations planning.
  • Beyond the paper: the unexplained flattening of the high-energy event spectrum around 700 MIP is a natural place to test the background rejection once a reference clock or external trigger is available, potentially lowering the systematic uncertainty of the absolute energy scale.
  • Beyond the paper: the same dark-current-versus-fluence mapping could be used per-channel, not just on one reference SiPM, to build a spatial radiation-damage map of a large calorimeter and schedule annealing where it is needed.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper reports the parasitic deployment of a 20-layer SiPM-on-tile iron-scintillator calorimeter prototype in the STAR hall at RHIC during the 2024 200 GeV proton-proton run. The prototype covers eta 3.1-3.4 and was read out with a standalone DAQ based on CAEN FERS-5200 electronics and a DRS4 trigger system. The authors use the dark current of a reference SiPM to estimate an integrated fluence of about 10^10 1-MeV n_eq/cm^2, perform channel-by-channel calibration using a beam-on minimum-ionizing-particle peak, and compare the resulting hit multiplicity, hit energy, and event energy spectra with a Pythia8+Geant4 simulation. They conclude that this constitutes the first deployment, commissioning, calibration, and long-term operation of a SiPM-on-tile calorimeter in a collider environment, and that the technology can sustain 10^10 n_eq/cm^2 at room temperature without cooling.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides the first collider-environment demonstration of SiPM-on-tile calorimetry, which is directly relevant to the ePIC forward calorimeters at the EIC. The manuscript is commendable for releasing the simulation model, analysis scripts, and data via Zenodo, and for using a default physics list and generator tune rather than tuning to the data. The operational result that MIP peaks remain separated from pedestal by a factor above 6 after substantial radiation exposure is useful and credible. However, the quantitative fluence estimate and the in-situ calibration during pp collisions rest on two external or unvalidated assumptions: the unpublished dark-current-to-fluence calibration of Ref. [27] and the identification of the second high-gain peak as a pp-collision MIP signal without independent reference detectors. The paper's own statements about irreducible beam backgrounds and an unexplained high-energy flattening in the data make these assumptions load-bearing rather than cosmetic.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3 and Section 5] Section 3 explicitly states that, without a reference signal from STAR or RHIC, beam-gas and beam-halo events could not be rejected. Section 5 then identifies the second peak in the beam-on high-gain spectra (Figure 5) as the MIP signal that determines the calibration constants C_i in Eq. (5.1). No independent cross-check is provided that this peak is dominated by minimum-ionizing particles from proton-proton collisions rather than by the background population acknowledged in Section 3. Because every calibrated hit energy in Figures 9-11 inherits this C_i, the data/MC comparisons and the claim of in-situ calibration during proton-proton collisions depend on this identification. I ask for a quantitative contamination study: for example, compare the MIP peak position and calibration constants between the T1∨T2 and T3 trigger topologies and between high- and low-luminosity periods, or use the recorded DRS4 waveforms to tag the multiplicity of the triggering event. Without such a study, the energy scale of the results is not independently anchored.
  2. [Section 4] The headline fluence of about 10^10 1-MeV n_eq/cm^2 is derived entirely from the dark-current-to-fluence calibration of Ref. [27], which is in preparation and from the same group, together with a factor of 1.5 for 60 MeV proton to 1 MeV neutron damage equivalence and the assumption that the reference SiPM exposure equals the prototype exposure. The paper assigns a ±20% systematic uncertainty but does not provide the benchmark data or any independent validation (for example, activation foils, STAR beam-loss monitors, or a second monitor at a different location). In addition, the reference SiPM was not read out until July 1 (Figure 4), so the time profile of the fluence and the effect of the observed room-temperature annealing are not directly constrained. Because the conclusion in Section 9 that the system 'can easily sustain 10^10 1 MeV n_eq/cm2' is stated on this fluence scale, the calibration chain should be made public or independently benchmarked.
  3. [Section 8] Figure 10 shows a data flattening beyond about 700 MIP in the T1∨T2 event-energy spectrum, which the text attributes to 'a background source, such as beam-gas interactions or another origin' that is 'not accounted for in the simulation.' This is an explicit discrepancy between data and the Pythia8+Geant4 simulation, and it also demonstrates that background events are present in the same data sample from which the MIP calibration is derived. The statement in Section 9 that the simulation 'describes the data reasonably well' is therefore too strong for the event-energy spectra. The high-energy excess should be modeled or otherwise quantified so that its effect on the MIP peak and on the data/MC comparison can be assessed.
  4. [Section 8] Figures 9-11 display systematic uncertainty bands, but the text does not describe how these bands were estimated. The only systematic uncertainty mentioned elsewhere is the ±10% MIP energy scale in Section 5. Without a definition of the sources and method used to compute the displayed bands, the level of agreement between data and simulation is not fully quantifiable, and the 'reasonably well' claim is not falsifiable. Please add a short description of how the systematic uncertainties were obtained.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 9 vs. Section 5] Section 9 states that the MIP peak was 'always at least three times the pedestal width,' while Section 5 and Figure 6 report ratios exceeding 6 at the end of the run; please clarify whether 'three' is a conservative minimum or an error.
  2. [Section 5] The text says MIP calibration values 'remained stable within ±10% from the average' but also reports channel-to-channel variation of ±25% within each category; please make explicit that the ±10% refers to per-channel time stability, not inter-channel spread.
  3. [Section 6] The simulation sets the pedestal to 150 ADC with a width of 7.5 ADC, whereas Section 3 reports a data pedestal setting of 160 ADC; please explain the choice or use data-derived values so that the simulation setup is reproducible.
  4. [Figure 4] The axes of the right panel of Figure 4 appear garbled ('0 10^2 10^1 ...' and 'log(Fluence) [log(Nn/cm2)]'), making the fluence inference difficult to read; please fix the axis labels and ticks.
  5. [Section 3] The DAQ configuration mentions 'T0-IN as the bunch trigger source,' but the text also says there was no reference clock from RHIC; please clarify how T0-IN is defined in the standalone configuration.
  6. [Abstract and Section 2] The abstract states the prototype measures 20 x 20 cm^2, while Section 2 gives the area as 19.2 x 19.8 cm^2; please reconcile these numbers.
  7. [Section 4] The factor of 1.5 for converting 60 MeV proton damage to 1 MeV neutron damage is introduced without a reference or derivation; please cite a source or state it as an explicit assumption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the simulation comparison is parameter-free and the fluence estimate rests on an external irradiation calibration, not on a re-statement of the paper's conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: per-channel MIP calibration from beam-on high-gain spectra (Eq. 5.1); low-gain intercalibration via the dual-range correlation; fluence estimation by comparing the reference-SiPM dark current with the irradiation benchmark of Ref. [27]; Geant4/Pythia8 simulation calibrated to the MIP scale by simulated muons; and shape comparisons of hit multiplicity, hit energy, and event energy. None of these steps defines its output in terms of the target claim. The simulation uses the default Monash tune and the FTFP_BERT physics list with no tuning to the RHIC data, so the data/simulation agreement is not a fit in disguise. The MIP scale is a calibration applied identically to data and simulation, not a predicted quantity that is forced by construction. The fluence estimate does depend on Ref. [27], an in-preparation paper from the same group, but that reference is an external irradiation calibration using 60-MeV protons at UC Davis and does not contain the RHIC result; the dependence is therefore a self-citation for calibration constants rather than a circular reduction. The possible contamination of the MIP peak by beam-gas or beam-halo backgrounds is an acknowledged systematic assumption and a correctness risk, but it does not make the derivation circular. No equation-level equivalence between inputs and claimed outputs can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on two hand-assigned numbers, the 1.5 proton-to-neutron damage conversion and the simulated pedestal and noise settings, plus several domain assumptions about simulation physics and event identification. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Dark-current to fluence conversion factor for 60 MeV protons to 1 MeV neutrons = 1.5
    Used in Section 4 to convert the inferred 10^9.8 p+/cm2 to 10^10 1-MeV neq/cm2. This factor is taken from damage-factor considerations, not measured in this paper, and directly scales the headline fluence.
  • Simulation pedestal and noise parameters = 150 ADC pedestal, 7.5 ADC Gaussian width
    Section 6 sets these digitization parameters to values representative of those observed in data under low-gain settings, which is a data-informed choice that affects the simulated spectra before comparison.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Geant4 FTFP_BERT physics list models hadronic showers accurately at the particle energies of this test
    Section 6 uses Geant4 v11.02.p2 with FTFP_BERT without direct validation in this paper; previous CALICE and JLab benchmarking is cited.
  • domain assumption Pythia8 Monash 2013 tune describes minimum-bias 200 GeV pp collisions in the forward region
    Section 6 uses the default Pythia8 tune; discrepancies in event energy spectra, such as the 400 to 700 MIP feature, suggest this assumption is imperfect.
  • domain assumption The STAR 0.5 T solenoid field has negligible effect on particle trajectories at 3.1 < eta < 3.4
    Section 6 states no magnetic field was included because the effect is expected to be negligible; this is not quantitatively demonstrated in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The dark current of a single reference SiPM is proportional to fluence following the unpublished calibration of Ref [27], and its exposure equals the prototype's exposure
    Section 4 infers the 10^10 neq/cm2 fluence from this assumption; the benchmark dataset is not yet public, and the reference SiPM is in front of the prototype, not identical to all channels.
  • domain assumption The second peak in beam-on spectra is a minimum-ionizing particle signature
    Section 5 identifies the MIP peak in high-gain ADC spectra; because background events cannot be rejected, as stated in Section 3, this identification is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of First-Ever Deployment of a SiPM-on-Tile Calorimeter in a Collider: A Parasitic Test with 200 GeV $pp$ Collisions at RHIC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QZP3RSSY

@misc{pith2026250108586,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: First-Ever Deployment of a SiPM-on-Tile Calorimeter in a Collider: A Parasitic Test with 200 GeV $pp$ Collisions at RHIC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QZP3RSSY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08586}
}
abstract

We describe the testing of a prototype SiPM-on-tile iron-scintillator calorimeter at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) during its 200 GeV $pp$ run in 2024. The prototype, measuring $20 \times 20 \, \text{cm}^{2}$ and 24 radiation lengths in depth, was positioned in the STAR experimental hall, approximately 8 m from the interaction point and 65 cm from the beam line, covering a pseudorapidity range of about $3.1<\eta<3.4$. By using the dark current of a reference SiPM as a radiation monitor, we estimate that the prototype was exposed to a fluence of about $10^{10}$ 1-MeV $n_{\mathrm{eq}}$/cm$^2$. Channel-by-channel calibration was performed in a data-driven way with the signature from minimum-ionizing particles during beam-on conditions. A Geant4 detector simulation, with inputs from the Pythia8 event generator, describes measurements of energy spectra and hit multiplicities reasonably well. These results mark the first deployment, commissioning, calibration, and long-term operation of a SiPM-on-tile calorimeter in a collider environment. This experimental campaign will guide detector designs and operational strategies for the ePIC detector at the future EIC, as well as other applications.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [27]

    Measurement of SiPM Dark Currents and Annealing Recovery for Fluences Expected in ePIC Calorimeters at the Future Electron-Ion Collider

    “Measurement of SiPM Dark Currents and Annealing Recovery for Fluences Expected in ePIC Calorimeters at the Future Electron-Ion Collider.” In preparation. – 17 –

    work page

  2. [1]

    Particle Flow Calorimetry and the PandoraPFA Algorithm,

    M. A. Thomson, “Particle Flow Calorimetry and the PandoraPFA Algorithm,”Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 611 (2009) 25–40,arXiv:0907.3577 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2009

  3. [2]

    The International Large Detector: Letter of Intent,

    Linear Collider ILD Concept Group - Collaboration, T. Abeet al., “The International Large Detector: Letter of Intent,”arXiv:1006.3396 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  4. [3]

    International Large Detector: Interim Design Report,

    ILD Concept Group Collaboration, H. Abramowiczet al., “International Large Detector: Interim Design Report,”arXiv:2003.01116 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2003

  5. [4]

    Physics and Detectors at CLIC: CLIC Conceptual Design Report,

    “Physics and Detectors at CLIC: CLIC Conceptual Design Report,”arXiv:1202.5940 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv

  6. [5]

    FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2,

    FCC Collaboration, A. Abadaet al., “FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2,”Eur. Phys. J. ST 228 no. 2, (2019) 261–623

    work page 2019

  7. [6]

    CEPC Conceptual Design Report: Volume 2 - Physics & Detector,

    CEPC Study Group Collaboration, M. Donget al., “CEPC Conceptual Design Report: Volume 2 - Physics & Detector,”arXiv:1811.10545 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  8. [7]

    Experimental Tests of Particle Flow Calorimetry,

    F. Sefkow, A. White, K. Kawagoe, R. Pöschl, and J. Repond, “Experimental Tests of Particle Flow Calorimetry,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 88(2016) 015003,arXiv:1507.05893 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 54 references
  1. [8]

    The High-Luminosity LHC,

    “The High-Luminosity LHC,”.https://cds.cern.ch/record/2114693

  2. [9]

    Technical Proposal for the Phase-II Upgrade of the CMS Detector,

    “Technical Proposal for the Phase-II Upgrade of the CMS Detector,” 6, 2015. CERN-LHCC-2015-010, LHCC-P-008, CMS-TDR-15-02

    2015

  3. [10]

    The Phase-2 Upgrade of the CMS Endcap Calorimeter,

    CMS Collaboration, “The Phase-2 Upgrade of the CMS Endcap Calorimeter,” 2017. CERN-LHCC-2017-023, CMS-TDR-019

    2017

  4. [11]

    Electron Ion Collider: The Next QCD Frontier: Understanding the glue that binds us all,

    A. Accardiet al., “Electron Ion Collider: The Next QCD Frontier: Understanding the glue that binds us all,”Eur. Phys. J. A 52no. 9, (2016) 268,arXiv:1212.1701 [nucl-ex] . – 16 –

    2016 arXiv

  5. [12]

    ATHENA detector proposal — a totally hermetic electron nucleus apparatus proposed for IP6 at the Electron-Ion Collider,

    ATHENACollaboration, J. Adamet al., “ATHENA detector proposal — a totally hermetic electron nucleus apparatus proposed for IP6 at the Electron-Ion Collider,”JINST 17 no. 10, (2022) P10019, arXiv:2210.09048 [physics.ins-det]

    2022

  6. [13]

    Design of the ECCE Detector for the Electron Ion Collider,

    J. K. Adkinset al., “Design of the ECCE Detector for the Electron Ion Collider,” arXiv:2209.02580 [physics.ins-det]

  7. [14]

    CORE – a COmpact detectoR for the EIC,

    CORECollaboration, R. Alarconet al., “CORE – a COmpact detectoR for the EIC,” arXiv:2209.00496 [physics.ins-det]

  8. [15]

    Requirements and R&D for detectors at the future Electron-Ion Collider,

    T. Ullrich, “Requirements and R&D for detectors at the future Electron-Ion Collider,”Nuclear and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 1039 (2022) 167041

    2022

  9. [16]

    Science Requirements and Detector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EICYellowReport,

    R. Abdul Khaleket al., “Science Requirements and Detector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EICYellowReport,” Nucl. Phys. A 1026(2022)122447, arXiv:2103.05419 [physics.ins-det]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [17]

    A high-granularity calorimeter insert based on SiPM-on-tile technology at the future Electron-Ion Collider,

    M. Arratiaet al., “A high-granularity calorimeter insert based on SiPM-on-tile technology at the future Electron-Ion Collider,”Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1047 (2023) 167866,arXiv:2208.05472 [physics.ins-det]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Design and simulated performance of calorimetry systems for the ECCE detector at the electron ion collider,

    F. Bocket al., “Design and simulated performance of calorimetry systems for the ECCE detector at the electron ion collider,”Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1055 (2023) 168464,arXiv:2207.09437 [physics.ins-det]

    2023

  12. [19]

    Design of a SiPM-on-Tile ZDC for the future EIC and its Performance with Graph Neural Networks,

    R. Milton, S. J. Paul, B. Schmookler, M. Arratia, P. Karande, A. Angerami, F. T. Acosta, and B. Nachman, “Design of a SiPM-on-Tile ZDC for the future EIC and its Performance with Graph Neural Networks,”arXiv:2406.12877 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv

  13. [20]

    A few-degree calorimeter for the future electron-ion collider,

    M. Arratia, R. Milton, S. J. Paul, B. Schmookler, and W. Zhang, “A few-degree calorimeter for the future electron-ion collider,”Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1063(2024) 169280,arXiv:2307.12531 [physics.ins-det]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Design, Construction and Commissioning of a Technological Prototype of a Highly Granular SiPM-on-tile Scintillator-Steel Hadronic Calorimeter,

    CALICECollaboration, “Design, Construction and Commissioning of a Technological Prototype of a Highly Granular SiPM-on-tile Scintillator-Steel Hadronic Calorimeter,”arXiv:2209.15327 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv

  15. [22]

    Performance of the CMS High Granularity Calorimeter prototype to charged pion beams of 20–300 GeV/c,

    CMS, CALICE Collaboration, B. Acaret al., “Performance of the CMS High Granularity Calorimeter prototype to charged pion beams of 20–300 GeV/c,”JINST 18 no. 08, (2023) P08014, arXiv:2211.04740 [physics.ins-det]

    2023

  16. [23]

    ePIC Radiation Doses and Particle Fluences

    “ePIC Radiation Doses and Particle Fluences.” https://wiki.bnl.gov/EPIC/index.php?title=Radiation_Doses

  17. [24]

    Radiation damageofSiPMs,

    E.GaruttiandY. Musienko, “Radiation damageofSiPMs,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 926(2019)69–84, arXiv:1809.06361 [physics.ins-det]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Beam Test of the First Prototype of SiPM-on-Tile Calorimeter Insert for the EIC Using 4 GeV Positrons at Jefferson Laboratory,

    M. Arratia, B. Bagby, P. Carney, J. Huang, R. Milton, S. J. Paul, S. Preins, M. Rodriguez, and W. Zhang, “Beam Test of the First Prototype of SiPM-on-Tile Calorimeter Insert for the EIC Using 4 GeV Positrons at Jefferson Laboratory,”Instruments 7 no. 4, (2023) 43,arXiv:2309.00...

    2023 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Studies of time resolution, light yield, and crosstalk using SiPM-on-tile calorimetry for the future Electron-Ion Collider,

    M. Arratia, L. Garabito Ruiz, J. Huang, S. J. Paul, S. Preins, and M. Rodriguez, “Studies of time resolution, light yield, and crosstalk using SiPM-on-tile calorimetry for the future Electron-Ion Collider,” JINST 18no. 05, (2023) P05045,arXiv:2302.03646 [physics.ins-det]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Directly Coupled Tiles as Elements of a Scintillator Calorimeter with MPPC Readout,

    G. Blazeyet al., “Directly Coupled Tiles as Elements of a Scintillator Calorimeter with MPPC Readout,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 605(2009) 277–281

    2009

  21. [29]

    Uniformity studies of scintillator tiles directly coupled to sipms for imaging calorimetry,

    F. Simon and C. Soldner, “Uniformity studies of scintillator tiles directly coupled to sipms for imaging calorimetry,”Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 620 no. 2–3, (Aug., 2010) 196–201

    2010

  22. [30]

    A Design of Scintillator Tiles Read Out by Surface-Mounted SiPMs for a Future Hadron Calorimeter,

    Y. Liu, V. Büscher, J. Caudron, P. Chau, S. Krause, L. Masetti, U. Schäfer, R. Spreckels, S. Tapprogge, and R. Wanke, “A Design of Scintillator Tiles Read Out by Surface-Mounted SiPMs for a Future Hadron Calorimeter,” in2014 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging C...

    2015 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Texas Instruments LM94021QBIMG/NOPB Automotive Grade,±1.5◦C Temperature Sensor with Multiple Gain Analog Output Options

    “Texas Instruments LM94021QBIMG/NOPB Automotive Grade,±1.5◦C Temperature Sensor with Multiple Gain Analog Output Options.” https://www.ti.com/product/LM94021-Q1/part-details/LM94021QBIMG/NOPB

  24. [32]

    STAR detector overview,

    STARCollaboration, K. H. Ackermannet al., “STAR detector overview,”Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 499 (2003) 624–632

    2003

  25. [33]

    The STAR Event Plane Detector,

    J. Adamset al., “The STAR Event Plane Detector,”Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 968(2020) 163970, arXiv:1912.05243 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    KETEK SiPM Bias Source

    “KETEK SiPM Bias Source.”https://datasheet.datasheetarchive.com/originals/ crawler/ketek.net/1f7faee739b7261476849867ace03512.pdf

  27. [35]

    DRS4 Evaluation Board

    “DRS4 Evaluation Board.”https://www.psi.ch/en/ltp-muon-physics/evaluation-board

  28. [36]

    FERS-5200 front-end readout system

    “FERS-5200 front-end readout system .”https://www.caen.it/subfamilies/fers-5200/

  29. [37]

    DT5215: Concentrator Board for FERS-5200

    “DT5215: Concentrator Board for FERS-5200.”https://www.caen.it/products/dt5215/

  30. [38]

    DT5202: Desktop 64 Channel Citiroc unit for FERS-5200

    “DT5202: Desktop 64 Channel Citiroc unit for FERS-5200.” https://www.caen.it/products/dt5202/

  31. [39]

    CITIROC 1A

    “CITIROC 1A.” https://www.caen.it/products/citiroc-1a/

  32. [40]

    A5253: 3-pin header adapter for A5202/DT5202

    “A5253: 3-pin header adapter for A5202/DT5202.”https://www.caen.it/products/A5253/

  33. [41]

    Keithley 2450

    “Keithley 2450.” https://www.tequipment.net/Keithley/2450/Source-Measure-Unit-/-SMU/

  34. [42]

    ROOT: An object oriented data analysis framework,

    R. Brun and F. Rademakers, “ROOT: An object oriented data analysis framework,”Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 389(1997) 81–86

    1997

  35. [43]

    BNL test,

    W. Zhang, “BNL test,” 2024.http://138.23.151.181:8080

    2024

  36. [44]

    Effects of misalignment on response uniformity of SiPM-on-tile technology for highly granular calorimeters,

    L. M. S. de Silva and F. Simon, “Effects of misalignment on response uniformity of SiPM-on-tile technology for highly granular calorimeters,”JINST 15no. 06, (2020) P06030,arXiv:2004.05066 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  37. [45]

    GEANT4–a simulation toolkit,

    GEANT4 Collaboration, S. Agostinelliet al., “GEANT4–a simulation toolkit,”Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250–303

    2003

  38. [46]

    DD4hep: A Detector Description Toolkit for High Energy Physics Experiments,

    M. Frank, F. Gaede, C. Grefe, and P. Mato, “DD4hep: A Detector Description Toolkit for High Energy Physics Experiments,”J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 513 (2014) 022010

    2014

  39. [47]

    Feasibility Study of Measuring Λ0→𝑛𝜋0 Using a High-Granularity Zero-Degree Calorimeter at the Future Electron-Ion Collider,

    S. J. Paul, R. Milton, S. Morán, B. Schmookler, and M. Arratia, “Feasibility Study of Measuring Λ0→𝑛𝜋0 Using a High-Granularity Zero-Degree Calorimeter at the Future Electron-Ion Collider,” arXiv:2412.12346 [nucl-ex] . – 18 –

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    The optimal use of segmentation for sampling calorimeters,

    F. T. Acosta, B. Karki, P. Karande, A. Angerami, M. Arratia, K. Barish, R. Milton, S. Morán, B. Nachman, and A. Sinha, “The optimal use of segmentation for sampling calorimeters,”JINST 19 no. 06, (2024) P06002,arXiv:2310.04442 [physics.ins-det]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Comparison of point cloud and image-based models for calorimeter fast simulation,

    F. T. Acosta, V. Mikuni, B. Nachman, M. Arratia, B. Karki, R. Milton, P. Karande, and A. Angerami, “Comparison of point cloud and image-based models for calorimeter fast simulation,”JINST 19 no. 05, (2024) P05003,arXiv:2307.04780 [cs.LG]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Hadronic energy resolution of a highly granular scintillator-steel hadron calorimeter using software compensation techniques,

    CALICECollaboration, C. Adloffet al., “Hadronic energy resolution of a highly granular scintillator-steel hadron calorimeter using software compensation techniques,”JINST 7 (2012) P09017, arXiv:1207.4210 [physics.ins-det]

    2012 arXiv

  43. [51]

    An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2,

    T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and P. Z. Skands, “An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2,”Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159–177,arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  44. [52]

    DD4hep simulation model of a SiPM-on-Tile calorimeter for RHIC parasitic test ,

    W. Zhang and R. Milton, “DD4hep simulation model of a SiPM-on-Tile calorimeter for RHIC parasitic test ,” Jan., 2025.https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14610981

    2025 doi

  45. [53]

    Scripts and analysis for “First-Ever Deployment of a SiPM-on-Tile Calorimeter in a Collider: A Parasitic Test with 200 GeV pp Collisions at RHIC

    W. Zhang, “Scripts and analysis for “First-Ever Deployment of a SiPM-on-Tile Calorimeter in a Collider: A Parasitic Test with 200 GeV pp Collisions at RHIC" ,” Jan., 2025. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14625639

    2025 doi

  46. [54]

    RHICdatasetfor“First-EverDeploymentofaSiPM-on-TileCalorimeterinaCollider: A Parasitic Test with 200 GeV pp Collisions at RHIC

    W.Zhang,“RHICdatasetfor“First-EverDeploymentofaSiPM-on-TileCalorimeterinaCollider: A Parasitic Test with 200 GeV pp Collisions at RHIC" ,” Jan., 2025. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14642181. – 19 –

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.