Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 19 references

Position reconstruction and surface background model for the PandaX-4T detector

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

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

Pith's one-line read PandaX-4T's photon-acceptance-function reconstruction resolves bulk events to 1.0 mm and surface events to 4.4 mm at about 14 keV, and the data-driven surface model built on it predicts fewer than one surface background event in each…

desk verdict A technically solid PandaX-4T reconstruction paper whose surface-background number is credible but under-uncertaintied; it deserves refereeing, not desk rejection. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07317 v1 pith:TFWHYDKO submitted 2025-02-11 physics.ins-det hep-ex

Zhicheng Qian , Linhui Gu , Chen Cheng , Zihao Bo , Wei Chen , Xun Chen , Yunhua Chen , Zhaokan Cheng
show 95 more authors
Xiangyi Cui Yingjie Fan Deqing Fang Zhixing Gao Lisheng Geng Karl Giboni Xunan Guo Xuyuan Guo Zichao Guo Chencheng Han Ke Han Changda He Jinrong He Di Huang Houqi Huang Junting Huang Ruquan Hou Yu Hou Xiangdong Ji Xiangpan Ji Yonglin Ju Chenxiang Li Jiafu Li Mingchuan Li Shuaijie Li Tao Li Zhiyuan Li Qing Lin Jianglai Liu Congcong Lu Xiaoying Lu Lingyin Luo Yunyang Luo Wenbo Ma Yugang Ma Yajun Mao Yue Meng Xuyang Ning Binyu Pang Ningchun Qi Xiangxiang Ren Dong Shan Xiaofeng Shang Xiyuan Shao Guofang Shen Manbin Shen Wenliang Sun Yi Tao Anqing Wang Guanbo Wang Hao Wang Jiamin Wang Lei Wang Meng Wang Qiuhong Wang Shaobo Wang Siguang Wang Wei Wang Xiuli Wang Xu Wang Zhou Wang Yuehuan Wei Weihao Wu Yuan Wu Mengjiao Xiao Xiang Xiao Kaizhi Xiong Yifan Xu Shunyu Yao Binbin Yan Xiyu Yan Yong Yang Peihua Ye Chunxu Yu Ying Yuan Zhe Yuan Youhui Yun Xinning Zeng Minzhen Zhang Peng Zhang Shibo Zhang Shu Zhang Tao Zhang Wei Zhang Yang Zhang Yingxin Zhang Yuanyuan Zhang Li Zhao Jifang Zhou Jiaxu Zhou Jiayi Zhou Ning Zhou Xiaopeng Zhou Yubo Zhou Zhizhen Zhou
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-dethep-ex PACS 95.35.+d29.40.Mc
keywords liquidxenonTPCpositionreconstructionphotonacceptancefunctionsurfacebackgroundmodeldarkmatterdirectdetectionPandaX-4TS2signalfiducialvolume
topics Dark Matter
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 how the PandaX-4T liquid-xenon detector converts the S2 light pattern on its top photomultiplier array into a precise horizontal vertex for each event. Two algorithms are developed, template matching and a photon acceptance function method; the PAF method is chosen as primary and the TM method as a verification cross-check. With partial waveform reconstruction and geometric position correction, the PAF method reaches 1.0 mm bulk resolution and 4.4 mm surface resolution for a typical S2 signal with $Q_\mathrm{S2b}=1500$ PE (about 14 keV), with around 20% uniformity. The same reconstruction feeds a data-driven surface background model built from $^{210}\mathrm{Po}$ surface events, which predicts $0.09 \pm 0.06$ surface background events in Run0 (0.54 tonne·year) and $0.17 \pm 0.11$ in Run1 (1.00 tonne·year). If these estimates hold, wall-origin surface leakage is no longer a dominant background in the current WIMP search region.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the photon acceptance function (PAF), an analytic function $\eta_i(\iota_i)$ that gives, for each top PMT, the fraction of S2 photons collected by that PMT as a function of the distance $\iota_i$ from the scattering point to the PMT center. Boundary reflection is modeled by adding 'mirror image' PMTs, and the horizontal position is obtained by maximum likelihood over the measured S2 charge pattern, scanning $(x,y)$ at 0.01 mm steps. Two corrections matter: partial waveform reconstruction (PWR), which uses only the CDF $\le 50\%$ portion of the S2 waveform to avoid afterpulse and photoionization tails, and geometric position correction (GPC), which uses $^{210}\mathrm{Po}$ surface events and $^{83\mathrm{m}}\mathrm{Kr}$ events to remove azimuthal and radial biases. The same PAF-based coordinates generate the radial PDFs of the surface background model from $^{210}\mathrm{Po}$ events sliced in $z$ and $Q_\mathrm{S2b}$.

What would settle it

Place a collimated $^{83\mathrm{m}}\mathrm{Kr}$ source or a patterned mask at known $(x,y)$ positions across the TPC and compare PAF-reconstructed coordinates with those known positions; a systematic deviation larger than the quoted 1.0 mm bulk resolution would falsify the simulation-based acceptance functions and GPC. As a direct surface check, the fitted radial peak of reconstructed $^{210}\mathrm{Po}$ events should sit at the PTFE wall radius (600 mm) within the 4.4 mm resolution, and a large residual offset would invalidate the surface model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the photon acceptance function (PAF) method, together with partial waveform reconstruction (PWR) and geometric position correction (GPC), gives vertex reconstruction accurate enough to support a data-driven surface background model in a multi-tonne liquid-xenon TPC. For a typical S2 signal with $Q_\mathrm{S2b}=1500$ PE (about 14 keV), the authors report 1.0 mm bulk-event resolution and 4.4 mm surface-event resolution, an RSD uniformity of about 20%, and robustness against dead PMTs at the 5.1 mm (Run0) and 8.8 mm (Run1) level in off-PMT regions. Using $^{210}\mathrm{Po}$ $\alpha$ events from the PTFE wall as a template, reweighted to the low-energy ROI in $Q_\mathrm{S2b}$, the model estimates $0.09 \pm 0.06$ surface events for Run0 and $0.17 \pm 0.11$ for Run1 inside the optimized fiducial volume. The paper's position is that these improvements are what make the surface background small enough to proceed with the Run0+Run1 WIMP analysis.

Load-bearing premise

The entire reconstruction chain is calibrated by tuning the optical simulation until one summary number, the RMS of the $^{83\mathrm{m}}\mathrm{Kr}$ S2 light pattern, matches data; if the simulated per-PMT light pattern is wrong in a way that leaves that RMS unchanged, every reconstructed position, resolution, and surface background count inherits the error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • PAF positions allow the fiducial volume boundary to be set with confidence, since surface events are resolved at the 4.4 mm level.
  • The expected surface background inside the WIMP ROI is $0.09 \pm 0.06$ events in Run0 and $0.17 \pm 0.11$ in Run1, small enough that this source does not dominate the background budget.
  • The reconstruction remains usable when top PMTs fail: mean deviations in off-PMT regions are 5.1 mm for Run0 and 8.8 mm for Run1 at $Q_\mathrm{S2t}=6000$ PE.
  • Better horizontal vertices propagate to improved energy reconstruction and detector non-uniformity corrections, which feed the dark matter sensitivity of the combined run.

Reading between the lines

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

  • By extension, the PAF method should transfer to any dual-phase xenon TPC with a different PMT layout; the dominant cost is the one-time optical simulation calibration, not the reconstruction step.
  • The model implicitly assumes that $^{210}\mathrm{Po}$ surface alphas, after reweighting in $Q_\mathrm{S2b}$, represent the radial distribution of $^{210}\mathrm{Pb}$ events at WIMP-recoil energies; a dedicated low-energy surface-source calibration could test that proxy assumption.
  • The remaining ~20% uniformity suggests the light-response model still has position-dependent structure; using the bottom PMT array or the S1 pattern as an additional cross-check could push surface resolution below 4.4 mm.
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. This paper presents the position reconstruction methods and surface background model used for the PandaX-4T dark matter search data. Two horizontal-position algorithms are described: a template matching (TM) method based on optical simulation, and a photon acceptance function (PAF) method with fitted per-PMT acceptance functions; both are supplemented by partial waveform reconstruction (PWR) and geometric position correction (GPC). The authors report a bulk event resolution of about 1.0 mm and a surface event resolution of about 4.4 mm for a typical S2 signal with QS2b = 1500 PE (about 14 keV), a uniformity of roughly 20% RSD, and average deviations of 5.1 mm and 8.8 mm for Run0 and Run1 due to disabled PMTs. A data-driven surface background model, based on the PAF reconstruction of 210Po surface events, predicts 0.09 ± 0.06 surface background events in Run0 (0.54 tonne·year) and 0.17 ± 0.11 in Run1 (1.00 tonne·year). The paper is written as a technical methods paper supporting the previously published PandaX-4T dark matter results.

Significance. If the stated performance is reliable, this paper provides an important technical foundation for PandaX-4T and for future liquid-xenon TPC analyses: it details a data-driven method for estimating the surface background leaking into the fiducial volume, and it compares two reconstruction algorithms with documented resolution, uniformity, and robustness metrics. The use of 210Po alpha events to calibrate the surface resolution in situ, the explicit comparison of three fitting functions for the radial tail, and the reported χ2/NDF values in the non-blind region are useful checks. However, several load-bearing points need strengthening before the central claims can be accepted as stated: the optical simulation is calibrated to a single scalar (the RMS of the 83mKr S2 pattern) without a systematic uncertainty, the bulk resolution is demonstrated only in simulation, and the surface background count is an extrapolation of a radial distribution fitted to the same 210Po events whose absolute radial scale is not independently constrained.

major comments (4)
  1. The optical simulation is tuned by matching only the mean RMS of the 83mKr S2 pattern (mean 217±21 mm data vs. 215±18 mm simulation), with PTFE reflectivity set to 99% and refractive index to 1.61. The PAF acceptance functions are then fitted to this simulation and used for all subsequent position reconstructions and for the surface background model. A single RMS number cannot validate the angular or positional details of the simulated light patterns. The authors should provide a sensitivity analysis that varies the optical parameters within plausible ranges (reflectivity, refractive indices, absorption and Rayleigh lengths in Table 1) and quantifies the resulting shifts in reconstructed radial positions, especially for events near the PTFE wall. Without such a study, the quoted resolutions and the surface background counts do not include a dominant systematic contribution.
  2. The bulk event resolution of about 1.0 mm is derived entirely from simulation: 'Bulk event resolution is estimated based on simulations' and the reconstructed positions are compared with primary positions in MC. No data-based validation of the bulk resolution is provided, for example using the width of a known uniform source such as 83mKr after accounting for its intrinsic spread. As stated, the 1.0 mm figure is a simulation self-consistency check rather than a measured detector resolution. The paper should either present a data-anchored cross-check or explicitly state that the quoted bulk resolution is a MC-based estimate, with the associated caveat applied to the summary.
  3. The surface background prediction inside the fiducial volume is an integral of a radial distribution fitted to 210Po edge events in the same dataset (the R−Φ median curve is set as the zero point and δR distributions are fitted slice-by-slice). Because GPC actively corrects the 210Po events to be symmetric about the wall position, the 210Po measurements cannot validate the absolute radial scale: an inward bias of 1–2 mm in the reconstructed R would change the leakage into the FV significantly, given that the FV boundary is at R≈510 mm while the wall is at R≈600 mm. The quoted uncertainties (0.09 ± 0.06 and 0.17 ± 0.11) are the standard deviations of the three fitting functions in Table 2 and exclude this reconstruction-scale systematic. The authors should add an explicit sensitivity analysis, e.g., shifting the reconstructed radial distribution by ±1 mm and ±2 mm, and propagating the resulting change to the predicted surface background count.
  4. The fit quality of the surface background model in the non-blind region is marginal, with χ2/NDF values up to 4.4 (Run1, method 1) and 2.3–2.9 for other entries. These values indicate that the radial shape of the surface background is not fully described by the chosen functions, which weakens the reliability of the extrapolation into the blind region. The paper should examine the residual structure of these fits, consider whether an additional component (e.g., a wider Gaussian or a second exponential) is needed, and discuss how the residual model-data disagreement affects the uncertainty on the integrated surface background count.
minor comments (5)
  1. The symbol r⃗ is used for both the event position and the PMT position in the RMS definition; please use distinct symbols (e.g., r⃗_event and r⃗_i) to avoid ambiguity.
  2. The role of the parameters ω and ρ is not defined precisely. In particular, the sentence 'The term ρ serves as a correction factor for the global reflection effects' is vague, and the 'cut-off correction' is not explained. A short formal definition of ρ and its allowed range, together with how ω is determined for edge versus inner PMTs, would make the PAF model reproducible.
  3. The CDF endpoint choice is described only qualitatively: 'the segment's endpoint is set where CDF ≤ 50%'. The figure shows several tested ranges, but the optimum condition is not stated as a numerical criterion. Also, the GPC correction method is described only by example; please specify the functional form of the correction (e.g., a polynomial in z and Φ) and how 83mKr events are used to align the absolute geometric scale.
  4. The three fitting functions are shown in the table, but the integration limits for the 'count' column are not stated. The text says 'integrating radially from 0 to the R2 boundary', but it is not clear whether the count includes events in the gap between the blind region and the wall, and how the normalization to 'low energy events reconstructed outside the PTFE wall' is performed. Please clarify the exact integration range and the normalization procedure.
  5. The RSD definition uses ncrit in a way that is easy to misread; please specify that ncrit is a fixed bin index (set to 90 in this analysis) and clarify the formula by writing P(n) as a function of the bin index with explicit limits.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the surface background prediction is a sideband extrapolation from fits outside the blind region, not an identity with its fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not exhibit a circular step at the level of equations or parameter fitting. The PAF and TM reconstructions are trained on a GEANT4 optical simulation whose parameters (PTFE reflectivity 99%, refractive index 1.61) are tuned to match the mean RMS of the 83mKr S2 pattern; the bulk resolution is then evaluated in that same simulation and the surface resolution on 210Po data, so these are performance metrics rather than background predictions. The surface background model is a sideband estimate: the 210Po S2-based radial shape is fit in the region outside the blind boundary, the PDF is normalized to low-energy events reconstructed outside the PTFE wall, and the in-fiducial-volume count is obtained by integrating that fit into the blind region. There is no equation in the text that identifies the predicted in-FV count with the fitted 210Po width or with the GPC or PAF parameters; rather, the model extrapolates a fitted radial tail across the FV boundary. The same 210Po and 83mKr samples are used for GPC calibration and model construction, but the model's quantity of interest, the count inside R2 < 0.26-0.27 m2, is neither a fit parameter nor a renormalization of the data used to normalize the model; it is an integral over a functional form fit outside that region. The quoted uncertainty is the spread of three fit functions, which may under-cover reconstruction-scale systematics, but that is a robustness limitation, not circularity. No load-bearing uniqueness theorem or self-citation chain is invoked; the PAF formula is attributed to independent literature [12,13]. Accordingly, no circular step can be quoted and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central results rest on a chain of fitted inputs: simulation parameters tuned to one calibration distribution, per-PMT acceptance functions calibrated from that simulation, and a surface background model fitted to 210Po radial shapes. The mirror-image PMT construct is an invented modeling device with fitted parameters. No external benchmark or independent dataset breaks this chain.

free parameters (7)
  • Optical simulation parameters (PTFE reflectivity, refractive indices, absorption lengths, Rayleigh lengths) = reflectivity 99%, refractive index 1.61, etc. (table 1)
    Tuned so that simulated 83mKr S2 RMS matches data (Sec. 3.1, fig. 3); no uncertainties given.
  • PAF per-PMT parameters A_i, alpha_i, r_i, a_i, b_i = not listed in paper, calibrated from simulation
    Calibrated via optical simulation (Eq. 4); the shape of the photon acceptance function for each PMT.
  • Mirror image factor omega and global reflection correction rho = not listed
    Introduced in Eq. 5-6 to correct boundary reflection; omega non-zero only for edge PMTs, fitted to simulation/data.
  • PWR CDF endpoint = 0.50 (50%)
    Chosen because the resolution scan in fig. 4 gave optimal performance at CDF (0.00, 0.50); a data-driven choice.
  • GPC correction parameters = not given
    Geometric position correction fitted to 210Po and 83mKr samples (Sec. 3.3); functional form and fitted values not specified in the paper.
  • Surface background model slice parameters mu, sigma, lambda = example slice: mu=6.7, sigma=4.35, lambda=0.06 (fig. 13)
    Fitted per (z, QS2b) slice to 210Po radial distributions; interpolated along QS2b (Sec. 5).
  • RSD ncrit = 90 bins (out of 100)
    Set 'to ensure comparability between different methods' (Sec. 4.2); a hand-chosen normalization point.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The optical simulation accurately models the detector light response after tuning.
    The PAF and TM methods are calibrated on BambooMC simulation (Sec. 3.1); if the simulated light patterns are biased, all reconstructed positions inherit the bias.
  • domain assumption Events reconstructed outside the PTFE wall originate from the PTFE surface.
    Used to build the surface background PDF (Sec. 5, Creating PDFs); contamination from mis-reconstructed bulk events would bias the model.
  • domain assumption 210Po alpha events are a valid spatial template for the low-energy surface background (210Pb) in the ROI.
    The surface background model uses 210Po S2 features and re-weighting to model ROI events (Sec. 5); this assumes energy-independent radial surface distributions.
  • domain assumption 83mKr and 212Pb (from 220Rn) are uniformly distributed in the TPC.
    Used to evaluate uniformity (Sec. 4.2) and to align GPC (Sec. 3.3).
  • standard math The maximum likelihood estimation with Poisson statistics yields unbiased position estimates.
    The TM and PAF likelihoods (Eq. 2 and Eq. 7) rely on standard ML properties; no regularity conditions are checked for the boundary case at the TPC edge.
  • domain assumption S2 bottom charge (QS2b) is a more reliable energy estimator than top charge because top PMTs saturate.
    Stated in Sec. 3.3; used for surface resolution and model slicing; if top PMT saturation behavior changes with position, this assumption could bias the energy scale.
invented entities (1)
  • Mirror image PMTs
    purpose: Model the effect of PTFE reflection at the detector border on the top PMT light pattern, correcting asymmetry in edge events.
    A mathematical construction, not a physical device; the associated factor omega is fitted to data (Eq. 5-6) and has no independent observational handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Position reconstruction and surface background model for the PandaX-4T detector." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TFWHYDKO

@misc{pith2026250207317,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Position reconstruction and surface background model for the PandaX-4T detector},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TFWHYDKO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07317}
}
abstract

We report the position reconstruction methods and surface background model for the PandaX-4T dark matter direct search experiment. This work develops two position reconstruction algorithms: template matching (TM) method and photon acceptance function (PAF) method. Both methods determine the horizontal position of events based on the light pattern of secondary scintillation collected by the light sensors. After a comprehensive evaluation of resolution, uniformity, and robustness, the PAF method was selected for position reconstruction, while the TM method was employed for verification. The PAF method achieves a bulk event resolution of 1.0 mm and a surface event resolution of 4.4 mm for a typical $S2$ signal with a bottom charge of 1500 PE (about 14 keV). The uniformity is around 20\%. Robustness studies reveal average deviations of 5.1 mm and 8.8 mm for the commissioning run (Run0) and the first science run (Run1), respectively, due to the deactivation of certain PMTs. A data-driven surface background model is developed based on the PAF method. The surface background is estimated to be $0.09 \pm 0.06$ events for Run0 (0.54 tonne$\cdot$year) and $0.17 \pm 0.11$ events for Run1 (1.00 tonne$\cdot$year).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07317 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the PandaX-4T detector design. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Operation status of top PMT arrays for Run0 (left) and Run1 (right). Different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. RMS comparison between data and simulation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Azimuthal angle distribution of surface events at different vertical positions. (solid lines: before GPC; dashed lines: after GPC) 4. Position reconstruction performance In this section, the performance of different position reconstruction algo￾rithms will be examined …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Surface event resolution on S2 bottom charge (QS2b ) at different vertical positions 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: R2 distribution of 83mKr (top) and 212Pb (bottom) using different type of reconstruction methods. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Robustness assessment using MC at QS2t = 6000 PE. The color indicates the deviation at each position. Solid lines represent the off-PMT regions and dashed lines denote the FV boundaries. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The dependence of deviation on charge in off-PMT regions (The colored bands [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Smoothed distribution of the events outside the PTFE wall in log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Radial dependence of 210Po surface events on vertical position, S2b charge and azimuth angle. term, allowing the derivation of µ, σ and a parameter λ, which describing the decreasing event rate inwards along the radial direction. −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40 δ R [mm]…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Radial distribution of surface background model using three fitting meth￾ods. The corresponding fitting functions are provided in table 2. Interpolating along QS2b — By combining the fitting results of each (z, QS2b ) slice, we can determine S2 charge-dependent parame…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Distribution of surface background events inside FV in log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, J. Silk, Particle dark matter: evidence, can- didates and constraints, Physics Reports 405 (5-6) (2005) 279–390. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.031

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.031 2005

  2. [2]

    Billard, et al., Direct Detection of Dark Matter – APPEC Committee Report (4 2021)

    J. Billard, et al., Direct Detection of Dark Matter – APPEC Committee Report (4 2021). arXiv:2104.07634

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Meng, et al., Dark Matter Search Results from the PandaX-4T Com- missioning Run, Phys

    Y. Meng, et al., Dark Matter Search Results from the PandaX-4T Com- missioning Run, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) 261802. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.127.261802

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Bo, et al., Dark matter search results from 1 .54 Tonne · Year exposure of pandax-4t, Phys

    Z. Bo, et al., Dark matter search results from 1 .54 Tonne · Year exposure of pandax-4t, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (2025) 011805. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.011805. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134. 011805

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.011805 2025

  5. [5]

    Aprile, et al., First dark matter search with nuclear recoils from the XENONnT experiment, Phys

    E. Aprile, et al., First dark matter search with nuclear recoils from the XENONnT experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (4) (2023) 041003. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.041003

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.041003 2023

  6. [6]

    Aalbers, et al., First dark matter search results from the LUX- ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment, Phys

    J. Aalbers, et al., First dark matter search results from the LUX- ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (4) (2023) 041002. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.041002. 20

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.041002 2023

  7. [7]

    J. Li, et al., The Second-phase Development of the China JinPing Under- ground Laboratory, Physics Procedia 61 (2015) 576–585, 13th Interna- tional Conference on Topics in Astroparticle and Underground Physics, TAUP 2013. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phpro.2014.12.055

    work page doi:10.1016/j.phpro.2014.12.055 2015

  8. [8]

    K. J. Kang, et al., Status and prospects of a deep underground labo- ratory in China, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 203 (2010) 012028. doi:10.1088/ 1742-6596/203/1/012028

    work page 2010

Show all 19 references
  1. [9]

    Langrock, Energy response and position reconstruction in the DEAP- 3600 dark matter experiment, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1342 (2020) 012071

    S. Langrock, Energy response and position reconstruction in the DEAP- 3600 dark matter experiment, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1342 (2020) 012071. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1342/1/012071

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Chen, et al., BambooMC — A Geant4-based simulation program for the PandaX experiments, Journal of Instrumentation 16 (09) (2021) T09004

    X. Chen, et al., BambooMC — A Geant4-based simulation program for the PandaX experiments, Journal of Instrumentation 16 (09) (2021) T09004. doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/09/t09004

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Ruder, An overview of gradient descent optimization algorithms, CoRR abs/1609.04747 (2016)

    S. Ruder, An overview of gradient descent optimization algorithms, CoRR abs/1609.04747 (2016). arXiv:1609.04747

    2016 arXiv

  4. [12]

    V. N. Solovov, et al., Position Reconstruction in a Dual Phase Xenon Scintillation Detector, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 59 (6) (2012) 3286–3293. doi:10.1109/TNS.2012.2221742

    2012

  5. [13]

    R. M. Gray, A. Macovski, Maximum a Posteriori Estimation of Position in Scintillation Cameras, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 23 (1) (1976) 849–852. doi:10.1109/TNS.1976.4328354

    1976

  6. [14]

    Akerib, et al., Position reconstruction in LUX, Journal of Instrumen- tation 13 (02) (2018) P02001

    D. Akerib, et al., Position reconstruction in LUX, Journal of Instrumen- tation 13 (02) (2018) P02001. doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/02/P02001. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/13/02/P02001

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    A. Lindote, et al., Preliminary results on position reconstruction for ZEPLIN III, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Sec- tion A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equip- ment 573 (1) (2007) 200–203, proceedings of the 7th International Co...

    2007

  8. [16]

    J. P. Brodsky, xy Position Reconstruction in DarkSide-50 (1 2015). doi: 10.2172/1212164. URL https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1212164

    2015

  9. [17]

    Aprile, et al., XENON1T dark matter data analysis: Signal recon- struction, calibration, and event selection, Phys

    E. Aprile, et al., XENON1T dark matter data analysis: Signal recon- struction, calibration, and event selection, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 052014. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.052014. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.052014

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Zhang, et al., Horizontal position reconstruction in PandaX-II, Journal of Instrumentation 16 (11) (2021) P11040

    D. Zhang, et al., Horizontal position reconstruction in PandaX-II, Journal of Instrumentation 16 (11) (2021) P11040. doi:10.1088/ 1748-0221/16/11/p11040

    2021

  11. [19]

    Cowan, Discovery sensitivity for a counting experiment with back- ground uncertainty (2012)

    G. Cowan, Discovery sensitivity for a counting experiment with back- ground uncertainty (2012). 22

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.