Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 22 references

Ultra-thin 20 µm LGAD sensors reach 16.6 ps timing resolution in a 4 GeV/c electron beam, and two sensors used together as a tracker reach 12.2 ps.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review

2026-08-03 19:46 UTC pith:LTZVBIMU

load-bearing objection Solid beam-test result: 16.6 ps timing in 20 µm LGADs is credible and new, but the paper overreaches in the abstract and thickness scaling by mixing in a β-source 45 µm point, and the irradiated-sensor temperature claim needs support. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2511.22308 v3 pith:LTZVBIMU submitted 2025-11-27 physics.ins-det

Timing resolution from beam tests on thin LGADs down to 16.6 ps

Robert Stephen White , Marco Ferrero , Valentina Sola , Anna Rita Altamura , Roberta Arcidiacono , Maurizio Boscardin , Nicolo Cartglia , Matteo Centis Vignali
show 9 more authors
Tommaso Croci Matteo Durando Simone Galletto Alessandro Fondacci Leonardo Lanteri Luca Menzio Francesco Moscatelli Giovanni Paternoster Federico Siviero
This is my paper
classification physics.ins-det
keywords Low-Gain Avalanche Diodes (LGADs)timing resolutionbeam teststhin silicon sensorsradiation hardness4D trackingacceptor removalsingle-event burnout
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper reports beam-test measurements of thin Low-Gain Avalanche Diodes (LGADs) designed for high-radiation environments. The central result is that a 20 µm-thick sensor achieves a single-device timing resolution of 16.6 ± 0.7 ps, and two such sensors used together as a tracker reach 12.2 ps. Neutron-irradiated 30 µm sensors keep timing resolution around 20 ps up to a fluence of 2.5 × 10^15 n_eq/cm², which is the regime needed for 4D tracking at future colliders. The authors attribute the improvement to thinner sensors producing faster signals and smaller ionisation fluctuations. A caveat: the reported 45 µm point (26.4 ps) was measured with a radioactive β source rather than the beam, so the thickness-scaling trend mixes two apparatuses.

Core claim

The paper claims that in the EXFLU family of thin LGADs, timing resolution improves steadily as the substrate is thinned, without sacrificing radiation tolerance. The best single-sensor result is σ_t(DUT) = 16.6 ± 0.7 ps for a 20 µm sensor, and averaging the arrival times of two 20 µm planes yields 12.2 ps. Irradiated 30 µm sensors, at fluences from 0.4 to 2.5 × 10^15 n_eq/cm², still deliver about 20 ps, with the most irradiated sample reaching 20.5 ps before the single-event burnout limit. The authors explain the improvement via the decomposition σ_t² = σ_jitter² + σ_ionisation²: thinner substrates shorten the rise time linearly (from ~600 ps at 45 µm to ~300 ps at 20 µm) and reduce the ion

What carries the argument

The central object is the thin LGAD: an n-in-p silicon sensor with a shallow boron gain implant co-implanted with carbon, with substrate thickness varied from 20 to 45 µm. The load-bearing mechanism is the timing-resolution relation σ_t² = σ_jitter² + σ_ionisation². Thinning the substrate reduces the signal rise time, directly lowering the jitter term, and also reduces the ionisation-fluctuation term because the faster rising edge is less affected by non-uniform energy deposition. The two-plane tracker result is obtained by averaging the constant-fraction-discriminator arrival times of two 20 µm sensors, demonstrating the expected 1/√2 improvement. The micro-channel plate reference resolutio

Load-bearing premise

The thickness-scaling trend rests on comparing the 45 µm point measured with a 90Sr β source to the other points measured in the 4 GeV/c electron beam; if those two measurements are not equivalent, the apparent improvement with thinning is partly an artifact of the changed setup.

What would settle it

Re-measure the same 45 µm EXFLU sensor in the same 4 GeV/c electron beam with the identical readout chain and CFD settings, and compare the resulting σ_t(DUT) with the 26.4 ps β-source value; a mismatch beyond the quoted uncertainties would break the thickness-scaling conclusion.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Sub-25 ps single-plane timing is achievable in LGADs thinner than 35 µm, with 20 µm sensors reaching 16.6 ps.
  • A two-plane tracker of 20 µm LGADs reaches 12.2 ps, verifying the expected 1/√2 improvement from combining planes.
  • Thinning the sensor from 35 µm to 20 µm cuts the minimum charge needed for sub-30 ps timing from ~6 fC to ~2 fC, a factor greater than 2.5.
  • 30 µm sensors retain ~20 ps timing after neutron irradiation up to 2.5 × 10^15 n_eq/cm², with the limit set by single-event burnout at about 405 V.
  • Signal amplitude at a given gain is independent of substrate thickness, so thinner sensors can improve timing without losing signal amplitude.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the 45 µm β-source point is not equivalent to the beam measurements, the precise slope of the thickness-scaling curve is uncertain; the robust comparison is among the beam-tested thicknesses 20, 25, 30, and 35 µm.
  • The 12.2 ps two-plane result suggests that a larger tracker of several thin LGAD layers could push overall time resolution toward ~10 ps or below, provided the readout electronics preserve the fast rise time.
  • The observed thickness-independent signal amplitude implies that further thinning to 15 µm—already fabricable—may yield even lower timing resolution, but would face lower collected charge and stronger Landau fluctuations.
  • Because the MCP reference contributes only about 5 ps, the quoted 16.6 ps is not reference-dominated; an independent faster reference could confirm the DUT-only resolution.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports timing-resolution measurements of thin LGAD sensors from the FBK EXFLU production, performed at the DESY Test Beam Facility with 4 GeV/c electrons. Non-irradiated sensors of 20, 25, 30, 35, and 45 µm thickness were tested; the best single-sensor resolution is 16.6 ± 0.7 ps for the 20 µm sensors, and a two-plane tracker using two 20 µm sensors reaches 12.2 ps. Irradiated 30 µm sensors were measured at fluences from 0.4 × 10^15 to 2.5 × 10^15 n_eq/cm² and achieve about 20 ps timing resolution. The analysis uses constant-fraction discrimination at 30%, Gaussian fits to the DUT–MCP time difference, an in-situ extraction of the MCP reference resolution from three pairwise combinations, and explicit systematic checks on amplitude extraction and interpolation. The paper also presents the jitter and ionisation contributions to the timing resolution and a thickness-scaling relation for the minimum charge required to reach a given resolution.

Significance. If the results hold, the 16.6 ps single-sensor resolution for a 20 µm LGAD and the 12.2 ps two-plane tracker represent state-of-the-art timing performance for very thin LGADs in a beam test, with direct relevance to 4D tracking at HL-LHC and FCC-hh. The paper's strengths include a clean beam-test methodology: the MCP resolution is obtained by solving the quadrature system from three pairwise combinations rather than assumed, the CFD threshold is optimized, and the systematic checks on interpolation and amplitude extraction are explicit. The radiation-hardness claim for irradiated 30 µm sensors at 20 ps up to 2.5 × 10^15 n_eq/cm² is significant for extreme-fluence applications, provided the temperature-dependence question is resolved. However, two limitations—the unsupported assertion of temperature independence for the irradiated-sensor data and the substitution of a β-source measurement for the 45 µm beam-test point—currently weaken the broader scaling and radiation-hardness conclusions.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 3, Table 2, and Figure 13] The 45 µm timing result (26.4 ± 1.7 ps in Table 2) is not from the 4 GeV/c beam, as stated in Section 3: "the 45µm results are replaced with low-noise data obtained using a 45µm sensor tested with a 90Sr β source." The abstract and Table 2 present this value as part of the beam-test series without flagging the substitution, and Figure 13 mixes the β-source point with beam points. While the figure caption acknowledges the β source, the paper provides no cross-check that the β-source measurement is equivalent to the beam measurement for timing resolution. The two setups differ in particle type (4 GeV/c electrons vs. endpoint β electrons), particle flux, readout chain (single-plane vs. triple-plane), and noise conditions. This issue affects the quantitative thickness-scaling conclusions in Figures 13 and 14, which use the 45 µm point. The authors should either provide a beam measurement usi
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract (full text version)] The abstract in the full text states "four device-under-test (DUT) planes," but Section 3 describes two DUT planes (DUT1 and DUT2). The arXiv abstract correctly says "two." This inconsistency should be corrected.
  2. [Title] The arXiv title reads "Timing resolution from beam tests on thin LGADs down to 16.6 ps," while the full-text title is "Timing resolution from very thin LGAD sensors tested on particle beam down to 12 ps." The title should be harmonized.
  3. [Figure 14] The caption states "The uncertainties in the charge estimates are not shown." For a quantitative scaling claim, charge uncertainties should be displayed or at least a representative value given.
  4. [Section 3.1, Equation (4)] The units "pWb or mV·ns" for signal area are unconventional; "mV·ns" (or V·s) is clear, but "pWb" appears to be a typographical artifact. Please clarify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the quoted timing resolutions are direct beam measurements; the in-situ MCP calibration and interpretive fits do not generate or force the headline values.

full rationale

The central σ_t(DUT) values (16.6 ps for 20 µm, 12.2 ps for the two-plane tracker, and ~20 ps for irradiated 30 µm sensors) are obtained by Gaussian fits to measured DUT–MCP arrival-time differences, followed by quadrature subtraction of the MCP resolution (Eq. 6). No parameter is fitted to a subset of these data and then renamed as a prediction. The σ_ionisation extraction in Eq. 3 is an interpretive decomposition of already-measured σ_t(DUT) as a function of charge; it is not used to produce the quoted minimum resolutions. The MCP resolution is calibrated in situ from three pair variance measurements (Eq. 7); this is a standard algebraic self-calibration, not a circular fit, and the 20 µm headline does not reduce to the calibration by construction. The self-citations ([11,12,14,16]) support context claims such as acceptor-removal mitigation and prior characterisation, but the timing measurement itself is self-contained and externally benchmarked against the MCP. One non-circular weakness should be weighed separately: Section 4 asserts 'The change in temperature does not affect the σ_t(DUT) measurements, and hence no bias correction is applied' despite the sensors being operated from -50 °C to -35 °C; this is an unsupported assumption that could affect the irradiated-sensor results, but it is a validation gap rather than a circular derivation. Overall, the paper is essentially a direct measurement paper with no load-bearing circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The only free parameters are an empirically chosen CFD threshold and the interpretive ionisation/jitter fit constants. No new physical entities are introduced. The main burden is on standard independence assumptions and the cross-setup comparability of the β-source and beam measurements.

free parameters (2)
  • CFD threshold = 30% of signal amplitude
    The constant-fraction discriminator threshold was chosen as the value that optimizes timing resolution (Section 3.1: 'The optimal CFD thresholds were found to correspond to the time-of-arrival at the 30% level'). This is an empirical tuning choice, though the paper reports sensitivity to it was negligible.
  • σ_ionisation fit parameters a and b = a ≈ 15–25 ps, b varies with device (Fig. 12)
    Equation 3 is fitted to the σ_t(DUT) vs charge data to separate ionisation and jitter contributions. These parameters are used to interpret the scaling, not to derive the headline timing values, but they are free parameters in the decomposition.
axioms (4)
  • standard math The total timing resolution is the quadrature sum of independent jitter and ionisation contributions (Eq. 1).
    Used throughout to decompose and interpret σ_t; assumes statistical independence of the two contributions.
  • domain assumption Timing errors of the two DUTs and the MCP are statistically independent (Eqs. 7–8).
    The MCP resolution extraction and the DUT resolution subtraction rely on the pairwise quadrature relations; correlated time-walk or common-mode noise would bias the results.
  • domain assumption 4 GeV/c electrons and 2.28 MeV β electrons can both be treated as MIP-like for timing purposes.
    The 45 µm result is taken with a β source; the paper states 'can be treated as MIP-like' (Section 3) with no direct cross-check against the beam for that thickness.
  • ad hoc to paper Temperature variation between -50 and -35°C does not affect σ_t(DUT) in the irradiated measurements.
    The paper states 'The change in temperature does not affect the σ_t(DUT) measurements' (Section 4) without showing supporting data. The gain is corrected to -42°C, but the timing resolution is not, yet the claim is that timing is temperature-insensitive in this range.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Timing resolution from beam tests on thin LGADs down to 16.6 ps." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LTZVBIMU

@misc{pith2026251122308,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Timing resolution from beam tests on thin LGADs down to 16.6 ps},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LTZVBIMU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.22308}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The paper reports on the timing resolution achieved with Low-Gain Avalanche Diodes (LGADs), optimised for extreme-fluence conditions, at the DESY Test Beam Facility using 4~GeV/c electrons. The LGADs adopt an $n$-in-$p$ technology with a $p^{+}$-type boron gain implant, co-implanted with carbon to mitigate acceptor deactivation due to irradiation. The substrate thickness of the sensors varies from 20 to 45~\micron, with an active area spanning from 0.75~$\times$~0.75 to 1.28~$\times$~1.28~mm$^{2}$. The experimental setup consisted of a 45~\micron-thick trigger sensor with an active area of 3.6~$\times$~3.6~mm$^{2}$, two device-under-test (DUT) planes, and a Photonis micro-channel plate photomultiplier tube (MCP) as a time reference. Data taking was performed at the ambient temperature of the facility, at 18$^{\circ}$C. The gain was measured between 7 and 40 across all non-irradiated sensors in the study. The timing resolution was calculated from a Gaussian fitting of the difference in times of arrival of a particle at the DUT and the MCP, using the constant fraction discriminator technique. A timing resolution of 26.4~\ps was achieved in 45~\micron-thick sensors, down to 16.6~\ps in 20~\micron-thick sensors, in the non-irradiation study. The combination of two 20~\micron-thick LGADs reached a timing resolution of 12.2~\ps. A set of 30~\micron-thick sensors irradiated with neutrons at fluences between 0.4~$\times$~10$^{15}$ and 2.5~$\times$~10$^{15}$~\mevneut were tested in the beam. These irradiated sensors achieved a gain between 7 and 30 using a similar apparatus but cooled with solidified CO$_{2}$ to -42$^{\circ}$C. A timing resolution of 20~\ps was obtained in these irradiated sensors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.22308 by Alessandro Fondacci, Anna Rita Altamura, Federico Siviero, Francesco Moscatelli, Giovanni Paternoster, Leonardo Lanteri, Luca Menzio, Marco Ferrero, Matteo Centis Vignali, Matteo Durando, Maurizio Boscardin, Nicolo Cartglia, Roberta Arcidiacono, Robert Stephen White, Simone Galletto, Tommaso Croci, Valentina Sola.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A carbon co-implant is also injected into the gain layer to mitigate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic images of EXFLU SP and LP devices used for timing performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The range of bias points applied to the DUTs during data taking [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The breakdown trends for the non-irradiated EXFLU samples. The two 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The distribution of signal amplitudes for the 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The breakdown curves for the irradiated 30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Charge injected into non-irradiated EXFLU samples as a function of the reverse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Gain measured in non-irradiated EXFLU samples as a function of the reverse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Gain measured in the 30 µm EXFLU samples as a function of the reverse bias, recorded at 18◦C for the non-irradiated sample and between -50 and -35◦C in the irradiated samples. The signal multiplication ranges from 10 to 35 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Gain measured in the irradiated 30 µm EXFLU samples as a function of the reverse bias, corrected to -42◦C. The signal multiplication ranges from 10 to 35. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The trise of each non-irradiated EXFLU sample, taken at the 10%-90% interval, demonstrating a linear relationship with the thickness of the sensor. The trise decreases marginally with fluence in the irradiated 30 µm sam￾ples, due to the increased bulk electric-field strength. The RMS noise in these samples ranges from 1.2 to 1.4 mV, except for the sample irradiated at 1.5 × 1015 n1 MeV eq.cm−2 , which rea… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The σjitter contribution as a function of charge collected by EXFLU samples. A sub-10 ps σjitter is achieved in all sensors of thickness below 45 µm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The σionisation contribution as a function of thickness using test beam data and from samples measured with a β source. The observations are in good agreement with the simulated σionisation behaviour using Weightfield2 [22]. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The σt(DUT) values across all non-irradiated EXFLU samples as a function of the charge injected, illustrating the effect of sensor thickness on timing precision. The 45 µm result is recorded using β-source electrons. The amount of collected charge necessary to reach a given σt(DUT) is also observed to decrease linearly with the sensor thickness, illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The minimum collected charge required to achieve a fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The timing resolution of a two-plane LGAD tracker setup with the 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The timing resolution of the 30 µm sensors as a function of reverse bias, using data obtained between -50 and -35◦C, with a 20 ps baseline shown for reference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The timing resolution of the 30 µm sensors as a function of collected charge, using data obtained between -50 and -35◦C. The non-irradiated sample tested at 18◦C is shown for reference. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_17.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Rossi, O

    L. Rossi, O. Brüning, High Luminosity Large Hadron Collider: A de- scription for the European Strategy Preparatory Group, Tech. Rep. 236, CERN, Geneva (2012). URLhttps://cds.cern.ch/record/1471000

    arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    La Rosa, The Upgrade of the CMS Tracker at HL-LHC, JPS Conf

    A. La Rosa, The Upgrade of the CMS Tracker at HL-LHC, JPS Conf. Proc. 34 (2021) 010006.doi:10.7566/JPSCP.34.010006

    work page doi:10.7566/jpscp.34.010006 2021

  3. [3]

    Aad, The ATLAS Upgrade for the HL-LHC, CERN (6 2025)

    G. Aad, The ATLAS Upgrade for the HL-LHC, CERN (6 2025). 23

    2025

  4. [4]

    Losito, M

    M.Benedikt, A.Chance, B.Dalena, D.Denisov, M.Giovannozzi, J.Gut- leber, R. Losito, M. Mangano, T. Raubenheimer, W. Riegler, V. Shilt- sev, D.Schulte, D.Tommasini, F.Zimmermann, FutureCircularHadron Collider FCC-hh: Overview and Status (2022).arXiv:2203.07804

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Pellegrini, P

    G. Pellegrini, P. Fernández-Martínez, M. Baselga, C. Fleta, D. Flores, V. Greco, S. Hidalgo, I. Mandić, G. Kramberger, D. Quirion, M. Ul- lan, Technology developments and first measurements of Low Gain Avalanche Detectors (LGAD) for high energy physics applications, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 765 (2014) 12–16.doi:10.1016/j.nima.2014.06. 008

    doi:10.1016/j.nima.2014.06 2014

  6. [6]

    Ferrero, A

    M. Ferrero, A. Altamura, R. Arcidiacono, N. Cartiglia, M. Durando, L. Lanteri, C. Marinuzzi, L. Menzio, F. Siviero, V. Sola, R. White, FAST3 ASIC: an analog front-end with 30 ps resolution, designed to readout thin Low Gain Avalanche Diodes, Journal of Instrumentation 20 (03) (2025) C03007.doi:10.1088/1748-0221/20/03/C03007

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/20/03/c03007 2025

  7. [7]

    Padilla, C

    R. Padilla, C. Labitan, Z. Galloway, C. Gee, S. Mazza, F. McKinney- Martinez, H.-W. Sadrozinski, A. Seiden, B. Schumm, M. Wilder, Y. Zhao, H. Ren, Y. Jin, M. Lockerby, V. Cindro, G. Kramberger, I. Mandiz, M. Mikuz, M. Zavrtanik, R. Arcidiacono, N. Cartiglia, M. Ferrero, M. Mandurrino, V. Sola, A. Staiano, Effect of deep gain layer and Carbon infusion on L...

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/10/p10003 2020

  8. [8]

    Kolšek, V

    A. Kolšek, V. Radulović, A. Trkov, L. Snoj, Using TRIGA Mark II research reactor for irradiation with thermal neutrons, Nuclear Engi- neering and Design 283 (2015) 155–161.doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes. 2014.03.012

    doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes 2015

  9. [9]

    Tornago, Performances of the latest FBK UFSD production, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2374 (1) (2022) 012137.doi:10.1088/ 1742-6596/2374/1/012137

    M. Tornago, Performances of the latest FBK UFSD production, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2374 (1) (2022) 012137.doi:10.1088/ 1742-6596/2374/1/012137

    2022

  10. [10]

    Sola, Present and future development of thin silicon sensors for extreme fluences, Talk at VCI2022 – The 16th Vienna Conference on Instrumentation, Wien (Austria) (2022)

    V. Sola, Present and future development of thin silicon sensors for extreme fluences, Talk at VCI2022 – The 16th Vienna Conference on Instrumentation, Wien (Austria) (2022). URLhttps://indico.cern.ch/event/1044975/contributions/ 4663663/ 24

    arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    V. Sola, M. Boscardin, F. Moscatelli, A. Altamura, R. Arcidiacono, G. Borghi, N. Cartiglia, M. Centis Vignali, T. Croci, M. Durando, F. Fi- corella, A. Fondacci, S. Galletto, G. Gioachin, S. Giordanengo, O. Ham- mad Ali, L. Lanteri, L. Menzio, A. Morozzi, D. Passeri, G. Paternoster, F. Siviero, M. Tornago, R. White, Thin LGAD sensors for 4D tracking in hi...

    arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Altamura, R

    A. Altamura, R. White, M. Ferrero, L. Anderlini, R. Arcidiacono, G. Borghi, M. Boscardin, N. Cartiglia, M. C. Vignali, T. Croci, F. Davo- lio, M. Durando, A. Fondacci, S. Galletto, L. Lanteri, L. Menzio, A. Mo- rozzi, D. Passeri, N. Pastrone, F. Siviero, F. Moscatelli, G. Paternos- ter, V. Sola, Radiation-resistant thin LGADs for enhanced 4D tracking, Nuc...

    arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Diener, J

    R. Diener, J. Dreyling-Eschweiler, H. Ehrlichmann, I. Gregor, U. Kötz, U. Krämer, N. Meyners, N. Potylitsina-Kube, A. Schütz, P. Schütze, M. Stanitzki, The DESY II test beam facility, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 922 (2019) 265–286.doi:10.1016/j.nima.2018.11.133

    doi:10.1016/j.nima.2018.11.133 2019

  14. [14]

    R. S. White, R. Arcidiacono, G. Borghi, M. Boscardin, N. Cartiglia, M. C. Vignali, M. Costa, T. Croci, M. Ferrero, A. Fondacci, S. Gior- danengo, C. Hanna, L. Lanteri, L. Menzio, A. Morozzi, F. Moscatelli, R. Mulargia, D. Passeri, N. Pastrone, G. Paternoster, V. Sola, Char- acterisation of the FBK EXFLU1 thin sensors with gain in a high flu- ence environm...

    arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Moll, Acceptor removal - Displacement damage effects involving the shallow acceptor doping of p-type silicon devices, PoS Vertex2019 (2020) 027.doi:10.22323/1.373.0027

    M. Moll, Acceptor removal - Displacement damage effects involving the shallow acceptor doping of p-type silicon devices, PoS Vertex2019 (2020) 027.doi:10.22323/1.373.0027

    doi:10.22323/1.373.0027 2020

  16. [16]

    Ferrero, R

    M. Ferrero, R. Arcidiacono, M. Mandurrino, V. Sola, N. Cartiglia, An Introduction to Ultra-Fast Silicon Detectors, CRC Press, 2021.doi: 10.1201/9781003131946

    work page doi:10.1201/9781003131946 2021

  17. [17]

    Kramberger, V

    G. Kramberger, V. Cindro, A. Howard, Z. Kljun, I. Mandic, M. Mikuz, Annealing effects on operation of thin Low Gain Avalanche Detectors, J. Instrum. 15 (2020) P08017.doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/08/P08017. 25

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/08/p08017 2020

  18. [18]

    Siviero, et al., Optimization of the gain layer design of ultra-fast silicon detectors, Nucl

    F. Siviero, et al., Optimization of the gain layer design of ultra-fast silicon detectors, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1033 (2022) 166739.arXiv: 2112.00561,doi:10.1016/j.nima.2022.166739

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Ferrero, R

    M. Ferrero, R. Arcidiacono, N. Cartiglia, L. Lanteri, L. Menzio, A. Mo- rozzi, F. Moscatelli, R. Mulargia, F. Siviero, R. White, V. Sola, First study of single-event burnout in very-thin planar silicon sensors, Front. Phys. 13 (2025) 1575672.doi:10.3389/fphy.2025.1575672

    arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Meroli, D

    S. Meroli, D. Passeri, L. Servoli, Energy loss measurement for charged particles in very thin silicon layers, J. Instrum. 6 (2011) P06013.doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/6/06/P06013

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/6/06/p06013 2011

  21. [21]

    Cartiglia, et al., Design optimization of ultra-fast silicon detectors, Nucl

    N. Cartiglia, et al., Design optimization of ultra-fast silicon detectors, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 796 (2015) 141–148.doi:10.1016/j.nima. 2015.04.025

    doi:10.1016/j.nima 2015

  22. [22]

    Cenna, N

    F. Cenna, N. Cartiglia, M. Friedl, B. Kolbinger, H. F. W. Sadrozinski, A. Seiden, A. Zatserklyaniy, A. Zatserklyaniy, Weightfield2: A fast sim- ulator for silicon and diamond solid state detector, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 796 (2015) 149–153.doi:10.1016/j.nima.2015.04.015. 26

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2015.04.015 2015

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.