Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 39 references

Mitigating Deadtime in Distributed Optical Arrays Using A Liveness-Aware Trigger Approach for High-Energy Neutrino Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A liveness-aware IIR trigger delays efficiency loss under detector deadtime.

desk verdict Plausible liveness-aware trigger idea, but the headline efficiency result is confounded: the baseline lacks temporal filtering, so the liveness-persistence benefit isn't isolated. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.18114 v2 pith:AITYBCQV submitted 2026-01-26 physics.ins-det physics.comp-phphysics.data-an

Thammarat Yawisit , Pittaya Pannil This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-detphysics.comp-phphysics.data-an
keywords deadtimeliveness-awaretriggerIIRfiltercoincidenceneutrinodetectorFPGAefficiencyopticalsensorarray
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

The paper argues that conventional coincidence triggers in optical neutrino detectors fail during deadtime because they treat a temporarily non-live channel as evidence of physical silence. To fix this, it introduces a liveness-aware IIR filter at each sensor: when a channel goes non-live, the filter's output decays smoothly instead of collapsing, preserving the memory of recent light. The authors show by simulation that this continuity keeps the network-level coherence score high enough to trigger on events that a binary coincidence logic would fragment. A reader should care because deadtime is unavoidable in large photomultiplier arrays, and the proposed update law is simple enough for FPGA implementation.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is the liveness-aware IIR update law (Eq. 3), a one-pole recursive filter with a liveness gate: each sensor keeps a state Ψeff that tracks the instantaneous signal while live and decays smoothly as exp(−α Δt) when non-live. This is paired with an energy-like coherence score G[n]=Σ w_i (Ψeff_i)^2 computed over a sliding window, and a threshold Γ calibrated to a fixed false-trigger rate. The combination turns the trigger problem from a fragile all-or-nothing coincidence requirement into continuous coherence tracking, with O(1) per-sample cost per channel and a single tunable parameter k that sets persistence.

What would settle it

A hardware-in-the-loop test that injects measured front-end deadtime (with rate-dependent recovery and clipping) into an FPGA prototype: if the liveness-aware trigger's efficiency advantage over coincidence logic shrinks to statistical noise under real deadtime patterns, the central claim fails. Alternatively, measure the false-trigger rate under noise-only data with high deadtime probability; if the IIR memory raises spurious triggers beyond the calibrated 10^-3 proxy, the persistence prior is too strong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a first-order recursive IIR update law, Ψeff[n] = k Ψeff[n−1] + (1−k) Ψ[n] L[n], separates measurement construction from trigger decision, so a channel that is temporarily non-live is marked as unavailable rather than silent. When L[n]=0, the observable decays exponentially with factor k; this preserves phase and amplitude information accumulated before deadtime. Aggregating these observables into an energy-like coherence score, the trigger sustains higher event-recovery efficiency at elevated deadtime probability than a calibrated multiplicity coincidence trigger, while maintaining a 10^-3 false-trigger proxy. The authors also report higher SNR and lower reconstruc

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that real detector deadtime behaves like a binary liveness gate with fixed or distributed recovery windows; if actual non-liveness involves rate-dependent recovery, baseline shifts, or corrupted samples rather than clean removal, the simulated efficiency gain may be overstated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If deadtime is intermittent, even brief non-liveness in a subset of channels no longer breaks valid coincidence chains.
  • The trigger can be deployed in low-power FPGAs because the filter uses one multiply-accumulate per sample per channel and no global buffering.
  • Calibrating thresholds at zero deadtime and holding them fixed across sweeps means the efficiency gain is structural, not a retuning artifact.
  • The parameter k provides a clear operating region (roughly 0.70–0.95) where efficiency is high and the false-trigger proxy stays negligible.
  • The same measurement/decision separation can be extended to covariance or low-rank coherence metrics without changing the update law.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The continuity-persistence assumption is a prior that the physical signal stays correlated on timescales comparable to deadtime; if real saturation events are followed by baseline shifts or nonlinear recovery, the optimal k may need to be time-varying rather than fixed.
  • A testable extension is to compare the IIR trigger against a coincidence trigger on real streamed waveforms with hardware-in-the-loop; the predicted benefit should appear as an increased fraction of recovered events under measured deadtime episodes.
  • The idea could transfer to any sparse sensor network (e.g., distributed acoustic or radio arrays) where per-channel deadtime is common and true silence is not the same as unavailability.
  • At very high deadtime probability both methods degrade; the claim is about delaying the onset of efficiency loss, not eliminating deadtime information loss.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a liveness-aware trigger for distributed optical arrays in high-energy neutrino detectors. The central idea is a first-order IIR update law (Eq. 3) that constructs a per-channel effective observable which, during deadtime intervals characterized by a binary liveness function L_i[n], decays smoothly instead of being hard-gated to zero. This observable is aggregated into an energy-like coherence score (Eq. 5) and compared against a conventional multiplicity coincidence trigger (Eqs. 7–8) under synthetically injected deadtime. The authors report that the proposed trigger maintains higher trigger efficiency, higher SNR, and lower MSE as deadtime probability grows (Figs. 8, 11, 12), and they argue that the benefit stems from preserving coherence across short non-liveness intervals. Validation uses event topologies from IceCube Open Data converted to waveforms with a parametric PMT/digitizer model and controlled deadtime injection. The paper concludes with FPGA-readiness claims based on the O(1) recursion and fixed-point compatibility.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the liveness-aware update law is a simple, hardware-feasible mechanism for distinguishing measurement unavailability from true silence, and it could be relevant to next-generation DAQ triggers in large-scale optical arrays. The paper's strengths are its clearly posed filter formulation (a single stable pole for 0<k<1), its explicit separation of the continuous measurement layer from the discrete decision layer, and a validation design that uses publicly available event topologies rather than fully synthetic signals. The threshold calibration procedure at P_dead=0, with a stated false-trigger target and 2×10^7 Monte Carlo trials, is a good practice, as is the parameter sensitivity study for k. However, the comparison that supports the headline claim is not clean: the baseline and proposed systems differ in two independent respects—temporal low-pass filtering and liveness persistence—and the paper does not isolate the liveness mechanism. Also, the statistical and methodological reporting in the validation is under-specified in several places. These issues are load-bearing because the paper's contribution is specifically the liveness-aware update law, not t

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Fig. 8; Eqs. (3), (7)–(8)] The hidden note is that the improvement could be a temporal-filtering artifact, which is a serious concern. The control experiment is feasible in the simulation framework and should be included.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Fig. 8; Sec. 2.6] This is load-bearing because the quantitative claim of improved efficiency rests entirely on this figure.
  3. [Sec. 2.4, Table 2, Sec. 3.2] This is a specific testable concern; it does not require model changes, only an additional simulation.
  4. [Sec. 3.6, Fig. 13] A minor-to-moderate issue, but it affects the interpretation of a secondary claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 2.4, Eq. (2) area] The notation '∆t = ∆t (corresponding to fs = fs)' is a placeholder and should be filled with actual values. Elsewhere, Fig. 4 states fs=100 MHz while Table 2 states fs=60 MSPS; please resolve this inconsistency.
  2. [Table 1] Table 1 lists many parameters as 'representative' or 'order' values without concrete numbers. Since the simulation results depend on these, give the exact values used in the reported runs, or provide a separate table of the nominal simulation configuration.
  3. [Fig. 3] Fig. 3 labels the shared stage as 'Eqs. (iir) – (decision)' with placeholder equation references; use actual equation numbers (3)–(8).
  4. [Fig. 4] The label 'baseline=median' is unclear; specify what the baseline curve represents and how the median is computed.
  5. [Fig. 5] The y-axis scale '1e-12' is odd for a score that is thresholded around 2.66; check the units or normalization and make the axis readable.
  6. [Sec. 2.7] The statement that the energy-like statistic 'approximates a log-likelihood ratio' is not justified and is not used in the paper; either add a derivation or remove the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the IIR update and trigger decision are standard, self-contained constructs; the efficiency comparison is confounded but not circular.

full rationale

The core derivation chain is not circular. Eq. (3) is an ordinary first-order IIR / gated exponentially weighted moving average; Eq. (4) is simply its specialization when L_i[n]=0; Eq. (5) is an energy sum; Eq. (6) is a threshold decision. None of these quantities is defined in terms of the measured efficiency, and no parameter is fitted to the efficiency curves. Thresholds are calibrated on noise-only, live-condition (Pdead=0) data and then held fixed; the persistence factor k=0.90 is selected from a sensitivity sweep with a broad stable plateau rather than fitted to the headline result. The self-citation to Synchromodulametry [9] is contextual and not load-bearing: the same update law is attributed to standard DSP references [24], and the mathematics stands on its own. The comparison in Fig. 8 does have a validation-design limitation: the proposed path adds IIR temporal smoothing and an energy coherence score, while the baseline is an instantaneous thresholded multiplicity, with no control using the same IIR but hard-reset during non-liveness. That makes the causal attribution to liveness-awareness underdetermined, and Sec. 4.3 concedes the deadtime model is injected rather than derived from full electronics simulation. These are correctness/validation concerns, not circularity.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The central result depends on one tuned filter constant (k), two calibrated thresholds, and several representative simulation parameters; the binary deadtime model is a domain assumption that is not validated against real hardware behavior.

free parameters (5)
  • IIR decay factor k = 0.90
    Set to 0.90 from a sensitivity scan (Fig. 14); controls the temporal persistence of the effective observable.
  • Baseline trigger threshold θ = 3.428
    Calibrated to a 1e-3 false-trigger proxy under noise-only live conditions (Table 2).
  • Proposed coherence threshold Γ = 2.659
    Calibrated to a 1e-3 false-trigger proxy under noise-only live conditions (Table 2).
  • Deadtime mean window W = unspecified; 200 ns in Fig. 13
    Mean length of injected non-liveness windows, chosen to approximate readout recovery; exact distribution not fully specified in Sec. 2.4.
  • SPE pulse parameters τr, τd, G = representative values only
    Chosen to emulate PMT pulses; no concrete values are given in Table 1, so exact waveform replication is impossible.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math A single-pole IIR filter with pole z=k is BIBO stable for 0<k<1 and implements a low-pass temporal memory.
    Used in Sec. 2.5 to justify filter stability and the decay interpretation.
  • domain assumption Event topologies derived from IceCube Open Data, converted to synthetic waveforms, retain physical multi-channel correlations representative of neutrino events.
    Sec. 2.6: the entire hybrid validation dataset rests on this representative-ness.
  • domain assumption Detector deadtime can be modeled by a binary liveness function Li[n] and injected deadtime windows with simple fixed or distributed durations.
    Sec. 2.4: the stress-testing protocol uses this model; real front-end deadtime may be rate-dependent or non-binary.
  • domain assumption Correlated optical signals persist over short deadtime intervals, so an exponential-decay memory is a physically meaningful continuation of the measurement.
    Eqs. (3)-(4) and Sec. 2.5: the core 'soft persistence prior' that motivates the filter.
  • standard math Under Gaussian noise, the energy-like coherence score G[n] approximates a log-likelihood ratio for excess correlated energy.
    Sec. 2.7, used to justify thresholding the coherence score.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mitigating Deadtime in Distributed Optical Arrays Using A Liveness-Aware Trigger Approach for High-Energy Neutrino Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AITYBCQV

@misc{pith2026260118114,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mitigating Deadtime in Distributed Optical Arrays Using A Liveness-Aware Trigger Approach for High-Energy Neutrino Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AITYBCQV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.18114}
}
read the original abstract

Large-scale neutrino observatories operate under unavoidable detector deadtime arising from photomultiplier saturation, digitizer limits, and front-end readout constraints. Conventional coincidence-based trigger logic implicitly assumes continuous sensor availability and therefore suffers systematic efficiency loss when channels become temporarily non-live. This work presents the design of a liveness-aware trigger architecture targeting low-latency FPGA deployment in distributed optical arrays. We introduce a recursive Infinite Impulse Response (IIR) update law implemented as a fully synthesizable pipeline that constructs a continuity-preserving effective observable at each sensor node. Rather than collapsing during non-liveness intervals, the observable decays smoothly while retaining phase and amplitude information relevant for network-level coherence estimation. By explicitly separating continuous measurement construction from discrete trigger decision logic, the proposed architecture enables graceful degradation under partial channel non-liveness. Simulation results demonstrate sustained event recovery efficiency in regimes of elevated deadtime probability, where conventional coincidence logic degrades substantially.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.18114 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Three complementary views of a representative distributed optical detector geometry: (a) the horizontal layout in the xy-plane, (b) the vertical deployment profile in the xz-plane, and (c) a 3D isometric rendering illustrating the overall footprint and depth extent. the observable during non-liveness intervals while re￾taining phase and amplitude information relevant for subsequent network-level coherence estimation… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pipeline architecture of the proposed liveness-aware trigger system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Hybrid validation pipeline architecture. intervals. Both trigger outputs are subsequently passed to a unified statistical evaluation stage, where perfor￾mance metrics such as efficiency, SNR, MSE, and ROC distributions are computed under identical parameter sweeps. The overall structure of the hybrid validation pipeline, summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between naive gating (Baseline) and the proposed IIR-based effective observable (Proposed). 2.7 Coherence Score and Trigger Deci￾sion Node-level effective observables are aggregated into a network-level trigger variable by computing a coherence score over a …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Aggregation of node-level effective observables into a global coherence score G[n]. herence metrics, can be incorporated within the same framework without altering the liveness-aware update law [22]. In practice, multi-node alignment can be supported by sub-nanosecond …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Noise-only distributions of the maximum trigger statistic per decision window for the baseline coincidence trigger (left) and the proposed liveness-aware trigger (right). Dashed lines indicate calibrated thresholds corresponding to a target false-trigger probability of…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative comparison of signal reconstruction under deadtime. 3 Results 3.1 Qualitative Reconstruction Under Non-Liveness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Trigger efficiency as a function of deadtime probability Pdead. channel response [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Eigenvalue spectrum of the coherence matrix. A small number of dominant eigenvalues indicates low-rank coherent structure. Beyond scalar performance curves, we examine the correlation structure of the multi-channel response to understand why liveness-aware triggering …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) comparison under increasing deadtime probability (Pdead). a collection of independent hits but contains coherent multi-channel patterns. To quantify this structure, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Reconstruction error (MSE) evaluated specifi￾cally during deadtime intervals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Recovery probability as a function of satura￾tion/clipping severity in the front-end model. 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Decay factor k 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Normalized rate Signal efficiency False-trigger proxy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Parameter sensitivity analysis for the decay factor k. to realistic electronics limitations that are unavoidable in large-scale optical arrays. 3.7 Parameter Sensitivity and Stability of the Decay Factor k The decay factor k governs the temporal memory of the effectiv…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Evi- dence for High-Energy Extraterrestrial Neutrinos at the IceCube Detector,

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube Collaboration), “Evi- dence for High-Energy Extraterrestrial Neutrinos at the IceCube Detector,”Science, vol. 342, no. 6161,

  2. [3]

    On- line reconstruction and filtering in IceCube,

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube Collaboration), “On- line reconstruction and filtering in IceCube,”Nucl. Instrum. Methods A, vol. 736, pp. 143–149, 2014. doi:10.1016/j.nima.2013.10.074

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2013.10.074 2014

  3. [4]

    IceCube-Gen2: A vision for the future of neutrino astronomy,

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube-Gen2 Collaboration), “IceCube-Gen2: A vision for the future of neutrino astronomy,”Journal of Physics G, vol. 48, 060501,

  4. [5]

    IceCube Open Data,

    IceCube Collaboration, “IceCube Open Data,” https://icecube.wisc.edu/science/data/

  5. [6]

    Letter of intent for KM3NeT 2.0,

    S. Adrian-Martinezet al.(KM3NeT Collaboration), “Letter of intent for KM3NeT 2.0,”Journal of Physics G, vol. 43, 084001, 2016. doi:10.1088/0954- 3899/43/8/084001

    doi:10.1088/0954- 2016

  6. [7]

    The Baikal-GVD neutrino tele- scope,

    A. Avrorinet al., “The Baikal-GVD neutrino tele- scope,”Nucl. Instrum. Methods A, vol. 742, pp. 82– 88, 2014. doi:10.1016/j.nima.2013.12.023

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2013.12.023 2014

  7. [8]

    Multimessengerobservationsof a binary neutron star merger,

    B.P.Abbottet al., “Multimessengerobservationsof a binary neutron star merger,”Astrophysical Jour- nal Letters, vol. 848, L12, 2017. doi:10.3847/2041- 8213/aa91c9

    doi:10.3847/2041- 2017

  8. [9]

    T. Yawisit,Synchromodulametry: A Hardware-First, Metric-Aware Measurement Interface for Multimessenger Coherence, arXiv:2512.20678 [physics.ins-det] (2025), doi:10.48550/arXiv.2512.20678

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.20678 2025

Show all 39 references
  1. [10]

    Trigger and data acquisition sys- tems,

    P. C. Bhat, “Trigger and data acquisition sys- tems,”Annual Review of Nuclear and Par- ticle Science, vol. 41, pp. 115–162, 1991. doi:10.1146/annurev.ns.41.120191.000555

    1991

  2. [11]

    G. F. Knoll,Radiation Detection and Measurement, 4th ed., Wiley, 2010

    2010

  3. [12]

    Dead-time corrections for counting systems,

    J. C. Davis, “Dead-time corrections for counting systems,”Nucl. Instrum. Methods, vol. 18, pp. 1–7,

  4. [13]

    The CMS trigger system,

    S. Chatrchyanet al.(CMS Collaboration), “The CMS trigger system,”Journal of Instrumenta- tion, vol. 12, P01020, 2017. doi:10.1088/1748- 0221/12/01/P01020

    2017 doi

  5. [14]

    Cowan,Statistical Data Analysis, Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1998

    G. Cowan,Statistical Data Analysis, Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1998

    1998

  6. [15]

    H. L. Van Trees,Detection, Estimation, and Mod- ulation Theory, Wiley, 2001

    2001

  7. [16]

    Papoulis,Probability, Random Variables, and Stochastic Processes, McGraw-Hill, 2002

    A. Papoulis,Probability, Random Variables, and Stochastic Processes, McGraw-Hill, 2002

    2002

  8. [17]

    Search for gravitational waves using matched fil- tering,

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration), “Search for gravitational waves using matched fil- tering,”Physical Review D, vol. 69, 122001, 2004. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.122001

    2004 doi

  9. [18]

    A new approach to linear fil- tering and prediction problems,

    R. E. Kalman, “A new approach to linear fil- tering and prediction problems,”ASME Journal of Basic Engineering, vol. 82, pp. 35–45, 1960. doi:10.1115/1.3662552

    1960 doi

  10. [19]

    Ljung,System Identification: Theory for the User, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, 1999

    L. Ljung,System Identification: Theory for the User, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, 1999

    1999

  11. [20]

    Särkkä,Bayesian Filtering and Smooth- ing, Cambridge University Press, 2013

    S. Särkkä,Bayesian Filtering and Smooth- ing, Cambridge University Press, 2013. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139344203

    2013 doi

  12. [21]

    Bar-Shalom, X

    Y. Bar-Shalom, X. R. Li, and T. Kirubarajan,Es- timation with Applications to Tracking and Naviga- tion, Wiley, 2001. 13

    2001

  13. [22]

    Bendat and A

    J. Bendat and A. Piersol,Random Data: Analysis and Measurement Procedures, 4th ed., Wiley, 2010

    2010

  14. [23]

    A. V. Oppenheim and R. W. Schafer,Discrete- Time Signal Processing, 3rd ed., Pearson, 2010

    2010

  15. [24]

    J. G. Proakis and M. Salehi,Digital Communica- tions, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, 2008

    2008

  16. [25]

    Haykin,Adaptive Filter Theory, 5th ed., Pearson, 2014

    S. Haykin,Adaptive Filter Theory, 5th ed., Pearson, 2014

    2014

  17. [26]

    S.K.Mitra,Digital Signal Processing: A Computer- Based Approach, McGraw-Hill, 2011

    2011

  18. [27]

    Lyons,Understanding Digital Signal Processing, 3rd ed., Pearson, 2011

    R. Lyons,Understanding Digital Signal Processing, 3rd ed., Pearson, 2011

    2011

  19. [28]

    Streaming architectures for real-time DSP,

    V. Oppenheim, “Streaming architectures for real-time DSP,”IEEE Signal Processing Mag- azine, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 38–48, 2011. doi:10.1109/MSP.2011.941845

    2011

  20. [29]

    Meyer-Baese,Digital Signal Processing with Field Programmable Gate Arrays, Springer, 2014

    U. Meyer-Baese,Digital Signal Processing with Field Programmable Gate Arrays, Springer, 2014. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-45309-3

    2014 doi

  21. [30]

    Real-time triggering and filtering in FPGA-based systems,

    J. J. Andersonet al., “Real-time triggering and filtering in FPGA-based systems,”IEEE Transac- tions on Nuclear Science, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 3481– 3487, 2013. doi:10.1109/TNS.2013.2273391

    2013

  22. [31]

    Achieving low latency in FPGA- based data processing,

    M. Blottet al., “Achieving low latency in FPGA- based data processing,”ACM Transactions on Re- configurable Technology and Systems, vol. 11, no. 1,

  23. [32]

    Firmware architectures for distributed DAQ systems,

    C. E. Rossi, “Firmware architectures for distributed DAQ systems,”Nucl. Instrum. Methods A, vol. 845, pp. 379–384, 2017. doi:10.1016/j.nima.2016.05.093

    2017 doi

  24. [33]

    Wireless sensor networks: A new regime for time synchronization,

    J. Elson and K. Römer, “Wireless sensor networks: A new regime for time synchronization,”SIG- COMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 33, no. 1, 2003. doi:10.1145/956981.956990

    2003

  25. [34]

    White Rabbit: Sub- nanosecond synchronization for distributed sys- tems,

    T. Wlostowskiet al., “White Rabbit: Sub- nanosecond synchronization for distributed sys- tems,” inProceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Precision Clock Synchronization (IS- PCS), 2011. doi:10.1109/ISPCS.2011.6070159

    2011

  26. [35]

    IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measure- ment and Control Systems (IEEE 1588),

    IEEE, “IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measure- ment and Control Systems (IEEE 1588),” 2019. IEEE 1588-2019

    2019

  27. [36]

    Timing and synchronization in distributed DAQ systems,

    K. G. Lang, “Timing and synchronization in distributed DAQ systems,”Nucl. Instrum. Methods A, vol. 623, pp. 490–496, 2010. doi:10.1016/j.nima.2010.03.018

    2010 doi

  28. [37]

    A survey on sensor networks,

    I. Akyildizet al., “A survey on sensor networks,”IEEE Communications Maga- zine, vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 102–114, 2002. doi:10.1109/MCOM.2002.1024422 14

    2002 arXiv

  29. [1962]

    doi:10.1016/0029-554X(62)90127-6

    doi

  30. [2013]

    doi:10.1126/science.1242856

    doi

  31. [2021]

    doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abeb9d

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.