Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Enhancing Angular Sensitivity of Segmented Antineutrino Detectors for Reactor Monitoring

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A pattern-matching algorithm that compares binned neutron-capture maps estimates antineutrino direction more realistically than the standard resolution formula, and finds an optimal segment size near the neutron's mean travel distance.

desk verdict A clean, readable simulation study of a template-matching directionality estimator, but the central claim that its uncertainties are 'more realistic' at low counts is not actually demonstrated because the paper never checks coverage. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.03561 v2 pith:S4PM5S4E submitted 2026-03-03 hep-ex physics.ins-det

Brian C. Crow , Max A. A. Dornfest , John G. Learned , Jackson D. Seligman , Nathan S. Sibert , Jeffrey G. Yepez , Viacheslav A. Li This is my paper
classification hep-exphysics.ins-det
keywords antineutrinodirectionalityinversebetadecaysegmentedscintillatordetectorpatternmatchingFrobeniusnormangularresolutionneutroncapturereactormonitoring
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 proposes that antineutrino direction in segmented inverse-beta-decay (IBD) detectors should be reconstructed by pattern matching: bin the positions of neutron captures relative to the prompt vertex into a 2D histogram, rotate a simulated template through all angles, and take the angle that minimizes the Frobenius norm of the difference between template and data. This replaces the conventional resolution formula, which the authors argue can return misleadingly small angular uncertainties at low event counts because it treats the limitation as instrumental resolution rather than the intrinsic kinematic spread of the neutron. Using Monte Carlo 'empirical' datasets, the algorithm converges to a higher, more realistic angular uncertainty at low counts and identifies an optimal segment size of roughly 73 mm for 0.1% lithium-6 loading, close to the 70 mm mean neutron track length. A sympathetic reader would care because the method provides a data-driven way to estimate direction when events are scarce and gives a design guideline for choosing segment geometry in future detectors.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Frobenius norm of the difference between two binned matrices: one holds the neutron-capture counts per segment (relative to the prompt segment) for the measured 'empirical' dataset, the other holds the same for a simulated template rotated through angle θ. The norm is the square root of the sum of squared element-wise differences. The algorithm computes this norm at many rotations, fits the resulting curve with an absolute-value sine function, and reads the minimum as the reconstructed neutrino direction. The same norm functions as a general 2D pattern-matching distance and can be applied beyond neutrino physics. Uncertainty is quantified by repeating the reconstruc

What would settle it

Compare the simulated neutron-capture displacement distribution (mean and spread of the Euclidean distance from IBD vertex to capture) with measurements from a running segmented 6Li detector at a known reactor; if the pattern-matching angular uncertainty at a given event count, or the segment-size optimum, differs from the simulation by more than the quoted error bars, the central claim is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that directional information in a segmented IBD detector resides in the full pattern of neutron-capture positions relative to the prompt vertex, not just in the mean prompt-delayed displacement. The authors show that by binning capture positions into matrices and comparing them via the Frobenius norm of the difference, the reconstructed direction is the angle that minimizes this norm, with the angular dependence well described by an absolute-value sine function. On Monte Carlo data, the algorithm yields angular uncertainties that do not collapse to zero at low event counts, in contrast to the conventional formula, and it places the optimal segment size at 73 mm for 0.1%

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Monte Carlo simulation used to generate the 'empirical' data faithfully represents a real segmented detector; if the simulated neutron transport, 6Li capture distribution, or segment response differs from nature, every reported angular uncertainty and the 73 mm optimum would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At low event counts (tens to hundreds of IBDs), the pattern-matching algorithm gives a larger, more realistic angular uncertainty than the conventional formula, which is relevant for geo-neutrino studies and supernova pointing where events are scarce.
  • The optimal segment size for 0.1% 6Li-loaded scintillator is about 73 mm, nearly equal to the 70 mm mean neutron travel distance; this gives a concrete design rule: match segment size to the neutron moderation length to balance sparse matrices against central-bin dilution.
  • Events whose prompt and delayed signals occur in the same segment, which the conventional method discards as carrying zero information, can be included in the pattern-matching framework and weighted as needed.
  • The algorithm is not limited to 2D segmentation: the authors state it can be extended to 3D segmented geometries and, more broadly, to any computationally efficient 2D pattern-matching problem.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: If the optimal segment size is set by the mean neutron track length, then changing the 6Li loading (which shortens the diffusion path) or switching target materials should shift the optimum; a simulation scan at 0.5% loading would test this prediction directly.
  • Editorial inference: Because the algorithm is validated only against the same simulation code that generates the templates, the reported angular uncertainties and the 73 mm optimum should be treated as simulation-level estimates; real detector data could move them.
  • Editorial inference: The Frobenius-norm template matching is a generic technique; it could be applied to other direction-sensing problems such as gamma or fast-neutron imaging with coded apertures, wherever a simulated template can be rotated against binned measurements.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a directionality reconstruction algorithm for segmented inverse-beta-decay (IBD) antineutrino detectors. The method compares a binned 2D matrix of neutron-capture locations in an unknown 'empirical' dataset against reference matrices generated from simulated IBD events at different incident neutrino angles, using the Frobenius norm of the matrix difference (FND). The angle minimizing the FND (after fitting with |sin θ|) is taken as the reconstructed direction; the angular uncertainty δϑ is the circular standard deviation of reconstructed angles over λ Monte Carlo iterations. The authors claim this pattern-matching approach yields a 'higher (and thus more realistic)' angular uncertainty than the conventional Chooz formula at low event counts, and they identify an optimal segment size (≈73 mm for 0.1% 6Li doping) close to the simulated mean neutron track length. Validation is performed entirely within the RAT-PAC2 simulation framework, with both the 'empirical' data and the reference templates generated by the same code and, for the main results, the same underlying 10M-event dataset. The paper also reports a usable-event variant, discusses detector geometries, and outlines applications to safeguards and geo-neutrinos.

Significance. If the algorithm performs as claimed, it would provide a low-statistics direction estimator for segmented IBD detectors and a design heuristic linking optimal segment size to neutron mean track length. The computational pattern-matching idea is simple and potentially applicable beyond this specific problem. The paper makes a falsifiable prediction (optimal segment size ≈ mean neutron track length) and uses a publicly available simulation toolkit. However, the central validation is closed-loop: both the pseudo-data and the templates come from the same Monte Carlo, and the reported uncertainty is an estimator-scatter measure never tested for calibration. The claimed improvement in 'realistic' angular uncertainty is therefore unproven even within the paper's own framework.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Appendix C] The validation is closed-loop: the 'empirical' dataset and the reference template matrices are both products of RAT-PAC2, and the main results use the same 10M-event fiducial dataset (Appendix C). A self-consistency test of this kind cannot establish that the reported angular uncertainties are 'more realistic' than those from the Chooz formula. At minimum, the paper needs a cross-validation with an independent simulation (different transport code or a withheld half of the dataset not used to build templates) and a clear statement that the results currently demonstrate internal consistency only. As written, the abstract and conclusion overclaim.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A.9), 'Use of synthetic data'] The reported δϑ is the circular standard deviation of point estimates across λ iterations; this is an estimator-variance measure, not a calibrated confidence interval. The paper never checks whether 68% of reconstructed angles actually fall within δϑ of the true direction. Moreover, for n≤10 the authors replace failed fits with synthetic uniform random angles; the resulting mixture (spikes + uniform) is not a von Mises distribution, so applying the von Mises MLE and σ = sqrt(-2 ln R) has no known coverage interpretation. A coverage plot from pseudo-experiments with known true angles is essential to support the claim that a larger δϑ is 'more realistic.' The synthetic-data substitution should also be reported separately from genuine fits.
  3. [Section 'DEVELOPING AN ALGORITHM', Fig. 12] The central shape assumption of the method—that the FND is proportional to |sin((ϑ0−ϑ)/2)|—is cited to the authors' companion paper [42] and is not derived or even summarized here. Since this functional form is load-bearing for both the angle extraction and the uncertainty interpretation, the manuscript should include a self-contained derivation or at least a clear statement of the conditions under which it holds, with a check that those conditions are satisfied in the simulation settings used.
  4. [Fig. 14] The optimal segment size of 73 mm is found from a polynomial fit to FND-based angular uncertainties, all obtained with the same RAT-PAC2 simulation and with the stated approximations (single-segment prompt, neglected 1/r2, negligible core size, no escaping neutrons). The proximity of the optimum to the simulated mean track length (70 mm) is presented as 'interesting,' but both quantities are outputs of the same transport model, so the near-equality is partly a test of model self-consistency. A sensitivity study varying these assumptions, or at least a discussion of how they could shift the optimum, is needed before this can be a design guideline.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A] Equation numbering begins at (A.3); A.1 and A.2 are missing. Also, 'CFND V-plots' is used in the text but the abbreviation CFND is not defined.
  2. [Fig. 13 and Table III] The number of iterations λ used for each point in Fig. 13 is not stated (only Fig. 14 mentions λ=300). The correction in Eq. (A.11) depends on λ and λ_synthetic, so the reader cannot judge the error bars. Please state λ for every plotted point and indicate which points used the synthetic-data correction.
  3. [Eq. (2), Table III] The fit parameters in Table III have very large uncertainties (e.g., b = 98.66 ± 49.79 for 5 mm). This suggests the fit is poorly constrained in the low-count region that is the paper's main focus; a statement about the fit range and stability is needed.
  4. [Conclusion] The text refers to 'the inflection point (n = 30 in Fig. 17)', but Fig. 17 does not show an obvious inflection; please clarify the criterion or point to the specific feature.
  5. [Throughout] The code name is written inconsistently: 'RAT-PAC2' in the abstract, 'RAT-PAC 2' elsewhere, and 'RATPAC2' in captions and Appendix C. Also, some figure captions (e.g., Fig. 16) are incomplete.

Circularity Check

4 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Central claims depend on same-simulation validation, a self-cited |sin| fit form, and synthetic-data-inflated low-n uncertainties; partial circularity.

  1. self citation load bearing [Algorithm section; Results, Fig. 12 caption and surrounding text]
    "With sufficient samples and at suitable detector size, the FND converges to a function that is proportional to | sin((ϑ0 − ϑ)/2)|, a detailed derivation can be found in [42]. ... The FND of the neutron capture distribution data was fit with an absolute value of sine function as prescribed by the theoretical proof for the direction algorithm [42]."

    The reconstructed angle is defined as the minimum of this |sin| fit. The proof that the FND has this functional form is not derived in this paper; it is imported from reference [42], whose author list overlaps with the present paper (Yepez, Seligman, Dornfest, Crow, Learned, Li). The central estimator therefore rests on a load-bearing self-citation that is not independently verified or reproduced here.

  2. self definitional [Appendix A ('Use of synthetic data') and Conclusion]
    "For low counts—most notably n = 10 and below—some iterations of the algorithm return no directional information at all. To account for this, synthetic data was inserted where we could not determine directionality, i.e. when the FND data is a constant function. ... This converges on a higher (and thus more realistic) angular uncertainty at low number of events."

    δϑ is computed as the circular standard deviation of the ϑi distribution. When the FND is flat, the paper defines those ϑi as uniform random samples in [−π, π]; such a uniform mixture has near-zero resultant length, so σ = sqrt(−2 ln R) is large by construction. The conclusion that the low-n uncertainty is 'higher and thus more realistic' therefore follows from the synthetic-data insertion rule, not from a coverage test against known true angles. No 68% coverage check is reported.

2 more flagged steps
  1. other [Abstract and Appendix C ('simulation validation and parameter space')]
    "The validation of our algorithm boils down to comparing a Monte Carlo generated 'empirical' data set to a simulated data set."

    Both the reference/template matrices and the 'empirical' data set are produced by the same RAT-PAC2 simulation, using the same 10M-event IBD fiducial dataset described in Appendix C. Any systematic error in the simulation (neutron transport, 6Li capture distribution, segment response) is common to both sides, so the agreement tests internal consistency, not agreement with a real detector. The paper's central claim to improve angular-uncertainty quantification is thus validated only within one self-consistent model.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Results, Fig. 14 caption and text]
    "The average track length of the neutron (Euclidean distance from IBD vertex to capture location) calculated from the 10 6 event fiducial dataset came out to be roughly 70 mm. The ratio of the minimum of this fit to the average track length is 73/70 = 1.04, which shows that the ideal segment size is roughly the same as the average track length of the neutron before capture—an interesting result."

    The 'ideal segment size' is a fitted minimum of the angular-uncertainty curve, where the angular uncertainty is itself computed from the same simulated neutron-capture clouds. The mean track length to which it is compared is also an input statistic of the same fiducial dataset. The 1.04 ratio is therefore a self-consistency comparison of two outputs of one simulation, not an independent prediction; the claimed 'interesting result' is a fitted parameter being compared with an input from the same data.

full rationale

The paper is best read as a simulation self-consistency study, and many of its components are standard template matching. It earns a partial-circularity score rather than a clean bill because three load-bearing choices reduce the central claims to their own inputs. First, the functional form of the FND used to extract the direction is taken, with its proof, from the authors' own [42]; the current paper does not derive or independently validate it. Second, the low-n angular uncertainty that supports the headline 'more realistic' claim is inflated by definition: failed iterations are replaced with uniform random angles, making σ large by construction, and no coverage test establishes that δϑ is a calibrated 1σ uncertainty. Third, the validation compares two outputs of the same RAT-PAC2 simulation, so the algorithm's success against 'empirical' data is guaranteed up to statistical fluctuations. The optimal-segment-size finding is also a fitted minimum compared with a mean track length drawn from the same fiducial dataset. These are not deliberate deceptions—the paper openly states the MC-vs-MC validation and the synthetic-data insertion—but they mean the central numerical results are not independent of the simulation that generated both templates and data. The score is 6, not higher, because the paper does contain an independently implementable algorithm and transparent disclosure of its assumptions; the circularity is partial, not total.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows that the paper's quantitative content is pulled from one public simulation package and from a self-cited companion paper, with additional fitted curves and a fitted optimum. No new physical entities are introduced. The main unsupported load is the equivalence between RAT-PAC2 pseudo-data and real detector data, plus the synthetic-data imputation.

free parameters (3)
  • Eq. (2) fit parameters a, b, c, d (per segment size) = Table III (e.g., 5 mm: a=4.225±0.821, b=98.66±49.79, c=4.941±2.382, d=5.298±0.652)
    Four-parameter empirical function fitted to simulated angular-uncertainty points; the curves in Fig. 13 and the inferred behavior across segment sizes depend on these fits.
  • Polynomial-fit minimum (optimal segment size) = 73 mm at n=300
    The headline optimum is obtained by fitting a polynomial through simulated points; the paper then compares it with the 70-mm mean neutron track length and presents the ratio 1.04 as a meaningful result.
  • Number of iterations λ = λ=300 for Fig. 14; λ≥30 elsewhere
    Angular uncertainty is defined as the circular standard deviation over λ iterations, so the quoted error bars depend on this user-chosen sample size, not on any first-principles bound.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption RAT-PAC2/GEANT4 accurately simulates IBD neutron transport, moderation, and 6Li capture distributions in the scintillator
    Both the reference templates and the 'empirical' pseudo-data come from this simulation; any discrepancy with real detector physics changes all reported angular uncertainties and the optimum.
  • ad hoc to paper A Monte Carlo pseudo-dataset generated by the same code can stand in for real detector data for validation
    The abstract states validation is 'comparing a Monte Carlo generated empirical data set to a simulated data set.' No real detector data are used, so the validation is closed-loop.
  • ad hoc to paper FND(θ) is proportional to |sin((ϑ0−ϑ)/2)|
    The convergence proof is cited to the authors' own [42] and is not reproduced in this paper; the absolute-sine fit and minimum extraction in Algorithm steps 4–5 rely on it.
  • standard math Circular von Mises statistics describe the distribution of fitted angles ϑi
    Appendix A uses standard circular statistics (mean resultant length, circular standard deviation, von Mises MLE) for the angular uncertainty; this is standard but is an additional statistical modeling choice.
  • domain assumption IBD prompt positron deposits in a single segment; 1/r² flux variation, reactor angular size, and escaping neutrons are negligible
    Explicitly stated in the source/signal assumptions section. These assumptions ignore near-field and real-geometry effects that can matter for close reactors.
  • domain assumption The circular standard deviation of MC-fitted angles equals the detector's angular resolution
    The spread of fitted angles on synthetic pseudo-experiments is equated with physical directional resolution; no external benchmark establishes this mapping.
  • ad hoc to paper Synthetic random angles can replace iterations where the FND fit is flat or fails
    Appendix A states that for low counts 'synthetic data was inserted where we could not determine directionality'; this alters low-n uncertainty estimates and assumes the failed fits carry only uniform-direction information.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Angular Sensitivity of Segmented Antineutrino Detectors for Reactor Monitoring." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S4PM5S4E

@misc{pith2026260303561,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Angular Sensitivity of Segmented Antineutrino Detectors for Reactor Monitoring},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S4PM5S4E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.03561}
}
read the original abstract

We present a potential improvement over the standard method developed to determine antineutrino directionality in inverse-beta-decay detectors. The previously developed method for quantifying directionality in monolithic and segmented detectors may be ambiguous in methodology. In this paper, we present a directionality algorithm and include error analysis. We have developed an algorithm based on a measure of ``distance'' between two matrices. We report findings for our research in reactor-antineutrino directionality, and emphasize that the algorithm has broad applications whenever one desires computationally efficient 2D pattern-matching. We treat data from Lithium-6-doped detector segments in the form of a matrix. The validation of our algorithm boils down to comparing a Monte Carlo generated ``empirical'' data set to a simulated data set. The empirical data set is generated for a particular orientation of the neutrino beam. We identify an optimal segmentation scale in the low-count regime. We also discuss the shortcomings of the conventional method and how this knowledge can be applied to segmented detectors, hybrid designs, and generalized validation, agnostic to the physics of detector design.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.03561 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. To-scale diagram showing a characteristic neutron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Bugey 3 and PROSPECT directional data. For [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Diagram explaining the prompt-delayed segment ge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (18 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Angular distribution of neutron captures in a seg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Top: Spatial distribution ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Angular size of a reactor active core as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Rendering of RAT-PAC 2 IBD visualization. Positron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Histogram of positron track length (top) and neutron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Examples of binning distributions for incoming angles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. A diagram explaining the idea behind a pattern [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Optimal segment size plot with a fitted minimum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_14.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Angular uncertainty plot comparing the perfor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Explanation of angles and spread. The FND here is calculated from the RATPAC2 neutron capture data with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Uncertainty of uncertainty. Each point is generated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_16.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Histogram of positron track length (left) and neutron track length (right) extracted from the 10k event runs for 0.1% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. Examples of simulated 3d track plots of neutron and positron tracks. The positron track is shown in red and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. Rotated top view of 3d track plots shown in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21. The initial kinetic energy spectrum of simulated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22. Comparison of number of scatters (left) and time of flight (right) before (above) and after (below) thermalization, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FIG. 23. IBD-neutron capture time (left) and number of IBD-neutron scatters before capture (right), filtered for 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: FIG. 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_24.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Deep-Ocean Application-Specific Neutrino Experiment

    physics.ins-det 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    The paper describes a conceptual mobile deep-ocean geoneutrino detector design intended to enable direct mantle measurements by reducing crustal background 50-100 times relative to land-based detectors.

  2. Deep-Ocean Application-Specific Neutrino Experiment

    physics.ins-det 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A mobile deep-ocean neutrino detector is proposed to cut crustal geoneutrino background 50–100× versus continental detectors and map mantle heat-producing elements via stereoscopic mobility.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [42]

    Bowden, in Proceedings of the INMM & ESARDA 2023 Joint Annual Meeting (2023)

    N. Bowden, in Proceedings of the INMM & ESARDA 2023 Joint Annual Meeting (2023)

    2023

  2. [1]

    artificial data

    Set the segment size of generated data to that of the detector you are comparing against. This changes the binning resolution and is necessary to capture the same processes between “artificial data” (data points produced from RATPAC2) and data col- lected from a detector

  3. [2]

    0 10 20 30 40 50 Positron Track Length (mm) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600Count 0 50 100 150 200 250 Neutron Track Length (mm) 0 100 200 300 400 500Count FIG

    At each rotational angle with respect to the neu- trino wind, generate the same number of usable events to construct a neutron capture cloud that is then binned in the array from IBD vertex to final capture, matching the number of bins used to avoid addition complications. 0 10 20 30 40 50 Positron Track Length (mm) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600Count 0 50 100...

  4. [3]

    [SimulatedSeti](θ)−[TrueSet] = [DifferenceSeti](θ)

    Subtract each generated array from the array of real data from the detector. [SimulatedSeti](θ)−[TrueSet] = [DifferenceSeti](θ)

  5. [4]

    L2 i (θ) = qP kj (xkj )2 i (xkj )i ∈ [DifferenceSeti](θ)

    Take the L2 norm of each difference array. L2 i (θ) = qP kj (xkj )2 i (xkj )i ∈ [DifferenceSeti](θ)

  6. [5]

    Normalized mini{| sin (θ)|} = | sin (ϑi)| The steps above are the exact steps of the directionality algorithm [42], schematically shown in Fig

    The angle −π ≤ ϑi ≤ π that corresponds to the lowest value of the fit function applied over the L2 i (θ), is the calculated angle that the neutrino wind is coming from, with respect to the orienta- tion of your neutrino detector. Normalized mini{| sin (θ)|} = | sin (ϑi)| The steps above are the exact steps of the directionality algorithm [42], schematical...

  7. [6]

    Iterate this process over i such that the following statistical analysis is valid ( λ ≥ 30)

  8. [7]

    The reported direction of the incoming neutrino wind is calculated by taking the average of all de- termined ϑi ¯ϑ = λX i ϑi λ

Show all 51 references
  1. [8]

    sweet spot

    The distribution function of [ ϑi] over a circle can be described as a circular distribution, we report the error in this method as the circular standard deviation of the distribution. A derivation for the circular standard deviation as well as the uncer- tainty of uncertainty...

  2. [9]

    Bernstein, G

    A. Bernstein, G. Baldwin, B. Boyer, M. Goodman, J. Learned, J. Lund, D. Reyna, and R. Svoboda, Sci. Global Secur. 18, 127 (2010), arXiv:0908.4338 [nucl-ex]

    2010 arXiv

  3. [10]

    M. Foxe, T. Bowyer, R. Carr, J. Orrell, and B. Van- Devender, Pure Appl. Geophys. 178, 2753 (2021), arXiv:2005.02756 [physics.soc-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [11]

    J. R. Distel et al. , Rev. Sci. Instrum. 96, 103302 (2025), arXiv:2411.11804 [physics.ins-det]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Brdar, P

    V. Brdar, P. Huber, and J. Kopp, Phys. Rev. Appl. 8, 054050 (2017)

    2017

  6. [13]

    Radermacher, J

    T. Radermacher, J. Bosse, S. Friedrich, M. G¨ ottsche, S. Roth, and G. Schwefer, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1054, 168426 (2023), arXiv:2203.01090 [physics.ins-det]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Abrah˜ ao et al

    T. Abrah˜ ao et al. (Double Chooz), (2025), arXiv:2510.04869 [hep-ex]

    2025

  8. [15]

    H. K. M. Tanaka and H. Watanabe, Sci. Rep. 4 (2014), 10.1038/srep04708

    2014 doi

  9. [16]

    Leyton, S

    M. Leyton, S. Dye, and J. Monroe, Nature Commun. 8, 15989 (2017), arXiv:1710.06724 [physics.geo-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [17]

    M. J. Duvall, B. C. Crow, M. A. A. Dornfest, J. G. 13 0 10 20 30 40 50 Positron Track Length (mm) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Count 0.1% 6Li 0.5% 6Li 0 50 100 150 200 250 Neutron Track Length (mm) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Count 0.1% 6Li 0.5% 6Li FIG. 18. Histogram of posi...

    2024 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Zacek, Search for Neutrino Oscillations at a Fission Reactor, Ph.D

    G. Zacek, Search for Neutrino Oscillations at a Fission Reactor, Ph.D. thesis, Munich University of Technology (1984)

    1984

  12. [19]

    Boehm, J

    F. Boehm, J. Busenitz, B. Cook, G. Gratta, H. Hen- rikson, J. Kornis, D. Lawrence, K. B. Lee, K. McK- inny, L. Miller, et al. , Phys. Rev. D 62, 072002 (2000), arXiv:hep-ex/0003022

    2000 arXiv

  13. [20]

    J. P. Cussonneau, Comparaison entre la simulation et les donn´ ees de neutrinos dans BUGEY 3, Phd thesis, Paris 11 (1992)

    1992

  14. [21]

    Vogel and J

    P. Vogel and J. F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. D 60, 053003 (1999)

    1999

  15. [22]

    Apollonio et al

    M. Apollonio et al. (CHOOZ), Phys. Rev. D 61, 012001 (2000), arXiv:hep-ex/9906011

    2000 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Caden (Double Chooz), (2012), arXiv:1208.3628 [physics.ins-det]

    E. Caden (Double Chooz), (2012), arXiv:1208.3628 [physics.ins-det]

    2012 arXiv

  17. [24]

    R. B. Roncin, From the measurement of the θ13 mixing angle to the search for geo-neutrinos: studying ¯νe with Double Chooz and Borexino , Ph.D. thesis, L’Aquila U. (2014)

    2014

  18. [25]

    Andriamirado, A

    M. Andriamirado, A. B. Balantekin, C. D. Bass, O. Bene- vides Rodrigues, E. P. Bernard, N. S. Bowden, C. D. Bryan, R. Carr, T. Classen, A. J. Conant, et al. (PROSPECT Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 111, 032014 (2025)

    2025

  19. [26]

    Reines, J

    F. Reines, J. Cowan, C. L., F. B. Harrison, and D. S. Carter, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 25, 1061 (1954)

    1954

  20. [27]

    V. A. Li et al. (mTC), Rev. Sci. Instrum. 87, 021301 (2016), arXiv:1602.01405 [physics.ins-det]

    2016 arXiv

  21. [28]

    G. F. Steyn, S. G. Dolley, F. Szelecs´ enyi, Z. Kov´ acs, N. P. v. d. Meulen, and C. Vermeulen, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences , European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, Vol. 146 (EDP, 2017) p. 08010

    2017

  22. [29]

    Abe et al

    Y. Abe et al. (Double Chooz), JHEP 10, 032 (2014), arXiv:1407.6913 [physics.ins-det]

    2014 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Sutanto, T

    F. Sutanto, T. M. Classen, S. A. Dazeley, M. J. Duvall, I. Jovanovic, V. A. Li, A. N. Mabe, E. T. E. Reedy, and 14 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 x (mm) 0 20 40 60y (mm) −20 −10 0 10 20 x (mm) −20 −15 −10 −5 0 5 y (mm) 0 10 20 30 40 x (mm) 0 10 20 30 40y (mm) FIG. 20. Rotated top view of...

    2021 arXiv

  24. [31]

    N. E. Holden, Technical Report BNL-NCS-51388 (1981), 10.2172/6280345

    1981 doi

  25. [32]

    Achkar, R

    B. Achkar, R. Aleksan, M. Avenier, G. Bagieu, J. Bouchez, R. Brissot, J.-F. Cavaignac, J. Collot, M.- C. Cousinou, J. Cussonneau, et al. , Nuclear Physics B 434, 503 (1995)

    1995

  26. [33]

    Abbes, B

    M. Abbes, B. Achkar, S. Ait-Boubker, R. Aleksan, M. Avenier, G. Bagieu, J. Ballansat, C. Barnoux, R. Baz- zoli, J. Berger, et al. , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 374, 164 (1996)

    1996

  27. [34]

    Benevides Rodrigues et al

    O. Benevides Rodrigues et al. (Mobile Antineutrino Demonstrator Project), Phys. Rev. Applied 24, 054023 (2025), arXiv:2505.05696 [physics.ins-det]

    2025

  28. [35]

    Lane et al

    C. Lane et al. (NuLat), (2015), arXiv:1501.06935 [physics.ins-det]

    2015 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Y. Kim, N. Zaitseva, M. J. Ford, L. Carman, A. Glenn, M. Febbraro, and P. Hausladen, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1055, 168537 (2023)

    2023

  30. [37]

    A. Barr, C. da Vi` a, M. T. B. Shawkat, M. J. Taylor, S. Watts, J. Allison, G. D’Amen, and T. Gao, JINST 20, P10012 (2025), arXiv:2507.08663 [physics.ins-det]

    2025

  31. [38]

    Jayakumar, Neutrino Directionality and Optical Simu- lations with PROSPECT, Ph.D

    S. Jayakumar, Neutrino Directionality and Optical Simu- lations with PROSPECT, Ph.D. thesis, Drexel U. (2024)

    2024

  32. [39]

    Ashenfelter, A

    J. Ashenfelter, A. Balantekin, H. Band, C. Bass, D. Berg- eron, D. Berish, L. Bignell, N. Bowden, J. Brodsky, C. Bryan, et al. , Journal of Instrumentation 14, P03026 (2019)

    2019

  33. [40]

    Haghighat, P

    A. Haghighat, P. Huber, S. Li, J. M. Link, C. Mariani, J. Park, and T. Subedi, Phys. Rev. Applied 13, 034028 (2020), arXiv:1812.02163 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Abreu, Y

    Y. Abreu, Y. Amhis, L. Arnold, G. Barber, W. Beau- mont, S. Binet, I. Bolognino, M. Bongrand, J. Borg, D. Boursette, et al. , Journal of Instrumentation 16, P02025 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    M. J. Duvall, New Approaches to Antineutrino Direc- tionality, Ph.D. thesis, University of Hawai‘i at M¯ anoa (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    K. A. Hochmuth, M. Lindner, and G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. D 76, 073001 (2007)

    2007

  37. [45]

    Cabrera et al

    A. Cabrera et al. (LiquidO Consortium), (2023), arXiv:2308.04154 [physics.geo-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Alekseev, V

    I. Alekseev, V. Belov, A. Bystryakov, M. Danilov, D. Filosofov, M. Fomina, P. Gorovtsov, Y. Iusko, S. Kazartsev, V. Khvatov, et al. , Physics letters. B 866, 139575 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    Askins, T

    M. Askins, T. Kaptanoglu, M. Smiley, N. Rowe, and M. Bergevin, (2023), 10.11578/dc.20240620.8

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    Bolton, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements 149, 166 (2005), nuFact04

    T. Bolton, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements 149, 166 (2005), nuFact04

    2005

  41. [49]

    R. L. Hahn, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 57, 134 (2006), international Workshop of Nuclear Physics 27th course

    2006

  42. [50]

    J. G. Yepez, J. D. Seligman, M. A. A. Dornfest, B. C. Crow, J. G. Learned, and V. A. Li, AIP Advances 16, 025110 (2026)

    2026

  43. [51]

    N. I. Fisher, Statistical Analysis of Circular Data (Cam- bridge University Press, 1993). 15 0 10 20 30 40 50 Neutron Scatters Before Thermalization 0 100 200 300 400Count 10−2 10−1 100 101 102 103 Neutron Thermalization Time ( µs) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600Count 0 20 40 60 80 ...

    1993

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.