pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.27937 · v1 · pith:W2VERFYNnew · submitted 2026-05-27 · ⚛️ physics.ins-det · cs.LG· physics.med-ph

Machine learning enables experimental access to photon-by-photon arrival times in scintillation detectors

Yuya Onishi , Ryosuke Ota , Fumio Hashimoto , Kibo Ote , Go Akamatsu , Hideaki Tashima , Taiga Yamaya This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 09:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.ins-det cs.LGphysics.med-ph
keywords scintillation detectorsphoton arrival timesdeep learningpositron emission tomographyCherenkov photonstiming resolutionunsupervised learningdepth of interaction
0
0 comments X

The pith

Deep learning extracts arrival times of individual photons from scintillation detector waveforms.

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

The paper shows how a deep learning method can recover the arrival times of single photons from the summed signals produced by scintillation detectors. It combines unsupervised learning with a physical model of photon generation and detection to operate without any labeled data or hardware modifications. A reader would care because this promises finer timing precision in positron emission tomography for disease imaging and reveals how photons travel differently depending on where they originate inside the crystal. The approach also separates photons produced by Cherenkov radiation from those produced by scintillation using their estimated timing alone.

Core claim

An unsupervised deep learning framework integrated with a physically informed detector-response model estimates photon-by-photon arrival times directly from detector waveforms on an event-by-event basis, experimentally demonstrating improved timing resolution, visualization of depth-of-interaction-dependent photon transport, and classification of Cherenkov and scintillation photons.

What carries the argument

Unsupervised learning framework paired with a physically informed detector-response model that recovers individual photon arrival times from collective waveforms.

If this is right

  • Improved timing resolution becomes available for positron emission tomography without detector redesign.
  • Depth-of-interaction effects on photon transport can be observed directly from experimental data.
  • Cherenkov photons can be distinguished from scintillation photons on the basis of their estimated arrival times.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The extracted photon-level timing data could support iterative refinement of detector material choices and geometries using real measurements rather than simulations alone.
  • Similar unsupervised recovery of hidden microscopic events might apply to other radiation or particle detectors where only collective signals are normally accessible.

Load-bearing premise

The physically informed detector-response model accurately captures the microscopic processes of photon generation, transport, and detection.

What would settle it

Direct comparison of the estimated photon arrival time distributions against measurements from a detector setup equipped with single-photon time-tagging hardware.

read the original abstract

Scintillation detectors with excellent timing resolution enable more precise localization of radiation sources in positron emission tomography, leading to substantial improvements in diagnostic capability for diseases such as cancer and dementia. At the extreme timing precision required for such applications at the picosecond scale, detector performance is governed by the microscopic dynamics of scintillation photons generated within the detector and their subsequent detection processes. However, detector signals have conventionally been treated only as collective responses of many photons due to structural constraints inherent to photodetectors. In this study, we overcome this fundamental limitation using deep learning, enabling direct access to the timing information of individual photons. The proposed method estimates photon-by-photon arrival times directly from detector waveforms without requiring any modification to the detector structure; the method operates on an event-by-event basis without ground-truth labels by integrating an unsupervised learning framework with a physically informed detector-response model. Through comprehensive validation combining Monte Carlo simulation and experimental measurements across various detector configurations, we experimentally demonstrate improved timing resolution, visualized depth-of-interaction-dependent photon transport, and classified Cherenkov and scintillation photons based on the estimated photon-level timing information using a unified deep learning-based framework. These results provide experimental access to photon dynamics, bridging the gap between theoretical modeling and experimental observation, and they open a new data-driven pathway for discovery in detector physics and optimization.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an unsupervised deep learning framework that integrates a physically informed detector-response model to estimate individual photon arrival times directly from scintillation detector waveforms on an event-by-event basis, without ground-truth labels or hardware modifications. Through Monte Carlo simulations and experimental measurements across detector configurations, the authors claim to demonstrate improved timing resolution, visualization of depth-of-interaction-dependent photon transport, and classification of Cherenkov versus scintillation photons.

Significance. If the recovered per-photon timings prove robust to model mismatch, the approach would provide experimental access to microscopic photon dynamics in detectors, enabling data-driven optimization for picosecond-scale timing applications such as PET. The unified unsupervised framework with embedded physical modeling is a methodological strength, as is the combination of simulation and multi-configuration experiments.

major comments (2)
  1. [Unsupervised learning framework and validation sections] The central claim of experimental access to photon-by-photon arrival times rests on the fidelity of the embedded detector-response model used for forward modeling in the unsupervised objective. The manuscript does not provide independent constraints on model parameters (e.g., via dedicated single-photon or optical characterization measurements separate from the timing data), so mismatches in unmodeled effects such as electronic noise, optical crosstalk, or scintillator non-uniformities could produce arrival-time estimates that are consistent with the model but not with physical reality. This is load-bearing for the abstract's assertion of 'experimental access' and the classification/visualization results.
  2. [Experimental results and figures on timing resolution] The experimental demonstrations of improved timing resolution and Cherenkov/scintillation classification are presented as aggregate outcomes; without a quantitative comparison showing that the per-photon estimates outperform conventional collective-signal methods after controlling for the same model assumptions, it remains unclear whether the gains arise from true microscopic recovery or from improved collective fitting.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Notation for the detector-response model parameters should be defined explicitly in the methods with a table of nominal values and uncertainties, even if the unsupervised training treats them as fixed.
  2. [Results figures] Figure captions for the depth-of-interaction visualizations should include quantitative metrics (e.g., correlation coefficients or residual distributions) to allow readers to assess the claimed visualization quality.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We address each major point below and agree that revisions will strengthen the presentation of model validation and performance comparisons. The revised manuscript will incorporate additional discussion and quantitative benchmarks as outlined.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Unsupervised learning framework and validation sections] The central claim of experimental access to photon-by-photon arrival times rests on the fidelity of the embedded detector-response model used for forward modeling in the unsupervised objective. The manuscript does not provide independent constraints on model parameters (e.g., via dedicated single-photon or optical characterization measurements separate from the timing data), so mismatches in unmodeled effects such as electronic noise, optical crosstalk, or scintillator non-uniformities could produce arrival-time estimates that are consistent with the model but not with physical reality. This is load-bearing for the abstract's assertion of 'experimental access' and the classification/visualization results.

    Authors: We agree that model fidelity is central to the 'experimental access' claim. Model parameters are taken from established physical descriptions of the scintillator and SiPM response, supplemented by manufacturer data and literature values, with limited optimization during unsupervised training. Validation relies on Monte Carlo simulations with known ground truth and consistency of results across multiple experimental detector configurations. We acknowledge that separate dedicated single-photon or optical characterization measurements were not included. In revision we will add a dedicated subsection on model assumptions, a sensitivity analysis to unmodeled effects, and explicit discussion of how cross-configuration consistency provides indirect constraints. This will qualify the strength of the experimental-access assertion. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Experimental results and figures on timing resolution] The experimental demonstrations of improved timing resolution and Cherenkov/scintillation classification are presented as aggregate outcomes; without a quantitative comparison showing that the per-photon estimates outperform conventional collective-signal methods after controlling for the same model assumptions, it remains unclear whether the gains arise from true microscopic recovery or from improved collective fitting.

    Authors: The per-photon estimates uniquely enable photon-type classification and depth-of-interaction visualization that collective methods cannot provide. Nevertheless, the referee correctly notes the absence of a controlled head-to-head comparison under identical model assumptions. We will revise the manuscript to include such a benchmark: the same physically informed detector-response model will be used in a conventional maximum-likelihood collective fit, and the resulting timing resolution and classification metrics will be compared directly with the per-photon results. This addition will isolate the contribution of microscopic recovery. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Unsupervised photon-by-photon timing estimates reduce to inversion of the embedded detector-response model by construction

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "the method operates on an event-by-event basis without ground-truth labels by integrating an unsupervised learning framework with a physically informed detector-response model"

    The unsupervised objective trains the network to output per-photon arrival times that, when passed through the detector-response model, match the input waveforms. Because no external labels constrain the microscopic times, the recovered arrival times are exactly those that satisfy the model; the claimed 'access' is therefore the model's own inverse rather than an independent measurement.

full rationale

The central claim is experimental access to individual photon arrival times via an unsupervised framework that integrates a physically informed detector-response model. No ground-truth labels exist for single-photon timings, so the network learns to produce arrival-time sequences whose forward-modeling through the response model reproduces observed waveforms. This makes the estimated times definitionally consistent with the model rather than independently recovered. Aggregate experimental validations (timing resolution, DOI visualization, Cherenkov/scintillation classification) are measurable without per-photon labels and therefore do not break the circularity for the microscopic claim. No self-citations or ansatzes are load-bearing in the provided text.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based on abstract only; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are enumerated in the provided text.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption A physically informed detector-response model can serve as a reliable supervisory signal for unsupervised learning of photon arrival times
    The method explicitly integrates this model with the learning framework to operate without ground-truth labels.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5791 in / 1316 out tokens · 36238 ms · 2026-06-29T09:47:02.667730+00:00 · methodology

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

65 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Knoll, G. F. Radiation Detection and Measurement (Wiley, 2010)

    2010

  2. [2]

    Schwenck, J., Sonanini, D., Cotton, J.M. et al. Advances in PET imaging of cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 23, 474–490 (2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    Vandenberghe, S., Mikhaylova, E., D’Hoe, E. et al . Recent developments in time -of-flight PET. EJNMMI Phys. 3, 3 (2016)

    2016

  4. [4]

    Pushing the Limits in Time-of-Flight PET Imaging

    Lecoq, P. Pushing the Limits in Time-of-Flight PET Imaging. IEEE Trans. Radiat. Plasma Med. Sci. 1, 473–485 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    Lecoq, P., Morel, C., Prior, J. O. et al. Roadmap toward the 10 ps time-of-flight PET challenge. Phys. Med. Biol. 65, 21RM01 (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    Schaart, D. R. Physics and technology of time -of-flight PET detectors. Phys. Med. Biol. 66, 09TR01 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    Sluis, J., Jong, J., Schaar, J. et al. Performance Characteristics of the Digital Biograph Vision PET/CT System. J. Nucl. Med. 60, 1031–1036 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    L, G., Ma, W., Li, X. et al . Performance Evaluation of the uMI Panorama PET/CT System in Accordance with the National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU 2 -2018 Standard . J. Nucl. Med. 65, 652–658 (2024)

    2018

  9. [9]

    Zaidi, H., Salimi, Y ., Amini, M. et al. Performance Evaluation of the Time -of-Flight Biograph Vision.X: A Fast Coincidence Time Resolution PET/CT Scanner. IEEE Trans. Radiat. Plasma Med. Sci. (2025)

    2025

  10. [10]

    Post. R. & Schiff, L. Statistical Limitations on the Resolving Time of a Scintillation Counter . Phys. Rev. 80, 1113 (1950)

    1950

  11. [11]

    & Schaart D

    Seifert, S., Dam, H. & Schaart D. R. The lower bound on the timing resolution of scintillation detectors. 21 Phys. Med. Biol. 57, 1797 (2012)

    2012

  12. [12]

    D., Cates, J

    Vinke, R., Olcott, P. D., Cates, J. W. & Levin, C. S. The lower timing resolution bound for scintillators with non -negligible optical photon transport time in time -of-flight pet. Phys. Med. Biol. 59, 6215 (2014)

    2014

  13. [13]

    Gundacker, S., Auffray, E., Jarron. P. et al. On the comparison of analog and digital SiPM readout in terms of expected timing performance. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A. 787, 6–11 (2015)

    2015

  14. [14]

    Venialgo, E., Mandai, S., Gong, T. et al . Time estimation with multichannel digital silicon photomultipliers. Phys. Med. Biol. 60, 2435–2452 (2015)

    2015

  15. [15]

    W., Vinke, R

    Cates, J. W., Vinke, R. & Levin, C. S. Analytical calculation of the lower bound on timing resolution for pet scintillation detectors comprising high-aspect-ratio crystal elements. Phys. Med. Biol. 60, 5141 (2015)

    2015

  16. [16]

    & Lecomte, R

    Toussaint, M., Loignon-Houle, F., Dussault, J. & Lecomte, R. Analytical model of DOI-induced time bias in ultra-fast scintillation detectors for TOF-PET. Phys. Med. Biol. 64, 065009 (2019)

    2019

  17. [17]

    Loignon-Houle, F., Gundacker, S., Toussaint, M. et al. DOI estimation through signal arrival time distribution: a theoretical description including proof of concept measurements. Phys. Med. Biol. 66, 095015 (2021)

    2021

  18. [18]

    Loignon-Houle, F., Toussaint, M., Bertrand, E. et al . Timing Estimation and Limits in TOF -PET Detectors Producing Prompt Photons. IEEE Trans. Radiat. Plasma Med. Sci. 7, 692–703 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    Kratochwil, N., Roncali, E., Cates , J. W. & Ariño-Estrada, G. High-Performance Dual-Ended SiPM Readout for TOF-PET With BGO and LYSO:Ce. IEEE Trans. Radiat. Plasma Med. Sci. 9, 721–735 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    & Ariño -Estrada, G

    Kratochwil, N., Roncali, E. & Ariño -Estrada, G. Analytic timing calculations and timing limits with prompt photons, high -aspect-ratio crystals, and complex TOF -kernels in TOF -PET. IEEE Trans. Radiat. Plasma Med. Sci. (2026)

    2026

  21. [21]

    & Levin, C

    Ullah, M. & Levin, C. S. Application of Artificial Intelligence in PET Instrumentation. PET Clin. 17, 175–182 (2022)

    2022

  22. [22]

    Lin, S., Ning, S., Zhu, H. et al. Neural network methods for radiation detectors and imaging. Front. Phys., 12, 1334298 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    Lee, J. S. & Lee, M. S. Advancements in Positron Emission Tomography Detectors: From Silicon Photomultiplier Technology to Artificial Intelligence Applications. PET Clin. 19, 1–24 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    & Cherry, S

    Berg, E. & Cherry, S. R. Using convolutional neural networks to estimate time -of-flight from PET detector waveforms. Phys. Med. Biol. 63, 02LT01 (2018)

    2018

  25. [25]

    & Ota, R

    Onishi, Y ., Hashimoto, F., Ote, K. & Ota, R. Unbiased TOF estimation using leading -edge discriminator and convolutional neural network trained by single -source-position waveforms. Phys. Med. Biol. 67, 04NT01 (2022)

    2022

  26. [26]

    & Vandenberghe , S

    Maebe, J. & Vandenberghe , S. Simulation study on 3D convolutional neural networks for time -of- 22 flight prediction in monolithic PET detectors using digitized waveforms. Phys. Med. Biol. 67, 125016 (2022)

    2022

  27. [27]

    Feng, X., Muhashi, A., Onishi, Y . et al. Transformer-CNN hybrid network for improving PET time of flight prediction. Phys. Med. Biol. 69, 115047 (2024)

    2024

  28. [28]

    Naunheim, S., Kuhl, Y ., Schug, D. et al . Improving the Timing Resolution of Positron Emission Tomography Detectors Using Boosted Learning—A Residual Physics Approach. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 36, 582–594 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    Loignon-Houle, F., Kratochwil, N., Toussaint, M. et al. Improving timing resolution of BGO for TOF- PET: a comparative analysis with and without deep learning. EJNMMI Phys. 12, 2 (2025)

    2025

  30. [30]

    Allison, J., Amako, K

    Agostinelli, S. Allison, J., Amako, K. et al. GEANT4–a simulation toolkit . Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A. 506, 250–303 (2003)

    2003

  31. [31]

    Jiang, W., Huang, G., Liu, Z. et al. Machine-learning based photon counting for PMT waveforms and its application to the improvement of the energy resolution in large liquid scintillator detectors. Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 69 (2025)

    2025

  32. [32]

    & Levin, C

    Cates, J. & Levin, C. Evaluation of a clinical TOF -PET detector design that achieves ≤ 100 ps coincidence time resolution. Phys. Med. Biol. 63, 115011 (2018)

    2018

  33. [33]

    Yoshida, E., Obata, F., Kamada, K. et al. Development of crosshair light sharing PET detector with TOF and DOI capabilities using fast LGSO scintillator. Phys. Med. Biol. 66, 225003 (2021)

    2021

  34. [34]

    & Ota , R

    Onishi, Y. & Ota , R. Alleviating the trade -off between coincidence time resolution and sensitivity using scalable TOF-DOI detectors. Phys. Med. Biol. 70, 065003 (2025)

    2025

  35. [35]

    Kwon, S., Roncali, E., Gola, A., Paternoster, G. et al. Dual-ended readout of bismuth germanate to improve timing resolution in time-of-flight PET. Phys. Med. Biol. 64, 105007 (2019)

    2019

  36. [36]

    & Auffray, E

    Kratochwil, N., Gundacker, S., Lecoq, P. & Auffray, E. Pushing Cherenkov PET with BGO via coincidence time resolution classification and correction. Phys. Med. Biol. 65, 115004 (2020)

    2020

  37. [37]

    Efthimiou, N., Kratochwil, N., Gundacker, S. et al. TOF-PET image reconstruction with multiple timing kernels applied on Cherenkov radiation in BGO. IEEE Trans. Radiat. Plasma Med. Sci. 5, 703– 711 (2021)

    2021

  38. [38]

    Gundacker, S., Turtos, R., Kratochwil, N. et al. Experimental time resolution limits of modern SiPMs and TOF-PET detectors exploring different scintillators and Cherenkov emission. Phys. Med. Biol. 65, 025001 (2020)

    2020

  39. [39]

    Gola, A., Acerbi, F., Capasso, M. et al. NUV-Sensitive Silicon Photomultiplier Technologies Developed at Fondazione Bruno Kessler. sensors 19, 308 (2019)

    2019

  40. [40]

    & Heering, A

    Gundacker, S. & Heering, A. The silicon photomultiplier: fundamentals and applications of a modern solid-state photon detector. Phys. Med. Biol. 65, 17TR01 (2020)

    2020

  41. [41]

    Gundacker, S., Borghi, G., Cherry, S. et al. On timing-optimized SiPMs for Cherenkov detection to boost low cost time-of-flight PET. Phys. Med. Biol. 68, 165016 (2023). 23

    2023

  42. [42]

    I., Ota, R., Berg, E

    Kwon, S. I., Ota, R., Berg, E. et al. Ultrafast timing enables reconstruction -free positron emission imaging Nat. Photon. 15, 914–918 (2021)

    2021

  43. [43]

    & Ota, R

    Onishi, Y ., Hashimoto, F., Ote, K. & Ota, R. Whole Reconstruction -Free System Design for Direct Positron Emission Imaging from Image Generation to Attenuation Correction. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 43, 1654–1663 (2024)

    2024

  44. [44]

    & Ota, R

    Onishi, Y . & Ota, R. Theoretical understanding of Compton scattering -based reconstruction -free anatomical imaging method. Phys. Rev. Applied 22, 024049 (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    Morimoto, K., Ardelean, A., Wu, M. et al. Megapixel time-gated SPAD image sensor for 2D and 3D imaging applications. Optica. 7, 346–354 (2020)

    2020

  46. [46]

    Gundacker, S., Bruschini, C., Gola, A. et al. DIGILOG: A digital-analog SiPM towards 10 ps prompt- photon tagging in TOF-PET. 2023 IEEE NSS/MIC/RTSD (2023)

    2023

  47. [47]

    Yi, M., Lee, D., Gola, A. et al. Segmented SiPM Readout for Cherenkov Time-of-Flight Positron Emission Tomography Detectors Based on Bismuth Germanate . ACS Photonics . 12, 1125–1136 (2025)

    2025

  48. [48]

    & Cates, J

    Lee, S., Heller, R., Choong, W. & Cates, J. Exploring spatiotemporal information in a Cherenkov and scintillation photon counting BGO TOF-PET semi-monolithic detector concept. Phys. Med. Biol. 71, 015032 (2026)

    2026

  49. [49]

    Gruber, L., Hirtl, A

    Brunner, S. Gruber, L., Hirtl, A. et al. A comprehensive characterization of the time resolution of the Philips Digital Photon Counter. J. Instrum. 11, P11004 (2016)

    2016

  50. [50]

    Berg, E., Roncali, E., Hutchcroft, W. et al. Improving Depth, Energy and Timing Estimation in PET Detectors with Deconvolution and Maximum Likelihood Pulse Shape Discrimination . IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 35, 2436–2446 (2016)

    2016

  51. [51]

    & Ote, K

    Ota, R. & Ote, K. Emphasizing Cherenkov Photons From Bismuth Germanate by Single Photon Response Deconvolution. IEEE Trans. Radiat. Plasma Med. Sci. 8, 595–606 (2024)

    2024

  52. [52]

    Tang, J., Xiao, T., Tang. X. & Huang, Y . Investigation and optimization of the deconvolution method for PMT waveform reconstruction. J. Instrum. 20, P03019 (2025)

    2025

  53. [53]

    Gholami, A., Kim, S., Dong, Z. et al. A Survey of Quantization Methods for Efficient Neural Network Inference. arXiv 2103.13630 (2021)

    work page arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    Hashimoto, F., Onishi, Y ., Ote, K. et al. Deep learning-based PET image denoising and reconstruction: a review. Radiol. Phys. Technol. 17, 24–46 (2024)

    2024

  55. [55]

    & Onishi, Y

    Hashimoto, F., Ote, K. & Onishi, Y. PET Image Reconstruction Incorporating Deep Image Prior and a Forward Projection Model. IEEE Trans. Radiat. Plasma Med. Sci. 6, 841–846 (2022)

    2022

  56. [56]

    & Elad, M

    Mataev, G., Milanfar, P. & Elad, M. DeepRED: Deep Image Prior Powered by RED . IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), (2019)

    2019

  57. [57]

    Hashimoto, F., Onishi, Y ., Ote, K. et al. Fully 3D implementation of the end-to-end deep image prior- based PET image reconstruction using block iterative algorithm. Phys. Med. Biol. 68, 155009 (2023). 24

    2023

  58. [58]

    Huang, Y ., Chang, J., Cheng, Y . et al. The Flash ADC system and PMT waveform reconstruction for the Daya Bay experiment. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A. 895, 48–55 (2018)

    2018

  59. [59]

    Coppi, A., Jelmini, B., Bellato, M. et al. Mass testing of the JUNO experiment 20 -inch PMT readout electronics. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A. 1052, 168255 (2023)

    2023

  60. [60]

    Aleksa, M., Bedeschi, F., Ferrari, R. et al. Calorimetry at FCC-ee. Eur Phys J Plus. 136, 1066 (2021)

    2021

  61. [61]

    Ota, R., Onishi, Y ., Lee, D. et al. Scintillator-integrated microchannel plate photomultiplier tubes for ultrafast timing over keV–GeV energy scales. arXiv. 2510.03488 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Caravaca, J., Descamps, F., Land, B. et al. Experiment to demonstrate separation of Cherenkov and scintillation signals. Phys. Rev. C. 95, 055801 (2017)

    2017

  63. [63]

    & Belle II PID group

    Inami, K. & Belle II PID group. TOP counter for particle identification at the Belle II experiment . Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A. 766, 5–8 (2014)

    2014

  64. [64]

    & Roncali, E

    Trigila, C. & Roncali, E. Integration of polarization in the LUTDavis model for optical Monte Carlo simulation in radiation detectors. Phys. Med. Biol. 66, 21NT03 (2021)

    2021

  65. [65]

    Photon counting detectors and their applications ranging from particle physics experiments to environmental radiation monitoring and medical imaging

    Ota, R. Photon counting detectors and their applications ranging from particle physics experiments to environmental radiation monitoring and medical imaging. Radiol. Phys. Technol. 14, 134–148 (2021) Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Nakatani Foundation. The authors are grateful to Mr. Takahiro Moriya from the Central Research Laboratory at H...

    2021