Performance of a first multi-cell WOM-based liquid scintillator detector as prototype for the SHiP Surrounding Background Tagger

A. Brignoli; A. Hollnagel; A. Krolla; A. S. M\"uller; C. Eckardt; C. Scharf; F. Lyons; F. Rehbein; H. Fischer; H. Lacker

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 16 references

This paper reports that a full-scale four-cell liquid-scintillator prototype, read out by wavelength-shifting optical modules, reconstructs 5 GeV muons crossing several cells to ±15.5 cm horizontally, ±6.8 cm vertically, and ±15° in angle a

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 04:34 UTC pith:GZOWIK35

load-bearing objection First full-scale multi-cell WOM-based liquid-scintillator prototype for the SHiP SBT: solid raw test-beam data and an honest write-up, but the headline reconstruction resolutions come from an in-sample likelihood evaluation — plausible, but not yet firmly established. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.22477 v1 pith:GZOWIK35 submitted 2026-07-24 physics.ins-det hep-ex

Performance of a first multi-cell WOM-based liquid scintillator detector as prototype for the SHiP Surrounding Background Tagger

M. B\"ohles , A. Brignoli , P. Deucher , C. Eckardt , H. Fischer , A. Hollnagel , A. Krolla , H. Lacker

show 15 more authors

P. Luther F. Lyons J. Molins i Bertram T. Molzberger A. S. M\"uller S. Ochoa Guaman F. Rehbein T. J. Rock M. Schaaf C. Scharf M. Schumann J. M. Webb J. Wenk I. W\"ostheinrich M. Wurm

This is my paper

classification physics.ins-det hep-ex PACS 29.40.Mc

keywords SHiPSurrounding Background Taggerliquid scintillatorwavelength-shifting optical moduletest beamtrack reconstructiontime resolutionspatial resolution

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper aims to show that the SHiP Surrounding Background Tagger concept—segmented liquid-scintillator cells read out by wavelength-shifting optical modules—works not just as a single cell but as a multi-cell veto that can locate and angle-track minimum-ionising muons crossing several cells. Using test-beam data from a full-scale 2×2-cell prototype, it demonstrates that a likelihood-based reconstruction recovers crossing coordinates to about ±15 cm and angles to about ±15°, and that the same correction reduces position-dependent timing variations to better than 0.4 ns. If correct, this establishes the core detector technology and reconstruction strategy for the SHiP background veto and provides a validated simulation for further optimisation.

Core claim

A first multi-cell prototype of the SHiP Surrounding Background Tagger—four full-size liquid-scintillator cells, each read out by two wavelength-shifting optical modules coupled to silicon-photomultiplier arrays—was exposed to 5 GeV muons. The paper reports that a likelihood-based reconstruction, originally developed for a single cell, reconstructs muon trajectories crossing several cells with a horizontal spatial resolution of ±15.5 cm, a vertical resolution of ±6.8 cm, and angular resolutions of ±15° in both directions. The same method, using either charge fractions or time-over-threshold, equalises the position-dependent timing response to better than 0.4 ns. A detailed detector simulatio

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a likelihood-based correction and reconstruction built from per-WOM fractional light yields, per-channel light-yield fractions of five-SiPM groups, and the difference in photon arrival times between the two WOMs of a cell. This machinery, carried over from the earlier single-cell study, turns the position- and angle-dependent detector response into an estimator of crossing coordinates and incident angles. Including cells that record no signal—Analysis 2—provides additional geometric constraints and improves angular resolution.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted resolutions rest on the assumption that the likelihood-based reconstruction developed for a single cell transfers to the four-cell prototype without retraining, and that the simulation tuned to a 75% wall reflectivity faithfully describes the test-beam detector.

What would settle it

Take an independent test-beam run at beam positions and angles not used to build the likelihood templates and evaluate the reconstruction residuals; genuine resolutions of ±15.5 cm in X, ±6.8 cm in Y, and ±15° in angle would reproduce, while template overfitting would show degraded residuals.

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

If this is right

The measured spatial resolutions meet the SBT's stated <20 cm benchmark, so the multi-cell concept is viable for vetoing shallow-angle muons entering from outside the decay volume.
Timing non-uniformity across a cell is corrected to below 0.4 ns, within the nanosecond-range requirement for distinguishing internal decays from external muons.
The likelihood-based reconstruction uses only detector observables such as charge fractions and arrival-time differences, so no external tracking information is needed in the final detector.
Simulation with 75% of nominal wall reflectivity reproduces the measured light-yield pattern, giving a predictive basis for optimising cell geometry, reflector materials, and WOM placement.
Including cells without signals in the reconstruction improves angular resolution, showing that hermetic multi-cell information helps constrain track angles.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

A natural extension the paper leaves implicit: because including zero-activity cells improves angular resolution, a full SBT could use empty-cell information as a geometric constraint, potentially sharpening veto decisions without additional hardware.
The success of time-over-threshold in the timing correction suggests the final readout could rely on timestamps and time-over-threshold alone, dropping the need for full waveform digitisation and substantially reducing data volume.
The horizontal resolution (≈15.5 cm) being poorer than the vertical (≈6.8 cm) points to a testable hardware change: adding WOMs or side-mounted readout along the horizontal axis could improve X-localisation beyond the current benchmark.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

First full-scale multi-cell WOM-based liquid-scintillator prototype for the SHiP SBT: solid raw test-beam data and an honest write-up, but the headline reconstruction resolutions come from an in-sample likelihood evaluation — plausible, but not yet firmly established.

read the letter

Quick take: this is the first full-scale, multi-cell WOM-based liquid-scintillator prototype for the SHiP SBT, and the first test-beam study of muon tracks crossing several cells with combined reconstruction. The raw measurements are credible and carefully reported. The headline resolutions — ±15.5 cm in X, ±6.8 cm in Y, ±15° in both angles — come from a likelihood reconstruction inherited from the collaboration's single-cell paper, applied to the same dataset that was also used to tune the simulation (α = 75%, Eq. 3.3). No training/validation split is described. I expect the exact numbers to shift after proper validation, but not the central claim.

What's genuinely new: the 2×2 frustum-shaped full-scale cells; the multi-cell topology runs (e.g., θX = 90°, θY = 45° crossing three cells); and the first multi-cell track reconstruction, where including cells with no signal (Analysis 2) clearly helps, improving angular resolution at the cell center from ±17° to ±7° in θX. The timing work is also useful: position-dependent arrival-time variation is corrected to <0.4 ns, and the waveform-shape universality across cells, positions, and particle types supports the timestamp + time-over-threshold readout planned for the final SBT. The paper is honest where it matters: it shows the modest per-angle correct fractions (averages 0.52–0.69 in Fig. 15, 0.48 for position+angle in the full set), reports the bad optical coupling in two WOMs, and concludes the BaSO4 paint reached only ~75% of nominal reflectivity.

Soft spots, in proportion. The load-bearing claim is the multi-cell reconstruction, and it is evaluated on the same data used for calibration. The likelihood correction is 'the same correction function' as [6], applied to all four cells with no described retraining or held-out sample; the GEANT4 response it relies on is tuned to the same test-beam data. So we can't tell whether the quoted σ's reflect in-sample tuning or an unvalidated transfer of [6] to different cell sizes; either way, no validation is shown. The fix is cheap — hold out some positions/angles — but without it, '±15 cm / ±15°' is an upper bound on capability, not verified performance. Second, the σ values are single Gaussians fit to residual distributions that visibly have multiple peaks (Fig. 16); with the low correct-fraction, resolution is not well described by one number per axis. The authors show the ingredients; the summary doesn't confront them. Third, the 99% efficiency benchmark from [3] is cited, not measured — fine as context, but easy to misread. And the summary calls the simulation agreement 'quantitative' when Section 3.4.3 frames it as qualitative with a fitted reflectivity; minor overstatement.

Who this is for: the SHiP collaboration and detector R&D groups working on WOM/LS technology. It deserves a serious referee. Send it to peer review; the main thing to demand is a clear statement of whether the likelihood templates were trained on this dataset, a validation on held-out points, and a more honest summary of the residual distributions.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports on a full-scale 2x2-cell liquid-scintillator prototype for the SHiP Surrounding Background Tagger, read out by wavelength-shifting optical modules (WOMs) coupled to SiPMs. The detector was exposed to 5 GeV muons at the CERN PS T9 beam line over a range of crossing positions and incident angles. The authors characterize the integrated light yield and arrival-time response, compare measurements with a GEANT4 simulation, and use a likelihood-based correction/reconstruction — inherited from the collaboration's single-cell study [6] — to correct the response and to reconstruct particle crossing coordinates and angles. The main quantitative claims are a timing variation corrected to better than 0.4 ns after likelihood correction, and, for the multi-cell reconstruction, spatial resolutions of ±15.5 cm in X and ±6.8 cm in Y and angular resolutions of about ±15° in both θX and θY for tracks crossing several cells. The raw waveforms, charge measurements, and timing calibrations are presented in detail and appear credible; the central question is whether the quoted reconstruction performance generalizes, since the simulation is tuned to the same data and the likelihood correction is not described with a validation split.

Significance. If the reconstruction claims hold, this is a valuable milestone for the SHiP SBT R&D: it is the first multi-cell prototype demonstration with full-size cells, and the timing correction to <0.4 ns using only ToT/timestamp observables is directly relevant to the final detector readout. The paper also gives useful quantitative information on light-yield uniformity, effective signal speed, and the need to model BaSO4 reflectivity below manufacturer specifications. The measurements are anchored to an external beam telescope, so the raw performance numbers are not circular by construction. The main risk is that the headline spatial/angular resolutions come from a likelihood method whose calibration and simulation input are connected to the same test-beam dataset used for the evaluation; if so, the quoted σ values are optimistic. The paper would be strengthened by a clear validation protocol or an explicit statement that all correction parameters were fixed before this dataset was analyzed.

major comments (2)

[Sec. 3.6.2 / Eq. (3.3)] The headline resolutions are obtained from the same four-cell dataset used to tune the simulation: Eq. (3.3) minimizes χ² to set the relative reflectivity α=75% against the measured light yields of this campaign, and the likelihood correction/reconstruction is described as the 'same correction function' as [6] without stating whether any parameters were re-estimated on these runs. If the likelihood templates or correction parameters were calibrated on the same positions/angles used to produce Fig. 18, the quoted σX≈15.5 cm, σY≈6.8 cm, σθ≈15° are in-sample estimates and likely optimistic. Please provide a validation protocol — e.g., leave-one-position/angle-out or a pre-registered split — or, if all parameters are frozen from [6], state that explicitly and show that the [6] calibration is statistically independent of the data in Fig. 17.
[Sec. 3.6.1 / Sec. 3.6.2 (Figs. 15 and 18)] The paper reports angular resolutions of ~15°–19° while Fig. 15 shows only 52–69% of events assigned the correct incident angle (average fractions 0.57/0.69 for Position 1). In Sec. 3.6.2 the average fraction is given as 0.48/0.45, yet the text calls this 'correctly identified track crossing points and incident angles' even though Fig. 15 concerns angles only. A Gaussian σ of ~15° on a 15° grid can be consistent with ~50% exact-bin assignment, so this is not an internal contradiction, but the criterion for 'correctly identified' must be defined, and the quoted resolutions should be shown to apply to the full event sample, not a subset of well-reconstructed events. Please clarify how the residual distributions in Fig. 18 treat misassigned events.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. 3.6.2] Notation errors: 'σY,1=10.5cm vs. σX,2=6.8cm' should presumably read 'σY,2=6.8cm', and 'σθY,1=14°' should likely be 'σθY,2=14°'.
[Sec. 3.4.1 / Sec. 3.4.4] The upper light-yield threshold changes from 50 V·ns for perpendicular tracks to 100 V·ns for inclined multi-cell tracks. Please justify this difference and quantify the fraction of events removed by these cuts, especially since the final SBT efficiency requirement is >99%.
[Sec. 3.4.1] The text attributes lower light yield in Cells 1 and 3 to imperfect optical coupling of one WOM in each cell. Since Analysis 2 uses all four cells, please state explicitly whether this known imperfection is included in the simulation and whether it affects the reported multi-cell reconstruction or only the absolute normalization.
[Fig. 14] The y-axis label appears garbled (' X [mm]' on the ordinate); the units and quantity should be corrected.
[Sec. 3.5.1] The 'Time-over-Threshold (ToT)' acronym is used before its full expansion; please define it at first use and specify the threshold value also in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: headline resolutions are benchmarked against the external beam telescope; the reflectivity value is a fit, not a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's headline resolutions (Sec. 3.6.2, Fig. 18) are obtained by comparing the likelihood-based reconstruction output to true coordinates and angles set by the beam telescope and the positioning system, which are external references not derived from the detector response model. The likelihood method is adopted from the group's prior work [6], but [6] is a published, independently validated single-cell study; applying it to new four-cell data and checking against the telescope is a genuine transfer test, not a self-referential reduction. The reflectivity α = 75% (Eq. 3.3) is explicitly fitted to the test-beam data and used only for simulation comparison; it is not renamed as a prediction and is not an input to the coordinate/angle reconstruction whose σ-values are quoted. The timing-correction residuals are descriptive of the correction applied and are anchored to measured waveforms; no equation defines the output in terms of the claimed result. The absence of an explicit train/validation split is a possible overfitting/optimism concern, but without evidence that the likelihood templates were fit to these runs it is a correctness risk, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central claim rests on three domain assumptions: (1) GEANT4 with a fitted reflectivity models light transport; (2) the likelihood correction from [6] transfers to four cells; (3) the beam telescope provides negligible-uncertainty ground truth. Free parameters are mostly analysis thresholds plus the fitted reflectivity/scale used for simulation comparison.

free parameters (3)

Relative BaSO4 reflectivity α = 0.75 (75% of nominal)
Fit to test-beam light-yield data in Cell 4 via χ2 minimization in Eq. 3.3, then used to claim simulation agreement.
Scale parameter λ(α) = not stated (per-α best fit)
Nuisance normalization in Eq. 3.3 mapping simulated photon yields to measured V·ns units.
Event-selection and timing thresholds = LY_WOM > 0.8 V·ns; < 50 V·ns (100 V·ns for inclined); CFD 25%; ToT 10 mV; Gaussian σ = 2 ns
Hand-chosen analysis parameters that affect quoted light yields, time resolution, and reconstructed resolutions; no systematic study of their impact is reported.

axioms (3)

domain assumption GEANT4 simulation with a tuned reflectivity accurately models light transport and SiPM/WOM response for all cells and angles.
Invoked in §3.4.3 and §3.5.2 to compare simulation to data; eMUSIC saturation at high light yield is explicitly not modeled.
domain assumption The likelihood-based correction/reconstruction method from [6] transfers to the four-cell geometry without retraining.
Used in §3.4.2, §3.5.1 and §3.6 without a described validation split; if the templates are not transferable, quoted resolutions are biased.
domain assumption Beam telescope positions and angles define the true track with negligible uncertainty compared to quoted resolutions.
Telescope geometry in §3.1 is used as ground truth for resolution distributions in Fig. 18; no telescope alignment uncertainty is quantified.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16084 in / 12684 out tokens · 121873 ms · 2026-08-01T04:34:25.979732+00:00 · methodology

0 comments

read the original abstract

The Search for Hidden Particles (SHiP) Experiment was approved by CERN in 2024. Feebly-interacting particles that are produced in a proton Beam Dump Facility (BDF) will decay in the 50m-long Decay Volume of the experiment, which needs to be enveloped by a hermetic veto detector: The Surrounding Background Tagger (SBT). Its technology relies on liquid scintillator, composed of linear alkylbenzene and 2,5-diphenyloxazole, as active detector material and Wavelength-shifting Optical Module (WOM) tubes collecting the primary scintillation photons. The liquid scintillator volume is segmented in large cells of typically 120cm x 80cm x 20cm that are equipped with two WOMs each. Here, we report on the performance of a full-scale 2x2-cell prototype detector which was exposed to 5GeV muons at the CERN PS T9 test beam facility to study the detector response and its time and spatial resolution for minimum ionising particles crossing multiple detector cells.

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

[1]

A facility to Search for Hidden Particles (SHiP) at the CERN SPS,

M. Anelliet al.[SHiP], “A facility to Search for Hidden Particles (SHiP) at the CERN SPS,” arXiv:1504.04956 [physics.ins-det]

Pith/arXiv arXiv
[2]

The SHiP experiment at the proposed CERN SPS Beam Dump Facility,

C. Ahdidaet al.[SHiP], “The SHiP experiment at the proposed CERN SPS Beam Dump Facility,” Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10346-5

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10346-5 2022
[3]

BDF/SHiP at the ECN3 high-intensity beam facility (Letter of Intent),

C. Ahdidaet al.[SHiP], “BDF/SHiP at the ECN3 high-intensity beam facility (Letter of Intent)," CERN-SPSC-2022-032 SPSC-I-256

2022
[4]

BDF/SHiP at the ECN3 high-intensity beam facility (Proposal),

R. Albaneseet al.[SHiP], “BDF/SHiP at the ECN3 high-intensity beam facility (Proposal)," CERN-SPSC-2023-033 SPSC-P-369

2023
[5]

Proof-of-principle measurements with a liquid-scintillator detector using wavelength-shifting optical modules,

M. Ehlertet al., “Proof-of-principle measurements with a liquid-scintillator detector using wavelength-shifting optical modules,” JINST14(2019) no. 3, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/14/03/P03021

work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/14/03/p03021 2019
[6]

Performance of a first full-size WOM-based liquid scintillator detector cell as prototype for the SHiP Surrounding Background Tagger,

J. Alt, O. Bezshyyko, M. Böhles, A. Brignoli, A. Conaboy, P. Deucher, C. Eckardt, A. Ernst, H. Fischer and A. Hollnagel,et al.“Performance of a first full-size WOM-based liquid scintillator detector cell as prototype for the SHiP Surrounding Background Tagger,” JINST19(2024) no.05, P05024 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/P05024

work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/p05024 2024
[7]

Performance of prototypes with different reflector materials for the SHiP liquid scintillator surrounding background tagger,

A. Brignoli, P. Deucher, C. Eckardt, F. Faller, H. Fischer, A. Hollnagel, A. Krolla, H. Lacker, F. Lyons and J. M. Bertram,et al.“Performance of prototypes with different reflector materials for the SHiP liquid scintillator surrounding background tagger,” JINST20(2025) no.07, P07023 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/20/07/P07023

work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/20/07/p07023 2025
[8]

The Wavelength-Shifting Optical Module,

B. Bastian-Querneret al., “The Wavelength-Shifting Optical Module,” Sensors22(2022) no. 4, doi:10.3390/s22041385

work page doi:10.3390/s22041385 2022
[9]

Berghof Fluoroplastics Technology GmbH, Optopolymer® BaSO4. – 24 –
[10]

Enhancing Light Collection in Scintillation Detectors

P. Deucher, “Enhancing Light Collection in Scintillation Detectors”, PhD Thesis, JGU Mainz (2026)

2026
[11]

MUSIC: An 8 channel readout ASIC for SiPM arrays

S. Gómezet al., “MUSIC: An 8 channel readout ASIC for SiPM arrays”, in Proceedings, Optical Sensing and Detection IV, SPIE Photonics Europe, 2016, Brussels, Belgium, vol. 9899, doi:/10.1117/12.2231095

doi:10.1117/12.2231095 2016
[12]

WaveCatcher Family User’s Manual

D. Breton and J.Maalmi, “WaveCatcher Family User’s Manual”
[13]

https://www.hamamatsu.com/content/dam/hamamatsu- photonics/sites/documents/99_SALES_LIBRARY/ssd/s14160_s14161_series_kapd1064e.pdf
[14]

Raspberry Pi Pico W datasheet: An RP2040-based microcontroller board with wireless,

Raspberry Pi Ltd, "Raspberry Pi Pico W datasheet: An RP2040-based microcontroller board with wireless," 2022

2022
[15]

Development of the Surrounding Background Tagger for the SHiP Experiment

R. F. Lyons, “Development of the Surrounding Background Tagger for the SHiP Experiment”, PhD Thesis, ALU Freiburg (2025), doi:10.6094/UNIFR/275352

work page doi:10.6094/unifr/275352 2025
[16]

Geant4 - a simulation toolkit,

S. Agostinelliet al., “Geant4 - a simulation toolkit,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506(2003), doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8. – 25 –

doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(03)01368-8 2003

[1] [1]

A facility to Search for Hidden Particles (SHiP) at the CERN SPS,

M. Anelliet al.[SHiP], “A facility to Search for Hidden Particles (SHiP) at the CERN SPS,” arXiv:1504.04956 [physics.ins-det]

Pith/arXiv arXiv

[2] [2]

The SHiP experiment at the proposed CERN SPS Beam Dump Facility,

C. Ahdidaet al.[SHiP], “The SHiP experiment at the proposed CERN SPS Beam Dump Facility,” Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10346-5

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10346-5 2022

[3] [3]

BDF/SHiP at the ECN3 high-intensity beam facility (Letter of Intent),

C. Ahdidaet al.[SHiP], “BDF/SHiP at the ECN3 high-intensity beam facility (Letter of Intent)," CERN-SPSC-2022-032 SPSC-I-256

2022

[4] [4]

BDF/SHiP at the ECN3 high-intensity beam facility (Proposal),

R. Albaneseet al.[SHiP], “BDF/SHiP at the ECN3 high-intensity beam facility (Proposal)," CERN-SPSC-2023-033 SPSC-P-369

2023

[5] [5]

Proof-of-principle measurements with a liquid-scintillator detector using wavelength-shifting optical modules,

M. Ehlertet al., “Proof-of-principle measurements with a liquid-scintillator detector using wavelength-shifting optical modules,” JINST14(2019) no. 3, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/14/03/P03021

work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/14/03/p03021 2019

[6] [6]

Performance of a first full-size WOM-based liquid scintillator detector cell as prototype for the SHiP Surrounding Background Tagger,

J. Alt, O. Bezshyyko, M. Böhles, A. Brignoli, A. Conaboy, P. Deucher, C. Eckardt, A. Ernst, H. Fischer and A. Hollnagel,et al.“Performance of a first full-size WOM-based liquid scintillator detector cell as prototype for the SHiP Surrounding Background Tagger,” JINST19(2024) no.05, P05024 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/P05024

work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/p05024 2024

[7] [7]

Performance of prototypes with different reflector materials for the SHiP liquid scintillator surrounding background tagger,

A. Brignoli, P. Deucher, C. Eckardt, F. Faller, H. Fischer, A. Hollnagel, A. Krolla, H. Lacker, F. Lyons and J. M. Bertram,et al.“Performance of prototypes with different reflector materials for the SHiP liquid scintillator surrounding background tagger,” JINST20(2025) no.07, P07023 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/20/07/P07023

work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/20/07/p07023 2025

[8] [8]

The Wavelength-Shifting Optical Module,

B. Bastian-Querneret al., “The Wavelength-Shifting Optical Module,” Sensors22(2022) no. 4, doi:10.3390/s22041385

work page doi:10.3390/s22041385 2022

[9] [9]

Berghof Fluoroplastics Technology GmbH, Optopolymer® BaSO4. – 24 –

[10] [10]

Enhancing Light Collection in Scintillation Detectors

P. Deucher, “Enhancing Light Collection in Scintillation Detectors”, PhD Thesis, JGU Mainz (2026)

2026

[11] [11]

MUSIC: An 8 channel readout ASIC for SiPM arrays

S. Gómezet al., “MUSIC: An 8 channel readout ASIC for SiPM arrays”, in Proceedings, Optical Sensing and Detection IV, SPIE Photonics Europe, 2016, Brussels, Belgium, vol. 9899, doi:/10.1117/12.2231095

doi:10.1117/12.2231095 2016

[12] [12]

WaveCatcher Family User’s Manual

D. Breton and J.Maalmi, “WaveCatcher Family User’s Manual”

[13] [13]

https://www.hamamatsu.com/content/dam/hamamatsu- photonics/sites/documents/99_SALES_LIBRARY/ssd/s14160_s14161_series_kapd1064e.pdf

[14] [14]

Raspberry Pi Pico W datasheet: An RP2040-based microcontroller board with wireless,

Raspberry Pi Ltd, "Raspberry Pi Pico W datasheet: An RP2040-based microcontroller board with wireless," 2022

2022

[15] [15]

Development of the Surrounding Background Tagger for the SHiP Experiment

R. F. Lyons, “Development of the Surrounding Background Tagger for the SHiP Experiment”, PhD Thesis, ALU Freiburg (2025), doi:10.6094/UNIFR/275352

work page doi:10.6094/unifr/275352 2025

[16] [16]

Geant4 - a simulation toolkit,

S. Agostinelliet al., “Geant4 - a simulation toolkit,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506(2003), doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8. – 25 –

doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(03)01368-8 2003