Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 9 minor 28 references

Fitting the single-photoelectron model recovers PMT gain to better than 1%, while the model-independent occupancy method is biased by several percent.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 19:59 UTC pith:GEOTJKWV

load-bearing objection Clean pedagogical synthesis with a useful MC/method comparison; the <1% unbiased-gain claim is real for the lab geometry and model class they tested, but rests partly on circular toys and one soft-component point. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24250 v1 pith:GEOTJKWV submitted 2026-07-27 hep-ex

The mathematical theory of photomultiplier tube calibration

L. N. Kalousis , E. A. Dris , A. Vynias This is my paper
classification hep-ex
keywords photomultiplier tubessingle photoelectron responsegain calibrationoccupancy methodcharge response functiondiscrete Fourier transformgamma distributionsoft component
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This technical note lays out the full mathematical chain that turns faint Poisson light into the measured charge spectrum of a photomultiplier tube, then compares the two standard ways of extracting the tube's gain. The ideal response is a Poisson-weighted sum of convolutions of the single-photoelectron charge distribution with electronic noise; that sum is evaluated either by recursive numerical integration or by a discrete Fourier transform. On both toy Monte Carlo samples and real Hamamatsu R1408 data the conventional fit to a gamma-plus-exponential single-photoelectron model recovers the true gain with fractional bias below one percent across mean photoelectron numbers from roughly 0.5 to 3. The simpler occupancy method, which uses only the pedestal fraction, is systematically high by three to six percent. Adding an extra soft exponential component degrades the occupancy result further but leaves the fit essentially unbiased, because a single exponential still approximates the low-charge tail well enough for the gain. The authors therefore recommend the fit when a stable parametric model can be validated by parameter constancy versus light level, and they caution that lab geometry with a fiber at the photocathode center does not automatically transfer to in-situ illumination of large detectors.

Core claim

On both controlled Monte Carlo and real R1408 spectra the conventional single-photoelectron-model fit extracts the gain with fractional accuracy better than about one percent over the practical working range of mean photoelectron number 0.5–3, while the model-independent occupancy method remains biased at the several-percent level; a second soft exponential does not spoil the fit but further degrades occupancy.

What carries the argument

The realistic charge response SR(x): the Poisson-weighted sum of n-fold convolutions of the single-photoelectron density S(x) with the pedestal noise B(x), evaluated either recursively or via the closed Fourier product exp(−μ) B̃(k) exp(μ S̃(k)).

Load-bearing premise

That the chosen parametric family for the single-photoelectron charge shape is close enough to the true shape that a good fit and stable parameters versus light level guarantee an unbiased gain.

What would settle it

Repeat the same R1408 (or equivalent) runs with an independent, higher-resolution charge measurement or a second soft-component model whose parameters are fixed by pulse-shape selection; if the fitted gain then shifts by more than one percent while the occupancy result stays fixed, the claim fails.

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

If this is right

  • Laboratories can prefer the SPE-model fit over occupancy whenever a stable parametric family can be validated by parameter constancy across light levels.
  • A single exponential remains an adequate effective description of the low-charge tail for gain extraction even when a second softer exponential is physically present.
  • Discrete-Fourier-transform evaluation of SR(x) makes the multi-parameter fit fast enough for routine use on large samples.
  • In-situ calibration of large monolithic detectors will inherit additional geometric biases not present in the centered-fiber laboratory geometry used here.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same Fourier product formula immediately supplies the full likelihood for multi-PMT energy reconstruction once each tube’s SPE parameters are known.
  • If the second soft exponential is itself voltage- or temperature-dependent, periodic refits of the single-exponential effective model may still track gain drifts without needing the full two-exponential form.
  • Occupancy bias of a few percent is large enough to matter for sub-percent energy-scale goals such as those of next-generation neutrino mass-ordering experiments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 9 minor

Summary. This technical note presents a pedagogical exposition of the standard theory of PMT charge response to faint Poissonian light: photoelectron statistics (Poisson thinning through QE and CE), the Bellamy-type compound-Poisson charge response S_R(x), its mean/variance, and two numerical evaluations (recursive numerical convolution and a DFT/FFT method based on the closed-form summed characteristic function, Eq. 6.11). Two gain-calibration methods are compared — the model-independent occupancy method (Saldanha et al.) and the conventional S_R(x) fit — using toy Monte Carlo generated from an exponential-plus-gamma SPE model (Eq. 7.1) and 15 datasets from a Hamamatsu R1408 PMT at mu ≃ 0.5–3. The authors report gain recovery with fractional bias <~0.5–1% for the fit versus ~3–6% for occupancy, parameter stability of the SPE model versus light level on real data (Table 1), and a stress test (Sec. 12) in which a second soft exponential component added to the toy SPE model degrades occupancy (~6%) but not the fit (<1%). A public C++/ROOT implementation is provided.

Significance. As a pedagogical reference the note succeeds: the derivations (Poisson thinning, Sec. 4.1; moments of S_R, Sec. 5; convolution identities, Appendix A; DFT identity, Sec. 6.2) are standard but cleanly and self-containedly written, and the note collects material otherwise scattered across Bellamy, Smirnov, and Saldanha et al. It ships a public, reusable implementation of the DFT method and both calibration techniques, a genuine asset for students. The R1408 dataset (15 light levels, χ²/NDOF ≃ 1, stable SPE parameters) is a useful worked example, and the Sec. 12 wrong-model stress test is, in principle, a falsifiable robustness check. The physics content is incremental over Refs. [24, 30] by the same group, but the comparative fit-vs-occupancy study and the soft-component investigation add modest new value appropriate for a JINST technical note.

major comments (3)
  1. [Secs. 10–11.2, Eq. (8.16), Figs. 12, 16] The headline accuracy claim — 'the fit can determine the gain in an unbiased way, with an accuracy of better than 1.0%' (Sec. 11.2) — is not supported at that strength by the evidence presented. The toy-MC leg (Sec. 10) generates and fits with the same model (Eq. 7.1), so sub-percent recovery is guaranteed by construction and validates only the DFT machinery and fitter, as the authors themselves note. The real-data leg shows χ²/NDOF ≃ 1 and parameter stability versus μ (Table 1), but these test internal consistency of the assumed SPE family, not closeness to the true gain: a systematically wrong but self-similar SPE model would pass the same tests. The only external anchor, the occupancy method, is shown to be biased at 3–6%, so the ~5% fit-vs-occupancy offset in Fig. 16 cannot adjudicate which method is closer to the truth. The claim should be restated as precision/consistency at the ~1
  2. [Sec. 12, Eq. (12.1), Fig. 18] The soft-component study is the only genuinely non-circular robustness check, but it probes a single ad-hoc parameter point (w2 = 0.20, α2 = 46, i.e. w2 = w/2 and 1/α2 = (1/α)/2) rather than values motivated by the IceCube measurement (Ref. [43]) that prompted the section. The recovery mechanism visible in the text — the fit absorbs the second exponential into inflated w′, α′ while the gamma mean 1/λ′ barely moves — is first-moment matching of the low-charge region, which can be expected to work precisely because both exponentials are soft relative to the SPE peak. Nothing shown demonstrates survival when the second component is harder (α2 comparable to λ) or heavier. Either a modest scan over (w2, α2), or an explicit statement that the conclusion holds only for soft components of this type, is needed; the sentence 'it is safe to say that the fit is the most precise method for gain deter
  3. [Secs. 9.2, 11.2, Figs. 10, 16] The origin of the occupancy bias (~3% at f = 0.2, rising to ~6% with the soft component) is never analyzed. Since the method is presented as the model-independent alternative, the note should explain whether the bias is the expected leakage of underamplified 1-PE charge below the threshold cut (inflating I_T and hence μ′), quantify its scaling with w and α, and state the associated systematic uncertainty. Without this, the reader cannot judge whether the 3% is an intrinsic limitation of the truncated-integral estimator or specific to the R1408 SPE shape used here. This matters because Sec. 13 recommends the fit over occupancy partly on the basis of this number.
minor comments (9)
  1. [Eq. (3.6)] The numerator product ends in '(N−n−1)/N'; it should read (N−n+1)/N as in Eq. (3.5).
  2. [Eq. (8.17)] The variance formula uses 'a' in two places (w/a² and (1/λ − 1/a)²); this should be α for consistency with the rest of the note.
  3. [Fig. 6 and caption] The caption says 'Gamma distribution for λ=20 and some values of θ', but the legend shows θ=20 with λ=1, 5, 10. Caption and legend are interchanged; also the axis label 'A.U.' is unexplained.
  4. [Fig. 8 caption] 'Fig. (bottom right)' appears twice; the pedestal panel should be '(bottom left)'. The red threshold line is described as cutting at 10% but Sec. 9.2 adopts f = 0.2; clarify.
  5. [Eq. (10.1)] The χ² uses Neyman's variance (D_i in the denominator), which biases low-count bins; a sentence justifying this choice (or noting Pearson/alternative) would help, since the valley region driving w and α is exactly where counts are low.
  6. [Sec. 9.1] 'one gets the gain G in an almost unbiased way' is contradicted by the ~3% bias shown in Fig. 10; rephrase as 'model-independent'.
  7. [Various] Typos/grammar: 'form a uniform distribution' → 'from' (Sec. 3); 'smaller that 0.01' → 'than' (Sec. 3); 'dumping of the Poisson factors' → 'damping' (Sec. 4.4); 'the underline assumptions' → 'underlying' (Sec. 6); 'one has to deal a single quantum efficiency' → 'deal with' (Sec. 11.1); the sentence 'Of course, and we would have gotten the same results with DFT, albeit with a larger amount of time' (Sec. 7) is garbled — presumably 'the same results with numerical integration'. Informal asides ('For us the battle is won !', 'there is a synergy in action !') could be toned down for a journal version.
  8. [Fig. 16] State in the caption or text that the occupancy points use f = 0.2, and quote the two means and standard deviations numerically (currently only ~0.0942 nVs and 'better than 1%' are given).
  9. [Table 1] The uncertainties on w and α at μ = 3.074 roughly double relative to lower-μ rows; a brief comment on whether this is statistical or signals the onset of the pedestal-suppression regime would be useful.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Standard same-model toy validation plus consistency checks; core math is non-circular and self-contained.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 10, paragraphs discussing MC fits and Fig. 12]
    "Note that in this section we generated data using the gamma distribution, and fitted them with the same model. It was only obvious that we would retrieve the input numbers of section 7. ... One sees that the fitting method outperforms the occupancy in a wide range of μs, having an accuracy of better than ∼0.5 %."

    When toys are drawn from Eq. 7.1 and fitted with the identical parametric family, recovery of G = w/α+(1−w)/λ (Eq. 8.16) to sub-percent level is guaranteed once the numerical DFT and minimizer work; the quoted “accuracy better than ∼0.5 %” therefore validates implementation, not an independent physical prediction. The paper states the tautology openly and does not rest the real-data claim solely on it.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing mathematical chain (Poisson PE statistics after QE/CE, multi-PE response via successive convolutions, S_R = S_ID * B, closed-form mean/variance of S_R, and G as the first moment of S(x)) is derived from elementary probability and is not circular. Toy-MC recovery of the injected gain when data are generated and fitted with the identical gamma+exponential family (Eq. 7.1) is by construction; the authors explicitly acknowledge this (“it was only obvious that we would retrieve the input numbers”) and use the exercise only to validate the DFT/fitter machinery and to compare fractional bias against the model-independent occupancy method. Real R1408 results rest on χ²/NDOF and parameter stability versus μ (consistency of the assumed family), not on an external ground-truth gain; the occupancy comparison supplies an independent cross-check even though occupancy itself is biased. Self-citations point to the authors’ earlier DFT code and R1408 measurements; they are not invoked as uniqueness theorems that force the present conclusions. No self-definitional loop, no fitted quantity renamed as an external prediction, and no ansatz smuggled in as a theorem. Score 2 reflects only the minor, acknowledged same-model toy step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central numerical claims rest on standard probability (Poisson photoelectron statistics, convolution theorems, DFT convolution theorem), on the domain model that PE multiplication is linear and independent below saturation, and on a small set of free parameters that define the SPE shape. No new physical entities are introduced; the gamma-plus-exponential SPE form is taken from prior R1408 work and treated as a flexible ansatz whose adequacy is checked by χ² and stability versus light level.

free parameters (6)
  • SPE exponential weight w and slope α = w ≈ 0.39–0.46, α ≈ 20–23 (nVs)⁻¹ on R1408 data
    Fraction and mean charge of under-amplified photoelectrons; fitted freely in the SPE model and in real-data table 1.
  • Gamma shape λ, θ = λ ≈ 7.6–7.8, θ ≈ 4.9–5.5 on R1408 data
    Mean and relative width of the fully amplified SPE peak; fitted and shown stable versus μ.
  • Pedestal mean Q0 and width σ0
    Electronic noise parameters; measured from blank runs or fitted near the pedestal peak.
  • Poisson mean μ = scanned ≈ 0.5–3.0
    Mean number of photoelectrons per pulse; either counted from pedestal occupancy or floated in the full fit.
  • Soft-component weight w2 and slope α2 (MC stress test) = w2 = 0.20, α2 = 46
    Ad-hoc second exponential used only in Sec. 12; set by hand to half the primary exponential.
  • Occupancy threshold fraction f = f = 0.2 (baseline)
    Fraction of pedestal integrated to estimate I0; chosen by hand (paper adopts f = 0.2 after scanning).
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Photoelectron number after QE and collection efficiency remains Poisson with mean μ = α η m when the incident light is Poisson (or binomial attenuated to Poisson).
    Derived in Sec. 4.1 from binomial filtering; standard in the Bellamy/Smirnov literature and used as the starting point for every S_R(x).
  • domain assumption Charge contributions of distinct photoelectrons are i.i.d. and add linearly (no saturation), so the n-PE spectrum is the n-fold convolution of the SPE density.
    Stated in Sec. 4.2–4.3; required for the series definition of S_ID and S_R.
  • domain assumption Background is an independent additive Gaussian pedestal that convolves with the ideal response.
    Sec. 4.4; standard electronic-noise model.
  • standard math Fourier transform turns convolution into multiplication, allowing the closed Poisson sum for the characteristic function of S_R (Eq. 6.11).
    Used to justify the DFT numerical method in Sec. 6.2.
  • ad hoc to paper The R1408 SPE response is well described by a mixture of one exponential and one gamma density (Eq. 7.1).
    Chosen because prior Double Chooz / Kalousis work found it adequate for this tube; adequacy is checked post hoc by fit quality and parameter stability, not derived from first principles.
  • domain assumption Dark current and afterpulses are negligible for μ ≳ 0.5 under the lab conditions used.
    Invoked in Sec. 11.1 citing Smirnov; not independently measured in the present datasets.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 33999 in / 3746 out tokens · 87893 ms · 2026-07-31T19:59:46.222802+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this technical note we describe the main features of the mathematical theory of photomultiplier tube (PMT) calibration. Attention was paid to explain the various arguments and concepts in a simple and pedagogical manner that everybody understands. The basic operational principles of a PMT are discussed from a theoretical standpoint. The essential steps of its function (photoconversion, focusing, multiplication, etc.) are laid down together with the mathematical schemes necessary to model the charge output of a PMT when illuminated by a faint poissonian light source. In case of important omissions we direct the reader to some of the standard references. The most common numerical methods, used to calculate the charge amplification function $S_R(x)$, are also presented. As an example, we plot $S_R(x)$ utilizing a gamma function model for the single photoelectron (SPE) response and showcase its main characteristics. The basic techniques for gain calibration are also introduced, and we probed their precision using toy Monte Carlo data. Additionally, data from a Hamamatsu R1408 PMT were analyzed. Finally, we show how the presence of soft charge component can affect the results of gain determination. We conclude this report with some general comments regarding \emph{in situ} calibration of large-scale detectors. We hope that this document can serve as a reference for students and young researchers that want to learn more about the theory of PMT calibration.

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

28 extracted references · 9 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    W. R. Leo,Techniques for Nuclear and Particle Physics Experiments: A How-to Approach, 2nd ed. Springer, Berlin, Germany (1994). [2]Neutrinos: JUNO experiment debuts with extremely high precision. Accessed on the 02/04/2026 at: https://www.infn.it/en/neutrinos-juno-experiment-debuts-with-extremely-high-precision. [3]JUNOcollaboration,Potential to identify ...

    arXiv 1994

  2. [11]

    K.,Photomultiplier tubes: Basics and Applications, 4th edition, Hamamatsu Photonics K

    Hamamatsu Photonics K. K.,Photomultiplier tubes: Basics and Applications, 4th edition, Hamamatsu Photonics K. K. (2017). Accessed on the 02/04/2026 at: https://www.hamamatsu.com/content/dam/hamamatsu- photonics/sites/documents/99_SALES_LIBRARY/etd/PMT_handbook_v4E.pdf

    2017

  3. [12]

    Accessed on the 12/04/2026 at: https://hep.hamamatsu.com/content/dam/hamamatsu- photonics/sites/documents/99_SALES_LIBRARY/etd/LARGE_AREA_PMT_TPMH1376E.pdf

    Hamamatsu Photonics,Large photocathode area photomultiplier tubes. Accessed on the 12/04/2026 at: https://hep.hamamatsu.com/content/dam/hamamatsu- photonics/sites/documents/99_SALES_LIBRARY/etd/LARGE_AREA_PMT_TPMH1376E.pdf

    2026

  4. [13]

    L. N. Kalousis,Calibration of the Double Chooz detector and cosmic background studies,PhD thesis, University of Strasbourg(2012)

    2012

  5. [14]

    O. Ju. Smirnov,Energy and spatial resolution of a large-volume liquid-scintillator detector,Instrum. Exp. Tech.46(2003) 327 [arXiv:1811.02321]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  6. [15]

    Agostinelli et al.,Geant4 - A Simulation Toolkit,Nucl

    S. Agostinelli et al.,Geant4 - A Simulation Toolkit,Nucl. Instrum. Meth.A506 (2003) 250

    2003

  7. [16]

    Accessed on the 04/06/2026 at: https://www.phys.ksu.edu/personal/gahs/GLG4sim/

    GLG4sim page. Accessed on the 04/06/2026 at: https://www.phys.ksu.edu/personal/gahs/GLG4sim/

    2026

  8. [17]

    Papoulis,Probability, Random Variables and Stochastic Processes, 4th ed

    A. Papoulis,Probability, Random Variables and Stochastic Processes, 4th ed. McGraw-Hill Europe (2002)

    2002

  9. [18]

    E. H. Bellamy et al.,Absolute Calibration and Monitoring of a spectrometric channel using a photomultiplier,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A339(1994) 468

    1994

  10. [19]

    Hu et al.,On the Poisson approximation to photon distribution for faint lasers,Physics LettersA 367(2007) 173 [arXiv:0609063]

    Y. Hu et al.,On the Poisson approximation to photon distribution for faint lasers,Physics LettersA 367(2007) 173 [arXiv:0609063]

    2007

  11. [20]

    Rademacker,An exact formula to describe the amplification process in a photomultiplier tube, Nucl

    J. Rademacker,An exact formula to describe the amplification process in a photomultiplier tube, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A484(2002) 432 [arXiv:0406036]

    2002

  12. [21]

    E. Calvo et al.,Characterization of large area photomutipliers under low magnetic fields: design and performances of the magnetic shielding for the Double Chooz neutrino experiment,Nucl. Instrum. Meth.A 621(2010) 222 [arXiv:0905.3246]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  13. [22]

    Bauer et al.,Qualification Tests of 474 Photomultiplier Tubes for the Inner Detector of the Double Chooz Experiment,JINST6(2011) P06008 [arXiv:1104.0758]

    C. Bauer et al.,Qualification Tests of 474 Photomultiplier Tubes for the Inner Detector of the Double Chooz Experiment,JINST6(2011) P06008 [arXiv:1104.0758]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  14. [23]

    Matsubara et al.,Evaluation of 400 low background 10-in

    T. Matsubara et al.,Evaluation of 400 low background 10-in. photo-multiplier tubes for the Double Chooz experiment,Nucl. Instrum. Meth.A 661(2012) 16. [arXiv:1104.0786]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  15. [24]

    L. N. Kalousis et al.,A fast numerical method for photomultiplier calibration, JINST15(2020) P03023 [arXiv:1911.06220]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  16. [25]

    O. Ju. Smirnov et al.,Methods for precise photoelectron counting with photomultipliers,Nucl. Instrum. Meth.A 451(2000) 623

    2000

  17. [26]

    Abramowitz and I

    M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun,Handbook of Mathematical Functions: with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables, Dover Publications, 0009-Revised edition (June 1, 1965)

    1965

  18. [27]

    Meth.A1058 (2024) 168943 [arXiv:2304.08735]

    L.N.Kalousis,An analyticalmodel forphotomultiplier tubecalibration.Nucl.Instrum. Meth.A1058 (2024) 168943 [arXiv:2304.08735]. – 43 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [28]

    Saldanha et al.,Model independent approach to the single photoelectron calibration of photomultiplier tubes,Nucl

    R. Saldanha et al.,Model independent approach to the single photoelectron calibration of photomultiplier tubes,Nucl. Instrum. Meth.A 863(2017) 35 [arXiv:1602.03150]. [29]DarkSidecollaboration,Light Yield in DarkSide-10: a Prototype Two-phase Argon TPC for Dark Matter Searches,Astropart. Phys.49(2013) 44-51 [arXiv:1204.6218]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [30]

    L.N.Kalousis,Calibrationofphotomultipliertubes,JINST18(2023)P07016[arXiv:2304.07292]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  21. [31]

    G. B. Arfken and H. J. Weber,Mathematical Methods for Physicists, 6th Ed. Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, USA (2005)

    2005

  22. [32]

    Accessed on the 04/06/2026 at: http://www.fftw.org

    FFTW page. Accessed on the 04/06/2026 at: http://www.fftw.org

    2026

  23. [33]

    Brun and F

    R. Brun and F. Rademakers,ROOT - An Object Oriented Data Analysis Framework,Proceedings AIHENP’96 Workshop, Lausanne Switzerland (1996),Nucl. Instrum. Meth.A 389(1997) 81. See also http://root.cern.ch/

    1996

  24. [34]

    Accessed on the 04/06/2026 at: https://github.com/lkalousis/PMTCalib

    lkalousis github. Accessed on the 04/06/2026 at: https://github.com/lkalousis/PMTCalib

    2026

  25. [35]

    Français,Description and simulation of the physics of Resistive Plate Chambers,PhD thesis, University of Clermont Auvergne(2017)

    V. Français,Description and simulation of the physics of Resistive Plate Chambers,PhD thesis, University of Clermont Auvergne(2017). [36]IMBcollaboration,Calibration of the IMB detector,Nucl. Instrum. Meth.A 352(1995) 629

    2017

  26. [37]

    James and M

    F. James and M. Winkler,C++ MINUIT User’s Guide, https://root.cern.ch/root/htmldoc/guides/minuit2/Minuit2.html [38]IMBcollaboration,IMB-3: a large water Cherenkov detector for nucleon decay and neutrino interactions,Nucl. Instrum. Meth.A 324(1993) 363-382. [39]Double Choozcollaboration,The Double Chooz antineutrino detectors,Eur. Phys. J.C(2022) 82 [arXiv...

    arXiv 1993

  27. [41]

    Accessed on the 28/05/2026 at: https://www.thorlabs.com/thorproduct.cfm?partnumber=BFH48-600

    Thorlabs fiber BFH48-600. Accessed on the 28/05/2026 at: https://www.thorlabs.com/thorproduct.cfm?partnumber=BFH48-600

    2026

  28. [42]

    Teledyne Lecroy, WavePro 7 Zi-A Series. Accessed on the 28/05/2026 at: http://cdn.teledynelecroy.com/files/pdf/wavepro_7_zi-a_datasheet.pdf [43]IceCubecollaboration,In-situ calibration of the single-photoelectron charge response of the IceCube photomultiplier tubes,JINST15(2020) P06032 [arXiv:2002.00997]. – 44 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026