Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 16 references

Position Resolution of a Scintillator Hodoscope Employing Triangular Counters with Embedded Wavelength Shifting Fibers

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A hodoscope of triangular scintillator counters with 20 mm fiber pitch resolves particle positions to about 1.5 mm by interpolating light yields between neighbors.

desk verdict A solid, practically useful test-beam result with a real central claim, but the missing error analysis and one unverified proportionality assumption keep it from being accepted as-is. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10282 v1 pith:HSALFRQI submitted 2026-08-10 physics.ins-det hep-exnucl-ex

E. Craig Dukes , Ralf Ehrlich , Daniel Lee , Luke Watson , Alan Bross , Sten Hansen , Paul Rubinov This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-dethep-exnucl-ex PACS 29.40.Gx29.40.Mc
keywords triangularscintillatorcounterwavelength-shiftingfiberpositionresolutionlight-sharinginterpolationphotoelectronyieldhodoscopetestbeamsiliconphotomultiplier
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

This paper reports test-beam results for a scintillator hodoscope built from triangular counters, each read out by a wavelength-shifting fiber. Because the slanted faces make the amount of scintillator a particle crosses depend on where it passes, the relative light yield of two adjacent counters can pin down the impact position. The authors measure an average position resolution between 1.5 mm and 1.6 mm with a nominal 20 mm fiber pitch, roughly an order of magnitude better than using the raw fiber separation. If the result holds, coarse fiber readout can deliver millimeter-level positions in large-area scintillator detectors without a fine-grained readout lattice.

What carries the argument

The central object is the right-isosceles triangular scintillator counter with a wavelength-shifting fiber running through it, grouped into four-counter quadcounters. The load-bearing identity is the interpolation formula that maps the ratio of track lengths in two adjacent counters to the crossing position: the coordinate is proportional to $(E_1-E_2)/(E_1+E_2)$. The paper's key physical move is substituting photoelectron yields for those path lengths, so only relative light from two fibers is needed, and its Poisson error propagation, $σ_y \propto \sqrt{N_1 N_2}/(N_1+N_2)^{3/2}$, shows how the resolution improves as light yield grows. The ideal Poisson-only average is 0.76 mm at 5 photoelectrons per mm; the measured resolution is about twice that because the real light-yield distribution is wider, with a long tail, and because the dead corner gaps interrupt interpolation.

What would settle it

Set two adjacent triangular counters on a fixed table, send a narrow beam through their shared boundary at a known position, and record per-event photoelectron counts while a tracking chamber independently locates each particle; if the mean yield ratio $N_1/N_2$ does not track the geometric path-length ratio $E_1/E_2$ with equal proportionality at several positions along the fiber length, the interpolation formula is biased and the quoted 1.5 mm resolution will not generalize beyond the tested spot.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that photoelectron interpolation between adjacent triangular scintillator counters yields a position resolution far finer than the fiber pitch. The authors derive the interpolation formula $y_\pm = \pm \frac{w}{4}\frac{E_1-E_2}{E_1+E_2}$ and $z_\pm = \frac{h}{2}\frac{E_1-E_2}{E_1+E_2}$, replace the charged-particle path lengths $E_1,E_2$ by measured photoelectron yields $N_1,N_2$, and validate the approach in a 120 GeV proton beam against multiwire-chamber tracks. Excluding the 5 mm dead-material gaps between same-orientation counters, where only one counter fires and interpolation is impossible, the average y-position resolution is $σ_y = 1.48$ mm for one quadcounter and 1.59 mm for the other; with the dead gaps counted at 1.44 mm, the overall quoted range is $σ = 1.5$ to 1.6 mm, an order-of-magnitude improvement over the 20 mm fiber separation.

Load-bearing premise

The interpolation works only if, event by event, the number of photoelectrons each counter records is proportional to the length of track through that counter, with the same proportionality constant for both counters, so adjacent fibers must collect light equally and without position-dependent losses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A detector can read out one fiber per 20 mm of width and still localize particles to roughly 1.5 mm, so large-area scintillator layers no longer need dense fiber or readout channels for millimeter-level positioning.
  • Raising the photoelectron yield, for example by potting the fibers or using larger-diameter fibers, directly tightens the resolution because the Poisson uncertainty scales roughly as the inverse square root of the yield.
  • Reducing or eliminating the dead coating material at the counter corners would remove the 1.44 mm floor in those regions and bring the average resolution closer to the simulation's range.
  • The interpolation formula holds for isosceles triangles of arbitrary width and height, so the same design can be scaled to different fiber pitches and counter sizes without re-deriving the position estimator.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that the ratio method should cancel light-loss mechanisms that affect both fibers equally; what will matter in practice is position-dependent collection asymmetry along the fiber length, which the paper's single test position cannot rule out.
  • A natural extension would be reading out only one end of each fiber: if equal proportionality of photoelectron yield to path length holds, the interpolation should still work and would halve the readout electronics, but this is an extrapolation from the paper, not a demonstrated result.
  • The dead-gap limitation suggests an interleaved or corner-filled counter profile could yield a nearly uniform resolution near 1 mm; whether that survives real extrusions and reflective coating is testable but unproven.
  • The same light-sharing principle could be applied to triangular strips in calorimeters or muon trackers to upgrade effective granularity without adding readout channels.
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. This paper reports the construction and test-beam evaluation of a scintillator hodoscope made of triangular counters with embedded wavelength-shifting fibers read out by SiPMs. The central idea is to reconstruct a charged particle's position from the relative photoelectron yields in adjacent counters, using formulas derived in Sec. 3 (Eqs. 1-4). The authors present an analytic resolution estimate, a Monte Carlo simulation, and data from two quadcounters, reporting an average y-position resolution of 1.48 mm and 1.59 mm over the regions where interpolation is possible. They conclude that this is an order-of-magnitude improvement over the raw fiber pitch and discuss applications in muon tomography and neutrino detectors.

Significance. If the quoted resolution is confirmed, this is a valuable demonstration that sparse WLS-fiber readout in extruded scintillator can provide mm-level position resolution, of direct relevance to muography and large-area detectors. The analytic expressions in Sec. 3 are a useful contribution, and the paper is candid about its experimental limitations, including the degraded MWPC tracking. However, the central quantitative claim rests on assumptions that are not fully demonstrated and on an unvalidated tracking correction, so the headline numbers need to be either supported by additional evidence or rephrased as conditional estimates.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5.3, Fig. 13] The interpolation formula is unbiased only if N1 and N2 are proportional to the path lengths E1 and E2 with the same proportionality constant for every event in both counters. Section 3 states this replacement without demonstration, and the support offered in Sec. 5.3 (Fig. 12) consists of average photoelectron yields versus MWPC-track position, taken at a single x position (x = 0.8 m). Averages can conceal per-event nonlinearities, unequal fiber/readout coupling, crosstalk, or position-dependent light collection; the data do not establish that k1 = k2 at the operating point. The unexplained differences in resolution among the three junctions reported in Sec. 5.3 are a warning that such asymmetries may be present. If k1 differs from k2, Eq. (1) is biased and the residual width measured in Sec. 5.3 is not the true position resolution. This equality is load-bearing for the central claim and should either be demonstrated with per-event data (e.g., a plot of N1/N2 versus track position for events at a junction) or the conclusions should be rephrased as an upper limit.
  2. [Sec. 5.3] The quoted average resolutions sigma_y = 1.48 mm and 1.59 mm in Sec. 5.3 are not corrected for the MWPC tracking resolution, which is unknown. Section 5.2 states that only two of four MWPCs were operational, the track reconstruction efficiency was 30%, dead regions existed, and the track-finding resolution could not be determined. The paper then applies a correction assuming sigma_MWPC = 0.5 mm from an earlier experiment (Ref. [13]), but this value is not validated for the present run, and no statistical uncertainty is attached to the fitted Gaussian widths or to the quoted averages. As a result, the absolute numbers in the abstract and conclusions are not robust. The paper should quote the measured convolution width explicitly and present the corrected value as an assumption-dependent estimate, with fit uncertainties so that the A/B difference and the comparison with simulation can be judged.
  3. [Sec. 4] The Monte Carlo uses a mean light yield of 5 PE/mm and Gauss+Landau fluctuation parameters extracted from the same test-beam data (Sec. 4 and footnote 2). Therefore the simulation-to-data comparison in Figs. 5 and 13 is a consistency check rather than an independent validation of the resolution. The paper's wording in the abstract--"compare the results to a simulation"--is appropriate, but Sec. 6 should make clear that the simulation does not provide independent confirmation of the 1.5-1.6 mm figure beyond the data themselves.
  4. [Abstract] The claim of an "order of magnitude improvement" over the fiber separation is not supported by the standard metric for binary readout. With a 20 mm fiber pitch, the position resolution of a binary one-hit readout is 20/sqrt(12) = 5.77 mm, so the measured 1.48-1.59 mm is a factor of about 3.7-3.9 improvement, not an order of magnitude. If the intended comparison is to the 20 mm separation itself, that metric should be defined explicitly; otherwise the abstract and Sec. 6 overstate the result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 5.3] Section 5.3 contains duplicated paragraphs: the beam-position paragraph beginning "Data were taken with the beam center positioned" and the "Figure 12 shows" paragraph each appear twice; the duplicate text should be removed.
  2. [Figs. 8, 9] Figure numbering is inconsistent: there are two Figure 9s (one for the sample waveform in Sec. 6.1, one for the test-beam setup in Sec. 5.2), and Figure 8's caption misspells "manifolds" as "manfiolds."
  3. [Fig. 12] The lower-right panel of Fig. 12 has a typo: "Potoelectron Yield" should be "Photoelectron Yield."
  4. [Title page] The author affiliation line contains a typo: "Charlottesville, V A, 22904" should be "Charlottesville, VA, 22904" or "Charlottesville, Virginia, 22904."
  5. [Sec. 5.3] The per-junction resolution values are not given explicitly; the paper reports only the average over the interpolation regions. Since the junction-to-junction differences are acknowledged as unexplained, a table of the three per-junction sigma values would help the reader judge whether the average is representative.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Simulation and analytic resolution estimates are consistency checks built from test-beam-derived PE yield and fluctuation parameters, but the measured interpolation resolution itself is an independent experimental result; no circularity forces the central claim.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, Monte Carlo simulation (paragraph beginning: 'A Monte Carlo simulation estimated the expected resolution...')]
    "Charged particles were incident on the hodoscope at 1 mm steps with a mean light yield of 5 photoelectrons per mm when passing through the PS scintillator. The light yield in each counter was determined using a Gauss + Landau distribution whose parameters were extracted from the test-beam data, scaled by the amount of scintillator traversed by the charged particle."

    The simulation's input light yield and fluctuation parameters are extracted from the same test-beam data to which the simulation output is subsequently compared. The comparison therefore checks internal consistency of the model rather than providing an independent, parameter-free prediction of the position resolution. The measured resolution in Sec. 5.3 is not derived from the simulation, so this circularity is partial and confined to the modeling-and-comparison chain.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, after Eqs. (3)-(4), in the discussion of Figure 4]
    "where we have assumed the charged particles impact the counters at normal incidence and a photoelectron yield of 5 per mm (effectively, the PE yield achieved in the test beam as shown below)."

    The 'theoretical' y-uncertainty curve shown in Fig. 4 is evaluated using the test-beam-measured PE yield, so the quoted average uncertainty of 0.76 mm is a propagation of that measured input under a Poisson assumption rather than a parameter-free prediction. It is used to explain why the measured resolution is about 1.5 mm, not to establish that resolution, which comes from the MWPC-tracked test-beam data.

full rationale

The central claim is a measured result: the test-beam hodoscope achieves roughly 1.5-1.6 mm average resolution by photoelectron interpolation between adjacent triangular counters, an order-of-magnitude improvement over the nominal 20 mm fiber pitch. That measurement, reported in Sec. 5.3 with MWPC-tracked events and Gaussian residual fits, does not reduce to the simulation inputs or to any fitted parameter. The circular content is confined to the auxiliary modeling: the Monte Carlo of Sec. 4 uses the mean 5 PE/mm yield and Gauss+Landau fluctuation parameters extracted from the same test-beam data, and the 'theoretical' curve of Fig. 4 explicitly uses the test-beam yield. These are therefore consistency checks, not independent predictions, and the phrase 'compare the results to a simulation' should be read in that light. The replacement of geometric path lengths E1,E2 by photoelectron yields N1,N2 in Sec. 3 is an unproven proportionality assumption, and the paper does not demonstrate per-event equal light-collection efficiency between adjacent counters; this is a correctness risk for the interpolation estimator, not a circular derivation. The only notable self-citations, e.g., Ref. [13] for the 0.5 mm MWPC resolution used in a corrected resolution estimate, are not load-bearing for the primary 1.48/1.59 mm values, which are quoted without that correction. No uniqueness theorem is invoked, and no result is forced by definition or by a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central resolution claim depends on inputs that are not predicted from first principles: the photoelectron yield per millimeter, the fluctuation shape, and an assumed external track resolution. The geometric interpolation formula is derived in the paper, but its replacement of path length by photoelectron yield is an unstated-equivalence assumption. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Mean photoelectron yield per mm = 5 PE/mm (effective, set from the test beam)
    Used as input for the analytic estimate (Sec 3) and the Monte Carlo (Sec 4); it is not predicted from first principles.
  • Gauss+Landau light-yield fluctuation parameters = not stated numerically; extracted from test-beam data
    Sec 4: the simulation uses a Gauss+Landau distribution whose parameters come from the same test-beam data, making the simulation a consistency check.
  • MWPC track resolution assumption = 0.5 mm (from Ref [13], not measured in this run)
    Used in Sec 5.3 and Sec 6 to quote corrected resolutions of 1.39 and 1.51 mm, even though the current tracking had only two working chambers and dead regions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Photoelectron counts in each counter follow Poisson statistics with variance equal to the mean count.
    Sec 3, Eqs. 3-4. Real SiPMs have crosstalk and dark noise, which add non-Poisson variance not modeled in the formula.
  • domain assumption A charged particle at normal incidence traverses at most two triangular counters.
    Sec 3 states this assumption explicitly; it underlies the two-counter interpolation formula and the coordinate definitions in Fig. 3.
  • domain assumption The number of photoelectrons recorded in a counter is proportional to the charged-particle path length in that counter, with the same constant for adjacent counters.
    Sec 3 replaces E1 and E2 by N1 and N2. Fiber attenuation, coupling variation, or optical crosstalk could break this proportionality.
  • domain assumption The 0.5 mm wire-chamber resolution measured in a previous test beam applies to the present degraded tracking setup.
    Sec 5.3 and Sec 6 use this prior value to correct the quoted resolutions; the current track reconstruction was only 30% efficient and lacked downstream redundancy.
  • domain assumption The dead corner gap is 5.0 mm wide and uniformly illuminated, giving sigma = 5.0/sqrt(12) = 1.44 mm.
    Sec 5.3 assigns this resolution to the blue points in Fig. 13; it is an assumed baseline rather than a directly measured no-interpolation resolution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Position Resolution of a Scintillator Hodoscope Employing Triangular Counters with Embedded Wavelength Shifting Fibers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HSALFRQI

@misc{pith2026260810282,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Position Resolution of a Scintillator Hodoscope Employing Triangular Counters with Embedded Wavelength Shifting Fibers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HSALFRQI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10282}
}
read the original abstract

Scintillator counters employing embedded wavelength-shifting fibers have been used in particle physics experiments for several decades. Such counters have been produced with square, rectangular, and triangular profiles. An advantage of arrays of triangular counters is that their position resolution can be greatly enhanced by interpolation between adjacent counters using their relative light yields. We report here on a testbeam study of the position resolution of such a scintillator hodoscope and compare the results to a simulation. We find an order of magnitude improvement in the position resolution over that found by simply using the fiber separation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10282 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Profile dimensions of a grouping of four triangular counters (quadcounter). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Photograph of the end of an ex￾trusion after being rough cut with the desired counter profile superimposed. The extra fill of the co-extruded TiO2 at the corners is clearly visible. values: y± = ± w 4 E1 − E2 E1 + E2 , (1) z± = h 2 E1 − E2 E1 + E2 , (2) where E1, E2, are the lengths traversed by the charged particle, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The counter coordinate system showing two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The theoretical y-position uncertainty for charged particles traversing the three junction regions between the four counters in a quadcounter with perfectly shaped trian￾gular counters (no dead regions), assuming 5 PE/mm and Poisson uncertainties in the counter light y…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The y position resolution as a function of y from the Monte Carlo simulation of the quadcounter shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A sample ADC to PE peak value calibration constant plotting for triangular (left) versus rectan elsewhere is σy = 1.48 mm. The reason that the resolution is close to thththtil ltihiFi4 idtthl [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_10.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The quadcounter readout manifold. Each end of each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An illustration of the test beam experiment setup (not to scale). In Figure 9: Schematic of the Fermilab Meson Test Beam Facility setup, not drawn to scale. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The beam profile for protons which triggered the data acquisition in a typical run. Dicounters in this run were nominally positioned so the proton beam was incident 1000 mm from one end of the dicounter and at 75 mm from the bottom of the dicounter (transversally cente…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: End view of the quadcounter setup showing the numbering scheme of the two upstream quadcounters, which are the only ones whose re￾sults are presented in this paper. The beam po￾sition was fixed; the table on which the counters were mounted, moved vertically (±y). (±y)…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The average photoelectron yields of the front quadcounter counters as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The y position resolution (σy) for quadcounter A (left) and B (right), as a function of y as measured by the MWPCs. Units are mm. The red points represent data in which two adjacent counters had PE values of three or more, allowing interpolation to be done. The blue p…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    Photoelectron yields of scintillation counters with embedded wavelength-shifting fibers read out with silicon photomultipliers

    A. Artikovet al., “Photoelectron yields of scintillation counters with embedded wavelength-shifting fibers read out with silicon photomultipliers”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 890 (2018) 84

    work page 2018

  2. [1]

    Extruding Plastic Scintillator at Fermilab

    A. Pla-Dalmau, A.D. Bross, V. Rykalin, “Extruding Plastic Scintillator at Fermilab”, 2003 IEEE NSS Conference Record, FERMILAB-CONF-03-318-E

    work page 2003

  3. [2]

    Ramberg, Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC 2007), 4436616, 2007

    E. Ramberg, Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC 2007), 4436616, 2007

    work page 2007

  4. [3]

    Paul, MN 55144, USA

    Scotch-Weld DP420, 3M, 3M Center, St. Paul, MN 55144, USA

    work page

  5. [4]

    200 Park Ave

    Kuraray America, Inc. 200 Park Ave. NY 10166 USA; 3-1-6, NIHONBASHI, CHUOKU, TOKYO 103-8254, JAPAN. http://kuraraypsf.jp/psf. (Accessed July 2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [5]

    Perfor- mance of the Wavelength-shifting fiber upgrade for the Mu2e cosmic-ray veto detector

    D. Coveyou, E.C. Dukes, R.C. Group, Y. Oksuzian, S. Roberts, and M. Solt, “Perfor- mance of the Wavelength-shifting fiber upgrade for the Mu2e cosmic-ray veto detector”, JINST18T05004 (2023). and E.C. Dukes, P.J. Farris, R.C. Group, T. Lam, Y. Ok- suzian and D. Shooltz, “Performance of wavelength-shifting fibers for the Mu2e cosmic ray veto detector”, JIN...

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    Design and Fabrication of a Novel Large-area, High-efficiency Cosmic Ray Veto Detector for the Mu2e Experiment,

    S. Boi, “Design and Fabrication of a Novel Large-area, High-efficiency Cosmic Ray Veto Detector for the Mu2e Experiment,” PhD thesis, University of Virginia, 2021, https://doi.org/10.18130/0nf5-sw49

    work page doi:10.18130/0nf5-sw49 2021

  8. [7]

    Paul, MN 55144, USA

    Scotch-Weld DP100, 3M, 3M Center, St. Paul, MN 55144, USA

    work page

Show all 16 references
  1. [8]

    325-6 Sunayama-cho, Naka-ku, Hamamatsu City, Shizuoka Pref

    Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. 325-6 Sunayama-cho, Naka-ku, Hamamatsu City, Shizuoka Pref. 430-8587, Japan. Hamamatsu Corp. 360 Foothill Rd. Bridgewater,NJ 08807

  2. [9]

    Hansen, P

    S. Hansen, P. Rubinov, TWEPP 2015 –Topical Workshop on Electronics for Particle Physics, Lisbon, 2015

    2015

  3. [10]

    AFE5807, Texas Instruments Incoporated, 12500 TI Blvd., Dallas, TX 75243, USA

  4. [11]

    Gavalian, Waveform Fitting Algorithm (unpublished), 2017

    G. Gavalian, Waveform Fitting Algorithm (unpublished), 2017. http://hallaweb.jlab. org/experiment/DVCS/arswavefit.pdf. (Accessed July)

    2017

  5. [12]

    Solaris, Smooth-On Co., 5600 Lower Macungie Road Macungie, PA 18062

  6. [14]

    Design, calibration, and performance of the MINERvA detector

    L. Aliaget al., “Design, calibration, and performance of the MINERvA detector”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 743 (2014) 130. 14

    2014

  7. [15]

    Mu2e-II: Muon to Electron Conversion with PIP-II

    K. Byrumet al., “Mu2e-II: Muon to Electron Conversion with PIP-II”, (Mu2e collab- oration), 2022 Snowmass Summer Study, arXiv:2203.08192 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Tomographic Muon Imaging of the Great Pyramid of Giza

    A. Brosset al., “Tomographic Muon Imaging of the Great Pyramid of Giza”, J. Adv. Instrum. Sci. 280 (2022). 15

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.