Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 20 references

Construction, commissioning, and performance of the ENUBET demonstrator

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A full-size prototype of the ENUBET instrumented decay tunnel meets the performance needed to monitor neutrino beams, validating the detector technology and its simulation.

desk verdict Solid, honest detector paper whose direct performance numbers are trustworthy, but the abstract overstates the simulation validation — the comparison is a closure test with tuned parameters, not an independent check. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02164 v1 pith:7PZITYLC submitted 2026-08-03 hep-ex

F. Acerbi , I. Angelis , L. Bomben , M. Bonesini , F. Bramati , A. Branca , C. Brizzolari , G. Brunetti
show 69 more authors
G. T. Burton S. Capelli M. Capitani S. Carturan M. G. Catanesi S. Cecchini N. Charitonidis F. Cindolo J. Cogan G. Cogo G. Collazuol D. D'Ago F. Dal Corso C. Delogu G. De Rosa S. Dolan A. Falcone M. Feltre A. Gola D. Guffanti L. Halić F. Iacob C. Jollet A. Kallitsopoulou B. Kliček Y. Kudenko Ch. Lampoudis M. Laveder P. Legou S. Levorato A. Longhin L. Ludovici E. Lutsenko L. Magaletti G. Mandrioli S. Marangoni A. Margotti V. Mascagna M. Mattiazzi N. Mauri J. McElwee L. Meazza A. Meregaglia M. Mezzetto L. Munteanu M. Pari T. Papaevangelou E. G. Parozzi L. Pasqualini G. Paternoster L. Patrizii M. Perrin-Terrin M. Pozzato M. Prest F. Pupilli E. Radicioni A. C. Ruggeri G. Saibene D. Sampsonidis C. Scian L. Silvestrin G. Sirri M. Stipčević M. Tenti F. Terranova M. Torti S. E. Tzamarias E. Vallazza C. Vallée
This is my paper
classification hep-ex PACS 29.40.Vj29.40.Mc
keywords calorimetersneutrinodetectorsmonitoredbeamsparticleidentificationsiliconphotomultipliersenergyresolutiontestbeamscintillatortiles
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports on the construction and test-beam performance of a full-size prototype of the instrumented decay tunnel for a 'monitored neutrino beam,' a design that measures the neutrinos' parents (electrons, muons, pions) as they decay in the tunnel. The authors show that a longitudinally segmented iron-and-scintillator calorimeter, read out with wavelength-shifting fibers and silicon photomultipliers, achieves an electron energy resolution of about 15%/√E plus a small constant term, comfortably inside the 25%/√E requirement. They also demonstrate electron/pion/muon separation using total-energy and shower-profile information, and report a fourfold improvement in light yield over an earlier prototype. A detailed simulation reproduces the recorded distributions once a few physically motivated adjustments are included, which the authors take as validation of the full ENUBET simulation. A sympathetic reader would care because this is the experimental evidence that monitored neutrino beams can reach the sub-1% flux systematic uncertainty demanded by next-generation neutrino cross-section experiments.

What carries the argument

The key object is the 'Lateral-readout Compact Module' (LCM): a calorimeter cell made of five iron slabs interleaved with plastic scintillator tiles (~3×3 cm²), each tile read by two wavelength-shifting fibers glued in grooves, with fibers from a radial column bundled into a single silicon photomultiplier after passing through borated-polyethylene neutron shielding. Longitudinal sampling every 4.3 radiation lengths, together with transverse granularity, provides the total-energy and shower-shape information used to separate electrons, pions, and muons. The simulation machinery is a full Monte Carlo detector description that includes tile geometry, fiber grooves, and a configurable tile gap,

What would settle it

A concrete test would be to build a small module with precisely machined tiles (known coating thickness, no manual glue variations) and no free parameters: measure the MIP response, electron shower profiles, and energy resolution, and compare directly with the unadjusted Monte Carlo. If the simulation then fails without the 1 mm gap or the 0.82 pion scale factor, the validation claim would be weakened. Alternatively, operating the Demonstrator under an intense beam that reproduces the O(100–1000) kHz/cm² rates would test the high-rate extrapolation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Demonstrator — a 1.7 m-long slice of the ENUBET decay-tunnel instrumentation — meets the performance requirements for lepton identification, and that the detector's full simulation is validated by the test-beam data. Concretely: electron energy resolution σ/E = (14.92±0.21)%/√E ⊕ 1.08 MeV/E ⊕ (4.82±0.25)% meets the <25%/√E design value; MIP light yield is 306–372 photoelectrons, about four times the 2020 prototype; channel cross-talk is below 5%; and the total-energy and longitudinal-shower profiles for e−, π−, μ− are reproduced by the simulation within 10–20% once a 1 mm tile gap, an average SiPM saturation model, per-particle energy-scale factors, and small co

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the full simulation is 'validated' rests on the assumption that the data-driven adjustments—the 1 mm tile gap, the average SiPM saturation model, the per-particle energy-scale factors, and the fitted contamination fractions—represent genuine, understood physical effects rather than flexible parameters that absorb real modeling failures; a further assumption is that low-rate single-particle test beams reproduce the high-rate tunnel environment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, the same modular technology can be scaled to instrument the full decay tunnel at the stated cost, enabling monitored neutrino beams with flux systematic uncertainties below 1%.
  • The demonstrated e/π/μ separation means the detector can count positrons from K→eνπ⁰ and muons from π/K→μν, providing an event-by-event neutrino flux monitor.
  • The fourfold light yield improvement shows the revised optical-coupling scheme (frontal tile readout, better fiber gluing) works, and points the way to further gains.
  • The simulation, once adjusted, can be used to predict the performance of the final detector and to design the readout electronics for the high-rate tunnel environment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reliance on per-particle energy-scale factors (0.97, 0.82, 1.0) and fitted contamination fractions suggests the simulation's agreement with data is partly absorbed by free parameters; a stricter test would use a prototype with independently measured tile gaps and optical coupling to see if the same adjustments remain necessary.
  • The SiPM saturation observed at a few GeV is an early warning for the full detector: at the higher rate environment of a real tunnel, saturation may be worse, motivating smaller SiPM cells or a different readout strategy.
  • The test-beam data is single-particle and low-rate; extending to the O(100–1000) kHz/cm² tunnel environment will require a dedicated high-rate test to confirm the pile-up and timing performance.
  • If the simulation validation holds, the same modeling approach can be applied to other proposed monitored-beam detectors (e.g., neutrino cross-section experiments at similar facilities).
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports the construction, commissioning, and test-beam performance of the ENUBET Demonstrator, a full-scale longitudinal sampling calorimeter prototype for the instrumented decay tunnel of a monitored neutrino beam. Using electron, pion, and muon beams at the CERN T9 line (0.5–10 GeV/c, with the main analysis at 1–5 GeV), the authors measure the electron energy resolution σ/E = (14.92 ± 0.21)%/√E ⊕ 1.08 MeV/E ⊕ (4.82 ± 0.25)%, a MIP light yield of 306–372 photoelectrons (Tab. 2), channel cross-talk below 5% (Fig. 21), and demonstrate e/π/μ separation through total-energy and longitudinal-shower-profile comparisons with a Geant4 simulation. They conclude that the results meet the requirements for neutrino monitoring in the ENUBET decay tunnel and that they validate the ENUBET full simulation.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper would provide strong experimental support for the scalability of the iron–scintillator–WLS–SiPM calorimeter technology to the ENUBET decay-tunnel instrumentation and would underwrite the 1% neutrino-flux systematic claim made by the collaboration. Strengths of the paper include the multi-year beam-test program, the internal consistency of the headline measurements (resolution, light yield, cross-talk), the careful channel-by-channel equalization, and the inclusion of a detailed detector geometry in the simulation. The main weakness is that the 'validation of the ENUBET full simulation' claim — which is central to the abstract and conclusions — rests on a simulation whose parameters are adjusted to the same data used for the comparison, making the agreement a closure test rather than an independent validation. This concern, together with the untested extrapolation to the high-rate tunnel environment, prevents me from recommending acceptance in the current form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, Sec. 5.6, Tab. 4, Figs. 30–32] The abstract states that the results 'validate the ENUBET full simulation.' In Sec. 5.6 the MC agreement is obtained only after applying per-particle energy-scale corrections (ε_scale = 0.97/0.82/1.0 for e−/π−/μ−, Tab. 4), adding 10% muon contamination to the pion sample and 35% pion contamination to the muon sample, and incorporating a 1 mm tile gap (Sec. 5.5) and an average SiPM saturation model that the paper itself identifies as overestimating saturation in the highest-deposit channel (Sec. 5.4, Fig. 24). Because these parameters are derived from the same total-energy distributions that are then shown to agree, the comparison in Figs. 30–32 is a closure test, not an independent validation. The 'validate' language is therefore overstated. I request that the authors either soften the claim (e.g., 'the simulation describes the data after these adjustments') or provide an independent che
  2. [Sec. 5.5, Fig. 29] The MC energy-resolution prediction is obtained by averaging the MC results with and without SiPM saturation and assigning the spread as a systematic uncertainty. Since the saturation model is already known to overestimate the effect in the highest-energy channel (Sec. 5.4), this averaging does not constitute a validated prediction; it only brackets a known model deficiency. The authors should explicitly state that the MC resolution band is an estimate of model uncertainty, not a validated simulation result, and should adjust the wording of the abstract and conclusions accordingly. This is load-bearing because the 'full simulation validation' claim is one of the two central assertions of the paper.
  3. [Sec. 1, Sec. 6] The paper claims 'full scalability' of the technology and that the Demonstrator 'meets the requirements for neutrino monitoring' in the ENUBET decay tunnel, where rates of O(100–1000) kHz/cm² are expected. However, all beam-test data were taken with a low-rate, single-particle triggered beam (Sec. 4); no rate-dependent, pile-up, or simultaneous-multi-track measurement is presented. The extrapolation to the tunnel-rate environment is an untested assumption. Please explicitly state that the rate capability is not tested in this work and is deferred to future studies, or present a rate/pile-up measurement. As written, the claim of full scalability goes beyond the data shown.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 2, paragraph 2] Typo: 'The total number of WLs fibers' should read 'WLS fibers.' Also, the sentence 'Former being constructed and tested in 2022, while the latter was constructed in 2023' should be 'The former was constructed and tested in 2022, while the latter was constructed in 2023.'
  2. [Sec. 5.2, Fig. 19] The text states that the relative uncertainty on the MIP MPV is approximately 10% for properly illuminated channels. Please specify what fraction of channels required the fallback 'highest bin' procedure and whether the quoted 10% includes the fallback cases.
  3. [Sec. 5.6, footnote 1] The footnote about the π− run with a failed silicon tracker is useful but its impact on the fiducial selection and on the shower-profile comparison should be quantified or at least discussed more explicitly in the text.
  4. [Fig. 32, right panel] The right panel is described in the caption as 'Energy ratio between data and MC' but the text says it shows both e− and π−; the marker/legend for the two species is not clear in the figure. Please make the legend explicit.
  5. [Sec. 5.6] The phrase 'the electron component shows a pretty high purity' is informal for a journal paper; consider 'rather high purity' or 'high purity'.
  6. [References] References [12] and [13] are marked 'in preparation'; if possible, update or add a note about the expected publication timeline, since the '1% flux systematic' claim in the conclusions relies on [12].

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial, disclosed closure-test circularity in the 'validation of the ENUBET full simulation' claim: per-particle energy-scale and contamination parameters are fitted to the same total-energy distributions later shown as data/MC agreement; the directly measured performance numbers are independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 5.6 (Energy deposition pattern), Tab. 4; see also Abstract and Conclusions]
    "An energy-scale correction (see Tab. 4) is required to account for residual data–MC differences after including the average effects of SiPM saturation and tile gaps in the simulation, as well as for limitations in the modeling of hadronic showers in the π− sample. The correction factors are derived from the total energy-deposition distribution and are then applied to all other distributions presented in this section."

    The per-species scale factors (ε_scale = 0.97/0.82/1.0 for e−/π−/μ−) are obtained from the total-energy distributions that are then displayed as data/MC agreement (Figs. 30–31), and the 10%/35% contamination fractions are likewise chosen 'to reproduce the data.' Consequently the mean and normalization of the MC in those comparisons are enforced by construction; they cannot independently validate the simulation's energy scale or hadronic response. The abstract's 'validate the ENUBET full simulation' therefore rests partly on a closure test. Residual layer-by-layer shower-profile comparisons retain some independent shape content, and the directly measured resolution, light yield, and cross-talk numbers are not circular.

full rationale

The Demonstrator's headline results — electron energy resolution (Fig. 29), MIP light yield (Tab. 2), and channel cross-talk (Fig. 21) — are direct data measurements from Gaussian/Landau fits and ratio distributions; they do not reduce to any parameter fitted inside the paper. The main circularity concern is confined to the simulation-validation claim. In Sec. 5.6 the MC is adjusted with per-particle energy-scale factors derived from the same total-energy distributions that are subsequently shown as agreement, and with contamination fractions explicitly chosen to reproduce the data. That part of the comparison is a closure test rather than an independent prediction, so the abstract's 'validate the ENUBET full simulation' overstates the epistemic weight of the tuned agreement. The paper is transparent about this: it states that the saturation model overestimates saturation, that fine tuning would be needed, and that layer-by-layer data/MC discrepancies remain at the 10–20% level. These admissions weaken the validation but do not make the core measurements circular. Citations to prior ENUBET work [3,9] are contextual and not load-bearing in the sense of forbidding alternatives or defining the measured quantities. Overall, this is a partial, disclosed circularity in a secondary claim, while the primary performance results remain independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Everything quantitative in Sec. 5 rests on: (1) GEANT4 accuracy, including hadronic-shower limits the paper itself cites; (2) an absolute MeV scale taken from the simulation's MIP MPV (6.12 MeV) rather than an independent calibration; (3) Cherenkov-based particle-ID purity values that later require large contamination corrections (35% for the 'muon' sample); (4) the implicit assumption that low-rate isolated-particle tests stand in for the high-rate tunnel environment. No new particles, forces, or mediators are postulated; the LCM, fiber concentrators, and BPE shielding are engineering components whose validation is the test-beam data itself.

free parameters (5)
  • Tile-gap width in simulation = 1 mm
    GEANT4 runs without a tile gap do not reproduce the data; a 1 mm gap between scintillator tiles is adopted in Sec. 5.5, with the systematic explored using 0.5 mm and 1.5 mm variants (Figs. 28-29).
  • Per-particle energy-scale corrections ε_scale = 0.97 (e−), 0.82 (π−), 1.00 (μ−)
    Tab. 4: 'The correction factors are derived from the total energy-deposition distribution' — i.e., fitted to data, then applied to all distributions presented in Sec. 5.6.
  • Sample contamination fractions = 10% μ in π sample; 35% π in μ sample
    Sec. 5.6: these fractions are inserted into the MC templates to reproduce the data; the muon sample requiring 35% pion contamination reflects weak Cherenkov-based separation.
  • SiPM saturation model parameters = N_max ≈ 3100 cells; p_CT = 7%
    Sec. 5.4: N_max is derived from the 49% fiber-coverage fraction of the SiPM surface (geometric) and p_CT from the Hamamatsu datasheet. The paper states this choice overestimates saturation; channel-by-channel tuning is explicitly deferred as beyond scope.
  • Fiducial-area sizes for MIP calibration = 1.1×1.1 / 1.5×1.5 / 2.0×2.0 cm²
    Sec. 5.2: chosen per z-layer with further 'fine tuning' to compensate for reduced statistics downstream and for multiple Coulomb scattering; affects the MIP MPV estimates used to equalize channels.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption GEANT4 gives an accurate model of electromagnetic and hadronic energy deposition and shower development in iron/plastic
    Used throughout Sec. 5; the paper itself cites known limitations in hadronic-shower modeling [24] and adds a 10% uncertainty band to the pion MC (Fig. 31).
  • domain assumption The simulation-predicted MIP most-probable energy deposit (MPV_MeV = 6.12 MeV) is the correct absolute energy scale for all channels
    Sec. 5.2: the ADC→MeV conversion uses the GEANT4 MPV rather than an independent in-situ calibration; the beam-energy linearity check (Fig. 28) is only a partial external check because saturation modifies the scale.
  • domain assumption Cherenkov amplitude/time cuts separate e, π, μ with the quoted purities
    Secs. 5.5-5.6: purity values in Tab. 3 range from 93.7% (1 GeV) to 74.1% (5 GeV); residual misidentification must later be absorbed by fitted contamination fractions (10% and 35%).
  • ad hoc to paper A low-rate, isolated-particle beam test is representative of the ENUBET decay-tunnel rate environment
    Sec. 1 quotes tunnel rates of O(100-1000) kHz/cm² [3] and frames the Demonstrator goal as validation 'in conditions that reproduce the ENUBET beam environment'; the T9 tests (Sec. 4) do not reproduce those rates and pile-up is not addressed anywhere.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Construction, commissioning, and performance of the ENUBET demonstrator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7PZITYLC

@misc{pith2026260802164,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Construction, commissioning, and performance of the ENUBET demonstrator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7PZITYLC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02164}
}
read the original abstract

A final full-size prototype of the instrumented decay tunnel of ENUBET, referred to as the Demonstrator, was constructed and its performance was tested during the 2022, 2023 and 2024 beam test campaigns at the CERN East Area facility. We demonstrate the full scalability of this specialized longitudinal sampling calorimeter technology, based on iron absorbers and scintillator tiles readout by wavelength-shifting fibers and SiPMs. In addition, we evaluate the channel-by- channel response and the performance in terms of electron energy resolution, linearity, and particle identification capabilities, using charged particle beams with energies up to 5 GeV. A comparison with the predictions of a GEANT4 simulation of the prototype is also presented. The results meet the requirements for neutrino monitoring through lepton identification in the decay tunnel and validate the ENUBET full simulation. Although some limitations have been identified, they can be readily addressed in future developments.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Longhin, L

    A. Longhin, L. Ludovici and F. Terranova,A novel technique for the measurement of the electron neutrino cross section,Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015) 155. [2]ENUBETcollaboration,The ENUBET project, Tech. Rep. CERN-SPSC-2018-034. SPSC-I-248, CERN, Geneva (Oct, 2018). [3]ENUBETcollaboration,Design and performance of the ENUBET monitored neutrino beam,Eur. Phys. J. ...

    arXiv 2015

  2. [4]

    Berra, C

    A. Berra, C. Brizzolari, S. Cecchini, F. Cindolo et al.,A compact light readout system for longitudinally segmented shashlik calorimeters,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A830(2016) 345 [1605.09630]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [5]

    Berra, C

    A. Berra, C. Brizzolari, S. Cecchini, F. Chignoli et al.,Shashlik calorimeters with embedded SiPMs for longitudinal segmentation,IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.64(2017) 1056

    2017

  4. [6]

    of Instrumentation13(2018) P01028 [1801.06167]

    G.Ballerini,A.Berra,R.Boanta,C.Brizzolarietal.,Testbeamperformanceofashashlikcalorimeter with fine-grained longitudinal segmentation,J. of Instrumentation13(2018) P01028 [1801.06167]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [7]

    of Instrumentation14(2019) P02029 [1901.08430]

    F.Acerbi, G.Ballerini, A.Berra, C.Brizzolarietal.,IrradiationandperformanceofRGB-HDSilicon Photomultipliers for calorimetric applications,J. of Instrumentation14(2019) P02029 [1901.08430]

    arXiv 2019

  6. [8]

    Acerbi, A

    F. Acerbi, A. Branca, C. Brizzolari, G. Brunetti et al.,Polysiloxane-based scintillators for shashlik calorimeters,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A956(2020) 163379 [2001.03130]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [9]

    Acerbi, M

    F. Acerbi, M. Bonesini, F. Bramati, A. Branca et al.,The ENUBET positron tagger prototype: construction and testbeam performance,J. of Instrumentation15(2020) P08001 [2006.07269]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [10]

    Acerbi et al.,nuSCOPE: A short-baseline neutrino beam at CERN for high-precision cross-section measurements,2503.21589

    F. Acerbi et al.,nuSCOPE: A short-baseline neutrino beam at CERN for high-precision cross-section measurements,2503.21589

    arXiv

Show all 20 references
  1. [11]

    Torti et al.,ENUBET: A monitored neutrino beam for high precision cross section measurements, EPJ Web Conf.282(2023) 01018

    M. Torti et al.,ENUBET: A monitored neutrino beam for high precision cross section measurements, EPJ Web Conf.282(2023) 01018. [12]ENUBETcollaboration, F. Acerbi, I. Angelis, M. Bonesini, A. Branca, C. Brizzolari, G. Brunetti et al.,Assessment of the systematic budget at the E...

    2023

  2. [13]

    Bramati,The physics potential of the ENUBET/nuSCOPE neutrino beam at CERN, Ph.D

    F. Bramati,The physics potential of the ENUBET/nuSCOPE neutrino beam at CERN, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Milano Bicocca, October 2025

    2025

  3. [14]

    Company profile and services

    Stylplex S.r.l., “Company profile and services.”https://www.stylplex.it/en/, 2026

    2026

  4. [15]

    Company profile and products in scintillation detection

    Scionix Holland B.V., “Company profile and products in scintillation detection.” https://www.scionix.nl/, 2026. – 34 –

    2026

  5. [16]

    Bernhard et al.,CERN Proton Synchrotron East Area Facility: Upgrades and renovation during Long Shutdown 2, vol

    J. Bernhard et al.,CERN Proton Synchrotron East Area Facility: Upgrades and renovation during Long Shutdown 2, vol. 4/2021 ofCERN Yellow Reports: Monographs, CERN, Geneva (2021), 10.23731/CYRM-2021-004

    2021 doi

  6. [17]

    Prest, G

    M. Prest, G. Barbiellini, G. Bordignon, G. Fedel, F. Liello, F. Longo et al.,The AGILE silicon tracker: an innovative𝑔𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑎-ray instrument for space,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A501(2003) 280

    2003

  7. [18]

    Lietti, A

    D. Lietti, A. Berra, M. Prest and E. Vallazza,A microstrip silicon telescope for high performance particle tracking,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A729(2013) 527. [19]GEANT4collaboration,GEANT4–a simulation toolkit,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506(2003) 250

    2013

  8. [20]

    Allison et al.,Geant4 developments and applications,IEEE Trans

    J. Allison et al.,Geant4 developments and applications,IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.53(2006) 270

    2006

  9. [21]

    Allison et al.,Recent developments in Geant4,Nucl

    J. Allison et al.,Recent developments in Geant4,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A835(2016) 186

    2016

  10. [22]

    MPPC S14160-4050HS Datasheet

    Hamamatsu, “MPPC S14160-4050HS Datasheet.”https://www.hamamatsu.com/eu/en/ product/optical-sensors/mppc/mppc_mppc-array/S14160-4050HS.html

  11. [23]

    Gruber, S

    L. Gruber, S. Brunner, J. Marton and K. Suzuki,Over saturation behavior of sipms at high photon exposure,Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment737(2014) 11

    2014

  12. [24]

    Kiryunin and D

    A.E. Kiryunin and D. Salihagic,Hadronic shower validation experience for the ATLAS end-cap calorimeter,AIP Conf. Proc.896(2007) 205. – 35 –

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.