Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 77 references

CMOS Image Sensors for CEvNS Detection at Nuclear Reactors

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A ~100 g CMOS image-sensor array could detect reactor coherent neutrino scattering at 3σ in about 17 days.

desk verdict A coherent feasibility study with a genuinely new frame-veto idea and a real analytic IDB model; the discovery-time numbers are projections that hinge on unvalidated parameter combinations and a spatial-independence assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07676 v1 pith:D43RXJK3 submitted 2026-08-07 physics.ins-det hep-ex

Santiago Ezequiel Perez , Dario Rodrigues , Miguel Sofo-Haro This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-dethep-ex
keywords CEvNSCMOSimagesensorsreactorneutrinoscoherentelasticneutrino-nucleusscatteringintrinsicdetectorbackgroundpolykingsreadoutnoiseactiveshielding
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 argues that a compact detector built from commercial CMOS image sensors can observe reactor CEvNS, the coherent scattering of antineutrinos off whole silicon nuclei, in weeks rather than years. The authors claim that with roughly 100 g of sensitive silicon, one-electron readout noise, 1000 frames per second, and a flat 100 DRU background, a 3-sigma detection is reachable in 17 days at about 16 meters from a 3.6 GW thermal reactor; with sub-electron (0.2 e-) noise the time falls to about 7 days. The reason this matters is that CEvNS is a Standard-Model process that is also a sensitive probe of new physics, and compact silicon detectors could make reactor-neutrino monitoring practical at surface sites. The paper supplies an active-shielding scheme based on discarding frames that coincide with cosmic-muon triggers, and an analytical model of the detector's own dark-current and readout-noise background.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on an analytical model of intrinsic detector background (IDB) that treats dark current as a Poisson process per pixel and readout noise as Gaussian, then convolves the two into a per-pixel probability density. To turn pixel probabilities into event rates, the model counts connected clusters of pixels above a four-sigma threshold using polykings, the shapes a cluster of up to four pixels can make on a square lattice, so the probability of a spurious n-electron event is a polynomial in the per-pixel activation probability and the number of empty neighbors. A second piece is the CEvNS signal calculation, which convolves the reactor antineutrino spectrum with the Standard-Model coherent cross section, applies a silicon quenching factor and a Fano-limited Gaussian resolution, and evaluates discovery significance with the profile-likelihood ratio formula for small Poisson counts. The active-shielding machinery uses Poisson statistics of cosmic muons: at 1000 fps, a frame coincident with a muon trigger is rejected, leaving more than 90 percent live time while removing muon-induced neutron backgrounds.

What would settle it

Build a prototype with the Table I specifications and place it at a reactor site with a measured muon veto; if the measured dark current exceeds 1.5 e-/pix/s, the readout noise at 1000 fps exceeds 1 e-, the sensitive thickness falls below 725 microns, or the event rate in [0.065, 0.158 keVee] exceeds the predicted CEvNS signal plus the 100 DRU flat background, then the claimed 17-day detection time is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that CIS technology, long used for cameras, can be repurposed as a low-threshold, high-frame-rate neutrino detector, combining the single-electron sensitivity previously demonstrated in silicon sensors that read each pixel multiple times with the temporal resolution that serial-readout devices lack. The authors show that the combination of 725-micron fully depleted silicon, 1 Mpix, 15-micron pixels, about 100 g mass in 256 sensors, 1 to 0.2 electron readout noise, and 1000 fps yields an instrumental background that can be pushed above a 0.064 keVee threshold, leaving a window near [0.065, 0.158 keVee] where the CEvNS signal exceeds the 100 DRU flat physical background. In the strong-flux scenario H1 = 0.014 GWth/m2, the profile-likelihood significance reaches 3 sigma in 17 days, and in 7 days at 0.2 e- noise; in a lower-flux scenario H2, about ten times longer is needed. The paper presents this as evidence that a feasible CIS-based detector could deliver the first compact, surface-operable reactor CEvNS observation and enable reactor monitoring applications.

Load-bearing premise

The whole timing estimate hangs on one premise: a single CMOS detector can be built that simultaneously has 725-micron fully depleted silicon, roughly one million 15-micron pixels, 1 (or 0.2) electron readout noise at 1000 frames per second, and a dark current of 1.5 electrons per pixel per second, even though each of these specifications has only been seen separately in different devices.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At H1 = 0.014 GWth/m2, a 100 g CIS detector with 1 e- noise, 1.5 e-/pix/s dark current, and 1000 fps reaches 3-sigma CEvNS detection in 17 days; at 200 fps the same detector needs about 44 days.
  • Lowering readout noise to 0.2 e- shortens the 1000 fps detection time to about 7 days, because the energy threshold can drop from about 0.072 keVee to about 0.027 keVee while keeping the instrumental background below the signal window.
  • Frame rejection based on coincident cosmic-muon triggers keeps live time above about 90 percent at 1000 fps and suppresses the muon-induced neutron background that otherwise dominates surface reactor sites.
  • For reduced-flux or longer-baseline scenarios (H2 = 0.004 GWth/m2), the required observation time is roughly an order of magnitude larger, around 150 days for the reference detector.
  • At 1 e- noise and 200 fps, the detector is already suitable for reactor monitoring and low-energy response validation; sub-electron noise extends sensitivity to beyond-Standard-Model searches such as neutrino magnetic moments and light mediators.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The polyking cluster-counting model applies to any pixelated low-threshold imager, not just CIS, so the same formalism could quantify spurious event rates from dark current and readout noise in other silicon detector families and give a common yardstick for comparing technologies.
  • The paper samples but does not solve the frame-rate tradeoff: for fixed dark current and readout noise, there is likely an optimal frames-per-second value that balances muon-veto dead time, per-frame dark-current accumulation, and readout-noise sampling.
  • If future devices reach the assumed dark current at lower temperature and sub-electron noise, the threshold could drop below 0.027 keVee, where the H1 signal rate is still substantial; the model would then need to include multi-pixel partial-charge-collection effects before claims at those thresholds solidify.
  • The 100 DRU flat background is an assumption carried over from other silicon and germanium measurements; a dedicated background measurement with a thick CIS would be the natural next step, since the IDB model alone cannot validate that number.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes the use of CMOS image sensors (CIS) for detecting reactor coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering (CEvNS). It develops an active-shielding strategy based on rejecting frames coincident with muon triggers, and an analytical 'polyking' model for intrinsic detector backgrounds from dark current and readout noise. Using a flat 100 DRU physical background and a ~100 g detector with the parameters in Table I (1 Mpix, 15 µm pixels, 725 µm thickness, 1 or 0.2 e- readout noise, 1000 fps), the authors compute 3σ detection times with the Asimov significance formula: 17 days for H1 = 0.014 GW_th/m² at 1 e- noise and about 7 days at 0.2 e- noise. The signal calculation uses the Huber antineutrino flux, the Standard Model CEvNS cross section, and a measured quenching parameterization.

Significance. If the stated assumptions hold, the paper provides the first quantitative sensitivity study for CEvNS with CIS and identifies a potentially compact, fast detector for reactor monitoring and safeguards. Its strengths include the use of standard external inputs (Huber flux, SM cross section, measured quenching), a transparent analytical background model with concrete falsifiable predictions, and a clear presentation of the significance calculation. The active-shielding-by-frame-rejection concept is a useful adaptation of rare-event techniques to high-frame-rate pixel sensors. However, the central detection-time claims rest on three unvalidated assumptions: the absence of correlated readout/dark-current noise in the polyking model, the simultaneous technological feasibility of all Table I parameters, and a flat 100 DRU physical background. These issues make the headline numbers conditional, but the framework itself is sound and the paper could become convincing with targeted additions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II.C / Appendix A, Eqs. (A2)-(A6)] The polyking cluster probabilities are factorized as products of single-pixel activation probabilities, p^s q^{v(s)}, which is exact only if pixel values are spatially independent. At 1000 fps with column-parallel readout, CIS noise typically contains row/column common-mode and power-supply correlated components, and dark current is spatially correlated through hot pixels and defect clusters. A residual correlated component of even 0.3-0.5 e- RMS would make simultaneous threshold crossings far more likely than p^s, potentially raising the IDB by orders of magnitude at the 0.065 keVee analysis threshold and thereby invalidating the 17-day (H1, 1 e-) and 7-day (0.2 e-) detection times in Table II. The manuscript neither states the independence assumption as a limitation nor adds a covariance term or a bound on the allowed correlated component; this must be addressed, for example by extending the model with a correlation term or by validating it on measured CIS dark-frame noise images.
  2. [Section IV / Table I] The detector parameters in Table I are drawn from separate demonstrations rather than from a single device. The 725 µm fully depleted thickness is demonstrated in a CMOS-DEPFET operating at ~9.8 e- noise and 1.1 MHz; sub-electron noise is shown in a 64x64 DEPFET array or in Skipper-CMOS with 18 µm epitaxial thickness; no cited sensor simultaneously achieves 1 Mpix, 15 µm pixels, 1000 fps, sub-electron noise, and a dark current of 1.5 e-/pix/s. The statement that the design is 'technologically feasible' is therefore an extrapolation. Because the headline detection times are conditional on the simultaneous realization of all Table I parameters, the paper should either cite a device that meets all specifications or clearly reframe the results as a parametric sensitivity study with a technology-development roadmap.
  3. [Section II.B / Sections III.B and IV] The physical background is assumed to be a flat 100 DRU, justified by Skipper-CCD Compton measurements and by the expectation that active shielding removes the neutron-induced exponential low-energy component. No measurement exists for the proposed CIS technology in the sub-100 eV region, and a flat spectrum is not guaranteed: surface backgrounds, residual Cherenkov photons, or gamma-induced events could introduce a non-flat spectral shape. Since the detection times in Table II scale directly with the background rate, the paper should include a sensitivity scan over the background rate and spectral shape (e.g., 30, 100, and 300 DRU, optionally with an exponential low-energy component) to show how the 17-day and 7-day claims would change if the background assumption is violated.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section IV] The statement that the active-shielding inefficiency 'increases the observation time by 20%' is only true for the 1000 fps case; at 200 fps the dead-time fraction is about 63%, which is correctly reflected in Table II but not in the text. Please specify the frame rate when quoting this number.
  2. [Appendix B, Eq. (B6)] The energy resolution uses sigma_RN = 2 e- for all scenarios, even when the detector readout noise is taken as 0.2 e- or 1 e- in Table II. This is a conservative choice, but it is inconsistent with the detector parameters used elsewhere and could underestimate the signal acceptance for the low-noise configurations; a justification or a scan over this value would be helpful.
  3. [Appendix A] The derivation would be clearer if the probability for a given total charge Q were written explicitly as a sum over partitions of the product of per-pixel charge probabilities; Eqs. (A2)-(A6) alone give only the probability of a cluster of a given size and do not show how the charge distribution enters the calculation.
  4. [Section II.B] The muon rate of 200 Hz is adopted as 'representative' without an explicit scaling from the veto geometry; since the live-time calculation depends on this rate, a more detailed estimate or a range of plausible values would strengthen the analysis.
  5. [References] References [8] and [66] are the same article, and [10] and [65] also appear to be the same work; please consolidate to avoid duplicate citations.
  6. [Figure 3] The saw-tooth structure in the left panel is not explained in the text; a sentence describing its origin would help the reader interpret the model behavior.
  7. [Section III.A] The phrase 'set at the value to 0.215 keV' should be reworded to 'set to the value of 0.215 keV' for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: detection-time claims follow from external physics inputs and an analytic detector-background model, without fitted parameters or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities (CEvNS rate, IDB rate, and 3-sigma exposure) are computed by inserting assumed detector parameters into standard analytic expressions. The neutrino flux uses external tabulated reactor spectra and the SM CEvNS cross section; the recoil-to-ionization conversion uses a measured quenching parameterization. The IDB model in Appendix A derives cluster probabilities from the single-pixel convolution of Poisson dark current and Gaussian readout noise using polyking combinatorics; this is a direct calculation, not an inversion of the desired detection time. No parameter is fitted to the detection-time output, and no existing known result is merely renamed as a prediction. The detector-feasibility claim rests on citations to separately demonstrated components (thick DMAPS, low-noise Skipper-CMOS, fast readout ASICs); although several of these works include the present authors, the citations are used as external evidence of component capability rather than as a load-bearing uniqueness argument. The main vulnerability, the spatial independence of pixels in Eq. A3, is an explicit simplifying assumption of the model, and questioning it is a physics-risk concern rather than circular reasoning. Accordingly, the derivation is self-contained for circularity purposes.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. Its load-bearing elements are seven chosen input parameters (background, dark current, noise, fps, muon rate, veto time, threshold) plus standard physics and domain assumptions about Poisson muons, flat backgrounds, and 4-pixel charge spread. The validity of the detection-time claim depends almost entirely on these assumptions, none of which are demonstrated for the specific detector configuration proposed.

free parameters (7)
  • Flat physical background rate = 100 DRU
    Assumed flat below 100 eVee based on skipper-CCD Compton measurements, not measured for a CIS detector. It directly sets the discovery time.
  • Dark current lambda_DC = 1.5 e-/pix/s (Table I)
    Chosen as representative of existing CIS devices; not measured for the proposed 725 micron thick detector. Strongly controls the IDB rate.
  • Readout noise sigma_RN = 1 e- (baseline), 0.5 e-, 0.2 e- (improved)
    Assumed from existing devices, not demonstrated at 1000 fps with the Table I geometry.
  • Frame rate = 200, 500, 1000 fps
    Assumed feasible based on separate CIS developments; no single detector demonstrates all Table I parameters simultaneously.
  • Muon rate in vetoed volume = 200 Hz
    Scaled from CONUS+ 274 Hz by assuming a smaller shield; not computed from a specific CIS geometry.
  • Muon-induced neutron moderation time = tau_n ~ 450 microseconds
    Taken from CONUS reports and used to justify single-frame rejection.
  • Event threshold multiplier = 4x readout noise
    A clustering-threshold choice that directly determines IDB event probabilities and the optimal energy window.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math CEvNS Standard Model cross section with Helm-type form factor
    Used in Eq. 10; accepted physics and independently established.
  • standard math Huber antineutrino flux parameterization
    Used in Eq. 6; standard reactor flux model from Ref. [63].
  • standard math Chavarria quenching parameterization for silicon nuclear recoils
    Used in Eq. B2 with fixed coefficients from Ref. [74].
  • domain assumption Flat physical background between ~15 eV and 215 eVee
    Assumed in Section II.B and used in all significance calculations. Supported by skipper-CCD data for Compton scattering, but not demonstrated for a high-frame-rate CIS with a 100 g array.
  • domain assumption Muon arrivals follow a Poisson process and single-frame rejection gives >90% live time
    Used in Eq. 1 and Section II.B. Reasonable for high frame rates, but assumes muon-induced neutron activity does not leak into adjacent frames.
  • domain assumption CEvNS charge spreads to at most 4 pixels in a 15 micron pixel device
    Taken from CCD charge-diffusion measurements (Ref. [62]) and applied to an unbuilt 725 micron CIS. Limits the IDB model to clusters of size <= 4.
  • domain assumption Readout noise and dark current are independent and described by Gaussian/Poisson convolution
    Equation 4; standard but ignores 1/f noise, row noise, electronics glow, and non-stationary dark current.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CMOS Image Sensors for CEvNS Detection at Nuclear Reactors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D43RXJK3

@misc{pith2026260807676,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CMOS Image Sensors for CEvNS Detection at Nuclear Reactors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D43RXJK3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07676}
}
abstract

In this work we present Complementary Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor (CMOS) Image Sensors (CIS) for reactor neutrino experiments targeting coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering (CEvNS). We have developed an active-shielding strategy for physical background reduction along with an analytical model describing the impact of intrinsic detector backgrounds from dark current and readout noise at a given frame rate (fps). Assuming a conservative background of 100 DRU, and a feasible CIS-based detector with $\sim$100g of sensitive silicon mass, 1$e^-$ of readout noise, and 200fps, it can detect CEvNS in less than 50 days at 16 meters from a 3.6 GW thermal reactor core. Improving the detector performance to 0.2$e^-$ readout noise and 1000fps substantially reduces the detection time to about 7 days. These results establish CIS technology as a promising platform for reactor monitoring and precision neutrino measurements, with thick CMOS sensors featuring parallel and non-destructive readout emerging as particularly attractive candidates for next-generation CEvNS experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07676 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Pixel value PDF from Eq. 4 considering only the IDB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. To get the probability of the event it is sum over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Event probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Expected number of events versus detector energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Expected signal rate for two experimental config [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Exposure required to reach a 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Maximum significance as a function of the optimal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: For the scenario H1 to reach CEvNS an obser￾vation time of 17 days is necessary. In contrast, for H2 the observation time is equal to 150 days. The ineffi￾ciency due to the live time given by the active shielding is already included in the calculation and increases th…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Event rate obtained with the IDB model for the de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Integrated event rate as a function of the detector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: shows the free polykings that where used in this work up to size 4. The polynomial function given by Eq. A3 is calculated by doing the permutations for each possible pattern yielding, n2 = 2p 2 (q 10 + q 12) (A4) n3 = p 3 (4q 15 + 2q 16 + 6q 12 + 8q 14) (A5) n4 = p 4 …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    12,E min andE max respectively

    Optimal spectrum energy range In order to determine the spectrum energy range that maximize the significance for the CEvNS detection, we perform a two-dimensional scan over the lower and upper integration limits of Eq. 12,E min andE max respectively. 8 For each range [E min, Emax], we compute the expected number of signal and background events, and calcul...

    work page

  2. [2]

    all cluster sizes 1≤s≤4

    work page

  3. [3]

    all cluster geometries of sizes

    work page

  4. [4]

    Appendix B: Quenching factor and detector resolution To relate the differential nuclear recoil rate from Eq

    all charge partitions ofQintospositive integers, including their permutations across pixels. Appendix B: Quenching factor and detector resolution To relate the differential nuclear recoil rate from Eq. 8 to the differential ionization rate measured by an APS detector, the nuclear quenching factor must be taken into account. The quenching factor is defined...

    work page

  5. [5]

    B. K. Cogswell and P. Huber, Detection of breeding blan- kets using antineutrinos, Science & Global Security24, 114 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [7]

    Houston, S

    E. Houston, S. Bogetic, O. Akindele, M. Bergevin, A. Bernstein, and S. Dazley, Neutrino-detector design for safeguarding small modular reactors, Physical Review Applied21, 064061 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [8]

    Bernstein, N

    A. Bernstein, N. Bowden, B. L. Goldblum, P. Huber, I. Jovanovic, and J. Mattingly, Colloquium: Neutrino de- tectors as tools for nuclear security, Reviews of Modern Physics92, 011003 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [9]

    Fernandez Moroni, P

    G. Fernandez Moroni, P. Machado, I. Martinez-Soler, Y. Perez-Gonzalez, D. Rodrigues, and S. Rosauro- Alcaraz, The physics potential of a reactor neutrino ex- periment with skipper ccds: measuring the weak mixing angle, Journal of High Energy Physics2021(2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 77 references
  1. [10]

    Fernandez-Moroni, R

    G. Fernandez-Moroni, R. Harnik, P. A. N. Machado, I. Martinez-Soler, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, D. Rodrigues, and S. Rosauro-Alcaraz, The physics potential of a reac- tor neutrino experiment with skipper-ccds: searching for new physics with light mediators, Journal of High Energy P...

    2022

  2. [11]

    Aguilar-Arevalo (CONNIE and Atucha-II Collabora- tions), Search for reactor-produced millicharged parti- cles with skipper-ccds at the connie and atucha-ii exper- iments, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 071801 (2025)

    2025

  3. [12]

    Ackermann, H

    N. Ackermann, H. Bonet, A. Bonhomme, C. Buck, K. F¨ ulber, J. Hakenm¨ uller, J. Hempfling, G. Heusser, M. Lindner, W. Maneschg, K. Ni, M. Rank, T. Rink, E. S´ anchez Garc ´ ıa, I. Stalder, H. Strecker, R. Wink, and J. Woenckhaus, Direct observation of coherent elas- tic antine...

    2025

  4. [13]

    Tiffenberg, M

    J. Tiffenberg, M. Sofo-Haro, A. Drlica-Wagner, R. Essig, Y. Guardincerri, S. Holland, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, Single-Electron and Single-Photon Sensitivity with a Sil- icon Skipper CCD, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 131802 (2017)

    2017

  5. [15]

    A. Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(CONNIE Collaboration), Search for coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering at a nuclear reactor with CONNIE 2019 data, Journal of High Energy Physics2022, 1 (2022)

    2022

  6. [16]

    Crisleret al.(SENSEI Collaboration), SENSEI: First direct-detection constraints on Sub-GeV dark matter from a surface run, Phys

    M. Crisleret al.(SENSEI Collaboration), SENSEI: First direct-detection constraints on Sub-GeV dark matter from a surface run, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 061803 (2018)

    2018

  7. [17]

    Abramoffet al.(SENSEI Collaboration), SENSEI: Direct-detection constraints on Sub-GeV dark matter from a shallow underground run using a prototype Skip- per CCD, Phys

    O. Abramoffet al.(SENSEI Collaboration), SENSEI: Direct-detection constraints on Sub-GeV dark matter from a shallow underground run using a prototype Skip- per CCD, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 161801 (2019)

    2019

  8. [18]

    Baraket al.(SENSEI Collaboration), SENSEI: Direct- detection results on sub-GeV dark matter from a new Skipper CCD, Phys

    L. Baraket al.(SENSEI Collaboration), SENSEI: Direct- detection results on sub-GeV dark matter from a new Skipper CCD, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 171802 (2020)

    2020

  9. [19]

    Arnquistet al.(DAMIC-M Collaboration), First con- straints from damic-m on sub-gev dark-matter particles interacting with electrons, Phys

    I. Arnquistet al.(DAMIC-M Collaboration), First con- straints from damic-m on sub-gev dark-matter particles interacting with electrons, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 171003 (2023)

    2023

  10. [20]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo, N. Avalos, X. Bertou, C. Boni- fazi, G. Cancelo, B. A. Cervantes-Vergara, C. Chavez, F. Chierchie, G. C. Corrˆ ea, J. C. D’Olivo,et al., Searches for ce{\nu}ns and physics beyond the stan- dard model using skipper-ccds at connie, arXiv preprint arXiv:240...

    2024 arXiv

  11. [21]

    Janesick, Scientific charge-couple devices, Scientific charge-coupled devices, Bellingham, W A: SPIE Optical Engineering Press, 2001, xvi, 906 p

    J. Janesick, Scientific charge-couple devices, Scientific charge-coupled devices, Bellingham, W A: SPIE Optical Engineering Press, 2001, xvi, 906 p. SPIE Press mono- graph, PM 83. ISBN 081943698483(2001)

    2001

  12. [22]

    D. J. Schlegel, S. Ferraro, G. Aldering, C. Baltay, S. BenZvi, R. Besuner, G. A. Blanc, A. S. Bolton, A. Bonaca, D. Brooks,et al., A spectroscopic road map for cosmic frontier: Desi, desi-ii, stage-5, arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.03585 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  13. [23]

    Crill, Progress in technology for exoplanet missions, JPL document D-108825 (2023)

    B. Crill, Progress in technology for exoplanet missions, JPL document D-108825 (2023)

    2023

  14. [24]

    B. J. Rauscher, S. Holland, E. Kan, D. Kelly, L. Miko, D. B. Mott, and A. Waczynski, Radiation tolerant, pho- ton counting, visible, and near-ir detectors for space coronagraphs, inSpace Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, Vol. 12180 (S...

    2022

  15. [25]

    A. M. Botti, B. A. Cervantes-Vergara, C. R. Chavez, F. Chierchie, A. Drlica-Wagner, J. Estrada, G. F. Mo- roni, S. E. Holland, B. J. I. Gimenez, A. J. Lapi,et al., Single-quantum measurement with a multiple-amplifier sensing charge-coupled device, IEEE Transactions on 13 Elect...

    2024

  16. [26]

    Sofo-Haro, K

    M. Sofo-Haro, K. Donlon, J. Estrada, S. Holland, F. Fahim, and C. Leitz, Achieving single-electron sen- sitivity at enhanced speed in fully depleted ccds with double-gate mosfets, Physical Review Letters133, 121003 (2024)

    2024

  17. [27]

    Tiffenberg, D

    J. Tiffenberg, D. Ega˜ na-Ugrinovic, M. S. Haro, P. Du, R. Essig, G. Fernandez-Moroni, and S. Uemura, Dual- sided charge-coupled devices, Physical Review Applied 22, 014008 (2024)

    2024

  18. [28]

    Fossum, Cmos image sensors: electronic camera-on- a-chip, IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices44, 1689 (1997)

    E. Fossum, Cmos image sensors: electronic camera-on- a-chip, IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices44, 1689 (1997)

    1997

  19. [29]

    M.-W. Seo, S. Kawahito, K. Kagawa, and K. Yasutomi, A 0.27 e-rms read noise 220-µv/e-conversion gain reset- gate-less cmos image sensor with 0.11-µm cis process, IEEE Electron Device Letters36, 1344 (2015)

    2015

  20. [30]

    Boukhayma, A

    A. Boukhayma, A. Peizerat, and C. Enz, A sub-0.5 elec- tron read noise vga image sensor in a standard cmos pro- cess, IEEE Journal of solid-state circuits51, 2180 (2016)

    2016

  21. [31]

    J. Ma, S. Masoodian, Y. Song, K. Odame, E. Fossum, and D. Hondongwa, Quanta image sensor (qis): Early research progress, inOptics InfoBase Conference Papers (2013)

    2013

  22. [32]

    Fossum, J

    E. Fossum, J. Ma, S. Masoodian, L. Anzagira, and R. Zizza, The quanta image sensor: Every photon counts,url:https://digitalcommons.dartmouth.edu/ cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4432&context=facoa (2016)

    2016

  23. [33]

    Corporation, Orca-quest qcmos camera, technical note,url:https://www.hamamatsu.com/content/ dam/hamamatsu-photonics/sites/documents/99_ SALES_LIBRARY/sys/SCAS0154E_C15550-20UP_tec

    H. Corporation, Orca-quest qcmos camera, technical note,url:https://www.hamamatsu.com/content/ dam/hamamatsu-photonics/sites/documents/99_ SALES_LIBRARY/sys/SCAS0154E_C15550-20UP_tec. pdfHamamatsu.com (2021)

    2021

  24. [34]

    W. Snoeys, Cmos monolithic active pixel sensors for high energy physics, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment765, 167 (2014)

    2014

  25. [35]

    G. A. Rinella, A. Collaboration,et al., The alpide pixel sensor chip for the upgrade of the alice inner tracking system, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Re- search Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment845, 583 (2017)

    2017

  26. [36]

    Senyukov, J

    S. Senyukov, J. Baudot, A. Besson, G. Claus, L. Cousin, A. Dorokhov, W. Dulinski, M. Goffe, C. Hu-Guo, and M. Winter, Charged particle detection performances of cmos pixel sensors produced in a 0.18µm process with a high resistivity epitaxial layer, Nuclear Instruments and Met...

    2013

  27. [37]

    Hirono, M

    T. Hirono, M. Barbero, P. Breugnon, S. Godiot, T. Hemperek, F. H¨ ugging, H. Kr¨ uger, J. Liu, P. Pan- gaud, I. Peric,et al., Cmos pixel sensors on high resis- tive substrate for high-rate, high-radiation environments, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Sectio...

    2016

  28. [38]

    T. Wang, P. Rymaszewski, M. Barbero, Y. Degerli, S. Godiot, F. Guilloux, T. Hemperek, T. Hirono, H. Kr¨ uger, J. Liu,et al., Development of a depleted monolithic cmos sensor in a 150 nm cmos technology for the atlas inner tracker upgrade, Journal of Instrumenta- tion12(01), C01039

  29. [39]

    Pantouvakis, M

    C. Pantouvakis, M. Rignanese, T. Zenger, S. Ciarlantini, A. Zingaretti, P. Azzi, C. Bonini, D. Chiappara, S. Mat- tiazzo, D. Pantano, J. Wyss, A. Apresyan, N. Bacchetta, L. Bolla, A. Hayrapetyan, C. Pe˜ na, N. Salvador, S. Xie, I. Zoi, D. Falchieri, S. Garbolino, L. Pancheri, ...

  30. [40]

    Da Rocha Rolo, A

    M. Da Rocha Rolo, A. Andreazza, G. Ambrosi, F. Al- fonsi, G. Balbi, G.-F. Dalla Betta, T. Croci, M. Caccia, D. Chiappara, T. Corradino, S. Durando, D. Falchieri, A. Gabrielli, P. Giubilato, S. Garbolino, R. Iuppa, M. Mandurrino, S. Mattiazzo, C. Neub¨ user, L. Pancheri, D. Pan...

    2025

  31. [41]

    Peric, Active pixel sensors in high-voltage cmos tech- nologies for atlas, Journal of Instrumentation7(08), C08002

    I. Peric, Active pixel sensors in high-voltage cmos tech- nologies for atlas, Journal of Instrumentation7(08), C08002

  32. [42]

    Acharya, R

    S. Acharya, R. Acosta Hernandez, D. Adamov´ a, A. Adler, J. Adolfsson, D. Agguiaro, G. Aglieri Rinella, M. Agnello, F. Agnese, N. Agrawal,et al., Alice upgrades during the lhc long shutdown 2, Journal of instrumenta- tion19, P05062 (2024)

    2024

  33. [43]

    A. S. Triolo, Calibration of the upgraded alice in- ner tracking system, arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.00433 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  34. [44]

    G. A. Carini, G. W. Deptuch, F. Fahim, L. A. Kad lubowski, P. Klabbers, S. Lauxtermann, P.-O. Pet- terson, and T. Zimmerman, Hybridized maps with an in- pixel a-to-d conversion readout asic, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Acceler- ators, Spectro...

    2019

  35. [45]

    Maffessanti, K

    S. Maffessanti, K. Hansen, S. Aschauer, A. Castoldi, F. Erdinger, C. Fiorini, P. Fischer, P. Kalavakuru, H. Kl¨ ar, M. Manghisoni,et al., A 64k pixel cmos-depfet module for the soft x-rays dssc imager operating at mhz- frame rates, Scientific reports13, 11799 (2023)

    2023

  36. [46]

    Castoldi, M

    A. Castoldi, M. Ghisetti, C. Guazzoni, S. Aschauer, L. Str¨ uder, K. Hansen, S. Maffessanti, C. Danilevski, D. Lomidze, M. Turcato, and M. Porro, Qualification of the x-ray spectral performance of the depfet pixels of the dssc imager, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics...

    2023

  37. [47]

    Aschauer, P

    S. Aschauer, P. Majewski, G. Lutz, H. Soltau, P. Holl, R. Hartmann, D. Schlosser, U. Paschen, S. Wey- ers, S. Dreiner, M. Klusmann, J. Hauser, D. Kalok, A. Bechteler, K. Heinzinger, M. Porro, B. Titze, and L. Str¨ uder, First results on depfet active pixel sensors fabricated i...

  38. [48]

    M. Porro, Ultra-low noise imaging of soft x-rays at rates of up to 4.5 mega-frames per second using the dssc cam- era at the european xfel, in2025 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium (NSS), Medical Imaging Conference (MIC) and Room Temperature Semiconductor Detector Confer- ence (R...

    2025

  39. [49]

    Hansen, H

    K. Hansen, H. Kl¨ ar, P. Kalavakuru, C. Reckleben, A. Venzmer, E. W¨ ustenhagen, R. Schappeit, O.-C. Zei- des, F. Okrent, C. Wunderer, M. Lemke, H. Graafsma, I. Schlosser, M. Manghisoni, E. Riceputi, S. Aschauer, L. Str¨ uder, J. Soldat, M. Tangl, F. Erdinger, A. Kugel, P. Fis...

    2019

  40. [50]

    G. Lutz, M. Porro, S. Aschauer, S. W¨ olfel, and L. Str¨ uder, The depfet sensor-amplifier structure: A method to beat 1/f noise and reach sub-electron noise in pixel detectors, Sensors16, 10.3390/s16050608 (2016)

    2016 doi

  41. [51]

    B¨ ahr, H

    A. B¨ ahr, H. Kluck, P. Lechner, J. Ninkovic, J. Schiek, H. Shi, W. Treberspurg, and J. Treis, First measurement results from DANAE - Demonstrating DePFET RNDR on a prototype Matrix, SciPost Phys. Proc. , 066 (2023)

    2023

  42. [52]

    Sofo-Haro, K

    M. Sofo-Haro, K. Donlon, J. Estrada, S. Holland, F. Fahim, and C. Leitz, Achieving single-electron sen- sitivity at enhanced speed in fully depleted ccds with double-gate mosfets, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 121003 (2024)

    2024

  43. [53]

    A. J. Lapi, M. Sofo-Haro, B. C. Parpillon, A. Birman, G. Fernandez-Moroni, L. Rota, F. A. Bessia, A. Gupta, C. R. C. Blanco, F. Chierchie, J. Segal, C. J. Kenney, A. Dragone, S. Li, D. Braga, A. Fenigstein, J. Estrada, and F. Fahim, Skipper-in-cmos: Nondestructive readout with...

    2024

  44. [54]

    K. D. Stefanov, A. S. Clarke, and A. D. Holland, Fully depleted pinned photodiode cmos image sensor with re- verse substrate bias, IEEE Electron Device Letters38, 64 (2016)

    2016

  45. [55]

    C. Ma, Y. Liu, J. Li, Q. Zhou, Y. Chang, and X. Wang, A 4mp high-dynamic-range, low-noise cmos image sensor, inImage Sensors and Imaging Systems 2015, Vol. 9403 (International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2015) p. 940305

    2015

  46. [56]

    X. Wang, C. Ma, Y. Liu, Y. Li, and Q. Zhou, A 4m, 1.4 e-noise, 96db dynamic range, back-side illuminated cmos image sensor, inProceedings of the International Image Sensor Workshop(2015)

    2015

  47. [57]

    Quinn, F

    A. Quinn, F. Fahim, and D. Braga, A cryogenic readout integrated circuit with analog pile-up and in-pixel adc for high frame rate skipper ccd-in-cmos sensors, in2024 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium (NSS), Medical Imag- ing Conference (MIC) and Room Temperature Semicon- ductor D...

    2024

  48. [58]

    Quinn, M

    A. Quinn, M. B. Valentin, T. Zimmerman, D. Braga, S. Memik, and F. Fahim, A cryogenic readout ic with 100 ksps in-pixel adc for skipper ccd-in-cmos sensors, in2023 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS)(IEEE, 2023) pp. 1–5

    2023

  49. [59]

    Ackermann, S

    N. Ackermann, S. Armbruster, H. Bonet, C. Buck, K. F¨ ulber, J. Hakenm¨ uller, J. Hempfling, G. Heusser, M. Lindner, W. Maneschg,et al., Conus+ experiment, The European Physical Journal C84, 1265 (2024)

    2024

  50. [60]

    Bonet, A

    H. Bonet, A. Bonhomme, C. Buck, K. F¨ ulber, J. Hak- enm¨ uller, J. Hempfling, G. Heusser, T. Hugle, M. Lind- ner, W. Maneschg,et al., Full background decomposition of the conus experiment, The European Physical Journal C83, 195 (2023)

    2023

  51. [61]

    A. M. Botti, S. Uemura, G. F. Moroni, L. Barak, M. Cababie, R. Essig, E. Etzion, D. Rodrigues, N. Saf- fold, M. Sofo Haro,et al., Constraints on the electron- hole pair creation energy and fano factor below 150 ev from compton scattering in a skipper ccd, Physical Re- view D10...

    2022

  52. [62]

    G. F. Moroni, F. Chierchie, J. Tiffenberg, A. Botti, M. Cababie, G. Cancelo, E. L. Depaoli, J. Estrada, S. E. Holland, D. Rodrigues, I. Sidelnik, M. S. Haro, L. Stefanazzi, and S. Uemura, Skipper charge-coupled de- vice for low-energy-threshold particle experiments above groun...

    2022

  53. [63]

    P. Du, D. Egana-Ugrinovic, R. Essig, and M. Shola- purkar, Sources of low-energy events in low-threshold dark matter and neutrino detectors, Phys. Rev. X12, 011009 (2022), arXiv:2011.13939 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [64]

    G. F. Moroni, F. Chierchie, L. Giardino, J. Tiffenberg, and J. Estrada, Measurement of photons emitted by high- energy charged particles as background in single-photon resolving image sensors, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science72, 2948 (2025)

    2025

  55. [65]

    Barak, I

    L. Barak, I. M. Bloch, A. Botti, M. Cababie, G. Can- celo, L. Chaplinsky, F. Chierchie, M. Crisler, A. Drlica- Wagner, R. Essig, J. Estrada, E. Etzion, G. Fernan- dez Moroni, D. Gift, S. E. Holland, S. Munagavalasa, A. Orly, D. Rodrigues, A. Singal, M. S. Haro, L. Ste- fanazzi...

    2022

  56. [66]

    M. S. Haro, G. Fernandez Moroni, and J. Tiffenberg, Studies on Small Charge Packet Transport in High- Resistivity Fully Depleted CCDs, IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices67, 1993 (2020)

    2020

  57. [67]

    Huber, Determination of antineutrino spectra from nu- clear reactors, Physical Review C—Nuclear Physics84, 024617 (2011)

    P. Huber, Determination of antineutrino spectra from nu- clear reactors, Physical Review C—Nuclear Physics84, 024617 (2011)

    2011

  58. [68]

    Vogel and J

    P. Vogel and J. Engel, Neutrino electromagnetic form factors, Physical Review D39, 3378 (1989)

    1989

  59. [69]

    E. e. a. Depaoli, Deployment and performance of a Low- Energy-Threshold Skipper-CCD inside a nuclear reactor, JHEP10, 155, arXiv:2401.07885 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  60. [70]

    Ackermann, H

    N. Ackermann, H. Bonet, A. Bonhomme, C. Buck, K. F¨ ulber, J. Hakenm¨ uller, J. Hempfling, G. Heusser, M. Lindner, W. Maneschg,et al., Direct observation of coherent elastic antineutrino–nucleus scattering, Nature 643, 1229 (2025)

    2025

  61. [71]

    Goupy, H

    C. Goupy, H. Abele, G. Angloher, A. Bento, L. Canonica, F. Cappella, L. Cardani, N. Casali, R. Cerulli, I. Colan- toni,et al., Exploring coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering of reactor neutrinos with the nucleus experi- ment, SciPost Physics Proceedings , 053 (2023)

    2023

  62. [72]

    Ashenfelter, A

    J. Ashenfelter, A. Balantekin, C. Baldenegro, H. Band, C. Bass, D. Bergeron, D. Berish, L. Bignell, N. Bowden, J. Boyle,et al., The prospect reactor antineutrino ex- periment, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detec- to...

    2019

  63. [73]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, Asymp- totic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1554 (2011), [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2501 (2013)]

    2011

  64. [74]

    A. M. Botti, C. Chavez, M. Sofo-Haro, C. Miller, F. Chierchie, M. Jonas, M. Lisovenko, H. Gutti, D. Czaplewski, A. Lathrop,et al., A multichannel silicon 15 package for large-scale skipper-ccd experiments, IEEE Sensors Journal25, 8813 (2025)

    2025

  65. [75]

    Aguilar-Arevalo, F

    A. Aguilar-Arevalo, F. A. Bessia, N. Avalos, D. Baxter, X. Bertou, C. Bonifazi, A. Botti, M. Cababie, G. Can- celo, B. A. Cervantes-Vergara,et al., The oscura experi- ment, arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.10518 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  66. [76]

    Glaser, R

    A. Glaser, R. J. Goldston, and P. Huber, Detectability of covert fissile material production in nuclear fusion re- actors via antineutrino emissions, Phys. Rev. Appl.25, 064004 (2026)

    2026

  67. [77]

    S. W. Golomb,Polyominoes: puzzles, patterns, problems, and packings, Vol. 16 (Princeton University Press, 1996)

    1996

  68. [78]

    Chavarria, J

    A. Chavarria, J. Collar, J. Pena, P. Privitera, A. Robin- son, B. Scholz, C. Sengul, J. Zhou, J. Estrada, F. Izraele- vitch,et al., Measurement of the ionization produced by sub-kev silicon nuclear recoils in a ccd dark matter de- tector, Physical Review D94, 082007 (2016)

    2016

  69. [79]

    Rodrigues, M

    D. Rodrigues, M. Cababie, I. G. Florenciano, A. Botti, J. Estrada, G. Fernandez-Moroni, A. G. Magnoni, J. Tiff- enberg, and S. Uemura, Unraveling fano noise and the partial-charge-collection effect in x-ray spectra below 1 kev, Physical Review Applied20, 054014 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.