Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 38 references

A Unified Analytical Framework for LYSO-SiPM Scintillation Pulse Dynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Coupled thermalization, optical transit, and SiPM occupancy yield closed-form EMG pulses and a ~100 ps Fisher-information timing bound, with the bi-exponential pulse recovered as a controlled limit.

desk verdict Solid theory; the 'controlled reduction' to the bi-exponential is contradicted by the paper's own fitted decay times, and the validation overclaims the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05824 v1 pith:FNAVCXM3 submitted 2026-08-06 physics.med-ph physics.ins-det

Ao Qiu , Qingguo Xie This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.med-phphysics.ins-det
keywords LYSOSiPMscintillationpulsemodelingexponentiallymodifiedGaussianmicrocellsaturationcoincidencetimingresolutionFisherinformationtime-of-flightPET
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

Existing detector models treat scintillation kinetics, optical transport, SiPM response, and timing statistics as separate problems. This paper argues that a single forward cascade—finite thermalization of the excitation, depth-dependent optical transit-time spread, and microcell activation with recovery—governs both the macroscopic pulse shape and the attainable coincidence timing. In the linear regime the model yields closed-form exponentially modified Gaussian pulses; under saturation it gives state-dependent integral solutions; and the ubiquitous bi-exponential pulse model is derived as a controlled asymptotic reduction of the same cascade. Fitting the dynamic saturation model to 10,000 directly digitized Na-22 pulses, the authors report AIC wins over a matched bi-exponential baseline in 100/100 high-amplitude and 98/100 medium-amplitude pulses. Coupling the dynamic triggering rate to compound Poisson statistics gives a Fisher-information coincidence timing lower bound of about 100 ps FWHM for a reference 511-keV LYSO-SiPM configuration.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is a three-stage forward cascade: a bi-exponential photon-generation profile $Y_{\mathrm{mod}}(t)$ formed by convolving the thermalization cascade with the self-absorption-renormalized decay; a Gaussian optical transit-time-spread kernel $f_{\mathrm{TTS}}(t;z)$ whose width and mean grow with depth of interaction; and a SiPM microcell occupancy ODE whose linear limit is a convolution with the multi-exponential single-cell response. The two identities that make the derivation work are the integration-by-parts reduction of the rate convolution into state-dependent integral forms (Eqs. 17 and 19) and the EMG convolution identity (Eq. 24), which converts each causal exponential kernel into an exponentially modified Gaussian—an exponential tail convolved with a Gaussian—when the transit kernel is applied. These identities let the model stay closed form in the linear regime and reduce to the bi-exponential pulse in the $\tau_r\to 0$, dominant-pole limit.

What would settle it

A DOI-tagged pencil-beam experiment on the same 3.9×3.9×20 mm³ LYSO-SiPM module would settle the transport-and-timing chain: if the measured pulse broadening and coincidence timing as a function of interaction depth do not follow the predicted $\sqrt{\sigma_0^2 + k_{\mathrm{disp}} z}$ scaling and the Fisher-information floor, the cascade model is falsified. A direct single-photon measurement of the light-pulse arrival profile would separately test whether the bi-exponential proxy $g(t)$ matches the true $r_{\mathrm{ph}}(t)$ shape.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the full LYSO-SiPM detection chain—scintillation generation with finite thermalization, recursive self-absorption, depth-dependent Gaussian optical transit spread, microcell occupancy and recovery, and a multi-exponential single-cell current response—can be written as one causal LTI cascade. Its linear-regime output is a superposition of exponentially modified Gaussian terms: convolving each exponential pole with the Gaussian transit kernel produces $\operatorname{EMG}(t;\mu_z,\sigma_z,\tau)$, and Eq. (25) assembles the poles into a closed-form pulse. The dynamic recovery ODE for the busy-microcell population, Eq. (13), admits a state-dependent integral solution (14), and the macroscopic current in saturation takes the integral form (19), which reduces exactly to the static binomial occupancy current as $\tau_{\mathrm{rec}}\to\infty$. In the instantaneous-thermalization and dominant-pole limits the kernel collapses to the bi-exponential shape (27), giving a first-principles origin for the empirical pulse model. Coupling the same dynamic triggering rate to non-stationary compound Poisson statistics produces current-variance envelopes and a Poisson Fisher-information bound on coincidence timing, evaluated at about 100 ps FWHM for the reference 511-keV configuration.

Load-bearing premise

The validation's load-bearing premise is that the fitted bi-exponential template, after Gaussian smoothing, faithfully represents the true photon arrival rate at the SiPM; if the shape-matching correction $\kappa_{\mathrm{EMG}}$ deviates from 1, the fitted saturation coupling $\beta$ absorbs that mismatch and the AIC comparison validates the proxy model rather than the first-principles occupancy ODE.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Pulse-fitting and sparse-sampling reconstruction can use the EMG superposition or the saturation ODE instead of an empirical bi-exponential template, gaining a physical parametrization of optical spread, microcell density, and recovery time.
  • At higher deposited energy the instantaneous microcell occupancy grows, so the model predicts amplitude-dependent peak suppression and tail modification; the AIC comparison on high- and medium-amplitude pulses supports this prediction.
  • The Fisher-information construction turns detector parameters—light yield, effective decay time, transit-time spread, PDE, dark count, crosstalk—directly into a coincidence timing floor, so the ~100 ps bound can be recomputed for any LYSO-SiPM geometry without Monte Carlo.
  • The DOI-dependent transport parameters make the same forward model a basis for waveform-based depth-of-interaction estimation, and the framework supplies a joint Fisher-information benchmark for timing and DOI inference.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the ~100 ps floor is robust, further coincidence-timing gains for this class of detectors must come from light channels that bypass the slow scintillation tail, such as Cherenkov or prompt emission, because the bound is set by the rising-edge slope of the dynamic triggering rate.
  • Editorial inference: the same cascade structure should transfer to other scintillator–SiPM pairs (GAGG, BGO, plastic) by re-parameterizing the time constants and cell-response poles; a testable prediction is that the AIC advantage of the saturation model over the bi-exponential grows with the ratio of peak photon flux to microcell count.
  • Editorial inference: the validation's proxy assumption could be checked directly by single-photon counting the light pulse with a fast photodetector; if the measured arrival profile deviates measurably from the bi-exponential template, the fitted saturation coupling $\beta$ would need reinterpretation beyond $\alpha k_{\mathrm{trans}} C_{\mathrm{gen}}$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a fully analytical forward model of LYSO-SiPM pulse formation that couples finite thermalization, recursive self-absorption, depth-dependent optical transit-time spread (TTS), SiPM microcell occupancy and recovery, and multi-exponential single-cell current response. In the linear regime the model yields closed-form exponentially modified Gaussian (EMG) superpositions (Eq. 25); in saturation it gives state-dependent integral solutions (Eqs. 14, 19). The paper further derives a Poisson Fisher-information lower bound on coincidence timing resolution, reporting about 100 ps FWHM for a representative 511-keV LYSO-SiPM configuration (Eq. 37). It claims that the conventional bi-exponential pulse model emerges as a controlled reduction of this cascade, and it presents an experimental Na-22 validation in which a 12-parameter saturation model is favored by AIC over an 11-parameter ringing-corrected bi-exponential template in 100/100 high-amplitude and 98/100 medium-amplitude pulses.

Significance. If the central claim were fully substantiated, the paper would provide a valuable unifying framework: pulse shape, saturation distortion, variance envelopes, and timing limits would follow from one analytical cascade, with the ubiquitous bi-exponential fit model derived rather than assumed. The algebraic derivation in Sections II and the appendices is careful and largely self-consistent, with several non-trivial checks (photon-number conservation, the tau_rec to infinity static limit, the EMG normalization, and explicit singularity resolutions). The paper is also unusually transparent about its own limitations, including the binary-recovery dead-time bias, the Campbell variance bound, and the Gaussian TTS restriction. However, the experimental validation and the claimed recovery of the empirical bi-exponential model contain load-bearing inconsistencies: the fitted decay constant is roughly 118 ns while the model's effective decay pole is 44.4 ns, and the AIC comparison is affected by a convergence filter and by fitting the saturation coupling parameter beta rather than testing an independently fixed prediction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II-E and Appendix AD; Eq. (25)-(27) vs. Table I] The claim that the conventional bi-exponential pulse model 'emerges as a controlled asymptotic reduction' is not quantitatively supported by the reported fits. With the representative parameters of Section III, Eq. (27) predicts a late-time decay governed by tau_eff = 44.4 ns, yet Appendix AD reports tau_fit_d about 118 ns. No LTI mechanism in the model can lengthen the slowest pole: convolving with the single-cell response (16), whose poles are 0.5, 1.5, and 4 ns, or with the Gaussian TTS kernel (7), preserves the slowest exponential pole rather than moving it to 118 ns. The attribution in Appendix AD to 'SiPM recovery and readout bandwidth' is not a mechanism within Eqs. (22)-(27), and a 16 GHz front end or 40 ps TTS cannot produce a 36 ns fitted rise time. The paper needs either to add and justify an explicit slow mechanism (e.g., a slow scintillation component or a long recharge-related pole) that enters the linear kernel, or to substantially restate the claim as a shape-family reduction without parameter identification.
  2. [Abstract and Section IV; Tables I-II and fitting procedure] The abstract's statement of 'validation on 10,000 directly digitized Na-22 pulses' overstates the analysis: the detailed model comparisons are performed on a random 100-pulse sample and two 100-pulse cohorts selected for amplitude, not on the full 10,000-pulse dataset. More seriously, the fitting procedure in Section IV-C applies a convergence filter that excludes dynamic-model fits whose RMSE exceeds 1.5 times that of the ringing-corrected model and replaces them until each cohort contains 100 'converged' fits. The reported 100/100 AIC win count therefore does not describe the full high-amplitude cohort as acquired; it describes a selected subset after excluding failures. The authors should report the raw cohort sizes, the number of excluded pulses, and the AIC comparison both with and without the replacement procedure, and should adjust the abstract and conclusions accordingly.
  3. [Section IV-C and Appendix AF; Eq. (47) and Eq. (AF.3)] The experimental saturation comparison tests an empirical proxy model rather than the first-principles ODE (13). In Eq. (47), the driving term beta g(t-t0) replaces alpha r_ph(t;z), and Appendix AF explicitly states that beta absorbs alpha, k_trans, C_gen, and a shape-matching factor kappa_EMG. The fitted beta values (0.052 ns^-1 versus 0.023 ns^-1) are then presented as evidence for the ODE's amplitude-dependent saturation, but this is circular: fitting the coupling parameter and confirming that it increases with amplitude validates the chosen empirical envelope, not the first-principles coupling. The paper should either calibrate beta independently from the forward model, or explicitly frame the AIC result as a comparison of two empirical fitting families and remove the claim that it provides 'strong statistical evidence that the saturation ODE captures physical structure'.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'validation on 10,000 directly digitized Na-22 pulses' should be changed to reflect that the source dataset contains 10,000 pulses while the statistical model comparisons use selected 100-pulse cohorts.
  2. [Section IV-A] The sentence describing the full 10,000-pulse acquisition as 'the source dataset for this section' is clear, but the paper should state explicitly that Tables I and II report only on the sampled cohorts, so that readers do not infer full-dataset statistics.
  3. [Section IV-B, Eq. (40)] The ringing-corrected model conflates optical TTS and electronic bandwidth into a single Gaussian width sigma, while Appendix AD later assigns the fitted rise time tau_fit_r about 36 ns to these effects. A brief quantitative justification of how sigma and tau_fit_r relate to the stated 40 ps TTS and 16 GHz bandwidth would help the reader evaluate this approximation.
  4. [Table II] The 'Best AIC count' rows should include the number of pulses excluded by the convergence filter for each cohort; otherwise the 100/100 and 98/100 counts are ambiguous.
  5. [Appendix AD, Step 4] The mapping tau_fit_r <- tau_SiPM_d is inconsistent with the stated numerical value: Section III sets tau_d = 0.5 ns, yet the fitted rise time is reported as about 36 ns. This discrepancy should be acknowledged and explained in terms of the actual fitted parameter values.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The analytical cascade and CRLB are self-contained, but the saturation validation is partly circular: the experimental ODE is driven by the fitted bi-exponential template it claims to derive, and its coupling parameter beta is fit, not predicted.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV-C, Eq. (47); Appendix AF, Eq. (AF.3)]
    "Replacing the theoretical product α r_ph(t;z) in (AF.1) with a single effective coupling parameter β multiplying the experimentally determined template g(t−t0): α r_ph(t;z) → β g(t−t0) (AF.3) ... β absorbs α·k_trans·C_gen·κ_EMG."

    The dynamic saturation model presented as validating the first-principles ODE (13) does not use the derived photon rate r_ph(t;z). It uses the empirically fitted bi-exponential template g(t−t0), the very empirical model the paper claims to explain, with beta as a free parameter fitted to each cohort. Consequently the 'predictions' of amplitude-dependent distortion (the 2.3x beta ratio and the AIC wins) are in-sample properties of a fitted empirical envelope, not forward predictions from the parameter-free cascade. The experimental test therefore cannot confirm that the derived ODE, rather than the fitted proxy, captures saturation.

full rationale

The mathematical development in Sections II-A through II-G is internally non-circular: the self-absorption cascade, EMG closed form, integration-by-parts current forms, Campbell variance envelope, and Poisson Fisher information are derived from stated assumptions with no fitted inputs reused as outputs. The self-citation to Xie et al. [6] for the static binomial occupancy is not load-bearing because the paper re-derives the formula combinatorially. The only significant circularity is in the experimental validation of the saturation model: Eq. (47) replaces the first-principles rate α r_ph(t;z) by the fitted bi-exponential proxy β g(t−t0) (AF.3), and beta is estimated from the same waveforms that are then used to claim AIC superiority; the reported beta scaling is a fitted trend rather than a predicted one. This limits the validation, but the central closed-form derivation and the 100 ps CRLB remain independent forward calculations conditional on literature parameters. The paper also has a non-circular consistency issue: the claimed recovery of the bi-exponential with τ_fit_d≈118 ns is not quantitatively supported by the model's 44.4 ns slowest pole, but that is a correctness/falsification concern, not a self-referential reduction. Score 4 reflects partial circularity in the validation without circularity in the core derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework's outputs depend on many literature-based or hand-chosen parameters; the only parameter fitted to the validation data is the saturation coupling beta. The derivations are algebraic and introduce no new physical entities.

free parameters (7)
  • Thermalization time constant tau_r = 70 ps
    Chosen as representative LYSO value; controls leading-edge gradient and CRLB. Not independently measured in this work.
  • Self-absorption parameters (epsilon*a, eta) = epsilon*a=0.12, eta=0.83
    Adopted to reproduce the observed 40-50 ns effective decay constant (tau_eff=44.4 ns); not measured here.
  • Optical transport parameters (k_trans, mu_TTS, sigma_TTS) = 0.40, 150 ps, 40 ps
    Representative values for a 3.9x3.9x20 mm^3 wrapped crystal; used in EMG pulses and CRLB.
  • SiPM parameters (M, q, tau_rec, P_ct) = 7100, 0.50, 15 ns, 0.20
    Representative SiPM set; P_ct=0.20 is an acknowledged near-edge stress test above the 15% comfort range.
  • Single-cell current response poles and weights = tau_d=0.5ns A_d=0.98; tau_p1=1.5ns A_p1=0.015; tau_p2=4ns A_p2=0.005
    Adopted from Marano et al.; shapes all convolved current outputs and baseline variance.
  • Dark count rate nu_DCR = 1 MHz
    Representative moderately cooled SiPM value; enters the CRLB denominator.
  • Saturation coupling beta (experimental fit) = 0.052 +/- 0.007 ns^-1 (high amplitude), 0.023 +/- 0.009 ns^-1 (medium)
    Free parameter fitted to waveforms; the AIC comparison is a model-selection test of the fitted structure, not a parameter-free prediction.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Single-exponential thermalization cascade with one bottleneck time constant tau_r.
    Section II-A and Appendix A; assumes one rate-limiting step dominates. If multiple comparable kinetic steps exist, leading-edge predictions weaken (Discussion V.C.1).
  • domain assumption Mean-field self-absorption cascade with uniform overlap probability and identical decay constants.
    Section II-A and Appendix B; requires re-emitted photons behave identically to primary emissions.
  • domain assumption Gaussian optical transit-time spread with the convolution lower boundary extended to -infinity.
    Section II-B; justified by Berry-Esseen for long crystals, but negative-time leakage is about 4.75% for near-surface interactions and is acknowledged as a controlled approximation.
  • domain assumption Binary microcell recovery ODE with linear proportional recovery and instantaneous full PDE regain.
    Section II-C and Appendix J; the paper shows this underestimates effective dead-time by 0.5 tau_rec and biases dynamic current high, giving optimistic timing predictions.
  • domain assumption Independent Poisson triggering with Borel crosstalk cascades in an unlimited reservoir.
    Section II-F; ignores dead-time anti-bunching and spatial correlations; stated as an upper-bound variance model.
  • ad hoc to paper Experimental proxy: the fitted bi-exponential template g(t) with Gaussian smoothing represents the photon arrival rate shape up to scale beta.
    Appendix AF Eq. (AF.3); if the shape-matching factor kappa_EMG deviates from 1, the AIC comparison validates the proxy model, not the first-principles ODE (13).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Unified Analytical Framework for LYSO-SiPM Scintillation Pulse Dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FNAVCXM3

@misc{pith2026260805824,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Unified Analytical Framework for LYSO-SiPM Scintillation Pulse Dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FNAVCXM3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05824}
}
read the original abstract

Existing scintillation-detector models typically treat scintillation kinetics, optical transport, silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) response, and timing statistics separately, limiting end-to-end prediction of waveform formation and detector performance. We present a unified analytical framework for lutetium-yttrium oxyorthosilicate (LYSO)-SiPM scintillation detectors that links these processes within a single forward model. The framework incorporates finite thermalization, depth-dependent optical transit-time spread, and microcell occupancy dynamics to provide a physics-based description of macroscopic pulse formation. It yields closed-form exponentially modified Gaussian pulses in the linear regime, state-dependent integral solutions in saturation, and recovers the conventional bi-exponential pulse model---ubiquitously used yet hitherto only empirically justified in scintillation pulse fitting and sparse-sampling reconstruction---as a controlled reduction of the full optoelectronic cascade. Experimental validation on 10,000 directly digitized Na-22 pulses shows that the dynamic saturation model captures amplitude-dependent waveform distortion and is favored by the Akaike information criterion (AIC) over a matched bi-exponential baseline in 100/100 high-amplitude pulses and 98/100 medium-amplitude pulses. By coupling the dynamic triggering rate to compound Poisson statistics, the framework also predicts current-variance envelopes and Fisher-information-based timing limits, including an intrinsic coincidence timing resolution lower bound of about 100 ps full width at half maximum (FWHM) for a reference 511-keV LYSO-SiPM configuration. These results deepen the physical understanding of scintillation-detector waveform formation and timing limits by clarifying how scintillation kinetics, optical transport, and SiPM microcell dynamics jointly shape the observed response.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05824 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Upper panel: Macroscopic output current Idyn(t) under three photon loads (N0 = 4000, 16000, 64000), computed with the intrinsic pre-TTS photon input to isolate saturation. The dashed line for N0 = 16000 shows the corresponding unsaturated linear approximation. Lower panel: Saturation ratio λdyn/λlin for the 511 keV reference case. C. EMG Closed-Form Verification In the linear regime (N0 = 1000), we verify the Expo￾n… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Upper panel: Transient recovering microcell population [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Fig. 2 displays the resulting pulse family across the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Upper panel: Linear-regime macroscopic current [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Normalized macroscopic current profiles at 511 keV comparing three model tiers: asymptotic bi-exponential (27) (gray dash-dot), linear-regime [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Coincidence CTR CRLB phase diagrams computed via the Poisson Fisher Information (35). (a) Scintillator material landscape: effective decay time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Three-model comparison on four representative scintillation pulses spanning the observed pulse-amplitude range of the Na-22 acquisition (144– [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Residual diagnostics of the ringing-corrected bi-exponential model on a representative pulse (#209, 816 mV peak). (a) Welch power spectral density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Saturation model comparison on four representative high-amplitude scintillation pulses ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparative residual diagnostics on a high-amplitude diagnostic pulse (#895, 1728 mV). Top row: ringing-corrected model (11 params). Bottom row: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Update on time-of-flight PET imaging,

    S. Surti, “Update on time-of-flight PET imaging,”Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 98–105, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Time of flight in perspective: Instrumental and computational aspects of time resolution in positron emission tomography,

    D. R. Schaart, G. Schramm, J. Nuyts, and S. Surti, “Time of flight in perspective: Instrumental and computational aspects of time resolution in positron emission tomography,”IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical Sciences, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 598–618, 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    Pushing the limits in time-of-flight PET imaging,

    P. Lecoq, “Pushing the limits in time-of-flight PET imaging,”IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical Sciences, vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 473–485, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Novelγ- and X-ray scintillator research: on the emission wavelength, light yield and time response of Ce3+ doped halide scintillators,

    M. D. Birowosuto and P. Dorenbos, “Novelγ- and X-ray scintillator research: on the emission wavelength, light yield and time response of Ce3+ doped halide scintillators,”physica status solidi (a), vol. 206, no. 1, pp. 9–20, 2009

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Accurate Analytical Single-Photoelectron Response of Silicon Photomultipliers,

    D. Marano, M. Belluso, G. Bonanno, S. Billotta, A. Grillo, S. Garozzo, and G. Romeo, “Accurate Analytical Single-Photoelectron Response of Silicon Photomultipliers,”IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 14, pp. 2749– 2754, Aug. 2014

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Characterization of Silicon Photomulti- pliers for PET Imaging,

    Q. Xie, C.-M. Kao, K. Byrum, G. Drake, A. Vaniachine, R. G. Wagner, V . Rykalin, and C.-T. Chen, “Characterization of Silicon Photomulti- pliers for PET Imaging,” in2006 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, (San Diego, CA, USA), pp. 1199–1203, IEEE, 2006

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    From luminescence non-linearity to scintillation non- proportionality,

    A. N. Vasil’ev, “From luminescence non-linearity to scintillation non- proportionality,”IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 1054–1061, 2008

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Ce:LYSO, from scintillator to solid-state lighting as a blue luminescent concentrator,

    L. Lopez, P. Pichon, P. Loiseau, B. Viana, R. Mahiou, F. Druon, P. Georges, and F. Balembois, “Ce:LYSO, from scintillator to solid-state lighting as a blue luminescent concentrator,”Scientific Reports, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 7199, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Optical and scintillation properties of inorganic scintillators in high energy physics,

    R. Mao, L. Zhang, and R.-Y . Zhu, “Optical and scintillation properties of inorganic scintillators in high energy physics,”IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 2425–2431, 2008

    2008

  2. [10]

    The accuracy of the Gaussian approximation to the sum of independent variates,

    A. C. Berry, “The accuracy of the Gaussian approximation to the sum of independent variates,”Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 122–136, 1941

    1941

  3. [11]

    The lower timing resolution bound for scintillators with non-negligible optical photon transport time in time-of-flight PET,

    R. Vinke, P. D. Olcott, J. W. Cates, and C. S. Levin, “The lower timing resolution bound for scintillators with non-negligible optical photon transport time in time-of-flight PET,”Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 59, no. 20, pp. 6215–6229, 2014

    2014

  4. [12]

    Understanding and simulating SiPMs,

    F. Acerbi and S. Gundacker, “Understanding and simulating SiPMs,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accel- erators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, vol. 926, pp. 16–35, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    W. E. Boyce, R. C. DiPrima, and D. B. Meade,Elementary Differential Equations and Boundary Value Problems. John Wiley & Sons, 11th ed., 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Simulation of light transport in scintillators based on 3D characterization of crystal surfaces,

    E. Roncali and S. R. Cherry, “Simulation of light transport in scintillators based on 3D characterization of crystal surfaces,”Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 58, no. 7, pp. 2185–2198, 2013

    2013

  7. [15]

    Sub-200 ps CRT in monolithic scintillator PET detectors using digital SiPM arrays and maximum likelihood interaction time estimation,

    H. T. van Dam, G. Borghi, S. Seifert, and D. R. Schaart, “Sub-200 ps CRT in monolithic scintillator PET detectors using digital SiPM arrays and maximum likelihood interaction time estimation,”Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 3243–3257, 2013

    2013

  8. [16]

    A comprehensive model to predict the timing resolution of SiPM-based scintillation detectors: Theory and experimental validation,

    S. Seifert, H. T. van Dam, R. Vinke, P. Dendooven, H. L ¨ohner, F. J. Beekman, and D. R. Schaart, “A comprehensive model to predict the timing resolution of SiPM-based scintillation detectors: Theory and experimental validation,”IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 59, n...

    2012

  9. [17]

    A derivation of the Borel distribution,

    J. C. Tanner, “A derivation of the Borel distribution,”Biometrika, vol. 48, no. 1/2, pp. 222–224, 1961

    1961

  10. [18]

    Analytical models of probability distribution and excess noise factor of solid state photomultiplier signals with crosstalk,

    S. L. Vinogradov, “Analytical models of probability distribution and excess noise factor of solid state photomultiplier signals with crosstalk,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accel- erators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, vo...

    2012

  11. [19]

    Modeling crosstalk in silicon photomultipliers,

    L. Gallego, J. Rosado, F. Blanco, and F. Arqueros, “Modeling crosstalk in silicon photomultipliers,”Journal of Instrumentation, vol. 8, no. 05, p. P05010, 2013

    2013

  12. [20]

    Mathematical analysis of random noise,

    S. O. Rice, “Mathematical analysis of random noise,”The Bell System Technical Journal, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 282–332, 1944

    1944

  13. [21]

    Filtering and detection for doubly stochastic Poisson processes,

    D. L. Snyder, “Filtering and detection for doubly stochastic Poisson processes,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 91–102, 1972

    1972

  14. [22]

    Photon-number statistics with silicon photomultipliers,

    M. Ramilli, A. Allevi, V . Chmill, M. Bondani, M. Caccia, and A. An- dreoni, “Photon-number statistics with silicon photomultipliers,”Journal of the Optical Society of America B, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 852–862, 2010

    2010

  15. [23]

    Overview on the main parameters and tech- nology of modern Silicon Photomultipliers,

    C. Piemonte and A. Gola, “Overview on the main parameters and tech- nology of modern Silicon Photomultipliers,”Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, vol. 926, pp. 2–15, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    The lower bound on the timing resolution of scintillation detectors,

    S. Seifert, H. T. van Dam, and D. R. Schaart, “The lower bound on the timing resolution of scintillation detectors,”Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 1797–1814, 2012

    2012

  17. [25]

    D. L. Snyder and M. I. Miller,Random Point Processes in Time and Space. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2nd ed., 1991

    1991

  18. [26]

    Measurement of intrinsic rise times for various L(Y)SO and LuAG scintillators with a general study of prompt photons to achieve 10 ps in TOF-PET,

    S. Gundacker, E. Auffray, K. Pauwels, and P. Lecoq, “Measurement of intrinsic rise times for various L(Y)SO and LuAG scintillators with a general study of prompt photons to achieve 10 ps in TOF-PET,”Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 61, no. 7, pp. 2802–2837, 2016

    2016

  19. [27]

    Experimental time resolution limits of modern SiPMs and TOF-PET detectors exploring different scintillators and Cherenkov emission,

    S. Gundacker, R. Martinez Turtos, N. Kratochwil, R. H. Pots, M. Paganoni, P. Lecoq, and E. Auffray, “Experimental time resolution limits of modern SiPMs and TOF-PET detectors exploring different scintillators and Cherenkov emission,”Physics in Medicine & Biology, vol. 65, no. ...

    2020

  20. [28]

    A family of embedded Runge-Kutta formulae,

    J. R. Dormand and P. J. Prince, “A family of embedded Runge-Kutta formulae,”Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 19–26, 1980

    1980

  21. [29]

    SiPM response to long and intense light pulses,

    S. Vinogradov, A. Arodzero, R. C. Lanza, and C. P. Welsch, “SiPM response to long and intense light pulses,”Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, vol. 787, pp. 148–152, 2015. 41

    2015

  22. [30]

    Modelling a silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) as a signal source for optimum front-end design,

    F. Corsi, A. Dragone, C. Marzocca, A. Del Guerra, P. Delizia, N. Dinu, C. Piemonte, M. Boscardin, and G.-F. Dalla Betta, “Modelling a silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) as a signal source for optimum front-end design,”Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: ...

    2007

  23. [31]

    An algorithm for least-squares estimation of non- linear parameters,

    D. W. Marquardt, “An algorithm for least-squares estimation of non- linear parameters,”Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 431–441, 1963

    1963

  24. [32]

    A new look at the statistical model identification,

    H. Akaike, “A new look at the statistical model identification,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 716–723, 1974

    1974

  25. [33]

    Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression: I,

    J. Durbin and G. S. Watson, “Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression: I,”Biometrika, vol. 37, no. 3/4, pp. 409–428, 1950

    1950

  26. [34]

    Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression. II,

    J. Durbin and G. S. Watson, “Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression. II,”Biometrika, vol. 38, no. 1/2, pp. 159–178, 1951

    1951

  27. [35]

    The use of fast Fourier transform for the estimation of power spectra: A method based on time averaging over short, modi- fied periodograms,

    P. D. Welch, “The use of fast Fourier transform for the estimation of power spectra: A method based on time averaging over short, modi- fied periodograms,”IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 70–73, 1967

    1967

  28. [36]

    An assessment on the accuracy of time-domain reflectom- etry for measuring the characteristic impedance of transmission lines,

    N. G. Paulter, “An assessment on the accuracy of time-domain reflectom- etry for measuring the characteristic impedance of transmission lines,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 1381–1388, 2001

    2001

  29. [37]

    Roadmap toward the 10 ps time-of-flight PET challenge,

    P. Lecoq, C. Morel, J. O. Prior, D. Visvikis, S. Gundacker, E. Auffray, P. Kriˇzan, R. M. Turtos, D. Thers, E. Charbon, J. Varela, C. de La Taille, A. Rivetti, D. Breton, J.-F. Pratte, J. Nuyts, S. Surti, S. Vandenberghe, P. Marsden, K. Parodi, J. M. Benlloch, and M. Benoit, “...

    2020

  30. [38]

    Sub-100 ps coincidence time resolution for positron emission tomography with LSO:Ce codoped with Ca,

    M. V . Nemallapudi, S. Gundacker, P. Lecoq, E. Auffray, A. Ferri, A. Gola, and C. Piemonte, “Sub-100 ps coincidence time resolution for positron emission tomography with LSO:Ce codoped with Ca,”Physics in Medicine & Biology, vol. 60, no. 12, pp. 4635–4649, 2015

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.