Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 25 references

A gadolinium-loaded sampling calorimeter recovers invisible hadronic energy via delayed neutron capture, improving 10 GeV proton resolution from 21.8% to 13.3%.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-10 04:43 UTC pith:OV7FN5QE

load-bearing objection Solid Geant4 study of Gd-loaded sampling layers that recovers ~40% of the resolution width via delayed neutron energy; the 21.8%→13.3% number is real inside the MC but still unproven for hardware. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08587 v1 pith:OV7FN5QE submitted 2026-07-09 physics.ins-det hep-ex

A Novel Hadronic Calorimeter With A Direct Neutron Readout

I. Giomataris , F. Jeanneau , T. Papaevangelou , G. Tsiledakis , M. Vandenbroucke This is my paper
classification physics.ins-det hep-ex
keywords hadronic calorimeterneutron capturegadolinium-loaded scintillatorinvisible energyenergy resolutionGeant4 simulationsampling calorimeterdelayed neutron signal
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Hadronic calorimeters lose resolution because a large share of shower energy goes into neutrons and nuclear breakup that never appears in the prompt signal. This paper proposes embedding gadolinium-loaded liquid scintillator layers between lead absorbers so the same cells that record the prompt ionization also record the delayed energy released when neutrons thermalize and capture on gadolinium. Geant4 simulations of a six-layer Pb/LAB-Gd stack hit by 10 GeV protons show that the delayed deposit is almost perfectly proportional to neutron multiplicity and is strongly correlated with the invisible energy that distorts the prompt measurement. A simple nonlinear correction that uses the delayed energy to predict and shift each event’s expected prompt response tightens the energy resolution from 21.8 % to 13.3 % without discarding events. Events that share similar neutron multiplicities already have much narrower prompt distributions, confirming that neutron-production fluctuations are a dominant source of the resolution limit.

Core claim

In a six-layer lead / Gd-loaded liquid-scintillator calorimeter, the delayed energy deposited by neutron-capture gamma cascades is nearly perfectly proportional to neutron multiplicity and carries substantial information about the invisible hadronic energy. Using that delayed observable for a branch-wise event-by-event correction improves the prompt-energy resolution for 10 GeV protons from 21.8 % to 13.3 % without rejecting any events.

What carries the argument

The delayed neutron-capture signal: after moderation in the hydrogenous scintillator, neutrons capture on gadolinium and release ~8 MeV gamma cascades that produce a delayed scintillation deposit almost perfectly proportional to neutron multiplicity, giving a direct, high-resolution estimator of the invisible energy that can be used for event-by-event correction of the prompt response.

Load-bearing premise

The Geant4 simulation of neutron production, moderation, capture and energy deposition, without optical-photon transport or real photosensor and electronics response, is assumed accurate enough that the same correlation and resolution gain will appear in a physical detector.

What would settle it

Build a multi-layer Pb/LAB-Gd prototype, expose it to a mono-energetic hadron beam near 10 GeV, measure both the prompt scintillation and the delayed capture signals, apply the same nonlinear correction, and check whether the energy resolution improves by a comparable factor without event rejection.

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

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a sampling hadronic calorimeter of alternating lead absorbers and Gd-loaded LAB liquid scintillator that records both a prompt ionization signal and a delayed signal from neutron moderation and capture on gadolinium. Using Geant4 (v11.2.2, HP/G4NDL) simulations of 10 GeV protons on a six-layer prototype (~3.66 λ_I), the authors show that delayed deposited energy is nearly perfectly linear with neutron-capture multiplicity (~8 MeV per capture), that prompt and delayed observables are correlated (with an anti-correlation at high multiplicity), and that a branch-wise nonlinear event-by-event correction based on the delayed energy improves the prompt-energy resolution from 21.8% to 13.3% without event rejection. Multiplicity-slice analyses are used to argue that neutron-production fluctuations are a major contribution to hadronic energy resolution.

Significance. If the reported correlation between delayed neutron-capture energy and invisible hadronic energy survives in a real detector, the concept would offer a practical route to recovering part of the invisible energy inside a sampling HCAL, complementary to dual-readout approaches. Strengths of the work include a clean demonstration that delayed energy calibrates capture multiplicity (R² ≈ 0.9998), a systematic fixed-multiplicity resolution study, and an explicit event-by-event correction that retains all events. The study is a simulation proof-of-principle only: optical transport, photosensor response, electronics, and multi-energy/particle validation are deferred. Within that scope the internal MC evidence is coherent and the idea is worth developing.

major comments (5)
  1. §3.3 states that the six-layer scintillator layers collect ~907 MeV per 10 GeV proton, yet Table 4 reports a mean prompt energy of 6226 MeV (with means ~6.1–6.5 GeV across multiplicity cuts) and §3.4.3–3.4.6 analyze resolution on that scale. The sampling fraction implied by 907 MeV cannot yield a ~6.2 GeV scintillator signal. Either a reconstruction weight, a total (Pb+scint) deposit, or a different observable is being used, but this is never defined. The absolute resolution numbers (21.8% → 13.3%) and the anti-correlation in Fig. 11 cannot be interpreted until the prompt-energy definition is stated consistently and the 907 vs 6226 discrepancy is resolved.
  2. The prototype is only ~3.66 nuclear interaction lengths (§3.3). For 10 GeV protons, longitudinal leakage is large and is itself a major resolution driver. Neutron multiplicity is longitudinally correlated with shower development, so the prompt–delayed correlation and the 21.8%→13.3% gain may partly reflect leakage fluctuations rather than invisible energy inside a containing calorimeter. The paper should quantify leakage (energy and neutrons leaving the volume), show the correction performance versus depth or for a deeper geometry, and qualify the claim that neutron-production fluctuations dominate the resolution when containment is incomplete.
  3. §2 and the Conclusions score only Geant4 ionization and capture-γ energy deposits. There is no optical-photon transport, light-collection non-uniformity, APD response/noise, scintillation quenching differences between prompt charged particles and delayed ~8 MeV γ cascades, or finite timing windows to separate prompt and delayed signals. The headline correction (§3.4.6, Fig. 14; Abstract) uses the delayed deposit both to build and to apply the branch-wise curve; any degradation of delayed-signal fidelity directly reduces the reported variance gain. A sensitivity study (e.g., photostatistics on the ~1.5 GeV delayed sum, partial γ containment, residual pile-up) or explicit caveats on the 13.3% figure are needed before the quantitative claim can stand for a physical detector.
  4. §3.4.6 builds the branch-wise interpolation of average prompt energy versus delayed energy on the full 10⁴-event sample and applies it to the same sample. No hold-out, k-fold, or independent test sample is reported. For a reconstruction method this is a mild but load-bearing circularity: the quoted 13.3% may be optimistically biased. The authors should retrain on one subsample, evaluate on a disjoint subsample, and report the out-of-sample resolution (and stability of the two-branch shape).
  5. All quantitative performance claims are for a single energy and species (10 GeV protons). The Abstract and Conclusions generalize to “hadronic energy reconstruction and energy resolution.” At minimum the paper should either (i) show the same correlation and correction at one additional energy and for charged pions, or (ii) clearly restrict the claim to this benchmark and treat multi-energy/particle performance as required future work rather than an implied result.
minor comments (6)
  1. FLUKA is cited as an independent benchmark (§2, Conclusions) but no comparison plots or quantitative metrics are shown. A short appendix or overlay for neutron yield, capture time, and delayed energy would strengthen confidence.
  2. APDs and 5×5×5 cm³ cells with 20% coverage are motivated in the Introduction but never appear in the simulation. Either drop the hardware detail or state explicitly that the MC is volume-deposit only.
  3. Table 1 vs Table 2: mean capture time 58.9 µs (0.5% Gd) vs median 8.90 µs is fine, but the text sometimes mixes mean and median without labeling; keep the distinction consistent in captions.
  4. Figure 1 (n_TOF spectrum) and Figure 2 (capture cross sections) are illustrative background; ensure licenses/adaptations from Refs. [5,9] are correctly attributed and that they are not mistaken for results of this work.
  5. Typographical/style: “discusion” (§3.4.2), “T able” spacing in several table titles, and “n TOF” / “n_TOF” inconsistency. Also “July 9, 2026” on the title page should match the intended submission date.
  6. The dual-readout and neutron-tagging literature (e.g. DREAM/RD52 neutron results, Ref. [23]) is cited but not compared quantitatively to the present correction gain; a short paragraph placing 21.8%→13.3% in that context would help readers.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Mild in-sample circularity: branch-wise prompt-vs-delayed correction curve is built from the same Geant4 sample to which it is applied, so the 21.8%→13.3% gain is residual variance around the fitted mean response.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [§3.4.6 (Event-by-event correction using the delayed neutron signal); also Abstract and Fig. 14]
    "The best performance was achieved using a branch-wise interpolation of the average prompt energy as a function of the delayed deposited energy. The delayed-energy axis was divided into narrow intervals and, for each interval, the centroid of the prompt-energy distribution was determined. Connecting these centroids produced the average detector response curve shown in Fig. 11b. ... For each event, the measured delayed energy is used to estimate the average prompt response expected for that type of hadronic shower. The event is then shifted relative to this expected centroid ... The event-by-eve"

    The response curve (centroids vs. delayed energy) is fitted/interpolated directly from the same 10^4-event sample that is subsequently corrected. The reported resolution gain is therefore exactly the reduction from total variance to residual variance about that fitted mean; it is not an independent prediction on held-out events or on a real detector. The arithmetic is consistent once the correlation exists, but the procedure is circular by construction of residual variance.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim is an event-by-event nonlinear correction that improves prompt-energy resolution from 21.8% to 13.3% for 10 GeV protons (Abstract; §3.4.6, Fig. 14). The correction is constructed by binning the identical Monte Carlo sample in delayed deposited energy, computing prompt-energy centroids, and interpolating those centroids (branch-wise) to shift each event. This is a standard residual-variance calculation once a correlation exists; it is not an independent out-of-sample prediction, nor is any free parameter tuned to force the final number. The underlying anti-correlation itself (more neutrons o less prompt energy at high multiplicity) is an independent output of the Geant4 shower simulation and is corroborated by the fixed-multiplicity slice analysis that reaches ~6% without any correction. No self-definitional identities, uniqueness theorems, or load-bearing self-citations appear. The only circularity is the ordinary in-sample character of a reconstruction-algorithm demonstration, which is common and non-fatal for a pure simulation study. Score 2 reflects that minor, non-central circularity while recognizing that the physics correlation and residual-resolution result remain genuine.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard Monte Carlo transport physics and a handful of modeling choices (geometry, Gd concentration, energy deposits only). No new particles or forces are postulated. The free parameters are design choices rather than fitted constants that force the resolution number. The main domain assumptions are the fidelity of Geant4 neutron physics and the neglect of optical/electronics effects.

free parameters (3)
  • Gd mass fraction (0.5% or 2%)
    Chosen by the authors; 0.5% is used for the six-layer study. Affects capture time and efficiency but is not fitted to produce the resolution claim.
  • Layer thicknesses (10 cm Pb + 5 cm scintillator × 6)
    Prototype geometry chosen by hand; total depth ~3.66 λ_I is incomplete containment and affects absolute resolution numbers.
  • Branch-wise interpolation intervals for the correction curve
    The delayed-energy axis is divided into narrow bins whose centroids define the correction; binning is a free algorithmic choice.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Geant4 11.2.2 with High-Precision neutron package and G4NDL 4.7.1 accurately describes neutron production, moderation, capture, and γ-cascade energy deposition in Pb and LAB-Gd.
    Stated in §2; results are said to be consistent with FLUKA but no quantitative comparison is shown.
  • ad hoc to paper Prompt and delayed energy deposits in the scintillator volume are perfect proxies for the measurable signals (no optical transport, light collection, or electronics).
    Explicitly idealized; Conclusions list optical-photon transport and photosensor response as future work.
  • domain assumption 10 GeV monoenergetic protons are representative for demonstrating the neutron-correction principle.
    Only energy studied; Discussion notes that higher energies may improve performance further.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 17510 in / 3071 out tokens · 26632 ms · 2026-07-10T04:43:24.822484+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

A neutron-sensitive sampling calorimeter based on alternating lead absorber and gadolinium-loaded liquid scintillator layers is investigated using detailed Geant4 Monte Carlo simulations. In addition to the conventional prompt calorimetric signal, the proposed detector records delayed energy from neutron moderation and capture, providing direct information on the neutron component of hadronic showers. A six-layer Pb/LAB-Gd calorimeter exposed to 10~GeV protons is studied to characterize its neutron response and evaluate its impact on calorimetric performance. The delayed deposited energy is found to be almost perfectly proportional to the neutron-capture multiplicity, providing a direct calibration of the neutron-sensitive signal. Event-by-event analyses further reveal a clear relationship between the prompt calorimetric response and the delayed neutron observable, demonstrating that the latter contains substantial information on the invisible hadronic energy. Exploiting this correlation through a simple nonlinear event-by-event correction improves the prompt-energy resolution from 21.8% to 13.3% without rejecting events. Furthermore, the analysis of events with similar neutron multiplicities indicates that neutron-production fluctuations constitute a major contribution to the overall hadronic energy resolution. These results demonstrate the potential of gadolinium-loaded sampling calorimeters to recover part of the invisible hadronic energy and significantly improve hadronic energy reconstruction and energy resolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08587 by F. Jeanneau, G. Tsiledakis, I. Giomataris, M. Vandenbroucke, T. Papaevangelou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Evaluated neutron flux at the CERN n TOF EAR2 facility produced by high￾energy protons impinging on a thick lead spallation target, adapted from Ref. [5]. The neutron spectrum extends over many orders of magnitude in energy, from thermal neutrons up to the GeV region, illustrating the broad neutron component generated inside dense absorber materials. Hadronic showers produce large neutron multiplicities th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Thermal neutron capture cross sections for several neutron-sensitive isotopes commonly used in detector applications, adapted from Ref. [9]. Gadolinium exhibits an exceptionally large capture cross section at thermal energies, exceeding that of hydrogen by several orders of magnitude. mensions of calorimeter cells considerably relax these constraints. Consequently, higher gadolin￾ium concentrations become … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Neutron capture-time distributions for pure LAB, LAB+0.5% Gd and LAB+2% Gd obtained with Geant4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Capture-γ energy versus neutron capture time for (a) LAB, (b) LAB+0.5% Gd and (c) LAB+2% Gd. The colour scale represents the logarithm of the number of events. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fraction of neutron captures collected within different acquisition windows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the spatial distribution of neutron captures throughout the six-layer calorime￾ter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cumulative neutron-capture depth distribution in the six-layer Pb/LAB+0.5% Gd calorimeter. of neutron captures in the downstream layers demonstrates that delayed neutron information continues to be generated after the prompt shower has largely developed, providing an additional observable that is complementary to the prompt calorimetric response. The six-layer geometry presented here serves as a proof-of-p… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Performance of the neutron-sensitive detector. (a) Distribution of the captured neutron multiplicity. (b) Correlation between neutrons entering the active detector and neutrons finally captured. 3.4.2 Calibration and intrinsic detector performance Before investigating calorimetric corrections, it is important to establish the performance of the neutron-sensitive detector itself. The following measurements … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: event-by-event prompt deposited energy versus captured-neutron multiplic￾ity. Center: delayed deposited energy versus captured-neutron multiplicity. Right: detector calibration obtained from the delayed deposited energy. approximately 7%, substantially smaller than the intrinsic fluctuations associated with neutron production in the hadronic shower itself. This demonstrates that the detector introduc… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Performance of the six-layer neutron-sensitive calorimeter. Left: neutron cap￾ture efficiency versus neutron multiplicity. Center: 68% prediction band obtained from the linear calibration. Right: intrinsic detector resolution as a function of neutron multiplicity entering the detector. 3.4.3 Correlation between prompt and delayed observables The delayed neutron signal was subsequently compared with the pr… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Average prompt deposited energy as a function of (a) captured neutron mul￾tiplicity and (b) delayed deposited energy. The anti-correlation observed at large neutron multiplicities indicates that neutron production carries information on the invisible hadronic energy. For small neutron multiplicities, the prompt deposited energy increases with the neutron yield. However, above approximately 180–200 capture… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Prompt-energy spectrum for the complete event sample compared with the spectrum obtained after requiring more than 100 captured neutrons. The neutron multi￾plicity selection significantly narrows the energy distribution while retaining more than 91% of the events. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Prompt-energy resolution for fixed neutron multiplicity. (a) Gaussian fits of representative neutron-multiplicity slices. (b) Resolution as a function of the neutron multiplicity. Events having similar neutron content exhibit much smaller intrinsic energy fluctuations. observed when all events are combined is not produced by a single class of hadronic showers. Instead, it results from the superposition of… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Prompt-energy spectrum before and after the event-by-event branch-wise in￾terpolation correction based on the delayed neutron signal. The correction improves the energy resolution from 21.8% to 13.3% without rejecting events. scale [24, 25] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Physical interpretation of the neutron-sensitive calorimeter concept and the event-by-event correction strategy developed in this work. Part of the hadronic shower energy appears immediately as the prompt scintillation signal, while another part is trans￾ferred into nuclear reactions that generate secondary neutrons. After thermalization and capture on gadolinium, these neutrons produce delayed ∼ 8 MeV γ … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Review of particle physics,

    Particle Data Group, “Review of particle physics,”Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://pdg.lbl.gov

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Wigmans,Calorimetry: Energy Measurement in Particle Physics

    R. Wigmans,Calorimetry: Energy Measurement in Particle Physics. Oxford University Press, 2000. [Online]. Available: https://academic.oup.com/book/26593

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    Calorimetry for particle physics,

    C. Fabjan and F. Gianotti, “Calorimetry for particle physics,”Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 75, pp. 1243–1286, 2003. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.75.1243

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.75.1243 2003

  4. [4]

    Hadron and jet detection with a dual-readout calorimeter,

    N. Akchurinet al., “Hadron and jet detection with a dual-readout calorimeter,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, vol. 537, pp. 537–561, 2005. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2004.07.285

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2004.07.285 2005

  5. [5]

    Characterisation of the neutron beam in the n tof-ear2 experimental area at cern following the spallation target upgrade,

    J. Pav´ on-Rodr´ ıguezet al., “Characterisation of the neutron beam in the n tof-ear2 experimental area at cern following the spallation target upgrade,”Eur. Phys. J. A, vol. 61, p. 277, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-025-01727-x

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-025-01727-x 2025

  6. [6]

    Gadzooks! antineutrino spectroscopy with large water cherenkov detectors,

    J. F. Beacom and M. R. Vagins, “Gadzooks! antineutrino spectroscopy with large water cherenkov detectors,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 93, p. 171101, 2004. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.171101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.93.171101 2004

  7. [7]

    Measurement of the neutron capture time in gd-doped liquid scintillator,

    F. Anet al., “Measurement of the neutron capture time in gd-doped liquid scintillator,”Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, vol. 811, pp. 133–161, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2015.11.144

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2015.11.144 2016

  8. [8]

    Production of a gadolinium-loaded liquid scintillator for the daya bay reactor neutrino experiment,

    W. Berigueteet al., “Production of a gadolinium-loaded liquid scintillator for the daya bay reactor neutrino experiment,”Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A, vol. 763, pp. 82–88, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2014.05.119

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2014.05.119 2014

  9. [9]

    Critical review of scintillating crystals for neutron detection,

    M. J. Cie´ slak, K. A. A. Gamage, and R. Glover, “Critical review of scintillating crystals for neutron detection,”Crystals, vol. 9, no. 9, p. 480, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst9090480

    work page doi:10.3390/cryst9090480 2019

  10. [10]

    Liquid scintillator production for the daya bay experiment,

    H. Bandet al., “Liquid scintillator production for the daya bay experiment,”JINST, vol. 7, p. P06004, 2012. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/7/06/P06004

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/7/06/p06004 2012

  11. [11]

    The electromagnetic calorimeter project: Technical design report,

    The CMS Collaboration, “The electromagnetic calorimeter project: Technical design report,”CERN-LHCC-97-033, 1997. [Online]. Available: https://cds.cern.ch/record/ 349375

    work page 1997

  12. [12]

    Radiation hard avalanche photodiodes for the cms detector,

    Z. Antunovicet al., “Radiation hard avalanche photodiodes for the cms detector,”Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, vol. 537, pp. 379–382, 2005. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2004.08.047

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2004.08.047 2005

  13. [13]

    NEUCAL: a prototype detector for electron/hadron discrimination through neutron measurement

    L. Bonechiet al., “Neucal: a prototype detector for electron/hadron discrimination through neutron measurement,”11th ICATPP Conference on Astroparticle, Particle, Space Physics, Detectors and Medical Physics Applications, pp. 755–759, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1008.1886

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1008.1886 2010

  14. [14]

    Geant4 — a simulation toolkit,

    S. Agostinelliet al., “Geant4 — a simulation toolkit,”Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A, vol. 506, pp. 250–303, 2003. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8 18

    work page doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(03)01368-8 2003

  15. [15]

    Geant4 developments and applications,

    J. Allisonet al., “Geant4 developments and applications,”IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 270–278, 2006. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2006.869826

    work page doi:10.1109/tns.2006.869826 2006

  16. [16]

    Recent developments in geant4,

    ——, “Recent developments in geant4,”Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A, vol. 835, pp. 186–225, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2016.06.125

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2016.06.125 2016

  17. [17]

    Version used: Fluka 2025.1.3,

    FLUKA Collaboration, “Version used: Fluka 2025.1.3,” 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.fluka.eu

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    The fluka code: Overview and new developments,

    F.Ballariniet al., “The fluka code: Overview and new developments,”EPJ Nuclear Sciences & Technologies, vol. 10, p. 16, 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1051/epjn/2024015

    work page doi:10.1051/epjn/2024015 2024

  19. [19]

    A new water-based liquid scintillator and potential applications,

    M. Yeh, S. Hans, W. Berigueteet al., “A new water-based liquid scintillator and potential applications,”Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A, vol. 660, pp. 51–56, 2011. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2011.08.040

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2011.08.040 2011

  20. [20]

    JUNO Conceptual Design Report

    JUNO Collaboration, “Juno conceptual design report,” 2015. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.07166

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  21. [21]

    Linear alkylbenzene (lab) product information,

    Sasol Germany GmbH, “Linear alkylbenzene (lab) product information,” 2021, technical Data Sheet. [Online]. Available: https://www.sasol.com

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Current status and future prospects of the sno+ experiment,

    S. Andringaet al., “Current status and future prospects of the sno+ experiment,” Advances in High Energy Physics, vol. 2016, p. 6194250, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6194250

    work page doi:10.1155/2016/6194250 2016

  23. [23]

    Neutron signals for dual-readout calorimetry,

    N. Akchurinet al., “Neutron signals for dual-readout calorimetry,”Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A, vol. 598, no. 2, pp. 422–431, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2008.09.045

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2008.09.045 2009

  24. [24]

    The response and resolution of an iron-scintillator calorimeter for hadronic and electromagnetic showers between 10 gev and 140 gev,

    H. Abramowiczet al., “The response and resolution of an iron-scintillator calorimeter for hadronic and electromagnetic showers between 10 gev and 140 gev,”Nuclear Instruments and Methods, vol. 180, no. 2–3, pp. 429–439, 1981. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-554X(81)90083-5

    work page doi:10.1016/0029-554x(81)90083-5 1981

  25. [25]

    On the limits of the hadronic energy resolution of calorimeters,

    S. Lee, M. Livan, and R. Wigmans, “On the limits of the hadronic energy resolution of calorimeters,”Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A, vol. 882, pp. 148–157, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2017.10.087 19

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2017.10.087 2018