Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 22 references

FANSIC: a Fast ANalog SiPM Integrated Circuit for the readout of large silicon photomultipliers

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read FANSIC, a 65 nm CMOS analog front-end, claims to read out large silicon photomultipliers with 3 ns pulses, single-photon resolution up to 30 p.e., and 23 mW per pixel by actively summing four pixel sub-sections.

desk verdict The single-channel measurements are credible, but the quadrature-noise analysis shows the summed four-input pixel falls below the paper's own SNR requirement, so the large-SiPM claim does not close. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09673 v2 pith:RM25CGY6 submitted 2024-11-14 physics.ins-det astro-ph.IM

Luca Giangrande , Matthieu Heller , Yannick Favre , Teresa Montaruli This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-detastro-ph.IM
keywords FANSICASICsiliconphotomultiplieractivesummationCherenkovtelescopecamerasingle-photoelectronresolutionpulseshapinggamma-rayastronomy
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

FANSIC is a 65 nm CMOS analog front-end ASIC built to make large-area silicon photomultipliers practical for the cameras of imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes, where photomultiplier tubes are still standard. The central claim is that splitting a large pixel into four sections and actively summing their signals on-chip overcomes the noise and slow-tail penalties of large SiPM capacitance, keeping output pulses at about 3 ns full width at half maximum while preserving single-photon resolution. Measured with a 3x3 mm2 S13360 SiPM, the prototype delivers a 3 ns FWHM across 1–250 photoelectrons, single-photon resolution up to about 30 p.e., post-calibration non-linearity around 5%, and 23 mW per pixel. If the design-level claim of input-capacitance compatibility up to 1 nF holds, this would let Cherenkov telescopes replace PMTs with SiPMs over square-meter camera surfaces at lower power and finer granularity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the active summation stage: four pre-amplifiers convert each SiPM-section voltage pulse into currents through series resistors into the virtual ground of an inverting summing amplifier, where Kirchhoff's current law adds them before a feedback resistor sets the overall gain. Around this, a configurable band-pass transfer function keeps only the fast component of the SiPM pulse, with the high-pass edge set by internal AC-coupling capacitors and the low-pass edge by amplifier bandwidth, replacing the ~1 µs recharge tail with a brief undershoot and preventing night-sky pile-up. The four-way pixel split is what keeps the equivalent noise charge below half a photoelectron, based on the SiPM electrical model with Ceq = 650 pF and gain $10^{4}$.

What would settle it

Take a FANSIC channel, connect four SiPM sections (or an equivalent network) whose total anode capacitance is near 650 pF–1 nF to the four inputs, and measure the summed output: the claim fails if the FWHM exceeds about 5 ns, if the single-photon SNR falls below 5, or if the post-calibration non-linearity exceeds 5% within 1–250 p.e.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper reports that a prototype ASIC with four parallel voltage-mode pre-amplifiers feeding an active summation stage can combine a pixel's sub-sections into one readout channel without losing the fast signal. With a single 3x3 mm2 S13360 SiPM and a pulsed 375 nm laser, the measured output pulse has a FWHM of about 2.8 ns, the electronics SNR at one photoelectron is 8.4, the combined sensor-plus-electronics SNR is 7.0, and the multi-photoelectron histogram resolves individual photoelectron peaks up to about 30 p.e. The pulse integral stays within 5% of a calibrated polynomial up to about 300 p.e. The slow ~1 µs SiPM recharge tail is filtered into a short undershoot, preventing baseline pile-up from night-sky background rates of 300 MHz to 1 GHz. The paper concludes that these results satisfy the requirements for Cherenkov cameras and that the architecture is compatible with pixels up to about 1 cm2 and input capacitances up to 1 nF.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim that FANSIC reads out large ~1 cm2 SiPM pixels rests on the assumption that the performance measured with a single 3x3 mm2 S13360 SiPM transfers to four-input active summation with combined input capacitance up to 1 nF, a regime the paper evaluates with the SiPM electrical model and circuit simulations rather than laboratory measurements.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A camera front-end could sustain 10 MHz trigger rates with a lower threshold: extending the pulse FWHM from 3 ns to 5 ns would raise the threshold by about 40%.
  • Single-photon resolution up to about 30 p.e. lets the trigger detect faint 20 GeV Cherenkov events with a false-positive probability around 0.6% at a half-photoelectron threshold.
  • Power of 23 mW per pixel makes a multi-thousand-pixel camera feasible on a 1.2 V supply.
  • Post-calibration linearity of about 5% up to 300 p.e. fits the camera-level error budget that assigns the front-end a 5% share of the 8% pixel-response requirement.
  • The output stage drives both single-ended and pseudo-differential 50 Ω loads, so the same chip can feed commercial or custom 1 GHz ADCs without extra components.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the simulated 1 nF input-capacitance regime holds in hardware, the same active-summation layout could extend to pixel areas beyond 1 cm2 by adding more sub-sections, since the noise penalty scales roughly as the square root of the summed capacitance.
  • The band-pass strategy of keeping only the fast decay component and discarding the slow tail is not SiPM-specific: any large-capacitance photodetector with widely separated time constants could use the same filter topology.
  • The measured gain varies linearly with photoelectron number because the amplifier transconductance is quadratic in voltage; an on-chip linearization or per-channel correction would reduce the calibration effort the camera currently needs.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents FANSIC, a 65 nm CMOS ASIC for the readout of silicon photomultipliers, with an active summation stage to combine signals from four SiPM sections into one pixel channel. The design targets large-area SiPM pixels for Cherenkov telescope cameras. The authors describe the design requirements, circuit architecture, and a characterization performed with a single 3x3 mm2 Hamamatsu S13360 SiPM. The measured output pulse has a FWHM of 2.82 ns, the MPE fit yields a 1-p.e. SNR of 6.98, and the transfer characteristic is calibrated with a sixth-degree polynomial giving residuals within 5%. The paper claims compatibility with input capacitance up to 1 nF and single-photoelectron resolution up to 30 p.e., supported by simulations and extrapolation rather than by measurements in the large-pixel configuration.

Significance. The measured single-channel performance is credible and the characterization methodology (MPE fit, ND-filter transmittance calibration, automated acquisition) is careful and reproducible. If the results hold, the ASIC demonstrates a fast, low-power frontend for small SiPM pixels. However, the central claim of large-area SiPM readout is not supported by the present evidence: the ENP reduction argument in Section 2.2 ignores the noise added by the active summation, the 1 nF input-capacitance regime was never exercised in the laboratory, and the linearity metric is defined relative to a high-order polynomial rather than to a linear response. These issues are load-bearing for the advertised application, so the paper in its current form overstates its conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (2), Section 3.2, Table 4] The ENP reduction argument for pixel splitting is invalid after the active summation. Equation (2) gives ENP≈1 for Ceq=650 pF; splitting the pixel into four sections reduces each section's ENP to about 0.5. However, Section 3.2 sums the four sections into a single output, so the noise of all four sections and their preamplifiers adds in quadrature while the signal from a photoelectron appears in only one section. Using the measured single-section noise values from Table 4 (sigma_e = 0.813 mV·ns, sigma_s = 0.549 mV·ns, gain b = 6.853 mV·ns), the 1-p.e. SNR of the summed output is 6.853/sqrt(4·(0.813^2 + 0.549^2)) ≈ 3.5, which is below the SNR ≥ 5 requirement stated in Section 2.5. The paper does not discuss this noise addition in the summation stage, so the design rationale for large-pixel readout is not established.
  2. [Section 4, Section 5] The central claim of readout of large SiPMs with input capacitance up to 1 nF and pixel areas around 1 cm² is not validated by the reported measurements. Section 4 characterizes FANSIC only with a single 3x3 mm² S13360 SiPM connected to one input; no measurement is presented with four sections summed, with all four inputs connected, or with an input capacitance near 1 nF. The compatibility with 1 nF is supported only by the analytical estimate in Eq. (2) and by circuit simulations. Consequently, the conclusions in Section 5 that the ASIC achieves 3 ns FWHM and single-photoelectron resolution up to 30 p.e. for the target large-pixel application are extrapolations, not demonstrated experimental results.
  3. [Section 4.2, Fig. 19] The claim of 'post-calibration non-linearity around 5%' is established by fitting a sixth-degree polynomial to the measured transfer function and reporting the residuals relative to that polynomial. This metric measures the goodness of fit of a flexible calibration curve, not the linearity of the detector response. A sixth-order polynomial can absorb arbitrary nonlinearity, so residuals within 5% are not evidence that the frontend meets the 5% linearity requirement of Section 2.7. The paper itself reports a quadratic dependence of pulse area on photoelectron number at low intensities; without defining a linear-calibration procedure (e.g., a single gain factor), the linearity claim is misleading.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Table 2] The abstract states a pulse duration of 3 ns, while Table 2 lists a measured FWHM of 2.82 ns; the minor discrepancy should be reconciled or explained.
  2. [Section 2.2] The ENP discussion should explicitly state whether the quoted value is the per-section ENP before summation; the current text leaves this ambiguous.
  3. [Section 2.5, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) appears to have an incorrect integrand: the Gaussian tail probability should contain exp(-x²/(2σ²)), not exp(-x²/σ²). The resulting 0.62% is consistent with 2.5σ, so the numerical value is correct, but the expression as written is not.
  4. [Section 4, Fig. 16] The claim of 'FWHM of 3 ns across a dynamic range of 1-250 p.e.' would be better supported by a dedicated plot of FWHM versus photoelectron number; the current figure combines several quantities and the text description is qualitative.
  5. [References] References [11] and [20] appear to be the same publication (Aguilar et al., NIM A 830, 2016) and should be merged or cross-referenced consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FANSIC's headline metrics come from independent measurements and circuit simulations, not from the design inputs.

full rationale

No load-bearing circular step is exhibited. The paper's central measured results (3 ns FWHM, SNR 6.98 for 1 p.e., ~5% post-calibration nonlinearity) are extracted from laboratory data acquired with an external Hamamatsu S13360 SiPM and a calibrated optical chain, or from standalone circuit simulations; they are not obtained by assuming the conclusions. The ENP splitting estimate (Eqs. 1-2) is an analytic noise calculation used to motivate the four-section architecture, not a quantity later reported as a measured prediction. The MPE fit (Table 4) yields gain and noise parameters, and SNR is then computed from the defining relation Eq. 10; this is standard device characterization rather than a fitted input disguised as a prediction. The sixth-degree polynomial calibration and its residual are a calibration figure of merit, not a derivation of linearity from first principles. Self-citations [1], [4], and [22] supply application context, shower-simulation inputs, and the generalized-Poisson fitting method; none is used as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification of the central measured claims. The large-pixel/1 nF compatibility assertion is an extrapolation from a 3x3 mm2 measurement, and the active-summation quadrature-noise budget is a validation concern (the skeptic's SNR~3.5 estimate), but these are correctness risks, not circular reductions by the paper's own equations.

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

The measured claims (FWHM, SNR, linearity) are conditioned on a handful of fitted parameters and a hand-chosen operating configuration; the step from small-sensor measurements to the large-area application is the main unmeasured link, carried by model parameters and simulations rather than by laboratory data.

free parameters (5)
  • SiPM model inputs (Ceq, G, T) = Ceq=650 pF, G=1e4, T=290 K
    Used in Eq. 2 to derive ENP about 1 and to fix the pixel segmentation requirement; these are estimates from the sensor model, not measured in this work.
  • MPE fit coefficients a, b (Eq. 9) = a=0.0876, b=6.8534 mV ns
    The linear gain model is fitted to the measured multi-photoelectron histogram; the 1 p.e. SNR claim (6.98) is computed from these fitted parameters.
  • Calibration polynomial coefficients (Fig. 19) = x0 through x5 (six coefficients)
    The post-calibration linearity within 5% is the residual scatter around this sixth-degree polynomial fitted to the transfer characteristic; the claim holds only after this fit.
  • Operating configuration control words (Table 3) = preamp=16, sum=31, cap1=4, buf=8, cap2=8, dac=0
    The quoted FWHM, SNR, and linearity are obtained at this hand-chosen configuration; other configurations give different pulse shaping.
  • Integration window = 6 ns
    Pulse areas, and therefore gain and linearity, are defined by a fixed 6 ns integration window chosen to capture the fast component; the results depend on this choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SiPM electrical model of Corsi, Marano, and Acerbi (Eqs. 1-3)
    The noise, timing, and attenuation estimates that set the design requirements depend on this model and on the quoted parameter values (refs [16-19]).
  • domain assumption Poisson model for NSB arrivals with negligible dead time (Eqs. 7-8)
    Used to derive the NSB-induced gain attenuation qbar(r)=q0/(1+r tau_fs Acell/Apix); motivates the AC-coupling design.
  • standard math Generalized Poisson MPE fit from ref [22] is valid
    The SNR and gain claims are extracted from this fit; its validity requires well-separated histogram peaks, which limits it to low light levels.
  • ad hoc to paper The 3x3 mm2 measurement transfers to the large segmented pixel
    The paper's application claims (1 nF input capacitance, four-input summation, ENP below 0.5) assume that performance scales from the tested small sensor; this is not demonstrated by measurement.
  • ad hoc to paper Post-calibration linearity defined against a sixth-order polynomial
    The 5% linearity claim is the deviation from a fitted polynomial, not the raw response linearity; the paper is explicit about this, but the claim is conditional on the fit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FANSIC: a Fast ANalog SiPM Integrated Circuit for the readout of large silicon photomultipliers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RM25CGY6

@misc{pith2026241109673,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FANSIC: a Fast ANalog SiPM Integrated Circuit for the readout of large silicon photomultipliers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RM25CGY6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09673}
}
read the original abstract

Silicon photo-multipliers (SiPM) have been replacing traditional photomultiplier tubes in most light sensing applications. However, when large detection surface coverage is needed, photomultipliers (PMTs) are still the preferred choice. The main reasons are the sensor thermal noise and the duration of the fast component of its signal, both increasing with the sensor surface. In this work we propose an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), called Fast ANalog SiPM Integrated Circuit (FANSIC), for the readout of large SiPMs addressing these limitations. The ASIC has an active summation stage, which allows to divide a large detection surface into smaller ones offering faster response both in single ended and differential outputs. The high input bandwidth allows to reach full-width-half-maximum (FWHM) signals or the order of 3--5 ns which limits the impact of internal and external uncorrelated noise. The results of the first implementation of FANSIC, designed in CMOS 65 nm technology, is described in this paper.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09673 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Numerical simulation of a pixel output signal for various inter-arrival times [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Simulation of the trigger system under NSB conditions. The vertical axis shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Simulation a Crab-like spectrum [21] of high-energy gamma events captured by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simplified FANSIC block diagram. The ASIC contains four pseudo-differential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Pulse shape comparison between the simulated S13360 current (blue) and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulation of the effective gain of a hexagonal S13360-UVE pixel as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulation of the NSB pile-up time evolution. A Poisson distribution of photons [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Schematic of the input (left side) and summation (right side) stages. The input [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Schematic of the two stages comprising the single-ended output buffer: amplifier [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Schematic of the pseudo-differential buffer. The left side and middle amplifiers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: the system under test and the optical components are placed in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Simulation of the pulse-shaping characteristic of the FANSIC for a sub-set [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Diagram of the measurement setup for the characterization of the detector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Left: Test PCB with mezzanines to connect instrumentation and different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Optical setup diagram for the neutral density filters characterization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Measured data for the characterization of the optical setup. Left: Transmit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Measurement of the output pulses features for different light intensities. Top [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The multi-photoelectron distribution was measured under a fixed light inten [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Circuit simulation of the gain G(Npe) as a function of the number of pho￾toelectrons ranging from 1 to 35 p.e. The gain represents the increase in pulse area per photoelectron, where the area is calculated using the 6 ns integration window. photoelectrons and is detai…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The transfer characteristic, mapping the number of photoelectrons to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_19.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Heller, et al., The next generation cameras for the Large-Sized Tele- scopes of the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory, PoS ICRC2023 (2023) 740

    M. Heller, et al., The next generation cameras for the Large-Sized Tele- scopes of the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory, PoS ICRC2023 (2023) 740. doi: 10.22323/1.444.0740

    work page doi:10.22323/1.444.0740 2023

  2. [2]

    Aguilar, et al., The front-end electronics and slow control of large area SiPM for the SST-1M camera developed for the CTA experiment, Nucl

    J. Aguilar, et al., The front-end electronics and slow control of large area SiPM for the SST-1M camera developed for the CTA experiment, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 830 (2016) 219 – 232. URL: http://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168900216304788. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2016.05.086

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2016.05.086 2016

  3. [3]

    Alispach, et al., The SST-1M imaging atmospheric Cherenkov tele- scope for gamma-ray astrophysics, JCAP 02 (2025) 047

    C. Alispach, et al., The SST-1M imaging atmospheric Cherenkov tele- scope for gamma-ray astrophysics, JCAP 02 (2025) 047. doi: 10.1088/ 1475-7516/2025/02/047. arXiv:2409.11310

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Heller, et al., An innovative silicon photomultiplier digitiz- ing camera for gamma-ray astronomy, The European Physical Journal C 77 (2017) 47

    M. Heller, et al., An innovative silicon photomultiplier digitiz- ing camera for gamma-ray astronomy, The European Physical Journal C 77 (2017) 47. URL: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/ s10052-017-4609-z . doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4609-z

    doi:10.1140/epjc/ 2017

  5. [5]

    The MiniBooNE Experiment : An Overview

    H. Ray, The miniboone experiment : An overview, 2007. URL: https: //arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0701040. arXiv:hep-ex/0701040

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

  6. [6]

    Okubo, I

    R. Okubo, I. Belle, Mcp-pmt quantum efficiency monitoring and opera- tion status of the top counter at the belle ii experiment, Nuclear Instru- ments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spec- trometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 1056 (2023) 168627

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Akindele, et al., Acceptance tests of hamamatsu r7081 photomultiplier tubes, Journal of Instrumentation 18 (2023) P08015

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Allekotte, et al., The surface detector system of the pierre auger obser- vatory, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 586 (2008) 409–420

    work page 2008

Show all 22 references
  1. [9]

    Anderhub, et al., Design and operation of F ACT - the first G- APD Cherenkov telescope, Journal of Instrumentation 8 (2013) 6008P

    H. Anderhub, et al., Design and operation of F ACT - the first G- APD Cherenkov telescope, Journal of Instrumentation 8 (2013) 6008P. doi:10.1088/1748-0221/8/06/P06008. arXiv:1304.1710. 31

    2013 arXiv

  2. [10]

    D. Depaoli, et al., Development of a sipm pixel prototype for the large-sized telescope of the cherenkov telescope array, Nu- clear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Ac- celerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 1055 (2023) 168521. URL:...

    2023

  3. [11]

    A. Hahn, et al., Direct comparison of sipm and pmt sensor per- formances in a large-size imaging air cherenkov telescope, Nu- clear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Ac- celerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 1064 (2024) 169350. URL:...

    2024

  4. [12]

    Angelis, et al., Characterisation of the music asic for large-area silicon photomultipliers for gamma-ray astronomy, Journal of Instrumentation 18 (2023) P01037

    D. Angelis, et al., Characterisation of the music asic for large-area silicon photomultipliers for gamma-ray astronomy, Journal of Instrumentation 18 (2023) P01037. URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/ 18/01/P01037. doi:10.1088/1748-0221/18/01/P01037

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    C. Arcaro, et al., Studies on a silicon-photomultiplier-based camera for imaging atmospheric cherenkov telescopes, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Ac- celerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 876 (2017) 26–30. URL: https://ww...

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    L. D. Medina Miranda, Characterization of Photosensitive Devices and Design of an Innovative Large-Sized Gamma-ray Telescope Camera, Ph.D. thesis, University of Geneva, 2023. doi: 10.13097/ archive-ouverte/unige:167866

    2023

  7. [15]

    G´ omez, et al., MUSIC: An 8 channel readout ASIC for SiPM arrays, in: F

    S. G´ omez, et al., MUSIC: An 8 channel readout ASIC for SiPM arrays, in: F. Berghmans, A. G. Mignani (Eds.), Optical Sensing and Detec- tion IV, volume 9899, International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE, 2016, p. 98990G. URL: https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2231095. doi:10...

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    Corsi, et al., Modelling a silicon photomultiplier (sipm) as a signal source for optimum front-end design, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 572 (2007) 416–418

    2007

  9. [17]

    Marano, et al., Silicon photomultipliers electrical model extensive ana- lytical analysis, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 61 (2013) 23–34

    2013

  10. [18]

    Marano, et al., Accurate analytical single-photoelectron response of silicon photomultipliers, IEEE Sensors Journal 14 (2014) 2749–2754

    2014

  11. [19]

    Acerbi, et al., Understanding and simulating sipms, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrome- ters, Detectors and Associated Equipment 926 (2019) 16–35

    2019

  12. [20]

    J. A. Aguilar, et al., The front-end electronics and slow control of large area SiPM for the SST-1M camera developed for the CTA experiment, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A830 (2016) 219–232. doi:10.1016/j.nima.2016. 05.086

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    Aleksi´ c, et al., Measurement of the crab nebula spectrum over three decades in energy with the magic telescopes, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics 5-6 (2015) 30–38

    J. Aleksi´ c, et al., Measurement of the crab nebula spectrum over three decades in energy with the magic telescopes, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics 5-6 (2015) 30–38. URL: https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214404815000038. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j....

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    Alispach, et al., Large scale characterization and calibration strategy of a SiPM-based camera for gamma-ray astronomy, JINST 15 (2020) P11010

    C. Alispach, et al., Large scale characterization and calibration strategy of a SiPM-based camera for gamma-ray astronomy, JINST 15 (2020) P11010. doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/11/P11010. arXiv:2008.04716. 33

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.