Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Performance of the prototype Silicon Tracking System of the CBM experiment tested with heavy-ion beams at SIS18

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The CBM prototype Silicon Tracking System, tested with heavy-ion beams at SIS18, claims to meet the requirements set for the full CBM experiment, achieving around 25 µm spatial resolution, around or better than 5 ns time resolution, 98%…

desk verdict Solid prototype STS beam-test paper with a few fixable typos and an overstuffed summary; worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20517 v1 pith:SFIIN54V submitted 2025-05-26 physics.ins-det nucl-ex

The CBM Collaboration This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-detnucl-ex PACS 29.40.Gx29.40.Wk
keywords siliconstripdetectorCBMexperimentmspatialresolutiontimehitreconstructionefficiencyfree-streamingreadoutheavy-ionbeamtest
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper is a beam-test report from the CBM collaboration claiming that the prototype Silicon Tracking System, built from 12 double-sided silicon micro-strip modules and operated in the mini-CBM set-up at SIS18, performs to the requirements drafted for the full 876-module CBM tracker. Measured in 1–2 AGeV heavy-ion collisions at about 500 kHz average rate, the detector reaches a spatial resolution around 25 µm in the bending coordinate, a time resolution of about 5 ns or better, a hit reconstruction efficiency of 98% on sensor areas without defects, a signal-to-noise ratio above 20, and a readout throughput of 56 kHit/s per channel with a single uplink per chip. From these numbers the paper concludes that the operational performance aligns with CBM's demands for tracking, vertexing, momentum reconstruction, and data throughput.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing system is the STS module chain: a 320 µm double-sided double-metal silicon strip sensor (1024 strips per side, 58 µm pitch) read out by STS/MUCH-XYTER ASICs that deliver a 3.125 ns-resolution timestamp and a 5-bit amplitude per hit in a free-streaming readout. Performance is extracted through cluster finding, time calibration with time-walk correction, software alignment by beam-spot minimization, unbiased hit-track residuals from straight-line tracklets to extract spatial resolution, and the Point-of-Closest-Approach method for vertices; impact-parameter and threshold-dependence studies are cross-checked with UrQMD + GEANT3 simulations.

What would settle it

Run the same or a larger STS prototype inside a 1 Tm dipole at 1 GeV/c and measure a reconstructed momentum resolution above 2%, or measure a full-module hit efficiency below 95% when dead and noisy strips are included; either result would contradict the paper's conclusion that the detector meets CBM requirements.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a close-to-final prototype of the CBM Silicon Tracking System satisfies the detector requirements: position resolution better than 30 µm per hit in the bending plane (observed 25–29 µm from residual fits), time resolution below 10 ns (observed around or better than 5 ns), hit efficiency of about 98% where all channels are operational (with losses concentrated on noisy or dead strips), signal-to-noise above 20, dead time of 200–350 ns, and stable data throughput up to 56 kHit/s/channel. On this basis the Summary states that the detector “meets the demanding standards for precise tracking, vertex determination, momentum reconstruction, and data throughput” for the upcoming CBM experiment.

Load-bearing premise

The mCBM measurements were made without a magnetic field, at an average collision rate of 500 kHz, and with only 12 modules, and the paper assumes these conditions are representative enough of the full CBM STS with a 1 Tm field, up to 10 MHz collisions, and 876 modules to certify momentum-resolution and rate requirements.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The full 876-module STS can be expected to reach better than 30 µm single-hit resolution and around 5 ns timing if module quality matches the prototype.
  • The measured 56 kHit/s/channel with one uplink supports the projected 370 kHit/s/channel with five uplinks needed at the 10 MHz collision rate.
  • Low dead time (200–350 ns) and low dark rate (0.5 kHit/s/channel) mean the free-streaming readout can sustain the CBM online event selection.
  • Vertex reconstruction and impact-parameter resolution (about 50–60 µm FWHM) are sufficient for secondary-vertex and decay-topology studies.
  • Efficiency of 98% only on defect-free regions implies that production quality control of strips and bonds is a driver of the final tracking efficiency.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the mCBM set-up has no magnetic field, momentum resolution is never directly measured; the paper's conclusion that the detector enables momentum reconstruction rests on simulation, and the 2% momentum-resolution requirement remains untested until the full magnet is present.
  • The throughput measurement was limited by the beam spill structure, and the 370 kHit/s/channel figure is an extrapolation from one to five uplinks, so the actual upper limit of the readout chain may differ when all five links and the full DAQ are used.
  • The 98% efficiency is defined on regions where all channels are operational, so the paper's summary conclusion implicitly assumes that the full detector will match the per-channel yield of the prototype modules.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports on the operational performance of a 12-module prototype of the CBM Silicon Tracking System operated in the mCBM demonstrator at SIS18, using heavy-ion collisions at 1–2 AGeV and an average interaction rate of about 500 kHz. The measurements cover readout throughput, time resolution, dead time, software alignment, single-station spatial resolution, primary-vertex and impact-parameter reconstruction, hit reconstruction efficiency, and signal-to-noise ratio. The central claim is that the prototype's measured performance in these areas aligns with CBM requirements, including position resolution better than 30 µm in the bending plane, time resolution better than 10 ns, and high-rate readout capability.

Significance. The paper is a useful milestone for the CBM collaboration. It describes realistic beam-based tests of the STS prototype, documents the calibration and analysis chain, and gives multiple estimators for the spatial resolution. Direct measurements of dead time, efficiency, signal-to-noise, and the demonstration of track and vertex reconstruction in a free-streaming readout are valuable. The significance is tempered, however, by extrapolations from the mCBM environment to the full CBM detector, in particular the absence of a magnetic field and the extrapolated, rather than directly measured, high-rate link configuration. The paper is likely acceptable after the issues below are addressed, but the current wording overstates readiness in several places.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1] The throughput numbers in Sec. 3.1 are internally inconsistent. The text states that the measured maximum of 56 kHit/s/channel with one uplink per ASIC is 'consistent with the expected bandwidth saturation limit of 9.41 kHit/s/link (corresponding to 73 kHit/s/channel)'. Since each SMX ASIC reads out 128 strips through one link, 9.41 kHit/s/link corresponds to about 73 Hit/s/channel, not 73 kHit/s/channel. Conversely, 56 kHit/s/channel on 128 channels would require about 7.2 MHit/s per link, roughly a factor of 760 above the quoted link bandwidth. The same factor-of-1000 error propagates to the extrapolated '370 kHit/s/channel' with five uplinks. Either 'channel' denotes something other than a strip (e.g., a link or an ASIC), in which case the abstract and Summary overstate the per-strip throughput, or the quoted link bandwidth is being misused. Because the data-rate claim is headlined as meeting a CBM requirement, this unit inconsistency is load-bearing and must be corrected with a consistent convention.
  2. [Sec. 4 (Summary)] The final paragraph states that the detector meets the standards for 'momentum reconstruction' and is 'ready to support the CBM experiment's experimental needs', but the mCBM setup has no magnetic field (Sec. 3.4) and no momentum resolution measurement is presented. The measured quantities—position residuals, timing, efficiency, and signal-to-noise—are inputs to momentum reconstruction, but they do not demonstrate a momentum resolution better than 2% at momenta above 1 GeV/c. The Summary should be reworded to claim readiness of the detector elements for tracking and vertexing, rather than readiness of the full momentum measurement.
  3. [Sec. 3.8] The quoted hit reconstruction efficiency of 98% applies only to 'module areas with nominal strip noise and absence of bonding defects'. Because the CBM requirement is an overall efficiency larger than 95%, the paper should report the inclusive efficiency over the full sensor area or quantify the fraction of area lost to dead/noisy strips and bonding defects. As written, the comparison between the measured 98% partial-area efficiency and the overall CBM requirement is incomplete and could mislead readers about the production-readiness of the modules.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.5, Eqs. (1) and (2)] Equation (1) contains a typographical error: the y-coordinate extrapolation should be y_DUT = y_i + T_y (z_DUT - z_i), not z_DUT - y_i. Equation (2) also appears to repeat the x-component in the definition of T_y; the second numerator should be (y_i - y_j).
  2. [Summary] The Summary states a data rate of '56 MHz/s/channel'; based on Sec. 3.1 this should be '56 kHit/s/channel' (or the equivalent in hits per second).
  3. [Sec. 3.7] The sentence 'The data were further digitized and processed with the same reconstruction chain as real data, Fig. 6' should refer to Fig. 8, which shows the impact-parameter distributions; Fig. 6 shows the vertex XY projection.
  4. [Sec. 3.5 and Summary] The 'around 25 µm' x-resolution quoted in the Summary is not the value obtained from the Gaussian fit in Table 1 (28–29 µm); it is closer to the FWHM- and RMS-based estimators. The text should state which estimator is used for the headline number. In addition, the y-resolution of about 100 µm is not mentioned in the Summary; since the CBM requirement is stated for the bending plane, the y-value should be explicitly discussed so that readers do not assume the same performance in both coordinates.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Minor circularity in MC impact-parameter validation only; central detector-performance claims are direct measurements compared with external CBM requirements.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.7, Impact parameter (Fig. 8)]
    "The analysis is reproduced with Monte Carlo simulations, in which Ni+Ni collision events were generated using UrQMD[15,16,17] and transported using GEANT3[18]. The primary vertex is smeared according to the distribution obtained from real data. The data were further digitized and processed with the same reconstruction chain as real data... The IP distributions, shown in Fig. 8 for real data, are in excellent agreement with those extracted from MC simulations."

    The MC impact-parameter distribution is not an independent prediction: the primary-vertex distribution, which dominates the IP width, is taken from the same real data that the comparison is meant to validate. Agreement between data and MC in Fig. 8 is therefore partly guaranteed by construction and cannot independently confirm the IP resolution or the simulation chain. This circularity is minor and non-load-bearing for the paper's central conclusions, which rest on directly measured position resolution, timing, efficiency, dead time, and signal-to-noise ratio.

full rationale

This is an experimental characterization paper, not a derivation, so most circularity patterns do not apply. The central results—spatial resolution, time resolution, hit efficiency, S/N, dead time, and dark rate—are directly measured from beam data and compared against the CBM Technical Design Report requirements in Ref. [2], an external specification. The self-citations to Refs. [3] and [5] supply module and ASIC characterization parameters (ENC, bandwidth limit, shaping time) that are used as calibration inputs or context, not as the target results, so they are not load-bearing in a circular sense. The only mild circular element is in Sec. 3.7: the MC IP distributions are produced with the primary vertex smeared using the real-data vertex distribution, so the 'excellent agreement' with real data is partly a consistency check with an input rather than an independent prediction. This does not affect the main measured performance claims. The apparent throughput unit inconsistency in Sec. 3.1 is a correctness or consistency defect, not a circularity, and therefore does not raise the circularity score. Overall, the paper's central claims are self-contained measurements with external benchmarks, so the circularity burden is very low.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It relies on standard detector calibration parameters (alignment, time offsets, ADC gain, thresholds) that are fitted to data but are conventional and disclosed. The central results are direct measurements, not derivations from postulated inputs.

free parameters (4)
  • Per-sensor alignment translations (x, y offsets) = Not reported individually; consistent with ~100 um assembly precision
    Fitted in software via beam-spot gradient descent (Sec. 3.4); the reported spatial resolution and vertex positions depend on this calibration, which is standard detector alignment.
  • STS time calibration offsets and time-walk corrections per ASIC/discriminator = Not reported individually
    Obtained from T0 reference and amplitude-dependent corrections (Sec. 3.2); central to the 'better than 5 ns' time resolution claim.
  • ADC gain calibration = 0.335 +/- 0.003 fC/LSB (~2000 e/LSB)
    Measured via internal pulse generator S-curves (Sec. 2.3); converts ADC code to charge for amplitude and S/N results.
  • Digitization threshold (operating point) = 3-4 sigma of noise, ~3000-4000 e
    Chosen by the collaboration (Sec. 2.3); the hit efficiency depends strongly on this threshold (Sec. 3.8).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Multiple Coulomb scattering is described by the Highland formula (Eq. 4) with the given X/X0.
    Used to correct residual widths for scattering in Sec. 3.5; standard but an approximation.
  • domain assumption Tracks are straight lines through the mCBM detector (no magnetic field).
    Used for track extrapolation, alignment, and vertexing; true in the mCBM configuration but not for the final CBM detector.
  • domain assumption UrQMD event generator and GEANT3 transport provide a valid model of Ni+Ni collisions and detector response.
    Used for MC comparison of impact parameter distributions in Sec. 3.7.
  • standard math The sensor geometry, strip pitch (58 um), thickness (320 um), and X/X0 = 0.38% per module are as quoted from the TDR and module characterization.
    Inputs used for the theoretical resolution estimate of 58/sqrt(12) = 17 um.
  • standard math The cluster position is estimated by center of gravity and time by amplitude-weighted average.
    Standard reconstruction assumption, cited to Refs. [11] and [12].
  • domain assumption The time-of-flight spread between fastest and slowest particles is about 2 ns as estimated with simulations.
    Used to interpret the width of the STS-T0 time difference as an upper limit on time resolution (Sec. 3.2); the estimate comes from simulations and affects the 'better than 5 ns' claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Performance of the prototype Silicon Tracking System of the CBM experiment tested with heavy-ion beams at SIS18." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SFIIN54V

@misc{pith2026250520517,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Performance of the prototype Silicon Tracking System of the CBM experiment tested with heavy-ion beams at SIS18},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SFIIN54V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20517}
}
read the original abstract

The Compressed Baryonic Matter (CBM) experiment at the future Facility for Antiproton and Ion Research (FAIR) is a heavy-ion experiment designed to study nuclear matter at the highest baryonic density. For high-statistics measurements of rare probes, event rates of up to 10 MHz are targeted. The experiment, therefore, requires fast and radiation-hard detectors, self-triggered detector front-ends, free-streaming readout architecture, and online event reconstruction. The Silicon Tracking System (STS) is the main tracking detector of CBM, designed to reconstruct the trajectories of charged particles with efficiency larger than 95%, a momentum resolution better than 2% for particle momenta larger than 1 GeV/c inside a 1 Tm magnetic field, and to identify complex decay topologies. It comprises 876 double-sided silicon strip modules arranged in 8 tracking stations. A prototype of this detector, consisting of 12 modules arranged in three tracking stations, is installed in the mini-CBM demonstrator. This experimental setup is a small-scale precursor to the full CBM detector, composed of sub-units of all major CBM systems installed on the SIS18 beamline. In various beam campaigns taken between 2021 and 2024, heavy ion collisions at 1-2 AGeV with an average collision rate of 500 kHz have been measured. This allows for the evaluation of the operational performance of the STS detector, including time and position resolution, hit reconstruction efficiency, charge distribution, signal-to-noise ratio, and its potential for track and vertex reconstruction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.20517 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic view of the mCBM setup in the 2024 beam campaign [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. CAD drawing of the mSTS setup shifted outside the enclosure for illustration. The sensors are depicted in blue. : Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 11 of 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top: Time difference of raw strip signals of the STS and signal from T0 detector, before (blue) and after (red) time calibration. The points indicate the mean value of the time difference, while the bar stands for the width (𝜎) of the distribution. Bottom: Time resolution of the STS as a function of the signal amplitude. The error bars reflect the fit uncertainty. The inset shows the time difference between STS and … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The amplitude of the first signal vs the time difference between consecutive signals in the same channel. The empty region corresponds to the detector dead time, which ranges from 200 ns to 350 ns for low to high charge values. Note that the numbering scheme of the STS…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Unbiased hit-track residual distribution for a selected sensor module in X (left) and Y (right), respectively. The distribution is fitted by a Gaussian plus a second-order polynomial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: XY projection of the event primary vertex, together with one-dimensional distributions in X and Y, respectively. The mean and the widths of the distributions, obtained from a Gaussian fit, are displayed in the top right panel. : Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 13 o…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (left) Zoom-in view of the target chamber region, highlighting the planes of interest for vertex reconstruction. (right) Projection of the reconstructed vertex along the x-axis for different z-planes. The dashed lines indicate the expected position of the vertex, toget…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Track impact parameter distribution, in X (left) and Y (right), for real (red) and simulated (blue) data. : Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 14 of 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Hit reconstruction efficiency as a function of the threshold for different detectors of Station 1. Here, "U1" refers to the Station, "L" refers to the ladder, and "M" refers to the module. The solid line represents the averaged efficiency for a well-selected active are…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top: Signal amplitude distribution for n- and p-side. The overflow bin is filled at the upper end of the charge digitization range. Bottom: correlation between the signal amplitude on both sides of a module. Clusters that include one or more signals in the overflow bi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Experimental Review on Bulk Properties and Light/Strange Hadron Production in Heavy-Ion Collisions

    nucl-ex 2026-07 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A conference proceedings review synthesizes STAR, CMS, ALICE, ATLAS, PHENIX, NA61/SHINE and HADES results on bulk QGP properties and strange hadron production across energies and system sizes.

  2. Detectors and Electronics for the CBM experiment at FAIR

    physics.ins-det 2025-06 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    The CBM detector and electronics systems are reported as mature, with series production underway and key performance-validated through beam tests at mCBM and deployments in STAR, HADES, and E16.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Challenges in QCD matter physics - the scientific programme of the compressed baryonic matter experiment at fair,

    T. Ablyazimov and et al., “Challenges in QCD matter physics - the scientific programme of the compressed baryonic matter experiment at fair,”The European Physical Journal A, vol. 53, p. 60, 2017. :Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 9 of 10 Performance of the prototype Silicon Tracking System of the CBM experiment tested with heavy-ion beams at SIS18

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Heuser, W

    J. Heuser, W. Müller, V.Pugatch, P. Senger, C. J. Schmidt, C. Sturm, andU. Frankenfeld, eds.,[GSI Report 2013-4] Technical Design Report for the CBM Silicon Tracking System (STS). Darmstadt: GSI, 2013

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Functional characterization of modules for the silicon tracking system of the CBM experiment,

    A.R.Rodríguez,O.M.Rodríguez,J.Lehnert,A.Toia,M.Teklishyn,A.Lymanets,D.R.Garcés,J.M.Heuser,andC.J.Schmidt,“Functional characterization of modules for the silicon tracking system of the CBM experiment,”Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, vol. 1058, p. 168813, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Hamamatsu photonics k.k.,

    “Hamamatsu photonics k.k.,” 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Characterization oftheSTS/MUCH-XYTER2,a128-channeltimeandamplitudemeasurementICforgasandsiliconmicrostripsensors,

    K. Kasinski, A. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, J. Lehnert, W. Zubrzycka, R. Szczygiel, P. Otfinowski, R. Kleczek, and C. Schmidt, “Characterization oftheSTS/MUCH-XYTER2,a128-channeltimeandamplitudemeasurementICforgasandsiliconmicrostripsensors,”Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equip...

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    mCBM@SIS18,

    CBM Collaboration, “mCBM@SIS18,”Darmstadt: CBM Collaboration, p. GSI 58 S. (2017)., 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    The transition radiation detector of the CBM Experiment at FAIR : Technical Design Report for the CBM Transition Radiation Detector (TRD),

    CBM Collaboration, “The transition radiation detector of the CBM Experiment at FAIR : Technical Design Report for the CBM Transition Radiation Detector (TRD),” Tech. Rep. FAIR Technical Design Report, Darmstadt, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Herrmann, ed.,Technical Design Report for the CBM Time-of-Flight System (TOF)

    N. Herrmann, ed.,Technical Design Report for the CBM Time-of-Flight System (TOF). Darmstadt: GSI, 2014

    work page 2014

Show all 18 references
  1. [9]

    Technical design report for the CBM ring Imaging Cherenkov Detector,

    “Technical design report for the CBM ring Imaging Cherenkov Detector,” tech. rep., 2013

    2013

  2. [10]

    Technical Design Report for the CBM Online Systems – Part I, DAQ and FLES Entry Stage,

    “Technical Design Report for the CBM Online Systems – Part I, DAQ and FLES Entry Stage,” PUB:(DE-HGF)3 / PUB:(DE-HGF)29 -, Darmstadt, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    A cluster-finding algorithm for free-streaming data,

    V. Friese, “A cluster-finding algorithm for free-streaming data,”EPJ Web of Conferences, vol. 214, p. 01008, 9 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    A precision device needs precise simulation: Software description of the CBM silicon tracking system,

    H. Malygina and V. Friese, “A precision device needs precise simulation: Software description of the CBM silicon tracking system,”Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 898, p. 042022, 10 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    Time-basedreconstructionoffree-streamingdataincbm,

    V.Akishina,I.Kisel,I.Vassiliev,andM.Zyzak,“Time-basedreconstructionoffree-streamingdataincbm,”EPJ Web of Conferences,vol.173, p. 04002, 2 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Review of particle physics,

    R. L. Workman and et al., “Review of particle physics,”PTEP, vol. 2022, p. 083C01, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Microscopic models for ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions,

    A. Bass and et al., “Microscopic models for ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions,”Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., vol. 41, pp. 225–370, 1998

    1998

  8. [16]

    Relativistic hadron-hadron collisions in the ultra-relativistic quantum molecular dynamics model,

    M. Bleicher and et al., “Relativistic hadron-hadron collisions in the ultra-relativistic quantum molecular dynamics model,”J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys., vol. 25, pp. 1859–1896, 1999

    1999

  9. [17]

    Fully integrated transport approach to heavy ion reactions with an intermediate hydrodynamic stage,

    H. Petersen, J. Steinheimer, G. Burau, M. Bleicher, and H. Stöcker, “Fully integrated transport approach to heavy ion reactions with an intermediate hydrodynamic stage,”Phys. Rev. C, vol. 78, p. 044901, 2008

    2008

  10. [18]

    U1" refers to the Station,

    R.Brun,F.Bruyant,F.Carminati,S.Giani,M.Maire,A.McPherson,G.Patrick,andL.Urban,GEANT: Detector Description and Simulation Tool. CERN Program Library, Geneva: CERN, 1993. Long Writeup W5013. :Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 10 of 10 Performance of the prototype Silicon Track...

    1993

Pith tools

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