Organic liquid scintillator neutrino detector experiment, theoretical modeling, and computational simulation

Ken Perlin; Wenxi Fang; Xi Liu

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 15 references

Organic liquid scintillator neutrino detector experiment, theoretical modeling, and computational simulation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a FLUKA simulation chain reproduces the LSND liquid-scintillator detector's neutrino and neutron-capture response, and that this validates the experiment's sensitivity and limitations.

desk verdict A review-style compilation with a validation claim that is asserted rather than demonstrated; no quantitative comparison to LSND data appears anywhere. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03359 v2 pith:UV62EL3R submitted 2026-08-04 physics.ins-det

Xi Liu , Wenxi Fang , Ken Perlin This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.ins-det PACS 29.40.Mc14.60.Pq

keywords liquidscintillatordetectorneutrinooscillationinversebetadecayneutroncaptureFLUKAMonteCarloBirks'lawpionproductioncrosssectionLSND

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

The paper argues that a computational model built on the FLUKA Monte Carlo code can reproduce how the LSND organic liquid scintillator detector responded to neutrinos. Its central chain is inverse $\beta$ decay ($\overline{\nu}_e+p\to e^+ + n$) followed by neutron capture on hydrogen ($n+p\to d+\gamma$), with the light output of the positron and the 2.2 MeV capture gamma predicted through Birks'-law quenching and expressed in electron-equivalent energy. The authors also compute neutrino fluxes from pion and muon decay at rest and in flight, parameterize pion production at the beam energy, and present simulated response functions for electrons, protons, deuterons, alphas, and tritons. On the paper's own account, this framework validated the experimental observations and revealed the detector's sensitivity and limitations; if true, it provides a transferable design and analysis tool for future liquid scintillator experiments.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the FLUKA Monte Carlo simulation of particle transport in the scintillator, driven by three interlocking inputs: the neutrino flux from pion and muon decay at rest and in flight, the pion-production cross-section parameterization fitted to 585 and 730 MeV proton data and interpolated to the 800 MeV beam, and the Birks'-law light-yield relation $\frac{dL}{dE}=S\left(1+K B\,\frac{dE}{dx}+C\left(\frac{dE}{dx}\right)^2\right)^{-1}$ implemented through the TCQUENCH card. The EVENTBIN card scores energy deposited by electrons and positrons, and the output is expressed as a detector response function in counts per MeVee per unit neutron fluence, with the 2.2 MeV hydrogen-capture gamma serving as the delayed tag.

What would settle it

Compare the simulated positron energy spectrum and the delayed 2.2 MeV neutron-capture coincidence rate against the published LSND beam-on/beam-off data set; a mismatch beyond the quoted uncertainties would falsify the claimed validation. Independently, measure pion-production double-differential cross sections for 800 MeV protons on the inconel/water target and test them against the linearly interpolated parameterization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that a FLUKA-based simulation chain reproduces the LSND detector's response to the reactions $\overline{\nu}_e + p \to e^+ + n$, $\nu_e + p \to e^- + n$, and the subsequent capture $n + p \to d + \gamma$. The chain maps each deposited energy to a predicted light output through the Birks quenching law, uses the EVENTBIN and TCQUENCH cards to score $e^\pm$ energy deposition and scintillation light, and normalizes the result as a response function in counts per MeVee per unit neutron fluence. From the simulated light-yield curves and flux calculations, the authors conclude that the framework validated the experimental observations and supplied insight into the detector's sensitivity and limitations, reinforcing the LSND hint of oscillation and sterile-neutrino physics.

Load-bearing premise

The whole simulation depends on the assumed numbers for how many pions an 800 MeV proton beam makes when it hits the inconel-and-water target; those numbers come from fitting data at 585 and 730 MeV and stretching the fit up to 800 MeV, and the paper notes the fit misses the data at some angles.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Future organic liquid scintillator detectors can use the same FLUKA chain to predict their electron-equivalent energy scale, positron detection efficiency, and neutron-capture tagging rate before construction.
The separation of decay-at-rest and decay-in-flight fluxes gives a quantitative handle on the energy window in which a muon-to-electron antineutrino oscillation signal would appear above conventional backgrounds.
The simulated response function, normalized per unit neutron fluence, allows the sensitivity of different scintillators to be compared independently of beam intensity.
Modeling the delayed 2.2 MeV gamma from $n+p\to d+\gamma$ provides a template for coincidence-tagging backgrounds in short-baseline neutrino experiments.
The parameterized pion-production cross sections can be reused as a source term for other beam-stop neutrino flux calculations at proton energies up to 800 MeV.

Reading between the lines

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

The validation claim is asserted qualitatively; the text does not overlay simulated and measured spectra, so a quantitative comparison to the LSND data would be the natural next test.
The framework models hydrogen capture as the delayed tag; replacing it with the multi-gamma cascade from gadolinium capture would extend the same chain to the metal-loaded detectors the paper motivates.
The pion-production interpolation could be checked against direct measurements at 800 MeV, which would test the neutrino-flux normalization independently of any oscillation result.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a review-style compilation, not a research paper. It has no new results and its central validation claim is unsupported. It does compile a useful summary of LSND, metal-loaded scintillator chemistry, and the Burman-Smith pion parameterization, and it's clear the authors know the literature. But the abstract and conclusion say the FLUKA framework 'validated' LSND observations, and the paper never shows any comparison between simulation and LSND data. There are no uncertainties, no spectra, no event rates. Fig. 12 is a simulated response function without experimental overlay. So the headline claim is an assertion.

What's actually new: essentially nothing. The PMNS formalism, Birks law, and the 1989 Burman-Smith parameterization are all borrowed from cited work. The FLUKA validation in ref [10] is external. The paper's only possible novelty is the specific FLUKA simulation setup, but no results of it appear in a reproducible form.

Soft spots beyond the missing validation: Section 5.2 has a garbled dL/dE formula; the denominator appears inverted and repeated, and the second version is scrambled. Section 5.4's source parameterization is interpolated from fits at 585 and 730 MeV to 800 MeV, and the paper itself admits deviations at those anchor points. That doesn't kill the framework, but it means the neutrino flux could be miscalibrated, and since no output comparison is shown, we can't tell. Several references are mismatched (e.g., the text cites ref [12] for DIF kinematics but it's the Burman-Smith Monte Carlo paper; ref [14] is about scintillator crystals, not metal-loaded LS in the context cited). These are minor in the sense that the review is still readable, but they add to the sense that this wasn't carefully vetted.

Who is this for? A student looking for a survey of LSND and liquid scintillator physics might get an okay overview, but they'd be better served by the actual LSND papers and the cited reviews. It's not a serious contribution to the literature, and it doesn't deserve referee time in its current form. If the authors replaced the validation claim with a modest description of their simulation setup and made their FLUKA input files and output data available, it could become a useful technical note. As is, I'd desk-reject.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a review-style account of the liquid scintillator neutrino detector (LSND) experiment and claims to develop a FLUKA-based theoretical modeling and simulation framework for it. The stated goal is to validate LSND's experimental observations by simulating inverse beta decay, neutron capture, scintillation light output with Birks' law quenching, decay-at-rest and decay-in-flight neutrino fluxes, and pion production cross-sections. The abstract and conclusion assert that this framework validated the experimental results and provided insights into the detector's sensitivity and limitations. No quantitative comparison between any simulation output and LSND data is shown anywhere in the manuscript.

Significance. If the claims were substantiated, a validated FLUKA model of the LSND detector response could be a useful reference for organic liquid scintillator simulations. The paper, however, contains no reproducible simulation results, no error analysis, and no comparison to measured data. The theoretical sections (PMNS matrix, weak interactions, Birks' law, scintillation chemistry) are standard textbook material, and the only apparently original quantitative content, the pion production parameterization, is directly adapted from the cited work of Burman and Smith. Because the central validation claim is asserted rather than demonstrated, the manuscript does not meet the standard for an original research contribution in detector physics.

major comments (4)

[Abstract; Sec. 6] The central claim that the theoretical modeling and simulation framework "validated the experimental observations" is unsupported. The text provides no quantitative comparison between any FLUKA output (positron/electron light-yield spectra, neutron capture time distribution, or detector response function) and published LSND data. Fig. 12 shows a simulated response function without experimental overlays or residuals, and Sec. 5.1 describes the response function only qualitatively. Without such a comparison, the paper's headline conclusion in Sec. 6 cannot be evaluated, let alone accepted.
[Sec. 5.2, Eq. for dL/dE] The light-yield equations are internally inconsistent and dimensionally wrong. Birks' law is correctly written as dL/dx = S (dE/dx)/(1 + KB dE/dx). The subsequent expression dL/dE = S [1 + KB (dE/dx) + C (dE/dx)^2]^{-1} does not follow from the first: dividing by dE/dx would give dL/dE = S/(1 + KB dE/dx). The extra quadratic quenching term C, the missing dE/dx factor, and the later exponential variant in the same section make the formula not implementable as written. Since scintillation light output is the core simulated observable, this is a load-bearing technical error.
[Sec. 5.4] The pion production parameterization is used outside its validated range without evidence. The fits are made at T_p = 585 and 730 MeV and linearly interpolated to the LAMPF energy of 800 MeV via the expressions for T_A(Z,T_p) and sigma_A(Z,T_p). The text itself admits "underestimation at T_p = 585 MeV and scattering angles around 50°, and overestimation at T_p = 730 MeV and 20°," yet concludes that the parameterization "effectively predicts" pion production cross sections below 800 MeV. No validation at 800 MeV is shown, and the admitted discrepancies at the fit energies are not quantified. Since the source neutrino flux is derived from this parameterization, the reliability of any downstream detector-response simulation cannot be established.
[Secs. 3 and 5.1] The manuscript conflates neutrinos and antineutrinos in the inverse beta decay reactions. It writes nu_e + p -> e^- + n and nu_e + p -> e^+ + n as equivalent channels, and similarly nu_e + 12C -> e^- + 12B and nu_e + 12C -> e^+ + 12B. The physical LSND signal is bar-nu_e + p -> e^+ + n; the bet minus channel is a charged-current neutrino interaction, not an IBD signal. This error appears in the abstract, Sec. 3, and Sec. 5.1, where the simulated reactions are listed. Because the simulation's event definitions are based on these reactions, the physics content of the modeling is compromised.

minor comments (6)

[Sec. 5.2] The symbol for the Birks coefficient appears as KB and kB in adjacent sentences; unify the notation and specify units consistently (g MeV^{-1} cm^{-2} or mm/MeV).
[Sec. 5.4] In the differential cross-section formula, the quantities a, T_F, and B are used but never defined, and the parentheses in the exponential and Fermi-factor terms are ambiguous. Please define all symbols and clarify the expression.
[Sec. 5.3] The neutrino flux plots (Figs. 18-22) are described only qualitatively ("increase to a peak and then decrease"); no equations for the DAR or DIF energy spectra are given, making the flux calculation non-reproducible.
[Sec. 4.2] The description of the beam and target ("went through a water target") would benefit from a reference to a source for the LAMPF beam parameters, and the figures in Sec. 4 (Figs. 10, 11) are not referenced in the text.
[Sec. 5.5] This section consists largely of textbook material (Bethe-Bloch, FRET, MO theory) that is not connected to any simulation result; consider condensing it to the items actually used in the modeling.
[Sec. 2] The PMNS parametrization places e^{-i delta_CP} in the (1,3) entry; the standard PDG convention uses it in the (1,3) element with a different sign convention. Please state the convention explicitly or cite it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the simulation imports external parameterizations and does not fit any parameter to LSND data; the unsupported 'validation' claim is an evidence gap, not a by-construction reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is expository and imports its load-bearing physical inputs from external prior work: FLUKA (ref [10]), Birks' law (ref [11]), and the Burman-Smith pion production parameterization (refs [12], [15]). No parameter in the manuscript is defined in terms of the LSND observations it claims to validate, and no LSND data are used to fit a quantity that is later presented as a prediction. Section 5.4 describes a pion-production parameterization based on data at Tp=585 and 730 MeV, interpolated to LAMPF energies; this is an external, independently published parameterization, and the text claims agreement with independent measurements at higher energies, so even the interpolation is not a fitted input relabeled as a prediction. The abstract and Section 6 state that the framework 'validated the experimental observations,' but the text contains no quantitative comparison of FLUKA output to LSND data. That makes the validation claim unsupported, but it is not circular: nothing in the simulation chain reduces by construction to the target result.

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

The paper's central claim rests on textbook neutrino physics and on fitted parameterizations borrowed from cited prior work: the Burman-Smith pion production cross-sections, Birks' law quenching parameters, and PMNS mixing angles. No new entity is postulated, but no independent data, code, or measurement is provided either. The validation claim therefore depends entirely on the accuracy of these upstream inputs, which the paper does not re-examine.

free parameters (5)

Amp(θ) spline coefficients a1-a5 = a1 = min(27-4((730-Tp)/(730-585))^2, 27), a2=18.2, a3=8, a4=13+(Z-12)/10, a5=9+(Z-12)/10-(Tp-685)/20
Fitted to pion production data at Tp=585 and 730 MeV (Sec. 5.4); these set the amplitude of the differential cross-section and are adopted from the Burman-Smith parameterization without re-validation.
Norm(Z) coefficients c0-c3 = c0=0.8851, c1=-0.1015, c2=0.1459, c3=-0.0265
Polynomial fit in ln Z scaling the cross-section amplitude (Sec. 5.4).
T_A(Z,Tp) and sigma_A(Z,Tp) = Linear interpolation between values at 585 and 730 MeV
Energy centroid and width of the pion kinetic energy Gaussian, fitted to data and interpolated in proton energy (Sec. 5.4).
Quenching parameter C in dL/dE = not specified
The paper adds a C(dE/dx)^2 term to Birks' law (Sec. 5.2) but gives no value or source; the light yield predictions depend on it.
Birks coefficient kB for BC501A = not stated; literature values quoted (0.126 mm/MeV for polystyrene; 1.26-2.07e-2 g MeV^-1 cm^-2 for PVT)
The simulation's light output depends on kB, but the paper never states which value was used in the FLUKA TCQUENCH setting (Sec. 5.2).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption PMNS mixing angles and mass-squared differences as quoted in Sec. 2 are correct.
Used to interpret oscillation physics; these are fitted values from prior experiments, treated as input.
domain assumption FLUKA accurately simulates neutron and hadron transport from thermal energies to 20 TeV in organic scintillators.
Sec. 5 states FLUKA's energy ranges; the accuracy for LSND-like response is assumed from prior validation [10].
domain assumption Birks' law, with the added C term, describes quenching for all secondary particles in BC501A.
Sec. 5.2 uses this law to convert energy deposition to light output for protons, deuterons, alphas, and tritons, without in-paper calibration.
domain assumption The Burman-Smith pion production parameterization is valid for the LAMPF 800 MeV proton beam and water/inconel target.
Sec. 5.4 relies on this parameterization to compute the neutrino source flux; the paper notes the fit deviates at some angles and energies.
domain assumption Inverse beta decay (nu_e + p -> e+ + n) is the dominant signal channel, and n + p -> d + gamma provides the delayed tag.
Sec. 3 assumes these reactions and their known cross-sections; no cross-section calculation is performed in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Organic liquid scintillator neutrino detector experiment, theoretical modeling, and computational simulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UV62EL3R

@misc{pith2026260803359,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Organic liquid scintillator neutrino detector experiment, theoretical modeling, and computational simulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UV62EL3R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03359}
}

abstract

The Liquid Scintillator Neutrino Detector (LSND) experiment aimed at investigating neutrino oscillations, particularly the transformation of muon-type antineutrinos ($\overline{\nu}_\mu$) into electron-type antineutrinos ($\overline{\nu}_e$). This phenomenon challenges the Standard Model's assumption of massless neutrinos. The LSND employed a large organic liquid scintillator (LS) to detect low-energy neutrino interactions, enhanced by the addition of metal ions such as gadolinium (Gd) for improved signal sensitivity and noise suppression. Theoretical modeling and simulations are used in this paper to accurately interpret experimental results. The FLUKA Monte Carlo code was employed to simulate particle interactions and transport in the detector. Key processes modeled included neutrino interactions ($\overline{\nu}_e + p \to e^+ + n$), neutron capture ($n + p \to d + \gamma$), and the corresponding light output in the scintillator. The simulations accounted for quenching effects using Birks' law, enabling precise predictions of light yield and detector response to secondary particles. Neutrino fluxes from decay-at-rest (DAR) and decay-in-flight (DIF) processes were calculated, capturing the energy spectra of neutrinos generated by pion and muon decays. Pion production cross-sections and light output efficiency for various particles were also modeled to understand detector performance comprehensively. The theoretical modeling and simulation framework validated the experimental observations and provided insights into the detector's sensitivity and limitations. The LSND results hinted at deviations from the Standard Model, stimulating further investigations into neutrino oscillations and the potential existence of sterile neutrinos.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03359 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** primary and secondary fluor molecule wavelengths of the optical absorption and emission peak maxima (when diluted in cyclohexane) polar metal ions into nonpolar LS solvents without degrading scintillator performance. The disparity in densities and polarities between metal ions and LS solvents complicates the achievement of uniform dispersion. One commonly used method is the synthesis of organometallic compounds by… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** detector and target area decay. The decay rate, Γ, is related to the squared modulus of the matrix element and the phase space of the decay products. For a process like 𝑎 → 𝑏 + 𝑐, the decay rate is Γ = 1 2𝑚𝑎 ∫ || 2 𝑑Π𝑛 where 𝑚𝑎 is the mass of the decaying particle,  is the matrix element for the decay (in this case, 𝑀𝑓 𝑖), 𝑑Π𝑛 is the differential phase space element for the final state particles. The phase space e… view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** The energy levels of the singlet (S) and triplet (T) states, with their corresponding vibrational levels, are illustrated for a fluorescent molecule. Solid arrows indicate transitions that result in fluorescence or phosphorescence emission, dotted arrows represent non-radiative transitions. 4. Experimental setup 4.1. Scintillation The detector was positioned approximately 30 meters from the neutrino source and was s… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: phenyl xylylethane (PXE) attentuation length vs wavelength, with 2,5-diphenyloxazole (PPO) and 4-bis-(2- methyl styryl)benzene (bis-MSB) the secondary neutrons produced. The energy and trajectory of these neutrons are specified using the BEAM and BEAMPOS cards. Secon…

**Figure 19.** Figure 19: 𝜈𝑒 flux vs energy for 𝜋 + decay [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_19.png]

**Figure 20.** Figure 20: 𝜈𝑒 flux vs energy for 𝜇 + decay [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_20.png]

**Figure 21.** Figure 21: 𝜈𝑒 flux vs energy for 𝜋 − decay from the kinematics and phase space of the decay processes. The 𝜈𝜇 curve increases within the interval 𝑥 = 0 to 𝑥 = 0.57. For pion decay in flight (DIF), such as 𝜋 + → 𝜇 + + 𝜈𝜇 , the resulting neutrinos (𝜈𝜇 ) have a wide range of energ…

**Figure 24.** Figure 24: 𝜋 + production from hydrogen, x-axis is 𝑇𝜋 (𝑀𝑒𝑉 ) (from 0 to 600), y-axis is 𝜎(𝜇𝑏∕𝑀𝑒𝑉 ∕𝑠𝑟) (from 0 to 30) 𝑍1∕3 dependence is applied, while for 𝑍 < 12, an additional linear term in 𝑍 is included to improve agreement with data for lighter elements, such as helium. The…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[10]

Ghavami, M

A. Ghavami, M. Tajik, Validation of the fluka code to simulate response functions of organic liquid scintillator for high- energy neutrons, Nuclear Engineering and Technology (2024). doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2024.09.001. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S1738573324004479

doi:10.1016/j.net.2024.09.001 2024
[12]

Burman, M

R. Burman, M. Potter, E. Smith, Monte carlo simulation of neutrino production by medium-energy protons in a beam stop, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment (1990).doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-9002(90)90012-U. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ ...

doi:10.1016/0168-9002(90)90012-u 1990
[14]

Maddalena, L

F. Maddalena, L. Tjahjana, A. Xie, Arramel, S. Zeng, H. Wang, P.Coquet,W.Drozdowski,C.Dujardin,C.Dang,M.D.Birowosuto, Inorganic, organic, and perovskite halides with nanotechnology for high-light yield x- and𝛾-ray scintillators, Crystals (2019).doi: 10.3390/cryst9020088. URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/2073-4352/9/2/88

doi:10.3390/cryst9020088 2019
[1]

C. Athanassopoulos, The liquid scintillator neutrino detector and lampf neutrino source, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 388 (1) (1997) 149–172. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(96)01155-2. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0168900296011552

doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(96)01155-2 1997
[2]

C. Buck, M. Yeh, Metal-loaded organic scintillators for neutrino physics, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 43 (9) (2016) 093001.doi:10.1088/0954-3899/43/9/093001. URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/43/9/093001

doi:10.1088/0954-3899/43/9/093001 2016
[3]

J. Y. Choi, K. K. Joo, H.-G. Lee, S. Y. Kim, Organic liquid scintillation detectors for reactor neutrino experiments: Toward precision neutrino physics, Current Applied Physics 59 (2024) 182–196.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cap.2023.10.020. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S1567173923002444

doi:10.1016/j.cap.2023.10.020 2024
[4]

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2007.10.045

H.Back,M.Balatal,Studyofphenylxylylethane(pxe)asscintillator for low energy neutrino experiments, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment (2008). doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2007.10.045. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0168900207022607

doi:10.1016/j.nima.2007.10.045 2008
[5]

Ait-Boubker, M

S. Ait-Boubker, M. Avenier, G. Bagieu, J. Cavaignac, J. Collot, J. Favier, E. Kajfasz, D. Koang, A. Stutz, B. Vignon, Thermal neutron detection and identification in a large volume with a new lithium-6 loaded liquid scintillator, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment ...

doi:10.1016/0168-9002(89)90775-4 1989

Show all 15 references

[6]

Fukumi, Neutrino spectroscopy with atoms and molecules, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2012 (1) (2012) 04D002.doi:10.1093/ptep/pts066

A. Fukumi, Neutrino spectroscopy with atoms and molecules, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2012 (1) (2012) 04D002.doi:10.1093/ptep/pts066. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1093/ptep/pts066

2012 doi
[7]

Z. Xie, J. Cao, Y. Ding, M. Liu, X. Sun, W. Wang, Y. Xie, A liquid scintillator for a neutrino detector working at - 50 degree, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 1009 (2021) 165459.doi...

2021
[8]

Aberle, C

C. Aberle, C. Buck, B. Gramlich, F. X. Hartmann, M. Lindner, S. Schönert, U. Schwan, S. Wagner, H. Watanabe, Large scale gd-beta-diketonate based organic liquid scintillator production for antineutrino detection, Journal of Instrumentation (2012).doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/7/06/P0...

2012 doi
[9]

Jánský, J

J. Jánský, J. Janda, V. Mazánková, F. Cvachovec, Optimization of composition of liquid organic scintillators for fast neutron spectrometry, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 1010 (2021...

2021
[11]

J. B. Birks, Scintillations from organic crystals: Specific fluores- cence and relative response to different radiations, Proceedings of the Physical Society. Section A (1951).doi:10.1088/0370-1298/64/ 10/303. URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0370-1298/64/10/303

1951 doi
[13]

Brown, S

B. Brown, S. Brice, E. Hawker, S. Maza, H.-O. Meyer, A. Pla- Dalmau, R. Tayloe, H. Tanaka, D. Toptygin, Study of scintillation, fluorescenceandscatteringinmineraloilfortheminibooneneutrino detector (2004).doi:10.1109/NSSMIC.2004.1462277

2004 arXiv
[15]

R. L. Burman, E. S. Smith, Parameterization of pion production and reaction cross sections at lampf energies (1989).doi:10.2172/ 6167579. URLhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/6167579 Xi Liu𝑎, Wenxi Fang𝑏:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 14 of 14

1989

Pith tools

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

[1] [10]

Ghavami, M

A. Ghavami, M. Tajik, Validation of the fluka code to simulate response functions of organic liquid scintillator for high- energy neutrons, Nuclear Engineering and Technology (2024). doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2024.09.001. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S1738573324004479

doi:10.1016/j.net.2024.09.001 2024

[2] [12]

Burman, M

R. Burman, M. Potter, E. Smith, Monte carlo simulation of neutrino production by medium-energy protons in a beam stop, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment (1990).doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-9002(90)90012-U. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ ...

doi:10.1016/0168-9002(90)90012-u 1990

[3] [14]

Maddalena, L

F. Maddalena, L. Tjahjana, A. Xie, Arramel, S. Zeng, H. Wang, P.Coquet,W.Drozdowski,C.Dujardin,C.Dang,M.D.Birowosuto, Inorganic, organic, and perovskite halides with nanotechnology for high-light yield x- and𝛾-ray scintillators, Crystals (2019).doi: 10.3390/cryst9020088. URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/2073-4352/9/2/88

doi:10.3390/cryst9020088 2019

[4] [1]

C. Athanassopoulos, The liquid scintillator neutrino detector and lampf neutrino source, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 388 (1) (1997) 149–172. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(96)01155-2. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0168900296011552

doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(96)01155-2 1997

[5] [2]

C. Buck, M. Yeh, Metal-loaded organic scintillators for neutrino physics, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 43 (9) (2016) 093001.doi:10.1088/0954-3899/43/9/093001. URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/43/9/093001

doi:10.1088/0954-3899/43/9/093001 2016

[6] [3]

J. Y. Choi, K. K. Joo, H.-G. Lee, S. Y. Kim, Organic liquid scintillation detectors for reactor neutrino experiments: Toward precision neutrino physics, Current Applied Physics 59 (2024) 182–196.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cap.2023.10.020. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S1567173923002444

doi:10.1016/j.cap.2023.10.020 2024

[7] [4]

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2007.10.045

H.Back,M.Balatal,Studyofphenylxylylethane(pxe)asscintillator for low energy neutrino experiments, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment (2008). doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2007.10.045. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0168900207022607

doi:10.1016/j.nima.2007.10.045 2008

[8] [5]

Ait-Boubker, M

S. Ait-Boubker, M. Avenier, G. Bagieu, J. Cavaignac, J. Collot, J. Favier, E. Kajfasz, D. Koang, A. Stutz, B. Vignon, Thermal neutron detection and identification in a large volume with a new lithium-6 loaded liquid scintillator, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment ...

doi:10.1016/0168-9002(89)90775-4 1989