Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Simulation-based performance comparison of varied pitch sizes GEM detectors

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Reducing GEM pitch from 140 to 60 µm is simulated to raise gain ninefold and improve resolution.

desk verdict Useful, explicitly qualitative simulation scan of SGEM, FGEM, and FTGEM geometries, but the comparative gain and resolution claims hinge on an unpropagated 1.43x validation offset. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03454 v1 pith:V4QIY7K5 submitted 2025-05-06 hep-ex

Rajiv Gupta , Gauri Devi , Sunidhi Saxena , Arpit Singh , Ajay Kumar This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords GasElectronMultiplierGEMdetectorpitchsizeeffectivegainpositionresolutiontransparencysimulationmicro-pattern
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 uses finite-element field maps and Monte-Carlo electron transport to compare single-GEM detectors with three geometries: standard 140 µm pitch with 50 µm inner holes, fine 90/40 µm, and fine-thin 60/25 µm. It claims that smaller pitch and hole diameters concentrate the avalanche field and sample the electron cloud more finely, so effective gain rises (FGEM about 1.25 times and FTGEM about 9 times SGEM at 480 V) and position resolution improves (sigma falls from 138.83 to 119.09 to 100.81 µm), at the cost of lower electron transparency. The framework is validated against standard-GEM data, though the simulated gain is 1.43 times lower than experiment and that offset is deliberately not applied in the comparisons. The authors offer this as guidance for developing reduced-pitch triple-GEM detectors for high-rate, high-precision tracking.

What carries the argument

The central object is the GEM unit cell: a Kapton foil with copper cladding and biconical holes, parameterized by pitch (140/90/60 µm), inner hole diameter (50/40/25 µm), outer hole diameter (70/55/30 µm), and foil thickness. The argument runs through a finite-element electric-field solution of this cell plus microscopic Monte-Carlo tracking of single electrons, which yields the avalanche electron distribution at the induction plane. The key identities are effective gain as the collected-electron count, electron transparency as the ratio of effective to real gain, and position resolution $\sigma = \sqrt{\sigma_x^2 + \sigma_y^2}$ from Gaussian fits to the spread.

What would settle it

Build and measure single-GEM detectors with 90/40 and 60/25 µm geometry under the same 480 V, Ar-CO2 70:30, 3 mm drift, and 2 mm induction conditions, and compare their effective gain and induction-plane electron spread with the simulated values. If the measured gain ratios to a standard GEM depart substantially from roughly 1.25 (FGEM) and 9 (FTGEM), or if the fine-pitch detectors do not show the predicted narrower spread, the central claim fails. A minimal first check is whether the known 1.43 times gain offset is the same for all three geometries.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes a qualitative performance ordering among single-GEM designs: shrinking the pitch and hole size increases effective gain and narrows the electron spread at the induction plane, while decreasing the fraction of electrons that survive transport through the holes. The quantitative claims at 480 V are a roughly 1.25 times higher effective gain for FGEM over SGEM and a roughly 9 times higher gain for FTGEM, with position resolution improving from 138.83 µm (SGEM) to 119.09 µm (FGEM) to 100.81 µm (FTGEM). These gains come with reduced electron transparency, and the paper maps how this trade-off shifts with GEM potential, drift and induction fields, drift and induction gaps, and CO2 fraction in Ar-CO2 mixtures.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 1.43-fold shortfall between simulated and measured gain found for the standard GEM stays the same for the smaller-pitch designs; if that offset depends on hole geometry, the reported gain ratios and the conclusions drawn from the comparisons could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reduced-pitch single GEMs can be stacked in triple-GEM configurations to raise gain and improve tracking precision, matching the experimental motivation behind the 90 µm and 60 µm designs.
  • Operating fields must be re-optimized for smaller pitch: the simulations favour lower drift fields (1 kV/cm for FGEM and FTGEM versus 2.25 kV/cm for SGEM) and higher induction fields (5 kV/cm) to recover electron transparency.
  • Lower electron transparency means more electrons are lost to the upper GEM electrode in fine-pitch foils, so charge-collection efficiency must be managed before these designs are adopted in experiments.
  • In Ar-CO2 mixtures, raising the CO2 concentration improves transparency and position resolution but lowers gain, giving a composition knob for trading off these performance parameters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 1.43-fold validation offset is geometry-independent, absolute effective gains for FGEM and FTGEM would be roughly 1.43 times larger than reported, making the FTGEM advantage even stronger but shifting operating-voltage recommendations.
  • The offset is attributed partly to missing photon feedback, which scales with avalanche size; since FTGEM avalanches are the largest, the ninefold gain ratio could shrink if feedback were included in the simulation.
  • A direct extension would be a simulated triple-GEM stack mixing SGEM and FTGEM foils: the single-GEM ordering here predicts improved stack resolution with fine-pitch foils, but transparency losses could offset the gain.
  • The same pitch-reduction logic could be tested on other hole-type micro-pattern gas detectors, for which smaller hole spacing should similarly concentrate the field and reduce transverse diffusion.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a Garfield++/ANSYS simulation study comparing three single-GEM geometries: standard SGEM (140 um pitch, 50 um inner diameter, 50 um Kapton), fine-pitch FGEM (90/40, 50 um Kapton), and fine-thin-pitch FTGEM (60/25, 25 um Kapton). After validating the SGEM setup against published effective-gain data and finding a factor-1.43 shortfall, the authors vary GEM voltage, drift and induction electric fields, drift and induction gaps, and gas composition, and evaluate effective gain, electron transparency, and position resolution. They report that reduced pitch increases gain (FGEM about 1.25x and FTGEM about 9x SGEM at 480 V) and improves position resolution (sigma of 138.83, 119.09, and 100.81 um for SGEM, FGEM, and FTGEM, respectively), at the cost of reduced transparency. The paper concludes that reduced-pitch GEMs are promising for applications requiring high gain and good position resolution, while explicitly labeling the results as qualitative and calling for future experimental validation.

Significance. If the claimed trends are correct, the work is useful: it gives a concrete simulation pipeline for reduced-pitch GEM geometries, identifies plausible mechanisms (narrower holes concentrate the field and reduce transverse spread), and is transparent about its exploratory status. Strengths include the use of a standard, reproducible simulation chain (ANSYS plus Garfield++), externally motivated geometry parameters, and an explicit SGEM validation step. The central limitations are that the only experimental anchor carries a 1.43x systematic offset that is not propagated, the FTGEM resolution prediction is in tension with the cited FTGEM experiment that motivated the study, and the gain and transparency curves are presented without uncertainties. These gaps currently limit the quantitative force of the headline comparisons, although the qualitative trends remain plausible.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Fig. 4, Section 3.2, Fig. 5] Section 3.1 shows that the simulated SGEM effective gain is 1.43 times lower than the experimental data of Ref. [24] and states that this factor was not included in subsequent analysis. Section 3.2 then presents the gain ratios FGEM/SGEM about 1.25 and FTGEM/SGEM about 9 at 480 V (Fig. 5, Table 2) as the central result. The possible causes listed in Section 3.1 (photon feedback, foil charging, finite-element field errors, Penning transfer) are all plausibly geometry- and field-dependent, so a constant multiplicative offset for the reduced-pitch geometries is an assumption rather than a validated property. Please validate at least one reduced-pitch geometry against experiment or, if no data are available, propagate the 1.43 factor as a systematic band and explicitly label the 1.25x/9x statements as uncalibrated simulation ratios.
  2. [Introduction, Refs. [22,23]; Section 3.2, Table 3; Section 3.5, Table 4] The manuscript motivates FTGEM by experiments [22,23] in which FTGEM resolution was similar to that of the 90-um-pitch detector, yet Table 3 and Fig. 6 predict FTGEM sigma = 100.81 um versus FGEM sigma = 119.09 um, about a 15% improvement. The suggested explanation (non-optimized fields) is not tested: the paper does not simulate the field settings used in [22,23], and Table 4 selects E_D = 1 kV/cm for FTGEM based on gain and transparency, whereas Fig. 8 indicates that larger E_D improves resolution. As written, the simulation does not resolve the experimental discrepancy it cites; the authors should simulate the experimental settings or clearly frame the FTGEM resolution advantage as an unconfirmed prediction.
  3. [Section 2, Figs. 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15] No statistical uncertainties are reported for effective gain or electron transparency, although the simulation uses only 1000 events and Table 3 provides fit errors for the position-resolution quantities. The gain advantage of FGEM over SGEM (about 1.25x) is small compared with the event-to-event avalanche fluctuation expected in a microscopic simulation; without error bars or a run-to-run consistency check, the ordering of FGEM and SGEM gains is not established at the stated precision. Please add uncertainties or explicitly reduce the quantitative claims to trends.
  4. [Section 3.2, Eq. (2), Table 3] The quantity labeled 'position resolution' is the quadrature combination of the transverse electron-cloud widths at the induction plane for a single starting point, not a detector position resolution that includes readout pitch, noise, and reconstruction. Comparisons with experimental results such as those cited from Refs. [21-23] should therefore be made cautiously; otherwise the values in Table 3 should be called 'electron-cloud spread' rather than 'position resolution'.
minor comments (5)
  1. [General] The text contains typographical artifacts such as 'V aranasi' in the author affiliation, 'e ffective' in several places, and inconsistent capitalization of 'Penning'; a careful proofread is needed.
  2. [Section 3.2, Table 2] The terms 'upper' and 'lower' GEM electrode, and the phrase 'upper metal (directed towards induction region)', are ambiguous; please define upper/lower with respect to the drift and induction regions and check consistency with the table caption.
  3. [References [22,23]] References [22] and [23] are a CERN student report and an Indico seminar; if peer-reviewed FGEM/FTGEM publications exist, they should be cited in preference.
  4. [Figure 3] The right-hand panel of Figure 3 lists the fixed parameters in a compressed, hard-to-read form; consider moving these to the caption or using a shared legend for both panels.
  5. [Section 3.4] The text states that SGEM effective gain slightly decreases after 4 kV/cm, but the corresponding curve is broad; quoting the numerical maximum and the size of the decrease would make the statement more useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: geometry and transport inputs are external, and the headline comparisons are direct Monte-Carlo outputs rather than re-fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a self-contained simulation study. The geometry parameters (140/50, 90/40, 60/25 micrometers) are taken from cited experimental studies of FGEM and FTGEM detectors, and the Penning transfer ratios are taken from an external published measurement. Effective gain and electron transparency are computed by counting avalanche electrons in Garfield++ (Table 2), not from any fitted formula relating pitch to gain. Position resolution is obtained by fitting a Gaussian to the simulated transverse electron-spread distribution and using Eq. (2), which is a direct Monte-Carlo observable. The only calibration step is the SGEM validation in Section 3.1, where the simulated effective gain is found to be 1.43 times lower than experiment; the authors explicitly state that this factor is not included in further analysis. Thus the FGEM/FTGEM gain and resolution results are not the re-use of a fitted parameter, and no self-citation chain or definitional identification makes a prediction equivalent to its input. The concern that the 1.43 offset might be geometry-dependent is a real external-validity limitation, but it is a calibration gap, not circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on external inputs, primarily the Penning transfer ratio from Ref. [38], and on the unvalidated assumption that Garfield++ transport and the idealized ANSYS geometry reproduce all three geometries to similar accuracy. The authors themselves list photon feedback, foil charging, and mechanical imperfections as unmodeled effects. No new particles, fields, or entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Penning transfer ratio r_p = 0.15 to 0.61 depending on CO2 fraction from Ref. [38]; 0.57 for 70:30 Ar:CO2
    Chosen from prior published values rather than measured in this work. Effective gain and gas-composition trends are sensitive to this empirical parameter, so it is an external input that the central claim rests on.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Garfield++ and Magboltz microscopic transport accurately model avalanche and attachment in Ar:CO2 for the simulated geometries.
    The whole comparison is generated by this toolchain. The authors validate only SGEM effective gain to within a factor of 1.43 and do not validate FGEM or FTGEM against experiment.
  • domain assumption Charging-up, photon feedback, and mechanical imperfections have negligible effect on the relative trends between geometries.
    Section 3.1 lists photon feedback and foil charging as possible causes of the 1.43 discrepancy, yet the comparative analysis ignores these effects.
  • domain assumption Single-GEM simulation trends can guide multi-layer GEM design.
    Section 4 extrapolates from a single GEM to stacked configurations. The motivating experimental studies were triple-GEM, but only a single GEM is simulated here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulation-based performance comparison of varied pitch sizes GEM detectors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V4QIY7K5

@misc{pith2026250503454,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulation-based performance comparison of varied pitch sizes GEM detectors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V4QIY7K5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03454}
}
abstract

Gas Electron Multiplier (GEM) detectors, typically featuring a standard pitch size of 140 $\mu$m and an inner hole diameter of 50 $\mu$m, are extensively utilized in high-energy physics experiments for tracking, triggering, and timing measurements. Their characteristics, such as high gain, good position resolution, improved temporal resolution, low discharge probability, radiation hardness, and high rate capabilities, make them highly favoured. Recent experimental studies have shown that triple-GEM detectors with a reduced pitch size of 90 $\mu$m and a smaller hole diameter of 40 $\mu$m can perform better than standard-pitch GEM detectors. To assess the effectiveness of these reduced dimensions, we conducted a simulation-based study using ANSYS and Garfield++. As a first step, we validated the simulation framework by modelling a standard single GEM detector and comparing the results with previous simulations and experimental data. Following validation, we designed GEM structures with reduced pitch sizes of 90 $\mu$m and 60 $\mu$m. We then performed a comparative analysis, focusing on key performance parameters like effective gain, electron transparency, and position resolution. These parameters were varied against an increase in GEM potential, drift electric field, induction electric field, drift gap, induction gap, and gas composition to optimize the performance of the detectors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03454 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representation of single GEM structures (SGEM, FGEM, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Simulated drift lines along with 2D (XZ) distributions of a single electron in (a) SGEM, (b) FGEM, and (c) FTGEM. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of electrons in X coordinate and Y coordinate with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Variation of effective gain as a function of ∆VGEM and comparison with experimental data [24]. 3.1. Correlation Between Simulation and Experiment We first validated the simulation framework against experi￾mental measurements [2], focusing on the variation in effective …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Variation of effective gain (open markers) and electron transparency (solid markers) as a function of ∆VGEM for various pitch sizes. 400 450 500 550 600 [V] ∆VGEM 0 50 100 150 200 m] µ Position Resolution [ SGEM FGEM FTGEM x σ y σ σ XD = 3mm XI = 2mm ED= 2kV/cm EI= 3.5…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Position resolutions (σx, σy, and σ) as a function of ∆VGEM for various pitch sizes. multiplication factor remain uncertain, and our objective is to provide a qualitative description of the results, we have not in￾cluded this factor in further analysis. 3.2. Effect of …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: shows how the effective gain and electron trans￾parency vary as a function of EI . As EI increases, the effec￾tive gain rises for both FGEM and FTGEM, while SGEM ex￾1 2 3 4 5 ) [kV/cm] I Induction field (E 10 2 10 3 10 Effective Gain 0 20 40 60 80 100 Electron Transpar…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Variation of effective gain (solid markers) and electron transparency (open markers) as a function of XI for various pitch sizes at a constant ∆VGEM= 480 V. are conducted using these values across various pitch size GEM detectors to analyze the results related to chan…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Variation of the effective gain (open markers) and electron trans￾parency (solid markers) as a function of XD for various pitch sizes at a constant ∆VGEM= 480 V. 1 2 3 4 5 [mm] XD 0 50 100 150 m] µ Position Resolution [ SGEM FGEM FTGEM x σ y σ σ = 2mm I ∆VGEM = 480 V;…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Variation of position resolutions (σx, σy and σ) as a function of XD for various pitch sizes at a constant ∆VGEM= 480 V. 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 [mm] XI 10 2 10 3 10 Effective Gain 0 20 40 60 80 100 Electron Transparency[%] SGEM FGEM FTGEM Electron Transparency Effective Gain =…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Variation of position resolutions (σx, σy, and σ) as a function of XI for various pitch sizes at a constant ∆VGEM= 480 V. dicates that there is no amplification mechanism occurring in the induction region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_14.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Variation of position resolutions (σx, σy, and σ) as a function of CO2 concentration for various pitch sizes at a constant ∆VGEM= 480 V. ever, such operations are not recommended due to the increased risk of unintentional discharges [50]. It is also worth noting that …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    Bachmann et al

    S. Bachmann et al. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 479 (2002), 294-308 doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(01)00931-7

    doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(01)00931-7 2002

  2. [1]

    Charpak et al

    G. Charpak et al. (1968), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. 62, 262-268 doi:10.1016/0029-554X(68)90371-6

    doi:10.1016/0029-554x(68)90371-6 1968

  3. [2]

    Sauli (2016), Nucl

    F. Sauli (2016), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 805, 2-24 doi:10.1016/j.nima.2015.07.060

    doi:10.1016/j.nima.2015.07.060 2016

  4. [3]

    Oed, Nucl

    A. Oed, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 263 (1988), 351-359 doi:10.1016/0168- 9002(88)90970-9

    doi:10.1016/0168- 1988

  5. [4]

    Fonte et al., IEEE Trans

    P. Fonte et al., IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 46 (1999), 321-325 doi:10.1109/23.775537

    work page doi:10.1109/23.775537 1999

  6. [5]

    CSEM meeting presentation,

    L. Ropelewski, “CSEM meeting presentation,” CERN, Geneva, Switzer- land, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://indico.cern.ch/event/ 248718/contributions/550515/attachments/429350/595822/

    work page 2013

  7. [6]

    Charpak et al., Nucl

    G. Charpak et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 478 (2002), 26-36 doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(01)01713-2

    work page doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(01)01713-2 2002

  8. [7]

    Sarvestani et al., Nucl

    A. Sarvestani et al., Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 78 (1999), 431-437 doi:10.1016/S0920-5632(99)00582-4

    work page doi:10.1016/s0920-5632(99)00582-4 1999

Show all 52 references
  1. [8]

    Charpak and F

    G. Charpak and F. Sauli, Phys. Lett. B 78 (1978), 523 doi:10.1016/0370- 2693(78)90502-6. 10

    1978 doi

  2. [9]

    Sauli, Nucl

    F. Sauli, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 386 (1997), 531-534 doi:10.1016/S0168- 9002(96)01172-2

    1997 doi

  3. [10]

    Bachmann et al., Nucl

    S. Bachmann et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 438 (1999), 376-408 doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(99)00820-7

    1999 doi

  4. [11]

    M. K. A. Mondal et al., JINST 20, no.04, T04011 (2025) doi:10.1088/1748-0221/20/04/T04011

    2025 doi

  5. [12]

    P. S. Barbeau et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 525 (2004), 33-37 doi:10.1016/j.nima.2004.03.053

    2004 doi

  6. [13]

    R. P. Adak et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 846 (2017), 29-35 doi:10.1016/j.nima.2016.12.004 [arXiv:1604.02899 [physics.ins-det]]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Tikhonov and R

    V . Tikhonov and R. Veenhof, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A478 (2002), 452-459 doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(01)01801-0

    2002 doi

  8. [15]

    Buonsante et al

    M. Buonsante et al. [CMS], JINST 20 (2025) no.02, C02003 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/20/02/C02003

    2025 doi

  9. [16]

    Ketzer et al., Nucl

    B. Ketzer et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 535 (2004), 314- 318 [erratum: Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 648 (2011), 293] doi:10.1016/j.nima.2004.07.146

    2004 doi

  10. [17]

    Simon et al., doi:10.1109 /NSSMIC.2008.4774682 [arXiv:0811.2432 [physics.ins-det]]

    F. Simon et al., doi:10.1109 /NSSMIC.2008.4774682 [arXiv:0811.2432 [physics.ins-det]]

    2008

  11. [18]

    Azmoun et al., IEEE Trans

    B. Azmoun et al., IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 65 (2018) no.7, 1416-1423 doi:10.1109/TNS.2018.2846403 [arXiv:1801.03087 [physics.ins-det]]

    2018

  12. [19]

    Hoepfner et al.[CMS Muon], Nucl

    K. Hoepfner et al.[CMS Muon], Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1066 (2024), 169583

    2024

  13. [20]

    Abdul Khalek et al., Nucl

    R. Abdul Khalek et al., Nucl. Phys. A 1026 (2022), 122447

    2022

  14. [21]

    K. J. Fl ¨othner et al., JINST 19 (2024) no.07, P07027 doi:10.1088 /1748- 0221/19/07/P07027 [arXiv:2406.05836 [physics.ins-det]]

    2024

  15. [22]

    Brask, A. (2023). Fine Pitch GEMs in Triple GEM detectors. CERN. Available at: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2869182

    2023

  16. [23]

    EPDT Seminar August 2023,

    CERN, “EPDT Seminar August 2023,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://indico.cern.ch/event/1295773/contributions/ 5446038/attachments/2701004/4688187/

    2023

  17. [25]

    Jung et al., PoS ICRC2021 (2021), 186 doi:10.22323/1.395.0186

    A. Jung et al., PoS ICRC2021 (2021), 186 doi:10.22323/1.395.0186

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    GEM amplification,

    GEM Amplification Collaboration, “GEM amplification,” presented at the LMU Munich Physics Seminar, Munich, Germany, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://indico.physik.uni-muenchen. de/event/407/contributions/1576/subcontributions/189/ attachments/779/1300/

    2023

  19. [27]

    Wang et al., Comput

    A.-X. Wang et al., Comput. Methods Exp. Simul., 2015. doi: https://doi.org/10.2991/cmes-15.2015.93

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    Bencivenni et al., Nucl

    G. Bencivenni et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 494 (2002), 233-235 doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(02)01472-9

    2002 doi

  21. [29]

    Wang et al., Radiat

    Y . Wang et al., Radiat. Detect. Technol. Methods 7 (2023) no.1, 107-116 doi:10.1007/s41605-022-00361-1

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Simulation study of quadruple-foils GEM detector,

    CERN, “Simulation study of quadruple-foils GEM detector,” presented at the IHEP Conference, 2023. [Online]. Available: ttps://indico.ihep.ac.in/event/12369/contributions/ 17710/attachments/8710/9922/

    2023

  23. [31]

    Garfield ++: Simulation of gaseous detectors,

    R. Veenhof, “Garfield ++: Simulation of gaseous detectors,” CERN, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://garfieldpp.web.cern.ch/

    2013

  24. [32]

    Brun et al., ”ROOT - A C ++ framework for data analysis and visual- ization,” 2019, https://root.cern.ch/

    R. Brun et al., ”ROOT - A C ++ framework for data analysis and visual- ization,” 2019, https://root.cern.ch/

    2019

  25. [33]

    ANSYS Inc., ”ANSYS Software,” 2024, Available at: https://www.ansys.com/

    2024

  26. [34]

    COMSOL Multiphysics ® Modeling Soft- ware,

    COMSOL Multiphysics, “COMSOL Multiphysics ® Modeling Soft- ware,” COMSOL Inc. Available at: http://www.comsol.co.in/ comsol-multiphysics

  27. [35]

    S. Biagi. (2000), ”MAGBOLTZ: A Program for the Simulation of the Transport Properties of Ionizing Radiation in Gaseous Detectors,” CERN, 2024, Available at: https://www.cern.ch/magboltz/

    2000

  28. [36]

    I. Smirmov. (1997), ”HEED: A Program for the Simulation of Electron Transport in Gas Detectors,” CERN, 2024, Available at: https://www.cern.ch/heed/

    1997

  29. [37]

    J. L. Hertrich, ”neBEM: A Simulation Tool for Gas Detectors Us- ing the Boundary Element Method,” CERN, 2024, Available at: https://www.cern.ch/nebem/

    2024

  30. [38]

    S ¸ahin et al., Nucl

    ¨O. S ¸ahin et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 768 (2014), 104-111 doi:10.1016/j.nima.2014.09.061

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    Study of spatial resolution in a single GEM simulated by Monte-Carlo method,

    Y . Lan-Lan et al., “Study of spatial resolution in a single GEM simulated by Monte-Carlo method,” arXiv:1306.0270 [physics.ins-det], 2013. [On- line]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0270

    2013 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Construction and testing of large-area GEM de- tectors for the CMS muon system upgrade,

    A. Rahmani, “Construction and testing of large-area GEM de- tectors for the CMS muon system upgrade,” Ph.D. dissertation, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL, USA, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://research.fit.edu/media/site-specific/ researchfitedu/hep/heplaba/do...

    2018

  33. [41]

    Alfonsi et al., Nucl

    M. Alfonsi et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 671 (2012), 6-9 doi:10.1016/j.nima.2011.12.059

    2012 doi

  34. [42]

    P. M. M. Correia et al. [CERN RD-51], JINST 9 (2014), P07025 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/9/07/P07025 [arXiv:1401.4009 [physics.ins- det]]

    2014 arXiv

  35. [43]

    C. D. R. Azevedo et al., JINST 11 (2016) no.08, P08018 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/11/08/P08018

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    Hu et al., Nucl

    Z. Hu et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 988 (2021), 164907 doi:10.1016/j.nima.2020.164907

    2021

  37. [45]

    Tripathy et al., Nucl

    A. Tripathy et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1013 (2021), 165596 doi:10.1016/j.nima.2021.165596

    2021

  38. [46]

    Sankar Bhattacharya et al., [arXiv:1708.02118 [physics.ins-det]]

    D. Sankar Bhattacharya et al., [arXiv:1708.02118 [physics.ins-det]]

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Characterization of GEM detectors using Garfield,

    S. Sharma, “Characterization of GEM detectors using Garfield,” Scribd,

  40. [48]

    G. P. Guedes et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 497 (2003), 305-313 doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(02)01924-1

    2003 doi

  41. [49]

    Guida et al., J

    R. Guida et al., J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1498 (2020), 012036 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1498/1/012036

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    Seidel, *Microscopic Simulation of GEM Signals*, Bachelor’s thesis, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany, 2018

    M. Seidel, *Microscopic Simulation of GEM Signals*, Bachelor’s thesis, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany, 2018

    2018

  43. [51]

    Swain et al., Pramana 99 (2025) no.1, 27 doi:10.1007 /s12043-024- 02859-3

    S. Swain et al., Pramana 99 (2025) no.1, 27 doi:10.1007 /s12043-024- 02859-3. 11

    2025

  44. [2013]

    Available: https://www.scribd.com/document/ 187139051/

    [Online]. Available: https://www.scribd.com/document/ 187139051/

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.