Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 22 references

A plastic-scintillator muon tracker reaches 1.0 mm spatial resolution and resolves 2-cm cubes of lead, tungsten, and aluminum.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 15:46 UTC pith:ZB7ISFED

load-bearing objection A credible full-scale scintillator MST detector with a strong measured resolution, but the headline 1.0 mm needs an uncertainty budget and an independent check of the Geant4-based gap correction. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.15444 v2 pith:ZB7ISFED submitted 2025-12-17 physics.ins-det hep-ex

A muon scattering tomography system based on high spatial resolution scintillating detector

Zheng Liang , Zebo Tang , Xin Li , Baiyu Liu , Cheng Li , Jiacheng He , Kun Jiang , Yonggang Wang
show 3 more authors
Ye Tian Yishuang Zhang Zeyu Wang
This is my paper
classification physics.ins-det hep-ex PACS 29.40.Mc
keywords muon scattering tomographyplastic scintillatorsilicon photomultiplierspatial resolutionposition-sensitive detectortriangular scintillator barspoint of closest approachPoCA
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper sets out to show that a large-area plastic-scintillator muon tracker, built from triangular scintillator bars read out by wavelength-shifting fibers and silicon photomultipliers, can reach a spatial resolution of 1.0 mm — that is, 0.09 times the 11 mm strip pitch — and that this resolution directly improves cosmic-ray muon scattering tomography. The authors build a full four-layer 53 cm × 53 cm imaging system, measure a per-plane detection efficiency of 97.47%, and demonstrate that small 2 cm cubes of tungsten, lead, and even low-Z aluminum are clearly resolved with the PoCA reconstruction algorithm. If the result holds, it would narrow the gap between inexpensive scintillator-based scanners and gaseous trackers, making passive muon imaging more practical for security screening and nuclear-material monitoring.

Core claim

A detector plane of triangular plastic scintillator strips achieves a measured spatial resolution of 1.0 mm (σx/p = 0.09), inferred from a middle-layer position residual of 1.24 mm divided by a propagation factor of 1.22, with a detection efficiency of 97.47%. The key experimental demonstration is that this resolution, combined with the Point of Closest Approach (PoCA) algorithm, reconstructs 2×2×2 cm³ cubes of tungsten, lead, and aluminum; the tungsten image has a signal-to-background ratio of 8.4 and a point-spread-function width of 0.35 cm. The paper argues this is a clear improvement over typical scintillator-based MST systems, which achieve normalized resolutions around 0.2.

What carries the argument

The central object is the triangular-cross-section scintillator bar: each bar carries two wavelength-shifting fibers read out by silicon photomultipliers, and the ratio of light in two adjacent bars gives a sub-strip position via charge centroiding. A 4:1 fiber-encoding scheme groups 16 bars onto eight SiPMs, using an encoding table that respects non-adjacency and rectangle-corner constraints, plus a high-threshold decoding step that rejects optical crosstalk. Position is refined through an angle correction and a linear gap correction derived from Monte Carlo simulation. Low-noise readout electronics with single-photon resolution support the low-threshold centroid measurement.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted 1.0 mm resolution assumes every detector layer has exactly the same spatial resolution, and it relies on a gap-correction curve taken from simulation rather than an independent position reference.

What would settle it

Measure the position residual for the top and bottom layers alone (removing the middle layer from the fit) and separately for different layer pairs; if the inferred single-layer resolution is not consistent across pairs, the identical-resolution assumption in Eq. (3) fails and the quoted 1.0 mm is not the true single-layer resolution. Alternatively, place a well-calibrated reference tracker above one plane and compare its hit positions to the scintillator plane's centroid output, or compare reconstructed hits against a laser-etched mask with known positions to directly test the simulation-deri

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

If this is right

  • Plastic-scintillator MST systems can reach a normalized resolution of 0.09, roughly half the 0.2 typical of existing designs, bringing image quality close to what simulations show for 1 mm sensors.
  • At this resolution, small low-Z objects like 2 cm aluminum cubes become visible, which broadens the practical target set beyond high-Z nuclear materials.
  • The modular 53 cm × 53 cm super layers with 4:1 channel reduction can be tiled, so the same design can scale to larger portal areas without proportional electronics cost.
  • Accurate tracking at this level makes the system a competitive cosmic-ray telescope for testing other detectors, not just an imager.
  • The clean tracks are well matched to iterative algorithms like ML/EM, which the paper indicates could further improve image fidelity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The imaging geometry here is small; scaling to portal-sized volumes would likely require thicker trackers or larger layer spacings, and the resolution-versus-cost trade-off implied by the 0.09 value could guide that design.
  • Because the detector records both position and energy deposit per strip, the same system could in principle extract dE/dx information for particle identification, which the paper does not exploit.
  • The encoding-table rules (non-adjacency and rectangle constraint) amount to a general combinatorial construction; a similar mapping could compress readout in other one-dimensional position-sensitive detectors, such as neutron or X-ray imaging devices.
  • If the identical-layer assumption used to derive the 1.0 mm resolution is relaxed, the true per-layer resolution could differ; a full covariance analysis using all four layers would place meaningful error bars on the number.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the design, construction, and characterization of a cosmic-ray muon scattering tomography (MST) system based on triangular plastic scintillator bars with WLS-fiber and SiPM readout. The authors claim a per-plane spatial resolution of 1.0 mm (normalized to 0.09 of the 11 mm strip pitch), a detection efficiency of 97.47%, and demonstrate imaging of 2×2×2 cm³ tungsten, lead, and aluminum cubes with a PoCA reconstruction, including a signal-to-background ratio of 8.4 for tungsten. The work also includes a Geant4-based design optimization, an encoded readout scheme, custom electronics, and a calibration/processing chain. The central claims are experimental: measured residuals, efficiency counts, and an imaging demonstration.

Significance. If the performance figures hold, this is a useful engineering contribution to muon scattering tomography: an 11 mm-pitch plastic scintillator detector with 1.0 mm resolution is notably better than the 0.2 σx/p typical of triangular-bar systems, and the successful imaging of 2 cm low-Z cubes with a full-scale system is a credible demonstration. Strengths include the full system integration, the encoding scheme that reduces channel count by 4:1, the custom low-noise electronics with measured single-photon resolution, and a realistic imaging test with small objects. The paper is, however, less strong on uncertainty quantification: the headline resolution and efficiency are quoted as point values without statistical or systematic errors, and one step of the position correction rests on a Geant4-derived calibration that is not independently validated. These issues are local to the performance claims and can be addressed with additional analysis and reporting; they do not invalidate the engineering or the imaging demonstration.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.4, Eq. (3) and Fig. 19] The central claim 'the measured spatial resolution of the detector is 1.0 mm' is derived from a single residual width σΔx = 1.24 mm divided by 1.22. No statistical or systematic uncertainty is given for σΔx, for the 1.22 conversion, or for the final 1.0 mm. The residual distribution is presumably based on a finite number of events; a simple Gaussian fit should yield an error on σ. In addition, Eq. (3) assumes 'each detector layer has an identical spatial resolution of σx'. If the middle layer differs from the top/bottom reference layers (different thresholds, noise, or alignment), the inferred σx changes. Please report the per-layer contributions or a bound from relaxing the identical-layer assumption.
  2. [§3.3 under 'Position reconstruction' and §3.4] The final residual uses a 'gap correction' whose linear coefficients are taken from Geant4 simulations (ref. [12]). No independent validation of this correction on the physical detector is shown, e.g., by comparing reconstructed positions with a known external reference or by showing the residual before and after correction. A mismatch between simulated charge-sharing/gap behavior and the real Tyvek-wrapped, fiber-readout bars could bias the residual and thus shift the quoted 1.0 mm. Please quantify the sensitivity of σx to plausible variations in the correction, or provide a direct experimental check.
  3. [§3.3, channel calibration; §3.4, detection efficiency] The decoding threshold ('typically around 70 p.e.') and the scale factor k_fit fitted to a Geant4 spectrum are inputs to the position reconstruction; no systematic uncertainty from these choices is propagated into the residual width. Likewise, the efficiency 97.47% from NA = 239,963 and NB = 233,882 is reported without an uncertainty; its statistical error is small, but event-matching and timing-window efficiencies could add systematic bias. Please state the statistical and systematic uncertainties for both headline quantities.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and wording issues, e.g., 'imgaing' in the caption of Fig. 3, 'Results show' and 'In summary, Despite' in §2.3.1, and 'detectors was arranged' in §4.1. A language pass is recommended.
  2. [Fig. 10 and Fig. 13] The single-photon resolution is reported as '17σ' and the time resolution as a sigma value, but the y-axis labels and fit parameters could be clearer. Please define the quoted quantities in the captions or text.
  3. [§3.4, Eq. (3)] The derivation of σΔx = 1.22 σx is clear, but the variables h1 and h2 are defined only in the figure. Please state in the text that h1 and h2 are the vertical distances from the middle layer to the upper and lower layers, respectively, and confirm that the 6 cm/6 cm and 2h/1h labels in Fig. 17c are consistent with the formula.
  4. [References] Ref. [16] is cited for 'around 3 mm' resolution; please check whether the cited work actually supports this value, and consider citing the specific detector papers or a review for the comparison values used in §3.4.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the 1.0 mm resolution claim is a measured observable, with only minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The central performance claim is derived from a measured residual distribution, not from an assumed output. In Section 3.4 the paper reports the middle-layer position residual as a Gaussian with sigma = 1.24 mm, and Eq. (3) converts this to a single-layer resolution of 1.0 mm under an explicitly stated identical-layer assumption. That conversion is error propagation, not a definitional identity: the residual is an experimental observable, and the 1.22 factor comes from the known layer geometry. The Geant4-based gap correction [12] and the k_fit spectrum normalization are calibration inputs; they are not fitted to the residual width and do not by themselves fix the quoted 1.24 mm. Likewise, the imaging result (S/B = 8.4 for tungsten, epsilon_PSF about 0.35 cm) is measured from reconstructed 2-cm cubes and is not obtained by feeding the claimed resolution back into the reconstruction. The self-citations [11], [12], and [17] support design choices, electronics, and a correction function, but the central claim does not reduce to them: the measured residual and reconstructed images provide independent evidence. The absence of an independent absolute-position validation of the gap correction and the lack of an uncertainty on 1.24 mm are correctness/validation concerns, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The headline number (σx = 1.0 mm) is a measurement, not a derivation, so the ledger is light. The burdens that exist are calibration and simulation-transfer assumptions: the k_fit scale factor, the hand-chosen 70 p.e. decoding threshold, and the Geant4-derived gap-correction. None of these introduces a new physical entity; they can shift the quoted resolution but are not the core of the claim.

free parameters (3)
  • k_fit (spectrum scale factor) = 0.75 (from Fig. 14d)
    Scale factor used to match the experimental cosmic-ray ADC spectrum to the Geant4-simulated spectrum; it absorbs detector non-uniformities and is used in channel calibration (Section 3.3, 'Channel calibration'). It is a calibration constant, not a physical parameter, but it is fitted to data.
  • Decoding threshold = ≈70 p.e.
    Threshold in the high-threshold decoding scheme (Section 3.3, 'Decoding'), described as 'typically around 70 p.e.' and chosen by hand. It determines which events are decoded and therefore shapes the measured residual distribution and the quoted 1.0 mm resolution.
  • Gap-correction linear coefficients = not given (referenced to ref. [12])
    A linear function relating residual offset Δx to charge-sharing fraction η, derived from Geant4 simulations and applied to real data in 'Position reconstruction' (Section 3.3). The coefficients are not tabulated, and their calibration against real tracks is not independently validated.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Muon flux and angular/energy distribution follow the Chatzidakis model (ref. [13]).
    Used to generate initial muon kinematics in the Geant4 simulation (Section 2.2). If the model misrepresents the low-energy muon angular distribution, the simulated image-quality predictions and design specifications could be biased.
  • domain assumption Geant4 accurately models multiple Coulomb scattering and the optical chain (scintillation, WLS absorption, fiber transport).
    The design optimization (Section 2.3.1) and the gap-correction (Section 3.3) rely on Geant4 without an independent benchmark of the full optical model against absolute photon yields.
  • domain assumption Energy deposition in a scintillator bar is proportional to track length for MIPs, so the signal ratio equals the path-length ratio.
    This is the basis of the charge-centroid position reconstruction (Eq. 2). It is standard for minimum-ionizing particles, though it breaks down near track endpoints or for very oblique tracks, which are not excluded in the analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper Each detector layer has identical spatial resolution σx, so the measured residual can be converted via the 1.22 factor in Eq. (3).
    Not verified directly; the top and bottom layers may have different noise, thresholds, or alignment. The quoted 1.0 mm depends on this assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper The linear gap-correction derived in Geant4 (ref. [12]) transfers to the physical detector without modification.
    Applied in 'Position reconstruction' (Section 3.3) without an in-situ validation against an independent position reference (e.g., a collimated source or a precise external telescope).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15348 in / 11310 out tokens · 116244 ms · 2026-08-03T15:46:09.452096+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Cosmic ray muon scattering tomography (MST) is an imaging technique that utilizes muon scattering in matter to inspect high-Z materials non-destructively, without requiring an artificial radiation source. This method offers significant potential for applications in border security and long-term monitoring of nuclear materials. In this study, we developed a high-precision plastic-scintillator-based position-sensitive detector with a spatial resolution of 0.09 times the strip pitch. A fully functional, full-scale imaging system was then constructed using four layers of such XY position-sensitive detectors, each with an effective area of 53 cm x 53 cm. This paper details the following key contributions: the Geant4-simulated design and optimization of the imaging system, the fabrication, assembly, and testing of the detectors, and an evaluation of the imaging performance of the completed system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.15444 by Baiyu Liu, Cheng Li, Jiacheng He, Kun Jiang, Xin Li, Ye Tian, Yishuang Zhang, Yonggang Wang, Zebo Tang, Zeyu Wang, Zheng Liang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Structural diagram of the Muon Scattering Tomography (MST) system. (Left) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Geant4 geometry setup for imaging simulation.(a) Model of the complete detec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Application of the PoCA algorithm to Geant4 simulation data. (a, b) Recon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance of imaging system with different detector spatial resolutions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Scintillating detector structure. (Top) Arrangement of multiple scintillator bars. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Impact of selected parameters on the photon collection efficiency of the detector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Test of the end reflection effect using an ESR film. The X axis is the distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Encoder: internal structure and 3D-printed prototype. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Electronic board designed for SiPM readout. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Single-photon resolution test of the readout board: response of a Hamamatsu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Daisy chain topology across multiple electronic boards. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: A super layer within a dark box: comprising two detection planes, each con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Timing synchronization of the readout electronic boards. (Left) Measured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Channel Calibration. (a): HG channel spectrum under low intensity. (b): [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Comparison for different decoding schemes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Positioning and correction via the centroid method. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Test system composed of three super layers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Distribution of the calibrated time difference between the top and bottom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Position residual distribution of the middle layer detector. (Left): Residual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Muon scattering tomography system. Additionally serves as a cosmic ray [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Objects placed in the imaging volume. The letters "UFO" are composed of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Material distribution reconstructed by the MST system using the PoCA algo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_22.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ambrosi, F

    G. Ambrosi, F. Ambrosino, R. Battiston, A. Bross, S. Callier, F. Cass- ese, G. Castellini, R. Ciaranfi, F. Cozzolino, R. D’Alessandro, C. de La Taille, G. Iacobucci, A. Marotta, V. Masone, M. Martini, R. Nishiyama, P. Noli, M. Orazi, L. Parascandolo, P. Parascandolo, G. Passeggio, R. Peluso, A. Pla-Dalmau, L. Raux, R. Rocco, P. Rubinov, G. Sara- cino, G. ...

    2011

  2. [2]

    Varga, G

    D. Varga, G. Nyitrai, G. Hamar, G. Galgóczi, L. Oláh, H. Tanaka, T. Ohminato, Detector developments for high performance muography applications, NuclearInstrumentsandMethodsinPhysicsResearchSec- tion A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equip- ment 958 (2020) 162236, proceedings of the Vienna Conference on In- strumentation 2019. doi:h...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2019.05.077 2020

  3. [3]

    Morishima, M

    K. Morishima, M. Kuno, A. Nishio, N. Kitagawa, Y. Manabe, M. Moto, F. Takasaki, H. Fujii, K. Satoh, H. Kodama, K. Hayashi, S. Odaka, S. Procureur, D. Attié, S. Bouteille, D. Calvet, C. Filosa, P. Magnier, I. Mandjavidze, M. Riallot, B. Marini, P. Gable, Y. Date, M. Sugiura, Y. Elshayeb, T. Elnady, M. Ezzy, E. Guerriero, V. Steiger, N. Serikoff, J.-B. Mour...

    2017

  4. [4]

    Priedhorsky, K

    W. Priedhorsky, K. Borozdin, G. Hogan, C. Morris, A. Saunders, L. Schultz, M. Teasdale, Detection of high-z objects using multiple scat- tering of cosmic ray muons, Review of Scientific Instruments 74 (10 2003). doi:10.1063/1.1664345

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1664345 2003

  5. [5]

    K. N. Borozdin, G. E. Hogan, C. Morris, W. C. Priedhorsky, A. Saun- ders, L. J. Schultz, M. E. Teasdale, Radiographic imaging with cosmic- ray muons, Nature 422 (6929) (2003) 277–277. doi:10.1038/422277a

    doi:10.1038/422277a 2003

  6. [6]

    L. J. Schultz, G. S. Blanpied, K. N. Borozdin, A. M. Fraser, N. W. Hengartner, A. V. Klimenko, C. L. Morris, C. Orum, M. J. Sos- song, Statistical reconstruction for cosmic ray muon tomography, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 16 (8) (2007) 1985–1993. doi:10.1109/TIP.2007.901239

    arXiv 2007

  7. [7]

    Schultz, K

    L. Schultz, K. Borozdin, J. Gomez, G. Hogan, J. McGill, C. Morris, W. Priedhorsky, A. Saunders, M. Teasdale, Image reconstruction and material z discrimination via cosmic ray muon radiography, Nuclear In- struments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, DetectorsandAssociatedEquipment519(3)(2004)687–

    2004

  8. [8]

    C. L. Morris, K. Borozdin, J. Bacon, E. Chen, Z. Lukić, E. Milner, H. Miyadera, J. Perry, D. Schwellenbach, D. Aberle, W. Dreesen, J. A. 31 Green, G. G. McDuff, K. Nagamine, M. Sossong, C. Spore, N. Toleman, Obtaining material identification with cosmic ray radiography, AIP Ad- vances 2 (4) (2012) 042128. doi:10.1063/1.4766179

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4766179 2012

  9. [9]

    Y. Wang, Z. Zhang, S. Liu, Z. Shen, C. Feng, J. Liu, Y. Liu, A High Spatial Resolution Muon Tomography Prototype System Based on Mi- cromegas Detector, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 69 (1) (2022) 78–85. doi:10.1109/TNS.2021.3137415

    arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    L. Cox, P. Adsley, J. O’Malley, S. Quillin, C. Steer, C. Clemett, Detector requirements for a cosmic ray muon scattering tomography system, in: 2008 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, 2008, pp. 706–710. doi:10.1109/NSSMIC.2008.4775227

    arXiv 2008

  11. [11]

    Liang, T

    Z. Liang, T. Hu, X. Li, Y. Wu, C. Li, Z. Tang, A cosmic ray imag- ing system based on plastic scintillator detector with sipm readout, Journal of Instrumentation 15 (07) (2020) C07033. doi:10.1088/1748- 0221/15/07/C07033

    doi:10.1088/1748- 2020

  12. [12]

    T. Hu, Z. Liang, X. Li, C. Li, Z. Tang, Y. Wu, Development of a plastic scintillation detector for muon scattering imaging, Journal of Instrumen- tation 15 (11) (2020) P11017. doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/11/P11017

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/11/p11017 2020

  13. [13]

    Chatzidakis, S

    S. Chatzidakis, S. Chrysikopoulou, L. Tsoukalas, Developing a cosmic ray muon sampling capability for muon tomography and monitoring ap- plications, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Sec- tion A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equip- ment 804 (2015) 33–42. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2015.09.033

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2015.09.033 2015

  14. [14]

    T. R. Corle, G. S. Kino, Chapter 1 - introduction, in: T. R. Corle, G. S. Kino (Eds.), Confocal Scanning Optical Microscopy and Re- lated Imaging Systems, Academic Press, Burlington, 1996, pp. 1–66. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012408750-7/50009-4

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-012408750-7/50009-4 1996

  15. [15]

    J. E. Barnes, Characteristics and control of contrast in ct., RadioGraphics 12 (4) (1992) 825–837, pMID: 1636042. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.12.4.1636042, doi:10.1148/radiographics.12.4.1636042

    work page doi:10.1148/radiographics.12.4.1636042 1992

  16. [16]

    Antonuccio, M

    V. Antonuccio, M. Bandieramonte, U. Becciani, D. Bonanno, G. Bo- nanno, D. Bongiovanni, P. Fallica, S. Garozzo, A. Grillo, P. La Rocca, 32 E. Leonora, F. Longhitano, D. Lo Presti, D. Marano, O. Parasole, C. Pugliatti, N. Randazzo, F. Riggi, S. Riggi, G. Romeo, M. Romeo, G. Russo, G. Santagati, M. Timpanaro, G. Valvo, The muon portal project: Design and co...

    2017

  17. [17]

    Z. Wang, Y. Wang, X. Li, Y. Zhao, Y. Liang, Z. Liang, Y. Zhang, Z.Tang, C.Li, Electronicsdesignforamuonimagingsystemusingtrian- gular plastic scintillators with wls fiber readouts, Journal of Instrumen- tation 19 (02) (2024) P02033. doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/02/P02033

    doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/02/p02033 2024

  18. [18]

    Ambrosino, A

    F. Ambrosino, A. Anastasio, D. Basta, L. Bonechi, M. Brianzi, A. Bross, S. Callier, A. Caputo, R. Ciaranfi, L. Cimmino, R. D’Alessandro, L. D’Auria, C. D. L. Taille, S. Energico, F. Garufi, F. Giudicepietro, A. Lauria, G. Macedonio, M. Martini, V. Masone, C. Mattone, M. C. Montesi, P. Noli, M. Orazi, G. Passeggio, R. Peluso, A. Pla-Dalmau, L. Raux, P. Rub...

    2014

  19. [19]

    Anghel, J

    V. Anghel, J. Armitage, F. Baig, K. Boniface, K. Boudjemline, J. Bueno, E. Charles, P.-L. Drouin, A. Erlandson, G. Gallant, R. Gazit, D. Godin, V. Golovko, C. Howard, R. Hydomako, C. Jewett, G. Jonkmans, Z. Liu, A.Robichaud, T.Stocki, M.Thompson, D.Waller, Aplasticscintillator- based muon tomography system with an integrated muon spectrometer, Nuclear Ins...

    2015

  20. [20]

    X. Luo, Q. Wang, K. Qin, H. Tian, Z. Fu, Y. Zhao, Z. Shen, H. Liu, Y. Fu, G. Liu, K. Yao, X. Qian, J. Rong, W. Zhang, X. Luo, C. Liu, X. Tian, M. Yu, F. Wu, J. Chen, J. Liu, Z. Liu, Development and commissioning of a compact Cosmic Ray Muon imaging prototype, Nu- clear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Acceler- 33 ators, Spectrometers...

    arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Saracino, L

    G. Saracino, L. Amato, F. Ambrosino, G. Antonucci, L. Bonechi, L. Cimmino, L. Consiglio, R. D. . Alessandro, E. D. Luzio, G. Minin, P. Noli, L. Scognamiglio, P. Strolin, A. Varriale, Imaging of underground cavities with cosmic-ray muons from observations at Mt. Echia (Naples), Scientific Reports 7 (1) (2017) 1181. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-01277-3. 34

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-017-01277-3 2017

  22. [694]

    doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2003.11.035

    doi:10.1016/j.nima.2003.11.035 2003