Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 26 references

Characterization of Hamamatsu R11410-23 Photomultiplier Tubes and Performance in the PandaX-4T Detector

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 PandaX-4T's 368 selected R11410-23 PMTs operated stably through the commissioning run, keeping gains near 5.6 million, an 8 Hz dark rate, and 13 failures out of 368.

desk verdict First public batch dataset for R11410-23 PMTs with honest in-situ failure reporting; the offline screening's predictive power for after-pulsing failures is unquantified. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24220 v1 pith:ZSGPJJST submitted 2025-05-30 hep-ex

Binbin Yan , Di Huang , Jianglai Liu , Xiaoying Lu , Anqing Wan , Mengjiao Xiao This is my paper
classification hep-ex
keywords HamamatsuR11410-23photomultipliertubePandaX-4TliquidxenondetectorPMTgaindarkcountrateafter-pulseprobabilitycryogenicqualification
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 aims to establish that the Hamamatsu R11410-23 photomultiplier tube, screened through the PandaX-4T offline qualification process, is a stable and low-background light sensor for a tonne-scale liquid xenon detector. Across 422 tested tubes, gain and after-pulse probability were essentially unchanged between room temperature and -90 °C, while dark count rates dropped sharply with cooling. The 368 selected tubes then held an average gain near $5.6\times 10^6$ electrons through the commissioning run, with an average dark rate of 8 Hz after a delayed-time cut and an average after-pulse probability of $1.35\%$. Thirteen of the 368 failed in situ, nine because of bases or connections rather than the PMT envelope, so the photosensors themselves performed as designed.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Hamamatsu R11410-23 PMT, a 3-inch, 12-stage photomultiplier tube with a $41\,\mathrm{cm}^2$ photocathode and a 34% detection efficiency at 175 nm. The argument is carried by the offline qualification protocol: a Dewar chamber that tests 16 PMTs simultaneously in dry nitrogen from room temperature to -90 °C over three thermal cycles, a bipolar high-voltage divider base with the cathode and anode biased around the fifth dynode, and a fast FADC readout. Gain is extracted from a charge-spectrum fit of pedestal, single-, and double-photoelectron Gaussians; dark count rate is counted above a 20-ADC threshold; and after-pulse probability is the ratio of summed after-pulse charge to summed primary charge in a 0.2--5 μs window. In the detector, dark counts are estimated from single-PMT random charges selected by requiring a large delay after preceding large signals.

What would settle it

Take a batch of PMTs that pass the described offline protocol, install them in liquid xenon at about -100 °C without the one-to-two-year storage delay, and track their after-pulse probability: if a non-negligible fraction develops after-pulse probabilities above 20% or high-voltage breakdown within the first months, the claim that the cold nitrogen test predicts in-situ tube behavior is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is that the R11410-23 PMT meets the PandaX-4T requirements: an average gain of $5.5\times 10^6$ at room temperature and $5.7\times 10^6$ at -90 °C, a single-photoelectron resolution of 28%, and an average after-pulse probability of $1.04\%$ in both conditions. In the installed detector, the average gain stabilized near $5.6\times 10^6$, the random-charge dark rate was 8 Hz with a delay cut longer than 200 ms, and the average after-pulse probability rose slightly to $1.35\%$, which the authors attribute to storage before installation. At the end of commissioning, 13 of 368 PMTs were out of service; the remaining tubes kept constant gains, and the dominant failure mode was identified as the high-voltage divider base rather than the photomultiplier envelope.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the screening performed at -90 °C in dry nitrogen predicts how the PMTs behave at roughly -100 °C in xenon gas inside the detector, including rare failure modes such as high-voltage breakdown and runaway after-pulsing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The R11410-23 PMT array provides a stable light readout: gains stayed near $5.6\times 10^6$ across the first physics campaign, so the detector's energy scale did not drift with time.
  • The measured random-charge rate of 8 Hz after a delay cut longer than 200 ms gives a concrete dark-count input for estimating the accidental coincidence background of PandaX-4T.
  • An average in-situ after-pulse probability of $1.35\%$ confirms that after-pulsing is low enough not to dominate signal identification, while the one tube that exceeded 20% shows that individual-channel monitoring remains necessary.
  • The temporary gain drop of about 5% after intense PuC neutron calibrations, with recovery within a week, implies that high-light-rate calibration campaigns temporarily stress the cathode and dynodes and should be followed by gain tracking.
  • Because 9 of the 13 in-situ failures were traced to bases and connections rather than PMT envelopes, replacing the bases and reducing shared high-voltage channels from eight to four is a targeted fix that should lower the failure rate in later runs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reported correlation of only 0.1 between room-temperature and cryogenic dark rates suggests that room-temperature dark-count screening alone is a weak predictor of cold performance, and future PMT selections should weight the cold measurement more heavily.
  • The rise in average after-pulse probability from $1.04\%$ offline to $1.35\%$ in situ, attributed to one to two years of storage, implies that gas ingress during storage is a controllable variable; re-testing shortly before installation could reduce in-situ after-pulsing.
  • The offline protocol did not catch the four tubes that later developed after-pulsing above 20%, so the cold nitrogen test stand does not exercise every in-situ failure mechanism; a realistic expectation for a future array is a residual tube-level failure rate around 1% plus a base-related rate of a few percent.
  • The reversible gain drop after intense light exposure suggests a testable surface-charging model: if the cathode or first dynode temporarily loses collection efficiency under high illumination, then limiting instantaneous light flux during calibrations should prevent the drop, and a simple LED intensity scan could verify this.
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 the offline characterization of 422 Hamamatsu R11410-23 photomultiplier tubes for the PandaX-4T liquid xenon detector, including measurements of gain, dark count rate, after-pulse probability, and spurious light emission at room temperature and at -90 °C in dry nitrogen. From these tests the collaboration selected 368 PMTs for installation. The paper then reports the in-situ performance of the installed PMTs during the commissioning run: an average gain of ~5.6×10^6 e-, an average random-charge (dark) rate of 8 Hz after a >200 ms delay cut, an average after-pulse probability of 1.35%, and a total of 13 PMT failures (9 attributed to bases/connections and 4 to elevated after-pulsing). The PMT gains were found to be stable, with a temporary ~5% gain reduction after intense neutron-source calibrations that recovered within a week.

Significance. If the reported results hold, this manuscript is a useful reference for the R11410-23 PMT qualification and for the long-term operational behavior of these devices in a large liquid xenon detector. The paper is transparent about failure modes and openly reports the 13 in-situ failures, which is valuable information for the community. The strength of the paper is its complete dataset: 422 PMTs characterized under identical procedures, with distributions of gain, DCR, and APP, plus commissioning data. However, the central claim that the offline screening 'ensure[s] compliance with experimental requirements' is only partially supported, because the paper does not demonstrate that the offline APP measurement predicted the in-situ after-pulsing failures. This is the key issue that needs to be addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2.3 and §3.3] The 5% APP acceptance threshold in §2.2.3 rejected none of the 422 PMTs, yet §3.3 reports that four installed PMTs developed APP exceeding 20% during commissioning and had to be turned off. The paper does not report the offline APP values (or any other offline characteristics) of these four PMTs, nor does it compare them with the 364 PMTs that survived. Without this comparison, the claim that the offline characterization 'ensure[s] compliance with experimental requirements' is not supported for the after-pulsing failure mode, and the reader cannot assess whether the screening procedure had predictive power for the most PMT-specific failure mode observed. Please add a comparison of the offline APP distributions (and ideally gain, DCR, and light emission) for the failed versus healthy PMTs, or explicitly state that the offline test does not predict this failure mode.
  2. [§2.2.1–§2.2.3, §3.1–§3.3] The quantitative summaries quoted in the abstract and body — average gain 5.5×10^6 e^- (room) and 5.7×10^6 e^- (cryogenic), SPE resolution 28%, average APP 1.04% (offline) and 1.35% (in situ), and average random-charge rate 8 Hz — are given without any statistical or systematic uncertainties. Since the paper is a measurement paper, the central quantitative claims need error bars and a brief discussion of dominant systematic contributions (e.g., trigger threshold, charge integration windows, fit-model dependence, and the delay-time cut). Without these, the reported values cannot be compared quantitatively with other PMT studies.
  3. [§2.1 and §3.3] The offline test environment is -90 °C in dry nitrogen, whereas the detector operates at approximately -100 °C in xenon gas. The paper attributes the higher in-situ APP (1.35% versus 1.04% offline) to storage time, but does not discuss the possible effects of the temperature and gas difference, or of helium diffusion through the glass window (which the paper itself mentions in §2.2.3 as a source of residual gas), on ion after-pulsing. This alternative explanation is especially relevant for the four PMTs that developed APP >20%. Please either address this quantitatively or temper the attribution.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.3] The text contains an unresolved placeholder 'Fig.??' in the sentence beginning 'In Fig.??, A1 represents small pulses...'; the figure reference needs to be fixed.
  2. [Abstract and §4] The abstract and Section 4 contain grammatical errors: 'we report the long-term of all PMTs' and 'most of the PMTs worded well' should be rewritten (e.g., 'we report the long-term performance of all PMTs' and 'most of the PMTs worked well').
  3. [§2.2.1, Eq. (2.1)] The Gaussian function in Eq. (2.1) appears to be missing the minus sign in the exponent: it should read exp[-(x-μ)^2/(2σ^2)] rather than exp[(x-μ)^2/(2σ^2)].
  4. [§2.2.2] The statement that the DCR correlation coefficient between room and cryogenic temperatures is 0.1 would benefit from a definition of which correlation coefficient is used (Pearson or Spearman) and the corresponding uncertainty.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper reports independent offline measurements and in-situ commissioning measurements, with no step that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

This is a measurement and characterization paper, not a derivation. The offline parameters (gain, DCR, APP, spurious light emission) are measured inputs, and the commissioning-run quantities (average gain 5.6e6, random-charge rate 8 Hz, average APP 1.35%) are separately measured from detector data and then compared with the offline distributions. There is no equation in which a commissioning result is algebraically identical to a fitted input, nor is any parameter tuned so that the reported performance is forced. The selection of 368 PMTs using offline DCR, APP, light-emission, and stability criteria is an empirical procedure, and the subsequent observation of 13 failures, including 4 with elevated APP, is an independent outcome rather than a consequence of those criteria. The in-situ after-pulse analysis follows Ref. [26], an external XENON1T qualification method, and the charge-spectrum fit uses a standard Gaussian multi-peak form from Ref. [22]; these citations are not load-bearing self-citations that import the paper's conclusions. Self-citations to earlier PandaX papers are contextual references to detector design, readout, and background studies. The skeptic's point that the paper does not compare the four APP-failed PMTs with the healthy population concerns the demonstrated predictive power of the screening method, but that is a completeness or correctness limitation, not circularity: the failure rate and APP evolution are measured facts, not quantities defined in terms of the offline acceptance thresholds. No circular step can be exhibited from the text.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is an empirical characterization; the only adjustable inputs are measurement thresholds, time windows, and the Gaussian fit model. No new entities, particles, or forces are postulated. The central results (gain, DCR, APP distributions) are output measurements, not derived constants.

free parameters (5)
  • Trigger threshold for DCR and APP counting = 20 ADC units (~2.4 mV)
    Chosen by hand to sit near one-third of a single-photoelectron pulse height; every DCR and APP value depends on it.
  • Charge integration windows = 40 ns before and 40 ns after peak
    Chosen by hand for the gain spectrum; affects the extracted charge and thus gain.
  • After-pulse time window = 0.2 to 5 us after primary pulse
    Chosen by hand; this definition sets the 1.04% average APP.
  • Random-charge delay cut = >200 ms after a large signal
    Chosen by hand in Section 3.2; defines the 8 Hz surrogate dark-count rate.
  • Multi-Gaussian fit parameters in Eq. 2.1 = per PMT: c0, c1, c2, mu0, sigma0, mu1, sigma1
    Fitted to each charge spectrum to extract gain (mu1) and SPE resolution (sigma1/mu1); a standard measurement extraction, not a conclusion-forcing parameter.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The PMT charge spectrum is the sum of Gaussian pedestal, SPE, and double-PE peaks (Eq. 2.1), assuming at most one or two photoelectrons per LED pulse.
    Used in Sec. 2.2.1 to define gain and SPE resolution.
  • domain assumption Behavior at -90 degrees C in dry nitrogen is representative of operation near -100 degrees C in liquid/gaseous xenon.
    All selection decisions in Sec. 2.2 rely on cryogenic nitrogen tests; the commissioning failures (13/368) show this is imperfect but broadly adequate.
  • domain assumption Spurious light emission measured in the paired PMT face-to-face configuration reflects the emission relevant inside the assembled detector array.
    Sec. 2.2.4 uses the opposite PMT's hit-rate increase as the light-emission metric; in-situ array geometry differs.
  • standard math Standard Gaussian statistics for photoelectron multiplication and noise, with no non-Gaussian tails beyond the modeled peaks.
    Invoked in the fit function Eq. 2.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Characterization of Hamamatsu R11410-23 Photomultiplier Tubes and Performance in the PandaX-4T Detector." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZSGPJJST

@misc{pith2026250524220,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Characterization of Hamamatsu R11410-23 Photomultiplier Tubes and Performance in the PandaX-4T Detector},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZSGPJJST}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24220}
}
read the original abstract

The PandaX-4T liquid xenon detector uses Hamamatsu 3-inch R11410-23 photomultiplier tubes (PMTs) as the light sensors for ultra-low radioactivity, high quantum efficiency, and long-term stability at cryogenic temperature. Each PMT was thoroughly tested in a dedicated chamber before being installed in the detector to ensure compliance with experimental requirements. Main PMT characteristics, including gain, dark count rate, and after-pulse probability, were measured and the distributions of these parameters were presented. Additionally, all PMTs were tested in a cryogenic environment to simulate their operating conditions in an actual detector environment. Finally, we report the long-term of all PMTs during the commissioning run of the PandaX-4T experiment, and most of the PMTs worded well.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Meng, et al., Dark Matter Search Results from the PandaX-4T Commissioning Run, Phys

    Y. Meng, et al., Dark Matter Search Results from the PandaX-4T Commissioning Run, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (26) (2021) 261802.arXiv:2107.13438,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.261802

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Aprile, et al., Projected WIMP sensitivity of the XENONnT dark matter experiment, JCAP 11 (2020) 031.arXiv:2007.08796,doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/11/031

    E. Aprile, et al., Projected WIMP sensitivity of the XENONnT dark matter experiment, JCAP 11 (2020) 031.arXiv:2007.08796,doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/11/031

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    D. S. Akerib, et al., Projected sensitivities of the LUX-ZEPLIN experiment to new physics via low-energy electron recoils, Phys. Rev. D 104 (9) (2021) 092009.arXiv:2102.11740, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.092009

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    405 (2005) 279–390.arXiv:hep-ph/0404175,doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.031

    G.Bertone, D.Hooper, J.Silk, Particledarkmatter: Evidence, candidatesandconstraints, Phys.Rept. 405 (2005) 279–390.arXiv:hep-ph/0404175,doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.031

    arXiv 2005

  5. [5]

    Jungman, M

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, K. Griest, Supersymmetric dark matter, Phys. Rept. 267 (1996) 195–373.arXiv:hep-ph/9506380,doi:10.1016/0370-1573(95)00058-5

    arXiv 1996

  6. [6]

    Aalbers, et al., First Dark Matter Search Results from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment, Phys

    J. Aalbers, et al., First Dark Matter Search Results from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment, Phys. Rev.Lett.131(4)(2023)041002.arXiv:2207.03764,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.041002

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Aprile, et al., First Dark Matter Search with Nuclear Recoils from the XENONnT Experiment, Phys

    E. Aprile, et al., First Dark Matter Search with Nuclear Recoils from the XENONnT Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (4) (2023) 041003.arXiv:2303.14729, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.041003

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Bo, et al., Dark Matter Search Results from 1.54 Tonne·Year Exposure of PandaX-4T (8 2024)

    Z. Bo, et al., Dark Matter Search Results from 1.54 Tonne·Year Exposure of PandaX-4T (8 2024). arXiv:2408.00664

    arXiv 2024

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    L. Si, et al., Determination of Double Beta Decay Half-Life of 136Xe with the PandaX-4T Natural Xenon Detector, Research 2022 (2022) 9798721.arXiv:2205.12809, doi:10.34133/2022/9798721. – 13 –

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Yan, et al., Searching for Two-Neutrino and Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay of Xe134 with the PandaX-4T Experiment, Phys

    X. Yan, et al., Searching for Two-Neutrino and Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay of Xe134 with the PandaX-4T Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (15) (2024) 152502.arXiv:2312.15632, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.152502

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Bo, et al., First Indication of Solar B8 Neutrinos through Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering in PandaX-4T, Phys

    Z. Bo, et al., First Indication of Solar B8 Neutrinos through Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering in PandaX-4T, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (19) (2024) 191001.arXiv:2407.10892, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.191001

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Lu, et al., Measurement of solar pp neutrino flux using electron recoil data from PandaX-4T commissioning run, Chin

    X. Lu, et al., Measurement of solar pp neutrino flux using electron recoil data from PandaX-4T commissioning run, Chin. Phys. C 48 (9) (2024) 091001.arXiv:2401.07045, doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ad582a

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Xiao, et al., Low-mass dark matter search results from full exposure of the PandaX-I experiment, Phys

    X. Xiao, et al., Low-mass dark matter search results from full exposure of the PandaX-I experiment, Phys. Rev. D 92 (5) (2015) 052004.arXiv:1505.00771,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.052004

    2015 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Aalbers, et al., A next-generation liquid xenon observatory for dark matter and neutrino physics, J

    J. Aalbers, et al., A next-generation liquid xenon observatory for dark matter and neutrino physics, J. Phys. G 50 (1) (2023) 013001.arXiv:2203.02309,doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ac841a

    2023

  7. [15]

    Wang, et al., Results of dark matter search using the full PandaX-II exposure, Chin

    Q. Wang, et al., Results of dark matter search using the full PandaX-II exposure, Chin. Phys. C 44 (12) (2020) 125001.arXiv:2007.15469,doi:10.1088/1674-1137/abb658

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Qian, et al., Low radioactive material screening and background control for the PandaX-4T experiment, JHEP 06 (2022) 147.arXiv:2112.02892,doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2022)147

    Z. Qian, et al., Low radioactive material screening and background control for the PandaX-4T experiment, JHEP 06 (2022) 147.arXiv:2112.02892,doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2022)147

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Gu, et al., First Search for the Absorption of Fermionic Dark Matter with the PandaX-4T Experiment, Phys

    L. Gu, et al., First Search for the Absorption of Fermionic Dark Matter with the PandaX-4T Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (16) (2022) 161803.arXiv:2205.15771, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.161803

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Shang, et al., Search for Cosmic-Ray Boosted Sub-MeV Dark-Matter–Electron Scattering in PandaX-4T, Phys

    X. Shang, et al., Search for Cosmic-Ray Boosted Sub-MeV Dark-Matter–Electron Scattering in PandaX-4T, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (10) (2024) 101805.arXiv:2403.08361, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.101805

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ning, et al., Limits on the luminance of dark matter from xenon recoil data, Nature 618 (7963) (2023) 47–50.doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05982-0

    X. Ning, et al., Limits on the luminance of dark matter from xenon recoil data, Nature 618 (7963) (2023) 47–50.doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05982-0

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    A. M. M. Elsied, K. L. Giboni, X. Ji, Alternative connection scheme for PMTs in large, low energy LXe detectors, JINST 10 (01) (2015) T01003.doi:10.1088/1748-0221/10/01/T01003

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    Yang, et al., Readout electronics and data acquisition system of PandaX-4T experiment, JINST 17 (02) (2022) T02004.arXiv:2108.03433,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/17/02/T02004

    J. Yang, et al., Readout electronics and data acquisition system of PandaX-4T experiment, JINST 17 (02) (2022) T02004.arXiv:2108.03433,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/17/02/T02004

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Li, et al., Performance of Photosensors in the PandaX-I Experiment, JINST 11 (02) (2016) T02005

    S. Li, et al., Performance of Photosensors in the PandaX-I Experiment, JINST 11 (02) (2016) T02005. arXiv:1511.06223,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/11/02/T02005

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Sosnovtsev, Observation of light emission from Hamamatsu R11410-20 photomultiplier tubes, Nucl

    D.Y.Akimov,A.I.Bolozdynya,Y.V.Efremenko,V.A.Kaplin,A.V.Khromov,Y.A.Melikyan,V.V. Sosnovtsev, Observation of light emission from Hamamatsu R11410-20 photomultiplier tubes, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 794 (2015) 1–2.arXiv:1504.07651,doi:10.1016/j.nima.2015.04.066

    2015 arXiv

  16. [24]

    V. C. Antochi, et al., Improved quality tests of R11410-21 photomultiplier tubes for the XENONnT experiment, JINST 16 (08) (2021) P08033.arXiv:2104.15051, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/08/P08033

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Luo, et al., Signal response model in PandaX-4T, Phys

    Y. Luo, et al., Signal response model in PandaX-4T, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2) (2024) 023029. arXiv:2403.04239,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.023029

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    P. Barrow, et al., Qualification Tests of the R11410-21 Photomultiplier Tubes for the XENON1T Detector, JINST 12 (01) (2017) P01024.arXiv:1609.01654, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01024. – 14 –

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

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