A Monte Carlo study of the fluctuations in Xe electroluminescence yield: pure Xe vs Xe doped with CH<sub>4</sub>or CF<sub>4</sub>and planar vs cylindrical geometries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monte Carlo simulation is used to investigate the fluctuations in the Xe proportional electroluminescence (EL) yield (also known as secondary scintillation) produced by sub-ionization primary electrons drifting in the gas under appropriate electric fields, comparing pure Xe gas with Xe doped with CH 4 or CF 4 . The work is modeled on gas detectors of the gas proportional-scintillation type, where amplification is achieved through the production of EL under a charge-multiplication free regime. The addition of the molecular gases to Xe reduces electron diffusion, a desirable effect in large size detectors where primary electrons drift across a long absorption/drift region. However, the presence of the molecules reduces and increases its fluctuations. In the case of CF 4 , the effects are very strong due to significant electron attachment in the EL field range, ruling out CF 4 as an acceptable additive. The addition of CH 4 affects and its fluctuations to a much lower extent, and CH 4 concentrations lower than ∼1% may be an appropriate choice. In addition, Monte Carlo calculations in pure Xe under cylindrical geometry in a regime below charge multiplication have shown that fluctuations in the EL yield are an order of magnitude higher than for planar geometry. For both geometries, though, the fluctuations have a negligible effect on the energy resolution, and variations of the anode radius in cylindrical geometry or grid parallelism in planar geometry may be a more significant cause of concern.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".