MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Characterization of silicon photomultipliers for their application in muon scattering tomography

2025· article· en· W4407370235 on OpenAlexaff
Binghao Sun, Huiling Li, Quanyin Li, Hui Liang, Cong Liu, Hongbo Wang, Zibing Wu, Suyu Xiao, Weiwei Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Instrumentation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle Detector Development and Performance
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilicon photomultiplierMuonNuclear physicsPhysicsCharacterization (materials science)ScatteringTomographySiliconOpticsMaterials scienceScintillatorDetectorOptoelectronics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Muon scattering tomography is a non-destructive technique used to image different materials by utilizing natural cosmic ray muons. Typically it requires position-sensitive detectors with a sub-millimeter resolution to effectively distinguish high-Z materials in a compact system. The plastic scintillating fiber detector is a feasible candidate and is currently being designed with one-dimensional silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) readout. In this work, we constructed experimental setups to characterize three different SiPMs from the NDL, SensL, and HPK manufacturers for optimal performance of the scintillating fiber detector. The breakdown voltage, temperature compensation factor, dark noise, and photodetection efficiency of each SiPM are evaluated and summarized. Among the SiPMs tested, the HPK SiPM demonstrated the lowest dark count rate and crosstalk probability while exhibiting the best photodetection efficiency response at the emission wavelengths of the scintillating fibers. This makes the HPK SiPM particularly well-suited to meet the requirements of the detector and serves as a reference for further customization of the one-dimensional SiPM array.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of InstrumentationSame topicParticle Detector Development and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207