A systematic characterization of plastic scintillation dosimeters response in magnetic fields: II. Monte Carlo simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose. This study aims to investigate and validate the response of plastic scintillation dosimeters (PSDs) in the presence of magnetic fields using Monte Carlo simulations, focusing on the accuracy of electron fluence, dose calculations, and the optical processes of scintillation and Cherenkov radiation. Methods. Monte Carlo simulations, using EGSnrc and TOPAS, of the PSD response under magnetic fields were performed. First, electron fluence simulations were conducted with three different physics lists g4em-penelope , g4em-standard_opt3 and g4em-standard_opt4 , with the goal of benchmarking their performance in magnetic fields. Secondly, a Fano test for dose calculations was performed using only the g4em-penelope physics list. Thirdly, the Cherenkov process under magnetic fields was validated against theoretical predictions. Finally, a PSD probe was modeled and simulated, with results compared against measurements. Results. The g4em-penelope physics list demonstrated a most balanced performance, showing the closest agreement with EGSnrc simulations and lower variability in magnetic fields than g4em-standard_opt4 . Fano test results showed an accuracy of at least 0.36% for dose calculations. Simulations of Cherenkov radiation in ideal conditions were in agreement with theoretical predictions at both 0 T and 1.5 T. Monte Carlo simulations successfully reproduced experimental trends for Cherenkov radiation under magnetic fields. However, discrepancies were found, with deviations of up to 7.7% when electrons were deflected towards the tip and up to 21.0% in the opposite direction, likely due to modeling limitations. A key result is that Monte Carlo simulations of the scintillation process in magnetic fields failed to reproduce experimental observations. While experimental results showed a significant effect of magnetic fields on scintillation yield, the simulations did not reflect this behavior. Conclusion. This study establishes that TOPAS, specifically using the g4em-penelope physics list, is a reliable tool for simulating dose, electron fluence, and Cherenkov radiation in the presence of magnetic fields. However, significant discrepancies were observed in the scintillation processes, where Monte Carlo simulations failed to reproduce the effect of magnetic fields seen in experimental measurements. These findings point out the need for further refinement of simulation models, particularly in accurately representing scintillation under magnetic fields.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".