Next Article in Journal
Nearly Monochromatic Bremsstrahlung of High Intensity via Microparticle Targets: A Novel Concept
Previous Article in Journal
Advanced Laser–Plasma Diagnostics for a Modular High-Repetition-Rate Plasma Electron Accelerator
 
 
instruments-logo
Article Menu

Article Menu

Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Performance of a Modular Ton-Scale Pixel-Readout Liquid Argon Time Projection Chamber

by
A. Abed Abud
1,
B. Abi
2,
R. Acciarri
3,
M. A. Acero
4,
M. R. Adames
5,
G. Adamov
6,
M. Adamowski
3,
D. Adams
7,
M. Adinolfi
8,
C. Adriano
9,
A. Aduszkiewicz
10,
J. Aguilar
11,
B. Aimard
12,
F. Akbar
13,
K. Allison
14,
S. Alonso Monsalve
1,
M. Alrashed
15,
A. Alton
16,
R. Alvarez
17,
T. Alves
18,
H. Amar
19,
P. Amedo
19,20,
J. Anderson
21,
D. A. Andrade
22,
C. Andreopoulos
23,
M. Andreotti
24,25,
M. P. Andrews
3,
F. Andrianala
26,
S. Andringa
27,
N. Anfimov
28,
A. Ankowski
29,
M. Antoniassi
5,
M. Antonova
19,
A. Antoshkin
28,
A. Aranda-Fernandez
30,
L. Arellano
31,
E. Arrieta Diaz
32,
M. A. Arroyave
3,
J. Asaadi
33,
A. Ashkenazi
34,
D. Asner
7,
L. Asquith
35,
E. Atkin
18,
D. Auguste
36,
A. Aurisano
37,
V. Aushev
38,
D. Autiero
39,
F. Azfar
2,
A. Back
40,
H. Back
41,
J. J. Back
42,
I. Bagaturia
6,
L. Bagby
3,
N. Balashov
28,
S. Balasubramanian
3,
P. Baldi
43,
W. Baldini
24,
J. Baldonedo
44,
B. Baller
3,
B. Bambah
45,
R. Banerjee
46,
F. Barao
27,47,
G. Barenboim
19,
P. B̃arham Alzás
1,
G. J. Barker
42,
W. Barkhouse
48,
G. Barr
2,
J. Barranco Monarca
49,
A. Barros
5,
N. Barros
27,50,
D. Barrow
2,
J. L. Barrow
51,
A. Basharina-Freshville
52,
A. Bashyal
21,
V. Basque
3,
C. Batchelor
53,
L. Bathe-Peters
2,
J. B. R. Battat
54,
F. Battisti
2,
F. Bay
55,
M. C. Q. Bazetto
9,
J. L. L. Bazo Alba
56,
J. F. Beacom
57,
E. Bechetoille
39,
B. Behera
58,
E. Belchior
59,
G. Bell
60,
L. Bellantoni
3,
G. Bellettini
61,62,
V. Bellini
63,64,
O. Beltramello
1,
N. Benekos
1,
C. Benitez Montiel
19,65,
D. Benjamin
7,
F. Bento Neves
27,
J. Berger
66,
S. Berkman
67,
J. Bernal
65,
P. Bernardini
68,69,
A. Bersani
70,
S. Bertolucci
71,72,
M. Betancourt
3,
A. Betancur Rodríguez
73,
A. Bevan
74,
Y. Bezawada
75,
A. T. Bezerra
76,
T. J. Bezerra
35,
A. Bhat
77,
V. Bhatnagar
78,
J. Bhatt
52,
M. Bhattacharjee
79,
M. Bhattacharya
3,
S. Bhuller
8,
B. Bhuyan
79,
S. Biagi
80,
J. Bian
43,
K. Biery
3,
B. Bilki
81,82,
M. Bishai
7,
A. Bitadze
31,
A. Blake
83,
F. D. Blaszczyk
3,
G. C. Blazey
84,
E. Blucher
77,
J. Bogenschuetz
33,
J. Boissevain
85,
S. Bolognesi
86,
T. Bolton
15,
L. Bomben
87,88,
M. Bonesini
87,89,
C. Bonilla-Diaz
90,
F. Bonini
7,
A. Booth
74,
F. Boran
40,
S. Bordoni
1,
R. Borges Merlo
9,
A. Borkum
35,
N. Bostan
82,
J. Bracinik
91,
D. Braga
3,
B. Brahma
92,
D. Brailsford
83,
F. Bramati
87,
A. Branca
87,
A. Brandt
33,
J. Bremer
1,
C. Brew
93,
S. J. Brice
3,
V. Brio
63,
C. Brizzolari
87,89,
C. Bromberg
67,
J. Brooke
8,
A. Bross
3,
G. Brunetti
87,89,
M. Brunetti
42,
N. Buchanan
66,
H. Budd
13,
J. Buergi
94,
D. Burgardt
95,
S. Butchart
35,
G. Caceres V.
75,
I. Cagnoli
71,72,
T. Cai
46,
R. Calabrese
24,25,
J. Calcutt
96,
M. Calin
97,
L. Calivers
94,
E. Calvo
17,
A. Caminata
70,
A. F. Camino
98,
W. Campanelli
27,
A. Campani
70,99,
A. Campos Benitez
100,
N. Canci
101,
J. Capó
19,
I. Caracas
102,
D. Caratelli
103,
D. Carber
66,
J. M. Carceller
1,
G. Carini
7,
B. Carlus
39,
M. F. Carneiro
7,
P. Carniti
87,
I. Caro Terrazas
66,
H. Carranza
33,
N. Carrara
75,
L. Carroll
15,
T. Carroll
104,
A. Carter
105,
E. Casarejos
44,
D. Casazza
24,
J. F. Castaño Forero
106,
F. A. Castaño
107,
A. Castillo
108,
C. Castromonte
109,
E. Catano-Mur
110,
C. Cattadori
87,
F. Cavalier
36,
F. Cavanna
3,
S. Centro
111,
G. Cerati
3,
C. Cerna
112,
A. Cervelli
71,
A. Cervera Villanueva
19,
K. Chakraborty
113,
S. Chakraborty
114,
M. Chalifour
1,
A. Chappell
42,
N. Charitonidis
1,
A. Chatterjee
113,
H. Chen
7,
M. Chen
43,
W. C. Chen
115,
Y. Chen
29,
Z. Chen-Wishart
105,
D. Cherdack
10,
C. Chi
116,
R. Chirco
22,
N. Chitirasreemadam
61,62,
K. Cho
117,
S. Choate
84,
D. Chokheli
6,
P. S. Chong
118,
B. Chowdhury
21,
D. Christian
3,
A. Chukanov
28,
M. Chung
119,
E. Church
41,
M. F. Cicala
52,
M. Cicerchia
111,
V. Cicero
71,72,
R. Ciolini
61,
P. Clarke
53,
G. Cline
11,
T. E. Coan
120,
A. G. Cocco
101,
J. A. B. Coelho
121,
A. Cohen
121,
J. Collazo
44,
J. Collot
122,
E. Conley
123,
J. M. Conrad
51,
M. Convery
29,
S. Copello
70,
P. Cova
124,125,
C. Cox
105,
L. Cremaldi
126,
L. Cremonesi
74,
J. I. Crespo-Anadón
17,
M. Crisler
3,
E. Cristaldo
65,87,
J. Crnkovic
3,
G. Crone
52,
R. Cross
42,
A. Cudd
14,
C. Cuesta
17,
Y. Cui
127,
F. Curciarello
128,
D. Cussans
8,
J. Dai
122,
O. Dalager
43,
R. Dallavalle
121,
W. Dallaway
115,
H. da Motta
129,
Z. A. Dar
110,
R. Darby
35,
L. Da Silva Peres
130,
Q. David
39,
G. S. Davies
126,
S. Davini
70,
J. Dawson
121,
R. De Aguiar
9,
P. De Almeida
9,
P. Debbins
82,
I. De Bonis
12,
M. P. Decowski
131,132,
A. de Gouvêa
133,
P. C. De Holanda
9,
I. L. De Icaza Astiz
35,
P. De Jong
131,132,
P. Del Amo Sanchez
12,
A. De la Torre
17,
G. De Lauretis
39,
A. Delbart
86,
D. Delepine
49,
M. Delgado
87,89,
A. Dell’Acqua
1,
G. Delle Monache
128,
N. Delmonte
124,125,
P. De Lurgio
21,
R. Demario
67,
G. De Matteis
68,
J. R. T. de Mello Neto
130,
D. M. DeMuth
134,
S. Dennis
135,
C. Densham
93,
P. Denton
7,
G. W. Deptuch
7,
A. De Roeck
1,
V. De Romeri
19,
J. P. Detje
135,
J. Devine
1,
R. Dharmapalan
136,
M. Dias
137,
A. Diaz
138,
J. S. Díaz
40,
F. Díaz
56,
F. Di Capua
101,139,
A. Di Domenico
140,141,
S. Di Domizio
70,99,
S. Di Falco
61,
L. Di Giulio
1,
P. Ding
3,
L. Di Noto
70,99,
E. Diociaiuti
128,
C. Distefano
80,
R. Diurba
94,
M. Diwan
7,
Z. Djurcic
21,
D. Doering
29,
S. Dolan
1,
F. Dolek
100,
M. J. Dolinski
142,
D. Domenici
128,
L. Domine
29,
S. Donati
61,62,
Y. Donon
1,
S. Doran
143,
D. Douglas
29,
T. A. Doyle
144,
A. Dragone
29,
F. Drielsma
29,
L. Duarte
137,
D. Duchesneau
12,
K. Duffy
2,3,
K. Dugas
43,
P. Dunne
18,
B. Dutta
145,
H. Duyang
146,
D. A. Dwyer
11,
A. S. Dyshkant
84,
S. Dytman
98,
M. Eads
84,
A. Earle
35,
S. Edayath
143,
D. Edmunds
67,
J. Eisch
3,
P. Englezos
147,
A. Ereditato
77,
T. Erjavec
75,
C. O. Escobar
3,
J. J. Evans
31,
E. Ewart
40,
A. C. Ezeribe
148,
K. Fahey
3,
L. Fajt
1,
A. Falcone
87,89,
M. Fani’
85,
C. Farnese
149,
S. Farrell
150,
Y. Farzan
151,
D. Fedoseev
28,
J. Felix
49,
Y. Feng
143,
E. Fernandez-Martinez
152,
G. Ferry
36,
L. Fields
153,
P. Filip
154,
A. Filkins
155,
F. Filthaut
131,156,
R. Fine
85,
G. Fiorillo
101,139,
M. Fiorini
24,25,
S. Fogarty
66,
W. Foreman
22,
J. Fowler
123,
J. Franc
157,
K. Francis
84,
D. Franco
77,
J. Franklin
158,
J. Freeman
3,
J. Fried
7,
A. Friedland
29,
S. Fuess
3,
I. K. Furic
58,
K. Furman
74,
A. P. Furmanski
159,
R. Gaba
78,
A. Gabrielli
71,72,
A. M. Gago
56,
F. Galizzi
87,
H. Gallagher
160,
A. Gallas
36,
N. Gallice
7,
V. Galymov
39,
E. Gamberini
1,
T. Gamble
148,
F. Ganacim
5,
R. Gandhi
161,
S. Ganguly
3,
F. Gao
103,
S. Gao
7,
D. Garcia-Gamez
162,
M. Á. García-Peris
19,
F. Gardim
76,
S. Gardiner
3,
D. Gastler
163,
A. Gauch
94,
J. Gauvreau
164,
P. Gauzzi
140,141,
S. Gazzana
128,
G. Ge
116,
N. Geffroy
12,
B. Gelli
9,
S. Gent
165,
L. Gerlach
7,
Z. Ghorbani-Moghaddam
70,
T. Giammaria
24,25,
D. Gibin
111,149,
I. Gil-Botella
17,
S. Gilligan
96,
A. Gioiosa
61,
S. Giovannella
128,
C. Girerd
39,
A. K. Giri
92,
C. Giugliano
24,
V. Giusti
61,
D. Gnani
11,
O. Gogota
38,
S. Gollapinni
85,
K. Gollwitzer
3,
R. A. Gomes
166,
L. V. Gomez Bermeo
108,
L. S. Gomez Fajardo
108,
F. Gonnella
91,
D. Gonzalez-Diaz
20,
M. Gonzalez-Lopez
152,
M. C. Goodman
21,
S. Goswami
113,
C. Gotti
87,
J. Goudeau
59,
E. Goudzovski
91,
C. Grace
11,
E. Gramellini
31,
R. Gran
167,
E. Granados
49,
P. Granger
121,
C. Grant
163,
D. R. Gratieri
9,168,
G. Grauso
101,
P. Green
2,
S. Greenberg
11,169,
J. Greer
8,
W. C. Griffith
35,
F. T. Groetschla
1,
K. Grzelak
170,
L. Gu
83,
W. Gu
7,
V. Guarino
21,
M. Guarise
24,25,
R. Guenette
31,
E. Guerard
36,
M. Guerzoni
71,
D. Guffanti
87,89,
A. Guglielmi
149,
B. Guo
146,
Y. Guo
144,
A. Gupta
29,
V. Gupta
131,132,
G. Gurung
33,
D. Gutierrez
171,
P. Guzowski
31,
M. M. Guzzo
9,
S. Gwon
172,
A. Habig
167,
H. Hadavand
33,
L. Haegel
39,
R. Haenni
94,
L. Hagaman
173,
A. Hahn
3,
J. Haiston
174,
J. Hakenmueller
123,
T. Hamernik
3,
P. Hamilton
18,
J. Hancock
91,
F. Happacher
128,
D. A. Harris
3,46,
J. Hartnell
35,
T. Hartnett
93,
J. Harton
66,
T. Hasegawa
175,
C. Hasnip
2,
R. Hatcher
3,
K. Hayrapetyan
74,
J. Hays
74,
E. Hazen
163,
M. He
10,
A. Heavey
3,
K. M. Heeger
173,
J. Heise
176,
S. Henry
13,
M. A. Hernandez Morquecho
22,
K. Herner
3,
V. Hewes
37,
A. Higuera
150,
C. Hilgenberg
159,
S. J. Hillier
91,
A. Himmel
3,
E. Hinkle
77,
L. R. Hirsch
5,
J. Ho
177,
J. Hoff
3,
A. Holin
93,
T. Holvey
2,
E. Hoppe
41,
S. Horiuchi
100,
G. A. Horton-Smith
15,
M. Hostert
159,
T. Houdy
36,
B. Howard
3,
R. Howell
13,
I. Hristova
93,
M. S. Hronek
3,
J. Huang
75,
R. G. Huang
11,
Z. Hulcher
29,
M. Ibrahim
178,
G. Iles
18,
N. Ilic
115,
A. M. Iliescu
128,
R. Illingworth
3,
G. Ingratta
71,72,
A. Ioannisian
179,
B. Irwin
159,
L. Isenhower
180,
M. Ismerio Oliveira
130,
R. Itay
29,
C. M. Jackson
41,
V. Jain
181,
E. James
3,
W. Jang
33,
B. Jargowsky
43,
D. Jena
3,
I. Jentz
104,
X. Ji
7,
C. Jiang
182,
J. Jiang
144,
L. Jiang
100,
A. Jipa
97,
F. R. Joaquim
27,47,
W. Johnson
174,
C. Jollet
112,
B. Jones
33,
R. Jones
148,
D. José Fernández
20,
N. Jovancevic
183,
M. Judah
98,
C. K. Jung
144,
T. Junk
3,
Y. Jwa
29,116,
M. Kabirnezhad
18,
A. C. Kaboth
93,105,
I. Kadenko
38,
I. Kakorin
28,
A. Kalitkina
28,
D. Kalra
116,
M. Kandemir
184,
D. M. Kaplan
22,
G. Karagiorgi
116,
G. Karaman
82,
A. Karcher
11,
Y. Karyotakis
12,
S. Kasai
185,
S. P. Kasetti
59,
L. Kashur
66,
I. Katsioulas
91,
A. Kauther
84,
N. Kazaryan
179,
L. Ke
7,
E. Kearns
163,
P. T. Keener
118,
K. J. Kelly
1,
E. Kemp
9,
O. Kemularia
6,
Y. Kermaidic
36,
W. Ketchum
3,
S. H. Kettell
7,
M. Khabibullin
28,
N. Khan
18,
A. Khvedelidze
6,
D. Kim
145,
J. Kim
13,
M. Kim
3,
B. King
3,
B. Kirby
116,
M. Kirby
7,
A. Kish
3,
J. Klein
118,
J. Kleykamp
126,
A. Klustova
18,
T. Kobilarcik
3,
L. Koch
102,
K. Koehler
104,
L. W. Koerner
10,
D. H. Koh
29,
L. Kolupaeva
28,
D. Korablev
28,
M. Kordosky
110,
T. Kosc
122,
U. Kose
1,
V. A. Kostelecký
40,
K. Kothekar
8,
I. Kotler
142,
M. Kovalcuk
154,
V. Kozhukalov
28,
W. Krah
131,
R. Kralik
35,
M. Kramer
11,
L. Kreczko
8,
F. Krennrich
143,
I. Kreslo
94,
T. Kroupova
118,
S. Kubota
31,
M. Kubu
1,
Y. Kudenko
28,
V. A. Kudryavtsev
148,
G. Kufatty
186,
S. Kuhlmann
21,
J. Kumar
136,
P. Kumar
148,
S. Kumaran
43,
P. Kunze
12,
J. Kunzmann
94,
R. Kuravi
11,
N. Kurita
29,
C. Kuruppu
146,
V. Kus
157,
T. Kutter
59,
J. Kvasnicka
154,
T. Labree
84,
T. Lackey
3,
A. Lambert
11,
B. J. Land
118,
C. E. Lane
142,
N. Lane
31,
K. Lang
187,
T. Langford
173,
M. Langstaff
31,
F. Lanni
1,
O. Lantwin
12,
J. Larkin
7,
P. Lasorak
18,
D. Last
118,
A. Laudrain
102,
A. Laundrie
104,
G. Laurenti
71,
E. Lavaut
36,
A. Lawrence
11,
P. Laycock
7,
I. Lazanu
97,
M. Lazzaroni
124,188,
T. Le
160,
S. Leardini
20,
J. Learned
136,
T. LeCompte
29,
C. Lee
3,
V. Legin
38,
G. Lehmann Miotto
1,
R. Lehnert
40,
M. A. Leigui de Oliveira
189,
M. Leitner
11,
D. Leon Silverio
174,
L. M. Lepin
31,186,
J.-Y. Li
53,
S. W. Li
75,
Y. Li
7,
H. Liao
15,
C. S. Lin
11,
D. Lindebaum
8,
S. Linden
7,
R. A. Lineros
90,
J. Ling
190,
A. Lister
104,
B. R. Littlejohn
22,
H. Liu
7,
J. Liu
43,
Y. Liu
77,
S. Lockwitz
3,
M. Lokajicek
154,
I. Lomidze
6,
K. Long
18,
T. V. Lopes
76,
J. Lopez
107,
I. López de Rego
17,
N. López-March
19,
T. Lord
42,
J. M. LoSecco
153,
W. C. Louis
85,
A. Lozano Sanchez
142,
X.-G. Lu
42,
K. B. Luk
169,191,
B. Lunday
118,
X. Luo
103,
E. Luppi
24,25,
J. Maalmi
36,
D. MacFarlane
29,
A. A. Machado
9,
P. Machado
3,
C. T. Macias
40,
J. R. Macier
3,
M. MacMahon
52,
A. Maddalena
192,
A. Madera
1,
P. Madigan
11,169,
S. Magill
21,
C. Magueur
36,
K. Mahn
67,
A. Maio
27,50,
A. Major
123,
K. Majumdar
23,
M. Man
115,
R. C. Mandujano
43,
J. Maneira
27,50,
S. Manly
13,
A. Mann
160,
K. Manolopoulos
93,
M. Manrique Plata
40,
S. Manthey Corchado
17,
V. N. Manyam
7,
M. Marchan
3,
A. Marchionni
3,
W. Marciano
7,
D. Marfatia
136,
C. Mariani
100,
J. Maricic
136,
F. Marinho
193,
A. D. Marino
14,
T. Markiewicz
29,
F. Das Chagas Marques
9,
C. Marquet
112,
D. Marsden
31,
M. Marshak
159,
C. M. Marshall
13,
J. Marshall
42,
L. Martina
68,
J. Martín-Albo
19,
N. Martinez
15,
D. A. Martinez Caicedo
174,
F. Martínez López
74,
P. Martínez Miravé
19,
S. Martynenko
7,
V. Mascagna
87,
C. Massari
87,
A. Mastbaum
147,
F. Matichard
11,
S. Matsuno
136,
G. Matteucci
101,139,
J. Matthews
59,
C. Mauger
118,
N. Mauri
71,72,
K. Mavrokoridis
23,
I. Mawby
83,
R. Mazza
87,
A. Mazzacane
3,
T. McAskill
54,
N. McConkey
52,
K. S. McFarland
13,
C. McGrew
144,
A. McNab
31,
L. Meazza
87,
V. C. N. Meddage
58,
B. Mehta
78,
P. Mehta
194,
P. Melas
195,
O. Mena
19,
H. Mendez
171,
P. Mendez
1,
D. P. Méndez
7,
A. Menegolli
196,197,
G. Meng
149,
A. C. E. A. Mercuri
5,
A. Meregaglia
112,
M. D. Messier
40,
S. Metallo
159,
J. Metcalf
51,160,
W. Metcalf
59,
M. Mewes
40,
H. Meyer
95,
T. Miao
3,
A. Miccoli
68,
G. Michna
165,
V. Mikola
52,
R. Milincic
136,
F. Miller
104,
G. Miller
31,
W. Miller
159,
O. Mineev
28,
A. Minotti
87,89,
L. Miralles
1,
O. G. Miranda
198,
C. Mironov
121,
S. Miryala
7,
S. Miscetti
128,
C. S. Mishra
3,
S. R. Mishra
146,
A. Mislivec
159,
M. Mitchell
59,
D. Mladenov
1,
I. Mocioiu
199,
A. Mogan
3,
N. Moggi
71,72,
R. Mohanta
45,
T. A. Mohayai
40,
N. Mokhov
3,
J. Molina
65,
L. Molina Bueno
19,
E. Montagna
71,72,
A. Montanari
71,
C. Montanari
3,196,197,
D. Montanari
3,
D. Montanino
68,69,
L. M. Montaño Zetina
198,
M. Mooney
66,
A. F. Moor
148,
Z. Moore
155,
D. Moreno
106,
O. Moreno-Palacios
110,
L. Morescalchi
61,
D. Moretti
87,
R. Moretti
87,
C. Morris
10,
C. Mossey
3,
M. Mote
59,
C. A. Moura
189,
G. Mouster
83,
W. Mu
3,
L. Mualem
138,
J. Mueller
66,
M. Muether
95,
F. Muheim
53,
A. Muir
60,
M. Mulhearn
75,
D. Munford
10,
L. J. Munteanu
1,
H. Muramatsu
159,
J. Muraz
122,
M. Murphy
100,
T. Murphy
155,
J. Muse
159,
A. Mytilinaki
93,
J. Nachtman
82,
Y. Nagai
178,
S. Nagu
200,
R. Nandakumar
93,
D. Naples
98,
S. Narita
201,
A. Nath
79,
A. Navrer-Agasson
31,
N. Nayak
7,
M. Nebot-Guinot
53,
A. Nehm
102,
J. K. Nelson
110,
O. Neogi
82,
J. Nesbit
104,
M. Nessi
1,3,
D. Newbold
93,
M. Newcomer
118,
R. Nichol
52,
F. Nicolas-Arnaldos
162,
A. Nikolica
118,
J. Nikolov
183,
E. Niner
3,
K. Nishimura
136,
A. Norman
3,
A. Norrick
3,
P. Novella
19,
J. A. Nowak
83,
M. Oberling
21,
J. P. Ochoa-Ricoux
43,
S. Oh
123,
S. B. Oh
3,
A. Olivier
153,
A. Olshevskiy
28,
T. Olson
10,
Y. Onel
82,
Y. Onishchuk
38,
A. Oranday
40,
M. Osbiston
42,
J. A. Osorio Vélez
107,
L. Otiniano Ormachea
109,202,
J. Ott
43,
L. Pagani
75,
G. Palacio
73,
O. Palamara
3,
S. Palestini
1,
J. M. Paley
3,
M. Pallavicini
70,99,
C. Palomares
17,
S. Pan
113,
P. Panda
45,
W. Panduro Vazquez
105,
E. Pantic
75,
V. Paolone
98,
V. Papadimitriou
3,
R. Papaleo
80,
A. Papanestis
93,
D. Papoulias
195,
S. Paramesvaran
8,
A. Paris
171,
S. Parke
3,
E. Parozzi
87,89,
S. Parsa
94,
Z. Parsa
7,
S. Parveen
194,
M. Parvu
97,
D. Pasciuto
61,
S. Pascoli
71,72,
L. Pasqualini
71,72,
J. Pasternak
18,
C. Patrick
52,53,
L. Patrizii
71,
R. B. Patterson
138,
T. Patzak
121,
A. Paudel
3,
L. Paulucci
189,
Z. Pavlovic
3,
G. Pawloski
159,
D. Payne
23,
V. Pec
154,
E. Pedreschi
61,
S. J. M. Peeters
35,
W. Pellico
3,
A. Pena Perez
29,
E. Pennacchio
39,
A. Penzo
82,
O. L. G. Peres
9,
Y. F. Perez Gonzalez
158,
L. Pérez-Molina
17,
C. Pernas
110,
J. Perry
53,
D. Pershey
186,
G. Pessina
87,
G. Petrillo
29,
C. Petta
63,64,
R. Petti
146,
M. Pfaff
18,
V. Pia
71,72,
L. Pickering
93,105,
F. Pietropaolo
1,149,
V. L. Pimentel
9,203,
G. Pinaroli
7,
J. Pinchault
12,
K. Pitts
100,
K. Plows
2,
R. Plunkett
3,
C. Pollack
171,
T. Pollman
131,132,
D. Polo-Toledo
4,
F. Pompa
19,
X. Pons
1,
N. Poonthottathil
114,143,
V. Popov
34,
F. Poppi
71,72,
J. Porter
35,
M. Potekhin
7,
R. Potenza
63,64,
J. Pozimski
18,
M. Pozzato
71,72,
T. Prakash
11,
C. Pratt
75,
M. Prest
87,
F. Psihas
3,
D. Pugnere
39,
X. Qian
7,
J. L. Raaf
3,
V. Radeka
7,
J. Rademacker
8,
B. Radics
46,
A. Rafique
21,
E. Raguzin
7,
M. Rai
42,
S. Rajagopalan
7,
M. Rajaoalisoa
37,
I. Rakhno
3,
L. Rakotondravohitra
26,
L. Ralte
92,
M. A. Ramirez Delgado
118,
B. Ramson
3,
A. Rappoldi
196,197,
G. Raselli
196,197,
P. Ratoff
83,
R. Ray
3,
H. Razafinime
37,
E. M. Rea
159,
J. S. Real
122,
B. Rebel
3,104,
R. Rechenmacher
3,
M. Reggiani-Guzzo
31,
J. Reichenbacher
174,
S. D. Reitzner
3,
H. Rejeb Sfar
1,
E. Renner
85,
A. Renshaw
10,
S. Rescia
7,
F. Resnati
1,
D. Restrepo
107,
C. Reynolds
74,
M. Ribas
5,
S. Riboldi
124,
C. Riccio
144,
G. Riccobene
80,
J. S. Ricol
122,
M. Rigan
35,
E. V. Rincón
73,
A. Ritchie-Yates
105,
S. Ritter
102,
D. Rivera
85,
R. Rivera
3,
A. Robert
122,
J. L. Rocabado Rocha
19,
L. Rochester
29,
M. Roda
23,
P. Rodrigues
2,
M. J. Rodriguez Alonso
1,
J. Rodriguez Rondon
174,
S. Rosauro-Alcaraz
36,
P. Rosier
36,
D. Ross
67,
M. Rossella
196,197,
M. Rossi
1,
M. Ross-Lonergan
85,
N. Roy
46,
P. Roy
95,
C. Rubbia
204,
A. Ruggeri
71,
G. Ruiz Ferreira
31,
B. Russell
51,
D. Ruterbories
13,
A. Rybnikov
28,
A. Saa-Hernandez
20,
R. Saakyan
52,
S. Sacerdoti
121,
S. K. Sahoo
92,
N. Sahu
92,
P. Sala
1,124,
N. Samios
7,
O. Samoylov
28,
M. C. Sanchez
186,
A. Sánchez Bravo
19,
P. Sanchez-Lucas
162,
V. Sandberg
85,
D. A. Sanders
126,
S. Sanfilippo
80,
D. Sankey
93,
D. Santoro
124,
N. Saoulidou
195,
P. Sapienza
80,
C. Sarasty
37,
I. Sarcevic
205,
I. Sarra
128,
G. Savage
3,
V. Savinov
98,
G. Scanavini
173,
A. Scaramelli
196,
A. Scarff
148,
T. Schefke
59,
H. Schellman
3,96,
S. Schifano
24,25,
P. Schlabach
3,
D. Schmitz
77,
A. W. Schneider
51,
K. Scholberg
123,
A. Schukraft
3,
B. Schuld
14,
A. Segade
44,
E. Segreto
9,
A. Selyunin
28,
C. R. Senise
137,
J. Sensenig
118,
M. H. Shaevitz
116,
P. Shanahan
3,
P. Sharma
78,
R. Kumar
206,
K. Shaw
35,
T. Shaw
3,
K. Shchablo
39,
J. Shen
118,
C. Shepherd-Themistocleous
93,
A. Sheshukov
28,
W. Shi
144,
S. Shin
207,
S. Shivakoti
95,
I. Shoemaker
100,
D. Shooltz
67,
R. Shrock
144,
B. Siddi
24,
M. Siden
66,
J. Silber
11,
L. Simard
36,
J. Sinclair
29,
G. Sinev
174,
Jaydip Singh
200,
J. Singh
200,
L. Singh
208,
P. Singh
74,
V. Singh
208,
S. Singh Chauhan
78,
R. Sipos
1,
C. Sironneau
121,
G. Sirri
71,
K. Siyeon
172,
K. Skarpaas
29,
J. Smedley
13,
E. Smith
40,
J. Smith
144,
P. Smith
40,
J. Smolik
154,157,
M. Smy
43,
M. Snape
42,
E. L. Snider
3,
P. Snopok
22,
D. Snowden-Ifft
164,
M. Soares Nunes
3,
H. Sobel
43,
M. Soderberg
155,
S. Sokolov
28,
C. J. Solano Salinas
109,209,
S. Söldner-Rembold
31,
S. R. Soleti
11,
N. Solomey
95,
V. Solovov
27,
W. E. Sondheim
85,
M. Sorel
19,
A. Sotnikov
28,
J. Soto-Oton
19,
A. Sousa
37,
K. Soustruznik
210,
F. Spinella
61,
J. Spitz
211,
N. J. C. Spooner
148,
K. Spurgeon
155,
D. Stalder
65,
M. Stancari
3,
L. Stanco
111,149,
J. Steenis
75,
R. Stein
8,
H. M. Steiner
11,
A. F. Steklain Lisbôa
5,
A. Stepanova
28,
J. Stewart
7,
B. Stillwell
77,
J. Stock
174,
F. Stocker
1,
T. Stokes
59,
M. Strait
159,
T. Strauss
3,
L. Strigari
145,
A. Stuart
30,
J. G. Suarez
73,
J. Subash
91,
A. Surdo
68,
L. Suter
3,
C. M. Sutera
63,64,
K. Sutton
138,
Y. Suvorov
101,139,
R. Svoboda
75,
S. K. Swain
212,
B. Szczerbinska
213,
A. M. Szelc
53,
A. Sztuc
52,
A. Taffara
61,
N. Talukdar
146,
J. Tamara
106,
H. A. Tanaka
29,
S. Tang
7,
N. Taniuchi
135,
A. M. Tapia Casanova
214,
B. Tapia Oregui
187,
A. Tapper
18,
S. Tariq
3,
E. Tarpara
7,
E. Tatar
215,
R. Tayloe
40,
D. Tedeschi
146,
A. M. Teklu
144,
J. Tena Vidal
34,
P. Tennessen
11,55,
M. Tenti
71,
K. Terao
29,
F. Terranova
87,89,
G. Testera
70,
T. Thakore
37,
A. Thea
93,
A. Thiebault
36,
S. Thomas
155,
A. Thompson
145,
C. Thorn
7,
S. C. Timm
3,
E. Tiras
82,184,
V. Tishchenko
7,
N. Todorović
183,
L. Tomassetti
24,25,
A. Tonazzo
121,
D. Torbunov
7,
M. Torti
87,
M. Tortola
19,
F. Tortorici
63,64,
N. Tosi
71,
D. Totani
103,
M. Toups
3,
C. Touramanis
23,
D. Tran
10,
R. Travaglini
71,
J. Trevor
138,
E. Triller
67,
S. Trilov
8,
J. Truchon
104,
D. Truncali
140,141,
W. H. Trzaska
216,
Y. Tsai
43,
Y.-T. Tsai
29,
Z. Tsamalaidze
6,
K. V. Tsang
29,
N. Tsverava
6,
S. Z. Tu
182,
S. Tufanli
1,
C. Tunnell
150,
J. Turner
158,
M. Tuzi
19,
J. Tyler
15,
E. Tyley
148,
M. Tzanov
59,
M. A. Uchida
135,
J. Ureña González
19,
J. Urheim
40,
T. Usher
29,
H. Utaegbulam
13,
S. Uzunyan
84,
M. R. Vagins
43,217,
P. Vahle
110,
S. Valder
35,
G. A. Valdiviesso
76,
E. Valencia
49,
R. Valentim
137,
Z. Vallari
138,
E. Vallazza
87,
J. W. F. Valle
19,
R. Van Berg
118,
R. G. Van de Water
85,
D. V. Forero
214,
A. Vannozzi
128,
M. Van Nuland-Troost
131,
F. Varanini
149,
D. Vargas Oliva
115,
S. Vasina
28,
N. Vaughan
96,
K. Vaziri
3,
A. Vázquez-Ramos
162,
J. Vega
202,
S. Ventura
149,
A. Verdugo
17,
S. Vergani
52,
M. Verzocchi
3,
K. Vetter
3,
M. Vicenzi
7,
H. Vieira de Souza
121,
C. Vignoli
192,
C. Vilela
27,
E. Villa
1,
S. Viola
80,
B. Viren
7,
A. Vizcaya-Hernandez
66,
T. Vrba
157,
Q. Vuong
13,
A. V. Waldron
74,
M. Wallbank
37,
J. Walsh
67,
T. Walton
3,
H. Wang
218,
J. Wang
174,
L. Wang
11,
M. H. L. S. Wang
3,
X. Wang
3,
Y. Wang
218,
K. Warburton
143,
D. Warner
66,
L. Warsame
18,
M. O. Wascko
2,
D. Waters
52,
A. Watson
91,
K. Wawrowska
35,93,
A. Weber
3,102,
C. M. Weber
159,
M. Weber
94,
H. Wei
59,
A. Weinstein
143,
H. Wenzel
3,
S. Westerdale
127,
M. Wetstein
143,
K. Whalen
93,
J. Whilhelmi
173,
A. White
33,
A. White
173,
L. H. Whitehead
135,
D. Whittington
155,
M. J. Wilking
159,
A. Wilkinson
52,
C. Wilkinson
11,
F. Wilson
93,
R. J. Wilson
66,
P. Winter
21,
W. Wisniewski
29,
J. Wolcott
160,
J. Wolfs
13,
T. Wongjirad
160,
A. Wood
10,
K. Wood
11,
E. Worcester
7,
M. Worcester
7,
M. Wospakrik
3,
K. Wresilo
135,
C. Wret
13,
S. Wu
159,
W. Wu
3,
W. Wu
43,
M. Wurm
102,
J. Wyenberg
177,
Y. Xiao
43,
I. Xiotidis
18,
B. Yaeggy
37,
N. Yahlali
19,
E. Yandel
103,
K. Yang
2,
T. Yang
3,
A. Yankelevich
43,
N. Yershov
28,
K. Yonehara
3,
T. Young
48,
B. Yu
7,
H. Yu
7,
J. Yu
33,
Y. Yu
22,
W. Yuan
53,
R. Zaki
46,
J. Zalesak
154,
L. Zambelli
12,
B. Zamorano
162,
A. Zani
124,
O. Zapata
107,
L. Zazueta
155,
G. P. Zeller
3,
J. Zennamo
3,
K. Zeug
104,
C. Zhang
7,
S. Zhang
40,
M. Zhao
7,
E. Zhivun
7,
E. D. Zimmerman
14,
S. Zucchelli
71,72,
J. Zuklin
154,
V. Zutshi
84,
R. Zwaska
3 and
on behalf of the DUNE Collaboration
*,†
add Show full author list remove Hide full author list
1
CERN, The European Organization for Nuclear Research, 1211 Meyrin, Switzerland
2
University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3RH, UK
3
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL 60510, USA
4
Universidad del Atlántico, Barranquilla, Atlántico, Colombia
5
Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil
6
Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
7
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973, USA
8
University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TL, UK
9
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas 13083-970, SP, Brazil
10
University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204, USA
11
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
12
Laboratoire d’Annecy de Physique des Particules, Université Savoie Mont Blanc, CNRS, LAPP-IN2P3, 74000 Annecy, France
13
University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USA
14
University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309, USA
15
Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
16
Augustana University, Sioux Falls, SD 57197, USA
17
CIEMAT, Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas, E-28040 Madrid, Spain
18
Imperial College of Science Technology and Medicine, London SW7 2BZ, UK
19
Instituto de Física Corpuscular, CSIC and Universitat de València, 46980 Paterna, Valencia, Spain
20
Instituto Galego de Física de Altas Enerxías, University of Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain
21
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439, USA
22
Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL 60616, USA
23
University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZE, UK
24
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Sezione di Ferrara, I-44122 Ferrara, Italy
25
University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
26
University of Antananarivo, Antananarivo 101, Madagascar
27
Laboratório de Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, 1649-003 Lisboa and 3004-516 Coimbra, Portugal
28
Affiliated with an Institute or an International Laboratory Participating within the DUNE Collaboration
29
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA
30
Universidad de Colima, Colima, Mexico
31
University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
32
Universidad del Magdalena, Santa Marta, Colombia
33
University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX 76019, USA
34
Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel
35
University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RH, UK
36
Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS/IN2P3, IJCLab, 91405 Orsay, France
37
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA
38
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, 01601 Kyiv, Ukraine
39
Institut de Physique des 2 Infinis de Lyon, 69622 Villeurbanne, France
40
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA
41
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99352, USA
42
University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
43
University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697, USA
44
University of Vigo, E-36310 Vigo, Spain
45
University of Hyderabad, Gachibowli, Hyderabad 500046, India
46
York University, Toronto, ON M3J 1P3, Canada
47
Instituto Superior Técnico—IST, Universidade de Lisboa, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal
48
University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND 58202-8357, USA
49
Universidad de Guanajuato, Guanajuato, C.P. 37000, Mexico
50
Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa—FCUL, 1749-016 Lisboa, Portugal
51
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
52
University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
53
University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9YL, UK
54
Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA 02481, USA
55
Antalya Bilim University, 07190 Döşemealtı/Antalya, Turkey
56
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima, Peru
57
Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
58
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-8440, USA
59
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA
60
Daresbury Laboratory, Cheshire WA4 4AD, UK
61
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Laboratori Nazionali di Pisa, Pisa, PI, Italy
62
Università di Pisa, I-56127 Pisa, Italy
63
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Sezione di Catania, I-95123 Catania, Italy
64
Università di Catania, 2-95131 Catania, Italy
65
Universidad Nacional de Asunción, San Lorenzo, Paraguay
66
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA
67
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
68
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Sezione di Lecce, 73100 Lecce, Italy
69
Università del Salento, 73100 Lecce, Italy
70
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Sezione di Genova, 16146 Genova, Italy
71
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Sezione di Bologna, 40127 Bologna, Italy
72
Università di Bologna, 40127 Bologna, Italy
73
Universidad EIA, Envigado, Antioquia, Colombia
74
Queen Mary University of London, London E1 4NS, UK
75
University of California Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA
76
Universidade Federal de Alfenas, Poços de Caldas 37715-400, MG, Brazil
77
University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
78
Panjab University, Chandigarh 160014, India
79
Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati 781039, India
80
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Laboratori Nazionali del Sud, 95123 Catania, Italy
81
Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey
82
University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA
83
Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YB, UK
84
Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA
85
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA
86
IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France
87
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Sezione di Milano Bicocca, 3-I-20126 Milano, Italy
88
University of Insubria, Via Ravasi, 2, 21100 Varese, Italy
89
Università di Milano Bicocca, 20126 Milano, Italy
90
Universidad Católica del Norte, Antofagasta, Chile
91
University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
92
Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad, Hyderabad 502285, India
93
STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot OX11 0QX, UK
94
University of Bern, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland
95
Wichita State University, Wichita, KS 67260, USA
96
Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA
97
University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania
98
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
99
Università degli Studi di Genova, Genova, Italy
100
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24060, USA
101
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Sezione di Napoli, I-80126 Napoli, Italy
102
Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, 55122 Mainz, Germany
103
University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA
104
University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA
105
Royal Holloway College London, London TW20 0EX, UK
106
Universidad Antonio Nariño, Bogotá, Colombia
107
University of Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia
108
Universidad Sergio Arboleda, Bogotá 11022, Colombia
109
Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería, Lima 25, Peru
110
William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA 23187, USA
111
Universtà degli Studi di Padova, I-35131 Padova, Italy
112
Laboratoire de Physique des Deux Infinis Bordeaux—IN2P3, F-33175 Gradignan, Bordeaux, France,
113
Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad 380009, India
114
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh 208016, India
115
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada
116
Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA
117
Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon 34141, Republic of Korea
118
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
119
Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Ulsan 689-798, Republic of Korea
120
Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275, USA
121
Université Paris Cité, CNRS, Astroparticule et Cosmologie, Paris, France
122
University Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, LPSC-IN2P3, 38000 Grenoble, France
123
Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA
124
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Sezione di Milano, 20133 Milano, Italy
125
University of Parma, 43121 Parma, Italy
126
University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677, USA
127
University of California Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521, USA
128
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Roma, Italy
129
Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas, Rio de Janeiro 22290-180, RJ, Brazil
130
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro 21941-901, RJ, Brazil
131
Nikhef National Institute of Subatomic Physics, 1098 XG Amsterdam, The Netherlands
132
University of Amsterdam, NL-1098 XG Amsterdam, The Netherlands
133
Northwestern University, Evanston, Il 60208, USA
134
Valley City State University, Valley City, ND 58072, USA
135
University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
136
University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA
137
Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo 09913-030, Brazil
138
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA
139
Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, 80138 Napoli, Italy
140
Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Roma, Italy
141
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Sezione di Roma, 00185 Roma, Italy
142
Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
143
Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
144
Stony Brook University, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA
145
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77840, USA
146
University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA
147
Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA
148
University of Sheffield, Sheffield S3 7RH, UK
149
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Sezione di Padova, 35131 Padova, Italy
150
Rice University, Houston, TX 77005, USA
151
Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences, Tehran, Iran
152
Madrid Autonoma University and IFT UAM/CSIC, 28049 Madrid, Spain
153
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA
154
Institute of Physics, Czech Academy of Sciences, 182 00 Prague 8, Czech Republic
155
Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244, USA
156
Radboud University, NL-6525 AJ Nijmegen, The Netherlands
157
Czech Technical University, 115 19 Prague 1, Czech Republic
158
Durham University, Durham DH1 3LE, UK
159
University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
160
Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155, USA
161
Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Jhunsi, Allahabad 211 019, India
162
University of Granada CAFPE, 18002 Granada, Spain
163
Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA
164
Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041, USA
165
South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007, USA
166
Universidade Federal de Goias, Goiania 74690-900, GO, Brazil
167
University of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth, MN 55812, USA
168
Fluminense Federal University, 9 Icaraí Niterói 24220-900, RJ, Brazil
169
University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
170
University of Warsaw, 02-093 Warsaw, Poland
171
University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, PR 00681, USA
172
Chung-Ang University, Seoul 06974, Republic of Korea
173
Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA
174
South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City, SD 57701, USA
175
High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Ibaraki 305-0801, Japan
176
Sanford Underground Research Facility, Lead, SD 57754, USA
177
Dordt University, Sioux Center, IA 51250, USA
178
Eötvös Loránd University, 1053 Budapest, Hungary
179
Yerevan Institute for Theoretical Physics and Modeling, Yerevan 0036, Armenia
180
Abilene Christian University, Abilene, TX 79601, USA
181
University of Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY 12222, USA
182
Jackson State University, Jackson, MS 39217, USA
183
University of Novi Sad, 21102 Novi Sad, Serbia
184
Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey
185
National Institute of Technology, Kure College, Hiroshima 737-8506, Japan
186
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA
187
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA
188
Università degli Studi di Milano, I-20133 Milano, Italy
189
Universidade Federal do ABC, Santo André 09210-580, SP, Brazil
190
Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
191
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
192
Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso, L’Aquila, Italy
193
Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica, Sao Jose dos Campos, Brazil
194
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi 110067, India
195
University of Athens, 157 84 Zografou, Greece
196
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Sezione di Pavia, I-27100 Pavia, Italy
197
Università degli Studi di Pavia, 27100 Pavia, Italy
198
Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del Instituto Politécnico Nacional (Cinvestav), Mexico City, Mexico
199
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
200
University of Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 226007, India
201
Iwate University, Morioka, Iwate 020-8551, Japan
202
Comisión Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo Aeroespacial, Lima, Peru
203
Centro de Tecnologia da Informacao Renato Archer, Amarais, Campinas CEP 13069-901, SP, Brazil
204
Gran Sasso Science Institute, L’Aquila, Italy
205
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
206
Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana 141004, India
207
Jeonbuk National University, Jeonrabuk-do 54896, Republic of Korea
208
Central University of South Bihar, Gaya 824236, India
209
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Peru
210
Institute of Particle and Nuclear Physics of the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics of the Charles University, 180 00 Prague 8, Czech Republic
211
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
212
National Institute of Science Education and Research (NISER), Odisha 752050, India
213
Texas AM University - Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, TX 78412, USA
214
University of Medellín, Medellín 050026, Colombia
215
Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID 83209, USA
216
Jyväskylä University, FI-40014 Jyväskylä, Finland
217
Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8583, Japan
218
University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
In memory of our colleague, Dr. Davide Salvatore Porzio, who is no longer with us.
Instruments 2024, 8(3), 41; https://doi.org/10.3390/instruments8030041
Submission received: 8 March 2024 / Revised: 6 June 2024 / Accepted: 26 August 2024 / Published: 11 September 2024

Abstract

:
The Module-0 Demonstrator is a single-phase 600 kg liquid argon time projection chamber operated as a prototype for the DUNE liquid argon near detector. Based on the ArgonCube design concept, Module-0 features a novel 80k-channel pixelated charge readout and advanced high-coverage photon detection system. In this paper, we present an analysis of an eight-day data set consisting of 25 million cosmic ray events collected in the spring of 2021. We use this sample to demonstrate the imaging performance of the charge and light readout systems as well as the signal correlations between the two. We also report argon purity and detector uniformity measurements and provide comparisons to detector simulations.

1. Introduction

Charge readout in liquid argon time projection chambers (LArTPCs) has traditionally been accomplished via a set of projective wire planes, as successfully demonstrated, e.g., in the ICARUS [1], ArgoNeuT [2], MicroBooNE [3], and ProtoDUNE-SP [4,5] experiments, and as planned for the first large detector module of the DUNE experiment currently in preparation at the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) underground laboratory in South Dakota [6]. However, this approach leads to inherent ambiguities in the 3D reconstruction of charge information that present serious challenges for LArTPC-based near detectors, where a high rate of neutrino interactions and an associated high-intensity muon flux cannot be avoided. In particular, 3D reconstruction becomes limited by overlap of charge clusters in one or more projections, and the unique association of deposited charge to single interactions becomes intractable.
To overcome event pile-up, a novel approach has been proposed and is being developed for the LArTPC of the Near Detector (ND) complex of the DUNE experiment, close to the neutrino source at Fermilab. This technology implements three main innovations compared to traditional wire-based LArTPCs: a pixelated charge readout enabling true 3D reconstruction, a high-performance light readout system providing fast and efficient detection of scintillation light, and segmentation into optically isolated regions. By achieving a low signal occupancy in both readout systems, the segmentation enables efficient reconstruction and unambiguous matching of charge and light signals.
This paper describes the first ton-scale prototype of this technology, referred to as Module-0, and its performance as evaluated with a large cosmic ray data set acquired over a period of several days at the University of Bern. Section 2 provides an overview of the detector, as well as of its charge and light readout systems. Section 3 discusses the performance of the charge readout system in detail, and Section 4 does the same for the light readout system. Section 5 then reviews several analyses performed with reconstructed tracks from the cosmic ray data set collected from Module-0 that allow for assessment of the performance of the fully integrated system. Important metrics for successful operation are addressed, such as electron lifetime, electric field uniformity, and the ability to match charge and light signals, among others. Section 6 offers some concluding thoughts.

2. The Module-0 Demonstrator

2.1. Detector Description

The Module-0 demonstrator is the first fully integrated, ton-scale prototype of the DUNE Liquid Argon Near Detector (ND-LAr) design. This detector will consist of a 7 × 5 array of 1 × 1 × 3   m 3 detector modules [7] based on the ArgonCube detector concept [8], each housing two 50 cm-drift TPC volumes with 24.9% optical detector coverage of the interior area. Module-0 has dimensions of 0.7 m × 0.7 m × 1.4 m and brings together the innovative features of LArPix [9,10] pixelated 3D charge readout, advanced ArCLight [11] and Light Collection Module (LCM) [12] optical detectors, and field shaping provided by a low-profile resistive shell [13]. This integrated prototype also tests the charge and light system control interfaces, data acquisition, triggering, and timing. Module-0 is the first of four functionally identical modules that together will comprise an upcoming 2 × 2 ND-LAr prototype, known as ProtoDUNE-ND. Following construction and initial tests with cosmic ray event samples, this larger detector will be deployed underground in the NuMI neutrino beam at Fermilab [14] to demonstrate the physics performance of the technology in a similar neutrino beam environment to the DUNE ND. The work presented here describes the analysis of a data set of cosmic ray events obtained with the Module-0 detector, installed in a liquid argon cryostat at the Laboratory for High-Energy Physics of the University of Bern. Over a period of eight days, the detector collected a sample of approximately 25 million self-triggered cosmic ray-induced events along with sets of diagnostic and calibration data. The data collection period included an array of characterization tests and data collection with changes to detector trigger conditions and thresholds and with the TPC drift field as high as 1 kV/cm. For a brief second running period of about three days, the cryostat was emptied and refilled following a series of gas purges rather than complete evacuation in order to assess the purity impact; this is discussed further in Section 5.1. A gallery of events of different types is shown in Figure 1. These images illustrate the rich 3D raw data from the pixelated charge readout system, the imaging capabilities for complex event topologies, and the low noise levels.
A schematic showing an exploded view of Module-0 with annotations of the key components is provided in Figure 2, and a photograph of the interior of the Module-0 detector as seen from the bottom prior to final assembly is shown in Figure 3. The module is divided into two identical TPC drift regions sharing a central high-voltage cathode that provides the drift electric field. Opposite the cathode at a distance of 30 cm are the anode planes, pixelated with charge-sensitive gold-plated pads where drifting ionization electrons are collected. The sides of the module are covered with photon detectors—alternating ArCLight and LCM tiles. The TPC drift region is surrounded by a resistive field shell made of carbon-loaded Kapton films. This low-profile field cage provides field shaping to ensure a uniform electric field throughout the TPC volumes.

2.2. The Charge Readout System

The charge readout is accomplished using a two-dimensional array of charge-sensitive pads on the two anode planes parallel to the cathode. While pixel-based charge readout has already been implemented in gaseous TPCs, LArTPCs have additional challenges due to restrictions on power dissipation. A proof of principle for pixelated charge readout in a single-phase LArTPC is described in Ref. [15], where a test device was exposed to cosmic ray muons. Readout electronics were also developed [9,16] and successfully applied in a pixel-readout LArTPC. Each of the anode planes on opposite sides of the central cathode is comprised of a 2 × 4 array of anode tiles. Each tile is a large-area printed circuit board (PCB) containing a 70 × 70 grid of 4900 charge-sensitive pixel pads with a 4.43 mm pitch. On the back of each PCB is a 10 × 10 grid of custom low-power, low-noise cryogenic-compatible LArPix-v2 application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) [10], as shown in Figure 4. Each ASIC is a mixed-signal chip consisting of 64 analog front-end amplifiers, 64 analog-to-digital converters, and a shared digital core that manages configuration and data I/O. Each pixel channel functions as an independent self-triggering detector with nearly 100% uptime and is only unresponsive to charge for 100 ns while the front end resets. The LArPix ASIC leverages the sparsity of LArTPC signals. The chip is in a quiescent mode when not self-triggering on ionization activity higher than O ( 100 ) keV. Thus, it avoids digitization and readout of mostly quiescent data. At liquid argon temperatures, the rate of accumulation of spurious charge (leakage current) is about 500 electrons/s. Each channel periodically resets to discard spurious charge that has collected at the input. In total, Module-0 comprises 78,400 instrumented LArTPC pixels.
Power and data I/O are provided to each tile by a single 34-pin twisted-pair ribbon cable. These cables are connected at the cryostat flange to a custom feedthrough PCB mounted on the cryostat lid. Data acquisition is controlled by the Pixel Array Controller and Network (PACMAN) card (Figure 5), which provides filtered power and noise-isolated data I/O to eight tiles. Two PACMAN controllers are mounted in metal enclosures attached to the outer surface of each feedthrough. During Module-0 operation, the PACMAN controller received a pulse-per-second timing signal for data synchronization between charge readout and light readout systems, and external trigger signals from the light readout system were embedded as markers into the charge readout data stream. Data are carried over a standard copper ethernet cable connected at each PACMAN to a network switch. Subsequently, data are transferred to and from the DAQ system via an optical fiber connection.
For the LArTPC ionization charge measurement, LArPix ASICs mainly operate in self-trigger mode, in which a trigger is initiated on a per-channel basis when a channel-level charge threshold is exceeded. In this mode of operation, LArPix incurs negligible dead time and produces only modest data volumes, due to the sparsity of ionization signals in 3D, even for high-energy events. Serial data packets stream out of the system continuously via the PACMAN boards and are processed offline for analysis. A programmable channel-level threshold is set using internal digital-to-analog converters (DACs), which are tuned so that the spurious (i.e., noise-related) trigger rate is less than 2 Hz for each channel. For Module-0, channel thresholds were operated in two regimes: low and high threshold (see Figure 6). Low-threshold (∼5.8 ke/pixel or ∼ 1 4 MIP/pixel) operation optimized charge signal sensitivity at the expense of incurring additional triggers due to, e.g., digital pickup, whereas high-threshold (∼ 10.7 ke/pixel or ∼ 1 2 MIP/pixel) operation benefited from improved trigger stability at the expense of charge sensitivity. Here, MIP refers to the expected charge deposited by a minimum ionizing particle. Updated revisions of the LArPix ASIC include modifications to the design that reduce pickup and allow channel thresholds to be lowered further. Also, a slight rising trend in event rate can be seen over some of the different periods, most likely due to the emergence during data collection of pixels with a high data rate. It is believed that this small effect, which has no impact on the physics performance, can be mitigated by improving the procedure used to set the thresholds.
ASICs within an anode tile are routed out to the DAQ through a configurable “hydra” network, wherein each ASIC has the ability to pass data packets to and from any adjacent neighbor. The scheme allows for system robustness in the event that an ASIC along the signal path becomes nonfunctional, though none of the 1600 ASICs failed during Module-0 operation. A few-millisecond delay is incurred for data packets produced deeper in the network to reach the PACMAN controller relative to data packets produced closer to it. This is accounted for during hit digitization: Each data packet carries a timestamp at creation when the hit signal is digitized, and when packets reach the PACMAN controller, a receipt timestamp is also assigned. Time ordering and filtering based on packet trigger type is performed offline. In order to monitor the integrity of the data in near-real time, a dedicated nearline monitoring system was developed and operated during the Module-0 run. An automated analysis was performed on each run’s raw data once the run ended and provided metrics including system trigger rates, trigger timing and offsets, channel occupancy and trigger rates, and data corruption checks. Cosmic rays produced a self-trigger rate of ∼ 0.25 Hz per pixel. This resulted in a total pixel hit rate of ∼20 kHz for the entire Module-0 detector, yielding a modest data rate of 2.5 Mb/s.

2.3. The Light Readout System

The Light Readout System (LRS) provides fast timing information using the prompt ∼128 nm scintillation light induced by charged particles in LAr. The detection of scintillation photons provides an absolute reference for event timing ( t 0 ) and, when operated in an intense neutrino beam, will allow for the unambiguous association of charge signals from the specific neutrino interactions of interest (i.e., pile-up mitigation). The LRS uses a novel dielectric light detection technique capable of being placed inside the field-shaping structure to increase light yield and localization of light signals. The LRS consists of two functionally similar silicon photomultiplier (SiPM)-based detectors for efficient collection of single UV photons with large surface coverage: the Light Collection Module (LCM) and the ArCLight module. The full LRS system includes these modules together with the ancillary readout, front-end electronics, DAQ (ADCs, synchronization, and trigger), feedthrough flanges, SiPM power supply subsystem, and slow controls, as well as cabling and interconnection between different elements. LCM and ArCLight modules share the same basic operation principle. The vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) scintillation light produced by LAr is shifted from 128 nm to visible light by a wavelength shifter (WLS). Tetraphenyl butadiene (TPB) coated on the surface of the light collection systems provides an efficient WLS, and the emission spectrum of TPB is quite broad, with a peak intensity of around 425 nm (violet light). Part of the light emitted at the surface of the light detection system eventually enters the bulk structure of the detector and is shifted to green light by a dopant (coumarin) in a bulk material, which also acts as a light trap (see Figure 7).
The ArCLight module has been developed by Bern University [11] and uses the ARAPUCA [17] principle of light trapping. The general concept, illustrated in Figure 7 (top), is that violet light enters a bulk WLS volume and is re-emitted as green light, and the volume has a coating reflective to green light on all sides except on the SiPM photosensor window. A dichroic filter transparent to the violet light and reflective for the green is used on the WLS (tetraphenyl butadiene, TPB) side. The overall module dimensions are 300 mm × 300 mm × 10 mm. A photograph of an ArCLight module is shown in Figure 8 (left).
The LCM prototype is a frame cantilevered by a PVC plate that holds 25 WLS fibers bent into a bundle, both ends of which are readout by a SiPM light sensor. Fibers are grouped and held by spacer bars with holes fixed on the PVC plate by means of polycarbonate screws to provide matching of thermal contraction. The PVC plate with the WLS fibers is coated with TPB, which re-emits the absorbed VUV light as violet light (∼425 nm). This light is then shifted inside multi-cladding = 1.2 mm Kuraray Y-11 fibers to green (∼510 nm), and hence, is trapped by total internal reflection guiding it to the SiPM readout at the fiber end, as depicted in Figure 7 (bottom). For each group of LCMs, the center module uses bis-MSB as a WLS rather than TPB to evaluate this alternative option; the photon detection efficiency performance is discussed in Section 4, and the relative performance can be observed in Figure 26. The LCM dimensions are 100 mm × 300 mm × 10 mm. Figure 8 (right) shows three LCMs.
In order to digitize analog signals from SiPMs, a 100 MHz, 10-bit, 64-channel (differential signals, full range ± 1.6 V) ADC prototype module in VME standard produced at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) was used (see Figure 9 left). This ADC module streams UDP/TCP data packets via M-link MStream protocol using a 10 Gbps optical link. The ADC boards have the capability to be synchronized via a White Rabbit system [18]. This was not available for the Module-0 run, for which timing synchronization between the charge light systems was provided by a dedicated system shown in Figure 9 (right). To merge data between light and charge systems, a trigger signal generated by the LRS is written out to the charge readout data stream. This trigger signal is also fed to the analog input of both ADCs to allow for precise time matching between ADC boards for further LRS data analysis. Additionally, a pulse-per-second from a stable GPS source was used for both detection systems to provide accurate synchronization. For the LRS, the pulse-per-second signal was fed to the analog input of each ADC. During the Module-0 run, the LRS operated in a self-triggered mode with adjustable threshold settings. The thresholds for the LCMs are approximately 30 photoelectrons, as discussed in Section 4.

3. Charge Readout Performance

3.1. System Overview

Module-0 operation represents the first demonstration of the LArPix-v2 pixelated charge readout system in a ton-scale LArTPC. Continuous acquisition and imaging of self-triggered cosmic ray data were successfully exercised, demonstrating the excellent performance of this technology. This section presents an array of studies of the charge readout system performance, including pixel channel signal baselines and time stability, charge response as a function of track position and angle relative to the pixel plane, response uniformity across the instrumented area, ADC saturation, and overall calorimetric measurement performance.
In parallel to this successful series of technological achievements, this first large-scale integrated test highlighted areas for continued improvement in future iterations of the module and ASIC design. This includes improved anode tile grounding and optimization of the pixel pad geometry. In the former case, enhancements to the grounding scheme will enable improved system-wide per-channel charge threshold sensitivity and system trigger stability, specifically allowing for readout of the pixels on the edge of neighboring tiles and mitigating the effects of triggering induced by system synchronization signals observed in the Module-0 data. For the latter case, modifications to the pixel pad geometry are being explored to decrease the capacitive coupling such that the charge induction response is less pronounced for charges far from the pixel. The aim is to minimize far-field current induction in the pixels, reducing the sensitivity of the readout system to drifting charge that is far from the anode plane. The use of a Frisch grid is a possibility that is also being explored, but none was used during the Module-0 operation, nor is this included in current baseline design. Of the total 78,400 instrumented pixel channels in Module-0, 92.2% were enabled for LArTPC operation. The channels were disabled mainly due to limitations noted above—grounding near tile edges (4.2%), elevated noise levels due to signal pickup (3.1%), high noise or leakage current (0.5%)—and their locations are illustrated in Figure 10. As noted above, no ASICs failed during Module-0 operations.

3.2. Noise and Stability

Periodic diagnostics (pedestal) runs were taken to monitor the stability of the charge readout system. These diagnostic runs entailed issuing a periodic trigger on a per-channel basis in a round-robin fashion among channels on a single ASIC. In this way, sub-threshold charge was digitized to monitor channel pedestal and the AC noise stability in time, with the ADC value returned by each digitization reflecting the sum of the quiescent pedestal voltage of the front-end amplifier and the integrated charge. The distributions of ADC values collected during pedestal runs were in agreement with the design expectations, with a median value of ∼78 counts per channel, and pedestal voltage varied by approximately 30 mV between channels. To determine the integrated charge, a correction for this pedestal value must be applied. We computed the channel-by-channel pedestal ADC value by using the truncated mean around the peak of the ADC value distribution of each channel. The signal amplitude in mV was inferred based on the internal reference DAC values and the ASIC analog voltage, and a global gain value of 245 e/mV was then used for all channels to convert the signal amplitude to charge.
Additionally, the stability of the charge readout over time was verified using cosmic ray data samples by measuring the most probable value (MPV) and the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the d Q / d x distribution of MIP tracks for each data run, as shown in Figure 11. To make these track-based measurements, 3D hits registered by the charge system are clustered together using the DBSCAN algorithm [19]. A principal component analysis of hits within each cluster then provides three-dimensional segments that we define as reconstructed tracks. The charge d Q corresponds to the sum of the hits associated with the reconstructed track and the 3D reconstructed track length d x . The d Q / d x distribution is then fitted with a Gaussian-convolved Moyal distribution [20], which is used to extract the MPV and the FWHM. Total system noise contributes ∼950 e equivalent noise charge (ENC) to each pixel hit, as assessed using periodic forced triggering of pixel channels in the absence of actual signals (Figure 12). To put this metric in context, the intrinsic energy loss fluctuations associated with the charge from a 4 GeV MIP would be ∼1800 e in ND-LAr’s 3.7 mm pixel pitch. Therefore, the charge resolution is smaller than the intrinsic physical fluctuations for particle kinematics relevant to ND-LAr.
Examining the corresponding charge in each pixel that has triggered (Figure 13), we identify a sharp rising edge corresponding to the self-trigger threshold at approximately 5.8 × 10 3 electrons (low threshold) and 11 × 10 3 electrons (high threshold). Above the self-trigger threshold, a peak at roughly 24 × 10 3 electrons corresponds to the typical charge deposited by an MIP crossing the full pixel pitch of 4.43 mm. Of note are the markedly different charge distributions of the high- and low-threshold data. We find that for the low-threshold data, the average number of triggers per single channel for MIP energy deposition is substantially larger than for the high-threshold data, with mean values of 1.53 and 1.14, respectively. These numbers are well-reproduced by the Monte Carlo simulation (MC) described in Section 5, with values of 1.52 and 1.12, respectively, for a similar set of reconstructed MIP tracks. Summing the charge of all digitizations on each specific channel for a given event increases the similarity between the low-threshold data and the high-threshold data (Figure 14). This is indicative of a “pre-triggering” effect, in which a channel is triggered by the induced signal generated by the drifting charge in advance of the charge signal arrival at the anode plane, thus motivating the reduction of far-field effects discussed above.

3.3. Pixel Charge Response

To study the individual pixel charge response, we examine the variation in response based on the track inclination relative to the anode plane (polar angle θ ), the orientation angle of the track projected onto the anode plane (azimuthal angle ϕ ), and the radial distance from the pixel center to the point of closest approach of the track projected onto the anode plane (r). Figure 15 shows the distribution of these three quantities, normalized by the total track length. Generally, the θ and ϕ distributions are comparable between data and simulations. The r distribution shows significantly more triggers to peripheral tracks than simulated events. An overall normalization difference between high- and low-threshold data reflects the decreased sensitivity to tracks that clip the corners of the pixel.
A similar finding resulted from studying the distance between the MIP ionization axis and the center of the pixel. This ionization axis can be inferred by performing a Hough transform algorithm (HTA) on the x, y, and estimated z dimensions of the hit cloud. A projection of the HTA line onto the pixel plane provides the minimum array of pixels along the axis that could have recorded some charge. This line is then divided into 0.1 mm segments longitudinally. Each individual segment’s center then falls into a specific pixel, which is used to determine the distance between the segment center and the pixel center in x and y. The segments are split into three categories: (1) all segments as mentioned above independent of the recorded charge on that particular pixel, (2) those that fell into a pixel which did give a response, and (3) those in pixels that did not trigger. Prior to this categorization, all segments contained by pixels known to be inactive are excluded. In Figure 16, the ratios of the number of segments in the latter two categories to those in the first are shown. The four corners are over-represented for pixels that did not give a response but had the main ionization line crossing their pad. This quantifies the sensitivity of individual pixels to tracks clipping the corners. This difference in sensitivity is characterized by only a 3% drop from pixel center to pixel edge, with the minimum response being 85.5%.
Figure 17 and Figure 18 show the charge distribution with respect to the track orientation for low- and high-threshold data, respectively. Overall, similar features appear in each panel: a prominent peak corresponding to the charge deposited by an MIP across a single pixel width. In the r distribution, a secondary distribution of low-charge hits is present, corresponding to tracks that clip the corners of the pixel. This feature is also present in the ϕ distribution as an increase in the spread of the charge as ϕ π / 4 . The θ distribution shows a characteristic increase in the charge as θ 0 , which corresponds to tracks perpendicular to the anode plane, where each pixel can see a contribution from a relatively long track length. A flattening of the observed charge near θ = 0.8 is a threshold effect and is not present in the low-threshold data. To test the responsiveness of individual pixels and identify potentially malfunctioning channels beyond those known to be inactive, an MIP response map of the entire pixel plane was constructed. This map is the ratio of recorded over expected hits and identifies regions on the pixel plane which are less responsive than others. Both components start off with the same principle of performing an HTA on the x, y, and inferred z dimensions of the hit cloud to obtain the MIP’s central ionization axis in 3D. This axis is then projected onto the pixel plane to result in a 2D line. Next, all hits within 8 mm of the line are selected, and the maximum track width is set equal to the most distant point within this radius. To then obtain the first map, all pixels that recorded hits within a radius equal to the maximum track width of the projected line receive an entry. To construct the second map, all existing pixels within that same radius receive an entry. If a pixel is unresponsive, it will not show up in the first but will appear in the second, leading to a low ratio in that specific area. Selection cuts place requirements on the straightness of tracks relative to the fit Hough lines as well as the consistency with a roughly constant energy deposition profile, and this ensures that the events analyzed consist primarily of MIP-like tracks. Figure 19 shows the resulting MIP response maps for both anode planes.

3.4. Saturation

An additional consideration is saturation in the LArPix-v2 ASIC’s 8-bit successive-approximation ADC, which is expected to occur when the charge on a given channel exceeds 200 ke within a 2.6 μ s time window. A scan for events including saturated packets was performed over eight hours of cosmic ray data acquired at high gain and low threshold. Packets within 1 s of a time synchronization pulse were found to include additional noise and saturation effects, and were excluded. After accounting for this, a small fraction ( 2.9 × 10 6 ) of events with matching charge and light information contained a saturated ADC measurement. These events were manually inspected, and the saturation was clearly uncorrelated in space and time with the physical interactions, but rather, they leaked into the event due to their proximity with a sync pulse. With low thresholds, <0.002% of triggers resulted in ADC saturation, again driven by the pulse-per-second sync signal; channels 35–37 on all chips, which are located physically adjacent to the sync pulse pin, saturated most often and together accounted for 15% of these saturated packets. The ADC count distribution for events with deposited energy between 2 and 10 GeV is shown in Figure 20. These energies are of interest, as they are representative of neutrino interactions at ND-LAr, and the distribution falls well within the dynamic range of the ADC.

3.5. Calorimetric Response

Finally, the calorimetric response of the Module-0 charge readout was also studied. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show the variation of the d Q / d x for segments of different lengths relative to the track orientation, defined by the azimuth angle ϕ and the θ angle between the track and a vector normal to the anode plane. The reconstructed tracks used for this analysis come from the low-threshold runs (see Section 1). Events with more than 20 reconstructed tracks were excluded, since they often correspond to large showers or non-cosmic triggers. Tracks were required to be longer than 10 cm and to have at least 20 associated hits. They were then subdivided into segments of variable length from 10 to 400 mm, and the distributions were fit with a Gaussian-convolved Moyal function. The MPV shows a slight dependence on cos θ , with tracks that impinge perpendicularly to the anode plane tending to have a larger amount of deposited charge per unit length. These data provide insight into subtle effects in the pixel charge response, such as those related to induction effects and electric field uniformity, and enable a data-driven calibration.

4. Light Readout Performance

4.1. Overview

The Module-0 detector also provided a large-scale, fully integrated test of the light readout system, enabling a detailed performance characterization of the ArCLight and LCM modules, readout, DAQ, triggering, and timing with a large set of events. Using cosmic ray data and dedicated diagnostic runs under a variety of detector configurations, a suite of tests was performed to assess the charge spectrum, inter- and intra-event timing accuracy, and detection efficiency. The subsequent matching of events between the charge and light system is considered in Section 5.3.

4.2. Calibration

Before collecting cosmic data, a SiPM gain calibration was performed using an LED source, where the bias voltage for each SiPM channel was adjusted to obtain a uniform gain distribution across the channels, as shown in Figure 23. The amplification factors for the variable gain amplifiers used in the SiPM readout chain were also tuned and were set to maximum (31 dB), except for LCM channels (21 dB) during cosmic ray data taking, to adjust signals to the input dynamic range of the ADC. LCMs were used to provide an external trigger to the charge readout system, with an effective threshold of about 30 photoelectrons (p.e.). The trigger message, written into the continuous self-triggered data stream of the charge readout system, provides a precise timestamped flag for identifying coincidences between charge and light readout.

4.3. Time Resolution

Events induced by cosmic muons traversing the TPC volume were used to extract the time resolution of the light detectors. The time measurement proceeds as follows: Each waveform is oversampled through a Fourier transform to increase the number of points on the rising edge, enabling a good linear fit. The sampling of the rising edge was performed over a range from 10% to 90% of the maximum amplitude in order to exclude the region where the behavior is not linear. Then, a linear fit to the baseline is performed, and the crossing point of the rising edge of the signal with the baseline is calculated, providing a robust single-channel event time. This process is illustrated in Figure 24 (left). The extracted time resolution for a pair of neighboring LCM channels is shown in Figure 24 (right) as a function of the signal amplitude. This quantity is obtained by taking the standard deviation of the time difference recorded between the two channels over multiple events without any time-of-flight corrections. For large signals, this resolution approaches ∼2 ns. An example application of the excellent timing resolution for the LCMs is the identification of Michel electrons from stopping muon decays, where the relative timing between the muon and electron signals is dominated by the mean lifetime of the muon, τ 2.2 μ s. Two examples of signals from a stopping muon and a delayed Michel electron detected by the LCM are shown in Figure 25. Since the muon decay time is variable but follows a well-understood exponential distribution, such events may be used, for example, to study event pile-up in neutrino interactions.

4.4. Efficiency

To assess the efficiency of the LRS, the scintillation light induced by tracks reconstructed from the TPC charge readout data is used. In particular, cosmic muon tracks crossing the entire detector vertically are considered. In a 3D simulation, the charge of a track is discretized to single points with a 1 mm resolution along the track, assuming an infinitely thin true trajectory. For each point in this voxelized event, the solid angle to the light detector in the detector module is then calculated. Next, assuming isotropic scintillation light emission, the solid angle can be used to compute the geometrical acceptance of the light for each detector tile. The number of photons hitting the detector surface is estimated by multiplying the geometrical acceptance by the number of emitted photons per unit track length and integrating over the full track length. Here, the number of emitted photons per unit track length has been calculated for the nominal electric field strength of 0.5 kV cm−1 [21]. Rayleigh scattering, a small effect over the relevant distance scales, is neglected in this calculation.
The overall efficiency of the light detection system can be estimated by comparing the measured number of p.e. and the estimated number of photons hitting the detector surface, as obtained from the simulation described above. Since the waveforms obtained with the light detectors have been integrated using a limited gate length, the actual scintillation light might be underestimated. This was corrected by multiplying the number of reconstructed photons by an integration gate acceptance factor, which is calculated based on the detector response and the scintillation timing characteristics. Figure 26 shows the measured detection efficiency for all ArCLight and LCM modules used in the Module-0 detector. The LCM shows an average efficiency of 0.6%, which enables a light trigger for events depositing MeV-scale energies, with an accurate scintillation amplitude and energy reconstruction. The efficiency of the ArCLight modules is about a factor of 10 lower than the corresponding value obtained with the LCMs, which allows for a larger dynamic range. The ArCLight technology additionally enables a high position sensitivity, which can be used to accurately triangulate the origin of the scintillation light emission point [11]. For the LCM it can be observed that tiles placed at the top (see Figure 26 (right), LCM groups 4–6, 10–12, 16–18, and 22–24) of the TPC show a systematically lower efficiency with respect to tiles placed in the middle of the TPC. This can be explained by an anisotropy of light collection by LCM with respect to the angle of incoming photons, driven by structural non-uniformity of fibers and spaces. The absence of non-uniform effects in the ArCLight tiles due to reflections on the TPC structure or Rayleigh scattering, meanwhile, further indicates that these effects are negligible within the experimental uncertainties. In Module-0, a Hamamatsu MPPC S13360-6025 [22] is used. By replacing the SiPM for future modules with the MPPC S13360-6050 with higher efficiency, the overall PDE would improve by a factor of 1.6 to yield an LCM efficiency of about 1%.

5. Measurements with Cosmic Ray Data Samples

The following sections discuss the analyses performed using reconstructed tracks from the large cosmic ray data set collected during the Module-0 run. As discussed in Section 1, the Module-0 detector incorporates several novel technologies for the first time in an LArTPC of this scale. These studies assess the performance of the fully integrated system, including the LArPix charge readout with a very large channel count, the high-coverage hybrid LCM and ArCLight photon detection systems, and their matching; the capability to achieve the necessary levels of LAr purity for physics measurements without prior evacuation of the cryostat; and the degree of drift field uniformity achievable with the low-profile resistive shell field cage. Detailed studies of each of these key detector parameters demonstrate the excellent performance of the integrated system relative to the requirements in view of the operation for the DUNE ND-LAr.
In support of these studies, a sample of cosmic rays has been simulated using CORSIKA [23], a program for the detailed simulation of extended air showers. The passage of the particles through matter was simulated using a Geant4-based Monte Carlo [24]. The detector simulation was performed with larnd-sim [25,26], a set of highly parallelized GPU algorithms for the simulation of pixelated LArTPCs. A track-fitting algorithm was applied to provide an estimate of the particle track angle and location. First, a 3D point cloud was reconstructed using the unique channel index to determine the position transverse to the anode and the drift time. DBSCAN ( k = 5 , ϵ = 2.5 cm) [19] was used to find the hit clusters. The cluster radius ( ϵ ) was tuned using the k = 5 th-neighbor distance of 3D points from a typical run. Each cluster was then passed through a RANSAC line fit [27] with an outlier radius of ρ = 8 mm and 100 random samples. This provided a set of highly collinear points which constitute the reconstructed track.

5.1. Electron Lifetime

The amount of charge collected by the readout system depends heavily on the electron lifetime, τ , in the argon of the TPC volume. The electron lifetime parameterizes (in units of time) how much charge is lost due to attachment to electronegative impurities in the argon, such as oxygen or water, during the drift of the deposited ionization charge toward the anode. The charge measured at the anode, Q, is given by
Q = e t / τ · R · Q 0 ,
where Q 0 is the amount of the primary ionization charge deposited by a particle in the liquid argon, R is the recombination factor that describes the fraction of charge that survives prompt recombination of the ionization with argon ions prior to drift, and t is the drift time from the point of original charge deposition to detection in the anode plane. Measuring signals originating across the entire TPC via the charge readout system requires a sufficient electron lifetime in the detector. For the DUNE ND-LAr detector, this requirement is >0.5 ms at a drift electric field of 500 V/cm; this relatively low value compared to other large LArTPC detectors [4,28,29] is due to the relatively short maximum drift length of DUNE ND-LAr (∼50 cm) and allows ND-LAr to meet the charge attenuation performance of the far detector, which specifies a 3 ms lifetime in a detector with a 3.5 m drift length at a 500 V/cm drift field [30]. A measurement of the electron lifetime with Module-0 has been carried out to confirm that the materials used in the detector, which will be similar to those of DUNE ND-LAr, are compatible with the argon purity requirement. Additionally, tracking this parameter as a function of time is necessary to provide a calibration of charge scale for other measurements carried out using the Module-0 charge data.
As seen in Equation (1), charge measurements at the anode depend both on the electron lifetime and the recombination factor. However, by measuring Q as a function of the drift time for a collection of cosmic muon tracks that span the entire drift distance, the dependence on R, which is independent of drift time, can be ignored as an overall normalization factor. Additionally, a more fitting quantity to use in this study is d Q / d x , the measured charge per unit length along the cosmic muon track, given the dependence of the amount of charge seen by a single pixel channel on the orientation of each track. The electron lifetime for each Module-0 data run at a drift electric field of 500 V/cm is measured by applying an exponential fit to the mean d Q / d x of muon track segments as a function of drift time to the anode, assuming a uniform d Q / d x , as illustrated in Figure 27. A sample of anode–cathode-crossing tracks is used for this measurement; these tracks span the entire drift distance, and the absolute drift time associated with each part of the track is known for this track sample. The electron lifetime values measured in Module-0 were consistently above 2 ms for the duration of the run, thus satisfying the τ > 0.5 ms requirement. This trend continued in the second run (Run 2) of Module-0, where cryogenic operations differed from those in Run 1. Run 1 achieved LAr purity through cryostat evacuation before cooldown and LAr filling, while Run 2 made use of a piston purge procedure (repeatedly purging the volume with clean gas), as this is the anticipated approach for the full-scale cryostat of ND-LAr. A recirculation system with filtration was operational during both runs. The filtration was performed in the liquid phase by circulating the LAr through an activated copper getter (Research Catalysts, Inc., Willis, TX, USA, Q-5 Copper Catalyst) and a molecular sieve. The turn around time for the entire argon volume was approximately 2 h. This is similar to other large-scale LArTPC neutrino detectors. Results are shown in Figure 28.

5.2. Electric Field Uniformity

The magnitude of electric field distortions due to space charge effects for Module-0 are expected to be much smaller than other, larger LArTPC detectors running near the surface, such as MicroBooNE [31] and ProtoDUNE-SP [4]. This is due to the relatively small maximum drift length of ∼30 cm of Module-0, compared to ∼2.5 m for MicroBooNE and ∼3.6 m for ProtoDUNE-SP. Even for a maximum drift length of ∼50 cm that is anticipated for DUNE ND-LAr, the impact from space charge effects is expected to be negligible; the fact that ND-LAr will operate 65 m underground will reduce this effect further due to the smaller flux of cosmic muons. However, it is possible that electric field inhomogeneities may arise in the Module-0 detector from other sources. In particular, it is important to determine whether or not the field cage design causes significant distortions of the electric field, which can alter the trajectories ionization electrons take while drifting to the anode plane. Such distortions could lead to incorrect reconstruction of the true position of original energy depositions in the detector due to primary particles ionizing the argon, consequently impacting their trajectory and energy reconstruction. Furthermore, associated modification to the electric field strength throughout the detector can lead to significant impact on the amount of electron–ion recombination experienced by ionization electrons, leading to bias in reconstructed particle energy scale or degradation of reconstructed particle energy resolution. The use of the novel resistive field cage technology in Module-0, as is anticipated for DUNE ND-LAr, provides an important opportunity to study the impact on electric field homogeneity.
Following the methodology developed by the MicroBooNE experiment for the analysis of space charge effects [31], electric field distortions are probed using end points of through-going cosmic muon tracks in Module-0 data. Tracks passing through an anode plane and another face of the detector that is not the other anode plane are selected for this study, providing a known absolute drift time associated with each part of the track via subtracting the time associated with the anode side of the track. The track end point associated with the non-anode side of the anode-crossing track is then probed by measuring the transverse (i.e., perpendicular to the drift direction) displacement from the edge of the TPC active volume, as measured from the y value (TPC top and bottom) or x value (TPC front and back sides, perpendicular to the drift direction) of the pixel channels at the edge of the detector. The average transverse displacement is recorded as a function of the two directions within the TPC face for all four non-anode faces of the Module-0 TPC. If there are no electric field distortions in the detector, there would be no inward migration of ionization electrons during drift, leading to zero transverse displacement of ionization charge with respect to the TPC face for this sample of through-going muon tracks (contamination from stopping muons is expected to be less than 1%). The result of the average transverse displacement measurement is shown for the TPC top and bottom in Figure 29 and for the TPC front and back in Figure 30. A few features not associated with electric field distortions in the detector should be pointed out. First, there are gaps in coverage near the anode planes (z values of roughly ± 30 cm ) due to a requirement in the track selection that the non-anode side of the track is at least 5 cm away from both anode planes, and near the pixel plane edges (edges of the TPC face) due to a requirement that the non-anode side of the track is not located within 1 cm (2 cm) of these features. These selection criteria were introduced to minimize contamination of the sample from poorly reconstructed muon tracks. Some residual contamination is seen near the edges of the pixel planes where the measured average transverse spatial offset is artificially large due to edge channels of the pixel planes being turned off for data collection, leading to the ends of tracks being clipped off near the edges of pixel planes. Second, the two horizontal bands in the bottom-right corner of the right side of Figure 30 are associated with a known grounding issue of an ArCLight unit in this part of the detector. The vertical gap in the right panel of Figure 29 is due to inactive channels in this region of the anode plane (see Figure 10).
After accounting for these two artifacts, non-negligible transverse spatial offsets are observed near the cathode (central horizontal lines in Figure 29, central vertical lines in Figure 30), roughly 1 cm on average but as large as 2.5 cm in some places in the TPC. After adding an additional 1 cm to these measurements to account for the separation between the edge pixel channels and the field cage (or light detectors in the case of the front and back of the TPC), the average (maximum) transverse spatial offset experienced by drifting ionization charge originating near the cathode is roughly 2 cm ( 3.5 cm). Ascribing this transverse drift to an additional electric field component strictly in the direction transverse to the TPC faces, the average (maximum) transverse electric field magnitude leading to this amount of inward drift of ionization charge is roughly 30 V/cm (60 V/cm). The associated average (maximum) impact to the electric field magnitude in the detector is 0.2% (0.7%). This is below the conservative physics requirement of 1% maximum allowed deviation of the electric field magnitude within 95% of the detector volume, indicating that the design of the field cage is adequate for the physics goals of DUNE ND-LAr. It is worth pointing out that this physics requirement for electric field distortions corresponds to after detector calibrations have been carried out, while the measurements presented here have no calibration applied. It is thus expected that the calibrated electric field map would be even more homogeneous at DUNE ND-LAr. An additional study is carried out to determine whether the small electric field distortions in the Module-0 detector vary substantially over time. A substantial time dependence of the electric field distortions may complicate efforts to obtain a calibrated electric field map in the DUNE ND-LAr detector using cosmic muons, neutrino-induced muons, or dedicated calibration hardware. Average transverse spatial offsets were measured at four different places on each side of the Module-0 cathode as a function of time, spanning two full days of data collection. The results of the study are shown in Figure 31. No substantial time dependence of transverse spatial offsets is observed (<0.2 cm), indicating that calibration of the underlying electric field distortions is achievable by averaging the measured spatial offsets over at least a few days of data collection. A study of electric field stability over longer periods of time is planned in future prototyping of the DUNE ND-LAr detector concept.

5.3. Charge–Light Matching

Efficient matching between signals in the charge and light readout systems is essential, as this enables the use of light to disambiguate pile-up of separate neutrino interactions within a single beam spill. The unique association between charge and light signals is a nontrivial problem in a large-volume LArTPC, especially in an environment with a high rate of neutrino event pile-up, such as DUNE ND-LAr. This motivates the modular design, in which the full active volume is composed of an array of optically isolated TPC volumes, each with high coverage of optical detectors with fast timing and good spatial resolution. Charge–light matching in Module-0 has been accomplished via association with precision GPS-synchronized timestamps in the two systems. Here, two performance metrics are considered: the efficiency of matching for a selection of tracks as a function of the allowed coincidence time window and the resolution in terms of the offset between the two systems’ timestamps. Figure 32 shows the matching efficiency for varying definitions of the allowed time window for coincidence formation for a selection of anode–cathode-crossing muon tracks. The overwhelming majority of these are single tracks, as the cosmic ray activity is predominantly track-like and the probability of having another event in the same ∼200 μ s window is very small. For conservative matching parameters of around ± 5   μ s, an efficiency of ≥99.7% is found. In this study, the timing resolution is limited by the spatial resolution of the tracking from the charge readout, not by the intrinsic light detector timing resolution, which is discussed in Section 4. Next, Figure 33 illustrates the relative time offset between the two systems for the Module-0 prototype, again for a selection of anode–cathode-crossing tracks. The distribution exhibits a Gaussian core and a tail. The asymmetric tail of the distribution, captured by a Crystal Ball fit [32,33,34], is due to track truncation near the boundaries of the pixel planes. The Gaussian component of the Crystal Ball fit is also shown; the standard deviation of the Gaussian, 0.4 μ s, is identified as the charge readout timing resolution. The physics requirements for ND-LAr require that the resolution in the drift dimension be at least as precise as that across the anode plane, i.e., the pixel pitch divided by 12 , or 1.3 mm. The resolution extracted in Module-0 corresponds to 0.6 mm at a drift electric field of 500 V/cm, thus meeting the requirement.

5.4. Correlation of the Charge and Light Yield

Matched charge and light events as shown in Figure 34 provide another data sample which may be used to study the correlation between the relative charge and light yields in the detector. These yields are related to electric field-dependent recombination effects.
To describe the recombination mechanism in LAr, we formalize the ionization and excitation states generated by the deposited energy of a traversing particle as follows:
N i + N e x = Q Y + L Y ,
where the sum of available ionization ( N i ) and excitation ( N e x ) states determines the total number of electrons ( Q Y ) and photons ( L Y ) generated in LAr. The number of ionization states N i is given by
N i = E d e p W i , W i = 23.6 eV ,
where W i is the ionization work function [35], and E d e p is the deposited energy. In the absence of charge attenuation and impurities, the total charge Q arriving at the anode depends only on the initially produced ionization charge Q 0 = N i e as
Q Y = N i · R c ,
L Y = N i 1 + N e x N i R c ,
where the charge recombination factor R c is dependent on the electric field ϵ , and e is the electron charge. In the presence of impurities, the electron lifetime correction is applied first; see Equaiton (1). Increasing ϵ leads to less recombination between argon ions and ionization electrons, and thus, more free charge carriers are present in the TPC drift field, increasing the total detected charge at the anode plane. At the same time, a reduced charge recombination factor corresponds to less scintillation light produced within the TPC, leading to a decrease of the light yield at higher electric fields, as expressed by Equation (4). Hence, the amount of charge yield and the amount of light yield observed in the detector are expected to be negatively correlated. To describe the recombination of electron–ion pairs, we focus on the most commonly used models, namely the Box [36] and Birks models [37], and compare the results of Module-0 measurements with those of the ICARUS [38] and ArgoNeuT [39] experiments. The Box model assumes zero electron diffusion, zero ion mobility, and a uniform distribution of ionization electrons produced within a 3D box along the path of the ionizing particle. The collected charge Q is given by
Q = Q 0 · A Box ξ · ln ξ ,
where Q 0 denotes the primary ionization charge, and ξ is
ξ = N 0 K r 4 a 2 μ ϵ ,
where a is the linear size of the charge ‘box’, N 0 denotes the number of electrons in the box, and K r is the recombination rate constant. μ and ϵ define the electron mobility and the electric field, respectively. Note that in the limit of an infinite electric field ϵ , the collected charge at the anode plane corresponds to the initially produced charge, Q 0 . The Birks model describes the collected charge Q Y as
Q Y = N i · A Birks 1 + k B ϵ · d E d x = Q 0 e R c ,
where A Birks and k B are fitting constants. In this formulation of the Birks model, for infinite electric field intensities ϵ , the recombination factor does not go to 1 and is limited to R c A . We can now express the light yield as
L Y = N i 1 + N e x N i A Birks 1 + k B ϵ · d E d x .
However, since the fraction of excited states N e x N i is not precisely known, the commonly used model for the description of the light yield in scintillating materials uses the following formulation:
L Y = L 0 1 α R c = L 0 R L ,
L 0 = E d e p W L , W L = 19.5 eV ,
where L 0 denotes the number of scintillation photons at zero electric field strength, α is a constant fitted to the data, and W L is the scintillation work function [40]. This formulation is used in this analysis to evaluate the parameters in the Birks model for the light yield.
To study the charge and light correlation in Module-0, data samples at different electric field intensities ranging from 0.05   k V / c m to 1.00   k V / c m were acquired and analyzed. These events contain information about the collected charge and scintillation light. A selection of vertical through-going tracks, as expected from MIP muons, was used to extract the collected charge and light per unit length of the track. For the measurement of the collected charge per unit track length, the track was divided into 2 cm segments, and the total charge collected from each segment was divided by the segment length. Then, the light yield per unit track length was extracted as
d L d x = L detected Ω d l × PDE × G .
The factors in this expression include the geometrical acceptance Ω d l , the readout gate acceptance G, and the overall PDE of each tile reported in Section 4. The geometrical acceptance was computed based on the charge data and the track segment position with respect to a light detection tile, integrated over the track length. The readout gate acceptance is an estimation of the fraction of photons which reach the SiPM within the readout integration gate of 500 ns. The gate acceptance was measured using the average waveform of the light signals in Module-0 data and was found to be ∼64% for both the LCM and ArCLight modules.
The d Q / d x and d L / d x distributions are well-described by a Landau-convolved Gaussian function, which is used to extract the most probable value (MPV). We note that the fits are performed on raw data, i.e., without additional calibration of the track d E / d x . Due to uncorrected charge losses, the extracted MPV values for charge measurements should be compared with an effective value of ∼1.8 MeV/cm, while MPVs reflective of light measurements correspond to an effective d E / d x 2.1 MeV/cm. The dependence of the charge yield and the light yield MPV values with respect to the electric field density is illustrated in Figure 35.
The charge yield and light yield data points were fitted separately to the Birks model, with results shown in Figure 35 and Table 1. We note that for the light yield fit (Figure 35, right), per Equation (10), the A Birks and α light parameters are totally correlated and cannot be extracted independently. The left panel of Figure 35 also shows a comparison of the charge yield data (red points) to fits calculated using a Birks model (red curve) and Box model (green curve) alongside the results from the ICARUS experiment (blue curve), demonstrating good agreement between the results.
Next, a combined fit of the Birks model to both charge and light yield data sets was performed. Figure 36 shows the final result of the correlation study. The best fit results for the Birks model parameters are A B i r k s = 0.794 ± 0.008 and k B i r k s = 0.045 ± 0.003 , with a χ 2 / ndf of 23.2 / 35 , with the number of degrees of freedom calculated based on 19 fit points per data set (charge and light) included in the fit and three fit parameters.
Table 2 summarizes the Birks model parameters obtained with the Module-0 detector and compares them with the parameters found in the ICARUS and ArgoNeuT experiments. The results of the simultaneous fit of the Birks model to the light and charge distributions show reasonable agreement with previous experiments.

5.5. Michel Electrons

Michel electrons, i.e., electrons from stopped muon decay, constitute a readily available and versatile tool for the study and characterization of the performance of an LArTPC. They are abundant for surface-level detectors exposed to a large cosmic ray muon flux, and with μ e ν ¯ e ν μ as the almost exclusive decay channel, the number of events is given by the probability of the muon coming to rest in the detector. The electrons produced by the decay have a well-characterized energy spectrum with a cutoff at ∼50 MeV, and their topology is relatively easy to tag: a long muon track ending with a Bragg peak followed by a short ionization track from the electron at a different angle with respect to the muon direction. Figure 1 includes one example of a stopping muon decaying with a Michel electron in Module-0. The effective muon lifetime of ∼2 μ s is short relative to the TPC drift speed, leading to minimal displacement of the muon track endpoint and electron track start. However, it is large relative to the time resolution of the light readout system, allowing the two signals to be tagged separately; the first light pulse corresponding to the muon ionization and the second to the electron, can be easily separated for a large majority of events due to the excellent timing resolution of ArCLight and LCM detectors. Figure 37 shows the event display of a selected Michel electron candidate, with the two peaks showing the waveforms of the light detectors located in one of the two half-TPCs.
The Michel electron candidates’ topologies are mainly characterized by a long ionization trail left over by the crossing muon. An automatic selection algorithm based on the event topology and the presence of the Bragg peak at the end of the muon track was developed and applied to the subset of cosmic data. Visual event validation was performed on selected events to validate the analysis. The final distribution of the reconstructed Michel electron energy based on the automated charge reconstruction is shown in Figure 38. The end point is near the expected true end point of 53 MeV. The spectrum peaks at lower energies mainly as a consequence of partial containment, imperfect clustering, and charge below threshold, particularly from electrons Compton-scattered by Bremmstrahlung photons radiated from the primary electron [41,42,43].

5.6. Detector Simulation Validation with Cosmic Ray Tracks

Finally, selected samples of cosmic ray tracks are compared in detail to a cosmic ray simulation based on the CORSIKA event generator and the detailed microphysical detector simulation introduced in Section 5. Starting from the cosmic ray track reconstruction described there, the track’s start and end points are found by projecting the 3D points onto the cluster’s principal components. The DBSCAN+RANSAC fit is applied on outlying hits until all are placed within a cluster or no hits remain. This is sufficient for studies of low-level detector response, as it provides a local approximation of the track trajectory with minimal impact from δ rays and hard scatters. Reconstructed tracks may show artificial gaps due to the presence of disabled channels. Also, cathode-piercing tracks will usually be reconstructed as separated tracks due to the non-zero cathode thickness. Thus, tracks with an angle smaller than 20 and closer than 10 cm are stitched together for the following analyses. A comparison between the spatial coordinates of the stitched tracks in data and simulation is shown in Figure 39.
Figure 40 shows a comparison of the d Q / d x for low-threshold and high-threshold runs with a sample of simulated cosmic rays. The d Q / d x has been measured for segments of different lengths following the procedure described in Section 5.6. The simulation assumes the Birks model for electron recombination and a gain of 4 mV/ 10 3 e [37]. In the data, the amount of charge that reaches the anode is corrected by the electron lifetime factor calculated in Section 5.1.
Next, the d Q / d x as a function of the reconstructed track residual range is considered. As noted in Section 5.5, for a muon that stops in the detector, the amount of deposited charge per unit length will increase as it approaches the end point, forming a Bragg peak. Figure 41 shows an example of a stopping muon and the subsequent Michel electron. The d Q / d x has been measured by subdividing the reconstructed track into 10 mm segments (our d x ) and summing the charge contained in each segment (the d Q ). The data show a Bragg peak near the end of the reconstructed track where the residual range is close to zero. The theoretical prediction is obtained by taking the d E d x values tabulated in Ref. [44] for muons in LAr, divided by the argon ionization energy (23.6 eV), and multiplied by the recombination factor R Birks ICARUS , calculated in Ref. [38].
The observed distributions indicate good overall agreement between data and simulations, in particular with the ability to correctly reproduce the position of the d Q / d x peak. Module-0 data provide input that can be used to further tune the detector simulation, including modeling of additional noise sources and details of the anode response. Meanwhile, the strong overall agreement in terms of vertex positioning and calorimetry indicates that the initial detector response model is able to capture the main features of the cosmic ray track samples.

6. Conclusions

We have reported here the experimental results of exposing the Module-0 demonstrator, a ton-scale LArTPC with pixel-based charge readout, to cosmic rays. This new type of neutrino detector is designed to meet the challenges of the near detector complex of the forthcoming DUNE experiment, which will be exposed to a very intense beam-related flux of particles. These challenges are expected to severely hamper the performance of a conventional, wire-readout, monolithic LArTPC, where reconstruction of complex 3D event topologies using a small number of 2D projections can lead to unsolvable ambiguities, particularly when multiple events overlap in the drift direction. The novel Module-0 design features a combination of new technological solutions: a pixelated anode to read out the ionization electron signal that provides native three-dimensional charge imaging, a modular structure with relatively short drift length, high-performance scintillation light detection systems, and an innovative approach to field shaping using a low-profile resistive shell. Module-0 is one of four units that will comprise the 2 × 2 demonstrator (ProtoDUNE-ND) being installed at Fermilab to be exposed to the NuMI neutrino beam.
A detailed assessment of this technology has been performed by operating Module-0, as well as the associated cryogenics, data acquisition, trigger, and timing infrastructure, at the University of Bern. A large sample of 25 million self-triggered cosmic ray-induced events was collected and analyzed along with an array of dedicated diagnostic data runs. The response of the 78,400-pixel readout system was studied as well as the performance of the two independent and complementary light detection systems. The data analysis demonstrated key physics requirements of this technology, such as the electron lifetime, the uniformity of the electric field, and the matching/correlation between the charge and light signals. The reconstruction of particle tracks and Michel electrons illustrates the physics capabilities, and the comparison with detailed, microphysical simulations has demonstrated a robust understanding of the workings of this new type of LArTPC detector. Overall, these results demonstrate the key design features of the technique and provide a confirmation of the outstanding imaging capabilities of this next-generation LArTPC design.

Funding

This document was prepared by the DUNE collaboration using the resources of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab), a U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, HEP User Facility. Fermilab is managed by Fermi Research Alliance, LLC (FRA), acting under Contract No. DE-AC02-07CH11359. This work was supported by CNPq, FAPERJ, FAPEG, and FAPESP, Brazil; CFI, IPP, and NSERC, Canada; CERN; MŠMT, Czech Republic; ERDF, H2020-EU, and MSCA, European Union; CNRS/IN2P3 and CEA, France; INFN, Italy; FCT, Portugal; NRF, Republic of Korea; CAM, Fundación “La Caixa”, Junta de Andalucía-FEDER, MICINN, and Xunta de Galicia, Spain; SERI and SNSF, Switzerland; TÜBİTAK, Turkey; The Royal Society and UKRI/STFC, UK; DOE and NSF, United States of America. This research used resources of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), a U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science User Facility operated under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because the data are subject to restrictions per the DUNE collaboration policies and Data Management Plan. Inquiries regarding the data may be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Amerio, S.; Amoruso, S.; Antonello, M.; Aprili, P.; Armenante, M.; Arneodo, F.; Badertscher, A.; Baiboussinov, B.; Ceolin, M.B.; Battistoni, G.; et al. Design, construction and tests of the ICARUS T600 detector. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 2004, 527, 329–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Anderson, C.; Antonello, M.; Baller, B.; Bolton, T.; Bromberg, C.; Cavanna, F.; Church, E.; Edmunds, D.; Ereditato, A.; Farooq, S.; et al. The ArgoNeuT Detector in the NuMI Low-Energy beam line at Fermilab. J. Instrum. 2012, 7, P10019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Acciarri, R.; Adams, C.; An, R.; Aparicio, A.; Aponte, S.; Asaadi, J.; Auger, M.; Ayoub, N.; Bagby, L.; Baller, B.; et al. Design and Construction of the MicroBooNE Detector. J. Instrum. 2017, 12, P02017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Abi, B.; Abud, A.A.; Acciarri, R.; Adamov, G.; Adamowski, M.; Adams, D.; Adrien, P.; Adinolfi, M.; Ahmad, Z.; Ahmed, J.; et al. First results on ProtoDUNE-SP liquid argon time projection chamber performance from a beam test at the CERN Neutrino Platform. J. Instrum. 2020, 15, P12004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Abud, A.A.; Abi, B.; Acciarri, R.; Adames, M.; Adamov, G.; Adams, D.; Adinolfi, M.; Aduszkiewicz, A.; Aguilar, J.; Ahmad, Z.; et al. Design, construction and operation of the ProtoDUNE-SP Liquid Argon TPC. J. Instrum. 2022, 17, P01005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Abi, B.; Acciarri, R.; Adamov, G.; Adams, D.; Adinolfi, M.; Ahmad, Z.; Ahmed, J.; Alion, T.; Monsalve, S.A.; Alt, C.; et al. Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume I Introduction to DUNE. J. Instrum. 2020, 15, T08008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. DUNE Collaboration. Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) Near Detector Conceptual Design Report. Instruments 2021, 5, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Asaadi, J.; Auger, M.; Berner, R.; Bross, A.; Chen, Y.; Convery, M.; Domine, L.; Drielsma, F.; Dwyer, D.; Ereditato, A.; et al. A New Concept for Kilotonne Scale Liquid Argon Time Projection Chambers. Instruments 2020, 4, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dwyer, D.; Garcia-Sciveres, M.; Gnani, D.; Grace, C.; Kohn, S.; Kramer, M.; Krieger, A.; Lin, C.; Luk, K.; Madigan, P.; et al. LArPix: Demonstration of low-power 3D pixelated charge readout for liquid argon time projection chambers. J. Instrum. 2018, 13, P10007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Russell, B.; DUNE Collaboration. The 2×2 Demonstrator—A demonstrator for the DUNE ND-LAr Near Detector based on the ArgonCube Design. Proc. Sci. 2024, TAUP2023, 221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Auger, M.; Chen, Y.; Ereditato, A.; Goeldi, D.; Kreslo, I.; Lorca, D.; Luethi, M.; Mettler, T.; Sinclair, J.; Weber, M. ArCLight—A Compact Dielectric Large-Area Photon Detector. Instruments 2018, 2, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Anfimov, N.; Berner, R.; Butorov, I.; Chetverikov, A.; Fedoseev, D.; Gromov, B.; Korablev, D.; Kreslo, I.; Kuznetsova, K.; Olshevskiy, A.; et al. Development of the Light Collection Module for the Liquid Argon Time Projection Chamber (LArTPC). J. Instrum. 2020, 15, C07022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Berner, R.; Chen, Y.; Ereditato, A.; Koller, P.P.; Kreslo, I.; Lorca, D.; Mettler, T.; Miao, T.; Piastra, F.; Sinclair, J.R.; et al. First Operation of a Resistive Shell Liquid Argon Time Projection Chamber: A New Approach to Electric-Field Shaping. Instruments 2019, 3, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Adamson, P.; Anderson, K.; Andrews, M.; Andrews, R.; Anghel, I.; Augustine, D.; Aurisano, A.; Avvakumov, S.; Ayres, D.; Baller, B.; et al. The NuMI Neutrino Beam. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 2016, 806, 279–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Asaadi, J.; Auger, M.; Ereditato, A.; Goeldi, D.; Kose, U.; Kreslo, I.; Lorca, D.; Luethi, M.; Von Rohr, C.B.U.R.; Sinclair, J.; et al. First Demonstration of a Pixelated Charge Readout for Single-Phase Liquid Argon Time Projection Chambers. Instruments 2020, 4, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Asaadi, J.; Auger, M.; Ereditato, A.; Goeldi, D.; Hänni, R.; Kose, U.; Kreslo, I.; Lorca, D.; Luethi, M.; von Rohr, C.R.; et al. A pixelated charge readout for Liquid Argon Time Projection Chambers. J. Instrum. 2018, 13, C02008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Machado, A.; Segreto, E. ARAPUCA a new device for liquid argon scintillation light detection. J. Instrum. 2016, 11, C02004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Serrano, J.; Gaderer, G.; Loschmidt, P.; Cota, E.G.; Lewis, J.H.; Cattin, M.; Alvarez, P.; Oliveira Fernandes Moreira, P.M.; Wlostowski, T.; Dedic, J.; et al. The White Rabbit Project. In Proceedings of the Proc. 12th Int. Conf. on Accelerator and Large Experimental Physics Control Systems (ICALEPCS’09), Kobe, Japan, 12–16 October 2009; JACoW Publishing: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009; pp. 93–95. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ester, M.; Kriegel, H.P.; Sander, J.; Xu, X. A Density-Based Algorithm for Discovering Clusters in Large Spatial Databases with Noise; KDD’96; AAAI Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  20. Moyal, J. XXX. Theory of ionization fluctuations. Lond. Edinb. Dublin Philos. Mag. J. Sci. 1955, 46, 263–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Baller, B. Liquid Argon Properties (Tables and Calculators) Version 4. Available online: https://lar.bnl.gov/properties/ (accessed on 1 July 2021).
  22. Hamamatsu. MPPC S13360 Series Datasheet. Available online: https://www.hamamatsu.com/resources/pdf/ssd/s13360_series_kapd1052e.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2021).
  23. Heck, D.; Knapp, J.; Capdevielle, J.N.; Schatz, G.; Thouw, T. CORSIKA: A Monte Carlo Code to Simulate Extensive Air Showers; Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe Report FZKA 6019 (1998); Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe GmbH: Karlsruhe, Germany, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  24. Agostinelli, S.; Allison, J.; Amako, K.; Apostolakis, J.; Araujo, H.; Arce, P.; Asai, M.; Axen, D.; Banerjee, S.; Barrand, G.; et al. Geant4—A simulation toolkit. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. Accel. Spectrometers Detect. Assoc. Equip. 2003, 506, 250–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Soleti, S.R.; Dwyer, D.; Vallari, Z. DUNE/larnd-sim. Available online: https://zenodo.org/records/4582721 (accessed on 25 August 2022).
  26. Abud, A.A.; Abi, B.; Acciarri, R.; Acero, M.; Adames, M.; Adamov, G.; Adamowski, M.; Adams, D.; Adinolfi, M.; Adriano, C.; et al. Highly-parallelized simulation of a pixelated LArTPC on a GPU. J. Instrum. 2023, 18, P04034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Fischler, M.A.; Bolles, R.C. Random Sample Consensus: A Paradigm for Model Fitting with Applications to Image Analysis and Automated Cartography. Commun. ACM 1981, 24, 381–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Adams, C.; Alrashed, M.; An, R.; Anthony, J.; Asaadi, J.; Ashkenazi, A.; Balasubramanian, S.; Baller, B.; Barnes, C.; Barr, G.; et al. Calibration of the charge and energy loss per unit length of the MicroBooNE liquid argon time projection chamber using muons and protons. J. Instrum. 2020, 15, P03022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bettini, A.; Braggiotti, A.; Casagrande, F.; Casoli, P.; Cennini, P.; Centro, S.; Cheng, M.; Ciocio, A.; Cittolin, S.; Cline, D.; et al. A study of the factors affecting the electron lifetime in ultra-pure liquid argon. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. Accel. Spectrometers Detect. Assoc. Equip. 1991, 305, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Abi, B.; Acciarri, R.; Adamov, G.; Adams, D.; Adinolfi, M.; Ahmad, Z.; Ahmed, J.; Alion, T.; Monsalve, S.A.; Alt, C.; et al. Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume IV: Far Detector Single-phase Technology. J. Instrum. 2020, 15, T08010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Abratenko, P.; Alrashed, M.; An, R.; Anthony, J.; Asaadi, J.; Ashkenazi, A.; Balasubramanian, S.; Baller, B.; Barnes, C.; Barr, G.; et al. Measurement of space charge effects in the MicroBooNE LArTPC using cosmic muons. J. Instrum. 2020, 15, P12037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Skwarnicki, T. A study of the Radiative CASCADE Transitions between the Upsilon-Prime and Upsilon Resonances. F31-86-02. Ph.D. Thesis, DESY, Hamburg, Germany, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  33. Oreglia, M.J. A Study of the Reactions ψγγψ. SLAC-R-236. Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford, CA, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  34. Gaiser, J.E. Charmonium Spectroscopy from Radiative Decays of the J/ψ and ψ′*. SLAC-R-255. Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford, CA, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  35. Shibamura, E.; Hitachi, A.; Doke, T.; Takahashi, T.; Kubota, S.; Miyajima, M. Drift velocities of electrons, saturation characteristics of ionization and W-values for conversion electrons in liquid argon, liquid argon-gas mixtures and liquid xenon. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. 1975, 131, 249–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Thomas, J.; Imel, D.A. Recombination of electron-ion pairs in liquid argon and liquid xenon. Phys. Rev. A 1987, 36, 614–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Birks, J.B. Scintillations from Organic Crystals: Specific Fluorescence and Relative Response to Different Radiations. Proc. Phys. Soc. A 1951, 64, 874–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Amoruso, S.; Antonello, M.; Aprili, P.; Arneodo, F.; Badertscher, A.; Baiboussinov, B.; Ceolin, M.B.; Battistoni, G.; Bekman, B.; Benetti, P.; et al. Study of electron recombination in liquid argon with the ICARUS TPC. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 2004, 523, 275–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Acciarri, R.; Adams, C.; Asaadi, J.; Baller, B.; Bolton, T.; Bromberg, C.; Cavanna, F.; Church, E.; Edmunds, D.; Ereditato, A.; et al. A study of electron recombination using highly ionizing particles in the ArgoNeuT Liquid Argon TPC. J. Instrum. 2013, 8, P08005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Doke, T.; Hitachi, A.; Kikuchi, J.; Masuda, K.; Okada, H.; Shibamura, E. Absolute Scintillation Yields in Liquid Argon and Xenon for Various Particles. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 2002, 41, 1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Abud, A.A.; Abi, B.; Acciarri, R.; Acero, M.A.; Adames, M.R.; Adamov, G.; Adamowski, M.; Adams, D.; Adinolfi, M.; Adriano, C.; et al. Identification and reconstruction of low-energy electrons in the ProtoDUNE-SP detector. Phys. Rev. D 2023, 107, 092012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Foreman, W.; Acciarri, R.; Asaadi, J.A.; Badgett, W.; Blaszczyk, F.D.M.; Bouabid, R.; Bromberg, C.; Carey, R.; Cavanna, F.; Aleman, J.I.C.; et al. Calorimetry for low-energy electrons using charge and light in liquid argon. Phys. Rev. D 2020, 101, 012010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Acciarri, R.; Adams, C.; An, R.; Anthony, J.; Asaadi, J.; Auger, M.; Bagby, L.; Balasubramanian, S.; Baller, B.; Barnes, C.; et al. Michel Electron Reconstruction Using Cosmic-Ray Data from the MicroBooNE LArTPC. J. Instrum. 2017, 12, P09014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Groom, D.E.; Mokhov, N.V.; Striganov, S.I. Muon stopping power and range tables 10-MeV to 100-TeV. Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 2001, 78, 183–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Gallery of four representative cosmic ray-induced events collected with Module-0, as recorded in the raw event data, with the collected charge converted to units of thousands of electrons. In all cases, the central plane in grey denotes the cathode, and the color scale denotes the collected charge. Here, (a) shows a stopping muon and the subsequent Michel electron decay, (b) denotes an electromagnetic (EM) shower, (c) is a multi-prong shower, and (d) is “neutrino-like” in that the vertex of this interaction appears to be inside the active volume.
Figure 1. Gallery of four representative cosmic ray-induced events collected with Module-0, as recorded in the raw event data, with the collected charge converted to units of thousands of electrons. In all cases, the central plane in grey denotes the cathode, and the color scale denotes the collected charge. Here, (a) shows a stopping muon and the subsequent Michel electron decay, (b) denotes an electromagnetic (EM) shower, (c) is a multi-prong shower, and (d) is “neutrino-like” in that the vertex of this interaction appears to be inside the active volume.
Instruments 08 00041 g001
Figure 2. Schematic of the 0.7 m × 0.7 m × 1.4 m Module-0 detector with annotations of the key components.
Figure 2. Schematic of the 0.7 m × 0.7 m × 1.4 m Module-0 detector with annotations of the key components.
Instruments 08 00041 g002
Figure 3. Photograph of the Module-0 detector interior as seen from the bottom with annotations of the key components.
Figure 3. Photograph of the Module-0 detector interior as seen from the bottom with annotations of the key components.
Instruments 08 00041 g003
Figure 4. Front (left) and back (right) of a TPC anode tile. The front contains 4900 charge-sensitive pixels with 4.43 mm pitch that face the cathode, and the back contains a 10 × 10 array of LArPix ASICs. The dimensions are 31 cm × 32 cm , with the extra centimeter providing space for the light system attachment points.
Figure 4. Front (left) and back (right) of a TPC anode tile. The front contains 4900 charge-sensitive pixels with 4.43 mm pitch that face the cathode, and the back contains a 10 × 10 array of LArPix ASICs. The dimensions are 31 cm × 32 cm , with the extra centimeter providing space for the light system attachment points.
Instruments 08 00041 g004
Figure 5. The Pixel Array Controller and Network card (PACMAN), which controls the data acquisition and power for the charge readout system.
Figure 5. The Pixel Array Controller and Network card (PACMAN), which controls the data acquisition and power for the charge readout system.
Instruments 08 00041 g005
Figure 6. Run event rate and cumulative events as a function of time with respect to charge readout operating condition.
Figure 6. Run event rate and cumulative events as a function of time with respect to charge readout operating condition.
Instruments 08 00041 g006
Figure 7. Detection principle of the two types of modules comprising the LRS: a segment of an ArCLight tile (top) and a single LCM optical fiber (bottom). The wave-like lines indicate example photon trajectories, with the white points indicating interactions. Drawings are not to scale.
Figure 7. Detection principle of the two types of modules comprising the LRS: a segment of an ArCLight tile (top) and a single LCM optical fiber (bottom). The wave-like lines indicate example photon trajectories, with the white points indicating interactions. Drawings are not to scale.
Instruments 08 00041 g007
Figure 8. An ArCLight tile (left) and three LCM tiles (right), as assembled within the Module-0 structure.
Figure 8. An ArCLight tile (left) and three LCM tiles (right), as assembled within the Module-0 structure.
Instruments 08 00041 g008
Figure 9. LRS data acquisition components: JINR ADC board (left) and synchronization and trigger scheme (right).
Figure 9. LRS data acquisition components: JINR ADC board (left) and synchronization and trigger scheme (right).
Instruments 08 00041 g009
Figure 10. Self-triggered active pixel channels (in blue) and inactive channels (in black). In these coordinates, x is horizontal and y is vertical, both parallel to the anode plane, and z is the drift direction, perpendicular to the anode plane, completing a right-handed system. The origin is the center of the module.
Figure 10. Self-triggered active pixel channels (in blue) and inactive channels (in black). In these coordinates, x is horizontal and y is vertical, both parallel to the anode plane, and z is the drift direction, perpendicular to the anode plane, completing a right-handed system. The origin is the center of the module.
Instruments 08 00041 g010
Figure 11. Most probable value (black circles) and full width at half maximum (white circles) of the d Q / d x distribution for each data run. The system shows a good charge readout stability during data taking periods, both for high threshold (yellow bands) and low threshold (purple bands) runs.
Figure 11. Most probable value (black circles) and full width at half maximum (white circles) of the d Q / d x distribution for each data run. The system shows a good charge readout stability during data taking periods, both for high threshold (yellow bands) and low threshold (purple bands) runs.
Instruments 08 00041 g011
Figure 12. LArPix channel noise in units of electron charge signal as observed using periodic forced triggers. The total system noise is ∼ 950 e , compared to a signal amplitude of ∼ 1800 e for a 4 GeV MIP track in ND-LAr’s 3.7 mm pixel pitch.
Figure 12. LArPix channel noise in units of electron charge signal as observed using periodic forced triggers. The total system noise is ∼ 950 e , compared to a signal amplitude of ∼ 1800 e for a 4 GeV MIP track in ND-LAr’s 3.7 mm pixel pitch.
Instruments 08 00041 g012
Figure 13. Self-triggered charge distribution for MIP tracks measured in thousands of electrons (ke); 50% of the rising edge is shown using vertical lines as indicators of the charge readout self-trigger thresholds. The low- and high-threshold curves were obtained from runs with the same 20 min exposure. Each entry is normalized by hit charge over fitted track length. The MC simulation shown in comparison is described in Section 5.
Figure 13. Self-triggered charge distribution for MIP tracks measured in thousands of electrons (ke); 50% of the rising edge is shown using vertical lines as indicators of the charge readout self-trigger thresholds. The low- and high-threshold curves were obtained from runs with the same 20 min exposure. Each entry is normalized by hit charge over fitted track length. The MC simulation shown in comparison is described in Section 5.
Instruments 08 00041 g013
Figure 14. Total event charge per channel for MIP tracks measured in thousands of electrons (ke). The MC simulation shown in comparison is described in Section 5.
Figure 14. Total event charge per channel for MIP tracks measured in thousands of electrons (ke). The MC simulation shown in comparison is described in Section 5.
Instruments 08 00041 g014
Figure 15. Comparisons of response variation in the radial distance from the pixel center to the point of closest approach of the track projected onto the anode plane (r, top), the track inclination relative to the anode plane (polar angle θ , middle), and the orientation angle of the track projected onto the anode plane (azimuthal angle ϕ , bottom). The MC shown in comparison is described in Section 5.
Figure 15. Comparisons of response variation in the radial distance from the pixel center to the point of closest approach of the track projected onto the anode plane (r, top), the track inclination relative to the anode plane (polar angle θ , middle), and the orientation angle of the track projected onto the anode plane (azimuthal angle ϕ , bottom). The MC shown in comparison is described in Section 5.
Instruments 08 00041 g015
Figure 16. Relative rate of pixel response as a function of the distance between Hough line segments and segment containing pixel’s center for pixels on gaps, i.e., no charge response (left), and on tracks, i.e., with charge response (right) to the total.
Figure 16. Relative rate of pixel response as a function of the distance between Hough line segments and segment containing pixel’s center for pixels on gaps, i.e., no charge response (left), and on tracks, i.e., with charge response (right) to the total.
Instruments 08 00041 g016
Figure 17. Self-trigger charge distribution for MIP tracks with different track orientations with respect to the pixel, normalized to the number of triggered channels per reconstructed track length. Low-threshold data are used. The MC simulation shown in comparison in the second column is described in Section 5.
Figure 17. Self-trigger charge distribution for MIP tracks with different track orientations with respect to the pixel, normalized to the number of triggered channels per reconstructed track length. Low-threshold data are used. The MC simulation shown in comparison in the second column is described in Section 5.
Instruments 08 00041 g017
Figure 18. Same as Figure 17 but for high-threshold data.
Figure 18. Same as Figure 17 but for high-threshold data.
Instruments 08 00041 g018
Figure 19. MIP response maps for anode plane 1 (left) and anode plane 2 (right) showing the fraction of triggered hits on each pixel relative to the expected number based on reconstructed track trajectories.
Figure 19. MIP response maps for anode plane 1 (left) and anode plane 2 (right) showing the fraction of triggered hits on each pixel relative to the expected number based on reconstructed track trajectories.
Instruments 08 00041 g019
Figure 20. Per-pixel ADC value distribution for cosmic ray events between 2 and 10 GeV. All signals are well within the ADC dynamic range of 0–256 counts.
Figure 20. Per-pixel ADC value distribution for cosmic ray events between 2 and 10 GeV. All signals are well within the ADC dynamic range of 0–256 counts.
Instruments 08 00041 g020
Figure 21. d Q / d x measured for segments of different lengths as a function of the orientation relative to the anode planes. A value of cos θ = 0 corresponds to segments parallel to the anode plane. The distributions in each bin have been fitted with a Gaussian-convolved Moyal function. The red points correspond to the most probable value of the fitted distribution, and the dashed rectangles correspond to the full width at half maximum. The dashed black line represents the average MPV.
Figure 21. d Q / d x measured for segments of different lengths as a function of the orientation relative to the anode planes. A value of cos θ = 0 corresponds to segments parallel to the anode plane. The distributions in each bin have been fitted with a Gaussian-convolved Moyal function. The red points correspond to the most probable value of the fitted distribution, and the dashed rectangles correspond to the full width at half maximum. The dashed black line represents the average MPV.
Instruments 08 00041 g021
Figure 22. d Q / d x measured for segments of different lengths as a function of the azimuthal angle ϕ = atan 2 ( y , x ) , where y and x are the components of the segment along the anode plane axes. The distributions in each bin are fitted with a Gaussian-convolved Moyal function. The red points correspond to the most probable value of the fitted distribution and the dashed rectangles correspond to the FWHM. The dashed black line represents the average MPV.
Figure 22. d Q / d x measured for segments of different lengths as a function of the azimuthal angle ϕ = atan 2 ( y , x ) , where y and x are the components of the segment along the anode plane axes. The distributions in each bin are fitted with a Gaussian-convolved Moyal function. The red points correspond to the most probable value of the fitted distribution and the dashed rectangles correspond to the FWHM. The dashed black line represents the average MPV.
Instruments 08 00041 g022
Figure 23. Typical charge spectrum obtained during SiPM gain calibration (left); SiPM gain distribution (right).
Figure 23. Typical charge spectrum obtained during SiPM gain calibration (left); SiPM gain distribution (right).
Instruments 08 00041 g023
Figure 24. Oversampled signal using Fourier transformation. Red lines show the linear approximations of the rising edge and the baseline (left). The time resolution between two LCMs (LCM-011, LCM-017) as a function of the signal response (right).
Figure 24. Oversampled signal using Fourier transformation. Red lines show the linear approximations of the rising edge and the baseline (left). The time resolution between two LCMs (LCM-011, LCM-017) as a function of the signal response (right).
Instruments 08 00041 g024
Figure 25. Two examples showing signals of the stopping muon and delayed Michel electron detected by the LCM. The waveforms were digitized at 10 ns intervals.
Figure 25. Two examples showing signals of the stopping muon and delayed Michel electron detected by the LCM. The waveforms were digitized at 10 ns intervals.
Instruments 08 00041 g025
Figure 26. Detection efficiency (as defined in the text) for each ArCLight (left) and LCM (right) tile (arbitrary numbering). ArCLight tile 7 was disabled during Module-0 data taking. The LCM tiles are placed in sets of three to cover the same area as one ArCLight tile.
Figure 26. Detection efficiency (as defined in the text) for each ArCLight (left) and LCM (right) tile (arbitrary numbering). ArCLight tile 7 was disabled during Module-0 data taking. The LCM tiles are placed in sets of three to cover the same area as one ArCLight tile.
Instruments 08 00041 g026
Figure 27. Measured d Q / d x versus drift time for ionization associated with anode-cathode-crossing muon tracks (left); mean d Q / d x versus drift time, along with exponential fit, for the same track sample (right).
Figure 27. Measured d Q / d x versus drift time for ionization associated with anode-cathode-crossing muon tracks (left); mean d Q / d x versus drift time, along with exponential fit, for the same track sample (right).
Instruments 08 00041 g027
Figure 28. Extracted electron lifetime as a function of time during Module-0 Run 1 (top) and Run 2 (bottom), with the average uniformly exceeding 2 ms in both cases.
Figure 28. Extracted electron lifetime as a function of time during Module-0 Run 1 (top) and Run 2 (bottom), with the average uniformly exceeding 2 ms in both cases.
Instruments 08 00041 g028
Figure 29. Average spatial offsets ( Δ Y ) measured at the top (left) and bottom (right) of the Module-0 detector. These offsets in cm indicated by the color scale are measured with respect to the location of the pixel channels at the edge of the detector.
Figure 29. Average spatial offsets ( Δ Y ) measured at the top (left) and bottom (right) of the Module-0 detector. These offsets in cm indicated by the color scale are measured with respect to the location of the pixel channels at the edge of the detector.
Instruments 08 00041 g029
Figure 30. Average spatial offsets ( Δ X ) measured at the front (left) and back (right) of the Module-0 detector. These offsets in cm indicated by the color scale are measured with respect to the location of the pixel channels at the edge of the detector.
Figure 30. Average spatial offsets ( Δ X ) measured at the front (left) and back (right) of the Module-0 detector. These offsets in cm indicated by the color scale are measured with respect to the location of the pixel channels at the edge of the detector.
Instruments 08 00041 g030
Figure 31. Time dependence of spatial offsets in the z (top) and + z (bottom) drift volumes. These offsets are measured with respect to the location of the pixel channels at the edge of the detector.
Figure 31. Time dependence of spatial offsets in the z (top) and + z (bottom) drift volumes. These offsets are measured with respect to the location of the pixel channels at the edge of the detector.
Instruments 08 00041 g031
Figure 32. Charge–light matching efficiency in linear scale (left) and inefficiency in logarithmic scale (right) for light detector triggers matched to charge readout triggers for anode–cathode-crossing tracks. The time window corresponds to the time difference between the external trigger on the charge readout ( t 0 ) and the light detector trigger time.
Figure 32. Charge–light matching efficiency in linear scale (left) and inefficiency in logarithmic scale (right) for light detector triggers matched to charge readout triggers for anode–cathode-crossing tracks. The time window corresponds to the time difference between the external trigger on the charge readout ( t 0 ) and the light detector trigger time.
Instruments 08 00041 g032
Figure 33. Distribution of time differences between the external trigger on the charge readout ( t 0 ) and the time of the light detector event for anode–cathode-crossing tracks.
Figure 33. Distribution of time differences between the external trigger on the charge readout ( t 0 ) and the time of the light detector event for anode–cathode-crossing tracks.
Instruments 08 00041 g033
Figure 34. Charge–light matched event display of a cosmic muon track. The left two panels show the TPC charge readout in a zy projection (left) and xy projection (center left). The right two panels show the light detector responses for the arrays at x (center right) and + x (right), with each bin along the vertical axis representing the strength of signal read by individual SiPMs.
Figure 34. Charge–light matched event display of a cosmic muon track. The left two panels show the TPC charge readout in a zy projection (left) and xy projection (center left). The right two panels show the light detector responses for the arrays at x (center right) and + x (right), with each bin along the vertical axis representing the strength of signal read by individual SiPMs.
Instruments 08 00041 g034
Figure 35. Charge yield as a function of the electric field strength fitted with the Box and Birks models and compared to ICARUS results (left). Light yield as a function of the electric field strength fitted separately with the Birks model (right).
Figure 35. Charge yield as a function of the electric field strength fitted with the Box and Birks models and compared to ICARUS results (left). Light yield as a function of the electric field strength fitted separately with the Birks model (right).
Instruments 08 00041 g035
Figure 36. Light yield (blue) and charge yield (red) extracted from a simultaneous fit calculated with the Birks model.
Figure 36. Light yield (blue) and charge yield (red) extracted from a simultaneous fit calculated with the Birks model.
Instruments 08 00041 g036
Figure 37. Event display of a Michel electron candidate shown in a 3D view (left) and with associated waveforms from photon detectors (right). In the right panel, orange and blue indicate the two optically isolated semi-TPCs. The red circles highlight an example in which the two pulses on the photon detectors correspond to the entering muon and the electron resulting from its decay.
Figure 37. Event display of a Michel electron candidate shown in a 3D view (left) and with associated waveforms from photon detectors (right). In the right panel, orange and blue indicate the two optically isolated semi-TPCs. The red circles highlight an example in which the two pulses on the photon detectors correspond to the entering muon and the electron resulting from its decay.
Instruments 08 00041 g037
Figure 38. Charge-based energy spectrum of Michel electron candidates from a sample of reconstructed muon decays using the full data set and automated event reconstruction.
Figure 38. Charge-based energy spectrum of Michel electron candidates from a sample of reconstructed muon decays using the full data set and automated event reconstruction.
Instruments 08 00041 g038
Figure 39. Start and end coordinates of stitched tracks in data (high- and low-threshold runs) and simulation.
Figure 39. Start and end coordinates of stitched tracks in data (high- and low-threshold runs) and simulation.
Instruments 08 00041 g039
Figure 40. d Q / d x measured for segments of different lengths in low-threshold runs (black dots), high-threshold runs (white dots), and a sample of simulated cosmic rays (red line). The distributions have been fitted with a Gaussian-convolved Moyal function (dashed lines).
Figure 40. d Q / d x measured for segments of different lengths in low-threshold runs (black dots), high-threshold runs (white dots), and a sample of simulated cosmic rays (red line). The distributions have been fitted with a Gaussian-convolved Moyal function (dashed lines).
Instruments 08 00041 g040
Figure 41. Top: Event display of the anode plane for a selected stopping muon (blue) and subsequent Michel electron (orange). Bottom: d Q / d x for the reconstructed muon track as a function of the residual range d Q / d x and the theoretical curve for muons stopping in liquid argon (red line).
Figure 41. Top: Event display of the anode plane for a selected stopping muon (blue) and subsequent Michel electron (orange). Bottom: d Q / d x for the reconstructed muon track as a function of the residual range d Q / d x and the theoretical curve for muons stopping in liquid argon (red line).
Instruments 08 00041 g041
Table 1. The fitted parameters of the Birks model using the Module-0 data.
Table 1. The fitted parameters of the Birks model using the Module-0 data.
Fit Parameters A Birks [kV g cm−3 MeV−1] k Birks [kV g cm−3 MeV−1]
Charge only fit 0.820(11) 0.058(5)
Light only fit 0.79(45) 0.037(4)
Combined fit 0.794(8) 0.045(3)
Table 2. Comparison of the ICARUS and ArgoNeuT results with those of the current study.
Table 2. Comparison of the ICARUS and ArgoNeuT results with those of the current study.
Experiment A Birks [kV g cm−3 MeV−1] k Birks [kV g cm−3 MeV−1]Reference
ICARUS 0.800(3) 0.0486(6) [38]
ArgoNeuT 0.806(10) 0.052(1) [39]
Module-0 0.794(8) 0.045(3) This work
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Abed Abud, A.; Abi, B.; Acciarri, R.; Acero, M.A.; Adames, M.R.; Adamov, G.; Adamowski, M.; Adams, D.; Adinolfi, M.; Adriano, C.; et al. Performance of a Modular Ton-Scale Pixel-Readout Liquid Argon Time Projection Chamber. Instruments 2024, 8, 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/instruments8030041

AMA Style

Abed Abud A, Abi B, Acciarri R, Acero MA, Adames MR, Adamov G, Adamowski M, Adams D, Adinolfi M, Adriano C, et al. Performance of a Modular Ton-Scale Pixel-Readout Liquid Argon Time Projection Chamber. Instruments. 2024; 8(3):41. https://doi.org/10.3390/instruments8030041

Chicago/Turabian Style

Abed Abud, A., B. Abi, R. Acciarri, M. A. Acero, M. R. Adames, G. Adamov, M. Adamowski, D. Adams, M. Adinolfi, C. Adriano, and et al. 2024. "Performance of a Modular Ton-Scale Pixel-Readout Liquid Argon Time Projection Chamber" Instruments 8, no. 3: 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/instruments8030041

APA Style

Abed Abud, A., Abi, B., Acciarri, R., Acero, M. A., Adames, M. R., Adamov, G., Adamowski, M., Adams, D., Adinolfi, M., Adriano, C., Aduszkiewicz, A., Aguilar, J., Aimard, B., Akbar, F., Allison, K., Monsalve, S. A., Alrashed, M., Alton, A., Alvarez, R., ... on behalf of the DUNE Collaboration. (2024). Performance of a Modular Ton-Scale Pixel-Readout Liquid Argon Time Projection Chamber. Instruments, 8(3), 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/instruments8030041

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop