Open-Source Optimization of Hybrid Monte Carlo Methods for Fast Response Modeling of NaI (Tl) and HPGe Gamma Detectors
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is devoted to the development of a Matlab application for implementing a fast-response hybrid Monte Carlo method for simulating spectra of NaI(Tl) and HPGe detectors. The main advantages of the described application are the absence of export restrictions, ease of use and low demands on computer resources and, as a consequence, the speed of simulation in comparison with MCNP and GADRAS codes. The created simulation application can be used as open-access educational material.
I believe that the article may be of interest to readers, and may be accepted for publication in the Journal of Nuclear Engineering after taking into account some of the comments stated below.
Abstract:
I think it is necessary to point out that all comparisons of the developed hybrid Monte Carlo model are made with MCNP and GADRAS.
Line 7-8.
Clarify how the cost of the equipment relates to the problem of modeling the detector response or remove this statement as not relevant.
Keywords:
“MCNP” and “GADRAS” - I recommend adding them to keywords.
3. Benchmarking
Line 222
- indicate the geometry of the sources used, indicate passport data about the sources: date of certification, activity and uncertainty.
Line 223-224
It’s not entirely clear why the gain and applied voltage are indicated? How is this information used in the calculation model?
- indicate the relative registration efficiency of each detector, as well as the resolution along the 1332 and 662 keV line;
- indicate the material of the input window of the HPGe detector, or even better, write the name of the model.
- indicate the model of the MСA used.
Line 228-230
Create diagrams that indicate all the important geometric dimensions and materials needed for simulations, including collimators.
Line 237-240
The photos (Fig. 6 and 7) provide little information for understanding the experiment. It is necessary to replace them with diagrams that indicate all the important geometric dimensions and materials required for simulations.
4. Graphical user interface
As far as I understand, the graphical interface of your application does not allow you to create/edit the geometric dimensions of the detector crystals and the dimensions of other structural units and the source? If yes, please indicate how the detector and source model can be created in this application. With what precision of details? Where did the data on the dimensions of the crystal, mandrel and other design elements of the HPGe detector come from?
7. Conclusions
Line 440-451
This part of the text is practically the same as the Introduction, and I recommend removing it.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe quality of English languages appears adequate.
Author Response
Sir/Ma'am,
Thank you for taking the time to review the report. The critical feedback was appreciated. Please see the responses to your comments and the updated report below.
Abstract:
I think it is necessary to point out that all comparisons of the developed hybrid Monte Carlo model are made with MCNP and GADRAS. Reply: Noted. Changes made.
Clarify how the cost of the equipment relates to the problem of modeling the detector response or remove this statement as not relevant. Reply: Noted. Changes made. Please let me know if updates are sufficient.
Keywords:
“MCNP” and “GADRAS” - I recommend adding them to keywords. Reply: Noted. Changes made.
- Benchmarking
Line 222
- indicate the geometry of the sources used, indicate passport data about the sources: date of certification, activity and uncertainty. Reply: Noted. Changes made. Let me know if the values are clear.
Line 223-224
It’s not entirely clear why the gain and applied voltage are indicated? How is this information used in the calculation model? Reply: These were subjective values for testing which were used to center the spectra in the Maestro software. I made this clear in the report.
- indicate the relative registration efficiency of each detector, as well as the resolution along the 1332 and 662 keV line;
Reply: Noted. Changes made.
- indicate the material of the input window of the HPGe detector, or even better, write the name of the model.
Reply: Noted. Changes made. Model included.
- indicate the model of the MСA used.
Line 228-230
Create diagrams that indicate all the important geometric dimensions and materials needed for simulations, including collimators. Reply: Noted. Changes made.
Line 237-240
The photos (Fig. 6 and 7) provide little information for understanding the experiment. It is necessary to replace them with diagrams that indicate all the important geometric dimensions and materials required for simulations. Reply: Noted. Changes made. Updates now include dimensions.
- Graphical user interface
As far as I understand, the graphical interface of your application does not allow you to create/edit the geometric dimensions of the detector crystals and the dimensions of other structural units and the source? If yes, please indicate how the detector and source model can be created in this application. With what precision of details? Where did the data on the dimensions of the crystal, mandrel and other design elements of the HPGe detector come from? Reply: As of now, there are no geometrical constraints.
- Conclusions
Line 440-451
This part of the text is practically the same as the Introduction, and I recommend removing it. Reply: Noted. Changes made.
Again, thank you for taking the time. I look forward to your next round of feedback.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- In the abstract, stating the computational time for benchmarking without a specified computer architecture is meaningless.
- Figure 1: "p" in "Relationship" is broken across the lines.
- Line 102: "radiation is probabilistic" -> "radiation effects are probabilistic"
- In formulas such as (2)-(4) the units of energy E are never specified. In addition, the raw numbers are not dimensionless, but should also given appropriate units.
- Line 183: plank's -> Planck's
- Line 184: angular distribution -> differential cross section
- Line 227: isometrically -> isotropically
- Line 254: "radioactive decay is a trend and not absolute over time" is a meaningless and infantile phrase.
- Lines 261-265: Some 400% relative error is mentioned, followed by a discussion about 0 counts vs. 4 artificial counts. Is 400% a relative error between 0 and 4?
- Line 314: time comparison with and without parallelization is given, without stating the computer architecture or even a number of cores.
- Figure 14 claims that 20% resolution represents NaI, while earlier in the text 0% is specified as such.
- It took me some time to realize that quoted sample activities refer to the "initial" activity and the sample ages are supposed to determine the activity at the present moment. I'm not even sure if I got this right because it is very confusing and should at least be clarified. (Fun fact: stating the activity in such manner shows a certain ineptitude in nuclear physics.)
I have corrected only those errors which affect the meaning. There are many leftover typos, but as I am not a linguistic service, I leave it to the authors to proofread their own text.
Author Response
Sir/Ma'am,
Thank you for taking the time to review my report. I appreciate the critical feedback, as I wish to communicate clearly and effectively. Please see comments below and the updated version of the report attached.
In the abstract, stating the computational time for benchmarking without a specified computer architecture is meaningless. Reply: This information was included in the tables and the section leading up to the tables, but I added the information in the abstract per your note.
- Figure 1: "p" in "Relationship" is broken across the lines. Reply: I am not sure what this was referring to. Perhaps, there was a formatting issue in the viewer used?
- Line 102: "radiation is probabilistic" -> "radiation effects are probabilistic" Reply: Noted. Changes made.
- In formulas such as (2)-(4) the units of energy E are never specified. In addition, the raw numbers are not dimensionless, but should also given appropriate units. Reply: Noted. Changes made.
- Line 183: plank's -> Planck's Reply: Noted. Changes made.
- Line 184: angular distribution -> differential cross section Reply: Noted. Changes made.
- Line 227: isometrically -> isotropically Reply: Noted. Changes made. (I am almost certain word corrected this to isometrically.)
- Line 254: "radioactive decay is a trend and not absolute over time" is a meaningless and infantile phrase. Reply: This was referring to the equation A_f= A_0 * e^(-tau/time). This was not clear. I modified the section accordingly.
- Lines 261-265: Some 400% relative error is mentioned, followed by a discussion about 0 counts vs. 4 artificial counts. Is 400% a relative error between 0 and 4? Reply: Yes, the relative error was 400%. I gave an incorrect example between 0 and 4. I updated this to reflect the actual numbers. 4 counts from background and 20 counts generated from the code.
- Line 314: time comparison with and without parallelization is given, without stating the computer architecture or even a number of cores. Reply: Noted. Changes made. See comment above.
- Figure 14 claims that 20% resolution represents NaI, while earlier in the text 0% is specified as such. Reply: 0% represents a perfect 3"x3" NaI detector, and 1005 a perfect HPGe. 20% was found to be where the model best matched the testing NaI detector. I made this change.
- It took me some time to realize that quoted sample activities refer to the "initial" activity and the sample ages are supposed to determine the activity at the present moment. I'm not even sure if I got this right because it is very confusing and should at least be clarified. (Fun fact: stating the activity in such manner shows a certain ineptitude (nice) in nuclear physics.) Reply: I am not certain where this was referring to. I believe it was the Ba-133 section. I modified it for clarity. If this version still leaves you with question, please specify the area so that I may correct it. Thank you.
Again, I appreciate the time and effort. Have a nice weekend.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors Revised version of the article is checked and improved sufficiently. It can be published. Comments on the Quality of English Languageminor revisions
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am happy with the corrections.
