A Review of the Multiple-Readout Concept and Its Application in an Integrally Active Calorimeter

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A review of the multiple-readout concept and its application in an integrally-active calorimeter C. Gatto et al.

 

This article is lengthy and contains significant repetition.  I recommend a substantial reduction and reevaluation of the narrative.  The text resembles a thesis, with repeated explanations in different sections and detailed tables that do not significantly contribute to the conclusions.  The title suggests a review of the multi-readout technique in calorimetry, which alone justifies a dedicated article. The second part, describing simulation results of various configurations starting in Section 4, could form another article. Unfortunately, there is no experimental data to compare with the simulations.  As it stands, the article is not ready for publication and requires major revisions.  Although the dual-readout technique is not new (being twenty years old), there are insights that could be refined and published in better-structured papers, as mentioned above.

 

I also suggest introducing sketches early in the paper to clearly illustrate what is being simulated, providing the reader with a reference as the details are discussed later. Figure 8 is insufficient. For example, indicate whether both fiber ends are read out, etc.

 

Below are some specific comments that may help the authors in revising their paper:

 

Figures are of very poor quality: the fonts are too small, and the resolution is so coarse that the numbers/text are unreadable. A significant effort is needed to improve the figures.

 

"Integrally-active" is awkward and confusing as an adjective. While it tries to capture a complex notion concisely, the authors should consider a less awkward and more descriptive term.

 

Line-by-Line Comments:

L3: Remove “recently.” The Higgs discovery is already 12 years old.

L4: No need to capitalize “New Physics.”

L21: Remove “as particle detectors.”

L22: No need for capitalization.

L25: Insert a space between “…experiments” and [3].

L27: What does “successful” physics results mean? Remove.

L30-31: Remove “… of the decay chain.”

L33: Insert a space before [4].

L34: See comment for L22.

L40: Refer to the ZEUS calorimeter (U/Sc) with e/h=1 and the EM resolution of 15%/sqrt{E} and the HAD resolution of 35%/sqrt{E}, and consider modifying the text accordingly.

L42-43: Use “adequate.” Please rephrase.

L48: Remove “underlying.” It does not add any information.

L57: Insert space before [14,15].

L59: It is unclear that the dual-readout technique necessarily comes at a “reasonable cost.” Unless this statement is supported, suggest removing it.

L61: Consider spelling “Cherenkov” without the diacritic, as per English convention.

L63/72: Use “… degrade …” instead of “… impair …”.

L73-74: Indicate that the measurement depends on where the shower actually starts.

L76: Use “… overcomes …” instead of “… lacks …”.

L86: Insert space before [18].

L92: Insert space before [19].

L98: Rephrase to “we discuss the dual-readout technique, provide …, and …”.

L103: No need for a new paragraph. Merge with the previous one.

L105: Use “…special…” or similar instead of “…peculiar…”. “Peculiar” implies “strange.”

L118-130: This paragraph is not specific enough. Emphasize the difference between C and S and the origin of these signals. Provide a short lead-in to the next paragraph.

L131: \noindent.

 

Note: e/h values should not be considered calibration constants. They represent the response ratios and are independent of energy. The e/h value is calculated from the measurement of e/pi ratios. The meaning of L132-133 is unclear.

 

L148: Remove “…very informed…”.

L152: Insert space before [9,14,15].

L154: Use “inexpensively.”

L164-167: Figure 1 displays the type of responses when the detector is un-tilted with respect to the incoming particle direction. The discussion would be more balanced if the same plots contained responses with a few degrees tilt in both vertical and horizontal planes. Mention the exact degrees of tilt in the text when discussed later.

L178: Insert space before [13].

L179: Include a sketch to visualize an integrally-active configuration as described here.

L197: Insert space before [9,…].

L208: Use “…special…” instead of “…peculiar…”.

L210: 1/\lambda^2, not cubed. Mention that Cherenkov light is polarized and scintillation is not.

L218: Insert space before [27,…]. This fix is needed throughout the text; it is not pointed out explicitly from here on.

L230: Provide a reference or supporting information about the limit.

L237-238: State that the difference or the ratio between two e/h ratios should be as large as possible for the dual-readout technique to be more effective.

Figure 3: Show the three fractions mentioned (f_em, f_had_without_n, and f_n). Improve the plot quality. These plots would clarify the need for the triple-readout.

L255-256: Rephrase to clarify that you wish to detect 1-10 MeV neutrons, not the thermals.

L262-280: Clarify the time scale considered (<10ns? <100ns?). Indicate which features in Figure 4's right plot are due to fast neutrons.

L265: Figure ??

L282-288: Provide quantitative information to support the idea that the large fraction of the cross-section for low energy neutrons is not of interest in calorimetry. Explain the relevance of gamma detection.

L280: Insert space before [23].

L300: Use “… described …” instead of “… done …”.

L310: Use “…separate…” instead of “…distinguished…”.

L319: Be specific instead of using “…somehow…”.

L320: Clarify this sentence.  Not clear to me.

L354: Define R_pd clearly.

L383: Use “implies” instead of “imply”.

 

Figures 6 and 7: Increase font size and resolution. Define the attenuation length (e.g., length at which light is reduced by 1/e).

 

L401 and L415: Figure??

L446: Correct the figure and reference mismatch. Figure 8 shows a module, not what Figure 6 describes. Figure 6 is about the refractive index.

 

Figure 8: Provide more explanation and ensure dimensions are legible. Explain why some fibers are green (WLS?) and others are not.

L491-494: This paragraph is not useful. Consider removing.

Figure 10: Correct the label BKF -> FBK? Both Figures 9 and 10 are of low quality. Replace them.

L530: Figure??

L552-564: Verify the information about SCSF82. Kuraray makes SCSF78, SCSF81, and the DREAM collaboration used SCSF-81J.  Where does SCSF82 come from?

L604: Use “… fitted with a straight line on a semilog plot.”

L606: Explain how the right plot in Figure 12 is done. Clarify where the beam particle hits, R=8 cm?

L613: Rephrase to indicate that the e/h ratio is computed from e/pi ratios across a range of energies. One measurement of e/pi does not determine e/h or eta.  There is a discussion later in the text but it comes too late to make the point clear.

Figure 22: Include error bars or a band of uncertainty across the plot. Same for Figure 25.

Figure 23: Indicate the angle explicitly on the upper right plot. Improve the plot quality.

 

Line numbers are missing on part of page 22.  Clarify what’s meant by “n relations”?

 

L812-824: Provide quantitative information or a plot showing the photon distributions at each step to illustrate the efficiency of light transfer from glass to WLS to photosensors? How much light reaches the photosensors?

L884 also L860: Use “… longitudinally unsegmented …” instead of “… non-longitudinally segmented …”.

L849-854: Clarify what kind of energy resolution (HAD?).

L856: Use “…upstream…” or something similar instead of “…foremost…”.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A thorough editing by a native speaker will improve the quality.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your detailed review. We have implemented all recommended comments.

A full rewrite is not feasible at the moment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The energy resolution for hadrons is critical for experiments at future colliders. However, this is intrinsically limited by the fluctuations of the shower. One of the directions to improve the resolution is to understand the shower composition and extract the additional information. This paper reviews the multiple readout methods within a mathematical framework and proposes a potential detector design ADRIANO. In order to better understand the detector response, the GEANT4 toolkit based simulation framework is used for the performance studies. The Monte Carlo studies show the excellent energy performance and demonstrate the capability in several applications. This paper well-written, and it is nearly ready for publication, requiring only minor modifications. I look forward to seeing these revisions in the final version of the paper.

 

Please find the minor modifications:

 

* P4, Eq (4) \theta_{c/S}

  typo: \theta_{C/S}

 

* P5: Figure 1

  * Add a reference to ILCroot simulation.

  * Add units in the x-axis

 

* P5, L186 "in terms of energy resolution.That technique"  

  Add a space:

  -> "in terms of energy resolution. That technique"

 

* P8, L251 "3.1. Neutrons related fluctuations"

  There is only one sub-section title under section 3. 

  Maybe remove this title or add more sub-sections. 

 

* P8, L265 "To demonstrate the significance of this technique, we show in Fig. ??"

  -> Fig. 4

 

* P10 L332 "(discussed in Section2.3)"

  -> Section 2.3

 

* P11 Figure 6/7. 

  Typos: Lenght -> Length; Wavelenht -> Wavelength

 

  The yellow line is hard to read. 

 

* P11 L401 "Fig. ?? shows the refractive index curve of SF57HHT"

  -> Fig. 6

 

* P12 L406 Add space

  "with a correspondingly larger photostatistics.With a GEANT4 simulation"

  -> "photostatistics. With"

 

  L407 "with a wavelength in the[360nm − 600nm]"

  -> "in the [360nm − 600nm]"

 

* P12 L415 "running along the longitudinal axis of each cell (cfr. Fig. ??)."

  -> Fig. 8

 

* P12 L436 "in Section 6"

  -> "in Section 6."

 

* P12 L446 "A sketch of the base cell is shown in Fig. 6."

  -> Fig. 8.

 

* P15 L530 "are shown in Fig. ?? and 7,"

  -> Fig. 6

 

* P16 L561 "are based on publicly available libraries."

  Any references?

 

* P18 Figure 15.

  Is the title wrong? It is different from the text. 

 

* P23 L715.

  Could you explain a bit why using E_beam / E_corr instead of E_corr / E_beam?

 

* P25 Table 4.

  Is a/b same to alpha/beta? If yes, please keep consistent. 

 

* P28 Figure 36.

  What are S and Q in the x-axis title?

 

  CS_20 -> R_CS

 

  Eq (21): R_QS -> R_CS

 

  L807 "we are able achieve"

  -> we are able to achieve 

 

* P30 L851 "The stochastic term a varies between"

  'term a' -> 'term $\alpha$'

Author Response

Thank you very much for your detailed review. We have implemented all recommended comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for improving the text.  I do not have any substantive comments on the content.  Despite the use of Grammarly by the authors, there are minor corrections still to be made.  Here are a few of them:

 

L363  Correct spelling of “ration”

 

Be consistent with the use of “Figures” and “Tables.”  For example, figure 26 (L732) -> Fig. 26. Or table 4 to Tab.4 (L747).  L648 and L644 Table 2 instead of table 2.

 

The spelling of Cherenkov is still inconsistent (e.g. L127, L200, L210, L601, L827)

 

L860 Correct spelling of “energi”

 

L883 non-longitudinally segmented -> longitudinally unsegmented

 

Please review the references.  For example, the reference [46] has no author.  Correct misspelled “manufacturer” in [38].

Comments on the Quality of English Language

.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper well-written and it is ready for publication.