Take a sneak peek at the new NIST.gov and let us know what you think!
(Please note: some content may not be complete on the beta site.).
NIST Authors in Bold
|Author(s):||W. H. Lippincott; Kevin J. Coakley; D. Gastler; A. Hime; E. Kearns; D. N. McKinsey; J. A. Nikkel; L.C. Stonehill;|
|Title:||Erratum: Scintillation time dependence and pulse shape discrimination in liquid argon|
|Published:||March 02, 2010|
|Abstract:||We have found an error in the code used to perform the multibin method analysis of Sec. III C in which events were compared to a template trace calculated from the wrong photoelectron bin (the index l in Eqs. (14) and (15) did not match the observed signal size of the event). Figs. 9, 12, and 13 are affected by this error, as well as the conclusions drawn from that section. The multibin method still outperforms the prompt fraction method, but only by a factor of 1.5 to 3 instead of the order of magnitude stated previously. In light of the correction, we have rebinned the data to shrink the size of the large highest energy bin. To mitigate the bias associated with an unblind choice of binning,we have chosen the lower endpoint of the large high energy bin to include the two highest energy single keVee bins containing leakage or background events. With this binning, the ERC from the multibin method is now 1.7 × 10−6 between 55 keVr and 110 keVr (2 contamination events), and there is no leakage above 62 keVr. In the same energy window, the ERC from the prompt fraction method is 4.9 × 10−6. We have replotted the results accordingly in the corrected Fig. 9 below.|
|Citation:||Physical Review C (Nuclear Physics)|
|Keywords:||argon,electronic recoil,nuclear recoil,pulse shape discrimination,scintillation light,stochastic modeling,time dependence.|
|Research Areas:||Nuclear Physics|