Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 53 references

Stopping gradient propagation at unstable material boundaries enables usable derivatives for optimizing detector designs in radiation transport simulations.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-30 23:35 UTC pith:MMLWVQVG

load-bearing objection The paper describes a heuristic to block gradients at unstable material boundaries in a differentiable Geant4-like transport code, but supplies no numbers or checks on whether the resulting gradients are actually usable. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2605.06779 v2 pith:MMLWVQVG submitted 2026-05-07 physics.ins-det hep-exhep-ph

Exploring the Boundaries of Differentiable Radiation Transport and Detector Simulation

Jeffrey Krupa , Yiyang Zhao , Mihaly Novak , Max Aehle , Max Sagebaum , Long Chen , Nicolas Gauger , David Lange
show 4 more authors
Vassil Vassilev Miaoyuan Liu Lukas Heinrich Michael Kagan
This is my paper
classification physics.ins-det hep-exhep-ph
keywords differentiable simulationradiation transportautomatic differentiationdetector optimizationgradient stabilityboundary crossingelectromagnetic physicsparticle transport
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper demonstrates that applying automatic differentiation to step-based particle transport through matter, using a full electromagnetic physics model, produces exploding gradients from rare extreme sensitivities at material boundaries. These instabilities make direct optimization of detector parameters infeasible despite the forward simulation remaining stable. The central contribution is a mitigation that identifies unstable boundary-crossing conditions and halts gradient flow only through those operations. The forward simulation is left unchanged, yet the resulting derivatives become stable enough to support practical optimization in a detector-design setting. A sympathetic reader would care because this removes a key numerical barrier to using gradient-based methods for tuning detector geometry and materials.

Core claim

When differentiating a Geant4-like radiation transport simulation with full electromagnetic physics, exploding gradients occur due to rare but extreme sensitivities at material boundaries which propagate through subsequent transport and shower development. To obtain usable derivatives for optimization, a targeted mitigation strategy is introduced that stops gradient propagation through boundary-crossing operations under identifiable unstable conditions while leaving the forward simulation unchanged. This enables stable, optimization-ready gradients in a detector-design problem.

What carries the argument

Targeted mitigation strategy that stops gradient propagation through boundary-crossing operations under identifiable unstable conditions.

Load-bearing premise

Unstable boundary-crossing conditions can be identified reliably and that selectively stopping gradient propagation at those points preserves the validity and usefulness of the resulting gradients for detector-design optimization.

What would settle it

A concrete detector-optimization run in which the mitigation either allows residual gradient explosions or produces a design whose performance is inferior to one obtained by non-gradient methods on the same forward simulator.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Gradients remain stable and usable for downstream optimization tasks.
  • The forward primal simulation is left exactly unchanged.
  • Stable derivatives become available for detector geometry and material optimization problems.
  • The mitigation controls boundary-driven instabilities without altering the underlying physics model.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same selective stopping rule could be applied to other Monte Carlo transport codes that encounter discrete boundary events.
  • Detector design workflows could now incorporate gradient information alongside traditional sampling-based methods.
  • Scaling the identification of unstable conditions to larger geometries with thousands of boundaries remains an open implementation question.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies automatic differentiation to a Geant4-like radiation transport simulation with full electromagnetic physics. It identifies exploding gradients arising from rare but extreme sensitivities at material boundaries during step-based transport and shower development. To address this, the authors introduce a targeted mitigation that halts gradient propagation through boundary-crossing operations only under identifiable unstable conditions, while leaving the forward (primal) simulation unchanged. They claim this produces stable, optimization-ready gradients and demonstrate the approach on a detector-design problem.

Significance. If the mitigation strategy can be shown to produce reliable gradients that preserve the validity of the underlying physics simulation and improve downstream optimization, the work would be significant for the field of differentiable Monte Carlo simulation in detector design. Enabling gradient-based optimization in full radiation transport codes without modifying the primal physics would address a recognized barrier in applying AD to complex particle-transport problems.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The abstract states the problem and the proposed fix but supplies no quantitative results, error analysis, or description of the detector-design demonstration, preventing assessment of whether the data actually support the claim that stable, optimization-ready gradients are enabled. This is load-bearing for the central claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting this important point about the abstract. We agree that strengthening the abstract will improve the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The abstract states the problem and the proposed fix but supplies no quantitative results, error analysis, or description of the detector-design demonstration, preventing assessment of whether the data actually support the claim that stable, optimization-ready gradients are enabled. This is load-bearing for the central claim.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that the abstract would be strengthened by the inclusion of quantitative results, a brief error analysis summary, and a short description of the detector-design demonstration. In the revised manuscript we will expand the abstract to report key metrics such as the reduction in exploding-gradient events, typical gradient-norm stability before and after mitigation, and the optimization outcome (e.g., improvement in the design figure of merit). These additions will allow readers to assess the support for our central claim directly from the abstract. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper introduces a practical heuristic mitigation for exploding gradients in differentiable Geant4-like transport by halting propagation through boundary crossings under unstable conditions, while leaving the primal simulation unchanged. This is presented as an empirical engineering solution demonstrated on a detector-design optimization task rather than a first-principles derivation. No load-bearing equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains reduce the central claim to its own inputs by construction. The approach is internally consistent with its stated goal of obtaining usable gradients and does not invoke uniqueness theorems or ansatzes that collapse into prior self-referential work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields no explicit free parameters or invented entities. The work rests on the domain assumption that the underlying Geant4-like electromagnetic model is sufficiently accurate for the purpose of testing differentiability.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The Geant4-like simulation with full electromagnetic physics model produces physically meaningful forward results.
    The mitigation is applied on top of this standard model without altering the primal simulation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5653 in / 1152 out tokens · 32749 ms · 2026-06-30T23:35:00.102201+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present an application of automatic differentiation for particle transport through matter using a Geant4-like radiation transport simulation with a full electromagnetic physics model. When differentiating this step-based transport, we observe exploding gradients driven by rare but extreme sensitivities at material boundaries, which propagate through subsequent transport and shower development. To obtain usable derivatives for optimization, we introduce a targeted mitigation strategy that stops gradient propagation through boundary-crossing operations under identifiable unstable conditions while leaving the forward (primal) simulation unchanged. We demonstrate that this enables stable, optimization-ready gradients in a detector-design problem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.06779 by David Lange, Jeffrey Krupa, Long Chen, Lukas Heinrich, Max Aehle, Max Sagebaum, Miaoyuan Liu, Michael Kagan, Mihaly Novak, Nicolas Gauger, Vassil Vassilev, Yiyang Zhao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left: Event display of a 50-layer sampling calorimeter illustrating an electromagnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left: a track of step length L incident on a boundary with angle β between the track direction vˆ and the surface normal nˆ. Shifting the boundary by ∆b along nˆ changes the step length by ∆L ∝ ∆b/ cos β. Right: the mean derivative of the step length with respect to boundary position (upper) and the variance of the per-step energy-deposit derivative (lower), both as a function of incidence angle β, confirm… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The fraction of track energy deposited as a function of the track direction projected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An example of a low-energy track exhibiting repeated boundary-limited steps near [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mean longitudinal energy-deposit derivative per calorimeter layer comparing finite [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mean longitudinal energy-deposit derivative per calorimeter layer comparing finite [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mean longitudinal energy-deposit derivative per calorimeter layer comparing finite [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Trajectories of 50 randomly-seeded optimization runs minimizing the longitudinal-profile [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mean longitudinal energy-deposit derivative per calorimeter layer comparing finite [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Trajectories of 50 randomly-seeded optimization runs minimizing the longitudinal-profile [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Agostinelli Set al.2003 Geant4—a simulation toolkitNucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A506250–303 doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8

    work page doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(03)01368-8 2003

  2. [2]

    Allison Jet al.2006 Geant4 developments and applicationsIEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.53270–278 doi:10.1109/TNS.2006.869826

    work page doi:10.1109/tns.2006.869826 2006

  3. [3]

    Allison Jet al.2016 Recent developments in Geant4Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A835186–225 doi:10.1016/j.nima.2016.06.125

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2016.06.125 2016

  4. [4]

    Zein S A, Bordage M C, Francis Z, Macetti G, Genoni A, Cappello C D, Shin W G and Incerti S 2021 Electron transport in DNA bases: An extension of the Geant4-DNA Monte Carlo toolkit Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B48870–82 doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2020.11.021

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2020.11.021 2021

  5. [5]

    Dom´ ınguez-Mu˜ noz A D, Gallardo M I, Bordage M C, Francis Z, Incerti S and Cort´ es- Giraldo M A 2022 A model for Geant4-DNA to simulate ionization and excitation of liquid water by protons travelling above 100 MeVRadiat. Phys. Chem.199110363 doi:10.1016/j.radphyschem.2022.110363

    work page doi:10.1016/j.radphyschem.2022.110363 2022

  6. [6]

    Scientific Reports14(1), 19589 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024- 70326-5, accessed: 2026-06-29 2

    Ganjgah A A and Taherparvar P 2024 The effects of cell displacement on DNA damages in targeted radiation therapy using Geant4-DNASci. Rep.1481863 doi:10.1038/s41598-024- 81863-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-024- 2024

  7. [7]

    Tabbakh F 2024 Significance of the proton energy loss mechanism to gold nanoparticles in proton therapy: a Geant4 simulationScientific Reports1476244 doi:10.1038/s41598-024-76244-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-024-76244-w 2024

  8. [8]

    Shin W Get al.2021 A Geant4-DNA Evaluation of Radiation-Induced DNA Damage on a Human FibroblastCancers134940 doi:10.3390/cancers13194940

    work page doi:10.3390/cancers13194940 2021

  9. [9]

    Chappuis F, Tran H N, Zein S A, Bailat C, Incerti S, Bochud F and Desorgher L 2023 The general-purpose Geant4 Monte Carlo toolkit and its Geant4-DNA extension to investigate mechanisms underlying the FLASH effect in radiotherapy: Current status and challenges Physica Med.110102601 doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2023.102601

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2023.102601 2023

  10. [10]

    Simhony Y, Segal A, Amrani O and Etzion E 2025 High-end space electronics: Active shielding to mitigate catastrophic single-event effectsAerosp. Sci. Technol.169111344 doi:10.1016/j.ast.2025.111344

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ast.2025.111344 2025

  11. [11]

    Negm H and Ohgaki H 2024 Validation of GEANT4 simulation for active materials in- terrogation using nuclear resonance fluorescenceJ. Radiat. Res. Appl. Sci.17101209 doi:10.1016/j.jrras.2024.101209

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jrras.2024.101209 2024

  12. [12]

    MacFadden N, Peggs S and Gulliford C 2018 Development and Validation of a Geant4 Radiation Shielding Simulation Framework doi:10.2172/1515417 15

    work page doi:10.2172/1515417 2018

  13. [13]

    Baydin A G, Pearlmutter B A, Radul A A and Siskind J M 2018 Automatic differentiation in machine learning: a surveyJ. Mach. Learn. Res.181–43 doi:10.48550/arXiv.1502.05767

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1502.05767 2018

  14. [14]

    Graphics371–12 doi:10.1145/3272127.3275109

    Li T M, Aittala M, Durand F and Lehtinen J 2018 Differentiable Monte Carlo ray tracing through edge samplingACM Trans. Graphics371–12 doi:10.1145/3272127.3275109

    work page doi:10.1145/3272127.3275109 2018

  15. [15]

    Graphics381–17 doi:10.1145/3355089.3356498

    Nimier-David M, Vicini D, Zeltner T and Jakob W 2019 Mitsuba 2: A Retargetable Forward and Inverse RendererACM Trans. Graphics381–17 doi:10.1145/3355089.3356498

    work page doi:10.1145/3355089.3356498 2019

  16. [16]

    Hu Y, Anderson L, Li T M, Sun Q, Carr N, Ragan-Kelley J and Durand F 2020 DiffTaichi: Differentiable Programming for Physical SimulationICLR 2020doi:10.48550/arXiv.1910.00935

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.00935 2020

  17. [17]

    Newbury R, Collins J, He K, Pan J, Posner I, Howard D and Cosgun A 2024 A Review of Differentiable SimulatorsIEEE Access1297581–97604 doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3425448

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2024.3425448 2024

  18. [18]

    Chen R T Q, Rubanova Y, Bettencourt J and Duvenaud D K 2018 Neural Ordi- nary Differential EquationsAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systemsvol 31 doi:10.48550/arXiv.1806.07366

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1806.07366 2018

  19. [19]

    Aehle M, Nov´ ak M, Vassilev V, Gauger N R, Heinrich L, Kagan M and Lange D 2024 Optimization Using Pathwise Algorithmic Derivatives of Electromagnetic Shower Simulations Comput. Phys. Commun.309109491 doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2024.109491

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2024.109491 2024

  20. [20]

    Nov´ ak M 2023 HepEmShow: a compact EM shower simulation application documentation, accessed 2026-01-20 URLhttps://hepemshow.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html

    2023

  21. [21]

    Nov´ ak M, Hahnfeld J and Morgan B 2022 g4hepem: The G4HepEm R&D Project gitHub repository, accessed 2026-01-20 URLhttps://github.com/mnovak42/g4hepem

    2022

  22. [22]

    Fabjan C W and Gianotti F 2003 Calorimetry for particle physicsRev. Mod. Phys.751243–1286 doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.75.1243

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.75.1243 2003

  23. [23]

    J.6971071–1102 doi:10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071

    Atwood W Bet al.2009 The Large Area Telescope on the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope MissionAstrophys. J.6971071–1102 doi:10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1071 2009

  24. [24]

    Seuntjens J and Duane S 2009 Photon absorbed dose standardsMetrologia46S39–S58 doi:10.1088/0026-1394/46/2/S04

    work page doi:10.1088/0026-1394/46/2/s04 2009

  25. [25]

    Aehle M, Nguyen X T, Nov´ ak M, Dorigo T, Gauger N R, Kieseler J, Klute M and Vassilev V 2024 Efficient Forward-Mode Algorithmic Derivatives of Geant4 doi:10.48550/arXiv.2407.02966

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.02966 2024

  26. [26]

    Kagan M and Heinrich L 2023 Branches of a Tree: Taking Derivatives of Programs with Discrete and Branching Randomness in High Energy Physics doi:10.48550/arXiv.2308.16680

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.16680 2023

  27. [27]

    Instrum.17P08021 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/17/08/p08021

    Cheong S, Frisch J C, Gasiorowski S, Hogan J M, Kagan M, Safdari M, Schwartzman A and Vandegar M 2022 Novel light field imaging device with enhanced light collection for cold atom cloudsJ. Instrum.17P08021 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/17/08/p08021

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/17/08/p08021 2022

  28. [28]

    Learn.: Sci

    Strong G Cet al.2024 TomOpt: differential optimisation for task- and constraint-aware design of particle detectors in the context of muon tomographyMach. Learn.: Sci. Technol.5035002 doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ad52e7 16

    work page doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ad52e7 2024

  29. [29]

    Learn.: Sci

    Gasiorowski S, Chen Y, Nashed Y, Granger P, Mironov C, Tsang K V, Ratner D and Terao K 2024 Differentiable simulation of a liquid argon time projection chamberMach. Learn.: Sci. Technol.5025012 doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ad2cf0

    work page doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ad2cf0 2024

  30. [30]

    Alterkait O, Jes´ us-Valls C, Matsumoto R, de Perio P and Terao K 2026 End-to-end Differentiable Calibration and Reconstruction for Optical Particle Detectors doi:10.48550/arXiv.2602.24129

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.24129 2026

  31. [31]

    Aehle Met al.2025 Progress in end-to-end optimization of fundamental physics ex- perimental apparata with differentiable programmingReviews in Physics13100120 doi:10.1016/j.revip.2025.100120

    work page doi:10.1016/j.revip.2025.100120 2025

  32. [32]

    Mokhtar F, Pata J, Garcia D, Wulff E, Zhang M, Kagan M and Duarte J 2025 Fine-tuning machine-learned particle-flow reconstruction for new detector geometries in future colliders Phys. Rev. D111doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.092015

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.092015 2025

  33. [33]

    Adelmann Aet al.2022 New directions for surrogate models and differentiable programming for High Energy Physics detector simulationSnowmass 2021doi:10.48550/arXiv.2203.08806

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.08806 2022

  34. [34]

    Shirobokov S, Belavin V, Kagan M, Ustyuzhanin A and Baydin A G 2020 Black-Box Optimization with Local Generative SurrogatesAdvances in Neural Information Pro- cessing SystemsURL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2020/file/ a878dbebc902328b41dbf02aa87abb58-Paper.pdf

    2020

  35. [35]

    Learn.: Sci

    Wozniak K A, Mulligana S, Kieseler J, Klute M, Fleuret F and Golling T 2025 End-to-End Optimal Detector Design with Mutual Information SurrogatesMach. Learn.: Sci. Technol.6 045047 doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ae1acb

    work page doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ae1acb 2025

  36. [36]

    Schmidt Ket al.2025 End-to-End Detector Optimization with Diffusion Models: A Case Study in Sampling CalorimetersParticles847 doi:10.3390/particles8020047

    work page doi:10.3390/particles8020047 2025

  37. [37]

    Toward the end-to-end optimization of particle physics instruments with differentiable programming

    Dorigo T (MODE Collaboration) 2023 Toward the end-to-end optimization of par- ticle physics instruments with differentiable programmingRev. Phys.10100085 doi:10.1016/j.revip.2023.100085

    work page doi:10.1016/j.revip.2023.100085 2023

  38. [38]

    Dorigo T (MODE Collaboration) 2023 Toward artificial-intelligence assisted design of experi- mentsNucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A1047167873 doi:10.1016/j.nima.2022.167873

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2022.167873 2023

  39. [39]

    Dorigo T (MODE Collaboration) 2026 On the Codesign of Scientific Experiments and Industrial Systems doi:10.48550/arXiv.2603.26613

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.26613 2026

  40. [40]

    Instrum.15P05009 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/05/P05009

    Cisbani Eet al.2020 AI-optimized detector design for the future Electron-Ion Collider: the dual-radiator RICH caseJ. Instrum.15P05009 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/05/P05009

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/05/p05009 2020

  41. [41]

    Instrum.19C07001 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/07/C07001

    Diefenthaler M (AID(2)E Collaboration) 2024 AI-assisted detector design for the EIC (AID(2)E) J. Instrum.19C07001 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/07/C07001

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/07/c07001 2024

  42. [42]

    Roussel Ret al.2024 Bayesian optimization algorithms for accelerator physicsPhys. Rev. Accel. Beams27(8) 084801 doi:10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.27.084801

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevaccelbeams.27.084801 2024

  43. [43]

    Fanelli Cet al.2023 AI-assisted optimization of the ECCE tracking system at the Electron Ion ColliderNucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A1047167748 doi:10.1016/j.nima.2022.167748 17

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2022.167748 2023

  44. [44]

    Learn.: Sci

    Qasim S R, Owen P and Serra N 2025 Physics Instrument Design with Reinforcement Learning Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol.035033 doi:10.1088/2632-2153/adf7ff

    work page doi:10.1088/2632-2153/adf7ff 2025

  45. [45]

    Learn.: Sci

    Kortus T, Keidel R, Gauger N R and Kieseler J (Bergen pCT) 2026 Constrained collaborative optimization of charged particle tracking with multi-agent reinforcement learningMach. Learn.: Sci. Technol.7015021 doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ae352b

    work page doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ae352b 2026

  46. [46]

    Zoccheddu S, Qasim S R, Owen P and Serra N 2026 Large Language Models for Physics Instrument Design doi:10.48550/arXiv.2601.07580

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.07580 2026

  47. [47]

    Nguyen X T, Chen L, Dorigo T, Gauger N R, Vischia P, Nardi F, Awais M, Hanif H, Abbas S and Kapoor R 2026 Differentiable Surrogate for Detector Simulation and Design with Diffusion Models doi:10.48550/arXiv.2601.07859

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.07859 2026

  48. [48]

    Hill J and Ryoo H J 2026 GRACE: an Agentic AI for Particle Physics Experiment Design and Simulation doi:10.48550/arXiv.2602.15039

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.15039 2026

  49. [49]

    SciCompKL 2024 CoDiPack (Code Differentiation Package) gitHub repository, accessed 2026- 01-20 URLhttps://github.com/SciCompKL/CoDiPack

    2024

  50. [50]

    Methods Software331207–1231 doi:10.1080/10556788.2018.1471140

    Sagebaum M, Albring T and Gauger N R 2018 Expression templates for primal value taping in the reverse mode of algorithmic differentiationOptim. Methods Software331207–1231 doi:10.1080/10556788.2018.1471140

    work page doi:10.1080/10556788.2018.1471140 2018

  51. [51]

    M Sagebaum T Albring N G 2019 High-Performance Derivative Computations using CoDiPack ACM Trans. Math. Software (TOMS)45doi:10.1145/3356900

    work page doi:10.1145/3356900 2019

  52. [52]

    com/mnovak42/hepemshow

    Nov´ ak M 2023 HepEmShow gitHub repository, accessed 2026-01-20 URL https://github. com/mnovak42/hepemshow

    2023

  53. [53]

    Urb´ an L 2006 A Model for Multiple Scattering in GEANT4 Tech. Rep. CERN-OPEN-2006-077 CERN URLhttps://cds.cern.ch/record/1004190 A Supplementary Results 18 fPropagation Stopgrad Fraction (%) Energy Steps Tracks 0.0 Track-only 9.3 20.2 11.8 Track + desc. 15.1 26.9 32.3 0.05 Track-only 9.6 20.4 11.9 Track + desc. 15.5 27.2 32.8 0.1 Track-only 9.9 20.7 12.2...

    work page arXiv 2006