SciPost logo

SciPost Submission Page

Influence of Geant4 Physics List on Simulation Accuracy and Performance

by Róbert Breier, Alexander Fuss, Holger Kluck, Valentyna Mokina, Veronika Palušová, Pavel Povinec

This is not the latest submitted version.

This Submission thread is now published as

Submission summary

Authors (as registered SciPost users): Valentyna Mokina · Veronika Palusova
Submission information
Preprint Link: scipost_202209_00048v1  (pdf)
Date submitted: 2022-09-23 09:45
Submitted by: Palusova, Veronika
Submitted to: SciPost Physics Proceedings
Proceedings issue: 14th International Conference on Identification of Dark Matter (IDM2022)
Ontological classification
Academic field: Physics
  • Nuclear Physics - Experiment
Approaches: Experimental, Computational


A main goal of current low background physics is the search for rare and novel phenomena beyond the Standard Model of particle physics, e.g. the scattering off of a potential Dark Matter particle inside a CaWO4 crystal or the neutrinoless double beta decay of Ge nucleus. The success of such searches depends on a reliable background prediction via Monte Carlo simulations. A widely used toolkit to construct these simulations is GEANT4, which offers a wide choice of physics models, so-called physics lists. To facilitate the selection of physics lists for simulations of CaWO4 and Ge targets, we quantify their impact on the total energy deposition for several test cases.

Current status:
Has been resubmitted

Submission & Refereeing History

You are currently on this page

Submission scipost_202209_00048v1 on 23 September 2022

Reports on this Submission

Anonymous Report 1 on 2022-10-14 (Invited Report)

  • Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:scipost_202209_00048v1, delivered 2022-10-14, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.5897


1. This kind of comparison is definitely needed.

2. Correct approach for a proper statistical analysis given a large number of simulated datasets.

3. Correct models (physics lists) and parameters identified for comparison.


1. It would be good to see a brief description of physics lists/constructors to understand the differences between them. I understand that this may significantly increase the length of the paper so I leave this to the authors to decide.

2. Since different particles produce different signals (energy depositions) in detectors and discrimination between these signal is important for identifying dark matter signal, it would be good to see the comparison between different physics lists for specific particle types, like electron recoil (from gammas and betas) and nuclear recoils, and for low energy events as well. This may be a topic for future studies.

3. I think a production cut of 1 cm or higher in the target is too high. Even 1 mm looks too high. So the comparison should focus on cut values around 1 micron, possibly up to 100 microns.

4. In the 'conclusions', the reference configuration is referred to as 'the most accurate model' but there is no proof of this. It may be good to refer to other studies, comparison to experimental data to prove that this is indeed the case.


All acceptance criteria are met. I recommend publication in this journal and suggest some minor changes.

Requested changes

Section 2.1, 3rd line.
Either "were used" or "are used". I prefer "were used".

Section 2.1, 2nd paragraph, 3rd line.
"... to travel further than the range cut value..."

Figure 1. Is the 'thin' target realistic for a dark matter experiment? I'd rather compare effects for the 'thick' target and small production cuts (1 mm and below). Please, explain briefly the difference between the two models.

Figure 2. Is this for thin or thick target?

Figure 3. Can you change the colour for the font, please, on this figure? Black on dark blue is not visible.

Add a brief info at least about the reference case of G4EmStandardPhysics_option4

Check references; some of them miss capital letters in paper titles. The DOI for the last reference looks incomplete.

  • validity: top
  • significance: high
  • originality: top
  • clarity: good
  • formatting: excellent
  • grammar: excellent

Login to report or comment