Performance of a Large Area Photon Detector For Rare Event Search Applications
CPD Collaboration, C. W. Fink, S. L. Watkins, T. Aramaki, P. L. Brink, J. Camilleri, X. Defay, S. Ganjam, Yu. G. Kolomensky, R. Mahapatra, N. Mirabolfathi, W. A. Page, R. Partridge, M. Platt, M. Pyle, B. Sadoulet, B. Serfass, S. Zuber
PPerformance of a Large Area Photon Detector For Rare Event Search Applications
Performance of a Large Area Photon Detector For Rare Event SearchApplications
C.W. Fink, a) S.L. Watkins, a) T. Aramaki, P.L. Brink, J. Camilleri, b) X. Defay, S. Ganjam, c) Yu.G. Kolomensky,
1, 4
R. Mahapatra, N. Mirabolfathi, W.A. Page, R. Partridge, M. Platt, M. Pyle, B. Sadoulet,
1, 4
B. Serfass, and S. Zuber (CPD Collaboration) Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory/Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, Menlo Park,CA 94025, USA Physik-Department and Excellence Cluster Universe, Technische Universit¨at M¨unchen, 85747 Garching,Germany Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA Department of Physics and Astronomy, and the Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy,Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA (Dated: 1 October 2020)
We present the design and characterization of a large-area Cryogenic PhotoDetector (CPD) designed foractive particle identification in rare event searches, such as neutrinoless double beta decay and dark matterexperiments. The detector consists of a 45 . surface area by 1-mm-thick 10 . T c = 41 . Fe X-ray source.The noise equivalent power is measured to be 1 × − W / √ Hz in a bandwidth of 2 . σ E = 3 . ± .
04 (stat . ) +0 . − . (syst . ) eV (RMS). The detector also has anexpected timing resolution of σ t = 2 . µ s for 5 σ E events.Keywords: QET, Transition-Edge Sensor, dark matter, neutrino, phonon, photonIn rare event searches, experimental sensitivity is oftenlimited by background signals . Developing precisiondetectors to veto background and noise signals has been ahigh priority in these fields. Much interest in low temper-ature cryogenic detector technology has been shown bygroups carrying out searches for neutrinoless double betadecay (0 νββ ), such as the CUORE , CUPID , andAMoRE experiments. For these searches, the domi-nant source of background events consists of α decaysfrom the surrounding environment . It has been shownthat Cherenkov emission or scintillation light can be usedto positively identify the signal β s, allowing for back-ground discrimination . In order for these experimentsto achieve a high level of rejection for these α back-grounds, photon detectors with large surface areas andsub-20 eV baseline energy resolutions are required .To reject the pileup background from multiple ordinary(two neutrino) double beta decay (2 νββ ) events, exper-iments need timing resolutions down to 10 µ s (for the Mo isotope) .There has also been theoretical and experimental moti-vation to search for dark matter (DM) in the mass range a) These authors contributed equally to this work.;cwfi[email protected], [email protected] b) Now at Department of Physics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA24061, USA c) Now at Department of Applied Physics and Yale Quantum Insti-tute, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, USA of keV /c to GeV /c . However, current experimentshave been limited by unknown background signals in theenergy range of O (1-100) eV . If the source of suchbackgrounds are high energy photons that deposit onlyan extremely small fraction of their energy in the tar-get , then a nearly 4 π active shield composed of high- Z scintillating crystals surrounding the detector could behighly efficient at suppressing these backgrounds. Addi-tionally, a sensitive large area cryogenic detector couldbe useful for discriminating small energy depositions dueto radiogenic surface backgrounds. Other potential DMapplications for this detector technology include searchesfor inelastic electronic recoils off scintillating crystals andsearches for interactions with superfluid He .We present the characterization of a largearea Cryogenic PhotoDetector (CPD) witha measured baseline energy resolution of3 . ± .
04 (stat . ) +0 . − . (syst . ) eV (RMS) and a tim-ing resolution of 2 . µ s for 20 eV events that meets thetechnical requirements for the use cases discussed above.The (100)-oriented substrate of the CPD is a 10 . . . Aparallel network of 1031 Quasiparticle-trap-assisted Elec-trothermal feedback Transition-edge sensors (QETs) with T c = 41 . a r X i v : . [ phy s i c s . i n s - d e t ] S e p erformance of a Large Area Photon Detector For Rare Event Search Applications 2 TABLE I. QET design specifications for the CPD describingthe W TESs and the Al fins that each QET consists of. Theactive surface area refers to the amount of substrate that iscovered by the Al fins of the QETs, while the passive surfacearea is that which is not covered by the Al fins, but by theAl bias rails, bonding pads, and other structures that absorbathermal phonons, but do not add to the signal.Specification ValueTES Length [ µ m] 140TES Thickness [nm] 40TES Width [ µ m] 3.5Number of Al Fins 6Al Fin Length [ µ m] 200Al Fin Thickness [nm] 600Al-W Overlap [ µ m] 10Number of QETs 1031Active Surface Area [%] 1.9Passive Surface Area [%] 0.2FIG. 1. Left: A picture of the CPD installed in a copperhousing. The instrumented side is shown facing up. Right:The design of the QETs used for the detector. (Blue: Al fins,Purple: W TES.) fects such as athermal phonon down-conversion . Theopposite side of the Si wafer is unpolished and noninstru-mented. The detector and QET mask design can be seenin Fig. 1. In Table I, the QET design specifications forthe CPD are listed.The detector was studied at the SLAC National Accel-erator Laboratory in a cryogen-free dilution refrigeratorat a bath temperature ( T B ) of 8 mK. The detector wasplaced in a copper housing and was held mechanicallywith the use of six cirlex clamps. The cirlex clamps alsoprovided the thermal link between the detector and thecopper housing. The QET arrays were voltage biased andthe current through the TES was measured with a DCsuperconducting quantum interference device (SQUID)array with a measured noise floor of ∼ / √ Hz.A collimated Fe X-ray source was placed inside thecryostat and was incident upon the noninstrumented sideof the CPD in the center of the detector. A layer of Al foilwas placed inside the collimator to provide a calibrationline from fluorescence at 1 . . The collimator wastuned such that there was ∼ α and K β decaysincident on the detector. The detector was held at a TABLE II. Fitted calculated parameters of the TES from IV curves. The systematic errors on G TA and T c represent theupper bound on these values, using the hypothesis that theobserved excess noise in the sensor bandwidth is entirely dueto parasitic bias power.Parameter Value R sh [mΩ] 5 ± . R p [mΩ] 8 . ± . R N [mΩ] 88 ± P [pW] 3 . ± . G TA [nJ / K] 0 . ± .
04 (stat . ) +0 . − . (syst . ) T c [mK] 41 . ± . . ) +10 − (syst . ) bath temperature T B (cid:28) T c for approximately two weeksto allow any parasitic heat added by the cirlex clamps todissipate. During this time, we attempted to neutralizepotential charged impurities within the Si wafer as muchas possible with ionization produced by a 9 . µ Ci Cssource placed outside of the cryostat.To characterize the QETs, IV sweeps were taken atvarious bath temperatures by measuring TES quiescentcurrent as a function of bias current , with super-imposed small square pulses providing complex admit-tance at each point in the IV curve . Since all theQETs are connected in parallel in a single channel, thechannel was treated as if it were a single QET, describ-ing the average characteristics of the total array. The IV data allowed for the estimation of the parasitic resistancein the TES line ( R p ), the normal state resistance ( R N ),and the nominal bias power ( P ). The effective thermalconductance between the QETs to the Si wafer ( G T A )and T c were measured by fitting a power law to the mea-sured bias power as a function of bath temperature .This measurement is a lower bound of these values, as itassumes no parasitic bias power in the system. We sum-marize these characteristics of the detector in Table II.The complex admittance data allows us to estimatethe dynamic properties of the sensors. Throughout thesuperconducting transition, primary and secondary ther-mal fall times were observed, e.g. 58 µ s and 370 µ s, re-spectively, at R ≈ R N . The origin of this additionaltime constant is under investigation. Its appearance sug-gests that we have a more complex thermal or electricalsystem, e.g. phase separation or an extra heat ca-pacity connected to the TES heat capacity . A charac-teristic plot of complex impedance of the TES circuit canbe seen in Fig. 2.Knowledge of the TES parameters allowed for thecalculation of the power-to-current responsivity, whichwas used to convert the measured current-referred powerspectral density (PSD) to the noise equivalent power(NEP). These parameters were used to predict the ex-pected noise spectrum using the single-heat-capacitythermal model . A comparison of the NEP to the modelat R ≈ R N can be seen in Fig 3. The excessnoise spikes at various frequencies are due to the oper-ation of the pulse tube cryocooler. The observed noiseerformance of a Large Area Photon Detector For Rare Event Search Applications 3 − π − π π π Φ ( Z ( ω )) [ r a d ] Frequency [Hz] | Z ( ω ) | [ m Ω ] FIG. 2. The magnitude and phase of the measured com-plex impedance are shown as the black and blue markers,respectively. The modeled complex impedance is shown asthe cyan solid line. The black dotted line denotes the corre-sponding bandwidth of 2 . τ − = 58 µ s. Frequency [Hz] − − − N EP [ W / √ H z ] FIG. 3. Modeled noise components: TES Johnson noise (bluesolid), load resistor Johnson noise (blue dots), electronicsnoise (purple dashed), thermal fluctuation noise (TFN) be-tween the TES and the bath (yellow solid), and total modelednoise (green solid) compared with the measured NEP (blacksolid) for R ≈ R N . We additionally show the total noisemodel (green alternating dashes and dots), which includes ahypothetical environmental noise source of 8 × − W / √ Hzand excess TES Johnson noise with M = 1 . is also elevated above our model at frequencies in theeffective sensor bandwidth interval (approximately theinverse of the thermal time constant τ − ) by a factorof ∼
2, as compared to the prediction. This “in-band”excess noise is consistent with two different hypotheses:a white power noise spectrum incident on the detector of8 × − W / √ Hz (e.g. a light leak) or a parasitic DCpower in the bias circuit of approximately 6 pW. If weassume the latter is the source, this allows us to calculatethe upper bound on our estimates of G T A and T c , as re-ported in Table II. There remains bias-dependent excessnoise above the sensor bandwidth. We parameterize theexcess TES Johnson–like noise with the commonly used M factor . Using values of M up to 1.8, dependingon bias point, can account for the discrepancy betweenobservation and prediction at these frequencies.The lowest integrated NEP was achieved at an op- timum bias point of R = 31 mΩ ≈ R N . In addi-tion to the characterization data, approximately 500 , ,
000 randomly triggeredevents were recorded at this bias.For the measured phonon-pulse shape, there are mul-tiple characteristic time constants. The dominant pulsefall time is consistent with the expectation from the com-plex impedance as we approach zero-energy, where weconfirmed the expected thermal time constant τ − = 58 µ svia nonlinear least squares. The secondary time constantfrom the complex impedance of 370 µ s was also seen inthese low-energy pulses, with an amplitude ratio of ∼ τ ph = 20 µ s, which is theexpected characteristic time scale for athermal phononsbeing absorbed by the Al collection fins of the QETs forthis design. We also observed long-lived behavior in thepulses, which can be estimated as a low-amplitude ∼ .To reconstruct event energies, two energy estimatorswere used in this analysis: the optimum filter (OF) am-plitude and the energy removed by electrothermalfeedback ( E ETF ) . For the OF, we used an offline al-gorithm to reconstruct energies. A single noise spec-trum was used, which was computed from the randomlytriggered events. The phonon-pulse template used wasan analytic template that matches the measured low-energy pulse shape, neglecting the 3 ms low-amplitudetail. Because we could not directly measure the low-energy phonon-pulse shape with high statistics, we useda template without the long-lived behavior.The integral estimator E ETF was calculated for eachtriggered event by measuring the decrease in Joule heat-ing via E ETF = (cid:90) T (cid:2) ( V b − I R (cid:96) )∆ I ( t ) − ∆ I ( t ) R (cid:96) (cid:3) d t, (1)where T is the time at which the integral is truncated,∆ I ( t ) is the baseline-subtracted pulse in current, I isthe quiescent current through the TES, R (cid:96) is the load re-sistance, and V b is the voltage bias of the TES circuit .In comparison to the OF amplitude, this integral esti-erformance of a Large Area Photon Detector For Rare Event Search Applications 4 . . . . Time [ms] . . . . . . N o r m a li ze d A m p li t ud e . . . . . O F A m p li t ud e [ µ A ] FIG. 4. We show averaged pulse shapes (green solid) normal-ized by the peak current, for which the shade of green lightenswith increased OF amplitude. Each averaged pulse consists ofabout 100 events averaged in 0 . µ A bin-widths. The length-ened fall time of the averaged pulse with increased OF ampli-tude (an energy estimator) is evident. The phonon-pulse tem-plate used in this analysis (black dashed) shows good agree-ment with the low energy (dark green) pulses. We also showan analytic phonon-pulse with only the first sensor fall time(gray dashed). Comparing to the phonon-pulse template, wesee that the second sensor fall time has a small effect in thislimited time interval. mator was less sensitive to saturation effects, but had aworse baseline energy resolution. When characterizingthis device, we used the integral truncation of T ≈ τ − for E ETF . This was done to preserve good baseline energysensitivity in this integral estimator when calibrating theOF amplitude energy estimator at low energies.For pulse-shape saturation at high energies, we use thefollowing empirical model: E ETF = a (cid:18) − exp (cid:18) − E true b (cid:19)(cid:19) . (2)This functional form has the expected behavior: it in-tercepts zero, approaches an asymptotic value at highenergies, and becomes linear for small values of E true . InFig. 5, the fitted saturation model, as well as the cal-ibrated and uncalibrated E ETF spectra, are shown, ascompared to the energies of various spectral peaks in bothenergy scales.The absolute phonon collection efficiency ( ε ph ) of thedetector was estimated by measuring E ETF at the low-est energy calibration line (Al fluorescence) and dividingby the known energy of that line. Because of the long-lived behavior in the phonon-pulse shapes, the measuredcollection efficiency of this detector depends on the in-tegration truncation time T . If it is chosen to only in-clude energy collected by the first sensor fall time τ − (e.g. T ≈ τ − ), then we find that ε ph = 13 ± Calibrated E ETF [keV] . . . . . . . . E E T F [ k e V ] FIG. 5. Upper: The calibrated E ETF (which estimates E true )spectrum for the CPD (solid black). Right: The energy spec-trum in E ETF (solid black). Lower left: The fitted saturationmodel using Eq. (2) (solid black). In each of these panels, wehave shown, for both the calibrated and uncalibrated E ETF energy scales, the location of the K α , K β , and Al fluorescencecalibration peaks (pink dashed, blue dotted, and cyan alter-nating dashes and dots, respectively). In the lower left panel,the intersections of the lines corresponding to each spectralpeak represent the points used for calibration of E ETF viaEq. (2). The unmarked peaks at 4 . . E ETF are the Si escape peaks . creases to ε ∞ ph = 17 ± E ETF and theOF amplitude to a linear slope at low energies (belowapproximately 300 eV). This method does not provide acalibration of the OF amplitude at high energies, but al-lows for the calculation of the baseline energy resolution.For the calibration method used, the main source ofsystematic error is the saturation model in Eq. (2). Sinceit is empirical, its use introduces uncertainty in its appli-cability. We can estimate the upper bound of the effectof this systematic on the baseline energy resolution asthe value that would be reached if we instead calibrated E ETF linearly using the Al fluorescence line. In this case,this worsens the baseline energy resolution, as we are nottaking into account the expected response (see Fig. 5).The baseline energy resolution was calculated as theRMS of 46,000 randomly triggered events, after re-moving data contaminated by pileup events, electronicglitches, or thermal tails. This gave a resolution of σ E = 3 . ± .
04 (stat . ) +0 . − . (syst . ) eV (RMS) for the OFerformance of a Large Area Photon Detector For Rare Event Search Applications 5 TABLE III. Comparison of this work to various state-of-the-art devices for degraded α rejection in 0 νββ experiments. Thetable is sorted by decreasing σ E √ Area , a common figure-of-meritof devices for this application. The column labeled “NTL?”denotes whether or not each detector relies on NTL amplifi-cation to achieve the corresponding result.Device Area (cid:2) cm (cid:3) σ E [eV] σ E √ Area (cid:2) eVcm (cid:3)
NTL?MKID energy estimator, where these data are consistent with anormal distribution. This is in agreement with our es-timation from the observed NEP and the power-referredphonon-pulse shape (a single-exponential with fall time τ ph and collection efficiency (cid:15) ph ), which gave an expectedbaseline energy resolution of σ thE = 3 . ± . of the CPD, which providesan estimate of the minimum resolving time for two pileupevents. For a 5 σ event, the corresponding timing reso-lution of this detector is 2 . µ s. For many 0 νββ experi-ments, the timing resolution requirement to make pileupof multiple 2 νββ events a negligible background is onthe order of 1 ms . For the CUPID and CUPID-1Texperiments, this requirement is about 300 µ s and 10 µ s,respectively . Thus, we expect the CPD to fulfill theserequirements.When comparing the baseline energy resolution of theCPD to the requirements of the CUPID experiment, thevalue surpasses the requirement of less than 20 eV (RMS)by a factor of five. While the CPD is a TES-based de-tector, it has been shown that Microwave Kinetic Induc-tance Detectors (MKIDs) and Neutron-Transmutation-Doped (NTD) Ge detectors are also promising avenuesfor achieving the sub-20 eV baseline goal. In Table III,we report this result alongside those of other detectorsfor this application. In comparison to the devices thathave met or exceeded the requirement, the CPD does notrequire Neganov-Trofimov-Luke (NTL) amplification (which often results in excess dark counts) and has thebest baseline energy sensitivity for its size.The measured baseline energy resolution of3 . ± .
04 (stat . ) +0 . − . (syst . ) eV and the expectedtiming resolution of 2 . µ s (at 5 σ E ), combined withits large surface area, makes this detector an excellentcandidate for background rejection in both 0 νββ andDM experiments. Because of the excellent energysensitivity, this device can be used as a dark matterdetector itself, as we have done in collaboration with SuperCDMS to set limits on spin-independent darkmatter-nucleon interactions for sub-GeV /c dark matterparticle masses . The performance of the CPD can befurther optimized through adjustment of characteristicssuch as the Al-W overlap and overall Al coverage. Fromthese considerations, we anticipate up to a factor of twoimprovement in baseline energy resolution for a futureiteration of the CPD, which is currently being designed.This material is based upon work supported by theUS Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science un-der Contract Nos. DE-AC02-05CH11231 and DE-AC02-76SF00515, by the DOE Office of Science, Office of HighEnergy Physics under Contract Nos. KA-2401032, DE-SC0018981, and DE-SC0017859, by the National Sci-ence Foundation (NSF) under Grant Nos. PHY-1314881,PHY-1415388, and PHY-1809769, and by Michael M.Garland.The data that support the findings of this study areavailable upon reasonable request to the correspondingauthors. C. Alduino et al. (CUORE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. ,132501 (2018). E. Andreotti et al. , Astropart. Phys. , 822 (2011). E. Armengaud et al. (EDELWEISS Collaboration), Phys. Rev.D , 082003 (2019). Q. Arnaud et al. (EDELWEISS Collaboration), arXiv:2003.01046(2020). R. Agnese et al. (SuperCDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. , 051301 (2018). O. Abramoff et al. (SENSEI Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. , 161801 (2019). A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (DAMIC Collaboration), Phys. Rev.Lett. , 181802 (2019). A. H. Abdelhameed et al. (CRESST Collaboration), Phys. Rev.D , 102002 (2019). G. Angloher et al. (CRESST Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C ,637 (2017). F. T. Avignone III, S. R. Elliott, and J. Engel, Rev. Mod. Phys. , 481 (2008). D. Q. Adams et al. (CUORE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. , 122501 (2020). W. R. Armstrong et al. (CUPID Collaboration),arXiv:1907.09376 (2019). V. Alenkov et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C , 791 (2019). N. Casali, M. Vignati, J. W. Beeman, F. Bellini, L. Cardani,I. Dafinei, S. Di Domizio, F. Ferroni, L. Gironi, S. Nagorny, et al. ,Eur. Phys. J. C , 12 (2015). T. Tabarelli de Fatis, Eur. Phys. J. C , 359 (2010). M. Battaglieri et al. , arXiv:1707.04591 (2017). R. Essig, J. Mardon, and T. Volansky, Phys. Rev. D , 076007(2012). R. Essig et al. , arXiv:1311.0029 (2013). J. Alexander et al. , arXiv:1608.08632 (2016). N. Kurinsky, D. Baxter, Y. Kahn, and G. Krnjaic, Phys. Rev.D , 015017 (2020). A. E. Robinson, Phys. Rev. D , 021301 (2017). S. Derenzo, R. Essig, A. Massari, A. Soto, and T.-T. Yu, Phys.Rev. D , 016026 (2017). S. Knapen, T. Lin, M. Pyle, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Lett. B , 386 (2018). K. D. Irwin and G. C. Hilton, “Transition-edge sensors,” in
Cryo-genic Particle Detection , edited by C. Enss (Springer Berlin Hei-delberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005) pp. 63–150. K. D. Irwin, S. W. Nam, B. Cabrera, B. Chugg, and B. A.Young, Rev. Sci. Instrum. , 5322 (1995). erformance of a Large Area Photon Detector For Rare Event Search Applications 6 W. Knaak, T. Hauß, M. Kummrow, and M. Meißner, in
PhononScattering in Condensed Matter V , edited by A. C. Andersonand J. P. Wolfe (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg,1986) pp. 174–176. A. G. Kozorezov, A. F. Volkov, J. K. Wigmore, A. Peacock,A. Poelaert, and R. den Hartog, Phys. Rev. B , 11807 (2000). J. Schweppe, R. D. Deslattes, T. Mooney, and C. J. Powell, J.Electron Spectrosc. , 463 (1994). G. H¨olzer, M. Fritsch, M. Deutsch, J. H¨artwig, and E. F¨orster,Phys. Rev. A , 4554 (1997). Although we are applying a bias current, we use the term “ IV ”because the voltage and current are related by the shunt resistor: V bias = I bias R sh . C. W. Fink, S. L. Watkins, T. Aramaki, P. L. Brink, S. Gan-jam, B. A. Hines, M. E. Huber, N. A. Kurinsky, R. Mahapatra,N. Mirabolfathi, et al. , AIP Adv. , 085221 (2020). M. Pyle,
Optimizing the design and analysis of cryogenic semi-conductor dark matter detectors for maximum sensitivity , Ph.D.thesis, Stanford University (2012). N. Kurinsky,
The Low-Mass Limit: Dark Matter Detectors witheV-Scale Energy Resolution , Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University(2018). B. Cabrera, J. Low Temp. Phys. , 82 (2008). I. J. Maasilta, AIP Adv. , 042110 (2012). N. Jethava, J. N. Ullom, K. D. Irwin, W. B. Doriese, J. A. Beall,G. C. Hilton, L. R. Vale, and B. Zink, AIP Conf. Proc. ,31 (2009). L. A. Zadeh and J. R. Ragazzini, Proc. IRE , 1223 (1952). S. R. Golwala,
Exclusion limits on the WIMP nucleon elasticscattering cross-section from the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search ,Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley (2000). S. J. B. Reed and N. G. Ware, J. Phys. E Sci. Instrum. , 582(1972). D. M. Chernyak, F. A. Danevich, A. Giuliani, E. Olivieri, M. Ten-coni, and V. I. Tretyak, Eur. Phys. J. C , 1989 (2012). D. R. Artusa et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C , 3096 (2014). M. Pyle, E. Figueroa-Feliciano, and B. Sadoulet,arXiv:1503.01200 (2015). N. Casali, L. Cardani, I. Colantoni, A. Cruciani, S. Di Domizio,M. Martinez, G. Pettinari, and M. Vignati, Eur. Phys. J. C ,724 (2019). B. S. Neganov and V. N. Trofimov, Otkryt. Izobret. , 215(1985). P. N. Luke, J. Appl. Phys. , 6858 (1988). L. Cardani, N. Casali, A. Cruciani, H. le Sueur, M. Martinez,F. Bellini, M. Calvo, M. G. Castellano, I. Colantoni, C. Cosmelli, et al. , Supercond. Sci. Technol. , 075002 (2018). K. Schffner, G. Angloher, F. Bellini, N. Casali, F. Ferroni,D. Hauff, S. S. Nagorny, L. Pattavina, F. Petricca, S. Pirro, et al. ,Astropart. Phys. , 30 (2015). M. Barucci, J. W. Beeman, V. Caracciolo, L. Pagnanini, L. Pat-tavina, G. Pessina, S. Pirro, C. Rusconi, and K. Schffner, Nucl.Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A , 150 (2019). L. Pattavina, N. Casali, L. Dumoulin, A. Giuliani, M. Man-cuso, P. de Marcillac, S. Marnieros, S. S. Nagorny, C. Nones,E. Olivieri, et al. , J. Low Temp. Phys. , 286291 (2015). M. Willers, F. v. Feilitzsch, A. Gtlein, A. Mnster, J.-C. Lan-franchi, L. Oberauer, W. Potzel, S. Roth, S. Schnert, M. v. Sivers, et al. , J. Instrum. , P03003 (2015). E. Armengaud et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C , 785 (2017). L. Berg´e et al. , Phys. Rev. C , 032501 (2018). V. Novati, L. Berg, L. Dumoulin, A. Giuliani, M. Mancuso,P. de Marcillac, S. Marnieros, E. Olivieri, D. V. Poda, M. Ten-coni, et al. , Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A , 320327(2019). J. Rothe, G. Angloher, P. Bauer, A. Bento, C. Bucci, L. Canon-ica, A. D’Addabbo, X. Defay, A. Erb, F. v. Feilitzsch, et al. , J.Low Temp. Phys. , 1160 (2018). I. Alkhatib et al.et al.