Vertex reconstruction for a search for neutron–antineutron conversions with HIBEAM

The signal samples are simulated neutron–antineutron annihilation events generated with the HIBEAM/NNBAR simulation framework Barrow and others (2021); Meirose and others (2025). The annihilation model follows the peripheral nuclear-annihilation picture used in previous studies of antineutron annihilation in experimental searches Golubeva et al. (2019). A total of ${10}^{5}$ distinct annihilation vertices were simulated. These are oversampled by a factor of ten by randomising the vertex coordinates on the foil and the azimuthal rotation, giving ${10}^{6}$ generated signal events with a uniform truth-vertex distribution over the target surface.

The detectable final state is dominated by pions, with charged-pion multiplicities typically in the range 2–4, and neutral-pion multiplicities typically in the range 1–3. Other particles directly produced in the vertex include protons, neutrons, hydrogen and helium nuclei, and heavier nuclear fragments. Figure 3 shows the daughter particle direction and kinetic energy distributions following the annihilation. The composite nuclei typically do not propagate into the detector. The forward-bias of the final state pions is due to the effective acceleration of the initial incoming slow antineutron via an antinucleon nuclear potential Barrow et al. (2020), at times achieving $p_{\bar{n}}\sim$100\text{\,}\mathrm{MeV}\text{\,}{\mathrm{\textit{c}}}^{-1}$$ as it approaches a carbon nucleus just before its annihilation.

Particle transport is performed with Geant4 Agostinelli et al. (2003); Allison et al. (2006); Allison et al. (2016). For this study, a hit is recorded at fixed path-length intervals of $1\text{\,}\mathrm{cm}$ along the particle trajectory while a charged particle is inside the active TPC volume, consistent with the TPC readout. The hit coordinates are smeared independently in $x$, $y$ and $z$ with a Gaussian width of $0.5\text{\,}\mathrm{mm}$, in accordance with prototype testing. This study only makes use of the reconstructed three-dimensional hit positions, omitting additional information such as pulse-shape, sub-centroid time-profile or ionisation information (e.g. $dE/dx$). This is a deliberate simplification, and prototype TPC studies for HIBEAM have shown that charge sharing, track-level $dE/dx$ and sub-centroid timing information can improve tracking and particle-identification performance Rataj and others (2026).

The background stress test in this study is the addition of Compton-electron tracks to otherwise simulated annihilation events. Five samples are used, with $C=0,1,2,4$ and $8$ injected Compton electrons per annihilation event. The electrons are generated on the inner TPC surface on the interface between the TPC wall and the active gas volume, with directions pointing into the active volume. The directions are generated isotropically (into the TPC) for simplicity, whereas the real Compton-electron angular distribution will depend on the precise incoming photon field and its scattering with the beampipe material. Each injected electron is assigned a kinetic energy of $5\text{\,}\mathrm{MeV}$ entering the TPC active volume, representing the highest-energetic tail of the Compton spectrum. Lower-energy electrons are expected to be easier to reject in the vertex-fitting procedure. These samples are chosen to assess the robustness of hit grouping into tracks, signal-track classification, and foil-plane vertexing as the density of non-signal tracks is increased. For each tested Compton multiplicity, the $100\,000$ vertices were independently oversampled before the injection of Compton electrons.

The WASA CsI(Na) calorimeter has a charged-particle time resolution of about $5\text{\,}\mathrm{ns}$ (full-width-at-half-maximum) Bargholtz and others (2008). A conservative full event window of $20\text{\,}\mathrm{ns}$, corresponding to approximately $\pm 10\text{\,}\mathrm{ns}$ around the time-of-flight-corrected WASA charged-particle time, is therefore used for an occupancy estimate. For a Compton-electron rate Persson (2024)

the mean number of random Compton electrons in the full detector during such a window is

An additional geometric selection can be applied to the TPC hits, selecting only the TPC hits that can be associated with a charged particle detection in one or several of the WASA calorimeter cells. This would be done by accepting the hits that are found within a cone that is spanned from the WASA cells towards the target foil, with a cone acceptance fraction of $(1-\cos\alpha)/2$ over an isotropic distribution in $4\pi$. Since the injected electrons are generated on the inner TPC surface and point into the active volume, a conservative inward-hemisphere estimate uses

For half-angles of $10\text{\,}\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolDegree}$, $20\text{\,}\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolDegree}$ and $30\text{\,}\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolDegree}$, this gives $\mu_{\mathrm{cone}}=$1.2\text{\times}{10}^{-3}\text{\,}$$, $5\text{\times}{10}^{-3}\text{\,}$ and $1.1\text{\times}{10}^{-2}\text{\,}\mathrm{,}$ respectively, per charged-pion cone. With four charged-pion cones and a $30\text{\,}\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolDegree}$ cone half-angle, the expected number of random Compton tracks in the candidate regions is $4\text{\times}{10}^{-2}\text{\,}$ per event, significantly lower than the injected numbers.

Taking the Compton track-finding efficiency to be unity, this is also an upper bound on the expected number of reconstructed random Compton tracks in the timed candidate regions. The probability of actual cluster merging in the track reconstruction is smaller, since a Compton track inside the cone must also lie close to the pion trajectory and satisfy the clustering criteria. This estimate assumes that the TPC hit selection is tied to the prompt WASA charged-particle time, or to an equivalent gate or time slice, before clustering. Representative events from the injected-Compton samples are shown in Figure 4.

The truth vertex is the point $(x_{\mathrm{true}},y_{\mathrm{true}},0)$ on the target foil. Each algorithm returns either no vertex or a reconstructed point $(x_{\mathrm{reco}},y_{\mathrm{reco}},0)$ in the foil plane, explicitly forcing the reconstructed $z$ coordinate to 0. The transverse reconstruction errors are

with radial reconstruction error

Resolution is quoted as the $50\text{\,}\mathrm{\%}$ (median) and $90\text{\,}\mathrm{\%}$ (tail) containment of $\Delta r$, together with the robust widths of $\Delta x$ and $\Delta y$ where available. The reconstruction efficiency $\varepsilon$ is the fraction of generated events for which the algorithm returns an accepted reconstructed vertex.

Kalman:  The Kalman method reconstructs each event by clustering TPC hits into track candidates, fitting the candidates with a Kalman filter, and combining the fitted tracks in an adaptive vertex fit constrained to the target foil plane $z=0$. Hits are grouped with DBSCAN Ester et al. (1996) and each resulting cluster with at least three hits is promoted to a candidate. Candidates with five or more hits are fitted by a forward Kalman filter followed by a Rauch-Tung-Striebel smoother Rauch et al. (1965); Frühwirth (1987) using a four-parameter state $(x,y,t_{x},t_{y})$. The multiple-scattering process noise is built from the Highland small-angle approximation Highland (1975) evaluated at a fixed reference momentum at first approximation, since no per-track momentum estimate is given by the hits in the magnetic-field free HIBEAM TPC. Hits with $\Delta\chi^{2}>11.83$ (the $3\sigma$ quantile for two measurement degrees of freedom) are rejected from the fit. Candidates with fewer than five hits use their principal-axis direction instead.

The fitted tracks are combined into a single vertex constrained to the foil plane $z=0$ by a weighted least-squares fit with deterministic annealing Frühwirth et al. (2007); Billoir and Qian (1990). Each track is weighted by its Kalman-fit uncertainty and by a half-logistic penalty on the transverse radius of its foil-plane extrapolation, suppressing tracks that point outside the target foil radius of $20\text{\,}\mathrm{cm}$. The multi-track fit requires at least two in-foil tracks, defined as tracks whose foil-plane extrapolation lies within the target foil.

TrackLess:  The trackless pair-sum method reconstructs the vertex from the geometry of unordered hit pairs, without first grouping hits into tracks. A pair is accepted if the three-dimensional separation of the two hits is below $5\text{\,}\mathrm{cm}$, they lie on the same side of the target foil, and they have different $z$ coordinates. Each accepted pair defines a line that is extrapolated to the foil plane, and extrapolated points outside the target region with a $2\text{\,}\mathrm{cm}$ margin are rejected. The remaining foil-plane candidates are clustered with DBSCAN Ester et al. (1996) using a $2\text{\,}\mathrm{cm}$ neighbourhood radius and a minimum cluster size of five candidates. The largest accepted cluster defines the primary cluster, and its centroid is the reconstructed vertex, with radial clipping at $20\text{\,}\mathrm{cm}$ if necessary. Measuring from the reconstructed vertex, the unit vector to each hit whose pair-projection lies in the primary cluster is computed, and the opening angles between all pairs of such vectors are evaluated. If no opening angle exceeds $12\text{\,}\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolDegree}$ (robust to $>\pm$5\text{\,}\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolDegree}$$ variation), the hits are consistent with a single outgoing direction and the event is rejected as containing only one final-state particle.

GraphNeT:  GraphNeT is an open-source Python framework for graph-neural-network reconstruction in neutrino telescopes Søgaard and others (2023), built on PyTorch and PyTorch Geometric, and originally developed for event reconstruction in IceCube Abbasi and others (2022). GraphNeT separates the reconstruction pipeline into different components, to allow the same underlying model to be reused across detector geometries by adapting only the input representation and task. For this analysis we use a detector definition, an input data representation, a neural-network architecture, and a prediction task. One reason for using GraphNeT here is to test whether a graph architecture developed for sparse astroparticle-detector data can also be applied to the smaller HIBEAM TPC topology.

Each HIBEAM event is represented as a graph in which detector hits form the nodes, with node features $(x,y,z)$ and edges constructed by the k-nearest-neighbour (kNN) algorithm, connecting each hit to its two nearest neighbours. The vertex is reconstructed by a DynEdge approach. This model iteratively updates node embeddings through message passing between connected nodes, learning both local correlations and global event structure from the hit pattern. Unlike static graph networks, DynEdge dynamically recomputes the graph connectivity during the forward pass from the learned node embeddings. The final node embeddings are aggregated by global pooling (min, max, mean and sum) into a single event-level representation, which is passed to the GraphNeT PositionReconstruction regression head to predict the transverse vertex coordinates $(x_{v},y_{v})$. A second regression head is trained jointly with the vertex prediction to estimate the number of charged particles entering the TPC. Events with a predicted track count below 1.5 are rejected.

The model is trained as a supervised regression against the truth vertex positions. A separate model is trained for each of the five Compton-multiplicity samples of ${10}^{6}$ events with a 90/10 training/validation split. The split is done with regard to the oversampling procedure to avoid leakage between the training and validation samples. The training uses the LogCosh loss and the Adam optimiser Kingma and Ba (2015), and early stopping is applied on the validation loss.

This method combines deterministic geometric reconstruction with two learned graph stages. It has four parts: hit clustering and straight-track fitting, track classification with TrackGNN, weighted foil-plane vertex seeding, and vertex correction with VertexGNN.

The IterGNN deterministic clustering stage has high integrated track-finding efficiency for both signal particles and injected Compton electrons. Across the five samples, the efficiency is greater than $99\text{\,}\mathrm{\%}$ for both signal and Compton tracks.

The TrackGNN classifier performance on the held-out test samples is shown in Figure 5. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) rises from 0.72 with 0 Compton electrons to 0.96 with 8 Comptons. This trend is expected as the added Compton electrons form an easily rejected background population, whereas non-pion signal-associated tracks and secondaries remain the dominant ambiguous category.

The transverse and radial errors are defined in Equations 4 and 5 above. Table 3 and Figure 6 show that the median reconstruction errors of the four tested methods are all at the few-mm level in the absence of injected Compton electrons. The main difference in performance can be seen in the tails, where the TrackLess and GraphNeT methods drop off quickly and show a small $90\text{\,}\mathrm{\%}$ containment, Kalman shows a large non-Gaussian tail, and IterGNN lies between them. All methods, apart from TrackLess, shows a $\sim$80\text{\,}\mathrm{\%}$$ efficiency, where TrackLess shows $\sim$10\text{\,}\mathrm{\%}$$ lower.

Figures 11 and 12 show nine example events and their reconstructed vertex coordinates for each of the four methods.

Tables 4 and 5, together with Figures 7 and 8, extend the comparison to the samples with 1, 2, 4 and 8 injected Compton electrons. The TrackLess and GraphNeT methods have the narrowest $90\text{\,}\mathrm{\%}$ containment of $\Delta r$ across all five samples and shows the smallest degradation with Compton multiplicity. The Kalman fit develops a large non-Gaussian tail that grows with Compton multiplicity. IterGNN’s median and tail widen monotonically, with its $90\text{\,}\mathrm{\%}$ containment reaching $120\text{\,}\mathrm{mm}$ at $C=8$. The IterGNN reconstruction error distributions over $x$, $y$ and $r$ are shown in Figure 9, with $|\langle\Delta x\rangle|$ and $|\langle\Delta y\rangle|$ below approximately $0.30\text{\,}\mathrm{mm}$. The reconstruction efficiency for TrackLess and GraphNeT is roughly constant with Compton multiplicity, and rises for Kalman and IterGNN as the injected Compton count grows, likely due to the inclusion of background tracks in the track count. Trackless also lies about ten percentage points below the other three in the Compton-free sample, trading efficiency for the tightest error distribution.

IterGNN also predicts per-event transverse uncertainties $(\sigma_{x},\sigma_{y})$ within VertexGNN, shown in Figure 10. The high-Compton events have more hits in the detector, yielding a larger set of candidate-track configurations and a larger uncertainty.

All four methods reconstruct events with only one detected charged track, and subsequently reject them. TrackLess rejects single-prong events explicitly through the $12\text{\,}\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolDegree}$ angular-consistency cut, and GraphNeT rejects them at a predicted track count of 1.5 tracks. The Kalman fit and IterGNN require at least two tracks that project back to the target foil, within the $20\text{\,}\mathrm{cm}$ radius at $z=0$.

The purpose of this rejection is to ensure credibility in the fitted vertex, as a single particle will never be sufficient to claim an annihilation vertex. If we consider, however, events where we only see a single track in the TPC but several compatible hits in the WASA detector, we may want to retain the single-track event samples. For each method it is possible to recover the single-track events, thereby recovering the lost efficiency from this rejection.

The total efficiency without the single-track rejection can be seen in Table 7, and lies near $100\text{\,}\mathrm{\%}$ for each method and Compton multiplicity. Given the single direction that is usable in the reconstruction, the single-prong events also come with a larger reconstruction error $\Delta r$, as is shown in Table 6, where the median and (especially) the tail containment increase significantly compared to Table 4.