The average deflection angle of the tracked muons in the muon scattering tomography exponentially declines in function of the initial kinetic energy, the angular dependence of which provides an opportunity to set out a binary relation between the initial kinetic energy and the average deflection angle, thereby leading to a coarse energy prediction founded on the mean deflection angle in the case of experimental incapabilities or limitations. Nevertheless, in addition to the disadvantageous exponential trend, the standard deviations observed in the deflection angles restrict the number of energy groups by yielding a significant number of coincided angular outcomes even at the fairly distinct energy values. In this study, we address the problem of the muon energy classification for a tomographic system consisting of 0.4-cm plastic scintillators manufactured from polyvinyl toluene and we explore a four-group structure besides a ternary partitioning between 0.25 and 8 GeV. In the first instance, we determine the deflection angles by tracking the hit locations in the detector layers on the sub-divided uniform energy intervals through the GEANT4 simulations. In the latter step, we express two misclassification probabilities where the first approach assumes a symmetrical linear propagation bounded by one standard deviation in one dimension, whereas the second procedure employs a positively defined modified Gaussian distribution that governs the overlapping area in two dimensions. In the final stage, we compare qualitatively and quantitatively the adjacent energy groups by using the computed misclassification probabilities. In the absence of any further data manipulation, we explicitly show that the misclassification probabilities increase when the number of energy groups augments. Furthermore, we also conclude that it is feasible to benefit from the mean deflection angle to roughly estimate the muon energies up to four energy groups by taking the misclassification probabilities into consideration, while the classification viability significantly diminishes when the partition number exceeds four on the basis of standard deviation.

1. L. Bonechi, R. D’Alessandro, A. Giammanco, “Atmospheric muons as an imaging tool,” Rev. Phys., vol. 5, 100038, Nov. 2020.
   DOI: 10.1016/j.revip.2020.100038
2. K. N. Borozdin et al., “Radiographic imaging with cosmic-ray muons,” Nature, vol. 422, p. 277, Mar. 2003.
   DOI: 10.1038/422277a
3. E. T. Rand, O. Kamaev, A. Valente, A. Bhullar, “Nonparametric dense-object detection algorithm for applications of cosmic-ray muon tomography,” Phys. Rev. Applied, vol. 14, no. 6, 064032, Dec. 2020.
   DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.14.064032
4. V. Anghel et al., “A plastic scintillator-based muon tomography system with an integrated muon spectrometer,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, vol. 798, pp. 12 – 23, Oct. 2015.
   DOI: 10.1016/j.nima.2015.06.054
5. P. Checchia et al., “INFN muon tomography demonstrator: past and recent results with an eye to near-future activities,” Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A, vol. 377, no. 2137, 20180065, Dec. 2018.
   DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2018.0065
   PMid: 30530541
   PMCid: PMC6335308
6. L. J. Schultz et al., “Statistical reconstruction for cosmic ray muon tomography,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 1985 – 1993, Aug. 2007.
   DOI: 10.1109/TIP.2007.901239
   PMid: 17688203
7. J. Burns et al., “Portable muon scattering tomography detectors for security imaging applications,” in Proc. 2016 IEEE Nucl. Sci. Symp., Med. Imaging Conf. Room-Temp. Semicond. Detector Workshop (NSS/MIC/RTSD), Strasbourg, France, 2016.
   DOI: 10.1109/NSSMIC.2016.8069919
8. C. Jewett, V. N. P. Anghel, G. Jonkmans, M. Thompson, “Simulations of the use of cosmic-rays to image nuclear waste and verify the contents of spent fuel containers,” in Proc. 7th Annual Waste Manag. Conf. (WM2011), Phoenix (AZ), USA, 2011.
   Retrieved from: http://archive.wmsym.org/2011/papers/11341.pdf
   Retrieved on: Jul. 18, 2021
9. A. Georgadze, M. Kiisk, M. Magi, E. Avots, G. Anbarjafari, “Method and apparatus for detection and/or identification of materials and of articles using charged particles,” US Patent 16/977,293, USA, Jan. 7, 2021.
   Retrieved from: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20210003735A1/en
   Retrieved on: Jul. 18, 2021
10. S. Agostinelli et al., “Geant4—a simulation toolkit,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, vol. 506, no. 3, pp. 250 – 303, Jul. 2003.
    DOI: 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8
11. T. Carlisle, J. Cobb, D. Neuffer. “Multiple Scattering Measurements in the MICE Experiment,” in Proc. 3rd Int. Part. Accel. Conf. (IPAC 2012), New Orleans (LA), USA, 2012, pp. 1419 – 1421.
    Retrieved from: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1042408
    Retrieved on: Jul. 18, 2021
12. D. Poulson et al., “Application of muon tomography to fuel cask monitoring,” Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. A, vol. 377, no. 2137, 20180052, Jan. 2019.
    DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2018.0052
    PMid: 30530532
    PMCid: PMC6335304
13. B. O. Yanez, A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo, “A method to measure the integral vertical intensity and angular distribution of atmospheric muons with a stationary plastic scintillator bar detector,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, vol. 987, 164870, Jan. 2021.
    DOI: 10.1016/j.nima.2020.164870