Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Simons Observatory: Characterization of the Large Aperture Telescope Receiver

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Large Aperture Telescope Receiver, the largest cryogenic camera built for CMB observations, meets the thermal, optical, and detector specifications needed for the Simons Observatory's planned sky survey.

desk verdict A solid, honest instrument characterization; the 13-OT compliance claim is a labeled extrapolation and the Zotefoam switch is the real open item. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09241 v1 pith:A3IHIMS7 submitted 2025-01-16 astro-ph.IM

Tanay Bhandarkar , Saianeesh K. Haridas , Jeff Iuliano , Anna Kofman , Alex Manduca , Karen Perez Sarmiento , John Orlowski-Scherer , Thomas P. Satterthwaite
show 36 more authors
Yuhan Wang Zeeshan Ahmed Jason E. Austermann Kyuyoung Bae Gabriele Coppi Mark J. Devlin Simon R Dicker Peter N. Dow Shannon M. Duff Daniel Dutcher Nicholas Galitzki Jon E. Gudmundsson Shawn W. Henderson Johannes Hubmayr Bradley R. Johnson Matthew A. Koc Brian J. Koopman Michele Limon Michael J Link Tammy J. Lucas Jenna E. Moore Federico Nati Michael D. Niemack Carlos E. Sierra Max Silva-Feaver Robinjeet Singh Suzanne T. Staggs Rita F. Sonka Robert J. Thornton Tran Tsan Jeff L. Van Lanen Eve M. Vavagiakis Michael R Vissers Liam Walters Mario Zannoni Kaiwen Zheng
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords cosmicmicrowavebackgroundtransition-edgesensorscryogenicreceiverSimonsObservatorylargeaperturetelescopedarktestingmultiplexingdetectornoise
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports that the Large Aperture Telescope Receiver (LATR) for the Simons Observatory, a cryogenic camera holding more than 62,000 superconducting detectors across 13 optics tubes, meets the thermal, optical, and detector requirements needed for high-sensitivity measurements of the cosmic microwave background. The claim rests on laboratory cooldowns in several configurations, dark testing after installing the receiver in the 6-meter telescope with six optics tubes, and extrapolation to the full thirteen-tube configuration. A sympathetic reader would care because a validated receiver is the difference between a funded survey and one that cannot reach its forecast sensitivity: these tests are the evidence that the LAT will be able to map 40% of the sky at arcminute resolution once its mirrors are installed.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the LATR's five-stage cryogenic architecture — 80 K, 40 K, 4 K, 1 K, and 100 mK stages connected by pulse-tube cryocoolers, a dilution refrigerator, and copper heat straps — combined with a linear extrapolation model for thermal loading, $q_{13} = q_{\mathrm{dark}} + \frac{13}{7}(q_7 - q_{\mathrm{dark}})$, that turns measurements from one, three, and seven optics tubes into a prediction for thirteen. A 65 µW resistive heater on the 100 mK bus simulates the full receiver's expected load and directly tests the coldest stage. For the detectors, the validating tools are in-situ noise-equivalent power measurements, I-V yield curves, and SVD common-mode subtraction of dark time-ordered data from telescope scans.

What would settle it

Measure the 40 K and 4 K stage loads in a cooldown with all thirteen optics tubes installed (or with a representative set of dummy loads) and compare them to the paper's predictions of $66 \pm 2$ W at 40 K and $1.7 \pm 0.2$ W at 4 K; a measured 40 K load near or above the 110 W pulse-tube capacity, or a 100 mK focal-plane temperature above 100 mK, would show the linear scaling model fails and the receiver would not meet its cryogenic specification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the LATR meets the cryogenic, optical, and detector specifications required for high-sensitivity CMB measurements. Concretely, the five cryogenic stages stay within their loading and temperature budgets in extrapolations to the full thirteen-optics-tube receiver; the deployed MF arrays meet their yield targets and their dark noise-equivalent powers are consistent with or below forecast values; and the optical chain, including the removal of a 1 K low-pass edge filter, maintains the expected bandpass and loading. The strongest evidence comes from dark testing inside the LAT with six optics tubes installed, where scanning at the planned 1 deg/s rate left detector noise and cold-stage temperatures at the same level as when the telescope was stationary.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that the fully populated 13-tube receiver stays cold enough rests on assuming the heat load added by each optics tube is the same, so a measurement with 7 tubes can be scaled up by a simple ratio of 13/7; the paper says this is only a good approximation and the tested configurations were not identical.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With the LAT mirrors installed, the six already-tested optics tubes should support on-sky observations at detector noise at or below the forecast levels used in the Simons Observatory sensitivity predictions.
  • The full thirteen-tube receiver is projected to cool to base temperature in 10–11 days and to keep all focal-plane stages below the 100 mK requirement, based on the linear loading model and the heater simulation.
  • LAT scanning at 1 deg/s with 60-degree throws does not raise detector noise or cold-stage temperatures above specification, so the planned scan strategy is compatible with the receiver's thermal environment.
  • The switch to Zotefoam filters preserves sub-4 K thermal performance and leaves the MF bandpass unaffected, so the current configuration can proceed while further study continues.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not test the full 13-tube configuration; the linear scaling model is an extrapolation that a future cooldown with all tubes installed could validate or refute by comparing measured loads to the predicted $66 \pm 2$ W at 40 K and $1.7 \pm 0.2$ W at 4 K.
  • The reported SVD common-mode subtraction removes about 99% of low-frequency dark noise because the dominant low-frequency component is common to all detectors; the same approach may work on sky, which would make the planned maximum-likelihood mapmaker more likely to converge cleanly.
  • The heater-driven method used to measure TES-to-bath coupling (0.025 pW/mK) could serve as a standard acceptance test for future CMB receivers, since it directly quantifies how much thermal fluctuation contaminates detector timestreams.
  • If the Zotefoam replacement continues to pass bandpass and loading checks, it removes the need for the more fragile double-sided infrared blocking filters, simplifying filter procurement and installation for the remaining seven optics tubes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports the laboratory and on-telescope characterization of the Simons Observatory Large Aperture Telescope Receiver (LATR). The authors describe the receiver design, cryogenic validation of the 80 K, 40 K, 4 K, 1 K, and 100 mK stages, readout and detector validation with deployed MF UFMs, in-lab vibration testing, and initial dark testing after integration with the LAT. The central claim is that the LATR meets the cryogenic, optical, and detector specifications needed for high-sensitivity CMB observations, with six optics tubes currently installed and the remaining seven under development. The 13-OT cryogenic conclusion is obtained by extrapolation from measured dark and 7-OT configurations via a linear loading model, and the paper notes that a change from DSIR filters to Zotefoam alters the warmer-stage loading and is still under investigation.

Significance. If the six-OT results are representative of the final receiver, the paper provides valuable evidence that the LATR is ready to support the planned LAT survey once mirrors are installed. The study's strengths include direct cryogenic loading measurements on progressively populated configurations, NEP distributions that meet the stated dark baseline specifications for the majority of detectors, detector yields exceeding the 70% threshold, thermal-stability measurements at the 100 mK stage, and scan-stability tests showing close agreement between scanning and staring noise. The main advertised result, however, is the 13-OT compliance claim, and that claim currently rests on a linear extrapolation and on a filter stack that has been superseded by Zotefoam in the flight configuration. These caveats are acknowledged in the text but are not reflected in the abstract or in the framing of the central conclusion, so the paper overstates the support for the full 13-OT cryogenic specification.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (1)] The 13-OT 40 K and 4 K loading estimates are obtained by linear scaling q13 = qdark + (13/7)(q7 - qdark), applied to the dark and 7-OT DSIR-era measurements. The paper itself notes that the configurations are not strictly well-defined and that the scaling is only approximate. After the DSIR-to-Zotefoam change described in Section 6, the 6-OT measurement gives 61 W at 40 K with a dark load of 33 W; applying the same linear scaling to these points would give approximately 94 W for 13 OTs, rather than the reported 66 +/- 2 W. While 94 W would still be below the 110 W capacity, the reported forecast and the associated statement that the 13-OT receiver meets cryogenic specifications are not supported for the current filter stack. Please recompute the 13-OT projection for the Zotefoam configuration or clearly qualify the 13-OT claim as applying only to the previous DSIR stack and as still under verification.
  2. [Section 6] The final flight configuration now uses Zotefoam instead of DSIRs, and the paper reports that this change increased 40 K loading to about 65 W and changed 80 K loading substantially, with the statement 'We are currently investigating this change further.' Because Tables 1 and 2 are based on the DSIR filter stack and are used to support the cryogenic-compliance conclusions of Section 3, the paper's central compliance claim is based on hardware no longer in use. The manuscript should state explicitly which conclusions apply to the current Zotefoam configuration and should provide updated loading estimates or measurements for that configuration, or defer the 13-OT compliance claim until such data are available.
  3. [Section 3.1] The 13-OT 100 mK estimate depends on an assumed loading of 5 uW per OT and a single-point heater test in which 65 uW was applied to one resistive heater to simulate the full 13-OT configuration. This is a projection rather than a measured validation: the text reports a measured single-OT load of <=6 uW and a two-OT load of 10 uW, and the resulting 80 mK hottest-FPB estimate also relies on an assumed worst-case BUS-to-FPB gradient from previous cooldowns. Please present the systematic uncertainty in this projection and label the result as an extrapolated estimate rather than a direct measurement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.2] The subsection titled 'Ambient RF' is empty; Section 6 immediately follows the heading. Either supply the content or remove the heading.
  2. [Table 1 and Table 2 captions] The captions contain typos ('T able', 'specfications') and the final rows describing the 6-OT measurements do not state that those data were taken with the Zotefoam stack; please add a note pointing to Section 6.
  3. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'we estimated the FPB temperature in a 13 OT cooldown to be >= 91 mK' appears to be a typographical error; given the 100 mK requirement and the surrounding discussion, it should likely read '<= 91 mK' or otherwise be clarified.
  4. [Section 5.1] There are minor typographical errors in this section, including 'accelorometer' for 'accelerometer'.
  5. [Section 2.2] The phrase 'The UFMs are distributied across' contains a typo ('distributied' should be 'distributed').

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the validation claims rest on direct measurements against internally defined specifications; extrapolations are explicit modeling approximations, not fitted inputs renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the LATR meets cryogenic, optical, and detector specifications. These specifications are project-defined budgets and forecasts (e.g., from Zhu et al. 2021 and BoloCalc in Hill et al. 2018), but the validation consists of direct measurements: stage temperatures, loading values, detector yields, NEPs, and noise ASDs. None of these measurements is derived from the specification it is compared against. The main extrapolation, Eq. 1, q13 = qdark + (13/7)(q7 - qdark), is an explicit linear-scaling model with no free parameters fitted to the 13-OT result; it uses the measured dark and 7-OT points and is labeled 'to a good approximation,' so it is a stated modeling assumption rather than a circular reduction. Similarly, the 100 mK 13-OT temperature estimate is a heater-based thermal-response test under an explicitly stated assumed 5 uW per OT load, not a fitted prediction disguised as a measurement. Self-citations (Zhu et al. 2021, Haridas et al. 2024, Satterthwaite et al. 2024) provide prior single-OT measurements, companion dark-noise data, and UFM performance results; these are independent inputs or companion measurements, not the load-bearing derivation of the present claims. Concerns about the linearity of Eq. 1 and the switch to Zotefoam filters changing the 40 K and 80 K loading are legitimate correctness risks, but they are not circularity because the paper explicitly flags them as approximations or open investigations. No step in the derivation chain reduces, by the paper's own equations or by self-citation, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central validation rests on measured temperatures and loads, but the 13-OT compliance claim relies on linear extrapolation and simulated loading, plus the unvalidated assumption that the Zotefoam substitution leaves the coldest stages unaffected.

free parameters (2)
  • 100 mK per-OT loading assumption = 5 µW
    Chosen for the heater test in Section 3.1 to simulate a full 13-OT configuration; earlier single-OT measurement gave <=6 µW, so this is an assumed round value.
  • Cooldown time per OT = 0.5 days
    Estimated from incremental testing in Section 3 to project a 10-11 day cooldown for 13 OTs; not directly measured.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Thermal loading at 40 K and 4 K scales linearly with the number of OTs (Eq. 1).
    Used to extrapolate measured 7-OT loading to 13-OT in Section 3.2; the paper acknowledges this is only a good approximation.
  • domain assumption The heater test with 65 µW reproduces the thermal state of 13 OTs at 100 mK.
    Section 3.1 uses a single heater on the BUS to simulate full loading, assuming uniform distribution and no additional effects from mounted OTs.
  • domain assumption BoloCalc forecasted NEPs and K/pW conversions are reliable predictors for dark and sky loading.
    Used in Sections 4.1 and 6 to judge whether measured NEPs and thermal fluctuation power meet specifications.
  • domain assumption Zotefoam filter replacement does not change detector loading at 1 K and 100 mK.
    Section 6 states 1 K and 100 mK were agnostic to the change, but 40 K and 80 K loading changed substantially and the cause is under investigation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simons Observatory: Characterization of the Large Aperture Telescope Receiver." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A3IHIMS7

@misc{pith2026250109241,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simons Observatory: Characterization of the Large Aperture Telescope Receiver},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A3IHIMS7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09241}
}
read the original abstract

The Simons Observatory (SO) is a ground-based cosmic microwave background (CMB) survey experiment that currently consists of three 0.42m small-aperture telescopes (SATs) and one 6m large-aperture telescope (LAT), located at an elevation of 5200m in the Atacama Desert in Chile. At the LAT's focal plane, SO will install >62,000 transition-edge sensor detectors across 13 optics tubes (OTs) within the Large Aperture Telescope Receiver (LATR), the largest cryogenic camera ever built to observe the CMB. Here we report on the validation of the LATR in the laboratory and the subsequent dark testing and validation within the LAT. We show that the LATR meets cryogenic, optical, and detector specifications required for high-sensitivity measurements of the CMB. At the time of writing, the LATR is installed in the LAT with six OTs (corresponding to >31,000 detectors), and the LAT mirrors and remaining seven OTs are undergoing development.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09241 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A rendered cross-sectional view of the LAT (Zhu et al. 2021). The telescope yoke sits on an azimuth cone (bottom) and supports the elevation structure. The LATR is located in the receiver cabin (upper right), where it can co-rotate with the elevation structure and collect light reflected from the 5.4 m secondary mirror (left). See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A rendered cross-sectional view of the LATR (Zhu et al. 2021). In this figure, we can see the 80 K stage (grey), 40 K stage (green), 4 K stage (purple), 1 K stage (orange), and 100 mK stage (indigo). Additionally, we show the cross-section of two OTs, where individual optical components are visible. Light from the secondary LAT mirror enters the cryostat through the hexagonal windows (left) and travels through the O… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A diagram of the multiplexing readout design (McCarrick et al. 2021). A single RF transmission line is coupled to ∼900 resonators. Each resonator is inductively coupled to a RF SQUID, which is inductively coupled to a TES circuit. All the components in this figure are found in the “UFM” block in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A diagram of the cold readout chain in the LATR. Each UFM is read out through two of these chains. On the right side of the diagram, “RF In” and “RF Out” are connected to the warm SMuRF electronics. the ability to install 103 resonators on a single transmission line ( …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A rendered, cross-sectional view of the full OT (Zhu et al. 2021). Photons enter the OT on the right side of this figure and travel leftward until they reach the detector arrays at 100 mK (or get absorbed or reflected by another optical element first). The associated r…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The temperature of an UFM as it is being overbiased and dropped into the transition phase during in-lab testing. The overbias results in a temperature change of ∆15 mK from the initial Tbath and then drops to operating temperature, where it remains stable. Note that th…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: Example TES response (blue, left-axis) compared to oscillating FPB temperature (dotted green, right-axis). The temperature profile is fit with with a sine wave for an amplitude (the coupling factor) and phase-delay. The 4 s delay between the recorded temperature …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: NEPs for a dark MF array installed in the LATR, with detectors biased on transition. The vertical dotted lines represent dark baseline specifications set for the LATR’s MF UFMs (14.12 aW/ √ Hz for 90 GHz, and 25.36 aW/ √ Hz for 150 GHz). We can split the TES into 90 GH…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The thermal response to vibrations at the 100 mK stage. Change in thermometer temperature over time is shown, as the vibration source sweeps through discrete frequencies (with breaks in between, where the temperature is shown in dashed lines). The x-axis has ticks and …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A photo of the LAT at the Chilean site, as of March 2024. In this image, the receiver cabin is located towards the top left of the structure. Though the LAT structure has been erected at its site in Chile ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The auto-spectral density (ASD) of all detectors before and after common-mode subtraction. The solid line is the median of all detectors when scanning and the dashed line is the median of all detectors when staring. With the contour being the 1 σ level of these distri…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: White noise levels of our TODs with OTs capped at 4K. The solid line is when scanning and the dashed is when staring. Blue is the 90 GHz detectors, and red is the 150 GHz detectors. The predicted bands are the expected noise for the dark configuration from BoloCalc. F…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Left: The temperature of LATR cold stages during constant elevation LAT scans and slewing, divided by their median during this period (upper plot) and the telescope’s azimuth (lower plot). We see a sub-percent level temperature change on these cold stages, which is we…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: A section of a filter-and-bin map of the dark LAT data, the only filtering done here is subtracting the SVD derived common mode. The mapping speeds reported in Section 6 use a map that covers ∼ 4 times the area of those pictured here. The variations in noise levels ac…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2015, Astroparticle Physics, 63, 66, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2014.05.014

    Abazajian, K., Arnold, K., Austermann, J., et al. 2015, Astroparticle Physics, 63, 66, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2014.05.014

    doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2014.05.014 2015

  2. [2]

    Ade, P. A. R., Pisano, G., Tucker, C., & Weaver, S. 2006, in Millimeter and Submillimeter Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. J. Zmuidzinas, W. S. Holland, S. Withington, & W. D. Duncan, Vol. 6275, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 62750U, doi: 10.1117/12.673162 20

    doi:10.1117/12.673162 2006

  3. [3]

    Ade, P. A. R., Ahmed, Z., Amiri, M., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 927, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4886

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4886 2022

  4. [4]

    2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Ashdown, M., et al. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  5. [5]

    2022, in

    Bhandarkar, T., Bhimani, S., Coppi, G., et al. 2022, in

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy XI, ed. J. Zmuidzinas & J.-R. Gao, Vol. 12190, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 1219012, doi: 10.1117/12.2629557

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2629557

  7. [7]

    E., Bocquet, S., Stalder, B., et al

    Bleem, L. E., Bocquet, S., Stalder, B., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 247, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6993

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab6993 2020

  8. [8]

    E., Ade, P

    Carlstrom, J. E., Ade, P. A. R., Aird, K. A., et al. 2011, PASP, 123, 568, doi: 10.1086/659879

    doi:10.1086/659879 2011

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    2013, Review of Scientific Instruments, 84, 114502, doi: 10.1063/1.4827081

    Choi, J., Ishitsuka, H., Mima, S., et al. 2013, Review of Scientific Instruments, 84, 114502, doi: 10.1063/1.4827081

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    2018, in 2018SPIE10708, ed

    Coppi, G., Xu, Z., Ali, A., et al. 2018, in 2018SPIE10708, ed. J. Zmuidzinas & J.-R. Gao, Vol. 10708, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 246 – 258, doi: 10.1117/12.2312679

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    W., Datta, R., et al

    Dahal, S., Appel, J. W., Datta, R., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 926, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac397c DESI Collaboration, Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016, The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design. https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.00036

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Thangaraj, J. C. T. 2020, Superconductor Science Technology, 33, 06LT01, doi: 10.1088/1361-6668/ab82f0

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    R., Gallardo, P

    Dicker, S. R., Gallardo, P. A., Gudmundsson, J. E., et al. 2018, in 2018SPIE10700, ed. H. K. Marshall & J. Spyromilio, Vol. 10700, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 1064 – 1076, doi: 10.1117/12.2313444

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    M., Austermann, J., Beall, J

    Duff, S. M., Austermann, J., Beall, J. A., et al. 2024, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, doi: 10.1007/s10909-024-03117-x

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    M., Groh, J

    Dutcher, D., Duff, S. M., Groh, J. C., et al. 2024, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 214, 247, doi: 10.1007/s10909-023-03045-2 D¨ unner, R., Hasselfield, M., Marriage, T. A., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 762, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/762/1/10

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 274, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad64c9

    Galitzki, N., Tsan, T., Spisak, J., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 274, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad64c9

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    E., Gallardo, P

    Gudmundsson, J. E., Gallardo, P. A., Puddu, R., et al. 2021, Appl. Opt., 60, 823, doi: 10.1364/AO.411533

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    K., Ahmed, Z., Bhandarkar, T., et al

    Haridas, S. K., Ahmed, Z., Bhandarkar, T., et al. 2024, The Simons Observatory: Dark Characterization of the Large Aperture Telescope. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.09669

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    W., Ahmed, Z., Brown, D., et al

    Henderson, S. W., Ahmed, Z., Brown, D., et al. 2018, in

    2018

  12. [20]

    Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation forAstronomy IX, ed. J. Zmuidzinas & J.-R. Gao (SPIE), doi: 10.1117/12.2314435

    doi

  13. [21]

    A., Bruno, S

    Hill, C. A., Bruno, S. M., Simon, S. M., et al. 2018, in

    2018

  14. [22]

    Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, ed. J. Zmuidzinas & J.-R. Gao (SPIE), doi: 10.1117/12.2313916

    doi

  15. [23]

    2021, ApJS, 253, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd023

    Hilton, M., Sif´ on, C., Naess, S., et al. 2021, ApJS, 253, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd023

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    2005, Transition-Edge Sensors (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 63–150, doi: 10.1007/10933596 3

    Irwin, K., & Hilton, G. 2005, Transition-Edge Sensors (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 63–150, doi: 10.1007/10933596 3

    2005 doi

  17. [25]

    1997, Physical Review Letters, 78, 2058, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.78.2058

    Kamionkowski, M., Kosowsky, A., & Stebbins, A. 1997, Physical Review Letters, 78, 2058, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.78.2058

    1997 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Lashner, J., Saunders, L

    Koopman, B. J., Lashner, J., Saunders, L. J., et al. 2020, in Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy VI, ed. J. C. Guzman & J. Ibsen (SPIE), 6, doi: 10.1117/12.2561771

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    J., Bhimani, S., Galitzki, N., et al

    Koopman, B. J., Bhimani, S., Galitzki, N., et al. 2024, The Simons Observatory: Deployment of the observatory control system and supporting infrastructure. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.15703

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    2023, ApJ, 956, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace599

    Li, Y., Biermann, E., Naess, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace599

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    S., Qu, F

    Madhavacheril, M. S., Qu, F. J., Sherwin, B. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acff5f

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 922, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2232

    McCarrick, H., Healy, E., Ahmed, Z., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 922, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2232

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    E., Bhandarkar, T., DiGia, B., et al

    Moore, J. E., Bhandarkar, T., DiGia, B., et al. 2022, in

    2022

  24. [32]

    Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy XI, ed. J. Zmuidzinas & J.-R. Gao, Vol. 12190, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 1219025, doi: 10.1117/12.2630527

    doi

  25. [33]

    Niemack, M. D. 2016, Appl. Opt., 55, 1688, doi: 10.1364/AO.55.001688

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    C., Battaglia, N., et al

    Orlowski-Scherer, J., Venterea, R. C., Battaglia, N., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 964, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad21fe

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    L., Zhu, N., Xu, Z., et al

    Orlowski-Scherer, J. L., Zhu, N., Xu, Z., et al. 2018, in 2018SPIE10708, ed. J. Zmuidzinas & J.-R. Gao, Vol. 10708, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 644 – 657, doi: 10.1117/12.2312868 21 POLARBEAR Collaboration, Adachi, S., Fa´ undez, M. A. O. A., et al. ...

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    P., Ahmed, Z., Bae, K., et al

    Satterthwaite, T. P., Ahmed, Z., Bae, K., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13102, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. J. Zmuidzinas & J.-R. Gao, 1310223, doi: 10.1117/...

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    E., Harrington, K., Sutariya, S., et al

    Sierra, C. E., Harrington, K., Sutariya, S., et al. 2024, Simons Observatory: Pre-deployment Performance of a Large Aperture Telescope Optics Tube in the 90 and 150 GHz Spectral Bands, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.06868

    2024 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    2022, in

    Silva-Feaver, M., Ahmed, Z., Arnold, K., et al. 2022, in

    2022

  31. [39]

    Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy XI, ed. J. Zmuidzinas & J.-R. Gao, Vol. 12190, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 121900U, doi: 10.1117/12.2629024 The Simons Observatory Collaboration, 2019, JCAP, 2019...

    doi

  32. [40]

    J., Ade, P

    Thornton, R. J., Ade, P. A. R., Aiola, S., et al. 2016, ApJS, 227, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/227/2/21

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    2022, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 209, 944, doi: 10.1007/s10909-022-02870-1

    Wang, Y., Zheng, K., Atkins, Z., et al. 2022, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 209, 944, doi: 10.1007/s10909-022-02870-1

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    2009, AIP Conference Proceedings, 1185, 681, doi: 10.1063/1.3292433

    Woodcraft, A., & Gary, A. 2009, AIP Conference Proceedings, 1185, 681, doi: 10.1063/1.3292433

    2009 doi

  35. [43]

    2020, in

    Xu, Z., Bhandarkar, T., Coppi, G., et al. 2020, in

    2020

  36. [44]

    Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy X, ed. J. Zmuidzinas & J.-R. Gao, Vol. 11453, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 1145315, doi: 10.1117/12.2576151

    doi

  37. [45]

    E., Adachi, S., et al

    Xu, Z., Chesmore, G. E., Adachi, S., et al. 2021, Applied Optics, 60, 864, doi: 10.1364/ao.411711

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    C., et al

    Yu, C., Ahmed, Z., Frisch, J. C., et al. 2023, Review of Scientific Instruments, 94, 014712, doi: 10.1063/5.0125084

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 256, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac0db7 ˇZeljko Ivezi´ c, Kahn, S

    Zhu, N., Bhandarkar, T., Coppi, G., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 256, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac0db7 ˇZeljko Ivezi´ c, Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.