Pith. sign in

REVIEW 8 minor 41 references

Characterization of the Teledyne COSMOS Camera: A Large Format CMOS Image Sensor for Astronomy

T0 review · 0 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that a pixel-by-pixel nonlinearity calibration turns the COSMOS-66 CMOS sensor into a CCD-class astronomical imager, with $2.9\,e^{-}$ read noise and $0.12\,e^{-}/\mathrm{pix/s}$ dark current at $-25\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$.

desk verdict First independent characterization of the COSMOS-66: the low-signal nonlinearity and its calibration are genuinely new, and the cross-checked numbers hold up. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00101 v1 pith:ZSZ5GMYG submitted 2025-01-31 astro-ph.IM

Christopher Layden , Jill Juneau , Gustav Pettersson , Nathan Lourie , Benjamin Schneider , Beverly LaMarr , F. Elio Angile , Fadi Farag
show 3 more authors
Michelle Luo Zhi Zheng Ong Gabor Furesz
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords CMOSimagesensorsdetectorcharacterizationlarge-formatreadnoisenonlinearitycorrectionquantumefficiencyastronomicalinstrumentationcorrelatedmulti-sampling
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 a complete laboratory and on-sky characterization of the COSMOS-66, a large-format CMOS camera with $8120 \times 8120$ ten-micron pixels. The central result is that the sensor's pronounced low-light nonlinearity can be removed with a per-pixel polynomial calibration, after which the correlated multi-sampling mode achieves an effective read noise of $2.9\,e^{-}$ and a dark current of $0.12\,e^{-}/\mathrm{pix/s}$ at $-25\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$. The quantum efficiency exceeds 50% from 250 to 800 nm, peaking at $89\%$ at 600 nm. On the sky, the calibrated camera produced stellar photometry whose noise matched the sum of effective read noise, effective shot noise, and scintillation, confirming CCD-comparable performance with faster readout and relaxed cooling. The paper also measures about 1.5-pixel FWHM optical crosstalk from photoelectron diffusion and proposes electron trapping as the mechanism behind the nonlinearity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the per-pixel nonlinearity calibration. For each pixel and operating mode, the camera's mean response to a stable, uniform 640 nm illumination ramp is fit by two polynomials—an 11th-order fit below 5% of saturation and a 5th-order fit above—and the fitted response is mapped onto the ideal linear response passing through the origin. Because the calibration is applied to all frames before computing noise, the sensor's noise properties are quoted as effective values: the correction amplifies low signal values, so the measured read noise and shot noise in the faint-signal regime are scaled up by about a factor of 4 and 2, respectively, compared to the raw values. A companion trap model reproduces the shape of the nonlinear response curve and the photon transfer curve, supporting the interpretation that low-signal electrons are lost to about 365 traps per pixel.

What would settle it

Compare the X-ray-derived conversion gain with a photodiode-calibrated photon flux at a known wavelength and recompute read noise and dark current; if the two gains disagree beyond the quoted errors, all electron-unit values shift in proportion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the COSMOS-66 CMOS sensor, once calibrated pixel by pixel, is a viable large-format astronomical imager whose performance is comparable to that of CCDs. The key finding is that the sensor's response is strongly nonlinear below roughly 5% of full well, stable over time, and well described by a model in which each pixel contains about $N_t = 365$ electron traps that capture passing electrons with probability $p = 0.002$. A per-pixel calibration, built from a 104-step illumination ramp and using an 11th-order polynomial below 5% saturation and a 5th-order polynomial above, linearizes the response across the dynamic range, lowers pixel response nonuniformity from $1.1\%$ to $0.09\%$, and makes the effective read noise $2.9\,e^{-}$ RMS in the correlated multi-sampling mode while the shot noise at small signals is approximately $2\sqrt{N_e}$. The reported absolute electron values (dark current $0.12\,e^{-}/\mathrm{pix/s}$ at $-25\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$, peak quantum efficiency $89\%$) follow from this calibration.

Load-bearing premise

The electron-counting numbers all rest on the assumption that each absorbed X-ray creates one electron-hole pair per 3.69 eV and that the entire charge is collected in the pixel where it landed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A calibrated COSMOS-66 can act as a drop-in large-format imager for surveys that want CCD-scale noise with higher frame rates and thermoelectric cooling instead of cryogenic cooling.
  • Photometric error budgets for this camera must use the effective read noise of $2.9\,e^{-}$ and effective shot noise of about $2\sqrt{N_e}$ at faint signals, not the raw $0.7\,e^{-}$ specification.
  • The calibration absorbs most flat-fielding, reducing pixel response nonuniformity to $0.09\%$, so data reduction can skip or simplify traditional flat-fielding steps.
  • If future pixel designs eliminate the nonlinearity and the ~1.5-pixel diffusion crosstalk, the camera could reach sub-electron read noise and combine CCD integration simplicity with CMOS readout speed.
  • For critically sampled imaging, the sensor's intrinsic point spread function of roughly 1.5 pixels FWHM will broaden stellar PSFs and should be included in PSF fitting or deconvolution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The trap model predicts a small bump in the photon transfer curve near $N_t \approx 365$ electrons per pixel; measuring the PTC at several temperatures would test whether the trapping is thermally activated and let astronomers estimate trap energies from dark-current behavior.
  • The noise penalty pattern—effective read noise about four times physical and effective shot noise about twice the ideal at faint signals—implies that faint-object observations pay a 2× penalty until the traps are fixed, so exposure-time calculators for surveys should include this factor explicitly.
  • Because the crosstalk kernel is wavelength-dependent (blue light spreads more than red), a natural next step is to measure the full $5 \times 5$ kernel and fit a diffusion model; that model could predict whether revised pixel designs with deeper depletion would reduce the spread before prototypes are built.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 8 minor

Summary. Layden et al. present a laboratory and on-sky characterization of the Teledyne COSMOS-66, an 8120 x 8120 pixel, 10 μm back-illuminated CMOS sensor. The paper identifies a low-signal nonlinearity, develops and applies a per-pixel polynomial correction, and measures conversion gain via both Cd-109 X-ray spectra and photon-transfer curves. It reports effective read noise, dark current, quantum efficiency, nonuniformity, image lag, and crosstalk for three readout modes. The headline results are an effective read noise of 2.9 e− RMS in correlated multi-sampling mode at −25 °C, a dark current of 0.12 e−/pix/s, and quantum efficiency above 50% from 250 nm to 800 nm. An on-sky test at the WINTER 1 m telescope validates the photometric calibration and noise model.

Significance. This is a solid, well-cross-checked detector characterization. The two independent conversion-gain measurements (X-ray and PTC) agree to about 1% after the IPC correction, and the on-sky photometric slope matches the known telescope effective area, making the absolute electron-unit calibration credible. The authors clearly distinguish the physical read noise (0.77 e−) from the effective read noise (2.9 e−) introduced by the nonlinearity correction, which is important for correct interpretation. The trap model is explicitly presented as a plausible explanation rather than a proven mechanism, and the empirical calibration is validated by temporal stability and on-sky photometry. The measured performance and calibration methodology are relevant to astronomical instrument development.

minor comments (8)
  1. [Sec. 4.3] The text says 'the number of such pixels was very small for the CMS and HSHGGS modes, but for the HSHGGS mode, nearly the entire top 75 rows exhibited non-monotonic response'; this is internally inconsistent, and the first mode should likely be HSHGRS to agree with Table 4, which shows a 1.096% uncalibratable/lazy fraction for HSHGGS.
  2. [Sec. 3.1 (after Fig. 4)] The sentence 'As shown in Fig. 4c, this calibration worked equally well for the trap model data' appears to reference the wrong panel, since Fig. 4c shows the raw PTC while the corrected PTC is shown in Fig. 4d; please correct the reference.
  3. [Sec. 1] The phrase 'the the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope' contains a duplicated article and should be corrected.
  4. [Table 1 and Sec. 1] The frame-rate units appear as 'f ps' in Table 1's header and as 'f psmay' in the introduction; these should be typeset as 'fps'.
  5. [Reference [27]] The organization name is given as 'European Machine Vision Association (EMV A)' with a stray space; this should be 'EMVA'.
  6. [Secs. 4.2 and 4.8] The PTC conversion gains are explicitly corrected for the ~1.6% interpixel-capacitance effect, but the X-ray gains adopted for analysis are not; since IPC can in principle reduce the pulse height of single-pixel X-ray events, the authors should state whether the event-summing procedure already recovers the IPC-shared charge or whether a small systematic offset remains between the two gain scales.
  7. [Sec. 4.5] The dark-current model is described as an exponential with a doubling temperature of 5.2 °C plus an asymptotic value of 0.06 e−/pix/s, but the fit is not shown with uncertainties or a goodness-of-fit estimate; a brief figure or equation would clarify this result.
  8. [Code, Data, and Materials Availability] The paper states that the data are not publicly available and only a representative subset is available on request; for reproducibility of the key calibration and noise results, making at least the calibration ramps and X-ray spectra publicly available would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the X-ray gain scale is independently cross-checked by photon transfer and on-sky photometry, and no central claim reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central electron-unit quantities (read noise, dark current, QE, full well) all scale with the conversion gain measured via X-ray illumination, which assumes E/3.69 eV per electron-hole pair in silicon at -25 C. That assumption is an external physical input, not a quantity derived from the paper's own outputs. It is independently anchored in two ways: the photon-transfer conversion gains agree with the X-ray gains to within about 1% after an interpixel-capacitance correction (Table 3), and the on-sky photometric slope of 0.14 m^2 matches the independently known effective area of the WINTER telescope (Fig. 16a), validating the QE-gain product. The nonlinearity calibration is a polynomial fit to illumination ramps, but the headline noise and dark-current numbers are subsequently measured from separate bias and dark frames divided by the X-ray gain; they are not the same fit values reported as predictions. The trap model with fitted parameters Nt = 365 and p = 0.002 is explicitly presented as a plausible explanation, not as a predictive derivation, and the model's limitations are acknowledged. The only notable self-citation is the WINTER telescope reference, which is descriptive and not load-bearing for any derived performance claim. No step in the derivation chain is circular by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The main performance numbers depend on standard calibration and measurement assumptions plus two fitted trap-model parameters. The load-bearing physical results were cross-checked with independent methods (X-ray gain and on-sky photometry), so the fitted parameters are not central to the headline claims.

free parameters (2)
  • Number of charge traps Nt per pixel = 365
    Inferred from the x-intercept of the linear-regime fit to the response curve and used in the trap model to explain low-signal nonlinearity. It is a fitted value, not independently measured.
  • Electron capture probability p = 0.002
    Chosen to make the trap model response match the measured response curve shape. This is a fit to the data being explained, not a prediction.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Electron-hole pair creation energy in silicon at -25 C is 3.69 eV per pair (Ref 31).
    Used in Section 4.2 to convert X-ray energy into electron yield for conversion gain. If wrong, all absolute electron-unit values scale.
  • standard math Poisson shot noise variance equals mean signal.
    Assumed in the PTC analysis (Section 4.1) to interpret the slope as conversion gain.
  • domain assumption Integrating sphere illumination is uniform across the sensor to better than 0.7%.
    Relied on for flat-field-based measurements of linearity, PTC, PRNU, and QE; based on geometry simulations and manufacturer results (Section 2.2.1).
  • domain assumption The projected spot for crosstalk measurements is diffraction-limited with FWHM below 2 um, much smaller than the 10 um pixel.
    Required so that most incident light lands on one pixel; verified by imaging the spot with a separate camera (Section 2.2.2).
invented entities (1)
  • Charge traps Nt per pixel
    purpose: Explain the low-signal nonlinearity by trapping some electrons before they reach the sense node.
    Introduced as a phenomenological model with two fitted parameters (Nt and p). Teledyne's NDA simulation is mentioned but not public, and the model only reproduces the observed response; it is presented as plausible, not proven.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Characterization of the Teledyne COSMOS Camera: A Large Format CMOS Image Sensor for Astronomy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZSZ5GMYG

@misc{pith2026250200101,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Characterization of the Teledyne COSMOS Camera: A Large Format CMOS Image Sensor for Astronomy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZSZ5GMYG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00101}
}
abstract

The Teledyne COSMOS-66 is a next-generation CMOS camera designed for astronomical imaging, featuring a large-format sensor ($8120 \times 8120$ pixels, each $10 \mu m$), high quantum efficiency, high frame rates, and a correlated multi-sampling mode that achieves low read noise. We performed a suite of bench-top and on-sky tests to characterize this sensor and analyze its suitability for use in astronomical instruments. This paper presents measurements of linearity, conversion gain, read noise, dark current, quantum efficiency, image lag, and crosstalk. We found that the sensor exhibits nonlinear response below 5% of saturation. This nonlinearity is plausibly attributable to the trapping of electrons in each pixel. We developed and implemented a pixel-by-pixel nonlinearity correction, enabling accurate photometric measurements across the dynamic range. After implementing this correction, operating in the correlated multi-sampling mode, the sensor achieved an effective read noise of $2.9 e^-$ and dark current of $0.12 e^-/pix/s$ at $-25^\circ C$. The quantum efficiency exceeded 50% from 250 nm to 800 nm, peaking at 89% at 600 nm. We observed significant optical crosstalk between the pixels, likely caused by photoelectron diffusion. To demonstrate the sensor's astronomical performance, we mounted it on the WINTER 1m telescope at Palomar Observatory. These tests confirmed that the linearity calibration enables accurate stellar photometry and validated our measured noise levels. Overall, the COSMOS-66 delivers similar noise performance to large-format CCDs, with higher frame rates and relaxed cooling requirements. If pixel design improvements are made to mitigate the nonlinearity and crosstalk, then the camera may combine the advantages of low-noise CMOS image sensors with the integration simplicity of large-format CCDs, broadening its utility to a host of astronomical science cases.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Janesick, J

    J. Janesick, J. Pinter, R. Potter, et al. , `` Fundamental performance differences between CMOS and CCD imagers: part III ,'' in Astronomical and Space Optical Systems , P. G. Warren, C. J. Marshall, J. B. Heaney, et al. , Eds., 7439 , 743907, International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE (2009)

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    Janesick, J

    J. Janesick, J. Pinter, R. Potter, et al. , `` Fundamental performance differences between CMOS and CCD imagers, part IV ,'' in High Energy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy IV , A. D. Holland and D. A. Dorn, Eds., 7742 , 77420B, International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE (2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    M. Liu, Z. Ling, Q. Wu, et al. , `` Radiation effects on scientific CMOS sensors for X-ray astronomy: I. Proton irradiation ,'' Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems 9 (4), 046003 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Janesick, J

    J. Janesick, J. Andrews, J. Tower, et al. , `` Fundamental performance differences between CMOS and CCD imagers: Part II ,'' in Focal Plane Arrays for Space Telescopes III , T. J. Grycewicz, C. J. Marshall, and P. G. Warren, Eds., 6690 , 669003, International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE (2007)

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    S. E. Bohndiek, A. Blue, A. T. Clark, et al. , ``Comparison of methods for estimating the conversion gain of cmos active pixel sensors,'' IEEE Sensors Journal 8 (10), 1734--1744 (2008)

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    K. D. Stefanov, CMOS Image Sensors , 2053-2563, IOP Publishing (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Cheriyan, J

    S. Cheriyan, J. A. S. de la Torre, J. A. V. Calvo, et al. , `` COSMOS large format 64Mpixel CMOS camera for ground-based astronomy ,'' in X-Ray, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy X , A. D. Holland and J. Beletic, Eds., 12191 , 121910I, International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Teledyne Vision Solutions , `` COSMOS .'' https://www.teledynevisionsolutions.com/products/cosmos/ (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    C. Chen, J. Zhang, H. Zhang, et al. , `` Design of CCD test platform of scientific imaging for wide field survey telescope ,'' Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems 8 (1), 016005 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    I. V. Kotov, J. Haupt, P. O'Connor, et al. , `` Characterization and acceptance testing of fully depleted thick CCDs for the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope ,'' in High Energy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy VII , A. D. Holland and J. Beletic, Eds., 9915 , 99150...

    2016

  3. [11]

    E. M. Villalpando, A. Drlica-Wagner, A. A. Plazas Malagón, et al. , ``Characterization and optimization of skipper ccds for the soar integral field spectrograph,'' Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 136 , 045001 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    L. K. Harding, G. Hallinan, J. Milburn, et al. , ``Chimera: a wide-field, multi-colour, high-speed photometer at the prime focus of the hale telescope,'' Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 457 , 3036–3049 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Khandelwal, S

    A. Khandelwal, S. Jeram, R. D. Dungee, et al. , `` Beyond CCDs: characterization of sCMOS detectors for optical astronomy ,'' in X-Ray, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy XI , A. D. Holland and K. Minoglou, Eds., 40, SPIE (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    M. R. Alarcon, J. Licandro, M. Serra-Ricart, et al. , ``Scientific cmos sensors in astronomy: Imx455 and imx411,'' Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 135 , 055001 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    J. P. Gallagher, L. Buntic, E. Alexani, et al. , ``Characterizing radiation-tolerant single photon resolving cmos detectors,'' in X-Ray, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy XI , Optical pattern recognition. 13103 , 131030S--131030S--17, Society of Photo-optical Instr...

    2024

  8. [16]

    Chattopadhyay , S

    T. Chattopadhyay , S. Herrmann , P. Orel , et al. , `` Demonstrating sub-electron noise performance in single electron sensitive readout (SiSeRO) devices ,'' in X-Ray, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy XI , A. D. Holland and K. Minoglou , Eds., Society of Photo-Opt...

    2024

  9. [17]

    A. J. Lapi, B. J. I. Gimenez, M. E. Gamero, et al. , ``Sixteen multiple-amplifier sensing charge-coupled devices and characterization techniques targeting the next generation of astronomical instruments,'' Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems 11 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Tiffenberg, M

    J. Tiffenberg, M. Sofo-Haro, A. Drlica-Wagner, et al. , ``Single-electron and single-photon sensitivity with a silicon skipper ccd,'' Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 , 131802 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    N. R. Shade, G. Kyne, S. Nikzad, et al. , `` Characterization and validation of next generation image sensors for space applications ,'' in X-Ray, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy XI , A. D. Holland and K. Minoglou, Eds., 13103 , 131030U, International Society for...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Robbins and B

    M. Robbins and B. Hadwen, ``The noise performance of electron multiplying charge-coupled devices,'' IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices 50 (5), 1227--1232 (2003)

    2003

  13. [21]

    K. B. W. Harps e , U. G. J rgensen , M. I. Andersen , et al. , `` High frame rate imaging based photometry. Photometric reduction of data from electron-multiplying charge coupled devices (EMCCDs) ,'' Astronomy and Astrophysics 542 , A23 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    A. S. Gill, M. M. Shaaban, A. Tohuvavohu, et al. , `` A low-cost ultraviolet-to-infrared absolute quantum efficiency characterization system of detectors ,'' in X-Ray, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy X , A. D. Holland and J. Beletic, Eds., 12191 , 1219114, Intern...

    2022

  15. [23]

    Karpov, A

    S. Karpov, A. Bajat, A. Christov, et al. , ``Evaluation of scientific cmos sensors for sky survey applications,'' in X-Ray, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy IX , A. D. Holland and J. Beletic, Eds., 17, SPIE (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    N. P. Lourie, J. W. Baker, R. S. Burruss, et al. , `` The wide-field infrared transient explorer (WINTER) ,'' in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VIII , C. J. Evans, J. J. Bryant, and K. Motohara, Eds., 11447 , 114479K, International Society for Optics a...

    2020

  17. [25]

    Krishnamurthy, J

    A. Krishnamurthy, J. Villasenor, S. Kissel, et al. , ``An optical test bench for the precision characterization of absolute quantum efficiency for the tess ccd detectors,'' Journal of Instrumentation 12 , C05013–C05013 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    F. P. Wildi, A. Deline, and B. Chazelas, `` A white super-stable source for the metrology of astronomical photometers ,'' in Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets VII , S. Shaklan, Ed., 9605 , 96051T, International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    European Machine Vision Association (EMVA) , EMVA Standard 1288: Standard for Characterization of Image Sensors and Cameras , release 4.0 general ed. (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    , ``Integrating sphere theory and applications,'' tech

    Labsphere, Inc. , ``Integrating sphere theory and applications,'' tech. rep. (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Private communication

    Teledyne Digital Imaging . Private communication

  22. [30]

    Thompson, D

    A. Thompson, D. Attwood, E. Gullixson, et al. , X-Ray Data Booklet , Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA, rev. 3 ed. (2009). https://xdb.lbl.gov/Section1/Table_1-3.pdf

    2009

  23. [31]

    B. G. Lowe and R. A. Sareen , `` A measurement of the electron hole pair creation energy and the Fano factor in silicon for 5.9 keV X-rays and their temperature dependence in the range 80 270 K ,'' Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 576 , 367--370 (2007)

    2007

  24. [32]

    A. C. Moore, Z. Ninkov, and W. J. Forrest, `` Quantum efficiency overestimation and deterministic cross talk resulting from interpixel capacitance ,'' Optical Engineering 45 (7), 076402 (2006)

    2006

  25. [33]

    Antilogus, P

    P. Antilogus, P. Astier, P. Doherty, et al. , ``The brighter-fatter effect and pixel correlations in ccd sensors,'' Journal of Instrumentation 9 , C03048 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    Bottom, C.-A

    M. Bottom, C.-A. Claveau, S. Jacobson, et al. , `` Progress towards a megapixel linear-mode avalanche photodiode array for ultra-low background shortwave infrared astronomy ,'' in X-Ray, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy XI , A. D. Holland and K. Minoglou, Eds., PC...

    2024

  27. [35]

    Ivory, CMOS Sensors for Precision Astronomy

    J. Ivory, CMOS Sensors for Precision Astronomy . PhD thesis, The Open University (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Bonjour, N

    L.-E. Bonjour, N. Blanc, and M. Kayal, ``Experimental analysis of lag sources in pinned photodiodes,'' IEEE Electron Device Letters 33 (12), 1735--1737 (2012)

    2012

  29. [37]

    Frostig, K

    D. Frostig, K. B. Burdge, K. De, et al. , `` WINTER commissioning and early performance: a new time-domain near-IR facility ,'' in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy X , J. J. Bryant, K. Motohara, and J. R. D. Vernet, Eds., 13096 , 130963J, International S...

    2024

  30. [38]

    Prusti , J

    Gaia Collaboration , T. Prusti , J. H. J. de Bruijne , et al. , `` The Gaia mission ,'' Astronomy & Astrophysics 595 , A1 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    Vallenari , A

    Gaia Collaboration , A. Vallenari , A. G. A. Brown , et al. , `` Gaia Data Release 3. Summary of the content and survey properties ,'' Astronomy & Astrophysics 674 , A1 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    A. T. Young , `` Photometric error analysis. VI. Confirmation of Reiger's theory of scintillation ,'' The Astronomical Journal 72 , 747 (1967)

    1967

  33. [41]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION blank.sep after.quote 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry output.state after.quoted.block = 'skip 'add.period if write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip output.state after.quote = after.quoted.blo...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.