pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.17938 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-18 · 🌌 astro-ph.IM

Simulations of a 2 x 1.5D coded aperture camera for X-ray astronomy

J.J.M. in 't Zand , L. Kuiper (SRON) , F. Ceraudo , Y. Evangelista (INAF-IAPS) , M. Hernanz (ICE-CSIC , IEEC) , A. Patruno (ICE-CSIC) This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 08:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.IM
keywords coded aperture imagingX-ray transientsWide Field Monitordecoding algorithmsinstrument simulationsgamma-ray burstssource detection
0
0 comments X

The pith

Simulations show that two perpendicular 1.5D coded aperture cameras can locate and measure fluxes of X-ray transients such as novae and gamma-ray bursts.

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

The paper simulates detector responses and electronics processing for the Wide Field Monitor instrument built from two perpendicular one-dimensional coded aperture cameras. It tests the iterative removal of sources algorithm combined with cross correlation against the maximum likelihood method on synthetic sky data. The work establishes that the first approach best recovers the positions of multiple point sources while the second best recovers their intensities. These results matter for space missions because they indicate the instrument can flag new cosmic X-ray activity and track changes in known sources using established mask technology.

Core claim

Simulations of the 2 x 1.5D coded aperture system demonstrate that IROS combined with cross correlation recovers the point-source configuration of the observed sky while the maximum likelihood method yields the most accurate source fluxes, with the fine resolution direction reaching roughly 5 arcmin and the coarse direction 5 degrees.

What carries the argument

The 1.5D coded aperture camera that uses a one-dimensional mask to produce fine angular resolution in one sky direction and coarse resolution in the perpendicular direction.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations assume that detector responses and front-end/back-end electronics processing can be modeled accurately enough that the synthetic data faithfully represent real on-orbit performance.

What would settle it

On-orbit data from a deployed WFM or similar coded-aperture instrument showing source localization or flux errors substantially larger than those obtained in the simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.17938 by A. Patruno (ICE-CSIC), F. Ceraudo, IEEC), J.J.M. in 't Zand, L. Kuiper (SRON), M. Hernanz (ICE-CSIC, Y. Evangelista (INAF-IAPS).

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: WFM camera shown with the shielding being made slightly transparent. In purple, the 4 SDDs are depicted, on top the mask. tion. The present paper is about an instrument concept similar to that of SuperAGILE but involving better performing silicon drift detectors (SDDs) and more pairs of orthogonal cameras to increase the field of view. It is called the Wide-Field Monitor (WFM). While other WFM publications… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The WFM is, like all coded aperture cameras and perhaps even more so because of its 2 × 1.5D nature, an indirect imaging instrument. In contrast to focusing telescopes, the signal of all cosmic sources is coded and mixed which gives rise to the dis￾advantage that there is cross talk between sources and decreased sensitivity for the same photon-collecting area. An essential in￾gredient of a coded aperture c… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Flow diagram of IROS. 3.1. Iterative Removal of Sources 3.1.1. Outline IROS is an analogue of the ‘clean’ algorithm in interferometric radio-astronomy imaging (Högbom 1974). The basis of IROS (Hammersley 1986) is a cross correlation of the detector image with a mathematical version of the mask pattern that ensures that the expected flux at any pixel where there is no source is zero and is properly normaliz… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: PSF formation along the ’fine’ direction. In the top section of the figure, the rays of an off-axis source illuminate the thick mask some￾what sideways and introduce a shadow on one side of the projection of the mask element on the detector (middle blue graph). When cross cor￾relating with the decoding mask (moving the decoding mask from left to right over the detector, see middle blue graph), this introdu… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Histogram of standard deviation values of significance images of the Galactic Center field solution without Poisson noise, for 658 differ￾ent pointings (i.e., rotating from 0 to 359 deg in steps of 1 deg and for stepping diagonally over the image in 299 steps at one rotation angle). It is noted that IROS can be run independently on the X or the Y camera. The sensitivity will decrease by √ 2 and the source … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Image of X detector (fine resolution along X) for LMC field for an observation with an exposure time of 10 ks. Unit is photon counts per 0.25 mm × 0.25 mm bin. The color scale bar of the pixel values is shown at the bottom. The cross is due to the spaces between the four SDD tiles in the detector plane. an off-axis angle of 34◦ . The CXB count rate encompasses 97.6% of the total and so dominates. 2. Bright… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Part of the sky image of the GC observation as obtained through IROS, between -44◦ and +45◦ in in the local frame along X and -35◦ and +35◦ in Y, zooming in on 30% of the total image showing the strongest sources in the field of view. The pixel unit is significance. Only sources brighter than 80 mCrab are labeled. The cross-like PSF of a source is not always apparent because its narrowness does not show w… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of sky reconstructions of the Galactic Center field between the 2 × 1.5D configuration (right) and the 1 × 2D configuration (left), zooming in on central quarter of the field of view. 5. Image simulations 5.1. IROS on LMC field The detector image of the WFM X camera of the simulated 10 ksec observation on the LMC is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Top panel: MLM reconstruction of the spectrum of GRO J1655- 40 (data points) and best-fit model spectrum (drawn histogram). For details, see main text. Bottom panel: comparison between data points and model, after setting the normalizations of the two spectral lines to zero. 7. Conclusion and future work We have developed and verified the performance of three inde￾pendent software packages for application… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The concept of two perpendicular one-dimensional coded aperture cameras, necessitated by the imaging capability of the detector, finds its application in the design of the Wide Field Monitor (WFM). This instrument has the future goal to monitor the variable X-ray sky for transient activity. Characteristic of each camera is a fine angular resolution in one direction (typically 5 arcmin) and a coarse one in the other (5 degrees). The coarse perpendicular resolution makes the camera so-called '1.5D'. The WFM has been studied for a number of space-borne X-ray observatory concepts: LOFT, eXTP, Strobe-X, ARCO and now LEM-X. We here report on a study of two decoding algorithms for this instrument and its imaging performance. Detector responses to the X-ray sky are simulated, including the signal processing by the front-end and back-end electronics. The decoding algorithms are the iterative removal of sources (IROS), in combination with cross correlation, and the maximum likelihood method (MLM). IROS is most suited for the determination of the point source configuration of the observed sky and MLM for the optimum determination of the source fluxes. (..) the WFM is a high performance monitoring instrument with straightforward and proven technology that enables the identification of new cosmic X-ray sources, for instance X-ray novae, gamma-ray bursts and electromagnetic counterparts to gravitational wave events from merging compact objects, and the detection of unusual and interesting behavior of persistent cosmic X-ray sources, such as accretion disk state changes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents end-to-end simulations of a 2x1.5D coded aperture camera for the Wide Field Monitor (WFM) instrument concept, including detector responses and front-end/back-end electronics processing. It evaluates two standard decoding algorithms—IROS (with cross-correlation) for source configuration and MLM for flux estimation—on synthetic data, reporting ~5 arcmin localization in the fine axis and concluding that the WFM is a high-performance, straightforward monitoring instrument for transients such as X-ray novae, GRBs, and GW counterparts.

Significance. If the simulations accurately capture on-orbit performance, the work provides concrete support for the 2x1.5D WFM design in missions such as LEM-X. The forward-simulation approach combined with published algorithms (IROS, MLM) offers a reproducible framework for assessing imaging performance in one fine and one coarse axis, strengthening the case for this proven-technology concept in transient astronomy.

major comments (2)
  1. [Simulation methods] Simulation methods (as described in the abstract and methods): The performance claims for source localization, flux recovery, and transient detection rest on the assumption that the synthetic detector responses and electronics faithfully reproduce real conditions. No validation against laboratory prototypes, prior missions (LOFT/eXTP), or sensitivity tests to mismatches in background, mask alignment, or energy response is reported; any such mismatch would directly degrade the reported accuracies and undermine the 'proven technology' assertion.
  2. [Results on decoding algorithms] Results on decoding performance: While IROS is positioned for point-source configuration and MLM for optimum fluxes, the manuscript does not provide quantitative robustness metrics (e.g., recovery fractions, bias under varying background levels, or cross-checks between the two algorithms) that would allow independent assessment of whether the ~5 arcmin fine-axis resolution holds under realistic mismatches.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The phrasing 'two perpendicular one-dimensional coded aperture cameras' and the title's '2 x 1.5D' should be aligned for consistency; a brief parenthetical definition of the 1.5D terminology would aid readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below, indicating the revisions we will make to strengthen the presentation of our simulation results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Simulation methods] Simulation methods (as described in the abstract and methods): The performance claims for source localization, flux recovery, and transient detection rest on the assumption that the synthetic detector responses and electronics faithfully reproduce real conditions. No validation against laboratory prototypes, prior missions (LOFT/eXTP), or sensitivity tests to mismatches in background, mask alignment, or energy response is reported; any such mismatch would directly degrade the reported accuracies and undermine the 'proven technology' assertion.

    Authors: We agree that explicit discussion of model validation and sensitivity to mismatches is needed. The detector response and electronics models are taken from the detailed simulations and laboratory calibrations performed for the LOFT and eXTP mission studies (cited in the manuscript). In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection in the methods that (i) summarizes the heritage and prior validation of these models and (ii) presents a new sensitivity analysis quantifying the effect of plausible mismatches in background rate, mask alignment, and energy response on the reported 5-arcmin localization and flux recovery. This is a partial revision because a full end-to-end laboratory campaign with flight-like hardware lies outside the scope of the present simulation paper. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results on decoding algorithms] Results on decoding performance: While IROS is positioned for point-source configuration and MLM for optimum fluxes, the manuscript does not provide quantitative robustness metrics (e.g., recovery fractions, bias under varying background levels, or cross-checks between the two algorithms) that would allow independent assessment of whether the ~5 arcmin fine-axis resolution holds under realistic mismatches.

    Authors: We accept the referee's request for additional quantitative robustness metrics. In the revised manuscript we will include new simulation results that report (i) source recovery fractions as a function of background level, (ii) flux bias and localization scatter for both IROS and MLM, and (iii) direct cross-comparison of the two algorithms on the same data sets. These metrics will be presented in an expanded results section and will confirm that the 5-arcmin fine-axis performance remains stable under the range of background conditions expected for the WFM. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Forward simulation of detector responses with published decoding algorithms shows no circularity

full rationale

The paper generates synthetic detector data via forward modeling of a physical instrument (including front-end/back-end electronics) and then applies established, externally published decoding methods (IROS with cross-correlation and MLM). No central result reduces by construction to a fitted parameter or self-defined quantity from the same data; the cited prior instrument concepts and algorithms function as independent external inputs. This matches the default expectation of no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The simulations rest on standard assumptions about Poisson statistics for photon counts, linear detector response, and known mask transmission; no new physical entities are introduced. Free parameters include the stated 5-arcmin and 5-degree angular resolutions and the detailed electronics transfer functions that are not further specified in the abstract.

free parameters (2)
  • angular resolution (fine axis)
    Set to 5 arcmin by design choice for the 1.5D camera geometry
  • angular resolution (coarse axis)
    Set to 5 degrees by design choice for the 1.5D camera geometry
axioms (2)
  • standard math Detector counts follow Poisson statistics after electronics processing
    Invoked implicitly when generating synthetic data for decoding tests
  • domain assumption Mask pattern and detector geometry are perfectly known
    Required for accurate shadow modeling in both IROS and MLM

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5623 in / 1488 out tokens · 33139 ms · 2026-05-15T08:42:42.557151+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2009, ApJS, 183, 46

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    Ables, J. G. 1968, PASA, 1, 172

    work page 1968

  3. [3]

    & Grevesse, N

    Anders, E. & Grevesse, N. 1989, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 53, 197

    work page 1989

  4. [4]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V , ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

    work page 1996

  5. [5]

    D., Barbier, L

    Barthelmy, S. D., Barbier, L. M., Cummings, J. R., et al. 2005, Space Sci. Rev., 120, 143

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Baumert, L. D. 1971, Cyclic Difference Sets

    work page 1971

  7. [7]

    2020, PASP, 132, 012001

    Braga, J. 2020, PASP, 132, 012001

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Brandt, S., Hernanz, M., Alvarez, L., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 9144, Space Tele- scopes and Instrumentation 2014: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. T. Taka- hashi, J.-W. A. den Herder, & M. Bautz, 91442V

    work page 2014

  9. [9]

    1974, Journal of Applied Physics, 45, 1806

    Brown, C. 1974, Journal of Applied Physics, 45, 1806

    work page 1974

  10. [10]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Campana, R., Feroci, M., Del Monte, E., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 8443, Space Tele- scopes and Instrumentation 2012: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. T. Taka- hashi, S. S. Murray, & J.-W. A. den Herder, 84435O

    work page 2012

  11. [11]

    2011, Nuclear Instruments and Meth- ods in Physics Research A, 633, 22

    Campana, R., Zampa, G., Feroci, M., et al. 2011, Nuclear Instruments and Meth- ods in Physics Research A, 633, 22

    work page 2011

  12. [12]

    B., Di Cocco, G., Natalucci, L., & Spizzichino, A

    Caroli, E., Stephen, J. B., Di Cocco, G., Natalucci, L., & Spizzichino, A. 1987, Space Sci. Rev., 45, 349

    work page 1987

  13. [13]

    2024, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Ceraudo, F., Evangelista, Y ., Hernanz, M., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 13093, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, 130936T de Boer, H., Bennett, K., Bloemen, H., et al. 1992, in Data Analysis in Astron...

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Dicke, R. H. 1968, ApJ, 153, L101

    work page 1968

  15. [15]

    2012, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Donnarumma, I., Evangelista, Y ., Campana, R., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 8443, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2012: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. T. Takahashi, S. S. Murray, & J.-W. A. den Herder, 84435Q

    work page 2012

  16. [16]

    T., Drijard, D., & James, F

    Eadie, W. T., Drijard, D., & James, F. E. 1971, Statistical methods in experimen- tal physics, 231

    work page 1971

  17. [17]

    2010, PhD thesis, Universitá Degli Studi Di Roma ’La Sapienza’

    Evangelista, Y . 2010, PhD thesis, Universitá Degli Studi Di Roma ’La Sapienza’

    work page 2010

  18. [18]

    D., Colosimo, J

    Falcone, A. D., Colosimo, J. M., Wages, M., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 13093, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, 1309317

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Fenimore, E. E. & Cannon, T. M. 1978, Appl. Opt., 17, 337

    work page 1978

  20. [20]

    Fenimore, E. E. & Cannon, T. M. 1981, Appl. Opt., 20, 1858

    work page 1981

  21. [21]

    2010, A&A, 510, A9

    Feroci, M., Costa, E., Del Monte, E., et al. 2010, A&A, 510, A9

    work page 2010

  22. [22]

    2012, Experimental Astronomy, 34, 415

    Feroci, M., Stella, L., van der Klis, M., et al. 2012, Experimental Astronomy, 34, 415

    work page 2012

  23. [23]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical In- strumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Givaudan, A., Bégoc, S., Bertoli, W., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical In- strumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 13093, Space Tele- scopes and Instrumentation 2024: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    , et al

    Godet, O., Nasser, G., Atteia, J. ., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instru- mentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 9144, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. T. Takahashi, J.- W. A. den Herder, & M. Bautz, 914424

    work page 2014

  25. [25]

    & Gros, A

    Goldwurm, A. & Gros, A. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astro- physics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Sangangelo, 15

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    Gottesman, S. R. & Fenimore, E. E. 1989, Appl. Opt., 28, 4344

    work page 1989

  27. [27]

    1986, PhD thesis, University of Birmingham

    Hammersley, A. 1986, PhD thesis, University of Birmingham

    work page 1986

  28. [28]

    1992, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 311, 585

    Hammersley, A., Ponman, T., & Skinner, G. 1992, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 311, 585

    work page 1992

  29. [29]

    2018, in Society of Photo-Optical In- strumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Hernanz, M., Brandt, S., Feroci, M., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical In- strumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 10699, Space Tele- scopes and Instrumentation 2018: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Hernanz, M., Brandt, S., in’t Zand, J., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 12181, Space Tele- scopes and Instrumentation 2022: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Hernanz, M., Feroci, M., Evangelista, Y ., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 13093, Space Tele- scopes and Instrumentation 2024: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Nikzad, & K

    Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, 130931Y Högbom, J. A. 1974, A&AS, 15, 417 in ’t Zand, J. J. M. 1992, PhD thesis, Netherlands Institute for Space Research in ’t Zand, J. J. M., Heise, J., & Jager, R. 1994, A&A, 288, 665 in ’t Zand, J. J. M., Kuiper, L., Amati, L., et al. 2000, ApJ, 545, 266

    work page 1974

  33. [33]

    A., Brinkman, A

    Jager, R., Mels, W. A., Brinkman, A. C., et al. 1997, A&AS, 125, 557

    work page 1997

  34. [34]

    Kalemci, E., Kara, E., & Tomsick, J. A. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Sangangelo, 9

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    G., Briel, U

    Kirsch, M. G., Briel, U. G., Burrows, D., et al. 2005, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 5898, UV , X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XIV , ed. O. H. W. Siegmund, 22–33

    work page 2005

  36. [36]

    W., Strong, I

    Klebesadel, R. W., Strong, I. B., & Olson, R. A. 1973, ApJ, 182, L85

    work page 1973

  37. [37]

    M., Bradt, H., Cui, W., et al

    Levine, A. M., Bradt, H., Cui, W., et al. 1996, ApJ, 469, L33

    work page 1996

  38. [38]

    M., Bradt, H., Morgan, E

    Levine, A. M., Bradt, H., Morgan, E. H., Remillard, R., & MIT/GSFC ASM Team. 2006, Advances in Space Research, 38, 2970

    work page 2006

  39. [39]

    M., Bradt, H

    Levine, A. M., Bradt, H. V ., Chakrabarty, D., Corbet, R. H. D., & Harris, R. J. 2011, ApJS, 196, 6

    work page 2011

  40. [40]

    E., Boldt, E

    Marshall, F. E., Boldt, E. A., Holt, S. S., et al. 1980, ApJ, 235, 4

    work page 1980

  41. [41]

    2009, PASJ, 61, 999

    Matsuoka, M., Kawasaki, K., Ueno, S., et al. 2009, PASJ, 61, 999

    work page 2009

  42. [42]

    R., Bertsch, D

    Mattox, J. R., Bertsch, D. L., Chiang, J., et al. 1996, ApJ, 461, 396 Meißner, T., Rozhkov, V ., Hesser, J., Nahm, W., & Loew, N. 2023, Journal of Instrumentation, 18, P01006

    work page 1996

  43. [43]

    Nottingham, M. R. 1993, PhD thesis, University of Birmingham

    work page 1993

  44. [44]

    Palmieri, T. M. 1974, Ap&SS, 28, 277

    work page 1974

  45. [45]

    Pollock, A. M. T., Bignami, G. F., Hermsen, W., et al. 1981, A&A, 94, 116

    work page 1981

  46. [46]

    S., Roming, P

    Ray, P. S., Roming, P. W. A., Argan, A., et al. 2024, Journal of Astronomical

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    A., Hernanz, M., Zand, J

    Remillard, R. A., Hernanz, M., Zand, J. i., et al. 2024, Journal of Astronomical

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    Rideout, R. M. 1995, PhD thesis, University of Birmingham

    work page 1995

  49. [49]

    Rideout, R. M. & Skinner, G. K. 1996, A&AS, 120, 579

    work page 1996

  50. [50]

    Sims, M., Turner, M. J. L., & Willingale, R. 1980, Space Science Instrumenta- tion, 5, 109

    work page 1980

  51. [51]

    Skinner, G. K. 2008, Appl. Opt., 47, 2739

    work page 2008

  52. [52]

    Skinner, G. K. & Nottingham, M. R. 1993, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 333, 540

    work page 1993

  53. [53]

    2025, PASJ, 77, 466

    Tamagawa, T., Enoto, T., Kitaguchi, T., et al. 2025, PASJ, 77, 466

    work page 2025

  54. [54]

    & Marshall, F

    Valinia, A. & Marshall, F. E. 1998, ApJ, 505, 134

    work page 1998

  55. [55]

    A., Ferland, G

    Verner, D. A., Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., & Yakovlev, D. G. 1996, ApJ, 465, 487

    work page 1996

  56. [56]

    Verner, D. A. & Yakovlev, D. G. 1995, A&AS, 109, 125

    work page 1995

  57. [57]

    Verrecchia, F., in’t Zand, J. J. M., Giommi, P., et al. 2007, A&A, 472, 705

    work page 2007

  58. [58]

    Wilks, S. S. 1938, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 9, 60

    work page 1938

  59. [59]

    1981, MNRAS, 194, 359

    Willingale, R. 1981, MNRAS, 194, 359

    work page 1981

  60. [60]

    2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed

    Yuan, W., Zhang, C., Chen, Y ., & Ling, Z. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Sangangelo, 86

    work page 2022

  61. [61]

    X., Sun, X

    Zhang, C., Ling, Z. X., Sun, X. J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, L2

    work page 2022

  62. [62]

    2019, Science China Physics, Me- chanics, and Astronomy, 62, 29502

    Zhang, S., Santangelo, A., Feroci, M., et al. 2019, Science China Physics, Me- chanics, and Astronomy, 62, 29502

    work page 2019

  63. [63]

    Zwart, F., Tacken, R., in’t Zand, J. J. M., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 12181, Space Tele- scopes and Instrumentation 2022: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den

    work page 2022

  64. [64]

    Nikzad, & K

    Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, 1218167 Article number, page 12 J.J.M. in ‘t Zand et al.: Simulations of a 2×1.5D coded aperture camera for X-ray astronomy Appendix A: MLM on GC field MLM can be employed to generate images. An example is shows in Fig. A.1, for part of the GC sky image. For this exercise, GX 5-1 was included in H0 and the image was gener...

    work page 2000