pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.28101 · v1 · pith:3EGRF46Gnew · submitted 2026-06-26 · 🌌 astro-ph.IM · astro-ph.HE· hep-ex· physics.ins-det

In-flight calibration of the Wide-field X-ray Telescope on board the Einstein Probe

Huaqing Cheng , Hai-Wu Pan , Yuan Liu , Jingwei Hu , Haonan Yang , Donghua Zhao , Zhixing Ling , Yifan Chen
show 9 more authors
Xiaojin Sun Longhui Li Ge Jin Wenxin Wang Xue Yang He-Yang Liu Chen Zhang Shuang-Nan Zhang Weimin Yuan
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 02:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HEhep-exphysics.ins-det
keywords Wide-field X-ray Telescopein-flight calibrationlobster-eye opticsspatial resolutioneffective areadetector stabilityEinstein Probe
0
0 comments X

The pith

In-orbit calibration shows the Wide-field X-ray Telescope matches its ground performance across key metrics.

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

The paper presents results from the first two and a half years of operations for the Wide-field X-ray Telescope on the Einstein Probe. Using observations of standard sources such as the Crab Nebula, Scorpius X-1, and Cassiopeia A, the authors measure spatial resolution, source positioning accuracy, and effective area. These quantities align with pre-launch ground calibrations, with a median resolution of about 4.3 arcminutes and positioning accuracy of 1.3 arcminutes at 90 percent . The effective area shows consistency within roughly 10 percent systematic uncertainty in the 0.5 to 4 keV range, while most detectors remain stable. The results are incorporated into the calibration database to support scientific data analysis.

Core claim

The in-orbit performance of the WXT agrees with prelaunch ground calibrations well. The spatial resolution, denoted by the full width at half maximum of the focal spot, typically ranges from 3 to 6 arcminutes across about 90 percent of the field of view, with a median of about 4.3 arcminutes. The post-calibration source positioning accuracy achieves 1.3 arcminutes at the 90 percent confidence level. The in-orbit effective area is consistent with model predictions and ground measurements, exhibiting an overall systematic uncertainty of less than or equal to 10 percent at 90 percent in the 0.5-4 keV band.

What carries the argument

Systematic observations of standard celestial sources to quantify focal-spot full width at half maximum, positioning offsets, and effective area across detector modules.

If this is right

  • Data from the telescope can be processed with the updated calibration database for reliable scientific results.
  • The instrument maintains the expected sensitivity for detecting and localizing transient X-ray events over most of its field of view.
  • Long-term monitoring of the few modules showing low-energy degradation can track further changes without affecting the majority of observations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Future wide-field X-ray instruments using similar optics may rely on the same source-based calibration approach to verify in-orbit behavior quickly after launch.
  • The observed stability in energy scale from Cassiopeia A observations suggests the detectors can support spectroscopy of variable sources over multi-year missions.

Load-bearing premise

The spectral, flux, and spatial properties of the chosen standard celestial sources are known independently to sufficient precision and stability to serve as accurate references for the full field of view.

What would settle it

A measured effective area or median full width at half maximum that deviates from ground predictions by more than the reported 10 percent uncertainty across multiple modules would falsify the agreement claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.28101 by Chen Zhang, Donghua Zhao, Ge Jin, Hai-Wu Pan, Haonan Yang, He-Yang Liu, Huaqing Cheng, Jingwei Hu, Longhui Li, Shuang-Nan Zhang, Weimin Yuan, Wenxin Wang, Xiaojin Sun, Xue Yang, Yifan Chen, Yuan Liu, Zhixing Ling.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (Left panel) Mosaic of observational images of the Crab nebula taken from 6 × 6 incident directions across the FoV of CMOS 1. (Right panel) Zoom-in image of the PSF sampled at the detector coordinates of [RAWX, RAWY] ≈ [2250, 1650]. The PSF is composed of a bright focal spot region and two orthogonal cruciform arms, as predicted by lobster-eye optics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: In-orbit PSF FWHM measured across different CMOS detectors. The left panel shows the mean and standard deviation of the FWHM measured along the major axis. The right panel shows the measurements along the minor axis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distributions of the three characteristic measurements of the PSF FWHM obtained from the Crab and Sco X-1 observations during the first stage of calibration. From left to right panels: the lengths of the major axis, minor axis, and the area-equivalent radius (see text for detailed definitions). The ground measurements obtained at the XIB test facility (NAOC/CAS) are overplotted for comparison. the PSF char… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Exemplary quiver map representing the positional deviations between the expected and measured PSF focal spot centroids, using Sco X-1 data observed with CMOS 9. Panel (a) illustrates the offsets prior to the in-orbit localization calibration, and panel (b) shows the residual deviations after the calibration was applied. In each panel, a reference arrow representing the maximum offset vector is provided for… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Offsets between the WXT positions and the NED coordinates for 164,525 valid detections from 4,370 sources, displayed as a two￾dimensional histogram. The two circles denoted by dashed black and green lines correspond to the 68th and 90th percentiles of 1.2 ′ and 1.9 ′ , respectively. The absolute source positional accuracy of the EP-WXT was ultimately evaluated by comparing the detected source po￾sitions wi… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Histogram (in grey) of the normalized positional offset x after incorporating the best-fit systematic uncertainty of 0.61′ (which corre￾sponds to 1.3 ′ at the 90% C.L.; see text for details), plotted alongside the theoretical Rayleigh distribution (red curve). A total of 164,525 de￾tections from 4,370 sources are utilized for this calculation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Systematic source positioning error (at the 90% C.L.) for each individual CMOS detector. The red dashed line indicates the represen￾tative overall systematic uncertainty of 1.3 ′ for the entire WXT instru￾ment. NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED)3 , utilizing the con￾tinuously collected post-calibration scientific data. For this pur￾pose, we initiated our analysis using the WXT all-sky source catalog co… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Spectral analysis of three Crab observations conducted during the commissioning phase. The source was located at the detector po￾sition of [3567, 3524] for CMOS 18 (blue symbols), [551, 1954] for CMOS 30 (green symbols), and [1219, 1165] for CMOS 39 (pink sym￾bols). The data points were re-binned for illustrative purposes. As an illustrative example, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Crab spectral fitting parameters for 46 detectors (excluding CMOS 34 and CMOS 41) onboard the EP-WXT instrument. Panels (a)–(d) show the photon index, the column density, the normalization of the power-law model, and the observed flux within the 0.5–4 keV band, respectively. For each detector, the data point represents the typical parameter value calculated by averaging the best-fit results derived from di… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Crab spectra obtained on CMOS 14 (left panel) and CMOS 32 (right panel) during different calibration epochs: February 2024, January 2025, and November 2025. The source was located at the center of the detector in these observations. The lower-energy ends (0.4–1 keV) of the spectra are zoomed in for clearer illustration. epochs. Neither a significant variation in the overall spectral shape nor a substantia… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Ratio of the 0.4–0.6 keV count rate across different calibration epochs. The red dots denote the ratio between the third epoch (data ob￾tained from November 2025 to February 2026) and the second epoch (data obtained from January to February 2025), and the gray squares denote the ratio between the third epoch and the first epoch (data ob￾tained from February to March 2024). nificantly among different detec… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison between the stacked Cas A spectra from differ￾ent operational stages, utilizing observations from CMOS 15. The data represented by red dots were acquired during the commissioning phase, and those represented by blue dots were obtained during the third cali￾bration epoch (approximately two years later). and S Heα (∼ 2.45 keV)—are clearly detected above the con￾tinuum. A phenomenological model co… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (Upper panel) Spectral analysis of Cas A using the data re￾trieved from CMOS 38 during the commissioning phase, with a total ex￾posure of 25.5 ks. The observed data are denoted by gray symbols. The underlying continuum, described by a power-law model, is signified by the gray dotted line. The three characteristic emission lines (Si Heα, S Heα, and Si Lyα) are denoted by the red, blue, and orange dashed li… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

By utilizing novel lobster-eye optics, the Wide-field X-ray Telescope (WXT) onboard the Einstein Probe (EP) satellite achieves an unprecedented combination of a large instantaneous field-of-view (FoV) and high sensitivity for monitoring the dynamic X-ray sky. In this paper, we present the in-orbit calibration results of the WXT during its first two and a half years of operations. By conducting observations of standard celestial sources--including the Crab Nebula, Scorpius X-1, and Cassiopeia A--we systematically characterized key instrumental properties. Our analysis demonstrates that the in-orbit performance of the WXT agrees with prelaunch ground calibrations well. The spatial resolution, denoted by the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the focal spot, typically ranges from $3'$ to $6'$ across $\sim$90% of the FoV, with a median of $\sim 4.3'$. The post-calibration source positioning accuracy achieves $1.3'$ (at the 90% confidence level). The in-orbit effective area is consistent with model predictions and ground measurements, exhibiting an overall systematic uncertainty of $\lesssim 10\%$ (90% C.L.) in the 0.5-4 keV band. While the vast majority of the detectors remain highly stable, a noticeable long-term degradation at the low-energy end ($\sim30\%$-$40\%$, 0.4-0.6 keV) is observed in a few specific modules. Furthermore, spectral evaluations using Cas A confirm the stability of the energy scale and spectral resolution of the focal-plane Complementary Metal-Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS) detectors. All derived calibration products have been incorporated into the WXT calibration database (CALDB). These results comprehensively verify the instrumental capabilities of the WXT, providing a solid foundation for the reliable analysis of scientific observations.

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

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the in-flight calibration of the Wide-field X-ray Telescope (WXT) aboard the Einstein Probe, based on observations of the Crab Nebula, Sco X-1, and Cas A over the first 2.5 years of operations. It concludes that in-orbit performance matches pre-launch ground calibrations, with spatial resolution (FWHM) ranging from 3' to 6' across ~90% of the FoV (median ~4.3'), post-calibration source positioning accuracy of 1.3' (90% CL), and effective area consistent with models to ≲10% systematic uncertainty (90% CL) in the 0.5-4 keV band. A subset of modules shows long-term low-energy degradation (~30-40% in 0.4-0.6 keV), while energy scale and spectral resolution remain stable; all calibration products are incorporated into the WXT CALDB.

Significance. If the results hold, the work supplies a necessary end-to-end validation of an instrument whose large FoV and sensitivity are intended for time-domain X-ray astronomy. The quantitative agreement with independent ground calibrations, the explicit reporting of module-to-module variations, and the delivery of products to the public CALDB directly support reliable scientific use of the data. The reliance on multiple, independently characterized celestial standards across the field of view adds robustness to the claimed performance metrics.

minor comments (2)
  1. Abstract: the phrase 'typically ranges from 3' to 6'' would be clearer if accompanied by the fraction of the FoV or number of modules that satisfy the quoted bounds, rather than the ~90% figure alone.
  2. The manuscript states that spectral evaluations with Cas A confirm stability of the energy scale and resolution, but does not indicate the number of epochs or total exposure used for this check; adding this detail would allow readers to assess the statistical power of the stability claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive review and recommendation to accept the manuscript. The assessment correctly highlights the robustness of the calibration results derived from multiple celestial standards and the public delivery of the CALDB products.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper reports direct in-orbit measurements of WXT performance (FWHM, positioning accuracy, effective area) by observing standard celestial sources (Crab Nebula, Sco X-1, Cas A) whose spectral, spatial, and flux properties are taken as independently known. These observations are compared to pre-launch ground calibrations without any equation or step that reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter from the same dataset, without self-definitional loops, and without load-bearing self-citations that justify uniqueness or an ansatz. The central claims rest on external benchmarks rather than internal construction, so the derivation chain is self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the established properties of three standard calibrators rather than new free parameters or postulated entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The spectral, flux, and spatial properties of the Crab Nebula, Sco X-1, and Cas A are known independently to sufficient precision and stability to serve as accurate references for characterizing the full field of view, energy response, and long-term behavior of every detector module.
    These sources are invoked as the basis for all in-orbit measurements described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5945 in / 1368 out tokens · 25776 ms · 2026-06-29T02:21:18.482335+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    2006, in ESA Special Publication, V ol

    Abbey, T., Carpenter, J., Read, A., et al. 2006, in ESA Special Publication, V ol. 604, The X-ray Universe 2005, ed. A. Wilson, 943

    2006

  2. [2]

    Angel, J. R. P. 1979, ApJ, 233, 364

    1979

  3. [3]

    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

    1996

  4. [4]

    D., Wells, A., Abbey, A

    Carpenter, J. D., Wells, A., Abbey, A. F., & Ambrosi, R. M. 2008, A&A, 483, 941

    2008

  5. [5]

    2024, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 10, 026001

    Chen, M., Ling, Z., Liu, M., et al. 2024, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 10, 026001

    2024

  6. [6]

    2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumen- tation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Chen, Y ., Cui, W., Han, D., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumen- tation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 11444, Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 114445B

    2020

  7. [7]

    2026, AIP Advances, 16, 015208

    Chen, Y ., Li, Z., Wang, C., et al. 2026, AIP Advances, 16, 015208

    2026

  8. [8]

    2024, Experimental Astronomy, 57, 10

    Cheng, H., Ling, Z., Zhang, C., et al. 2024, Experimental Astronomy, 57, 10

    2024

  9. [9]

    2026, A&A, 710, A208

    Cheng, H., Pan, H.-W., Liu, Y ., et al. 2026, A&A, 710, A208

    2026

  10. [10]

    Q., Zhao, Q

    Cheng, H. Q., Zhao, Q. C., Tao, L., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 991, L41 Coti Zelati, F., Marino, A., Wang, Y . L., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1003, 224

    2026

  11. [11]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.26213

    Dai, C.-Y ., Quirola-Vásquez, J., Wang, Y .-H., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.26213

    arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    & Moorhead, A

    Drolshagen, G. & Moorhead, A. V . 2019, in Meteoroids: Sources of Meteors on Earth and Beyond, ed. G. O. Ryabova, D. J. Asher, & M. D. Campbell-Brown, 255

    2019

  13. [13]

    Feigelson, E. D. & Babu, G. J. 2012, Modern Statistical Methods for Astronomy

    2012

  14. [14]

    W., Brunton, A

    Fraser, G. W., Brunton, A. N., Lees, J. E., Pearson, J. F., & Feller, W. B. 1993, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 324, 404

    1993

  15. [15]

    W., Lees, J

    Fraser, G. W., Lees, J. E., Pearson, J. F., Sims, M. R., & Roxburgh, K. 1992, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Se- ries, V ol. 1546, Multilayer and Grazing Incidence X-Ray/EUV Optics, ed. R. B. Hoover, 41–52

    1992

  16. [16]

    E., Bautz, M

    Grant, C. E., Bautz, M. W., Kissel, S. M., LaMarr, B., & Prigozhin, G. Y . 2005, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Se- ries, V ol. 5898, UV , X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for As- tronomy XIV , ed. O. H. W. Siegmund, 201–211

    2005

  17. [17]

    E., Bautz, M

    Grant, C. E., Bautz, M. W., Plucinsky, P. P., & Ford, P. G. 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, 130931E

    2024

  18. [18]

    2025, MNRAS, 542, 583

    Haberl, F., Xu, Y ., Maitra, C., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 583

    2025

  19. [19]

    2013, X-ray CCDs, ed

    Holland, A. 2013, X-ray CCDs, ed. M. C. E. Huber, A. Pauluhn, J. L. Culhane, J. G. Timothy, K. Wilhelm, & A. Zehnder (New York, NY: Springer New York), 443–453

    2013

  20. [20]

    L., Zhao, Q

    Huang, G. L., Zhao, Q. C., Tao, L., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.10566

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Jiang, S.-Q., Xu, D., van Hoof, A. P. C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.04306

    arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    C., Li, D

    Jin, C. C., Li, D. Y ., Jiang, N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09580

    arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    G., Abbey, A., Altieri, B., et al

    Kirsch, M. G., Abbey, A., Altieri, B., et al. 2005, in UV , X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XIV , ed. O. H. W. Siegmund, V ol. 5898 (SPIE), 58980S

    2005

  24. [24]

    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

    2005

  25. [25]

    2026, Science Bulletin, 71, 538

    Li, D., Zhang, W., Yang, J., et al. 2026, Science Bulletin, 71, 538

    2026

  26. [26]

    2024, Optics Communications, 569, 130821

    Li, L., Zhang, C., Wang, J., et al. 2024, Optics Communications, 569, 130821

    2024

  27. [27]

    2022, PASP, 134, 115002

    Li, L., Zhang, Y ., Ouyang, M., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 115002

    2022

  28. [28]

    X., Zhu, Z

    Li, W. X., Zhu, Z. P., Zou, X. Z., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.17034

    arXiv

  29. [29]

    X., Sun, X

    Ling, Z. X., Sun, X. J., Zhang, C., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and As- trophysics, 23, 095007

    2023

  30. [30]

    N., & Ni, Q

    Luo, B., Chen, X., Huang, J., Brandt, W. N., & Ni, Q. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.09981

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    K., Forster, K., Grefenstette, B., Harrison, F

    Madsen, K. K., Forster, K., Grefenstette, B., Harrison, F. A., & Miyasaka, H. 2022, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 8, 034003

    2022

  32. [32]

    K., Harrison, F

    Madsen, K. K., Harrison, F. A., Markwardt, C. B., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 8

    2015

  33. [33]

    2025, ApJ, 980, 268

    Mao, X., Liu, H.-Y ., Wang, S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 268

    2025

  34. [34]

    N., Coti Zelati, F., et al

    Marino, A., Yang, H. N., Coti Zelati, F., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, L36

    2025

  35. [35]

    L., Tennant, A., Grant, C

    Marshall, H. L., Tennant, A., Grant, C. E., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 5165, X- Ray and Gamma-Ray Instrumentation for Astronomy XIII, ed. K. A. Flana- gan & O. H. W. Siegmund, 497–508

    2004

  36. [36]

    2000, A&A, 361, 695

    Massaro, E., Cusumano, G., Litterio, M., & Mineo, T. 2000, A&A, 361, 695

    2000

  37. [37]

    2018, PASJ, 70, 21 O’Dell, S

    Nakajima, H., Maeda, Y ., Uchida, H., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, 21 O’Dell, S. L., Aldcroft, T. L., Blackwell, W. C., et al. 2007, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 6686, UV , X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XV , ed. O. H. Siegmund, 668603

    2018

  38. [38]

    P., Bogdan, A., & Marshall, H

    Plucinsky, P. P., Bogdan, A., & Marshall, H. L. 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

    2022

  39. [39]

    H., Angelini, L., & Harding, A

    Pravdo, S. H., Angelini, L., & Harding, A. K. 1997, ApJ, 491, 808 Article number, page 12 of 13 Huaqing Cheng et al.: In-flight calibration of the Wide-field X-ray Telescope on board theEinstein Probe

    1997

  40. [40]

    2023, in International Conference on Space Optics — ICSO 2022, ed

    Rukdee, S., Burwitz, V ., Hartner, G., et al. 2023, in International Conference on Space Optics — ICSO 2022, ed. K. Minoglou, N. Karafolas, & B. Cugny, V ol. 12777, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 127773F

    2023

  41. [41]

    2023, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Rukdee, S., Burwitz, V ., Hartner, G., et al. 2023, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 12679, Optics for EUV , X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Astronomy XI, ed. S. L. O’Dell, J. A. Gaskin, G. Pareschi, & D. Spiga, 1267910

    2023

  42. [42]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.07665

    Shu, X., Yang, L., Yang, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.07665

    arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    P., Li, D., Hall, X

    Srinivasaragavan, G. P., Li, D., Hall, X. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.10239 Strüder, L., Aschenbach, B., Bräuninger, H., et al. 2001, A&A, 375, L5

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    X., Liu, L

    Sun, H., Li, W. X., Liu, L. D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.02315

    arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    W., Yang, J., et al

    Sun, H., Wang, C. W., Yang, J., et al. 2025, National Science Review, 12, nwae401

    2025

  46. [46]

    & Seward, F

    Toor, A. & Seward, F. D. 1974, AJ, 79, 995

    1974

  47. [47]

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

    1995

  48. [48]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  49. [49]

    L., Coti Zelati, F., Parent, E., et al

    Wang, Y . L., Coti Zelati, F., Parent, E., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.11784

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    G., Schröder, A

    Watson, M. G., Schröder, A. C., Fyfe, D., et al. 2009, A&A, 493, 339

    2009

  51. [51]

    C., Guainazzi, M., Jahoda, K., et al

    Weisskopf, M. C., Guainazzi, M., Jahoda, K., et al. 2010, ApJ, 713, 912

    2010

  52. [52]

    W., Brunton, A

    Willingale, R., Fraser, G. W., Brunton, A. N., & Martin, A. P. 1998, Experimental Astronomy, 8, 281

    1998

  53. [53]

    F., Martindale, A., et al

    Willingale, R., Pearson, J. F., Martindale, A., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, T. Takahashi, & M. Bautz, 99051Y

    2016

  54. [54]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914

    2000

  55. [55]

    2022, PASP, 134, 035006

    Wu, Q., Jia, Z., Wang, W., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 035006

    2022

  56. [56]

    N., Maitra, C., Vasilopoulos, G., et al

    Yang, H. N., Maitra, C., Vasilopoulos, G., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 1357

    2025

  57. [57]

    2022, PASP, 134, 065002

    Yang, X., Zhang, C., Wang, W., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 065002

    2022

  58. [58]

    I., Fang, Y ., Zhang, B.-B., et al

    Yin, Y .-H. I., Fang, Y ., Zhang, B.-B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.00435

    arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    I., Zhang, B.-B., Yang, J., et al

    Yin, Y .-H. I., Zhang, B.-B., Yang, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, L27

    2024

  60. [60]

    K., et al

    Yuan, W., Amati, L., Cannizzo, J. K., et al. 2016, Space Sci. Rev., 202, 235

    2016

  61. [61]

    2025, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68

    Yuan, W., Dai, L., Feng, H., et al. 2025, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68

    2025

  62. [62]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.10014

    Yuan, W., Huang, Q.-J., Zhu, J.-P., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.10014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  63. [63]

    2022, The Einstein Probe Mission, ed

    Yuan, W., Zhang, C., Chen, Y ., & Ling, Z. 2022, The Einstein Probe Mission, ed. C. Bambi & A. Santangelo (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore), 1–30

    2022

  64. [64]

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

    Yuan, W., Zhang, C., Ling, Z., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumen- tation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 10699, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, 1069925

    2018

  65. [65]

    X., Sun, X

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

    2022

  66. [66]

    2025, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68, 219511 Article number, page 13 of 13

    Zhang, W., Yuan, W., Ling, Z., et al. 2025, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68, 219511 Article number, page 13 of 13

    2025