Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Sensitivity of the Prime-Cam Instrument on the CCAT-prime Telescope

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper projects that Prime-Cam will exceed all existing and planned instruments in sensitivity above 220 GHz.

desk verdict New Prime-Cam sensitivity numbers, transparently derived, but the 'unprecedented' claim is conditional on unverified detector yields and optical efficiencies, with the 850 GHz row most exposed. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10451 v2 pith:2MNE7OI6 submitted 2019-08-27 astro-ph.IM

Steve K. Choi , Jason Austermann , Kaustuv Basu , Nicholas Battaglia , Frank Bertoldi , Dongwoo T. Chung , Nicholas F. Cothard , Shannon Duff
show 14 more authors
Cody J. Duell Patricio A. Gallardo Jiansong Gao Terry Herter Johannes Hubmayr Michael D. Niemack Thomas Nikola Dominik Riechers Kayla Rossi Gordon J. Stacey Jason R. Stevens Eve M. Vavagiakis Michael Vissers Samantha Walker
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords cosmicmicrowavebackgroundepochofreionizationkineticinductancedetectorsCCAT-primePrime-CamSunyaev-Zel'dovicheffectsub-millimeterastronomyFabry-Perotinterferometer
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 estimates the sensitivity of Prime-Cam, the first-light receiver planned for the 6 m CCAT-prime telescope at Cerro Chajnantor, and argues that the combination of a 5,600 m dry site, a low-emissivity crossed Dragone telescope, and large kinetic inductance detector arrays operated near 100 mK will give it better sensitivity than any current or planned instrument for broadband and spectroscopic observations above 220 GHz. The projected performance is expressed as per-detector noise-equivalent power, array noise-equivalent temperature, and angular noise power spectra that include atmospheric low-frequency noise. If the forecast is right, these numbers open several surveys: CMB polarization and Rayleigh-scattering cosmology, Sunyaev-Zel'dovich cluster studies, [CII] intensity mapping across the epoch of reionization, and multi-year monitoring of protostellar accretion. The instrument is described as seven modules with about 112,000 detectors in its full configuration.

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by a sensitivity chain: an atmospheric model turns the site's water-vapor quartiles into sky transmission; the photon-noise noise-equivalent power per detector follows from that transmission together with assumed cold and warm optical efficiencies and a detector quantum efficiency of 80%; array noise-equivalent temperature follows from the NEP and the number of yielded detectors; and angular noise power spectra are assembled from the white-noise level plus an atmospheric $1/f$ term extrapolated from a long-wavelength noise model. The named central components are the kinetic inductance detector (KID, a superconducting resonator that registers incoming photons as a frequency shift) and the Fabry-Perot interferometer (FPI, a tunable etalon that gives the spectrometer a resolving power of $R=100$).

What would settle it

During the first observing season, measure the white-noise map depth of a deployed broadband module (for example 280 GHz) and compare it with the Table 1 forecast; an achieved noise-equivalent temperature above the predicted value by more than calibration uncertainty would falsify the photon-noise-limited and efficiency assumptions. A pre-deployment alternative is a laboratory measurement of the 850 GHz array's noise-equivalent power under representative sky loading at 100 mK.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is an end-to-end sensitivity projection for a not-yet-commissioned instrument. Starting from measured water-vapor distributions at the site and the telescope's low emissivity, the authors compute the photon-noise loading on each detector, convert that into array noise-equivalent temperatures using the planned detector counts, and build the angular noise power spectra from white noise plus an extrapolated atmospheric 1/f component. The result is a set of map depths, such as a 15,000 square degree survey reaching roughly 15 µK-arcmin at 220 GHz and an 850 GHz channel using about 16,600 detectors, that the paper states are unprecedented above 220 GHz and would enable the stated cosmology, cluster, reionization, and star-formation programs.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast assumes the detector arrays will be limited only by the random arrival of sky photons at 100 mK, with 80% quantum efficiency, 72% aperture efficiency, cold transmission of 86-56%, warm emissivity of 0.08-0.52, and roughly 16,600 yielded detectors in the 850 GHz channel; every sensitivity number scales linearly with these unverified inputs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 15,000 square degree wide survey at 220-410 GHz would deliver CMB polarization maps sensitive enough to probe Rayleigh scattering and to break degeneracies in cosmological parameters including the neutrino mass sum.
  • Combined with complementary CMB survey data, Prime-Cam maps would detect roughly 16,000 galaxy clusters through the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, supporting dark-energy and neutrino-mass studies.
  • The 210-420 GHz spectrometer modules could produce [CII] intensity maps of the epoch of reionization, with sensitivity to early star formation and to signatures of dark-matter decay.
  • Repeated 850 GHz imaging would track accretion-rate changes in hundreds of Milky Way protostars over multi-year timescales.
  • The seven-module focal plane with staged deployments means early science can begin with a partial instrument while the full 112,000-detector configuration is completed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If laboratory tests confirm photon-noise-limited KID performance, the same sensitivity model could transfer directly to a next-generation CMB survey instrument built around the same telescope, which the paper notes is a possible platform for such a stage.
  • The spectrometer's many correlated narrow channels may allow atmospheric $1/f$ noise to be removed by component separation; the paper flags this as future work, and if it works the targeted survey depths in Table 1 would improve.
  • The 850 GHz channel's depth scales linearly with the roughly 16,600-detector yield assumption, so a staged deployment that verifies yield early could rebalance modules before the full complement is built.
  • A direct, testable extension would be to compare the first on-sky white-noise maps with Table 1 depths, separating detector-limited from atmosphere-limited performance.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a sensitivity forecast for Prime-Cam, the first-light instrument on the 6 m CCAT-prime telescope. The instrument is planned to host seven modules: broadband polarimetric KID arrays at 220, 280, 350, 410, and 850 GHz and Fabry-Perot spectrometer modules covering 210-420 GHz at R = 100. The paper computes per-detector NEP from photon noise and wave noise using the am atmospheric model, adopted emissivities and optical efficiencies, and stated detector counts; it then derives array NET, integrated survey sensitivities, and angular noise power spectra for the planned wide, small-field, and targeted spectroscopic surveys. The central numerical output is Table 1, and the concluding claim is that Prime-Cam will have unprecedented sensitivity for broadband and spectroscopic observations above 220 GHz.

Significance. If the assumed detector counts, yields, and optical efficiencies are realized, Prime-Cam would be a uniquely capable high-frequency instrument, enabling the stated CMB, cluster SZ, [CII] intensity-mapping, and protostar-monitoring science cases. The paper's strengths are its transparent forward-modeling approach: the radiometer equations are standard, the atmospheric transmission model is publicly available, the key numerical inputs are stated explicitly rather than fitted, and no circularity is present in the sensitivity calculation. The sensitivity numbers are nevertheless design-stage forecasts that scale almost linearly with unverified detector and optical performance parameters, so the 'unprecedented sensitivity' claim must be read as conditional on those assumptions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Table 1] The headline sensitivities in Table 1 are directly proportional to assumed detector yields and optical efficiencies, and no uncertainty budget is provided. The most exposed entry is the 850 GHz row: the footnote states that only ~16,600 of 21,000 detectors are assumed yielded, and the 850 GHz channel sits at the worst end of the stated cold transmission (56%) and warm emissivity (0.52) ranges. Because integrated map depth scales approximately as the inverse square root of the product of yield and end-to-end efficiency, a factor-of-two shortfall in either quantity degrades the map depth by roughly 40%, which is large enough to erode the claimed advantage over existing high-frequency instruments. The manuscript should either propagate a plausible range of these parameters into Table 1 or state explicitly and prominently that the table represents nominal design goals rather than expected values.
  2. [Section 3, noise power spectra] The angular noise power spectra in Figure 3 and the Nred values in Table 1 rely on an extrapolation of ACT 150 GHz atmospheric 1/l noise to 220-850 GHz using the Simons Observatory model and PWV-dependent Rayleigh-Jeans factors. This extrapolation is not validated at the Prime-Cam frequencies, and for the spectrometer channels the red-noise component is omitted entirely with the statement that it 'will be investigated in the near future.' Since the science cases include CMB temperature and polarization measurements and [CII] intensity mapping, both of which are sensitive to large-scale atmospheric noise, this unvalidated extrapolation is load-bearing for the claimed large-scale sensitivity. The paper should quantify the impact of plausible deviations in the red-noise level or knee parameters, or at minimum mark the affected rows and figures as based on an unvalidated extrapolation.
  3. [Section 2 and Section 3, detector assumptions] The calculation assumes that the KID arrays are photon-noise limited at 100 mK and that the stated detector counts per module, quantum efficiency of 80%, aperture efficiency of 72%, and cold/warm optical efficiencies are all achieved. None of these values is demonstrated for the Prime-Cam bands in this paper, and the baseline configuration is acknowledged to 'may evolve' as the optimization study in [36] continues. These assumptions are not internally inconsistent, and a design-stage forecast can reasonably use them, but the conditional nature of the numbers should be carried through to the title claim in Section 4. I recommend adding one sentence in the conclusion that explicitly ties the 'unprecedented sensitivity' statement to the realization of the adopted detector yields and optical performance.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The title contains a typo: 'CCA T-prime' should be 'CCAT-prime.'
  2. [Abstract and Section 2] The detector count for the spectrometer modules is given as '31,000 KIDS' in the abstract but as '~10,000 KIDs at 250 GHz and ~21,000 KIDs at 360 GHz' in Section 2; the capitalization and spacing should be made consistent, and the abstract should state a total that matches the sum in the text.
  3. [Section 3, paragraph on polarization noise] The sentence 'The polarization noise power spectrum is given by Nred = Nwhite and 𝓁knee = 700 and αknee = −1.4' appears to contain a typo; it should presumably be N_l = N_white + N_red with the stated knee parameters, and the equation should be written out explicitly.
  4. [Table 1, footnote] The footnote marker for the 850 GHz row says that the instantaneous sensitivity NEI is given for each detector while the integrated noise levels use ~16,600 yielded detectors; this should be clarified in the table caption so that the reader does not mistake the 850 GHz NEI for an array-averaged value.
  5. [Throughout] The notation '1/𝓁 noise' is used in the text and should be typeset as '1/l noise' or 'red noise' consistently, and the mixing of 'KIDs' and 'KIDS' should be resolved in favor of the standard 'KIDs.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sensitivity forecast is a forward radiometer calculation from stated efficiencies, detector counts, and atmospheric inputs, with no output reused as an input.

full rationale

The Prime-Cam sensitivity derivation in Section 3 is a forward calculation, not a fit or a renaming of inputs. Photon-noise NEPs are computed from the standard shot-noise and bunching formulas cited to [37], using atmospheric transmission from the am code with measured PWV statistics from the CCAT-prime site [32]. Detector NETs are then obtained by dividing by the stated detector counts, and map depths and noise power spectra follow from observation time, survey area, beam size, and adopted 1/f noise parameters taken from ACT observations and the Simons Observatory noise model. No number in Table 1 is defined as the output of a fit, and no input parameter is constructed from the quantity it is used to predict. The detector counts, quantum efficiency (80%), aperture efficiency (72%), cold transmission (86-56%), and warm emissivity (0.08-0.52) are adopted design values, not derived in this paper; notably, the 850 GHz row derates the detector count to roughly 16,600 yielded detectors rather than assuming all 21,000 operate. The paper's own caveats, such as the baseline configuration 'may evolve' and the spectrometer 1/f treatment 'will be investigated in the near future', are limitations of a design-stage forecast, not evidence of circularity. Self-citations to collaboration design studies and to [37] for the radiometer equations are standard provenance for inputs and formulas and do not smuggle in the conclusion that Prime-Cam has unprecedented sensitivity. Thus no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation uses no new physical entities. All inputs are standard detector, optics, and atmosphere parameters adopted from the literature or from the collaboration's own design studies. The free parameters listed are assumed values whose actual performance will determine whether the sensitivity forecast is accurate.

free parameters (7)
  • Cold optical transmission per band = 86-56% (band-dependent)
    Assumed overall optical efficiency through cryostat optics; used in the NEP calculation and stated in Section 3.
  • Warm emissivity for first quartile weather = 0.08-0.52
    Additional loading from warm optics and atmosphere; used in the NEP calculation and stated in Section 3.
  • Detector quantum efficiency = 80%
    Assumed photon detection efficiency of the KID arrays; not based on measured detector performance.
  • Aperture efficiency = 72%
    Assumed fraction of the aperture used by the optics; stated in Section 3.
  • Detector counts per module = 8,000 at 220 GHz; 10,000 at 280 GHz; 21,000 at 350, 410, 850 GHz; 16,600 yielded at 850 GHz
    Scaled from the current 280 GHz array design and a mux factor of at most 580; sensitivity is inversely proportional to the square root of detector count.
  • Noise spectrum knee parameters = l_knee=1000, alpha=-3.5 for temperature; l_knee=700, alpha=-1.4 for polarization
    Adopted from the Simons Observatory noise model based on ACT observations; not measured for CCAT-prime, and affects the red noise component used in Figure 3.
  • Telescope emissivity = <2%
    Assumed low emissivity of the crossed Dragone design; cited from design papers and used in the loading calculation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The NEP equations from Stacey et al. [37] correctly describe photon shot noise and wave noise for these detectors.
    The paper cites the equations but does not derive them; it assumes they apply at 220-850 GHz with KID detectors.
  • domain assumption The Prime-Cam KID arrays will be photon-noise limited and operate at ~100 mK.
    This is stated in Section 3 as the basis for computing NET from NEP and detector count; no measured NEP is provided.
  • domain assumption Atmospheric transmission from the am code with PWV values from the CCAT-prime site is representative.
    Section 3 uses am code [38] and site PWV measurements [32] as input to the sensitivity calculation.
  • domain assumption ACT 150 GHz 1/f noise can be extrapolated to 220-850 GHz using the Simons Observatory noise model.
    This is the basis for the red noise power spectra in Figure 3 and for the knee parameters; the extrapolation is not validated at these frequencies.
  • domain assumption The crossed Dragone telescope design achieves the stated wide diffraction-limited field of view and low emissivity.
    These optical properties are cited from prior design papers and are used to justify the large focal plane and low loading.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sensitivity of the Prime-Cam Instrument on the CCAT-prime Telescope." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2MNE7OI6

@misc{pith2026190810451,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sensitivity of the Prime-Cam Instrument on the CCAT-prime Telescope},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2MNE7OI6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10451}
}
abstract

CCAT-prime is a new 6 m crossed Dragone telescope designed to characterize the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) polarization and foregrounds, measure the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effects of galaxy clusters, map the [CII] emission intensity from the Epoch of Reionization (EoR), and monitor accretion luminosity over multi-year timescales of hundreds of protostars in the Milky Way. CCAT-prime will make observations from a 5,600 m altitude site on Cerro Chajnantor in the Atacama Desert of northern Chile. The novel optical design of the telescope combined with high surface accuracy ($<$10 $\mu$m) mirrors and the exceptional atmospheric conditions of the site will enable sensitive broadband, polarimetric, and spectroscopic surveys at sub-mm to mm wavelengths. Prime-Cam, the first light instrument for CCAT-prime, consists of a 1.8 m diameter cryostat that can house seven individual instrument modules. Each instrument module, optimized for a specific science goal, will use state-of-the-art kinetic inductance detector (KID) arrays operated at $\sim$100 mK, and Fabry-Perot interferometers (FPI) for the EoR science. Prime-Cam will be commissioned with staged deployments to populate the seven instrument modules. The full instrument will consist of 60,000 polarimetric KIDs at a combination of 220/280/350/410 GHz, 31,000 KIDS at 250/360 GHz coupled with FPIs, and 21,000 polarimetric KIDs at 850 GHz. Prime-Cam is currently being built, and the CCAT-prime telescope is designed and under construction by Vertex Antennentechnik GmbH to achieve first light in 2021. CCAT-prime is also a potential telescope platform for the future CMB Stage-IV observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10451 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A model of the Prime-Cam cryostat (1.8 m diameter) is shown with a possible con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Atmospheric transmission spectra calculated with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Angular noise power spectra for temperature (left) and polarization (right) are shown. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Spectral Data-cube Cleaning for CCAT Deep Spectroscopic Survey. I. Effect of correlated noise and filtering on the power spectrum

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The EoR-Spec Filter-and-Bin pipeline suppresses atmospheric 1/f noise by about four orders of magnitude and recovers the [CII]+CO power spectrum above k ~ 0.1 Mpc^-1, but suppresses large-scale modes below 20% transfe...

  2. Towards a multi-tracer neutrino mass measurement with line-intensity mapping

    astro-ph.CO 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AtLAST [CII] line-intensity mapping, combined with CMB-S4 and DESI BAO forecasts, could reach sigma(sum m_nu) ~ 18 meV, and ~11.5 meV with a 21-cm tau prior.

  3. The CCAT-Prime Submillimeter Observatory

    astro-ph.IM 2019-09 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    A proposed submillimeter observatory, CCAT-prime, claims to deliver survey speeds an order of magnitude beyond current facilities for reionization and cluster studies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [36]

    CCAT Collaboration in prep

    work page

  2. [1]

    G. J. Stacey, et al. volume 10700 of Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, page 107001M, (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [2]

    BAAS, 51:213, (2019)

    Terry Herter, et al. BAAS, 51:213, (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [3]

    JCAP, 2013(8):053, (2013)

    Antony Lewis. JCAP, 2013(8):053, (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [4]

    Elham Alipour, Kris Sigurdson, and Christopher M. Hirata. Phys. Rev. D, 91(8):083520, (2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [5]

    S. W. Henderson, et al. Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 184:772–779, (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [6]

    JCAP, 2019(2):056, (2019)

    Peter Ade, et al. JCAP, 2019(2):056, (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [7]

    Eva-Maria Mueller, Francesco de Bernardis, Rachel Bean, and Michael D. Niemack. The Astrophysical Journal, 808(1):47, (2015)

    work page 2015

Show all 42 references
  1. [8]

    Eva-Maria Mueller, Francesco de Bernardis, Rachel Bean, and Michael D. Niemack. Physical Review D, 92(6):063501, (2015)

    2015

  2. [9]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476(3):3360–3381, (2018)

    Jens Erler, Kaustuv Basu, Jens Chluba, and Frank Bertoldi. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476(3):3360–3381, (2018)

    2018

  3. [10]

    Avirukt Mittal, Francesco de Bernardis, and Michael D. Niemack. Journal of Cosmol- ogy and Astro-Particle Physics, 2018(2):032, (2018)

    2018

  4. [11]

    ApJ, 745(1):49, (2012)

    Yan Gong, et al. ApJ, 745(1):49, (2012)

    2012

  5. [12]

    Cyril Creque-Sarbinowski and Marc Kamionkowski. Phys. Rev. D , 98(6):063524, (2018)

    2018

  6. [13]

    Komatsu, et al

    E. Komatsu, et al. astro2010: The Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey, volume 2010, page 158, (2009). 8 S.K. Choi 1 et al

    2009

  7. [14]

    Keating, and Anastasia Fialkov

    Azadeh Moradinezhad Dizgah, Garrett K. Keating, and Anastasia Fialkov. ApJ, 870(1):L4, (2019)

    2019

  8. [15]

    BAAS, 51(3):101, (2019)

    Ely Kovetz, et al. BAAS, 51(3):101, (2019)

    2019

  9. [16]

    S. W. Henderson, et al. volume 9914 of Proc. SPIE, page 99141G, (2016)

    2016

  10. [17]

    A. N. Bender, et al. volume 9914 of Proc. SPIE, page 99141D, (2016)

    2016

  11. [18]

    volume 10708 of Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, page 1070804, (2018)

    Nicholas Galitzki, et al. volume 10708 of Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, page 1070804, (2018)

    2018

  12. [19]

    J. E. Austermann, et al. Journal of Low Temperature Physics , 193(3-4):120–127, (2018)

    2018

  13. [20]

    Lourie, et al

    Nathan P. Lourie, et al. volume 10708 of Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, page 107080L, (2018)

    2018

  14. [21]

    Masi, et al

    S. Masi, et al. JCAP, 2019(7):003, (2019)

    2019

  15. [22]

    Catalano, et al

    A. Catalano, et al. Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 193(5-6):916–922, (2018)

    2018

  16. [23]

    J. E. Carlstrom, et al. PASP, 123(903):568, (2011)

    2011

  17. [24]

    A. T. Crites, et al. volume 9153 of Proc. SPIE, page 91531W, (2014)

    2014

  18. [25]

    volume 333 of IAU Symposium, pages 228–233, (2018)

    Guilaine Lagache. volume 333 of IAU Symposium, pages 228–233, (2018)

    2018

  19. [26]

    Parshley, et al

    Stephen C. Parshley, et al. volume 10700 of Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, page 1070041, (2018)

    2018

  20. [27]

    Michael D. Niemack. Appl. Opt., 55(7):1686, (2016)

    2016

  21. [28]

    Parshley, et al

    Stephen C. Parshley, et al. volume 10700 of Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, page 107005X, (2018)

    2018

  22. [29]

    E. M. Vavagiakis, et al. volume 10708 of Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, page 107081U, (2018)

    2018

  23. [30]

    S. R. Dicker, et al. volume 10700 of Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engi- neers (SPIE) Conference Series, page 107003E, (2018)

    2018

  24. [31]

    Datta, et al

    R. Datta, et al. Appl. Opt., 52(36):8747, (2013)

    2013

  25. [32]

    Simon J. E. Radford and Jeffery B. Peterson. PASP, 128(965):075001, (2016)

    2016

  26. [33]

    S. M. Duff, et al. Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 184:634–641, (2016)

    2016

  27. [34]

    S. P. Ho, et al. Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 184(3):559–567, (2016)

    2016

  28. [35]

    Cothard, et al., Journal of Low Temperature Physics, in this Special Issue LTD18

    N. Cothard, et al., Journal of Low Temperature Physics, in this Special Issue LTD18

  29. [37]

    Stacey, et al

    Gordon J. Stacey, et al. SWCam: the short wavelength camera for the CCAT Observa- tory, volume 9153 of Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Con- ference Series, page 91530L. (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    (2018, March 10)

    Paine, Scott. (2018, March 10). The am atmospheric model (Version 10.0). Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1193646

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    Hill, et al

    Charles A. Hill, et al. volume 10708 of Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engi- neers (SPIE) Conference Series, page 1070842, (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Louis, et al

    T. Louis, et al. JCAP, 6:031, (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    S. E. Harper, et al. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 478(2):2416– 2437, (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    T. Chen, R. A. Battye, A. A. Costa, C. Dickinson, and S. E. Harper.arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1907.12132, (2019)

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.