Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 19 references

Spatial Mapping and Capacitor Trimming Developments to Improve Usable Pixel Yield in PRIMA FIRESS Kilo-Pixel Arrays

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Laser-trimming capacitor tines after a flight-like LED mapping raises usable KID pixel yield by an order of magnitude.

desk verdict Solid engineering advance in KID mapping and trimming, but the load-bearing claim that mapper frequencies match the flight housing is asserted, not demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02273 v2 pith:IPLQOTJ7 submitted 2026-08-03 astro-ph.IM

Chris Albert , Jonathon Hunacek , Hien Nguyen , Ritoban Basu Thakur , Andrew Beyer , Charles (Matt) Bradford , Peter Day , Pierre Echternach
show 7 more authors
Byeong Ho Eom Logan Foote Marc Foote Steve Hailey-Dunsheath Reinier Janssen Elijah Kane Henry (Rick) LeDuc
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords kineticinductancedetectorsPRIMAFIRESSspatialmappingcapacitortrimmingLEDmapperresonancefrequencyspacingfar-infraredastronomy
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

The paper argues that a kilopixel kinetic inductance detector array can be made usable for astronomy by first mapping each detector's resonant frequency to its physical position with a flight-like LED illumination rig, then physically shortening the capacitor tines of selected detectors with a laser. If this holds, the two-step process removes collided resonances, reduces electrical crosstalk, and gives the array margin against slow frequency drift, converting devices that would otherwise lose pixels into fully usable arrays. The reported result on a 25-micron-sensitive PRIMA array is that after trimming, over 90% of yielded detectors have fractional nearest-resonance spacing at least $8\times 10^{-4}$, whereas before trimming only 90% of the population enjoyed as much as $8\times 10^{-5}$. The authors also report that median detector noise and its spread decreased after trimming, with no measurable harm from the destructive removal of capacitor tines.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a cryogenic LED mapper whose 63 near-infrared LEDs illuminate one 4×4 unit cell at a time through a 16-hole collimator, with an Offner relay (a mirror-based reimaging system) projecting the pattern onto the detector plane so that no metal from the mapper sits close enough to perturb the resonators. Each LED response is fit with a complex transmission model, and a cost matrix combining spatial overlap, expected frequency, and fit quality is fed to a stable matching algorithm that jointly converges on frequency and alignment models and a one-to-one pixel assignment. The trimming machinery is a 532 nm laser that ablates tines of the interdigitated capacitors, with the amount of removal set by a linear sum of tine lengths refined by physically motivated correction terms extracted from earlier trimmed arrays.

What would settle it

Take a mapped and trimmed array and re-measure its $S_{21}$ resonance frequencies after mounting it in the actual flight housing; if any resonator's frequency shifts by an amount comparable to the trimmed spacing (around the target $\delta x \approx 8\times 10^{-4}$), the mapping and trimming plan would no longer match the deployed configuration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On a microlens-hybridized 25 µm-sensitive PRIMA kilopixel array, the authors identify 921 resonances assumed to be yielded KIDs, assign 914 of them to physical positions, and laser-trim 773 selected detectors with 1023 shots to a targeted frequency schedule. The central discovery is that this procedure converts a sparse, collision-prone resonance distribution into a uniform one: post-trim, over 90% of yielded KIDs have fractional frequency spacing $\delta x \ge 8\times 10^{-4}$, compared with $\delta x \ge 8\times 10^{-5}$ for 90% of the pre-trim population. The same trimming reduces the array's median fractional-frequency noise and its pixel-to-pixel variance; detectors that were not trimmed benefit as much as trimmed ones, indicating the improvement comes from reducing array-level crosstalk rather than from modifying individual detectors.

Load-bearing premise

The trimming plan is chosen from resonant frequencies measured in the mapping rig, so the whole procedure assumes those frequencies are the same as in the flight housing; the paper states this consistency is crucial but does not compare the two environments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A standard kilopixel array can be mapped, trimmed, and calibrated in about 8–10 hours total, without cleanroom lithography, making post-fabrication processing fast enough for PRIMA's eight flight arrays.
  • The frequency schedule after trimming is uniform enough that bank overlap and collided resonances need not limit operating yield.
  • Reduced crosstalk lowers median detector noise and its variance across the array, which directly improves the sensitivity of FIRESS spectroscopy.
  • Because trimming is done in the same flight-like housing used for mapping, arrays can be processed and then transferred without re-establishing the resonance map.
  • The correction terms learned from previous trims transfer across devices, so later arrays can be trimmed more accurately without iterative re-measurement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not test what happens to the trimmed frequency schedule after the array is transferred from the mapping housing to the final flight housing; if that transfer shifts resonances, the trimming plan may need to be re-derived in the final package.
  • If the density of resonances per readout line keeps growing, the same trim-to-uniform-spacing logic could be used to intentionally place dead or unidentified resonators into gaps, effectively designing the readout plan around known failures.
  • The reported noise improvement suggests that crosstalk, not intrinsic detector quality, dominates the spread of noise in dense KID arrays; a direct test would be to compare a trimmed array against an untrimmed array with identical detector quality.
  • The mapping-plus-trimming pipeline is a candidate model for other kilo-pixel KID instruments, particularly those at short far-infrared wavelengths where feedhorns are impractical and collimated LED mapping previously introduced electrical coupling.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports improvements to the spatial mapping and resonant-frequency trimming of PRIMA FIRESS kilopixel KID arrays. A new LED-based mapper uses an Offner relay to reimage collimated light onto the detectors while keeping the array in a 'flight-like' electrical housing, and an iterative cost-matrix/stable-matching pipeline assigns each detected resonance to a physical pixel. After mapping, a laser ablates IDC tines to shift resonance frequencies according to a frequency-distribution algorithm, with corrections fitted on previously trimmed arrays. Results on one 25-micron array show that more than 90% of yielded KIDs achieve a fractional nearest-neighbor spacing delta-x >= 8e-4 after trimming, versus 8e-5 for 90% before trimming, and that median detector noise and its variance decreased. The central assumption is that resonant frequencies in the mapper equal those in the flight housing, which the authors state is 'crucial to choosing the optimal capacitor trimming plan.'

Significance. If the central assumption holds, this is a practically valuable contribution to PRIMA and to KID array instrumentation generally. The work combines a new optical/electrical isolation scheme (Offner relay), a sophisticated matching pipeline with a stable-matching algorithm, and a destructive laser-trimming process that avoids cleanroom lithography. The reported quantitative improvement in frequency spacing on a kilopixel array is a concrete, useful result, and the apparent lack of detector degradation after trimming is encouraging. The main significance is conditional on two unvalidated points: that the mapper reproduces the flight electrical environment, and that the mapping pipeline is accurate rather than merely self-consistent. The paper does not yet demonstrate that the improved spacing translates to increased usable yield in the actual flight housing.

major comments (4)
  1. [2.1] The manuscript states in Sec. 2.1 that 'The consistency of the resonant frequencies between the mapping system and standard operation is crucial to choosing the optimal capacitor trimming plan,' but no measurement compares S21, f0, Qc, or Qi between the mapping apparatus and the flight housing. All trimming targets in Sec. 2.2 and the post-trim delta-x statistics in Sec. 3 are computed from frequencies measured in the mapper. If transfer to the flight housing induces per-resonator frequency shifts—from differences in grounding, feedline geometry, cable routing, or nearby metal—the trimmed spacing and the claimed >90% yield at delta-x >= 8e-4 would not transfer to operation. A direct comparison of resonance parameters before and after a housing transfer, or a quantitative argument that any shift is common-mode and well below the delta-x tolerance, is needed to support the central claim.
  2. [2.1] The mapping pipeline is an iterative self-consistency loop: after an initial stable matching, the best-scoring matches are used to fit a frequency-correction model and an optics-alignment model, the cost functions are recomputed, and the matching is repeated until convergence. This loop can converge to a stable but incorrect assignment if the fitted models absorb systematic errors, and the reported 914/921 assignments and 876 high-confidence matches are outputs of the same loop rather than independent validations. The paper should provide an external accuracy check—for example, simulated injections with known truth, a comparison against a subset of pixels identified by another method, or a measure of agreement with the designed bank structure—to establish that the mapping is correct and not merely self-consistent.
  3. [3] The headline yield improvement is demonstrated only in the mapping/trimming apparatus. The delta-x statistics in Fig. 5 show that trimming achieves the intended frequency separation in the mapper, but 'usable yield' in the flight housing is not directly measured; the transfer assumption in my first major comment is load-bearing here. In addition, the relationship between delta-x and yield should be made explicit: what is the minimum delta-x required for reliable readout and crosstalk tolerance in FIRESS, and how does the post-trim distribution compare to that threshold? Without this operational model, the yield claim is a statement about frequency spacing, not about usable pixels.
  4. [3, Fig. 6] The noise comparison in Fig. 6 and the statements that 'median detector noise and the variance of the noise across the array decreased' and that 'any negative effects from the destructive trimming process were undetectable' are not quantified. The paper should report the number of resonators compared, the median Sxx values before and after, the change in variance with uncertainties, and a statistical test for the difference between trimmed and untrimmed pixels. Without these, the no-adverse-effects claim is underpowered and cannot be assessed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (1)] Equation (1) is typeset incorrectly: it contains an unbalanced parenthesis, the variable y_k is used before it is defined, and the relationship between the two displayed expressions is unclear; please rewrite and define all symbols.
  2. [2.1] The phrase '3x21 coarse spatial map' is not defined; please explain the meaning of the two dimensions in relation to the LED array and the unit-cell layout.
  3. [2.2] The statement that the refined trimming plan is 'consistent across devices' is not quantified; please report the number of arrays used for the fit and a measure of consistency, such as the scatter in the fitted correction coefficients.
  4. [Fig. 5] The S21 curves in the top panel are 'offset for clarity' but the offset value is not given; please include a scale bar or an unambiguous axis annotation.
  5. [References] Several references contain garbled characters and OCR artifacts (e.g., Ref. [5] and the encoding of accented names); please clean up the bibliography.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: trimming calibration and iterative matching are not circular; an unvalidated flight-transfer assumption is a validity risk, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical measurements (pre/post S21, fractional frequency spacing, noise) taken on the same mapper/trimmer apparatus, not predictions derived from a model whose inputs are the claimed outputs. The iterative matching loop in Sec. 2.1 (fit a frequency correction model and optics alignment from best-scoring matches, then recompute costs and rematch) is a joint estimation procedure; although it can converge to a self-consistent local optimum, the final assignment is not identically equal to the fitted model by construction because the spatial LED-response cost is independent data. The trimming correction terms in Sec. 2.2 are explicitly 'extracted from fits to the deviation between the desired trim and the measured result on previously trimmed FIRESS arrays,' i.e., calibration on earlier devices transferred to a new array; this is not the same as fitting and then 'predicting' the same data. The only self-citation (Albert et al. 2024, ref [12]) is contextual hardware heritage and is not load-bearing. The paper does contain a load-bearing unvalidated assumption that mapper and flight-housing resonant frequencies match (Sec. 2.1: 'The consistency of the resonant frequencies between the mapping system and standard operation is crucial to choosing the optimal capacitor trimming plan'), but no transfer measurement is shown; this is an external-validity gap, not a circular derivation, so it does not raise the circularity score. Verdict: no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on fitted correction coefficients and alignment/frequency models, plus an unverified equivalence between mapping and flight environments. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • IDC trimming higher-order correction coefficients = not reported
    Physically motivated correction terms fitted to deviation between desired and measured trim on previously trimmed FIRESS arrays (Sec. 2.2). Values not given.
  • Mapping frequency-correction model parameters = not reported
    Smooth readout frequency correction model fitted to best-scoring matches during iterative mapping (Sec. 2.1). No functional form or coefficients provided.
  • Optics alignment parameters = not reported
    Offset, rotation, and scale of the illumination pattern fitted iteratively to best-scoring matches (Sec. 2.1).
  • Cost matrix term weights = not reported
    Relative weights of spatial, frequency, and quality cost terms are not specified; presumably hand-tuned or optimized, but values absent.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The S21 model in Eq. (1) adequately describes the resonator response and yields accurate f0 and Qi.
    Used in the data acquisition routine to extract resonance parameters for every LED (Sec. 2.1).
  • domain assumption The frequency shift from laser ablation is a deterministic function of removed tine length plus the fitted correction terms, and these corrections transfer across device batches.
    The trimming plan calculates required shots from this model; consistency across devices is claimed but not shown quantitatively (Sec. 2.2).
  • domain assumption The mapping apparatus reproduces the flight housing's electrical environment, so resonant frequencies measured during mapping match those in operation.
    Author states this consistency is crucial for choosing the trimming plan (Sec. 2.1), but no comparison data are presented.
  • standard math Gale-Shapley stable matching produces the optimal one-to-one pixel-to-resonator assignment.
    Used to convert the cost matrix into a global matching (Sec. 2.1).
  • domain assumption Laser ablation of capacitor tines does not degrade optical response or long-term detector performance.
    Only noise and S21 are measured after trimming; optical response is not reported (Sec. 2.2, Sec. 3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spatial Mapping and Capacitor Trimming Developments to Improve Usable Pixel Yield in PRIMA FIRESS Kilo-Pixel Arrays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IPLQOTJ7

@misc{pith2026260802273,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spatial Mapping and Capacitor Trimming Developments to Improve Usable Pixel Yield in PRIMA FIRESS Kilo-Pixel Arrays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IPLQOTJ7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02273}
}
read the original abstract

The Probe far-Infrared Mission for Astrophysics (PRIMA) will use 8 kilo-pixel kinetic inductance detector (KID) arrays in its spectrometer module. We present an improved resonant frequency to spatial position mapping system designed to preserve each array's mapping after transferring it from the mapping apparatus to the flight housing. Such a mapping is necessary for astronomical observations, and additionally allows us to laser trim the capacitive elements of KIDs to optimize resonance separation in frequency space. This increases the operating yield by eliminating collided resonances, reduces crosstalk, and reduces the sensitivity to frequency drift over time.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02273 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The reimaging mapping assembly with the illumination pattern of the collimated LEDs. The LED [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Magnitude of S21 measurements and fits in one readout frequency segment for a single LED. the degeneracy in pixel identification. The quality cost matrix is computed from S21 fit quality metrics and parameters, ensuring that poor fits do not dominate true matches. From rows in the total cost matrix one can determine the most likely pixel position assignment for any given resonator, but this is not guaranteed to prod… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top: Relative detector response (df/f) of a sample resonance to each LED. The top 5 position candidates are shown as colored points with the ultimately selected match indicated by a black square. Center: Spatial-only cost of each design pixel if it were to be matched with the measured resonance. Bottom: The predicted frequency of various pixels compared to the measured resonance, indicating the top candidates as col… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top: Trimming setup with kilopixel array installed. The laser is contained inside the view-finder microscope. Bottom: Two examples of trimmed capacitor tines. Despite the localized debris spread by the laser ablation, no negative effects in performance were observed. 3…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: The complex transmission magnitude, offset for visual clarity, of an array before and after trimming. The dashed lines indicate how much each resonator was shifted. The dashed blue lines are for trimmed resonators, while dashed green shows those not selected for t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top: Median Sxx before and after trimming. Bottom: Median change in Sxx for each pixel after trimming. There is no significant difference between the KIDs that had tines trimmed and those that did not, and both populations benefit from the array-wide reduction in cross…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    PRIMA mission concept,

    Glenn, J., Meixner, M., Bradford, C. M., Pontoppidan, K., Pope, A., Kataria, T., Rocca, J., Luthman, E., Armus, L., Baselmans, J., Battersby, C., Bollato, A., Burgarella, D., Chen, W., Ciesla, L., Day, P., Di Giorgio, A., Dipirro, M., Dowell, C. D., Echternach, P., Essinger-Hileman, T., Foote, M., Gruppioni, C., Hensley, B., Henning, T., Jellema, W., John...

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, [Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s], The National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Moullet, A., Kataria, T., Lis, D., Unwin, S., Hasegawa, Y., Mills, E., Battersby, C., Roc, A., and Meixner, M. ¨ ı. ¿., [PRIMA General Observer Science Book] (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    PRIMA: PRIMAger, a far-infrared hyperspectral and polarimetric instrument,

    Ciesla, L., Dowell, C. D., Sauvage, M., Burgarella, D., Baselmans, J., B´ ethermin, M., Booth, J. T., Bradford, C. M., Canourgues, F., Charles, I., Costille, A., Essinger-Hileman, T., Ferrari, L., Floriot, J., Foote, M., Glenn, J., Goullioud, R., Griffin, M., Krause, O., Jellema, W., Luthman, E., Martin, L., Meixner, M., Pamplona, T., Pontoppidan, K. M., ...

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    The far-infrared enhanced survey spectrometer for PRIMA: approach and estimated performance,

    Bradford, C. M. M., Kogut, A. J., Fixsen, D., Pontoppidan, K., Dowell, C. D., Glenn, J., Pagano, T., Green, J., Foote, M., McGuire, J., Rodgers, M., Calvet, R., Nguyen, H., Hailey-Dunsheath, S., Foote, L., Kane, E., Janssen, R. M. J., Meixner, M., Pope, A., Bolatto, A., and Smith, J.-D., “The far-infrared enhanced survey spectrometer for PRIMA: approach a...

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Superconducting microresonators: Physics and applications,

    Zmuidzinas, J., “Superconducting microresonators: Physics and applications,”Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics3(Mar. 2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    DARKNESS: A Microwave Kinetic Inductance Detector Integral Field Spectrograph for High-contrast Astronomy,

    Meeker, S. R., Mazin, B. A., Walter, A. B., Strader, P., Fruitwala, N., Bockstiegel, C., Szypryt, P., Ulbricht, G., Coiffard, G., Bumble, B., Cancelo, G., Zmuda, T., Treptow, K., Wilcer, N., Collura, G., Dodkins, R., Lipartito, I., Zobrist, N., Bottom, M., Shelton, J. C., Mawet, D., van Eyken, J. C., Vasisht, G., and Serabyn, E., “DARKNESS: A Microwave Ki...

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    The NIKA2 large-field-of-view millimetre continuum camera for the 30 m IRAM telescope,

    Adam, R., Adane, A., Ade, P. A. R., Andr´ e, P., Andrianasolo, A., Aussel, H., Beelen, A., Beno ˆ ıt, A., Bideaud, A., Billot, N., Bourrion, O., Bracco, A., Calvo, M., Catalano, A., Coiffard, G., Comis, B., De Petris, M., D´ esert, F.-X., Doyle, S., Driessen, E. F. C., Evans, R., Goupy, J., Kramer, C., Lagache, G., Leclercq, S., Leggeri, J.-P., Lestrade, ...

    work page 2018

Show all 19 references
  1. [9]

    The MKID Exoplanet Camera for Subaru SCExAO,

    Walter, A. B., Fruitwala, N., Steiger, S., Bailey, III, J. I., Zobrist, N., Swimmer, N., Lipartito, I., Smith, J. P., Meeker, S. R., Bockstiegel, C., Coiffard, G., Dodkins, R., Szypryt, P., Davis, K. K., Daal, M., Bumble, B., Collura, G., Guyon, O., Lozi, J., Vievard, S., Jova...

    2020

  2. [10]

    The TolTEC camera: an overview of the instrument and in-lab testing results,

    Wilson, G. W., Abi-Saad, S., Ade, P., Aretxaga, I., Austermann, J., Ban, Y., Bardin, J., Beall, J., Berthoud, M., Bryan, S., Bussan, J., Castillo, E., Chavez, M., Contente, R., DeNigris, N. S., Dober, B., Eiben, M., Ferrusca, D., Fissel, L., Gao, J., Golec, J. E., Golina, R., ...

    2020

  3. [11]

    CCAT-prime Collaboration: Science Goals and Forecasts with Prime-Cam on the Fred Young Submillimeter Telescope,

    CCAT-Prime Collaboration, Aravena, M., Austermann, J. E., Basu, K., Battaglia, N., Beringue, B., Bertoldi, F., Bigiel, F., Bond, J. R., Breysse, P. C., Broughton, C., Bustos, R., Chapman, S. C., Charmetant, M., Choi, S. K., Chung, D. T., Clark, S. E., Cothard, N. F., Crites, A...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Spatial mapping of kilopixel kinetic inductance detector arrays for PRIMA,

    Albert, C., Basu Thakur, R., Bradford, C. M., Cothard, N., Day, P., Eom, B. H., Foote, L., Foote, M., Glenn, J., Janssen, R., Kane, E., LeDuc, H. R., Nguyen, H., and Zmuidzinas, J., “Spatial mapping of kilopixel kinetic inductance detector arrays for PRIMA,” in [Millimeter, Su...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Cryogenic LED pixel-to-frequency mapper for kinetic inductance detector arrays,

    Liu, X., Guo, W., Wang, Y., Wei, L. F., Mckenney, C. M., Dober, B., Billings, T., Hubmayr, J., Ferreira, L. S., Vissers, M. R., and Gao, J., “Cryogenic LED pixel-to-frequency mapper for kinetic inductance detector arrays,”Journal of Applied Physics122, 034502 (July 2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    CCAT-prime: design of the Mod- Cam receiver and 280 GHz MKID instrument module,

    Vavagiakis, E. M., Duell, C. J., Austermann, J., Beall, J., Bhandarkar, T., Chapman, S. C., Choi, S. K., Coppi, G., Dicker, S., Devlin, M., Freundt, R. G., Gao, J., Groppi, C., Herter, T. L., Huber, Z. B., Hubmayr, J., Johnstone, D., Keller, B., Kofman, A. M., Li, Y., Mauskopf...

    2022

  7. [15]

    A scalable cryogenic LED module for selectively illuminating kinetic inductance detector arrays,

    Shroyer, J. E., Nelson, M., Walters, L., and Johnson, B. R., “A scalable cryogenic LED module for selectively illuminating kinetic inductance detector arrays,”Review of Scientific Instruments93, 113107 (Nov. 2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Cosmic Ray Susceptibility of the Terahertz Intensity Mapper Detector Arrays,

    Liu, L.-J., Janssen, R. M. J., Bumble, B., Kane, E., Foote, L. M., Bradford, C. M., Dunsheath, S. H., Agrawal, S., Aguirre, J. E., Athreya, H., Bracks, J. S., Brendal, B. S., Corso, A. J., Filippini, J. P., Fu, J., Groppi, C. E., Joralmon, D., Keenan, R. P., Kowalik, M., Lowe,...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Monolithic silicon microlens arrays for far-infrared astrophysics,

    Cothard, N. F., Stevenson, T., Mateo, J., Costen, N., Denis, K., Perido, J., Schrock, I., Wang, F., and Glenn, J., “Monolithic silicon microlens arrays for far-infrared astrophysics,”Applied Optics63, 1481 (Feb. 2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Optimization of Lenslet Arrays for PRIMA Kinetic Inductance Detectors,

    Dahal, S., Stevenson, T. R., Costen, N. P., DeNigris, N., Glenn, J., Hu, G., Jhabvala, C. A., Morales- Sanchez, R., Patel, J. B., Quijada, M. A., Schrock, I., Wang, F. H., and Wollack, E. J., “Optimization of Lenslet Arrays for PRIMA Kinetic Inductance Detectors,”IEEE Transact...

    2026

  11. [19]

    College admissions and the stability of marriage,

    Gale, D. and Shapley, L. S., “College admissions and the stability of marriage,”The American Mathematical Monthly69(1), 9–15 (1962)

    1962

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.