Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

High count rate effects in event processing for XRISM/Resolve x-ray microcalorimeter: I. Ground test

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ground tests with a parallel CPU-unlimited processor separate the three high-count-rate degradation mechanisms of XRISM/Resolve and quantify the cross-talk contribution with a quadratic relation.

desk verdict Solid instrument-calibration study with a unique parallel-processing ground test; the cross-talk model rests on a somewhat mixed comparison, but the paper deserves serious refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03283 v1 pith:JMDCHFQV submitted 2025-01-06 astro-ph.IM

Misaki Mizumoto , Tsubasa Tamba , Masahiro Tsujimoto , Renata S. Cumbee , Megan E. Eckart , Edmund Hodges-Kluck , Yoshitaka Ishisaki , Caroline A. Kilbourne
show 6 more authors
Maurice A. Leutenegger Frederick S. Porter Makoto Sawada Yoh Takei Yuusuke Uchida Shin'ya Yamada
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords XRISMResolveX-raymicrocalorimeterhighcountratecrosstalkpile-upCPUlimitspectralresolution
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

XRISM/Resolve is an X-ray microcalorimeter whose high energy resolution degrades when the observed source is bright. This paper exploits a ground test in which the flight hardware recorded events through the normal onboard processor while, in parallel, an unlimited software processor handled the same data stream, exposing the losses caused by the onboard CPU. It separates the degradation into three effects — CPU overflow, pulse pile-up, and untriggered electrical cross talk — and supplies phenomenological models for each, including a quadratic relation between the cross-talk contamination fraction and the excess line broadening ($0.125\, \mathrm{FWHM_{excess}}^2 + 0.054\, \mathrm{FWHM_{excess}} = \beta_{\rm XTalk}$). If the models hold, observers can recover true exposure times to within 4% during CPU overflow and can predict when a cross-talk cut will restore resolution, preventing spurious astrophysical conclusions such as a false increase of turbulent velocity with source brightness.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a set of three phenomenological models: a linear CPU-consumption model in which each event grade contributes a fixed load per quadrant, a pile-up live-time factor $\exp(-2\nu\Delta t_{\rm thres})$, and the empirical cross-talk equation relating $\mathrm{FWHM_{excess}}$ to $\beta_{\rm XTalk}$. The decisive experimental mechanism is the parallel data path: a data repeater inserted between the analog electronics and the flight Pulse Shape Processor feeds the same raw stream to a software processor with essentially no CPU limits, so the true incoming rate, the contamination fraction, and the bad-time intervals can be measured directly. The cross-talk model is calibrated on Ni K-$\alpha$ lines and then extrapolated to astrophysical spectra by scaling the excess broadening by the ratio of the count-weighted mean photon energies.

What would settle it

Measure the $\mathrm{FWHM_{excess}}$ versus $\beta_{\rm XTalk}$ relation using only ground-test steps where the count rate stays below the CPU limit (no PSP overflow), so the PSP and SCDP paths differ only by the cross-talk cut; if the best-fit quadratic differs from Eq. (3), CPU-loss degradation contaminated the calibration. An in-orbit counterpart would be a bright source with an independently known intrinsic line width, checking whether the uncorrected spectrum shows exactly the predicted extra broadening.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that high-count-rate degradation of Resolve can be decomposed into several mechanisms, with untriggered electrical cross talk being the main cause of energy-resolution loss at very high rates. The cross-talk contribution is quantified by the empirical equation $0.125\, \mathrm{FWHM_{excess}}^2 + 0.054\, \mathrm{FWHM_{excess}} = \beta_{\rm XTalk}$, where $\beta_{\rm XTalk}$ is the fraction of events contaminated by cross-talk children from neighboring pixels and $\mathrm{FWHM_{excess}}$ is the quadrature excess broadening obtained by comparing spectra with and without the cross-talk cut. Because $\beta_{\rm XTalk}$ can be computed from the count-rate map of any planned observation, the relation turns a detector artifact into a planning tool. The paper demonstrates the consequences with a simulated GX 13+1 observation: ignoring the effect inflates the measured turbulent velocity from 200 to 206 km/s, while applying the cross-talk cut restores the resolution at the cost of live time; doubling the source flux pushes one CPU past its limit, so the cut can no longer be fully applied.

Load-bearing premise

The cross-talk model assumes that the only difference between the two processing paths used to measure excess broadening is the presence or absence of the cross-talk cut, although the PSP path also suffers CPU-loss and dead-time effects that get folded into the fitted relation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observers can correct the true exposure time of each pixel using the bad-time telemetry; in the ground test this recovers the incoming rate to within 4% even during PSP overflow, with the remaining shortfall attributed to pile-up.
  • The CPU-consumption model predicts whether a planned observation will overflow: for a 270 mCrab GX 13+1 with the 1/4 ND filter the load is 0.667 on the busiest quadrant, so no event loss is expected, but doubling the flux pushes one CPU to 1.21 and causes loss.
  • The cross-talk model lets planners choose: without the cut a 100 mCrab irradiated point source suffers about 2.9 eV of line distortion, while the cut restores resolution but leaves 83.5% live time.
  • Uncorrected cross talk biases astrophysical parameters: a true turbulent velocity of 200 km/s is measured as 206 km/s, and the bias grows with flux (211 and 214 km/s at double and triple flux), creating a spurious flux dependence.
  • Pile-up screening based on RISE TIME versus energy and SLOPE DIFFER reduces the pile-up bump above 10 keV to 32.8% of its original count, and the residual dead time is described by $\exp(-2\nu\Delta t_{\rm thres})$ with $\Delta t_{\rm thres}\simeq 2$ ms for the PSP.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If Eq. (3) is calibrated with a hard Ni line, its extrapolation to softer astrophysical spectra through an energy-scaling factor has not been validated with data; a dedicated soft-line ground calibration or an in-orbit cross-check would test that scaling.
  • The cross-talk model is built on uniform-illumination Ni data with counts averaged across pixels; for real point sources with steep count-rate gradients, per-pixel $\beta_{\rm XTalk}$ and neighbor rates should be used, and the paper's GX 13+1 map indeed shows the effect peaking in the first neighbor pixel rather than the source pixel.
  • The same parallel-processing methodology could be applied to other microcalorimeter instruments to separate onboard CPU losses from detector physics before launch.
  • When the CPU overflows, cross-talk parents inside bad-time intervals cannot be identified, so the cross-talk cut is incomplete; in that regime it may be necessary to model the residual broadening rather than rely on the cut.
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. The paper presents ground-test measurements of the XRISM/Resolve microcalorimeter at high count rates, exploiting a unique setup in which the flight PSP processing is run in parallel with an SCDP path that is free of CPU limits. The authors model three effects that degrade performance at high count rates: the CPU limit (a linear grade-dependent CPU-load model fit to Ni data and validated on KBr data), pulse pile-up (an effective exposure-time model based on a Poisson survival fraction), and untriggered electrical cross talk (an empirical relation between an excess width FWHM_excess and the cross-talk-contaminated fraction beta_XTalk). These models are then applied to a simulated observation of GX 13+1, where the predicted cross-talk broadening of 1.19 eV inflates the recovered turbulent velocity from 200 to 206 km/s if left uncorrected.

Significance. The paper addresses a practical and important problem for high-resolution microcalorimeter spectroscopy at high count rates. Its principal strengths are the unique parallel PSP/SCDP ground-test dataset, the successful use of lost-event telemetry to correct bad time intervals to within 4%, and the independent validation of the CPU-load model on KBr data. The resulting phenomenological tools (Eqs. 1, 3, 4, 5) are directly useful for observation planning, and the warning about artificially flux-dependent turbulent velocities is scientifically important. The main weakness is the construction of FWHM_excess, which mixes the PSP and SCDP processing paths and therefore may not isolate cross talk as cleanly as claimed; this affects the quantitative astrophysical prediction.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1.3, Eq. (2)] The excess broadening FWHM_excess is computed as (FWHM_withXtalk^2 - FWHM_noXtalk^2)^{1/2}, where FWHM_withXtalk is the PSP-processed spectrum without a cross-talk cut (blue bins, left panel of Fig. 16) and FWHM_noXtalk is the SCDP-processed spectrum with a first-neighbor cross-talk cut (orange bins, right panel of Fig. 16). These two paths differ in more than the cross-talk cut: the PSP path is subject to the CPU limit and associated event loss, while the SCDP path is not, and the pile-up rejection thresholds differ (approximately 2 ms in PSP versus 0.8 ms in SCDP; see §3.3.2). The paper itself notes in §3.3.3 that beyond the CPU limit some cross-talk parents fall inside dead-time intervals and cannot be identified. Consequently, FWHM_excess — and therefore the fitted coefficients in Eq. (3) — can absorb CPU-loss broadening and residual pile-up differences rather than isolating untriggered electrical cross talk. Because Eq. (3) is the engine behind the simulated GX 13+1 excess broadening of 1.19 eV and the vturb = 206 km/s result, the separable decomposition that the paper claims is not cleanly demonstrated at this load-bearing point. I recommend recomputing FWHM_excess from the SCDP no-cut and SCDP first-neighbor-cut spectra of the right panel of Fig. 16, where only the cut differs, or providing a quantitative demonstration that the PSP and SCDP no-cut FWHM values agree at all count rates used in the fit.
  2. [§4.2.2, hardness scaling] The hardness correction applied to FWHM_excess for GX 13+1 is a linear scaling by E_GX13+1/E_Ni-K = 4.14/7.47 = 0.58, with no empirical or simulated calibration. The paper states in §4.1.3 that the degradation is highly dependent on spectral hardness, but the assumed linear dependence on count-weighted average photon energy is an ad hoc ansatz that directly sets the predicted 1.19 eV broadening and the vturb inflation. A validation of this scaling, or at least an error bar that propagates the uncertainty in the hardness scaling, is needed before the astrophysical conclusion can be quantified.
  3. [§4.1.2, Fig. 19] The pile-up model alpha_noPileUp is fitted to a deterministic curve generated by assuming the Poisson survival fraction exp(-2*nu*Delta_t_thres) with Delta_t_thres = 2 ms, which is the same formula introduced in §3.3.2. The fit therefore provides no independent validation of the pile-up model; only the 4% shortfall in Steps 2 and 19 of Table 3 is direct empirical evidence, and that evidence is consistent but not strongly constraining. The text should state explicitly that Fig. 19 is a reparameterization of the assumed analytic pile-up formula rather than a measurement, so that readers do not interpret the good fit in Fig. 19 as empirical validation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.3.3] In the sentence about the cross-talk cut working only partially, "a some events" should be "some events".
  2. [§3.2.2] In the phrase "the Mn K α enery band", "enery" should be "energy".
  3. [§4.2.2] The pointer "Figures 25 and 4.2.2" should be "Figures 25 and 26".
  4. [§3.3.3] The phrase "the most right-handed data bins" should be "the rightmost data bins".
  5. [Table 3] Consider adding a sentence in the caption clarifying that columns (1)-(7) are counts rates in s^-1 pixel^-1 and that the 4% shortfall in Steps 2 and 19 is the pile-up effect discussed in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; central models are explicit empirical calibrations, and the GX 13+1 results are forward applications. The Eq.(2) PSP/SCDP pipeline mismatch is a validity caveat for the cross-talk fit, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's three effects are calibrated rather than derived from first principles: CPU load is fit by least squares to Ni data (Eq. 1) and then checked on KBr data; pile-up exposure loss is obtained from the Poisson formula exp(-2 nu Delta t_thres) and then fit to a phenomenological curve; cross-talk broadening is fit to ground-test measurements in Eq. (3). The GX 13+1 numbers (206/211/214 km/s) are explicitly presented as an illustration of applying these models ('To illustrate the application of these models in observation planning'), not as independent validation, so they are applications of fitted relations rather than disguised inputs. The nearest concern is Eq. (2), where FWHM_excess is built from FWHM_withXtalk in the PSP path and FWHM_noXtalk in the SCDP path; the paper itself notes that SCDP has no CPU loss and a smaller pile-up threshold ('Delta t_thres in SCDP is as small as ~0.8 ms' and 'the SCDP result ... does not suffer from such losses'), so the fit may absorb CPU-related broadening into the cross-talk coefficient. This is a genuine internal-validity caveat, but it is not a circular reduction: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the astrophysical numbers are explicitly derived from the empirical equation. The CPU linear-combination form is attributed to Ref. [15], a self-citation, but the coefficients are newly fitted and independently verified on KBr, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. Finding: no significant circularity; score reflects the minor self-citation and unresolved Eq. (2) confound as correctness risks rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on several fitted coefficients and chosen thresholds: CPU load fractions, the 2 ms pile-up threshold, cross-talk model coefficients, phenomenological curve fits, and an ad hoc energy-scaling factor. The paper is transparent that the models are phenomenological and planning-oriented, but the cross-talk relation especially lacks external validation.

free parameters (6)
  • Per-grade CPU load fractions a_Hp, a_Mp, a_Ms, a_Lp, a_Ls, a_BL, a_antico for quadrants A0, A1, B0, B1 = Table 4 (e.g., a_Hp = 0.0197 ± 0.0001 for A0)
    Fitted by least squares to Ni data in Sec 4.1.1 and used in Eq (1).
  • Pile-up threshold Delta_t_thres = 2 ms
    Assumed constant in Sec 4.1.2 for all events; the SCDP value is ~0.8 ms, so the choice is approximate.
  • Cross-talk broadening coefficients (Eq 3) = 0.125 and 0.054
    Fitted to Ni data relation between FWHM_excess and beta_XTalk; no uncertainties reported.
  • Phenomenological coefficients in alpha_noPileUp, FWHM_excess vs fX, and alpha_XTalk = alpha_noPileUp = exp(-fX/959)*(1 - 1.055e-4 fX + 4.842e-7 fX^2); log10(FWHM_excess) = -0.0728*(log10 fX)^2 +…
    Phenomenological fits to simulated curves in Sec 4.1.2 and 4.1.3, valid only up to 2 Crab.
  • Spectral hardness scaling factor = 0.58 (EGX13+1/ENi-K)
    Ad hoc factor in Sec 4.2.2 scaling FWHM_excess from the Ni line energy to the GX 13+1 average energy.
  • Cross-talk contamination time window = ±25 ms for first neighbors
    Chosen in Sec 3.3.3 to define cross-talk-contaminated events; no sensitivity study.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Photon arrivals follow a Poisson process: fraction of events within Delta_t of another is 1 - exp(-2 nu Delta_t).
    Used in Sec 3.3.2 and 4.1.2 to estimate pile-up dead time and alpha_noPileUp.
  • domain assumption The PSP CPU consumption rate is a linear combination of per-grade event rates plus a base load (Eq 1).
    Model assumption in Sec 4.1.1; coefficients fitted by least squares.
  • domain assumption Electric cross talk is confined to first and second pixel neighbors with fixed coupling (i±1 at 0.6%, i±2 at 0.1%), and a ±25 ms window defines contamination.
    Instrument description in Sec 2 and Sec 3.3.3; the window is chosen, not derived.
  • domain assumption Energy-resolution contributions add in quadrature: FWHM_excess = sqrt(FWHM_with^2 - FWHM_no^2).
    Used in Eq (2) to isolate cross talk broadening.
  • domain assumption Bad-time intervals correctly represent the exposure time lost to PSP overflow for each pixel.
    Used in Sec 3.3.1 to correct count rates; assumes lost events are uniformly distributed across the recorded bad interval.
  • ad hoc to paper The spectral hardness correction scales FWHM_excess linearly with the count-weighted average photon energy (0.58 for GX 13+1).
    Introduced in Sec 4.2.2 as a preliminary approximation with no independent verification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High count rate effects in event processing for XRISM/Resolve x-ray microcalorimeter: I. Ground test." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JMDCHFQV

@misc{pith2026250103283,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High count rate effects in event processing for XRISM/Resolve x-ray microcalorimeter: I. Ground test},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JMDCHFQV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03283}
}
read the original abstract

The spectroscopic performance of an X-ray microcalorimeter is compromised at high count rates. In this study, we utilize the Resolve X-ray microcalorimeter onboard the XRISM satellite to examine the effects observed during high count rate measurements and propose modeling approaches to mitigate them. We specifically address the following instrumental effects that impact performance: CPU limit, pile-up, and untriggered electrical cross talk. Experimental data at high count rates were acquired during ground testing using the flight model instrument and a calibration X-ray source. In the experiment, data processing not limited by the performance of the onboard CPU was run in parallel, which cannot be done in orbit. This makes it possible to access the data degradation caused by limited CPU performance. We use these data to develop models that allow for a more accurate estimation of the aforementioned effects. To illustrate the application of these models in observation planning, we present a simulated observation of GX 13+1. Understanding and addressing these issues is crucial to enhancing the reliability and precision of X-ray spectroscopy in situations characterized by elevated count rates.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. XRISM insights for interstellar Sulfur

    astro-ph.GA 2025-06 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    The paper reports the first high-signal detection of interstellar SII K-beta absorption and a direct measurement of sulfur depletion (40% ± 15%) from combined gas and dust absorption in the GX 340+0 sightline.

  2. The Structure of the Relativistic Fe Line in GX 340+0 as Viewed with XRISM/Resolve, NICER, and NuSTAR

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The Fe K line of GX 340+0 shows a dual-peaked structure with residual narrow emission features at the ~5% level that RELXILLNS reflection modeling alone does not reproduce.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    McCammon, S

    D. McCammon, S. H. Moseley, J. C. Mather, et al. , `` Experimental tests of a single‐photon calorimeter for x‐ray spectroscopy ,'' Journal of Applied Physics 56 , 1263--1266 (1984)

    work page 1984

  2. [2]

    Tashiro , H

    M. Tashiro , H. Maejima , K. Toda , et al. , `` Status of x-ray imaging and spectroscopy mission (XRISM) ,'' in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray , J.-W. A. den Herder , S. Nikzad , and K. Nakazawa , Eds., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 11444 , 1144422 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    K. R. Boyce , M. D. Audley , R. G. Baker , et al. , `` Design and performance of the ASTRO-E/XRS signal processing system ,'' in EUV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Instrumentation for Astronomy X , O. H. Siegmund and K. A. Flanagan , Eds., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 3765 , 741--750 (1999)

    work page 1999

  4. [4]

    Tsujimoto , T

    M. Tsujimoto , T. Okajima , M. E. Eckart , et al. , `` In-flight calibration of Hitomi Soft X-ray Spectrometer. (3) Effective area ,'' 70 , 20 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Mitsuda et al

    K. Mitsuda et al. , `` Soft x-ray spectrometer (SXS): the high-resolution cryogenic spectrometer onboard ASTRO-H ,'' in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray , T. Takahashi, J.-W. A. den Herder, and M. Bautz, Eds., 9144 , 91442A (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Takahashi et al

    T. Takahashi et al. , `` Hitomi (ASTRO-H) X-ray Astronomy Satellite ,'' Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems 4 (2), 1 -- 13 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Ishisaki , R

    Y. Ishisaki , R. L. Kelley , H. Awaki , et al. , `` Status of resolve instrument onboard X-Ray Imaging and Spectroscopy Mission (XRISM) ,'' in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series , J.-W. A. den Herder , S. Nikzad , and K. Nakazawa , Eds., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 12...

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Sato , Y

    K. Sato , Y. Uchida , and K. Ishikawa , Hitomi/XRISM Micro-Calorimeter , 93--123. Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    R. L. Kelley, H. Awaki, J. C. Balleza, et al. , `` Overview and inflight performance of the resolve high-resolution soft X-Ray spectrometer on the X-Ray imaging and spectroscopy mission ,'' Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems 11 (2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    E. S. Kammoun , D. Barret , P. Peille , et al. , `` The defocused observations of bright sources with Athena/X-IFU ,'' 664 , A29 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Willingale , B

    R. Willingale , B. Aschenbach , R. G. Griffiths , et al. , `` New light on the X-ray spectrum of the Crab Nebula ,'' 365 , L212--L217 (2001)

    2001

  4. [12]

    C. A. Kilbourne , J. S. Adams , R. P. Brekosky , et al. , `` Design, implementation, and performance of the Astro-H SXS calorimeter array and anticoincidence detector ,'' Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems 4 , 011214 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    F. S. Porter , K. R. Boyce , M. P. Chiao , et al. , `` In-flight performance of the soft x-ray spectrometer detector system on Astro-H ,'' Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems 4 , 011218 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    R. L. Kelley , H. Akamatsu , P. Azzarello , et al. , `` The Astro-H high resolution soft x-ray spectrometer ,'' in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray , J.-W. A. den Herder , T. Takahashi , and M. Bautz , Eds., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumen...

    2016

  7. [15]

    Ishisaki , S

    Y. Ishisaki , S. Yamada , H. Seta , et al. , `` In-flight performance of pulse-processing system of the ASTRO-H/Hitomi soft x-ray spectrometer ,'' Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems 4 , 011217 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    F. S. Porter, M. P. Chiao, M. E. Eckart, et al. , `` Temporal Gain Correction for X-ray Calorimeter Spectrometers ,'' Journal of Low Temperature Physics 184 , 498--504 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    F. S. Porter, C. A. Kilbourne, M. Chiao, et al. , `` In-flight performance of the XRISM/Resolve detector system ,'' Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems 11 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Cucchetti , M

    E. Cucchetti , M. E. Eckart , P. Peille , et al. , `` Multi-parameter Nonlinear Gain Correction of X-ray Transition Edge Sensors for the X-ray Integral Field Unit ,'' Journal of Low Temperature Physics 193 , 931--939 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    S. J. Smith, M. C. Witthoeft, J. S. Adams, et al. , ``Correcting gain drift in tes detectors for future x-ray satellite missions,'' IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 33 (5), 1--6 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Cucchetti , S

    E. Cucchetti , S. J. Smith , M. C. Witthoeft , et al. , `` Advanced Energy Scale Correction Techniques for the X-ray Transition Edge Sensors of the Athena mission ,'' Journal of Low Temperature Physics 216 , 292--301 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    M. E. Eckart, G. V. Brown, M. P. Chiao, et al. , `` Energy gain scale calibration of the XRISM Resolve microcalorimeter spectrometer: ground calibration results and on orbit comparison ,'' Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems 11 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    M. E. Eckart , J. S. Adams , K. R. Boyce , et al. , `` Ground calibration of the Astro-H (Hitomi) soft x-ray spectrometer ,'' Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems 4 , 021406 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Terada et al

    Y. Terada et al. , `` Detailed design of the science operations for the XRISM mission ,'' Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems 7 , 037001 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Loewenstein , R

    M. Loewenstein , R. S. Hill , M. P. Holland , et al. , `` The XRISM science data center: optimizing the scientific return from a unique x-ray observatory ,'' in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray , J.-W. A. den Herder , S. Nikzad , and K. Nakaz...

    2020

  17. [25]

    ``Hitomi data reduction guide version 1.3,'' (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Mochizuki, M

    Y. Mochizuki, M. Tsujimoto, C. A. Kilbourne, et al. , `` Optimization of x-ray event screening using ground and in-orbit data for the Resolve instrument onboard the XRISM satellite ,'' Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems 11 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    Okajima et al

    T. Okajima et al. , `` First peek of ASTRO-H Soft X-ray Telescope (SXT) in-orbit performance ,'' Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 9905 , 99050Z (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    Iaria , T

    R. Iaria , T. Di Salvo , L. Burderi , et al. , `` Discovery of periodic dips in the light curve of GX 13+1: the X-ray orbital ephemeris of the source ,'' 561 , A99 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    Sidoli , A

    L. Sidoli , A. N. Parmar , T. Oosterbroek , et al. , `` Discovery of complex narrow X-ray absorption features from the low-mass X-ray binary GX 13+1 with XMM-Newton ,'' 385 , 940--946 (2002)

    2002

  22. [30]

    Tomaru , C

    R. Tomaru , C. Done , K. Ohsuga , et al. , `` The thermal-radiative wind in the neutron star low-mass X-ray binary GX 13 + 1 ,'' 497 , 4970--4980 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    write newline

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

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.