Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Development of 13 $\mu m$ Cutoff HgCdTe Detector Arrays for Astronomy

T0 review · 2 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 A modified pixel design suppresses quantum tunneling dark current in 13-micrometer-cutoff mercury cadmium telluride arrays, reaching 90% operability at 28 K and 350 mV bias.

desk verdict A solid, engineering-significant detector paper whose headline 1.8 e-/s at 350 mV rests on a standard but unquantified calibration chain, from a single array; worth review and publication with tighter error reporting. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00947 v1 pith:EKGQBBMY submitted 2019-09-03 astro-ph.IM

Mario S. Cabrera , Craig W. McMurtry , Meghan L. Dorn , William J. Forrest , Judith L. Pipher , Donald Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords HgCdTelong-waveinfrareddetectors13microncutoffdarkcurrentquantumtunnelingwelldepthoperabilitypassivelycooledspacetelescopes
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 is an engineering study of four prototype 13-micrometer-cutoff mercury cadmium telluride infrared detector arrays, built to see whether long-wave detectors can run warm enough for passive cooling in space. It claims that one of three pixel designs, called Design 2, suppresses the quantum-tunneling dark current that otherwise makes large reverse bias unusable. On that array, at 28 K and 350 mV applied reverse bias, the median dark current is 1.8 $e^-$/s, the median well depth is 81 ke-, and 90.3% of pixels meet the 75 ke- well-depth and 200 $e^-$/s dark-current operability threshold. If the claim holds, it clears the main obstacle to extending the cutoff to 15 micrometers and to replacing bulky cryogens with passive cooling on future infrared space missions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Design 2 pixel: a mercury cadmium telluride photodiode structure, proprietary to the manufacturer, intended to reduce quantum tunneling dark current, hybridized to a 1024x1024 readout circuit. Its effect is visible as nearly linear signal-versus-time curves and a curvature histogram peaking near zero for the Design 2 array at 350 mV, in contrast to the strongly curved discharge of the other arrays. The supporting theory is the triangular-barrier band-to-band tunneling expression, in which the only fitted quantity $\beta = E_g^{3/2}/\mathcal{E}$ (band gap and junction electric field) sets the exponential suppression; the paper fits $\beta$ pixel by pixel to high-bias current-bias data and shows that operable pixels in all arrays follow it above about 200 mV.

What would settle it

Measure the well depth of the Design 2 array by integrating a calibrated photon flux of known rate to saturation and compare with the electron count from the noise-squared/IPC/non-linearity calibration; a disagreement beyond the quoted error would rescale the 81 ke- and 1.8 e-/s headline values. A second Design 2 array from a different wafer, tested at the same 28 K and 350 mV, would show whether the suppression reproduces.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a proprietary experimental pixel structure (Design 2) reduces band-to-band tunneling in a 12.6-micrometer-cutoff mercury cadmium telluride photodiode array enough that the array can be operated at 350 mV reverse bias without the dark-current blowup seen in the other three arrays. For the Design 2 array measured at 28 K, the median dark current is 1.8 $e^-$/s and the median well depth is 81 ke-, with 90.3% of pixels above 75 ke- well depth and below 200 $e^-$/s dark current. The three other arrays, including a second experimental design, show median dark currents above 200 $e^-$/s at the same bias and operability below 1%; their discharge curves are strongly curved, which the paper attributes to band-to-band tunneling. Fits of the measured current-versus-bias curves to a triangular-barrier tunneling model indicate that band-to-band tunneling dominates above roughly 200 mV in all arrays, and that Design 2 effectively raises the parameter $\beta$ controlling that tunneling.

Load-bearing premise

The headline well-depth and dark-current numbers rest on the calibration chain that converts detector voltage to electrons — noise-squared capacitance, an interpixel-capacitance correction, and a fitted non-linearity slope — so a systematic error in that chain would rescale every quoted value proportionally.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At 28 K and 350 mV, a Design 2 array is usable, so a 13-micrometer-cutoff space instrument could be passively cooled, saving the mass and lifetime cost of cryogens.
  • The same pixel strategy should transfer to 15-micrometer-cutoff arrays, the stated next step, because it pushes the onset of band-to-band tunneling to higher bias.
  • Standard and Design 1 arrays are limited to roughly 250 mV reverse bias and the smaller well depths that come with it; at 350 mV their operability collapses.
  • In the low-bias, low-temperature regime where thermal dark current dominates, median dark currents below 1 $e^-$/s mean the arrays are suitable for low-background astronomy with linear calibration.
  • For applications needing larger well depth, a constant-voltage CTIA readout or a higher operating temperature sidesteps the non-linear tunneling-current regime.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The headline result is single-array evidence; the natural next test is whether a second Design 2 array from a different wafer reproduces 90% operability and 1.8 $e^-$/s median dark current.
  • Because the absolute electron counts depend on the calibration chain, an independent measurement of node capacitance or non-linearity could rescale the well-depth numbers; the qualitative conclusion that Design 2 suppresses tunneling is more robust than the absolute values.
  • If the residual inoperable pixels trace to the cross-hatch misfit-dislocation pattern, growth-process changes that reduce those dislocations should push operability above 90% without further pixel redesign.
  • The paper's identification of band-to-band tunneling could be checked by measuring dark current versus temperature at fixed high bias, since the tunneling model predicts a specific band-gap dependence distinct from thermal currents and multiplexer glow.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports the characterization of four 1024x1024, 13 micron cutoff HgCdTe detector arrays from Teledyne Imaging Systems, spanning three pixel designs (standard, Design 1, Design 2). The authors measure source-follower gain, node capacitance via the noise-squared method with interpixel-capacitance correction, signal nonlinearity, CDS read noise, and dark current and well depth per pixel using Sample-Up-The-Ramp acquisition. The central empirical result, stated in the abstract and developed in Section 4.4.4, is that for array H1RG-18509 (Design 2) at 28 K and 350 mV applied reverse bias the median dark current is 1.8 e-/s, the median well depth is 81 ke-, and 90.3% of pixels meet the operability thresholds of dark current below 200 e-/s and well depth above about 75 ke-. The other three arrays are largely inoperable at 350 mV, which the authors attribute to band-to-band and trap-to-band tunneling. The paper also presents dark-current model fits (diffusion, generation-recombination, band-to-band tunneling, and trap-to-band tunneling with a soft-breakdown activation model) and discusses a multiplexer glow that affects some data sets.

Significance. If the empirical result holds, it is a meaningful advance for long-wavelength HgCdTe detector technology: it suggests that a modified pixel structure can suppress quantum tunneling dark current enough to make 13 micron cutoff arrays usable at 350 mV bias and passively coolable temperatures, with clear implications for the ongoing push to 15 micron cutoff devices and for ground- and space-based LWIR astronomy. The paper's strengths are its use of standard SUTR and well-depth measurement techniques, the internal consistency of the headline numbers across Tables 9-10 and the low-curvature histogram in Figure 15, and its transparent discussion of mux glow and of the non-uniqueness of the tunneling model fits. The main weakness is that the absolute electron-scale numbers carry no reported calibration-chain uncertainties, and the causal attribution to Design 2 rests on a single array.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.1 and Tables 9-10] The headline numbers (median dark current 1.8 e-/s, median well depth 81 ke-, operability 90.3%) are directly proportional to the electron-conversion chain: noise-squared node capacitance, the 1-8*alpha IPC correction, and the fitted nonlinearity slope. No uncertainties are given for any step of this chain. In particular, the 350 mV operability threshold in Table 9 is set in volts and converted to approximately 75 ke- using the median 34 fF capacitance from Table 2; a 10% error in capacitance or in the nonlinearity slope shifts that threshold by about 7-8 ke-, and because the threshold sits near the median of the well-depth distribution it can move the quoted operability by several percent. Please provide error bars on the calibration chain and a sensitivity analysis, for example recomputing median dark current, median well depth, and operability under +/-10% variations in capacitance, alpha, and nonlinearity slope.
  2. [Section 4.4.4 and Table 1] The central causal claim that the Design 2 pixel structure mitigates quantum tunneling dark current is based on a single array, H1RG-18509, from one lot split. With n=1 per pixel design and no replication across wafers or lots, the improved performance cannot be conclusively separated from sample-to-sample variability. The text should state this limitation explicitly and, if available, report PEC or mini-array data from additional Design 2 samples, or at least outline a reproducibility plan for the next development lot.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1.3.1 and Tables 3, 5, 7, 9] The operability well-depth thresholds are quoted in both mV and ke- but the conversions are not numerically consistent across arrays (for example, 155 mV corresponds to approximately 41 ke-, 38 ke-, and 37 ke- in different tables). Please state explicitly that each electron threshold is derived from that array's measured capacitance, so the apparent inconsistency is understood as a calibration difference rather than an error.
  2. [Section 4.2 and Tables 3-4] For H1RG-18367, all dark-current measurements were affected by the inferred multiplexer glow, so the reported median dark currents should be labeled in the main text as upper limits on the detector dark current rather than measured detector dark current; the table footnotes already say this, but the main-text discussion should be equally explicit.
  3. [Section 5.3-5.4] The model fits use 36 or 50 selected operable pixels and the text acknowledges that the trap-to-band parameters may not be unique. The mechanistic conclusions, such as band-to-band dominance at high bias, should carry this uncertainty more prominently; bootstrap uncertainties or parameter covariance estimates would strengthen the presentation.
  4. [Figure 15] The curvature histograms are the key visual evidence that H1RG-18509 has nearly linear discharge behavior, but the four histograms are overlaid without a legend and with no reported sample sizes. Adding a legend and pixel counts would make the comparison substantially easier to assess.
  5. [Section 5.4] There is a typo in the first sentence: 'the the dark current Arrhenius plot' should read 'the dark current Arrhenius plot'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline dark-current and well-depth values are direct measurements, and the dark-current model is an explicit fitting exercise rather than a prediction.

full rationale

The central claims—median dark current 1.8 e-/s, median well depth 81 ke-, and 90.3% operability for H1RG-18509 at 28 K and 350 mV—are obtained from SUTR dark measurements (Section 4.4.4) and calibrated by standard methods (noise-squared capacitance, IPC correction, non-linearity fit) in Section 4.1. These calibration procedures are independent of the dark-current model in Section 5, so the headline numbers are not derived from the theory that the paper later fits. The dark-current model section is explicitly a fitting exercise: beta is fit to I-V data, thermal currents to I-T data, and the paper does not present the model agreement as a prediction. Self-citations to the group's earlier LW10 work and to Bacon (2006) provide background and a phenomenological soft-breakdown parameterization, but they are not used to define or derive the measured performance metrics. The operability threshold is set in volts and converted to electrons using the median measured capacitance; this introduces calibration uncertainty but not circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is merely renamed. The main risks are systematic calibration uncertainty and single-array statistics, which are correctness concerns, not circularity.

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

The headline numbers rest on standard measurement calibrations (capacitance, IPC, non-linearity) rather than on new physical postulates. The dark-current model fits introduce fitted parameters (beta and trap-related parameters) that support the mechanism interpretation but do not determine the headline dark current. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • Non-linearity correction slope C0/C = Fitted per array and applied bias; values are not tabulated.
    Used in Section 4.1 to correct large-signal SUTR data before computing well depth; an error propagates linearly into the quoted well depth.
  • Band-to-band tunneling parameter beta = Fitted per pixel; the distribution is shown in Fig. 17.
    Fitted to operable-pixel I-V data above 200 mV in Section 5.3; underpins the claim that band-to-band tunneling dominates at high bias, but does not set the headline dark current.
  • Trap-to-band tunneling parameters (M^2 nt, Et, Va, gamma) = Not reported in the paper.
    Five-parameter fits for inoperable pixels in Section 5.3; the authors note the fits are non-unique and initial-guess dependent.
  • Constant current offset in beta fits = Not reported in the paper.
    Added to I-V data for H1RG-18367 and H1RG-18509 to account for mux glow or light leak in Section 5.3; affects the beta estimates.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Hansen-Schmit bandgap and intrinsic carrier concentration formulas (Eqs. 1 and 4) accurately describe the HgCdTe material in these arrays.
    Used to convert cutoff wavelengths and to model thermal dark currents; these are standard empirical relations from Ref. 4.
  • domain assumption The standard diffusion, generation-recombination, and tunneling current equations (Refs. 18-22) apply with the chosen triangular-band-barrier model.
    Section 2 adopts these formulas without derivation; the authors note the parabolic barrier model was omitted because the data best match the triangular model.
  • ad hoc to paper The elevated current in H1RG-18367 and some H1RG-18369 data is multiplexer glow, not detector dark current or a light leak.
    Inferred in Section 4.2 from absence in some datasets and from weak temperature dependence; the authors state further work is required, and the interpretation affects the operability numbers for those two arrays.
  • ad hoc to paper Operable pixels selected for model fitting (36 or 50 pixels per array) are representative of the arrays' dark-current behavior.
    Section 5.4 fits only operable pixels; inoperable pixels show trap-to-band and soft-breakdown behavior and are excluded from the band-to-band dominance conclusion.
  • domain assumption The noise-squared and IPC-calibrated capacitance values in Table 2 correctly convert ADUs to electrons.
    Section 4.1; the headline well-depth values depend on this calibration. This is standard practice but not independently verified here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Development of 13 $\mu m$ Cutoff HgCdTe Detector Arrays for Astronomy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EKGQBBMY

@misc{pith2026190900947,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Development of 13 $\mu m$ Cutoff HgCdTe Detector Arrays for Astronomy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EKGQBBMY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00947}
}
abstract

Building on the successful development of the 10 $\mu m$ HgCdTe detector arrays for the proposed NEOCam mission, the University of Rochester Infrared Detector team and Teledyne Imaging Systems are working together to extend the cutoff wavelength of HgCdTe detector arrays initially to 13 $\mu m$, with the ultimate goal of developing 15 $\mu m$ HgCdTe detector arrays for space and ground-based astronomy. The advantage of HgCdTe detector arrays is that they can operate at higher temperatures than the currently used arsenic doped silicon detector arrays at the longer wavelengths. Our infrared detector team at the University of Rochester has received and tested four 13 $\mu m$ detector arrays from Teledyne Imaging Systems with three different pixel designs, two of which are meant to reduce quantum tunneling dark current. The pixel design of one of these arrays has mitigated the effects of quantum tunneling dark currents for which we have been able to achieve, at a temperature of 28 K and applied bias of 350 mV, a well depth of at least 75 $ke^-$ for 90% of the pixels with a median dark current of 1.8 $e^-/sec$. These arrays have demonstrated encouraging results as we move forward to extending the cutoff wavelength to 15 $\mu m$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. W. Werner, T. L. Roellig, F. J. Low, et al. , ``The S pitzer S pace T elescope M ission,'' The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 154 (1), 1--9 (2004)

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    R. D. Gehrz, T. L. Roellig, M. W. Werner, et al. , ``The NASA S pitzer S pace T elescope,'' Review of Scientific Instruments 78 (1), 011302 (2007)

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Mainzer, M

    A. Mainzer, M. Larsen, M. G. Stapelbroek, et al. , ``Characterization of F light D etector A rrays for the W ide-field I nfrared S urvey E xplorer,'' Proc.SPIE 7021 , 12 (2008)

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    G. L. Hansen and J. L. Schmit, ``Calculation of I ntrinsic C arrier C oncentration in H g _ 1-x C d _x T e,'' Journal of Applied Physics 54 (3), 1639--1640 (1983)

    work page 1983

  5. [5]

    Wu, ``Development of I nfrared D etectors for S pace A stronomy"

    J. Wu, ``Development of I nfrared D etectors for S pace A stronomy" . PhD thesis, University of R ochester (1997)

    work page 1997

  6. [6]

    R. B. Bailey, J. M. Arias, W. V. McLevige, et al. , ``Prospects for L arge- F ormat IR A stronomy FPA s U sing MBE - G rown H g C d T e D etectors with C utoff W avelength > 4 m,'' Proc.SPIE 3354 , 10 (1998)

    work page 1998

  7. [7]

    C. M. Bacon, C. W. McMurtry, J. L. Pipher, et al. , ``Further C haracterization of R ockwell S cientific LWIR H g C d T e D etector A rrays,'' Proc.SPIE 5563 , 11 (2004)

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    C. M. Bacon, ``Development of L ong W ave I nfrared D etectors for S pace A stronomy" . PhD thesis, University of R ochester (2006)

    work page 2006

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    C. M. Bacon, C. W. McMurtry, J. L. Pipher, et al. , ``Effect of D islocations on D ark C urrent in LWIR H g C d T e P hotodiodes,'' Proc.SPIE 7742 , 9 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    Carmody, D

    M. Carmody, D. Lee, M. Zandian, et al. , ``Threading and M isfit- D islocation M otion in M olecular- B eam E pitaxy- G rown H g C d T e E pilayers,'' Journal of Electronic Materials 32 (7), 710--716 (2003)

    2003

  3. [11]

    E. C. Smith, B. J. Rauscher, D. Alexander, et al. , `` JWST N ear I nfrared D etectors: L atest T est R esults,'' Proc.SPIE 7419 , 10 (2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    M. L. Dorn, J. L. Pipher, C. W. McMurtry, et al. , ``Proton irradiation results for long-wave H g C d T e infrared detector arrays for N ear- E arth O bject C amera,'' Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems 2 (3), 11 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    C. W. McMurtry, M. Dorn, M. S. Cabrera, et al. , ``Candidate 10 micron H g C d T e A rrays for the NEOC am S pace M ission,'' Proc.SPIE 9915 , 8 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    M. Dorn, C. McMurtry, J. Pipher, et al. , ``A M onolithic 2k x 2k LWIR H g C d T e D etector A rray for P assively C ooled S pace M issions,'' Proc.SPIE 10709 , 10709 -- 10709 -- 9 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    J. T. Montroy, J. D. Garnett, S. A. Cabelli, et al. , ``Advanced I maging S ensors at R ockwell S cientific C ompany,'' Proc.SPIE 4721 , 4721 -- 4721 -- 15 (2002)

    2002

  8. [16]

    Loose, M

    M. Loose, M. C. Farris, J. D. Garnett, et al. , `` HAWAII -2 RG : a 2kx2k CMOS multiplexer for low- and high-background astronomy applications,'' Proc.SPIE 4850 , 4850 -- 4850 -- 13 (2003)

    2003

  9. [17]

    Loose, J

    M. Loose, J. Beletic, J. Garnett, et al. , ``High- P erformance F ocal P lane A rrays B ased on the HAWAII -2 RG /4 RG and the SIDECAR ASIC ,'' Proc.SPIE 6690 , 6690 -- 6690 -- 14 (2007)

    2007

  10. [18]

    Reine, A

    M. Reine, A. Sood, and T. Tredwell, ``Chapter 6 P hotovoltaic I nfrared D etectors,'' in Mercury Cadmium Telluride , R. Willardson and A. C. Beer, Eds., Semiconductors and Semimetals 18 , 201 -- 311, Elsevier (1981)

    1981

  11. [19]

    C. T. Sah, R. N. Noyce, and W. Shockley, ``Carrier G eneration and R ecombination in P - N J unctions and P - N J unction C haracteristics,'' Proceedings of the IRE 45 (9), 1228--1243 (1957)

    1957

  12. [20]

    Kinch, ``Chapter 7 M etal- I nsulator- S emiconductor I nfrared D etectors,'' in Mercury Cadmium Telluride , R

    M. Kinch, ``Chapter 7 M etal- I nsulator- S emiconductor I nfrared D etectors,'' in Mercury Cadmium Telluride , R. Willardson and A. C. Beer, Eds., Semiconductors and Semimetals 18 , 313 -- 378, Elsevier (1981)

    1981

  13. [21]

    S. M. Sze, Physics of S emiconductor D evices , John Wiley & Sons (1981)

    1981

  14. [22]

    M. A. Kinch, State-of-the- A rt I nfrared D etector T echnology , SPIE press Bellingham (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    Neudeck, W

    P. Neudeck, W. Huang, and M. Dudley, ``Breakdown D egradation A ssociated with E lementary S crew D islocations in 4 H - S i C P ^+ N J unction R ectifiers,'' Solid-State Electronics 42 (12), 2157 -- 2164 (1998)

    1998

  16. [24]

    P. G. Neudeck, W. Huang, and M. Dudley, ``Study of B ulk and E lementary S crew D islocation A ssisted R everse B reakdown in L ow- V oltage ( < 250 V ) 4 H - S i C p ^+ n J unction D iodes. I : DC P roperties,'' IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices 46 (3), 478--484 (1999)

    1999

  17. [25]

    K. V. Ravi, C. J. Varker, and C. E. Volk, ``Electrically A ctive S tacking F aults in S ilicon,'' Journal of The Electrochemical Society 120 (4), 533--541 (1973)

    1973

  18. [26]

    J. D. Benson, L. O. Bubulac, P. J. Smith, et al. , ``Characterization of D islocations in (112) B H g C d T e/ C d T e/ S i,'' Journal of Electronic Materials 39 , 1080--1086 (2010)

    2010

  19. [27]

    A. C. Moore, Z. Ninkov, G. S. Burley, et al. , ``Operation and T est of H ybridized S ilicon p-i-n A rrays U sing O pen-source A rray C ontrol H ardware and S oftware,'' Proc.SPIE 5017 , 5017 -- 5017 -- 14 (2003)

    2003

  20. [28]

    A. M. Fowler and I. Gatley , `` Demonstration of an A lgorithm for R ead- N oise R eduction in I nfrared A rrays ,'' Ap. J. Letters 353 , L33 (1990)

    1990

  21. [29]

    J. D. Garnett and W. J. Forrest, ``Multiply sampled read-limited and background-limited noise performance,'' Proc.SPIE 1946 , 1946 -- 1946 -- 10 (1993)

    1993

  22. [30]

    B. J. Rauscher, O. Fox, P. Ferruit, et al. , ``Detectors for the J ames W ebb S pace T elescope N ear- I nfrared S pectrograph. I . R eadout M ode, N oise M odel, and C alibration C onsiderations,'' Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 119 (857), 768 (2007)

    2007

  23. [31]

    Mortara and A

    L. Mortara and A. Fowler, ``Evaluations of charge-coupled device ( CCD ) performance for astronomical use,'' Proc.SPIE 0290 , 6 (1981)

    1981

  24. [32]

    A. C. Moore, Z. Ninkov, and W. J. Forrest, ``Interpixel capacitance in non-destructive focal plane arrays,'' Proc.SPIE 5167 , 12 (2004)

    2004

  25. [33]

    J. Wu, W. J. Forrest, J. L. Pipher, et al. , ``Development of infrared focal plane arrays for space,'' Review of Scientific Instruments 68 (9), 3566--3578 (1997)

    1997

  26. [34]

    B. J. Rauscher, R. G. Arendt, D. J. Fixsen, et al. , ``Principal C omponents A nalysis of a JWST NIRS pec D etector S ubsystem,'' Proc.SPIE 8860 , 8860 -- 8860 -- 8 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    Martinka, L

    M. Martinka, L. A. Almeida, J. D. Benson, et al. , ``Characterization of C ross- H atch M orphology of MBE (211) H g C d T e,'' Journal of Electronic Materials 30 , 632--636 (2001)

    2001

  28. [36]

    Chang, C

    Y. Chang, C. Becker, C. Grein, et al. , ``Surface M orphology and D efect F ormation M echanisms for H g C d T e (211) B G rown by M olecular B eam E pitaxy,'' Journal of Electronic Materials 37 , 1171--1183 (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    Ayers, Heteroepitaxy of Semiconductors: Theory, Growth, and Characterization , CRC Press (2007)

    J. Ayers, Heteroepitaxy of Semiconductors: Theory, Growth, and Characterization , CRC Press (2007)

    2007

  30. [38]

    Shapiro, E

    C. Shapiro, E. Huff, and R. Smith, ``Intra-pixel response characterization of a H g C d T e near infrared detector with a pronounced crosshatch pattern,'' Proc.SPIE 10709 , 10709 -- 10709 -- 13 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

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