Fast, low-noise CCD systems for future strategic X-ray missions

Abigail Y. Pan; Artem Poliszczuk; Beverly J. LaMarr; Catherine E. Grant; Eric D. Miller; Gregory Y. Prigozhin; Haley R. Stueber; Kevan Donlon; Marshall W. Bautz; Peter Orel

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 28 references

Fast, low-noise CCD systems for future strategic X-ray missions

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A prototype CCD and custom ASIC achieve sub-4-electron read noise at 5 Mpixel/s, the speed and noise combination future strategic X-ray missions require.

desk verdict Solid engineering report with believable speed/noise numbers; the mission-level claim runs ahead of the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.20355 v1 pith:KSSEE2S3 submitted 2026-07-22 astro-ph.IM

Haley R. Stueber , Tanmoy Chattopadhyay , Tonya L. Peshel , Abigail Y. Pan , Steven W. Allen , Marshall W. Bautz , Kevan Donlon , Catherine E. Grant

show 7 more authors

Sven Herrmann Beverly J. LaMarr Eric D. Miller R. Glenn Morris Peter Orel Artem Poliszczuk Gregory Y. Prigozhin

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.IM

keywords X-rayCCDlow-noisereadoutASICMCRCbiasoptimization1/fnoiseoutputstagefast

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 demonstrates that a prototype CCD (CCID-93) read out by a custom ASIC (MCRC) achieves read noise of 2.18 electrons at 2 Mpixel/s and 3.85 electrons at 5 Mpixel/s, with 5.9 keV X-ray line widths of 125-131 eV. That combination of speed and noise is about an order of magnitude faster frame rate than legacy X-ray CCDs while keeping noise below 4 electrons. The paper also introduces an automated scan of four bias voltages that finds minimum-noise operating points, and a physical model of charge trapping in the output stage that explains a temperature-dependent noise resonance. If these results carry over to larger-format detectors, future X-ray missions can have fast, low-noise imaging spectrometers.

What carries the argument

The key elements are the two-stage output stage of the CCID-93 (a p-JFET source follower followed by an n-MOSFET), the MCRC ASIC providing eight parallel low-noise readout channels, locally buffered summing-well and reset-gate clock drivers that recover roughly 20% more waveform samples, and a four-dimensional bias scan over reset-gate high/low, output-gate, and reset-drain voltages that finds minimum-noise operating points. The noise model is a random-telegraph-noise simulation with thermally activated traps, which reproduces the resonance in noise versus temperature and readout speed.

What would settle it

Measure read noise on a large-format CCID-100 detector at 173 K at 5 Mpixel/s per channel using the same ASIC and bias-scanning procedure; if the read noise exceeds 4 e- or the 5.9 keV line width exceeds about 135 eV, the central claim that the fabrication and electronics meet future mission requirements is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the CCID-93 detector, the MCRC readout ASIC, onboard fast clock drivers, and the bias-scanning procedure together deliver the speed and noise performance required of future strategic X-ray missions. Concretely, at 173 K the read noise is 2.18±0.01 e- at 2 Mpixel/s, 3.07±0.01 e- at 4 Mpixel/s, and 3.85±0.02 e- at 5 Mpixel/s, while the single-pixel 5.9 keV Fe-55 line width is 124.9±1.0 to 130.8±0.9 eV. The paper further posits that the observed 1/f noise and the noise resonance near 240-260 K arise from trapping and detrapping of charge carriers in the output stage, with trap parameters consistent with shallow, weakly interacting defects such as vacancy-oxygen complex

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that performance measured on the small-format CCID-93 prototype transfers to the large-format, 16-channel CCID-100 detectors that share the output stage but differ in layout, power, thermal, and cross-talk conditions; this transfer has not yet been tested.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Future X-ray missions can use CCDs at frame rates an order of magnitude faster than legacy observatories while keeping read noise below 4 electrons.
The automated bias scan efficiently finds optimal operating points for detectors, which should streamline the tuning of large-format, multi-channel devices.
The onboard clock architecture reduces electromagnetic interference and enables serial transfer speeds up to 5 Mpixel/s.
The trap model predicts that the noise resonance shifts to higher temperatures at higher readout speeds, guiding selection of operating temperature.

Reading between the lines

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

If the small-format results transfer to the 16-channel CCID-100, a full 1440x1440 frame could be read in under a second, enabling rapid time-domain X-ray observations that current missions cannot do.
The trap model implies that detectors with different fabrication histories could have noise resonances at different temperatures, so flight detectors should be individually characterized before the operating point is fixed.
The bias-scanning and PSD-analysis methods could be adopted as standard calibration practices for any CCD-based X-ray instrument, potentially shortening ground-testing time.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things. First, the measured readout performance here is credible and worth taking seriously: 2.18 e- at 2 Mpixel/s, 3.07 e- at 4 Mpixel/s, 3.85 e- at 5 Mpixel/s, with 5.9 keV FWHM between 124.9 and 130.8 eV. These numbers come from a real CCID-93 with the MCRC ASIC, and the error bars are small. Second, the paper's central claim that this demonstrates clearly the performance needed for future strategic X-ray missions is not supported by the data in front of you. The stress-test note is right: the headline numbers come from a single small-format, one-channel device. The paper itself says the CCID-100, the actual 16-channel mission-scale device, has not yet been characterized. Same output stage configuration is not the same as measured performance; crosstalk, clock loading, thermal gradients, and multi-channel ASIC drive can all degrade noise. That is a load-bearing gap, and it is the main reason I would not sign off on the strongest wording. What is genuinely new and good: the bias-scan method for co-optimizing RG, OG, RD across temperature is practical and clearly described; the onboard SW/RG clock drivers with snubber termination are a real engineering contribution; the PSD/expanding-baseline analysis is a sensible way to localize 1/f noise to the output stage. The RTN-based trap model is thought-provoking but not a prediction, because its parameters are chosen to reproduce the resonance the model is meant to explain. The paper does acknowledge this indirectly by exploring a range of energies and cross-sections, but it should be framed as an illustrative hypothesis, not a validated model. The post-hoc filtering of low-noise outliers in the bias scan is a minor concern; as long as the final operating point is stable and repeatable, it is acceptable, though the method would be stronger with a stated criterion. Who gets value from this: anyone building or planning fast X-ray CCD readout systems, and the GOMaP-era mission studies that need to know whether CCDs can reach the required frame rates. It deserves a serious peer review, but the referee should ask the authors to moderate the conclusion, say promising path toward instead of clearly deliver, and to clarify the model's status. If they later show CCID-100 data, this paper becomes much more important. I would bring it to a reading group only if people care specifically about detector readout electronics; otherwise, the main takeaway is the measured noise numbers and the bias-scan technique.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports development and testing of a fast, low-noise CCD readout chain for future X-ray missions, combining the MIT-LL CCID-93 prototype CCD with the Stanford Multi-Channel Readout Chip (MCRC) ASIC. Contributions include locally buffered summing-well and reset-gate clock drivers, an automated four-parameter bias-scan procedure, and measured read-noise and FWHM values at serial speeds of 2–5 Mpixel/s. At 173 K the authors report read noise of 2.18–3.85 e− and Fe-55 5.9 keV FWHM of 124.9–130.8 eV. They also present waveform and PSD analyses and a trap-based model intended to explain a noise resonance near 240–260 K. The central claim, stated most strongly in Section 8, is that the MIT-LL process and the MCRC electronics 'can deliver the speed and noise performance required of future strategic X-ray missions.'

Significance. If the measured performance transfers to mission-scale detectors, the work is significant: it demonstrates that CCD-based X-ray imagers can reach frame rates an order of magnitude above legacy systems while maintaining sub-4-e− read noise and good spectral resolution. The paper's strengths are the concrete, speed-resolved measurements in Table 1, the practical engineering of onboard clock drivers that increase usable waveform samples, the systematic bias-scan methodology, and the use of PSD/waveform analyses to localize noise sources. These are useful contributions for detector development. However, the central mission-level claim is not yet supported because all quantitative results come from a single small-format, single-channel CCID-93; the mission-scale CCID-100 is explicitly stated as not yet characterized. The bias-scan outlier filtering and the noise-model parameters also require stronger justification before the headline numbers and physical interpretation can be taken at face value.

major comments (4)

[Section 8, Table 1] The statement 'Our results demonstrate clearly that the MIT-LL CCD fabrication process and state-of-the-art electronics can deliver the speed and noise performance required of future strategic X-ray missions' is stronger than the evidence. All Table 1 values are from the 512×512, single-output CCID-93, while the mission-relevant CCID-100 (1440×1440, 16 channels) is acknowledged as not yet characterized. 'Same output stage configuration' does not guarantee identical performance: multi-channel crosstalk, clock loading, thermal gradients, and ASIC fan-out can all affect noise and speed. Please either present CCID-100 data or revise the conclusion to a clearly labeled projection, distinct from demonstrated performance.
[Section 5] The bias-scan procedure filters out 'low noise outliers' because 'they reflect a collapse in the gain.' No quantitative criterion is given for identifying such outliers, and no validation is shown that the excluded points indeed have collapsed gain rather than genuinely improved noise. Since the Table 1 optimum is found from this scan, an arbitrary or unstable filtering threshold could bias the headline noise value. Please specify the outlier rule, report how many points were excluded, and demonstrate with gain measurements that the excluded points are non-functional.
[Section 7.2, Eq. (3), Figs. 12–13] The output-stage noise model is presented as explaining the noise resonance, but the key parameters (N_trap, ΔE, σ) are freely chosen, and no quantitative fit or uncertainty is given. The model 'reproduces' the resonance by construction over the plotted parameter ranges, so it does not independently validate the VO-trap interpretation. Please reframe the model as illustrative, or provide an independent measurement or likelihood fit that constrains the parameters and demonstrates predictive power.
[Sections 1 and 8] The phrase 'required of future strategic X-ray missions' is not operationalized. The paper never lists the specific noise, FWHM, frame-rate, or power requirements of GOMaP, AXIS, or any other stated mission, nor does Table 1 compare the measured values to those requirements. Without explicit requirements and a compliance table, the central claim is not quantitatively supported. Please add the requirements and show how the measurements satisfy them, or temper the claim accordingly.

minor comments (4)

[Table 1] The uncertainties on noise and FWHM (e.g., 2.18±0.01 e−) are reported to two decimals, but the statistical method used to derive them is not described. Please state how many frames/pixels were used and how the error bars were computed.
[Section 7.1] The expanding-baseline analysis is described qualitatively. It would help to show the expected sqrt(N) white-noise curve on each panel of Figure 10, or to state explicitly how the standard deviation is normalized, so the deviation can be assessed by eye.
[Section 7.2.1, Eq. (2)] The thermal-noise formula assumes identical noise from both stages and a fixed 60 MHz bandwidth. These assumptions should be justified or their sensitivity explored, since the quoted 'total noise' depends on them.
[Section 7.2.2] Equation (3) uses a single capture cross-section and equal trapping/detrapping probabilities per time step. This is a strong simplification for interface traps; please note the limitation or use distinct capture and emission time constants if data require it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: headline speed/noise numbers are direct measurements on CCID-93; the trap noise model is an illustrative parameter study, not a derived prediction feeding the main claim.

full rationale

The paper's central results are laboratory measurements: Table 1 lists read noise (2.18–3.85 e-) and Fe-55 FWHM (124.9–130.8 eV) for four serial speeds at 173 K, obtained with the CCID-93 and MCRC ASIC. These are independent empirical data, not outputs of a model fitted to themselves. The bias-optimization scan (Sec. 5) minimizes measured ADU noise; the PSD analysis (Sec. 7.1) fits PSD(f)=A f^m + C and correlates the corner frequency with measured noise — a correlation between two measured quantities, not a reduction. The output-stage noise model (Sec. 7.2) is explicitly a 'potential explanation' built on assumed parameters: 'Figure 12 shows the simulated read noise ... assuming N_trap=150 and for three different trap energy levels ... and for a trap cross-section of 10^-15 cm^2.' The paper then says 'the model reproduces the resonant features ... present in the real data in Figure 9.' Because ΔE, σ, and N_trap are free inputs rather than measured quantities, this is a postdiction/parameter study rather than an independent prediction; it is not used to derive Table 1, so it does not make the central claim circular. Self-citations (refs. 10–22) document device and ASIC provenance, but the specific performance numbers are new measurements. The acknowledged extrapolation to CCID-100 in Sec. 8 ('We are now focusing efforts to characterize and optimize larger-format, 16-channel 1440x1440 pixel CCID-100 devices, which have the same output stage configuration as the CCID-93') is an untested engineering assumption, not a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central performance numbers rest on standard CCD readout practice and are measured directly. The explanatory noise model carries the parameter burden, with N_trap, ΔE, σ, γ, bandwidth, and the outlier filter chosen/tuned rather than independently determined.

free parameters (7)

N_trap (number of traps in RTN simulation) = 150 (3.75×10^9 cm^-2 for a 2×2 µm gate)
Section 7.2.3/Fig 12: chosen so the simulated noise magnitude matches the observed noise-temperature curves; not independently measured.
Trap energy ΔE (relative to conduction band) = 0.18, 0.22, 0.26 eV; uniformly distributed 0.14–0.3 eV in one case
Section 7.2.3/Fig 12: values selected to place the simulated noise resonance at the observed temperature for each readout speed.
Trap capture cross-section σ = 10^-14 to 10^-16 cm^2
Fig 13: varied to match the width/shape of the resonance; not measured directly.
PSD power-law parameters A and m = m ≈ -1.13±0.21 (mean); A not reported
Section 7.1, Eq 1: fitted to the measured PSDs via Whittle likelihood; used to define the crossover frequency supporting the 1/f interpretation.
Thermal noise bandwidth = 60 MHz
Section 7.2.1: adopted from 'approximately the experimentally measured bandwidth' rather than derived; affects absolute thermal noise level.
γ (thermal noise factor) = ≈2/3
Section 7.2.1: standard FET value, but contributes to absolute noise normalization.
Low-noise outlier exclusion threshold in bias scan = Not quantified
Section 5: filters out low-noise points as gain collapse; the threshold is chosen by inspection and affects the reported optimum bias parameters.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The output stage noise is dominated by two identical amplifier stages, hence the √2 factor in Eq 2.
Section 7.2.1: the authors state they assumed both stages to be identical 'for the simplicity of the calculations'.
domain assumption The 1/f noise arises from a superposition of independent random telegraph signal (RTN) traps with a single capture/emission time constant each.
Section 7.2.2: standard RTN model but applied without direct verification that traps in this device behave this way.
domain assumption The probability of trapping equals the probability of detrapping (same p formula, Eq 4) for each trap.
Section 7.2.2: stated 'assumed for simplicity to be the same whether it be a trapping or detrapping event'.
standard math The read noise measured in the overscan region is purely system read noise with negligible thermal leakage.
Section 5: reasonable standard overscan assumption for these devices.
domain assumption The ADU-to-electron conversion gain is stable across the bias parameter ranges tested, except for excluded gain-collapse outliers.
Section 5: the scan uses ADU noise and assumes good behavior; gain collapse outliers are filtered.

invented entities (1)

Output-stage VO trap population with ΔE≈0.2 eV, σ≈10^-15 cm^2, density ≈4×10^9 cm^-2
purpose: Explains the observed 1/f noise and the temperature/readout-speed-dependent noise resonance in the CCID-93 output stage.
VO traps are known in silicon from ref 27, but their specific presence and parameters in this device are inferred from the same noise-resonance data the model is designed to reproduce; no direct trap spectroscopy is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fast, low-noise CCD systems for future strategic X-ray missions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KSSEE2S3

@misc{pith2026260720355,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fast, low-noise CCD systems for future strategic X-ray missions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KSSEE2S3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20355}
}

read the original abstract

Future strategic X-ray missions, such as those targeted by the Great Observatories Maturation Program (GOMaP), require fast, low-noise X-ray imaging spectrometers. To achieve the speed and noise capabilities required by such programs, our Stanford team, in collaboration with the MIT Kavli Institute (MKI) and MIT Lincoln Laboratory (MIT-LL), is developing enhanced X-ray charge-coupled devices (CCDs) and readout systems that leverage tailored application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs). Here, we report the energy resolution and noise performance achieved using some of the latest MIT-LL CCDs in conjunction with Stanford-developed Multi-Channel Readout Chip (MCRC) ASICs. Additionally, we present a new sampling method for simultaneous optimization of the output gate (OG), reset gate (RG), and reset drain (RD) biases which, in combination with new integrated fast summing well (SW) and RG clock operation modes, enables the data rates and noise required for future X-ray telescopes. Finally, we present noise power spectral density (PSD) and waveform analysis methods and posit a physical model for characterizing and understanding output stage noise behavior.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references

[1]

W., Farris , M

Bai , Y., Bajaj , J., Beletic , J. W., Farris , M. C., Joshi , A., Lauxtermann , S., Petersen , A., and Williams , G., `` Teledyne Imaging Sensors: Silicon CMOS imaging technologies for x-ray, UV, visible, and near infrared ,'' in [ High Energy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy III 0.1em ] , Dorn , D. A. and Holland , A. D., eds., Society of ...

2008
[2]

V., Falcone, A

Hull, S. V., Falcone, A. D., Burrows, D. N., Wages, M., Chattopadhyay, T., McQuaide, M., Bray, E., and Kern, M., `` Recent X-ray hybrid CMOS detector developments and measurements ,'' in [ UV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XX 0.1em ] , Siegmund, O. H., ed., 10397 , 1039704, International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE (2017)

2017
[3]

A., James , R

Kenter , A., Kraft , R., and Gauron , T., `` Monolithic CMOS detectors for use as x-ray imaging spectrometers ,'' in [ Hard X-Ray, Gamma-Ray, and Neutron Detector Physics XX 0.1em ] , Payne , S. A., James , R. B., Burger , A., and Fiederle , M., eds., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 10762 , 1076209 (Sept. 2018)

2018
[4]

Treberspurg , W., Andritschke , R., Behrens , A., Bonholzer , M., Emberger , V., Hauser , G., Lechner , P., Meidinger , N., and M \"u ller-Seidlitz , J., `` Characterization of a 256 256 pixel DEPFET detector for the WFI of Athena ,'' Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 958 , 162555 (Apr. 2020)

2020
[5]

u rmetz , M., Manhart , M., M \

Meidinger , N., Barbera , M., Emberger , V., F \"u rmetz , M., Manhart , M., M \"u ller-Seidlitz , J., Nandra , K., Plattner , M., Rau , A., and Treberspurg , W., `` The Wide Field Imager instrument for Athena ,'' in [ Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 0.1em ] , Siegmund , O. H., ed., Society of Photo-Optical Inst...

2017
[6]

D., Burrows, D

Chattopadhyay, T., Falcone, A. D., Burrows, D. N., Hull, S., Bray, E., Wages, M., McQuaide, M., Buntic, L., Crum, R., O'Dell, J., and Anderson, T., ``X-ray hybrid cmos detectors: Recent development and characterization progress,'' in [ Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray 0.1em ] , Proc.SPIE 10709 (2018)

2018
[7]

W., Miller, E

Bautz, M. W., Miller, E. D., Prigozhin, G. Y., LaMarr, B. J., Malonis, A., Foster, R., Grant, C. E., Schneider, B., Leitz, C., Donlon, K., Prigozhin, I., Lambert, R., Cooper, M., Herrmann, S. C., Orel, P., Chattopadhyay, T., Morris, R. G., Wilkins, D. R., Stueber, H. R., Poliszczuk, A., and Allen, S. W., `` Fast, low-noise image sensor technology for stra...

2024
[8]

Vikhlinin , A., \"O zel , F., and Gaskin , J., `` Lynx X-Ray Observatory Concept Study Final Report .'' Lynx X-Ray Observatory Concept Study Final Report, 2019. (Jan. 2019)

2019

Show all 28 references

[9]

S., Kara , E

Reynolds , C. S., Kara , E. A., Mushotzky , R. F., Ptak , A., Koss , M. J., Williams , B. J., Allen , S. W., Bauer , F. E., Bautz , M., Bogadhee , A., Burdge , K. B., Cappelluti , N., Cenko , B., Chartas , G., Chan , K.-W., Corrales , L., Daylan , T., Falcone , A. D., Foord , ...

2023
[10]

G., Prigozhin , G., Malonis , A., Foster , R., Craig , D., Burke , B

Chattopadhyay , T., Herrmann , S., Orel , P., Morris , R. G., Prigozhin , G., Malonis , A., Foster , R., Craig , D., Burke , B. E., Allen , S. W., and Bautz , M. W., `` Development and characterization of a fast and low noise readout for the next generation x-ray charge-couple...

2022
[11]

Bautz, M., Foster, R., LaMarr, B., Malonis, A., Prigozhin, G., Miller, E., Grant, C. E., Burke, B., Cooper, M., Craig, D., Leitz, C., Schuette, D., and Suntharalingam, V., `` Toward fast low-noise low-power digital CCDs for Lynx and other high-energy astrophysics missions ,'' ...

2018
[12]

W., Burke , B

Bautz , M. W., Burke , B. E., Cooper , M., Craig , D., Foster , R. F., Grant , C. E., LaMarr , B. J., Leitz , C., Malonis , A., Miller , E. D., Prigozhin , G., Schuette , D., Suntharalingam , V., and Thayer , C., `` Toward fast, low-noise charge-coupled devices for Lynx ,'' Jo...

2019
[13]

E., LaMarr, B., Leitz, C., Malonis, A., Miller, E., Prigozhin, G., Thayer, C., Allen, S., Herrmann, S., Chattopadhyay, T., and Morris, R

Bautz, M., Burke, B., Cooper, M., Craig, D., Donlon, K., Foster, R., Grant, C. E., LaMarr, B., Leitz, C., Malonis, A., Miller, E., Prigozhin, G., Thayer, C., Allen, S., Herrmann, S., Chattopadhyay, T., and Morris, R. G., `` Progress toward fast, low-noise, low-power CCDs for L...

2020
[14]

Prigozhin, G., Burke, B., Cooper, M., Donlon, K., Leitz, C., Foster, R., LaMarr, B., Malonis, A., and Bautz, M., `` Charge transfer effects in a CCD with a single polysilicon gate structure ,'' in [ X-Ray, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy IX 0.1em ] , Holland, A. ...

2020
[15]

E., Donlon , K., Prigozhin , G., Morris , G., Orel , P., Cooper , M., Malonis , A., Wilkins , D

Chattopadhyay , T., Herrmann , S., Burke , B. E., Donlon , K., Prigozhin , G., Morris , G., Orel , P., Cooper , M., Malonis , A., Wilkins , D. R., Suntharalingam , V., Allen , S. W., Bautz , M. W., and Leitz , C., `` First results on SiSeRO devices: a new x-ray detector for sc...

2022
[16]

G., Wilkins , D

Chattopadhyay , T., Herrmann , S., Orel , P., Morris , R. G., Wilkins , D. R., Allen , S. W., Prigozhin , G., LaMarr , B., Malonis , A., Foster , R., Bautz , M. W., Donlon , K., Cooper , M., and Leitz , C., `` Single electron sensitive readout (SiSeRO) x-ray detectors: technol...

2022
[17]

W., Bautz , M

Chattopadhyay , T., Herrmann , S., Kaplan , M., Orel , P., Donlon , K., Prigozhin , G., Morris , G., Cooper , M., Malonis , A., Allen , S. W., Bautz , M. W., and Leitz , C., `` Improved noise performance from the next-generation buried-channel p-MOSFET SiSeROs ,'' Journal of A...

2023
[18]

C., Orel, P., Donlon, K., Allen, S

Chattopadhyay, T., Herrmann, S. C., Orel, P., Donlon, K., Allen, S. W., Bautz, M. W., Cantrall, B. J., Cooper, M. J., LaMarr, B. J., Leitz, C. W., Miller, E. D., Morris, G. R., Prigozhin, G. Y., Prigozhin, I., Stueber, H. R., and Wilkins, D. R., `` Demonstrating sub-electron n...

2024
[19]

R., Pan, A

Chattopadhyay, T., Stueber, H. R., Pan, A. Y., Herrmann, S. C., Orel, P., Donlon, K., Allen, S. W., Bautz, M. W., Cooper, M., Grant, C. E., LaMarr, B. J., Leitz, C. W., Malonis, A., Miller, E. D., Morris, G., Prigozhin, G. Y., Prigozhin, I., Poliszczuk, A., Warner, K., and Wil...

2025
[20]

Herrmann, S., Wong, J., Chattopadhyay, T., Morris, R. G., Burke, B., Prigozhin, G., Cooper, M., Craig, D., Donlon, K., Foster, R., Malonis, A., Bautz, M., and Allen, S., `` MCRC V1: development of integrated readout electronics for next generation x-ray CCD detectors for futur...

2020
[21]

R., Allen, S

Orel, P., Herrmann, S., Chattopadhyay, T., Morris, G. R., Allen, S. W., Prigozhin, G. Y., Foster, R., Malonis, A., Bautz, M. W., Cooper, M. J., and Donlon, K., `` X-ray speed reading with the MCRC: a low noise CCD readout ASIC enabling readout speeds of 5 Mpixel/s/channel ,'' ...

2022
[22]

R., Stueber, H., Pan, A., Allen, S

Orel, P., Herrmann, S., Chattopadhyay, T., Morris, G. R., Stueber, H., Pan, A., Allen, S. W., Wilkins, D., Prigozhin, G. Y., LaMarr, B., Foster, R., Malonis, A., Bautz, M. W., Cooper, M. J., and Donlon, K., `` X-ray speed reading with the MCRC: prototype success and next gener...

2024
[23]

Y., Stueber , H

Pan , A. Y., Stueber , H. R., Chattopadhyay , T., Allen , S. W., Bautz , M. W., Donlon , K., Grant , C. E., Herrmann , S., LaMarr , B., Malonis , A., Miller , E. D., Morris , G., Orel , P., Poliszczuk , A., Prigozhin , G., and Wilkins , D., `` Design, development, and commissi...

2025
[24]

Kandiah, K., ``Random telegraph signal currents and low-frequency noise in junction field effect transistors,'' IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices 41 (11), 2006--2015 (1994)

2006
[25]

Kandiah, K. and Whiting, F., ``Nonideal behaviour of buried channel ccds caused by oxide and bulk silicon traps,'' Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 305 (3), 600--607 (1991)

1991
[26]

R., [ Scientific Charge-Coupled Devices 0.1em ] , SPIE Press, Bellingham, Washington (2001)

Janesick, J. R., [ Scientific Charge-Coupled Devices 0.1em ] , SPIE Press, Bellingham, Washington (2001)

2001
[27]

and Taniguchi, K., ``Diffusion and dissociation mechanisms of vacancy-oxygen complex in silicon,'' Applied Physics Letters 86 , 142107 (03 2005)

Furuhashi, M. and Taniguchi, K., ``Diffusion and dissociation mechanisms of vacancy-oxygen complex in silicon,'' Applied Physics Letters 86 , 142107 (03 2005)

2005
[28]

R., Pan, A

Stueber, H. R., Pan, A. Y., Chattopadhyay, T., Allen, S. W., Bautz, M. W., Donlon, K., Grant, C. E., Herrmann, S., LaMarr, B. J., Malonis, A., Miller, E. D., Morris, R. G., Orel, P., Poliszczuk, A., Prigozhin, G. Y., and Wilkins, D. R., `` Fast, low noise CCD systems for futur...

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

W., Farris , M

Bai , Y., Bajaj , J., Beletic , J. W., Farris , M. C., Joshi , A., Lauxtermann , S., Petersen , A., and Williams , G., `` Teledyne Imaging Sensors: Silicon CMOS imaging technologies for x-ray, UV, visible, and near infrared ,'' in [ High Energy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy III 0.1em ] , Dorn , D. A. and Holland , A. D., eds., Society of ...

2008

[2] [2]

V., Falcone, A

Hull, S. V., Falcone, A. D., Burrows, D. N., Wages, M., Chattopadhyay, T., McQuaide, M., Bray, E., and Kern, M., `` Recent X-ray hybrid CMOS detector developments and measurements ,'' in [ UV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XX 0.1em ] , Siegmund, O. H., ed., 10397 , 1039704, International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE (2017)

2017

[3] [3]

A., James , R

Kenter , A., Kraft , R., and Gauron , T., `` Monolithic CMOS detectors for use as x-ray imaging spectrometers ,'' in [ Hard X-Ray, Gamma-Ray, and Neutron Detector Physics XX 0.1em ] , Payne , S. A., James , R. B., Burger , A., and Fiederle , M., eds., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 10762 , 1076209 (Sept. 2018)

2018

[4] [4]

Treberspurg , W., Andritschke , R., Behrens , A., Bonholzer , M., Emberger , V., Hauser , G., Lechner , P., Meidinger , N., and M \"u ller-Seidlitz , J., `` Characterization of a 256 256 pixel DEPFET detector for the WFI of Athena ,'' Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 958 , 162555 (Apr. 2020)

2020

[5] [5]

u rmetz , M., Manhart , M., M \

Meidinger , N., Barbera , M., Emberger , V., F \"u rmetz , M., Manhart , M., M \"u ller-Seidlitz , J., Nandra , K., Plattner , M., Rau , A., and Treberspurg , W., `` The Wide Field Imager instrument for Athena ,'' in [ Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 0.1em ] , Siegmund , O. H., ed., Society of Photo-Optical Inst...

2017

[6] [6]

D., Burrows, D

Chattopadhyay, T., Falcone, A. D., Burrows, D. N., Hull, S., Bray, E., Wages, M., McQuaide, M., Buntic, L., Crum, R., O'Dell, J., and Anderson, T., ``X-ray hybrid cmos detectors: Recent development and characterization progress,'' in [ Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray 0.1em ] , Proc.SPIE 10709 (2018)

2018

[7] [7]

W., Miller, E

Bautz, M. W., Miller, E. D., Prigozhin, G. Y., LaMarr, B. J., Malonis, A., Foster, R., Grant, C. E., Schneider, B., Leitz, C., Donlon, K., Prigozhin, I., Lambert, R., Cooper, M., Herrmann, S. C., Orel, P., Chattopadhyay, T., Morris, R. G., Wilkins, D. R., Stueber, H. R., Poliszczuk, A., and Allen, S. W., `` Fast, low-noise image sensor technology for stra...

2024

[8] [8]

Vikhlinin , A., \"O zel , F., and Gaskin , J., `` Lynx X-Ray Observatory Concept Study Final Report .'' Lynx X-Ray Observatory Concept Study Final Report, 2019. (Jan. 2019)

2019