Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Quantum Imaging with X-rays

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Correlated X-ray pairs generated by a diamond crystal can image a biological sample at 6,300 pairs per hour, the paper’s record rate for X-ray SPDC.

desk verdict A genuine experimental advance in X-ray SPDC imaging, but the headline rate and energy anti-correlation claim need accidental-coincidence controls and data release before they can be fully trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09833 v1 pith:OQPJPCF3 submitted 2024-12-13 quant-ph physics.app-phphysics.optics

Justin C. Goodrich , Ryan Mahon , Joseph Hanrahan , Dennis Bollweg , Monika Dziubelski , Raphael A. Abrahao , Sanjit Karmakar , Kazimierz J. Gofron
show 7 more authors
Thomas A. Caswell Daniel Allan Lonny Berman Andrei Nomerotski Andrei Fluerasu Cinzia DaVia Sean McSweeney
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.app-phphysics.optics
keywords X-rayquantumimagingspontaneousparametricdown-conversioncorrelatedphotonpairsghostTimepix3detectorenergyanti-correlationsynchrotronlow-dosebiological
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 reports that spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) in a diamond crystal, driven by a 15 keV synchrotron beam, can produce correlated X-ray photon pairs at about 6,300 per hour, roughly 20 times the previous benchmark. It uses those pairs to perform quantum correlation imaging of several objects, including a biological seedpod, with one photon of each pair passing through the object while its partner is detected unobstructed. If correct, the result makes X-ray quantum imaging practical rather than a proof-of-principle curiosity, opening a route to low-dose imaging of radiation-sensitive biological materials. The paper also claims to observe energy anti-correlation between the paired photons and to explain the ring geometry, image distortions, and corrections through phase matching and momentum conservation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is phase-matched non-linear diffraction of a 15 keV pump in a diamond (111) crystal detuned by about 0.021° from the Bragg condition. Momentum conservation fixes the emission angle of each pair member as a function of its energy fraction b, giving α(b) ≈ √(2Δθ sin(2θ)(1−b)/b), so a photon’s radial position on the detector is a readout of its energy and its partner’s position is determined by replacing b with 1−b. A Lynx T3 detector, built from four Timepix3 hybrid pixel readout chips, records time-of-arrival and time-over-threshold; per-pixel ToT cutoffs reject the roughly 10⁵ scattered pump photons per SPDC photon, and coincidence pairing selects events with small time difference. Recovering the detuning angle for each pair via Δθ = αₛαᵢ/(2 sin(2θ)) lets the authors correct ghost-image blurring by rescaling idler radii to the nominal detuning angle.

What would settle it

With the diamond at the phase-matching detuning, record the pair rate in a time window far from zero delay, or with the detuning moved off the phase-matching condition; if the ring pattern and the ~6,300-per-hour rate survive, the selection is dominated by accidental coincidences. Independently, an energy-resolving detector with better than 1 keV resolution should show each pair’s energies summing to 15 keV with anti-correlation; a null result would indict the time-over-threshold calibration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is that X-ray SPDC sources can be bright and stable enough for two-photon correlation imaging: the authors detect pairs at about 6.3 × 10³ per hour, observe the characteristic energy-anti-correlated ring, and produce direct and ghost correlation images of a tungsten cat, the letter ‘F’, and an E. cardamomum seedpod. The pairs distribute on a ring whose radius encodes photon energy, with higher-energy photons at smaller emission angles, and coincidence events show a narrow zero-delay time peak consistent with photon pairs rather than scattered background. The authors further show that the spread in pair detuning angles is governed by the crystal rocking curve, and they provide a correction that maps the distorted idler image back to the object’s shape.

Load-bearing premise

Everything reported rests on the assumption that per-pixel time-over-threshold cutoffs plus time-coincidence pairing separate true SPDC pairs from a background of scattered pump photons that outnumbers them by about 10⁵ to one; if those cuts admit accidental coincidences or enforce the assumed energy-position relation, the reported rate and images would be artifacts rather than measurements.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A two-dimensional pixelated area detector can serve as the working detector for X-ray SPDC coincidence imaging, replacing the slit-based detectors that previously limited count rates.
  • The same data set yields two views of the object, direct and ghost, and the mapping between them is predicted by the energy-position relation, so image distortions can be corrected by scaling idler radii to the nominal detuning angle.
  • Because coincidence detection rejects electronic noise and cosmic rays, quantum correlation images carry inherently lower detector noise than classical radiographs at comparable photon counts.
  • With roughly a twofold improvement in detector energy resolution and a suppression of the background ratio by two orders of magnitude, the paper’s Bayesian model puts single-SPDC-photon identification above 95%, enabling the planned sub-shot-noise transmission imaging.
  • The measured spread of pair detuning angles matches the diamond rocking curve width, implying that crystal mosaicity and pump divergence blur the correlation image and can be minimized by using a more perfect crystal and lower-divergence beam.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the pair rate and selection are as clean as reported, practical X-ray ghost imaging at synchrotrons is closer than the field’s previous benchmarks suggested; a natural next test is a dose-for-dose comparison of quantum versus classical imaging on the same biological sample.
  • The 6,300-pairs-per-hour figure is a detected rate, not a generation rate, and X-ray SPDC conversion efficiency is below 10⁻¹⁰; improved detector efficiency or tighter collection geometry could raise usable rates by orders of magnitude before the source itself becomes the limit.
  • The energy anti-correlation claim is inferred from time-over-threshold calibrations plus the spatial phase-matching relation, and the selection cuts themselves assume that relation; an independent measurement with a higher-energy-resolution detector would strengthen or falsify the claim.
  • The ratio of rocking-curve width to detuning angle appears to be the controlling aberration, which suggests a quantitative design target: maximize detuning angle while keeping the pair ring within the detector, and minimize crystal mosaicity to sharpen the ghost image.
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 an experimental study of spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) with 15 keV X-rays in a diamond crystal, using a Timepix3-based pixelated detector. The central claims are a record-high detection rate of about 6,300 correlated X-ray photon pairs per hour, the observation of energy anti-correlation between paired photons, and the use of these pairs for quantum correlation imaging of metallic and biological objects, including an E. cardamomum seedpod. The manuscript also derives a phase-matching model for X-ray SPDC (Appendix 1), presents a formula for mapping signal photons to idler positions (Eq. (5)), and proposes a correction for detuning-angle spread in the ghost images (Eq. (6)).

Significance. If confirmed, the reported pair rate and the demonstrated correlation imaging would be a substantial advance in X-ray quantum optics, moving X-ray SPDC from proof-of-principle single-pair measurements toward practical coincidence-imaging and potentially sub-shot-noise transmission measurements. The paper's phase-matching derivation is standard, and its imaging simulations provide a useful interpretative framework. However, the central experimental claims—especially the pair rate and the energy anti-correlation—are not yet protected against accidental coincidences or selection-induced correlations, and no raw data or analysis code are released. The paper's own Section VII estimates a single-photon identification probability of about 4% with the current background ratio, which makes the unquantified pair-level filtering the critical load-bearing element; that element is asserted but not documented in sufficient detail.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, 'The final selections indicate SPDC rates approaching 6.3 × 10^3 pairs per hour'] The claimed pair rate is not supported by an accidental-coincidence analysis. The manuscript never reports the singles rates that pass the ToT cutoffs, the width of the coincidence window, the number of candidate pairs before spatial filtering, or an off-time/time-shifted control. Given the manuscript's own statement in Section VII of an SPDC-to-background ratio of β ≈ 10^5, a small leakage of scattered 15 keV photons into the low-ToT selection band could produce chance coincidences at a rate comparable to 6,300/hour. The headline rate and the correlation images therefore rest on an unverified assumption about background rejection; the authors should provide these quantities or explicitly subtract accidental coincidences.
  2. [Section IV and Eq. (4)] The claimed observation of energy anti-correlation is not an independent validation of energy conservation. The energies used in the analysis are converted from radial positions through Eq. (4), which already assumes phase matching and energy conservation. Any pair selection that enforces the spatial 'energy and momentum conservation' filters will produce positions that map to anti-correlated energies by construction. To make the energy anti-correlation a genuine experimental observation, the authors should present a raw-ToT-only energy analysis (without position-derived energies) for the selected pairs, or explicitly state that the observed anti-correlation is a consequence of the coordinate transformation rather than a new measurement.
  3. [Section III, calibration paragraph] The per-pixel ToT cutoff values used to isolate SPDC photons are not specified. The manuscript says only that 'cutoff values were employed to reduce the high background of scattered 15 keV pump photons' but does not state the thresholds, how they were chosen, what fraction of events they remove, or how sensitive the final pair rate is to their exact values. Since the ToT cuts are the first and most important filter against a 10^5:1 background, the omission prevents reproduction and auditing of the central result. The authors should document the cutoff selection procedure and provide the resulting singles rates before and after cuts.
  4. [Section VI and Eq. (1)] The distribution of calculated detuning angles and its correlation with the rocking curve may be biased by the pair-selection procedure itself. The manuscript states that pairs are selected using 'spatial properties, such as pairs that are seen to conserve both the diffracted pump energy and momentum.' Because the detuning angle in Eq. (1) is computed from the emission angles of the selected pairs, a selection that preferentially keeps pairs consistent with a narrow range of phase-matching parameters could artificially narrow the inferred detuning-angle spread. To support the claim that the spread reflects crystal mosaicity and beam divergence, the authors should demonstrate that the detuning-angle distribution is not dominated by the selection filters, for example by comparing with a selection based only on ToT and coincidence time.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'obstructred' (Section III), 'phenonemon' (Section IV), 'conversation of momentum' (Appendix 1, should be 'conservation'), and 'Experpimental' in reference [48].
  2. [Figure 3(a)] The red lines and arrows indicating the SPDC pair region are difficult to discern in the printed grayscale figure; consider using a higher-contrast overlay or a separate zoom panel.
  3. [Section IV] The sentence 'allow for the isolation of SPDC photon pairs with high (>100)' is incomplete; the intended quantity (presumably signal-to-background or detection efficiency) should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Eq. (5)] The symbol b in Eq. (5) is used without definition in the main text; it is defined only later in Appendix 1. Please define it near Eq. (5) for readability.
  5. [Data availability] No data availability statement is provided. Given the paper's reliance on custom Python analysis and the sensitivity of the results to analysis thresholds, a statement about data and code availability would strengthen the manuscript.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Energy anti-correlation is constructed from the assumed phase-matching relation; pair rate and imaging retain independent support.

  1. self definitional [Section V, Eqs. (4)-(5); Fig. 3(c) caption; Appendix 1]
    "Considering the phase-matching condition and conservation of momentum, with some approximations (see Appendix 1) one can relate the energy of a photon with its position by using the following equation: ESPDC(r) ≈ Epump / (arctan2(r/L)/(2∆θ sin(2θ)) + 1) (4) ... Calculated emission angles and photon energies (inset) for the isolated SPDC single photons correlate well with theoretical predictions based on SPDC phase-matching conditions, affirming energy conservation ..."

    Eq. (4) assigns each photon energy from radial position under the assumed phase-matching/energy-conservation relation, and Eq. (5) maps the partner to the complementary radius from the same relation. Hence for any pair selected by these spatial filters, the two calculated energies sum to Epump by construction (within the small-angle approximation). The 'energy anti-correlation' and 'affirming energy conservation' reported for Fig. 3(c) are therefore properties of the energy-to-position conversion, not independent measurements. The external ToT calibration from monochromatic beams is not shown to be the basis of these calculated energies; the paper instead calls the spatial SPDC cross-calibration 'considerably more precise,' and that calibration itself uses Eq. (4).

full rationale

The record pair rate and the correlation images are not circular in the same way: the time-coincidence peak (Fig. 3(b)) and the external ToT calibration from scattered monochromatic beams are independent inputs, and the comparison to the prior rate in Ref. [28] gives an external benchmark. However, the paper's headline observation of energy anti-correlation is obtained from Eq. (4), which already assumes energy conservation and phase matching, and Eq. (5), which maps partner positions under that same assumption. The ToT-based cross-calibration 'using spatial information of selected SPDC pairs' also folds the assumed relation into the energy estimator, so the anti-correlation cannot serve as independent validation of the SPDC kinematics. The pair-selection phrase 'pairs that are seen to conserve both the diffracted pump energy and momentum' indicates that the reported rate and ring images inherit the assumed kinematics as selection filters, though the time coincidence signal provides substantial independent evidence. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present; citations to prior X-ray SPDC work are external. Score 6 reflects that one central claimed observation reduces by construction while the rate and imaging retain independent experimental content.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest primarily on standard phase-matching physics and on the beamline and detector behaving as described. No new entities are introduced. The main data-dependent inputs are the ToT calibration, the per-pixel energy cutoffs, and the coincidence pairing window, which are described but not fully specified.

free parameters (2)
  • Per-pixel ToT cutoff thresholds = not specified
    Chosen from calibration data to separate lower-energy SPDC photons from scattered 15 keV pump background; the selection rule is data-dependent and not fully specified.
  • Coincidence pairing window = not specified
    Events are paired by smallest time difference after filtering; the effective window tied to the 18 ns time resolution is described but the exact acceptance criterion is not stated.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Energy and momentum conservation plus phase-matching describe SPDC in a detuned Bragg crystal
    Used in Section IV and Appendix 1 to derive emission angles and the energy-position mapping.
  • domain assumption The 15 keV pump beam has the stated flux, polarization, monochromaticity, and 50x50 um spot
    Beamline conditions from Section III are inputs to the rate and simulation.
  • domain assumption Time-over-threshold can be calibrated to photon energy and remains stable across the detector
    Section III describes calibration with scattered beams from 6 to 15 keV; all energy claims depend on this.
  • domain assumption The Lynx T3 timing response allows true coincidence discrimination despite timewalk and charge drift
    Section III gives an 18 ns rms time difference resolution; pair identification depends on this.
  • domain assumption Diamond acts as a nonlinear medium for X-ray SPDC under the stated detuning conditions
    The experiment relies on prior demonstrations that diamond supports X-ray SPDC, cited in refs [15-17].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Imaging with X-rays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OQPJPCF3

@misc{pith2026241209833,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Imaging with X-rays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OQPJPCF3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09833}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum imaging encompasses a broad range of methods that exploit the quantum properties of light to capture information about an object. One such approach involves using a two-photon quantum state, where only one photon interacts with the object being imaged while its entangled partner carries spatial or temporal information. To implement this technique, it is necessary to generate specific quantum states of light and detect photons at the single-photon level. While this method has been successfully demonstrated in the visible electromagnetic spectrum, extending it to X-rays has faced significant challenges due to the difficulties in producing a sufficient rate of X-ray photon pairs and detecting them with adequate resolution. Here, we demonstrate record high rates of correlated X-ray photon pairs produced via a spontaneous parametric down-conversion process and we employ these photons to perform quantum correlation imaging of several objects, including a biological sample (E. cardamomum seedpod). Notably, we report an unprecedented detection rate of about 6,300 pairs per hour and the observation of energy anti-correlation for the X-ray photon pairs. We also present a detailed analysis of the properties of the down-converted X-ray photons, as well as a comprehensive study of the correlation imaging formation, including a study of distortions and corrections. These results mark a substantial advancement in X-ray quantum imaging, expanding the possibilities of X-ray quantum optical technologies, and illustrating the pathway towards enhancing biological imaging with reduced radiation doses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09833 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Quantum X-ray correlation imaging. (a) A conceptual schematic of the non-linear X-ray diffraction (SPDC) imaging [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Detailed Experimental Setup. Detailed X-ray [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. X-ray SPDC selection observables. (a) 2D his [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: X-ray SPDC Properties. (a) Radial distances and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: X-ray correlation imaging simulations and experi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: SPDC Photon Identification Probability. The like [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Christ, A

    A. Christ, A. Fedrizzi, H. H¨ ubel, T. Jennewein, and C. Silberhorn, Parametric down-conversion, in Experi- mental Methods in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 45 (El- sevier, Amsterdam, 2013) pp. 351–410

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    P. J. Mosley, J. S. Lundeen, B. J. Smith, P. Wasylczyk, A. B. U’Ren, C. Silberhorn, and I. A. Walmsley, Heralded generation of ultrafast single photons in pure quantum states, Physical Review Letters 100, 133601 (2008)

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    W. P. Grice, A. B. U’Ren, and I. A. Walmsley, Eliminat- ing frequency and space-time correlations in multiphoton states, Physical Review A 64, 063815 (2001)

    work page 2001

  4. [4]

    Farella, G

    B. Farella, G. Medwig, R. A. Abrahao, and A. Nomerot- ski, Spectral characterization of an SPDC source with a fast broadband spectrometer, AIP Advances 14, 045034 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Kwiat, Klaus Mattle, Harald Weinfurter, An- ton Zeilinger, Alexander V

    Paul G. Kwiat, Klaus Mattle, Harald Weinfurter, An- ton Zeilinger, Alexander V. Sergienko, and Yanhua Shih, New high-intensity source of polarization-entangled pho- ton pairs, Physical Review Letters 75, 4337 (1995)

    work page 1995

  6. [6]

    Giustina, M

    M. Giustina, M. A. M. Versteegh, S. Wengerowsky, J. Handsteiner, A. Hochrainer, K. Phelan, F. Steinlech- ner, J. Kofler, J.-A. Larsson, C. Abell´ an, W. Amaya, V. Pruneri, M. W. Mitchell, J. Beyer, T. Gerrits, A. E. Lita, L. K. Shalm, S. W. Nam, T. Scheidl, R. Ursin, B. Wittmann, and A. Zeilinger, Significant-loophole-free test of bell’s theorem with enta...

    2015

  7. [7]

    L. K. Shalm, E. Meyer-Scott, B. G. Christensen, P. Bier- horst, M. A. Wayne, M. J. Stevens, T. Gerrits, S. Glancy, D. R. Hamel, M. S. Allman, K. J. Coakley, S. D. Dyer, C. Hodge, A. E. Lita, V. B. Verma, C. Lam- brocco, E. Tortorici, A. L. Migdall, Y. Zhang, D. R. Kumor, W. H. Farr, F. Marsili, M. D. Shaw, J. A. Stern, C. Abell´ an, W. Amaya, V. Pruneri, ...

    2015

  8. [8]

    A. Mair, A. Vaziri, G. Weihs, and A. Zeilinger, Entangle- ment of the orbital angular momentum states of photons, Nature 412, 313 (2001)

    2001

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    J. P. Dowling and G. J. Milburn, Quantum technology: the second quantum revolution, Philosophical Transac- tions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Math- ematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 361, 1655 (2003)

    2003

  2. [10]

    J. L. O’Brien, G. J. Pryde, A. G. White, T. C. Ralph, and D. Branning, Demonstration of an all-optical quantum controlled-not gate, Nature 426, 264 (2003)

    2003

  3. [11]

    Ndagano, H

    B. Ndagano, H. Defienne, D. Branford, Y. D. Shah, A. Lyons, N. Westerberg, E. M. Gauger, and D. Faccio, Quantum microscopy based on hong–ou–mandel interfer- ence, Nature Photonics 16, 384 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Moreau, E

    P.-A. Moreau, E. Toninelli, T. Gregory, and M. J. Pad- gett, Imaging with quantum states of light, Nature Re- views Physics 1, 367 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    T. B. Pittman, Y. H. Shih, D. V. Strekalov, and A. V. Sergienko, Optical imaging by means of two-photon quantum entanglement, Physical Review A52, R3429(R) (1995)

    1995

  6. [14]

    Harder, V

    G. Harder, V. Ansari, B. Brecht, T. Dirmeier, C. Mar- quardt, and C. Silberhorn, An optimized photon pair source for quantum circuits, Optics express 21, 13975 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Levine and I

    B. Levine and I. Freund, Parametric down conversion of x-rays, Optics Communications 1, 419 (1970)

    1970

  8. [16]

    Eisenberger and S

    P. Eisenberger and S. L. McCall, X-ray parametric con- version, Physical Review Letters 26, 684 (1971)

    1971

  9. [17]

    Isaac Freund and B. F. Levine, Parametric conversion of x rays, Physical Review Letters 23, 854 (1969)

    1969

  10. [18]

    Y. Yoda, T. Suzuki, X.-W. Zhang, K. Hiranob, and S. Kikuta, X-ray parametric scattering by a diamond crys- tal, Journal of Synchrotron Radiation 5, 980 (1998)

    1998

  11. [19]

    Mills, and Dmitri V

    Bernhard, Adams, Patricia Fernandez, Wah-Keat Lee, Gerhard Materlik, Dennis M. Mills, and Dmitri V. Novikov, Parametric down conversion of x-ray photons, Journal of Synchrotron Radiation 7, 81 (2000)

    2000

  12. [20]

    Adams, Y

    B. Adams, Y. Nishino, D. Novikov, G. Materlik, and D. Mills, Parametric down conversion of x-rays, re- cent experiments, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrom- eters, Detectors and Associated Equipment 467-468, 1019 (2001)

    2001

  13. [21]

    Adams, C

    B. Adams, C. Buth, S. M. Cavaletto, J. Evers, Z. Har- man, C. H. Keitel, A. P´ alffy, A. Pic´ on, R. R¨ ohlsberger, Y. Rostovtsev, et al., X-ray quantum optics, Journal of Modern Optics 60, 2 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    Sofer, O

    S. Sofer, O. Sefi, E. Strizhevsky, H. Aknin, S. P. Collins, G. Nisbet, B. Detlefs, C. J. Sahle, and S. Shwartz, Ob- servation of strong nonlinear interactions in paramet- ric down-conversion of x-rays into ultraviolet radiation, 12 Nature Communications 10, 10.1038/s41467-019-...

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    Z. Li, N. Medvedev, H. N. Chapman, and Y. Shih, Ra- diation damage free ghost diffraction with atomic resolu- tion, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Opti- cal Physics 51, 025503 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    Schori, C

    A. Schori, C. B¨ omer, D. Borodin, S. P. Collins, B. Detlefs, M. M. Sala, S. Yudovich, and S. Shwartz, Parametric down-conversion of x rays into the optical regime, Physi- cal Review Letters 119, 10.1103/physrevlett.119.253902 (2017)

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    Schori, D

    A. Schori, D. Borodin, K. Tamasaku, and S. Shwartz, Ghost imaging with paired x-ray photons, Phys. Rev. A (Coll. Park.) 97, 10.1103/PhysRevA.97.063804 (2018)

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    Shwartz, R

    S. Shwartz, R. N. Coffee, J. M. Feldkamp, Y. Feng, J. B. Hastings, G. Y. Yin, and S. E. Harris, X-ray parametric down-conversion in the langevin regime, Physical Review Letters 109, 013602 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    Hartley, D

    N. Hartley, D. Hodge, T. Buckway, R. Camacho, P. Chow, E. Christie, A. Gleason, S. Glenzer, A. Hala- vanau, A. Hardy, C. Recker, S. Sheehan, H. Tarvin, M. Ware, J. Wunschel, Y. Xiao, R. Sandberg, and G. Walker, X-ray parametric down conversion at the aps synchrotron, arXiv pre...

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Borodin, A

    D. Borodin, A. Schori, F. Zontone, and S. Shwartz, X-ray photon pairs with highly suppressed background, Physi- cal Review A 94, 013843 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    L. J. Wong and I. Kaminer, Prospects in x-ray science emerging from quantum optics and nanomaterials, Ap- plied Physics Letters 119, 10.1063/5.0060552 (2021)

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    Q. Shen, I. Bazarov, and P. Thibault, Diffractive imag- ing of nonperiodic materials with future coherent x-ray sources, Journal of synchrotron radiation 11, 432 (2004)

    2004

  23. [31]

    E. F. Garman and M. Weik, X-ray radiation damage to biological samples: recent progress, Journal of Syn- chrotron Radiation 26, 907 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Lloyd, Enhanced sensitivity of photodetection via quantum illumination, Science 321, 1463 (2008)

    S. Lloyd, Enhanced sensitivity of photodetection via quantum illumination, Science 321, 1463 (2008)

    2008

  25. [33]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Reviews of modern physics 89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    Pirandola, B

    S. Pirandola, B. R. Bardhan, T. Gehring, C. Weedbrook, and S. Lloyd, Advances in photonic quantum sensing, Nature Photonics 12, 724 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    D’Angelo and Y

    M. D’Angelo and Y. Shih, Quantum imaging, Laser Physics Letters 2, 567 (2005)

    2005

  28. [36]

    J. H. Shapiro and R. W. Boyd, The physics of ghost imag- ing, Quantum Information Processing 11, 949 (2012)

    2012

  29. [37]

    Brida, M

    G. Brida, M. Genovese, and I. Ruo Berchera, Experi- mental realization of sub-shot-noise quantum imaging, Nature Photonics 4, 227 (2010)

    2010

  30. [38]

    C. A. Casacio, L. S. Madsen, A. Terrasson, M. Waleed, K. Barnscheidt, B. Hage, M. A. Taylor, and W. P. Bowen, Quantum-enhanced nonlinear microscopy, Nature 594, 201 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    G. B. Lemos, V. Borish, G. D. Cole, S. Ramelow, R. Lap- kiewicz, and A. Zeilinger, Quantum imaging with unde- tected photons, Nature 512, 409 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    Brambilla, L

    E. Brambilla, L. Caspani, O. Jedrkiewicz, L. Lugiato, and A. Gatti, High-sensitivity imaging with multi-mode twin beams, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 77, 053807 (2008)

    2008

  33. [41]

    Element Six, Synthetic diamond and tungsten carbide experts (2023), accessed: 2023-08-24

    2023

  34. [42]

    K. J. Gofron, Using timepix3 detector for neutron and x-ray studies, 32nd Linear Accelerator Conference (LINAC2024) , 725 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Poikela et al., Timepix3: a 65k channel hybrid pixel readout chip with simultaneous toa/tot and sparse read- out, Journal of instrumentation 9, C05013 (2014)

    T. Poikela et al., Timepix3: a 65k channel hybrid pixel readout chip with simultaneous toa/tot and sparse read- out, Journal of instrumentation 9, C05013 (2014)

    2014

  36. [44]

    F. M. Pitters, N. Alipour Tehrani, D. Dannheim, A. Fiergolski, D. Hynds, W. Klempt, X. Llopart Cudie, M. Munker, A. M. Nurnberg, S. Spannagel, and M. J. Williams, Time and Energy Calibration of Timepix3 As- semblies with Thin Silicon Sensors (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    A. Zhao, M. van Beuzekom, B. Bouwens, D. Byelov, I. Chakaberia, C. Cheng, E. Maddox, A. Nomerotski, P. Svihra, J. Visser, V. Vrba, and T. Weinacht, Co- incidence velocity map imaging using tpx3cam, a time stamping optical camera with 1.5 ns timing resolution, Review of Scienti...

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    M. L. Rivers et al., areadetector: Epics software for 2-d detectors, in Proc. 16th Int. Conf. on Accelerator and Large Experimental Control Systems (ICALEPCS’17) (2018) pp. 1245–1251

    2018

  39. [47]

    K. J. Gofron, Adtimepix3 (2023), gitHub repository

    2023

  40. [48]

    K. J. Gofron, B. Vacaliuc, J. Wlodek, G. Guyotte, S. Lyons, S. Giles, F. Funama, and S.-A. Chong, Deploy- ment of adtimepix3 areadetector driver at neutron and x-ray facilities, 19th International Conference of Acceler- ator and Large Experpimental Physiscs Control Systems , 90 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Allan, T

    D. Allan, T. Caswell, S. Campbell, and M. Rakitin, Bluesky’s ahead: A multi-facility collaboration for an a la carte software project for data acquisition and man- agement, Synchrotron Radiation News 32, 19 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    Llopart, Timepix4: Specs & plans, https://indico

    X. Llopart, Timepix4: Specs & plans, https://indico. cern.ch/event/591299/contributions/2423187/ attachments/1393307/2123191/Timepix4_specs.pdf, accessed: 2024-11-25

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.