Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Readout Optimization of Multi-Amplifier Sensing Charge-Coupled Devices for Single-Quantum Measurement

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

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

Pith's one-line read Two readout modes for multiple-amplifier CCDs cut wasted time and still reach sub-electron noise in a targeted region.

desk verdict A useful, incremental MAS-CCD readout paper with a headline ROI noise number that needs a few missing measurements spelled out. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10508 v2 pith:QMZGXRAY submitted 2025-02-14 astro-ph.IM physics.ins-det

Ana M. Botti , Brenda A. Cervantes-Vergara , Claudio R. Chavez , Fernando Chierchie , Alex Drlica-Wagner , Juan Estrada , Guillermo Fernandez Moroni , Stephen E. Holland
show 10 more authors
Blas J. Irigoyen Gimenez Agustin J. Lapi Edgar Marrufo Villalpando Miguel Sofo Haro Javier Tiffenberg Sho Uemura Kenneth Lin Armin Karcher Julien Guy Peter E. Nugent
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMphysics.ins-det
keywords MAS-CCDSkipperCCDsub-electronreadoutnoiseregionofinterestcontinuousnon-destructivesingle-photoncountingfullydepleted
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 reports two readout strategies for the Multiple-Amplifier Sensing Charge-Coupled Device (MAS-CCD), a silicon imager whose serial register holds several non-destructive floating-gate amplifiers in a row. The first strategy, continuous readout, dumps each new row into the serial register before the previous row has fully cleared the amplifier chain, eliminating the time spent on pre-scan pixels. The second, region-of-interest readout, takes many samples per pixel in a targeted sub-area and only one sample elsewhere. The authors show that the first method does not degrade readout noise, and that the second reaches about 0.45 electrons of noise with 40 samples per amplifier combined across seven amplifiers, making a projected signal of 1.2 electrons per pixel clearly visible. These modes matter because they attack the main drawback of Skipper-CCD technology, its slow readout, without giving up single-quantum sensitivity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the MAS-CCD output stage: a chain of amplifiers (8 or 16 in these sensors) capacitively coupled to the same serial register, so the same charge packet can be measured non-destructively by each amplifier while still being transferred onward. Pixel values are formed by averaging all samples from all amplifiers, giving a noise that falls as the inverse square root of the product of the number of amplifiers and the number of samples per amplifier, provided the amplifiers have independent, equal-variance noise. Continuous readout is a timing scheme that overlaps rows in the serial register; region-of-interest readout is a per-pixel variation of the number of samples. Both techniques are carried by the same non-destructive measurement mechanism, and both rely on a median bias image to absorb the baseline offsets that the clock changes introduce.

What would settle it

Measure the per-pixel standard deviation from a stack of dark images in the columns where the readout switches between one sample and 40 samples; if the noise there exceeds the averaging-law prediction after bias subtraction, the bias correction is adding noise, and if the covariance between any two amplifiers is nonzero, the square-root gain from combining amplifiers is optimistic.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Sub-electron readout noise can be obtained in a MAS-CCD without paying the readout-time penalty that limits Skipper-CCD use. In continuous readout, the next row is loaded into the serial register while the previous row is still being measured, so no time is spent on pre-scan pixels; after combining sixteen channels the per-pixel standard deviation is about one electron, which is the expected value at that sampling. In region-of-interest mode, a 360 by 270 pixel region is read with 40 non-destructive samples per amplifier while the rest of the image uses a single sample per amplifier. Combining the seven working amplifiers yields about 0.45 electrons of noise in that region, matching the averaging law with a single-sample noise of 7.5 electrons, and a projected object averaging 1.2 electrons per pixel becomes visible. The baseline offsets caused by the clock changes are removed with a median bias image, leaving no evident residue.

Load-bearing premise

The noise formula assumes the working amplifiers have independent, equal-variance noise and that the median bias image removes all clock-induced baseline shifts without adding any noise; if either fails, the reported 0.45-electron noise would not be as low as claimed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same target noise can be reached in roughly the square root of the number of amplifiers less time than with a single-amplifier Skipper CCD, because each amplifier contributes an independent measurement of the same charge.
  • Continuous readout removes the pre-scan overhead for all rows except the first, so full-frame images cost less readout time with no measured noise increase.
  • Region-of-interest readout lets an observer preview an image at low resolution and then integrate only where a faint object sits, keeping the rest of the field fast.
  • The combination of seven amplifiers and 40 samples per pixel resolves an average signal of 1.2 electrons per pixel, demonstrating single-quantum sensitivity in a thick, fully depleted sensor.
  • The noise in the region of interest matches the averaging prediction, so the two techniques preserve the noise-scaling advantage that motivated the MAS-CCD design.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Combining continuous readout with region-of-interest sampling would attack both overheads at once; the paper demonstrates each separately but does not test the joint mode.
  • Because each amplifier sees the same pixel through a different gain, region-of-interest images could be used to measure inter-amplifier gain variations per pixel, a calibration the paper does not report.
  • A quantitative map of the residual noise after median bias subtraction, rather than visual inspection, would show whether the clock-transition columns pay any hidden noise cost.
  • The independence assumption behind the averaging law could be checked directly by computing the covariance between amplifier pairs on dark images; a nonzero correlation would make the square-root gain in amplifier count optimistic.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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. This manuscript reports two optimizations of the readout of Multi-Amplifier Sensing Charge-Coupled Devices (MAS-CCDs): a continuous readout that eliminates pre-scan overhead by dumping consecutive rows into the serial register before the previous row has fully cleared, and a region-of-interest (ROI) readout that concentrates multiple non-destructive samples per amplifier in a targeted area. For the ROI mode, the authors quote a readout noise of approximately 0.45e- for Ns=40 samples and Na=7 amplifiers, and they state that this is consistent with Eq. (2) when starting from a measured single-sample noise of 7.5e-. For the continuous mode, they report a per-pixel standard deviation around 50 ADU and conclude that the method has no negative impact on readout noise. The paper is an experimental demonstration with limited detail on the noise-evaluation methodology.

Significance. If fully validated, the ROI readout would be a meaningful step toward high-speed sub-electron imaging with thick fully depleted silicon sensors, relevant to quantum imaging, astronomical spectroscopy, and rare-event searches. The paper's strength is that the ROI noise is compared with the closed-form expectation of Eq. (2) using a separately measured single-sample noise, which is a testable consistency check rather than a hidden fit. However, the lack of a specified measurement procedure, missing uncertainties, and the reliance on visual inspection for residual baselines make the central quantitative claim currently under-supported. The results are promising, but the experimental validation needs to be strengthened before the claims can be accepted at face value.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Figure 7] The manuscript does not state how the quoted 0.45e- ROI noise was measured, how many images were used for the evaluation, or whether those images are the same frames used to construct the 20-image median bias. If the noise is evaluated on the same stack that defines the bias, the median absorbs a fraction of the frame-to-frame variance and biases the measured standard deviation low; even in the simplest case of N=20 frames the bias is about 2.5%, and it can be larger if the clock-induced baseline shifts are correlated between frames. More importantly, the statement that there are 'no evident residuals of the baseline fluctuations' is based on visual inspection only. Provide an independent residual-noise measurement, for example by building the bias from one half of the dark frames and evaluating the noise on the other half, and report the statistics of the residual map.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (2)] The claimed agreement between the measured 0.45e- and the expected 0.448e- computed from Eq. (2) with Ns=40, Na=7, and a single-sample noise of 7.5e- is quoted without any uncertainties on either quantity. With two-significant-figure inputs, the agreement cannot be assessed. The authors should report the statistical uncertainty on the per-pixel standard deviation, the systematic uncertainty from the pixel-gain calibration, the uncertainty on the single-sample noise, and, if possible, a check that the amplifier noises are actually independent and equal-variance as Eq. (2) assumes.
  3. [Section 4] The paper states that the seventh amplifier 'was not giving any charge signal, so we decided to directly exclude the channel from the analysis without performing a thorough debugging of the electronic chain.' This post hoc exclusion makes the demonstration effectively a seven-amplifier result, not an eight-amplifier architecture, and it leaves open the possibility that the failed channel indicates a broader systematic issue. Please explicitly state that Na=7 was used in all quoted noise values, and provide evidence that the remaining seven amplifiers have consistent noise and gain, for example by listing the single-sample noise measured per amplifier.
  4. [Section 3, Figures 4(e)-(f), Conclusions] The conclusion that the continuous readout 'has proven to have no negative impact on the readout noise' is not supported by the presented evidence. The histogram of per-pixel standard deviations with a mean around 50 ADU is not compared with the corresponding noise of a standard readout of the same sensor, and the ADU-to-electron conversion is not given in the text. Please provide a quantitative comparison between the continuous and standard readout modes and state the calibration used to convert ADU to electrons.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] In the abstract and Section 1, 'This sensor is called the Multiple-Amplifier Sensing Charge-Coupled Device (MAS-CCD) can perform...' should read '...which can perform...'; similarly, 'The second technique explore' should be 'The second technique explores'.
  2. [Figure 4 caption] Figure 4's caption contains two entries labeled (d) and the in-text references do not match the caption; please renumber the panels (a)-(f) consistently.
  3. [Section 3] In Section 3, 'This also allows for a virtual over-scan with the same number o pixels' should be 'number of pixels'.
  4. [Section 3] In Section 3, 'The first row in each image, contains empty pixels' has an unnecessary comma.
  5. [Section 4] In Section 4, 'The later technique was explored in the past' should be 'The latter technique'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ROI noise result is a measured value checked against a standard noise-averaging formula using an independently measured single-sample noise.

full rationale

The derivation chain in this paper is not circular. Equation (1) defines the pixel value as the average over Na amplifiers and Ns samples, and Equation (2) follows mathematically from the stated assumption that the amplifiers have independent and equal-variance readout noise. This is a standard statistical averaging result, not a consequence of the data being predicted. The central quantitative claim in Section 4 is that the measured ROI noise, around 0.45e-, is 'similar to the expected from the equation 2 for Ns = 40, Na = 7 starting from a single sample noise per amplifier of 7.5e-'. This is a consistency check: the single-sample noise σ0 is an input measured independently, and the expected combined noise is 7.5 / sqrt(40*7) ≈ 0.448e-. No parameter is fitted to the measured 0.45e- value before comparing it to the expectation. Similarly, the continuous-readout result in Section 3 reports a pixel-by-pixel standard deviation with a mean around 50 ADU, corresponding to about one electron after combining the sixteen channels; this is presented as an absolute measurement of the achieved noise, not as a prediction derived from the same data. The self-citations in the paper ([25], [26], [29]) supply the MAS-CCD architecture and the prior Skipper-CCD ROI technique; these are background and engineering context, not a load-bearing proof or a uniqueness theorem that forces the present results. The only notable caveat is that the median bias image used to remove baseline shifts is validated visually ('no evident residuals') rather than with a quantitative residual-noise map, and the paper does not state whether the noise evaluation frames are independent of the bias frames. This is a measurement-validity concern that could affect the reliability of the quoted noise, but it is not an instance of a prediction reducing by construction to its inputs. Therefore, no circular step is identified, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on measured calibration values (sigma0, gain) and on three domain assumptions about noise independence, bias subtraction, and non-destructive transfer. The MAS-CCD device itself is an existing sensor from prior work, not an entity introduced by this paper.

free parameters (2)
  • single-sample noise per amplifier (sigma0) = 7.5 e-
    Measured from the sensor and used in Eq. (2) to compute the expected ROI noise; not independently derived.
  • ADU-to-electron gain = not quoted
    Used to convert noise from ADU (about 50 ADU) to electrons (about 1 e-) in Section 3; the calibration is not shown.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Readout noise of each amplifier is independent and has similar standard deviation
    Required for Eq. (2), the central noise-combining formula; not verified with a covariance measurement.
  • domain assumption Median bias image computed from 20 dark exposures removes baseline shifts without contributing noise
    Used in Sections 3 and 4 to subtract clock-induced baselines; residual noise of this subtraction is not quantified.
  • domain assumption Charge is transferred non-destructively through all amplifiers without degradation
    Basis of the MAS-CCD architecture inherited from refs 25-27; not re-derived here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Readout Optimization of Multi-Amplifier Sensing Charge-Coupled Devices for Single-Quantum Measurement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QMZGXRAY

@misc{pith2026250210508,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Readout Optimization of Multi-Amplifier Sensing Charge-Coupled Devices for Single-Quantum Measurement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QMZGXRAY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10508}
}
read the original abstract

The non-destructive readout capability of the Skipper Charge Coupled Device (CCD) has been demonstrated to reduce the noise limitation of conventional silicon devices to levels that allow single-photon or single-electron counting. The noise reduction is achieved by taking multiple measurements of the charge in each pixel. These multiple measurements come at the cost of extra readout time, which has been a limitation for the broader adoption of this technology in particle physics, quantum imaging, and astronomy applications. This work presents recent results of a novel sensor architecture that uses multiple non-destructive floating-gate amplifiers in series to achieve sub-electron readout noise in a thick, fully-depleted silicon detector to overcome the readout time overhead of the Skipper-CCD. This sensor is called the Multiple-Amplifier Sensing Charge-Coupled Device (MAS-CCD) can perform multiple independent charge measurements with each amplifier, and the measurements from multiple amplifiers can be combined to further reduce the readout noise. We will show results obtained for sensors with 8 and 16 amplifiers per readout stage in new readout operations modes to optimize its readout speed. The noise reduction capability of the new techniques will be demonstrated in terms of its ability to reduce the noise by combining the information from the different amplifiers, and to resolve signals in the order of a single photon per pixel. The first readout operation explored here avoids the extra readout time needed in the MAS-CCD to read a line of the sensor associated with the extra extent of the serial register. The second technique explore the capability of the MAS-CCD device to perform a region of interest readout increasing the number of multiple samples per amplifier in a targeted region of the active area of the device.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10508 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Architecture of the eight inline amplifiers at the end of the serial register of the MAS-CCD. The dashed line shows a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. a) Experimental setup of the 16-channels MAS-CCD. b) Stack of the output images obtained from each output amplifier [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The process steps of the continuous readout scheme are shown in figures (a), (b), and (c). (e) and (f) representation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: a) Image obtained from the first amplifier with the continuous readout method. b) Image obtained from the second [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Setup used to test the region of interest readout using an 8-channels MAS-CCD. a) Picture of the inside of the dewar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Image taken using ROI. (a) Image from a single amplifier. (b) After combining the information from seven amplifiers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same region of a 8-channels MAS-CCD taken in different modes. (a) Image from a single amplifier taken after projecting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    On the flicker noise in submicron silicon mosfets,

    E. Simoen and C. Claeys, “On the flicker noise in submicron silicon mosfets,” Solid-State Electronics43(5), pp. 865–882, 1999

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    New advancements in charge-coupled device technology: subelectron noise and 4096 x 4096 pixel CCDs,

    J. R. Janesick, T. S. Elliott, A. Dingiziam, R. A. Bredthauer, C. E. Chandler, J. A. Westphal, and J. E. Gunn, “New advancements in charge-coupled device technology: subelectron noise and 4096 x 4096 pixel CCDs,” in Charge-Coupled Devices and Solid State Optical Sensors, M. M. Blouke, ed., 1242, pp. 223 – 237, International Society for Optics and Photonic...

    work page 1990

  3. [3]

    Boukhayma, Ultra Low Noise CMOS Image Sensors, Springer Theses, Springer International Publishing, 2017

    A. Boukhayma, Ultra Low Noise CMOS Image Sensors, Springer Theses, Springer International Publishing, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Excess noise and other important characteristics of low light level imaging using charge multiplying ccds,

    J. Hynecek and T. Nishiwaki, “Excess noise and other important characteristics of low light level imaging using charge multiplying ccds,” IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices50(1), pp. 239–245, 2003

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    Silicon photomultiplier and its possible applications,

    P. Buzhan, B. Dolgoshein, L. Filatov, A. Ilyin, V. Kantzerov, V. Kaplin, A. Karakash, F. Kayumov, S. Klemin, E. Popova, and S. Smirnov, “Silicon photomultiplier and its possible applications,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and As- sociated Equipment 504(1), pp. 48–52, 2003. Proceeding...

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    The quanta image sensor: Every photon counts,

    E. R. Fossum, J. Ma, S. Masoodian, L. Anzagira, and R. Zizza, “The quanta image sensor: Every photon counts,” Sensors 16(8), 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Design and operation of a floating gate amplifier,

    D. Wen, “Design and operation of a floating gate amplifier,” IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits9(6), pp. 410–414, 1974

    work page 1974

  8. [8]

    Ultra low-noise charge coupled device,

    J. R. Janesick, “Ultra low-noise charge coupled device,” 1993

    work page 1993

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Fully depleted, back-illuminated charge-coupled devices fabricated on high-resistivity silicon,

    S. E. Holland, D. E. Groom, N. P. Palaio, R. J. Stover, and M. Wei, “Fully depleted, back-illuminated charge-coupled devices fabricated on high-resistivity silicon,” IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices50, pp. 225–238, Jan 2003

    2003

  2. [10]

    High-voltage-compatable fully depleted CCDs,

    S. E. Holland, C. J. Bebek, K. S. Dawson, J. H. Emes, M. H. Fabricius, J. A. Fairfield, D. E. Groom, A. Karcher, W. F. Kolbe, N. P. Palaio, N. A. Roe, and G. Wang, “High-voltage-compatable fully depleted CCDs,” in High Energy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy II, ...

    2006

  3. [11]

    Device design for a 12.3-megapixel, fully depleted, back-illuminated, high-voltage compatible charge-coupled device,

    S. E. Holland, W. F. Kolbe, and C. J. Bebek, “Device design for a 12.3-megapixel, fully depleted, back-illuminated, high-voltage compatible charge-coupled device,” IEEE Transactions on Electron De- vices 56(11), pp. 2612–2622, 2009

    2009

  4. [12]

    Sub-electron readout noise in a Skipper CCD fabricated on high resistivity silicon,

    G. Fernandez Moroni, J. Estrada, G. Cancelo, S. Holland, E. Paolini, and H. Diehl, “Sub-electron readout noise in a Skipper CCD fabricated on high resistivity silicon,” Experimental Astronomy34, 07 2012

    2012

  5. [13]

    Single-electron and single-photon sensitivity with a silicon Skipper CCD,

    J. Tiffenberg, M. Sofo-Haro, A. Drlica-Wagner, R. Essig, Y. Guardincerri, S. Holland, T. Volansky, and T.- T. Yu, “Single-electron and single-photon sensitivity with a silicon Skipper CCD,” Phys. Rev. Lett.119(13), p. 131802, 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Low threshold acquisition controller for Skipper charge-coupled devices,

    G. I. Cancelo, C. Chavez, F. Chierchie, J. Estrada, G. Fernandez-Moroni, E. E. Paolini, M. S. Haro, A. Soto, L. Stefanazzi, J. Tiffenberg, K. Treptow, N. Wilcer, and T. J. Zmuda, “Low threshold acquisition controller for Skipper charge-coupled devices,” Journal of Astronomical...

    2021

  7. [15]

    Sensei: Characterization of single-electron events using a skipper charge-coupled device,

    L. Barak, I. M. Bloch, A. Botti, M. Cababie, G. Cancelo, L. Chaplinsky, F. Chierchie, M. Crisler, A. Drlica- Wagner, R. Essig, J. Estrada, E. Etzion, G. Fernandez Moroni, D. Gift, S. E. Holland, S. Munagavalasa, A. Orly, D. Rodrigues, A. Singal, M. S. Haro, L. Stefanazzi, J. T...

    2022

  8. [16]

    SENSEI: Direct-detection results on sub-gev dark matter from a new Skipper CCD,

    L. Barak, I. M. Bloch, M. Cababie, G. Cancelo, L. Chaplinsky, F. Chierchie, M. Crisler, A. Drlica-Wagner, R. Essig, J. Estrada, E. Etzion, G. F. Moroni, D. Gift, S. Munagavalasa, A. Orly, D. Rodrigues, A. Singal, M. S. Haro, L. Stefanazzi, J. Tiffenberg, S. Uemura, T. Volansky...

    2020

  9. [17]

    Characterization of skipper CCDs for cosmological applications,

    A. Drlica-Wagner, E. M. Villalpando, J. O’Neil, J. Estrada, S. Holland, N. Kurinsky, T. Li, G. F. Moroni, J. Tiffenberg, and S. Uemura, “Characterization of skipper CCDs for cosmological applications,” in X-Ray, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy IX, A. D. Holland a...

    2020

  10. [18]

    Estrada, Observatory of Skipper CCDs Unveiling Recoiling Atoms, 2020 (accessed September 23, 2021)

    J. Estrada, Observatory of Skipper CCDs Unveiling Recoiling Atoms, 2020 (accessed September 23, 2021). https://astro.fnal.gov/science/dark-matter/oscura/

    2020

  11. [19]

    vIOLETA: Neutrino Interaction Observation with a Low Energy Threshold Array,

    J. C. D’Olivo, C. Bonifazi, D. Rodrigues, and G. F. Moroni, “vIOLETA: Neutrino Interaction Observation with a Low Energy Threshold Array,” in XXIX International Conference in Neutrino Physics, poster 521, June 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Absolute mea- surement of the fano factor using a skipper-ccd,

    D. Rodrigues, K. Andersson, M. Cababie, A. Donadon, A. Botti, G. Cancelo, J. Estrada, G. Fernandez- Moroni, R. Piegaia, M. Senger, M. S. Haro, L. Stefanazzi, J. Tiffenberg, and S. Uemura, “Absolute mea- surement of the fano factor using a skipper-ccd,” Nuclear Instruments and ...

    2021

  13. [21]

    Constraints on the electron-hole pair creation energy and fano factor below 150 ev from compton scattering in a skipper ccd,

    A. M. Botti, S. Uemura, G. F. Moroni, L. Barak, M. Cababie, R. Essig, E. Etzion, D. Rodrigues, N. Saffold, M. Sofo Haro, J. Tiffenberg, and T. Volansky, “Constraints on the electron-hole pair creation energy and fano factor below 150 ev from compton scattering in a skipper ccd...

    2022

  14. [22]

    Ghost imaging of dark particles,

    J. Estrada, R. Harnik, D. Rodrigues, and M. Senger, “Ghost imaging of dark particles,” 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Radiation tolerant, photon counting, visible and near-IR detectors for space coronagraphs and starshades,

    B. J. Rauscher, S. E. Holland, L. R. Miko, and A. Waczynski, “Radiation tolerant, photon counting, visible and near-IR detectors for space coronagraphs and starshades,” in UV/Optical/IR Space Telescopes and Instruments: Innovative Technologies and Concepts IX, A. A. Barto, J. ...

    2019

  16. [24]

    Realization of the first sub-shot-noise wide field microscope,

    N. Samantaray, I. Ruo-Berchera, A. Meda, and M. Genovese, “Realization of the first sub-shot-noise wide field microscope,” Light: Science & Applications6, pp. e17005–e17005, Jul 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Fully depleted charge-coupled device design and technology development,

    S. E. Holland, “Fully depleted charge-coupled device design and technology development,” Astronomische Nachrichten 344(8-9), p. e20230072, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Single-quantum measurement with a multiple-amplifier sensing charge-coupled device,

    A. M. Botti, B. A. Cervantes-Vergara, C. R. Chavez, F. Chierchie, A. Drlica-Wagner, J. Estrada, G. F. Moroni, S. E. Holland, B. J. Irigoyen Gimenez, A. J. Lapi, E. M. Villalpando, M. S. Haro, J. Tiffenberg, and S. Uemura, “Single-quantum measurement with a multiple-amplifier s...

    2024

  19. [27]

    A sixteen multiple-amplifier-sensing ccd and characterization techniques targeting the next generation of astronomical instruments,

    A. J. Lapi, B. J. Irigoyen Gimenez, M. E. Gamero, C. R. Chavez Blanco, F. Chierchie, G. Fernandez Moroni, S. E. Holland, J. Estrada, and J. Tiffenberg, “A sixteen multiple-amplifier-sensing ccd and characterization techniques targeting the next generation of astronomical instr...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Multi-Amplifier Sensing Charge-coupled Devices for Next Generation Spectroscopy,

    K. Lin, A. Karcher, J. Guy, S. E. Holland, W. F. Kolbe, P. Nugent, and A. Drlica-Wagner, “Multi-Amplifier Sensing Charge-coupled Devices for Next Generation Spectroscopy,” arXiv e-prints , p. arXiv:2406.06472, June 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Smart-readout of the skipper-ccd: Achieving sub-electron noise levels in regions of interest,

    F. Chierchie, G. F. Moroni, L. Stefanazzi, C. Chavez, E. Paolini, G. Cancelo, M. S. Haro, J. Tiffenberg, J. Estrada, and S. Uemura, “Smart-readout of the skipper-ccd: Achieving sub-electron noise levels in regions of interest,” in 2021 Argentine Conference on Electronics (CAE)...

    2021

  22. [30]

    Fabrication of back-illuminated, fully depleted charge-coupled devices,

    S. Holland, K. Dawson, N. Palaio, J. Saha, N. Roe, and G. Wang, “Fabrication of back-illuminated, fully depleted charge-coupled devices,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accel- erators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment579(2), pp....

    2007

Pith tools

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