Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 3 cited by

Ground Calibration Result of the Wide-field X-ray Telescope (WXT) onboard the Einstein Probe

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ground calibration of three Einstein Probe WXT flight modules measures a 3-7 arcmin focal-spot PSF, 2-3 cm^2 effective area at 1.25 keV, and CMOS energy resolution meeting design, and these values are now in the mission's calibration…

desk verdict Solid ground calibration paper for the WXT modules; the numbers are plausible and useful, but the unquantified defocus-compensation claim in Sec. 3.1.1 is the main soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18939 v1 pith:7ZRS4MXZ submitted 2025-05-25 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HEhep-exphysics.ins-det

Huaqing Cheng , Chen Zhang , Zhixing Ling , Xiaojin Sun , Shengli Sun , Yuan Liu , Yanfeng Dai , Zhenqing Jia
show 19 more authors
Haiwu Pan Wenxin Wang Donghua Zhao Yifan Chen Zhiwei Cheng Wei Fu Yixiao Han Junfei Li Zhengda Li Xiaohao Ma Yulong Xue Ailiang Yan Qiang Zhang Yusa Wang Xiongtao Yang Zijian Zhao Longhui Li Ge Jin Weimin Yuan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.HEhep-exphysics.ins-det
keywords X-rayastronomylobster-eyeopticsmicro-poretelescopecalibrationEinsteinProbepointspreadfunctioneffectiveareaCMOSdetectors
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 the end-to-end X-ray calibration of three flight-model modules of the Einstein Probe's Wide-field X-ray Telescope before launch. It aims to establish the instrument's focusing quality, collecting area, and detector energy response between 0.5 and 5 keV, and to show that ground measurements are faithful enough for flight use. A sympathetic reading of the results would say that the modules focus X-rays into a cruciform point-spread function whose focal-spot width is 3-7 arcmin (median 4.2 arcmin) at 1.25 keV, that the effective area is 2-3 $cm^{2}$ at that energy with a peak near 3 $cm^{2}$ around 1 keV, and that the CMOS sensors have gain 6.4-6.9 eV/DN and 120-140 eV resolution at 1.25 keV. These numbers are claimed to match Monte Carlo predictions and the pathfinder's behavior, with about a 1.5 arcmin resolution improvement over the pathfinder. The calibration values are already ingested into the mission's calibration database and applied to post-launch science data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the lobster-eye micro-pore optic (MPO): an array of square-pore channels that focus X-rays by grazing-incidence reflection, producing a central focal spot from even-numbered reflections and cruciform arms from odd-numbered reflections. The calibration uses a point-source beam about 100 m away with less than 9 arcmin divergence, sampled on 11x11 and 3x3 grids across each CMOS quadrant. Effective area is derived from $A_{\rm eff}=C_{\rm det}/F_{\rm MA}$ with the incident flux normalized by a calibrated silicon-drift detector and a divergence correction factor $G=0.943$. Energy calibration uses the linear relation $E=kC+b$, and spectral resolution is modeled by ${\rm FWHM}_E = 2.35\omega(\sigma^2 + F E/\omega)^{1/2}$. The flight-representativeness claim rests on the argument that the 1.4 mm calibration defocus compensates for the intentional 1-2 mm curvature offsets used in mounting the MPO plates.

What would settle it

Measure the PSF of a calibrated WXT module with a truly parallel beam, for instance using an on-orbit point source such as a bright active galactic nucleus or an independent collimated facility, and compare the focal-spot FWHM at 1.25 keV with the ground-derived 3-7 arcmin distribution. If the parallel-beam FWHM differs systematically by more than the quoted calibration uncertainties, the compensation argument fails and the ground numbers would not transfer to flight.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the 100-m beamline end-to-end calibration provides a flight-representative characterization of the WXT modules. Across the full field of view at 1.25 keV, the focal-spot PSF FWHM lies between 3 and 7 arcmin with a median of 4.2 arcmin, and the effective area is 2-3 $cm^{2}$; both the cruciform PSF shape and the near-vignetting-free area map are uniform except at plate boundaries, as lobster-eye theory predicts. The energy dependence, with a broader PSF at low energy and an effective area that peaks near 3 $cm^{2}$ around 1 keV and falls to about 0.5 $cm^{2}$ at 4.5 keV, agrees with Monte Carlo ray-tracing. The paper also argues that the 1.4 mm defocus caused by the finite source distance compensates for deliberate 1-2 mm plate-level curvature offsets in the assembled mirror, so the ground numbers remain representative of in-flight parallel-light performance. The outcome is a complete module calibration, including thermal stability, that is now the baseline for WXT data processing.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 1.4 mm defocus introduced by putting the X-ray source 100 m away compensates for the mirror plates' deliberate 1-2 mm curvature offsets, so the measured PSF and effective area equal what parallel light from a celestial source would produce.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the calibration is right, WXT light curves and spectra from the Einstein Probe can be converted into absolute fluxes and source positions using these ground-measured PSF and effective-area maps.
  • The measured energy-dependent PSF implies that spectral extraction and aperture photometry need energy-dependent aperture corrections, particularly below 1 keV where the PSF is broadest.
  • The near-uniform effective area across the 18.6-degree field confirms that lobster-eye optics can deliver wide-field monitoring without strong vignetting, a key assumption for the mission's transient-search efficiency.
  • The roughly 1.5 arcmin resolution improvement over the pathfinder instrument quantifies the gain from refined MPO fabrication and sets an expectation for future lobster-eye missions.
  • The calibration fixes the standard focal-spot extraction aperture and supplies direction-dependent plate-boundary corrections that can be folded into exposure maps for science data processing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: if the defocus-compensation argument is right, future lobster-eye modules can be calibrated at finite source distances without a collimator, but the plate-level curvature offsets would need to be measured independently for the claim to be transferable.
  • Extension: the residual field-of-view non-uniformity traced to MPO mounting frames suggests that WXT exposure maps should be direction-dependent rather than radially symmetric; an on-orbit comparison of a bright persistent source's count rate against these maps would test this directly.
  • Extension: because the measured PSF is nearly uniform across the field, source confusion near plate boundaries, rather than optical blur, is likely to limit crowded-field transient identification; simulating source recovery with these PSF maps could quantify that limit.
  • Extension: the same calibration formalism, including the Fano-factor and equivalent-noise-charge values, provides a reusable template for future CMOS-based lobster-eye missions.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper reports the end-to-end ground calibration of three Einstein Probe WXT flight modules (FM1, FM5, FM11) at the 100-m X-ray Test Facility (100XF). For each module the authors measured the point spread function (PSF), effective area, and CMOS energy response at several X-ray line energies and over a grid of incident directions. The main results are: PSF focal-spot FWHM of 3-7 arcmin (median about 4.2 arcmin) at 1.25 keV, roughly uniform effective area of 2-3 cm^2 at 1.25 keV with a peak near 3 cm^2 around 1 keV, energy-dependent PSF and effective area that are consistent with Monte Carlo simulations, CMOS gain coefficients of 6.4-6.9 eV/DN, and energy resolutions of about 120-140 eV at 1.25 keV. The authors state that these results have been ingested into the first version of the WXT calibration database and are used in the science data processing pipeline.

Significance. If the reported numbers are correct and representative of in-flight performance, this is an important calibration paper: it provides the community with the reference PSF, effective area, and detector response for a wide-field lobster-eye telescope that is already producing science data. The strengths of the paper are that the measurements are empirical end-to-end calibrations of flight hardware, use multiple characteristic X-ray lines and a dense sampling of the field of view, and include cross-checks against Monte Carlo simulations and an independent calibration of the FM5 mirror assembly at the Panter facility. The comparison with the earlier LEIA calibration is also useful. The main concern is the transfer of the 100XF results to flight: the finite source distance leaves the module 1.4 mm out of focus, and the paper's claim that this defocus compensates for intentional plate-level mounting offsets is qualitative. Because the results are being ingested into CALDB and applied to EP science data, the transfer assumption is load-bearing and needs quantitative support or an explicit systematic uncertainty.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.1.1] The paragraph beginning "We note that while the PSF FWHM measurements..." asserts that the 1.4 mm defocus from the finite source distance compensates for the intentional 1-2 mm MPO plate mounting offsets and that "the global PSF property distribution remains statistically preserved under this compensatory interplay." This claim is load-bearing because the headline FWHM and effective-area values are ingested into CALDB and applied to flight data, but no quantitative justification is provided. A single global defocus can cancel plate-level offsets only if the offsets share a common sign and a magnitude compatible with 1.4 mm; the paper does not report the distribution of the offsets or a ray-tracing demonstration. I recommend adding a quantitative transfer analysis, for example by ray-tracing the measured plate offsets with and without the 1.4 mm defocus, or by comparing with on-orbit PSF measurements from EP commissioning, and at minimum quoting a systematic uncertainty on PSF and effective area from this effect.
  2. [3.2, Figs. 9-14] Equations (1)-(3) define the effective area, and the text states that the uncertainty includes statistical fluctuations and a dominant systematic from the quantum efficiency of the reference SDD, but no numerical error bars are shown in Figures 9-14 or quoted in the text. For a calibration database, the absence of an error budget is a substantive gap because users need uncertainties on effective area to propagate into scientific results. Please provide error bars on the data points and a table listing the statistical and systematic components, including QE_SDD, the geometric correction G, the aperture extraction, and beam-uniformity effects.
  3. [3.3, Table 2] The fit of Equation (5) yields an equivalent noise charge sigma of about 12-13 (14.5 for CMOS 18), while Table 2 reports readout noise values of about 3-4 e^- for the same detectors. These numbers are not reconciled in the text. If sigma is intended to represent the total electronic noise in electrons, it is inconsistent with the quoted readout noise; if sigma absorbs additional contributions (e.g., dark current, charge transfer losses, event-splitting effects), that should be stated explicitly. This clarification is needed for the energy-resolution model and for the interpretation of the fitted Fano factor.
minor comments (7)
  1. [3.2] In the sentence defining effective area, "the measured measured count rate" contains a duplicated word; please correct it.
  2. [Figure 6 caption] The word "comparision" is a typo; it should be "comparison."
  3. [1, Introduction] The phrase "detailedly characterize" is awkward; consider replacing it with "characterize in detail."
  4. [Abstract and title] There is a missing space in "onboard theEinstein Probe" in the abstract and title; please fix the formatting.
  5. [3.4, Fig. 18] In the discussion of Panel (d), the text says "1.25 kV"; this should be "1.25 keV."
  6. [3.3] The text states that the gain non-uniformity across detector locations is "less than 1 percent" but does not show the supporting data or a figure; please add a quantitative statement or a figure showing the location dependence.
  7. [Table 2] For FM11, only gain values from the NAOC tests are listed, while the 100XF calibration was limited to Mg K-alpha; please state explicitly that the FM11 energy-response calibration was not performed at 100XF and clarify what this means for the CALDB entries of those detectors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central results are direct measurements referenced to an externally calibrated SDD, with Monte Carlo and LEIA comparisons used as independent cross-checks rather than fitted inputs.

full rationale

The central claims of the paper are empirical calibration measurements, not derivations from assumed inputs. The PSF FWHM values (Section 3.1) are computed from detector images using the barycenter and an elliptical half-height contour fit, with no parameter taken from the simulations or from the LEIA paper. The effective area (Section 3.2) is defined as the ratio of detector count rate to incident flux, where the flux is referenced to a standard SDD whose quantum efficiency was calibrated against a PNCCD; the Monte Carlo curve is over-plotted for comparison and is not fitted to these data. The CMOS gain is obtained by fitting the measured PHA centroids of six known emission lines to a linear relation, and the energy resolution is derived from Gaussian fits to the line widths, with the Fano factor and equivalent noise charge subsequently fit via Equation 5. These are fitted outputs characterizing the detectors, not predictions forced by the input data. The statement in Section 3.1.1 that the 100XF defocus compensates for intentional MPO plate offsets is a qualitative assumption about representativeness of the measurements, not a circular step: it does not define the measured FWHM in terms of itself, nor does it substitute a self-citation for evidence. The self-citations to the LEIA calibration [35] and the ray-tracing simulations [36, 39] serve as methodological templates and as independent comparison references; no load-bearing uniqueness theorem is imported, and the simulations are not adjusted to reproduce the specific FM1/FM5/FM11 values reported here. Consequently, no specific circular reduction can be exhibited from the paper's own equations or fitting procedure, and the appropriate score is 0.

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

The central claims rest on external calibrations (SDD flux reference), a qualitative defocus compensation assumption, and standard detector physics models. No new physical entities are introduced; the fitted gain, noise, Fano factor, and aperture choice are listed for transparency.

free parameters (4)
  • Focal spot extraction aperture radius = 1.25 mm (11.5 arcmin)
    Hand-chosen in Section 3.2 to enclose the focal spot while limiting contamination from cruciform arms; all reported effective area values depend on this radius.
  • Gain coefficient k (energy-channel relation) = 6.4 to 6.9 eV/DN
    Linear fit to measured line energies versus PHA channel (Fig. 16); reported as a calibration output, not used as an input to derive other claims.
  • Equivalent noise charge sigma = 12 to 13 e- (CMOS 18 about 14.5 e-)
    Fitted from Eq. 5 to measured energy resolution versus energy (Fig. 17); characterizes detector noise.
  • Fano factor F = about 0.2
    Fitted jointly with sigma to the energy-resolution relation (Fig. 17); reported as an output.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The SDD reference detector's quantum efficiency, calibrated against a PNCCD, is accurate enough to define the absolute X-ray flux.
    Used in Eq. 2 to convert monitor count rate to F_MA; if QE_SDD is biased, all absolute effective areas shift. The paper states its uncertainty dominates but does not give a value.
  • domain assumption The finite-distance beam and 1.4 mm defocus produce negligible systematics or are compensated by intentional plate defocus offsets, so 100XF PSF and effective area results are representative of in-flight performance.
    Invoked in Sections 2 and 3.1.1; the compensation argument is qualitative and is not validated against in-orbit PSF in this paper.
  • domain assumption The semiconductor energy-resolution model FWHM_E = 2.35 omega (sigma^2 + F E/omega)^1/2 with omega = 3.65 eV applies to these CMOS detectors.
    Used in Section 3.3 to fit sigma and Fano factor; standard model from the cited literature.
  • domain assumption Monte Carlo ray-tracing simulations (references [36,39]) reproduce the lobster-eye optics response without tuning to the calibration data.
    The energy and vignetting comparisons in Sections 3.1.2 and 3.2 treat the simulation as an independent prediction; the paper does not describe the simulation inputs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ground Calibration Result of the Wide-field X-ray Telescope (WXT) onboard the Einstein Probe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7ZRS4MXZ

@misc{pith2026250518939,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ground Calibration Result of the Wide-field X-ray Telescope (WXT) onboard the Einstein Probe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7ZRS4MXZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18939}
}
abstract

We report on results of the on-ground X-ray calibration of the Wide-field X-ray Telescope (WXT) built from novel lobster-eye micro-pore optics, onboard the Einstein Probe (EP) satellite. To fully characterize the instrumental performance and properties, a series of tests and calibrations have been carried out at different levels of devices, assemblies and the complete module before the launch of EP. In this paper, we present the calibration results of three flight model modules (FM1, FM5 and FM11) obtained during their end-to-end module calibration experiments carried out at the 100-m X-ray Test Facility (100XF) of IHEP, CAS. Measurements of the Point Spread Function (PSF), effective area, and energy response were performed for multiple incident directions and several characteristic X-ray emission line energies. Specifically, the distributions of the PSF and effective areas are found to be roughly uniform across the FoV, in large agreement with the prediction of lobster-eye optics. Their energy dependence behavior aligns well with theoretical predictions and Monte Carlo simulations. At 1.25 keV, the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the focal spot is in range of 3-7 arcmin (a median of 4.2) and the effective area in range of 2-3 $cm^2$. Noticeably, the flight model instruments demonstrate a $\sim1.5$ arcmin spatial resolution improvement over the previously launched Lobster Eye Imager for Astronomy. The properties of the complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) sensors were also calibrated. The gain coefficients are in range of 6.4-6.9 eV/DN. The energy resolutions are in range of 120-140 eV at 1.25 keV, meeting design requirements. These calibration results have been ingested into the first version of calibration database (CALDB) and applied to the analysis of the scientific data acquired by WXT after the launch of EP.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. X-rays breaking out of pre-explosion ejecta mark a supernova's first light

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    EP260321a is a thermal soft X-ray shock breakout from a ~300 R_⊙ CSM shell around a stripped-envelope progenitor, followed by SN Ic-BL 2026gzf.

  2. In-flight calibration of the Lobster Eye Imager for Astronomy

    astro-ph.IM 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In-flight calibration of the lobster-eye X-ray telescope LEIA achieves about 2 arcmin source positions, effective area consistent with ground to within about 10%, and a one-year low-energy sensitivity loss of about 15...

  3. Spectral Hardening Reveals Afterglow Emergence in Long-Duration Fast X-ray Transients: A Case Study of GRB 250404A/EP250404a

    astro-ph.HE 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The soft-hard-flat spectral evolution in GRB 250404A/EP250404a traces the transition from the fading prompt emission to the external-shock afterglow, with the X-ray prompt phase lasting about 300 s.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Angel, J. R. P. Lobster eyes as X-ray telescopes.The Astrophysical Journal233, 364–373 (1979)

    work page 1979

  2. [2]

    W., Lees, J

    Fraser, G. W., Lees, J. E., Pearson, J. F., Sims, M. R. & Roxburgh, K. Hoover, R. B. (ed.)X-ray focusing using microchannel plates. (ed.Hoover, 24 R. B.)Multilayer and Grazing Incidence X-Ray/EUV Optics, Vol. 1546 ofSoci- ety of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 41–52 (1992)

    work page 1992

  3. [3]

    W., Brunton, A

    Willingale, R., Fraser, G. W., Brunton, A. N. & Martin, A. P. Hard X-ray imaging with microchannel plate optics.Experimental Astronomy8, 281–296 (1998)

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    W.et al.Flanagan, K

    Fraser, G. W.et al.Flanagan, K. A. & Siegmund, O. H. W. (eds)LOBSTER- ISS: an imaging x-ray all-sky monitor for the International Space Station. (eds Flanagan, K. A. & Siegmund, O. H. W.)X-Ray and Gamma-Ray Instrumenta- tion for Astronomy XII, Vol. 4497 ofSociety of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 115–126 (2002)

    work page 2002

  5. [5]

    A., Takahashi, T

    Willingale, R.et al.den Herder, J.-W. A., Takahashi, T. & Bautz, M. (eds) Aberrations in square pore micro-channel optics used for x-ray lobster eye tele- scopes. (eds den Herder, J.-W. A., Takahashi, T. & Bautz, M.)Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, Vol. 9905 ofSociety of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Co...

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Yuan, W.et al.Einstein Probe - a small mission to monitor and explore the dynamic X-ray Universe.arXiv e-printsarXiv:1506.07735 (2015)

    arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    A., Nikzad, S

    Yuan, W.et al.den Herder, J.-W. A., Nikzad, S. & Nakazawa, K. (eds)Einstein Probe: a lobster-eye telescope for monitoring the x-ray sky. (eds den Herder, J.- W. A., Nikzad, S. & Nakazawa, K.)Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, Vol. 10699 ofSociety of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 1069925 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    & Ling, Z.The Einstein Probe Mission, 1–30 (Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, 2022)

    Yuan, W., Zhang, C., Chen, Y. & Ling, Z.The Einstein Probe Mission, 1–30 (Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, 2022). URL https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-981-16-4544-0 151-1

    work page 2022

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s11433-024-2600-3

    Yuan, W.et al.Science objectives of the einstein probe mission.Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy68(2025). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s11433-024-2600-3

    2025

  2. [10]

    I.et al.Triggering the Untriggered: The First Einstein Probe-detected Gamma-Ray Burst 240219A and Its Implications.The Astrophysical Journal Letters975, L27 (2024)

    Yin, Y.-H. I.et al.Triggering the Untriggered: The First Einstein Probe-detected Gamma-Ray Burst 240219A and Its Implications.The Astrophysical Journal Letters975, L27 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Liu, Y.et al.Soft X-ray prompt emission from the high-redshift gamma-ray burst EP240315a.Nature Astronomy9, 564–576 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    Sun, H.et al.Extragalactic fast X-ray transient from a weak relativistic jet associated with a Type Ic-BL supernova.arXiv e-printsarXiv:2410.02315 (2024). 25

    2024

  5. [13]

    Jiang, S.-Q.et al.EP240801a/XRF 240801B: An X-ray Flash Detected by the Einstein Probe and Implications of its Multiband Afterglow.arXiv e-prints arXiv:2503.04306 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    C.et al.An Intermediate-mass Black Hole Lurking in A Galactic Halo Caught Alive during Outburst.arXiv e-printsarXiv:2501.09580 (2025)

    Jin, C. C.et al.An Intermediate-mass Black Hole Lurking in A Galactic Halo Caught Alive during Outburst.arXiv e-printsarXiv:2501.09580 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    Marino, A.et al.Einstein Probe Discovery of EP J005245.1-722843: A Rare Be–White Dwarf Binary in the Small Magellanic Cloud?The Astrophysical Journal Letters980, L36 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    N.et al.Broad-band study of the Be X-ray binary RX J0520.5-6932 during its outburst in 2024.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 536, 1357–1373 (2025)

    Yang, H. N.et al.Broad-band study of the Be X-ray binary RX J0520.5-6932 during its outburst in 2024.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 536, 1357–1373 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    Liu, M.et al.Detection of an Orphan X-Ray Flare from a Blazar Candidate EP240709a with the Einstein Probe.The Astrophysical Journal984, 5 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Zhang, W.et al.Einstein Probe discovery of EP240408a: A peculiar X-ray tran- sient with an intermediate timescale.Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy68, 219511 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    Wang, W.et al.Holland, A. D. & Beletic, J. (eds)Design and test results of scientific x-ray CMOS cameras. (eds Holland, A. D. & Beletic, J.)X-Ray, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy X, Vol. 12191 ofSociety of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conferenc...

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    X., Ling, Z

    Wang, W. X., Ling, Z. X., Zhang, C., Yuan, W. M. & Zhang, S. N. Design and test results of different aluminum coating layers on the sCMOS sensors for soft X-ray detection.Journal of Instrumentation17, P12016 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Wu, Q.et al.X-Ray Performance of a Customized Large-format Scientific CMOS Detector.Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific134, 035006 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    & Yuan, W

    Wu, Q., Ling, Z., Zhang, C., Zhang, S.-N. & Yuan, W. An aluminum-coated scmos sensor for x-ray astronomy.Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific135, 115002 (2023). URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1538-3873/ad03d7

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    Wu, Q.et al.Investigating the image lag of a scientific CMOS sensor in X-ray detection.Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A1050, 168180 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Proton irradiation.Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems9, 046003 (2023)

    Liu, M.et al.Radiation effects on scientific CMOS sensors for X-ray astron- omy: I. Proton irradiation.Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems9, 046003 (2023). 26

    2023

  17. [25]

    Total ionizing dose irradiation

    Chen, M.et al.Radiation effects on scientific complementary metal-oxide- semiconductor detectors for x-ray astronomy: II. Total ionizing dose irradiation. Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems10, 026001 (2024). URL https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JATIS.10.2.026001

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    Liu, M.et al.Long-term stability of scientific X-ray CMOS detectors.Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A1072, 170146 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    Chen, Y.et al.Detection system of the lobster eye telescope with large field of view.Applied Optics61, 8813 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    & Zhang, S.-N

    Zhang, C., Ling, Z. & Zhang, S.-N. Takahashi, T., Murray, S. S. & den Herder, J.-W. A. (eds)Development of the super-high angular resolution principle for x- ray imaging: experimental demonstrations. (eds Takahashi, T., Murray, S. S. & den Herder, J.-W. A.)Space Telescopes and...

    2012

  21. [29]

    J.et al.The MPE X-ray test facility PANTER: Calibration of hard X-ray (15-50 kev) optics.Experimental Astronomy20, 405–412 (2005)

    Freyberg, M. J.et al.The MPE X-ray test facility PANTER: Calibration of hard X-ray (15-50 kev) optics.Experimental Astronomy20, 405–412 (2005)

    2005

  22. [30]

    Bradshaw, M.et al.O’Dell, S. L. & Pareschi, G. (eds)Developments in testing x-ray optics at MPE’s PANTER facility. (eds O’Dell, S. L. & Pareschi, G.) Optics for EUV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Astronomy IX, Vol. 11119 ofSociety of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Confe...

    2019

  23. [31]

    L., Gaskin, J

    Rukdee, S.et al.O’Dell, S. L., Gaskin, J. A., Pareschi, G. & Spiga, D. (eds) Einstein probe wide field telescope flight mirror module characterization at PAN- TER test facility. (eds O’Dell, S. L., Gaskin, J. A., Pareschi, G. & Spiga, D.) Optics for EUV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray A...

    2023

  24. [32]

    Wang, Y.et al.The 100-m X-ray test facility at IHEP.Experimental Astronomy 55, 427–445 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    X.et al.The Lobster Eye Imager for Astronomy Onboard the SATech-01 Satellite.Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics23, 095007 (2023)

    Ling, Z. X.et al.The Lobster Eye Imager for Astronomy Onboard the SATech-01 Satellite.Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics23, 095007 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Zhang, C.et al.First Wide Field-of-view X-Ray Observations by a Lobster-eye Focusing Telescope in Orbit.The Astrophysical Journal Letters941, L2 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Cheng, H.et al.Ground calibration result of the Lobster Eye Imager for Astronomy.Experimental Astronomy57, 10 (2024). 27

    2024

  28. [36]

    Zhao, D.et al.Takahashi, T., den Herder, J.-W. A. & Bautz, M. (eds)Ray tracing simulations for the wide-field x-ray telescope of the Einstein Probe mission based on Geant4 and XRTG4. (eds Takahashi, T., den Herder, J.-W. A. & Bautz, M.) Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 201...

    2014

  29. [37]

    Li, L.et al.Study on the optical properties of Angel Lobster eye X-ray flat micro pore optical device.Optics Communications483, 126656 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Li, L.et al.Fabrication and Performance of Lobster Eye X-Ray Micro Pore Optics with the Ultra-high Aspect Ratio.Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific134, 115002 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Experimental Astronomy43, 267–283 (2017)

    Zhao, D.et al.Geant4 simulations of a wide-angle x-ray focusing telescope. Experimental Astronomy43, 267–283 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7804-1 24

    Holland, A.X-ray CCDs, 443–453 (Springer New York, New York, NY, 2013). URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7804-1 24

    2013 doi

  33. [41]

    Ionization yield of radiations

    Fano, U. Ionization yield of radiations. ii. the fluctuations of the number of ions. Phys. Rev.72, 26–29 (1947). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.72. 26

    1947 doi

  34. [42]

    A., Nikzad, S

    Feldman, C.et al.den Herder, J.-W. A., Nikzad, S. & Nakazawa, K. (eds) Testing of the WXT optics at the University of Leicester. (eds den Herder, J.- W. A., Nikzad, S. & Nakazawa, K.)Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, Vol. 11444, 114447R. Inte...

    2020 doi

Pith tools

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