A pipeline for Megahertz X-ray Photon Correlation Spectroscopy on soft matter samples at the MID instrument of European XFEL

Alexey Zozulya; Aliaksandr Leonau; Amir Tosson; Anders Madsen; Angel Rodriguez-Fernandez; Anita Girelli; Cammille Carinan; Carsten Deiter; Christian Gutt; Fabio Dall Antonia

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A pipeline for Megahertz X-ray Photon Correlation Spectroscopy on soft matter samples at the MID instrument of European XFEL

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 A standard configuration and a highly automated data-processing pipeline make megahertz X-ray photon correlation spectroscopy at the MID instrument of the European XFEL a near-routine technique for measuring sub-microsecond dynamics in…

desk verdict A useful, honest instrumentation paper describing a real MHz-XPCS pipeline at EuXFEL MID; the main gap is that end-to-end dynamics are never quantitatively validated against a known sample. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08668 v1 pith:ZRSCCUGW submitted 2025-06-10 physics.ins-det cond-mat.soft

Aliaksandr Leonau , Felix Brausse , James Wrigley , Mads B. Jakobsen , Amir Tosson , Michelle Dargasz , Nimmi Das Anthuparambil , Felix Lehmkühler

show 22 more authors

Anita Girelli Maddalena Bin Fivos Perakis Sebastian Retzbach Fajun Zhang Frank Schreiber Matheus Teodoro Cammille Carinan Robert Rosca Fabio Dall Antonia Wonhyuk Jo Ulrike Boesenberg Angel Rodriguez-Fernandez Roman Shayduk Jörg Hallmann Alexey Zozulya Jan-Etienne Pudell Carsten Deiter Luca Gelisio Johannes Möller Anders Madsen Christian Gutt

This is my paper

classification physics.ins-detcond-mat.soft

keywords MHz-XPCSX-rayphotoncorrelationspectroscopytwo-timefunctionAGIPDdetectorburst-modeacquisitionartifactcorrectionsoftmatterdynamicsEuropeanXFELMIDinstrument

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

Megahertz X-ray photon correlation spectroscopy (MHz-XPCS) is a way to watch nanoscale motion in soft matter — proteins, polymers, colloids — by firing bursts of coherent X-ray pulses at a sample and measuring how the speckle pattern changes on microsecond and faster timescales. The paper reports that at the MID instrument of the European XFEL, this measurement is now close to routine: a standard experimental configuration plus a multi-step automated pipeline takes raw AGIPD detector frames and returns train-averaged two-time correlation functions and $g_2$ curves without a specialist at the keyboard. The practical obstacle was data volume, with a single experiment generating up to petabytes of detector output. The authors show how parallel processing, sparse-matrix correlation calculations, outlier detection, and a subtraction scheme that uses correlations between neighboring pulse trains suppress detector artifacts. The stated consequence is that sub-microsecond dynamics of radiation-sensitive soft and biological samples become accessible to non-expert users, in the way BioSAXS became a routine structural-biology tool.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the burst-train acquisition scheme plus the off-correlation correction. Each 100 ms train illuminates a different sample position, so within a train the same spot is probed by up to 352 pulses spaced by hundreds of nanoseconds; the TTCF is computed only for same-train pulse pairs and averaged over trains. The off-correlation between train $t_n$ and $t_{n+1}$ samples a different spot, so it contains no true single-train relaxation signal but does contain the same detector pedestal-jump artifacts; subtracting it from the TTCF removes those artifacts. The second ingredient is computational: after photonization, per-pixel RMS outliers are flagged within q-annuli, data are processed module-by-module with dense or sparse linear algebra depending on measured array density, and caching keeps memory within cluster-node limits.

What would settle it

A static sample with no dynamics should give a flat, zero-baseline corrected correlation function; if any 32x32 block-shaped artifacts survive in the corrected TTCF, the off-correlation subtraction is not removing transient pedestal jumps. Quantitatively, diluted colloidal spheres with a known diffusion constant should yield the same relaxation time before and after correction at average count rates near $10^{-3}$ to $10^{-2}$ photons per pixel per pulse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that MHz-XPCS can now be conducted and analyzed with minimal user intervention at MID, because a standard configuration and an automated, hardware-aware pipeline replace the manual expert workflows that previously limited the technique. A key step is computing the two-time correlation function per X-ray train, using pulse-pulse pairs within each train while a continuing translation of the sample moves a fresh spot into the beam; this both limits radiation dose and makes each train an independent dynamics measurement. To remove detector artifacts from 'jumping' pixels, the pipeline also computes off-correlations between adjacent trains and subtracts them, which shifts the correlation baseline and largely eliminates square 32x32 memory-cell artifacts in the TTCF. After outlier masking, q-binning, and train-averaging, the final $g_2$ functions are delivered through the DAMNIT interface and prepared for FAIR publication-ready output.

Load-bearing premise

The off-correlation subtraction assumes that the detector's intermittent spurious signals last long enough and appear the same way in pictures taken from neighboring spots, so that subtracting them removes the spurious signal without removing the real motion of the sample.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A user at MID can now plan a MHz-XPCS experiment on a soft-matter sample and obtain analyzable train-averaged $g_2$ functions during the beam time, because geometry calibration, outlier detection, intensity filtering, and correlation calculation are automated.
Radiation-sensitive samples such as protein solutions become practical, since the fresh-spot-per-train scheme spreads dose and the pipeline retains usable correlation data down to an average count of roughly $10^{-3}$ photons per pixel per pulse.
Residual detector artifacts from pedestal 'jumping' pixels are suppressed by subtracting adjacent-train off-correlations, which also moves the correlation baseline from 1 to 0 and raises the signal-to-noise ratio without spending extra sample or beam time.
Processed results are exposed through the DAMNIT interface and are being prepared for a FAIR repository, meaning published correlation functions can be traced back to calibration, masks, and train-level metadata.
The pipeline's benchmark-driven core counts and sparse-matrix mode keep the correlation calculation for multi-hundred-gigabyte runs within the memory of a single cluster node, so no special-purpose supercomputer is required.

Reading between the lines

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

Implicit boundary: the pipeline measures only intra-train dynamics, i.e. pulse lags within a 352-pulse window, so slower millisecond-to-second processes are not captured by these same-train TTCFs even though the fresh-spot scheme enables long cumulative measurements.
A testable check would be to record repeated runs on a stable colloidal standard and compare corrected and uncorrected $g_2$ amplitudes, mapping the range of pedestal-jump durations for which the off-correlation subtraction is safe.
If event-based detectors with direct hit-list readout (such as the Timepix4 concept the paper cites) become standard, the sparse linear algebra the pipeline already uses could become the default, removing most of the data-volume bottleneck described here.
Extending this pattern to other burst-mode XFEL facilities would turn sub-microsecond XPCS from a specialist technique into a standard probe of biological and soft-matter dynamics, much as BioSAXS was routinized at third-generation synchrotrons.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

The short version: this is a real instrumentation contribution, and the paper is honest about its limits, but it stops short of demonstrating the one thing its headline claims—that the pipeline produces quantitatively trustworthy dynamics. Worth refereeing, with a request for one more experiment.

What's actually new: the authors have integrated the EuXFEL calibration, geometry, and DAMNIT tools into a single automated MHz-XPCS pipeline with three genuinely useful additions: automatic outlier detection for AGIPD 'jumping' pixels, subtraction of adjacent-train off-correlations to suppress those artifacts, and sparse/dense switching based on array density. The description of data volumes, parallel I/O benchmarks, and memory management is practical and will help anyone planning such experiments. The off-correlation correction is physically plausible and the example in Appendix A is convincing. The FAIR/DAMNIT integration is a real step toward routine use.

The soft spots are in proportion. The main one is that the paper never validates the end-to-end dynamics: no g2 is fit to a known diffusion coefficient, no comparison with DLS or a literature value for ferritin. The ferritin data show the pipeline runs and removes artifacts, but don't show the corrected TTCF/g2 faithfully represents the sample's dynamics. The stress-test is right that this is a missing piece of evidence, not a contradiction. The Appendix itself notes that transient pedestal jumps lasting a few trains can evade the off-correlation subtraction, so the correction chain is not guaranteed artifact-free. Given the paper's central claim is 'high data quality suitable for publication,' a quantitative validation is needed. Minor issues: the benchmarks in Figs. 4 and 8 lack error bars, the thresholds (0.75/1.75 RMS window, ±20% intensity filter) are empirical though user-configurable, and the code is referenced by URL without a versioned commit hash.

Who should read it: anyone running XPCS at EuXFEL, and instrument scientists building similar pipelines. It deserves a serious referee, but the referee should ask for a validation section against a known sample, versioned code, and error bars on the benchmarks. With those, it would be a solid methods paper.

I'd send it to review.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents the experimental configuration, data acquisition protocol, and automated data processing pipeline developed for megahertz X-ray Photon Correlation Spectroscopy (MHz-XPCS) at the MID instrument of European XFEL. The pipeline includes mean-intensity calculations, automatic geometry and beam-center refinement, outlier pixel detection and masking, intensity-based filtering of compromised sample positions, computation of two-time correlation functions (TTCFs) and g2 functions using both dense and sparse linear algebra, and an off-correlation subtraction step intended to suppress detector artifacts such as 'jumping' pixels. The authors illustrate the pipeline with ferritin solution data, discuss computational resource management on the DESY Maxwell cluster, describe output tools (DAMNIT, Jupyter notebooks), and outline FAIR-data efforts in the context of DAPHNE4NFDI. The central claim is that MHz-XPCS can now be conducted and analyzed with minimal user intervention and with high data quality suitable for publication.

Significance. If the pipeline performs as claimed, it would make sub-microsecond XPCS on soft matter accessible to non-specialist users at a major XFEL facility, a genuinely useful step for the community. The paper provides a detailed, reproducible description of the data handling workflow, including concrete benchmarks (Figs. 4 and 8), an openly referenced software repository (extra-speckle), and a clear presentation of the correction logic. The explicit treatment of AGIPD-specific artifacts, the sparse-data optimization, and the integration with DAMNIT and FAIR data platforms are valuable practical contributions. However, the paper's central claim of 'high data quality suitable for publication' is not backed by a quantitative end-to-end validation against known sample dynamics; the demonstration is instead based on illustrative images and correlation maps that show visible improvements after each correction. This missing validation is the main factor limiting the paper's impact.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and Sec. 7] The central claim that the pipeline delivers 'high data quality suitable for publication' with 'minimal user intervention' is not quantitatively validated. The paper never compares a g2(q, Δτ) function produced by the pipeline with the dynamics of a known sample, whether from a fit to a diffusional model with an independently measured diffusion coefficient, from dynamic light scattering, or from a previous XPCS experiment. The ferritin data in Figs. 3, 6, 7, and 12 demonstrate that the correction steps run and improve the visual appearance of the data, but they do not establish that the final correlation functions are quantitatively faithful. Because all the correction steps in Secs. 3.4, 3.5, and 5 could execute successfully and still deliver biased dynamics, a test on a standard sample with known dynamics is load-bearing for the claimed routine usability. I recommend adding an end-to-end validation, including a comparison of extracted decay times (e.g., from g2 - 1 = β exp(-2Dq^2 Δτ)) against literature or an independent measurement, with residuals or confidence intervals.
[Sec. 5 and Appendix A] The off-correlation subtraction, which is the principal artifact-suppression step, rests on the assumption that detector artifacts such as 'jumping' pixels contribute identically to same-train TTCFs and adjacent-train off-correlations. The Appendix itself acknowledges that jumps lasting only a few trains can evade correction, meaning the subtraction is not guaranteed to remove all artifacts. The magnitude of any residual bias on the extracted dynamics is not quantified anywhere in the paper. Since Sec. 5 states that data with kbar < 10^-3 are excluded because residual artifacts dominate, the reader is left without a quantitative bound on the artifact level in the accepted data range. I recommend quantifying the residual by, for example, injecting simulated jumping-pixel artifacts into a dataset with known dynamics and measuring the resulting bias in g2, or by providing a diagnostic that flags trains/pixels for which the stationarity assumption fails.
[Secs. 3.4 and 3.5] The outlier detection thresholds (normalized RMS window 0.75–1.75), the intensity filter deviation limit (±20%), and the low-intensity cutoff (kbar < 10^-3) are described as empirically chosen and user-configurable, but no sensitivity analysis is provided. Because these parameters directly decide which pixels and trains contribute to the correlation functions, the 'minimal user intervention' claim depends on the pipeline's results being robust to reasonable variations in these settings. I recommend showing that the final g2 functions are stable when the thresholds are varied over a plausible range, or at least reporting the fraction of pixels/trains rejected in the example dataset so readers can gauge the impact.

minor comments (5)

[Fig. 5 caption and Sec. 3.3] The word 'intergated' should be 'integrated' in the caption of Fig. 5.
[Fig. 4 and Fig. 8] The performance benchmarks in Figs. 4 and 8 appear to be single measurements without error bars or repeated-run statistics; please state whether the points are single runs and whether the qualitative conclusions are robust to run-to-run variability.
[Fig. 12 caption and Sec. 4] There are typographical errors: 'Performace' should be 'Performance' in the Fig. 12 caption, and 'referes' should be 'refers' in Sec. 4.
[Sec. 6] 'inclduing' should be 'including', and the spaced 'F AIR' should be a single word 'FAIR' in the text.
[Eq. (3) and Eq. (4)] The notation for the TTCF is inconsistent: Eq. (3) uses (q, τ1, τ2), Eq. (4) writes TTCF(q, τ1, Δτ), and Eq. (5) uses train/pulse indices. Please define the mapping between the continuous-time notation and the discrete train/pulse indices, and clarify the averaging in Eq. (4) over τ1 for a fixed Δτ.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the pipeline and the off-correlation correction are self-calibration procedures with independently described artifact models, not derivations that reduce to their own inputs.

full rationale

This paper is a facility methods and pipeline description rather than a derivation of a physical result, so the standard circularity patterns do not apply. The only step that could initially resemble a self-referential correction is the off-correlation subtraction in Sec. 5 and Appendix A, where adjacent-train correlations are subtracted from same-train TTCFs to suppress 'jumping' pixel pedestal artifacts. This is not circular: adjacent trains illuminate fresh sample spots, so the off-correlation contains no true dynamics by the experiment's own acquisition design, while the artifact mechanism (32-cell pedestal drifts) is independently characterized in Fig. 11 and the correction effect is demonstrated directly in Fig. 12. The outlier detection in Sec. 3.4 uses mean-intensity RMS statistics relative to q-annulus medians, and the beam-center refinement in Sec. 3.3 maximizes azimuthal-profile overlap; both are internal consistency procedures, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The heavy self-citation, including Madsen et al. (2021), Dallari et al. (2021b), and the EuXFEL pipeline documentation, is normal for an instrument paper, and the specific correction is described with equations and figures in the present work rather than being imported solely as an unverified authoritative claim. The skeptical observation that no measured g2 is fitted to a known sample's dynamics is a genuine completeness or validation concern, but it is a missing piece of evidence, not a definitional reduction of a claimed result to its own input. Therefore there is no significant circularity.

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

The paper's central claim is an engineering claim. It rests on operational assumptions about sample motion and detector artifact statistics, plus several user-tunable thresholds. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are thresholds chosen from data or experience, not fitted to a scientific model.

free parameters (5)

Outlier RMS thresholds (lower=0.75, upper=1.75) = 0.75 and 1.75 times the median RMS
Empirically determined window for flagging pixel outliers in Sec. 3.4; user-configurable and not derived from first principles.
Intensity filter deviation threshold = ±20%
Trains deviating by more than ±20% from the median intensity are excluded (Sec. 3.5); adjustable, affects which data enter the analysis.
Sparse/dense data density threshold = 5e-2
Default threshold for sparsifying arrays in TTCF computation, chosen from benchmark results (Sec. 4); affects performance but not physics.
Minimum scattering intensity (kbar) = ~1e-3 photons/pixel/pulse
Data below this average photon count are excluded because detector artifacts dominate (Sec. 5).
Number of azimuthal sectors for beam center refinement = 8
Fixed choice in Sec. 3.3; user-adjustable in principle.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Each X-ray pulse train illuminates a fresh, undeformed sample spot, with translation within a train below 100 nm.
This justifies treating within-train correlations as the signal and adjacent-train correlations as off-correlation (Sec. 2). If violated, the entire correlation scheme breaks.
domain assumption Detector artifacts ('jumping' pixels) are statistically equal in same-train and adjacent-train correlations.
The off-correlation subtraction in Sec. 5 and Appendix A relies on this stationarity; transient jumps lasting only a few trains could escape it.
domain assumption AGIPD in high-CDS mode provides single-photon sensitivity sufficient for reliable photonization above kbar ~1e-3.
The pipeline excludes data below this intensity, implying a threshold of detector noise behavior (Sec. 3.1, 5).
domain assumption The beam center and momentum transfer are accurately determined by azimuthal symmetry optimization combined with motor-position-based geometry.
Sec. 3.3 relies on this for all q-bin assignments and outlier detection; incorrect geometry would invalidate the results.
standard math Standard two-time correlation function formalism applies to the burst-mode data.
Equations (3)-(5) follow the established TTCF definition (Sutton 2002; Madsen 2010).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A pipeline for Megahertz X-ray Photon Correlation Spectroscopy on soft matter samples at the MID instrument of European XFEL." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZRSCCUGW

@misc{pith2026250608668,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A pipeline for Megahertz X-ray Photon Correlation Spectroscopy on soft matter samples at the MID instrument of European XFEL},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZRSCCUGW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08668}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper we present the experimental protocol and data processing framework for Megahertz X-ray Photon Correlation Spectroscopy (MHz-XPCS) experiments on soft matter samples, implemented at the Materials Imaging and Dynamics (MID) instrument of the European X-ray Free-Electron Laser (EuXFEL). Due to the introduction of a standard configuration and the implementation of a highly automated data processing pipeline, MHz-XPCS measurements can now be conducted and analyzed with minimal user intervention. A key challenge lies in managing the extremely large data volumes generated by the Adaptive Gain Integrating Pixel Detector (AGIPD) - often reaching several petabytes within a single experiment. We describe the technical implementation, discuss the hardware requirements related to effective parallel data processing, and propose strategies to enhance data quality, in particular related to data reduction strategies and an improvement of the signal-to-noise ratio. Finally, we address strategies for making the processed data FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable), in alignment with the goals of the DAPHNE4NFDI project.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08668 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Sketch of the data acquisition and processing workflow for MHz-XPCS at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** 2D scattering patterns of ferritin in solution collected with the AGIPD shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (9 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Performance of the parallel read-out of AGIPD data files as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Refinement of the direct beam position applied to ferritin scattering data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Removing of pixel outliers based on train averaged ferritin scattering data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Example of applying intensity filtering to AGIPD data containing a signal drop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: (Color online) Benchmarking of TTCF computation using an arbitrary data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Example view of the DAMNIT tool showing a data table summarizing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Accessing DAMNIT data through its Python API in a Jupyter notebook. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: (a) Train-averaged pulse-resolved intensity of pixels within a selected q-bin: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Performace of the off-correlation correction for a selected q-bin, containing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_12.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Depletion-Induced Interactions Modulate Nanoscale Protein Diffusion in Polymeric Crowder Solutions
cond-mat.soft 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Ferritin diffusion in polymer crowder solutions follows a c*-normalized non-monotonic curve with a crossover near 2c*, attributed to depletion-induced intermediate-range order that bulk viscosity cannot explain.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

10 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

S., Cook, M

Acerbo, A. S., Cook, M. J. & Gillilan, R. E. (2015).Journal of synchrotron radiation,22(1), 180–186. Allahgholi, A., Becker, J., Delfs, A., Dinapoli, R., Goettlicher, P., Greiffenberg, D., Henrich, B., Hirsemann, H., Kuhn, M., Klanner, R.et al.(2019a).Synchrotron Radiation,26(1), 74–82. Allahgholi, A., Becker, J., Delfs, A., Dinapoli, R., G¨ ottlicher, P....

arXiv 2015
[12]

IUCr macros version 2.1.10: 2016/01/28

Performace of the off-correlation correction for a selected q-bin, containing the ”jumping” pixel shown in Fig.11: (a) train-averaged TTCF without correction; (b) train-averaged off-correlation; (c) train-averaged TTCF after subtraction of the off-correlation (with this step the baseline shifts to 0). IUCr macros version 2.1.10: 2016/01/28

work page 2016
[287]

Origins of suppressed self-diffusion of nanoscale constituents of a complex liquid

Schmidt, P., Ahmed, K., Danilevski, C., Hammer, D., Rosca, R., Kluyver, T., Michelat, T., Sobolev, E., Gelisio, L., Maia, L.et al.(2024).Frontiers in Physics,11, 1321524. Sobolev, E., Schmidt, P., Malka, J., Hammer, D., Boukhelef, D., M¨ oller, J., Ahmed, K., Bean, R., Berm´ udez Mac ´ ıas, I. J., Bielecki, J.et al.(2024).Frontiers in Physics,12, 1331329....

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[646]

& Ueki, T

Fujisawa, T., Inoue, K., Oka, T., Iwamoto, H., Uruga, T., Kumasaka, T., Inoko, Y., Yagi, N., Yamamoto, M. & Ueki, T. (2000).Journal of applied crystallography,33(3), 797–800. IUCr macros version 2.1.10: 2016/01/28 31 Girelli, A., Bin, M., Filianina, M., Dargasz, M., Anthuparambil, N. D., M¨ oller, J., Zozulya, A., Andronis, I., Timmermann, S., Berkowicz, ...

arXiv 2000
[1710]

D., Girelli, A., Begam, N., Kowalski, M., Retzbach, S., Senft, M

Timmermann, S., Anthuparambil, N. D., Girelli, A., Begam, N., Kowalski, M., Retzbach, S., Senft, M. D., Akhundzadeh, M. S., Poggemann, H.-F., Moron, M., Hiremath, A., Gutm¨ uller, D., Dargasz, M., Oeztuerk, O., Paulus, M., Westermeier, F., Sprung, M., Ragulskaya, A., Zhang, F., Schreiber, F. & Gutt, C. (2023).Scientific Reports,13(1), 11048. URL:https://d...

work page doi:10.1038/s41598-023-38059-z 2023
[3962]

(1990).Quantum Optics: Journal of the European Optical Society Part B,2(4),

Schatzel, K. (1990).Quantum Optics: Journal of the European Optical Society Part B,2(4),

work page 1990
[5528]

& Kob, W

Ruta, B., Zontone, F., Chushkin, Y., Baldi, G., Pintori, G., Monaco, G., Ruffle, B. & Kob, W. (2017).Scientific reports,7(1),

work page 2017
[5580]

P., Karkoulis, D., Picca, F

Ashiotis, G., Deschildre, A., Nawaz, Z., Wright, J. P., Karkoulis, D., Picca, F. E. & Kieffer, J. (2015).Journal of applied crystallography,48(2), 510–519. Barty, A., Gutt, C., Lohstroh, W., Murphy, B., Schneidewind, A., Grunwaldt, J.-D., Schreiber, F., Busch, S., Unruh, T., Bussmann, M., Fangohr, H., G¨ orzig, H., Houben, A., Kluge, T., Manke, I., L¨ utz...

work page arXiv 2015

Show all 10 references

[6179]

Lehmk¨ uhler, F., Dallari, F., Jain, A., Sikorski, M., M¨ oller, J., Frenzel, L., Lokteva, I., Mills, G., Walther, M., Sinn, H., Schulz, F., Dartsch, M., Markmann, V., Bean, R., Kim, Y., Vagovic, P., Madsen, A., Mancuso, A. P. & Gr¨ ubel, G. (2020).Proceedings of the National ...

2020 doi
[8037]

DESY, (2025a)

Decking, W., Abeghyan, S., Abramian, P., Abramsky, A., Aguirre, A., Albrecht, C., Alou, P., Altarelli, M., Altmann, P., Amyan, K.et al.(2020).Nature photonics,14(6), 391–397. DESY, (2025a). Documentation for the maxwell hpc cluster. URL:https://docs.desy.de/maxwell/ DESY, (202...

2020

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

S., Cook, M

Acerbo, A. S., Cook, M. J. & Gillilan, R. E. (2015).Journal of synchrotron radiation,22(1), 180–186. Allahgholi, A., Becker, J., Delfs, A., Dinapoli, R., Goettlicher, P., Greiffenberg, D., Henrich, B., Hirsemann, H., Kuhn, M., Klanner, R.et al.(2019a).Synchrotron Radiation,26(1), 74–82. Allahgholi, A., Becker, J., Delfs, A., Dinapoli, R., G¨ ottlicher, P....

arXiv 2015

[2] [12]

IUCr macros version 2.1.10: 2016/01/28

Performace of the off-correlation correction for a selected q-bin, containing the ”jumping” pixel shown in Fig.11: (a) train-averaged TTCF without correction; (b) train-averaged off-correlation; (c) train-averaged TTCF after subtraction of the off-correlation (with this step the baseline shifts to 0). IUCr macros version 2.1.10: 2016/01/28

work page 2016

[3] [287]

Origins of suppressed self-diffusion of nanoscale constituents of a complex liquid

Schmidt, P., Ahmed, K., Danilevski, C., Hammer, D., Rosca, R., Kluyver, T., Michelat, T., Sobolev, E., Gelisio, L., Maia, L.et al.(2024).Frontiers in Physics,11, 1321524. Sobolev, E., Schmidt, P., Malka, J., Hammer, D., Boukhelef, D., M¨ oller, J., Ahmed, K., Bean, R., Berm´ udez Mac ´ ıas, I. J., Bielecki, J.et al.(2024).Frontiers in Physics,12, 1331329....

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[4] [646]

& Ueki, T

Fujisawa, T., Inoue, K., Oka, T., Iwamoto, H., Uruga, T., Kumasaka, T., Inoko, Y., Yagi, N., Yamamoto, M. & Ueki, T. (2000).Journal of applied crystallography,33(3), 797–800. IUCr macros version 2.1.10: 2016/01/28 31 Girelli, A., Bin, M., Filianina, M., Dargasz, M., Anthuparambil, N. D., M¨ oller, J., Zozulya, A., Andronis, I., Timmermann, S., Berkowicz, ...

arXiv 2000

[5] [1710]

D., Girelli, A., Begam, N., Kowalski, M., Retzbach, S., Senft, M

Timmermann, S., Anthuparambil, N. D., Girelli, A., Begam, N., Kowalski, M., Retzbach, S., Senft, M. D., Akhundzadeh, M. S., Poggemann, H.-F., Moron, M., Hiremath, A., Gutm¨ uller, D., Dargasz, M., Oeztuerk, O., Paulus, M., Westermeier, F., Sprung, M., Ragulskaya, A., Zhang, F., Schreiber, F. & Gutt, C. (2023).Scientific Reports,13(1), 11048. URL:https://d...

work page doi:10.1038/s41598-023-38059-z 2023

[6] [3962]

(1990).Quantum Optics: Journal of the European Optical Society Part B,2(4),

Schatzel, K. (1990).Quantum Optics: Journal of the European Optical Society Part B,2(4),

work page 1990

[7] [5528]

& Kob, W

Ruta, B., Zontone, F., Chushkin, Y., Baldi, G., Pintori, G., Monaco, G., Ruffle, B. & Kob, W. (2017).Scientific reports,7(1),

work page 2017

[8] [5580]

P., Karkoulis, D., Picca, F

Ashiotis, G., Deschildre, A., Nawaz, Z., Wright, J. P., Karkoulis, D., Picca, F. E. & Kieffer, J. (2015).Journal of applied crystallography,48(2), 510–519. Barty, A., Gutt, C., Lohstroh, W., Murphy, B., Schneidewind, A., Grunwaldt, J.-D., Schreiber, F., Busch, S., Unruh, T., Bussmann, M., Fangohr, H., G¨ orzig, H., Houben, A., Kluge, T., Manke, I., L¨ utz...

work page arXiv 2015