Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 39 references

Ground calibration plan for the Athena/X-IFU microcalorimeter spectrometer

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Six ground setpoints plus layered X-ray sources can calibrate Athena's X-IFU to its in-flight requirements, this paper argues.

desk verdict A clear, honest calibration plan for X-IFU; the six-setpoint gain interpolation is the main soft spot, but the paper deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01525 v3 pith:5MP4JVYZ submitted 2025-07-02 astro-ph.IM

Alexeï Molin , François Pajot , Marc Audard , Marco Barbera , Sophie Beaumont , Edoardo Cucchetti , Matteo D'Andrea , Christophe Daniel
show 19 more authors
Roland den Hartog Megan E. Eckart Philippe Ferrando Luciano Gottardi Maurice Leutenegger Simone Lotti Lorenzo Natalucci Philippe Peille Jelle de Plaa Etienne Pointecouteau Scott Porter Kosuke Sato Joern Wilms Vincent Albouys Didier Barret Massimo Cappi Jan-Willem den Herder Luigi Piro Aurora Simionescu
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords X-raymicrocalorimeterTransitionEdgeSensorX-IFUAthenamissiongroundcalibrationenergyscaleinstrumentefficiencyspectralresolution
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 argues that the X-IFU microcalorimeter spectrometer on Athena can be calibrated, on the ground and in orbit, to meet the mission's five in-flight calibration requirements: energy scale knowledge of 0.65 eV (goal 0.5 eV), energy resolution to 6% of FWHM, absolute efficiency to 4%, background knowledge to 5%, and timing to 5-10 microseconds. The plan's core bet is that the instrument's energy scale, which depends on correlated operating parameters, can be mapped on the ground at six operating setpoints and then reconstructed in flight by interpolation, using housekeeping data plus a modulated X-ray source. A sympathetic reader would care because high-resolution X-ray spectroscopy of the hot and energetic universe is only as good as the calibration that turns pulse heights into energies, and X-IFU has no ex-nihilo in-flight energy-scale option.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the six-setpoint ground calibration of the energy scale. Because the TES gain scale depends on correlated operating conditions (bath temperature, bias voltage, magnetic field, radiative load, electronics gain), the plan maps at least six operating points, each with parameters varied 5-10 times beyond expected ranges, and then interpolates the flight gain scale at the measured housekeeping point. The second essential piece is the Rotating Target Source, which delivers fluorescence lines across roughly 0.5-15 keV, cross-calibrated against an Electron Beam Ion Trap so the line energies are known well enough. Together they make in-flight energy-scale maintenance a correction of a pre-measured surface rather than an ex-nihilo fit.

What would settle it

Calibrate the EM instrument at a seventh setpoint not used in the six-setpoint fit and blind-predict its gain scale: if the predicted minus measured residual exceeds 0.15 eV at $1\sigma$ on high-grade events, the six-setpoint interpolation assumption is disproved. In orbit, the first MXS spot checks through the closed dewar door, compared with the ground-predicted gain scales, provide the same test at the requirements level of 0.65 eV over a 5 ks calibration period.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a staged calibration campaign, inherited from Hitomi/SXS and XRISM/Resolve and extended to the larger X-IFU array, satisfies the instrument-level calibration requirements. The campaign combines component-level measurements (witness samples, filter transmission, absorber areal density), a full instrument calibration in the TGSE cryostat, and in-flight corrections with the MXS, 55Fe source, and celestial sources. Energy scale is calibrated with a Rotating Target Source at six setpoints; the core line-spread function is measured with channel-cut crystal monochromators; efficiency comes from synchrotron measurements of filters and absorbers plus filling-fraction metrology; background relies on Monte Carlo modeling and CryoAC veto validation; timing uses pulsed MXS flashes on the ground and millisecond pulsars in flight. The conclusion is that this plan meets the X-IFU requirements while remaining adaptable as the instrument is built.

Load-bearing premise

The plan assumes that six ground operating setpoints, even with parameters varied 5-10 times beyond expected ranges, span and represent the real in-flight gain-drift space well enough that interpolation reconstructs the in-flight energy scale within 0.15 eV.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the plan holds, the pre-launch response matrix will be built from ground-measured line-spread functions and efficiencies, and in-flight gain drift will be corrected by interpolation on the six-setpoint surface rather than by fitting the energy scale from sky lines alone.
  • The same ground data would let the team regenerate core-LSF curves from baseline resolution measurements if the detector noise changes on orbit.
  • Efficiency calibration to 4% absolute and 3% relative would make Athena's effective-area knowledge competitive with current X-ray observatories, enabling reliable flux and abundance measurements from the first observations.
  • Timing to 5-10 microseconds, anchored by millisecond pulsars, would allow X-IFU to participate in multi-messenger and timing studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable refinement of the six-setpoint assumption: run a seventh setpoint in the EM campaign and blind-predict its gain scale from the other six; the 0.15 eV residual target is then a direct falsifier before flight.
  • The plan implicitly assumes that ground-to-orbit transfer of the parameter space is complete; if the flight instrument lands outside the calibrated cube, the interpolation becomes extrapolation and the energy-scale requirement would likely be violated. Monitoring housekeeping data against the calibrated cube boundaries should be a routine on-orbit check.
  • The RTS line-energy cross-calibration with an EBIT is a critical enabler; the paper states RTS lines below 5 keV are not known to the required accuracy, so the EBIT calibration campaign's success directly gates the energy-scale claim.
  • One could extend the same calibration architecture to other TES arrays or future X-ray missions: the six-setpoint mapping plus a compact modulated source is a reusable template.
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. This manuscript presents the ground calibration plan for the Athena/X-IFU microcalorimeter spectrometer. It states the instrument-level calibration requirements (Table 1) for five critical quantities—energy scale (0.65 eV, goal 0.5 eV), energy resolution (6% of the FWHM), absolute and relative instrument efficiency (4%/3%), background knowledge (5%), and timing (5 µs absolute / 10 µs relative)—and describes the multi-level strategy (component, subsystem, TGSE cryostat, PLC TV/TB, and in-flight operations) together with the required hardware: the TGSE dewar, channel-cut crystal monochromators, the rotating target source with EBIT cross-calibration, the modulated X-ray source, and synchrotron facilities. The central claim, stated in the conclusion, is that the described procedures meet the listed requirements within the instrument schedule while remaining adaptable as the build progresses.

Significance. If the plan is executed as described, it would establish the calibrated energy scale, resolution, efficiency, background, and timing needed for X-IFU to meet its Athena-level science requirements. The paper's strengths are its explicitness: a quantitative requirements table, concrete count-statistics and time budgets, a hardware chain largely inherited from Hitomi/SXS and XRISM/Resolve, and transparent identification of the items that remain open (low-energy monochromator development, RTS line knowledge pending EBIT cross-calibration, and validation of the NXB-monitor method). It also states the key falsifiable planning assumption—that six ground setpoints span the flight gain-drift space—which the EM calibration campaign is intended to test. The value is as a reference plan for the X-IFU consortium and the broader microcalorimeter community; it does not claim new physics results, and its correctness is a matter of engineering plausibility rather than proof.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Table 1] The sufficiency of six ground operating points for reconstructing the in-flight gain scale is the load-bearing link between the ground plan and the Table 1 energy-scale requirement (0.65 eV, goal 0.5 eV), but it is carried by the statement that 'the operating parameters are correlated in their effect on the gain scale' (citing refs. 23–24) rather than by any analysis in this paper. The plan does not state how interpolation residuals will be evaluated during the EM campaign, what threshold against the 0.15 eV ground goal would trigger the addition of setpoints, or how the schedule (about 100 ks per setpoint, roughly 10 EM and 20 FM cold cycles) would absorb such additions. I recommend adding an explicit validation criterion with a residual threshold and a defined fallback path, since this assumption determines whether the in-flight energy-scale correction can meet its requirement.
  2. [Sections 3.3.1 and 4.2] The core-LSF calibration that supports the 6%-of-FWHM resolution requirement assumes monochromatic lines across the full 0.2–12 keV band, but the demonstrated XRISM CCCM heritage covers only 4.5–11.4 keV, while the low-energy (about 0.5–4 keV) monochromator suite and the large-spot water-cooled tube upgrades are described as under development. The 100 ks per setpoint time budget and the 0.2 eV FWHM accuracy claim therefore depend on hardware whose throughput, spot size, and line purity have not yet been demonstrated. The plan should specify the minimum required performance for the low-energy channels and name a fallback (for example, calibrated fluorescent lines, or calibration of a sub-array with extrapolation to the full array) if the development targets are not met.
  3. [Section 3.6 and Table 1] There is a factor-of-10 discrepancy between Table 1, which sets the absolute timing requirement at 5 µs (3σ, 50 ks), and the opening of Section 3.6, which states that the calibration must ensure 'the overall X-IFU absolute timing accuracy, including Athena contributions, does not exceed 50 µs.' If the 5 µs value is the X-IFU instrument allocation within a 50 µs end-to-end Athena budget, the text should say so explicitly; as written, it is unclear which value the MXS/EP timing procedures in Section 3.6.1 are required to meet, and the difference changes how timing residuals are evaluated against the requirement.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Sections 3.2 and 4.4] 'Brehmsstrahlung' (Section 3.2) and 'Brehmsstralung' (Section 4.4) should both be spelled 'Bremsstrahlung.'
  2. [Section 4.5] 'a needle a few tens ifµm in radius' should read 'a few tens of µm in radius.'
  3. [Section 3.2] The phrase 'their values are 5 to 10 times larger than expected' should be clarified to indicate that the explored range of each parameter is 5–10 times the expected in-flight variation, rather than the parameter values themselves.
  4. [Abstract and Section 1] The energy-resolution phrasing differs between the abstract ('goal of 4 eV up to 7 keV [3 eV design goal]') and Section 1 ('expected to be better than 4 eV below 7 keV ... design target at instrument is 3 eV at 7 keV'); the terminology (goal/target/expected) should be aligned.
  5. [Section 3.3.1] The sentence 'It is estimated that estimating the core LSF ... is achievable in 100 ks ... with typical fluorescence lines. This assumes narrow band CCCMs ...' mixes two source types; please state which source underpins the 100 ks estimate.
  6. [Section 3.5] The statement that the filter-wheel-closed NXB observation requires about 5 ks to reach the desired knowledge is given without derivation; a one-line estimate linking count rate, solid angle, and the 5% requirement would improve traceability to the Table 1 background requirement.
  7. [Table 1] '6% of high grade FWHM resolution' should read '6% of the high-grade FWHM' for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the calibration plan is a procedural engineering document whose requirements are external inputs and whose claims are not derived from fitted parameters or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

This paper presents a calibration plan for the Athena/X-IFU instrument. It does not derive any scientific result from first principles; instead, it translates externally imposed calibration requirements (Table 1) into a sequence of ground and in-flight measurements. The energy scale, resolution, efficiency, background, and timing calibrations all rely on external standards, known X-ray lines, synchrotron measurements, and heritage from Hitomi/SXS and XRISM/Resolve. There is no fitted parameter that is later renamed as a prediction, and no equation in the paper reduces to its own input. The most assumption-heavy step, the sufficiency of six operating setpoints for gain-scale interpolation, is explicitly presented as an expectation supported by references (Section 3.2, citing refs. 23-24) rather than as a conclusion derived within this paper; it is a planning assumption, not a circular derivation. The concluding claim that the plan meets X-IFU requirements is an engineering judgment about the adequacy of the proposed procedures and schedule, not a mathematical consequence of the plan's own definitions. Self-citations to prior X-IFU calibration studies are present, but they are used as supporting evidence for methods and expected performance, not to forbid alternatives or to define the target result. Accordingly, no significant circularity is present, and the appropriate score is 0.

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

The plan introduces no free parameters in the sense of fitted constants, and no invented physical entities. It relies on several engineering assumptions about hardware development, calibration-source knowledge, and in-flight stability; these are plausible but not demonstrated in the paper, and are listed as axioms.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Six operating setpoints are sufficient to cover the in-flight gain scale parameter space by interpolation.
    Section 3.2 states that because parameters are correlated, six setpoints are expected to be sufficient, citing refs. 23 and 24. If this interpolation fails, the energy scale calibration cannot meet its accuracy goal.
  • domain assumption RTS fluorescence line energies can be known to better than a few tenths of eV via EBIT cross-calibration.
    Section 3.2 says the plan assumes an RTS with lines known to better than a few tenths of eV, and Section 4.5 says EBIT is the only viable way to achieve this. The EBIT-based cross-calibration is not yet demonstrated in the plan.
  • domain assumption Low-energy crystal monochromators (about 0.5-4 keV) can be developed to provide sufficiently narrow and stable lines.
    Section 3.3 states that such a suite is under development. The core LSF calibration relies on these monochromators, so their availability and performance are load-bearing.
  • domain assumption The extended LSF measured at detector level remains valid at instrument level and in flight.
    Section 3.3.2 says the extended LSF depends mainly on detector physics and is likely calibrated only once at detector level. If the in-flight environment changes it, the pre-launch RMF would be incorrect.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ground calibration plan for the Athena/X-IFU microcalorimeter spectrometer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5MP4JVYZ

@misc{pith2026250701525,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ground calibration plan for the Athena/X-IFU microcalorimeter spectrometer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5MP4JVYZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01525}
}
read the original abstract

The X-ray Integral Field Unit is the X-ray imaging spectrometer on-board one of ESA's next large missions, Athena. Athena is set to investigate the theme of the Hot and Energetic Universe, with a launch planned in the late-2030s. Based on a high sensitivity Transition Edge Sensor (TES) detector array operated at very low temperature (50 mK), X-IFU will provide spatially resolved high resolution spectroscopy of the X-ray sky in the 0.2-12 keV energy band, with an energy resolution goal of 4 eV up to 7 keV [3 eV design goal]. This paper presents the current calibration plan of the X-IFU. It provides the requirements applicable to the X-IFU calibration, describes the overall calibration strategy, and details the procedure and sources needed for the ground calibration of each parameter or characteristics of the X-IFU.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nandra , K., Barret , D., Barcons , X., Fabian , A., den Herder , J.-W., Piro , L., Watson , M., Adami , C., Aird , J., Afonso , J. M., Alexander , D., Argiroffi , C., Amati , L., Arnaud , M., Atteia , J.-L., Audard , M., Badenes , C., Ballet , J., Ballo , L., Bamba , A., Bhardwaj , A., Stefano Battistelli , E., Becker , W., De Becker , M., Behar , E., Bi...

    arXiv 2013

  2. [2]

    A., Nikzad, S., and Nakazawa, K., eds., 11444 , 114440T, International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE (2020)

    Meidinger, N., Albrecht, S., Beitler, C., Bonholzer, M., Emberger, V., Frank, J., Lederhuber, A., M \"u ller-Seidlitz, J., Nandra, K., Oser, J., Ott, S., Plattner, M., and Strecker, R., `` Development status of the wide field imager instrument for Athena ,'' in [ Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray 0.1em ] , den Herder, J.-...

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    d., Piro , L., Cappi , M., Huovelin , J., Kelley , R., Mas-Hesse , J

    Barret , D., Albouys , V., Herder , J.-W. d., Piro , L., Cappi , M., Huovelin , J., Kelley , R., Mas-Hesse , J. M., Paltani , S., Rauw , G., Rozanska , A., Svoboda , J., Wilms , J., Yamasaki , N., Audard , M., Bandler , S., Barbera , M., Barcons , X., Bozzo , E., Ceballos , M. T., Charles , I., Costantini , E., Dauser , T., Decourchelle , A., Duband , L.,...

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    M., Paltani, S., Rauw, G., Rozanska, A., Svoboda, J., Wilms, J., Audard, M., Bozzo, E., Costantini, E., Dadina, M., Dauser, T., Decourchelle, A., Herder, J.-W

    Peille, P., Barret, D., Cucchetti, E., Albouys, V., Piro, L., Simionescu, A., Cappi, M., Bellouard, E., Cénac-Morthé, C., Daniel, C., Pradines, A., Finoguenov, A., Kelley, R., Mas-Hesse, J. M., Paltani, S., Rauw, G., Rozanska, A., Svoboda, J., Wilms, J., Audard, M., Bozzo, E., Costantini, E., Dadina, M., Dauser, T., Decourchelle, A., Herder, J.-W. d., Gol...

    work page arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    J., Adams , J

    Smith , S. J., Adams , J. S., Bandler , S. R., Betancourt-Martinez , G. L., Chervenak , J. A., Chiao , M. P., Eckart , M. E., Finkbeiner , F. M., Kelley , R. L., Kilbourne , C. A., Miniussi , A. R., Porter , F. S., Sadleir , J. E., Sakai , K., Wakeham , N. A., Wassell , E. J., Yoon , W., Bennett , D. A., Doriese , W. B., Fowler , J. W., Hilton , G. C., Mo...

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    J., Adams, J

    Smith, S. J., Adams, J. S., Bandler, S. R., Beaumont, S., Chervenak, J. A., Denison, E. V., Doriese, W. B., Durkin, M., Finkbeiner, F. M., Fowler, J. W., Hilton, G. C., Hummatov, R., Irwin, K. D., Kelley, R. L., Kilbourne, C. A., Leutenegger, M. A., Miniussi, A. R., Porter, F. S., Reintsema, C. D., Sadleir, J. E., Sakai, K., Swetz, D. S., Ullom, J. N., Va...

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Kiviranta , M., Gronberg , L., Puranen , T., van der Kuur , J., Beev , N., Salonen , J., Hazra , D., and Korpela , S., `` Two-Stage SQUID Amplifier for the Frequency Multiplexed Readout of the X-IFU X-Ray Camera ,'' IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 31 , 3060356 (Aug. 2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    A., Nikzad , S., and Nakazawa , K., eds., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 11444 , 114443U (Dec

    Pr \^e le , D., Chen , S., Coleiro , A., Varniere , P., Peille , P., Ravera , L., and Kirsch , C., `` Warm front end electronic modelization for the X-IFU ATHENA readout chain simulation ,'' in [ Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray 0.1em ] , den Herder , J.-W. A., Nikzad , S., and Nakazawa , K., eds., Society of Photo-Optic...

    work page 2020

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    A., Nikzad , S., and Nakazawa , K., eds., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 10699 , 106994V (July 2018)

    Ravera , L., Gumuchian , P., Cl \'e net , A., Bertrand , B., Murat , D., Oziol , C., Camus , T., Pointecouteau , E., and Barret , D., `` First results of the ATHENA/X-IFU digital readout electronics prototype ,'' in [ Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Ultraviolet to G...

    2018

  2. [10]

    B., Morgan, K

    Doriese, W. B., Morgan, K. M., Bennett, D. A., Denison, E. V., Fitzgerald, C. P., Fowler, J. W., Gard, J. D., Hays-Wehle, J. P., Hilton, G. C., Irwin, K. D., Joe, Y. I., Mates, J. a. B., O'Neil, G. C., Reintsema, C. D., Robbins, N. O., Schmidt, D. R., Swetz, D. S., Tatsuno, H....

    2016

  3. [11]

    S., Bandler, S

    Durkin, M., Adams, J. S., Bandler, S. R., Chervenak, J. A., Chaudhuri, S., Dawson, C. S., Denison, E. V., Doriese, W. B., Duff, S. M., Finkbeiner, F. M., FitzGerald, C. T., Fowler, J. W., Gard, J. D., Hilton, G. C., Irwin, K. D., Joe, Y. I., Kelley, R. L., Kilbourne, C. A., Mi...

    2019

  4. [12]

    E., Adams, J

    Eckart, M. E., Adams, J. S., Boyce, K. R., Brown, G. V., Chiao, M. P., Fujimoto, R., Haas, D. A., den Herder, J.-W. A., Hoshino, A., Ishisaki, Y., Kilbourne, C. A., Kitamoto, S., Leutenegger, M. A., McCammon, D., Mitsuda, K., Porter, F. S., Sato, K., Sawada, M., Seta, H., Snei...

    2018

  5. [13]

    A., Audard, M., Boyce, K

    Leutenegger, M. A., Audard, M., Boyce, K. R., Brown, G. V., Chiao, M. P., Eckart, M. E., Fujimoto, R., Furuzawa, A., Guainazzi, M., Haas, D., Hayashi, T., den Herder, J.-W., Iizuka, R., Ishida, M., Ishisaki, Y., Kikuchi, N., Kilbourne, C. A., Koyama, S., Kurashima, S., Maeda, ...

    2018

  6. [14]

    A., Sawada , M., Tsujimoto , M., Angellini , L., Boyce , K

    Kilbourne , C. A., Sawada , M., Tsujimoto , M., Angellini , L., Boyce , K. R., Eckart , M. E., Fujimoto , R., Ishisaki , Y., Kelley , R. L., Koyama , S., Leutenegger , M. A., Loewenstein , M., McCammon , D., Mitsuda , K., Nakashima , S., Porter , F. S., Seta , H., Takei , Y., ...

    2018

  7. [15]

    J., Tsujimoto , M., and Yaqoob , T., `` In-flight calibration of the Hitomi Soft X-ray Spectrometer

    Maeda , Y., Sato , T., Hayashi , T., Iizuka , R., Angelini , L., Asai , R., Furuzawa , A., Kelley , R., Koyama , S., Kurashima , S., Ishida , M., Mori , H., Nakaniwa , N., Okajima , T., Serlemitsos , P. J., Tsujimoto , M., and Yaqoob , T., `` In-flight calibration of the Hitom...

    2018

  8. [16]

    E., Hayashi , T., Hoshino , A., Iizuka , R., Kelley , R

    Tsujimoto , M., Okajima , T., Eckart , M. E., Hayashi , T., Hoshino , A., Iizuka , R., Kelley , R. L., Kilbourne , C. A., Leutenegger , M. A., Maeda , Y., Mori , H., Porter , F. S., Sato , K., Sato , T., Serlemitsos , P. J., Szymkowiak , A., and Yaqoob , T., `` In-flight calib...

    2018

  9. [17]

    Takahashi, T., Mitsuda, K., Kelley, R., Aharonian, F., Akamatsu, H., Akimoto, F., Allen, S., Anabuki, N., Angelini, L., Arnaud, K., Asai, M., Audard, M., Awaki, H., Azzarello, P., Baluta, C., Bamba, A., Bando, N., Bautz, M., Bialas, T., Blandford, R. D., Boyce, K., Brenneman, ...

    2014

  10. [18]

    XRISM Science Team , `` Science with the X-ray Imaging and Spectroscopy Mission (XRISM) ,'' arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2003.04962 (Mar. 2020)

    2003 arXiv

  11. [19]

    J., Witthoeft, M

    Smith, S. J., Witthoeft, M. C., Adams, J. S., Bandler, S. R., Beaumont, S., Chervenak, J. A., Cumbee, R. S., Eckart, M. E., Finkbeiner, F. M., Hull, S. V., Kelley, R. L., Kilbourne, C. A., Leutenegger, M. A., Porter, F. S., Sakai, K., Wakeham, N. A., and Wassell, E. J., ``Corr...

    2023

  12. [20]

    E., Peille, P., de Vries, C., Pajot, F., Pointecouteau, E., Leutenegger, M., Kilbourne, C

    Cucchetti, E., Eckart, M. E., Peille, P., de Vries, C., Pajot, F., Pointecouteau, E., Leutenegger, M., Kilbourne, C. A., and Porter, F. S., `` Energy scale calibration and drift correction of the X-IFU ,'' in [ Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ra...

    2018

  13. [21]

    Porter, F., Chiao, M., Eckart, M., Fujimoto, R., Ishisaki, Y., Kelley, R., Kilbourne, C., Leutenegger, M., McCammon, D., Mitsuda, K., et al., ``Temporal gain correction for x-ray calorimeter spectrometers,'' Journal of Low Temperature Physics 184 , 498--504 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    E., Peille , P., Porter , F

    Cucchetti , E., Eckart , M. E., Peille , P., Porter , F. S., Pajot , F., and Pointecouteau , E., `` Multi-parameter Nonlinear Gain Correction of X-ray Transition Edge Sensors for the X-ray Integral Field Unit ,'' Journal of Low Temperature Physics 193 , 931--939 (Dec. 2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    E., Peille , P., de Vries , C., Pajot , F., Pointecouteau , E., Leutenegger , M., Kilbourne , C

    Cucchetti , E., Eckart , M. E., Peille , P., de Vries , C., Pajot , F., Pointecouteau , E., Leutenegger , M., Kilbourne , C. A., and Porter , F. S., `` Energy scale calibration and drift correction of the X-IFU ,'' in [ Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Ultraviolet to...

    2018

  16. [24]

    A., Eckart, M

    Leutenegger, M. A., Eckart, M. E., Moseley, S. J., Rohrbach, S. O., Black, J. K., Chiao, M. P., Kelley, R. L., Kilbourne, C. A., and Porter, F. S., ``Simple, compact, high-resolution monochromatic x-ray source for characterization of x-ray calorimeter arrays,'' (Aug. 2020). ar...

    2020

  17. [25]

    A., Audard , M., Boyce , K

    Leutenegger , M. A., Audard , M., Boyce , K. R., Brown , G. V., Chiao , M. P., Eckart , M. E., Fujimoto , R., Furuzawa , A., Guainazzi , M., Haas , D., den Herder , J.-W., Hayashi , T., Iizuka , R., Ishida , M., Ishisaki , Y., Kelley , R. L., Kikuchi , N., Kilbourne , C. A., K...

    2016

  18. [26]

    E., Adams , J

    Eckart , M. E., Adams , J. S., Bandler , S. R., Beaumont , S., Chervenak , J. A., Datesman , A. M., Finkbeiner , F. M., Hummatov , R., Kelley , R. L., Kilbourne , C. A., Leutenegger , M. A., Miniussi , A. R., Moseley , S. J., Porter , F. S., Sadleir , J. E., Sakai , K., Smith ...

    2019

  19. [27]

    L., Swartz , D

    O'Dell , S. L., Swartz , D. A., Tice , N. W., Plucinsky , P. P., Grant , C. E., Marshall , H. L., Vikhlinin , A. A., Tennant , A. F., and Dahmer , M. T., `` Modeling contamination migration on the Chandra X-ray Observatory: III ,'' in [ UV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumen...

    2015

  20. [28]

    P., Beardmore , A

    Plucinsky , P. P., Beardmore , A. P., DePasquale , J. M., Dewey , D., Foster , A., Haberl , F., Miller , E. D., Pollock , A. M. T., Posson-Brown , J. L. L., Sembay , S., and Smith , R. K., `` Cross-calibration of the x-ray instruments onboard the Chandra, Suzaku, Swift, and XM...

    2012

  21. [29]

    Analysis of EPIC-pn data ,'' 541 , A66 (May 2012)

    Sartore , N., Tiengo , A., Mereghetti , S., De Luca , A., Turolla , R., and Haberl , F., `` Spectral monitoring of RX J1856.5-3754 with XMM-Newton. Analysis of EPIC-pn data ,'' 541 , A66 (May 2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    L., Gullikson , E

    Henke , B. L., Gullikson , E. M., and Davis , J. C., `` X-Ray Interactions: Photoabsorption, Scattering, Transmission, and Reflection at E = 50-30,000 eV, Z = 1-92 ,'' Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 54 , 181--342 (July 1993)

    1993

  23. [31]

    Riva, N., Calvelli, V., Musenich, R., Farinon, S., Lotti, S., and Saracco, P., ``Study of a superconducting magnetic diverter for the athena x-ray space telescope,'' IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 28 (4), 1--4 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Lotti , S., D'Andrea , M., Molendi , S., Macculi , C., Minervini , G., Fioretti , V., Laurenza , M., Jacquey , C., and Piro , L., `` Review of the Particle Background of the Athena X-IFU Instrument ,'' 909 , 111 (Mar. 2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Cucchetti , E., Pointecouteau , E., Barret , D., Lotti , S., Macculi , C., Molendi , S., Pajot , F., Peille , P., Piro , L., and Pratt , G. W., `` Reproducibility and monitoring of the instrumental particle background for the x-ray integral field unit ,'' in [ Space Telescopes...

    2018

  26. [34]

    Cobo, B., Ceballos, M. T., Peille, P., Mesnager, J.-M., Wilms, J., Dauser, T., Kirsch, C., Pinsard, F., Cara, C., Gros, M., Ravera, L., Bandler, S., Porter, F., Kilbourne, C., and Sakai, K., `` ATHENA X -ray Integral Field Unit on-board event processor: analysis of performance...

    2018

  27. [35]

    Gotthelf , E. V. and Bogdanov , S., `` NuSTAR Hard X-Ray Observations of the Energetic Millisecond Pulsars PSR B1821-24, PSR B1937+21, and PSR J0218+4232 ,'' 845 , 159 (Aug. 2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    A., Eckart , M

    Leutenegger , M. A., Eckart , M. E., Moseley , S. J., Rohrbach , S. O., Black , J. K., Chiao , M. P., Kelley , R. L., Kilbourne , C. A., and Porter , F. S., `` Simple, compact, high-resolution monochromatic x-ray source for characterization of x-ray calorimeter arrays ,'' Revi...

    2020

  29. [37]

    P., Fioretti , V., den Herder , J

    de Vries , C. P., Fioretti , V., den Herder , J. W., Schyns , E., and Pinto , S. D., `` Simulating modulated x-ray calibration sources for future x-ray missions using GEANT4 ,'' in [ Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray 0.1em ] , den Herder , J.-...

    2018

  30. [38]

    P., Haas , D., Yamasaki , N

    de Vries , C. P., Haas , D., Yamasaki , N. Y., Herder , J.-W. d., Paltani , S., Kilbourne , C., Tsujimoto , M., Eckart , M. E., Leutenegger , M. A., Costantini , E., Dercksen , J. P. C., Dubbeldam , L., Frericks , M., Laubert , P. P., van Loon , S., Lowes , P., McCalden , A. J...

    2018

  31. [39]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION blank.sep after.quote 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry output.state after.quoted.block = 'skip 'add.period if write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip output.state after.quote = after.quoted.blo...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.