Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Demonstration of a cryogenic, switchable electron source for low-temperature detector calibration

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A LED-illuminated aluminum foil produces switchable cryogenic electrons at rates above one per second.

desk verdict A worthwhile prototype demonstration whose qualitative electron-production case is solid, but the headline rate/efficiency numbers rest on a one-row Gaussian extrapolation and should not be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.20324 v2 pith:OY4UYADR submitted 2026-07-22 physics.ins-det

D.A. Bennett , M. Borghesi , P. Campana , R. Carobene , A. Cattaneo , M. De Gerone , M. Faverzani , L. Ferrari Barusso
show 12 more authors
E. Ferri S. Gamba A. Giachero M. Gobbo D. Labranca J. Mates R. Moretti A. Nucciotti L. Origo D.R. Schmidt D.S. Swetz J.N. Ullom
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-det
keywords electronsourcecryogenicdetectorcalibrationphotoelectricemissiontransition-edgesensorslow-energyelectronsmicrocalorimeterLEDphotocathode
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 first working prototype of a compact electron source that can be switched on and off at cryogenic temperatures. It generates electrons by shining a 280 nm LED onto two thin aluminum layers inside a dilution refrigerator, then accelerates them up to 300 V toward an array of microcalorimeters. The observed signals are consistent with electrons arriving at a rate of at least one per second, and the production efficiency is around one electron for every 10^14 photons. This matters because low-temperature detectors currently rely on radioactive sources that cannot be turned off or on field emitters whose yield is tied to energy. A switchable source with independently controllable yield and energy would allow calibration lines to be interleaved with physics data, reducing systematic errors in precision measurements such as neutrino-mass searches.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is photoelectric emission from a double layer of 400 nm aluminum foils, illuminated by a 280 nm LED through an optical fiber. The electrons are accelerated by a negative voltage applied to the foils and travel 2.5 cm to a grounded array of microwave-multiplexed transition-edge sensors. The double foil serves as both a photocathode and a light-tight barrier against pinholes. A simple polarity test—signals seen only with negative bias—is the key identity that identifies the particles as electrons, and the count-rate scaling with LED current ties the process to photoemission.

What would settle it

Measure the full two-dimensional beam profile by reading all rows with uniform trigger thresholds or by inserting a collimator, and compare the integrated rate with the Gaussian-extrapolated value; an order-of-magnitude discrepancy would invalidate the claimed >=1 Hz rate and >=10^-14 efficiency.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that photoelectric emission from commercial aluminum foils, driven by a fiber-coupled UV LED, is a viable electron production mechanism inside a cryostat at 100 mK. With the foils biased negatively at 100–300 V relative to the grounded detector, single electrons are recorded by transition-edge sensor microcalorimeters; signals appear only under negative bias, confirming they are electrons. The measured rate scales with LED current and the pulse amplitude scales with accelerating voltage, and the inferred source rate and efficiency are >=1 Hz and >=10^-14 electrons per photon. The same setup also demonstrates that TES microcalorimeters can detect directly incident electro

Load-bearing premise

The headline rate and efficiency rest on assuming a 2D Gaussian beam shape fitted only to the upper row of the array; if the real beam is wider or asymmetric, those numbers could be off substantially.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The source can be built from inexpensive, commercially available aluminum and a standard LED, and it operates at the base temperature of a dilution refrigerator without an ultra-high vacuum.
  • Electron yield is set independently of electron energy: LED current controls the rate, and acceleration voltage controls the energy.
  • TES microcalorimeters can act as single-electron detectors in the 100–300 eV range, providing a low-energy testbed for these sensors.
  • By adding an electron multiplier and a conversion target, the source could be developed into a switchable X-ray calibration line above the endpoint of a neutrino-mass spectrum.
  • Because the LED can be pulsed, calibration data can be collected during short intervals interleaved with physics data, without moving parts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The quoted efficiency is per-photon at the photocathode; if the LED-to-foil photon flux is overestimated or the beam profile is broader than the single-row Gaussian fit implies, the true yield could easily be an order of magnitude lower, which would set a demanding requirement on the future electron-multiplier gain.
  • If yield really is energy-independent, the same device could serve as a tunable monoenergetic electron source for mapping the energy response and nonlinearity of microcalorimeters across the full range of interest.
  • A direct test would be to replace the current two-foil photocathode with foils of different thickness or different number of layers and observe whether the rate changes; the paper notes this dependence is still unknown.
  • The surprising escape of electrons from superconducting aluminum suggests the photoemission at mK temperatures may proceed through a mechanism not described by standard mean-free-path arguments; understanding that mechanism could open a route to much higher efficiency.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a prototype cryogenic electron source based on photoelectric emission from two 400-nm aluminum layers illuminated by a 280-nm LED, with electrons accelerated by up to 300 V and detected by a TES microcalorimeter array. The authors present three validation tests: signal appears only for negative bias, rate scales quadratically with LED current, and pulse amplitude increases with acceleration voltage. They characterize the beam profile by fitting a 1D Gaussian to the upper row of the array and, assuming a 2D Gaussian, infer a source rate of ≳1 Hz and an efficiency of ≳10^-14 e−/γ. They also analyze TES pulse energies using the Joule estimator, fit a phenomenological spectral model, and compare with Nebula simulations, reporting a measured energy resolution of about 40 eV for 100–300 eV electrons. The paper positions this as the first stage of a switchable calibration source for HOLMES and similar experiments.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are trustworthy, this is a valuable step toward a compact, switchable, cryogenic calibration source whose electron yield is independent of the acceleration energy—an improvement over CNT field-emission sources. The polarity, rate-scaling, and energy-scaling tests are clean and make the qualitative observation of cryogenic photoelectrons convincing. The demonstration of TES sensitivity to 100–300 eV electrons is also useful, as few such measurements exist. However, the headline rate and efficiency numbers rest on a fragile beam-profile extrapolation, and the physical mechanism of electron escape from 400-nm aluminum is explicitly acknowledged as unexplained. These issues do not undermine the qualitative demonstration but do require a more careful quantitative treatment before the specific numbers can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Figure 7 and Abstract] The abstract's headline claims (rate ≳1 Hz, efficiency ≳10^-14 e−/γ) are derived from a 2D Gaussian integral whose width is obtained from a 1D Gaussian fit to the upper row only; the lower row was excluded. This leaves the y-profile and the beam-center y-position unconstrained. The measured per-channel rates in Fig. 6 are only 25–160 mHz, so the integrated rate depends heavily on the assumed Gaussian tail and symmetry. No systematic uncertainty is propagated from the profile assumption, and the photon-flux estimate Φ∼10^14 γ/s also lacks an uncertainty. If the beam is narrower or off-center in y, the inferred rate could be substantially lower; if it is wider or has non-Gaussian tails, higher. Please either provide a more robust rate estimate (e.g., a 2D fit using all available channels with a common threshold, or a conservative geometric-acceptance bound) or soften the abstract to qualit
  2. [Section 6, Conclusions] The paper states: 'Given the photon mean free path in aluminum and the short electron range, electrons should not be able to escape the material—contrary to our observations.' This is a serious physical gap in the central source-interpretation claim. If the standard photoemission picture cannot explain escape from 400-nm Al, then the observed electrons might originate from a different mechanism (e.g., pinholes, surface oxides, field-assisted emission, or photoemission from other surfaces). The polarity and intensity tests show that the carriers are electrons originating under negative bias, but they do not identify the emission site. Please add a discussion of possible escape mechanisms or a control measurement (e.g., varying the Al thickness or number of layers) that could distinguish the proposed interpretation. At minimum, the paper should not present the photoelectric-from-Al interpr
  3. [Section 5, Eqs. 2–3 and Fig. 9] The spectral model is motivated by Nebula simulations, then used to fit the data with E_J0 as a free parameter that sets the energy scale, and the same simulated curves are overlaid for comparison. This is a mild self-benchmarking loop: the simulated shape is not an independent prediction after E_J0 is fit. The 40 eV resolution is also model-dependent and the authors correctly note it is not the intrinsic TES resolution. Please clarify what E_J0 actually calibrates (e.g., whether it is tied to the known acceleration voltage) and show the sensitivity of the energy scale to the chosen functional form or to the fitted resolution. If the energy axis is not independently calibrated, this should be stated explicitly in the text.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, Figure 2 caption] The text 'Figure 2 shows a 4×16 detector array; however, the bottom two 2×16 TES arrays on the chip were not wire-bonded' is unclear. A 4×16 array is a single array; 'bottom two 2×16' suggests the chip actually contains multiple sub-arrays. Please clarify the geometry of the chip and exactly which pixels were read out.
  2. [Section 4] The description of the 5σ amplitude cut should specify how the noise-event distribution was defined, whether it was per channel or global, and how the threshold was applied. This is important because the rate depends on the cut.
  3. [References] Reference [12] (Alpert et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.) has an incomplete DOI: '10.1103/s9vl-7n24'. Please correct it.
  4. [General] The notation 'e−/γ' in the abstract and Section 6 is nonstandard; 'e−/photon' would be clearer. Also, the efficiency is defined relative to the nominal photon flux, but the actual flux reaching the photocathode (after fiber losses and reflection) is not quantified.
  5. [Figure 9] The caption states that a portion of the 100 eV spectrum has been truncated 'to maintain signal visibility'. Please specify exactly which range was truncated and how this affects the fit or the visual comparison with the simulation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central electron-production claim rests on independent control tests; flagged model and rate issues are not circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper's core claim—that the observed TES signals are photoelectrons—is supported by control measurements that do not depend on any fitted model: signals appear only with negative bias, the rate scales with LED current, and the pulse amplitude scales with acceleration voltage. The rate and efficiency estimates in Section 4 are an extrapolation of a 1D Gaussian fit to the upper row, with an assumed 2D profile; this is a systematic/statistical weakness in the quantitative claim, not a circular reduction. The spectral model of Eqs. 2–3 is motivated by the Nebula Monte Carlo and then used to fit the data; the overlay of the same simulation is a consistency check, but the fit is to data and the simulation is an independent external code, so the comparison is not equal by construction. EJ0 is a fitted calibration parameter, but the electron energy is set externally by the applied acceleration voltage. Self-citations to HOLMES work supply context and standard analysis methods and are not load-bearing to the demonstration. The paper also honestly acknowledges unresolved physics (electron escape from superconducting aluminum), which is an open question but not evidence of circularity. The flagged issues are correctness risks, not circular derivation steps.

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

The central observation (electrons are produced and detected) uses no fitted parameters; the quantitative efficiency/rate use a Gaussian width fitted to a subset of channels, and the energy calibration uses a fitted endpoint. The main physical axioms are standard photoelectric emission and the (uncertain) assumption that commercial Al foils emit at all at 60 mK, which the authors themselves flag as unresolved.

free parameters (4)
  • Gaussian beam-profile width = 1.38 ± 0.33 mm
    Fitted to upper-row channel rates (Section 4, Fig. 7) and used in the assumed 2D Gaussian to infer total source rate and efficiency.
  • 5σ amplitude cut threshold = 5σ above noise
    Hand-chosen cut to reject backscattered/secondary events; directly affects the inferred rate (Section 4).
  • EJ0 (spectrum endpoint) = ~100, ~200, ~300 eV (fit-extracted)
    Fitted per voltage in Eq. 2-3 to set the energy calibration of the three spectra (Section 5).
  • Gaussian detector-response FWHM = ~40 eV (from fits)
    Fitted in the same Bayesian model; quoted as measured resolution for external electrons (Section 5).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Photoelectric emission from Al with 280 nm photons (4.4 eV) produces electrons that can escape despite the ~4 eV work function and unknown low-temperature escape depth
    The mechanism is the paper's basis; the authors note escape from superconducting Al is unexpected and unexplained (Conclusions).
  • domain assumption Photon flux at the photocathode is ~10^14 γ/s at 180 mA LED current
    Estimated from LED datasheet and fiber attenuation (Section 2); used to compute efficiency.
  • ad hoc to paper The electron beam transverse profile is a 2D Gaussian
    Assumed to infer the total source rate from partial channel coverage (Section 4); paper says 'Assuming a 2D Gaussian profile'.
  • domain assumption Nebula Monte Carlo correctly models electron transport and backscattering in the detector
    Used to interpret energy distributions and motivate the fit model (Section 5).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Demonstration of a cryogenic, switchable electron source for low-temperature detector calibration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OY4UYADR

@misc{pith2026260720324,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Demonstration of a cryogenic, switchable electron source for low-temperature detector calibration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OY4UYADR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20324}
}
abstract

We present the realization of a prototype of a compact, switchable electron source operating at cryogenic temperatures, demonstrated at energies ranging from 100 eV to 300 eV, and conceptually extendable to an arbitrary energy range. The electrons are produced via photoelectric emission, induced by a LED illuminating two 400~nm-thick commercial aluminum layers inside a cryostat, and are subsequently accelerated by a voltage of up to 300~V. Detection is carried out with an array of transition-edge sensor (TES) microcalorimeters designed for X-ray detectors, where we successfully observe signals consistent with electrons produced at the source at rates of $\gtrsim$1~Hz and with an efficiency of $\gtrsim 10^{-14}\ e^-/\gamma$. One of the potential applications of this prototype is the development of a calibration method for cryogenic detectors, based on the generation, acceleration, and multiplication of electrons, followed by their conversion into high-energy photons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20324 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The experimental setup. The upper arrow indicates the temperature gradient from the exterior of the cryostat (300 K) to its interior (100 mK). Components are labeled as follows: (1) fiber-coupled LED, (2) vacuum fiber, (3) two layers of 400 nm Al, (4) high-voltage power supply connected to the Al foils and (5) calorimeter array (grounded to the cryostat) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows a 4×16 detector array; however, the bottom two 2×16 TES arrays on the chip were not wire-bonded and therefore were not readout. The resulting high-sensitivity microcalorimeters are read out using a microwave multiplexing scheme [16]. The array is placed 2.5 cm away from the aluminum foils in a detector box. Although the box features an opening above the array to permit electron access, the setup is wrapped in … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The peak-to-peak amplitude versus the arrival time in a test channel. Each data point represents a single event in a TES detector. By switching on the LED, three Al foils voltage values (0V, -300V, +300V) have been tested: a significant increase in counts was observed only with negative voltage. Noise contribution dominates at low amplitudes. We then characterized the signal dependencies. The voltage difference betw… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Measured rates for two test channels at five different LED current values. Data were fitted using quadratic (red line) polynomial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The peak-to-peak amplitude evolution in time of the occurring events in a TES detector according to three different voltage values. The legend shows the absolute value of applied voltage (red 100 V, blue 200 V and green 300 V). Noise contribution dominates at low ampli…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The activity map of our array with a LED current of 174 mA. The fiber orientation aligns with the right section of the array, leading to a significant electron rate in only a few channels. The color scale ranges from white (zero counts) to dark red (0.16 Hz). These cha…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The transverse profile of the electron beam. The black points represent the array upper row rate data and were fitted assuming a normal distribution. The fit suggests a beam profile width of ∼ 1.38 mm. zero applied potential, the low frequency noise increases by nearly…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Power Spectral Density with LED off (black), LED ON with ∆V = 0 V (magenta), LED ON with ∆V = 100 V (red), LED ON with ∆V = 200 V (blue), and LED ON with ∆V = 300 V (green) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Calibrated energy spectra from channel 0 for different voltages applied between the Al foils and the TESs (red: 100 V, blue: 200 V, green: 300 V). At 100 eV, the signal overlaps with the population of backscattered and secondary electrons, making discrimination more ch…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    Alkhatib, D

    I. Alkhatib, D. W. P. Amaral, T. Aralis, T. Aramaki, I. J. Arnquist, I. Ataee Langroudy, E. Azadbakht, S. Banik, D. Barker, C. Bathurst, D. A. Bauer, L. V. S. Bezerra, R. Bhattacharyya, T. Binder, M. A. Bowles, P. L. Brink, R. Bunker, B. Cabrera, R. Calkins, R. A. Cameron, C. Cartaro, D. G. Cerde˜ no, Y.-Y. Chang, M. Chaudhuri, R. Chen, N. Chott, J. Coole...

    2021

  2. [4]

    Abele, G

    H. Abele, G. Angloher, B. Arnold, M. Atzori Corona, A. Bento, E. Bossio, J. Burkhart, F. Cappella, M. Cappelli, N. Casali, R. Cerulli, A. Cruciani, G. Del Castello, M. del Gallo Roccagiovine, S. Dorer, A. Erhart, M. Friedl, S. Fichtinger, V. M. Ghete, M. Giammei, C. Goupy, D. Hauff, F. Jeanneau, E. Jericha, M. Kaznacheeva, A. Kinast, H. Kluck, A. Langenk¨...

    2025

  3. [5]

    Sisti, C

    M. Sisti, C. Arnaboldi, C. Brofferio, G. Ceruti, O. Cremonesi, E. Fiorini, A. Giuliani, B. Margesin, L. Martensson, A. Nuc- ciotti, M. Pavan, G. Pessina, S. Pirro, E. Previtali, L. Soma, M. Zen, New limits from the milano neutrino mass experiment with thermal microcalorimeters, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, S...

    2004

  4. [6]

    C. Pepe, B. Corcione, F. Pandolfi, H. Garrone, E. Monticone, I. Rago, G. Cavoto, A. Apponi, A. Ruocco, F. Malnati, D. Serazio, M. Rajteri, Detection of low-energy electrons with transition-edge sensors, Phys. Rev. Appl. 22 (4) (2024) L041007, publisher: American Physical Society.doi:10.1103/PhysRevApplied.22.L041007. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/Ph...

    doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.22.l041007 2024

  5. [7]

    Gr¨ oning, R

    O. Gr¨ oning, R. Clergereaux, L.-O. Nilsson, P. Ruffieux, P. Gr¨ oning, L. Schlapbach, Prospects and limitations of carbon nanotube field emission electron sources, CHIMIA 56 (10) (2002) 553.doi:10.2533/000942902777680081. URLhttps://www.chimia.ch/chimia/article/view/2002_553

    work page doi:10.2533/000942902777680081 2002

  6. [8]

    C. P. de Vries, J. W. den Herder, E. Costantini, H. Aarts, P. Lowes, J. S. Kaastra, R. Kelley, K. Gendreau, Z. Arzoumanian, R. Koenecke, D. Haas, S. Paltani, K. Mitsuda, N. Y. Yamasaki, Filters and calibration sources for the soft x-ray spectrometer (SXS) instrument on ASTRO-H, in: M. Arnaud, S. S. Murray, T. Takahashi (Eds.), Space Telescopes and Instrum...

    work page doi:10.1117/12.85588 2010

  7. [9]

    C. P. de Vries, P. Lowes, J. W. den Herder, H. Aarts, D. Haas, K. Mitsuda, N. Y. Yamasaki, R. Kelley, C. Kilbourne, K. Gendreau, Calibration sources for the soft x-ray spectrometer instrument on ASTRO-H, in: T. Takahashi, S. S. Murray, J.-W. A. den Herder (Eds.), Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2012: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, Vol. 8443, International...

    work page doi:10.1117/12.924146 2012

  8. [10]

    Alpert, M

    B. Alpert, M. Balata, D. Bennett, M. Biasotti, C. Boragno, C. Brofferio, V. Ceriale, D. Corsini, P. K. Day, M. De Gerone, R. Dressler, M. Faverzani, E. Ferri, J. Fowler, F. Gatti, A. Giachero, J. Hays-Wehle, S. Heinitz, G. Hilton, U. K¨ oster, M. Lusignoli, M. Maino, J. Mates, S. Nisi, R. Nizzolo, A. Nucciotti, G. Pessina, G. Pizzigoni, A. Puiu, S. Ragazz...

    2015

Show all 35 references
  1. [11]

    Becker, D

    D. Becker, D. Bennett, M. Biasotti, M. Borghesi, V. Ceriale, M. D. Gerone, M. Faverzani, E. Ferri, J. Fowler, G. Gallucci, J. Gard, A. Giachero, J. Hays-Wehle, G. Hilton, J. Mates, A. Nucciotti, A. Orlando, G. Pessina, A. Puiu, C. Reintsema, D. Schmidt, D. Swetz, J. Ullom, L. ...

    2019 doi

  2. [12]

    B. K. Alpert, M. Balata, D. T. Becker, D. A. Bennett, M. Borghesi, P. Campana, R. Carobene, M. De Gerone, W. B. Doriese, M. Faverzani, L. Ferrari Barusso, E. Ferri, J. W. Fowler, G. Gallucci, S. Gamba, J. D. Gard, F. Gatti, A. Giachero, M. Gobbo, U. K¨ oster, D. Labranca, M. L...

    2025

  3. [13]

    Ahrens, B

    F. Ahrens, B. K. Alpert, D. T. Becker, D. A. Bennett, E. Bogoni, M. Borghesi, P. Campana, R. Carobene, A. Cattaneo, A. Cian, H. A. Corti, N. Crescini, M. De Gerone, W. B. Doriese, M. Faverzani, L. Ferrari Barusso, E. Ferri, J. Fowler, G. Gallucci, S. Gamba, J. D. Gard, H. Garr...

    2026

  4. [14]

    Bennett, M

    D. Bennett, M. Borghesi, P. Campana, R. Carobene, G. Ceruti, M. De Gerone, M. Faverzani, L. Ferrari Barusso, E. Ferri, J. Fowler, S. Gamba, F. Gatti, A. Giachero, M. Gobbo, D. Labranca, R. Moretti, A. Nucciotti, L. Origo, S. Ragazzi, D. Schmidt, D. Swetz, J. Ullom, Impact of e...

    2025 doi

  5. [15]

    Schweiger, M

    C. Schweiger, M. Braß, V. Debierre, M. Door, H. Dorrer, C. E. D¨ ullmann, C. Enss, P. Filianin, L. Gastaldo, Z. Harman, M. W. Haverkort, J. Herkenhoff, P. Indelicato, C. H. Keitel, K. Kromer, D. Lange, Y. N. Novikov, D. Renisch, A. Rischka, R. X. Sch¨ ussler, S. Eliseev, K. Bl...

    2024 doi

  6. [16]

    Alpert, D

    B. Alpert, D. Becker, D. Bennet, M. Biasotti, M. Borghesi, G. Gallucci, M. De Gerone, M. Faverzani, E. Ferri, J. Fowler, J. Gard, A. Giachero, J. Hays–Wehle, G. Hilton, J. Mates, A. Nucciotti, A. Orlando, G. Pessina, A. Puiu, C. Reintsema, D. Schmidt, D. Swetz, J. Ullom, L. Va...

    2019 doi

  7. [17]

    Irwin, G

    K. Irwin, G. Hilton, Transition-Edge Sensors, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005, pp. 63–150.doi: 10.1007/10933596_3. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/10933596_3

    2005 doi

  8. [19]

    J. N. Ullom, D. A. Bennett, Review of superconducting transition-edge sensors for x-ray and gamma-ray spectroscopy, Superconductor Science and Technology 28 (8) (2015) 084003.doi:10.1088/0953-2048/28/8/084003. URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/28/8/084003

    2015 doi

  9. [20]

    K. M. Patel, S. Withington, C. N. Thomas, D. J. Goldie, A. G. Shard, Simulation method for investigating the use of transition-edge sensors as spectroscopic electron detectors, Superconductor Science and Technology 34 (12) (2021) 125007. doi:10.1088/1361-6668/ac30d0. URLhttps:...

    2021 doi

  10. [21]

    K. M. Patel, S. Withington, A. G. Shard, D. J. Goldie, C. N. Thomas, Electron Spectroscopy using Transition-Edge Sensors, arXiv:2403.01160 [physics] (Mar. 2024).doi:10.48550/arXiv.2403.01160. URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2403.01160

    2024 doi arXiv

  11. [22]

    Chevallay, J

    E. Chevallay, J. Durand, S. Hutchins, G. Suberlucq, M. Wurgel, Photocathodes tested in the dc gun of the CERN photoemis- sion laboratory, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 340 (1) (199...

    1994

  12. [23]

    Rahemi, D

    R. Rahemi, D. Li, Variation in electron work function with temperature and its effect on the Young’s modulus of metals, Scripta Materialia 99 (2015) 41–44.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2014.11.022. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135964621400493X

    2015 doi

  13. [24]

    van Kessel, C

    L. van Kessel, C. Hagen, Nebula: Monte Carlo simulator of electron–matter interaction, SoftwareX 12 (2020) 100605. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2020.100605. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352711020303186 Eur. Phys. J. Plus ##################### #...

    2020

  14. [25]

    Borghesi, M

    M. Borghesi, M. Faverzani, C. Ferrari, E. Ferri, A. Giachero, A. Nucciotti, L. Origo, The matrix optimum filter for low temperature detectors dead-time reduction, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (5) (2022) 421.arXiv:2201.05549,doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-022-10379-w

    2022 arXiv

  15. [26]

    Gatti, P

    E. Gatti, P. F. Manfredi, Processing the signals from solid-state detectors in elementary-particle physics, La Rivista del Nuovo Cimento 9 (1) (1986) 1–146.doi:10.1007/BF02822156. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/BF02822156

    1986 doi

  16. [27]

    Borghesi, Toward the First Neutrino Mass Measurement of Holmes, Ph.D

    M. Borghesi, Toward the First Neutrino Mass Measurement of Holmes, Ph.D. thesis, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milano, Italy (Apr. 2022)

    2022

  17. [28]

    Cimino, M

    R. Cimino, M. Angelucci, L. Gonzalez, R. Larciprete, Sey and low-energy sey of conductive surfaces, Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena 241 (2020) 146876, sources, Interaction with Matter, Detection and Analysis of Low Energy Electrons (SIMDALEE2).doi:https:...

    2020 doi

  18. [29]

    J. W. Fowler, C. G. Pappas, B. K. Alpert, W. B. Doriese, G. C. O’Neil, J. N. Ullom, D. S. Swetz, Approaches to the optimal nonlinear analysis of microcalorimeter pulses, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 193 (3) (2018) 539–546.doi: 10.1007/s10909-018-1892-5. URLhttps://doi.or...

    2018 doi

  19. [30]

    C. Bland, Choosing fitting functions to describe peak tails in alpha-particle spectrometry, Applied Radiation and Isotopes 49 (9) (1998) 1225–1229.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-8043(97)10050-1. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969804397100501

    1998 doi

  20. [31]

    S. D. Team, Stan reference manual version 2.34.1 (2024).doi:https://mc-stan.org

    2024

  21. [32]

    Verduin, Quantum Noise Effects in e-Beam Lithography and Metrology, Ph.D

    T. Verduin, Quantum Noise Effects in e-Beam Lithography and Metrology, Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universiteit Delft (2017).doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4233/uuid:f214f594-a21f-4318-9f29-9776d60ab06c

    2017 doi

  22. [33]

    El-Gomati, C

    M. El-Gomati, C. Walker, A. Assa’d, M. Zadrazil, Theory Experiment Comparison of the Electron Backscattering Factor from Solids at Low Electron Energy (250–5,000 eV), Scanning 30 (2008) 2–15.doi:10.1002/sca.20091

    2008 doi

  23. [34]

    Z. J. Ding, H. M. Li, K. Goto, Y. Z. Jiang, R. Shimizu, Energy spectra of backscattered electrons in Auger electron spectroscopy: comparison of Monte Carlo simulations with experiment, Journal of Applied Physics 96 (8) (2004) 4598– 4606.arXiv:https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/artic...

    2004 doi

  24. [35]

    O. Y. Ridzel, V. Astaˇ sauskas, W. S. Werner, Low energy (1–100 eV) electron inelastic mean free path (IMFP) values determined from analysis of secondary electron yields (SEY) in the incident energy range of 0.1–10 keV, Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena 24...

    2020 doi

  25. [36]

    Walker, M

    C. Walker, M. El-Gomati, A. Assa’d, M. Zadraˇ zil, The secondary electron emission yield for 24 solid elements excited by primary electrons in the range 250–5000 eV: a theory/experiment comparison, Scanning 30 (5) (2008) 365–380.arXiv: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/1...

    2008 doi

  26. [37]

    M. S. Chung, T. E. Everhart, Simple calculation of energy distribution of low-energy secondary electrons emitted from metals under electron bombardment, Journal of Applied Physics 45 (2) (1974) 707–709.arXiv:https://pubs.aip.org/ aip/jap/article-pdf/45/2/707/18366951/707\_1\_o...

    1974 doi

  27. [38]

    Patel, Transition-Edge Sensors for Electron Spectroscopy, Ph.D

    K. Patel, Transition-Edge Sensors for Electron Spectroscopy, Ph.D. thesis, Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository (2023).doi:10.17863/CAM.104850. URLhttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/362956

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.