Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 22 references

Hard X-Ray Focal-Plane Compton Spectro-Polarimeter: Detector Development and Sensitivity Evaluation

T0 review · 5 major / 5 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 An optimized hard X-ray Compton polarimeter design reaches about 7% minimum detectable polarization for a bright source in a 100 ks observation.

desk verdict A solid hardware advance, but the simulated sensitivity skips over the coarse azimuthal binning of the real 16-module array. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01529 v1 pith:XAUHE7TD submitted 2026-08-02 astro-ph.IM

Abhay Kumar (1 , 2) , Tanmoy Chattopadhyay (3) , Santosh V. Vadawale (1) , N. P. S. Mithun (1) ((1) Physical Research Laboratory , Astronomy & Astrophysics Division , Ahmedabad , 380009
show 9 more authors
India (2) INAF-IAPS Via del Fosso del Cavaliere 100 00133 Rome Italy (3) Kavli Institute of Particle Astrophysics Cosmology Stanford University 452 Lomita Mall Stanford CA 94305 USA)
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM PACS 95.55.Ka
keywords X-raypolarimetryComptonpolarimeterharddetectorCXPOLNaI(Tl)scintillatorSiPMposition-sensitiveMinimumDetectablePolarization
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 develops the second version of a focal-plane Compton spectro-polarimeter (CXPOL V2) for the 20–80 keV band and argues that an optimized geometry—a 7 cm plastic scatterer surrounded by sixteen dual-ended NaI(Tl) absorbers at a radial distance of 5.4 cm—will detect a minimum polarized fraction of about 7% from a 100 mCrab source in 100 ks with NuSTAR-like optics, and about 2% if the collecting area is five times larger. The supporting prototype work shows that a 100×20×5 mm NaI(Tl) bar read out by SiPM arrays at both ends achieves about 1.5 cm position resolution along its length, reduces SiPM dark-count background by an order of magnitude through coincidence readout, and is sensitive over its full length at 59.5 keV. If correct, the results make a focal-plane hard X-ray polarimeter a practical option for future missions, extending the success of soft X-ray polarimetry into an energy band that has remained largely unexplored.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the azimuthal modulation of Compton-scattered photons described by the Klein–Nishina cross section: for linearly polarized photons the scattered direction is preferentially perpendicular to the polarization vector, and the azimuthal distribution is modulated as $\cos^2\eta$. The instrument reconstructs each event's azimuthal angle from the interaction positions in the central plastic scatterer and one of the surrounding absorbers; that reconstruction is only as good as the position resolution. The paper's enabling hardware change is the dual-ended readout of each NaI(Tl) absorber with SiPM arrays, which provides one-dimensional position sensing via the ADC1/ADC2 lig

What would settle it

Measure the modulation factor of the CXPOL V2 prototype with a linearly polarized 20–80 keV beam, reconstruct events using the actual measured absorber position resolution (including its ~1.5 cm uncertainty), and compare the resulting MDP99 to the Geant4 simulation that assumes ideal positions. If the measured MDP is materially worse, the sensitivity estimate would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the CXPOL V2 configuration reaches an MDP99 of about 7% in the 20–80 keV band for a 100 mCrab point source observed for 100 ks with a NuSTAR-like effective area of roughly 500 cm² at 30 keV, under a background assumption of 0.5 counts/s; scaling the collecting area by five improves this to about 2%. The claim rests on two experimental results for the upgraded absorber: a position resolution of about 1.5 cm along the NaI(Tl) bar, obtained from the ratio of light outputs at the two ends, and a tenfold suppression of SiPM thermal dark counts when the two ends are read in coincidence. This position sensitivity, together with the same dual-ended readout planned for the s

Load-bearing premise

The sensitivity estimate in Section 6 uses Geant4 simulations that assume ideal interaction positions; the paper does not explicitly state whether the measured ~1.5 cm position resolution of the absorber was folded into the reconstructed modulation factor, so the quoted MDP may be optimistic if position blurring degrades the azimuthal angle.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With NuSTAR-like focusing optics, a 100 ks observation of a 100 mCrab source yields MDP99 ~7%, sufficient to study coronal geometries and magnetic field configurations in bright hard X-ray sources.
  • Increasing collecting area fivefold brings the sensitivity to ~2%, making few-percent polarization measurements feasible in the hard band.
  • The absorber prototype's 1.5 cm position resolution enables Compton-kinematic event selection that improves both polarimetric and spectroscopic fidelity.
  • The coincidence readout reducing SiPM dark counts by an order of magnitude lowers the instrument background, directly improving the MDP.
  • The optimized parameters (7 cm scatterer, R=5.4 cm, 16 modules) provide a concrete starting geometry for a flight instrument.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The simulated MDP does not state whether the measured ~1.5 cm position resolution was folded into the modulation factor; including real position uncertainty could degrade the quoted sensitivity.
  • The same dual-ended, coincidence-readout scheme could be applied to the plastic scatterer (the paper says it plans this) and might improve the low-energy threshold and time resolution further.
  • The 0.5 counts/s background assumption dominates the sensitivity; a careful measurement of the actual instrumental background in a space environment would be a critical next step.
  • The design concept is not limited to NaI(Tl); the paper's own future plan to test CeBr3 and GAGG suggests the geometry can be adapted to faster, brighter scintillators to push thresholds down to 20 keV.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents CXPOL V2, an upgraded focal-plane hard X-ray Compton spectro-polarimeter consisting of a 7 cm plastic scatterer surrounded by sixteen dual-ended NaI(Tl) absorber bars at a radial distance of 5.4 cm. Using Geant4 simulations, the authors estimate the modulation factor, polarimetric efficiency, and quality factor for the geometry, and derive an MDP99 of ~7% for a 100 mCrab source in 100 ks with NuSTAR-like optics, assuming a 0.5 counts/s background, improving to ~2% for five times the collecting area. The paper also reports first-prototype characterization of a 100x20x5 mm^3 NaI(Tl) absorber with dual-ended SiPM readout, achieving ~1.5 cm position resolution and ~35% energy resolution at 59.5 keV, and an order-of-magnitude reduction in SiPM dark-count background through coincidence readout. The central claim is that this configuration is a viable, sensitive focal-plane polarimeter in the 20-80 keV band.

Significance. If the sensitivity estimate holds, the design is a meaningful contribution to the development of hard X-ray polarimetry, a field with few demonstrated focal-plane options in the 20-80 keV band. The paper benefits from a clear statement of the geometry, energy thresholds, event selection, and use of the standard MDP formula, and the prototype data provide a concrete starting point for detector development. The most valuable aspects are the dual-ended position-sensitive absorber concept and the measured suppression of SiPM dark counts. However, the central sensitivity claim depends on assumptions about position information and background that are not yet validated by the presented measurements.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4 and Section 6] The azimuthal scattering angle is said to be 'estimated using the interaction position information in the scatterer and absorber', but the paper does not state whether this estimate uses exact Geant4 hit coordinates or the positions actually measurable by the prototype. The realized absorber provides only 1-D position sensing along the 100-mm bar with ~1.5 cm resolution (Section 5, Fig. 8); the 20 mm x 5 mm transverse cross-section is not resolved, and the 16-module layout quantizes azimuth to ~22.5°. Section 7 further lists position-sensitive scatterers as future work, so scatterer hit positions are not available in the current design. If μ100 was computed from untagged sub-module hit coordinates, the modulation factor and hence the MDP in Eq. (1) and Fig. 9 are optimistic. Please state explicitly what position information was used; if ideal positions were used, re-evaluate μ100 and MDP
  2. [Section 6, Eq. (1)] The MDP calculation uses an assumed integrated background rate of 0.5 counts/s. Since MDP scales roughly as sqrt(B) for B >> R, this assumption strongly influences the headline 7% and 2% values. No measurement, simulation, or reference is provided to justify this rate for the proposed instrument, including contributions from SiPM dark counts, activation, or cosmic-ray background. Please justify the background rate or present the sensitivity as a function of B so the central claim is not tied to an unverified number.
  3. [Section 5 and Section 7] The prototype absorber is characterized only at 59.5 keV using 241Am, yet the instrument is claimed to operate from 20 keV and the analysis threshold for the absorbers is set at 19 keV. No measurement or simulation is shown for detector performance at the lower end of the band. Section 7 explicitly lists testing down to 20 keV as future work, so the 20-80 keV sensitivity estimate is not yet supported by the prototype data. Please provide low-energy characterization or explicitly state this as a limitation and assess its effect on the energy threshold and efficiency used in the sensitivity estimate.
  4. [Section 4, Figures 5 and 6] The optimization of scatterer length and radial distance R is presented only through quality-factor curves, but the reconstruction procedure is underspecified. In particular, it is unclear how the azimuthal angle is computed from simulated interaction positions, what detector response is assumed, and whether finite position resolution, energy resolution, or module segmentation is included. Since the central claim depends on this simulation, more detail is needed on the event reconstruction and on whether the optimization used ideal detector response.
  5. [Section 6, Figure 9] The statement that the sensitivity calculations 'include the experimentally measured detection sensitivity of the scatterer and absorber' is ambiguous. The experimental results in this paper are for the absorber only, at 59.5 keV, and no measured scatterer detection efficiency is reported here. Please clarify exactly which measured quantities are folded into the simulation and over what energy range they are applied.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2] There are typographical issues in the Klein-Nishina equation: 'r ◦' appears to be a corrupted 'r0', and the notation for E/E' is inconsistent. Also, 'Strokes parameters' in Section 4 should be 'Stokes parameters'.
  2. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract and introduction contain awkward phrasing such as 'a copious of X-ray sources' and repetitive statements about CXPOL's demonstration of 20-80 keV capabilities. The writing would benefit from tightening.
  3. [Figure 8] The caption lists 'Top', 'Left', and 'Right' but the figure appears to contain three panels whose arrangement is unclear from the caption text alone. It would help to label the panels explicitly (e.g., (a), (b), (c)).
  4. [References] Key prototype results are taken from the companion paper by Kumar et al. 2026 [16], but this manuscript does not provide enough detail from that paper for the reader to independently evaluate the measured position resolution, light-output variation, and dark-count suppression. More of those details should either be reproduced or clearly summarized here.
  5. [Section 6] The phrase 'conservative baseline performance metrics' in Section 6 is not justified: the assumed 0.5 counts/s background and ideal position reconstruction could both make the estimated sensitivity optimistic rather than conservative. Please either provide a supporting background estimate or adjust the wording.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: MDP follows from Geant4 μ100 and the standard MDP formula; no fitted target or self-citation chain is load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The modulation factor is computed from the Klein-Nishina formula (Sec. 2) and from Geant4 simulations of the proposed geometry (Sec. 4), then inserted into the standard MDP99 = 4.29/(μ100 R) sqrt((R+B)/T) formula (Eq. 1). The reported MDP is therefore a simulation-derived prediction, not a quantity fitted from the same data. The geometry optimization (scatterer length, radial distance, module count) uses the same simulation pipeline, which is a standard design optimization and does not make the final MDP equivalent to an input. Self-citations such as Chattopadhyay et al. (2013, 2014, 2015) and Kumar et al. (2026) supply prior measured inputs (detection efficiency, dark-count suppression, position resolution); these are reproducible experimental facts and are not used to prohibit alternatives or to define the target result. The paper itself flags the relevant limitation in Sec. 7: 'Segmented or position-sensitive scatterers will also be explored for simultaneous spectroscopy using Compton kinematics,' and the prototype absorber provides only ~1.5 cm position resolution along one axis. If those granularities are not folded into the Geant4 event reconstruction, the simulated MDP may be optimistic, but that is a fidelity/validity concern, not a circular reduction of the kind defined here. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction, and no load-bearing step depends on an unverified self-citation.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its assumptions are standard physics (Klein-Nishina), the reliability of Geant4, extrapolation of a single-energy prototype test to the full band, and a fixed background rate. The main free choices are design parameters from the optimization scan and analysis thresholds.

free parameters (4)
  • Scatterer length = 70 mm
    Chosen from Geant4 scan over 5, 7, 10 cm to maximize quality factor while maintaining light collection (Section 4).
  • Scatterer-to-absorber distance R = 5.4 cm
    Selected from simulations of three candidate radial distances to balance modulation factor and geometric efficiency (Section 4).
  • Analysis energy thresholds = 1 keV (scatterer), 19 keV (NaI absorber)
    Applied in event selection; affect detection efficiency and therefore MDP (Section 4).
  • Assumed background rate = 0.5 counts/s
    Used in MDP calculation; not measured or modeled in detail (Section 6).
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Klein-Nishina cross section describes Compton scattering of polarized photons
    Basis for modulation factor; standard QED result (Section 2).
  • domain assumption Geant4 simulation faithfully models detector geometry, physics, and thresholds
    All sensitivity numbers rely on simulation accuracy; no validation against a polarized beam is shown for V2 (Sections 4 and 6).
  • domain assumption The experimental 59.5 keV response of the NaI(Tl) bar extrapolates to the 20-80 keV band
    The prototype is only tested at 59.5 keV; low-energy performance near 20 keV is listed as future work (Section 7).
  • domain assumption The plastic scatterer detection efficiency measured for CXPOL V1 applies to V2
    Sensitivity calculation incorporates 'energy dependent detection efficiencies' from earlier measurements (Sections 3 and 6).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hard X-Ray Focal-Plane Compton Spectro-Polarimeter: Detector Development and Sensitivity Evaluation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XAUHE7TD

@misc{pith2026260801529,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hard X-Ray Focal-Plane Compton Spectro-Polarimeter: Detector Development and Sensitivity Evaluation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XAUHE7TD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01529}
}
read the original abstract

The scientific potential of X-ray polarimetry has long been recognized, yet the challenges of measuring polarization have left it largely unexplored, mainly in the hard X-ray regime. With the advent of hard X-ray focusing optics, sensitive focal-plane Compton polarimeters are now feasible. An early example is CXPOL (Compton X-ray Polarimeter), developed at Physical Research Laboratory (PRL), India, which demonstrated 20 - 80 keV polarimetric capabilities using a plastic scatterer and a CsI(Tl) absorber array. The CXPOL prototype demonstrated polarimetric capabilities in the 20 - 80 keV range, establishing a foundation for further development. Building on this concept, we evaluate a hard X-ray spectro-polarimeter employing a position-sensitive plastic scatterer surrounded by position-sensitive absorber detectors. This geometry enables efficient reconstruction of Compton events and allows combined polarimetric and spectroscopic measurements via interaction positions and deposited energies in the detectors. We evaluate key performance parameters of the revised configuration of the second version of the CXPOL. Using Geant4 simulations, we assess key performance parameters, including modulation factor, polarimetric efficiency, and expected sensitivity with modern hard X-ray optics. We also present the characterization results of first prototype of a 100x20x5 mm3 NaI(Tl) absorber read out on both ends by silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) array operating in coincidence, evaluating energy and position resolution and light-output variation along the detector. The coincidence readout also reduces SiPM background by an order of magnitude. The results demonstrate the strong potential of a position-sensitive Compton- based focal-plane instrument for next-generation hard X-ray spectro-polarimetry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01529 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of Compton scattering of a linearly polarized photon. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Polarization experiment set up with the fully integrated configuration of the Compton polarimeter. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Detection probability as a function of deposited energy from 0.4 keV to 10 keV. Filled and open triangles correspond to 22.2 keV and 59.5 keV photons, respectively. These data points have been fitted with an empirical polynomial shown by the solid line. Right: Azimuthal angle distribution for partially polarized 20-50 keV continuum radiation for 90◦ polarization angles. The black solid line is the fit to the e… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The schematic of the absorber detector (100 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Quality factor as a function of energy for different scatterer length and position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Conceptual design of the Compton spectro-polarimeter (CXPOL V2). 16 NaI(Tl) (5 mm × 20 mm × 100 mm) scintillators are shown in green, SiPM array in dark green and plastic scatterer (5 mm diameter and 70 mm length) in blue color at the center. The gaps between the…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Panel a: Experimental setup for the position measurement consisting of detector setup, front-end, back-end readout electronics, and power supply. Panel b: NaI(Tl) scinitllator is packaged in the aluminium cover with SiPM array at both ends, and CSPA+Shaper is shown. Pa…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top: The 241Am spectra at the center of the detector obtained by summing the signal (ADC1+ADC2) at the two end of the detector. Left: Relative efficiency as a function of irradiation position. Right: Measured vs irradiation position along the length of the detector. Re…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Simulated polarimetric sensitivity of CXPOL V2 as a function of source intensity for a 100 ks of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Development of a hard x-ray focal plane compton polarimeter: a compact polarimetric configuration with scintillators and si photomultipliers,

    Chattopadhyay, T., Vadawale, S., Goyal, S., P. S., M., Patel, A., Shukla, R., Ladiya, T., Shanmugam, M., Patel, V., and Ubale, G., “Development of a hard x-ray focal plane compton polarimeter: a compact polarimetric configuration with scintillators and si photomultipliers,”Experimental Astronomy, 1–18 (2015)

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    The Imaging X-Ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE): Pre-Launch,

    Weisskopf, M. C., Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., Ramsey, B. D., O’Dell, S. L., Romani, R. W., Matt, G., Deininger, W. D., Baumgartner, W. H., Bellazzini, R., Costa, E., Kolodziejczak, J. J., Latronico, L., Marshall, H. L., Muleri, F., Bongiorno, S. D., Tennant, A., Bucciantini, N., Dovciak, M., Marin, F., Marscher, A., Poutanen, J., Slane, P., Turolla, R., Ka...

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Scientific prospects for hard X-ray polarimetry,

    Krawczynski, H., Garson, A., Guo, Q., Baring, M. G., Ghosh, P., Beilicke, M., and Lee, K., “Scientific prospects for hard X-ray polarimetry,”Astroparticle Physics34, 550–567 (Feb. 2011)

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Hard X-ray polarimetry—an overview of the method, science drivers, and recent findings,

    Chattopadhyay, T., “Hard X-ray polarimetry—an overview of the method, science drivers, and recent findings,”Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy42, 106 (Oct. 2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    A set of x-ray polarimeters for the New Hard X-ray Imaging and Polarimetric Mission,

    Soffitta, P., Costa, E., Muleri, F., Campana, R., Del Monte, E., di Cosimo, S., Evangelista, Y., Fabiani, S., Feroci, M., Lazzarotto, F., Rubini, A., Bellazzini, R., Brez, A., Minuti, M., Omodei, N., Pinchera, M., Razzano, M., Sgr` o, C., Spandre, G., Argan, A., and Matt, G., “A set of x-ray polarimeters for the New Hard X-ray Imaging and Polarimetric Mis...

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    A polarized view of the hot and violent universe,

    Soffitta, P., Churazov, E., Costa, E., Dovciak, M., Feng, H., Heyl, J., Ingram, A., Jahoda, K., Kaaret, P., Kallman, T., et al., “A polarized view of the hot and violent universe,”Experimental Astronomy51(3), 1109–1141 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    The X-ray Polarization Probe mission concept

    Jahoda, K., Krawczynski, H., Kislat, F., Marshall, H., Okajima, T., Agudo, I., Angelini, L., Bachetti, M., Baldini, L., Baring, M., et al., “The x-ray polarization probe mission concept,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.10190(2019)

    work page Pith review arXiv 1907

  8. [8]

    Development of x-ray optics technology for future indian astronomy missions at prl,

    Tiwari, N. K., Vadawale, S. V., Mithun, N., Vaishnava, C., Adalja, H. L., Saiguhan, B., and Kohli, S., “Development of x-ray optics technology for future indian astronomy missions at prl,” in [Optics for EUV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Astronomy XII],13626, 97–100, SPIE (2025)

    work page 2025

Show all 22 references
  1. [9]

    An enhanced optical design for wide-field imaging x-ray astronomy telescopes,

    Tiwari, N. K., Vadawale, S. V., et al., “An enhanced optical design for wide-field imaging x-ray astronomy telescopes,” in [Optics for EUV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Astronomy XII],13626, 314–318, SPIE (2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    A novel optical design for wide-field imaging in X-ray astronomy,

    Tiwari, N. K., Vadawale, S. V., and Mithun, N. P. S., “A novel optical design for wide-field imaging in X-ray astronomy,”Experimental Astronomy59, 21 (Apr. 2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    Compton polarimeter as a focal plane detector for hard X-ray telescope: sensitivity estimation with Geant4 simulations,

    Chattopadhyay, T., Vadawale, S. V., and Pendharkar, J., “Compton polarimeter as a focal plane detector for hard X-ray telescope: sensitivity estimation with Geant4 simulations,”Experimental Astronomy35, 391–412 (Apr. 2013)

    2013

  4. [12]

    Measurement of Low Energy Detection Efficiency of a Plastic Scintillator: Implications on the Lower Energy Limit and Sensitivity of a Hard X-Ray Focal Plane Compton Polarimeter,

    Chattopadhyay, T., Vadawale, S. V., Shanmugam, M., and Goyal, S. K., “Measurement of Low Energy Detection Efficiency of a Plastic Scintillator: Implications on the Lower Energy Limit and Sensitivity of a Hard X-Ray Focal Plane Compton Polarimeter,”Astrophysical Journal Supplem...

    2014

  5. [13]

    Quantum theory of radiation,

    Heitler, W., “Quantum theory of radiation,” in [International Series of Monographs on Physics, Oxford: Clarendon, 1954, 3rd ed.], (1954)

    1954

  6. [14]

    On understanding the figures of merit for detection and measurement of x-ray polarization,

    Weisskopf, M. C., Elsner, R. F., and O’Dell, S. L., “On understanding the figures of merit for detection and measurement of x-ray polarization,” in [Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series],Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers ...

    2010

  7. [15]

    Characteri- zation of scatterers for an active focal plane Compton polarimeter,

    Fabiani, S., Campana, R., Costa, E., Del Monte, E., Muleri, F., Rubini, A., and Soffitta, P., “Characteri- zation of scatterers for an active focal plane Compton polarimeter,”Astroparticle Physics44, 91–101 (Apr. 2013)

    2013

  8. [16]

    Development of a one-dimensional position sensitive detector for compton x-ray polarimeters,

    Kumar, A., Vadawale, S. V., Mithun, N., Chattopadhyay, T., Goyal, S., Patel, A., and Shanmugam, M., “Development of a one-dimensional position sensitive detector for compton x-ray polarimeters,”Experimen- tal Astronomy61(3), 14 (2026)

    2026

  9. [17]

    GEANT−4, a simulation toolkit,

    Agostinelli, S., Allison, J., Amako, K., Apostolakis, J., Araujo, H., Arce, P., Asai, M., Axen, D., Banerjee, S., Barrand, G., Behner, F., Bellagamba, L., Boudreau, J., Broglia, L., Brunengo, A., Burkhardt, H., Chauvie, S., Chuma, J., Chytracek, R., Cooperman, G., Cosmo, G., D...

    2003

  10. [18]

    Calibration of the IXPE Focal Plane X-Ray Polarimeters to Polarized Radiation,

    Di Marco, A., Fabiani, S., La Monaca, F., Muleri, F., Rankin, J., Soffitta, P., Xie, F., Amici, F., attin` a, P., Bachetti, M., Baldini, L., Barbanera, M., Baumgartner, W., Bellazzini, R., Borotto, F., Brez, A., Brienza, D., Caporale, C., Cardelli, C., Carpentiero, R., Castell...

    2022

  11. [19]

    On the Statistical Analysis of X-Ray Polarization Measurements,

    Strohmayer, T. E. and Kallman, T. R., “On the Statistical Analysis of X-Ray Polarization Measurements,” Astrophysical Journal773, 103 (Aug. 2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    Analyzing the data from X-ray polarimeters with Stokes parameters,

    Kislat, F., Clark, B., Beilicke, M., and Krawczynski, H., “Analyzing the data from X-ray polarimeters with Stokes parameters,”Astroparticle Physics68, 45–51 (Aug. 2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    An Algorithm to Calibrate and Correct the Response to Unpolarized Radiation of the X-Ray Polarimeter Onboard IXPE,

    Rankin, J., Muleri, F., Tennant, A. F., Bachetti, M., Costa, E., Marco, A. D., Fabiani, S., La Monaca, F., Soffitta, P., Tobia, A., Trois, A., Xie, F., Baldini, L., Di Lalla, N., Manfreda, A., O’Dell, S. L., Perri, M., Puccetti, S., Ramsey, B. D., Sgr` o, C., and Weisskopf, M....

    2022

  14. [22]

    Cubesat solar polarimeter (cusp) sensitivity estimation and performance optimization using geant4,

    Kumar, A., Lombardi, G., De Cesare, G., De Angelis, N., Fabiani, S., Del Monte, E., Alimenti, A., Campana, R., Costa, E., Soffitta, P., et al., “Cubesat solar polarimeter (cusp) sensitivity estimation and performance optimization using geant4,” in [UV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Spa...

    2025

Pith tools

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