X-Ray-Driven Photon Bunching

Avner Shultzman; Charles Roques-Carmes; Francis Loignon-Houle; Georgy Dosovitsky; Ido Kaminer; Noam Kasten; Offek Tziperman; Orr Be'er; Roman Schuetz; Rotem Strassberg

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 40 references

X-Ray-Driven Photon Bunching

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read X-ray-excited scintillation light is intrinsically bunched, and the coincidence curve reveals the scintillator's lifetime and light yield.

desk verdict Lifetime extraction via HBT on X-ray scintillators is solid; the light-yield number carries a systematic uncertainty from an unquantified variance in the number of emitters per X-ray photon. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16975 v1 pith:2GPRKLXO submitted 2024-12-22 physics.optics physics.app-ph

Shaul Katznelson , Noam Kasten , Offek Tziperman , Avner Shultzman , Tomer Bucher , Tom Lenkiewicz Abudi , Roman Schuetz , Orr Be'er

show 8 more authors

Shai Levy Rotem Strassberg Georgy Dosovitsky Sotatsu Yanagimoto Francis Loignon-Houle Yehonadav Bekenstein Charles Roques-Carmes Ido Kaminer

This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.opticsphysics.app-ph

keywords photonbunchingHanburyBrownandTwissinterferometryscintillationX-raydetectionsecond-ordercorrelationlightyieldlifetimeperovskitenanocrystals

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 shows that the second-order correlation function of scintillation light, $g^{(2)}(\tau)$, carries the two parameters that matter for scintillator design: lifetime and light yield. Under continuous X-ray excitation, each absorbed X-ray photon produces a burst of visible photons, so the light is bunched and $g^{(2)}(0)>1$; in perovskite nanocrystal samples the bunching reaches $g^{(2)}(0)>50$. The paper derives the bunching line shape $g^{(2)}(\tau)=1+[1/(2\tau_{\mathrm{X-ray}}J\eta)]\exp(-|\tau|/\tau_{\mathrm{X-ray}})$ and verifies that an exponential fit recovers the known lifetimes of bulk scintillators. Because the method reads the material's properties from photon coincidences rather than from absolute intensity, it works for sub-micrometer and nanocrystalline scintillators that conventional characterization struggles with. This turns a tabletop Hanbury Brown and Twiss measurement into a general scintillator-characterization tool.

What carries the argument

The central object is the second-order photon correlation function $g^{(2)}(\tau)$, measured with a Hanbury Brown and Twiss interferometer: light from the scintillator is split by a 50/50 fiber beam splitter into two single-photon detectors, and a time tagger records the delay distribution between clicks. The bunching signature comes from the avalanche process: one X-ray photon excites many emitters, so detected photons arrive in bursts. Equation (1) is the load-bearing identity: its exponential decay fixes the lifetime, and its amplitude is inversely proportional to flux and efficiency. A calibration step using a reference scintillator removes the unknown system efficiency, so that the light yield of an arbitrary sample follows from the area under $g^{(2)}(\tau)-1$ together with the total count rate.

What would settle it

Hold the X-ray spectrum fixed and vary the tube current over roughly two decades while measuring $g^{(2)}(\tau)$. Equation (1) predicts that $(g^{(2)}(0)-1)\times J$ is constant and that the decay time is independent of $J$; any systematic drift in either quantity would show the model is incomplete. An independent check is to compare the $g^{(2)}$-derived lifetime on each sample with a pulsed-X-ray or streak-camera lifetime measurement; agreement across all materials would confirm the exponential decay constant is the true scintillation lifetime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that X-ray-driven scintillation is intrinsically bunched light, and that the bunching is quantitatively controlled by the scintillator's lifetime and light yield. The measured correlation function follows $g^{(2)}(\tau)=1+\frac{1}{2\tau_{\mathrm{X-ray}}J\eta}e^{-|\tau|/\tau_{\mathrm{X-ray}}}$, where $J$ is the X-ray flux and $\eta$ is the overall excitation and collection efficiency. The decay constant of the exponential is the scintillation lifetime; the area under $g^{(2)}(\tau)-1$, combined with the total count rate and one reference scintillator, gives the light yield without needing to know absolute absorption or detection efficiencies. This is shown to match manufacturer specifications for LYSO, BGO, GAGG, LuAG and YSO, and to give values for CsPbBr$_3$ perovskite nanocrystals in the range that the scattered literature reports. The same line shape holds as temperature varies, with lifetimes changing in opposite directions for different materials while the inverse-lifetime scaling remains intact, and as X-ray flux varies, with $g^{(2)}(0)$ inversely proportional to flux as predicted.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the number of excited emitters created by each X-ray photon has a narrow distribution; if that distribution is broad, the exponential form of $g^{(2)}(\tau)$ and the lifetime and light yield read from it can be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A conventional continuous-emission X-ray tube is enough; pulsed sources and large facilities are not required for this characterization.
Sub-micrometer and nanocrystalline scintillators, including perovskite quantum-dot superlattices, can have their lifetime and light yield measured where standard intensity-based methods fail.
The same $g^{(2)}$ line shape can track temperature dependence of scintillation lifetime, since the lifetime enters directly as the exponential decay constant.
Calibrating against one reference scintillator makes the light-yield extraction insensitive to sample absorption, geometry, and collection efficiency.
A raster-scan implementation shows the method can produce two-dimensional correlation images of a scintillator's local properties.

Reading between the lines

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

If the bunching amplitude's inverse dependence on flux is as clean as claimed, a calibrated $g^{(2)}(0)$ measurement could act as an in-situ relative X-ray flux or dose monitor that does not depend on absolute photon collection efficiency.
The low-variance assumption on the number of emitters per X-ray photon is the point most worth stress-testing: for materials where secondary-electron cascades produce wide fluctuations, the simple exponential form may bias extracted lifetimes, and a test would be comparing $g^{(2)}$-derived lifetimes with pulsed-X-ray measurements on the same samples.
Higher-order correlations ($g^{(3)}$ and beyond) should carry information about the shape of the emitter-number distribution per X-ray photon, not just its mean, potentially distinguishing recombination pathways that leave $g^{(2)}$ unchanged.
Combining correlation-based contrast with scanning or ghost-imaging schemes could map local lifetime and yield variations in heterogeneous or radiation-damaged scintillators.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a useful, mostly sound paper that brings HBT interferometry to X-ray scintillator characterization. The lifetime extraction is robust and well validated. The light-yield extraction is clever but has a genuine, unquantified systematic error from the variance in the number of emitters per absorbed X-ray photon. That needs to be addressed before the quantitative yield numbers are taken at face value.

What's actually new: applying HBT coincidences to X-ray-driven scintillation, with a theory that connects the bunching amplitude to lifetime and yield, and a reference-based method to get absolute yield. The benchmarking on LYSO, BGO, GAGG, and CsPbBr3 nanocrystals is genuinely useful, and the nanocrystal bunching (g^(2)(0) > 50) is a nice demonstration. The UV calibration in Fig. 2(d) is a good control, and the flux dependence in Fig. 3 matches the predicted 1/J scaling. I find the main claims credible.

Where it gets soft: the theory in Eq. (1) is derived under a low-variance assumption on N, the number of excited emitters per X-ray photon. The paper states this openly, but it's not a footnote—it controls the quantitative yield extraction. For a polychromatic laboratory X-ray tube, the absorbed photon energy varies substantially, so the variance factor F = 1 + σ²/μ² multiplies the bunching amplitude. The exponential decay rate is unaffected, so the lifetime numbers hold. But Eq. (2) uses the area under g^(2)−1, and the reference-based yield for an unknown material B is then biased by F_B/F_A. The UV calibration doesn't test this, because a UV pulse creates a well-defined number of emitters. The paper doesn't give any estimate of F for any of the samples, including the nanocrystals where the absorbed spectrum is likely softer. That's a real, if not fatal, systematic uncertainty. I'd like to see either a measured or calculated F for each material, or a demonstration that F is close to unity across the gamut. I also note the complete derivation and error analysis live in the SI, which I couldn't review; the main text is terse on error propagation. No raw data or code are provided, so an independent check of the yield numbers is not possible.

Bottom line: for the scintillator-physics community, especially people working on thin and nano scintillators, this paper is worth engaging with. The lifetime method alone may justify publication. The yield numbers should be treated as provisional until the variance issue is quantified. I'd send it to a serious referee—not desk reject—and ask for an explicit F-factor analysis or a caveat on the yield precision.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports Hanbury Brown-Twiss (HBT) interferometry measurements of photon correlations in scintillation light excited by a conventional continuous X-ray tube. The authors derive a theory, summarized in Eq. (1), relating the second-order correlation function g^(2)(τ) to the scintillation lifetime τ_X-ray, the X-ray flux J, and an overall efficiency η, and they use it to extract lifetimes and light yields from g^(2)(τ) for several bulk and nanocrystalline scintillators. The key quantitative claims are validated by UV-excitation HBT measurements that match direct pulsed-lifetime measurements, by manufacturer specifications, and by a Monte Carlo simulation. The paper demonstrates that the method is applicable to thin perovskite nanocrystal films where conventional characterization is difficult, and it reports strong photon bunching with g^(2)(0)>50 in those films.

Significance. If the quantitative light-yield extraction is established, this work provides a simple tabletop method for characterizing scintillation properties, particularly of nanomaterials, using photon-coincidence statistics. The paper's strengths include the careful calibration against independent direct lifetime measurements, the Monte Carlo simulation, and the flux-dependence test that confirms the inverse scaling predicted by Eq. (1). The claim of a universal bunching feature across the tested materials is supported by the data, and the potential for correlation-based imaging is an interesting outlook.

major comments (1)

[Theoretical framework, Eq. (1) and Eq. (2)] Equation (1) is derived under the explicitly stated simplifying assumption that the number of excited emitters per X-ray photon has a low-variance distribution. For a general distribution with mean μ and variance σ², the bunching amplitude in Eq. (1) is multiplied by F = 1 + σ²/μ², while the exponential decay rate is unchanged. Since the X-ray tube produces a broad Bremsstrahlung spectrum and the deposited energy per absorption event fluctuates strongly in thin nanocrystalline samples, F is not guaranteed to be close to 1. The absence of any per-material estimate of F in the main text is load-bearing because Eq. (2) extracts the relative light yield from the area under g^(2)(τ)-1, so the extracted light yield of sample B relative to reference A is multiplied by F_B/F_A. The UV calibration in Fig. 2(d) cannot validate F because UV excitation produces a well-defined pulse size, and the Monte Carlo simulation in S4 is based on the same UV data. Please provide an estimate of F for each scintillator, or an experimental calibration of the variance factor, or restrict the quantitative light-yield claim to materials where F is shown to be near unity.

minor comments (5)

[After Eq. (1)] The phrase 'absorption efficient' should be 'absorption efficiency' in both occurrences in the paragraph following Eq. (1).
[Reference 16] Reference 16 contains a typo: 'Natue' should be 'Nature'.
[Abstract] The abstract contains the word fragment 'gamu t' which should read 'gamut'.
[Eq. (2)] Equation (2) uses the quantities Q_A and Q_B without defining them in the main text; please define these quantities or explicitly refer to their definition in the Supplementary Information.
[Calibration paragraph] In the paragraph reporting the calibration results, the value for τ_sim^UV is printed as '37.02 ± 0.21 ns]' with a stray closing bracket; remove it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: lifetime and light-yield extraction are benchmarked against independent direct measurements and manufacturer/literature values; the stated low-variance assumption is a scope condition, not a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's central formula, Eq. (1), is presented as a derived model with explicitly stated simplifying assumptions, and it is tested against independent evidence: HBT-based lifetime under UV excitation (37.13 ± 0.16 ns) agrees with direct lifetime measurements (37.26 ± 0.78 ns), with a Monte Carlo simulation (37.02 ± 0.21 ns), and with manufacturer specifications; extracted lifetimes and light yields for BGO, GAGG, LuAG, LYSO, YSO, and CsPbBr3 are compared with literature values. Eq. (2) is a relative calibration that cancels unknown excitation and detection efficiencies by referencing a known scintillator; it is an algebraic combination of measured count rates and g^(2) areas, not a renamed fit of the target quantity. The stated low-variance assumption on the number of emitters per X-ray photon could bias light-yield extraction if violated, but the paper openly flags it as a simplifying condition and does not fit a variance factor and then relabel it as a prediction; this is a validity or modeling-risk concern, not circularity. Self-citations to prior work by overlapping authors (Refs. 10, 13–15, 33) provide background and inspiration, but no load-bearing claim is reduced to those citations: the derivation is stated to be in the supplementary analysis, and the main claims are independently benchmarked against external measurements and literature values. Thus no specific circular step can be exhibited under the required standard.

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

The central claim rests on domain assumptions about the scintillation mechanism (photoelectric dominance and low variance of emitter number) that are physically plausible but not independently measured. No new entities or ad hoc fitting parameters are introduced; the extraction is based on a derived formula and a reference calibration.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The absorption of low-energy X-rays in the high-Z materials is dominated by the photoelectric effect.
Stated before Eq. (1) to justify the simplified relationship between X-ray flux and the number of excited emitters.
domain assumption The number of excited emitters created per X-ray photon has a low-variance distribution.
Necessary for the simple exponential form of g^(2)(tau) in Eq. (1); if violated, the correlation line shape would differ.
domain assumption Each X-ray photon independently triggers a scintillation event, resulting in a stream of emission bursts with Poissonian arrival statistics.
Basis for the 1/(J eta) scaling of the bunching amplitude in Eq. (1).
standard math Standard Hanbury Brown and Twiss theory correctly relates the measured coincidence rate to the second-order coherence of light.
Used universally in quantum optics and accepted as background.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of X-Ray-Driven Photon Bunching." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2GPRKLXO

@misc{pith2026241216975,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: X-Ray-Driven Photon Bunching},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2GPRKLXO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16975}
}

read the original abstract

Hanbury Brown and Twiss (HBT) interferometry is a milestone experiment that transformed our understanding of the nature of light. The concept was demonstrated in 1956 to measure the radii of stars through photon coincidence detection. This form of coincidence detection later became a cornerstone of modern quantum optics. Here we connect HBT interferometry to the physics of scintillation, the process of spontaneous light emission upon excitation by high-energy particles, such as x-rays. Our work reveals intrinsic photon bunching in the scintillation process, which we utilize to elucidate its underlying light emission mechanisms. Specifically, g^((2) ) ({\tau}) enables the quantitative extraction of scintillation lifetime and light yield, showing their dependence on temperature and X-ray flux as well. This approach provides a characterization method that we benchmark on a wide gamut of scintillators, including rare-earth-doped garnets and perovskite nanocrystals. Our method is particularly important for nano- and micro-scale scintillators, whose properties are challenging to quantify by conventional means: We extract the scintillation properties in perovskite nanocrystals of only a few hundreds of nanometers, observing strong photon bunching (g^((2) ) (0)>50). Our research paves the way for broader use of photon-coincidence measurement and methods from quantum optics in studying materials with complex optical properties in extremes regions of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

[1]

Contributions to molecular physics in high vacua

"XVI. Contributions to molecular physics in high vacua. Magnetic deflection of molecular trajectory. - Laws of magnetic rotation in high and low vacua. - Phosphorogenic properties of molecular discharge," Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 170, 641–662 (1879)

work page
[2]

Lecoq, ed., Inorganic Scintillators for Detector Systems: Physical Principles and Crystal Engineering, Particle Acceleration and Detection (Springer, 2006)

P. Lecoq, ed., Inorganic Scintillators for Detector Systems: Physical Principles and Crystal Engineering, Particle Acceleration and Detection (Springer, 2006)

work page 2006
[3]

Needs, Trends, and Advances in Scintillators for Radiographic Imaging and Tomography,

Z. Wang, C. Dujardin, M. S. Freeman, A. E. Gehring, J. F. Hunter, P. Lecoq, W. Liu, C. L. Melcher, C. L. Morris, M. Nikl, G. Pilania, R. Pokharel, D. G. Robertson, D. J. Rutstrom, S. K. Sjue, A. S. Tremsin, S. A. Watson, B. W. Wiggins, N. M. Winch, and M. Zhuravleva, "Needs, Trends, and Advances in Scintillators for Radiographic Imaging and Tomography," I...

work page 2023
[4]

New Developments in Scintillators for Security Applications,

J. Glodo, "New Developments in Scintillators for Security Applications," Physics Procedia (2017)

work page 2017
[5]

Microcomputed tomography-based characterization of advanced materials: a review

L. Vásárhelyi, "Microcomputed tomography-based characterization of advanced materials: a review" Materials Today advances (2020)

work page 2020
[6]

Needs, Trends, and Advances in Inorganic Scintillators,

C. Dujardin, E. Auffray, E. Bourret-Courchesne, P. Dorenbos, P. Lecoq, M. Nikl, A. N. Vasil’ev, A. Yoshikawa, and R.-Y. Zhu, "Needs, Trends, and Advances in Inorganic Scintillators," IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 65, 1977–1997 (2018)

work page 2018
[7]

Roadmap toward the 10 ps time-of-flight PET challenge,

P. Lecoq, C. Morel, J. O. Prior, D. Visvikis, S. Gundacker, E. Auffray, P. Križan, R. M. Turtos, D. Thers, E. Charbon, J. Varela, C. de La Taille, A. Rivetti, D. Breton, J.-F. Pratte, J. Nuyts, S. Surti, S. Vandenberghe, P. Marsden, K. Parodi, J. M. Benlloch, and M. Benoit, "Roadmap toward the 10 ps time-of-flight PET challenge," Phys. Med. Biol. 65, 21RM...

work page 2020
[8]

Advanced Halide Scintillators: From the Bulk to Nano,

V. Vaněček, K. Děcká, E. Mihóková, V. Čuba, R. Král, and M. Nikl, "Advanced Halide Scintillators: From the Bulk to Nano," Advanced Photonics Research 3, 2200011 (2022)

work page 2022

Show all 40 references

[9]

Development and challenges in perovskite scintillators for high-resolution imaging and timing applications,

A. Wibowo, M. A. K. Sheikh, L. J. Diguna, M. B. Ananda, M. A. Marsudi, A. Arramel, S. Zeng, L. J. Wong, and M. D. Birowosuto, "Development and challenges in perovskite scintillators for high-resolution imaging and timing applications," Communications Materials 4, 21 (2023)

2023
[10]

Free-electron–light interactions in nanophotonics,

C. Roques-Carmes, S. E. Kooi, Y. Yang, N. Rivera, P. D. Keathley, J. D. Joannopoulos, S. G. Johnson, I. Kaminer, K. K. Berggren and M. Soljacic, "Free-electron–light interactions in nanophotonics," Applied Physics Reviews (2024)

2024
[11]

On the use of CdSe scintillating nanoplatelets as time taggers for high-energy gamma detection

R. M. Turtos, "On the use of CdSe scintillating nanoplatelets as time taggers for high-energy gamma detection", 2D Materials and Applications (2019)

2019
[12]

Two-dimensional perovskite functionalized fiber-type heterostructured scintillators,

E. G. Rogers, M. D. Birowosuto, F. Maddalena, C. Dujardin, F. Pagano, N. Kratochwil, E. Auffray, P. Krause, and G. Bizarri, "Two-dimensional perovskite functionalized fiber-type heterostructured scintillators," Applied Physics Letters (2024)

2024
[13]

A framework for scintillation in nanophotonics

C. Roques-Carmes, N. Rivera, A. Ghorashi, S. E. Kooi, Y. Yang, Z. Lin, J. Beroz, A. Massuda, J. Sloan, N. Romeo, Y. Yu, J. D. Joannopoulos, I. Kaminer, S. G. Johnson, and M. Soljacic, "A framework for scintillation in nanophotonics" Science 375, 837 (2022)

2022
[14]

Photonic-Crystal Scintillators: Molding the Flow of Light to Enhance X-Ray and γ -Ray Detection,

Y. Kurman, A. Shultzman, O. Segal, A. Pick, and I. Kaminer, "Photonic-Crystal Scintillators: Molding the Flow of Light to Enhance X-Ray and γ -Ray Detection," Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 040801 (2020)

2020
[15]

Enhanced Imaging Using Inverse Design of Nanophotonic Scintillators,

A. Shultzman, O. Segal, Y. Kurman, C. Roques-Carmes, and I. Kaminer, "Enhanced Imaging Using Inverse Design of Nanophotonic Scintillators," Adv. Optical Mater (2023)

2023
[16]

All-inorganic perovskite nanocrystal scintillators,

Q. Chen, "All-inorganic perovskite nanocrystal scintillators,"Natue 88,561 (2018)

2018
[17]

Toward ``super-scintillation’’ with nanomaterials and nanophotonics,

P. Moradifar, "Toward ``super-scintillation’’ with nanomaterials and nanophotonics,"Nanophotonics (2024)

2024
[18]

A new method to characterize low stopping power and ultra-fast scintillators using pulsed X-rays,

F. Pagano, N. Kratochwil, I. Frank, S. Gundacker, M. Paganoni, M. Pizzichemi, M. Salomoni, and E. Auffray, "A new method to characterize low stopping power and ultra-fast scintillators using pulsed X-rays," Frontiers in Physics (2022)

2022
[19]

G. F. Knoll, Radiation Detection and Measurement (John Wiley & Sons, 2010)

2010
[20]

Correlation between Photons in two Coherent Beams of Light,

R. H. Brown and R. Q. Twiss, "Correlation between Photons in two Coherent Beams of Light," Nature 177, 27–29 (1956)

1956
[21]

A TEST OF A NEW TYPE OF STELLAR INTERFEROMETER ON SIRIUS,

R. H. Brown, "A TEST OF A NEW TYPE OF STELLAR INTERFEROMETER ON SIRIUS," Nature (1956)

1956
[22]

Poissonian Distributions in Physics: Counting Electrons and Photons,

A. C. Sparavigna, "Poissonian Distributions in Physics: Counting Electrons and Photons," HAL (2021)

2021
[23]

Photon Antibunching in Resonance Fluorescence,

H. J. Kimble, M. Dagenais, and L. Mandel, "Photon Antibunching in Resonance Fluorescence," Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 691–695 (1977)

1977
[24]

Superbunched bright squeezed vacuum state,

T. S. Iskhakov, A. M. Pérez, K. Y. Spasibko, M. V. Chekhova, and G. Leuchs, "Superbunched bright squeezed vacuum state," Optics Letters 37, 11 (2012.)

2012
[25]

Measurement of Photon Bunching in a Thermal Light Beam,

B. L. Morgan and L. Mandel, "Measurement of Photon Bunching in a Thermal Light Beam," Phys. Rev. Lett. 16, 1012–1015 (1966)

1966
[26]

Scintillation Crystals of LYSO, GAGG, CsI, NaI, CWO, LaBr3, CeBr3,

"Scintillation Crystals of LYSO, GAGG, CsI, NaI, CWO, LaBr3, CeBr3," https://www.epic- crystal.com/scintillation-crystals/scintillation-crystals/
[27]

Bright Innovations: Review of Next-Generation Advances in Scintillator Engineering,

P. Singh, G. Dosovitskiy, and Y. Bekenstein, "Bright Innovations: Review of Next-Generation Advances in Scintillator Engineering," ACS Nano (2024)

2024
[28]

Are Inorganic Lead Halide Perovskite Nanocrystals Promising Scintillators?,

X. Li, X. Hu, C. Li, W. Yang, C. Wang, Y. Chen, and H. Zeng, "Are Inorganic Lead Halide Perovskite Nanocrystals Promising Scintillators?," ACS Energy Letters (2023)

2023
[29]

High scintillation yield and fast response to alpha particles from thin perovskite ﬁlms deposited by pulsed laser deposition,

A. P. Caricato, S. Moretto, M. R. Guascito, G. Quarta, M. Mazzeo, M. Favaro, M. R. Aziz, C. Provenzano, M. Marra, M. Cesaria, M. Polo, J. Delgado, F. Pino, M. Martino, L. Calcagnile, and A. Quaranta, "High scintillation yield and fast response to alpha particles from thin pero...

2022
[30]

Photon Bunching in Cathodoluminescence,

S. Meuret, L. H. G. Tizei, T. Cazimajou, R. Bourrellier, H. C. Chang, F. Treussart, and M. Kociak, "Photon Bunching in Cathodoluminescence," Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 197401 (2015)

2015
[31]

Precise rise and decay time measurements of inorganic scintillators by means of X-ray and 511 keV excitation,

S. Gundacker, R. M. Turtos, E. Auffray, and P. Lecoq, "Precise rise and decay time measurements of inorganic scintillators by means of X-ray and 511 keV excitation," Nuclear Inst. and Methods in Physics Research, A 891 (2018)

2018
[32]

X-ray pulse preserving single-shot optical cross-correlation method for improved experimental temporal resolution,

M. Beye, O. Krupin, G. Hays, and A. H. Reid, "X-ray pulse preserving single-shot optical cross-correlation method for improved experimental temporal resolution," Appl. Phys. Lett. (2012)

2012
[33]

Time-correlated electron and photon counting microscopy,

S. Yanagimoto, "Time-correlated electron and photon counting microscopy," Communications Physics 6,260 (2023)

2023
[34]

G. R. Choppin, J.-O. Liljenzin, J. Rydberg, and C. Ekberg, Radiochemistry and Nuclear Chemistry, 4th edition (Elsevier/AP, Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier, 2013)

2013
[35]

Computational ghost imaging,

J. H. Shapiro, "Computational ghost imaging," Physical Review A (2008)

2008
[36]

Method for Post Processing of Digitized Events for Accurate Characterization, Application to Scintillation Decay Analysis,

O. Philip and I. Shestakova, "Method for Post Processing of Digitized Events for Accurate Characterization, Application to Scintillation Decay Analysis," (2017)

2017
[37]

Synthesis of crystalline Ce-activated garnet phosphor powders and technique to characterize their scintillation light yield,

E. Gordienko, "Synthesis of crystalline Ce-activated garnet phosphor powders and technique to characterize their scintillation light yield," Optical Materials (2018)

2018
[38]

X-ray ghost imaging with a laboratory source,

A. Schori and S. Shwartz, "X-ray ghost imaging with a laboratory source," Optics Express 25, 13 (2017)

2017
[39]

Experimental X-Ray Ghost Imaging,

D. Pelliccia, A. Rack, M. Scheel, V. Cantelli, and D. M. Paganin, "Experimental X-Ray Ghost Imaging," Physical Review Letters (2016)

2016
[40]

Tabletop x-ray ghost imaging with ultra-low radiation,

A.-X. Zhang, Y.-H. He, L.-A. Wu, L.-M. Chen, and B.-B. Wang, "Tabletop x-ray ghost imaging with ultra-low radiation," Optica 5,4 (2018)

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Contributions to molecular physics in high vacua

"XVI. Contributions to molecular physics in high vacua. Magnetic deflection of molecular trajectory. - Laws of magnetic rotation in high and low vacua. - Phosphorogenic properties of molecular discharge," Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 170, 641–662 (1879)

work page

[2] [2]

Lecoq, ed., Inorganic Scintillators for Detector Systems: Physical Principles and Crystal Engineering, Particle Acceleration and Detection (Springer, 2006)

P. Lecoq, ed., Inorganic Scintillators for Detector Systems: Physical Principles and Crystal Engineering, Particle Acceleration and Detection (Springer, 2006)

work page 2006

[3] [3]

Needs, Trends, and Advances in Scintillators for Radiographic Imaging and Tomography,

Z. Wang, C. Dujardin, M. S. Freeman, A. E. Gehring, J. F. Hunter, P. Lecoq, W. Liu, C. L. Melcher, C. L. Morris, M. Nikl, G. Pilania, R. Pokharel, D. G. Robertson, D. J. Rutstrom, S. K. Sjue, A. S. Tremsin, S. A. Watson, B. W. Wiggins, N. M. Winch, and M. Zhuravleva, "Needs, Trends, and Advances in Scintillators for Radiographic Imaging and Tomography," I...

work page 2023

[4] [4]

New Developments in Scintillators for Security Applications,

J. Glodo, "New Developments in Scintillators for Security Applications," Physics Procedia (2017)

work page 2017

[5] [5]

Microcomputed tomography-based characterization of advanced materials: a review

L. Vásárhelyi, "Microcomputed tomography-based characterization of advanced materials: a review" Materials Today advances (2020)

work page 2020

[6] [6]

Needs, Trends, and Advances in Inorganic Scintillators,

C. Dujardin, E. Auffray, E. Bourret-Courchesne, P. Dorenbos, P. Lecoq, M. Nikl, A. N. Vasil’ev, A. Yoshikawa, and R.-Y. Zhu, "Needs, Trends, and Advances in Inorganic Scintillators," IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 65, 1977–1997 (2018)

work page 2018

[7] [7]

Roadmap toward the 10 ps time-of-flight PET challenge,

P. Lecoq, C. Morel, J. O. Prior, D. Visvikis, S. Gundacker, E. Auffray, P. Križan, R. M. Turtos, D. Thers, E. Charbon, J. Varela, C. de La Taille, A. Rivetti, D. Breton, J.-F. Pratte, J. Nuyts, S. Surti, S. Vandenberghe, P. Marsden, K. Parodi, J. M. Benlloch, and M. Benoit, "Roadmap toward the 10 ps time-of-flight PET challenge," Phys. Med. Biol. 65, 21RM...

work page 2020

[8] [8]

Advanced Halide Scintillators: From the Bulk to Nano,

V. Vaněček, K. Děcká, E. Mihóková, V. Čuba, R. Král, and M. Nikl, "Advanced Halide Scintillators: From the Bulk to Nano," Advanced Photonics Research 3, 2200011 (2022)

work page 2022