Tunable responsivity and bandwidth in microwave kinetic inductance detectors via readout current nonlinearity

Graeme Smecher; Joshua Montgomery; Maclean Rouble; Matt Dobbs; Peter Day; Sofiia Savchyn

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 21 references

Tunable responsivity and bandwidth in microwave kinetic inductance detectors via readout current nonlinearity

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-13 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Placing the MKID readout tone just below the driven resonance near bifurcation multiplies optical responsivity by about ten while stretching the resonator time constant.

desk verdict Solid subfield paper: known Kerr nonlinearity reframed as a selectable positive-feedback bias, with a clean ~10 imes optical-responsivity measurement and usable operating maps. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.09178 v1 pith:6D3RJ4UH submitted 2026-07-10 cond-mat.supr-con astro-ph.IM

Maclean Rouble , Peter Day , Matt Dobbs , Joshua Montgomery , Sofiia Savchyn , Graeme Smecher This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.supr-conastro-ph.IM

keywords microwavekineticinductancedetectorsnonlinearityresonatorbifurcationpositivefeedbackopticalresponsivitycriticalslowingfrequency-domainmultiplexingquasiparticlenoisespectrum

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

Microwave kinetic inductance detectors are usually run with strong readout tones so amplifier and dielectric noise sit below the signal. Those same tones also change the kinetic inductance through the circulating current, which shifts the resonant frequency. This paper shows that the shift can be turned into a controllable positive-feedback loop: if the tone sits below the driven resonance and power is raised toward the bifurcation point, a small optical load moves the resonance toward the tone, more current flows, and the frequency shift is reinforced. Laboratory maps and noise spectra demonstrate roughly a factor-of-ten gain in optical responsivity together with a matching lengthening of the resonator relaxation time. The authors supply an operating-state map so the strength of the feedback can be dialed in by choice of generator frequency and power. The practical payoff is higher sensitivity whenever the limiting noise is external rather than intrinsic to the detector.

What carries the argument

The reactive feedback factor 1 − ∂Ẽ/∂x that appears in the small-signal response of the driven Kerr cavity. When this factor approaches zero (positive-feedback side of the critical point), both optical and generator responsivities are strongly enhanced and the slow eigenvalue of the linearized dynamics vanishes, producing critical slowing.

What would settle it

Drive a representative TiN or Al MKID to the claimed high-gain point near bifurcation and measure whether the white level of the frequency-noise spectrum and the height of a weak optical calibration tone both rise by the same factor of ~10 while the roll-off frequency falls by a comparable factor; any large excess dissipation or hysteresis that prevents stable operation would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

When an MKID readout tone is placed below the current-shifted resonant frequency and generator power is tuned near the bifurcation cusp, the reactive readout-current feedback multiplies the optical responsivity by approximately ten relative to the undriven value, while the same feedback lengthens the driven resonator relaxation time and therefore reduces detector bandwidth. The strength of this trade-off is set by the two experimentally controlled coordinates of generator detuning and power.

Load-bearing premise

The model treats the current nonlinearity as purely reactive and fixes a large reactive-to-dissipative ratio for optical load; if dissipative heating or quasiparticle generation by the readout becomes important near bifurcation, the predicted gain and stability change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

MKID bias can be chosen deliberately on an operating-state map to trade bandwidth for low-frequency gain when amplifier or system noise dominates.
Positive-feedback bias supplies an additional lever, beyond raw generator amplitude, for raising signal above fixed additive noise floors.
The same current-dependent frequency shift can be used to keep resonators from colliding under changing optical load, supporting denser frequency multiplexing.
Noise-spectrum shape (white level and roll-off) becomes a direct diagnostic of the chosen feedback strength.

Reading between the lines

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

If dissipative nonlinearity remains weak, the same positive-feedback operating region could be used to equalize responsivity across a large array after fabrication scatter.
Critical slowing near the cusp may set a practical upper limit on usable gain for time-variable astronomical signals whose spectrum extends above a few tens of hertz.
Combining active frequency tracking with the nonlinear gain map could allow real-time optimization of the gain-bandwidth product under varying sky loading.

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

The useful takeaway is simple: put the tone below the driven resonance and park near bifurcation, and the current-dependent kinetic inductance gives you positive feedback that multiplies optical responsivity by ~10 while stretching the resonator time constant. They map the whole (x0, Pg) and (x, xr) space so you can dial the trade-off.

What is actually new is the control-space framing and the measured maps, not the underlying physics. Nonlinear kinetic inductance, bifurcation, and Kerr-cavity input–output are already in Swenson, de Visser, Anferov, Yurke & Buks, etc. The paper’s contribution is treating the readout current as a deliberate feedback bias rather than a power ceiling, deriving the small-signal optical responsivity ratio (their Eq. 18) and the linearized eigenvalues (Eq. 20), then showing the corresponding rise in white noise level and drop in roll-off on real spectra (Fig. 8), including an extrinsic LED tone that scales with the floor. The multi-resonator average in Fig. 7 and the match of power-sweep hysteresis to the steady-state photon-number equation look solid. Citations are appropriate; the self-cites are apparatus context, not circular.

Soft spots are the ones they already flag. They keep only the reactive nonlinearity and set β = 20 because they could not resolve a dissipative optical response. If dissipative quasiparticle generation by the readout current becomes important near the cusp, the feedback factor and the claimed gain will move. That is a modeling limitation, not a contradiction with their data on these TiN devices. Bandwidth is traded for low-frequency gain, which they state clearly; the mode is useful when amplifier or TLS noise dominates, not when you need the full quasiparticle bandwidth.

This is for people who actually bias MKID arrays and care about multiplexing density or non-intrinsic noise floors. The math is standard Kerr cavity, the lab spectra corroborate the prediction, and the maps are immediately usable. I would send it to peer review without hesitation; a referee can push on the dissipative terms and on how close to the cusp one can sit in a real multiplexed system. Worth reading if you work these detectors.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript treats readout-current nonlinearity in MKIDs as a controllable operating resource rather than a power limit. Using a Kerr-cavity input–output description, it shows that placing the generator tone below the driven resonance produces positive feedback between stored energy and resonant-frequency shift. Near the bifurcation (critical) point this feedback enhances optical responsivity by a measured factor of ~10 relative to the undriven value while lengthening the driven resonator relaxation time (reducing bandwidth). The authors derive the steady-state photon number, critical-point coordinates, small-signal feedback factor, and linearized eigenvalues; map the resulting responsivity and time-constant surfaces in both control-space (x0, Pg) and driven-state (x, xr) coordinates; and corroborate the predictions with fixed-frequency power sweeps, multi-resonator averages, and frequency-noise spectra that include an extrinsic LED tone.

Significance. If the result holds under the stated reactive approximation, the work supplies a practical, easily selected bias point that can improve MKID sensitivity whenever non-intrinsic noise (amplifier, TLS, etc.) dominates, at the cost of bandwidth. The operating-state maps and the explicit link between the same feedback factor and both gain and critical slowing are concrete, reusable contributions for array design and multiplexing. Strengths include a derivation that follows standard Kerr-cavity theory, independent experimental checks (noise floor and LED signal rise together while roll-off falls), and consistency across multiple resonators and materials. The paper itself flags the principal modeling limitation (reactive-only treatment), which keeps the claim falsifiable.

major comments (2)

[Sec. II.B, Eq. 20] Sec. II.B and the linearized dynamics (Eq. 20): the analysis explicitly neglects nonlinear losses and dissipative quasiparticle generation by the readout current. While the measured spectra and multi-resonator average in Fig. 7 support reactive dominance for the devices studied, near the critical point even a modest dissipative component can shift the loop-gain zero, alter the eigenvalues, and change the attainable gain. A quantitative upper bound extracted from the same power-sweep or noise data (or a short appendix including two-photon loss) would make the claimed factor-of-10 enhancement more robust.
[Sec. II.D, Eqs. 18–19] Sec. II.D, Eq. 18–19: the optical-responsivity ratio is evaluated with a fixed reactive-to-dissipative ratio β = 20 chosen because no dissipative optical response was resolved. The text notes that smaller β would further enhance responsivity at x = 0, yet the maps and the 10 imes claim are presented for this single value. A brief sensitivity plot versus β (or an experimental bound) would clarify how much of the reported enhancement is model-dependent.

minor comments (4)

[Fig. 7] Fig. 7 caption and surrounding text introduce the conventional nonlinearity parameter a and its critical value a_c = 4√3/9 without an explicit definition in the main text; a short sentence linking a to Ẽ or n_ph would improve readability for non-specialists.
[Sec. II.B, Fig. 2] Eq. 6 / A2 and the three-port schematic (Fig. 2) are clear, but the mapping from the side-coupled S21 geometry to the one-port Kerr cavity is only sketched; a one-line statement of the port identification would remove any residual ambiguity.
[Fig. 8] In Fig. 8 the single-pole Lorentzian fit is noted to deviate at high power; stating the extracted τ_r / τ_qp ratio (or showing a two-pole residual) would make the critical-slowing interpretation more quantitative.
Minor typographical inconsistencies appear in the quality-factor subscripts (Q_r vs. Qr) and in the units of the LED peak (37 Hz); a uniform pass would polish the manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Kerr-feedback enhancement is derived from standard driven-cavity equations and independently corroborated by noise spectra and LED response.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain is: (i) reactive kinetic-inductance nonlinearity written as a Kerr shift (Eqs. 2–6, standard input–output cavity model), (ii) small-signal feedback factor 1−∂Ẽ/∂x shared by optical and readout responsivities (Eqs. 14, 18), (iii) critical-point and critical-slowing eigenvalues (Eqs. 7–11, 20), and (iv) laboratory verification via rising white level of frequency-noise spectra together with an extrinsic LED tone and falling roll-off (Fig. 8), plus multi-resonator driven-state maps (Fig. 7). Calibrating the nonlinearity scale from fixed-frequency power sweeps (Fig. 3) and then measuring optical responsivity / bandwidth on independent observables is ordinary model use, not a fitted input renamed as prediction of the same quantity. The fixed β=20 is an acknowledged modeling choice in the reactive limit, not a circular definition of the claimed gain. Self-citations (CRS readout board; prior active-feedback demonstration) supply apparatus and application context only; the ~10× enhancement and bandwidth trade-off do not reduce to those citations or to a self-definitional identity. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks under the paper’s stated reactive approximation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard superconducting-resonator and Kerr-cavity physics plus two modeling choices: purely reactive current nonlinearity and a large reactive-to-dissipative optical ratio β. No new particles or forces are introduced. Free parameters are material/geometry scales and the representative β used in plots; the 10× enhancement itself is measured, not fitted into existence.

free parameters (3)

β = δx0 / δQ_i^{-1} (reactive-to-dissipative optical responsivity ratio)
Set to 20 for Fig. 4 because dissipative optical response was not resolved above uncertainty; enters the driven/undriven responsivity ratio (Eq. 18–19) and thus the predicted gain shape at x=0.
I* (or equivalently E*, Kerr coefficient K)
Nonlinearity scale set by inductor geometry and material gap/DOS/resistivity (Eq. 2); used to normalize photon number and critical power. Device-specific; not a universal constant.
Qr, Qc (resonator quality factors)
Measured per device; enter critical detuning, critical power, stored energy, and ring time. Standard but required to place the operating point.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Kinetic inductance has a leading quadratic current dependence Lk(I) ≈ Lk(0)[1 + I²/I*²], producing a Kerr frequency shift proportional to stored energy.
Sec. II.B, Eq. 2; standard Pippard/Zmuidzinas framework used throughout.
ad hoc to paper Readout-current effects are primarily reactive for the devices studied; dissipative nonlinearity and two-photon loss are neglected in the linearized dynamics.
Explicitly stated in Sec. II.B and used to drop nonlinear-loss terms before Eq. 20; authors flag future work.
domain assumption Side-coupled resonator maps to a one-port Kerr cavity with standard input–output steady state (Eq. 6 / A1–A2).
Appendix A and citations to Anferov, Yurke & Buks, Eichler & Wallraff.
domain assumption Small optical load primarily shifts kinetic inductance (reactive) rather than Qi for these hybrid resonators.
Sec. II.B and choice of β=20 in Sec. II.D; underpins optical-responsivity formulas.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tunable responsivity and bandwidth in microwave kinetic inductance detectors via readout current nonlinearity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6D3RJ4UH

@misc{pith2026260709178,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tunable responsivity and bandwidth in microwave kinetic inductance detectors via readout current nonlinearity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6D3RJ4UH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.09178}
}

read the original abstract

Microwave kinetic inductance detectors (MKIDs) are generally read out with microwave readout tones of high enough amplitude to adequately suppress the noise contribution of the first-stage amplifier. At high readout power, the detector's resonant frequency is altered as a result of the dependence of the kinetic inductance on the internally circulating microwave current. With the tone placed below the resonant frequency, the nonlinear frequency shift results in a positive feedback effect that can significantly enhance the responsivity of the detector, to both optical and microwave power. We report a factor of 10 enhancement in optical response by tuning the readout power and frequency to close to the resonator's bifurcation point. A corresponding decrease in the bandwidth of the resonator is observed under these conditions. We show that the strength of the feedback effect can be easily selected by adjusting the excitation, and provide a map of possible operational states to do so. Operation of MKIDs in this mode could be used to improve sensitivity when non-intrinsic noise sources are significant.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09178 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Schematic representation of the side-coupled res [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Driven resonator relaxation time during fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Properties of the nonlinear operating state in control [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Driven-state coordinate view of the nonlinear res [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Spectrum of resonant frequency fluctuations under in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

[1]

P. K. Day, H. G. LeDuc, B. A. Mazin, A. Vayonakis, and J. Zmuidzinas, A broadband superconducting detector suitable for use in large arrays, Nature425, 817 (2003)

2003
[2]

Zmuidzinas, Superconducting microresonators: Physics and applications, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics3, 169 (2012)

J. Zmuidzinas, Superconducting microresonators: Physics and applications, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics3, 169 (2012)

2012
[3]

Baselmans, Kinetic inductance detectors, Journal of Low Temperature Physics167, 292 (2012)

J. Baselmans, Kinetic inductance detectors, Journal of Low Temperature Physics167, 292 (2012)

2012
[4]

Doyle, P

S. Doyle, P. Mauskopf, J. Naylon, A. Porch, and C. Dun- combe, Lumped element kinetic inductance detectors, Journal of Low Temperature Physics151, 530 (2008)

2008
[5]

Mazin, J

B. Mazin, J. Bailey, J. Bartlett, C. Bockstiegel, B. Bum- ble, G. Coiffard, T. Currie, M. Daal, K. Davis, R. Dod- kins, N. Fruitwala, N. Jovanovic, I. Lipartito, J. Lozi, J. Males, D. Mawet, S. Meeker, K. O’Brien, M. Rich, J. Smith, S. Steiger, N. Swimmer, A. Walter, N. Zobrist, and J. Zmuidzinas, MKIDs in the 2020s, Bulletin of the AAS51, 2020n7i017 (201...

2019
[6]

P. K. Day, N. F. Cothard, C. Albert, L. Foote, E. Kane, B. H. Eom, R. Basu Thakur, R. M. J. Janssen, A. Beyer, P. Echternach, S. van Berkel, S. Hailey-Dunsheath, T. R. Stevenson, S. Dabironezare, J. J. A. Basel- mans, J. Glenn, C. M. Bradford, and H. G. Leduc, A 25-micrometer single-photon-sensitive Kinetic Induc- tance Detector, Physical Review X14, 0410...

arXiv 2024
[7]

S. Shu, M. Calvo, J. Goupy, S. Leclercq, A. Catalano, A. Bideaud, A. Monfardini, and E. F. C. Driessen, In- creased multiplexing of superconducting microresonator arrays by post-characterization adaptation of the on-chip capacitors, Applied Physics Letters113, 082603 (2018)

2018
[8]

M. R. Vissers, J. Wheeler, J. Austermann, A. Vaskuri, J. Hubmayr, J. Gao, Z. Huber, J. Imrek, and J. Ul- lom, Improving the yield of CCAT MKID arrays with post-measurement lithographic corrections, inMillime- ter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and In- strumentation for Astronomy XII, Vol. PC13102, edited by J. Zmuidzinas and J.-R. Gao, Interna...

2024

Show all 21 references

[9]

J. Gao, J. Zmuidzinas, B. A. Mazin, H. G. LeDuc, and P. K. Day, Noise properties of superconducting coplanar waveguide microwave resonators, Applied Physics Letters 90, 102507 (2007)

2007
[10]

A. B. Pippard, Field variation of the superconducting penetration depth, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 203, 210 (1950)

1950
[11]

L. J. Swenson, A. Cruciani, D. J. Benford, P. K. Day, B. H. Eom, J. Gao, M. E. Huber, B. A. Mazin, D. C. Moore, O. Noroozian, and J. Zmuidzinas, Operation of a titanium nitride superconducting microresonator detec- tor in the nonlinear regime, Journal of Applied Physics 113, 1...

2013
[12]

P. J. de Visser, S. Withington, and D. J. Goldie, Readout- power heating and hysteretic switching between thermal quasiparticle states in kinetic inductance detectors, Jour- nal of Applied Physics108, 114504 (2010)

2010
[13]

D. J. Goldie and S. Withington, Non-equilibrium super- conductivity in quantum-sensing superconducting res- onators, Superconductor Science and Technology26, 015004 (2012)

2012
[14]

C. N. Thomas, S. Withington, Z. Sun, T. Skyrme, and D. J. Goldie, Nonlinear effects in superconducting thin film microwave resonators, New Journal of Physics22, 073028 (2020)

2020
[15]

C. J. Duell, J. Austermann, J. R. Burgoyne, S. C. Chap- man, S. K. Choi, A. T. Crites, R. G. Freundt, A. I. Huber, Z. B. Huber, J. Hubmayr, B. Keller, L. T. Lin, A. M. Middleton, C. C. Murphy, M. D. Niemack, T. Nikola, D. Patel, A. K. Sinclair, E. Smith, G. J. Stacey, A. Vasku...

2024
[16]

Valenti, F

F. Valenti, F. Henriques, G. Catelani, N. Maleeva, L. Gr¨ unhaupt, U. von L¨ upke, S. T. Skacel, P. Winkel, A. Bilmes, A. V. Ustinov, J. Goupy, M. Calvo, A. Benoˆ ıt, F. L´ evy-Bertrand, A. Monfardini, and I. M. Pop, Inter- play between kinetic inductance, nonlinearity, and qu...

2019
[17]

Rouble, G

M. Rouble, G. Smecher, M. Adamiˇ c, A. Anderson, P. S. Barry, K. Dibert, M. Dobbs, K. Fichman, and J. Mont- gomery, A first demonstration of active feedback con- trol and multi-frequency imaging techniques for kinetic inductance detectors, inMillimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-...

2024 arXiv
[18]

Montgomery, W

J. Montgomery, W. Avelino, M. Dobbs, J. Letang, M. Rouble, S. Savchyn, and G. Smecher, The crs: a scalable full-stack control system for microwave kinetic inductance detectors, inMillimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astron- omy XII, Pro...

2024
[19]

Anferov, A

A. Anferov, A. Suleymanzade, A. Oriani, J. Simon, and D. I. Schuster, Millimeter-wave four-wave mixing via ki- netic inductance for quantum devices, Physical Review Applied13, 024056 (2020)

2020
[20]

Yurke and E

B. Yurke and E. Buks, Performance of cavity-parametric amplifiers employing kerr nonlinearities in the presence of two-photon loss, Journal of Lightwave Technology24, 5054 (2006)

2006
[21]

Eichler and A

C. Eichler and A. Wallraff, Controlling the dynamic range of a josephson parametric amplifier, EPJ Quantum Technology1, 2 (2014). Appendix A: Cavity mode steady-state As described in [19], the resonator may be understood as the one-port optical cavity,[21][20] here coupled sym...

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed July 13, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

P. K. Day, H. G. LeDuc, B. A. Mazin, A. Vayonakis, and J. Zmuidzinas, A broadband superconducting detector suitable for use in large arrays, Nature425, 817 (2003)

2003

[2] [2]

Zmuidzinas, Superconducting microresonators: Physics and applications, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics3, 169 (2012)

J. Zmuidzinas, Superconducting microresonators: Physics and applications, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics3, 169 (2012)

2012

[3] [3]

Baselmans, Kinetic inductance detectors, Journal of Low Temperature Physics167, 292 (2012)

J. Baselmans, Kinetic inductance detectors, Journal of Low Temperature Physics167, 292 (2012)

2012

[4] [4]

Doyle, P

S. Doyle, P. Mauskopf, J. Naylon, A. Porch, and C. Dun- combe, Lumped element kinetic inductance detectors, Journal of Low Temperature Physics151, 530 (2008)

2008

[5] [5]

Mazin, J

B. Mazin, J. Bailey, J. Bartlett, C. Bockstiegel, B. Bum- ble, G. Coiffard, T. Currie, M. Daal, K. Davis, R. Dod- kins, N. Fruitwala, N. Jovanovic, I. Lipartito, J. Lozi, J. Males, D. Mawet, S. Meeker, K. O’Brien, M. Rich, J. Smith, S. Steiger, N. Swimmer, A. Walter, N. Zobrist, and J. Zmuidzinas, MKIDs in the 2020s, Bulletin of the AAS51, 2020n7i017 (201...

2019

[6] [6]

P. K. Day, N. F. Cothard, C. Albert, L. Foote, E. Kane, B. H. Eom, R. Basu Thakur, R. M. J. Janssen, A. Beyer, P. Echternach, S. van Berkel, S. Hailey-Dunsheath, T. R. Stevenson, S. Dabironezare, J. J. A. Basel- mans, J. Glenn, C. M. Bradford, and H. G. Leduc, A 25-micrometer single-photon-sensitive Kinetic Induc- tance Detector, Physical Review X14, 0410...

arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

S. Shu, M. Calvo, J. Goupy, S. Leclercq, A. Catalano, A. Bideaud, A. Monfardini, and E. F. C. Driessen, In- creased multiplexing of superconducting microresonator arrays by post-characterization adaptation of the on-chip capacitors, Applied Physics Letters113, 082603 (2018)

2018

[8] [8]

M. R. Vissers, J. Wheeler, J. Austermann, A. Vaskuri, J. Hubmayr, J. Gao, Z. Huber, J. Imrek, and J. Ul- lom, Improving the yield of CCAT MKID arrays with post-measurement lithographic corrections, inMillime- ter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and In- strumentation for Astronomy XII, Vol. PC13102, edited by J. Zmuidzinas and J.-R. Gao, Interna...

2024