Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

High count rate effects in event processing for XRISM/Resolve x-ray microcalorimeter: II. Energy scale and resolution in orbit

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that at 6 keV the XRISM/Resolve microcalorimeter's energy resolution degrades by 0.109 eV per cts s$^{-1}$ pix$^{-1}$ of neighbor count rate, and a nearest-neighbor coincidence cut removes this degradation, restoring…

desk verdict Solid in-orbit calibration paper: the cross-talk cut demonstrably restores Resolve's 6 keV resolution to ground-test levels, with two acknowledged caveats (rate-axis fidelity and the GX 13+1 offset attribution) worth referee attention. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06692 v1 pith:CJ2Q3I7Q submitted 2025-06-07 astro-ph.IM

Misaki Mizumoto , Yoshiaki Kanemaru , Shinya Yamada , Caroline A. Kilbourne , Megan E. Eckart , Edmund Hodges-Kluck , Yoshitaka Ishisaki , Frederick S. Porter
show 2 more authors
Katja Pottschmidt Tsubasa Tamba
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords X-raymicrocalorimeterenergyresolutioncross-talkcutcountrateeffectsscaleXRISMResolveMnK-alphacalibration
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

Using Crab Nebula observations at five offset positions with continuous $^{55}$Fe calibration illumination, this paper measures how the XRISM/Resolve microcalorimeter responds to count rates well above its design optimum. It establishes two rate-dependent effects at 6 keV: an energy-scale shift that turns negative at high count rates, and an energy-resolution degradation that grows with the count rate in electrically neighboring pixels. The central quantitative result is that the resolution degradation is fully removable: before a nearest-neighbor coincidence cut the FWHM rises with slope $a = 0.109 \pm 0.014$ eV per cts s$^{-1}$ pix$^{-1}$, and after the cut the slope is $a = 0.00 \pm 0.02$ with intercept $b = 4.44 \pm 0.05$ eV, consistent with ground testing. Applied to the bright point source GX 13+1, the inner pixels show a $-1.15^{+0.40}_{-0.25}$ eV offset at 6 keV relative to the outer pixels, which would masquerade as a $+50$ km s$^{-1}$ velocity shift. The paper concludes that users analyzing velocity structures at the tens of km s$^{-1}$ level must account for these effects.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 36-pixel microcalorimeter array itself, in which each pixel has its own thermal link and its own buffer in the Pulse Shape Processor, and in which pairs of pixels that share readout wiring experience mutual electrical cross-talk. When an X-ray hits pixel $i$, a small 'cross-talk child' pulse appears in pixel $i \pm 1$; if a real event in the neighbor occurs near in time, the two pulses contaminate each other's inferred energies. The paper's central operation is the nearest-neighbor coincidence cut: a time filter that removes events in pixel $i$ that fall within $\pm 25$ ms of a pulse in pixel $i \pm 1$ in the same quadrant, while also discarding periods when the neighbor's events were lost to processor overflow so that no such filter could be constructed. The count-rate axis used throughout is the pixel-GTI-corrected rate, the processed rate divided by the pixel's live-time fraction, which is meant to recover the true incident rate. The argument runs through linear fits of FWHM versus that rate, and through the effective-temperature model used to correct the energy scale.

What would settle it

Take a single pixel whose neighboring pixels are illuminated at a known rate, shuffle the neighbor event times to destroy the $\pm 25$ ms coincidence structure while preserving the rate, and measure the 6 keV FWHM of the central pixel: if the FWHM still degrades with rate after the shuffle, the degradation is not temporal cross-talk and the cross-talk cut cannot be what restores the resolution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the high-count-rate degradation of Resolve's energy resolution at 6 keV is caused by untriggered electrical cross-talk from events in neighboring pixels, and that excluding each event whose pixel had a pulse in pixel $i \pm 1$ within $\pm 25$ ms (the 'cross-talk cut') removes this degradation entirely. As quantified by a linear fit of FWHM versus pixel-GTI-corrected neighbor count rate, the FWHM before the cut is $y = (0.109\pm0.014)x + (4.44\pm0.04)$ eV, and after the cut it is $y = (0.00\pm0.02)x + (4.44\pm0.05)$ eV, i.e., the resolution returns to the level measured in ground-based tests. The paper also establishes that the energy scale at 6 keV shifts increasingly negative as the count rate rises, while a small positive offset of about $+0.2$ eV at low count rates is attributed to orbital variation of the electronics and sparse effective-temperature fiducial sampling. For a centrally placed bright point source such as GX 13+1, the brighter inner pixels are measured to be $-1.15^{+0.40}_{-0.25}$ eV below the outer pixels at 6 keV, corresponding to a spurious velocity shift of about $+50$ km s$^{-1}$, while resolution degradation is negligible because the electrical neighbors of the inner pixels are dim.

Load-bearing premise

The count-rate axis assumes that dividing the processed event rate by the pixel live-time fraction recovers the true incident rate, with no additional dead time from pile-up or false secondary pulses; if those effects are significant, the fitted slopes and offsets could be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For observations of bright sources, applying the cross-talk cut restores the energy resolution to the ground-calibrated value, at the cost of losing effective exposure time that grows with neighbor count rate.
  • The energy-scale offset between bright and faint pixels can masquerade as a velocity shift of tens of km s$^{-1}$, so pixel-by-pixel spectral fitting and offset correction are needed for precision velocity measurements.
  • Combining spectra from pixels without correcting rate-dependent energy shifts can artificially broaden spectral lines, affecting line-width measurements.
  • For a point source centered on the array, the cross-talk resolution loss is negligible because the neighbors of the brightest pixels have low count rates, so the cut is unnecessary in that configuration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The linear FWHM-versus-neighbor-rate slope measured here could be used to predict cross-talk degradation for future microcalorimeter arrays with similar readout coupling, if the coupling strength scales the same way.
  • The cross-talk cut's exposure-time cost suggests a selective strategy: apply the cut only to pixels whose neighbor count rates push the FWHM degradation past the scientific requirement.
  • Because the $^{55}$Fe calibration lines illuminate the array during science observations, the Mn K$\alpha$ centroids could be used as a continuous in-situ monitor of rate-dependent energy shifts, enabling per-pixel correction without waiting for fiducial points.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports in-orbit measurements of high-count-rate effects on the XRISM/Resolve microcalorimeter, using Crab Nebula observations at five offset positions with continuous 55Fe illumination. The authors quantify two main effects at 6 keV: an energy-scale shift that becomes increasingly negative at high count rates, and an energy-resolution degradation that scales with the pixel-GTI-corrected count rate and is attributed to electrical cross-talk from neighboring pixels. They show that a nearest-neighbor coincidence cut removes the resolution degradation, changing the fitted FWHM-versus-rate slope from a = 0.109 ± 0.014 eV/(cts/s/pix) to a = 0.00 ± 0.02 while leaving the intercept at 4.44 eV. They also attribute the low-rate +0.2 eV offset to a ~1 µK effective-temperature difference between fiducial and cleaned data, and they apply the findings to GX 13+1, finding a −1.15 eV inner-outer pixel offset that would mimic a +50 km/s velocity shift. The paper is a calibration study with explicit screening choices and an acknowledged limitation: the count-rate axis is corrected only for PSP-overflow dead time, with pile-up dead time and false secondary-pulse detection stated to be beyond the scope.

Significance. If the quantitative results hold, this is a useful calibration reference for bright-source spectroscopy with XRISM/Resolve and for future microcalorimeter missions. The cleanest result is the before/after comparison of the cross-talk cut: the FWHM slope against count rate changes from 0.109 ± 0.014 to 0.00 ± 0.02 with an unchanged intercept, giving a direct empirical demonstration that the cut restores the resolution. The +0.2 eV orbital-offset explanation is quantitatively tied to a 1 µK effective-temperature change, and the analysis uses public XRISM data and standard ftools with clear screening choices. The main quantitative claim is vulnerable to the acknowledged incompleteness of the count-rate correction, but the qualitative restoration result is robust to that concern.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.3, Appendix 1; Eq. (1) and Fig. 6] The independent variable x in Eq. (1) is the pixel-GTI-corrected count rate, obtained by dividing the PSP-processed rate by the live-time fraction. This correction accounts only for PSP-overflow dead time, while Sec. 3.3 states that other mechanisms may remain to distort the count rate, such as dead time due to pile-up effects and false detection of secondary pulses. If those mechanisms are rate-dependent, the fitted slope a = 0.109 ± 0.014 and the energy-offset trends in Figs. 5 and 8 are systematically biased. I request a robustness check using the FPGA-triggered candidate rate, which the paper in Sec. 3.3 identifies as a proxy for the true count rate, or an explicit estimate of the residual dead-time bias; without this, the quantitative calibration in Eq. (1) should be presented as provisional.
  2. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (1) and Fig. 6] The text says that the energy resolution degrades with increasing count rates in neighboring pixels, but Eq. (1) defines x only as the pixel-GTI-corrected count rate. Please specify explicitly whether x is the count rate of the pixel whose FWHM is being fitted, the average count rate of its two electrical neighbors, or another aggregate. The figure caption and the text should use identical terminology; without this, the central physical interpretation of the slope cannot be reproduced.
  3. [Sec. 4.2, Fig. 6] The before-cut linear fit gives adjusted R^2 = 0.370, meaning that the model explains only about 37% of the variance. The paper does not account for possible correlations among data points, such as the same pixel appearing in multiple observations or pixels sharing a PSP quadrant, and the count-rate axis is treated as error-free. A discussion of the scatter, or a fit that accounts for these correlations, is needed to support the quoted uncertainty of ±0.014 on the slope.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 5.1] There is a typo: 'primarily attributed to to the complex interplay' should read 'primarily attributed to the complex interplay'.
  2. [Sec. 3.4] The description of cross-talk GTI construction during PSP overflow is hard to follow; please clarify how periods of event loss in pixels i−1 and i+1 are excluded when creating the GTI for pixel i, and whether this exclusion is applied symmetrically.
  3. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (3)] The correction factor c in Eq. (3) is not defined. Please define it or note that it is of order unity.
  4. [Sec. 3.3 and Fig. 2] The upper panel of Fig. 2 is described as the rate of CPU consumption; please define the units and whether values above unity indicate overflow, to make the connection to the subsequent PSP-overflow discussion immediate.
  5. [Sec. 4.2] The claim that the post-cut resolution is 'consistent with ground-based testing' would be easier to verify if the ground-based FWHM value from Mizumoto et al. (2025) were quoted alongside the measured intercept b = 4.44 eV.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

In-orbit calibration results are measured fits, not derived from inputs; the acknowledged rate-axis limitation is a systematic-accuracy issue, not circularity.

full rationale

This is an empirical calibration paper. The central quantitative results — the energy-scale shift versus count rate and the FWHM slope a=0.109±0.014 before the cross-talk cut versus a=0.00±0.02 after it — are obtained by fitting measured Crab spectra, not by evaluating an expression that already contains those fitted values. The cross-talk cut and the excess-FWHM definition come from the authors' previous ground-based work (Mizumoto et al. 2025), but the in-orbit FWHM values are measured independently with and without the cut, so the 'restoration' claim is a direct empirical comparison rather than a reduction to the input. No equation in the paper makes a predicted quantity equal, by construction, to a fitted parameter. The passage in Section 3.3 explicitly concedes that 'other mechanisms may remain to distort the count rate, such as dead time due to pile-up effects and false detection of secondary pulses, which is beyond the scope of this paper'; this could bias the rate axis and hence the fitted slope, but that is a systematic-accuracy limitation, not circularity. The self-citations define the method and nomenclature, but the load-bearing evidence is independent in-orbit data, so the circularity burden is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard spectral modeling assumptions (Mn Kalpha line complex, Crab continuum shape), the cross-talk coincidence window, and the completeness of the pixel-GTI live-time correction. No new physical entities are introduced. The most fragile input is the count-rate correction, whose residual pile-up and secondary-pulse effects are explicitly outside the paper's scope.

free parameters (2)
  • Crab continuum photon index in Mn Kalpha fit band = 2 (fixed, not fitted)
    Section 3.5: the XSPEC model uses a power law with photon index fixed at 2 for the Crab continuum under the Mn lines. A different local index would bias the fitted line centroid and broadening.
  • Cross-talk coincidence window = ±25 ms
    Section 3.4: events in pixel i are removed if a pulse occurs in pixel i±1 within ±25 ms. The resolution-recovery result depends on this window; too short a window leaves contamination, too long a window removes good events.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Mn Kalpha line complex from 55Fe is well described by eight Lorentzian components (Hoelzer et al. 1997, with corrections), convolved with a Gaussian representing the instrument response.
    Section 3.5: the energy offset and FWHM are derived from this model. If the line shape model is inaccurate, the fitted offset and broadening could be biased.
  • domain assumption The Crab continuum in the 5.85-5.93 keV band is a featureless power law with photon index 2.
    Section 3.5: fixed in the XSPEC model for the Mn Kalpha fits; a different spectral shape could shift the fitted line centroids.
  • domain assumption Electrical cross-talk contamination is associated with pulses in electrically neighboring pixels (i±1) within the same quadrant within ±25 ms.
    Section 3.4: the cross-talk cut and the resolution-recovery result rely on this coincidence window and neighbor definition.
  • domain assumption The pixel-GTI correction, which divides the processed count rate by the live-time fraction, recovers the true incident count rate during PSP overflow without residual pile-up or dead time.
    Section 3.3 and Appendix: the count-rate axes in Figures 5, 6, and 8 depend on this. The authors note other mechanisms (pile-up dead time, false secondary pulses) may remain, outside the scope.
  • domain assumption The 1 Crab to count-rate conversion (333.8 cts/s array, 43.2 cts/s/pix central pixel) from heasim simulations is accurate for the GV-closed configuration.
    Section 1: used to state the validity range (about 500 mCrab) and the upper horizontal axes in Figure 5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High count rate effects in event processing for XRISM/Resolve x-ray microcalorimeter: II. Energy scale and resolution in orbit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CJ2Q3I7Q

@misc{pith2026250606692,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High count rate effects in event processing for XRISM/Resolve x-ray microcalorimeter: II. Energy scale and resolution in orbit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CJ2Q3I7Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06692}
}
abstract

The Resolve instrument on the X-ray Imaging and Spectroscopy Mission (XRISM) uses a 36-pixel microcalorimeter designed to deliver high-resolution, non-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. Although it is optimized for extended sources with low count rates, Resolve observations of bright point sources are still able to provide unique insights into the physics of these objects, as long as high count rate effects are addressed in the analysis. These effects include {the loss of exposure time for each pixel}, change on the energy scale, and change on the energy resolution. To investigate these effects under realistic observational conditions, we observed the bright X-ray source, the Crab Nebula, with XRISM at several offset positions with respect to the Resolve field of view and with continuous illumination from {$^{55}$Fe sources} on the filter wheel. For the spectral analysis, we excluded data where exposure time loss was too significant to ensure reliable spectral statistics. The energy scale at 6 keV shows a slight negative shift in the high-count-rate regime. The energy resolution at 6 keV worsens as the count rate in electrically neighboring pixels increases, but can be restored by applying a nearest-neighbor coincidence cut (``cross-talk cut''). We examined how these effects influence the observation of bright point sources, using GX 13+1 as a test case, and identified an eV-scale energy offset at 6 keV between the inner (brighter) and outer (fainter) pixels. Users who seek to analyze velocity structures on the order of tens of km~s$^{-1}$ should account for such high count rate effects. These findings will aid in the interpretation of Resolve data from bright sources and provide valuable considerations for designing and planning for future microcalorimeter missions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06692 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Images of the Crab observations in sky coordinates. The left panel shows the Xtend image for 100006010 (NE1), with the Resolve field of view overplotted. Some out-of-time events are seen in the Xtend image. The right panel shows the Resolve image which is summed from all the observations. mained closed during the observations, which limits the band pass above ∼1.8 keV. The count rate is drastically reduced by the cl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Rate of CPU consumption, the effective temperature, and the rate of FPGA-detected event candidate with all the grades averaged in the quadrant. Cyan, orange, green, and purple color in the data plot show PSP-A0, A1, B0, and B1, respectively. In the effective temperature panel, the black points are for the calibration pixel, and the colored ones are for the other pixels at the fiducial points. The horizontal lines in… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The pixel-GTI-corrected count rate map for each observation. All event grades are represented. The upper and lower numbers are the pixel number and the count rate, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples for the Mn Kα model fitting. The black bins show the spectral data. The orange line is the best fit model. The gray line is also the best fit but the energy offset is frozen at 0. (a) is the spectrum for one of the fiducial points. (b)–(d) are the ones for the…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Upper) Energy offset at 6 keV versus the pixel-GTI-corrected count rate for the Crab nebula observation. Different color shows different obser￾vation. (Middle) Same as the upper panel, but after the cross-talk cut. (Lower) Same as the upper panel, but the horizontal a…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The ratio of the effective exposure time after/before the cross talk cut. revealing a periodic fluctuation with a timescale matching the or￾bital period of the satellite (∼96 minutes), with the same periodic￾ity as the lower panel. This behavior is consistent with Hito…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Energy resolution (FWHM) at 6 keV versus the pixel-GTI-corrected count rate. The upper panel is the result using the data before the cross￾talk cut, and the lower, after the cut. The black dashed line shows the best fit model (Eq. 1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The excess of energy resolution (FWHM) versus the pixel￾GTI-corrected count rate. The data in which FWHMwithXtalk > FWHMnoXtalk are only shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The change of the effective temperature in the calibration pixel (up￾per) and the temperature on the two Xbox amplifier boards. The light￾green-shaded area shows GTI of the cleaned event file, while the dark￾gray-shaded area shows the one for the fiducial data [PITH_F…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The processed count rate for the GX 13+1 observation. disc winds (e.g., Ueda et al. 2004). XRISM observed this source on 2024 February 25, as part of the performance verification obser￾vations (OBSID=300036010, XRISM collaboration submitted) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of the Hp spectra of GX 13+1 before (black) and after (red) the cross-talk cut. The lower panel shows the residuals. 5.2.2 Energy resolution degradation in GX 13+1 Next, we investigate the energy resolution degradation in each pixel. In contrast with the Cr…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Live time fraction map. A number less than unity indicates that a PSP overflow has occured in the pixel and thus not all the events are processed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Structure of the Relativistic Fe Line in GX 340+0 as Viewed with XRISM/Resolve, NICER, and NuSTAR

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The Fe K line of GX 340+0 shows a dual-peaked structure with residual narrow emission features at the ~5% level that RELXILLNS reflection modeling alone does not reproduce.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    1979, , 228, 939, 10.1086/156922

    Cash , W. 1979, , 228, 939, 10.1086/156922

    doi:10.1086/156922 1979

  2. [2]

    P., Bialas, T

    Chiao, M. P., Bialas, T. G., Ray, K. A., et al. submitted, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems

    work page

  3. [3]

    E., Peille , P., et al

    Cucchetti , E., Eckart , M. E., Peille , P., et al. 2018, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 193, 931, 10.1007/s10909-018-1912-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s10909-018-1912-5 2018

  4. [4]

    J., Witthoeft , M

    Cucchetti , E., Smith , S. J., Witthoeft , M. C., et al. 2024, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 216, 292, 10.1007/s10909-024-03133-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s10909-024-03133-x 2024

  5. [5]

    E., Adams , J

    Eckart , M. E., Adams , J. S., Boyce , K. R., et al. 2018, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 4, 021406, 10.1117/1.JATIS.4.2.021406

    doi:10.1117/1.jatis.4.2.021406 2018

  6. [6]

    E., Brown, G

    Eckart, M. E., Brown, G. V., Chiao, M. P., et al. submitted, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems

    work page

  7. [7]

    olzer, G., Fritsch, M., Deutsch, M., H\

    H\"olzer, G., Fritsch, M., Deutsch, M., H\"artwig, J., & F\"orster, E. 1997, Phys. Rev. A, 56, 4554, 10.1103/PhysRevA.56.4554

    doi:10.1103/physreva.56.4554 1997

  8. [8]

    2014, , 561, A99, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322328

    Iaria , R., Di Salvo , T., Burderi , L., et al. 2014, , 561, A99, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322328

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322328 2014

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    2018, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 4, 011217, 10.1117/1.JATIS.4.1.011217

    Ishisaki , Y., Yamada , S., Seta , H., et al. 2018, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 4, 011217, 10.1117/1.JATIS.4.1.011217

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    L., Awaki , H., et al

    Ishisaki , Y., Kelley , R. L., Awaki , H., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12181, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder , S. Nikzad , & K. Nakazawa ...

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    L., Akamatsu , H., Azzarello , P., et al

    Kelley , R. L., Akamatsu , H., Azzarello , P., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder , T. Takahashi , & M. Bautz , 990...

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    L., Awaki, H., Balleza, J

    Kelley, R. L., Awaki, H., Balleza, J. C., et al. submitted, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems

  5. [13]

    A., Adams , J

    Kilbourne , C. A., Adams , J. S., Brekosky , R. P., et al. 2018, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 4, 011214, 10.1117/1.JATIS.4.1.011214

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    H., Mather, J

    McCammon, D., Moseley, S. H., Mather, J. C., & Mushotzky, R. F. 1984, Journal of Applied Physics, 56, 1263, 10.1063/1.334130

    1984 doi

  7. [15]

    2021, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 7, 028005, 10.1117/1.JATIS.7.2.028005

    Midooka , T., Tsujimoto , M., Kitamoto , S., et al. 2021, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 7, 028005, 10.1117/1.JATIS.7.2.028005

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    2025, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 11, 042005, 10.1117/1.JATIS.11.4.042005

    Mizumoto, M., Tamba, T., Tsujimoto, M., et al. 2025, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 11, 042005, 10.1117/1.JATIS.11.4.042005

    2025 doi

  9. [17]

    A., et al

    Mochizuki , Y., Tsujimoto , M., Kilbourne , C. A., et al. 2025, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 11, 042002, 10.1117/1.JATIS.11.4.042002

    2025 doi

  10. [18]

    S., Chiao, M

    Porter, F. S., Chiao, M. P., Eckart, M. E., et al. 2016, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 184, 498, 10.1007/s10909-016-1503-2

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    S., Boyce , K

    Porter , F. S., Boyce , K. R., Chiao , M. P., et al. 2018, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 4, 011218, 10.1117/1.JATIS.4.1.011218

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    S., Kilbourne, C

    Porter, F. S., Kilbourne, C. A., Chiao, M., et al. submitted, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems

  13. [21]

    2023, Hitomi/XRISM Micro-Calorimeter (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore), 93--123, 10.1007/978-981-99-4409-5_5

    Sato, K., Uchida, Y., & Ishikawa, K. 2023, Hitomi/XRISM Micro-Calorimeter (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore), 93--123, 10.1007/978-981-99-4409-5_5

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    2022, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed

    Sawada, M., Cumbee, R., de Vries, C., et al. 2022, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, Vol. 12181, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 1218164, 10.1117/12.2630133

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Witthoeft, M

    Smith, S. J., Witthoeft, M. C., Adams, J. S., et al. 2023, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, 33, 1, 10.1109/TASC.2023.3258908

    2023

  16. [24]

    2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Takahashi , T., Kokubun , M., Mitsuda , K., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder , T. Takahashi , & M. Bautz , 99050U...

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    2020, , 497, 4970, 10.1093/mnras/staa2254

    Tomaru , R., Done , C., Ohsuga , K., Odaka , H., & Takahashi , T. 2020, , 497, 4970, 10.1093/mnras/staa2254

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    E., et al

    Tsujimoto , M., Okajima , T., Eckart , M. E., et al. 2018, , 70, 20, 10.1093/pasj/psy008

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    2004, , 609, 325, 10.1086/420973

    Ueda , Y., Murakami , H., Yamaoka , K., Dotani , T., & Ebisawa , K. 2004, , 609, 325, 10.1086/420973

    2004 doi

  20. [28]

    G., et al

    Willingale , R., Aschenbach , B., Griffiths , R. G., et al. 2001, , 365, L212, 10.1051/0004-6361:20000114

    2001 doi

  21. [29]

    2025, , doi:10.1093/pasj/psaf023, 10.1093/pasj/psaf023

    XRISM collaboration . 2025, , doi:10.1093/pasj/psaf023, 10.1093/pasj/psaf023

    2025 doi

  22. [30]

    submitted, Nature

    ---. submitted, Nature

  23. [31]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.stat...

  24. [32]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.d...

  25. [33]

    g ` B ! X B !rF ! BQE !

    \@bibitem \@bib@author\@prev@author \@set@biblabel \@lbibitem[#1] \@bib@parse#1()\@nil \@set@biblabel \@bib@parse#1(#2)#3\@nil \@bib@author #1 @edef\@bib@year @space#2 \@empty \@set@biblabel#1 \@bib@author\@empty \@latex@warning Author name should be given for reference entry ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.