Development of next-generation event-driven x-ray hybrid CMOS detectors

Abigail A. Raytsis; Abraham D. Falcone; Brynn Bortree; David M. Palmer; Gavin Houlihan; Ian Ashcroft; Joseph M. Colosimo; Kadri M. Nizam; Katie McWhirter; Killian M. Gremling

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 20 references

Development of next-generation event-driven x-ray hybrid CMOS detectors

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports a next-generation X-ray hybrid CMOS detector with a comparator in every pixel, designed to read triggered pixels at effective rates up to 10 kHz while retaining the low read noise and energy resolution of the Small-Pixel…

desk verdict A clear status report on an untested next-gen detector; the design rationale is sound, but the headline performance claims are expectations and the comparator kickback risk is not addressed. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05404 v1 pith:Q463YVIH submitted 2026-08-05 astro-ph.IM physics.ins-det

Timothy R. Emeigh , Abraham D. Falcone , Joseph M. Colosimo , Kadri M. Nizam , Lukas R. Stone , Md. Arman Hossen , Laurel ONeill , Ian Ashcroft

show 9 more authors

Kyle Bonene Brynn Bortree Zachary E. Catlin Sierra Deppe Killian M. Gremling Gavin Houlihan Katie McWhirter David M. Palmer Abigail A. Raytsis

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.IMphysics.ins-det

keywords X-rayhybridCMOSdetectorevent-drivenreadoutin-pixelcomparatorreadnoiseenergyresolutiondevelopmentSmall-PixelHCDSpeedster-EXD

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper reports a new X-ray hybrid CMOS detector design with a 1,024 by 1,024 array of 21-micron pixels, each carrying a comparator that triggers readout only for pixels exceeding a charge threshold. Full-frame readout reaches 150 Hz; event-driven readout skips dark pixels and raises effective rates to about 10 kHz. The device is based on the low-noise Small-Pixel HCD circuit, with the comparator added, so the authors expect the Small-Pixel read noise (~5.5 e-, possibly below 4 e- in high-gain strips) and energy resolution rather than the degraded resolution seen when Speedster-EXD comparators were active. The engineering units have been designed and produced but not yet received for testing, so the performance claims are expectations from design heritage.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the per-pixel comparator added to a simplified version of the Small-Pixel HCD front-end, which combines a capacitive transimpedance amplifier with in-pixel correlated double sampling. When a pixel's signal exceeds a global threshold, that pixel, or a 3x3 neighborhood, is read out by column-parallel ADCs, skipping dark pixels; this is what converts a 150 Hz full-frame imager into a detector with effective rates up to 10 kHz. The same comparator is also the main risk, since powering comparators in Speedster-EXD induced kickback on the readout chain.

What would settle it

Deliver one engineering unit, cool it to 150 K, illuminate it with an 55Fe source, and compare single-pixel Mn Kα spectra and per-pixel read noise in full-frame and 3x3 event-driven modes against the Small-Pixel baseline (5.4 e-; 2.7% FWHM) and Speedster event-driven value (4.2%). If event-driven read noise or energy resolution is statistically worse than full-frame on the same chip, or above those baselines, the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a simplified Small-Pixel pixel plus an in-pixel comparator will, together, give a single detector both low read noise and event-driven readout: roughly 5.5 e- read noise (under 4 e- in two high-gain test strips) and energy resolutions near 2.7% at Mn Kα, while reading triggered pixels at effective rates up to 10 kHz without the comparator-induced kickback that degraded Speedster-EXD event-driven energy resolution from 3.5% to 4.2% full-width at half-maximum. The paper also claims fixes for a set of bugs: Speedster-EXD's partial bad-pixel deselection and ROI blank-row readout, Small-Pixel's overly strong charge injection, and an increase in maximum substrate voltage from 100 V to 200 V to reduce charge spreading.

Load-bearing premise

The entire expected performance rests on the assumption that a simplified Small-Pixel pixel circuit with an added comparator, made on wafers from the same supplier, will reproduce the Small-Pixel read noise and energy resolution while adding event-driven readout without reintroducing the comparator kickback that degraded Speedster-EXD resolution; this has not yet been measured because the engineering units have not been delivered.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the expected performance holds, event-driven X-ray imaging can combine the best measured HCD energy resolution with high effective throughput, reducing pile-up in bright sources.
In-pixel comparators cut telemetry volume by reading only candidate events, which matters for bandwidth-limited space instruments.
The two high-gain strips, if they reach below 4 e- read noise, give a path to even lower read noise at the cost of full well; future arrays could be built entirely from that circuit.
The addressed bugs in bad-pixel deselection, ROI blank-row readout, and charge-injection states should improve event-driven readout efficiency and the fraction of clean single-pixel events.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: if the comparator no longer degrades event-driven resolution, then event-driven readout in HCDs becomes a viable low-noise mode rather than a speed-for-fidelity trade, which would strengthen the case for HCDs on future high-throughput X-ray missions.
Beyond the paper: a direct measurement of random telegraph noise in the new devices would test whether the Small-Pixel heritage plus new comparator circuitry actually lowers RTN; the comparator itself is a new potential source of bistable states.
Beyond the paper: the 200 V bias combined with larger 21-micron pixels should increase the single-pixel event fraction; if confirmed, it would reduce the need for event grading and simplify on-board processing.
Beyond the paper: the engineering-run high-gain strips provide a natural controlled experiment for whether lowering electron-conversion gain is a general route below 4 e- read noise without a full redesign.

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

Here's my read on 2608.05404. It's a status report, not a results paper: the next-generation detector described in the title has not yet been delivered for testing, and the headline performance numbers are expectations, not measurements. The paper is upfront about this at the end of Section 2 and in the conclusion, but the abstract uses 'has developed' and 'enabling effective rates' in a way that overstates what is actually in hand. If you skim abstracts, you can be forgiven for thinking this is a measured result.

What the paper does well: it gives a compact, coherent history of the PSU/Teledyne HCD work—HxRG, Speedster-EXD, BlackCAT, Small-Pixel—and it is transparent about the bugs and problems in each generation (IPC, kickback, RTN, charge-injection pinching in Small-Pixel). That background is genuinely useful for anyone in X-ray instrumentation. The design changes in the new device are concrete and plausible: simplified Small-Pixel circuit with an in-pixel comparator, same wafer supplier as Small-Pixel, user-selectable charge-injection states, higher substrate voltage (200 V), and two high-gain strips. These are legitimate engineering decisions.

The soft spots are the usual ones for a development paper, but the biggest is the one the stress test flags: comparator kickback. Section 2.3 reports that powering the Speedster-EXD comparators degraded Mn Kα FWHM from 210 eV (full-frame) to 250 eV (3×3 event-driven). The new device is described as a simplified Small-Pixel design with 'the addition of an in-pixel comparator.' There is no description of kickback mitigation, no simulations, and no test-structure data. If the same degradation appears, the device would land near 200 eV in event-driven mode, not the Small-Pixel 160 eV. The paper needs to either show how the kickback is suppressed or explicitly flag this as the key open risk. The same goes for the "simplified" pixel circuit and the pitch change—these are plausible, but they are unmeasured transfer assumptions.

There's also a minor framing issue: the paper presents prior measurements as context, not as new results. That's fine for a review, but it means the only "new" contribution is the design description and the expectations. A skeptical reader is right to say that's thin on its own.

Bottom line: this is a legitimate development report, and the design rationale is sound. It deserves refereeing, but for a proceedings-style venue with revision. Require the abstract to say 'expected performance,' require a paragraph on the kickback risk and what will be done to test it, and it will be a useful paper for detector developers. I wouldn't cite it for a result, but I'd cite it as a status reference. Reading group: maybe when the test results come back.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reviews the lineage of X-ray hybrid CMOS detectors developed by Penn State with Teledyne Imaging Sensors, covering the H1RG, H2RG, Speedster-EXD, and Small-Pixel HCDs, and presents a next-generation device: a 1,024 x 1,024 array of 21-micron pixels with a per-pixel comparator for event-driven readout, full-frame readout at up to 150 Hz, and effective event-driven rates up to 10 kHz. The new device is described as a simplified version of the Small-Pixel HCD front end plus an in-pixel comparator, with the same wafer manufacturer as the Small-Pixel HCD. The central claim is that it will combine Small-Pixel-class read noise (about 5.5 e-, possibly below 4 e- in high-gain strips) and energy resolution (2.7%, 160 eV at Mn K alpha) with Speedster-EXD-style event-driven capability. The authors state explicitly that completed devices have not yet been delivered for testing, so the expected performance is an inheritance-based extrapolation from prior devices.

Significance. If the expected performance is realized, the device would be a meaningful advance: low-noise event-driven X-ray imaging at high effective rate, relevant to future Lynx-class observatories and small-satellite missions; the in-flight operation of Speedster-EXD on BlackCAT strengthens the maturity of the device family. The paper's strengths are its honest framing, with expected-not-measured performance clearly flagged in Sections 2 and 4, and the fact that the historical performance numbers come from the authors' peer-reviewed prior publications. The enumerated fixes for known bugs (column deselection, ROI-row readout, charge-injection nonlinearity, 200 V substrate bias) are concrete and useful to the community. However, the headline 'best of both worlds' claim rests on two unmeasured transfer assumptions that the manuscript does not analyze quantitatively: the effect of adding a comparator on event-driven energy resolution, and the effect of the simplified front-end and larger pixel pitch on read noise.

major comments (2)

[Sect. 3 (vs. Sect. 2.3)] The central claim that the new device will provide Small-Pixel-class energy resolution in event-driven mode is not supported by the material presented, because the paper's own data show that the predecessor event-driven design suffers comparator kickback and Sect. 3 does not describe any mitigation. Section 2.3 reports that powering the Speedster-EXD comparators degrades Mn K alpha FWHM from 3.5% (210 eV) in full-frame mode to 4.2% (250 eV) in 3x3 event-driven mode. Section 3 introduces the new comparator only as 'the addition of an in-pixel comparator,' with no discussion of coupling to the readout node, no simulation, and no test-structure measurements. If the same roughly 40 eV degradation applied to the Small-Pixel 2.7% (160 eV) full-frame resolution, the event-driven FWHM would be about 200 eV (about 3.4%), which is not the Small-Pixel energy resolution claimed. The authors should provide an analysis (circuit simulation or a design argument for reduced coupling), test-structure data, or an explicit event-driven energy-resolution expectation that includes the kickback penalty.
[Sect. 3 and Sect. 4] The expected read-noise and energy-resolution values are quoted as point numbers (about 5.5 e-, and below 4 e- in the high-gain strips) with no noise budget and no sensitivity analysis for the two deliberate departures from the measured Small-Pixel HCD: the 'simplified' pixel circuit and the increase in pitch from 12.5 to 21 micrometers. Read noise is set directly by the input-node capacitance and CTIA design, both of which change in this design, so the 5.4 e- measured on the Small-Pixel prototype cannot simply be carried over without an estimate of the conversion gain and noise contribution at the larger pitch. Likewise, the claim that the roughly 33% and roughly 90% gain strips will reach below 4 e- rests on the assertion that the added amplifier stages contribute 'minimal additional electronics noise,' which is asserted rather than quantified. A short noise budget (input capacitance estimate, conversion gain, comparator power-supply coupling) would make the expectations quantitatively credible.

minor comments (5)

[Sect. 1 and Sect. 2.1] '1,024 x 1,204' in Sect. 1 and '1,024 x 10,24' in Sect. 2.1 are typos for 1,024 x 1,024.
[Sect. 2.2] 'capacitive transimpedence amplifier' should be 'capacitive transimpedance amplifier'.
[Sect. 3] 'tripped a compartor' should be 'tripped a comparator'.
[Sect. 3] The strings 'by~33%', 'by~90%', and '<4 e-' appear to be LaTeX-rendering artifacts; they should be rendered as 'by ~33%', 'by ~90%', and '<4 e-'.
[Sect. 3] The basis for the expected 'lower RTN (compared to the Speedster-EXD)' is not documented, since Sect. 2.5 reports no RTN measurements for the Small-Pixel HCDs; a sentence or citation quantifying RTN in the Small-Pixel HCDs would let the reader evaluate this expectation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: expected performance is an engineering extrapolation from independently measured prior devices, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a next-generation HCD will combine the read noise and energy resolution of the Small-Pixel HCD with the event-driven readout of the Speedster-EXD, based on the statement that 'Each pixel is based on a simplified version of the Small-Pixel HCD design with the addition of an in-pixel comparator to enable event-driven readout.' This is an expectation from design heritage, not a derived result: the paper does not fit any parameter to a subset of data and then predict a closely related quantity, nor does it define Small-Pixel performance in terms of the new device's expected performance. The prior Small-Pixel and Speedster-EXD measurements are cited from the authors' own published work, but those are separate, externally falsifiable laboratory characterizations (e.g., 5.4 e- read noise and 2.7% Mn Kalpha FWHM for Small-Pixel; 3.5% full-frame and 4.2% event-driven FWHM for Speedster-EXD), so the self-citations carry independent evidence rather than load-bearing circular support. The paper explicitly acknowledges that completed devices have not yet been received for testing, which means the anticipated performance is an unverified transfer assumption; however, an unmeasured assumption is a correctness or risk concern, not circular reasoning. The comparator kickback issue identified in Section 2.3 is a genuine risk to the claim, but the paper does not redefine or derive away that risk, and no equation or fitting step makes the prediction equivalent to its inputs. Accordingly, no circular step is present, and the score is 0.

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

The central expected-performance claims rest on untested design assumptions: performance transfer from Small-Pixel to the new 21-micron pixel with comparator, charge-spreading reduction from higher substrate bias, and minimal added noise from high-gain strips. No free parameters are fitted to data, and no new physical entities are postulated.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Performance inheritance from Small-Pixel design
Section 3 states 'We thus expect a device with the read noise, energy resolution, and lower RTN (compared to the Speedster-EXD) of the Small-Pixel HCD while having the event-driven capabilities of the Speedster-EXD.' This transfer from a 12.5-micron pixel device to a 21-micron pixel device with an added comparator is assumed, not tested.
domain assumption Higher substrate voltage reduces charge spreading
Section 3 states 'the significantly higher substrate voltage, we expect reduced charge spreading and a larger fraction of single pixel events'. No measurement is provided for the new 200 V configuration, and the relationship to pixel size is an extrapolation.
domain assumption High-gain strips add minimal noise
Section 3 states 'We expect this change to add minimal additional electronics noise while simultaneously lessening the conversion of what noise there is to its electron equivalent' and sets a target readout noise below 4 e-. This is an assumption about the circuit behavior, with no measured noise data.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Development of next-generation event-driven x-ray hybrid CMOS detectors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q463YVIH

@misc{pith2026260805404,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Development of next-generation event-driven x-ray hybrid CMOS detectors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q463YVIH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05404}
}

read the original abstract

The Penn State University High Energy Astrophysics Detector and Instrumentation Lab, in collaboration with Teledyne Imaging Sensors, has developed a next-generation event-driven X-ray hybrid CMOS detector. This detector is an HCD with a 1,024x1,024 array of 21-micron pitch pixels, featuring a comparator in each pixel to enable event-driven readout. While the full frame operation of this detector can reach readout speeds of up to 150 Hz, this event-driven operation allows readout of only those pixels that surpass a user-set charge threshold, enabling effective rates of up to 10 kHz. Here we report on the past detector development efforts at Penn State and describe these new detectors and expected performance improvements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05404 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** 150 K H1RG single-pixel event spectra for Al K [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** 150 K H2RG single-pixel event spectra for O K [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: 150 K Speedster-EXD single-pixel event spectra for Mn K [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Full frame and 3×3 event driven readout of a Speedster-EXD detector, respectively. While operating in event driven readout, effective readout rates of up to 10 kHz can be reached. However, there are two detrimental impacts on the performance of the detectors: when the …

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Reconstructed image from events detected by Speedster-EXD550 detectors onboard BlackCAT. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Single-pixel event spectra for Mn Kα on the left and O Kα, Mg Kα, and Al Kα on the right. 3. NEXT GENERATION X-RAY HCDS PSU and TIS have developed a next-generation X-ray HCD and are in the progress of producing the initial engineering units of this device. This device…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: CAD model of the next-generation X-ray HCD. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

Measuring the X-ray quantum efficiency of a hybrid CMOS detector with 55Fe,

Bongiorno, S., Falcone, A., Prieskorn, Z., Griffith, C., and Burrows, D., “Measuring the X-ray quantum efficiency of a hybrid CMOS detector with 55Fe,”Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment785, 87–92 (2015)

work page 2015
[2]

Measuring the soft x-ray quantum efficiency of a hybrid CMOS detector,

Colosimo, J. M., Falcone, A. D., Wages, M. J., Hull, S. V., LaRocca, D. M., Burrows, D. N., Armstrong, C. R., McCormick, G., Range, M., and Hancock, F., “Measuring the soft x-ray quantum efficiency of a hybrid CMOS detector,”Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems8(2), 026003 (2022)

work page 2022
[3]

Quantum Efficiency of the Speedster-EXD550 Hybrid CMOS Detector in the Soft X-ray Band,

Hossen, M. A., Colosimo, J. M., Falcone, A. D., Stone, L. R., Emeigh, T., Wages, M., Ashcroft, I. T., Bevidas, W. A., Bortree, B., Catlin, Z. E., Deppe, S., Gremling, K. M., Nizam, K. M., Oneill, L., , and Raytsis, A. A., “Quantum Efficiency of the Speedster-EXD550 Hybrid CMOS Detector in the Soft X-ray Band,”Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instrument...

work page 2026
[4]

Large-area visible arrays: performance of hybrid and monolithic alternatives,

Kozlowski, L. J., Bai, Y., Loose, M., Joshi, A. B., Hughes, G. W., and Garnett, J. D., “Large-area visible arrays: performance of hybrid and monolithic alternatives,” in [Survey and Other Telescope Technologies and Discoveries], Tyson, J. A. and Wolff, S., eds.,4836, 247 – 259, International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE (2002)

work page 2002
[5]

D., [X-ray Hybrid CMOS Detectors in Astronomy], ch

Falcone, A. D., [X-ray Hybrid CMOS Detectors in Astronomy], ch. 10, 199–209, World Scientific Publishing (2021)

work page 2021
[6]

High-energy proton ra- diation damage experiment on a hybrid CMOS detector,

Bray, E., Falcone, A. D., Wages, M., Burrows, D. N., Brune, C. R., and Meisel, Z., “High-energy proton ra- diation damage experiment on a hybrid CMOS detector,”Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems6(1), 016002 (2020)

work page 2020
[7]

Overview of the high-definition x-ray imager instrument on the Lynx x-ray surveyor,

Falcone, A. D., Kraft, R. P., Bautz, M. W., Gaskin, J. A., Mulqueen, J. A., and Swartz, D. A., “Overview of the high-definition x-ray imager instrument on the Lynx x-ray surveyor,”Journal of Astronomical Tele- scopes, Instruments, and Systems5(2), 021019 (2019)

work page 2019
[8]

HA W AII-2RG: a 2kx2k CMOS multiplexer for low- and high-background astronomy applications,

Loose, M., Farris, M. C., Garnett, J. D., Hall, D. N. B., and Kozlowski, L. J., “HA W AII-2RG: a 2kx2k CMOS multiplexer for low- and high-background astronomy applications,” in [IR Space Telescopes and Instruments], Mather, J. C., ed.,4850, 867 – 879, International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE (2003)

work page 2003

Show all 20 references

[9]

Characterization of an x-ray hybrid CMOS detector with low interpixel capacitive crosstalk,

Griffith, C. V., Bongiorno, S. D., Burrows, D. N., Falcone, A. D., and Prieskorn, Z. R., “Characterization of an x-ray hybrid CMOS detector with low interpixel capacitive crosstalk,” in [High Energy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy V], Holland, A. D. and Beletic,...

2012
[10]

Characterization of Si hybrid CMOS detectors for use in the soft X-ray band,

Prieskorn, Z., Griffith, C. V., Bongiorno, S. D., Falcone, A. D., and Burrows, D. N., “Characterization of Si hybrid CMOS detectors for use in the soft X-ray band,”Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associa...

2013
[11]

Hybrid CMOS x- ray detectors: the next generation for focused x-ray telescopes,

Falcone, A. D., Burrows, D. N., Bai, Y., Farris, M., Cook, R., and Bongiorno, S., “Hybrid CMOS x- ray detectors: the next generation for focused x-ray telescopes,” in [UV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XV], Siegmund, O. H., ed.,6686, 668602, Internat...

2007
[12]

Interpixel capaci- tance in large format CMOS hybrid arrays,

Finger, G., Dorn, R., Meyer, M., Mehrgan, L., Moorwood, A. F. M., and Stegmeier, J., “Interpixel capaci- tance in large format CMOS hybrid arrays,” in [High Energy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy II], Dorn, D. A. and Holland, A. D., eds.,6276, 62760F, Internatio...

2006
[13]

Recent X-ray hybrid CMOS detector developments and measurements,

Hull, S. V., Falcone, A. D., Burrows, D. N., Wages, M., Chattopadhyay, T., McQuaide, M., Bray, E., and Kern, M., “Recent X-ray hybrid CMOS detector developments and measurements,” in [UV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XX], Siegmund, O. H., ed.,10397,...

2017
[14]

Speedster-EXD: a new event-driven hybrid CMOS x-ray detector,

Griffith, C. V., Falcone, A. D., Prieskorn, Z. R., and Burrows, D. N., “Speedster-EXD: a new event-driven hybrid CMOS x-ray detector,”Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems2(1), 016001 (2016)

2016
[15]

BlackCAT: an upcoming soft x-ray coded aperture telescope on a 6U CubeSat,

Falcone, A. D., Colosimo, J. M., Wages, M., Betts, M., Bevidas, W. A., Bortree, B., Buffington, J. C., Burrows, D. N., Catlin, Z. E., Emeigh, T., Forstmeier, T., Fox, D. B., Gremling, K. M., Hossen, M. A., Nizam, K. M., Palmer, D. M., Reichard, C. S., Scigliani, A. C., Stone, ...

2024
[16]

Mechanical design and implementation of the BlackCAT payload,

Wages, M., ONeill, L., Falcone, A. D., Colosimo, J. M., Ashcroft, I., Betts, M., Bevidas, W. A., Bortree, B., Burrows, D. N., Catlin, Z. E., Deppe, S., Emeigh, T. R., Forstmeier, T., Fox, D. B., Gremling, K. M., Hartmann, D., Hossen, M. A., Palmer, D. M., Raytsis, A. A., Stone...

2025
[17]

Calibration measurements for the BlackCAT CubeSat x-ray coded aperture telescope,

Emeigh, T. R., Falcone, A. D., Colosimo, J. M., Wages, M., Stone, L. R., Nizam, K. M., Palmer, D. M., Catlin, Z., Hossen, M. A., Jr., W. A. B., Hartmann, D., O’Neill, L., Ashcroft, I., Betts, M., Bortree, B., Burrows, D. N., Deppe, S., Forstmeier, T., Fox, D. B., Gremling, K. ...

2025
[18]

Ground calibration of the BlackCAT CubeSat x-ray Coded Aperture Telescope,

Colosimo, J. M., Falcone, A. D., Wages, M., Emeigh, T., Stone, L. R., Palmer, D. M., Catlin, Z., Nizam, K. M., Hossen, M. A., Betts, M., Jr., W. A. B., Bortree, B., Buffington, J. C., Burrows, D. N., Forstmeier, T., Fox, D. B., Gremling, K. M., Reichard, C., Scigliani, A. C., ...

2024
[19]

Hybrid CMOS detectors for the Lynx x-ray surveyor high definition x-ray imager,

Hull, S. V., Falcone, A. D., Bray, E., Wages, M., McQuaide, M., and Burrows, D. N., “Hybrid CMOS detectors for the Lynx x-ray surveyor high definition x-ray imager,”Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems5(2), 021018 (2019)

2019
[20]

A Low-Noise Small-pixel Hybrid CMOS Detector for future X-ray Observatories,

Stone, L. R., Falcone, A. D., Colosimo, J. M., Emeigh, T., Nizam, K. M., Hossen, M. A., ONeill, L., Ashcroft, I. T., Jr., W. A. B., Bortree, B., Catlin, Z. E., Deppe, S., Gremling, K., Hartmann, D., and Raytsis, A. A., “A Low-Noise Small-pixel Hybrid CMOS Detector for future X...

2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Measuring the X-ray quantum efficiency of a hybrid CMOS detector with 55Fe,

Bongiorno, S., Falcone, A., Prieskorn, Z., Griffith, C., and Burrows, D., “Measuring the X-ray quantum efficiency of a hybrid CMOS detector with 55Fe,”Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment785, 87–92 (2015)

work page 2015

[2] [2]

Measuring the soft x-ray quantum efficiency of a hybrid CMOS detector,

Colosimo, J. M., Falcone, A. D., Wages, M. J., Hull, S. V., LaRocca, D. M., Burrows, D. N., Armstrong, C. R., McCormick, G., Range, M., and Hancock, F., “Measuring the soft x-ray quantum efficiency of a hybrid CMOS detector,”Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems8(2), 026003 (2022)

work page 2022

[3] [3]

Quantum Efficiency of the Speedster-EXD550 Hybrid CMOS Detector in the Soft X-ray Band,

Hossen, M. A., Colosimo, J. M., Falcone, A. D., Stone, L. R., Emeigh, T., Wages, M., Ashcroft, I. T., Bevidas, W. A., Bortree, B., Catlin, Z. E., Deppe, S., Gremling, K. M., Nizam, K. M., Oneill, L., , and Raytsis, A. A., “Quantum Efficiency of the Speedster-EXD550 Hybrid CMOS Detector in the Soft X-ray Band,”Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instrument...

work page 2026

[4] [4]

Large-area visible arrays: performance of hybrid and monolithic alternatives,

Kozlowski, L. J., Bai, Y., Loose, M., Joshi, A. B., Hughes, G. W., and Garnett, J. D., “Large-area visible arrays: performance of hybrid and monolithic alternatives,” in [Survey and Other Telescope Technologies and Discoveries], Tyson, J. A. and Wolff, S., eds.,4836, 247 – 259, International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE (2002)

work page 2002

[5] [5]

D., [X-ray Hybrid CMOS Detectors in Astronomy], ch

Falcone, A. D., [X-ray Hybrid CMOS Detectors in Astronomy], ch. 10, 199–209, World Scientific Publishing (2021)

work page 2021

[6] [6]

High-energy proton ra- diation damage experiment on a hybrid CMOS detector,

Bray, E., Falcone, A. D., Wages, M., Burrows, D. N., Brune, C. R., and Meisel, Z., “High-energy proton ra- diation damage experiment on a hybrid CMOS detector,”Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems6(1), 016002 (2020)

work page 2020

[7] [7]

Overview of the high-definition x-ray imager instrument on the Lynx x-ray surveyor,

Falcone, A. D., Kraft, R. P., Bautz, M. W., Gaskin, J. A., Mulqueen, J. A., and Swartz, D. A., “Overview of the high-definition x-ray imager instrument on the Lynx x-ray surveyor,”Journal of Astronomical Tele- scopes, Instruments, and Systems5(2), 021019 (2019)

work page 2019

[8] [8]

HA W AII-2RG: a 2kx2k CMOS multiplexer for low- and high-background astronomy applications,

Loose, M., Farris, M. C., Garnett, J. D., Hall, D. N. B., and Kozlowski, L. J., “HA W AII-2RG: a 2kx2k CMOS multiplexer for low- and high-background astronomy applications,” in [IR Space Telescopes and Instruments], Mather, J. C., ed.,4850, 867 – 879, International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE (2003)

work page 2003