Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 32 references

RNDR noise modeling in first-generation Single electron Sensitive Readout (SiSeRO) devices

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At 173 K, SiSeRO repetitive readout gains no measurable noise from thermal leakage or impact ionization, preserving the 1/sqrt(N) averaging trend through 1000 modeled cycles.

desk verdict Useful, coherent RNDR noise model for SiSeRO, but the impact-ionization exclusion depends on an unpublished dataset and an unquantified K factor; the thermal-leakage claim holds up. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19615 v1 pith:WYXSEFBS submitted 2026-07-21 astro-ph.IM

Tonya L. Peshel , Abigail Y. Pan , Tanmoy Chattopadhyay , Steven W. Allen , Marshall W. Bautz , Michael Cooper , Kevan Donlon , Catherine E. Grant
show 13 more authors
Sven Herrmann Jill Juneau Beverly J. LaMarr Christopher Leitz Adam B. Mantz Eric D. Miller R. Glenn Morris Declan O'Neill Peter Orel Artem Poliszczuk Gregory Y. Prigozhin Haley R. Stueber Keith Warner
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords SiSeROrepetitivenon-destructivereadoutnoisemodelingthermalleakageimpactionizationsingle-photondetectionlow-noiseCCDsX-raydetectors
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

This paper argues that two mechanisms that could add dark-current-like noise to SiSeRO detectors — thermal generation from crystal traps and impact ionization in the output transistor — do not measurably perturb repetitive non-destructive readout (RNDR) at the operating temperature of 173 K. The authors build a Monte Carlo model of the RNDR waveform, injecting electron emission from Shockley-Read-Hall trap physics and Van Overstraeten-De Man impact ionization as Poisson processes, and simulate cumulative read noise out to 1000 cycles. The model predicts that thermal leakage is negligible at 173 K and that impact ionization would require drain electric fields high enough to be excluded by existing laboratory measurements up to 200 cycles. If right, this clears the low-noise path for single-photon X-ray and UV detectors that rely on averaging many readout cycles.

What carries the argument

The argument rides on two probabilistic electron-generation mechanisms and the Monte Carlo waveform that ties them to the observable. Trap-assisted thermal leakage is described by Shockley-Read-Hall emission: Remit = sigma v_th n_c exp[-(Ec-Et)/kT], with the probability of n electrons following a Poisson distribution whose mean scales with trap density, depletion volume, and integration time. Impact ionization is described by the Van Overstraeten-De Man ionization coefficient alpha = A exp(-B/(K E)), where K is a correction factor for the poorly known drain electric field. The carrying observable is the cumulative RNDR noise, which in an ideal device falls as 1/sqrt(N); any time-dependent ex

What would settle it

Check the companion paper's F-test and bootstrap: if the slope of excess charge vs. cycle is not consistent with zero, the impact-ionization exclusion is void. Alternatively, run the same RNDR sequence at a higher temperature, say 220 K, where the model predicts thermal-leakage noise; a measured deviation from 1/sqrt(N) would confirm the SRH parameters, and its absence would strengthen the bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that at 173 K, first-generation SiSeRO devices exhibit no excess dark-current-like noise from trap-assisted thermal leakage or impact ionization over the full range of RNDR cycles examined. The evidence is a Monte Carlo simulation of the RNDR process that models transistor thermal noise and 1/f noise, then adds Poisson-distributed electron emission from two physical mechanisms: Shockley-Read-Hall generation at mid-gap traps in the depleted internal gate, and impact ionization in the high-field region near the MOSFET drain using Overstraeten impact coefficients. The thermal-leakage model predicts negligible contribution at 173 K even for a near-maximal trap density of 1e1

Load-bearing premise

The constraints collapse if the still-unpublished 200-cycle laboratory dataset does not actually show a clean 1/sqrt(N) trend, or if the real trap density exceeds the assumed 'near-maximal' level used in the thermal-leakage model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, the 1/sqrt(N) noise-averaging benefit of RNDR extends beyond 200 cycles at 173 K, making it feasible to push SiSeRO devices to sub-electron noise by running hundreds of readout cycles.
  • The 2-sigma bound of 9.61 e-/pixel/s on excess charge gives a quantitative floor that second-generation devices can be tested against.
  • Since the model is generic, it can be applied to other RNDR architectures, such as Skipper CCDs, DEPFETs, and CMOS sensors, to predict where their dark-current-like limits appear.
  • The same model warns that higher operating temperatures will bring thermal-leakage noise into the readout, so temperature control is a key lever for long RNDR chains.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The model's temperature dependence implies that, for a fixed noise budget, reducing trap density in future fabrication runs could allow the same RNDR performance at higher operating temperatures, easing cryostat requirements — a trade-off the paper does not explicitly quantify.
  • The impact-ionization exclusion is only as strong as the assumed channel geometry; a direct measurement or 3D field simulation of the drain region would either tighten the bound or force a revised correction factor K, making the exclusion testable before second-generation devices ship.
  • The reported upper limit of 9.61 e-/pixel/s is orders of magnitude above the dark-current goals of planned Earth-like exoplanet coronagraphs, so meeting those goals depends on suppressing image-area dark current, which this paper deliberately does not model.
  • A natural next experiment is to repeat the RNDR measurement at higher temperatures (for example 200–220 K), where the model predicts thermal-leakage noise should appear; the cycle count at which the 1/sqrt(N) trend breaks would calibrate the actual trap density and validate the Shockley-Read-Hall parameters.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a Monte Carlo noise model for first-generation SiSeRO devices operated in repetitive non-destructive readout (RNDR) mode. The model includes thermal read noise, 1/f noise, trap-assisted thermal leakage via Shockley-Read-Hall generation, and impact ionization in the output MOSFET. The authors claim that for the first-generation CCID-93 device at 173 K, neither thermal leakage nor impact ionization produces measurable excess dark-current-like noise up to at least 1000 RNDR cycles, and that a high electric-field impact-ionization contribution can be ruled out on the basis of no observed deviation from the 1/sqrt(N) trend in 100–200 cycle laboratory data. The empirical anchor for that exclusion is deferred to an in-preparation companion paper (Pan et al. 2026, ref. [24]).

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper provides useful evidence that RNDR readout of SiSeRO devices can be extended well beyond the currently demonstrated 200 cycles without encountering a fundamental noise floor from thermal generation or impact ionization in the output stage. The modeling is largely built on standard, externally parameterized physical models: the SRH generation rate and the Van Overstraeten-De Man impact-ionization coefficients. The authors are also transparent about the main caveats, explicitly noting that the correction factor K in Eq. (4) cannot be accurately calculated with their simple linear model and that the 100–200 cycle empirical constraint is deferred to ref. [24]. These strengths make the overall approach credible. However, the central exclusion for impact ionization is not independently checkable from this manuscript, because it depends on an unquantified parameter and on an unpublished dataset. The significance of the paper is therefore conditional on the companion analysis and on a quantitative treatment of K.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3, Eq. (4), Fig. 7] The impact-ionization exclusion rests on the correction factor K, introduced because the electric field near the drain cannot be calculated accurately with a simple linear model. K is never assigned a value or a plausible range, and the Fig. 7 curves are labeled only by effective field. The manuscript states that known operating voltages are used, but the source/drain/gate voltages, channel length, and threshold voltage are not given. Consequently the reader cannot connect the effective fields such as 4.74×10^4 V/cm to the actual device or assess how sensitive the exclusion is to K. Please provide the K value or range, the device parameters, and either a sensitivity analysis or a calibration of K against measured voltages. Without this, the statement “we can rule out such high electric field” is not reproducible.
  2. [§2.4, Fig. 8, ref. [24]] The empirical constraint that anchors the impact-ionization exclusion and the upper limits of Fig. 8 is not contained in this paper. The F-test, bootstrap analysis, and 2σ upper limit are all deferred to Pan et al. 2026 (in prep.). The logical structure is reasonable: if a high effective field produced a detectable excess by 200 cycles, the data would show it. But the sensitivity of the 200-cycle test is not documented here, so the minimum excluded excess-slope cannot be computed by the reader. If the companion analysis is incorrect or contains different systematics, the constraints could collapse. Please include the observed noise versus cycle data, the F-test and bootstrap distributions, and a statement of the minimum detectable excess rate, or clearly mark the conclusions as conditional on ref. [24].
  3. [§2.2, Fig. 4] The thermal-leakage prediction uses N_trap = 1×10^12 cm^-3 as a “hypothetical near-maximal” value, but no justification or calibration is given for this choice. This is not fatal for the main thermal-leakage claim, because the SRH rate at 173 K is exponentially small and the conclusion is robust to large variations in trap density. However, if this near-maximal value is meant to represent an upper constraint rather than merely a plausible scenario, the manuscript should cite a source or derive the value from the measured dark-current floor. Otherwise the wording “near-maximal” is unsupported.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.2] The heading “T rap-Assisted Thermal Leakage” contains a formatting artifact (“T rap”).
  2. [Eq. (1)] The text defines E_c as the conduction-band edge, but Eq. (1) uses E_C. Please use consistent notation for E_C, E_c, and E_t, and define E_t explicitly as the trap energy level.
  3. [§2.3] The sentence mentioning “the known length of the MOSFET channel, the operating voltages of the source, drain, and gate, and a nominal threshold voltage” would benefit from an explicit table of these parameters. Without them, the model is not reproducible even aside from K.
  4. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption states that the probability increases with the electric field, but it does not mention that the curves depend directly on the unquantified K. Adding a sentence noting the dependence for a representative K value would help the reader interpret the figure.
  5. [References [23] and [24]] Ref. [24] has the same title as [23] except for lowercasing “sisero.” Please clarify the relationship between the two papers and update the status if the companion paper has become available.
  6. [§2.1] The Monte Carlo simulation setup would benefit from reporting the number of realizations or pixels used for the standard-deviation estimates in Figs. 2, 4, and 7. This affects the apparent scatter of the simulated curves.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Thermal-leakage 'prediction' is partly self-definitional; impact-ionization exclusion leans on an unpublished companion paper.

  1. fitted input called prediction [§2.2 (Trap-Assisted Thermal Leakage), Fig. 4 caption]
    "The model includes a hypothetical near-maximal level of trap-assisted thermal leakage that remains undetected in the current laboratory data. The model predicts no thermal leakage effects at our operating temperature of 173 K."

    The 'near-maximal' trap level is defined by the requirement that its effect remains undetected in the current laboratory data. The model then reports as a prediction that no thermal leakage is seen at 173 K — the same null condition used to select the input. The temperature dependence of the SRH rate is external physics, so the circularity is limited to the normalization, but the headline prediction is not independent of the input choice.

  2. self citation load bearing [§2.3 (Impact Ionization), Fig. 7 and §2.4, citing [24]]
    "Because we do not observe any deviation in read noise from the 1/√N trend within our 200 RNDR cycle experiment, we can rule out such high electric field causing excess noise due to impact ionization in our device."

    The central 'rule out' rests entirely on the 200-cycle experiment, whose F-test, bootstrap, and upper limits are not presented here but deferred to Pan et al. 2026 (in prep), a companion paper with heavy author overlap. The present paper supplies no independent derivation or data for that constraint; if the companion analysis is invalid, the exclusion reduces to an unsupported assertion. This is a load-bearing self-citation rather than a constructional circularity.

full rationale

The paper's core model is built on standard external physics (SRH generation, Overstraeten–De Man ionization coefficients), so the derivation chain is not circular in most respects. However, two steps prevent a clean non-circular verdict. First, the thermal-leakage figure uses a 'near-maximal' trap density selected by the condition that it 'remains undetected in the current laboratory data,' and then reports as a prediction that no effect is present at 173 K; that specific prediction is partly manufactured by the input selection, even though the exponential temperature suppression is genuinely computed from SRH constants. Second, the impact-ionization exclusion is not self-contained: the paper explicitly grounds it in a 200-cycle experiment described only in an in-preparation companion paper [24] by overlapping authors. This is a load-bearing external citation, not a reduction to an internal input, so it is not full circularity, but it makes the central upper-limit claim unverifiable in this manuscript. The unquantified correction factor K in Eq. (4) weakens the model further, though it is a parameterization gap rather than a circular step. Overall score 4: some self-citation and one self-definitional element, but the central physical models retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard SRH and impact-ionization models plus standard RNDR statistics; its new content is the application and constraints. The genuinely unconstrained inputs are the trap density, trap energy, the impact-ionization field correction K, and unspecified 1/f amplitude; there are no new physical entities.

free parameters (4)
  • Impact ionization electric-field correction factor K
    Introduced in §2.3 (Eq. 4) to scale the drain electric field because "it is not possible to calculate this value accurately using a simple linear model." The value of K is never given; the electric-field values in Fig. 7 and the rule-out of impact ionization depend on it.
  • Trap density N_trap = 1×10^12 cm^-3
    §2.2 and Fig. 4 use this as a 'hypothetical near-maximal level ... that remains undetected in the current laboratory data.' No measurement or literature basis is given; the thermal-leakage prediction and upper bound are sensitive to it.
  • Trap energy level E_t = 0.6 eV
    §2.2 fixes the trap energy at mid-gap (~0.6 eV) 'for the calculations', treating it as the dominant SRH generation center. Not varied.
  • 1/f noise pulse amplitude
    §2.1 says 1/f noise is modeled with a 'Poissonian sequence of pulses ... with a fixed amplitude and random sign' following Pullia 2004, but the amplitude/corner frequency are never specified, so the null result in Fig. 2 is not reproducible from the text.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Shockley-Read-Hall (SRH) model describes trap-assisted generation of electron-hole pairs in the depleted internal gate.
    §2.2 uses eqs (1)-(3), citing SRH 1952 / Sah 1957; standard solid-state physics, but its parameters (cross-section, trap energy) are assumed canonical values.
  • domain assumption Van Overstraeten-De Man impact ionization coefficients A(T), B(T) apply to the SiSeRO p-MOSFET channel.
    §2.3 uses refs 30-31; the coefficients are from literature and extrapolated to 173-213 K.
  • domain assumption The readout operates in a regime where output-stage noise dominates; image-region dark current is ignored.
    §2.1 states 'Because the focus in this paper is the noise of the output stage, we do not model thermal dark current or other noise features expected to originate in the image region of the detector.'
  • standard math Averaging N independent readouts reduces uncorrelated noise as 1/√N, with no correlation between cycles.
    Used throughout to compare cumulative noise (Eq. in §2.1). Standard statistics; stated rather than derived.
  • ad hoc to paper The trap density of 1×10^12 cm^-3 is a plausible near-maximal value for the output stage.
    Fig. 4 caption qualifies it as 'hypothetical near-maximal ... remains undetected in the current laboratory data' — asserted without external evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RNDR noise modeling in first-generation Single electron Sensitive Readout (SiSeRO) devices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WYXSEFBS

@misc{pith2026260719615,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RNDR noise modeling in first-generation Single electron Sensitive Readout (SiSeRO) devices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WYXSEFBS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19615}
}
abstract

Flagship observatories require single-photon detectors with ultra-fast readout, sub-electron noise performance, and scalable large-format architectures. The X-ray Astronomy and Observational Cosmology group at Stanford, in collaboration with the MIT Kavli Institute and MIT Lincoln Laboratory, is developing readout technologies for next-generation detectors. Prototypes employing Single-electron Sensitive Readout (SiSeRO) amplifiers demonstrate excellent read noise and spectral performance using repetitive non-destructive readout (RNDR), achieving 0.5 e$^-$ noise in under 57 cycles. We have modeled noise for longer RNDR cycles, exploring probabilistic mechanisms such as thermal leakage and impact ionization. Here we present our model results, including statistical limits on dark current-like signals. Maturation of SiSeRO technology will improve detector performance at soft X-ray energies, addressing technology gaps for future X-ray and UV/visible/near-IR observatories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19615 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Schematic of the buried-channel SiSeRO output stage. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Model of the SiSeRO RNDR mode noise with thermal and 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Probability of generating 0, 1, 2 or 3 electrons via trap-assisted thermal generation. The probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulation of the effect of trap-assisted thermal leakage across 1000 RNDR cycles for three temperatures [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Impact ionization near the MOSFET drain terminal (figure not to scale). When the source/gate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The probability of generating 0, 1, 2 or 3 electrons via impact ionization. The probability increases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulation of the hypothetical situation in which we see non-negligible effects of impact ionization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Statistical limits on the expected excess charge signal for 173 K: 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references

  1. [24]

    Demonstrating sub-electron noise performance in single electron sensitive readout (sisero) devices,

    Pan, A. Y., Chattopadhyay, T., Peshel, T. L., Stueber, H. R., Herrmann, S., Orel, P., Donlon, K., Allen, S. W., Bautz, M. W., Cooper, M., LaMarr, B., Leitz, C., Miller, E., Morris, R. G., O’Neill, D., Poliszczuk, A., Prigozhin, G., Prigozhin, I., and Wilkins, D. R., “Demonstrating sub-electron noise performance in single electron sensitive readout (sisero...

    2026

  2. [1]

    and Medicine, [Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s], The National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2023)

    National Academies of Sciences, E. and Medicine, [Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s], The National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2023)

    2023

  3. [2]

    Habitable worlds observatory technology roadmap

    Bolcar, M. R. and Zhao, F., “Habitable worlds observatory technology roadmap.” [PowerPoint slides] (2024). Exoplanet Exploration Program Office Webinar Series

    2024

  4. [3]

    Progress toward fast, low-noise, low-power CCDs for Lynx and other high-energy astrophysics missions,

    Bautz, M., Burke, B., Cooper, M., Craig, D., Donlon, K., Foster, R., Grant, C. E., LaMarr, B., Leitz, C., Malonis, A., Miller, E., Prigozhin, G., Thayer, C., Allen, S., Herrmann, S., Chattopadhyay, T., and Morris, R. G., “Progress toward fast, low-noise, low-power CCDs for Lynx and other high-energy astrophysics missions,” in [Space Telescopes and Instrum...

    2020

  5. [4]

    MCRC V1: development of integrated readout electronics for next generation x-ray CCD detectors for future satellite observatories,

    Herrmann, S., Wong, J., Chattopadhyay, T., Morris, R. G., Burke, B., Prigozhin, G., Cooper, M., Craig, D., Donlon, K., Foster, R., Malonis, A., Bautz, M., and Allen, S., “MCRC V1: development of integrated readout electronics for next generation x-ray CCD detectors for future satellite observatories,” in [X-Ray, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astrono...

    2020

  6. [5]

    Performance of high frame-rate CCDs for future strategic missions,

    Bautz, M. W., Foster, R., Grant, C. E., LaMarr, B., Malonis, A., Miller, E. D., Prigozhin, G., Burke, B., Cooper, M., Donlon, K., Lambert, R., Warner, K., Young, D., Chattopadhyay, T., Herrmann, S., Morris, R. G., Leitz, C., and Allen, S., “Performance of high frame-rate CCDs for future strategic missions,” in [Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: U...

    2022

  7. [6]

    Development and characterization of a fast and low noise readout for the next generation x-ray charge-coupled devices,

    Chattopadhyay, T., Herrmann, S. C., Orel, P., Morris, R. G., Prigozhin, G. Y., Malonis, A. C., Foster, R. F., Craig, D. M., Burke, B. E., Allen, S. W., and Bautz, M. W., “Development and characterization of a fast and low noise readout for the next generation x-ray charge-coupled devices,”Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems8(2), 1...

    2022

  8. [7]

    Fast, low-noise image sensor technology for strategic x-ray astrophysics missions,

    Bautz, M. W., Miller, E. D., Prigozhin, G. Y., LaMarr, B. J., Malonis, A., Foster, R., Grant, C. E., Schneider, B., Leitz, C., Donlon, K., Prigozhin, I., Lambert, R., Cooper, M., Herrmann, S. C., Orel, P., Chattopadhyay, T., Morris, R. G., Wilkins, D. R., Stueber, H. R., Poliszczuk, A., and Allen, S. W., “Fast, low-noise image sensor technology for strate...

    2024

Show all 32 references
  1. [8]

    X-ray speed reading with the MCRC: prototype success and next generation upgrades,

    Orel, P., Herrmann, S., Chattopadhyay, T., Morris, G. R., Stueber, H., Pan, A., Allen, S. W., Wilkins, D., Prigozhin, G. Y., LaMarr, B., Foster, R., Malonis, A., Bautz, M. W., Cooper, M. J., and Donlon, K., “X-ray speed reading with the MCRC: prototype success and next generat...

    2024

  2. [9]

    Fast, low noise CCD systems for future strategic x-ray missions,

    Stueber, H. R., Pan, A. Y., Chattopadhyay, T., Allen, S. W., Bautz, M. W., Donlon, K., Grant, C. E., Herrmann, S., LaMarr, B. J., Malonis, A., Miller, E. D., Morris, R. G., Orel, P., Poliszczuk, A., Prigozhin, G. Y., and Wilkins, D. R., “Fast, low noise CCD systems for future ...

    2025

  3. [10]

    Continued developments in X-ray speed reading: fast, low noise readout for next-generation wide-field imagers,

    Herrmann, S. C., Orel, P., Chattopadhyay, T., Morris, G. R., Prigozhin, G. Y., Stueber, H. R., Allen, S. W., Bautz, M. W., Donlon, K., LaMarr, B. J., Leitz, C. W., Miller, E. D., Poliszczuk, A., and Wilkins, D. R., “Continued developments in X-ray speed reading: fast, low nois...

    2024

  4. [11]

    First results on SiSeRO devices: a new x-ray detector for scientific instrumentation,

    Chattopadhyay, T., Herrmann, S., Burke, B. E., Donlon, K., Prigozhin, G., Morris, G., Orel, P., Cooper, M., Malonis, A., Wilkins, D. R., Suntharalingam, V., Allen, S. W., Bautz, M. W., and Leitz, C., “First results on SiSeRO devices: a new x-ray detector for scientific instrum...

    2022

  5. [12]

    Improved noise perfor- mance from the next-generation buried-channel p-MOSFET SiSeROs,

    Chattopadhyay, T., Herrmann, S. C., Kaplan, M., Orel, P., Donlon, K., Prigozhin, G. Y., Morris, G. R., Cooper, M. J., Malonis, A. C., Allen, S. W., Bautz, M. W., and Leitz, C. W., “Improved noise perfor- mance from the next-generation buried-channel p-MOSFET SiSeROs,”Journal o...

    2023

  6. [13]

    The XOC X-ray Beamline: Probing Colder, Quieter, and Softer,

    Stueber, H. R., Chattopadhyaya, T., Herrmann, S. C., Orel, P., Gebre, T., Joshi, A., Allen, S. W., Morris, G., and Poliszczuk, A., “The XOC X-ray Beamline: Probing Colder, Quieter, and Softer,” in [X-Ray, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy XI],13103, 13103–77, Inter...

    2024

  7. [14]

    Design, development, and commissioning of a flexible test setup for the AXIS prototype detector,

    Pan, A. Y., Stueber, H. R., Chattopadhyay, T., Allen, S. W., Bautz, M. W., Donlon, K., Grant, C. E., Herrmann, S., LaMarr, B., Malonis, A., Miller, E. D., Morris, G., Orel, P., Poliszczuk, A., Prigozhin, G., and Wilkins, D., “Design, development, and commissioning of a flexibl...

    2025

  8. [15]

    Demonstrating repetitive non-destructive readout with SiSeRO devices,

    Chattopadhyay, T., Herrmann, S., Orel, P., Donlon, K., Prigozhin, G., Morris, G., Cooper, M., LaMarr, B., Malonis, A., Allen, S. W., Bautz, M. W., and Leitz, C., “Demonstrating repetitive non-destructive readout with SiSeRO devices,”Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instrume...

    2024

  9. [16]

    Single-electron and single-photon sensitivity with a silicon skipper ccd,

    Tiffenberg, J., Sofo-Haro, M., Drlica-Wagner, A., Essig, R., Guardincerri, Y., Holland, S., Volansky, T., and Yu, T.-T., “Single-electron and single-photon sensitivity with a silicon skipper ccd,”Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 131802 (Sep 2017)

    2017

  10. [17]

    Absolute measurement of the Fano factor using a Skipper-CCD,

    Rodrigues, D., Andersson, K., Cababie, M., Donadon, A., Botti, A., Cancelo, G., Estrada, J., Fernandez- Moroni, G., Piegaia, R., Senger, M., Haro, M. S., Stefanazzi, L., Tiffenberg, J., and Uemura, S., “Absolute measurement of the Fano factor using a Skipper-CCD,”Nuclear Instr...

    2021

  11. [18]

    Sixteen multiple- amplifier sensing charge-coupled devices and characterization techniques targeting the next generation of astronomical instruments,

    Lapi, A. J., Gimenez, B. J. I., Gamero, M. E., Blanco, C. R. C., Chierchie, F., Fernandez-Moroni, G., Holland, S., Botti, A. M., Cervantes-Vergara, B. A., Tiffenberg, J., and Estrada, J., “Sixteen multiple- amplifier sensing charge-coupled devices and characterization techniqu...

    2024

  12. [19]

    Sub- electron noise measurements on repetitive non-destructive readout devices,

    W¨ olfel, S., Herrmann, S., Lechner, P., Lutz, G., Porro, M., Richter, R., Str¨ uder, L., and Treis, J., “Sub- electron noise measurements on repetitive non-destructive readout devices,”Nuclear Instruments and Meth- ods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometer...

    2006

  13. [20]

    Perfor- mance of a kilo-pixel RNDR-DEPFET detector,

    Treberspurg, W., B¨ ahr, A., Kluck, H., Lechner, P., Ninkovic, J., Treis, J., Shi, H., and Schieck, J., “Perfor- mance of a kilo-pixel RNDR-DEPFET detector,” in [X-Ray, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy X], Holland, A. D. and Beletic, J., eds.,12191, 1219119, Inter...

    2022

  14. [21]

    Simulations and design of a single-photon cmos imaging pixel using multiple non-destructive signal sampling,

    Stefanov, K. D., Prest, M. J., Downing, M., George, E. M., Bezawada, N., and Holland, A. D., “Simulations and design of a single-photon cmos imaging pixel using multiple non-destructive signal sampling,”Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)20(2020)

    2020

  15. [22]

    Skipper-in-cmos: Nondestructive readout with subelectron noise performance for pixel detectors,

    Lapi, A. J., Sofo-Haro, M., Parpillon, B. C., Birman, A., Fernandez-Moroni, G., Rota, L., Alcalde Bessia, F., Gupta, A., Chavez Blanco, C. R., Chierchie, F., Segal, J., Kenney, C. J., Dragone, A., Li, S., Braga, D., Fenigstein, A., Estrada, J., and Fahim, F., “Skipper-in-cmos:...

    2024

  16. [23]

    Demonstrating sub-electron noise performance in single electron sensitive readout (SiSeRO) devices,

    Chattopadhyay, T., Herrmann, S., Orel, P., Donlon, K., Allen, S. W., Bautz, M. W., Cantrall, B. J., Cooper, M., LaMarr, B., Leitz, C., Miller, E., Morris, G. R., Pan, A. Y., Prigozhin, G., Prigozhin, I., Stueber, H., and Wilkins, D. R., “Demonstrating sub-electron noise perfor...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Archon: A modern controller for high performance astronomical CCDs,

    Bredthauer, G., “Archon: A modern controller for high performance astronomical CCDs,” in [Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V],9147, 1730, SPIE (July 2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    Thermal noise in field-effect transistors,

    Der Ziel, A. V., “Thermal noise in field-effect transistors,”Proceedings of the IRE50(8), 1808–1812 (1962)

    1962

  19. [27]

    Time-domain simulation of electronic noises,

    Pullia, A. and Riboldi, S., “Time-domain simulation of electronic noises,”IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science51(4), 1817–1823 (2004)

    2004

  20. [28]

    Statistics of the recombinations of holes and electrons,

    Shockley, W. and Read, W. T., “Statistics of the recombinations of holes and electrons,”Phys. Rev.87, 835–842 (Sep 1952)

    1952

  21. [29]

    Carrier generation and recombination in p-n junctions and p-n junction characteristics,

    Sah, C.-t., Noyce, R. N., and Shockley, W., “Carrier generation and recombination in p-n junctions and p-n junction characteristics,”Proceedings of the IRE45(9), 1228–1243 (1957)

    1957

  22. [30]

    Study of impact ionization coefficients in silicon with low gain avalanche diodes,

    Curr´ as Rivera, E. and Moll, M., “Study of impact ionization coefficients in silicon with low gain avalanche diodes,”IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices70(6), 2919–2926 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Measurement of the ionization rates in diffused silicon p-n junc- tions,

    Van Overstraeten, R. and De Man, H., “Measurement of the ionization rates in diffused silicon p-n junc- tions,”Solid-State Electronics13, 583–608 (1970)

    1970

  24. [32]

    First results for second generation SiSeRO CCD devices,

    Pan, A. Y., O’Neill, D., Donlon, K., Orel, P., Herrmann, S., Allen, S., Bautz, M. W., Chattopadhyay, T., Cooper, M., Grant, C. E., Juneau, J., Leitz, C., LaMarr, B., Miller, E. D., Morris, G., Peshel, T. L., Poliszczuk, A., Prigozhin, G., Prigozhin, I., Warner, K., and Stueber...

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.