adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Metallicities of 20 Million Giant Stars Based on Gaia XP Spectra
Authors: Lin Yang, 琳 杨, Haibo Yuan, 海波 苑, Bowen Huang, 博闻 黄, Ruoyi Zhang, 若羿 张, Timothy C. Beers, Kai Xiao, 凯 肖, Shuai Xu, 帅 徐, Yang Huang, 样 黄, Maosheng Xiang, 茂盛 向, Meng Zhang, 萌 张, Jinming Zhang, 津铭 张
Figure caption: Tests with five clusters. The title of each column lists the cluster name, along with the mean and 1σ of the predicted [Fe/H] values, estimated using a Gaussian fit with 3σ clipping. The first row shows the distribution of metallicity estimates for member stars of each cluster from our results. The [Fe/H]APOGEE values are taken from APOGEE DR17 (S. R. Majewski et al. 2017). The second row displays the [Fe/H] distribution from our results, varying with MG and G, represented by the left and right vertical axes, respectively. The third row of panels show the H-R diagrams of these clusters, with the colors of the dots denoting ﹩{[{\rm{Fe}}/{\rm{H}}]}_{{\rm{mod}}}﹩ diagrams, as coded in the color bar on the right. The vertical coordinates are the same as those in the second row.
Paper: Metallicities of 20 Million Giant Stars Based on Gaia XP Spectra
Authors: Lin Yang, 琳 杨, Haibo Yuan, 海波 苑, Bowen Huang, 博闻 黄, Ruoyi Zhang, 若羿 张, Timothy C. Beers, Kai Xiao, 凯 肖, Shuai Xu, 帅 徐, Yang Huang, 样 黄, Maosheng Xiang, 茂盛 向, Meng Zhang, 萌 张, Jinming Zhang, 津铭 张
Figure caption: Comparison of [Fe/H] between this work and the SDSS/SEGUE catalog. (a) Our estimates, as a function of [Fe/H], from the SDSS/SEGUE catalog. The black solid line is the one-to-one line. (b)–(e) Δ[Fe/H] as a function of [Fe/H]SDSS, intrinsic BP − RP color, G magnitude, and E(B − V), respectively. The black solid lines represent the mean deviation and the 1σ uncertainty of the residuals. (f) The H-R diagram, color coded by Δ[Fe/H].
Paper: Metallicities of 20 Million Giant Stars Based on Gaia XP Spectra
Authors: Lin Yang, 琳 杨, Haibo Yuan, 海波 苑, Bowen Huang, 博闻 黄, Ruoyi Zhang, 若羿 张, Timothy C. Beers, Kai Xiao, 凯 肖, Shuai Xu, 帅 徐, Yang Huang, 样 黄, Maosheng Xiang, 茂盛 向, Meng Zhang, 萌 张, Jinming Zhang, 津铭 张
Figure caption: Comparisons of [Fe/H] between the three Gaia catalogs and the one with spectroscopic measurements for VMP/EMP stars (taken from the compilation of J. Hong et al. 2024), color coded by [C/Fe]. The solid red lines are the one-to-one lines. In the left panel, note the low scatter, symmetrical distribution of points around the one-to-one line, and insensitivity to [C/Fe] for the derived [Fe/H].
Paper: Metallicities of 20 Million Giant Stars Based on Gaia XP Spectra
Authors: Lin Yang, 琳 杨, Haibo Yuan, 海波 苑, Bowen Huang, 博闻 黄, Ruoyi Zhang, 若羿 张, Timothy C. Beers, Kai Xiao, 凯 肖, Shuai Xu, 帅 徐, Yang Huang, 样 黄, Maosheng Xiang, 茂盛 向, Meng Zhang, 萌 张, Jinming Zhang, 津铭 张
Figure caption: Similar to Figure 7 but for the comparison of [Fe/H] between this work and LAMOST DD-Payne catalog.
Paper: Metallicities of 20 Million Giant Stars Based on Gaia XP Spectra
Authors: Lin Yang, 琳 杨, Haibo Yuan, 海波 苑, Bowen Huang, 博闻 黄, Ruoyi Zhang, 若羿 张, Timothy C. Beers, Kai Xiao, 凯 肖, Shuai Xu, 帅 徐, Yang Huang, 样 黄, Maosheng Xiang, 茂盛 向, Meng Zhang, 萌 张, Jinming Zhang, 津铭 张
Figure caption: Distribution of [Fe/H] uncertainties in the G–[Fe/H] plane for the final sample.
Paper: Metallicities of 20 Million Giant Stars Based on Gaia XP Spectra
Authors: Lin Yang, 琳 杨, Haibo Yuan, 海波 苑, Bowen Huang, 博闻 黄, Ruoyi Zhang, 若羿 张, Timothy C. Beers, Kai Xiao, 凯 肖, Shuai Xu, 帅 徐, Yang Huang, 样 黄, Maosheng Xiang, 茂盛 向, Meng Zhang, 萌 张, Jinming Zhang, 津铭 张
Figure caption: Spatial distributions of the final sample in the Z–R plane. The left panel is color coded by number density, while the right panel is color coded by [Fe/H].
Paper: Metallicities of 20 Million Giant Stars Based on Gaia XP Spectra
Authors: Lin Yang, 琳 杨, Haibo Yuan, 海波 苑, Bowen Huang, 博闻 黄, Ruoyi Zhang, 若羿 张, Timothy C. Beers, Kai Xiao, 凯 肖, Shuai Xu, 帅 徐, Yang Huang, 样 黄, Maosheng Xiang, 茂盛 向, Meng Zhang, 萌 张, Jinming Zhang, 津铭 张
Figure caption: The [Fe/H] and G-magnitude distributions for the final sample.
Paper: A Full Active Galactic Nuclei Feedback Prescription for Numerical Models: Negative, Positive, and Hot Gas-ejection Modes
Authors: Emanuele Contini, Sukyoung K. Yi, Jinsu Rhee, Seyoung Jeon
Figure caption: As done in C24, we present the percentage of stellar mass contributed by the positive AGN feedback mode as a function of stellar mass (for central galaxies only). The predictions of FEGA24 (left panel) and FEGA25 (right panel) are shown at two redshifts: z = 0 (green lines) and z = 3 (black lines). The plots account for all stellar mass attributed to positive AGN feedback by considering all branches of the merger tree for each galaxy. There are notable differences between the positive AGN feedback implemented in C24 (left panel) and the new implementation in FEGA25 (right panel). First, the new positive AGN feedback in FEGA25 naturally and distinctly captures the expected redshift dependence, with higher efficiency at higher redshifts. Second, while in C24 there was no clear trend with stellar mass, just a larger scatter at lower mass scales (left panel), FEGA25 shows an increase in the efficiency of positive AGN feedback with stellar mass. This is particularly evident where the negative mode is also efficient, though not strong enough to heat all the cooling gas.
Paper: Observational Parameters of Blue Large-amplitude Pulsators 
Authors: Paweł Pietrukowicz, Marilyn Latour, Igor Soszyński, Francesco Di Mille, Piera Soto King, Rodolfo Angeloni, Radosław Poleski, Andrzej Udalski, Michał K. Szymański, Krzysztof Ulaczyk, Szymon Kozłowski, Jan Skowron, Dorota M. Skowron, Przemek Mróz, Krzysztof Rybicki, Patryk Iwanek, Marcin Wrona, Mariusz Gromadzki
Figure caption: Period–gravity diagram for the BLAPs. The symbols are as described in Figure 9, with the addition of TMTS-BLAP-1, OGLE-BLAP-009, and SMSS-BLAP-1 in green. The dashed line is our fitted relationship to the observations. The orange (turquoise) stripe represents the predicted periods for the fundamental (first overtone) of the low-mass pre-WD evolutionary models shown in Figure 9 (T. Kupfer et al. 2019). The equation describes the log P–log g relation for the fundamental mode of these evolutionary models. The purple lines show the predicted periods for the fundamental modes of He-shell burning stars with masses of 0.5–0.8 M⊙ (J. Lin et al. 2023).
Paper: A Full Active Galactic Nuclei Feedback Prescription for Numerical Models: Negative, Positive, and Hot Gas-ejection Modes
Authors: Emanuele Contini, Sukyoung K. Yi, Jinsu Rhee, Seyoung Jeon
Figure caption: The star formation rate–stellar mass relation at z = 0, 1, 2, 3, as predicted by FEGA24 (left panels) and FEGA25 (right panels). Both models are compared with the observed main-sequence data from D. Elbaz et al. (2007; blue lines), E. Daddi et al. (2007; red lines), A. Karim et al. (2011; purple diamonds), and K. E. Whitaker et al. (2014; brown triangles). The contours represent different percentages of the data, as indicated by the colors in the accompanying bars. The last contour encloses 90% of the full sample, while the remaining 10% are depicted by individual black dots. Both models are able to catch the overall evolution of this relation, although (apparently, see text for more details) FEGA24 seems to be more in line with observations.
Paper: Observational Parameters of Blue Large-amplitude Pulsators 
Authors: Paweł Pietrukowicz, Marilyn Latour, Igor Soszyński, Francesco Di Mille, Piera Soto King, Rodolfo Angeloni, Radosław Poleski, Andrzej Udalski, Michał K. Szymański, Krzysztof Ulaczyk, Szymon Kozłowski, Jan Skowron, Dorota M. Skowron, Przemek Mróz, Krzysztof Rybicki, Patryk Iwanek, Marcin Wrona, Mariusz Gromadzki
Figure caption: Period–gravity diagram for the BLAPs. The 15 BLAPs observed with MagE are plotted in red and the four high-gravity BLAPs of T. Kupfer et al. (2019) are plotted in blue. Open squares indicate He-poor BLAPs and filled circles He-rich BLAPs. OGLE-BLAP-030 (multimode pulsator) is indicated with an additional black circle. The dashed line indicates our linear fit with the equation. The bottom panel shows residuals from the best fit in terms of ﹩\mathrm{log}\,g﹩.
Paper: A Full Active Galactic Nuclei Feedback Prescription for Numerical Models: Negative, Positive, and Hot Gas-ejection Modes
Authors: Emanuele Contini, Sukyoung K. Yi, Jinsu Rhee, Seyoung Jeon
Figure caption: The fraction of passive galaxies as a function of stellar mass, at z = 0.2, 1, 2, 3 as predicted by FEGA24 (green regions) and FEGA25 (blue regions), compared within the observational data from A. Muzzin et al. (2013; gray regions) and from J. R. Weaver et al. (2023; red diamonds). Both models can describe the evolution with redshift of the passive fraction of galaxies up to z = 2, with FEGA25 being more accurate, but they both underestimate the observed fractions at z = 3.
Paper: A Full Active Galactic Nuclei Feedback Prescription for Numerical Models: Negative, Positive, and Hot Gas-ejection Modes
Authors: Emanuele Contini, Sukyoung K. Yi, Jinsu Rhee, Seyoung Jeon
Figure caption: The evolution of the SMF from z = 3 to z = 0, as predicted by FEGA24 (green stars) and FEGA25 (blue squares), compared with the set of observations used to calibrate the models (black lines). Additionally, we compare our predictions with those of L-Galaxies SAM (B. M. B. Henriques et al. 2020), as well as another set of observations (at z = 0 only) from different authors: C. Li & S. D. M. White (2009; cyan line), R. D’Souza et al. (2015; purple line), and M. Bernardi et al. (2018; magenta lines indicating the ±σ region). Both models accurately describe the evolution of the SMF down to z = 0.
Paper: Observational Parameters of Blue Large-amplitude Pulsators 
Authors: Paweł Pietrukowicz, Marilyn Latour, Igor Soszyński, Francesco Di Mille, Piera Soto King, Rodolfo Angeloni, Radosław Poleski, Andrzej Udalski, Michał K. Szymański, Krzysztof Ulaczyk, Szymon Kozłowski, Jan Skowron, Dorota M. Skowron, Przemek Mróz, Krzysztof Rybicki, Patryk Iwanek, Marcin Wrona, Mariusz Gromadzki
Figure caption: Proper motions in Galactic coordinates of 23 BLAPs with reliable astrometric solution (black triangles) compared to main-sequence stars from the Milky Way’s disk (blue points) and red clump giants from the Milky Way’s bulge (red points) selected from the color–magnitude diagram in the inset box. The observed sample of BLAPs is a mixture of objects located in the Galactic bulge and Galactic disk with the majority likely from the bulge.
Paper: A Full Active Galactic Nuclei Feedback Prescription for Numerical Models: Negative, Positive, and Hot Gas-ejection Modes
Authors: Emanuele Contini, Sukyoung K. Yi, Jinsu Rhee, Seyoung Jeon
Figure caption: Cosmic SFR density as a function of redshift as predicted by FEGA24 (green line) and FEGA25 (blue line), compared with the observed data from S. P. Driver et al. (2018; red crosses) and from J. C. J. D’Silva et al. (2023; magenta diamonds). FEGA25 is better able to follow the observed data than FEGA24 at redshift z > 2. This plot accounts for all galaxies in YS200 having ﹩{\rm{log}}\,({M}_{\ast }/{M}_{\odot })\geqslant 8.0﹩.
Paper: Simons Observatory: Characterization of the Large Aperture Telescope Receiver
Authors: Tanay Bhandarkar, Saianeesh K. Haridas, Jeff Iuliano, Anna Kofman, Alex Manduca, Karen Perez Sarmiento, John Orlowski-Scherer, Thomas P. Satterthwaite, Yuhan Wang, Zeeshan Ahmed, Jason E. Austermann, Kyuyoung Bae, Gabriele Coppi, Mark J. Devlin, Simon R Dicker, Peter N. Dow, Shannon M. Duff, Daniel Dutcher, Nicholas Galitzki, Jon E. Gudmundsson, Shawn W. Henderson, Johannes Hubmayr, Bradley R. Johnson, Matthew A. Koc, Brian J. Koopman, Michele Limon, Michael J Link, Tammy J. Lucas, Jenna E. Moore, Federico Nati, Michael D. Niemack, Carlos E. Sierra, Max Silva-Feaver, Robinjeet Singh, Rita F. Sonka, Suzanne T. Staggs, Robert J. Thornton, Tran Tsan, Jeff L. Van Lanen, Eve M. Vavagiakis, Michael R Vissers, Liam Walters, Mario Zannoni, Kaiwen Zheng
Figure caption: Left panel: example TES response (blue, left-axis) compared to oscillating FPB temperature (dotted green, right-axis). The temperature profile is fit with with a sine wave for an amplitude (the coupling factor) and phase delay. The 4 s delay between the recorded temperature and TES response results from the thermometer being closer to the heater than to the TES, and the thermal mass of the baseplate. Right panel: a summary of measured coupling factors using test detectors in a Single Pixel Box, with high thermal conductance and high Tc. The plot shows the coupling factor against the fraction of normal resistance each TES was biased to, with nonfunctioning or unbiased detectors removed. For each bath temperature, a model derived from detector properties is shown—the Appendix has details on this model. The agreement between the model and our measurements demonstrates that the thermal response expected for TES detectors dominates the thermal sensitivity in the LATR. Other effects, largely in the readout system such as resonator thermal sensitivity, are clearly subdominant. Resonator-only channels and unbiased detector channels showed responses (where there was a measurable response) of the order of tens to hundreds rather than millions of pA mK−1.
Paper: Simons Observatory: Characterization of the Large Aperture Telescope Receiver
Authors: Tanay Bhandarkar, Saianeesh K. Haridas, Jeff Iuliano, Anna Kofman, Alex Manduca, Karen Perez Sarmiento, John Orlowski-Scherer, Thomas P. Satterthwaite, Yuhan Wang, Zeeshan Ahmed, Jason E. Austermann, Kyuyoung Bae, Gabriele Coppi, Mark J. Devlin, Simon R Dicker, Peter N. Dow, Shannon M. Duff, Daniel Dutcher, Nicholas Galitzki, Jon E. Gudmundsson, Shawn W. Henderson, Johannes Hubmayr, Bradley R. Johnson, Matthew A. Koc, Brian J. Koopman, Michele Limon, Michael J Link, Tammy J. Lucas, Jenna E. Moore, Federico Nati, Michael D. Niemack, Carlos E. Sierra, Max Silva-Feaver, Robinjeet Singh, Rita F. Sonka, Suzanne T. Staggs, Robert J. Thornton, Tran Tsan, Jeff L. Van Lanen, Eve M. Vavagiakis, Michael R Vissers, Liam Walters, Mario Zannoni, Kaiwen Zheng
Figure caption: A rendered, cross-sectional view of the full OT (N. Zhu et al. 2021). Photons enter the OT on the right side of this figure and travel leftward until they reach the detector arrays at 100 mK (or get absorbed or reflected by another optical element first). The associated readout hardware for each array is housed in the 4 K magnetic shielding (left). The only structural mounting point for the OTs in the LATR is the 4 K flange (middle-left). Note that the LPE that is adjacent to Lens 2 is no longer installed in the OTs; we explain this further in Section 2.3.
Paper: Simons Observatory: Characterization of the Large Aperture Telescope Receiver
Authors: Tanay Bhandarkar, Saianeesh K. Haridas, Jeff Iuliano, Anna Kofman, Alex Manduca, Karen Perez Sarmiento, John Orlowski-Scherer, Thomas P. Satterthwaite, Yuhan Wang, Zeeshan Ahmed, Jason E. Austermann, Kyuyoung Bae, Gabriele Coppi, Mark J. Devlin, Simon R Dicker, Peter N. Dow, Shannon M. Duff, Daniel Dutcher, Nicholas Galitzki, Jon E. Gudmundsson, Shawn W. Henderson, Johannes Hubmayr, Bradley R. Johnson, Matthew A. Koc, Brian J. Koopman, Michele Limon, Michael J Link, Tammy J. Lucas, Jenna E. Moore, Federico Nati, Michael D. Niemack, Carlos E. Sierra, Max Silva-Feaver, Robinjeet Singh, Rita F. Sonka, Suzanne T. Staggs, Robert J. Thornton, Tran Tsan, Jeff L. Van Lanen, Eve M. Vavagiakis, Michael R Vissers, Liam Walters, Mario Zannoni, Kaiwen Zheng
Figure caption: The thermal response to vibrations at the 100 mK stage. Change in thermometer temperature over time is shown, as the vibration source sweeps through discrete frequencies (with breaks in between, where the temperature is shown in dashed lines). The x-axis has ticks and labels corresponding to each driving frequency. The largest response in this system is seen at a driving frequency of ∼26 Hz; in the LAT, the largest resonance we measured occurred at 3 Hz, and we found no significant resonant response between 21 and 28 Hz.
Paper: Simons Observatory: Characterization of the Large Aperture Telescope Receiver
Authors: Tanay Bhandarkar, Saianeesh K. Haridas, Jeff Iuliano, Anna Kofman, Alex Manduca, Karen Perez Sarmiento, John Orlowski-Scherer, Thomas P. Satterthwaite, Yuhan Wang, Zeeshan Ahmed, Jason E. Austermann, Kyuyoung Bae, Gabriele Coppi, Mark J. Devlin, Simon R Dicker, Peter N. Dow, Shannon M. Duff, Daniel Dutcher, Nicholas Galitzki, Jon E. Gudmundsson, Shawn W. Henderson, Johannes Hubmayr, Bradley R. Johnson, Matthew A. Koc, Brian J. Koopman, Michele Limon, Michael J Link, Tammy J. Lucas, Jenna E. Moore, Federico Nati, Michael D. Niemack, Carlos E. Sierra, Max Silva-Feaver, Robinjeet Singh, Rita F. Sonka, Suzanne T. Staggs, Robert J. Thornton, Tran Tsan, Jeff L. Van Lanen, Eve M. Vavagiakis, Michael R Vissers, Liam Walters, Mario Zannoni, Kaiwen Zheng
Figure caption: A rendered cross-sectional view of the LATR (N. Zhu et al. 2021). In this figure, we can see the 80 K stage (gray), 40 K stage (green), 4 K stage (purple), 1 K stage (orange), and 100 mK stage (indigo). Additionally, we show the cross section of two OTs, where individual optical components are visible. Light from the secondary LAT mirror enters the cryostat through the hexagonal windows (left) and travels through the OTs to their 100 mK stage. Finally, warm components, such as the readout electronics and the turbo-pump rack for the dilution refrigerator, are visible on the exterior of the LATR.
Paper: Simons Observatory: Characterization of the Large Aperture Telescope Receiver
Authors: Tanay Bhandarkar, Saianeesh K. Haridas, Jeff Iuliano, Anna Kofman, Alex Manduca, Karen Perez Sarmiento, John Orlowski-Scherer, Thomas P. Satterthwaite, Yuhan Wang, Zeeshan Ahmed, Jason E. Austermann, Kyuyoung Bae, Gabriele Coppi, Mark J. Devlin, Simon R Dicker, Peter N. Dow, Shannon M. Duff, Daniel Dutcher, Nicholas Galitzki, Jon E. Gudmundsson, Shawn W. Henderson, Johannes Hubmayr, Bradley R. Johnson, Matthew A. Koc, Brian J. Koopman, Michele Limon, Michael J Link, Tammy J. Lucas, Jenna E. Moore, Federico Nati, Michael D. Niemack, Carlos E. Sierra, Max Silva-Feaver, Robinjeet Singh, Rita F. Sonka, Suzanne T. Staggs, Robert J. Thornton, Tran Tsan, Jeff L. Van Lanen, Eve M. Vavagiakis, Michael R Vissers, Liam Walters, Mario Zannoni, Kaiwen Zheng
Figure caption: A diagram of the multiplexing readout design (H. McCarrick et al. 2021). A single RF transmission line is coupled to ∼900 resonators. Each resonator is inductively coupled to an RF SQUID, which is inductively coupled to a TES circuit. All of the components in this figure are found in the “UFM” block in Figure 4.
Paper: Simons Observatory: Characterization of the Large Aperture Telescope Receiver
Authors: Tanay Bhandarkar, Saianeesh K. Haridas, Jeff Iuliano, Anna Kofman, Alex Manduca, Karen Perez Sarmiento, John Orlowski-Scherer, Thomas P. Satterthwaite, Yuhan Wang, Zeeshan Ahmed, Jason E. Austermann, Kyuyoung Bae, Gabriele Coppi, Mark J. Devlin, Simon R Dicker, Peter N. Dow, Shannon M. Duff, Daniel Dutcher, Nicholas Galitzki, Jon E. Gudmundsson, Shawn W. Henderson, Johannes Hubmayr, Bradley R. Johnson, Matthew A. Koc, Brian J. Koopman, Michele Limon, Michael J Link, Tammy J. Lucas, Jenna E. Moore, Federico Nati, Michael D. Niemack, Carlos E. Sierra, Max Silva-Feaver, Robinjeet Singh, Rita F. Sonka, Suzanne T. Staggs, Robert J. Thornton, Tran Tsan, Jeff L. Van Lanen, Eve M. Vavagiakis, Michael R Vissers, Liam Walters, Mario Zannoni, Kaiwen Zheng
Figure caption: The temperature of an UFM as it is being overbiased and dropped into the transition phase during in-lab testing. The overbias results in a temperature change of Δ15 mK from the initial Tbath and then drops to operating temperature, where it remains stable. Note that the UFM is hotter than temperatures presented in Section 3; in order to bias detectors easily, we heated the DR mixing chamber stage to put the UFM temperatures at exactly 100 mK.
Paper: Simons Observatory: Characterization of the Large Aperture Telescope Receiver
Authors: Tanay Bhandarkar, Saianeesh K. Haridas, Jeff Iuliano, Anna Kofman, Alex Manduca, Karen Perez Sarmiento, John Orlowski-Scherer, Thomas P. Satterthwaite, Yuhan Wang, Zeeshan Ahmed, Jason E. Austermann, Kyuyoung Bae, Gabriele Coppi, Mark J. Devlin, Simon R Dicker, Peter N. Dow, Shannon M. Duff, Daniel Dutcher, Nicholas Galitzki, Jon E. Gudmundsson, Shawn W. Henderson, Johannes Hubmayr, Bradley R. Johnson, Matthew A. Koc, Brian J. Koopman, Michele Limon, Michael J Link, Tammy J. Lucas, Jenna E. Moore, Federico Nati, Michael D. Niemack, Carlos E. Sierra, Max Silva-Feaver, Robinjeet Singh, Rita F. Sonka, Suzanne T. Staggs, Robert J. Thornton, Tran Tsan, Jeff L. Van Lanen, Eve M. Vavagiakis, Michael R Vissers, Liam Walters, Mario Zannoni, Kaiwen Zheng
Figure caption: NEPs for a dark MF array installed in the LATR, with detectors biased on transition. The vertical dotted lines represent dark baseline specifications set for the LATR’s MF UFMs (14.12 ﹩{\rm{aW}}/\sqrt{{\rm{Hz}}}﹩ for 90 GHz, and 25.36 ﹩{\rm{aW}}/\sqrt{{\rm{Hz}}}﹩ for 150 GHz). We can split the TES into 90 GHz and 150 GHz populations based on associated bias lines.
Paper: Simons Observatory: Characterization of the Large Aperture Telescope Receiver
Authors: Tanay Bhandarkar, Saianeesh K. Haridas, Jeff Iuliano, Anna Kofman, Alex Manduca, Karen Perez Sarmiento, John Orlowski-Scherer, Thomas P. Satterthwaite, Yuhan Wang, Zeeshan Ahmed, Jason E. Austermann, Kyuyoung Bae, Gabriele Coppi, Mark J. Devlin, Simon R Dicker, Peter N. Dow, Shannon M. Duff, Daniel Dutcher, Nicholas Galitzki, Jon E. Gudmundsson, Shawn W. Henderson, Johannes Hubmayr, Bradley R. Johnson, Matthew A. Koc, Brian J. Koopman, Michele Limon, Michael J Link, Tammy J. Lucas, Jenna E. Moore, Federico Nati, Michael D. Niemack, Carlos E. Sierra, Max Silva-Feaver, Robinjeet Singh, Rita F. Sonka, Suzanne T. Staggs, Robert J. Thornton, Tran Tsan, Jeff L. Van Lanen, Eve M. Vavagiakis, Michael R Vissers, Liam Walters, Mario Zannoni, Kaiwen Zheng
Figure caption: A rendered cross-sectional view of the LAT (N. Zhu et al. 2021). The telescope yoke sits on an azimuth cone (bottom) and supports the elevation structure. The LATR is located in the receiver cabin (upper right), where it can corotate with the elevation structure and collect light reflected from the 5.4 m secondary mirror (left). See Figure 10 for a recent photograph of the LAT.
Paper: Simons Observatory: Characterization of the Large Aperture Telescope Receiver
Authors: Tanay Bhandarkar, Saianeesh K. Haridas, Jeff Iuliano, Anna Kofman, Alex Manduca, Karen Perez Sarmiento, John Orlowski-Scherer, Thomas P. Satterthwaite, Yuhan Wang, Zeeshan Ahmed, Jason E. Austermann, Kyuyoung Bae, Gabriele Coppi, Mark J. Devlin, Simon R Dicker, Peter N. Dow, Shannon M. Duff, Daniel Dutcher, Nicholas Galitzki, Jon E. Gudmundsson, Shawn W. Henderson, Johannes Hubmayr, Bradley R. Johnson, Matthew A. Koc, Brian J. Koopman, Michele Limon, Michael J Link, Tammy J. Lucas, Jenna E. Moore, Federico Nati, Michael D. Niemack, Carlos E. Sierra, Max Silva-Feaver, Robinjeet Singh, Rita F. Sonka, Suzanne T. Staggs, Robert J. Thornton, Tran Tsan, Jeff L. Van Lanen, Eve M. Vavagiakis, Michael R Vissers, Liam Walters, Mario Zannoni, Kaiwen Zheng
Figure caption: A diagram of the cold readout chain in the LATR. Each UFM is read out through two of these chains. On the right side of the diagram, “RF In” and “RF Out” are connected to the warm SMuRF electronics.
Paper: A Dual Polyphase Decomposition Overlapped Polyphase Filter Bank and Its Implementation in a Field-programmable Gate Array
Authors: Shaocong Guo, Qiao Meng, Hailong Zhang, Yazhou Zhang, Chenye Zhou, Gaojing Li, Jie Wu, Jianxun Shao
Figure caption: The structure of DPD-OPFB based on dual polyphase decomposition.
Paper: A Dual Polyphase Decomposition Overlapped Polyphase Filter Bank and Its Implementation in a Field-programmable Gate Array
Authors: Shaocong Guo, Qiao Meng, Hailong Zhang, Yazhou Zhang, Chenye Zhou, Gaojing Li, Jie Wu, Jianxun Shao
Figure caption: The enhanced dual decimation structure of the kth polyphase branch in a fractional overlap OPFB after the first polyphase decomposition.