pith. sign in

arxiv: 1906.11240 · v1 · pith:TOLW4VKJnew · submitted 2019-06-26 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.IM· gr-qc

First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. III. Data Processing and Calibration

The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 15:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.IMgr-qc
keywords Event Horizon TelescopeM87black holeVLBIdata calibrationradio interferometrysupermassive black holeclosure quantities
0
0 comments X

The pith

EHT observations of M87, after calibration with three pipelines, detect two nulls in correlated flux density at 3.4 and 8.3 giga-lambda plus day-scale variability in closure quantities.

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

The paper processes 2017 EHT 1.3 mm data on M87 and 3C 279 using three independent pipelines to handle rapid phase fluctuations and array heterogeneity. It validates the resulting amplitudes and phases against quality tests that bound baseline systematics at 2 percent in amplitude and 1 degree in phase. The calibrated M87 visibilities show nulls at specific spatial frequencies and evolving closure phases and amplitudes on timescales of days. These features indicate that the compact emission around the central black hole changes on light-crossing times of a few billion-solar-mass object. The measurements supply the first data set capable of producing horizon-scale images of M87.

Core claim

The M87 data reveal the presence of two nulls in correlated flux density at ~3.4 and ~8.3 giga-lambda and temporal evolution in closure quantities, indicating intrinsic variability of compact structure on a timescale of days, or several light-crossing times for a few billion solar-mass black hole. These measurements provide the first opportunity to image horizon-scale structure in M87.

What carries the argument

Three independent pipelines for phase calibration and fringe detection, each adapted to the EHT's wide bandwidth and heterogeneous array, that produce consistent total-intensity amplitude and phase products.

If this is right

  • The calibrated data set is the first that can be used to reconstruct horizon-scale images of M87.
  • The detected variability occurs on timescales comparable to a few light-crossing times of a several-billion-solar-mass black hole.
  • Baseline systematic errors are limited to 2 percent in amplitude and 1 degree in phase across the array.
  • The same processing methods apply to the simultaneous 3C 279 observations obtained in the same campaign.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Future multi-epoch EHT campaigns can track structural changes in M87 on weekly or shorter cadences to map the flow near the event horizon.
  • The null positions supply direct constraints on the radial brightness profile that any image-reconstruction algorithm must reproduce.
  • Comparison of these 1.3 mm nulls with simultaneous or near-simultaneous observations at other wavelengths can test whether the same emitting region is seen across frequencies.

Load-bearing premise

The quality-assurance tests across the three pipelines are sufficient to confirm that remaining systematic errors stay below 2 percent in amplitude and 1 degree in phase and do not create or erase the reported nulls and variability.

What would settle it

An independent reduction of the same 2017 raw visibility data that finds no nulls near 3.4 or 8.3 giga-lambda or that shows closure quantities stable to within the stated error bars across the week-long campaign.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1906.11240 by The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The eight EHT 2017 stations over six geographic locations as viewed from the equatorial plane. Solid baselines represent mutual visibility on M87 (+12° decl.), while dashed baselines to SPT are also present for 3C 279 (−6° decl.). 2 The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 875:L3 (32pp), 2019 April 10 The EHT Collaboration et al [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: EHT 2017 observing schedules for M87 and 3C 279 covering the four days of observations. Empty rectangles represent scans that were scheduled, but were not observed successfully due to weather, insufficient sensitivity, or technical issues. The filled rectangles represent scans corresponding to detections available in the final data set. Scan duration varies between 3 and 7 minutes, as reflected by the widt… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Data processing pathway of an EHT observation from recording to source parameter estimation (images, or other physical parameters). At the calibration stage, instrumental and environmental gain systematics are estimated and removed from the data so that a smaller and simpler data product can be used for source model fitting at a downstream analysis stage. 4 The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 875:L3 (32pp),… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time and frequency resolution of EHT 2017 data as it is recorded and processed. Correlation parameters for the EHT are chosen to be compatible with ALMA’s recorded sub-bands that are 62.5 MHz wide, overlap slightly, and have starting frequencies aligned to 1/(32 μs). The raw output after calibration and reduction maintains the original correlator accumulation of 0.4 s, but averages over each 58 MHz spectra… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Stages of the EHT-HOPS pipeline and post-processing steps, as described in the text. The first five stages, shown in the left box, are iterations of HOPS fringe fitter fourfit. Here, a comprehensive phase calibration model is gradually built for the data. At the end of the five fourfit stages, the correlation coefficients are evaluated at a single global (station-based) set of relative delays and delay-rat… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: EHT data processing stages of rPICARD. Instrumental amplitude calibration effects are described in the top-left box. Phases for the calibrator sources are corrected first to solve for instrumental effects (second box) and science targets are phase-calibrated after the instrumental effects have been solved (third box). Finally, post-processing steps are done outside of CASA for amplitude calibration (fourth… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Stages of the AIPS fringe-fitting pipeline and post-processing steps. The pipeline begins with direct data editing (interactively or via input correction and flag tables) and amplitude normalization (first box). The phase calibration process then follows via four steps with the AIPS fringe fitter KRING to solve for phase and delay offsets and rates (second box). Finally, post-processing steps are done outs… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example of SEFD values during a single night of the 2017 EHT observations (April 11, low-band RCP). Values for 3C 279 are marked with full circles, values for M87 are marked with empty diamonds. ALMA SEFDs have been multiplied by 10 in this plot. The SPT is observing 3C 279 at an elevation of just 5°. 8, resulting in an uncharacteristically high SEFD due to the large airmass. 113 EHT Memo Series: https://e… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Example of a gain curve fit to single-dish normalized flux density measurements of calibrators at the SMT (Issaoun et al. 2017b). 10 The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 875:L3 (32pp), 2019 April 10 The EHT Collaboration et al [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Stages of visibility amplitude calibration illustrated with the April 11 HOPS data set on M87 (left) and 3C 279 (right), as a function of projected baseline length. The two frequency bands are coherently scan-averaged separately and the final amplitudes are averaged incoherently across bands. Top: S/N of the correlated flux density component after phase calibration, both RCP and LCP. Middle: flux-density … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Cumulative histogram of Stokes I S/N in the HOPS data set for all observations of M87 and 3C 279, using fully averaged data. Solid curves represent baselines to ALMA, while the dashed curves show all other baselines. 15 The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 875:L3 (32pp), 2019 April 10 The EHT Collaboration et al [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: shows the aggregate baseline coverage for EHT 2017 observations of M87 and 3C 279 via the HOPS pipeline. The coverage and data properties via the other two pipelines are comparable. Our shortest baselines are between co-located sites (SMA–JCMT and ALMA–APEX). These baselines are sensitive to arcsecond-scale structure, while our longest baselines are sensitive to microarcsecond-scale structure. For M87, th… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: shows the correlated flux density after amplitude and network calibration as a function of baseline length for all four days of observations of M87 via the HOPS pipeline. The network-calibrated amplitudes show broad consistency over different days, and are consistent between pipelines (Section 8.5). The majority of notable low-amplitude outliers across days are due to reduced efficiency of the JCMT or the… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Selection of M87 closure phases (left and middle columns) and log closure amplitudes (right column) as a function of Greenwich Mean Sidereal Time (GMST) for all four observed nights from the HOPS data set. Plotted uncertainties denote ±1σ ranges from thermal noise in the fully averaged data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Measured residual relative delays for selected M87 baselines on April 11, reported by the HOPS pipeline (Section 5.1) prior to explicit fringe closure. The top panel shows smooth delay trends over the night for both parallel hands, LL (dots) and RR (crosses). The bottom panel shows the sum of the delays on this closed triangle, which is consistent with the expected value of zero to within statistical erro… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Delay and delay-rate differences between RR and LL parallel-hand fringe detections (SN 7 > ) from the HOPS pipeline in units of thermal measurement uncertainty, along with the fraction of 3σ outliers. A small amount of systematic error is added in quadrature to delay (1 ps) and delay-rate (0.1 fs/s). The RR−LL differences are formed before fringe closure (after which they are zero by construction). These … view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Joint M87 and 3C 279 cumulative histograms of amplitude ratios between coherent averaging for entire scans (Ascan), and coherent averaging for 2 s before incoherent averaging over scans (A2s). The gray histogram shows the results from the HOPS pipeline with no atmospheric phase correction applied. For each pipeline, the fraction of data with coherence above 90% is indicated. 20 The Astrophysical Journal L… view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Normalized distributions of trivial closure phases for 3C 279 in three data reduction pipelines, before (blue) and after (red) accounting for the residual systematic uncertainties. Numbers indicate the fraction of 3σ outliers. 21 The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 875:L3 (32pp), 2019 April 10 The EHT Collaboration et al [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Consistency of visibility amplitudes (top), closure phases (middle), and log closure amplitudes (bottom) between the three reduction pipelines. Scan-averaged single-band Stokes I data are used. 22 The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 875:L3 (32pp), 2019 April 10 The EHT Collaboration et al [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Closure statistics distributions after inflating errors by the amount of non-closing systematics recommended in Section 8.4.5. The plots follow the same order as the tests reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Scatter plots of complex correlation coefficient amplitudes for HOPS–CASA and HOPS–AIPS pairs of pipelines. Data are fully averaged, with an S/N > 1 threshold applied. For each detection, the mean rij of available RCP and LCP components in the low and high band is given. Detections only present in one of the pipelines are shown with a fixed value of 5 × 10−7 for the missing pipeline, and in some cases rep… view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Comparison of M87 closure phases between the three fringe-fitting pipelines for selected triangles. April 6 is shown in the top row, April 11 in the bottom row. The pipelines are offset slightly in time for clarity (HOPS −3 minutes, CASA at the original timestamp, AIPS +3 minutes). Plotted uncertainties denote ±1σ ranges from thermal noise in the fully averaged data set. For the two Hawaiʻi triangles that… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the calibration and reduction of Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) 1.3mm radio wavelength observations of the supermassive black hole candidate at the center of the radio galaxy M87 and the quasar 3C 279, taken during the 2017 April 5-11 observing campaign. These global very long baseline interferometric observations include for the first time the highly sensitive Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA); reaching an angular resolution of 25 micro-as, with characteristic sensitivity limits of ~1 mJy on baselines to ALMA and ~10 mJy on other baselines. The observations present challenges for existing data processing tools, arising from the rapid atmospheric phase fluctuations, wide recording bandwidth, and highly heterogeneous array. In response, we developed three independent pipelines for phase calibration and fringe detection, each tailored to the specific needs of the EHT. The final data products include calibrated total intensity amplitude and phase information. They are validated through a series of quality assurance tests that show consistency across pipelines and set limits on baseline systematic errors of 2% in amplitude and 1 degree in phase. The M87 data reveal the presence of two nulls in correlated flux density at ~3.4 and ~8.3 giga-lambda and temporal evolution in closure quantities, indicating intrinsic variability of compact structure on a timescale of days, or several light-crossing times for a few billion solar-mass black hole. These measurements provide the first opportunity to image horizon-scale structure in M87.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper presents the calibration and reduction of 2017 EHT 1.3 mm VLBI observations of M87 and 3C 279 using three independent pipelines developed to address rapid atmospheric phase fluctuations, wide bandwidth, and array heterogeneity. The final calibrated amplitude and phase products are validated via QA tests demonstrating inter-pipeline consistency that sets baseline systematic error limits of 2% in amplitude and 1° in phase. The M87 data exhibit nulls in correlated flux density at ~3.4 and ~8.3 Gλ together with temporal evolution in closure quantities, interpreted as evidence for intrinsic variability of compact structure on daily timescales.

Significance. If the reported systematic bounds hold, the work supplies the first calibrated dataset enabling horizon-scale imaging of M87 and provides direct evidence of structural variability on timescales of a few light-crossing times for a ~few-billion-solar-mass black hole. The multi-pipeline consistency check is a methodological strength that increases in the null detections and variability signal.

major comments (1)
  1. [Quality assurance tests / pipeline validation] The QA validation (described in the abstract and presumably detailed in the methods/results sections on pipeline comparison) derives the 2% amplitude / 1° phase systematic floor solely from inter-pipeline agreement. This approach does not include explicit tests isolating possible common-mode errors (e.g., shared tropospheric models, fringe-fitting assumptions, or a-priori phase screens) that could systematically bias amplitudes near the reported nulls at ~3.4 and ~8.3 Gλ, where even small residual errors could create or mask a true null.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback on our manuscript describing the EHT 2017 data calibration for M87 and 3C 279. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The QA validation (described in the abstract and presumably detailed in the methods/results sections on pipeline comparison) derives the 2% amplitude / 1° phase systematic floor solely from inter-pipeline agreement. This approach does not include explicit tests isolating possible common-mode errors (e.g., shared tropospheric models, fringe-fitting assumptions, or a-priori phase screens) that could systematically bias amplitudes near the reported nulls at ~3.4 and ~8.3 Gλ, where even small residual errors could create or mask a true null.

    Authors: The three pipelines were developed independently with distinct algorithmic approaches to phase calibration and fringe detection, each tailored differently to the EHT-specific challenges of rapid atmospheric fluctuations, wide bandwidth, and heterogeneous array. This design reduces the probability of shared common-mode errors. The nulls at ~3.4 and ~8.3 Gλ appear consistently across all pipelines, as do the temporal trends in closure quantities. While dedicated end-to-end simulations isolating every conceivable common-mode bias were not performed, the inter-pipeline consistency combined with closure-phase and closure-amplitude QA tests already constrains residual systematics. We will add a short subsection in the revised manuscript explicitly discussing the methodological differences between pipelines and why common-mode errors are unlikely to produce the observed nulls. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: observational calibration validated by independent pipelines

full rationale

The paper describes development of three independent calibration pipelines for EHT data, followed by QA tests that establish consistency-based bounds on systematics (2% amplitude, 1° phase). The reported nulls at ~3.4 and ~8.3 Gλ and closure-phase evolution are direct measurements from the calibrated visibilities, not quantities derived from or fitted to those same measurements. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation chain; the validation relies on cross-pipeline agreement rather than any internal reduction to the target observables. This is a standard data-processing workflow whose central claims remain externally falsifiable against the raw visibilities.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the work is observational data processing rather than theoretical modeling.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5810 in / 1094 out tokens · 30732 ms · 2026-05-25T15:28:11.496352+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

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

  1. GRMHD accretion beyond the black hole paradigm: Light from within the shadow

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 accept novelty 7.0

    3D GRMHD simulations of accretion onto a JMN-1 horizonless singularity produce a magnetically arrested disk with an accretion rate of ~3e-6 Eddington matching M87* observations and EHT-consistent images, plus central ...

  2. Photon rings and shadows of black holes with non-minimal couplings between curvature and electromagnetic field

    gr-qc 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0

    Three distinct non-minimal curvature-EM couplings produce different enlargements or reductions of black hole shadows and alter photon ring separations in characteristic ways.

  3. Dimming of Photon Ring due to Photon-Axion Conversion around Kerr Black Holes

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Photon-axion conversion near Kerr black holes produces dimming of photon spectral luminosity that increases with black hole spin, magnetic field strength, and photon-axion coupling, most efficiently at high frequencies.

  4. Effective null geodesics and black hole images in Kruglov nonlinear electrodynamics

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    In Kruglov's Born-Infeld-type nonlinear electrodynamics, the effective photon geometry around a charged black hole produces q-dependent shifts in light deflection, shadow radius, and accretion disk images, including s...

  5. Effective null geodesics and black hole images in Kruglov nonlinear electrodynamics

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    In Kruglov nonlinear electrodynamics, small positive values of the parameter q produce stable photon orbits outside the event horizon and modify black hole shadows and relativistic images even when the spacetime metri...

  6. Roche limit and stellar disruption in the Simpson--Visser spacetime

    gr-qc 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Tidal forces in the Simpson-Visser spacetime produce Roche radii for stars that depend on observer type and regularization, with some disruptions occurring outside the event horizon for supermassive black holes.

  7. Observational Signatures of Rotating Ay\'{o}n-Beato-Garc\'{i}a Black Holes: Shadows, Accretion Disks and Images

    gr-qc 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Rotating Ayón-Beato-García black holes produce smaller and sometimes D-shaped shadows whose size constrains the charge parameter ζ to the range 0.132811M–0.213607M when matched to EHT observations of M87* and Sgr A*.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    L., et al

    Akiyama, K., Lu, R.-S., Fish, V. L., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 150

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Alef, W., & Porcas, R. W. 1986, A&A, 168, 365

    work page 1986

  3. [3]

    Baars, J. W. M. 2007, The Paraboloidal Re flector Antenna in Radio Astronomy and Communication (Berlin: Springer )

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    B., et al

    Blackburn, L., Chan, C.-K., Crew, G. B., et al. 2019, arXiv: 1903.08832

    work page arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    P., Jordán, A., Mei, S., et al

    Blakeslee, J. P., Jordán, A., Mei, S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 694, 556

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    P., Ferrarese, L., et al

    Cantiello, M., Blakeslee, J. P., Ferrarese, L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 126

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    A., Johnson, M

    Chael, A. A., Johnson, M. D., Bouman, K. L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 23

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    A., Johnson, M

    Chael, A. A., Johnson, M. D., Narayan, R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 829, 11

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    S., Ros, E., Kovalev, Y

    Chang, C. S., Ros, E., Kovalev, Y. Y., & Lister, M. L. 2010, A&A, 515, A38

    work page 2010

  10. [10]

    Cotton, W. D. 1995, in ASP Conf. Ser. 82, Very Long Baseline Interferometry and the VLBA, ed. J. A. Zensus, P. J. Diamond, & P. J. Napier (San

    work page 1995

  11. [11]

    T., Brisken, W

    Deller, A. T., Brisken, W. F., Phillips, C. J., et al. 2011, PASP, 123, 275

    work page 2011

  12. [12]

    2010, in 10th European VLBI Network Symp

    Doeleman, S. 2010, in 10th European VLBI Network Symp. and EVN Users Meeting: VLBI and the New Generation of Radio Arrays (Trieste: SISSA), 53

    work page 2010

  13. [13]

    2009, in Astro2010: The Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey, Science White Papers, 68

    Doeleman, S., Agol, E., Backer, D., et al. 2009, in Astro2010: The Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey, Science White Papers, 68

    work page 2009

  14. [14]

    S., Fish, V

    Doeleman, S. S., Fish, V. L., Schenck, D. E., et al. 2012, Sci, 338, 355

    work page 2012

  15. [15]

    S., Weintroub, J., Rogers, A

    Doeleman, S. S., Weintroub, J., Rogers, A. E. E., et al. 2008, Natur, 455, 78 EHT Collaboration et al. 2019a, ApJL, 875, L1 (Paper I ) EHT Collaboration et al. 2019b, ApJL, 875, L2 (Paper II ) EHT Collaboration et al. 2019c, ApJL, 875, L4 (Paper IV ) EHT Collaboration et al. 2019d, ApJL, 875, L5 (Paper V ) EHT Collaboration et al. 2019e, ApJL, 875, L6 (Paper VI )

    work page 2008

  16. [16]

    High-Angular-Resolution and High-Sensitivity Science Enabled by Beamformed ALMA

    Fish, V., Alef, W., Anderson, J., et al. 2013, arXiv: 1309.3519

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  17. [17]

    L., Doeleman, S

    Fish, V. L., Doeleman, S. S., Beaudoin, C., et al. 2011, ApJL, 727, L36

    work page 2011

  18. [18]

    L., Johnson, M

    Fish, V. L., Johnson, M. D., Doeleman, S. S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 90

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    2011, ApJ, 729, 119

    Gebhardt, K., Adams, J., Richstone, D., et al. 2011, ApJ, 729, 119

    work page 2011

  20. [20]

    2019, PASP, in press

    Goddi, C., Marti-Vidal, I., Messias, H., et al. 2019, PASP, in press

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    Greisen, E. W. 2003, in Information Handling in Astronomy —Historical

    work page 2003

  22. [22]

    Greisen, E. W. 2011, AIPS Memo Series, 114r (New Mexico, USA: Socorro )

    work page 2011

  23. [23]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, CSE, 9, 90

    work page 2007

  24. [24]

    2005, PASJ, 57, 643

    Iguchi, S. 2005, PASJ, 57, 643

    work page 2005

  25. [25]

    2018, EHT Memo Series, 2018-CE-01

    Issaoun, S., Falcke, H., Friberg, P., et al. 2018, EHT Memo Series, 2018-CE-01

    work page 2018

  26. [26]

    W., Blackburn, L., et al

    Issaoun, S., Folkers, T. W., Blackburn, L., et al. 2017a, EHT Memo Series, 2017-CE-02

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    W., Marrone, D

    Issaoun, S., Folkers, T. W., Marrone, D. P., et al. 2017b, EHT Memo Series, 2017-CE-03

    work page 2017

  28. [28]

    D., Blackburn, L., et al

    Issaoun, S., Johnson, M. D., Blackburn, L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 30

    work page 2019

  29. [29]

    rPICARD: A CASA-based Calibration Pipeline for VLBI Data. Calibration and imaging of 7 mm VLBA observations of the AGN jet in M87

    Janssen, M., Goddi, C., van Bemmel, I. M., et al. 2019a, arXiv: 1902.01749

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1902

  30. [30]

    2019b, EHT Memo Series, 2019- CE-01

    Janssen, M., Issaoun, S., Blackburn, L., et al. 2019b, EHT Memo Series, 2019- CE-01

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    Jewell, P. R. 2002, in ASP Conf. Ser. 278, Single-Dish Radio Astronomy: Techniques and Applications, ed. S. Stanimirovic et al. (San Francisco, CA: ASP), 313

    work page 2002

  32. [32]

    D., Fish, V

    Johnson, M. D., Fish, V. L., Doeleman, S. S., et al. 2015, Sci, 350, 1242

    work page 2015

  33. [33]

    2001, SciPy: Open source scienti fic tools for Python

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T., Peterson, P., et al. 2001, SciPy: Open source scienti fic tools for Python

    work page 2001

  34. [34]

    J., Reynolds, C., & Cotton, B

    Kettenis, M., van Langevelde, H. J., Reynolds, C., & Cotton, B. 2006, in ASP Conf. Ser. 351, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV, ed. C. Gabriel et al. (San Francisco, CA: ASP ), 497

    work page 2006

  35. [35]

    2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., Pérez, F., et al. 2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed. F. Loizides & B. Schmidt (IOS Press ),8 7

    work page 2016

  36. [36]

    Kutner, M. L. 1978, ApJL, 19, 81

    work page 1978

  37. [37]

    L., & Ulich, B

    Kutner, M. L., & Ulich, B. L. 1981, ApJ, 250, 341

    work page 1981

  38. [38]

    P., Roy, A

    Lu, R.-S., Krichbaum, T. P., Roy, A. L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 60

    work page 2018

  39. [39]

    Mangum, J. G. 1993, PASP, 105, 117

    work page 1993

  40. [40]

    Mangum, J. G. 2002, ALMA Memo Series, 434 Martí-Vidal, I., Roy, A., Conway, J., & Zensus, A. J. 2016, A&A, 587, A143

    work page 2002

  41. [41]

    2006, Proc

    Matsushita, S., Saito, M., Sakamoto, K., et al. 2006, Proc. SPIE, 6275, 62751W 29 The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 875:L3 (32pp), 2019 April 10 The EHT Collaboration et al

    work page 2006

  42. [42]

    D., Crew, G

    Matthews, L. D., Crew, G. B., Doeleman, S. S., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 015002

    work page 2018

  43. [43]

    2010, in Proc

    McKinney, W. 2010, in Proc. 9th Python in Science Conf., ed. S. van der Walt & J. Millman (Washington, D.C.: IEEE ),5 1

    work page 2010

  44. [44]

    P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K

    McMullin, J. P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K. 2007, in ASP Conf. Ser. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell (San Francisco, CA: ASP ), 127

    work page 2007

  45. [45]

    J., & Readhead, A

    Pearson, T. J., & Readhead, A. C. S. 1984, ARA&A, 22, 97

    work page 1984

  46. [46]

    A., & Burrus, C

    Penzias, A. A., & Burrus, C. A. 1973, ARA&A, 11, 51

    work page 1973

  47. [47]

    A., Young, K

    Primiani, R. A., Young, K. H., Young, A., et al. 2016, JAI, 5, 1641006

    work page 2016

  48. [48]

    Rogers, A. E. E., Doeleman, S. S., & Moran, J. M. 1995, AJ, 109, 1391

    work page 1995

  49. [49]

    Romney, J. D. 1995, in ASP Conf. Ser. 82, Very Long Baseline Interferometry and the VLBA, ed. J. A. Zensus, P. J. Diamond, & P. J. Napier (San

    work page 1995

  50. [50]

    R., & Cotton, W

    Schwab, F. R., & Cotton, W. D. 1983, AJ, 88, 688

    work page 1983

  51. [51]

    2011, login: The USENIX Magazine, 36, 42 The Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Tange, O. 2011, login: The USENIX Magazine, 36, 42 The Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33 The Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip őcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123

    work page 2011

  52. [52]

    R., Moran, J

    Thompson, A. R., Moran, J. M., Jr., & , G. W. S. 2017, Interferometry and Synthesis in Radio Astronomy (3rd ed.; Berlin: Springer )

    work page 2017

  53. [53]

    L., & Haas, R

    Ulich, B. L., & Haas, R. W. 1976, ApJS, 30, 247 van Cittert, P. H. 1934, Phy, 1, 201 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, CSE, 13, 22

    work page 1976

  54. [54]

    2015, PASP, 127, 1226

    Vertatschitsch, L., Primiani, R., Young, A., et al. 2015, PASP, 127, 1226

    work page 2015

  55. [55]

    C., Hardee, P

    Walker, R. C., Hardee, P. E., Davies, F. B., Ly, C., & Junor, W. 2018, ApJ, 855, 128

    work page 2018

  56. [56]

    R., Beaudoin, C

    Whitney, A. R., Beaudoin, C. J., Cappallo, R. J., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 196

    work page 2013

  57. [57]

    R., Cappallo, R., Aldrich, W., et al

    Whitney, A. R., Cappallo, R., Aldrich, W., et al. 2004, RaSc, 39, RS1007

    work page 2004

  58. [58]

    2019, EHT Memo Series, 2019- CE-02

    Wielgus, M., Blackburn, L., Issaoun, S., et al. 2019, EHT Memo Series, 2019- CE-02

    work page 2019

  59. [59]

    Wilkinson, P. N. 1989, in NATO Advanced Science Institutes (ASI) Series C, Vol. 283, ed. M. Felli & R. E. Spencer ( Berlin: Springer ), 69

    work page 1989

  60. [60]

    2016, in 2016 IEEE Int

    Young, A., Primiani, R., Weintroub, J., et al. 2016, in 2016 IEEE Int. Symp., Phased Array Systems and Technology (ARRAY)( New York: IEEE ), 1

    work page 2016

  61. [61]

    E. Pancini

    Zernike, F. 1938, Phy, 5, 785 The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Kazunori Akiyama 1,2,3,4 , Antxon Alberdi 5 , Walter Alef 6, Keiichi Asada 7, Rebecca Azulay 8,9,6 , Anne-Kathrin Baczko 6 , David Ball 10, Mislav Balokovi ć4,11 , John Barrett 2 , Dan Bintley 12, Lindy Blackburn 4,11 , Wilfred Boland 13, Katherine L. Bouman 4,11,14 , Geoffrey C. Bow...

    work page 1938