Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Improving the Epoch of Reionization Power Spectrum Results from Murchison Widefield Array Season 1 Observations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Improved analysis and faint-RFI excision cut the reionization power-spectrum upper limit to 3,900 mK² at z = 7, almost ten times lower than the previous MWA result.

desk verdict A genuinely improved MWA EoR upper limit with solid validation, but the abstract's 'noise-dominated' claim is contradicted by the paper's own numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00561 v2 pith:EBUMKZWJ submitted 2019-09-02 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.CO

N. Barry , M. Wilensky , C. M. Trott , B. Pindor , A. P. Beardsley , B. J. Hazelton , I. S. Sullivan , M. F. Morales
show 22 more authors
J. C. Pober J. Line B. Greig R. Byrne A. Lanman W. Li C. H. Jordan R. C. Joseph B. McKinley M. Rahimi S. Yoshiura J. D. Bowman B. M. Gaensler J. N. Hewitt D. C. Jacobs D. A. Mitchell N. Udaya Shankar S. K. Sethi R. Subrahmanyan S. J. Tingay R. L. Webster J. S. B. Wyithe
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.CO
keywords epochofreionization21cmcosmologypowerspectrumupperlimitMurchisonWidefieldArrayforegroundavoidanceradiofrequencyinterferencesky-subtractedincoherentnoiseinterferometricimaging
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 claims that the dominant obstacle in the best existing Murchison Widefield Array measurement of 21 cm emission from the Epoch of Reionization was not the instrument but the analysis: reprocessing the same 32 hours of 2013 data with improved calibration, gridding, and power-spectrum estimation lowers the contamination floor by a factor of 2.8. Removing observations contaminated by ultra-faint digital-television radio frequency interference improves the zenith-pointing result by another factor of 3.8. The outcome is a new upper limit on the reionization power spectrum of $\Delta^2 \leq 3.9 \times 10^3$ mK$^2$ at $k = 0.20$ $h$ Mpc$^{-1}$ and $z = 7$ from 21 hours of data, which the paper presents as the lowest published EoR structure limit to date and an improvement of almost an order of magnitude over the previous MWA limit. The paper also shows that the best full-integration limit is still systematic-dominated, while a zenith-only subset reaches a noise-dominated limit, implying pointing or beam errors are the next obstacle.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is an image-based power-spectrum pipeline whose two changes do most of the work: a modified gridding kernel, meaning the instrument beam multiplied in image space by the square of a Blackman-Harris window, which smooths the uv-response and suppresses aliasing so that foreground-coupled errors become spectrally smooth in the EoR window; and an interleaved-time cross-power estimator in which visibilities are split into two time samples per uv-cell, so that the power is formed from their cross-multiplication while analytic error propagation and an even-odd observed-noise estimate provide matched uncertainties. A third component, a sky-subtracted incoherent noise spectrum, time-differences visibilities to reveal ultra-faint RFI and is used to excise whole observations rather than flag individual regions. The foreground-avoidance mask with $k_\perp$ between 18 and 80 $\lambda$, $k_\parallel \geq 0.15$ $h$ Mpc$^{-1}$, and a wedge slope buffer of 15 percent selects the region where these techniques are evaluated.

What would settle it

Re-run the full pipeline on noise-only simulated visibilities using the paper's exact mask ($k_\perp$ 18-80 $\lambda$, $k_\parallel \geq 0.15$ $h$ Mpc$^{-1}$, wedge slope buffer of 15 percent) and 40 percent occupancy cut; if the distribution of resulting upper limits is centered below the expected 2$\sigma$ thermal-noise threshold, or if shifting the wedge buffer by $\pm 5$ percent changes the $k = 0.20$ $h$ Mpc$^{-1}$ limit by more than its 1$\sigma$ noise, then the mask selection, not thermal noise, sets the reported limit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a quantitative demonstration that analysis precision and faint RFI, not raw sensitivity, were limiting the MWA's EoR measurement. Starting from the same 1029-observation data set and the same reduction pipeline used in the earlier analysis, the updated pipeline lowers the best-mode 2$\sigma$ upper limit by a factor of 2.8 in the N-S polarization and 2.1 in the E-W polarization, with the improvement concentrated in the EoR window above the foreground wedge. Applying a new RFI-cataloging method that detects contamination below single-baseline thermal noise removes 311 digital-television-contaminated and 40 high-occupancy observations, yielding 678 observations (21 hr); this excision improves the zenith-pointing limit by a factor of 3.8. The resulting N-S limit at $z \approx 7$ is $\Delta^2 \leq 3.9 \times 10^3$ mK$^2$ at $k = 0.20$ $h$ Mpc$^{-1}$, and the paper reports it as currently the lowest upper limit on EoR structure in the literature, while noting that the full-integration limit remains systematic-dominated and only the zenith subset is noise-dominated.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the k-space mask and the 40 percent RFI-occupancy cut were not tuned to the noise realization of the same data they are used to measure; the paper acknowledges this selection-bias risk but does not quantify it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the limit is correct, the previous MWA upper limit was set by analysis systematics and faint RFI, not by integration time, so the same data can yield almost an order-of-magnitude better constraints without new observations.
  • A zenith-only subset gives a noise-dominated limit, so for that pointing additional integration should lower the limit roughly as $1/\sqrt{t}$; other pointings will not improve until beam-related errors are fixed.
  • The RFI-excision method that removes entire observations based on sky-subtracted statistics should transfer to other low-frequency arrays and future MWA data, because it catches contamination below single-baseline thermal noise.
  • The quoted value remains an upper limit: with only 21 hr the measured power is consistent with noise, and a detection requires hundreds of hours, so this result validates the pipeline rather than detecting reionization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the selection-bias risk is quantified with noise-only simulations or pre-registered blind masks, the true limit could prove somewhat weaker; the paper acknowledges the risk but does not estimate its size, so the factor-of-ten improvement should be read with that uncertainty in mind.
  • Editorial inference: the documented factor-of-two contamination in the noise from image-space integration implies an immediate sensitivity gain is available by moving power-spectrum estimation to a direct uv-basis or w-projection scheme, without collecting more data.
  • Editorial inference: applying the same SSINS-based observation excision per pointing and per polarization could isolate the unknown systematic that contaminates the lower-left EoR window in N-S, and could test whether the E-W excess is instrumental or environmental in origin.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents an improved Epoch of Reionization 21 cm power spectrum analysis of Murchison Widefield Array Phase I observations, using the FHD/eppsilon pipeline with several precision upgrades, and combines these with SSINS-based RFI identification to select a 21-hour subset of the original 32-hour data set. The central result is a 2σ upper limit of Δ² ≤ 3.9×10³ mK² at k = 0.20 h Mpc⁻¹ and z ≈ 7 in the N–S polarization, which the abstract describes as a noise-dominated limit that improves previous MWA limits by almost an order of magnitude. The paper supports the result with a direct reanalysis of the Beardsley et al. (2016) data set, a comparison against the independent RTS/CHIPS pipeline, an end-to-end simulation that recovers injected EoR signal, and a comparison of observed to expected noise.

Significance. If the reported limit is robust, it would be the best MWA EoR power spectrum upper limit at z ≈ 7, improving on Beardsley et al. (2016) by roughly a factor of 6 in power, and it would be competitive with contemporary LOFAR limits though at different k and redshift. The paper's strengths are substantial: the analysis is built on open-source software and public data; the end-to-end in-situ simulation recovers the input EoR power across a wide range of k-modes; the FHD/eppsilon results are cross-checked against an independent RTS/CHIPS pipeline; and the observed-to-expected noise ratio in §6.3 is close to unity, validating the error propagation. However, the interpretation of the headline limit as noise-dominated is contradicted by the paper's own body and Table 1, and the data-driven choice of foreground-avoidance masks requires a robustness test before the numerical upper limit can be accepted at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, §5.2, §7, Table 1] The abstract states that the 21-hour integrated limit Δ² ≤ 3.9×10³ mK² at k = 0.20 h Mpc⁻¹ is a "noise-dominated upper limit," but the body explicitly says the opposite. Section 5.2 states that "our lowest limits are systematic dominated" and that a noise-dominated limit is obtained only from the zenith-pointing subset, at Δ² ≤ 3.8×10³ mK² and k = 0.23 h Mpc⁻¹. Table 1 quantifies this: for the N–S bin at k = 0.203, the measured power is 2.85×10³ mK², the 1σ thermal noise is 5.21×10² mK², and the 2σ upper limit is 3.89×10³ mK². The measured power is therefore a ~5.5σ positive excess over the thermal noise, so the quoted upper limit is set by a positive systematic excess, not by noise. The final paragraph of §7 repeats the same inconsistency by claiming that "we are now in the regime where we are noise dominated in our lowest limit." The numerical upper limit may be correct, but the central claim as written is not; the abstract, introduction, and conclusion must be revised to distinguish the systematic-dominated 21-hour limit from the noise-dominated zenith-pointing limit.
  2. [§5.2] The foreground-avoidance mask is chosen using the same data that are then used to produce the upper limit. The k⊥ range of 18–80 λ, the k∥ ≥ 0.15 h Mpc⁻¹ cut, the 15% horizon-slope buffer, and the 40% RFI-occupancy cut in §5.1 are all selected after inspecting the 2D power spectra and SSINS statistics of the actual 678-observation data set. The paper acknowledges a potential selection bias but argues that using only foreground information lowers the degrees of freedom. This argument does not address the possibility that the specific mask thresholds are inadvertently tuned to a favorable noise realization in the EoR window. Because the headline limit is driven by a 5.5σ positive excess rather than by thermal noise, the robustness of the quoted limit to reasonable variations of these thresholds should be demonstrated—for example, with noise-only simulations, bootstrapped mask variations, or a scan over mask parameters. Without such a test, the significance of the reported limit relative to other values in the same table is not fully established.
  3. [§4] The claimed improvement over Beardsley et al. (2016) relies on a flux-scale correction factor of 28% in E–W and 23% in N–S, derived from the ratio of mean calibration amplitudes between the KGS/MWACS-based catalog and GLEAM. The comparison in Figure 3 and the factor-of-2.8 improvement in §4.2 are only as reliable as this correction, but no uncertainty on the scale factor is reported or propagated into the comparison. Since the new 21-hour limit uses GLEAM directly, this does not affect that limit by construction, but it does affect the specific quantitative claim of "improving previous MWA limits by almost an order of magnitude." A short statement of the systematic uncertainty in the scale correction, or a sensitivity check on the comparison, would make the relative-improvement claim robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §7] The abstract says "almost an order of magnitude" improvement over previous MWA limits; comparing the rebinned Beardsley value of 2.37×10⁴ mK² in §4.2 with 3.9×10³ mK² gives a factor of about 6.1, which is fairly described as almost an order of magnitude, but a reader may expect a factor closer to 10; consider stating the explicit factor.
  2. [§5.1] The RFI-occupancy cut is described as removing observations where "over 40% of the SSINS samples were identified as contaminated," with a footnote that coarse-band edges are excluded from this classification. It would be helpful to state whether this 40% threshold was fixed a priori or selected after inspecting the distribution of occupancy values in the 1029-observation set, since the latter would tie this cut to the same selection-bias concern as the k-space mask.
  3. [§6.3 and Figure 10] The observed-to-expected noise ratio is described as "very close to 1" with deviations only in poor uv-coverage regions that do not enter the 1D power spectrum. It would improve clarity to give the numerical range of the ratio in the region used for the 1D limits, rather than only a visual statement, since this is the key validation of the error bars that determine the upper limit.
  4. [§6.1] The RTS/CHIPS comparison applies the FHD/eppsilon binning scheme to the independent pipeline, and the text notes that this may not be optimal for RTS/CHIPS. It would be useful to state explicitly whether the same flux-scale reference (GLEAM) was used in the RTS/CHIPS calibration, so that the comparison is not affected by the catalog-based scale difference discussed in §4.
  5. [Appendix B and Table 1] The table caption lists the 2σ upper limit, lower uncertainty bound, measured power, and thermal noise, but it does not define how the upper limit is constructed from the measured power and variance. A sentence stating that the limit is Δ² + 2σ with a non-negativity prior, as described in §5.2 and Figure 6, would make the table self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported upper limit is an empirical measurement, not a derivation reducible to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a measured 2 sigma upper limit on the 21 cm EoR power spectrum from 21 hr of MWA data. The limit is computed from the data power and propagated noise, not from a fitted model, and the absolute normalization is anchored to the external GLEAM catalog. The main analysis choices are cross-checked inside the paper: the FHD/epsillon pipeline is compared against the independent RTS/CHIPS pipeline, an end-to-end signal-injection simulation tests signal preservation, and observed versus expected noise estimates are compared to validate the error propagation. The foreground-avoidance mask is admittedly chosen using the same 2D power spectra that later produce the 1D limits, and the paper explicitly acknowledges this selection-bias risk in Section 5.2; however, this is a standard empirical selection effect and not a self-definitional reduction, since no equation defines the reported upper limit in terms of the mask thresholds. The abstract's 'noise-dominated' wording is in tension with the body's own statement that 'our lowest limits are systematic dominated' (Section 5.2), but that is an internal consistency or interpretation issue, not circularity. Self-citations to Barry et al. (2019), Beardsley et al. (2016), and Wilensky et al. (2019) are load-bearing in the sense that they describe the software and prior results, but those components are independently validated or benchmarked in this paper, so the citation chain does not itself force the numerical result.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the fidelity of the sky model, beam model, and the foreground-avoidance mask. The mask choices are manual and data-informed, making them the most analysis-dependent inputs. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • k_perp mask range = 18 to 80 lambda
    Chosen from the 2D residual power spectrum (Figure 4) to avoid low-k_perp contamination and poor uv-coverage at high k_perp; not derived from first principles.
  • k_parallel cut = 0.15 h Mpc^-1
    Lower bound on line-of-sight modes to avoid foreground leakage into the EoR window; selected to be just above the wedge.
  • Wedge slope buffer = 15% above horizon
    Extra buffer added to the horizon line to avoid sub-horizon leakage, similar to Beardsley et al. 2016 and Dillon et al. 2015.
  • RFI occupancy threshold = 40%
    Observations with more than 40% of SSINS samples flagged were removed; threshold chosen by the authors.
  • Frequency band selection = 168.555 to 187.275 MHz
    Chosen to avoid the first coarse band and the upper part of the band affected by bit oversaturation, plus one extra channel near each range.
  • Flux scale correction for Beardsley 2016 comparison = 28% (E-W), 23% (N-S) in power
    Applied only to the comparison with Beardsley et al. 2016 to account for the change from KGS to GLEAM absolute flux scale; not used in the final limit.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Pixel cross-correlations are negligible in the error propagation within eppsilon.
    Stated in Section 3.2 and tested in Section 6.3; the observed-to-expected noise ratio is close to unity, but some deviation exists in poor uv-coverage regions.
  • domain assumption The simulated Jones matrix beam and the GLEAM sky model accurately represent the instrument and sky.
    FHD calibration and foreground subtraction rely on these models (Section 3.1). Residual errors would bias the power spectrum.
  • domain assumption The foreground-avoidance masks do not remove EoR signal.
    The k-space cuts in Section 5.2 assume the EoR signal is not concentrated in the masked wedge and low-k_parallel modes.
  • standard math Lomb-Scargle periodogram provides an unbiased orthogonal basis for the irregularly sampled frequency transform.
    Used in Section 3.2 to transform frequency to k_parallel; phase information is discarded.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improving the Epoch of Reionization Power Spectrum Results from Murchison Widefield Array Season 1 Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EBUMKZWJ

@misc{pith2026190900561,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improving the Epoch of Reionization Power Spectrum Results from Murchison Widefield Array Season 1 Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EBUMKZWJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00561}
}
abstract

Measurements of 21 cm Epoch of Reionization (EoR) structure are subject to systematics originating from both the analysis and the observation conditions. Using 2013 data from the Murchison Widefield Array (MWA), we show the importance of mitigating both sources of contamination. A direct comparison between results from Beardsley et al. 2016 and our updated analysis demonstrates new precision techniques, lowering analysis systematics by a factor of 2.8 in power. We then further lower systematics by excising observations contaminated by ultra-faint RFI, reducing by an additional factor of 3.8 in power for the zenith pointing. With this enhanced analysis precision and newly developed RFI mitigation, we calculate a noise-dominated upper limit on the EoR structure of $\Delta^2 \leq 3.9 \times 10^3$ mK$^2$ at $k=0.20$ $\textit{h}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ and $z=7$ using 21 hr of data, improving previous MWA limits by almost an order of magnitude.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00561 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. provides context for how our analysis pack￾ages fit into the data flow. For a full description of the tasks and outputs of the FHD/εppsilon pipeline, please see Barry et al. (2019). 3.1. FHD In brief, FHD calculates calibrated images from mea￾sured visibility data. Various transformations and as￾sumptions must take place to achieve these results, therefore the narrative of our data reduction is that of accuracy and … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The 2D power spectra comparison between the Beardsley et al. (2016) analysis (top row) and our updated analysis (bottom row) with the same observation data set and binning scheme. The calibrated data (left column), the subtraction model (middle column), and the residual (right column) 2D power spectra are shown for the N–S polarization. Our updated precision techniques and improved calibration reduce foreground coup… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The 1D EoR upper limit comparison between Beardsley et al. (2016) (purple) and our updated analysis (green) for the E–W and N–S polarizations at a band centered on redshift 7 for the same 1029-observation data set. The dashed lines are the thermal noise levels of each analysis. Our updated analysis has less power contamination on most k-modes. and our updated analysis for the E–W and N–S po￾larizations at redshift 7… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the residual 2D power spectra for the remaining 678 observations. We analyze the frequency band range 168.555–187.275 MHz (approximately red￾shift 7) to avoid known instrumental effects (§4). The general features of the 2D power spectrum from Fig￾ure 2 are still …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The 1D EoR upper limit comparison between our updated analysis for the 1029-observation data set (green) and our updated analysis for the RFI-removed 678-observation data set (blue) for the E–W and N–S polarizations at a band centered on redshift 7. There is marginal i…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The 1D measured power spectra (black), the 2σ error bars (gray), the 2σ EoR upper limits (solid blue), and the 1σ thermal noise levels (dashed blue) for the E–W and N–S polarizations using 678 observations selected with ssins. We also present an example fiducial EoR th…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A cross-validation analysis of the EoR upper limits and associated noise levels on the zenith-pointing subset from the FHD/εppsilon pipeline (green) and the RTS/CHIPS pipeline (purple). RTS/CHIPS recovers more k-modes in known systematic-dominated regions via advanced …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Measured 1D power for two in-situ simulations on the FHD/εppsilon pipeline. We input simulated EoR vis￾ibilities (purple) into the pipeline and recover the expected power (orange). If we add foregrounds and only subtract a subset (green), we still recover the underlyin…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The observed noise from the resulting power (top right), the expected noise from the analytic uncertainty estimate (top left), the resulting analytic error bars (bottom left), and the ratio between the expected and observed noise (bottom right). We validate our analyt…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Intensity fluctuations of radio halo in galaxy cluster: Insights from power spectrum estimation

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Angular power spectra of 610 MHz radio halos show excess power-law fluctuations only in Abell 2744, requiring multiplicative C_ℓ ∝ ℓ^{-3} structure atop an exponential profile and consistent with ICM turbulence.

  2. CosmoUiT: A Vision Transformer-UNet Hybrid for Fast and Accurate Emulation of 21-cm Maps from the Epoch of Reionization

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Vision Transformer-UNet hybrid emulates 3D EoR 21-cm cubes conditioned on reionization parameters, matching simulated large-scale power spectra with mild small-scale suppression.

  3. Investigating radio source population $\&$ spatial characteristics of diffuse Galactic synchrotron emission in the GAMA-23 field with uGMRT Band-3

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A 325 MHz uGMRT mosaic of the GAMA-23 field yields a 5741-source catalog, source counts, spectral indices, and angular power spectra of diffuse Galactic synchrotron emission.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.co...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t...

  3. [3]

    a nen, E. and Keskitalo, R. and Kisner, T. S. and Knox, L. and Krachmalnicoff, N. and Kunz, M. and Kurki-Suonio, H. and Lagache, G. and L \

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    S., Parsons, A

    Ali, Z. S., Parsons, A. R., Zheng, H., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 809, 61

    2015

  5. [5]

    2018, PhD thesis, University of Washington

    Barry, N. 2018, PhD thesis, University of Washington

    2018

  6. [6]

    P., Byrne, R., et al

    Barry, N., Beardsley, A. P., Byrne, R., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 36, e026

    2019

  7. [7]

    F., & Pober, J

    Barry, N., Hazelton, B., Sullivan, I., Morales, M. F., & Pober, J. C. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 461, 3135

    2016

  8. [8]

    P., Hazelton, B

    Beardsley, A. P., Hazelton, B. J., Morales, M. F., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 429, L5

    work page 2013

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    P., Hazelton, B

    Beardsley, A. P., Hazelton, B. J., Sullivan, I. S., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 102

    2016

  2. [10]

    Bharadwaj, S., & Pandey, S. K. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 358, 968

    2005

  3. [11]

    J., Oesch, P

    Bouwens, R. J., Oesch, P. A., Illingworth, G. D., Ellis, R. S., & Stefanon, M. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 843, 129

    2017

  4. [12]

    J., et al

    Bouwens, R. J., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 803, 34

    2015

  5. [13]

    D., Rogers, A

    Bowman, J. D., Rogers, A. E. E., Monsalve, R. A., Mozdzen, T. J., & Mahesh, N. 2018, Nature, 555, 67

    2018

  6. [14]

    D., Cairns, I., Kaplan, D

    Bowman, J. D., Cairns, I., Kaplan, D. L., et al. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 30, e031

    2013

  7. [15]

    A., Line, J., Morales, M

    Carroll, P. A., Line, J., Morales, M. F., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 461, 4151

    2016

  8. [16]

    R., Kolopanis, M., et al

    Cheng, C., Parsons, A. R., Kolopanis, M., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 868, 26

    2018

  9. [17]

    Choudhuri, S., Bharadwaj, S., Ghosh, A., & Ali, S. S. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 445, 4351

    2014

  10. [18]

    Choudhuri, S., Bharadwaj, S., Roy, N., Ghosh, A., & Ali, S. S. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 459, 151

    2016

  11. [19]

    J., Golap, K., & Bhatnagar, S

    Cornwell, T. J., Golap, K., & Bhatnagar, S. 2008, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 2, 647

    2008

  12. [20]

    D., & Carilli, C

    Datta, A., Bowman, J. D., & Carilli, C. L. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 724, 526

    2010

  13. [21]

    R., Parsons, A

    DeBoer, D. R., Parsons, A. R., Aguirre, J. E., et al. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 129, 045001

    2017

  14. [22]

    S., Neben, A

    Dillon, J. S., Neben, A. R., Hewitt, J. N., et al. 2015, Physical Review D, 91, 123011

    2015

  15. [23]

    S., Hewitt, J

    Ewall-Wice, A., Dillon, J. S., Hewitt, J. N., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 460, 4320

    2016

  16. [24]

    M., Hivon, E., Banday, A

    G \'o rski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 622, 759

    2005

  17. [25]

    2015, , 449, 4246

    Greig , B., & Mesinger , A. 2015, , 449, 4246

    2015

  18. [26]

    P., Wise, M

    Haarlem van Haarlem, M. P., Wise, M. W., Gunst, A. W., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 556, A2

    2013

  19. [27]

    J., Morales, M

    Hazelton, B. J., Morales, M. F., & Sullivan, I. S. 2013, Astrophysical Journal, 770, 156

    2013

  20. [28]

    B., et al

    Hurley-Walker, N., Morgan, J., Wayth, R. B., et al. 2014, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 31, e045

    2014

  21. [29]

    R., Hancock, P

    Hurley-Walker, N., Callingham, J. R., Hancock, P. J., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 464, 1146

    2017

  22. [30]

    C., Hazelton, B

    Jacobs, D. C., Hazelton, B. J., Trott, C. M., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 825, 114

    2016

  23. [31]

    Kay, S. M. 1993, Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing: Estimation Theory (Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc.)

    1993

  24. [32]

    R., Pober, J

    Kerrigan, J. R., Pober, J. C., Ali, Z. S., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 131

    2018

  25. [33]

    C., Cheng, C., et al

    Kolopanis, M., Jacobs, D. C., Cheng, C., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 883, 133

    2019

  26. [34]

    R., & Trott, C

    Liu, A., Parsons, A. R., & Trott, C. M. 2014, Physical Review D, 90, 023018

    2014

  27. [35]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Astrophysics and Space Science, 39, 447

    1976

  28. [36]

    R., Mondal, R., et al

    Majumdar, S., Pritchard, J. R., Mondal, R., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 4007

    2018

  29. [37]

    D., Mesinger , A., & D'Odorico , V

    McGreer , I. D., Mesinger , A., & D'Odorico , V. 2015, , 447, 499

    2015

  30. [38]

    2011, , 411, 955

    Mesinger , A., Furlanetto , S., & Cen , R. 2011, , 411, 955

    2011

  31. [39]

    A., Greenhill, L

    Mitchell, D. A., Greenhill, L. J., Wayth, R. B., et al. 2008, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 2, 707

    2008

  32. [40]

    F., Beardsley, A., Pober, J., et al

    Morales, M. F., Beardsley, A., Pober, J., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 483, 2207

    2019

  33. [41]

    F., Hazelton, B., Sullivan, I., & Beardsley, A

    Morales, M. F., Hazelton, B., Sullivan, I., & Beardsley, A. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 752, 137

    2012

  34. [42]

    A., Bouwens, R

    Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Labb \'e , I., & Stefanon, M. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 855, 105

    2018

  35. [43]

    R., de Bruyn, A

    Offringa, A. R., de Bruyn, A. G., Biehl, M., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 405, 155

    2010

  36. [44]

    R., Gronde, J

    Offringa, A. R., Gronde, J. J. v. d., & Roerdink, J. B. T. M. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 539, A95

    2012

  37. [45]

    R., Mertens, F., & Koopmans, L

    Offringa, A. R., Mertens, F., & Koopmans, L. V. E. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 2866

    2019

  38. [46]

    R., Wayth, R

    Offringa, A. R., Wayth, R. B., Hurley-Walker, N., et al. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 32, e008

    2015

  39. [47]

    M., Mitchell, D

    Ord, S. M., Mitchell, D. A., Wayth, R. B., et al. 2010, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 122, 1353

    2010

  40. [48]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 413, 1174

    Paciga, G., Chang, T.-C., Gupta, Y., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 413, 1174

    2011

  41. [49]

    G., Bandura, K., et al

    Paciga, G., Albert, J. G., Bandura, K., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 433, 639

    2013

  42. [50]

    2019, , 484, 933

    Park , J., Mesinger , A., Greig , B., & Gillet , N. 2019, , 484, 933

    2019

  43. [51]

    R., Pober, J

    Parsons, A. R., Pober, J. C., Aguirre, J. E., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 756, 165

    2012

  44. [52]

    R., Backer, D

    Parsons, A. R., Backer, D. C., Foster, G. S., et al. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 139, 1468

    2010

  45. [53]

    H., Zaroubi, S., Chapman, E., et al

    Patil, A. H., Zaroubi, S., Chapman, E., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 443, 1113

    2014

  46. [54]

    H., Yatawatta, S., Koopmans, L

    Patil, A. H., Yatawatta, S., Koopmans, L. V. E., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 838, 65

    2017

  47. [55]

    , Aghanim, N

    Planck Collaboration , Adam, R. , Aghanim, N. , et al. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 596, A108

    2016

  48. [56]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1807.06209

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1807.06209

    2018 arXiv

  49. [57]

    C., Greig , B., & Mesinger , A

    Pober , J. C., Greig , B., & Mesinger , A. 2016, , 463, L56

    2016

  50. [58]

    C., Parsons, A

    Pober, J. C., Parsons, A. R., Aguirre, J. E., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 768, L36

    2013

  51. [59]

    C., Liu, A., Dillon, J

    Pober, J. C., Liu, A., Dillon, J. S., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 782, 66

    2014

  52. [60]

    C., Hazelton, B

    Pober, J. C., Hazelton, B. J., Beardsley, A. P., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 819, 8

    2016

  53. [61]

    S., Roshi, D

    Prabu, T., Srivani, K. S., Roshi, D. A., et al. 2015, Experimental Astronomy, 39, 73

    2015

  54. [62]

    E., Ellis, R

    Robertson, B. E., Ellis, R. S., Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J., & Stark, D. P. 2010, Nature, 468, 49

    2010

  55. [63]

    Salvini, S., & Wijnholds, S. J. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 571, A97

    2014

  56. [64]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, The Astrophysical Journal, 263, 835

    1982

  57. [65]

    R., Sigurdson, K., Pen, U.-L., Stebbins, A., & Sitwell, M

    Shaw, J. R., Sigurdson, K., Pen, U.-L., Stebbins, A., & Sitwell, M. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 781, 57

    2014

  58. [66]

    R., Sigurdson, K., Sitwell, M., Stebbins, A., & Pen, U.-L

    Shaw, J. R., Sigurdson, K., Sitwell, M., Stebbins, A., & Pen, U.-L. 2015, Physical Review D, 91, 083514

    2015

  59. [67]

    S., Morales, M

    Sullivan, I. S., Morales, M. F., Hazelton, B. J., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 759, 17

    2012

  60. [68]

    U., Subrahmanyan, R., et al

    Thyagarajan, N., Shankar, N. U., Subrahmanyan, R., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 776, 6

    2013

  61. [69]

    J., Goeke, R., Bowman, J

    Tingay, S. J., Goeke, R., Bowman, J. D., et al. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 30, e007

    2013

  62. [70]

    Trott, C. M. 2014, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 31, e026

    2014

  63. [71]

    M., Wayth, R

    Trott, C. M., Wayth, R. B., & Tingay, S. J. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 757, 101

    2012

  64. [72]

    M., Pindor, B., Procopio, P., et al

    Trott, C. M., Pindor, B., Procopio, P., et al. 2016, Astrophysical Journal, 818, 139

    2016

  65. [73]

    M., Watkinson, C

    Trott, C. M., Watkinson, C. A., Jordan, C. H., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 36, e023

    2019

  66. [74]

    U., & Subrahmanyan, R

    Vedantham, H., Shankar, N. U., & Subrahmanyan, R. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 745, 176

    2012

  67. [75]

    A., Giri, S

    Watkinson, C. A., Giri, S. K., Ross, H. E., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482, 2653

    2019

  68. [76]

    B., Tingay, S

    Wayth, R. B., Tingay, S. J., Trott, C. M., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 35, e033

    2018

  69. [77]

    J., Morales, M

    Wilensky, M. J., Morales, M. F., Hazelton, B. J., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 114507

    2019

  70. [78]

    G., Brentjens, M

    Yatawatta, S., de Bruyn, A. G., Brentjens, M. A., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 550, A136

    2013

  71. [79]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al.\ 2013, , 558, A33

    2013

  72. [80]

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S.\ 1996, , 117, 393

    1996

  73. [81]

    Corrales, L.\ 2015, , 805, 23

    2015

  74. [82]

    J., Porter, R

    Ferland, G. J., Porter, R. L., van Hoof, P. A. M., et al.\ 2013, , 49, 137

    2013

  75. [83]

    J., & Biemesderfer, C

    Hanisch, R. J., & Biemesderfer, C. D.\ 1989, , 21, 780

    1989

  76. [84]

    1994, LaTeX: A Document Preparation System, 2nd Edition (Boston, Addison-Wesley Professional)

    Lamport, L. 1994, LaTeX: A Document Preparation System, 2nd Edition (Boston, Addison-Wesley Professional)

    1994

  77. [85]

    J., Ness, J.-U., Osborne, J

    Schwarz, G. J., Ness, J.-U., Osborne, J. P., et al.\ 2011, , 197, 31

    2011

  78. [86]

    Vogt, F. P. A., Dopita, M. A., Kewley, L. J., et al.\ 2014, , 793, 127

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.