Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

COSMIC's Large-Scale Search for Technosignatures during the VLA sky Survey: Survey Description and First Results

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A postprocessing pipeline for a commensal interferometric SETI search returned no candidate signals toward 511 stars, setting isotropic power limits between roughly 2.3e11 and 2.1e16 watts.

desk verdict The qualitative null result is credible, but the quoted EIRP limits are built on an SNR threshold the pipeline never applied; the numbers need recomputation before the paper can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.17997 v1 pith:EUOC6O5Y submitted 2025-01-29 astro-ph.IM

Chenoa D. Tremblay , Jared Sofair , Lucy Steffes , Talon Myburgh , Daniel Czech , Paul B. Demorest , Ross A. Donnachie , Alex W. Pollak
show 4 more authors
Mark Ruzindana Andrew P.V. Siemion Savin S. Varghese Sofia Sheikh
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords technosignaturesSETIradiofrequencyinterferencecoherentbeamformingcommensalobservingisotropicradiatedpowerlimitsnarrowbandsignalsearchpostprocessingpipeline
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports the first large-scale test of COSMIC, a digital signal processing system that piggybacks on a radio sky survey to search for narrowband artificial signals. To turn millions of raw detections into a manageable list, the authors built a postprocessing pipeline, ARTISTIC, that filters out radio frequency interference using a kurtosis-based frequency mask, a signal-to-noise cut, and the rule that a genuine source should appear in only one coherent beam. Applied to 511 stars from an astrometric catalog in roughly 30 minutes of survey data, the pipeline reduced thousands of hits to zero unidentifiable signals. If this result stands, it means that among the surveyed stars and frequencies, no transmitter with an equivalent isotropic power between about $10^{11}$ and $10^{16}$ watts was active and pointed so that we could see it. The broader aim is to show that commensal observing plus automated filtering can search nearly a million pointings without overwhelming human review.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the ARTISTIC pipeline together with the CRICKETS RFI mask that feeds it. CRICKETS flags frequency bins whose excess kurtosis deviates from Gaussian noise, using data from a calibrator observation to produce a list of dirty channels to blank. ARTISTIC then applies an SNR threshold, removes hits seen in many beams, and keeps signals found in only one coherent beam for dynamic-spectrum checks; for hits in two or more beams it compares source proximity and the coherent-to-incoherent power ratio, which is expected to equal the number of antennas used in the beamformer. The sensitivity claim is carried by the distance-squared EIRP formula, which converts each star's minimum detectable flux into a transmitter power limit.

What would settle it

Inject a synthetic narrowband signal into a target's coherent beam and also, at lower amplitude, into an adjacent beam with a known overlap; if the ARTISTIC pipeline discards it as RFI, the single-beam assumption is falsified for realistic spillover. Separately, recompute EIRP_min with an SNR threshold of 100 instead of 8; if the limits rise by a factor roughly equal to 100/8, the published sensitivity range is too optimistic.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a logical, automated postprocessing chain can separate astrophysical narrowband signals from terrestrial interference well enough to run a wide-area technosignature search without manual inspection of every hit. The authors demonstrate this on 511 stars: after applying the CRICKETS kurtosis mask and an SNR cut of 100, the remaining hits were distributed across all beams, and no signal was confined to a single coherent beam in the way the pipeline expects of an astronomical emitter. They therefore report no unidentifiable signals and set equivalent isotropic radiated power limits of 2.32e11 to 2.09e16 W for the observed stars, by computing EIRP_min = 4*pi*$d^{2}$*F_min with F_min = 13.92 Jy at an assumed 8-$\sigma$ sensitivity and a roughly 8 Hz channel width. The survey has recorded more than 950,000 unique pointings since 2023, so the pipeline is presented as the route to searching that entire database.

Load-bearing premise

The search's null result depends on treating any signal seen in more than one coherent beam as terrestrial interference, and it also assumes the 8-sigma flux limit of 13.92 Jy, not the actual signal-to-noise cut of 100, is the sensitivity floor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same filter chain can be applied to the 950,000 recorded pointings, converting a database of millions of hourly hits into a short candidate list without human review.
  • For the nearest stars in the sample, the null result rules out transmitters weaker than about 10^11 W, assuming the single-beam criterion is valid, meaning even modest planetary radars would have been seen.
  • Because COSMIC observes in commensal mode, expanding the search to the full survey adds no extra telescope time, so the technique can ride along on future large sky surveys.
  • The pipeline's decision logic is simple enough to be reimplemented or learned by a classifier, so the method could scale to other interferometric arrays.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the pipeline treats multi-beam detections as RFI, a genuine narrowband signal bright enough to appear through sidelobes or in overlapping coherent beams would be filtered out; injecting synthetic signals at known beam offsets would directly test this.
  • The quoted limits use an 8-sigma flux density of 13.92 Jy, while the postprocessing applied an SNR cut of 100; if the higher cut is the true detection threshold, the EIRP limits would be roughly an order of magnitude weaker than stated.
  • A natural extension is to run the same pipeline on the full survey database and publish per-star EIRP limit maps, turning the technique into a statistical constraint on the prevalence of transmitting civilizations across a large fraction of the sky.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. This paper describes the COSMIC commensal technosignature processing on the VLA during VLASS, with emphasis on a new postprocessing pipeline: CRICKETS for kurtosis-based RFI flagging and ARTISTIC for candidate filtering. As a pilot, the authors processed 511 Gaia DR2 sources from roughly 30 minutes of VLASS observations, searched by seticore over a Doppler range of ±50 Hz/s, applied kurtosis masks and multi-beam/SNR filters, and found no surviving candidates. They quote equivalent isotropic power limits between 10^11 and 10^16 W based on a 13.92 Jy, 8-sigma sensitivity and an 8 Hz channel width.

Significance. If the quantitative limits are corrected, this is a useful open-source pipeline paper for commensal SETI searches and a cleanly described pilot null result. The software availability, the explicit flowchart of the filtering logic, and the use of a real observational field are strengths. However, the central quantitative claim currently rests on a sensitivity threshold that does not match the pipeline's SNR>100 filter and on an equation that omits the bandwidth; these issues must be fixed before the quoted EIRP limits can be taken at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Eq. (3), and abstract] The EIRP limits are computed with Fmin = 13.92 Jy, described as the 8-sigma VLA sensitivity, but the ARTISTIC filtering in the same section retains only events with SNR > 100. If the postprocessing SNR is measured on the same noise statistics as the sensitivity-calculator sigma, all sub-100-sigma events are rejected and the minimum detectable flux is at least a factor of ~12.5 (100/8) higher, shifting the entire quoted 10^11 to 10^16 W range upward by that factor. Please recompute the limits with the actual postprocessing threshold, or justify why the 8-sigma value is still representative despite the SNR>100 cut.
  2. [Section 5, Eq. (3)] Equation (3) as written, EIRP_min = 4*pi*d^2*Fmin, has units of watts only if Fmin is an integrated flux (W/m^2), but the text states Fmin = 13.92 Jy, which is a spectral flux density (W/m^2/Hz), and then sets the bandwidth to ~8 Hz. The reported lower value for 4.3 pc numerically includes the 8 Hz factor, so the equation is missing the bandwidth term or Fmin is misdefined. Please correct the equation or the definition so that the units and the quoted values agree.
  3. [Section 4 and Figure 11] The pipeline excludes by construction events detected in all coherent and incoherent beams, and it labels most events seen in four or more beams as likely RFI. If an authentic signal were strong enough to appear in sidelobes or overlapping beams, it would be filtered out, producing a false negative. The text partially mitigates this for nearby beams, but the false-negative rate is not quantified and the unconditional all-beam cut remains a strong assumption. Please state this assumption explicitly in the conclusions, or estimate the expected sidelobe/overlap contamination for the 511 fields.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Sections 1, 2.5, and 5] The real-time search threshold is given as SNR 8 in Section 1, 'above ten' in Section 2.5, and the postprocessing threshold is 100 in Section 5; please state the real-time threshold unambiguously and distinguish it from the ARTISTIC filter.
  2. [Sections 2.2 and 5] The test field is dated 15 April 2023 in Section 2.2 but 25 April 2023 in Section 5; please use one consistent date.
  3. [Section 5] The sentence 'we reduced the 29,390 signals down 77% to 9,708 signals' is arithmetically inconsistent: 9,708 is about 33% of 29,390, so the reduction is about 67%.
  4. [Section 2.3 and Figure 11] Figure 11 uses a calibration grade threshold of >0.65 while the text defines a good calibration as a grade above 0.6; please reconcile the two values.
  5. [Section 4] The text contains a broken LaTeX macro ('textsc') immediately before 'CRICKETS'.
  6. [Section 5] The sentence defining Fmin is grammatically incomplete: 'The Fmin value is determined by dividing the minimum flux density the bandwidth of the transmitting signal' needs to be rephrased and made dimensionally consistent.
  7. [Abstract and Section 5] The abstract's mention of 950,000 pointings could be misread as the scope of the null result; please state explicitly that the first results are for the 511-source test field only.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the null result is a search outcome and the EIRP limits rest on an external sensitivity calculator and Gaia-based distances; the SNR-threshold mismatch is a correctness concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

None of the load-bearing steps reduces to its own input. The reported null result is the output of a filtering pipeline that defines what counts as a candidate, but that is a search criterion rather than a circular derivation: the paper does not define the EIRP limits in terms of the filter output, and the limiting quantities do not come from the pipeline. Equation (3) computes EIRP_min from Fmin = 13.92 Jy taken from the VLA sensitivity calculator and from distances based on Gaia DR2 parallaxes via the Czech et al. (2021) catalog; neither quantity is fitted to the fact that no single-beam candidates survived. The citations to Tremblay et al. (2024) describe the real-time COSMIC hardware, calibration scoring, and beamforming ratio; these are background or standard interferometric relations, not an imported uniqueness theorem that forces the null result. The multibeam rejection rule is an explicit assumption about how a true technosignature would appear and is therefore a potential false-negative risk, but it is not a self-definitional step. The internal inconsistency between the 8-sigma Fmin and the SNR=100 postprocessing cut used in Section 5 is a sensitivity-bookkeeping/correctness issue that could bias the quoted limits, but it is not a circularity because the limit is not derived from the discarded-hit statistics. The target catalog and distances are externally anchored to Gaia, so the Czech et al. self-citation is not load-bearing. Overall the derivation chain is self-contained for circularity purposes.

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

The central claim of a null detection depends on several hand-tuned thresholds and domain assumptions about RFI behavior, plus a sensitivity calculation based on an external flux density limit. No new physical entities are introduced. The paper's contribution is procedural, so the ledger is dominated by free thresholds and assumptions rather than invented constructs.

free parameters (5)
  • Number of frequency bins in CRICKETS = 256
    Chosen to balance flagging sensitivity and false positives over a 32 MHz subband in Section 3.4.
  • Excess kurtosis threshold = 5
    Hand-selected so that clean channels are not falsely flagged; Section 3.4.
  • Postprocessing SNR threshold = 100
    Chosen to remove instrumental artifacts appearing in one or two antennas; Section 5.
  • Calibration grade threshold = 0.6 / 0.65
    Threshold for accepting calibration phase solutions; Section 2.3 and Figure 11.
  • Minimum flux density for EIRP calculation = 13.92 Jy
    8-sigma sensitivity from the VLA sensitivity calculator, used in Equation (3); Section 5.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption All signals detected in a short observation toward a calibrator are RFI and not signals of interest.
    Section 3.1 states this assumption as the basis for building the kurtosis mask from 3C286 data.
  • domain assumption Astronomical noise is Gaussian in each frequency bin, so large excess kurtosis implies RFI.
    Section 3.2, Equation (2), relies on the Gaussianity of noise to identify outliers as interference.
  • domain assumption A genuine technosignature will be detected in only one coherent beam, or otherwise pass the multi-beam logic.
    Section 4 and Figure 11 exclude signals seen in multiple beams unless sources are nearby; if false, the null result becomes a false negative.
  • domain assumption The RFI environment during target observations matches the calibrator observation used to build the kurtosis mask.
    Section 3.4 applies a mask derived from a single 3C286 observation on 10 May 2023 to all other VLASS data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of COSMIC's Large-Scale Search for Technosignatures during the VLA sky Survey: Survey Description and First Results." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EUOC6O5Y

@misc{pith2026250117997,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: COSMIC's Large-Scale Search for Technosignatures during the VLA sky Survey: Survey Description and First Results},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EUOC6O5Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.17997}
}
abstract

Developing algorithms to search through data efficiently is a challenging part of searching for signs of technology beyond our solar system. We have built a digital signal processing system and computer cluster on the backend of the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA) in New Mexico in order to search for signals throughout the Galaxy consistent with our understanding of artificial radio emissions. In our first paper, we described the system design and software pipelines. In this paper, we describe a postprocessing pipeline to identify persistent sources of interference, filter out false positives, and search for signals not immediately identifiable as anthropogenic radio frequency interference during the VLA Sky Survey. As of 01 September 2024, the Commensal Open-source Multi-mode Interferometric Cluster had observed more than 950,000 unique pointings. This paper presents the strategy we employ when commensally observing during the VLA Sky Survey and a postprocessing strategy for the data collected during the survey. To test this postprocessing pipeline, we searched toward 511 stars from the $Gaia$ catalog with coherent beams. This represents about 30 minutes of observation during VLASS, where we typically observe about 2000 sources per hour in the coherent beamforming mode. We did not detect any unidentifiable signals, setting isotropic power limits ranging from 10$^{11}$ to 10$^{16}$W.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.17997 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A plot of all the coordinates of targeted stars dur￾ing VLASS recordings from 25 March 2023 to 15 June 2023. All recorded data of scientific quality that are contained with the COSMIC database for Epoch 3.1 are represented here. selected based on the sources likely to spend the most amount of time within the half-power point of the tele￾scope’s primary beam when a fully recorded field of view (FOV) is considered. Th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Summary of the pipeline implemented in COSMIC. Based on the telescope’s observational intent, the data will either flow from the hardware to the calibration pipeline or from the hardware to the search pipeline on the GPUs. The postprocessing step, which will be described later in this work, is a separate data flow and does not happen in real time. A more detailed depiction of the process can be found in Figures 3 an… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Histogram showing the number of frequencies per frequency window that have high kurtosis, implying high levels of RFI. The edges at 2–2.5 GHz and 3–3.5 GHz show significant RFI. Therefore, for VLASS, the central frequency range of 2.5–3.5 GHz was processed and searched. pipeline. The VLA observations are set with a series of “intents,”6 which are assigned by the person creating the scheduling block. When the intent … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example calibration plots from the AC tuning generated by plotting the phases prior to the calibration be￾ing applied. In (a), the overall grade is <0.2, (b) has a score of 0.639, and (c) has a score of 0.991. A score greater than 0.6 is considered a “good” calibration…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Calibration results for 2 months of operation. The colors of the bubbles represent the grade of the calibra￾tion, where the higher value is a lower SNR across the phase and the size of the bubble represents the number of times the source was observed. As can be seen, t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The plot above shows the power over time for the frequency channel containing the peak intensity of the W51 6.7 GHz methanol maser emission. The shape of the line is expected to correspond to the antenna’s primary beam response. As a comparison, the power response of c…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A plot of the signal-to-noise ratio versus observing frequency showing all of the hits found in the observations toward Voyager detected by seticore. database, and a segment of the calibrated and channel￾ized voltages is saved as “postage stamps.” To test the efficienc…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Percentage of frequencies flagged per filterbank file. Each dark red rectangle represents a filterbank file. Each dark blue rectangle represents a frequency range within the S-band for which we did not have data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: serves as an example of how CRICKETS performed on one of the 32 MHz subbands. It excelled at marking strong, isolated RFI signals and regions of denser RFI. One of CRICKETS most consistent prob￾lems was failing to identify or falsely identifying RFI in the frequency ra…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top: distribution of detected signals by the real￾time pipeline before any filtering for RFI. Bottom: number of channels flagged with high kurtosis per frequency bin. When the two plots are compared, there are frequency ranges where there are not many flagged channels…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: A flow diagram showing the logic behind the ARTISTIC pipeline that can be applied to any set of observations. the end of the real-time processing pipeline, a series of files containing segments of raw voltages from each on￾line antenna is saved. We can use these, comb…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: A histogram demonstrating the signals detected for each frequency per each beam. This shows that many of the signals are in similar frequency ranges and at a similar number of detected signals per frequency. ages, it was determined that this value removed most artifac…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: An example of the dynamic spectra from a single field in which the incoherent sum contained the main signal but the coherent beams each have a faint trace of the signal, indicating it is not likely an astronomical source of emission. All sources chosen are within the …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: A plot showing the distribution of EIRP values calculated for each of the 511 sources evaluated during this work. The values range from 1011 to 1016 W, providing some of the lowest values for technosignatures to date [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: A plot in galactic coordinates of all the co￾ordinates currently in the database observed from 29 March 2023 to 14 July 2024. The orange points represent data from frequencies below 4 GHz and the blue points are from data collected above 4 GHz. Data Availability State…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. A search for narrowband technosignatures from LTT 3780 with the Allen Telescope Array and the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array

    astro-ph.IM 2026-07 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

    No narrowband radio technosignatures were detected from LTT 3780 across ~30 hours of ATA and VLA observations spanning 1–10 GHz, setting EIRP limits of 4.7×10¹²–3.6×10¹³ W.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  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 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.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    e9<3˹|2yk^ ԨN= &6o_ X;o o6ZƤNˏ/ϏC (1͗ͯp|x (G^F51&h:<)n Mdэ>N gBE ( 2 5g>Ě wAE9 wfqL\ @ n̴

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 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 E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  5. [5]

    H., Bell, J

    Briggs, F. H., Bell, J. F., & Kesteven, M. J. 2000, The Astronomical Journal, 120, 3351, 10.1086/316861

    work page doi:10.1086/316861 2000

  6. [6]

    2024, , 167, 10, 10.3847/1538-3881/acf576

    Choza , C., Bautista , D., Croft , S., et al. 2024, , 167, 10, 10.3847/1538-3881/acf576

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acf576 2024

  7. [7]

    A., LaPlante , P

    Clark , M. A., LaPlante , P. C., & Greenhill , L. J. 2013, International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications, 27, 178, 10.1177/1094342012444794

    doi:10.1177/1094342012444794 2013

  8. [8]

    2020, CARTA: The Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy , 1.3.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3377984

    Comrie , A., Wang , K.-S., Ford , P., et al. 2020, CARTA: The Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy , 1.3.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3377984

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.3377984 2020

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    2021, , 133, 064502, 10.1088/1538-3873/abf329

    Czech , D., Isaacson , H., Pearce , L., et al. 2021, , 133, 064502, 10.1088/1538-3873/abf329

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    F., Hinsen , K., & Hugunin , J

    Dubois , P. F., Hinsen , K., & Hugunin , J. 1996, Comput. Phys. Commun., 10, 262

    1996

  3. [11]

    2008, The Big Ear Wow! Signal

    Ehman, J. 2008, The Big Ear Wow! Signal. http://www.bigear.org/wow20th.htm

    2008

  4. [12]

    2019, turboSETI: Python-based SETI search algorithm , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1906.006

    Enriquez , E., & Price , D. 2019, turboSETI: Python-based SETI search algorithm , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1906.006. 1906.006

    2019

  5. [13]

    D., & Fuller , G

    Etoka , S., Gray , M. D., & Fuller , G. A. 2012, , 423, 647, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20900.x

    2012

  6. [14]

    I., Siemion , A

    Gajjar , V., Perez , K. I., Siemion , A. P. V., et al. 2021, , 162, 33, 10.3847/1538-3881/abfd36

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    1999, Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 357, 3277

    Gray, M. 1999, Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 357, 3277. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1353849

    1999

  8. [16]

    J., Jacobs , D

    Hazelton , B. J., Jacobs , D. C., Pober , J. C., & Beardsley , A. P. 2017, The Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 140, 10.21105/joss.00140

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol

    Hickish , J., Beasley , T., Bower , G., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 269

    2019

  10. [18]

    Houston , K. M. 2023, Acta Astronautica, 212, 505, 10.1016/j.actaastro.2023.08.009

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    2023, , 166, 245, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad06b1

    Huang , B.-L., Tao , Z.-Z., & Zhang , T.-J. 2023, , 166, 245, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad06b1

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Hunter , J. D. 2007, Comput. Sci. Eng., 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Gajjar , V., Keane , E

    Johnson , O. A., Gajjar , V., Keane , E. F., et al. 2023, , 166, 193, 10.3847/1538-3881/acf9f5

    2023 doi

  14. [23]

    A., Chandler, C

    Lacy, M., Baum, S. A., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 132, 035001, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb

    2020 doi

  15. [24]

    2022, , 938, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac90bd

    Li , J.-K., Zhao , H.-C., Tao , Z.-Z., Zhang , T.-J., & Xiao-Hui , S. 2022, , 938, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac90bd

    2022 doi

  16. [25]

    2024, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Li , M., & Margot , J.-L. 2024, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 243, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 159.06

    2024

  17. [27]

    2023 b , , 166, 182, 10.3847/1538-3881/acf83d

    ---. 2023 b , , 166, 182, 10.3847/1538-3881/acf83d

    2023 doi

  18. [29]

    2023 b , Nature Astronomy, 7, 492, 10.1038/s41550-022-01872-z

    ---. 2023 b , Nature Astronomy, 7, 492, 10.1038/s41550-022-01872-z

    2023 doi

  19. [30]

    MacMahon , D. H. E., Price , D. C., Lebofsky , M., et al. 2018, , 130, 044502, 10.1088/1538-3873/aa80d2

    2018 doi

  20. [31]

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

    McMullin , J. P., Waters , B., Schiebel , D., Young , W., & Golap , K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw , F. Hill , & D. J. Bell , 127

    2007

  21. [32]

    M \'e ndez , A., Ortiz Ceballos , K., & Zuluaga , J. I. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.08513, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.08513

    2024 doi arXiv

  22. [33]

    M., & Gary , D

    Nita , G. M., & Gary , D. E. 2010, , 406, L60, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00882.x

    2010

  23. [34]

    M., Sadykov , V

    Nita , G. M., Sadykov , V. M., Kosovichev , A. G., & Oria , V. 2019, in AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 2019, SH31E--3340

    2019

  24. [35]

    Oliphant , T. E. 2007, Comput. Sci. Eng., 9, 10, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.58

    2007 doi

  25. [36]

    2016, Jansky Very Large Array Primary Beam Characteristics , Tech

    Perley , R. 2016, Jansky Very Large Array Primary Beam Characteristics , Tech. rep., National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) . https://library.nrao.edu/public/memos/evla/EVLAM_195.pdf

    2016

  26. [37]

    C., Enriquez , J

    Price , D. C., Enriquez , J. E., Brzycki , B., et al. 2020, , 159, 86, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab65f1

    2020 doi

  27. [39]

    2019 b , , 884, 14, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3fa8

    ---. 2019 b , , 884, 14, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3fa8

    2019 doi

  28. [40]

    Z., Smith , S., Price , D

    Sheikh , S. Z., Smith , S., Price , D. C., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1153, 10.1038/s41550-021-01508-8

    2021 doi

  29. [41]

    Siemion , A. P. V., Demorest , P., Korpela , E., et al. 2013, , 767, 94, 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/94

    2013 doi

  30. [42]

    S., & Pisano , D

    Smith , E., Lynch , R. S., & Pisano , D. J. 2022, , 164, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7e47

    2022 doi

  31. [43]

    C., Sheikh , S

    Smith , S., Price , D. C., Sheikh , S. Z., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1148, 10.1038/s41550-021-01479-w

    2021 doi

  32. [44]

    2023, , 166, 190, 10.3847/1538-3881/acfc1e

    Tao , Z.-Z., Huang , B.-L., Luan , X.-H., et al. 2023, , 166, 190, 10.3847/1538-3881/acfc1e

    2023 doi

  33. [45]

    Taylor , M. B. 2005, in ASP Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell , M. Britton , & R. Ebert , 29

    2005

  34. [46]

    D., Varghese , S

    Tremblay , C. D., Varghese , S. S., Hickish , J., et al. 2024, , 167, 35, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0fe0

    2024 doi

  35. [47]

    2023, , 166, 146, 10.3847/1538-3881/acf12a

    Wang , Y.-C., Tao , Z.-Z., Zhang , Z.-S., et al. 2023, , 166, 146, 10.3847/1538-3881/acf12a

    2023 doi

  36. [48]

    1997, Astron

    Weber , R., Faye , C., Biraud , F., & Dansou , J. 1997, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser., 126, 161, 10.1051/aas:1997257

    1997 doi

  37. [49]

    H., Billingham , J., Edelson , R

    Wolfe , J. H., Billingham , J., Edelson , R. E., et al. 1981, in NASA Conference Publication, Vol. 2156, NASA Conference Publication, ed. J. Billingham , 391

    1981

  38. [50]

    T., Kanodia, S., & Lubar, E

    Wright, J. T., Kanodia, S., & Lubar, E. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 260, 10.3847/1538-3881/aae099

    2018 doi

  39. [51]

    2020, , 891, 174, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7376

    Zhang , Z.-S., Werthimer , D., Zhang , T.-J., et al. 2020, , 891, 174, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7376

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.