Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 114 references

Flickers, Bursts, and Dips: Detecting Rapid Variability with the g(2) Autocorrelation Function

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the normalized autocorrelation function g(2) of ordinary photometry can expose chaotic, nonperiodic variability on sub-millisecond timescales, even when each individual fluctuation is far too weak to detect on its own.

desk verdict A careful, useful methods paper on using g(2) for sub-millisecond chaotic variability; the estimator and variance derivations are sound, but the PANOSETI sensitivity claim in §3.1.1 is off by orders of magnitude and needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21157 v2 pith:U7BWKN57 submitted 2025-04-29 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR

Brian C. Lacki This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords autocorrelationfunctiong(2)intensitycorrelationrapidopticalvariabilitysub-millisecondphotometryshotnoiseatmosphericscintillationtimeseriesanalysistechnosignatures
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 argues that the normalized autocorrelation function of photon counts, the quantum-optics quantity $g^{(2)}$, can serve as a general detector for fast, nonperiodic brightness fluctuations in astronomy. Because chaotic variability adds a bump to $g^{(2)}$ at lags shorter than the variability's coherence time, the method works without detecting individual flares or knowing a period. The author derives signal-to-noise formulas for the bump's height in the presence of shot noise and atmospheric scintillation, and shows that fluctuations with per-event signal-to-noise near unity become detectable when many independent samples are averaged. This matters because sub-millisecond optical variability is largely unexplored, and the method can be applied to existing continuous photometry from fast cameras and space transit surveys.

What carries the argument

The key object is the normalized intensity autocorrelation $g^{(2)}(\Delta t)=\langle I(t)I(t+\Delta t)\rangle/\langle I(t)\rangle^2$ for a stationary light curve; its excess over 1 equals the variance of fractional intensity fluctuations, and a compact bump at short lags marks variability with coherence time $\tau_c$. The load-bearing estimator is $\Delta\hat{g}^{(2)}(\Delta i, \Delta j)$, formed from products $(Q_i-Q_{i+\Delta i+\Delta j})(Q_{i+\Delta i}-Q_{i+\Delta j})$ normalized by the mean count squared; it estimates $g^{(2)}(\Delta i\,T_d)-g^{(2)}(\Delta j\,T_d)$ while suppressing shot noise at zero lag and linear-in-fluctuation residuals. Gaussian-process covariance calculations using Isserlis's theorem, together with Poisson shot-noise moment calculations, give the variance of this estimator, from which the signal-to-noise ratio and the required number of data points follow.

What would settle it

Record an hour of continuous microsecond-cadence photometry of a bright, apparently constant star with a fast photon-counting camera, compute $\Delta\hat{g}^{(2)}(1, \Delta j)$, and compare the scatter to the shot-noise variance formula $(2+\delta_{0,\Delta i})/(N \bar{I}_d^2)$; a bump or excess scatter not predicted by the formula would falsify the estimator's variance model, while flat results at the predicted noise level would support the method.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that any new, chaotic source of variability imprints an extra bump on $g^{(2)}(t)$ centered at zero lag with width set by the variability's coherence time $\tau_c$, and that the height of this bump can be isolated with the difference estimator $\Delta\hat{g}^{(2)}(\Delta i, \Delta j)$, which compares photon products at two lags and removes both the zero-lag shot-noise spike and residual terms linear in the fluctuations. The signal is quadratic in intensity: when the variable source is blended into a brighter background, the bump height is diluted by the square of the flux ratio. The paper shows that shot noise and scintillation limit the measurement in calculable ways, and that with enough data a bump is detectable even when each individual fluctuation event has signal-to-noise around one. Three model applications -- a flickering artificial lantern beside a star, optical microbursts from the Crab pulsar, and frequent shallow cometary transits -- are simulated to demonstrate that the predicted sensitivity is real.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes the rapid-variability signal is an additive, independent, zero-mean fluctuation on a constant background, and that slower background variability such as atmospheric scintillation is either much longer in coherence time or removable by comparison with a control star.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sub-millisecond chaotic variability from sources like the Crab pulsar can be detected in about an hour of IACT photometry even when the microbursts have signal-to-noise near one individually.
  • A quasithermal lantern with mean flux about $10^{-3}$ of its host star is detectable around an 8th-magnitude sunlike star within about a minute of observation.
  • Frequent shallow cometary transits that are too weak to detect individually will appear as a bump in $g^{(2)}$ of TESS-like light curves.
  • Because the signal is quadratic in the source-to-background flux ratio, blended backgrounds suppress it quadratically; the most promising targets are bright stars observed with large collecting areas.
  • The variance formulas give a scaling law for the required number of data points, roughly $N_d \propto (\text{noise}/\text{variability})^4$, which quantifies when the autocorrelation method beats direct event detection.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same $\Delta\hat{g}^{(2)}$ estimator could be applied to archival continuous light curves from missions like TESS to search for irregular transit swarms, an extension beyond the three worked models.
  • A differential mode comparing $\Delta\hat{g}^{(2)}$ on target and control sightlines could suppress ubiquitous terrestrial backgrounds such as unexcised Cherenkov showers; the paper suggests this but does not develop it fully.
  • Real detectors with dead time or non-Poisson noise, such as silicon photomultipliers, would require revised variance formulas; the paper notes the factor-of-two noise penalty for one common SiPM model, so the sensitivity numbers are a best case.
  • If optical SETI instruments switch from triggered to continuous recording modes, $g^{(2)}$ analysis could convert existing pulse-hunting hardware into statistical variability searches without storing the full light curves.
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

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes using the normalized autocorrelation function g(2) to detect fast, chaotic optical variability whose individual fluctuations are buried in shot noise and scintillation. It introduces a differenced estimator Δĝ(2), derives its mean and variance for Gaussian variability and for shot noise in Appendices A and B, and derives signal-to-noise scalings in Section 2.9. Three applications are presented: a modulated 'quasithermal lantern' near a host star observed with an IACT-like array, optical microbursts in the Crab pulsar, and irregular cometary transits in TESS-like photometry. The central claim is that fluctuations with individual signal-to-noise S_Q ≈ 1 can be detected statistically once enough independent samples are accumulated. I checked the specific stress-test concern about Eqs. (37) and (39): inserting the stated lantern parameters into Eq. (37) gives S_g2 ≈ 3.1, and inserting the PANOSETI parameters into Eq. (39) gives S_g2 ≈ 75 for a 1000 h integration at J = 10^-3, in agreement with Eq. (32) to within factors of order unity; the alleged six-order-of-magnitude discrepancy does not reproduce. The main derivations are internally consistent, and the simulations in Figure 4 support the analytic variance scalings.

Significance. If the result holds, the method provides a broadly applicable statistical tool for sub-millisecond optical variability, complementing individual-pulse searches and periodicity folding. The paper's strengths are its first-principles derivations in Appendices A and B, explicit analytic SNR scalings, and numerical simulations that verify the variance formulas. The three worked examples give concrete, falsifiable predictions about how many data points are needed to detect S_Q ≈ 1 fluctuations. The connection to earlier MANIA d2 work and stellar-variability autocorrelation studies is acknowledged, so the novelty claim is appropriately scoped as a synthesis and quantitative generalization rather than a claim of a wholly new statistic. The paper is not circular: the SNR formulas are derived, and the simulations generate light curves from assumed covariances and verify that the estimator recovers those covariances.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.9, Eq. (31)] The standard-deviation formula as printed has N_d^o in the denominator without a square root; this contradicts the shot-noise variance in Appendix B, Eq. (B30), and makes Eq. (32) not derivable from Eq. (31). The denominator should be sqrt(N_d^o).
  2. [Section 2.9, Eqs. (33) and (36)] Eq. (33) contains an extra factor of η^2 beyond what Eq. (32) implies: solving Eq. (32) for N_d^o gives a factor 2η^4, not 2η^2(...)^4 = 2η^6. Similarly, Eq. (36) omits the S_Q^4 factor that follows from Eq. (35). The numerical examples use S_Q ≈ 1 and η ≈ 1, so the conclusions are unaffected, but the general formulas should be corrected.
  3. [Section 3.1.1 and footnote 9] The lantern model assumes 1 μs continuous sampling and a 10 μs coherence time, but footnote 9 states that VERITAS has a reported maximum sampling rate of 4.8 kHz. Please state explicitly that the example assumes a hypothetical upgraded continuous-readout mode, or rescale the example to T_d ≈ 208 μs, in which case the quoted sensitivity changes substantially.
  4. [Section 3.3] The transit example describes a habitable-zone transit timescale of about 3 hr, but for a solar-radius star at 1 au with v_T = 30 km/s the full transit duration is approximately 13 hr. Clarify the assumed stellar radius and orbital parameters.
  5. [Figure 4 caption and general typography] The caption writes '2 16 samples' where 2^16 is intended; please fix this and scan the equations for similar missing exponents or square-root symbols.
  6. [Sections 2.1 and 2.8] The paper states the assumption of no dead time in Section 2.1 but does not revisit it in the variance formulas. A sentence noting that dead time, correlated detector noise, or target-correlated scintillation would require revised variance expressions would help readers apply the method to real instruments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SNR formulas are derived from first principles, and the simulations are self-consistency checks rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The Delta-g(2) estimator is defined directly from the photon-count time series (Eq. 9), and its mean and variance are obtained from the Poisson shot-noise model (Appendix B) and from a multivariate-normal Gaussian-variability model (Appendix A) using Isserlis' theorem; no parameter is fitted to the simulations. The Sg2 formula (Eq. 32) follows algebraically from those variances, and the example sensitivity estimates (Eqs. 37 and 39) are evaluations of that formula for stated instrument parameters. The simulations inject light curves with an assumed covariance and then verify that the estimator recovers that covariance; this is an internal self-consistency check, which is appropriate for a methods paper, and it does not make a prediction equivalent to its input by construction. The two self-citations (Lacki 2011 and Lacki 2024) support peripheral facts about IACT collecting area and Poisson-process background, with external support such as Kingman (1993) also cited, so they are not load-bearing. The paper's stated limitations (scintillation confusion, Durbin-Watson degeneracy, neglected dead time) concern robustness and correctness rather than circularity; the apparent numerical mismatch between Eq. 32 and the printed prefactors in Eqs. 37/39 is an internal consistency issue, not a reduction of a claim to its inputs. No circular step is therefore established.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard statistical noise models: Poisson shot noise, Gaussian or lognormal scintillation, and wide-sense stationarity. The application examples add hand-chosen parameters for hypothetical targets. No parameters are fitted to real data; the 'predictions' are sensitivity scalings rather than measurements.

free parameters (9)
  • Lantern fractional brightness relative to host star = 10^-3, 10^-3.5, and 10^-2.75 in the examples
    Chosen by hand for the SETI sensitivity demonstration; no observational constraint is given.
  • Host star V magnitude in the lantern example = V = 8
    Sets the ratio of star photons to sky background; chosen so the signal is not immediately swamped.
  • Photon detection efficiency of the VERITAS-like array = 15%
    Assumed to obtain the effective area A = 68 m^2 in Section 3.1.1.
  • Lantern coherence time and sampling cadence = tau_c = 10 microseconds; T_d = 1 microsecond
    Adopted to represent a 100 kHz modulated artificial source.
  • Crab microburst peak intensity = Set so S_Q is near 1
    Chooses the burst photon number at the threshold of individual detectability in Section 3.2.1.
  • Crab microburst width and sampling cadence = 0.5 microsecond FWHM; T_d = 0.1 microsecond
    Model inputs based on radio microburst properties and chosen sampling.
  • Crab nebula background photon flux = 7e6 photon m^-2 s^-1
    Adopted from literature to set the dominant background in the microburst simulation.
  • Comet transit depth and event rate = Varied in Figure 3
    Hypothetical belt parameters used to show when the autocorrelation bump becomes detectable.
  • TESS-like star magnitude and binned cadence = IC = 12; T_d = 3 hours after binning
    Example parameters for long, regular satellite light curves.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The photometric intensity is wide-sense stationary or cyclostationary, so the autocorrelation depends only on lag.
    Section 2.1 and used throughout Appendices A and B; the Crab example handles cyclostationarity by averaging over pulse phases.
  • domain assumption Independent variability mechanisms add linearly in flux and in covariance.
    Eqs. 19-23 in Section 2.3; this underlies the additive noise model and the SNR derivation.
  • domain assumption Photon counts are Poisson distributed given the intensity.
    Eq. 4 in Section 2.1; non-Poisson SiPM noise is treated only as a parameterized factor in Section 2.8.
  • domain assumption Atmospheric scintillation can be modeled as stationary Gaussian noise with a broken power-law spectrum, with lognormal corrections simulated separately.
    Section 2.7 and Appendix A.4; the paper states the Gaussian model works when the scintillation variance is small.
  • ad hoc to paper The intrinsic autocovariance has a Gaussian shape for the analytic variance estimates.
    Eq. A18 in Appendix A.3 is used to get closed-form variances; other shapes give different coefficients but the same scaling.
  • standard math Isserlis' theorem for zero-mean multivariate normal variables is applied to compute moments of intensity products.
    Appendix A.1, Eq. A3.
  • standard math Campbell's theorem for Poisson point processes gives the mean and covariance of burst and transit intensities.
    Sections 3.2.1 and 3.3, Eqs. 42-43 and 45-46.
  • domain assumption The observing series is uninterrupted with no dead time.
    Section 2.1 states Theta_i = i T_d; Section 2.10 notes many existing fast instruments are triggered, which prevents direct application.
invented entities (1)
  • Quasithermal lantern, an artificial modulated beacon near a host star
    purpose: Example technosignature target for the g(2) method, modeled as exponentially distributed intensity with 10 microsecond coherence time.
    The lantern is a hypothetical source invented for a sensitivity demonstration. Its only predicted handle is the g(2) bump itself, which is the method's output, so there is no independent external evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Flickers, Bursts, and Dips: Detecting Rapid Variability with the g(2) Autocorrelation Function." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U7BWKN57

@misc{pith2026250421157,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Flickers, Bursts, and Dips: Detecting Rapid Variability with the g(2) Autocorrelation Function},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U7BWKN57}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21157}
}
abstract

Rapid optical transient events can be hard to detect because of the limited number of photons they produce. I discuss a method of inferring the presence of fast, chaotic variability in photometry using the normalized autocorrelation function, what is called $g^{(2)}$ in quantum optics. The variability's signature is a bump in the function at short lags. No periodicity is needed for the method to work. Versions of this method are attested in stellar variability studies, but its uses in some other subfields apparently have not been realized. I calculate expected signal-to-noise ratios with shot noise and scintillation. This method could be used to find unknown phenomena, particularly sub-millisecond optical variability. I present simple models of three example use cases: a flickering artificial "lantern" near a host sun, optical microbursts from the Crab pulsar, and frequent irregular transits of a star by cometary bodies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21157 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Simulated microsecond photometry from a VERITAS-like array of an V⋆ = 8 sunlike star with a quasithermal lantern. The first quarter millisecond of photometry is shown on top (grey series), and the measured autocovariance ∆gˆ (2) o difference on bottom (dark grey series). As the lantern’s brightness increases relative to the star, (tiny) fluctuations begin to appear in the underlying intensity curve (blue, top), with… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Simulated submicrosecond data from a VERITAS-like array observing the Crab pulsar in a search for optical microbursts. The telescope records photon counts during each radio main pulse for an hour; a section of the counts for a pulse containing a burst is shown on top. The microbursts are visible in the underlying intensity curve (blue lines, top), but not detectable individually in the noisy background. By averaging… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Simulated TESS-like light curves of a sunlike star with IC -band apparent magnitude 12, with the estimator derived autoco￾variance g (2) functions. Here, the light curve has been sampled for a year (only partly shown) and then binned to Td = 3 hr, about the timescale of a habitable zone transit, with resultant photon shot noise fluctuations σJ;n ≈ 0.00024. The transits have a depth equal to J¯T ⋆ , occurring as a Po… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Numerical results in simulations of slow variability. In the simulations, photometry is taken at a cadence of one microsecond for 216 samples, and the coherence time of the background variability is within the plotted range. On top is plotted the mean value of gˆ (2) o…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2016, PhRvL, 117, 111301, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.111301

    Abdallah, H., Abramowski, A., Aharonian, F., et al. 2016, PhRvL, 117, 111301, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.111301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.111301 2016

  2. [2]

    A., et al

    Abe, S., Abhir, J., Acciari, V. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4387, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae697

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae697 2024

  3. [3]

    U., Archambault, S., Archer, A., et al

    Abeysekara, A. U., Archambault, S., Archer, A., et al. 2016, ApJL, 818, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/818/2/L33

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/818/2/l33 2016

  4. [4]

    U., Benbow, W., Brill, A., et al

    Abeysekara, A. U., Benbow, W., Brill, A., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 1164, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1143-y

    doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1143-y 2020

  5. [5]

    2012, ApJ, 757, 158, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/158

    Abramowski, A., Acero, F., Aharonian, F., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 158, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/158

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/2/158 2012

  6. [6]

    B., Archer, A., et al

    Acharyya, A., Adams, C. B., Archer, A., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ace347

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ace347 2023

  7. [7]

    P., Bangale, P., et al

    Acharyya, A., Aufdenberg, J. P., Bangale, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2b68

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2b68 2024

  8. [8]

    2011, Experimental Astronomy, 32, 193, doi: 10.1007/s10686-011-9247-0 Aleksi´ c, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L

    Actis, M., Agnetta, G., Aharonian, F., et al. 2011, Experimental Astronomy, 32, 193, doi: 10.1007/s10686-011-9247-0 Aleksi´ c, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2014, JCAP, 2014, 008, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/02/008

    doi:10.1007/s10686-011-9247-0 2011

Show all 114 references
  1. [9]

    2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 854, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0266-2

    Ambrosino, F., Papitto, A., Stella, L., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 854, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0266-2

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    A., et al

    Ansdell, M., Gaidos, E., Rappaport, S. A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 69, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/2/69

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    L., et al

    Ansdell, M., Gaidos, E., Jacobs, T. L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 3579, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3289

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    A., Antoranz, P., et al

    Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., Antoranz, P., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A133, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526853

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    Arecchi, F. T. 1965, PhRvL, 15, 912, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.15.912

    1965 doi

  6. [14]

    Arnold, L. F. A. 2005, ApJ, 627, 534, doi: 10.1086/430437

    2005 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Davoyan, A

    Atwater, H. A., Davoyan, A. R., Ilic, O., et al. 2018, Nature Materials, 17, 861, doi: 10.1038/s41563-018-0075-8

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    2007, in Stochastic Geometry, ed

    Baddeley, A. 2007, in Stochastic Geometry, ed. W. Weil (Berlin: Springer), 1–75, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-38175-4 1

    2007 doi

  9. [17]

    2009, Journal of Modern Optics, 56, 261, doi: 10.1080/09500340802450565

    Barbieri, C., Naletto, G., Occhipinti, T., et al. 2009, Journal of Modern Optics, 56, 261, doi: 10.1080/09500340802450565

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    A., Stassun, K

    Bastien, F. A., Stassun, K. G., Basri, G., & Pepper, J. 2013, Nature, 500, 427, doi: 10.1038/nature12419

    2013 doi

  11. [19]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 511, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0741-z

    Benbow, W., Bird, R., Brill, A., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 511, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0741-z

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    1997, Ap&SS, 252, 51, doi: 10.1023/A:1000845628229 24 Lacki

    Beskin, G., Borisov, N., Komarova, V., et al. 1997, Ap&SS, 252, 51, doi: 10.1023/A:1000845628229 24 Lacki

    1997 doi

  13. [21]

    L., & Shvartsman, V

    Plakhotnichenko, V. L., & Shvartsman, V. F. 1982, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 92, IAU Colloq. 67: Instrumentation for Astronomy with Large Optical Telescopes, ed. C. M. Humphries, 181–184, doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-7787-7 23

    1982 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Mitronova, S

    Beskin, G. M., Mitronova, S. N., Neizvestny, S. I., et al. 1995, Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, 8, 297, doi: 10.1080/10556799508226946

    1995 doi

  15. [23]

    Bodman, E. H. L., & Quillen, A. 2016, ApJL, 819, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L34

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    Borra, E. F. 2010, A&A, 511, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913878 —. 2012, AJ, 144, 181, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/6/181

    2010 doi

  17. [25]

    F., & Trottier, E

    Borra, E. F., & Trottier, E. 2016, PASP, 128, 114201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/969/114201

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    S., LaCourse, D

    Boyajian, T. S., LaCourse, D. M., Rappaport, S. A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 3988, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw218

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    S., Alonso, R., Ammerman, A., et al

    Boyajian, T. S., Alonso, R., Ammerman, A., et al. 2018, ApJL, 853, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa405

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    Brzycki, B., Siemion, A. P. V., de Pater, I., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdee0

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    M., & Drummond, P

    Caves, C. M., & Drummond, P. D. 1994, Reviews of Modern Physics, 66, 481, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.66.481

    1994 doi

  22. [30]

    2019, The Analysis of Time Series: An Introduction with R (Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC)

    Chatfield, C., & Xing, H. 2019, The Analysis of Time Series: An Introduction with R (Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC)

    2019

  23. [31]

    N., Stoyan, D., Kendall, W

    Chiu, S. N., Stoyan, D., Kendall, W. S., & Mecke, J. 2013, Stochastic Geometry and its Applications: Third Edition (New York: Wiley), doi: 10.1002/9781118658222

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    J., Disney, M

    Cocke, W. J., Disney, M. J., & Taylor, D. J. 1969, Nature, 221, 525, doi: 10.1038/221525a0

    1969 doi

  25. [33]

    M., & Hillenbrand, L

    Cody, A. M., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2010, ApJS, 191, 389, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/191/2/389

    2010 doi

  26. [34]

    M., Soto, A

    Corbett, H., Law, N. M., Soto, A. V., et al. 2020, ApJL, 903, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abbee5

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    M., Lazio, J

    Cordes, J. M., Lazio, J. W., & Sagan, C. 1997, ApJ, 487, 782, doi: 10.1086/304620

    1997 doi

  28. [36]

    2009, Astroparticle Physics, 31, 156, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2008.12.008

    Deil, C., Domainko, W., Hermann, G., et al. 2009, Astroparticle Physics, 31, 156, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2008.12.008

    2009 doi

  29. [37]

    S., Marsh, T

    Dhillon, V. S., Marsh, T. R., Stevenson, M. J., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 825, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11881.x

    2007

  30. [39]

    S., Bezawada, N., Black, M., et al

    Dhillon, V. S., Bezawada, N., Black, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 350, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2130

    2021 doi

  31. [40]

    J., & Milone, A

    Dobrzycka, D., Kenyon, S. J., & Milone, A. A. E. 1996, AJ, 111, 414, doi: 10.1086/117794

    1996 doi

  32. [41]

    1994, The Messenger, 78, 9

    Dravins, D. 1994, The Messenger, 78, 9

    1994

  33. [42]

    Dravins, D., Lindegren, L., Mezey, E., & Young, A. T. 1997, PASP, 109, 173, doi: 10.1086/133872 —. 1998, PASP, 110, 610, doi: 10.1086/316161

    1997 doi

  34. [43]

    Dravins, D., Barbieri, C., Fosbury, R. A. E., et al. 2005, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0511027

    2005 doi arXiv

  35. [44]

    Durbin, J., & Watson, G. S. 1950, Biometrika, 37, 409, doi: 10.2307/2332391 —. 1951, Biometrika, 38, 159, doi: 10.2307/2332325

    1950 doi

  36. [45]

    2000, PhRvL, 85, 2669, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.2669

    Eichler, D., & Beskin, G. 2000, PhRvL, 85, 2669, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.2669

    2000 doi

  37. [46]

    M., & Uttley, P

    Emmanoulopoulos, D., McHardy, I. M., & Uttley, P. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 931, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16328.x

    2010

  38. [47]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 1209, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1122

    Farah, W., Flynn, C., Bailes, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1209, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1122

    2018 doi

  39. [48]

    M., & Vidal-Madjar, A

    Ferlet, R., Hobbs, L. M., & Vidal-Madjar, A. 1987, A&A, 185, 267

    1987

  40. [49]

    2013, ApJ, 768, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/93

    Findeisen, K., Hillenbrand, L., Ofek, E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/93

    2013 doi

  41. [50]

    2009, A&A, 507, 1719, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911739 German` a, C., Zampieri, L., Barbieri, C., et al

    Foellmi, C. 2009, A&A, 507, 1719, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911739 German` a, C., Zampieri, L., Barbieri, C., et al. 2012, A&A, 548, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118754

    2009 doi

  42. [51]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, 4126, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2143 H

    Guerin, W., Dussaux, A., Fouch´ e, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4126, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2143 H. E. S. S. Collaboration, Aharonian, F., Ait Benkhali, F., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243096

    2017 doi

  43. [52]

    2013, Stochastic Geometry for Wireless Networks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/cbo9781139043816 Hanbury Brown, R

    Haenggi, M. 2013, Stochastic Geometry for Wireless Networks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/cbo9781139043816 Hanbury Brown, R. 1956a, Nature, 178, 1447, doi: 10.1038/1781447a0 —. 1956b, Nature, 178, 1046, doi: 10.1038/1781046a0 Hanbury Brown, R., Davis, J...

    2013 doi

  44. [53]

    H., & Eilek, J

    Hankins, T. H., & Eilek, J. A. 2007, ApJ, 670, 693, doi: 10.1086/522362

    2007 doi

  45. [54]

    H., Jones, G., & Eilek, J

    Hankins, T. H., Jones, G., & Eilek, J. A. 2015, ApJ, 802, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/130

    2015 doi

  46. [55]

    H., Kern, J

    Hankins, T. H., Kern, J. S., Weatherall, J. C., & Eilek, J. A. 2003, Nature, 422, 141, doi: 10.1038/nature01477

    2003 doi

  47. [56]

    K., Dhillon, V

    Hardy, L. K., Dhillon, V. S., Spitler, L. G., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 2800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2153

    2017 doi

  48. [57]

    R., Ackermann, R

    Harp, G. R., Ackermann, R. F., Astorga, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeb98 Rapid variability with g(2) 25

    2018 doi

  49. [58]

    E., Farley, O

    Hartley, K. E., Farley, O. J. D., Townson, M. J., Osborn, J., & Wilson, R. W. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 1235, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2835

    2023 doi

  50. [59]

    Heidt, J., & Wagner, S. J. 1996, A&A, 305, 42, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9506032

    1996 doi arXiv

  51. [60]

    2006, Astroparticle Physics, 26, 22, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2006.04.008

    Hinton, J., Hermann, G., Kr¨ otz, P., & Funk, S. 2006, Astroparticle Physics, 26, 22, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2006.04.008

    2006 doi

  52. [61]

    2019, PASP, 131, 034502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aafbac —

    Hippke, M. 2019, PASP, 131, 034502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aafbac —. 2021, AJ, 162, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abf7b7

    2019 doi

  53. [62]

    B., & Horowitz, P

    Howard, A. B., & Horowitz, P. 2001, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4273, The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) in the Optical Spectrum III, ed. S. A. Kingsley & R. Bhathal, 153–160, doi: 10.1117/12.435369

    2001 doi

  54. [63]

    W., Horowitz, P., Wilkinson, D

    Howard, A. W., Horowitz, P., Wilkinson, D. T., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 1270, doi: 10.1086/423300

    2004 doi

  55. [64]

    Isaacson, H., Siemion, A. P. V., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 014201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaeae0

    2019 doi

  56. [65]

    1918, Biometrika, 12, 134, doi: 10.2307/2331932

    Isserlis, L. 1918, Biometrika, 12, 134, doi: 10.2307/2331932

    1918 doi

  57. [66]

    2014, A&A, 570, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424313

    Kallinger, T., De Ridder, J., Hekker, S., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424313

    2014 doi

  58. [67]

    Kingman, J. F. C. 1993, Poisson Processes (Oxford: Clarendon Press), doi: 10.1093/oso/9780198536932.001.0001

    1993

  59. [68]

    2019, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 3, 91, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ab2fdb

    Kipping, D. 2019, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 3, 91, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ab2fdb

    2019 doi

  60. [69]

    2012, MNRAS, 426, 647, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21653.x

    Kornilov, V. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 647, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21653.x

    2012

  61. [70]

    2012, A&A, 546, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219954 Kov´ acs, G., Zucker, S., & Mazeh, T

    Voziakova, O. 2012, A&A, 546, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219954 Kov´ acs, G., Zucker, S., & Mazeh, T. 2002, A&A, 391, 369, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020802

    2012 doi

  62. [71]

    Lacki, B. C. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 3075, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19255.x —. 2024, ApJ, 966, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad11f2 Le Bohec, S., & Holder, J. 2006, ApJ, 649, 399, doi: 10.1086/506379

    2011

  63. [72]

    R., Poppe, A., Hammel, E., et al

    Leeb, W. R., Poppe, A., Hammel, E., et al. 2013, Astrobiology, 13, 521, doi: 10.1089/ast.2012.0951

    2013

  64. [73]

    2016, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 69, 40, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1604.01356

    Lubin, P. 2016, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 69, 40, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1604.01356

    2016 doi arXiv

  65. [74]

    A., Antoranz, P., et al

    Lucarelli, F., Barrio, J. A., Antoranz, P., et al. 2008, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 589, 415, doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2008.03.007

    2008 doi

  66. [75]

    A., Werthimer, D., et al

    Maire, J., Wright, S. A., Werthimer, D., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11454, X-Ray, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy IX, ed. A. D. Holland & J. Beletic, 114543C, doi: 10.1117/12.2562786

    2020 doi

  67. [76]

    1964, American Journal of Physics, 32, 919, doi: 10.1119/1.1970023

    Martienssen, W., & Spiller, E. 1964, American Journal of Physics, 32, 919, doi: 10.1119/1.1970023

    1964 doi

  68. [77]

    2011, ApJ, 741, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/119

    Mathur, S., Hekker, S., Trampedach, R., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/119

    2011 doi

  69. [78]

    P., Mannings, V., & Ungerechts, H

    Natta, A., Grinin, V. P., Mannings, V., & Ungerechts, H. 1997, ApJ, 491, 885, doi: 10.1086/305006

    1997 doi

  70. [79]

    Nimmo, K., Hessels, J. W. T., Keimpema, A., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 594, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01321-3

    2021 doi

  71. [80]

    S., & Wilson, R

    Osborn, J., F¨ ohring, D., Dhillon, V. S., & Wilson, R. W. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1707, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1400 Preuß, S., Hermann, G., Hofmann, W., & Kohnle, A. 2002, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 481, 229, doi: 10.1016/S0168-9002(01)01264-5

    2015 doi

  72. [81]

    1999, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Radhakrishnan, V. 1999, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 180, Synthesis Imaging in Radio Astronomy II, ed. G. B. Taylor, C. L. Carilli, & R. A. Perley, 671

    1999

  73. [82]

    2012, ApJ, 752, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/1

    Rappaport, S., Levine, A., Chiang, E., et al. 2012, ApJ, 752, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/1

    2012 doi

  74. [83]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 1453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2735

    Rappaport, S., Vanderburg, A., Jacobs, T., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 1453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2735

    2018 doi

  75. [84]

    2020, A&A, 639, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936071

    Rebollido, I., Eiroa, C., Montesinos, B., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936071

    2020 doi

  76. [85]

    Reiger, S. H. 1963, AJ, 68, 395, doi: 10.1086/108990

    1963 doi

  77. [86]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. J. Oschmann, Jacobus M., M. Clampin, G. G....

    2014 doi

  78. [87]

    2015, ApJ, 812, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/112

    Sanchis-Ojeda, R., Rappaport, S., Pall` e, E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/112

    2015 doi

  79. [88]

    J., Kording, E., et al

    Scaringi, S., Maccarone, T. J., Kording, E., et al. 2015, Science Advances, 1, e1500686, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1500686

    2015 doi

  80. [89]

    E., Pedersen, H., Gouiffes, C., Poulsen, J

    Schaefer, B. E., Pedersen, H., Gouiffes, C., Poulsen, J. M., & Pizzichini, G. 1987, A&A, 174, 338

    1987

  81. [90]

    N., & Townes, C

    Schwartz, R. N., & Townes, C. H. 1961, Nature, 190, 205, doi: 10.1038/190205a0

    1961 doi

  82. [91]

    2003, Science, 301, 493, doi: 10.1126/science.1084919 26 Lacki

    Shearer, A., Stappers, B., O’Connor, P., et al. 2003, Science, 301, 493, doi: 10.1126/science.1084919 26 Lacki

    2003 doi

  83. [92]

    1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Shvartsman, V., Beskin, G., Mitronova, S., et al. 1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 47, Third Decennial US-USSR Conference on SETI, ed. G. S. Shostak, 381

    1993

  84. [93]

    F., Bernstein, I

    Shvartsman, V. F., Bernstein, I. N., Beskin, G. M., et al. 1997, Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, 13, 13, doi: 10.1080/10556799708208109

    1997 doi

  85. [94]

    F., Beskin, G

    Shvartsman, V. F., Beskin, G. M., & Pustil’nik, S. A. 1989b, Astrophysics, 31, 685, doi: 10.1007/BF01012725

    doi

  86. [95]

    P., Nimmo, K., Hessels, J

    Snelders, M. P., Nimmo, K., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1486, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02101-x

    2023 doi

  87. [97]

    Stanton, R. H. 2019, Acta Astronautica, 156, 92, doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2018.05.061

    2019 doi

  88. [98]

    W., Winn, J

    Sullivan, P. W., Winn, J. N., Berta-Thompson, Z. K., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/77

    2015 doi

  89. [99]

    K., & Kurtsiefer, C

    Tan, P. K., & Kurtsiefer, C. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 1617, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx968

    2017 doi

  90. [100]

    2014, ApJL, 789, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/789/1/L10

    Kurtsiefer, C. 2014, ApJL, 789, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/789/1/L10

    2014 doi

  91. [101]

    2001, ARA&A, 39, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.511

    Tarter, J. 2001, ARA&A, 39, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.511

    2001 doi

  92. [102]

    Townes, C. H. 1983, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 80, 1147, doi: 10.1073/pnas.80.4.1147

    1983 doi

  93. [103]

    2014, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 47, 235, doi: 10.5303/JKAS.2014.47.6.235

    Trippe, S., Kim, J.-Y., Lee, B., et al. 2014, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 47, 235, doi: 10.5303/JKAS.2014.47.6.235

    2014 doi

  94. [104]

    Uttley, P., & McHardy, I. M. 2001, MNRAS, 323, L26, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04496.x Van de Sande, M., Scaringi, S., & Knigge, C. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 2430, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv157

    2001

  95. [105]

    A., Rappaport, S., et al

    Vanderburg, A., Johnson, J. A., Rappaport, S., et al. 2015, Nature, 526, 546, doi: 10.1038/nature15527

    2015 doi

  96. [106]

    1992, A&A, 261, 365

    Varady, M., & Hudec, R. 1992, A&A, 261, 365

    1992

  97. [107]

    S., & Uttley, P

    Vaughan, S., Edelson, R., Warwick, R. S., & Uttley, P. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1271, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07042.x VERITAS Collaboration, Aliu, E., Arlen, T., et al. 2011, Science, 334, 69, doi: 10.1126/science.1208192

    2003

  98. [108]

    2012, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 695, 247, doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2011.11.086

    Vinogradov, S. 2012, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 695, 247, doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2011.11.086

    2012 doi

  99. [109]

    2004, All of Statistics: A Concise Course in Statistical Inference (New York: Springer New York), doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-21736-9

    Wasserman, L. 2004, All of Statistics: A Concise Course in Statistical Inference (New York: Springer New York), doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-21736-9

    2004 doi

  100. [110]

    Willmer, C. N. A. 2018, ApJS, 236, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aabfdf

    2018 doi

  101. [111]

    A., Horowitz, P., Maire, J., et al

    Wright, S. A., Horowitz, P., Maire, J., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. C. J

    2018

  102. [112]

    Simard, & H

    Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 107025I, doi: 10.1117/12.2314268

    doi

  103. [113]

    Young, A. T. 1967, AJ, 72, 747, doi: 10.1086/110303

    1967 doi

  104. [114]

    J., Wehrhahn, A., & Reiter, J

    Zackrisson, E., Korn, A. J., Wehrhahn, A., & Reiter, J. 2018, ApJ, 862, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac386

    2018 doi

  105. [115]

    2019, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 49, 85, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1908.03396

    Zampieri, L., Naletto, G., Barbieri, C., et al. 2019, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 49, 85, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1908.03396

    2019 doi arXiv

  106. [116]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 12243, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3676

    Zmija, A., Vogel, N., Wohlleben, F., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 12243, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3676

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.