Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Measurement of the photosphere oblateness of $\gamma$ Cassiopeiae via Stellar Intensity Interferometry with the VERITAS Observatory

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Intensity interferometry measures an oblate stellar photosphere for the first time, on gamma Cassiopeiae.

desk verdict A genuine first SII oblateness measurement, but the unquantified Hδ disk contamination in the 416 nm band is a real soft spot that should be addressed before the axis ratio becomes a benchmark. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15027 v1 pith:LV6SB3XP submitted 2025-06-18 astro-ph.SR

A. Archer , J. P. Aufdenberg , P. Bangale , J. T. Bartkoske , W. Benbow , J. H. Buckley , Y. Chen , N. B.Y. Chin
show 53 more authors
J. L. Christiansen A. J. Chromey A. Duerr M. Escobar Godoy S. Feldman Q. Feng S. Filbert L. Fortson A. Furniss W. Hanlon O. Hervet C. E. Hinrichs J. Holder Z. Hughes T. B. Humensky W. Jin M. N. Johnson M. Kertzman M. Kherlakian D. Kieda N. Korzoun T. LeBohec M. A. Lisa M. Lundy G. Maier N. Matthews P. Moriarty R. Mukherjee W. Ning R. A. Ong A. Pandey M. Pohl E. Pueschel J. Quinn P. L. Rabinowitz K. Ragan P. T. Reynolds D. Ribeiro E. Roache J. G. Rose I. Sadeh L. Saha M. Santander J. Scott G. H. Sembroski R. Shang D. Tak J. V. Tucci J. Valverde V. V. Vassiliev D. A. Williams S. L. Wong The VERITAS Collaboration
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords stellarintensityinterferometrygammaCassiopeiaerapidrotatorsphotosphereoblatenessBestarssquaredvisibilityRoche-vonZeipelmodelgravitydarkening
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 measurement of an oblate stellar photosphere using intensity interferometry. Observing gamma Cassiopeiae at 416 nm with an array of four 12-meter telescopes, it finds that the star's disk is measurably elongated: a uniform-ellipse fit gives a minor-axis angular diameter of $0.43\pm0.02$ mas and a major-to-minor axis ratio of $1.28\pm0.04$, with the rotation axis at position angle $116^\circ\pm5^\circ$. A rapidly rotating stellar atmosphere model with limb and gravity darkening matches the same visibility data with an equatorial angular diameter of $0.604^{+0.041}_{-0.034}$ mas and a rotation rate with a 1 $\sigma$ lower limit of 97.7 percent of breakup. These parameters agree with earlier H-$\alpha$ spectroscopy and infrared interferometry of the star's decretion disk. If correct, the measurement establishes that intensity interferometry can recover stellar shape and orientation, not just size.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is stellar intensity interferometry: the normalized correlation of photomultiplier currents at two telescopes, whose fitted peak area is proportional to the squared visibility $|V|^2$ for a given projected baseline. The argument is carried by (1) coverage of the $u$--$v$ plane from six telescope pairs over many hour angles, (2) a uniform-ellipse visibility model, $A(H)=C_{\rm norm}\,[2J_1(\pi\theta_{\min}s)/(\pi\theta_{\min}s)]^2$, with $s$ encoding the ellipse axis ratio and orientation, and (3) a rapidly rotating Roche--von Zeipel model with limb darkening, gravity darkening, a grid of stellar-atmosphere intensity fields, and fixed inclination and parallax. These objects convert baseline-dependent visibility amplitudes first into a geometric description of the photosphere (minor-axis diameter, oblateness, position angle) and then into physical quantities (equatorial radius, near-breakup rotation rate).

What would settle it

Measure gamma Cas again through a narrow band that excludes H-delta, for example a 10 nm band centered near 420 nm, and refit the uniform ellipse; if the fitted axis ratio or position angle moves by more than the quoted uncertainties, the oblateness signal is contaminated by decretion-disk emission rather than indicating the photosphere.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, stated on the paper's own terms, is that intensity-interferometry visibilities taken over baselines of varied length and orientation resolve the equatorial bulge of a rapidly rotating star. Fitting the squared visibilities with a uniformly illuminated ellipse yields a minor-axis angular diameter of $0.43\pm0.02$ mas, a major-to-minor axis ratio of $1.28\pm0.04$, and a rotation-axis position angle of $116^\circ\pm5^\circ$ (statistical; comparable systematic uncertainties are reported). A Roche--von Zeipel rapid-rotator model with limb and gravity darkening describes the same data with an equatorial angular diameter of $0.604^{+0.041}_{-0.034}$ mas, an equatorial radius of $10.9^{+0.8}_{-0.6}\,R_\odot$, a 1 $\sigma$ lower limit of 97.7 percent of the breakup rotation rate, and a position angle of $114.7^{+6.4}_{-5.7}$ degrees. The paper states that this is the first measurement of an oblate photosphere using intensity interferometry.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that light from gamma Cas's decretion disk contributes negligibly to the correlated 416 nm signal, even though the 10 nm bandpass includes the H-delta line (which the disk fills with emission) and the model does not include the disk.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Rapid rotators among bright stars can now have their photospheric oblateness and spin-axis orientation measured at optical wavelengths, not just their disk geometry at infrared wavelengths.
  • Agreement between photosphere and disk position angles becomes a direct test of whether decretion disks form in the equatorial plane.
  • For rapid rotators, circular-disk fits are orientation-dependent, so previous single-orientation intensity-interferometry size measurements may need elliptical reanalysis.
  • Near-critical stellar rotation models must now reproduce geometric constraints from intensity interferometry, not just spectra and spectral energy distributions.
  • More hour-angle coverage and additional telescopes would sharpen the derived equatorial radius and rotation rate because the remaining uncertainty is statistical plus comparable systematic.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the disk-contamination assumption would be multi-band intensity interferometry across the Balmer jump; a stable fitted axis ratio would confirm the photospheric origin, while a wavelength-dependent ratio would map the disk contribution.
  • The same u--v coverage could be turned on other bright Be stars, and because the visibility zeros depend on baseline orientation, shape extraction does not require full model-independent imaging.
  • If disk emission does contaminate the 416 nm band, the method would still be useful, since the line-emitting disk itself could be mapped in H-alpha or H-delta light with the same correlator.
  • With longer optical baselines, the visibility function's dependence on the intensity distribution could reveal latitude-dependent gravity darkening rather than only the outer ellipse.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents stellar intensity interferometry (SII) observations of the rapid rotator γ Cassiopeiae using the VERITAS telescopes, with a 416 nm narrow-band filter. From more than 160 pair-hours of data, the authors extract squared visibilities as a function of baseline length and orientation, then fit them with (i) a uniform ellipse model and (ii) a Roche–von Zeipel rapid-rotator model with PHOENIX atmospheres. The uniform ellipse fit yields a minor-axis angular diameter of 0.43±0.02 mas, an axis ratio of 1.28±0.04, and a rotation-axis position angle of 116°±5°. The Roche–von Zeipel model gives an equatorial angular diameter of 0.604+0.041−0.034 mas and a 1σ lower limit on the rotation rate of 97.7% of breakup. The authors conclude that this is the first measurement of a stellar photosphere's oblateness using intensity interferometry, and that the measured orientation is consistent with infrared interferometric measurements of the decretion disk.

Significance. If the central claim is secure, this is a milestone for intensity interferometry: it demonstrates that SII with IACT-class collectors can measure not only stellar angular sizes but also photospheric shapes and orientations at sub-milliarcsecond scales. The paper's strengths include the publication of the full visibility data table (Table B1), a transparent bootstrap-based fitting procedure, and the internal consistency between the simple geometric model and the more physical atmosphere model. The inferred rotation rate is consistent with independent spectroscopic and interferometric constraints on γ Cas. The result would open a new niche for SII in stellar astrophysics, complementing Michelson interferometry at longer wavelengths.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5, Figure 15] The 416 nm bandpass (10 nm wide) includes the Hδ line at 4101 Å. The paper itself notes in Section 5 and in the caption of Figure 15 that the Hδ core is filled in by emission from γ Cas's decretion disk, and that 'The disk is not included in our model.' Because the disk is geometrically thin and lies in the equatorial plane (position angle ≈116°, consistent with the fitted rotation axis), any non-negligible disk contribution in this band will add an orientation-dependent visibility term that can mimic or bias the measured oblateness. The paper does not estimate the disk flux fraction in the 416 nm band, the angular scale of the emitting region, or its complex visibility at the 50–150 m baselines. I request a quantitative assessment—either from the ELODIE spectrum convolved with the filter transmission or from a simple disk model—showing that the fitted ellipse parameters (θ_min, r, φ*) and the near-critical rotation solution are robust to the inclusion of a disk component. Without this, the central claim of a photospheric oblateness measurement is not fully supported.
  2. [§3.6, Figure 7] All squared-visibility measurements below a fixed signal-to-noise threshold are discarded and excluded from the fits. The excluded points are predominantly the longest-baseline, lowest-visibility measurements, which are precisely the data that most strongly constrain the angular diameter and shape. Discarding them rather than modeling them as censored data can bias the fitted parameters, especially if the noise distribution is asymmetric or if the exclusion correlates with baseline orientation. I recommend either performing a censored-likelihood fit that includes all measurements (treating sub-threshold points as upper limits) or demonstrating with simulations that the threshold cut—including the 3.0–4.1 fs variation—does not bias θ_min, r, and φ*. The current systematic uncertainty estimate varies the threshold value but does not test the effect of the selection itself.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] In the row for 2024-02-21, the telescope pairs are listed as '(1,3), 2,3)'; the second pair is missing its opening parenthesis and should read '(2,3)'.
  2. [§5, Table 3] The text states that T_pole = 26500 K provides a reasonable match to the spectrophotometry, but Table 3 reports '≃26500−28000'; the value and range should be made consistent.
  3. [§4, Table 2] The reduced χ² values for the uniform disk (213/114 ≈ 1.87) and uniform ellipse (170/112 ≈ 1.52) fits are notably larger than unity; the paper should discuss the likely sources of the excess scatter (e.g., residual correlated noise, unmodeled surface structure) and consider whether the quoted statistical uncertainties need to be rescaled.
  4. [§4, Figure 8] The caption states that the zero-baseline squared visibility is fixed to the value from the uniform ellipse fit when fitting the individual uv slices; this constraint can bias the recovered modulation in θ_UD(φ_b). I suggest checking whether freeing this parameter per slice changes the derived δ and φ*.
  5. [§6] The wording 'a lower limit on the angular velocity very near the critical value, Ω/Ωc = 0.977' is ambiguous: the best-fit value is 0.990 and 0.977 is the 1σ lower limit. Please clarify this phrasing in the text and abstract.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the visibility fits are self-contained, and the external consistency checks are not inputs to the fits.

full rationale

The central results are obtained by direct least-squares fits of measured squared visibilities to two independent models: a uniform-ellipse model (Eq. 6) and a Roche-von Zeipel stellar atmosphere model (Section 5). The uniform-ellipse parameters (θ_min, r, φ*) are fitted to the visibility data with no fitted quantity fed back as a prediction. The Roche-von Zeipel model is parameterized by θ_eq, Ω/Ω_c, φ*, and a normalization constant C_RvZ, all fitted to the same visibility data; fixed priors (parallax from van Leeuwen 2007, inclination i=60° from Lailey & Sigut 2024, gravity darkening β=0.20 from Che et al. 2011) come from external published work, not from the present measurement. The agreement with Hα spectroscopy, infrared disk position angle, and archival spectrophotometry is used only as an external consistency check, not as an input to the fits. Self-citations to prior VSII instrument papers (Abeysekara et al. 2020; Acharyya et al. 2024) describe data-processing methods and are not load-bearing for the oblateness claim; the cited Roche-von Zeipel modeling references (Aufdenberg et al. 2006; Sackrider & Aufdenberg 2023) provide a standard physical model, not a uniqueness theorem that forces the result. The only in-scope limitation passage is the Figure 15 caption, 'The disk is not included in our model,' together with the statement that Hδ is filled by disk emission. That is a possible systematic bias affecting interpretation of the fitted elongation, but it does not make the derivation circular: disk flux is not fitted, subtracted, or used as a model input. The threshold/cut variations and reanalysis of β UMa are robustness checks, not fitted-input predictions. Therefore no circular step is present; the derivation is self-contained against the new interferometric data.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central measurement depends on fitted visibility-model parameters, a hand-chosen noise threshold, and external priors from cited literature such as parallax, inclination, gravity darkening, and model-atmosphere validity. The entries above are the quantities the central claim rests on that are not independently derived in this paper.

free parameters (11)
  • Visibility normalization constant Cnorm = 12.4 ± 0.5 fs (ellipse); 12.324+0.888−0.769e6 ns (RvZ)
    Scales measured correlation-peak area to model squared visibility; fitted separately for each model in Secs. 4 and 5 because absolute calibration is not independently determined.
  • Uniform disk angular radius theta_UD = 0.44 ± 0.01 ± 0.03 mas
    Reference circular size in the uniform disk fit of Fig. 7 and Table 2.
  • Ellipse minor-axis angular diameter theta_min = 0.43 ± 0.02 ± 0.02 mas
    Primary photosphere size parameter in the uniform ellipse model (Sec. 4).
  • Ellipse axis ratio r = 1.28 ± 0.04 ± 0.02
    Primary oblateness parameter in the uniform ellipse model (Sec. 4).
  • Ellipse position angle phi* = 116 ± 5 ± 7 degrees
    Rotation-axis position angle in the uniform ellipse model (Sec. 4).
  • RvZ equatorial angular diameter theta_eq = 0.604+0.041−0.034 mas
    Equatorial diameter in the Roche-von Zeipel model fit (Sec. 5).
  • RvZ rotation rate omega/omega_c = 0.990+0.007−0.013
    Fraction of breakup rotation in the RvZ model; the quoted 1σ lower limit is 0.977 (Sec. 5).
  • RvZ position angle phi* = 114.7+6.4−5.7 degrees
    Rotation-axis position angle in the RvZ model (Sec. 5).
  • Polar effective temperature T_pole = 26500 K
    Chosen to match archival UV/optical spectrophotometry (Fig. 14) and then used in the model grid; not fitted directly to the visibility data.
  • Noise threshold for excluding sub-threshold peaks = 3.58 fs, varied 3.0 to 4.1 fs
    Hand-chosen 2-sigma cut in Sec. 3.6 that determines which runs enter the fits; variation is used to estimate systematic uncertainty.
  • Polar gravity log(g)_pole = 3.82 dex
    Chosen to give a mass near the upper end of the 13-15 solar mass range adopted from Smith (2019); fixed in the RvZ mass estimate.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption A uniformly illuminated circular or elliptical disk visibility model adequately describes the photosphere projection.
    Used in Sec. 4 (Eqs. 4-7) to extract size and shape; ignores limb and gravity darkening, which the subsequent RvZ model includes.
  • domain assumption A Roche-von Zeipel model with uniform rotation and von Zeipel gravity-darkening parameter beta=0.20 applies to gamma Cassiopeiae.
    Sec. 5 fixes beta from Che et al. (2011), a CHARA-based empirical value for rapid rotators; it is not fit to the VERITAS data.
  • domain assumption The inclination of the rotation axis is i=60 degrees.
    Fixed in Sec. 5 from Lailey and Sigut (2024); it affects the interpretation of projected velocity and rotation rate but not the uniform-ellipse oblateness.
  • domain assumption The parallax of gamma Cassiopeiae is 5.94±0.12 mas.
    Adopted from van Leeuwen (2007) in Sec. 5 and Table 3 to convert angular diameter to physical radius and mass.
  • domain assumption The 416 nm band, including the disk-filled Hδ line, is dominated by photospheric light, so the decretion disk can be omitted from the model.
    Sec. 5 and Fig. 15 state that the disk is not included in the model; if disk flux contributes significantly to the correlated signal, the fitted shape could be biased.
  • domain assumption PHOENIX model atmosphere intensities interpolated from a 106-point effective-temperature and gravity grid are accurate for these stellar parameters.
    Sec. 5 uses PHOENIX version 20.01.02B as the surface-intensity source for the RvZ model grid.
  • domain assumption The threshold cut on sub-threshold peaks and the linear stray-light interpolation do not introduce baseline-dependent bias.
    Secs. 3.3 and 3.6; only threshold variations are reported for systematics, not a censored-data model or a full stray-light uncertainty.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measurement of the photosphere oblateness of $\gamma$ Cassiopeiae via Stellar Intensity Interferometry with the VERITAS Observatory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LV6SB3XP

@misc{pith2026250615027,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measurement of the photosphere oblateness of $\gamma$ Cassiopeiae via Stellar Intensity Interferometry with the VERITAS Observatory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LV6SB3XP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15027}
}
abstract

We use the stellar intensity interferometry system implemented with the Very Energetic Radiation Imaging Telescope Array System (VERITAS) at Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory (FLWO) as a light collector to obtain measurements of the rapid rotator star $\gamma$ Cassiopeiae, at a wavelength of 416 nm. Using data from baselines sampling different position angles, we extract the size, oblateness, and projected orientation of the photosphere. Fitting the data with a uniform ellipse model yields a minor-axis angular diameter of $0.43\pm0.02$ mas, a major-to-minor-radius ratio of $1.28\pm0.04$, and a position angle of $116^\circ\pm5^\circ$ for the axis of rotation. A rapidly-rotating stellar atmosphere model that includes limb and gravity darkening describes the data well with a fitted angular diameter of $0.604^{+0.041}_{-0.034}$ mas corresponding to an equatorial radius of 10.9$^{+0.8}_{-0.6}~R_\odot$, a rotational velocity with a $1~\sigma$ lower limit at $97.7\%$ that of breakup velocity, and a position angle of $114.7^{+6.4}_{-5.7}$ degrees. These parameters are consistent with H$\alpha$ line spectroscopy and infrared-wavelength Michelson interferometric measurements of the star's decretion disk. This is the first measurement of an oblate photosphere using intensity interferometry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15027 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Baseline coverage of the six telescope pairs in the u−v plane for the data tabulated in Table B1. Points reflect the weighted-mean position of each ∼hour-long run. The curves are point-reflected about the origin. et al. 2020; Abe et al. 2024; Zmija et al. 2023; Acharyya et al. 2024). By correlating the intensity of light at separated telescopes, rather than the wave amplitude (as done with Michelson interfer￾ometry)… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The correlation function as a function of relative time and time-in-run, for a typical 2 hour run. While the correlogram is constructed every 2 seconds, the vertical axis has been binned more coarsely in this figure, to reduce statistical noise and make the correlation more visible. The diagonal feature is the correlation peak proportional to the squared visibility that changes during the run due to the variation in… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example of a tracking correction in T2. A large negative ADC (analog-to-digital converter) value corresponds to intense light incident on the PMT. Due to tracking limitations of the array, at about 200 sec into the run, the star’s image becomes slightly less centered on the PMT. At 400 sec into the run, the operator adjusted the tracking, causing the telescope to briefly stop tracking the star altogether, and the… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A portion of the power spectrum for T1, as a function of frequency and time in run. Short, sporadic bursts from the on-site radio repeater produce strong signals at 79.4 MHz (an alias of the 171 MHz radio signal). Frames containing these bursts are removed from the cor…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The OPD-corrected projection of the correlation function as a function of relative time, defined in equation 3. The correlation is quantified by the integral of a Gaussian peak fitted near relative time ≈ 0. This correlation function is from pair T2T3, taken at 02:31 o…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of areas from fits to background noise in the region of relative time far from the peak, for all runs. The gray band on fig. 7 corresponds to the red lines at ±3.58 fs, which are ±2σ from the mean of this distribution. This measures the spread of areas tha…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The area of the fitted correlation peak, proportional to the squared visibility, as a function of the magnitude of the baseline. The curve represents the best fit with a uniform disk model. Points in gray, excluded from the fit, are below the threshold where the signal…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The center panel shows the u − v midpoint of all runs and telescope pairs, with different color shaded regions indicating angular slices in the u − v plane. For data within each of the individual slices, the surrounding panels of corresponding colors show the squared v…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The uniform-disk radius from fitting A versus baseline to datapoints in different slices in the u − v plane (see figure 8), as a function of the average angle of the slice. a fluctuation, like those discussed in section 3.6. Therefore, we report fit parameters obtained…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: For each telescope pair, the normalized visibility is shown as a function of local hour angle. Curves represent the best fit with a uniform ellipse model. The singular T1T4 data point is shown as a red square, because it passes all quality cuts yet we suspect it may b…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Using the same data shown in figure 10, the best fit using a Roche-von Zepiel models for a rapidly rotating star. β = 0.20, as empirically determined for rapid rotating stars imaged with CHARA/MIRC (Che et al. 2011). We computed 7750 models for γ Cas with 31 θeq value…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Best fit parameter distributions for the Roche-von Zeipel stellar model from fitting 1000 bootstrap samples with replacement from Table B1. The dashed lines show the 1σ lower bound error and the 1σ upper bound of each parameter: θeq, the equatorial angular diameter; Ω…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: A synthetic photosphere for γ Cas with θeq=0.60 mas, Ω/Ωcrit =0.9888 and ϕ ∗ = 114◦ consistent with the best fit values to the VERITAS interferometry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: A comparison of two Roche-von Zeipel synthetic spectral energy distributions (SEDs) to archival absolute spectrophotometry of γ Cas between 1200 ˚A and 8170 ˚A. Data for wavelengths beyond 3200 ˚A are from Burnashev (1985). International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE) dat…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: A normalized, high-resolution spectrum of γ Cas in the VSII bandpass from the ELODIE archive (Moultaka et al. 2004, observation 20030816/0030, in black) and a normalized model spectrum (in blue) from the same model Roche-von Zeipel that best fits the VERITAS data in T…

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. Misaligned or chaotic? A strong break of axial symmetry in the local LRD J1025 revealed with VLT/FORS2 spectropolarimetry

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    The local Little Red Dot J1025 shows a 48° polarisation-angle offset between continuum and broad H-alpha, requiring broken axial symmetry.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A., et al

    Abe, S., Abhir, J., Acciari, V. A., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 4387, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae697

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae697 2024

  2. [2]

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

    Abeysekara, A. U., Benbow, W., Brill, A., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 1164–1169, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1143-y

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

  3. [3]

    2024, Astrophys

    Acharyya, A., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J., 966, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2b68 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2b68 2024

  4. [4]

    P., M´ erand, A., Coud´ e du Foresto, V., et al

    Aufdenberg, J. P., M´ erand, A., Coud´ e du Foresto, V., et al. 2006, ApJ, 645, 664, doi: 10.1086/504149

    doi:10.1086/504149 2006

  5. [5]

    1997, Nucl

    Brun, R., & Rademakers, F. 1997, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 389, 81, doi: 10.1016/S0168-9002(97)00048-X

    doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(97)00048-x 1997

  6. [6]

    2001, A&A, 378, 861, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011202

    Chauville, J., Zorec, J., Ballereau, D., et al. 2001, A&A, 378, 861, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011202

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20011202 2001

  7. [7]

    D., Zhao, M., et al

    Che, X., Monnier, J. D., Zhao, M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 732, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/68

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/732/2/68 2011

  8. [8]

    Dravins, D., LeBohec, S., Jensen, H., & Nu˜ nez, P. D. 2013, Astroparticle Physics, 43, 331, doi: https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.04.017

    doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.04.017 2013

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    2022, astropy/specutils: V1.7.0, v1.7.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6207491

    Earl, N., Tollerud, E., Jones, C., et al. 2022, astropy/specutils: V1.7.0, v1.7.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6207491

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024 Gonz´ alez-Riestra, R., Cassatella, A., Solano, E.,

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024 Gonz´ alez-Riestra, R., Cassatella, A., Solano, E.,

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    2000, A&AS, 141, 343, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000317 Hanbury Brown, R

    Altamore, A., & Wamsteker, W. 2000, A&AS, 141, 343, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000317 Hanbury Brown, R. 1974, The intensity interferometer. Its applications to astronomy (London: Taylor & Francis Ltd.) Hanbury Brown, R., & Twiss, R. 1954, The

    2000 doi

  4. [12]

    London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 45, 663, doi: 10.1080/14786440708520475

    doi

  5. [13]

    H., & Baron, E

    Hauschildt, P. H., & Baron, E. 1999, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 109, 41, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9808182

    1999 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    2006, Astroparticle Physics, 25, 391, doi: https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2006.04.002

    Holder, J., Atkins, R., Badran, H., et al. 2006, Astroparticle Physics, 25, 391, doi: https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2006.04.002

    2006 doi

  7. [15]

    1975, Comput

    James, F., & Roos, M. 1975, Comput. Phys. Commun., 10, 343, doi: 10.1016/0010-4655(75)90039-9

    1975 doi

  8. [16]

    2021, PoS, ICRC2021, 803, doi: 10.22323/1.395.0803

    Kieda, D., et al. 2021, PoS, ICRC2021, 803, doi: 10.22323/1.395.0803

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    D., & Sigut, T

    Lailey, B. D., & Sigut, T. A. A. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2585, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3321

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    2020, PhD thesis, University of Utah

    Matthews, N. 2020, PhD thesis, University of Utah

    2020

  11. [19]

    2023, AJ, 165, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb142

    Matthews, N., Rivet, J.-P., Vernet, D., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb142

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    2004, PASP, 116, 693, doi: 10.1086/422177

    Soubiran, C. 2004, PASP, 116, 693, doi: 10.1086/422177

    2004 doi

  13. [21]

    2025, Bachelor’s honors thesis, The Ohio State University

    Rose, J. 2025, Bachelor’s honors thesis, The Ohio State University. https://kb.osu.edu/handle/1811/105962

    2025

  14. [22]

    D., Kieda, D., & LeBohec, S

    Rou, J., Nu˜ nez, P. D., Kieda, D., & LeBohec, S. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 430, 3187, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt123

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    L., & Aufdenberg, J

    Sackrider, J. L., & Aufdenberg, J. P. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 216, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad023b

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    2023, Bachelor’s honors thesis, The Ohio State University

    Scott, M. 2023, Bachelor’s honors thesis, The Ohio State University. http://hdl.handle.net/1811/102963

    2023

  17. [25]

    Sigut, T. A. A., Mahjour, A. K., & Tycner, C. 2020, ApJ, 894, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8386

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    Smith, M. A. 2019, PASP, 131, 044201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaf70b

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    D., et al

    Stee, Ph., Delaa, O., Monnier, J. D., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219234

    2012 doi

  20. [28]

    R., Moran, J

    Thompson, A. R., Moran, J. M., & Swenson Jr., G. W. 2001, Interferometry and Synthesis in Radio Astronomy (WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA)

    2001

  21. [29]

    2021, JCAP, 2021, 057, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/057

    Torrado, J., & Lewis, A. 2021, JCAP, 2021, 057, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/057

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    C., Zavala, R

    Tycner, C., Gilbreath, G. C., Zavala, R. T., et al. 2006, Astron. J., 131, 2710, doi: 10.1086/502679 van Leeuwen, F. 2007, A&A, 474, 653, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078357

    2006 doi

  23. [31]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 28

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 12243, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3676

    Zmija, A., Vogel, N., Wohlleben, F., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 12243, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3676

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.