Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Low-Frequency VLBI Network Using SKA-LOW

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A VLBI network built around SKA-LOW and Asia-Pacific radio telescopes aims for 10-100x sensitivity gains at 100-350 MHz, with sub-milliarcsecond astrometry as the first science target.

desk verdict Sensible feasibility proposal for an SKA-LOW VLBI network; the sensitivity tables are internally consistent, but the headline astrometry science case rests on a deferred ionospheric calibration solution. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.15039 v1 pith:YEEXCXUO submitted 2026-07-16 astro-ph.IM

Hideyuki Kobayashi , Tomoaki Oyama , Kazuma Fujita , Syunsaku Suzuki , Shintaro Yoshiura , Hiroaki Misawa , Fuminori Tsuchiya , Kazuhiro Takefuji
show 12 more authors
Kenta Fujisawa Kohtaro Niinuma Keitaro Takahashi Yashwant Gupta Bhal Chandra Joshi Vishwesh Marthi M. A. Krishnakumar Zhiqiang Shen Wu Jiang Yihua Yan Wei Wang Linjie Chen
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords low-frequencyVLBISKA-LOWastrometrypulsarparallaxepochofreionizationforegroundsradiointerferometryionosphericcalibrationAsia-Pacificnetwork
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that a very long baseline interferometry network operating at 100-350 MHz and built around the future SKA-LOW telescope, together with existing radio telescopes across Asia-Pacific (Iitate, GMRT, Ooty, FAST, IPS array, and the planned LAMBDA stations in Australia), would give 10 to 100 times better sensitivity than the VLBA at these frequencies. The payoff would be milliarcsecond-level astrometry of faint sources—enough to build precision catalogs for cosmic-reionization foreground removal and to measure pulsar parallaxes that pulsar timing arrays need. The paper estimates fringe detection at 0.1-0.2 mJy and thermal-noise astrometric errors of 0.08 to 4.93 mas for a 1 mJy source, and reports pilot fringes among Iitate, GMRT, and Ooty as evidence the network is feasible. A sympathetic reader would take the proposal as a concrete case that low-frequency VLBI can become a working astrometric tool in the SKA era.

What carries the argument

The central object is the network's sensitivity budget expressed as mutual System Equivalent Flux Density between pairs of stations at 320 MHz. SKA-LOW's low SEFD of about 5 Jy combines with each partner's SEFD to set the fringe-detection threshold and astrometric precision via thermal noise. The other load-bearing element is the ionospheric calibration requirement: achieving 0.1 TEC accuracy on the propagation path, which the paper proposes to meet with in-beam or multi-view phase calibration, since at 100-350 MHz the ionosphere dominates systematic astrometric error.

What would settle it

Take a bright, compact source with a known L-band VLBI position, such as 3C147, and measure its position at 320 MHz across several epochs spanning a year using the proposed multi-view calibration; if the positions scatter by more than roughly 0.1 mas on the shortest baselines or more than 1 mas on the longest, the sub-milliarcsecond astrometry claim fails even though detections succeed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a low-frequency VLBI array centered on SKA-LOW, with the Iitate, GMRT, Ooty, FAST, and IPS stations and the prospective LAMBDA array, is uniquely capable of sub-milliarcsecond astrometry at 320 MHz. Compared with the VLBA, mutual SEFDs imply a sensitivity improvement of 10-100 times; with 32 MHz bandwidth and 1000 s integration, fringes are detectable at 0.1-0.2 mJy at 7 sigma. For a 1 mJy source observed five times for four hours, thermal-noise astrometric errors are predicted to be 0.08-4.93 mas depending on baseline. The paper supports the proposal with 2025 pilot observations: fringes from 3C147 were detected on all three baselines among Iitate, Ooty, and GMRT w

Load-bearing premise

The astrometric claims assume that ionospheric propagation delays can be calibrated to 0.1 TEC using calibrators that remain compact and non-variable at 320 MHz; the paper notes that a robust methodology for extended calibrators remains future work.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Source catalogs with milliarcsecond positions and roughly 1% flux densities at 150-350 MHz, directly serving foreground subtraction for HI epoch-of-reionization experiments.
  • Parallax measurements with 1 pc accuracy for pulsars within 100 pc, supporting pulsar timing array efforts to localize gravitational-wave sources.
  • High-fidelity imaging with roughly 10 microJy sensitivity in 8 hours once five or more stations including LAMBDA are available, enabling AGN jet and lobe mapping at 100-10 mas resolution.
  • Data-rate and recording requirements stay within existing systems: up to about 1 Gbps, VDIF format, and software correlators, so the network can be realized without major new infrastructure.
  • Complementary sky coverage to LOFAR; the two arrays together would fill reciprocal low-frequency VLBI observational gaps.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If ionospheric calibration falls short of 0.1 TEC, the 10-100x sensitivity gain still survives; the network would deliver high-SNR detections and relative astrometry, but absolute parallax and foreground positions would degrade unless calibration is improved.
  • The pilot fringes at SNR up to 1376 suggest the hard part is not coherence but calibration; a direct next test would be to observe a small field with three or four calibrators to measure residual ionospheric phase structure at 320 MHz.
  • If the paper's concern that calibrators may be extended rather than point-like proves common at these frequencies, it would constrain all low-frequency VLBI astrometry, making SKA-LOW's wide-field multi-view calibration the critical path.
  • The network's very long baselines (about 9000 km, 20 mas fringe spacing) make it inherently astrometry-first; the imaging claims depend on the arrival of LAMBDA, so the science is plausibly staged.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a low-frequency VLBI network in the 100–350 MHz band centered on SKA-LOW, with existing or planned Asia-Pacific stations (Iitate, GMRT, Ooty, FAST, IPS, LAMBDA). It argues that the network will deliver a 10–100x sensitivity improvement over VLBA, with fringe detection at 0.1–0.2 mJy (Section 2) and thermal-noise astrometric errors of 0.08–4.93 mas for a 1 mJy source (Table 3). The paper also reports pilot VLBI fringes between Iitate, GMRT, and Ooty (Section 4, Figure 6). The stated scientific drivers are EoR foreground source cataloging and pulsar parallax measurements, with imaging and high-fidelity mapping as additional goals.

Significance. If the proposed network is realized, it would provide a substantial leap in low-frequency VLBI sensitivity and open a new window for astrometry and imaging at 100–350 MHz. The manuscript has concrete strengths: the per-station SEFD table is internally consistent (mutual SEFDs follow the geometric mean of auto SEFDs), the pilot fringe detections (SNR 22.8–1376) provide real evidence that the existing stations can phase-coherently observe at 320 MHz, and the operational discussion is practical. The paper is not purely speculative; it uses measured SEFD estimates from the literature and reports a genuine test observation. However, the headline astrometric claims rest on a thermal-noise-only calculation and an assumed ionospheric calibration accuracy (0.1 TEC) that the paper defers to future work, so the scientific case for astrometry as a primary motivation is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, after Table 3] The astrometric accuracy claims in Table 3 (0.08–4.93 mas for 1 mJy) are purely thermal-noise estimates. The paper itself states that 'parallax measurements are dominated by systematic errors' and that 'the development of a robust methodology to account for the possibility that, in this frequency band, the calibrator is extended rather than point-like remains a topic for future work'. It also requires ionospheric calibration to 0.1 TEC without a quantitative derivation or a demonstration that the proposed in-beam/multi-view calibrators can achieve this at 320 MHz. Because the abstract and conclusion elevate astrometry as a primary motivation, the claim that 1% parallax accuracy at 100 pc can be achieved is unsupported. Please either provide a concrete calibration-error budget with a plausible path to 0.1 TEC, or explicitly re-scope the paper as a sensitivity/imaging proposal with astrome
  2. [Section 2, Table 2] The headline '10 to 100 times' sensitivity improvement relative to VLBA rests on the assumed SEFD values in Table 2. While the mutual SEFDs are internally consistent, the auto-SEFD entries are point estimates taken from various references for currently operating stations, and for future facilities (SKA-LOW, LAMBDA) they are extrapolations. No uncertainties or ranges are given. Since the central quantitative claim is derived directly from these numbers, the paper should state the provenance of each SEFD value more explicitly (the current text refers to 'reference papers' in Section 3) and give a sensitivity range rather than a single number. This would make the claimed gain robust to the known variability of low-frequency system temperatures.
  3. [Section 4, Figure 6] The pilot fringes are encouraging and demonstrate short-timescale phase coherence (59 s integration), but they do not yet validate the astrometric use case. Fringe detection on strong sources like 3C147 does not address long-term phase-referencing, ionospheric path-length stability, or absolute position accuracy, which are required for the parallax and foreground-astrometry claims. The paper should state explicitly what the pilot observations do and do not demonstrate, so readers do not conflate a sensitivity/coherence test with an astrometric feasibility test.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Typos and inconsistent names: 'Hobert' should be 'Hobart', 'Iidate' should be 'Iitate', 'LAMDA' should be 'LAMBDA', 'Narrbri' should be 'Narrabri', 'Reseaerch' in the author affiliation should be 'Research'. Please correct throughout.
  2. [Section 2, Table 2] The LAMBDA entry appears as a single station with SEFD 2500 Jy, but LAMBDA is described in Section 3 as multiple stations (Narrabri, Parkes, Ceduna, Hobart). Clarify whether the 2500 Jy value applies to each station or is a combined figure. The same applies to the corresponding mutual SEFDs.
  3. [Section 2, after Table 3] '5 times of 4 hours observation' is ambiguous. Does this mean five epochs of four hours each, or a total of 20 hours in some other arrangement? Please define the observing schedule assumed for Table 3.
  4. [Section 5] The sentence 'This low-frequency VLBI network will operate in the 16–32 MHz bandwidth available at each radio telescope outside the SKA' is unclear. Does 'bandwidth' refer to recording bandwidth per polarization? Please rephrase to avoid confusion with the 100–350 MHz observing band.
  5. [References] The reference for the IPS array is given as 'Yan et al. (2026)' in the text but the bibliography entry is 'Y. Yan et al.' with a different initial format than other entries. Check consistency. Also, the citation for LOFAR2.0 (Hessels and LOFAR2.0 Project Team 2023) is a non-refereed web document; it may be acceptable but should be flagged as such.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: sensitivity and astrometric estimates are direct arithmetic from stated SEFD inputs; pilot fringes are external evidence; self-citations are organizational and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's quantitative claims (10-100x sensitivity improvement, 0.1-0.2 mJy fringe detection, and Table 3 astrometric errors) are computed from station SEFDs and baseline lengths given as inputs (Tables 1-2), with SEFDs taken from externally cited station papers (Section 3; e.g., Macario et al. 2022 for LAMBDA, Gupta et al. 2017 for GMRT). No parameter is fitted to the claimed output and then renamed as a prediction; the astrometric error is standard thermal-noise scaling from mutual SEFDs and baselines, and the 1% parallax statement follows by applying that scaling to a 1 mJy source at 100 pc. The pilot fringes (Section 4, Figure 6) are observational evidence supporting feasibility, not an output derived from the model. The only self-citations (e.g., Colomer and Kobayashi 2019 for the Global VLBI Alliance) concern organizational arrangements and are not load-bearing for any sensitivity or astrometry claim. The paper explicitly acknowledges that actual parallax measurements are dominated by systematic errors and that ionospheric calibration to 0.1 TEC and the treatment of extended calibrators remain topics for future work; these are honest caveats about external systematics, not signs that a claimed result is assumed by construction. The derivation chain is self-contained arithmetic from externally justified inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numbers depend on station SEFD inputs that are estimates or assumptions, on standard VLBI sensitivity and astrometry formulas that are not shown, and on an ionospheric calibration accuracy of 0.1 TEC. No new physical entity is introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • SEFD_SKA_LOW at 320 MHz = 5 Jy
    Assumed SKA-LOW station sensitivity; it scales all mutual SEFD and sensitivity estimates in Table 2.
  • SEFD_GMRT at 320 MHz = 11 Jy
    Taken from Gupta et al. 2017; used in mutual SEFD calculations.
  • SEFD_Ooty at 320 MHz = 50 Jy
    Taken from Subrahmanya et al. 2017; used in mutual SEFD calculations.
  • SEFD_Iitate at 320 MHz = 531 Jy
    Taken from Iwai et al. 2012; used in mutual SEFD calculations.
  • SEFD_FAST at 320 MHz = 6 Jy
    Assumed operating sensitivity for FAST in low-frequency mode; used in mutual SEFD calculations.
  • SEFD_IPS at 320 MHz = 13 Jy
    Assumed IPS array sensitivity; used in mutual SEFD calculations.
  • SEFD_LAMBDA station at 320 MHz = 2500 Jy
    Explicitly 'assumed' from a SKA-Low prototype measurement (Macario et al. 2022); applied to four future stations.
  • SEFD_VLBA at 320 MHz = 2742 Jy
    Reference value used to claim a 10-100x sensitivity improvement over VLBA; not measured in this paper.
  • Observing parameters = 32 MHz, 1000 s, 7 sigma; 5x4 h for astrometry
    Chosen integration times, bandwidths, and detection thresholds drive the fringe sensitivity and astrometric error numbers in Section 2.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Mutual baseline SEFD is the sqrt of the product of station SEFDs.
    Table 2 values are consistent with this standard VLBI relation, but the formula is not stated in the paper.
  • domain assumption Fringe detection sensitivity follows the standard VLBI radiometer equation with a 7-sigma threshold.
    Used to produce the 0.2 and 0.1 mJy numbers; no equation or derivation is given.
  • domain assumption Thermal-noise astrometric errors in Table 3 follow a standard baseline-based VLBI astrometry formula.
    The table assumes 1 mJy sources and 5x4 h observations, but the formula is not shown.
  • domain assumption Pulsar flux densities near 320 MHz are typically an order of magnitude stronger than at L-band.
    Motivates the pulsar astrometry science case; cited to Aggarwal and Lorimer 2022.
  • domain assumption Ionospheric phase errors can be calibrated to 0.1 TEC accuracy via in-beam or multi-view calibrators.
    Required for the stated parallax accuracy; the paper says a robust methodology 'remains a topic for future work'.
  • domain assumption Low-frequency calibrators relevant to the astrometry program are compact and non-variable over the observation duration.
    The paper notes the possibility that calibrators are extended rather than point-like and defers the correction method to future work.
  • domain assumption SKA-LOW and LAMBDA will be completed with the assumed capabilities and VLBI interfaces.
    The entire network concept depends on these future facilities and backends, which are not yet operational.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Low-Frequency VLBI Network Using SKA-LOW." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YEEXCXUO

@misc{pith2026260715039,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Low-Frequency VLBI Network Using SKA-LOW},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YEEXCXUO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.15039}
}
read the original abstract

We propose the development of a low-frequency Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) network operating in the 100-350 MHz range, incorporating the Square Kilometre Array Low (SKA-LOW). SKA-LOW is expected to achieve exceptionally high sensitivity within this frequency band. By integrating SKA-LOW with other high-sensitivity radio telescopes located across the Asia-Pacific region, the proposed network is anticipated to deliver up to two orders of magnitude improvement in sensitivity compared to the existing VLBA. While several scientific themes utilizing low-frequency VLBI have already been proposed, we specifically advocate for astrometric studies employing existing VLBI stations to demonstrate the feasibility and scientific potential of this frequency regime. Furthermore, the combination of SKA-LOW with additional radio telescopes will enable high-fidelity imaging observations, significantly enhancing the quality and scope of low-frequency VLBI science.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15039 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Array configuration of low frequency VLBI with SKA-LOW, GMRT, Ooty, IPT array. FAST, Iitate, and LAMBDA (Narrbri, Parkes, Ceduna, and Hobart) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. UV coverage with SKA,GMRT,Ooty,and Iitate achieved with these measurements. However, in actual observations, parallax measurements are dominated by systematic errors (Kirsten et al. (2019)). An estimation accuracy of 0.1 TEC for the ionospheric propagation path is required to achieve this precision. This may be possible through phase calibration using a single in-beam calibrator or multi-view calibration using multi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. UV coverage with SKA,GMRT,Ooty,Iitate,IPT, and FAST (a) Dec. +30 deg. (b) Dec. 0 deg. (c) Dec. -30 deg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: UV coverage with SKA,GMRT,Ooty,Iitate,IPT,FAST, and LAMBDA. The red points show by SKA and LAMBDA. coverage formed by SKA-LOW and LAMBDA, which are both located in Australia. This indicates that observations using SKA-LOW and LAMBDA are complementary to those that incl…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spatial resolution comparison with other wavelength telescopes dual-reflector system formed by combining two parabolic dishes measuring 31 m × 16.5 m. It is currently equipped with a wideband receiver covering 150–500 MHz and a high-sensitivity receiver centered at 325…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fringes between Iitate, GMRT and Ooty telescopes 5 Operational Infrastructure and Governance This low-frequency VLBI network will operate in the 16–32 MHz bandwidth available at each radio telescope outside the SKA, and even in the widest case is expected to use a band…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2015 , publisher =

    Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array , booktitle =. 2015 , publisher =

    2015

  2. [2]

    Lenc and M.A

    E. Lenc and M.A. Garett and S.J. Tingay , title =. The Astrophysical Jounal , year =

  3. [3]

    Kirsten and J

    F. Kirsten and J. W. T. Hessels and Z. Paragi and A. G. Lyne and M. Kramer , title =. Astronomy & Astrophysics , volume =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  4. [4]

    Bowman and Christopher L

    Abhirup Datta and Judd D. Bowman and Christopher L. Carilli , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:1005.4071 , year =

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    Pritchard and Abraham Loeb , title =

    Jonathan R. Pritchard and Abraham Loeb , title =. Reports on Progress in Physics , volume =. 2012 , doi =

    2012

  6. [6]

    Rioja and Richard Dodson , title =

    María J. Rioja and Richard Dodson , title =. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics , volume =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  7. [7]

    Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan , volume =

    Hayato Shimabukuro and Kenji Hasegawa and Akira Kuchinomachi and Hidenobu Yajima and Shintaro Yoshiura , title =. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  8. [8]

    Barry and B

    C. Barry and B. Pindor and A. R. Offringa and J. D. Bowman and others , title =. The Astrophysical Journal , volume =. 2022 , doi =

    2022

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume =

    Gabriella Agazie and NANOGrav Collaboration , title =. The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  2. [10]

    Antoniadis and others , title =

    J. Antoniadis and others , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.16224 , year =

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics , year =

    Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Collaboration , title =. Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics , year =. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/acddbc , url =

    doi

  4. [12]

    Physical Review D , volume =

    Ryo Kato and Keitaro Takahashi , title =. Physical Review D , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  5. [13]

    S. R. Taylor and NANOGrav Collaboration , title =. The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  6. [14]

    Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia , year =

    Prerna Rana and others , title =. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia , year =

  7. [15]

    Deller, A. T. and Tingay, S. J. and Bailes, M. and West, C. , title =. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific , volume =. 2007 , doi =

    2007

  8. [16]

    Deller, A. T. and Brisken, W. F. and et al. , title =. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific , volume =

  9. [17]

    and Ajithkumar, B

    Gupta, Y. and Ajithkumar, B. and Kale, H. S. and Nayak, S. and Sabhapathy, S. and Sureshkumar, S. and Swami, R. V. and Chengalur, J. N. and Ghosh, S. K. and Ishwara-Chandra, C. H. and Joshi, B. C. and Kanekar, N. and Lal, D. V. and Roy, S. , title =. Current Science , volume =...

    2017

  10. [18]

    International Journal of Modern Physics D , year =

    Nan, Rendong and Li, Di and Jin, Chengjin and Wang, Qiming and Zhu, Lichun and Zhu, Wenbai and Zhang, Haiyan and Yue, Youling and Qian, Lei , title =. International Journal of Modern Physics D , year =

  11. [19]

    Space Weather , volume =

    Yan, Yihua and Wang, Wei and Fan, Jin and Xiong, Ming and Chen, Zhijun and Chen, Linjie and Su, Cang and Li, Sha and Cheng, Jun and Du, Jing and Feng, Xueshang , title =. Space Weather , volume =. 2026 , doi =

    2026

  12. [20]

    and Tsuchiya, F

    Iwai, K. and Tsuchiya, F. and Morioka, A. and Misawa, H. , title =. Solar Physics , volume =. 2012 , doi =

    2012

  13. [21]

    Subrahmanya, C. R. and Manoharan, P. K. and Chengalur, Jayaram N. , title =. Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy , volume =. 2017 , doi =

    2017

  14. [22]

    Search for gravitational wave signals , author =

    The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array III. Search for gravitational wave signals , author =. arXiv e-prints , year =. 2306.16214 , archivePrefix=

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    arXiv e-prints , year =

    Search for an Isotropic Gravitational-wave Background with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array , author =. arXiv e-prints , year =. 2306.16215 , archivePrefix=

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics , year =

    Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I , author =. Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics , year =. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/acdfa5 , archivePrefix=. 2306.16216 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    The Astrophysical Journal , year =

    Comparing Recent Pulsar Timing Array Results on the Nanohertz Stochastic Gravitational-wave Background , author =. The Astrophysical Journal , year =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad36be , url =

    doi

  18. [26]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , year =

    The MeerKAT Pulsar Timing Array: the 4.5-yr data release and the noise and stochastic signals of the millisecond pulsar population , author =. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , year =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2572 , url =

    doi

  19. [27]

    2019 , month =

    Francisco Colomer and Hideyuki Kobayashi , title =. 2019 , month =

    2019

  20. [28]

    Aggarwal, Kshit and Lorimer, D. R. , title =. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , year =. 2203.05560 , archivePrefix =

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Hessels, Jason W. T. and. 2023 , type =

    2023

  22. [30]

    and Hampson, G

    Reynolds, C. and Hampson, G. and Vernstrom, T. and Heald, G. , title =. Proceedings of the 16th European VLBI Network Symposium (EVN 2024) , year =. doi:10.22323/1.462.0030 , url =

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems , volume =

    Macario, Giulia and Pupillo, Giuseppe and Magro, Alessio and Di Ninni, Paola and Schillir. Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems , volume =. 2022 , month =. doi:10.1117/1.JATIS.8.1.011014 , url =. 2109.11983 , eprinttype =

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.