Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 35 references

This paper claims that an additive two-component model of telescope calibration errors, applied beam-by-beam to unmosaicked source lists, brings the mid- and high-frequency epochs of the Rapid ASKAP Continuum Survey to ~0.25-arcsecond astro

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 14:19 UTC pith:63RSUMYB

load-bearing objection RACS-Mid/High astrometric corrections are real and externally validated for compact sources; the catalogue-wide 0.25″ claim needs qualification, and the data release is not yet accessible. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18775 v1 pith:63RSUMYB submitted 2026-07-21 astro-ph.IM

Enhanced Astrometry of the Rapid ASKAP Continuum Survey: Mid and High Frequency Epochs

Akhil Jaini , Adam T. Deller , Yuanming Wang , Emil Lenc , Stefan W. Duschene , Marcin Glowacki This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords astrometryradio continuum surveysRACSASKAPpositional calibrationsystematic errorssource cataloguesfast radio bursts
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper seeks to extend an existing astrometric correction framework, previously applied to low-frequency epochs of the Rapid ASKAP Continuum Survey (RACS), to the survey's mid- and high-frequency epochs. It argues that the dominant systematic positional errors in these data can be modelled as the sum of two calibration-driven components: a scan-independent beam offset and a beam-independent scan offset. After fitting and removing these offsets, the median positional offsets are effectively zero and the 68% confidence interval of mean residuals over ~1 square degree regions falls from ≳0.4″ to ≲0.18″ across most of the sky. Validation against two external radio reference catalogues supports a 1σ accuracy of ~0.25″ for individual corrected source positions outside the Galactic plane. If correct, the work provides the southern hemisphere with its first sub-arcsecond, arcsecond-resolution astrometric reference at decimetre wavelengths above 1 GHz, with direct benefits for fast radio burst localisation and multiwavelength source association.

Core claim

The paper establishes that a two-term additive error model captures the dominant systematic astrometric distortions in the unmosaicked per-beam source lists of the RACS-Mid1 and RACS-High1 epochs. The correction removes the mean RA and Dec. offsets, reduces the 68% scatter in mean residuals to below 0.18″ over most of the survey, and yields median offsets of ~0.01″ against the FIRST and RFC reference catalogues after compact-source filtering. It further demonstrates that this beam-resolved, per-scan/per-beam modelling outperforms a global declination-dependent polynomial correction by roughly a factor of two in residual scatter.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the additive offset model operating on per-beam source lists. Each scan's positional error is decomposed into a scan-independent beam offset (common to all scans sharing a bandpass calibration) and a beam-independent scan offset (common to all beams in a single scan). Working directly from unmosaicked per-beam catalogues circumvents the additional positional blur introduced by mosaicking at beam boundaries; a two-stage crossmatch—first against a lower-frequency corrected catalogue or a northern survey using a generous 12-arcsecond radius to catch large offsets, then against a dense infrared reference at 2 arcseconds to refine—keeps false associations low. Fitting the

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the calibration-induced positional error decomposes cleanly into two additive terms—a scan-independent beam offset and a beam-independent scan offset—so that any real error with additional direction-dependent or time-varying structure inside a beam will not be captured by the fit and will silently inflate the true astrometric error beyond the quoted residual scatter.

What would settle it

A direct test would compare corrected positions of many unresolved sources within a single beam against VLBI positions. If, after correction, the residuals show a spatial gradient, curl, or systematic dependence on position within the beam that exceeds the quoted 0.25″ uncertainty, the two-component model is incomplete. Repeated scans of the same field under different ionospheric conditions, examined beam-by-beam, could similarly expose time-dependent error terms that the model cannot absorb.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The corrected RACS-Mid1 and RACS-High1 catalogues constitute the first sub-arcsecond astrometric reference across the southern sky at frequencies above 1 GHz, improving by more than a factor of five over earlier southern surveys.
  • Fast radio bursts detected by ASKAP can be localised with lower systematic error when the reference catalogue is matched to the observing frequency, sharpening host-galaxy identification.
  • Because the framework generalises across ASKAP's frequency range, the survey can support a uniform cross-band astrometric standard for future large-area work.
  • Adopting the paper's recommended conservative uncertainties of ~0.25″ (off-plane) and ~0.35″ (on-plane) gives users a practical, data-backed error budget for cross-matching and population studies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the two-component error model holds, a similar decomposition may improve astrometric calibration for other wide-field interferometers that form multiple simultaneous beams, provided per-beam source lists are retained.
  • The non-Gaussian tails the paper reports in residual distributions suggest a small direction-dependent or time-varying error component remains; testing for spatial structure within individual beams against VLBI reference sources would reveal whether a third model term is needed.
  • The validation is limited to filtered compact, isolated sources, so the ~0.25″ claim should not be assumed to hold for extended or confused sources, where the paper itself flags degraded performance in the Galactic plane.
  • A practical consequence the paper does not spell out: users working near the Galactic plane should check the provided sky maps of residual offsets rather than applying the global 0.25″ value, since local errors can be larger.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extends a previously developed astrometric correction framework to the RACS-Mid1 and RACS-High1 epochs. It operates on per-beam source lists, uses a hierarchical crossmatching strategy (RACS-Low1/VLASS for Stage 1, WISE for Stage 2), and models calibration-induced offsets as the sum of a scan-independent beam offset and a beam-independent scan offset. The authors report that median offsets are removed and the 68% confidence interval of residuals averaged over ~1 sq.deg. regions improves from ≳0.4″ to ≲0.18″ relative to WISE. Independent validation against FIRST and RFC yields per-source 68% intervals of roughly 0.17–0.20″ for a filtered population of compact, isolated, SNR>6 sources, and the paper recommends 1σ systematic uncertainties of 0.25″ off the Galactic plane and 0.35″ on the plane. The paper also compares with polynomial corrections, simulates FRB localization improvements, and discusses incorporation into the CELEBI pipeline.

Significance. If the claims are accepted, this is a valuable contribution: it would establish RACS-Mid1 and RACS-High1 as the highest-precision arcsecond-resolution all-sky astrometric references in the southern hemisphere above 1 GHz, with direct benefits for FRB localization and multiwavelength cross-identification. The methodology is transparent, the code is available on GitHub, and the use of independent FIRST and RFC comparisons is a genuine strength. The honest characterization of non-Gaussian residual tails and the recommendation to inspect sky maps are also positive features. However, the headline accuracy is presented without the sample-selection caveats that the analysis itself reveals, and one supporting statement about the confidence intervals is numerically inconsistent. These issues need to be addressed before the published claims can be used safely by the community.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract / Section 3.1 / Section 5] The abstract and conclusion state that 'individual corrected RACS source positions are accurate to a 1σ confidence level of ~0.25″ across the bulk of the sky' without explicitly limiting this to compact, isolated, SNR>6 sources. The RFC validation in Section 3.1 restricts the sample to sources that survive the Section 2 filtering in both RACS-Mid1 and RACS-High1, reducing the sample from ~9,000 to just under 6,000. The FIRST comparison similarly relies on the same filtering. The correction model (Section 2.1, step 4) only solves for constant beam and scan translations; it cannot correct morphology-dependent centroid shifts, blending, or noise-dependent biases in fainter sources. The accuracy claim therefore has no direct empirical support for extended, blended, or low-SNR sources. The abstract and conclusion should either qualify the claim as applying to the filtered compact population o
  2. [Section 3.1, Tables 1 and 2, Figures 1, 2, 4, 5] The headline reduction from ≳0.4″ to ≲0.18″ is the 68% confidence interval of residuals measured against WISE, which was also used in Stage 2 to fit the per-beam/per-scan offsets. This is therefore a partly in-sample statistic and does not independently establish the accuracy of the corrections. The independent FIRST and RFC comparisons (Tables 3 and 4) yield per-source 68% intervals of roughly 0.17″–0.20″ for the filtered compact sample, and the paper's adopted systematic uncertainties are 0.25″/0.35″. The abstract should not present the WISE-based 0.18″ as the achieved accuracy without clarifying that WISE was used to fit the corrections; the independent validation gives a more conservative, but more trustworthy, per-source accuracy.
  3. [Section 3.3] The statement that the adopted 1σ uncertainties of 0.25″ (off-plane) and 0.35″ (on-plane) are 'consistent with, or slightly conservative relative to, the 95% confidence intervals reported in Tables 3 and 4' is numerically inconsistent. The 95.4% confidence intervals for the RFC comparison in Tables 3 and 4 are approximately ±0.5″–0.6″, substantially wider than 0.25″. If the intent is to provide values that account for the non-Gaussian tails, the justification should be restated in terms of, for example, the standard deviation of the RFC residuals or a specific quantile of the empirical distribution. As written, the reasoning is unclear and could lead users to underestimate the impact of the tails.
  4. [Section 2.1, step 4] The correction model assumes a strict additive decomposition of calibration errors into a scan-independent beam offset and a beam-independent scan offset. The paper does not provide a direct test of whether residual errors contain additional direction-dependent or time-varying structure within a beam. The independent FIRST/RFC validation only samples the filtered compact population, and the WISE-based residual maps (Figures 1 and 4) may still show spatial structure that could indicate model incompleteness. A diagnostic such as comparing residuals from overlapping scans, splitting the data by time or beam, or fitting and removing the model and then checking for remaining spatial correlations would help assess this assumption. Without such a test, the systematic uncertainty budget may be underestimated for directions where the additive model does not hold.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Data Availability] The data availability statement contains an empty placeholder after 'PASA Datastore:' and needs the actual URL or DOI to be inserted before publication.
  2. [Section 1 and 2.2] The phrase 'closepack36' is spelled inconsistently: 'close pack36' in Section 2.2 and 'closepack36' in the introduction. Standardize to the ASKAP convention.
  3. [Abstract and Section 3.1] The phrase 'mean residuals of RACS source positions averaged over ~1 sq.deg. regions' is ambiguous. It is unclear whether the reported 68% intervals describe per-source residuals or the distribution of beam-averaged means. Please define the statistic in the text.
  4. [Figures 11 and 12] The captions contain minor typographical issues: 'VLT R-band' and 'VLT g-band' should be consistent with the main text's 'VLT/FORS2' usage, and the final sentence in each caption appears truncated.
  5. [Section 5] In the conclusion, 'RACS-high1' should be capitalized as 'RACS-High1' for consistency with the rest of the manuscript.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

WISE residual scatter is partly circular as an uncertainty estimate, but the headline 0.25" accuracy is anchored by independent FIRST/RFC comparisons.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.2 (Refinements for RACS-Mid1 and RACS-High1), second-stage WISE crossmatching paragraph]
    "After filtering and applying both per-scan and per-beam corrections, we measured the residuals against WISE to estimate final uncertainties. ... To account for this, we based our final astrometric uncertainty estimates on the empirically measured 68% confidence intervals of the RACS–WISE residual offset distributions ..."

    The per-scan/per-beam offsets are derived by minimising residuals against WISE (Stage 2 crossmatching with a 2" threshold). Reporting the post-correction scatter against WISE as an 'uncertainty estimate' is therefore a fit diagnostic rather than an independent measurement: the model is constructed to reduce exactly those residuals. The paper partially mitigates this by later adopting 0.25''/0.35'' values based on the RFC comparison and by presenting FIRST/RFC as independent validation, so the central accuracy claim is not forced by the WISE fit alone.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that corrected RACS-Mid1/RACS-High1 positions are accurate to ~0.25'' across most of the sky—is supported by external validation against FIRST and RFC, which are independent of the WISE-based fitting procedure. The main potential circularity is the use of WISE both as the correction reference and as the basis for some residual-scatter/uncertainty statements. That circularity is acknowledged in the paper's own workflow: the WISE residual statistics describe the fit quality, while the adopted 1-sigma systematic uncertainties are explicitly derived from RFC comparisons. Stage 1 crossmatching against the authors' own corrected RACS-Low1 is a self-citation, but it is only an initial alignment step superseded by WISE refinement and externally validated by FIRST/RFC, so it is not load-bearing for the final astrometric accuracy. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The residual limitations—non-Gaussian tails, degraded performance in the Galactic plane, and the heavy filtering of compact sources used in RFC validation—are stated and are correctness/scope concerns rather than circularity. Overall, the derivation is largely self-contained and externally benchmarked, so the circularity score is low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The correction rests on fitted per-beam and per-scan offsets anchored to WISE, RACS-Low1, and VLASS. No new physical entities are introduced. The main structural assumption is the additive error decomposition, which is not independently validated within the paper.

free parameters (5)
  • Per-beam offset coefficients (RA/Dec) = Not tabulated; one RA and one Dec offset per beam (53,748 beams)
    These are the core correction parameters, fitted to minimize residuals against WISE after Stage 1 alignment.
  • Per-scan offset coefficients (RA/Dec) = Not tabulated; one RA and one Dec offset per scan (1,493 scans)
    Modelled as beam-independent scan offsets, fitted jointly with beam offsets.
  • Crossmatch and filtering thresholds = SNR>6, integrated/peak flux ratio >1.5, multiple components within 30″, Stage 1 radius 12″, Stage 2 radius 2″
    Chosen by hand to balance false matches and completeness; the results depend on these choices.
  • Adopted 1σ systematic uncertainties = 0.25″ off-plane, 0.35″ in-plane
    Adopted from RFC comparisons 'rounded down'; used as the recommended per-source uncertainty.
  • FRB isolation heuristic parameters = Flux nodes {25,50,100 mJy} mapped to separations {10,20,30 arcsec}; ε=1e-6
    Tuned by visual inspection and validated via injection–recovery tests, as stated in Section 4.2.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption WISE all-sky positions are accurate to sub-arcsecond level and dense enough to serve as the secondary astrometric reference after Stage 1.
    Invoked in Section 2; if WISE has large-scale systematics, they would be imprinted on the corrected RACS positions.
  • domain assumption RACS-Low1 (Dec<0) and VLASS (Dec>0) positions are accurate at the 0.1–0.3″ level and have low source density, making them safe for Stage 1 matching at 12″.
    Cited in Section 2.2; if these references contain residual systematics larger than ~1″, they could propagate into the final corrections.
  • ad hoc to paper Calibration-induced positional errors decompose into a scan-independent beam offset plus a beam-independent scan offset.
    Section 2.1 step 4; this additive model is the central structural assumption of the correction.
  • domain assumption Intrinsic centroid differences between radio and infrared sources are stochastic and do not bias the mean per-beam/per-scan corrections.
    Section 2.2 notes RACS-High1 resolves structure not seen in WISE but claims no systematic bias; if false, the WISE residual would be misleading.
  • domain assumption Extended and blended sources can be excluded without biasing the astrometric solution.
    Section 2.1 filtering: integrated/peak >1.5 or multiple components within 30″ are removed; this assumes such sources are not needed for accurate offsets.
  • domain assumption RFC VLBI positions are milliarcsecond-accurate, and the residual arcsecond-scale offsets for compact sources are dominated by RACS errors.
    Section 2.2 and Section 3; if RFC positions contain their own systematics for compact sources, the validation would be affected.
  • ad hoc to paper The FRB isolation heuristic (S_eff, interpolation nodes) emulates the CELEBI pipeline well enough for the localization simulation.
    Section 4.2; the heuristic is tuned by visual inspection, and the simulation results depend on it.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17195 in / 11032 out tokens · 108592 ms · 2026-08-01T14:19:57.066123+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Accurate radio astrometry is essential for reliable cross-identification of sources across wavelengths, precision localisation of transient events, and the construction of stable all-sky reference catalogues. In this work we extend our astrometric correction framework for the Rapid ASKAP Continuum Survey (RACS) to its mid- and high-frequency epochs (RACS-Mid1 and RACS-High1), building on our previous corrections to the low-frequency surveys. Using a hierarchical crossmatching strategy with high-precision external catalogues, we remove large-scale systematic positional errors that were present in the uncorrected data and significantly reduce the residual scatter across the sky. After correction, the median positional offsets are effectively eliminated, and the 68\% confidence interval of the mean residuals of RACS source positions averaged over $~\sim1$~sq.deg. regions is reduced from $\gtrsim 0.4''$ to $\lesssim 0.18''$ over most of the survey area for both epochs. Independent validation against multiple external radio astrometric references confirms that individual corrected RACS source positions are accurate to a 1-$\sigma$ confidence level of $\sim 0.25''$ across the bulk of the sky, with slightly degraded performance within the Galactic plane. While motivated primarily by the need for improved localisation of ASKAP fast radio bursts, these corrections also benefit a wide range of science applications, including transient identification, multiwavelength host association, and studies of Galactic and extragalactic radio populations. Together with our previous work, this establishes RACS as the highest precision arcsecond-resolution all-sky astrometric reference in the southern hemisphere at decimetre wavelengths.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18775 by Adam T. Deller, Akhil Jaini, Emil Lenc, Marcin Glowacki, Stefan W. Duschene, Yuanming Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The modelled and residual offsets of RACS-Mid1 vs WISE after two stages of crossmatching are shown here. The top row shows the modelled offsets and the bottom row shows the residual offsets in RA (left) and Dec. (right) for the entire sky coverage. • Scan-independent beam offset: common to all scans shar￾ing a bandpass calibration; • Beam-independent scan offset: common to all beams within a given scan. 5.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The modelled (top row) and residual (bottom row) offsets for RACS-Mid1 vs WISE for scans below Dec. +30◦. The median RA offset (left) improves from 0.21′′ to 0.00′′ and the median Dec. offset (right) decreases from −0.07′′ to 0.00′′. The 68% confidence intervals also narrow down significantly. however, since RFC positions are determined using Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) with milliarcsecond res… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The corrected offsets in RA and Dec. for Dec. < +30◦ for RACS-Mid1 vs reference catalogues, with FIRST comparisons in the top row and RFC in the bottom row. ure 1. The modified methodology delivers improved cor￾rections across most of the sky, though we continue to rec￾ommend caution for Dec. above +30◦ , where the very low observing elevation generally means that simple calibration extrapolation leads to … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The modelled and residual offsets of RACS-High1 vs WISE after two stages of crossmatching are shown here. The top row shows the modelled offsets and the bottom row shows the residual offsets in RA (left) and Dec. (right) for the entire sky coverage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The modelled (top row) and residual (bottom row) offsets for RACS-High1 vs WISE for scans below Dec. +30◦. The median RA offset (left) improves from 0.16′′ to 0.00′′ and the median Dec. offset (right) decreases from −0.04′′ to 0.00′′. The 68% confidence intervals also narrow down significantly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The corrected offsets in RA and Dec. for Dec. < +30◦ for RACS-High1 vs reference catalogues, with FIRST comparisons in the top row and RFC in the bottom row. the reduced source density and lower signal-to-noise ratio at higher frequencies, which limit the number of compact refer￾ence sources available for robust averaging within each beam. Additionally, the RACS-High1 observations were conducted later in t… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The corrected RACS-High1 source lists compared to the corrected RACS-Mid1 source lists in RA and Dec. The results show that, post corrections, both the source lists are very comparable to each other [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: RACS-Mid1 astrometric offsets in Dec., for ∼ 6, 000 individual RFC sources, plotted as a function of Dec. The top panel shows the uncor￾rected offsets having a mean of 0.09′′ and 68% confidence intervals between [+0.79′′ , −0.59′′], exhibiting systematic declination-dependent errors. The panel also shows a 2nd-order polynomial (in green) fitting the scatter, as described in Duchesne et al. (2024). The midd… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Simulating 1000 FRBs in the ASKAP sky between Dec. +25◦ and −80◦ and localising them with the corrected RACS-Mid1 (top) and RACS-High1 (bottom) source lists. 4. DISCUSSION 4.1 Comparison with Polynomial Corrections The public data releases of RACS-Mid1 (Duchesne et al., 2024) and RACS-High1 (Duchesne et al., 2025) identified a system￾atic declination-dependent astrometric offset in the uncor￾rected catalo… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: An example of determining the positional offsets of the mid-band FRB20220918A while using the corrected RACS-Low1 catalogues (left) and the corrected RACS-Mid1 source lists (middle) with CELEBI. After updating the RACS epoch, the estimated offset correction based on the field sources changed from 0.05′′ ± 0.23′′ , −0.17′′ ± 0.16′′ to −0.19′′ ± 0.15′′ , −0.45′′ ± 0.11′′ in RA and Dec. respectively. After i… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: An example of determining the positional offsets of high-band FRB20211212A while using the corrected RACS-Low1 catalogues (left) and the corrected RACS-High1 source lists (middle) with CELEBI. After updating the RACS epoch, the estimated offset correction based on the field sources changed from −0.06′′ ± 0.20′′ , 0.44′′ ± 0.11′′ to 0.63′′ ± 0.15′′ , −0.28′′ ± 0.22′′ in RA and Dec. respectively. A large pa… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    F., & Willis, A

    Andernach, H., Jiménez-Andrade, E. F., & Willis, A. G. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 99

    2021

  2. [2]

    L., et al

    Anumarlapudi, A., Ehlke, A., Jones, M. L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 28 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167

    2023

  3. [3]

    H., White, R

    Becker, R. H., White, R. L., & Helfand, D. J. 1994, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 61, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems III, ed. D. R. Crabtree, R. J. Hanisch, & J. Barnes, 165

    1994

  4. [4]

    C., Scott, D

    Bhandari, S., Gordon, A. C., Scott, D. R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 67

    2023

  5. [5]

    C.-J., Large, M

    Bock, D. C.-J., Large, M. I., & Sadler, E. M. 1999, AJ, 117, 1578

    1999

  6. [6]

    Brown, M. J. I., Clarke, T. A., Hopkins, A. M., Norris, R. P., & Jarrett, T. H. 2024, PASA, 41, e004

    2024

  7. [7]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 828

    Caleb, M., Heywood, I., Rajwade, K., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 828

    2022

  8. [8]

    S., Gordon, D., et al

    Charlot, P., Jacobs, C. S., Gordon, D., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A159

    2020

  9. [9]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 1693

    1998

  10. [10]

    K., Deller, A

    Day, C. K., Deller, A. T., James, C. W., et al. 2021, PASA, 38, e050

    2021

  11. [11]

    2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04978

    Duchesne, S., Ross, K., Thomson, A., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04978

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    W., Johnston-Hollitt, M., Riseley, C

    Duchesne, S. W., Johnston-Hollitt, M., Riseley, C. J., Bartalucci, I., & Keel, S. R. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3525

    2022

  13. [13]

    W., Thomson, A

    Duchesne, S. W., Thomson, A. J. M., Pritchard, J., et al. 2023, PASA, 40, e034

    2023

  14. [14]

    W., Grundy, J

    Duchesne, S. W., Grundy, J. A., Heald, G. H., et al. 2024, PASA, 41, e003

    2024

  15. [15]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sipőcz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 98

    2019

  16. [16]

    2026, arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.06766

    Glowacki, M., Dial, T., Bera, A., et al. 2026, arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.06766

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    A., Boyce, M

    Gordon, Y. A., Boyce, M. M., O’Dea, C. P., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 30

    2021

  18. [18]

    L., McConnell, D., Thomson, A

    Hale, C. L., McConnell, D., Thomson, A. J. M., et al. 2021, PASA, 38, e058

    2021

  19. [19]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  20. [20]

    W., Bunton, J

    Hotan, A. W., Bunton, J. D., Chippendale, A. P., et al. 2021, PASA, 38, e009

    2021

  21. [21]

    2021, A&A, 647, L11

    Ighina, L., Belladitta, S., Caccianiga, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, L11

    2021

  22. [22]

    2025, A&A, 698, A158

    Ighina, L., Caccianiga, A., Moretti, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A158

    2025

  23. [23]

    T., Wang, Y., Lenc, E., & Glowacki, M

    Jaini, A., Deller, A. T., Wang, Y., Lenc, E., & Glowacki, M. 2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 42, e060

    2025

  24. [24]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 987, L16

    James, C., Deller, A., Dial, T., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 987, L16

    2025

  25. [25]

    A., Chandler, C

    Lacy, M., Baum, S. A., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 035001

    2020

  26. [26]

    Macquart, J.-P., Bailes, M., Bhat, N. D. R., et al. 2010, PASA, 27, 272

    2010

  27. [27]

    L., Lenc, E., et al

    McConnell, D., Hale, C. L., Lenc, E., et al. 2020, PASA, 37, e048

    2020

  28. [28]

    1996, The VizieR database of astronomical catalogues, doi:10

    Ochsenbein, F. 1996, The VizieR database of astronomical catalogues, doi:10. 26093/CDS/VIZIER

    1996

  29. [29]

    2000, A&AS, 143, 23

    Ochsenbein, F., Bauer, P., & Marcout, J. 2000, A&AS, 143, 23

    2000

  30. [30]

    Petrov, L., & Kovalev, Y. Y. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 276, 38

    2025

  31. [31]

    R., Cho, H., Day, C

    Scott, D. R., Cho, H., Day, C. K., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Computing, 44, 100724

    2023

  32. [32]

    M., Bannister, K

    Shannon, R. M., Bannister, K. W., Bera, A., et al. 2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 42, e036

    2025

  33. [33]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  34. [34]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 5661

    Wang, Y., Murphy, T., Lenc, E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 5661

    2023

  35. [35]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868

    2010