Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

DragonflyPol turns a 48-lens commercial telephoto array into a wide-field optical polarimeter, measuring all four linear polarization orientations simultaneously across ~5 square degrees.

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 ↗

By installing fixed polarizers in 44 lenses of the Dragonfly Telephoto Array, DragonflyPol enables simultaneous four-angle optical linear polarimetry over a ~5 deg² field, with commissioning checks confirming the expected twilight Rayleigh polarization.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-02 challenge →

load-bearing objection A well-executed instrument description with a genuinely new wide-field polarimetric design; the lab characterization is solid, but the on-sky calibration is deferred, so the Stokes q/u claim is not yet closed. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.14258 v1 pith:3VFHDEFU submitted 2026-07-15 astro-ph.IM

DragonflyPol: Wide-Field Optical Linear Polarimetry with the Dragonfly Telephoto Array (Instrument Description and Commissioning)

Mehrnoosh Tahani , Leo Hollberg , Hiroshi Akitaya , Jaeyeon Kim , Deborah Lokhorst , Roberto Abraham , Pieter van Dokkum , William P. Bowman
show 4 more authors
Vishwa Koshene Gamage Paras Regmi Yasuo Doi Koji S. Kawabata
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords polarimetrywide-field imagingDragonfly Telephoto ArrayStokes parametersinstrumentationinterstellar magnetic fieldsdustcommissioning
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 reading

This paper establishes that a modular array of commercial telephoto lenses can act as a wide-field optical linear polarimeter. By equipping 44 of the Dragonfly Telephoto Array's 48 lens–detector units with fixed Canon polarizers at four orientations (0°, 45°, 90°, 135°) and four units as unpolarized references, the instrument measures the linear Stokes parameters Q and U across a ~5 deg² field in a single exposure. Laboratory tests show uniform polarizer quality: a mean noise-subtracted contrast ratio of 1228 ± 104, ~33% transmission in the r' band, and transmission-axis marking repeatable to better than 0.2°. On-sky twilight observations recover the expected Rayleigh-scattering polarization position angle to within 1.6°, confirming stable throughput across the four angle groups. The payoff is a cost-effective path to mapping starlight polarization—and hence interstellar magnetic fields, dust properties, and CMB foreground structure—over fields roughly twenty times larger than existing narrow-field polarimeters.

Core claim

The authors claim that the Dragonfly Telephoto Array's modular, all-refractive design can be turned into a simultaneous four-angle linear polarimeter without building a purpose-specific instrument. Each of 44 lens–detector units carries a Canon circular polarizer (operated as a linear polarizer) and a Baader Sloan r' filter fixed in the lens's drop-in holder, with transmission axes set to 0°, 45°, 90°, or 135° in repeating groups of four (11 groups total); four unfiltered units track total intensity. Because all four angles expose at once, Q/I and U/I are obtained from a single set of frames, a capability hard to achieve on single-aperture telescopes. Laboratory characterization across all 4

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the modular mosaic design: 48 independent Canon 400 mm f/2.8 lens–SBIG camera units, each with its own optical path and control electronics. 44 of them are fitted with a polarizer+filter assembly in the lens's drop-in rear filter holder. Polarizers are Canon circular polarizers used as linear polarizers, with transmission axes scribed to four fixed angles and grouped into 11 Stokes groups of four units (one per angle); the four remaining units are unpolarized reference channels for sky-transparency monitoring. This arrangement yields simultaneous measurement of the four intensities needed for linear Stokes parameters over the full ~5 deg² field in one exposure,

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the relative throughput of the four polarization-angle groups is known well enough that combining counts from different lenses yields true Stokes q and u; this is checked with twilight flats but absolute polarimetric calibration is explicitly deferred to a companion paper.

What would settle it

Observe an unpolarized standard star through the array; if the array reports a polarization fraction significantly above the noise floor (after the companion calibration), the inter-group relative-gain assumption fails. Conversely, a polarized standard whose measured position angle disagrees with the catalog value by more than the ~1° position-angle assignment precision would falsify the absolute angle calibration. The paper states standard-star observations are already being interleaved, so this test is directly available.

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

If this is right

  • Single-exposure Stokes Q/U maps over ~5 deg² make it practical to map polarization across diffuse Galactic cirrus and molecular-cloud envelopes where few bright stars exist.
  • Combined with Gaia distances, the wide-field starlight-polarization maps enable tomographic reconstruction of plane-of-sky magnetic field directions in three dimensions over large regions.
  • r'-band polarization fractions can be compared directly with Planck and JCMT submillimetre polarization to test how dust-grain alignment efficiency varies between diffuse and dense gas.
  • Four unpolarized reference channels provide simultaneous total-intensity frames, allowing transparency and zero-point monitoring without extra observing time.
  • The all-refractive design and commercial components suggest that similar modular arrays could be retrofitted for polarimetry at modest cost, widening access to wide-field polarimetric surveys.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A critical test will be the companion paper's standard-star calibration: the twilight position-angle agreement (≤1.6°) is an internal consistency check against a geometric model, not an absolute calibration. If inter-group gain ratios are biased, Stokes q/u could be systematically wrong even while the twilight angle matches.
  • The fixed four-angle mosaic could be extended to other bands (e.g., g') by swapping filters, allowing a Serkowski-relation wavelength dependence study across the same fields—an extension the paper lists as a long-term goal but does not demonstrate.
  • The array's low surface brightness sensitivity implies DragonflyPol might detect optical polarized light from Galactic cirrus itself (scattered light), a signal that would constrain both dust scattering properties and the 3D geometry of high-latitude clouds; the paper lists this as a science goal, not a demonstrated result.
  • If the four unpolarized reference channels are used as null tests, any residual polarization measured on sky in those channels would quantify instrumental polarization from the lenses—a direct check that the paper leaves to future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper describes DragonflyPol, a wide-field optical linear polarimetry mode for the Dragonfly Telephoto Array. The core idea is to place fixed linear polarizers at 0°, 45°, 90°, and 135° in the drop-in filter holders of 44 of the 48 lens–detector units, with four unpolarized reference units, enabling simultaneous multi-angle imaging over a ~5 deg² field. The authors report laboratory characterization of all 44 Canon circular polarizers: a mean noise-subtracted contrast ratio of 1228 ± 104, a single-polarizer r'-band transmission efficiency of about 33%, and transmission-axis scribing repeatability better than 0.2°. On-sky commissioning includes twilight flat-field throughput checks and twilight-sky polarization measurements, with measured position angles agreeing with the Rayleigh-scattering expectation to within 1.6°. A full polarimetric calibration treatment is deferred to a companion paper.

Significance. If the central claims hold, DragonflyPol would provide a uniquely wide-field, low-surface-brightness optical polarimetric capability, complementing narrow-field instruments such as PASIPHAE. The laboratory program is a genuine strength: Table 3 lists all 44 polarizers with raw and noise-subtracted contrast ratios, the Malus-law behavior is checked, and the mean contrast ratio follows directly from the tabulated values. The twilight position-angle comparison is an appropriate end-to-end test in principle because the Rayleigh expectation is derived from observing geometry rather than from the instrument. The paper is clearly written and the modular integration approach is practical and cost-effective. The main weakness is that the on-sky validation of Stokes q/u reconstruction is not actually described in this paper; the reduction and calibration chain is deferred to an unpublished companion, which limits the verifiability of the commissioning claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.2, Table 2] The central on-sky result—recovery of the twilight Rayleigh polarization to within 1.6°—is not reproducible as presented. The paper gives no equation or procedure for combining counts from the 0°, 45°, 90°, and 135° lens groups into Stokes q and u, no description of how flat-fielding or relative inter-group gains are set, and no coordinate transformation from instrumental to sky position angle. The text states that 'a full treatment of the polarimetric calibration performance is presented in the companion calibration paper (Tahani et al. in prep.)', but Table 2 is a central commissioning claim of this paper. If the relative group gains were derived from the twilight data themselves, the 1.6° agreement would be partially circular. The authors should either include the explicit reduction/calibration equations and an independent determination of inter-group gains, or restrict the on-sky cla
  2. [§5.2, Figure 11, Table 2] The on-sky validation is limited to array-averaged scalar Stokes parameters and a single position angle per epoch. The paper's stated capability is reconstruction of Stokes Q/I and U/I maps across a ~5 deg² field, and all the science cases involve spatial structure. No map, spatial binning, or position-dependent residual is shown. The reported standard deviations on q and u do not demonstrate that the polarization signal can be reconstructed as a function of field position. Spatial variation in twilight sky polarization, or inter-lens/inter-group gain variations that happen to cancel in the array average, could corrupt local Stokes maps while leaving the scalar agreement apparently intact. At minimum, coarse spatial binned maps or per-unit/per-group residuals against the Rayleigh model should be shown to support the field-wide claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] The 'Separation angle to the Moon' and 'Altitude of the Moon' columns contain identical values (31.1°, 54.7°, 52.3°). This is likely a copy/paste error and should be corrected.
  2. [§4.4, Table 3] The text reports a V45/V90 ratio of 0.498 ± 0.004 across all units, but no per-unit V45 values are given in Table 3. It would be helpful to clarify whether this is a cross-check of Malus's law or a check of the angle zeroing, and to provide the associated uncertainties.
  3. [Figure 10] The figure labels are very small and dense, making it difficult to verify the four-angle balance and the cross-mount group 11 assignment. A larger version or a table of units, assigned angles, group numbers, and polarizer serial numbers would improve readability.
  4. [Figure 11] The horizontal axis shows groups 1–10 only; group 11, which spans both mounts, is not plotted. If group 11 is excluded, this should be stated and justified; if it is included, the axis labeling should be corrected.
  5. [§4.4, §5.2] The paper should distinguish more carefully between scribing repeatability (<0.2°), which is a relative precision, and the absolute accuracy of the deployed polarizer position angle, which the text says is ~1° due to protractor alignment. The abstract's phrase 'sub-degree repeatability' is accurate but could be misinterpreted as absolute accuracy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the validation chain is externally benchmarked; calibration deferral is an incompleteness, not a circular step.

full rationale

Walking the claimed derivation chain: polarizer selection and contrast ratios come from independent laboratory photodiode/Malus-law measurements; transmission axes are set against an independent polarizing beamsplitter cube; on-sky Stokes parameters are checked against a Rayleigh-scattering position angle computed from observing geometry and against prior twilight-sky polarization measurements. None of these steps uses the claimed result as an input. The paper does not display the gain equations used to form q/u, and it explicitly defers 'a full treatment of the polarimetric calibration performance' to a companion paper (Tahani et al. in prep.). That deferral is a verifiability/completeness limitation, and the skeptic's scenario (gains fitted from the twilight data themselves) would indeed be circular, but it is not stated and cannot be derived from any equation or procedure in this manuscript. The numerous self-citations appear in science-goal motivation and in the deferred companion-paper reference; they do not carry the instrument-validation logic. No step reduces by construction to its own input, so the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The validation chain rests on three domain assumptions rather than fitted free parameters. The main gaps are deferred standard-star calibration, use of twilight sky as an external reference, and the unstated deployed orientation of the circular polarizers.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Relative throughput of the four polarization-angle groups is stable and flat-fieldable to the accuracy needed for Stokes reconstruction.
    Section 5.2 twilight flats show within-group stability, but inter-group gain ratios are not independently calibrated with unpolarized standard stars; the companion calibration paper is deferred.
  • domain assumption Twilight sky polarization is a faithful external calibration source whose expected position angle can be computed from observing geometry.
    Section 5.2 / Table 2 rely on Rayleigh scattering and known solar/lunar geometry; no aerosol or atmospheric depolarization model is included.
  • domain assumption Canon circular polarizers, when mounted in the rear filter holder, behave as linear polarizers with the same transmission axis as marked in the lab.
    Section 4.3.1 describes the lab orientation with light passing the linear polarizer before the quarter-wave plate, but the deployed orientation inside the lens filter slot is not explicitly verified in Section 5.

reviewed 2026-08-02 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DragonflyPol: Wide-Field Optical Linear Polarimetry with the Dragonfly Telephoto Array (Instrument Description and Commissioning)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3VFHDEFU

@misc{pith2026260714258,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DragonflyPol: Wide-Field Optical Linear Polarimetry with the Dragonfly Telephoto Array (Instrument Description and Commissioning)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3VFHDEFU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14258}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We present DragonflyPol, a wide-field optical linear polarimetry capability implemented on the Dragonfly Telephoto Array. DragonflyPol leverages Dragonfly's modular, multi-lens architecture to obtain simultaneous measurements in four linear polarization orientations ($0^\circ$, $45^\circ$, $90^\circ$, and $135^\circ$) across a $\sim5\,deg^2$ field of view, distributed across 44 polarized lens--detector units. Four additional units serve as unpolarized reference channels. We describe a broad range of science goals enabled by this capability, including magnetic field mapping and tomography, dust grain properties, CMB foreground characterization, and the three-dimensional structure of diffuse interstellar clouds. We integrate Canon polarizers and Baader Sloan $r'$ bandpass filters into the drop-in filter holders of the Canon lenses, and conduct a three-phase laboratory characterization program to select optimal polarimetric components, measure contrast ratios and transmission efficiencies, and determine and mark the transmission axis of each polarizer with sub-degree repeatability. Laboratory measurements across all 44 deployed polarizers yield a mean noise-subtracted contrast ratio of $1228 \pm 104$ and a single-polarizer transmission efficiency of $\sim$33\% in the $r'$ band. On-sky commissioning, including twilight flat-field characterization and twilight-sky polarization measurements, confirms throughput stability across polarization groups and successful recovery of the expected Rayleigh scattering signal. DragonflyPol achieved first polarimetric light in September 2025.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14258 by Deborah Lokhorst, Hiroshi Akitaya, Jaeyeon Kim, Koji S. Kawabata, Leo Hollberg, Mehrnoosh Tahani, Paras Regmi, Pieter van Dokkum, Roberto Abraham, Vishwa Koshene Gamage, William P. Bowman, Yasuo Doi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The Dragonfly Telephoto Array (Mount 1), showing the 24 Canon 400 mm f /2.8 telephoto lenses with the Dragon￾flyPol polarizer and bandpass filter assemblies installed. Image credit: DragonflyPol Collaboration. simultaneous imaging. The lenses incorporate nano-fabricated sub-wavelength anti-reflection coatings that suppress internal light scattering by an order of magnitude relative to conventional reflecti… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: DragonflyPol component integration. Top: Canon 400 mm f/2.8 lens, focus electronics, CCD camera, and control microcomputer. Note that the lab-based testing used different electronics (focuser and powerbox) from the on-sky array, but the functionality and command structure is identical. Bottom: Drop-in filter holder containing a bandpass filter and polarizer, and installation at the rear filter slot of the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The polarizer was divided into four quadrants to examine position-dependent polarization effects. The illumination spot was translated to each quadrant to test whether the polarization axis orientation and contrast ratio varied across the aperture of the polarizer. a Birger Engineering focuser adapter, and an SBIG camera as the detector. In this setup the bandpass filter was located in front of the illumin… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic of the laboratory setup used in the lens and photodiode configuration (Section 4.3.1). The beam from the QTH10 light source passes through a Sloan r ′ bandpass filter, a rotating polarizer, the Canon 400 mm f /2.8 lens, and a fixed polarizer installed in the drop-in filter holder. The Hamamatsu photodiode is placed at the focal plane of the lens. Representative results are as follows. Edmund–Edmu… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Laboratory setup for polarimetric characterization. Left: Setup used for transmission efficiency measurements, showing the illumination source, polarizer, and bandpass filter assembly with photodiode readout. Right: Setup with the Canon 400 mm f/2.8 lens in place. An additional beam-confining wall and iris were typically included in the configuration to reduce stray light, though not shown here. 0 25 50 75… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Measured photodiode response as a function of polarizer rotation angle for a Canon circular polarizer pair in the lens and photodiode configuration, with the Sloan r ′ bandpass filter in place. The blue points show the measured average counts within the aperture at each rotation angle, and the solid curve shows the best-fit Malus’s law model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Polarization axis scribing station developed for DragonflyPol. The setup enables repeatable transmission axis marking at better than 0.2 ◦ precision. Components include the QTH10 illumination source, Sloan r ′ bandpass filter, pinhole, polarizing beamsplitter cube (reference axis), motorized rotation stage, and Hamamatsu photodiode readout. The illumination source was found to carry a small intrinsic linea… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Schematic of the polarization axis scribing station (Section 4.4). The beam from the QTH10 light source passes through a Sloan r ′ bandpass filter, a pinhole, and a polarizing beamsplitter cube (PBS) serving as the fixed reference axis. The Canon circular polarizer under characterization is placed after the cube and rotated on the motorized stage; the photodiode records the transmitted intensity as a funct… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Noise-subtracted contrast ratios (blue) and raw contrast ratios (gray) for all 44 Canon circular polarizers measured during the scribing characterization session on 2025 August 14. The dashed line shows the mean noise-subtracted contrast ratio of 1228, and the shaded band indicates the ±1σ range (σ = 104). All units exceed a contrast ratio of 800, well above the minimum threshold established in feasibility… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Polarizer angle configuration for Mount 1 (left, Dragonfly 101–124) and Mount 2 (right, Dragonfly 201–224). Each circle represents one lens–detector unit. For each polarized unit, the bold number indicates the assigned polarization position angle (0 ◦ , 45◦ , 90◦ , or 135◦ ), the italic number indicates the Stokes group assignment (1–11), and the small text indicates the bandpass filter and polarizer assi… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Total counts in twilight flat fields across the array, grouped by polarization angle (0 ◦ , 45◦ , 90◦ , 135◦ ). Signal levels are broadly stable across units sharing the same polarization orientation. Occasional missing points correspond to dropped frames; a temporary outlier was traced to a momentary malfunction and re-tested subsequently. consistency across polarization-angle groups, and (iii) successfu… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Time-Domain Dust Astrophysics. I. Polarization Flares, Polarization-Angle Reverberation, and Fossil Imprints in Supernova-Illuminated Clouds

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Supernova-illuminated clouds should show polarization flares and dips, blueward λ_max shifts, B-to-k alignment-angle rotations, magnetism-sensitive reverberation, and fossil polarization lasting ~10 gas-damping times.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    G., & van Dokkum, P

    Abraham, R. G., & van Dokkum, P. G. 2014, PASP, 126, 55, doi: 10.1086/674875

    doi:10.1086/674875 2014

  2. [2]

    Akitaya, H., Morokuma, T., & Kawabata, K. S. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13096, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy X, ed. J. J

    2024

  3. [3]

    Motohara, & J

    Bryant, K. Motohara, & J. R. D. Vernet, 130963G, doi: 10.1117/12.3013630

    work page doi:10.1117/12.3013630

  4. [4]

    2023, A&A, 677, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346778

    Blinov, D., Maharana, S., Bouzelou, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346778

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346778 2023

  5. [5]

    A., & de Bruyn, A

    Brentjens, M. A., & de Bruyn, A. G. 2005, A&A, 441, 1217, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20052990

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20052990 2005

  6. [6]

    2018, ApJ, 868, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae7c8

    Cohen, Y., van Dokkum, P., Danieli, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae7c8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae7c8 2018

  7. [7]

    W., Warrant, E

    Cronin, T. W., Warrant, E. J., & Greiner, B. 2005, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5888, Polarization Science and Remote Sensing II, ed. J. A. Shaw & J. S. Tyo, 204–211, doi: 10.1117/12.613053

    work page doi:10.1117/12.613053 2005

  8. [8]

    2020, ApJ, 894, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab88a8

    Danieli, S., Lokhorst, D., Zhang, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab88a8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab88a8 2020

  9. [9]

    M., West, J., Thomson, A

    Dickey, J. M., West, J., Thomson, A. J. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac94ce

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac94ce 2022

  10. [10]

    2021, ApJ, 914, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfcc5

    Doi, Y., Hasegawa, T., Bastien, P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfcc5

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfcc5 2021

  11. [11]

    2019, PhRvL, 122, 191101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.191101 Großschedl, J

    Fujita, T., Tazaki, R., & Toma, K. 2019, PhRvL, 122, 191101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.191101 Großschedl, J. E., Alves, J., Meingast, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833901

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.191101 2019

  12. [12]

    L., & Zhang, J

    Han, J. L., & Zhang, J. S. 2007, A&A, 464, 609, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065801

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065801 2007

  13. [13]

    S., & Draine, B

    Hensley, B. S., & Draine, B. T. 2023, ApJ, 948, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc4c2 2023

  14. [14]

    1999, ApJ, 518, 676, doi: 10.1086/307290

    Kishimoto, M. 1999, ApJ, 518, 676, doi: 10.1086/307290

    work page doi:10.1086/307290 1999

  15. [15]

    2022, A&A, 663, A175, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142580

    Konstantinou, A., Pelgrims, V., Fuchs, F., & Tassis, K. 2022, A&A, 663, A175, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142580

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142580 2022

  16. [16]

    Kounkel, M., Deng, T., & Stassun, K. G. 2022, AJ, 164, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7951

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac7951 2022

  17. [17]

    G., et al

    Liu, Q., Abraham, R., Martin, P. G., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdee3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acdee3 2023

  18. [18]

    2023, PhRvD, 108, 072005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.072005

    Oshima, Y., Fujimoto, H., Kume, J., et al. 2023, PhRvD, 108, 072005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.072005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.072005 2023

  19. [19]

    V., Tassis, K., Skalidis, R., et al

    Panopoulou, G. V., Tassis, K., Skalidis, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafdb2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafdb2 2019

  20. [20]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    Pattle, K., Fissel, L., Tahani, M., Liu, T., & Ntormousi, E. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2023

  21. [21]

    534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed

    Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 193, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.11179

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.11179

  22. [22]

    2024, A&A, 684, A162, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202349015

    Pelgrims, V., Mandarakas, N., Skalidis, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A162, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202349015

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202349015 2024

  23. [23]

    2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Piirola, V., Berdyugin, A., & Berdyugina, S. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K

    2014

  24. [24]

    Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, 91478I, doi: 10.1117/12.2055923 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    doi:10.1117/12.2055923 2020

  25. [25]

    S., & Ford, V

    Serkowski, K., Mathewson, D. S., & Ford, V. L. 1975, ApJ, 196, 261, doi: 10.1086/153410

    doi:10.1086/153410 1975

  26. [26]

    2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 940027, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.940027

    Tahani, M. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 940027, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.940027

    arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.27346

    Tahani, M., Ordog, A., West, J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.27346. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.27346 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    C., & Kainulainen, J

    Tahani, M., Plume, R., Brown, J. C., & Kainulainen, J. 2018, A&A, 614, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732219

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732219 2018

  29. [29]

    2022a, A&A, 660, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243322

    Tahani, M., Glover, J., Lupypciw, W., et al. 2022a, A&A, 660, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243322

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243322

  30. [30]

    2022b, A&A, 660, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141170

    Tahani, M., Lupypciw, W., Glover, J., et al. 2022b, A&A, 660, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141170

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141170

  31. [31]

    S., et al

    Tahani, M., Bastien, P., Furuya, R. S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acac81

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acac81 2023

  32. [32]

    N., Readhead, A

    Tassis, K., Ramaprakash, A. N., Readhead, A. C. S., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1810.05652. https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.05652 van Dokkum, P., Wasserman, A., Danieli, S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2914 van Dokkum, P., Shen, Z., Keim, M. A., et al. 2022, Nature, 605, 435, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04665-6 Van Eck, C. L., Haverk...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  33. [33]

    2007, ApJ, 664, 296, doi: 10.1086/519155

    Pereyra, A. 2007, ApJ, 664, 296, doi: 10.1086/519155

    work page doi:10.1086/519155 2007

  34. [34]

    2021, ApJ, 919, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1f96

    Zucker, C., Goodman, A., Alves, J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1f96

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1f96 2021

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.