Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Kernel-phase Detection Limits : Hypothesis Testing and the Example of JWST NIRISS Full Pupil Images

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that binary detection with kernel phases can be cast as a hypothesis-testing problem, and that a practical generalized likelihood-ratio test comes within a factor of about 2.5 in contrast of the Neyman-Pearson upper bound…

desk verdict A genuinely useful statistical framework for kernel-phase detection limits, with a clear-eyed caveat about calibration residuals that the authors themselves acknowledge. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03130 v1 pith:GQGMNSBM submitted 2019-08-08 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.SR

Alban Ceau , David Mary , Alexandra Greenbaum , Frantz Martinache , Anand Sivaramakrishnan , Romain Laugier , Mamadou N'Diaye This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords kernelphasehypothesistestingNeyman-PearsontestgeneralizedlikelihoodratioJWSTNIRISSbinarydetectionlimitsbrowndwarfshigh-contrastimaging
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

Kernel-phase analysis infers the Fourier phase of a source while cancelling small telescope aberrations, and this paper asks how good it can be at finding faint companions. The answer is framed as a statistical hypothesis test: given whitened kernel phases, how reliably can a binary signature be distinguished from noise? The paper derives a Neyman-Pearson test that gives the theoretical best-possible detection performance, an energy detector that gives a lower bound, and a practical binary generalized likelihood-ratio test that lands within about a factor of 2.5 in contrast of the best possible bound. Applied to simulated JWST NIRISS full-pupil F480M images of Y-type brown dwarfs, it predicts that a 1000-to-1 companion at 200 mas is detectable at 68% probability with a 1% false-alarm rate, and that brighter targets could reach contrasts near $10^4$ to $10^5$. If these predictions hold, kernel-phase becomes a quantitatively predictable companion-search mode for JWST rather than an empirical calibration-dependent one.

What carries the argument

The kernel matrix $K$ is the left nullspace of the aperture phase transfer matrix $A$, so $KA = 0$; applied to the Fourier phase $\varphi$ it produces kernel phases $k = K\varphi$ that are first-order insensitive to aberration phase. Whitening by $\Sigma^{-1/2}$ decorrelates them into statistically independent observables. The operational detection test is the binary generalized likelihood ratio $T_B = 2y^{\mathsf{T}}\hat{x} - \hat{x}^{\mathsf{T}}\hat{x}$, which equals the reduction in squared residuals between the null model and the fitted binary model, $T_{\chi^2}(0,y) - T_{\chi^2}(\hat{x},y)$. The covariance $\Sigma$ is estimated from $10^5$ Monte Carlo noise realizations, with a diagonal inflation term set by ten OPD maps scaled to 16 nm RMS to represent calibration drift. This machinery carries the argument because it converts an image into a vector with known statistics, allowing detection thresholds and contrast limits to be computed rather than guessed.

What would settle it

Take a real F480M full-pupil NIRISS observation of a binary with a $W2 \approx 14.1$ primary and a confirmed companion at about 200 mas with contrast near $10^3$, using an 80-minute on-target sequence as simulated; if the operational test $T_B$ does not achieve $P_{\mathrm{DET}} \approx 68\%$ at $P_{\mathrm{FA}} = 1\%$ for this companion, the predicted detection limit is not realized. A simpler numerical check is to simulate a correlated calibration term beyond the diagonal inflation and see whether $T_B$'s contrast limit falls more than a factor of 2.5 below the Neyman-Pearson bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that detection of a binary by kernel phases can be fully characterized by three tests operating on whitened kernel-phase observables. The paper constructs a whitened vector $y = \Sigma^{-1/2} k$ from kernel phases $k$, with covariance $\Sigma$ modelled from photon, readout, and dark noise plus a diagonal calibration-inflation term. In this space the problem is $y = \epsilon$ under the null hypothesis and $y = x + \epsilon$ under the alternative, with $\epsilon$ standard Gaussian. The likelihood-ratio (Neyman-Pearson) test $T_{\mathrm{NP}} = y^{\mathsf{T}} x$ is the most powerful possible; the energy detector $T_E = \|y\|^2$ uses no target information and is the least powerful; and the binary test $T_B = 2y^{\mathsf{T}} \hat{x} - \hat{x}^{\mathsf{T}} \hat{x}$ substitutes the maximum-likelihood estimate of the binary signature (separation, position angle, contrast). Monte Carlo simulations on NIRISS F480M images show that $T_B$'s ROC curve hugs the $T_{\mathrm{NP}}$ curve, and that the resulting contrast limits are within a factor of 2.5 of the theoretical bound at $P_{\mathrm{FA}} = 1\%$ and $P_{\mathrm{DET}} = 68\%$. For a $W2 = 14.1$ Y dwarf, companions at contrasts up to about $10^3$ at 200 mas are detectable; the brightest unsaturated targets could reach contrasts of $10^4$ to $10^5$ beyond about 500 mas, barring wavefront drift, whose uncalibrated residual accounts for 85% of the kernel noise variance in that bright regime.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted limits assume that after whitening, kernel-phase noise is Gaussian with a known covariance and that uncalibrated wavefront drift acts only as a diagonal variance inflation estimated from ten 16 nm RMS OPD maps; if real JWST calibration errors are correlated, time-varying, or larger than assumed, the contrast limits, especially the bright-target factor-of-ten degradation, will be worse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $P_{\mathrm{FA}} = 1\%$ and $P_{\mathrm{DET}} = 68\%$, companions of contrast around $10^3$ at 200 mas are detectable around $W2 = 14.1$ Y dwarfs in F480M, which translates to a 1 Jupiter-mass companion at 1.5 AU around a 30 Jupiter-mass brown dwarf at 8 pc.
  • For the brightest NIRISS full-pupil targets, contrasts up to about $10^4$ (and ideally $10^5$ beyond 500 mas) are reachable if wavefront drift stays near the 16 nm RMS prediction; a drift of that size cuts bright-target performance by about a factor of 10.
  • Because the false-alarm probability stays constant for phase aberrations below about one radian, thresholds can be set a priori and surveys do not need to re-calibrate the false-alarm rate at every epoch.
  • The same three-test framework applies to any adequately sampled imaging system, including aperture-masking (NRM) data, not only NIRISS full-pupil images.
  • At separations below $\lambda/D$, contrast and separation estimates are strongly correlated, so orbital fits for such binaries will need independent companion-luminosity or astrometric priors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The small gap between $T_B$ and the Neyman-Pearson bound implies that further algorithmic or calibration improvements can buy at most roughly a factor of 2.5 in contrast; more radical gains would need new observables such as visibility amplitudes, which the paper notes are left unused.
  • The constant false-alarm property suggests an operational survey design: fix thresholds from simulations once, then monitor only the empirical false-alarm rate on calibrator fields, which would also reveal whether correlated calibration errors are secretly inflating detections.
  • A direct test of the predictions is possible with early JWST NIRISS data on known wide binaries: measure the $T_B$ ROC empirically and compare the 68% detection contour with the paper's simulated curves, including the position-angle dependence produced by the non-centrosymmetric JWST PSF.
  • The position-angle dependence of the limits implies that observatories should publish per-orientation detection-limit maps rather than a single contrast curve; surveys combining multiple roll angles could then marginalize over the PSF asymmetry.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a statistical hypothesis-testing framework for kernel-phase observables and applies it to simulated JWST NIRISS full-pupil F480M images. Three detection tests are constructed on whitened kernel phases: the Neyman-Pearson (NP) test for a known companion signature, an energy detector for a completely unknown signature, and a generalized likelihood ratio test (T_B) for a binary companion with unknown position and contrast. Analytic false-alarm and detection probabilities are derived for the NP and energy tests, while the distribution of T_B is calibrated by Monte Carlo simulation. The authors validate the theoretical ROC curves against Monte Carlo runs, show that T_B performs close to the NP upper bound, and derive contrast detection limits for representative Y-dwarf targets. The headline quantitative result is that, at PFA = 1% and PDET = 68%, companions at contrasts up to about 10^3 at 200 mas around a W2 = 14.1 target are detectable, with brighter targets allowing contrasts up to 10^5 in the idealized case.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a principled and general method for computing and guaranteeing kernel-phase detection limits with controlled false-alarm rates, applicable to any well-sampled high-Strehl imaging instrument. The Monte Carlo validation of the theoretical distributions is a clear strength, and the use of open-source simulation tools (XARA, ami_sim) makes the numerical experiments reproducible. The paper also supplies concrete, falsifiable predictions for JWST NIRISS full-pupil observations, and it correctly identifies the NP test as an upper performance bound. The central methodological derivation—the whitened Gaussian model and the three tests—is standard and sound, and the Monte Carlo checks support the claimed distributions for T_NP and T_E.

major comments (2)
  1. [3.4 and 3.5] The Monte Carlo evaluation of T_B initializes the least-squares optimizer at the true injected companion parameters ('The initialisation of the algorithm corresponds to the parameters of the injected companion'), and the paper does not state how the test is initialized under H0, where no true companion exists. Because the likelihood is multimodal (Fig. 2), the reported ROC curves and detection limits for T_B (Figs. 7-9 and 11) are conditional on an oracle start point. The assertion that a systematic grid search gives 'very similar results' is not documented with any quantitative comparison. A blind operational search can converge to local maxima, which would change both the detection power and the Monte-Carlo-calibrated threshold. Please quantify the grid-search comparison, specify the initialization under H0, and, if performance degrades, qualify the claim that T_B is an operational test close to the NP bound.
  2. [3.3 and 3.7] The calibration error is modeled only as a diagonal term added to the covariance, and the paper explicitly chooses not to pursue non-diagonal terms (Sec. 3.3). In the bright-target scenario this term accounts for 85% of the total noise variance (Sec. 3.7), so the whitening in Eq. (8) and the distributions of T_NP, T_E, and T_B rely on the assumption that calibration residuals are uncorrelated across kernel phases. If they are correlated, the nominal 1% false-alarm rate is not guaranteed and the bright-target limits in Fig. 11, including the 10^5 contrast value, are not robust. Please either estimate the full calibration covariance from a larger set of OPD realizations and re-run the tests, or present the bright-target limits with an explicit caveat that they hold only under the diagonal-calibration assumption.
minor comments (4)
  1. [3.5 / Fig. 8 caption] The caption lists 'The dashed lines represent theoretical detection limits for TE and TNP (Eq. (17) and Eq. (24))', but the equation numbers are swapped: Eq. (17) gives the TNP ROC and Eq. (24) gives the TE ROC.
  2. [3.2] In the sentence 'will result in unaccounted residual residual errors', the word 'residual' is duplicated.
  3. [2.2] In the first paragraph, 'ker phases' should read 'kernel phases'.
  4. [3.4] The closing sentence 'The gradient descent procedure is indeed only applicable in the context of only applicable in the context of the determination of detection limits' contains a repeated phrase and should be rewritten.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: detection limits are model-based predictions computed from simulated noise and analytical test statistics, with no parameter fitted to the claimed result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The paper builds whitened kernel-phase observables y = Sigma^{-1/2} k from the linear kernel-phase model and derives the Neyman-Pearson and energy-detector tests analytically (Eqs. 14-17 and 22-25). The operational binary test T_B is characterized by Monte Carlo simulation, and its detection limits in Figs. 8 and 11 are computed from those simulated distributions together with a covariance estimated from 10^5 synthetic frames and an a priori calibration-error model based on Perrin et al. OPD maps. No parameter is fitted to the claimed contrast limits, and the paper explicitly treats the Monte Carlo calibration of the T_B threshold as a calibration step rather than as an independent prediction. Self-citations to XARA and ami_sim are citations to software tools used in the simulations, not load-bearing evidence for the statistical claims. The paper itself flags the diagonal approximation for calibration residuals and the idealized wavefront-drift model as the most critical limitations; these are modeling assumptions and correctness risks, not circular reductions of the prediction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on the established kernel-phase model, the Gaussian noise assumption with estimated covariance, and idealized calibration and MLE assumptions. No new physical entities or fitted constants are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Kernel-phase linear model: phi = phi0 + A*phi with aberrations below about 1 radian, and K*A=0 (Martinache 2010).
    This is the basis for constructing kernel phases and the false-alarm invariance; inherited from prior work.
  • domain assumption Whitened kernel-phase noise is i.i.d. standard Gaussian: y = Sigma^{-1/2} k, with known covariance Sigma (Eq. 10).
    Validated by Monte Carlo histograms (Fig. 3) for the simulated scenarios; underpins all PFA/PDET calculations.
  • domain assumption The binary target is a pair of unresolved point sources with intensity model Eq. (26) and visibility Eq. (27).
    The GLR test T_B is built on this signature model.
  • domain assumption Calibration residuals from wavefront drift are captured by adding a diagonal variance term estimated from 10 OPD maps scaled to 16 nm RMS (Sec. 3.2).
    The paper acknowledges this is an idealization; correlated calibration errors are not modeled.
  • ad hoc to paper The MLE optimization in the Monte Carlo runs is initialized near the global minimum (Sec. 3.4).
    This is a convenience for large-scale Monte Carlo; on real data, global optimization may fail, reducing the operational performance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kernel-phase Detection Limits : Hypothesis Testing and the Example of JWST NIRISS Full Pupil Images." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GQGMNSBM

@misc{pith2026190803130,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kernel-phase Detection Limits : Hypothesis Testing and the Example of JWST NIRISS Full Pupil Images},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GQGMNSBM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03130}
}
read the original abstract

The James Webb Space Telescope will offer high-angular resolution observing capability in the near-infrared with masking interferometry on NIRISS, and coronagraphic imaging on NIRCam & MIRI. Full aperture kernel-phase based interferometry complements these observing modes, probing for companions at small separations while preserving the telescope throughput. Our goal is to derive both theoretical and operational contrast detection limits for the kernel-phase analysis of JWST NIRISS full-pupil observations by using tools from hypothesis testing theory, applied to observations of faint brown dwarfs with this instrument, but the tools and methods introduced here are applicable in a wide variety of contexts. We construct a statistically independent set of observables from aberration-robust kernel phases. Three detection tests based on these observable quantities are designed and analysed, all guaranteeing a constant false alarm rate for small phase aberrations. One of these tests, the Likelihood Ratio or Neyman-Pearson test, provides a theoretical performance bound for any detection test. The operational detection method considered here is shown to exhibit only marginal power loss with respect to the theoretical bound. In principle, for the test set to a false alarm probability of 1%, companion at contrasts reaching 10^3 at separations of 200 mas around objects of magnitude 14.1 are detectable. With JWST NIRISS, contrasts of up to 10^4 at separations of 200 mas could be ultimately achieved, barring significant wavefront drift. The proposed detection method is close to the ultimate bound and offers guarantees over the probability of making a false detection for binaries, as well as over the error bars for the estimated parameters of the binaries detectable by JWST NIRISS. This method is not only applicable to JWST NIRISS but to any imaging system with adequate sampling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03130 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: the entrance pupil for JWST. Centre: a discrete model of the pupil. The pupil is modeled by an array of subpupils, enabling the use of the kernel method. Right: The simulated PSF for NIRISS using the 480M filter, represented using a non-linear colour scale. The coloured arrows represent the directions along which the simulated companions are placed. aims at setting a general statistical framework for the theor… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Map of the likelihood that is maximised in Eq. (29) for a data vector y accounting for a realistic covariance matrix Σ for JWST NIRISS. The companion signature has parameters α = β = 104 mas (red cross) and c = 100. This test uses the measured squared norm of the signal as a test statistic and is called an energy detector (hence TE). Its statistic is distributed as: ( H0 : TE(y) ∼ χ 2 p (λ 2 = 0), H1 : TE(y) ∼ χ 2 p… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Orange: Histogram of the values of the whitened ker-phases for the calibration images. Blue: standard, normal distribution. Left-panel: higher flux regime. Right panel :lower flux regime. The distribution of whitened ker-phases obtained in practice is accurately described by the theoretical normal distribution considered in Eq. (10). k668 k669 Before whitening ⌃￾1 2k668 ⌃ ￾1 2k669 After whitening [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Isocontours of the joint probability density function (pdf) of the 668th and 669th elements of ker-phases vector k, k668 and k669, before (left) and after (right) whitening. The PDFs are estimated using 105 noise realisations. a 16 nm RMS wavefront across the entire pu…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ker-phases of the recovered signature (x axis) against the true ker-phases of the injected binary (y axis). Left panel: high flux regime, right panel: low flux regime. The worst SNR situation (ρ = 73.5mas, c = 100) is in orange, and the best SNR (ρ = 147mas, c = 10) in…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Error on the recovered parameters. Top panels: the circles rep￾resent the separation and contrasts of the injected signature, and each column represent one flux regime. The bottom panels represent the er￾ror on the estimated angle θ. The parameters ρ and c of each inje…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: ROC curves of TE (green), TNP (blue) and TB (orange). Theo￾retical ROC curves for TNP and TE plotted using Eq. (17) and Eq. (24), for a companion at ρ = 200 mas, c = 1200 and θ = 45◦ off the vertical. Dashed lines correspond to theoretical ROCs, while solid lines repre…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Detection limits at a fixed position angle θ = 315◦ : contours be￾low which the PDET falls below 68% for a fixed PFA of 1%, represented as a function of the separation and contrast of the companions, for TE (green), TB (blue) and TNP (orange). The dashed lines represen…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Detection limits of a possible companion to WISE 1405+5534 at PFA = 1% and PDET = 68%, as a function of his contrast (right ordinate axis) or mass (left ordinate axis) and absolute separation in AU. A one Jupiter-mass object is detectable down to 1.5 AU from the prima…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Detection limits for the brightest target observable without saturation with JWST NIRISS. Solid lines: detection limits for TB at PFA = 1% and PDET = 68% applied to the image with the greatest possible dynamic range, with 20 minutes total integration time. For the bri…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Andrieu, C., de Freitas, N., Doucet, A., & Jordan, M. I. 2003, Machine Learning, 50, 5 Artigau, ˘A., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Greenbaum, A. Z., et al. 2014, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 9143, 914340

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    E., Haniff, C

    Baldwin, J. E., Haniff, C. A., Mackay, C. D., & Warner, P. J. 1986, Nature, 320, 595 Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Barman, T. S., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. H. 2003, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 402, 701

    work page 1986

  3. [3]

    H., Ireland, M., et al

    Bernat, D., Bouchez, A. H., Ireland, M., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 715, 724

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    A., Coleman, T

    Branch, M. A., Coleman, T. F., & Li, Y . 1999, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 21, 442

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    C., Kirkpatrick, J

    Cushing, M. C., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Gelino, C. R., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 743, 50

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Dupuy, T. J. & Kraus, A. L. 2013, Science, 341, 1492

    2013

  7. [7]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 2702

    Fontanive, C., Biller, B., Bonavita, M., & Allers, K. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 2702

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    E., McKernan, B., Sivaramakrishnan, A., et al

    Ford, K. E., McKernan, B., Sivaramakrishnan, A., et al. 2014, Astrophysical Journal, 783

    work page 2014

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Clampin, M., et al. 2006, Space Science Reviews, 123, 485

    2006

  2. [10]

    2016, ami_sim

    Greenbaum, A., Sivaramakrishnan, A., Sahlmann, J., & Thatte, D. 2016, ami_sim

    2016

  3. [11]

    Z., Pueyo, L., Ruffio, J.-b., et al

    Greenbaum, A. Z., Pueyo, L., Ruffio, J.-b., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 155, 226

    2018

  4. [12]

    Z., Pueyo, L., Sivaramakrishnan, A., & Lacour, S

    Greenbaum, A. Z., Pueyo, L., Sivaramakrishnan, A., & Lacour, S. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 798, 68 Huélamo, N., Lacour, S., Tuthill, P., et al. 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 528, L7

    2015

  5. [13]

    Ireland, M. J. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 433, 1718

    2013

  6. [14]

    Jennison, R. C. 1958, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 118, 276

    1958

  7. [15]

    J., Martinache, F., & Girard, J

    Kammerer, J., Ireland, M. J., Martinache, F., & Girard, J. H. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 639

    2019

  8. [16]

    D., Cushing, M

    Kirkpatrick, J. D., Cushing, M. C., Gelino, C. R., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 197, 19 Article number, page 10 of 11

    2011

  9. [17]

    L., Ireland, M

    Kraus, A. L., Ireland, M. J., Martinache, F., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 731

    2011

  10. [18]

    L., Ireland, M

    Kraus, A. L., Ireland, M. J., Martinache, F., & Lloyd, J. P. 2008, The Astrophys- ical Journal, 679, 762

    2008

  11. [19]

    2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 532, A72

    Lacour, S., Tuthill, P., Amico, P., et al. 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 532, A72

    2011

  12. [20]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 494 Le Bouquin, J.-B

    Laugier, R., Martinache, F., Ceau, A., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 494 Le Bouquin, J.-B. & Absil, O. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 541, A89

    2019

  13. [21]

    A., Wright, E

    Marsh, K. A., Wright, E. L., Kirkpatrick, J. D., et al. 2013, Astrophysical Journal, 762

    2013

  14. [22]

    2010, Astrophysical Journal, 724, 464

    Martinache, F. 2010, Astrophysical Journal, 724, 464

    2010

  15. [23]

    2009, in AIP Conference Proceedings (AIP), 393–394

    Martinache, F., Guyon, O., Garrel, V ., et al. 2009, in AIP Conference Proceedings (AIP), 393–394

    2009

  16. [24]

    1989, Astronomical Journal (ISSN 0004-6256), 97, 1510

    Nakajima, T. 1989, Astronomical Journal (ISSN 0004-6256), 97, 1510

    1989

  17. [25]

    & Pearson, E

    Neyman, J. & Pearson, E. S. 1933, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal So- ciety A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 231, 289

    1933

  18. [26]

    D., Pueyo, L., Rajan, A., et al

    Perrin, M. D., Pueyo, L., Rajan, A., et al. 2018, in Space Telescopes and Instru- mentation 2018: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. H. A. MacEwen, M. Lystrup, G. G. Fazio, N. Batalha, E. C. Tong, & N. Siegler, V ol. 1069809 (SPIE), 8

    2018

  19. [27]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 767, 110

    Pope, B., Martinache, F., & Tuthill, P. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 767, 110

    2013

  20. [28]

    H., Shaklan, S

    Pravdo, S. H., Shaklan, S. B., Wiktorowicz, S. J., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 649, 389

    2006

  21. [29]

    B., Eisner, J

    Sallum, S., Follette, K. B., Eisner, J. A., et al. 2015, Nature, 527, 342

    2015

  22. [30]

    & Skemer, A

    Sallum, S. & Skemer, A. 2019, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 5, 1

    2019

  23. [31]

    & Friedlander, B

    Scharf, L. & Friedlander, B. 1994, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 42, 2146

    1994

  24. [32]

    C., Cushing, M

    Schneider, A. C., Cushing, M. C., Kirkpatrick, J. D., et al. 2015, The Astrophys- ical Journal, 804, 92

    2015

  25. [33]

    Sivaramakrishnan, A., Lafrenière, D., Ford, K. E. S., et al. 2012, in Space Tele- scopes and Instrumentation 2012: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, V ol. 8442, 84422S

    2012

  26. [34]

    2004, AIP Conference Proceedings, 735, 395 STSCI

    Skilling, J. 2004, AIP Conference Proceedings, 735, 395 STSCI. 2018, NIRISS Imaging

    2004

  27. [35]

    2006, Science, 313, 935 van Cittert, P

    Tuthill, P., Monnier, J., Tanner, A., et al. 2006, Science, 313, 935 van Cittert, P. 1934, Physica, 1, 201

    2006

  28. [36]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, Astronomical Jour- nal, 140, 1868

    2010

  29. [37]

    1938, Physica, 5, 785

    Zernike, F. 1938, Physica, 5, 785

    1938

  30. [38]

    2016, IEEE Transactions on Geo- science and Remote Sensing, 54, 5588 Article number, page 11 of 11

    Zwieback, S., Liu, X., Antonova, S., et al. 2016, IEEE Transactions on Geo- science and Remote Sensing, 54, 5588 Article number, page 11 of 11

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.