Astrophysical measurements with the VERITAS Stellar Intensity Interferometer

N. Matthews (for the VERITAS Collaboration); S. LeBohec

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 30 references

Astrophysical measurements with the VERITAS Stellar Intensity Interferometer

T0 review · 4 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 The VERITAS Stellar Intensity Interferometer detects spatial coherence in starlight from the star γ Ori, demonstrating that Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescope arrays can perform long-baseline optical intensity interferometry.

desk verdict A credible feasibility demonstration of SII with IACT arrays that deserves engagement, but the quantitative case needs a null test and a measured visibility before it becomes an astrophysical result. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03587 v1 pith:KPZV5K3K submitted 2019-08-09 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.SR

N. Matthews (for the VERITAS Collaboration) , S. LeBohec This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

keywords stellarintensityinterferometryVERITASImagingAtmosphericCherenkovTelescopespatialcoherencesquaredvisibilityoff-linearray

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 reports the first astrophysical measurements made with the VERITAS Stellar Intensity Interferometer, an instrument that turns four 12-meter gamma-ray telescopes into an optical intensity interferometer. Observations of the bright star γ Ori (Bellatrix) using two telescopes show a clear correlation excess at zero time-lag, the expected signature of spatial coherence, with the amplitude growing as the projected telescope baseline shrinks, matching the Airy-disk visibility profile of a resolved uniform disk. The cumulative signal-to-noise ratio grows as the square root of integration time, confirming that the system behaves predictably. The authors conclude that this demonstrates the feasibility of Stellar Intensity Interferometry with Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescope arrays and introduces the first 'off-line' optical interferometer, where data are streamed to disk and correlated post-observation.

What carries the argument

The central relation is the Hanbury Brown-Twiss intensity-interferometry formula $g^{(2)}(r,\tau=0) = 1 + (\Delta f/\Delta\nu)|V(r)|^2$, connecting the zero-lag intensity correlation to the squared visibility of the source, with $V(r)$ given by the Airy-disk profile $V(r)=2J_1(\pi\theta r/\lambda)/(\pi\theta r/\lambda)$ for a uniform-disk star. The instrument streams photomultiplier currents from each telescope, applies a time-delay correction for the optical path difference and cable delays, discards one-second cycles contaminated by narrow-band high-frequency noise (identified by Fourier analysis), and computes correlations offline with an FPGA correlator. The measured correlation peak is fit to $g^{(2)} \propto \operatorname{sinc}(\pi\Delta f\tau)$, and the baseline is varied naturally by tracking the star across the sky (uv-plane synthesis).

What would settle it

Point the two telescopes at an empty patch of sky (or at a star known to be unresolved at this baseline) and apply the same analysis; if the zero-lag excess persists, the signal is an instrumental artifact rather than stellar coherence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a long-baseline optical intensity interferometer can be built from existing gamma-ray telescopes with modest instrumentation. Using two VERITAS telescopes separated by a radial baseline of about 81.5 meters, the system measured the second-order coherence function $g^{(2)}(\tau)$ of the B-type star γ Ori at an effective wavelength of 415 nm. The measured zero-lag correlation excess follows the expected sinc profile for a rectangular electronic bandwidth, increases as the projected baseline decreases (consistent with the visibility of a uniform disk of angular diameter ~0.7 mas), and accumulates significance as SNR $\propto \sqrt{t}$. This establishes that IACT arrays, despite their relatively poor optical quality, can collect usable intensity-interferometry data, reaching stars about three magnitudes fainter than the historical Narrabri Stellar Intensity Interferometer and complementing amplitude interferometers at shorter wavelengths.

Load-bearing premise

The zero-lag correlation excess attributed to stellar spatial coherence is assumed to come from the star and not from residual instrumental noise that survives the Fourier-based data-quality cut.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The same two-telescope setup can measure the angular diameters of bright stars by fitting the squared visibility as a function of projected baseline.
Because correlations are computed offline, SII observations can be scheduled during bright-moon periods without affecting the primary gamma-ray observing program.
Doubling the sampling rate from 250 MS/s to 500 MS/s should improve the signal-to-noise ratio by about $\sqrt{2}$, as stated in the paper.
Adding the other two VERITAS telescopes yields six baselines and denser uv-plane coverage, enabling measurements of stellar shapes such as the oblateness of rapidly rotating stars.
The same instrumentation approach could be applied to future Cherenkov arrays like CTA, which could achieve a limiting magnitude about three magnitudes fainter than the Narrabri interferometer.

Reading between the lines

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

If the zero-lag excess is indeed stellar, re-analyzing the discarded 30-50% of noise-affected cycles with improved noise-removal algorithms could boost sensitivity without any hardware change.
The technique's limiting magnitude is set by the telescope point-spread function and night-sky background; next-generation Cherenkov telescopes with better PSFs (such as Schwarzschild-Couder designs) should extend SII to fainter targets.
Other existing IACT arrays, such as MAGIC and HESS, could be retrofitted with similar SII instrumentation, effectively creating a global network of optical intensity interferometers with baselines of hundreds of meters.
Because the stored intensity streams can be re-correlated with updated time-delay or noise models, the data constitute an archival resource for 'virtual interferometry' long after the observation night.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The claim that matters is that IACT arrays can do stellar intensity interferometry, and this paper makes a credible case. The demonstration with two VERITAS telescopes at 81.5 m baseline using an offline correlator is new; Guerin et al. did spatial SII on stars with a 15 m baseline and much smaller collectors. The baseline-dependent rise in the correlation excess is a genuinely physical signature, and the authors are honest that 30–50% of the data is corrupted by high-frequency noise and that the exact remedy is unknown.

The paper does not oversell itself. It is framed as a feasibility demonstration, which it likely is. Standard HBT theory is used without circular assumptions; the fits are consistency checks. The engineering is sound and the path to all four telescopes is sensible.

The soft spots are the ones you would expect: no absolute visibility, no error bars on the binned correlation curves, no quantitative comparison to the published 0.701 mas diameter, and no null test or calibrator. The stress-test note is right that a broadband correlated pickup at the optical path delay would land at the same zero-lag bin, and a stable spurious excess would also accumulate as sqrt(t). So the central claim rests partly on the assumption that the peak is stellar. That is a real weakness, but it is not fatal for a proceedings paper whose purpose is to show the system works. The baseline dependence makes the peak much more likely to be real than not.

What is missing is a calibration or a null observation on a target expected to show no correlation, and a direct comparison of measured amplitude to the visibility predicted from the known diameter. Without those, the quantitative astrophysics is not yet secure. For a feasibility claim, this is adequate.

Who should read it: anyone planning SII with CTA or other IACT arrays, and people trying to build offline correlators. It deserves a serious referee if expanded into a full instrument paper. I would like to see the missing calibration data before citing it as a measurement.

Recommendation: engage with it, but treat it as an engineering milestone, not an astrophysical result.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first stellar intensity interferometry (SII) observations with two VERITAS IACT telescopes, targeting the B-type star gamma Ori on 2019 January 22. After applying time-delay corrections and a Fourier-based data-quality cut, the authors average one-second correlograms and observe an excess at zero lag that they attribute to spatial coherence. The excess amplitude increases as the projected baseline decreases, and the cumulative significance grows approximately as the square root of integration time. The paper interprets these results as demonstrating the feasibility of SII with IACT arrays and the first 'off-line' optical interferometer, with data streamed to disk and correlated post-observation. The instrumentation, observation strategy, and the ultraviolet-optical complementarity to amplitude interferometers are described in the context of the future Cherenkov Telescope Array.

Significance. If the reported zero-lag excess is genuinely stellar, this is a valuable proof-of-feasibility result: it would show that existing IACT arrays can be retrofitted for optical intensity interferometry, that observations can be conducted in bright-moon time without impacting gamma-ray programs, and that offline correlation of streamed data is practical. The paper is also useful in outlining a path toward CTA-era SII. The authors correctly apply the standard Hanbury Brown-Twiss formalism of Eq. (2.1)-(2.2), and they are candid about the data-quality losses and the current lack of an exact solution for the noise. However, the quantitative evidence presented is incomplete: the measured excess is not placed on an absolute visibility scale, no statistical uncertainties are shown on the binned correlation curves, and no comparison is made to the published uniform-disk diameter of gamma Ori. The feasibility conclusion is therefore plausible but not yet fully secured by the analysis as written.

major comments (4)

[Section 2, Eq. (2.1) and Figure 2] The paper never provides an absolute calibration of the g(2) excess amplitude, so it cannot verify Eq. (2.1) or compare the measured squared visibility with the value predicted from the published uniform-disk diameter theta_UD = 0.701 ± 0.005 mas. The sinc fit in Figure 2 uses a free normalization and a free peak time-lag, which means the amplitude is not used as a quantitative test. For a claim of 'astrophysical measurements', the authors should report the measured correlation amplitude in physical units and compare it with the expected |V(r)|^2 from Eq. (2.2), including uncertainties.
[Section 2, data quality cut paragraph] The paper states that 30-50% of the one-second correlograms are discarded because of high-frequency noise and that 'an exact solution is currently unknown'. The Fourier-based cut rejects cycles with excess power at the identified noise frequency, but it does not demonstrate that the surviving cycles are free of broadband, intermittent, or common-mode correlations. Because the optical-path-delay correction places the expected HBT signal at the zero-lag bin, any residual correlated electronic pickup with the same relative delay would appear at exactly the position where the claim is made. A null test (e.g., an off-source observation, a calibrator star, or a noise-threshold scan) is needed to exclude this possibility.
[Figure 2, left panel] The binned correlation curves in Figure 2 are shown without error bars or per-bin significance estimates. As a result, it is not possible to assess whether the apparent increase of the excess at shorter baselines is statistically significant or to quantify the precision of the measurement. The authors should provide uncertainties on the binned correlation values and, ideally, overplot the predicted visibility curve for the published gamma Ori diameter.
[Figure 2, right panel] The cumulative SNR growth fit of the form SNR = A*sqrt(t), with A as a free parameter, is not a discriminating test of a stellar origin for the excess. A stable spurious correlation would also accumulate as sqrt(t). To support the stellar interpretation, the authors should show that the normalized excess amplitude decreases with increasing baseline in a way consistent with the expected visibility, or demonstrate the absence of a similar excess in a control observation where no spatial coherence is expected.

minor comments (4)

[Equation (2.1)] The notation g(2)(tau) should be typeset as g^(2)(tau) with the superscript, and the text around Eq. (2.1) would benefit from a brief definition of the angle brackets as time averages.
[Figure 1 caption] The sentence 'Note more negative values correspond to higher current' is confusing; please state the sign convention explicitly, e.g., that the plotted quantity is the negative of the PMT current.
[References] Reference [23] is incomplete: it cites 'in proceedings of 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference (these proceedings)' without a paper title or authors; also, the spelling of Hanbury Brown is inconsistent between references [1]-[3] and [26].
[Section 3, Conclusions] The statement that the system 'has already been extended to the two additional telescopes' appears only in the abstract and conclusions; the body of the paper describes only the T3/T4 pair, so a sentence in Section 2 describing the extension would improve consistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the measurement applies standard intensity-interferometry theory to independent VERITAS data.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical feasibility: it reports a measured zero-lag correlation excess from gamma Ori that grows with decreasing projected baseline and accumulates as SNR proportional to sqrt(t). The theoretical relations used, g^(2)(r,0) = 1 + (Delta f/Delta nu)|V(r)|^2 and the uniform-disk visibility formula, are standard Hanbury Brown-Twiss results cited to the original literature, not derived from the data. The externally measured uniform-disk diameter of gamma Ori (theta_UD = 0.701 +/- 0.005 mas, reference [25]) is used only to select a suitable target, not to force the observed correlation amplitudes; indeed the paper does not extract a diameter from its own fits. The sinc-function fit to the peak uses free normalization and peak time-lag, and the SNR = A sqrt(t) fit leaves A free; these are consistency checks rather than predictions defined by the fitted values, so they do not reduce to the inputs. Self-citations to prior StarBase-Utah instrumentation work and to the LeBohec-Holder IACT-SII proposal describe the hardware heritage and motivation, but the present astrophysical measurement is an independent observable, not a consequence of those citations. The acknowledged data-quality limitation (30-50% of cycles corrupted by high-frequency noise, with 'an exact solution currently unknown') is a robustness concern about possible residual spurious correlations, not a circularity: it does not show that the reported signal is defined by the assumptions. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no self-citation is load-bearing, and no uniqueness theorem is imported. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central feasibility claim rests on standard HBT theory and a known target diameter. The only free parameters are fit normalizations and time-lag/SNR growth amplitudes used for calibration and consistency checks, not for deriving a physical result. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

Sinc fit normalization
The amplitude of the g(2) excess peak in Figure 2 is fit with a free normalization; this calibrates the measured correlation but does not test a prediction.
Sinc fit peak time-lag
The time-lag of the correlation peak is left free in the fit, which absorbs any residual timing offset between the two telescope channels.
SNR growth amplitude A
The cumulative significance is fit to SNR = A sqrt(t) with A free, used only as a consistency check of the noise behavior.

assumptions (4)

standard math Hanbury Brown-Twiss relation g(2)(r,0)=1+(Delta f/Delta nu)|V(r)|^2
Eq. 2.1 links the measured intensity correlation to the squared visibility of the source, under the assumption of a randomly polarized thermal source with electronic bandwidth much smaller than optical bandwidth.
standard math Uniform disk visibility V(r)=2J1(pi theta r/lambda)/(pi theta r/lambda)
Eq. 2.2 is used to select gamma Ori as a candidate and to interpret the baseline dependence of the correlation signal.
domain assumption Rectangular electronic bandwidth for each channel
The fit g(2)(tau) proportional to sinc(pi Delta f tau) assumes a rectangular bandwidth of width Delta f=125 MHz for the 250 MS/s sampling.
domain assumption Published angular diameter of gamma Ori, theta_UD=0.701+/-0.005 mas
Taken from Challouf et al. 2014 [25] to justify target selection; the paper does not measure the diameter itself.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Astrophysical measurements with the VERITAS Stellar Intensity Interferometer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KPZV5K3K

@misc{pith2026190803587,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Astrophysical measurements with the VERITAS Stellar Intensity Interferometer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KPZV5K3K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03587}
}

read the original abstract

Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes have long been viewed as potential light collectors to be used for long baseline optical intensity interferometry observations. Intensity interferometry, as implemented with Cherenkov telescopes, is well suited for studying the spatial structure of stars of O/B/A stellar types at short optical wavelengths. Such observations complement those with the current generation of optical amplitude interferometers, which are typically restricted to longer wavelengths. Dedicated intensity interferometry instrumentation has been developed for the VERITAS observatory with engineering tests and observations occurring since October 2018. Here, the first results using two of the VERITAS telescopes are reported. The system has already been extended to the two additional telescopes, enabling SII observations with all four VERITAS telescopes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03587 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Results from observations of γ Ori on UTC 2019-01-23. The plot on the left shows the averaged time-corrected correlation binned in different baseline ranges of < 60 m (red), between 60 and 75 m (blue), and greater than 75 m (black), with each bin corresponding to a total of 45, 42, and 85 minutes of integrated data, respectively, after noise-cuts are applied. A clear excess is seen at time-lags corresponding to the … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[1]

Hanbury Brown and R

R. Hanbury Brown and R. Q Twiss, Interferometry of the Intensity Fluctuations in Light. I. B asic Theory: The Correlation between Photons in Coherent Beams o f Radiation, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A 242, 300-324, 1957

work page 1957
[2]

Hanbury Brown and R

R. Hanbury Brown and R. Q Twiss, Interferometry of the Intensity Fluctuations in Light II. A n Experimental T est of the Theory for Partially Coherent Light, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A 243, 1234, 291-319, 1958

work page 1958
[3]

Hanbury Brown, J

R. Hanbury Brown, J. Davis, and L.R. Allen, The Angular Diameters of 32 Stars , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 167, 1, 121, 1974

work page 1974
[4]

Zampieri, G

L. Zampieri, G. Naletto, C. Barbieri, M. Barbieri, E. V er roi, G. Umbriaco, P . Favazza, L. Lessio, and G. Farisato Intensity interferometry with Aqueye+ and Iqueye in Asiago , in proceedings of SPIE 9907, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging V , 9907, 2016

work page 2016
[5]

Weiss, Justin D

Samuel A. Weiss, Justin D. Rupert, Elliott P . Horch Stellar photon correlation detection with the Southern Connecticut stellar interferometer , in proceedings of SPIE 10701, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging VI , 107010X, 2018

work page 2018
[6]

Guerin, A

W . Guerin, A. Dussaux, M. Fouché, G. Labeyrie, J.-P . Rive t, D. V ernet, F. V akili, and R. Kaiser T emporal intensity interferometry: photon bunching in three bright stars, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 472 (4), 4126-4132, 2017

work page 2017
[7]

Guerin, J.-P

W . Guerin, J.-P . Rivet, M. Fouché, G. Labeyrie, D. V ernet, F. V akili, and R. KaiserSpatial intensity interferometry on three bright stars, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 480 (1), 245-250, 2018

work page 2018
[8]

LeBohec and J

S. LeBohec and J. Holder Optical Intensity Interferometry with Atmospheric Cerenk ov T elescope Arrays, The Astrophysical Journal 649 (1), 399, 2006

work page 2006

Show all 30 references

[9]

Nuñez, P .D., Holmes, R., Kieda, D., and LeBohec, S., High angular resolution imaging with stellar intensity interferometry using air Cherenkov telescope ar rays, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 419, (1), 2012, 172-183, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-29 66.2...

2012
[10]

J. Rou, P . D. Nuñez, D. Kieda, and S. LeBohec, Monte Carlo simulation of stellar intensity interferometry, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 430, 3187-3195, 2013

2013
[11]

al., VEGA: Visible spEctroGraph and polArimeter for the CHARA ar ray: principle and performance, A&A, 508, (2), 1073 - 1083, 2009

Mourard et. al., VEGA: Visible spEctroGraph and polArimeter for the CHARA ar ray: principle and performance, A&A, 508, (2), 1073 - 1083, 2009

2009
[12]

A., et al

Aleksi ´c, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. The major upgrade of the MAGIC telescopes, Part I: The hardware improvements and the commissioning of the syst em 2016, Astroparticle Physics, 72, 61-75 6 Astrophysical measurements with the VERITAS Stellar Inten sity Interf...

2016
[13]

Hinton, J. A. et al. The status of the HESS project New A Rev. , 48, 331, 2004

2004
[14]

Holder et al., The ﬁrst VERITAS telescope Astroparticle Physics 25, (6), 391 - 401, 2006

2006
[15]

Acharya et al., Introducing the CTA concept, Astroparticle Physics, 43, 3, 2013

2013
[16]

A.Acharyya et al., Monte Carlo studies for the optimisation of the Cherenkov T elescope Array layout , Astroparticle Physics, 111, 35-53, 2019

2019
[17]

V assiliev, V ., Fegan, S., & Brousseau, P .Wide ﬁeld aplanatic two-mirror telescopes for ground-base d γ -ray astronomy, Astroparticle Physics 28, 10, 2007

2007
[18]

Dravins, S

D. Dravins, S. LeBohec, H. Jensen and P . D. Nuñez Optical intensity interferometry with the Cherenkov T elescope Array, Astroparticle Physics, 43, 331-347, 2013

2013
[19]

P . D. Nuñez, R. Holmes, D. Kieda, J. Rou, and S. LeBohec, Imaging submilliarcsecond stellar features with intensity interferometry using air Cherenko v telescope arrays, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 424, 1006-1011, 2012

2012
[20]

P . D. Nuñez, T owards optical intensity interferometry for high angular resolution stellar astrophysics, PhD thesis, The University of Utah (2012)

2012
[21]

Matthews, D

N. Matthews, D. Kieda and S. LeBohec, Development of a digital astronomical intensity interferometer: laboratory results with thermal light , Journal of Modern Optics 65, 11, 1336-1344, 2018

2018
[22]

Matthews, O

N. Matthews, O. Clarke, S. Snow, S. LeBohec, and D. Kieda , Implementation of an intensity interferometry system on the StarBase observatory , in proceedings of SPIE 10701, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging VI, 107010W , 2018

2018
[23]

Kieda, D.B., for the VERITAS Collaboration, and Cardon , R., Augmentation of the VERITAS T elescopes for Stellar Intensity Interferometry in proceedings of 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference (these proceedings)
[24]

Ségransan D., Observability and UV coverage , New Astronomy Reviews 51, (8), 597 - 603, 2007

2007
[25]

Challouf, N

M. Challouf, N. Nardetto, D. Mourard, D. Graczyk, H. Aro ui, O. Chesneau, O. Delaa, G. Pietrzy ´nski, W . Gieren, R. Ligi, A. Meilland, K. Perraut, I. Tallon-Bosc, H. McAlister, T. ten Brummelaar, J. Sturmann, L. Sturmann, N. Turner, C. Farrington, N. V argas, and N. Scott Imp...

2014 doi
[26]

Hanbury-Brown, The Intensity Interferometer

R. Hanbury-Brown, The Intensity Interferometer . Its applications to astronomy, T aylor & Francis, 1974

1974
[27]

The Upgrade of VERITAS with High Efﬁciency Photomultipliers , in proceedings of, 32nd International Cosmic Ray Conference, 2011

Otte, N., for the VERITAS Collaboration, Gebremehdin, L., Kaplan, K., and Long, D. The Upgrade of VERITAS with High Efﬁciency Photomultipliers , in proceedings of, 32nd International Cosmic Ray Conference, 2011

2011
[28]

van Belle, Interferometric observations of rapidly rotating stars , The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 20 (1), 51, 2012

G.T. van Belle, Interferometric observations of rapidly rotating stars , The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 20 (1), 51, 2012

2012
[29]

Herbison-Evans, D., Hanbury Brown, R., Davis, J., Alle n, L. R. A study of alpha Virginis with an intensity interferometer ., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Sociecty , 151, 161, 1971

1971
[30]

al., Interferometric Constraints on Gravity Darkening with App lication to the Modeling of Spica A & B , in proceedings of, IAU Symposium No.240, 2006 7

Aufdenberg, J.P ., et. al., Interferometric Constraints on Gravity Darkening with App lication to the Modeling of Spica A & B , in proceedings of, IAU Symposium No.240, 2006 7

2006

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Hanbury Brown and R

R. Hanbury Brown and R. Q Twiss, Interferometry of the Intensity Fluctuations in Light. I. B asic Theory: The Correlation between Photons in Coherent Beams o f Radiation, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A 242, 300-324, 1957

work page 1957

[2] [2]

Hanbury Brown and R

R. Hanbury Brown and R. Q Twiss, Interferometry of the Intensity Fluctuations in Light II. A n Experimental T est of the Theory for Partially Coherent Light, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A 243, 1234, 291-319, 1958

work page 1958

[3] [3]

Hanbury Brown, J

R. Hanbury Brown, J. Davis, and L.R. Allen, The Angular Diameters of 32 Stars , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 167, 1, 121, 1974

work page 1974

[4] [4]

Zampieri, G

L. Zampieri, G. Naletto, C. Barbieri, M. Barbieri, E. V er roi, G. Umbriaco, P . Favazza, L. Lessio, and G. Farisato Intensity interferometry with Aqueye+ and Iqueye in Asiago , in proceedings of SPIE 9907, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging V , 9907, 2016

work page 2016

[5] [5]

Weiss, Justin D

Samuel A. Weiss, Justin D. Rupert, Elliott P . Horch Stellar photon correlation detection with the Southern Connecticut stellar interferometer , in proceedings of SPIE 10701, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging VI , 107010X, 2018

work page 2018

[6] [6]

Guerin, A

W . Guerin, A. Dussaux, M. Fouché, G. Labeyrie, J.-P . Rive t, D. V ernet, F. V akili, and R. Kaiser T emporal intensity interferometry: photon bunching in three bright stars, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 472 (4), 4126-4132, 2017

work page 2017

[7] [7]

Guerin, J.-P

W . Guerin, J.-P . Rivet, M. Fouché, G. Labeyrie, D. V ernet, F. V akili, and R. KaiserSpatial intensity interferometry on three bright stars, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 480 (1), 245-250, 2018

work page 2018

[8] [8]

LeBohec and J

S. LeBohec and J. Holder Optical Intensity Interferometry with Atmospheric Cerenk ov T elescope Arrays, The Astrophysical Journal 649 (1), 399, 2006

work page 2006