Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 56 references

Comparison of Fast, Hybrid Imaging Architectures for Multi-scale, Hierarchical Aperture Arrays

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using only floating-point op counts, the paper maps which fast imaging architecture is cheapest at each scale and cadence of a hierarchical radio array.

desk verdict Transparent FLOP-cost comparison of hybrid imaging architectures; the math is sound, but the marginal architecture recommendations are only as strong as the FLOP-only metric. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17804 v1 pith:GIKNQCVJ submitted 2024-11-26 astro-ph.IM

Nithyanandan Thyagarajan This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords radioastronomyaperturearrayshierarchicalEPICfastFouriertransformimagingbeamformingcomputationalcostinterferometry
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

Modern and planned radio aperture arrays observe transients and 21-cm cosmology by combining data across three scales: individual elements, stations, and the full array. This paper asks which of four processing paths—voltage beamforming, the FFT-based EPIC direct imager, correlation-then-beamforming (XBF), or correlation-then-FFT (XFFT)—should be used at each scale, and it answers by counting floating-point operations per voxel of discovery space (one frequency channel, one independent sky pixel, per accumulation time). The paper concludes that at the station scale, EPIC is the cheapest full-field-of-view option for the dense, large-element station designs of SKA-low, SKA-low-core, LAMBDA-I, CASPA, and FarView-core at nearly every cadence, with XFFT marginally better only for CASPA at accumulation times of roughly 100 ms or longer. At the inter-station scale the best choice depends on station count, packing density, and cadence: XBF for LAMBDA-I and CASPA, EPIC for SKA-low-core, and XFFT for SKA-low when images are accumulated slower than about 1 ms; when only slow-cadence visibilities are needed, a traditional correlator wins. If correct, these results give concrete architecture choices for the data-processing pipelines of several upcoming arrays and a template for choosing layouts given a computing budget.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the computational cost density, measured in floating-point operations per second per voxel, where a voxel is one frequency channel at one independent angular resolution element. The paper assigns each architecture an explicit FLOP budget per operation and tracks which terms are paid every elementary time step $\delta t$ and which are paid only at the imaging accumulation cadence $t_{\rm acc}$. The decisive scalings are that FFT-based operations cost roughly $N \log N$ and, per voxel, are nearly independent of element or station count, while DFT beamforming and pairwise correlation costs grow as $N^2$; the ratio of station-to-element size and array-to-station size sets the field-of-view factors, and the $t_{\rm acc}$ dependence separates the fast-transient and slow-cosmology regimes.

What would settle it

Run the four architectures end-to-end on target GPU and FPGA hardware at SKA-low-core parameters and $t_{\rm acc}=1$ ms, measuring wall-clock time, memory bandwidth, and energy rather than FLOPs; if a hardware-realistic implementation of XFFT or XBF is faster than EPIC at the station level, the paper's station-scale recommendation would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that there is no single best imaging architecture for a hierarchical aperture array; efficiency is a per-level and per-cadence property, and the paper derives a quantitative rule for choosing it. Using a cost-density metric, it decomposes each architecture into beamforming, gridding, FFT, correlation, squaring, and accumulation costs and evaluates their scaling with element count, station count, station and array sizes, and imaging cadence. For station-level processing it finds EPIC dominates because the spatial FFT cost is nearly flat in the number of elements per station while its competitors scale linearly or quadratically. For inter-station processing, the array filling factor and cadence decide between XBF, EPIC, and XFFT, and the paper identifies the winning combination for each of the five considered arrays. It also notes that for cosmological experiments that need only visibilities on a slow cadence, a correlator-based pipeline is computationally preferred for all arrays studied, except that an EPIC-based FFT correlator is preferred at the station level for large stations.

Load-bearing premise

The ranking is only as strong as the assumption that floating-point operation count is the irreducible cost metric; memory bandwidth, I/O rates, power, and calibration are omitted, so if those costs scale differently with architecture, the recommended pipeline may not be the practical optimum.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SKA-low-core should use EPIC at both intra- and inter-station levels for most cadences.
  • For LAMBDA-I and CASPA, inter-station correlator beamforming (XBF) is roughly 10–20 times cheaper than the alternatives, making it the default for full-field imaging.
  • SKA-low's sparse outer stations make XFFT the right inter-station choice for $t_{\rm acc} \gtrsim 1$ ms, with EPIC competitive only at much faster cadences.
  • Cosmological pipelines that require only slow-cadence ($\gtrsim 10$ s) visibilities can bypass image-formation costs and use a correlator, with EPIC-based FFT correlators preferred for large stations.
  • The same cost-density method can be inverted: for a fixed compute budget, choose station counts, sizes, and cadence so the target architecture stays cheapest.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the metric excludes memory bandwidth, I/O rates, and power, a hardware-aware benchmark could plausibly demote EPIC where the 2D FFT transpose is memory-bound; the paper itself notes GPUs handle this transpose inefficiently.
  • Editorial inference: the same per-voxel cost accounting could be applied to the additional de-dispersion step required for transient searches, and the paper's own scaling arguments suggest image-plane de-dispersion is preferred for compact dense arrays while aperture-plane de-dispersion is preferred for sparse arrays.
  • Editorial inference: the architecture hierarchy extends naturally to more than three scales, and gridding kernel sizes or FFT padding factors could be treated as additional free parameters rather than fixed values.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper presents an analytic computational-cost model for fast imaging architectures on hierarchical, multi-scale aperture arrays spanning element, station, and array scales. Counting real FLOPs per discovery-space voxel, it derives component-wise cost formulas (Table 2) for four intra-station pipelines--voltage beamforming (BF), the E-field Parallel Imaging Correlator (EPIC), correlator beamforming (XBF), and correlator-plus-FFT imaging (XFFT)--and evaluates the permitted coherent and incoherent two-stage hybrids at the nominal parameters of LAMBDA-I, SKA-low-core, SKA-low, CASPA, and FarView-core over cadence intervals 0.1 ms to 10 s. The central conclusions are that EPIC is computationally most efficient for station-level full-field-of-view processing for all arrays considered except CASPA at slow cadence, where XFFT becomes competitive, and that the optimal inter-station architecture shifts among XBF, EPIC, and XFFT depending on station count, array filling factor, and cadence (Table 3). The results are offered as a guide for designing hybrid processing architectures.

Significance. If the model is accepted, this is the most complete FLOP-level comparison to date of pre- and post-correlation imaging paths for multi-scale aperture arrays, and it delivers a useful design guide with component-level cost budgets (Table 2), full parameter-space maps (Figures 3-12), and specific, checkable architecture recommendations (Table 3). The derivations are first-principles, the array parameters come from cited concept papers rather than fitting, and the FLOP accounting is transparent and internally consistent, so the results are largely reproducible from the paper alone. The comparison is not circular with respect to the author's own EPIC architecture: the EPIC formulas are the generic gridding-plus-FFT direct imager, and EPIC has an independent deployed implementation on the LWA. The paper is also exemplary in stating the scope of its metric. The main caveat is that the practical recommendations in the marginal regimes rest on a FLOP-only cost model whose omitted memory-bandwidth and I/O terms are acknowledged, in the paper's own Section 7.4, to bind in practice.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, §7.2-§7.4, Table 3] The FLOP-only metric is load-bearing precisely where the paper's recommendations are marginal, and the paper's own Section 7.4 provides direct evidence that the omitted terms do not track FLOPs across architectures. Section 7.2 describes the SKA-low-core inter-station EPIC advantage and the FarView-core XFFT advantage as 'marginal', and Section 7.4 states that the deployed GPU EPIC pipeline is 'severely limited by the memory bandwidth constraints on chip' and that current GPUs are inefficient at the 2D FFT transpose operation. Because memory traffic per useful FLOP can differ by factors of a few between an FFT-based pipeline and a correlation/accumulation pipeline, and because the paper provides no sensitivity analysis (the padding factors gamma_s = gamma_A = 2 and the kernel sizes Nke = Nks = 12 are also fixed without robustness checks), the Table 3 entries in the marginal regimes are not robust as a practical guide. This is a robustness gap rather than an internal error, but it affects the paper's stated deliverable. I recommend adding a sensitivity analysis in which the effective cost per FLOP of the FFT path is allowed to differ from that of the correlation/accumulation path by factors of 2-5, reporting which Table 3 entries flip, and attaching explicit 'marginal' markers to those entries in Section 8.
  2. [§5.4, §6.2.4, Table 2] The XFFT gridding kernel size is stated inconsistently. Section 5.4 says the gridding kernel has size '2^2 Nke' and then states 'Thus, 2^2 Nke = 4 is chosen'; Section 6.2.4 similarly states '2^2 Nks = 4 is assumed'; but the Table 2 footnote says the XFFT kernel sizes are 'quadrupled to 2^2 Nke and 2^2 Nks' with Nke = Nks = 12, i.e., 48 cells. As written, '2^2 Nke = 4' contradicts Nke = 12. Since gridding is a dominant XFFT cost at tacc = 1 ms (Figure 9), the two readings differ by a factor of 12 in the gridding term, which shifts the XFFT/EPIC crossovers for CASPA (Figure 11b) and for inter-station FarView-core and SKA-low. Please state unambiguously the number of kernel cells actually used in the computations, correct the equations and the footnote, and confirm that Figures 9-12 and Table 3 were generated with the stated value.
  3. [§7.1, Fig. 11b caption, §7.3, §8] The CASPA intra-station XFFT/EPIC crossover is quoted at different places without harmonization. Section 7.1 states that XFFT wins for imaging cadence slower than about 5 ms, the Figure 11b caption puts the crossover at tacc ~ 1-5 ms / 5-10 ms, while Section 7.3 and the Conclusions state that EPIC is most efficient 'except for CASPA on tacc > 100 ms'. These statements are only consistent if the 100 ms value is understood as a coarse grid column, but as written the Conclusions' 'all cadence intervals except about 100 ms' overstates the regime in which EPIC is most efficient, and the reader cannot recover the actual crossover time from the paper. Please state the crossover value explicitly, including its sensitivity to the gridding-kernel correction raised above, and align Section 7.1, Table 3, and Section 8.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§5.4] The text refers twice to 'Equation (9)' for the intra-station XFFT gridding and FFT operations; the correct references are to Equation (6), since Equation (9) is the inter-station intensity relation.
  2. [Introduction and §8] Several typos should be corrected, including 'RRA T McLaughlin et al., 2006' (stray spacing), 'theSKA-low' (missing space), and 'a single architectural may not be optimal' ('architecture' in place of 'architectural').
  3. [Header] The running header 'Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia (2020), 1-18' appears to be a leftover template artifact and should be updated to the intended journal and year.
  4. [§5.4] The assumption that the visibility gridding kernel has twice the extent of the element gridding kernel 'along each dimension' is asserted without support; a brief justification or a reference would clarify the resulting factor of four in the kernel cell count.
  5. [Figures 3-12] The figures are information-dense, and the eight-line legend in Figure 12 makes the winning architecture hard to identify by eye; marking the recommended architecture or adding a compact per-panel winner table would improve readability.
  6. [Reproducibility] Because all figures and tables are generated from the closed-form expressions in Table 2, archiving the small calculation scripts (for instance alongside the memo repository cited in Section 7.4) would make the results exactly reproducible.
  7. [Table 1, footnote b] Because CASPA's stations are intended for localisation and astrometry rather than aperture synthesis, a sentence in Section 2 explaining how the station- and inter-station cost comparisons should be interpreted for this array would prevent misreading of the CASPA rows.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the architectural cost comparison is derived from standard FLOP counts and externally supplied array parameters, not from its own conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained arithmetic: each architecture's cost is built from elementary complex-operation costs (Section 3), standard DFT/FFT counts (Equations 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13), and the tabulated operation counts in Table 2. Array parameters for SKA-low, SKA-low-core, LAMBDA-I, CASPA, and FarView-core are taken from cited concept papers rather than fitted, and the cadence grid is specified independently (tacc from 100 microseconds to 10 s). The central recommendations, e.g. "EPIC is computationally quite efficient regardless of processing cadence" (Section 8), follow directly from the N log N FFT scaling versus N^2 correlation/DFT scalings once those independent parameters are inserted. The EPIC architecture is introduced by citing the author's own prior papers (Thyagarajan et al. 2017, 2019), but the comparison does not import any conclusion from those papers: the EPIC cost is re-derived from the gridding-plus-FFT expression in Equation 3, and the paper also cites external FFT-based imaging literature (Tegmark & Zaldarriaga 2009, 2010; Foster et al. 2014; Masui et al. 2019). The implemented EPIC pipeline on LWA-Sevilleta is cited as practical evidence, with implementation references that do not predicate the cost comparison. The main weakness, the FLOP-only metric and the explicit statement in Section 7.4 that the GPU EPIC deployment is "severely limited by the memory bandwidth constraints on chip," is a limitation on external validity, not a circular step: it does not make any predicted cost equal to an input by construction. Therefore no pattern of self-definition, fitted-input-as-prediction, or load-bearing self-citation is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The cost model rests on standard FFT/DFT operation counts and a set of explicit modeling choices: FLOP count as the sole cost metric, uniform stations, 100% aperture efficiency, negligible calibration cost, and specific padding and gridding kernel sizes. None of these are fitted to data; they are the assumptions that define the comparison. The array parameters themselves are taken from cited concept papers.

free parameters (8)
  • EPIC station FFT padding factor gamma_s = 2
    Chosen by hand in Section 5.2 to match pixel scale and image size of gridded-visibility imaging; multiplies EPIC FFT cost per independent voxel by gamma_s^2.
  • EPIC array FFT padding factor gamma_A = 2
    Chosen in Section 6.2.2 for inter-station EPIC; affects array-level FFT cost.
  • EPIC element gridding kernel size Nke = 12
    Section 5.2: Nke = 12 chosen to provide unaliased full field-of-view images; linear cost contribution.
  • EPIC station gridding kernel size Nks = 12
    Section 6.2.2: Nks = 12 for inter-station EPIC gridding.
  • XFFT visibility gridding kernel size = 4 (paper writes 2^2 Nke = 4)
    Section 5.4: chosen to provide unaliased full field-of-view images; the relationship to Nke is ambiguous in the text.
  • FFT radix r = 2
    Table 2 footnote: assumes radix-2 Cooley-Tukey FFT for FFT cost estimates.
  • Voltage time resolution delta_t = 25 microseconds
    Section 4: nominal time stream resolution used to define channel width and cost cadence; variation would scale correlation costs.
  • Imaging cadence t_acc range = 100 microseconds to 10 seconds
    Section 4: explored cadence interval; the architecture ranking depends on this range, with boundaries near 1-100 ms.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Floating-point operation count is an irreducible requirement and sufficient cost proxy; memory bandwidth, I/O data rates, power, and calibration are excluded.
    Load-bearing premise stated in Section 3 and revisited in Section 7.4. If excluded factors change relative architecture costs, the recommendations may not hold in practice.
  • domain assumption All stations are assumed to have equal numbers of elements (Neps_m = Neps) and identical layouts.
    Section 2 states this for convenience and claims extension to heterogeneous arrays without loss of generality, but the numerical comparisons use the equal-Neps assumption.
  • domain assumption Apertures are 100% efficient at the nominal wavelengths and the arrays are used for real-time imaging.
    Section 2 makes this explicit for fair comparison of arrays at different wavelengths; efficiency variations would change sensitivity but not the FLOP rankings.
  • domain assumption Real-time calibration is assumed already performed and its cost is negligible because it is much less frequent than t_acc.
    Section 4 and Section 7.4; calibration cost could be non-negligible for arrays needing high-accuracy EoR calibration.
  • standard math The number of independent beams filling the field of view is nbs = (Ds/De)^2 for stations and (DA/Ds)^2 for arrays.
    Geometric relation used throughout Sections 5 and 6 to normalize costs per voxel.
  • standard math Standard FFT/DFT complexity bounds (N log N and N^2) and per-operation FLOP counts (complex multiply = 6, CMAC = 8) are correct.
    Used in Table 2; these are conventional assumptions in signal processing cost models.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparison of Fast, Hybrid Imaging Architectures for Multi-scale, Hierarchical Aperture Arrays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GIKNQCVJ

@misc{pith2026241117804,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparison of Fast, Hybrid Imaging Architectures for Multi-scale, Hierarchical Aperture Arrays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GIKNQCVJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17804}
}
read the original abstract

Two major areas of modern radio astronomy, namely, explosive astrophysical transient phenomena and observations of cosmological structures, are driving the design of aperture arrays towards large numbers of low-cost elements consisting of multiple spatial scales spanning the dimensions of individual elements, the size of stations (groupings of individual elements), and the spacing between stations. Such multi-scale, hierarchical aperture arrays require a combination of data processing architectures -- pre-correlation beamformer, generic version of FFT-based direct imager, post-correlation beamformer, and post-correlation FFT imager -- operating on different ranges of spatial scales to obtain optimal performance in imaging the entire field of view. Adopting a computational cost metric based on the number of floating point operations, its distribution over the dimensions of discovery space, namely, field of view, angular resolution, polarisation, frequency, and time is examined to determine the most efficient hybrid architectures over the parameter space of hierarchical aperture array layouts. Nominal parameters of specific upcoming and planned arrays -- the SKA at low frequencies (SKA-low), SKA-low-core, a proposed long baseline extension to SKA-low (LAMBDA-I), compact all-sky phased array (CASPA), and a lunar array (FarView-core) -- are used to determine the most optimal architecture hierarchy for each from a computational standpoint, and provide a guide for designing hybrid architectures for multi-scale aperture arrays. For large, dense-packed layouts, a FFT-based direct imager is most efficient for most cadence intervals, and for other layouts that have relatively lesser number of elements or greater sparsity in distribution, the best architecture is more sensitive to the cadence interval, which in turn is determined by the science goals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17804 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Geometric view of a hierarchical multi-scale aperture array, which consists of Ns stations, each a collection of Neps elements. Stations, m and n, at locations, rm and rn, respectively, relative to the origin, O, are separated by ∆rmn. Elements, a and b, in stations, m and n, are denoted by am and bn, located at ram and rbn , respectively. ∆rambn is the separation between these elements. The spatial sizes of the ele… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Fast imaging involves processing data on multiple time scales. The channelisation of a voltage time stream of length δt with a time resolution of ts will correspond to spectral channels of width δν = 1/δt and a bandwidth of B = 1/ts . The number of spectral channels is Nν = B/δν = δt/ts . Images are expected to be produced at a cadence of tacc, which is typically larger than δt and smaller than the time scale on whi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A breakdown of the computational cost density function over the station parameters for the voltage beamforming (BF) architecture at the station level. Each panel shows the variation with the respective pa￾rameter keeping the rest fixed at the characteristic values of the LAMBDA-I, SKA-low-core, and SKA-low stations (cyan lines). The beamforming cost in Equation (1) denoted by black dashed lines dominates the squarin… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A hybrid, two-stage architecture for hierarchical aperture arrays showing the methodology for extension to multiple stages. Black arrows indicate pathways where the signal consists of electric fields with phase coherence. Gray arrows indicate pathways of a “squared” or…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A multi-dimensional covariant view of the net computational cost density function over the station parameters for the voltage beamforming (BF) architecture at the station level by varying two parameters at a time while fixing the rest at the nominal values of the LAMBD…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows a breakdown of the costs per station per voxel of the EPIC architecture, with nominal values of a LAMBDA-I, SKA-low, or a SKA-low-core station marked in cyan. The dominant cost is from the two-dimensional FFT (black dashed lines) in Equation 3. The spatial FFT co…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Left): Two-dimensional slices of the computational cost per station per voxel for imaging using station-level EPIC. Because the spatial FFT dominates the overall cost budget, the computational cost density is relatively insensitive to Neps, Ds, and De as seen in [PIT…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A breakdown of the computational cost density function over the station parameters for the correlator beamforming architecture (XBF) at the station level. Each panel shows the variation with the respective pa￾rameter keeping the rest fixed at the characteristic values …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (Left): Two-dimensional slices of the computational cost for imaging using a DFT beamforming of station-level cross-correlations (XBF) for LAMBDA-I, SKA-low-core, and SKA-low station parameters (dashed gray lines). Cyan lines denote contours of the colour scale in loga…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A breakdown of the computational cost density function over the station parameters for the correlator FFT architecture (XFFT) at the station level. Each panel shows the variation with the respective parameter keeping the rest fixed at the characteristic values of the L…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (Left): Two-dimensional slices of the computational cost for imaging using an FFT of station-level cross-correlations (XFFT) for LAMBDA-I, SKA-low-core, and SKA-low station parameters (dashed gray lines). Cyan contours denote logarithmic levels in the colour scale. 6.…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: compares the computational cost densities of differ￾ent imaging architectures discussed in section 5 for varying parameters of the arrays in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: One-dimensional slices of the computational cost density for (a) LAMBDA-I, (b) SKA-low-core, and (c) SKA-low using two-stage coherent imaging at intra- and inter-station levels. Station-synthesised electric fields are obtained through BF (gray) and EPIC (black) in int…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Contd. Same as above but for (d) CASPA, and (e) FarView-core [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Thyagarajan, N., Bowman, J

    Beardsley, A. P., Thyagarajan, N., Bowman, J. D., & Morales, M. F. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4720

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    J., Golap, K., & Uson, J

    Bhatnagar, S., Cornwell, T. J., Golap, K., & Uson, J. M. 2008, A&A, 487, 419

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    D., Ravi, V., Belov, K

    Bochenek, C. D., Ravi, V., Belov, K. V., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 59

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.12699

    Braun, R., Bonaldi, A., Bourke, T., Keane, E., & Wagg, J. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.12699

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    C., Arun, K

    Chandra, P., Anupama, G. C., Arun, K. G., et al. 2016, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 37, 30

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    W., & Tukey, J

    Cooley, J. W., & Tukey, J. W. 1965, Mathematics of Computation, 19, 297

    work page 1965

  7. [7]

    2007, in From Planets to Dark Energy: the Modern Radio Universe, 35

    Cordes, J. 2007, in From Planets to Dark Energy: the Modern Radio Universe, 35

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    J., Golap, K., & Bhatnagar, S

    Cornwell, T. J., Golap, K., & Bhatnagar, S. 2008, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 2, 647 Cosmic Visions 21 cm Collaboration, Ansari, R., Arena, E. J., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1810.09572

    arXiv 2008

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 3698

    Crawford, F., Hisano, S., Golden, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 3698

    2022

  2. [10]

    2022, Journal of Astronomical

    Crichton, D., Aich, M., Amara, A., et al. 2022, Journal of Astronomical

    2022

  3. [11]

    1991, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Daishido, T., Asuma, K., Nishibori, K., et al. 1991, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 19, IAU Colloq. 131: Radio Interfer- ometry. Theory, Techniques, and Applications, ed. T. J. Cornwell & R. A. Perley, 86–89

    1991

  4. [12]

    R., Parsons, A

    DeBoer, D. R., Parsons, A. R., Aguirre, J. E., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 045001

    2017

  5. [13]

    E., Hall, P

    Dewdney, P. E., Hall, P. J., Schilizzi, R. T., & Lazio, T. J. L. W. 2009, IEEE Proceedings, 97, 1482

    2009

  6. [14]

    Dowell, J., & Taylor, G. B. 2018, Journal of Astronomical Instrumentation, 7, 1850006

    2018

  7. [15]

    J., Xu, R

    Du, Y. J., Xu, R. X., Qiao, G. J., & Han, J. L. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 1587

    2009

  8. [16]

    A., & Hankins, T

    Eilek, J. A., & Hankins, T. H. 2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 635820302

    2016

  9. [17]

    2014, MNRAS, 439, 3180

    Foster, G., Hickish, J., Magro, A., Price, D., & Zarb Adami, K. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3180

    2014

  10. [18]

    B., Parsons, A

    Gorthi, D. B., Parsons, A. R., & Dillon, J. S. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 66

    2021

  11. [19]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 5866

    Gupta, V., Flynn, C., Farah, W., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5866

    2022

  12. [20]

    H., & Eilek, J

    Hankins, T. H., & Eilek, J. A. 2007, ApJ, 670, 693

    2007

  13. [21]

    H., Kern, J

    Hankins, T. H., Kern, J. S., Weatherall, J. C., & Eilek, J. A. 2003, Nature, 422, 141

    2003

  14. [22]

    L., Fortin, M., et al

    Haskell, B., Zdunik, J. L., Fortin, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A69

    2018

  15. [23]

    Keane, E. F. 2013, in Neutron Stars and Pulsars: Challenges and Opportunities after 80 years, ed. J. van Leeuwen, V ol. 291, 295–300

    2013

  16. [24]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 5052

    Kent, J., Dowell, J., Beardsley, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5052

    2019

  17. [25]

    P., Bester, L., et al

    Kent, J., Beardsley, A. P., Bester, L., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 254

    2020

  18. [26]

    P., Bowman, J

    Krishnan, H., Beardsley, A. P., Bowman, J. D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 1928

    2023

  19. [27]

    R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M

    Lorimer, D. R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M. A., Narkevic, D. J., & Crawford, F. 2007, Science, 318, 777

    2007

  20. [28]

    D., Hobbs, G., et al

    Luo, R., Ekers, R. D., Hobbs, G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.07439

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    W., Shaw, J

    Masui, K. W., Shaw, J. R., Ng, C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, 16

    2019

  22. [30]

    A., Lyne, A

    McLaughlin, M. A., Lyne, A. G., Lorimer, D. R., et al. 2006, Nature, 439, 817

    2006

  23. [31]

    Morales, M. F. 2011, PASP, 123, 1265

    2011

  24. [32]

    F., & Matejek, M

    Morales, M. F., & Matejek, M. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 1814

    2009

  25. [33]

    F., & Wyithe, J

    Morales, M. F., & Wyithe, J. S. B. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 127

    2010

  26. [34]

    Nimmo, K., Hessels, J. W. T., Kirsten, F., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 393

    2022

  27. [35]

    1994, PASJ, 46, 503

    Otobe, E., Nakajima, J., Nishibori, K., et al. 1994, PASJ, 46, 503

    1994

  28. [36]

    A., Spitkovsky, A., & Cerutti, B

    Philippov, A., Uzdensky, D. A., Spitkovsky, A., & Cerutti, B. 2019, ApJ, 876, L6 18 Nithyanandan Thyagarajan et al

    2019

  29. [37]

    P., & Keane, E

    Pietka, M., Fender, R. P., & Keane, E. F. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 3687

    2015

  30. [38]

    S., Burns, J

    Polidan, R. S., Burns, J. O., Ignatiev, A., et al. 2024, Advances in Space Research, 74, 528

    2024

  31. [39]

    Price, D. C. 2024, PASA, 41, e037

    2024

  32. [40]

    R., & Loeb, A

    Pritchard, J. R., & Loeb, A. 2012, Reports on Progress in Physics, 75, 086901

    2012

  33. [41]

    D., Dowell, J., et al

    Reddy, K., Bowman, J. D., Dowell, J., et al. 2024, in Software and Cyber- infrastructure for Astronomy VIII, ed. J. Ibsen & G. Chiozzi, V ol. 13101, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 131011C

    2024

  34. [42]

    2019, Bulletin of the AAS, 51, https://baas.aas.org/pub/2020n7i053

    Slosar, A., Ahmed, Z., Alonso, D., et al. 2019, Bulletin of the AAS, 51, https://baas.aas.org/pub/2020n7i053

    2019

  35. [43]

    P., Nimmo, K., Hessels, J

    Snelders, M. P., Nimmo, K., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1486

    2023

  36. [44]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.13478

    Sokolowski, M., Aniruddha, G., Di Pietrantonio, C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.13478

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    B., Carilli, C

    Taylor, G. B., Carilli, C. L., & Perley, R. A., eds. 1999, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 180, Synthesis Imaging in Radio Astronomy II (San Francisco, Calif. : Astronomical Society of the Pacific)

    1999

  38. [46]

    B., Ellingson, S

    Taylor, G. B., Ellingson, S. W., Kassim, N. E., et al. 2012, Journal of Astro- nomical Instrumentation, 01, 1250004

    2012

  39. [47]

    1997, ApJ, 480, L87

    Tegmark, M. 1997, ApJ, 480, L87

    1997

  40. [48]

    2009, Phys

    Tegmark, M., & Zaldarriaga, M. 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 083530 —. 2010, Phys. Rev. D, 82, 103501

    2009

  41. [49]

    R., Moran, J

    Thompson, A. R., Moran, J. M., & Swenson, George W., J. 2017, Interfer- ometry and Synthesis in Radio Astronomy, 3rd Edition (Springer, Cham), doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44431-4

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

    2013, Science, 341, 53

    Thornton, D., Stappers, B., Bailes, M., et al. 2013, Science, 341, 53

    2013

  43. [51]

    2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, V ol

    Thyagarajan, N., Beardsley, A., Bowman, J., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, V ol. 51, 263

    2019

  44. [52]

    P., Bowman, J

    Thyagarajan, N., Beardsley, A. P., Bowman, J. D., & Morales, M. F. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 715

    2017

  45. [53]

    J., White, R

    Thyagarajan, N., Helfand, D. J., White, R. L., & Becker, R. H. 2011, ApJ, 742, 49

    2011

  46. [54]

    J., Goeke, R., Bowman, J

    Tingay, S. J., Goeke, R., Bowman, J. D., et al. 2013, PASA, 30, e007 van Haarlem, M. P., Wise, M. W., Gunst, A. W., et al. 2013, A&A, 556, A2

    2013

  47. [55]

    Zackay, B., & Ofek, E. O. 2017, ApJ, 835, 11

    2017

  48. [56]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 65

    Zhang, J., Tian, H., Zarka, P., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 65

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.