Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 21 references

Polarization Calibration of the FAST L-band 19-beam Receiver: I. On-axis Mueller Matrix Parameters

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 This paper establishes that a five-parameter Mueller matrix model, fitted to spider and on-the-fly observations, describes the FAST 19-beam receiver's on-axis polarization response well enough that strong sources are measured to about…

desk verdict A genuinely useful, carefully documented FAST 19-beam polarization calibration whose main caveat is a factor-of-two understated circular-leakage threshold; worth refereeing with a requested fix. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18763 v1 pith:PMXXPFN7 submitted 2024-11-27 astro-ph.IM

Tao-Chung Ching , Carl Heiles , Di Li , Timothy Robishaw , Xunzhou Chen , Lingqi Meng , You-Ling Yue , Lei Qian
show 1 more author
Hong-Fei Liu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords polarizationcalibrationMuellermatrixFAST19-beamreceiverspiderobservationson-axisleakageStokesparametersradiopolarimetryfractional
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 establishes that the on-axis polarization response of the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical Telescope's 19-beam L-band receiver can be captured by a five-parameter Mueller matrix model, solved with spider drift scans for the central beam and on-the-fly maps for the other 18 beams. After the fitted matrices are applied, strong linearly polarized calibrators are recovered to about 0.2% in fractional polarization and 0.5 degrees in polarization angle. The data also show that several Mueller-matrix parameters drift on month-to-year timescales, so polarization calibration must be repeated fairly often. For users of the published 2020–2022 average matrices, the paper gives practical detection thresholds: on-axis fractional linear polarization above roughly 10% and on-axis fractional circular polarization above roughly 1.5% can be treated as high-confidence detections.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Mueller matrix formalism: a $4\times4$ transfer matrix mapping intrinsic Stokes parameters $(I,Q,U,V)$ to observed ones, written as a product of a sky-rotation matrix and a receiving-system matrix. The receiving-system matrix factors into feed, feed-imperfection, and amplifier-chain matrices with parameters $\Delta G$, $\psi$, $\alpha$, $\epsilon$, and $\phi$; the model keeps all orders in $\alpha$, $\phi$, and $\psi$ and first order in $\epsilon$ and $\Delta G$. The observations that carry the argument are spider scans, in which a linearly polarized calibrator is drifted through the beam at receiver rotation angles $-60^\circ$ to $+60^\circ$, giving enough rotation-angle coverage to fit the parameters and the source Stokes parameters simultaneously. On-the-fly maps of several calibrators extend the same model to the 18 off-center beams using the central-beam source polarizations as known inputs.

What would settle it

Measure the mechanical rotation angle with an independent encoder during a spider observation and compare the residuals of a fit that fixes $\alpha=0$ with one that lets $\alpha$ float; alternatively, illuminate the central feed with a laboratory source of known elliptical polarization to measure $\alpha$ directly. If a nonzero $\alpha$ or a rotation-encoder offset emerges, the central-beam parameters shown in the paper and the 2020–2022 average matrices would need re-derivation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the on-axis polarization leakage of the FAST 19-beam receiver at 1420 MHz is fully described by the product structure $M_{\mathrm{TOT}} M_{\mathrm{SKY}}$, with $M_{\mathrm{SKY}}$ a rotation by the receiver angle $\theta$ and $M_{\mathrm{TOT}}$ built from five parameters: the relative gain error $\Delta G$, the residual electronic phase $\psi$, the feed ellipticity angle $\alpha$, and the cross-coupling amplitude $\epsilon$ and phase $\phi$. For the central beam, $\alpha$ is fixed to zero because it is degenerate with a mechanical rotation error, leaving a four-parameter fit from spider observations; for the 18 off-center beams, $\alpha$ is kept free and the source Stokes parameters are taken from the central-beam solution. The paper reports that after this calibration the recovered polarization percentage and angle of strong sources agree with independent measurements to about 0.2% and 0.5 degrees, that the calibrated fractional Stokes parameters are consistent across all 19 beams, and that the 2020–2022 average matrices make $\gtrsim 10\%$ on-axis fractional linear polarization and $\gtrsim 1.5\%$ on-axis fractional circular polarization high-confidence detections.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on setting the central beam's feed ellipticity $\alpha$ to zero because $\alpha$ and the receiver rotation angle $\theta$ enter only as their sum; if the real feed has nonzero ellipticity, or if the mechanical rotation has a small time-dependent error, the fitted values of $\Delta G$, $\psi$, $\epsilon$, and $\phi$ could carry biases, and the reported time variability of $\epsilon$ and $\phi$ could be partly an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • After calibration, strong linearly polarized sources can be measured to roughly 0.2% in fractional polarization and 0.5 degrees in polarization angle with the central beam.
  • The published 2020–2022 average Mueller matrices are usable for FAST spectral-line and pulsar observations at small zenith angle, with the caveat that the noise-diode phase must be calibrated first.
  • Users can treat on-axis fractional linear polarization $\gtrsim 10\%$ and fractional circular polarization $\gtrsim 1.5\%$ as high-confidence detections when using the average matrices; weaker signals need contemporaneous spider calibrations.
  • Because several Mueller-matrix parameters drift on month-to-year timescales, polarization calibration should be repeated frequently rather than assumed stable.
  • The central-beam parameters do not depend strongly on the reflector surface at small zenith angles, but the off-center beams show eastern/western differences, indicating surface-dependent leakage.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, if the same average matrices are applied to archival FAST data from 2020–2022, sources with fractional linear polarization below the 10% threshold could have their polarization angles systematically affected by the uncalibrated $\phi$ uncertainty, so the matrix should be used as a detection screen rather than a precision measurement for weak sources.
  • Beyond the paper, the time variability of $\epsilon$ and $\phi$ could be tested against independent noise-diode equivalent-temperature measurements across the same epochs; the paper already ties $\Delta G$ to that fluctuation, so a similar check would separate receiver drift from calibration artifact.
  • Beyond the paper, the eastern/western reflector-surface difference suggests that a pointing- or surface-dependent correction may be needed for surveys that combine beams; a dedicated experiment rotating the receiver at a fixed source position across different surface sectors could quantify this.
  • Beyond the paper, because the same receiver feeds serve the pulsar backend, pulsar polarization observations using these matrices should be validated on a polarized pulsar of known rotation measure, which would also test applicability beyond continuum calibrators.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents the polarization calibration of the FAST L-band 19-beam receiver at 1420 MHz using spider and on-the-fly observations of polarized calibrators from 2018 to 2023. The authors fit a five-parameter Mueller matrix model (ΔG, ψ, ε, φ, and, for off-center beams, α) to derive on-axis polarization responses for the central and 18 off-center beams. They report that after correction, strong linearly polarized sources are measured to ~0.2% in fractional polarization and ~0.5° in angle, cross-checked against VLA measurements. They also provide weighted-mean 19-beam Mueller matrices for 2020–2022 and claim that, after applying these averages, fractional linear polarization ≳10% and fractional circular polarization ≳1.5% constitute high-confidence (5σ) detections. The paper additionally reports time variability of central-beam parameters and hints at an east-west asymmetry in the off-center beam response.

Significance. If the calibration is sound, this is a valuable long-term characterization of the FAST 19-beam receiver's polarimetric response, providing both a reference data set and a practical calibration product for the community. The paper includes error bars on all fitted parameters, external cross-checks against VLA polarization measurements, and makes the average Mueller matrices available for users. The main strengths are the multi-year baseline, the explicit treatment of systematic effects (noise diode, reflector surface), and the attempt to quantify detection thresholds after applying the calibration. The central calibration accuracy claim (0.2% and 0.5°) appears well supported by the VLA comparison. However, the derivation of the circular-polarization detection threshold contains a propagation error that weakens one of the headline claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2.2 and Section 5.1] The high-confidence detection threshold for circular polarization is understated. The authors use the tabulated σ_ε (up to 0.30% for M12 in Table 2) as the 1σ amplitude uncertainty of the I→U and I→V leakages. However, with α=0 the relevant matrix elements in Eq. (10) are 2ε cos(φ+ψ) and 2ε sin(φ+ψ), so the leakage amplitude uncertainty is at least 2σ_ε ≈ 0.6% before including the substantial contributions from σ_φ (up to ~30°–100° in Table 2) and σ_ψ (up to ~3°). For the worst beam the combined 1σ error in fractional circular polarization is ≳0.65%. The abstract's statement that V/I ≳ 1.5% is a 5σ high-confidence detection therefore corresponds to roughly 2.5–3σ. The linear-polarization threshold is conservative for the opposite reason (the I→Q leakage is ΔG/2, not ΔG), but the circular threshold is load-bearing and must be re-derived, and the abstract and Section 6.3 corrected accordingly.
  2. [Section 6.3] The degeneracy between α and the receiver rotation angle θ for the central beam is acknowledged, but its impact on the reported time variability is not assessed. The paper fixes α=0 for the central beam because θ may have a systematic error, yet Section 5.1 reports strong temporal trends in ε (from about −1% to +2%) and φ (from about 150° to −20°). If the rotation-angle error varies with time, these trends could be partly absorbed into the fitted ε and φ. Since the abstract claims that several Mueller-matrix parameters show time variability, the authors should quantify the sensitivity of ε and φ to plausible rotation-angle errors, for example by fitting α as a free parameter for a subset of epochs or by propagating a time-varying θ offset through the fit. Without such a test, the time-variability claim for ε and φ is not fully supported.
  3. [Section 6.3] The error-budget statement for linear polarization is also inaccurate: the text says that σ_ΔG of about 2% implies an I→Q leakage uncertainty of up to 2%, but the (1,2) element of the Mueller matrix in Eq. (10) is ΔG/2 (for α=0), so the leakage amplitude uncertainty is at most 1%, not 2%. This makes the quoted 10% threshold conservative (overestimated), but the description of the error budget should be corrected for consistency with the model equations.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.2.3] The text spells 'Muller' where 'Mueller' is meant (e.g., 'solve the Muller matrices'); please correct throughout.
  2. [Section 6.3 and Conclusion] The phrase 'high confident detections' should read 'high-confidence detections' for grammatical consistency.
  3. [Figure 5 caption] The annotation 'PASRC (**UNCORRECTED FOR MASTRO**)' appears to contain a placeholder or undefined acronym; please clarify or remove it.
  4. [Abstract] The phrase 'full illumination of the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical Telescope' is slightly awkward; consider 'full illumination of the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical Telescope (FAST)' for readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Core calibration is independent and VLA-cross-checked; the 19-beam consistency claim is partly tautological because off-center beams are fitted to reproduce the same central-beam source Stokes parameters.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.2, Off-center Beams (paragraph following Figure 10)]
    "The Qsrc/Isrc, Usrc/Isrc, and Vsrc/Isrc of the OTF sources are obtained by applying the central-beam Mueller matrix on the central-beam Qobs/Iobs, Uobs/Iobs, and Vobs/Iobs data, and then the Qsrc/Isrc, Usrc/Isrc, and Vsrc/Isrc are used to derived the Mueller matrix parameters of the off-center beams using Equation 11. ... A perfect polarization calibration should produce identical fractional Stokes parameters from M01 to M19."

    The off-center Mueller matrices are fitted by requiring the corrected fractional Stokes parameters to equal the central-beam-derived Qsrc/Isrc, Usrc/Isrc, and Vsrc/Isrc values. Therefore the agreement among the 19 beams after calibration is enforced by the fitting procedure rather than discovered independently: every off-center beam is calibrated to reproduce the same source polarization vector. The statement that the 19 beams are 'more identical' after calibration is thus a description of fit residuals, not an independent test of calibration accuracy. This does not invalidate the central-beam calibration, which is separately compared with VLA values, but the abstract and conclusion's 19-beam consistency claim is partly constructed from the input rather than a free prediction.

full rationale

The central-beam Mueller parameters are fitted directly from spider observations and are validated against independent VLA polarization measurements (Perley & Butler 2013), so the core calibration is not circular. The high-confidence detection thresholds in Section 6.3 are 5-sigma scalings of the Table 2 uncertainties, not predictions reduced to inputs, although the circular-polarization propagation may be statistically understated; that is a correctness concern, not circularity. The one genuinely tautological element is the off-center 19-beam consistency check: because the off-center Mueller matrices are solved using the central-beam-derived source Stokes parameters, the resulting post-calibration agreement among beams is enforced by the fit rather than being an independent validation. The paper does label this a self-calibration and relies on external VLA checks for the central beam, so the circularity is limited to one internal validation claim. Self-citations to Heiles et al. (2001a) and RHSTK supply the standard formalism and software; they are not the sole justification of any fitted numerical result.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results are measurements of instrument parameters, not first-principles derivations. The Mueller parameters are legitimate fitted calibration quantities; the main modeling assumptions are standard in radio polarimetry and are explicitly flagged by the authors.

free parameters (6)
  • Delta_G (relative gain error between X and Y paths) = -2% to 4% depending on epoch; weighted means per beam in Table 2
    Fitted per observation from spider/OTF data; varies with time and is dominated by noise diode equivalent temperature errors.
  • psi (residual receiver phase) = Typical -5 to 5 deg; per-observation fits in Figure 6
    Fitted Mueller parameter; couples to the polarization angle calibration.
  • epsilon (cross-coupling amplitude) = -0.2% to 0.2% for central beam; up to about 0.4% per beam in Table 2
    Fitted Mueller parameter; small but drives leakage from Stokes I to U and V.
  • phi (phase of cross-coupling) = -20 to 150 deg with errors about 30 deg
    Fitted Mueller parameter; poorly constrained because epsilon is small and the observables are products epsilon sin(phi) and epsilon cos(phi).
  • alpha (ellipticity/rotation offset) = Fixed to 0 for central beam; fitted for off-center beams with values around +/-1 deg and east/west difference about 5…
    Alpha and receiver rotation angle are degenerate; authors fix alpha=0 for the central beam in Section 4.2.2.
  • Noise diode equivalent temperatures = Adopted from observatory measurements in Aug 2018, Jan 2019, May 2020, Oct 2020; few-percent uncertainty
    Used to convert XX and YY products to kelvins; errors transfer directly into Delta_G as discussed in Section 6.1.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The simplified Mueller matrix model with chi=0 and first-order terms in epsilon and Delta_G, from Heiles et al. 2001a, describes the receiver adequately.
    Invoked in Section 4.1; justification is deferred to Heiles et al. 2001a. If higher-order terms are non-negligible, the fitted parameters would be biased.
  • ad hoc to paper Central beam alpha is identically zero.
    Section 4.2.2: alpha and the rotation angle theta are coupled, so alpha is fixed to zero for the central beam. A nonzero alpha or a mechanical rotation error would shift the other fitted parameters.
  • domain assumption Calibrator sources have stable intrinsic polarization during each spider or OTF observation.
    The fitting simultaneously determines Qsrc/Isrc, Usrc/Isrc, Vsrc/Isrc and the Mueller parameters; intra-observation source variability would bias the matrix.
  • domain assumption Ionospheric Faraday rotation correction from global ionosphere maps is accurate at the sub-degree level.
    Section 5.1 and Meng et al. 2024: polarization angles are corrected using weighted averages of global ionospheric maps; residual errors enter the reported 0.5 deg angle uncertainty.
  • domain assumption The receiver rotation angle theta is accurately known and controlled.
    Implicit in the spider fitting in Section 4.2.2; the only rotation error allowed is absorbed in the off-center alpha parameter.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Polarization Calibration of the FAST L-band 19-beam Receiver: I. On-axis Mueller Matrix Parameters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PMXXPFN7

@misc{pith2026241118763,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Polarization Calibration of the FAST L-band 19-beam Receiver: I. On-axis Mueller Matrix Parameters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PMXXPFN7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18763}
}
abstract

We present the polarization calibration of the 19-beam receiver at 1420 MHz within the full illumination of the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical Telescope from October 2018 to March 2023. We perform spider observations to characterize the on-axis Mueller matrix of the central beam. The calibrated polarization percentage and polarization angle of a source with strong linear polarization emission are about 0.2\% and 0.5$^{\circ}$. Several parameters of the central-beam Mueller matrix show time variability from months to years, suggesting relatively frequent polarization calibrations are needed. We obtain the Mueller matrix parameters of the 18 off-center beams with the combination of on-the-fly observations and spider observations. The polarization calibration provides consistent fractional Stokes parameters of the 19 beams, although the Mueller matrix parameters of the off-center beams are not as accurate as those of the central beam. The Mueller matrix parameters of the central beam do not show a strong dependence on the reflector surface. However, we notice different off-center Mueller matrix parameters between the eastern and western sides of the reflector surface. We provide average parameters of the 19-beam Mueller matrices which should be applicable to observations from 2020 to 2022 with several caveats. After applying the average parameters, on-axis fractional linear polarization measurements $\gtrsim$ 10\% and on-axis fractional circular polarization measurements $\gtrsim$ 1.5\% can be considered high-confidence detections. For sources with weak polarization, timely polarization calibrations using spider observations are required.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18763 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The relative positions of the 19 beams to the receiver center at rotation angle θ = 0◦ in equatorial coordinates with the numbering of the 19 beams from M01 to M19. Each beam circle has a diameter of the full width at half maximum. 3. OBSERVATION AND DATA REDUCTION Our FAST polarization calibrations of the 19-beam receiver were carried out with spider observations (see § 4.2.2) using the DriftWithAngle mode and on-t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Flow chart of the 19-beam polarization calibration sequence. 4.2.1. Noise Diode The feed’s response is modified by the electronics system, which introduces its own electronic gain and relative phase differences between the two paths. The electronic gain and relative phase can be effectively measured using the noise diode. Considering that the gain and phase may change rapidly with time, we use the modulated mode of … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Real-time tracks of the spider observation toward 3C286 on 2020/09/12. The tracks were drifted along the equatorial East-West axis. For example, the beams M08, M02, M01, M05, and M14 are aligned from East to West as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A real-time track of the OTF observation toward 3C138 on 2021/10/07. −50 0 50 Rotation Angle (deg) −0.05 0.00 0.05 Fractional Polarization Q/I U/I V/I SRC = DELTAG = 0.009 ± 0.004 PSI = −0.1 ± 1.1 ALPHA = +0.0 ± 0.0 EPSILON = +0.001 ± 0.001 PHI = −5.3 ± 60.4 CHI = +0.0…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The fractional Stokes parameters for 3C286 versus rotation angle θ on 2023/03/11. The black crosses, red diamonds, and blue squares show the Qobs/Iobs, Uobs/Iobs, and Vobs/Iobs data, respectively. The curves show the fittings for Qsrc/Isrc, Usrc/Isrc, and Vsrc/Isrc in …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Parameters (∆G, ψ, ϵ, ϕ) of the central beam versus observation dates in Modified Julian Day (MJD). The results of 3C286, 3C48, and 3C138 are plotted as black circles, red squares, and blue diamonds, respectively. The results of 3C380, J2202+4216, and 3C273 are shown a…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The same data as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Calibrated polarization percentages and polarization angles of 3C286, 3C48, and 3C138 in the same color scheme as that in Figures 6 and 7. The polarization angles before and after the correction of the ionospheric Faraday rotation are denoted with open and filled data …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Parameters (∆G, ψ, α, ϵ, ϕ) of the 19 beams. The parameters calibrated in 2020, 2021, and 2022 are shown in black circles, red squares, and blue diamonds, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The 19-beam Qobs/Iobs, Uobs/Iobs, and Vobs/Iobs data of the 3C138 on 2021/10/06, shown in black, red, and blue colors, respectively. The data before polarization calibration are shown in fainter colors than the data after polarization calibration. diode equivalent tem…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Autocorrelation between any two data points of ∆G in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Tracks of the receiver in geographic coordinates relative to the reflector surface center of FAST. The white circle represents the limit of full illumination at ZA = 26.4 ◦ . 6.3. Mean 19-beam Mueller Matrices from 2020 to 2022 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Parameters (∆G, ψ, α, ϵ, ϕ) for the 19 beams on the eastern (black circles) and western (red squares) sides of the FAST reflector surface. The averaged values of the 19 beams of α, ϵ, and ϕ are shown as dotted lines. replacement. At this moment, we do not have enough …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    #Adz"f J3v z¥ I ^ 2Phx _4g'fR y 4 ӘvVhvێ ,4 AOl| 1YܷERuȶ4Ta_> t&]J ϣO X ڧyٮ7 ,B&t ?iJd sLo\ =@g ,sw@ 3v+ x[O ¯

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04159-x

    Ching, T.-C., Li, D., Heiles, C., et al.\ 2022, , 601, 49. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04159-x

    doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04159-x 2022

  5. [5]

    Contopoulos, G. & Jappel, A.\ 1974, Transactions of the International Astronomical Union, Volume\_XVB: Proceedings of the Fifteenth General Assembly, Sydney 1973 and Extraordinary Assembly, Poland 1973., by Contopoulos, G.; Jappel, A.. Dordrecht (Netherlands): D. Reidel, 9 + 334 p

    work page 1974

  6. [6]

    P., Ghosh, T., et al.\ 2023, , 166, 26

    Fallon, P., Smits, D. P., Ghosh, T., et al.\ 2023, , 166, 26. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acd762

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acd762 2023

  7. [7]

    doi:10.1086/323289

    Heiles, C., Perillat, P., Nolan, M., et al.\ 2001b, , 113, 1274. doi:10.1086/323289

    doi:10.1086/323289

  8. [8]

    doi:10.1086/323290

    Heiles, C., Perillat, P., Nolan, M., et al.\ 2001a, , 113, 1247. doi:10.1086/323290

    doi:10.1086/323290

Show all 21 references
  1. [9]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0107327

    Heiles, C.\ 2002, Single-Dish Radio Astronomy: Techniques and Applications, 278, 131. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0107327

    2002 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Heiles, C.\ & Robishaw, T.\ 2022, All-Stokes Single Dish Data with the RHSTK\_2021 Software Package, https://w.astro.berkeley.edu/\ heiles/

    2022

  3. [11]

    IEEE 2018, IEEE Standard Definitions of Terms for Radio Wave Propagation, IEEE Std 211-2018, doi:10.1109/IEEESTD.2019.8657413

    2018

  4. [12]

    doi:10.1007/s11433-018-9376-1

    Jiang, P., Yue, Y., Gan, H., et al.\ 2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 959502. doi:10.1007/s11433-018-9376-1

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64

    Jiang, P., Tang, N.-Y., Hou, L.-G., et al.\ 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 064. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    IEEE, 2013

    Jin, C., Zhu, K., Fan, J., et al.\ The optics of the five-hundred-meter aperture spherical radio telescope: International Symposium on Antennas & Propagation. IEEE, 2013. doi:10.34385/proc.54.WP-2(A)-5

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    doi:10.1109/MMM.2018.2802178

    Li, D., Wang, P., Qian, L., et al.\ 2018, IEEE Microwave Magazine, 19, 112. doi:10.1109/MMM.2018.2802178

    2018

  8. [16]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/289

    Liao, Y.-W., Chang, T.-C., Kuo, C.-Y., et al.\ 2016, , 833, 289. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/289

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad381c

    Meng, L., Zhu, W., Kramer, M., et al.\ 2024, , 966, 46. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad381c

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    doi:10.1142/S0218271811019335

    Nan, R., Li, D., Jin, C., et al.\ 2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989. doi:10.1142/S0218271811019335

    2011 doi

  11. [19]

    Perley, R. A. & Butler, B. J.\ 2013, , 206, 16. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/206/2/16

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    & Heiles, C.\ 2021, The WSPC Handbook of Astronomical Instrumentation, Volume 1: Radio Astronomical Instrumentation, 127

    Robishaw, T. & Heiles, C.\ 2021, The WSPC Handbook of Astronomical Instrumentation, Volume 1: Radio Astronomical Instrumentation, 127. doi:10.1142/9789811203770\_0006

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    Tinbergen, J.\ 1996, Astronomical Polarimetry, by Jaap Tinbergen, pp. 174. ISBN 0521475317. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, September 1996., 174

    1996

Pith tools

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