Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Serial MultiView: an efficient approach to mitigating atmospheric spatial-structure errors for VLBI astrometry

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A serial MultiView calibration scheme achieves the astrometric accuracy of conventional MultiView, with RA error below 10 microarcseconds.

desk verdict A plausible new MultiView variant with public code, but the headline <10 µas error is not supported by the formal uncertainties; worth refereeing with a requested revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10978 v3 pith:E5XO4SKC submitted 2025-01-19 astro-ph.IM

Jingdong Zhang , Bo Zhang , Shuangjing Xu , Maria J. Rioja , Richard Dodson , Xiaofeng Mai , Oleg Titov This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords radioastrometryverylongbaselineinterferometryMultiViewserialphase-referencingatmosphericpropagationerrorsphaseambiguitycorrectiontroposphericturbulence
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 introduces serial MultiView (sMV), a way of calibrating very long baseline interferometry (VLBI) observations that corrects for atmospheric spatial-structure errors without requiring all calibrators to be observed within a single short cycle. Instead of fitting a fresh phase plane every cycle, sMV tracks a phase plane anchored at the primary calibrator and rotates it step by step using the whole time series of calibrator residual phases. The paper claims this preserves the astrometric accuracy of conventional MultiView while shortening observing cycles, and demonstrates on two-epoch 5 GHz observations of a radio star that the RA difference between sMV and conventional MultiView is below 10 microarcseconds, with comparable image quality even when secondary calibrator sampling is cut to a third. If right, sMV makes high-precision differential astrometry feasible at higher frequencies where atmospheric phase fluctuations change faster than a full MultiView cycle can sample.

What carries the argument

The central object is the anchored phase plane: a plane in (RA, DEC, phase) space that always intersects the origin at the primary calibrator, so it has the form $z = ax + by$ rather than the free plane $z = ax + by + c$ used by conventional MultiView. The iteration rotates this plane at each calibrator scan by the minimal angle required to pass through the new residual-phase point, using the Euler-Rodrigues rotation formula; this yields a normal-vector time series that approximates the time-varying atmospheric spatial gradient. Phase ambiguity handling is a recursive ternary-tree search: at each step the algorithm explores future $+2\pi$, $-2\pi$, and $0$ wrap options up to a limited depth, prunes branches that exceed thresholds on plane inclination and rotation angular velocity, and picks the branch with the smallest loss defined as a weighted sum of accumulated rotation angle and deviation from the linearly predicted normal vector, marking a scan as an outlier when no branch survives. Smoothing via a Kalman filter during the iteration and a low-pass filter afterwards damps oscillation when calibrators do not lie on a common plane.

What would settle it

Take a third epoch of the same target and calibrators, run the flagged one-third-sampling sequence through sMV and cMV, and measure the sMV-minus-cMV offset in both coordinates; if the offset changes by more than the roughly 25 microarcsecond level across sessions despite unchanged catalog positions, the anchored-plane assumption is biased. A cleaner test is to inject a simulated non-planar turbulence screen with known curvature into the inversion and check whether the rotating-plane model recovers the target position or shifts it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that serial MultiView, a new realization of the MultiView technique, attains the same astrometric accuracy as conventional MultiView while requiring a shorter observing cycle and removing the manual step of phase-ambiguity correction. The paper presents sMV as an iterative phase-plane tracker: instead of fitting a free plane to calibrator phases in each observing cycle, it rotates a plane that always passes through the primary calibrator's phase reference point, using the full time series of secondary calibrator residual phases. On two epochs of C-band Very Long Baseline Array observations of the radio star V1859 Ori, sMV produces images and positions nearly identical to conventional MultiView; relative to cMV across epochs, sMV's random error is 9 microarcseconds in RA and 25 microarcseconds in DEC, while phase-referencing alone shows errors of hundreds of microarcseconds. The paper also reports that cutting the secondary-calibrator sampling rate to one third of the full sequence yields nearly unchanged images and positions for both sMV and cMV, implying on-target time can be substantially increased. A systematic reference-point offset between sMV and cMV is identified and shown to be constant between epochs, so it does not affect parallax or proper-motion measurements.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the atmospheric residual phase across the small patch of sky around the target is a flat plane anchored at the primary calibrator that rotates smoothly in time, with non-planar structure, calibrator position errors, and source structure small enough to ignore.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • sMV matched conventional MultiView in image quality and astrometry on the test source, with RA random error below 10 microarcseconds and DEC error around 25 microarcseconds across two epochs.
  • Cutting secondary-calibrator sampling to one third of the full sequence still yielded nearly identical images and positions, implying MultiView observing can spend roughly 1.4 to 1.8 times more time on target.
  • Phase-ambiguity correction becomes automatic in sMV, removing the manual step that conventional MultiView currently requires for reliable astrometry.
  • Because sMV shortens the time between calibrator observations, MultiView becomes applicable at higher frequencies where the atmospheric coherence time is shorter than a full conventional MultiView cycle.
  • The systematic reference-point offset between sMV and conventional MultiView is constant between epochs, so parallax and proper-motion measurements are unaffected unless calibrator source structure changes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the anchored-plane model is taken literally, sMV's reference point is set by the primary calibrator's a priori position; the constant offset found against cMV could in principle be calibrated by observing the same target with both methods or by interleaving geodetic blocks, converting sMV into a fully absolute astrometric mode.
  • The recursive wrap-search machinery generalizes beyond MultiView: the same ternary-tree idea could be applied to other phase-referencing strategies or to geodetic VLBI group-delay ambiguity resolution.
  • A direct high-frequency test would be to run sMV at 8 or 22 GHz with a deliberately shortened cycle and compare against geodetic-block calibration; the paper's implied prediction is that the shorter sMV cycle yields better coherence than cMV at those frequencies.
  • The one-third-sampling result suggests an adaptive scheduling rule: use dense calibrator sampling when elevation is low or the atmosphere is turbulent, and sparse sampling at high elevation; the paper mentions this possibility but does not yet test it.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes serial MultiView (sMV), a new realization of the VLBI MultiView calibration technique in which the atmospheric phase plane is rotated iteratively using the time series of secondary-calibrator residual phases, rather than being re-fitted from a full cycle of calibrator scans. The method includes a recursive automatic phase-ambiguity detector, optional Kalman and low-pass smoothing, and a released Python tool. The authors demonstrate sMV on VLBA 5 GHz observations of the radio star V1859 Ori over two epochs, comparing phase-referencing, conventional MultiView (cMV), and sMV, including simulated reduced calibrator sampling sequences. The central quantitative claim is that sMV achieves better than 10 microarcsecond error in RA relative to cMV, with reduced calibration overhead and automatic phase-wrap handling.

Significance. If the accuracy claim were established, sMV would be a practically valuable contribution: it shortens the calibrator observing cycle, automates the phase-ambiguity correction that is currently a manual burden in cMV, and is accompanied by open-source code and a reproducible pipeline. The idea of using time-domain continuity to rotate an anchored phase plane is a natural and potentially useful extension of MultiView, and the demonstration that one-third calibrator sampling can yield similar image quality is encouraging. However, the validation as presented is not yet sufficient to support the headline error bound: it rests on one target, two epochs, and a benchmark (cMV) whose own uncertainties and shared systematics are not propagated. The strengths—released code, a concrete algorithmic description, and a real VLBA demonstration—are real, but the quantitative claims need substantial revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section 3, Table 4] The headline claim of "<10 µas error in RA" is not supported by the reported statistics. Table 4 lists the sMV minus cMV inter-epoch offset difference as −9 µas in RA, while the formal uncertainties are 31.0 µas (sMV) and 28.7 µas (cMV); combining them gives 9 ± 42 µas, so at 2σ the difference is consistent with errors of order 80 µas. The per-epoch sMV−cMV offsets are −59 µas (B1) and −68 µas (B2) in Tables 2 and 3, which are much larger than 10 µas and are attributed to a reference-point offset rather than independently measured. The manuscript should report the difference with its combined uncertainty and explicitly distinguish consistency with cMV from an absolute error bound; the abstract should not claim sub-10 µas accuracy on this basis.
  2. [Section 3; Table 4] The validation treats cMV as the true stellar motion without propagating its uncertainty or considering shared systematic errors. Section 3 says "we consider its random error to be small," but the cMV formal uncertainties in Table 4 (28.7 µas in RA) and in Tables 2–3 (13.6–18.0 µas per epoch) are comparable to the claimed 9 µas. Because sMV and cMV use the same calibrators and the same atmospheric plane model, common systematic errors (e.g., non-planar tropospheric/ionospheric structure or calibrator position errors) would not appear in the sMV−cMV difference. The Gaia comparison is a useful partial independent check, but the two MultiView methods both deviate from the Gaia prediction by roughly 140 µas (Table 4), so the data do not establish sub-10 µas absolute accuracy.
  3. [Section 3; Appendix B; Tables 2–3] The assumption that the sMV−cMV reference-point offset is constant between epochs is load-bearing but untested. Appendix B shows that sMV corresponds to a plane constrained to pass through the origin (z = ax + by) while cMV fits a free plane (z = ax + by + c), and Section 3 argues that the resulting offset cancels in the B2−B1 difference. The measured offsets are −59 µas (B1) and −68 µas (B2) in RA, which cancel to −9 µas; however, no independent estimate of the reference-point offset is provided. If the offset varies because of calibrator position errors, source structure, or core shift, the Table 4 "random error" of sMV would be biased. The authors should either measure the reference-point offset (e.g., with more epochs or additional sources) or rephrase the result as an epoch-difference consistency check rather than an accuracy verification.
  4. [Sections 2.2–2.3; Eq. (2)] The automatic ambiguity detection relies on several free parameters—loss weight w, tree depth n, pruning thresholds for plane inclination and rotational angular velocity, and the Kalman/low-pass smoothing factors—but the manuscript does not report how they were chosen, nor any sensitivity or robustness tests. The only demonstration is a single target at two epochs, so it is unclear whether the claimed automatic phase-wrap correction and reduced calibrator sampling rate generalize to other geometries, frequencies, or atmospheric conditions. A parameter sensitivity study, or at least a clear statement of default values and their influence on the results, is needed to support the algorithmic claims.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 4] The "Uncertainty" column in Table 4 is not defined in the caption or text; it is unclear whether these values are propagated from Tables 2–3, and they do not equal the naive quadrature of the per-epoch σRA values shown there.
  2. [Section 3; Figure 6] The flagged sequences are produced by flagging existing scans rather than by observing a genuinely shortened schedule, and the sMV flagged run keeps a small initialization segment from the original sequence; the text should more clearly distinguish these simulated overhead reductions from ones demonstrated by actual scheduling.
  3. [Section 3, Gaia comparison] The Gaia comparison is described only briefly; the manuscript should state whether a known systematic VLBI–Gaia frame offset is expected and how the ~140 µas discrepancy between MultiView and the Gaia prediction is interpreted relative to the claimed sub-10 µas accuracy.
  4. [Appendix B] The analytical derivation in Appendix B assumes all calibrators are collinear, while the actual observation uses a two-dimensional calibrator arrangement; the text should note that the equations are illustrative of the reference-point mechanism rather than a full 2D error propagation.
  5. [Section 4.1; Table 1] There are minor typographical issues, including a double period after "future work" in Section 4.1 and the column header "Sunres" in Table 1, which should be written as "S_unres" or defined in the note.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: sMV is independently implemented and benchmarked against an externally published cMV method plus Gaia, so the central claim is not equivalent to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The sMV method is not fitted to the benchmark result: it is a recursive phase-plane rotation estimator built from calibrator residual-phase time series, and its astrometric output is then compared with cMV and with a Gaia DR3 short-term motion prediction. The paper explicitly adopts cMV as the reference ('the position offset of cMV between two epochs is considered to be the true value of stellar motion'), and cMV is from prior work by co-authors (Rioja et al. 2017), but that work is an independently published, externally applied VLBI astrometry method, so this is not an unverified self-citation used to force the conclusion. The Appendix B analysis of 'reference point differences' is a genuine mathematical distinction between a plane constrained through the origin (sMV) and an unconstrained plane (cMV); it is not a renaming of the target result. The Gaia comparison provides additional external grounding, though only at the roughly 140 microarcsecond level. The main quantitative weakness is that the '<10 microarcsecond error' claim is derived from a -9 +/- 42 microarcsecond difference (sMV offset 452 +/- 31.0 versus cMV offset 461 +/- 28.7 microarcseconds), which is statistically under-supported; that is an evidence and rigor concern, not a circularity concern. No load-bearing step reduces to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no derivation is equivalent by construction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes a calibration algorithm, not a derived constant. Its load-bearing content is the anchored rotating-plane model, the 2*pi-step phase-wrap assumption, and the cMV-as-truth validation benchmark. The main unspecified inputs are the phase-wrap search and smoothing hyperparameters.

free parameters (4)
  • Loss function weight w
    In Eq. (2), floss = w * gamma_tot + (1-w) * psi; w balances short-term stability against long-term trend consistency in phase-wrap selection. The paper calls it adjustable but does not report the value used.
  • Tree search depth n
    The ternary tree recursion has O(3^n) complexity; the maximum depth controls lookahead for phase-wrap decisions. The paper says the depth should not be too large but gives no concrete value.
  • Pruning thresholds (max plane inclination, max rotational angular velocity)
    Section 2.2 uses these thresholds during tree creation to distinguish outliers from phase wraps and to prune branches. The values are not given, so exact reproduction requires inspecting the code.
  • Kalman smoothing factor and low-pass filter window
    Section 2.3 applies a Kalman filter during iteration and a time-weighted moving average afterward. The smoothing factors are described qualitatively as small and are not quantified, yet they affect the final phase corrections.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Euler-Rodrigues formula correctly describes incremental plane rotations.
    Used in Eq. (1) for rotating the phase-plane normal vector; this is a standard vector rotation identity with cited sources.
  • domain assumption Residual atmospheric spatial structure can be approximated as a plane over a few degrees around the target.
    Section 2 states the plane approximation; this is the fundamental model of MultiView and is inherited by sMV. Non-planar structure is a known source of residual error.
  • domain assumption The phase plane must pass through the primary calibrator, and the primary calibrator position is accurate enough to serve as the origin.
    Section 2.1 fixes the primary calibrator at (0,0,0); Appendix B shows this constrained fit (z=ax+by) differs from cMV's free fit (z=ax+by+c) and can produce a constant reference-point offset.
  • domain assumption Residual phase changes between consecutive scans do not exceed 2*pi.
    Section 2.2 assumes no residual phase change over plus or minus 2*pi between scans; if the atmosphere changes faster, the ambiguity search may not recover the correct wrap.
  • domain assumption cMV is a reliable benchmark for estimating sMV random errors.
    Section 3 uses the cMV position offset between epochs as the 'true' stellar motion and subtracts it from sMV offsets. This assumes cMV random errors are negligible and that shared systematic errors do not dominate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Serial MultiView: an efficient approach to mitigating atmospheric spatial-structure errors for VLBI astrometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E5XO4SKC

@misc{pith2026250110978,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Serial MultiView: an efficient approach to mitigating atmospheric spatial-structure errors for VLBI astrometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E5XO4SKC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10978}
}
read the original abstract

Atmospheric propagation errors are a main constraint on the accuracy of Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) astrometry. For relative astrometry, differential techniques can mitigate these errors, but their effectiveness diminishes with decreasing elevation and increasing angular separations between target and calibrator, among others. The MultiView technique addresses atmospheric spatial-structure errors by observing multiple calibrators around the target and interpolating at the target position, thereby reducing atmospheric errors more effectively than phase-referencing with only one calibrator. The first MultiView realisation at 1.6GHz involved cyclically observing all calibrators and the target, fitting a phase plane from calibrator solutions in each cycle, and is a well-established technique. This implementation reduces on-target time and is constricted by the short atmospheric coherence time at high frequencies. We propose a new realisation, serial MultiView, which rotates the phase plane iteratively based on the time series of calibrator residual phases. This new strategy obviates the necessity of observing all calibrators within each cycle, thereby shortening the observing cycle and offering considerable potential at higher frequencies where the temporal structure is the dominant source of errors. Additionally, by incorporating time-domain information in the iterations, phase ambiguities can be accurately and automatically identified. We verify the astrometric accuracy of serial MultiView at 5GHz by comparing it to conventional MultiView, achieving <10uas error in RA direction, and show the calibration overhead can be reduced in both approaches. This approach enables efficient, high-accuracy differential astrometry and artifact-reduced imaging for astrophysical studies, and we provide a user-friendly tool for it.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10978 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of phase plane rotation. O is the original point (0, 0, 0) of the 3-dimensional space, and the gridlines denote the phase plane. n is the normal vector of the phase plane to be rotated. A is the point that the phase plane is going to pass through. A′ is the projection of A on the phase plane. k is the rotation axis, θ is the rotation angle, and n ′ is the normal vector after rotation. At the completion of … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Phase plane rotation iteration convergence. Notations are the same as those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Flowchart of the recursive function used for traversing the ternary tree of phase wrap solutions (post￾order traversal). “max depth” means the leaf node has been reached. the scan at the current step will be marked as an outlier. There is also a threshold when traversing the tree: the maximum allowable loss value. Leaf nodes with losses beyond the threshold will be discarded. If all subtrees of the root node return … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Flowchart of the recursive function used for creating the ternary tree of phase wrap solutions (pre￾order traversal). “Overlimit” means the pruning threshold is reached, while “max depth” means the leaf node has been reached. The threshold for outlier identification ne…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematic of a ternary tree with a depth n = 3. Red (dashed line) subtrees are pruned. Losses of leaf nodes calculated from Eq. (2) are listed below, and the green branch is chosen as the “best”, so “±0” (at depth n = 1) is selected as the phase wrap solution for this …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Original observing sequence and the flagged sequences. Gray cells are flagged to simulate a 1/3 sampling rate of secondary calibrators. Time length in seconds of each scan is shown in each cell. quickly. In the case of north-south baseline (BR-PT), both antennas had hi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Residual phases in radian of secondary calibrators and estimated phase corrections for the target (V1859 Ori). Phases are in radians. Left panels: baseline BR-PT; right panels: baseline HN-PT. Top panels: original sequences; middle panels: flagged sequences for sMV; bo…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Images of V1859 Ori in BZ087B1 calibrated with different techniques. cMV⋆ and sMV⋆ denote cMV and sMV with flagged sequence respectively. Image size is 128×128 with a cellsize of 0.5 mas. Contour levels are [−0.05, 0.05, 0.3, 0.55, 0.8] × peak flux density, in which th…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Images of V1859 Ori in BZ087B2 calibrated with different techniques. All notations are kept the same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 12 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]

    ϯH3YMA+DF UF; B7`Y l5 ik.< δ

    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]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  5. [5]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  6. [6]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  7. [7]

    J., & Conway , J

    Beasley , A. J., & Conway , J. E. 1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 82, Very Long Baseline Interferometry and the VLBA, ed. J. A. Zensus , P. J. Diamond , & P. J. Napier , 327

    work page 1995

  8. [8]

    Cantat-Gaudin , T., & Brandt , T. D. 2021, , 649, A124, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140807

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140807 2021

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    L., McKinnon , M., Ott , J., et al

    Carilli , C. L., McKinnon , M., Ott , J., et al. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1510.06438, 10.48550/arXiv.1510.06438

    2015 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Dai, J. S. 2015, Mechanism and Machine Theory, 92, 144, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2015.03.004

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    E., Hall , P

    Dewdney , P. E., Hall , P. J., Schilizzi , R. T., & Lazio , T. J. L. W. 2009, IEEE Proceedings, 97, 1482, 10.1109/JPROC.2009.2021005

    2009

  4. [12]

    T., Stappers , B

    Ding , H., Deller , A. T., Stappers , B. W., et al. 2023, , 519, 4982, 10.1093/mnras/stac3725

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    2024, , 691, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450967

    Ding , Y., Liao , S., Wu , Q., Qi , Z., & Tang , Z. 2024, , 691, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450967

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    2006, , 58, 777, 10.1093/pasj/58.4.777

    Doi , A., Fujisawa , K., Habe , A., et al. 2006, , 58, 777, 10.1093/pasj/58.4.777

    2006 doi

  7. [15]

    1776, Novi commentarii academiae scientiarum Petropolitanae, 208

    Euler, L. 1776, Novi commentarii academiae scientiarum Petropolitanae, 208

  8. [16]

    B., & Kopeikin , S

    Fomalont , E. B., & Kopeikin , S. 2002, in Proceedings of the 6th EVN Symposium, ed. E. Ros , R. W. Porcas , A. P. Lobanov , & J. A. Zensus , 53

    2002

  9. [17]

    B., & Kopeikin , S

    Fomalont , E. B., & Kopeikin , S. M. 2003, , 598, 704, 10.1086/378785

    2003 doi

  10. [18]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Greisen , E. W. 2003, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 285, Information Handling in Astronomy - Historical Vistas, ed. A. Heck , 109, 10.1007/0-306-48080-8_7

    2003 doi

  12. [20]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    Hunter , J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Reid , M

    Hyland , L. J., Reid , M. J., Ellingsen , S. P., et al. 2022, , 932, 52, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6d5b

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Reid , M

    Hyland , L. J., Reid , M. J., Orosz , G., et al. 2023, , 953, 21, 10.3847/1538-4357/acdbc5

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Reynolds , C., & Cotton , B

    Kettenis , M., van Langevelde , H. J., Reynolds , C., & Cotton , B. 2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 351, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV, ed. C. Gabriel , C. Arviset , D. Ponz , & S. Enrique , 497

    2006

  17. [25]

    F., Rogers , A

    Lestrade , J. F., Rogers , A. E. E., Whitney , A. R., et al. 1990, , 99, 1663, 10.1086/115447

    1990 doi

  18. [26]

    Y., & Kovalev , Y

    Petrov , L. Y., & Kovalev , Y. Y. 2025, , 276, 38, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad8c36

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    Reid , M. J. 2022, , 134, 123001, 10.1088/1538-3873/acabe6

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Menten , K

    Reid , M. J., Menten , K. M., Brunthaler , A., et al. 2009, , 693, 397, 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/397

    2009 doi

  21. [29]

    J., & Dodson , R

    Rioja , M. J., & Dodson , R. 2020, , 28, 6, 10.1007/s00159-020-00126-z

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    J., Dodson , R., Orosz , G., Imai , H., & Frey , S

    Rioja , M. J., Dodson , R., Orosz , G., Imai , H., & Frey , S. 2017, , 153, 105, 10.3847/1538-3881/153/3/105

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    J., Porcas , R

    Rioja , M. J., Porcas , R. W., Desmurs , J. F., et al. 2002, in Proceedings of the 6th EVN Symposium, ed. E. Ros , R. W. Porcas , A. P. Lobanov , & J. A. Zensus , 57, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0207210

    2002 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    J., Stevens , E., Gurvits , L., et al

    Rioja , M. J., Stevens , E., Gurvits , L., et al. 1997, Vistas in Astronomy, 41, 213, 10.1016/S0083-6656(97)00008-1

    1997 doi

  25. [33]

    1840, Journal de Math\'ematiques Pures et Appliqu\'ees, 1e s \'e rie, 5, 380

    Rodrigues, O. 1840, Journal de Math\'ematiques Pures et Appliqu\'ees, 1e s \'e rie, 5, 380. http://www.numdam.org/item/JMPA_1840_1_5__380_0/

  26. [34]

    2024, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas , v2.2.3, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    The pandas development Team . 2024, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas , v2.2.3, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    E., et al

    Virtanen , P., Gommers , R., Oliphant , T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    2000, , 143, 9, 10.1051/aas:2000332

    Wenger , M., Ochsenbein , F., Egret , D., et al. 2000, , 143, 9, 10.1051/aas:2000332

    2000 doi

  29. [37]

    2025, FrdCHK/serial-MultiView: First release, v1.0.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.15030432

    Zhang, J. 2025, FrdCHK/serial-MultiView: First release, v1.0.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.15030432

    2025 doi

  30. [38]

    2024, , 529, 2062, 10.1093/mnras/stae705

    Zhang , J., Zhang , B., Xu , S., et al. 2024, , 529, 2062, 10.1093/mnras/stae705

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.