Altitude Estimation of Radio Frequency Interference Sources via Interferometric Near Field Corrections

Jade M. Ducharme; Jonathan C. Pober

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 23 references

Altitude Estimation of Radio Frequency Interference Sources via Interferometric Near Field Corrections

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that an RFI-emitting object crossing an interferometer's field of view can be brought into focus with near-field corrections, yielding an altitude of 11.7 km and a speed of 792 km/h that identify it as an airplane.

desk verdict Useful, honest, bounded extension of Prabu et al. that trades iterative imaging for a beamforming sweep; the airplane claim is plausible but not yet nailed down because the coordinate anchor is unvalidated. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08867 v1 pith:5UR34YMI submitted 2025-02-13 astro-ph.IM

Jade M. Ducharme , Jonathan C. Pober This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.IM

keywords instrumentation:interferometersmethods:dataanalysisradio-frequencyinterferencenear-fieldcorrectionsbeamformingMurchisonWidefieldArrayairplanedetectionEpochofReionization

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

The paper aims to turn radio-frequency interference from a nuisance into a measurable signal. By phasing an interferometer for a source at a finite distance rather than at infinity, a reflecting object can be brought into focus, and the distance that maximizes the beamformed intensity estimates its altitude. Applied to a two-minute Murchison Widefield Array observation, the method gives $11.7 \pm 0.1$ km altitude and $792 \pm 1$ km/h speed for an unknown object, which the authors identify as an airplane; two further observations also yield airplane-like altitudes and speeds. The authors claim this is the first definitive detection and localization of an airplane in MWA data, and argue that such localization could replace crude RFI flagging with subtraction or peeling, preserving more of the data needed for Epoch of Reionization science.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the near-field phase correction: for an assumed focal distance $f$, the geometric delay to each antenna is computed from spherical geometry, and the difference between this near-field delay and the far-field delay is applied as a per-baseline phase. Beamforming then averages all corrected visibilities into a single scalar, and the assumed $f$ that maximizes this scalar is the estimated distance to the emitter. This replaces the earlier iterative imaging-plus-SNR maximization with a one-dimensional scan, making the localization orders of magnitude faster while keeping a similar accuracy.

What would settle it

Run the same focal-distance scan on an object whose range is independently known, such as an aircraft with an ADS-B flight track or a satellite with a precise ephemeris, and compare the beamformed peak distance with the true range; a systematic mismatch would show the peak is not a faithful distance estimator. A simpler check is to scan a bright far-field calibrator: a spurious finite-distance peak would indicate the maximization is responding to sidelobe structure rather than true focus.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the distance to a near-field RFI emitter can be read off from the focal distance at which the beamformed visibility is maximized. A source close to the array produces spherical wavefronts, so each baseline sees a distance-dependent excess delay over the plane-wave assumption; correcting for that delay at a trial focal distance brings the source into coherence exactly when the trial distance matches the true distance. The paper applies far-field phasing to the object's coordinates, applies per-baseline near-field phase corrections, and averages all visibilities, so no image cube is needed at each trial distance. Repeating the scan over time yields an altitude track, and combining angular displacement with altitude gives a speed; for the target observation the result, $11.7 \pm 0.1$ km and $792 \pm 1$ km/h, matches an airplane's cruising altitude and speed.

Load-bearing premise

The estimate assumes that the focal distance giving the highest beamformed intensity equals the true distance to a point-like reflector whose sky coordinates come from far-field imaging; if the reflector is extended or the coordinates are biased, the altitude and speed carry a systematic error the paper does not quantify.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

RFI from airplanes could be subtracted or peeled from the visibilities rather than flagged, preserving time-frequency channels that would otherwise be discarded from Epoch of Reionization analyses.
The technique is not restricted to the target observation: two additional MWA observations yield airplane-like altitudes of 11.73 km and 13.9 km and speeds of 1050 km/h and 1360 km/h, showing repeatability across array configurations.
The method's precision is limited more by array configuration and time resolution than by the focal-distance search; for shorter baselines the far-field assumption is valid to closer distances, and 2-second integrations smear fast airplanes into non-point-like images.
The airplane identification, the authors state, is the first definitive detection and localization of an airplane in MWA data, establishing that aircraft-reflected RFI can be identified rather than merely flagged.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct accuracy test would run the same focal-distance scan on a source with an independently known range, such as a calibration drone or a satellite with a precise ephemeris, separating the method's precision from its accuracy; the paper only reports precision from the standard error of the mean.
If the beamformed peak is a faithful distance estimator, the approach could be extended to fainter RFI that escapes current flagging, provided faint-source coordinates can be obtained; the paper explicitly leaves that generalization to future work.
The same scan could be used opportunistically to monitor aircraft over radio-quiet zones from existing telescope data, since the cited study finds aircraft above the MRO horizon at least 13% of the time.
Because the focal scan reduces localization to maximizing a single scalar, replacing the imaging-based coordinate fitting with a joint position-and-distance search could make near-real-time RFI tracking feasible on modest computing hardware.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my read. The genuinely new piece is replacing Prabu et al.'s iterative imaging with a beamforming sweep over focal distance, which is orders of magnitude cheaper, and applying it to airplane reflections in MWA data. That is a real, bounded extension, and the paper is upfront that it's a preliminary demonstration. The geometry in Eqs. (1)-(3) is transparent, the method section is readable, and the authors explicitly say the quoted error bars are standard errors of the mean, not systematics. They also admit they could not find the flight in historical airspace data and that the third observation is much weaker. That honesty earns credit.

The soft spots are real but not disqualifying for a first demonstration. The main one is that the focus-distance maximum is trusted as the true distance, and the near-field corrections are anchored to RA/Dec coordinates from WSClean component fitting. As the paper itself explains, a near-field source appears smeared in far-field images, so WSClean returns a brightness-weighted centroid of that smear. Nothing in the paper shows that centroid equals the geometric direction to the source. If the centroid is biased, the altitude and speed inherit a systematic error that the reported uncertainties don't cover. The speed check is then not independent confirmation, because speed is derived from angular displacement times the estimated slant distance. The two validation observations were chosen for visual similarity to the target, so they don't break the circularity. The satellite alternative the stress-test raises is less worrying because the estimated altitude is 11.7 km, but that only holds if the focus maximum is unbiased.

That said, the method is plausible, the paper says the right things about its own limitations, and the weakness is an unvalidated coordinate step rather than an internal contradiction. I'd send it to a good referee, with the expectation that the referee asks for an external validation or a simulation-based test of the coordinate bias. It deserves referee time; it doesn't deserve acceptance as is.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents a method for estimating the altitude and velocity of near-field radio-frequency interference (RFI) emitters in Murchison Widefield Array (MWA) data by combining far-field phasing, geometric near-field corrections following Prabu et al. (2023), and beamforming. For a two-minute 2013 Phase I observation, the authors identify 59 time-steps containing a bright RFI source, obtain its RA/Dec at each time-step via WSClean component fitting, and then scan a focal-distance parameter, beamforming at each distance to find the maximum intensity. They report an average altitude of 11.7 ± 0.1 km and speed of 792 ± 1 km/h, conclude that the source is an airplane, and apply the technique to two further observations (reported altitudes 11.73 km and 13.9 km; speeds 1050 and 1360 km/h), claiming consistent airplane identification and the first definitive airplane detection and localization in MWA data. The manuscript is explicitly framed as a preliminary study: the authors state that no detailed quantitative assessment is provided, that flight-track validation was unsuccessful, and that the reported errors exclude coordinate, calibration, and beamforming systematics.

Significance. The geometric framework is transparent: the near-field delay corrections (Eqs. 1-3) are explicit, the focal-distance maximization is a clean estimation procedure, and replacing per-distance imaging with beamforming is a genuine computational simplification relative to the imaging-based approach of Prabu et al. (2023). The paper is also admirably candid about its limitations, including the failure to locate the flight, the exclusion of coordinate and beamforming errors from the quoted uncertainties, and the poor performance of the third observation. If the focal-distance maximum can be shown to be an unbiased altitude estimator, the method would be a useful step toward RFI peeling and toward preserving larger fractions of EoR data. The significance is moderate, however: the central quantity (altitude) is never checked against ground truth, the two consistency checks in Section 4 are not independent because the speed is derived from the measured angular rate times the estimated altitude, and the 'definitive detection' claim is stronger than the evidence presented.

major comments (4)

[§3.1, §2.3] The altitude estimate rests on the assumption that the focal distance maximizing beamformed intensity equals the true source distance, and this step inherits a coordinate bias that is neither quantified nor bounded. Section 2.3 states that a near-field source is smeared in far-field images, with different baselines placing it at different angular positions, yet the RA/Dec coordinates used in Eq. (1) come from far-field WSClean component fitting (Section 3). The paper does not demonstrate that the fitted component position equals the geometric direction to the emitter; a brightness-weighted centroid of the smear could differ from it. Any such bias propagates through Eqs. (1)-(3) directly into the fitted focal distance, the altitude, and the derived speed, and Section 4 explicitly excludes this channel from the error budget. A focused test, such as injecting a point-like near-field source at known position and distance into the visibilities and recovering both coordinates and distance, would establish whether the estimator is unbiased; without it, the reported numbers rest on an unverified assumption.
[§4, Eq. (4)] The quoted uncertainties (11.7 ± 0.1 km, 792 ± 1 km/h) are standard errors of the mean across time-steps and therefore measure run-to-run scatter, not accuracy; the paper acknowledges this but still uses these values to support the airplane conclusion. Because the speed is obtained from the angular displacement times the estimated slant distance, the altitude and speed checks in Section 4 are not independent: at the measured angular rate, any altitude bias scales directly into the speed. The agreement of 11.7 km and 792 km/h with typical airplane operating ranges is therefore internal consistency of one derived quantity, not two independent confirmations, and it cannot sustain the abstract's 'confidently conclude' unless the focal-distance estimator's accuracy is independently established.
[§4.1, Table 1] The purported validation observations do not satisfy the paper's own classification criteria. For OBSID 1252945816 the reported altitude (13.9 ± 0.9 km) lies above the 9.4-11.6 km cruising-altitude range quoted in Section 4, and the speed (1360 ± 30 km/h) is transonic to supersonic at that altitude and far above typical civil cruise speeds. The truncation threshold reported for this observation (0.45 σ below the maximum, Section 4.1) indicates a weak intensity peak, and the paper concedes that this observation 'performs significantly worse' than the others, yet it is still counted as an airplane identification and as part of the claim that airplanes are 'consistently' identified. Additionally, the two supporting observations were selected for visual similarity to the target's RFI signature after manual inspection, so the validation is not blind; this should be stated explicitly and the third observation's identification should either be explained or excluded from the consistency claim.
[§5, Abstract] The claim of 'the first definitive detection and localization of an airplane in MWA data' is not supported by the evidence presented. No independent validation is provided: the paper reports that flight-track lookup failed, and no ADS-B, radar, orbital, or other corroborating data are used. Alternative near-field emitters are not quantitatively excluded; for example, the measured angular rate (~1 deg/s) is also consistent with a low-Earth-orbit satellite at a much larger distance with a much higher physical speed, and the near-field curvature of such a satellite over MWA Phase I baselines is non-negligible. The introduction itself disclaims a 'detailed quantitative assessment,' which sits in tension with the abstract's confident classification. The claims should be reframed as a proof-of-concept demonstration with a stated accuracy requirement, or the manuscript should be strengthened with external validation (e.g., a known satellite pass or an aircraft track with independent position data).

minor comments (7)

[§3 (Eq. 4)] Equation (4) prints 'SE = σ√n'; the standard error of the mean should be σ/√n.
[§2.3 (Eq. 3)] The term w_far-field,i,j is used in the definition of Δw_{i,j} but is never defined in the text; define it explicitly, and rewrite 'expi2π' as exp(2πi Δw/λ) for clarity.
[§4.1, Fig. 4] The text refers to 'the third observation from the left' and 'all three observations,' but the Figure 4 panels are not labeled with OBSIDs; label the panels so the discussion is unambiguous.
[§4] The measured target altitude of 11.7 km sits marginally above the quoted airplane cruising range of 9.4-11.6 km; clarify whether the values are above sea level or above ground level and note whether this offset is attributable to the unquantified systematics.
[§3, Fig. 1 caption] There is a typo in the Figure 1 caption ('where the the object is successfully imaged'), and the paragraph at the start of Section 3 begins with a stray 's' ('sThe data used in our preliminary study...').
[§3.1] For reproducibility, state the focal-distance search range and grid spacing used in the beamforming scan, as well as the number of focal distances evaluated per time-step.
[§1 (Introduction)] The disclaimer that 'This research does not provide a detailed quantitative assessment' should be reconciled with the abstract's 'confidently conclude that the object in question is in fact an airplane'; the current framing makes the paper's evidentiary standard unclear.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the altitude and speed estimates come from an explicit focal-distance maximization over the data, and the airplane classification is an external comparison, not an input to the derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central estimate is obtained by an empirical search: for each time step, the authors apply near-field corrections parameterized by a focal distance f (Eqs. 1–3), beamform, and record the f that maximizes the beamformed intensity. The reported altitude is then a geometric vertical projection of that f, and the speed is computed from angular displacement multiplied by the slant distance. Nothing in this chain fixes f using the final claimed altitude or speed; the maximum is selected from the data alone. The identification of the beamforming maximum with the true focal distance is an inferential assumption, not a self-definition: f is a free parameter of the model, and the maximization is a standard estimation procedure. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the quoted uncertainties are only standard errors across time steps and do not include WSClean coordinate errors or beamforming errors, which is a soundness/accuracy limitation rather than a circular step. The classification as an airplane uses external ranges for cruising altitude and speed (Sforza 2014) after the estimates are produced, so those external benchmarks are not used to derive the measured quantities. The near-field correction framework is cited from Prabu et al. (2023), but that work is not by the present authors; moreover, the present paper implements the corrections directly with pyuvdata and WSClean. There is no load-bearing self-citation, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no definitional equivalence between the inputs and the outputs. The main weaknesses of the paper are lack of external ground-truth validation and unquantified systematic errors in the WSClean coordinates, both of which are correctness risks, not circularity.

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

The central estimate rests on a fitted focal distance (altitude) per time-step, on coordinates extracted by WSClean, and on the physical assumptions of a point-like near-field reflector and coherent beamforming. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

Focal distance (altitude) per time-step = 11.7 ± 0.1 km average for OBSID 1061313128; 11.73 ± 0.05 km and 13.9 ± 0.9 km for other observations
The altitude is the focal distance that maximizes the beamformed intensity; it is a fitted quantity with no external verification.
Visualization threshold values = 2.5, 2.0, and 0.45 standard deviations below maximum
Chosen by trial-and-error to highlight features in Figure 4; not part of the altitude estimate but used in presentation.
RA/Dec coordinates of the RFI emitter = Determined per time-step by WSClean component fitting
These coordinates are inputs to the far-field phasing and are extracted from the same data without independent calibration, so errors propagate into the altitude estimate.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The RFI emitter can be modeled as a point source located at a single focal distance in the near field
Section 2.3 assumes spherical wavefronts from a point-like reflector; real aircraft have finite extent and a complex reflection geometry.
domain assumption WSClean component fitting returns unbiased right ascension and declination for the RFI source
Section 3 states these coordinates are obtained by imaging each time-step; no uncertainty is quantified for these fits.
domain assumption The focal distance that maximizes beamformed intensity equals the true line-of-sight distance to the emitter
Section 3.1 uses the intensity maximum as the altitude estimate; this inference is plausible but not independently demonstrated.
domain assumption Calibration and sky subtraction do not introduce spurious flux at the RFI position
Section 3 uses MWA-Hyperdrive calibration and removes 8000 background sources; residual calibration errors could bias component fitting.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Altitude Estimation of Radio Frequency Interference Sources via Interferometric Near Field Corrections." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5UR34YMI

@misc{pith2026250208867,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Altitude Estimation of Radio Frequency Interference Sources via Interferometric Near Field Corrections},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5UR34YMI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08867}
}

abstract

Radio-frequency interference (RFI) presents a significant obstacle to current radio interferometry experiments aimed at the Epoch of Reionization. RFI contamination is often several orders of magnitude brighter than the astrophysical signals of interest, necessitating highly precise identification and flagging. Although existing RFI flagging tools have achieved some success, the pervasive nature of this contamination leads to the rejection of excessive data volumes. In this work, we present a way to estimate an RFI emitter's altitude using near-field corrections. Being able to obtain the precise location of such an emitter could shift the strategy from merely flagging to subtracting or peeling the RFI, allowing us to preserve a higher fraction of usable data. We conduct a preliminary study using a two-minute observation from the Murchison-Widefield Array (MWA) in which an unknown object briefly crosses the field of view, reflecting RFI signals into the array. By applying near-field corrections that bring the object into focus, we are able to estimate its approximate altitude and speed to be $11.7$ km and $792$ km/h, respectively. This allows us to confidently conclude that the object in question is in fact an airplane. We further validate our technique through the analysis of two additional RFI-containing MWA observations, where we are consistently able to identify airplanes as the source of the interference.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08867 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Single-baseline, two-dimensional time vs. frequency waterfall plot for our target observation. We can visually identify the RFI region contained between frequencies of 181.5 MHz to 187.5 MHz, and times between 35 seconds and 50 seconds; however, extending the selected time range has revealed that the RFI is still visible in image-space for time-steps that appear contamination-free in the waterfall plot. This is made… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** (Left) Image output by WSClean for our target observation at an arbitrarily chosen time-step. (Right) Source list coordinates returned by WSClean for the same time-step. The dot sizes are proportional to the intensity of the source as measured by WSClean. We note that the RFI emitter is significantly brighter than all other recorded sources, and remains so for all time-steps of interest not pictured here. chosen sin… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** (Top left) The average (beamformed) visibility for a range of different focal distances. The maximum intensity occurs at the optimal focal distance corresponding to our best guess to the airplane’s actual location. (Top right) WSClean’s image output, where the airplane can clearly be seen. (Bottom left) The measured altitude as a function of time, where t = 0 corresponds to the first time-step of interest for this o… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Standardized beamformed intensities per time-step and focal distance for all three observations. Note that all plots are on a logarithmic color scale. Lower-end values were truncated to help highlight prominent features and provide a smooth color scale transition. High…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

R., Parsons, A

DeBoer, D. R., Parsons, A. R., Aguirre, J. E., et al. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 129, 045001 Di Vruno, F., Winkel, B., Bassa, C. G., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A75

work page 2017
[2]

A., Kunz, M., & Oozeer, N

Finlay, C., Bassett, B. A., Kunz, M., & Oozeer, N. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 3231–3251

work page 2023
[3]

R., Peng Oh, S., & Briggs, F

Furlanetto, S. R., Peng Oh, S., & Briggs, F. H. 2006, Physics Reports, 433, 181–301

work page 2006
[4]

J., Sokolowski, M., et al

Grigg, D., Tingay, S. J., Sokolowski, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, L6

2023
[5]

J., Jacobs, D

Hazelton, B. J., Jacobs, D. C., Pober, J. C., & Beardsley, A. P. 2017, The Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 140

work page 2017
[6]

Liu, A., & Shaw, J. R. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 132, 062001

work page 2020
[7]

R., Galvin, T

Lynch, C. R., Galvin, T. J., Line, J. L. B., et al. 2021, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 38, doi:10.1017/pasa.2021.50

doi:10.1017/pasa.2021.50 2021
[8]

M., Snell, R

Marr, J. M., Snell, R. L., & Kurtz, S. E. 2015, Fundamentals of Radio Astron- omy: Observational Methods, 1st edn. (CRC Press), doi:10.1201/b20506

work page doi:10.1201/b20506 2015

Show all 23 references

[9]

F., & Wyithe, J

Morales, M. F., & Wyithe, J. S. B. 2010, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 48, 127–171

2010
[10]

D., Null, D., Trott, C

Nunhokee, C. D., Null, D., Trott, C. M., et al. 2024, Strategy for mitigation of systematics for EoR experiments with the Murchison Widefield Array, arXiv:2409.03232

2024 arXiv
[11]

R., McKinley, B., Hurley-Walker, et al

Offringa, A. R., McKinley, B., Hurley-Walker, et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 606

2014
[12]

R., & Smirnov, O

Offringa, A. R., & Smirnov, O. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 301

2017
[13]

R., Wayth, R

Offringa, A. R., Wayth, R. B., Hurley-Walker, N., et al. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 32, e008

2015
[14]

2022, Advances in Space Research, 70, 812–824

Prabu, S., Hancock, P., Zhang, X., et al. 2022, Advances in Space Research, 70, 812–824

2022
[15]

2023, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 40, 1

Prabu, S., Tingay, S., & Williams, A. 2023, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 40, 1

2023
[16]

2014, in Commercial Airplane Design Principles, ed

Sforza, P. 2014, in Commercial Airplane Design Principles, ed. P. Sforza (Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann), 47–79

2014
[17]

H., Sleap, G., et al

Sokolowski, M., Jordan, C. H., Sleap, G., et al. 2020, PASA, 37, e021

2020
[18]

R., Moran, J

Thompson, A. R., Moran, J. M., & Swenson, G. W. J. 2001, Interferometry and Synthesis in Radio Astronomy (Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA), 59–61

2001
[19]

J., Sokolowski, M., Wayth, R., & Ung, D

Tingay, S. J., Sokolowski, M., Wayth, R., & Ung, D. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 37, doi:10.1017/pasa.2020.32

2020 doi
[20]

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
[21]

B., Tingay, S

Wayth, R. B., Tingay, S. J., Trott, C. M., et al. 2018, PASA, 35, e033

2018
[22]

J., Barry, N., Morales, M

Wilensky, M. J., Barry, N., Morales, M. F., Hazelton, B. J., & Byrne, R. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 265

2020
[23]

J., Morales, M

Wilensky, M. J., Morales, M. F., Hazelton, B. J., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 114507 —. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, 78

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

R., Parsons, A

DeBoer, D. R., Parsons, A. R., Aguirre, J. E., et al. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 129, 045001 Di Vruno, F., Winkel, B., Bassa, C. G., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A75

work page 2017

[2] [2]

A., Kunz, M., & Oozeer, N

Finlay, C., Bassett, B. A., Kunz, M., & Oozeer, N. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 3231–3251

work page 2023

[3] [3]

R., Peng Oh, S., & Briggs, F

Furlanetto, S. R., Peng Oh, S., & Briggs, F. H. 2006, Physics Reports, 433, 181–301

work page 2006

[4] [4]

J., Sokolowski, M., et al

Grigg, D., Tingay, S. J., Sokolowski, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, L6

2023

[5] [5]

J., Jacobs, D

Hazelton, B. J., Jacobs, D. C., Pober, J. C., & Beardsley, A. P. 2017, The Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 140

work page 2017

[6] [6]

Liu, A., & Shaw, J. R. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 132, 062001

work page 2020

[7] [7]

R., Galvin, T

Lynch, C. R., Galvin, T. J., Line, J. L. B., et al. 2021, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 38, doi:10.1017/pasa.2021.50

doi:10.1017/pasa.2021.50 2021

[8] [8]

M., Snell, R

Marr, J. M., Snell, R. L., & Kurtz, S. E. 2015, Fundamentals of Radio Astron- omy: Observational Methods, 1st edn. (CRC Press), doi:10.1201/b20506

work page doi:10.1201/b20506 2015