Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 75 references

Deep learning inference with the Event Horizon Telescope I. Calibration improvements and a comprehensive synthetic data library

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 By emulating the full EHT signal path, 962,000 synthetic datasets make black hole parameter inference a tractable machine-learning problem.

desk verdict A solid, carefully documented methods and data-release paper; the headline claims are mostly fair, with the main caveat that the synthetic library omits ALMA gain errors, which could bias downstream inference but is disclosed and addressable. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13873 v1 pith:JFRLSRDO submitted 2025-06-16 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HEphysics.comp-ph

M. Janssen , C.-k. Chan , J. Davelaar , I. Natarajan , H. Olivares , B. Ripperda , J. Röder , M. Rynge
show 1 more author
M. Wielgus
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.HEphysics.comp-ph
keywords syntheticdatalibraryEventHorizonTelescopeverylongbaselineinterferometryGRMHDsimulationsgeneralrelativisticraytracingblackholeparameterinferencecalibrationBayesianneuralnetwork
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 builds the training foundation for using deep learning to turn Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) observations into measurements of black hole properties. It claims to have produced a library of 962,000 synthetic datasets for Sgr A* and M87*, each generated by taking simulated black hole images and pushing them through a detailed emulation of the EHT signal path, including atmospheric turbulence, telescope gain errors, polarization leakage, and the calibration process itself. It also claims that upgrades to the calibration pipeline yield real EHT data of considerably better quality than previous reductions, with more fringe detections across the array. If these claims hold, a neural network trained on the library can recover parameters such as black hole spin, magnetic flux state, electron temperature ratio, and inclination directly from real EHT visibilities, with intrinsic model variability rather than data quality becoming the main obstacle.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the end-to-end forward-modeling chain. GRMHD simulations of the accretion flow are ray-traced in all Stokes parameters, then the forward-modeling pipeline, calibrated to per-antenna parameters, injects interstellar scattering, antenna pointing errors, tropospheric phase turbulence with a Kolmogorov power law, thermal noise, D-term polarization leakage, and static gain errors; finally the same calibration pipeline used for real data (which gains sensitivity by combining frequency bands and polarization channels) is applied to the corrupted visibilities. The result is that synthetic and real data share the same corruption and calibration statistics, so the synthetic visibilities can be compared directly with observed ones.

What would settle it

Measure ALMA's absolute gain errors on the 2017 EHT tracks by comparing ALMA's measured flux of Sgr A* against independent total-flux monitoring at the same epoch; if the errors exceed the few-percent level assumed here, a network trained on this library, which used uncorrupted model fluxes for network calibration, will be miscalibrated in amplitude on real data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a forward-modeled synthetic data library can be made realistic enough to serve as training data for machine-learning-based inference from EHT observations. From a broad parameter space of GRMHD-GRRT models, including Kerr, Kerr-Newman, and dilaton spacetimes, the authors generated 962,000 synthetic visibility datasets that match the baseline coverage and noise properties of the 2017 EHT observations of Sgr A* and M87*, as well as future arrays. The key validation is at the level of data products: closure phases, which are robust to calibration errors, preserve ground-truth model differences, while polarization amplitudes are dominated by simulated corruption effects such as gain errors and D-terms. The paper further claims that the updated calibration, which combines all polarization channels over the full bandwidth before fringe fitting, improves fringe sensitivity by about 10 percent and recovers detections that previous reductions missed, so the real data products are also cleaner.

Load-bearing premise

The entire enterprise rests on the assumption that the simulation of telescope corruption, especially the treatment of ALMA's calibration errors as negligible, matches how the real EHT actually corrupts the signal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A Bayesian neural network trained on the library should recover GRMHD-GRRT parameters (spin, magnetic flux state, electron temperature ratio, inclination) from real EHT observations, as demonstrated in the follow-up papers.
  • Corruption-insensitive products are identified: closure phases and total-intensity visibility minima are reliable discriminators, while polarization amplitudes should be downweighted in inference.
  • Intrinsic model variability, not thermal noise, sets the ultimate limit on single-epoch parameter inference, making long-term monitoring of M87* and Sgr A* a scientific requirement.
  • Planned array extensions such as the Africa Millimeter Telescope or the next-generation EHT will tighten parameter constraints, and the library already contains datasets with those configurations.
  • The upgraded calibration pipeline, with its higher fringe-detection counts at a given signal-to-noise ratio, becomes the new reference reduction for EHT observations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same library could be repurposed as a benchmark for VLBI image reconstruction, since every synthetic dataset has a known ground-truth movie that a reconstruction can be compared against.
  • The forward-modeling recipe transfers to other millimeter-VLBI targets; the same pipeline could generate libraries for a future global array without re-deriving the corruption model.
  • A cheap test of the calibration improvements: inject known gain errors into real data and verify that the new pipeline's closure phases are unchanged while amplitude-based products shift as expected.
  • The paper's case studies imply a quantitative prediction: over multi-year monitoring, SANE and MAD accretion states should separate in closure-phase variability statistics, even where single triangles lack discriminative power.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper (Series I) presents both an updated EHT calibration pathway and a large synthetic data library for Sgr A* and M87*. The calibration update combines parallel-hand correlation products and full bandwidth in fringe fitting and applies frequency-resolved system temperatures before fringe fitting, yielding more detections at intermediate S/N. The library contains 962,000 synthetic datasets built from Kerr, Kerr-Newman, and dilaton GRMHD-GRRT models, with forward modeling through Symba/MeqSilhouette/Rpicard that includes atmospheric turbulence, pointing errors, thermal noise, polarization leakage, scattering, and gain errors. The paper argues that the synthetic data match 2017 EHT baseline coverage and noise properties and can support Bayesian neural-network parameter inference in companion papers.

Significance. If its realism assumptions hold, the library is a valuable community resource: its scale and parameter coverage are unprecedented for EHT model comparison; the workflow is containerized and run on grid infrastructure; and the paper identifies concrete, falsifiable feature predictions (e.g., the shift of the total-intensity visibility minimum for Kerr-Newman charge in Figure 5). The library's utility, however, hinges on the corruption model matching real EHT systematics, and two of the paper's positive claims—'realistic synthetic data' and 'considerably better quality'—are stronger than the evidence presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.9] The assumption that ALMA calibration errors are negligible for the network calibration is a load-bearing simplification for the library's realism. Section 2.2 assigns gain uncertainties of typically 1% relative plus static polarization-independent offsets at the ~10% level, and Section 4.9 states that the network-calibration technique uses ALMA and SMA total-flux measurements to set the absolute gain scale; as ALMA is the most sensitive station, its gain errors propagate into every calibrated visibility amplitude. The synthetic data, which 'used the uncorrupted model fluxes' for calibration, therefore have a narrower and incorrectly centered amplitude scatter relative to real data. A Bayesian neural network trained on this library can be expected to produce biased point estimates and undercovering posterior intervals when applied to real data unless the companion papers explicitly model this mismatch. The limitation is acknowledged, but the abstract's 'realistic synthetic data' claim and the library's fitness as a training distribution are not yet demonstrated under this assumption.
  2. [Section 2.3 / Figure 1] The claim that the newly reduced EHT datasets have 'considerably better quality' (Abstract) rests on Figure 1, which compares cumulative detection counts between reductions without any uncertainties or statistical test. The differences at signal-to-noise around 5 could be within Poisson counting noise or systematic choices in the detection threshold; no error bars, bootstrap, or independent validation metric (e.g., scatter in closure quantities, gain stability, or astrometric consistency) is presented. The authors should either add uncertainty estimates and a significance statement for the detection-count difference or temper the abstract and Section 7 to say 'more detections at some S/N' rather than 'considerably better quality.'
  3. [Section 4.6 / 4.9 / Appendix A] Beyond the ALMA gain issue, the corruption model assumes D-terms constant over entire tracks and frequency bands (Section 4.6) and ignores higher-order noise contributions such as spillover and the astronomical source contribution (Section 4.9). These simplifications are stated, but their quantitative impact on the synthetic data is not assessed. Appendix A validates synthetic data against ground-truth model visibilities, not against the statistical properties of real EHT data; a comparison of, e.g., the distribution of residual gains, closure-phase scatter, or visibility-amplitude scatter between synthetic and real data would be needed to support the claim that the library encompasses the noise properties of EHT observations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.8.1] The text says 'Each of the 14 models' but the preceding list contains 15 spin-charge combinations (2+3+3+3+3+1). If the intended number is 14, one entry is mislisted; if 15, the subsequent image count (16,632) should be 17,820 for 198 frames and six Rhigh values.
  2. [Section 4.9] The phrase 'amount of arimass toward the horizon' should read 'amount of airmass toward the horizon.'
  3. [Section 5] The sentence 'We have used the ... Symba Docker container to generate the synthetic date presented in this work' contains a typo: 'date' should be 'data.'
  4. [Figure 1] The y-axis label 'Baseline detections - f(ξ)' with f(ξ)=280 log(ξ)−305 is difficult to interpret; the caption should explain why counts are plotted minus this arbitrary function, or the raw cumulative counts with uncertainties should be shown.
  5. [Section 5] For a resource paper, providing permanent archival DOIs for the synthetic data (rather than 'access upon reasonable request') would better match the reproducibility emphasis of the workflow description.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the synthetic library is produced by an independent forward-modelling chain, and the disclosed scale fits and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central products are a 962,000-dataset synthetic library and an upgraded calibration pipeline. Neither reduces to its own input by construction. The GRMHD-GRRT images are generated from independent simulations, and the synthetic visibilities are obtained by passing those images through a forward-modelling chain (Symba, MeqSilhouette, Rpicard) with corruption parameters drawn from physically motivated priors (Tables 1 and 2). Section 3.7 discloses that the mass unit of the GRRT images is normalized so that the average flux matches the measured 0.5 Jy (M87*) and 2.4 Jy (Sgr A*) values; this is a fitted scale, but the paper does not present average flux as a prediction, and the visibility structure, closure phases, polarization, and variability are free predictions of the forward model. The data-quality claim is supported by Figure 1, which compares the new Rpicard reduction with the old casa and eht-hops reductions on detection counts, an empirical benchmark rather than a self-referential derivation. The many self-citations to Rpicard, Symba, and EHT pipeline papers are methodological references; the load-bearing steps are demonstrated in the paper itself. The explicit limitations in Section 4.9 (negligible ALMA calibration errors, uncorrupted model fluxes used in network calibration) and Section 4.6 (constant D-terms) are realism limitations for downstream application to real EHT data, not circular steps: they weaken the transfer of the training library to real observations but do not make the library's construction equivalent to its own inputs. Overall, the derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks, with only minor self-citation and disclosed fitted normalization, so the circularity score is 2 rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The library's usefulness rests on three pillars the paper does not independently verify: the GRMHD-GRRT models represent reality, the electron temperature closure is correct, and the corruption model is complete. All three are domain assumptions inherited from the EHT collaboration literature. The only quantity fitted to EHT data is the GRRT image mass normalization. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced; the Kerr-Newman and dilaton spacetimes are pre-existing solutions from the cited literature (Newman et al. 1965; Garcia et al. 1995).

free parameters (3)
  • GRRT mass normalization = Set so average model flux matches 0.5 Jy (M87*) and 2.4 Jy (Sgr A*)
    Section 3.7: the accretion flow mass is a free parameter matched to EHT-measured average fluxes; this scale enters every synthetic dataset and is fitted to observations, not predicted.
  • Dilaton parameter b* = 0.504
    Section 3.8.2: fixed by hand so the ISCO matches a Kerr black hole with a*=0.6; the choice affects all dilaton models in the library.
  • Corruption parameter draws (Prms, W, Tc, Gerr, D-terms) = Drawn from ranges in Table 2 (e.g., Gerr 3-8%, Prms 0.5-1.5 arcsec)
    Chosen per realization from ranges in Table 2; values are motivated by prior EHT measurements but are not derived from the data in this paper. They set the noise properties of every synthetic dataset.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption GRMHD simulations of SANE/MAD accretion flows faithfully represent the horizon-scale emission of Sgr A* and M87*
    Section 3.1-3.7: the entire library is built on this; the paper cites EHTC 2019e/2022f for model validity but presents no independent test.
  • domain assumption The electron temperature is set by the Moschibrodzka et al. (2016) prescription with Rlow=1 (Eq. 2)
    Section 3.5: electron temperature determines synchrotron emission; the prescription with fixed Rlow=1 is assumed.
  • domain assumption The forward-modeling chain (Symba, MeqSilhouette, Rpicard) captures the EHT signal path, and the corruption parameters in Table 2 are complete
    Section 4: the realism of the synthetic library depends on this; Section 4.9 explicitly ignores higher-order noise contributions and assumes ALMA calibration errors are negligible.
  • domain assumption M87* source variability is negligible on timescales below 2 tg
    Section 3.7: single GRRT frames are used for full 12-hour tracks; if false, M87* synthetic variability is underestimated.
  • domain assumption The large-scale jet orientation is aligned with the black hole spin axis for M87*
    Section 3.3: used to set the inclination (17 degrees or 163 degrees).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep learning inference with the Event Horizon Telescope I. Calibration improvements and a comprehensive synthetic data library." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JFRLSRDO

@misc{pith2026250613873,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep learning inference with the Event Horizon Telescope I. Calibration improvements and a comprehensive synthetic data library},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JFRLSRDO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13873}
}
read the original abstract

(abridged) In a series of publications, we describe a comprehensive comparison of Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) data with theoretical models of Sgr A* and M87*. Here, we report on improvements made to our observational data reduction pipeline and present the generation of observables derived from the EHT models. We make use of ray-traced GRMHD simulations that are based on different black hole spacetime metrics and accretion physics parameters. These broad classes of models provide a good representation of the primary targets observed by the EHT. To generate realistic synthetic data from our models, we took the signal path as well as the calibration process, and thereby the aforementioned improvements, into account. We could thus produce synthetic visibilities akin to calibrated EHT data and identify salient features for the discrimination of model parameters. We have produced a library consisting of an unparalleled 962,000 synthetic Sgr A* and M87* datasets. In terms of baseline coverage and noise properties, the library encompasses 2017 EHT measurements as well as future observations with an extended telescope array. We differentiate between robust visibility data products related to model features and data products that are strongly affected by data corruption effects. Parameter inference is mostly limited by intrinsic model variability, which highlights the importance of long-term monitoring observations with the EHT. In later papers in this series, we will show how a Bayesian neural network trained on our synthetic data is capable of dealing with the model variability and extracting physical parameters from EHT observations. With our calibration improvements, our newly reduced EHT datasets have a considerably better quality compared to previously analyzed data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13873 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the accumulative number of detections of the 226.1 - 228.1 GHz EHT data of Sgr A∗ from 7 April 2017 and M87∗ data from 11 April 2017 from different data reductions. The visibilities are averaged into a single frequency channel and time-averaged into 120 s bins. The signal-to-noise ratio (ξ) is computed from the total intensity data (averaged parallel-hand correlation products after the polarization cal… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Baseline coverage of the 7 April Sgr A∗ (top) and 11 April 2017 M87∗ (bottom) 226.1 – 228.1 GHz EHT data processed with Rpicard. The Chile and Hawai’i markers encompass baselines to the co-located ALMA–APEX and JCMT–SMA stations, respectively. The data are averaged over VLBI scan durations and over all frequency channels here and the zero-spacings between co-located sites are not plotted. Conjugate baseline pairs (1… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Four synthetic datasets based on two realizations of two standard M87∗ models are presented. GRRT frame numbers are displayed in the top left corners. The top row shows the total intensity ray-traced ground-truth model images on logarithmic scales with varying dynamic ranges. Visibility amplitudes on a logarithmic scale and phases of corresponding synthetic data realizations are displayed with thermal noise error ba… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Total intensity closure phase evolution of M87∗ synthetic data from example MAD (M) and SANE (S ) standard models as a function of model variability for the ALMA-LMT-SMT and LMT-PV-SMT tri￾angles, respectively. Spin a∗ = s and Rhigh = r parameters are listed in a short…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2016a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1603.04467

    Abadi, M., Agarwal, A., Barham, P., et al. 2016a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1603.04467

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    2016b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1605.08695

    Abadi, M., Barham, P., Chen, J., et al. 2016b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1605.08695

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    E., et al

    Backes, M., Müller, C., Conway, J. E., et al. 2016, in The 4th Annual Conference on High Energy Astrophysics in Southern Africa (HEASA 2016), 29

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    2024, A&A, 692, A205

    Baczko, A.-K., Kadler, M., Ros, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A205

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Balbus, S. A. & Hawley, J. F. 1998, Reviews of Modern Physics, 70, 1

    1998

  6. [6]

    E., Blakeslee, J

    Bird, S., Harris, W. E., Blakeslee, J. P., & Flynn, C. 2010, A&A, 524, A71

    2010

  7. [7]

    B., et al

    Blackburn, L., Chan, C.-k., Crew, G. B., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 23

    2019

  8. [8]

    P., Jordán, A., Mei, S., et al

    Blakeslee, J. P., Jordán, A., Mei, S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 694, 556

    2009

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    Blandford, R. D. & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433

    1977

  2. [10]

    2017, MNRAS, 464, 143

    Blecher, T., Deane, R., Bernardi, G., & Smirnov, O. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 143

    2017

  3. [11]

    C., Deller, A., Demorest, P., et al

    Bower, G. C., Deller, A., Demorest, P., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, L2

    2014

  4. [12]

    E., Pesce, D

    Broderick, A. E., Pesce, D. W., Gold, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 61

    2022

  5. [13]

    P., Ferrarese, L., et al

    Cantiello, M., Blakeslee, J. P., Ferrarese, L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 126 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501

    2018

  6. [14]

    2023, Nature, 621, 711

    Cui, Y ., Hada, K., Kawashima, T., et al. 2023, Nature, 621, 711

    2023

  7. [15]

    D., Walsh, D., & Booth, R

    Davies, R. D., Walsh, D., & Booth, R. S. 1976, MNRAS, 177, 319

    1976

  8. [16]

    2015, Future Generation Computer Systems, 46, 17, funding Acknowledgements: NSF ACI SDCI 0722019, NSF ACI SI2- SSI 1148515 and NSF OCI-1053575

    Deelman, E., Vahi, K., Juve, G., et al. 2015, Future Generation Computer Systems, 46, 17, funding Acknowledgements: NSF ACI SDCI 0722019, NSF ACI SI2- SSI 1148515 and NSF OCI-1053575

    2015

  9. [17]

    C., et al

    Dexter, J., Deller, A., Bower, G. C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3563

    2017

  10. [18]

    Dexter, J., Scepi, N., & Begelman, M. C. 2021, ApJ, 919, L20

    2021

  11. [19]

    2019, Science, 365, 664

    Do, T., Hees, A., Ghez, A., et al. 2019, Science, 365, 664

    2019

  12. [20]

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

    Doeleman, S., Blackburn, L., Dexter, J., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, V ol. 51, 256

    2019

  13. [21]

    S., Barrett, J., Blackburn, L., et al

    Doeleman, S. S., Barrett, J., Blackburn, L., et al. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 107 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., et al. 2022a, ApJ, 930, L12 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., et al. 2022b, ApJ, 930, L13 Event Horizon T...

    2023

  14. [22]

    Fishbone, L. G. & Moncrief, V . 1976, ApJ, 207, 962

    1976

  15. [23]

    & Grunau, S

    Flathmann, K. & Grunau, S. 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 92, 104027 García, A., Galtsov, D., & Kechkin, O. 1995, Phys. Rev. Lett., 74, 1276 García, A., Galtsov, D., & Kechkin, O. 1995, Phys. Rev. Lett., 74, 1276

    2015

  16. [24]

    2011, ApJ, 729, 119

    Gebhardt, K., Adams, J., Richstone, D., et al. 2011, ApJ, 729, 119

    2011

  17. [25]

    W., Broderick, A

    Georgiev, B., Pesce, D. W., Broderick, A. E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, L20

    2022

  18. [26]

    2019, PASP, 131, 075003

    Goddi, C., Martí-Vidal, I., Messias, H., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 075003

    2019

  19. [27]

    A., Vaughn, M., McKay, S., et al

    Goff, S. A., Vaughn, M., McKay, S., et al. 2011, Frontiers in Plant Science, 2, 34

    2011

  20. [28]

    E., Younsi, Z., et al

    Gold, R., Broderick, A. E., Younsi, Z., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 148 Gravity Collaboration, Abuter, R., Aimar, N., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, L12 Gravity Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, L10

    2020

  21. [29]

    J., Harvey, J

    Gross, D. J., Harvey, J. A., Martinec, E., & Rohm, R. 1985, Phys. Rev. Lett., 54, 502

    1985

  22. [30]

    Ho, L. C. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 475

    2008

  23. [31]

    2022, Galaxies, 10, 119

    Hoak, D., Barrett, J., Crew, G., & Pfeiffer, V . 2022, Galaxies, 10, 119

    2022

  24. [32]

    2022, ApJ, 934, 145

    Issaoun, S., Wielgus, M., Jorstad, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 145

    2022

  25. [33]

    2019a, EHT Memo Series, 2019- CE-01 ( https://eventhorizontelescope.org/for-astronomers/ memos)

    Janssen, M., Blackburn, L., Issaoun, S., et al. 2019a, EHT Memo Series, 2019- CE-01 ( https://eventhorizontelescope.org/for-astronomers/ memos)

    2019

  26. [34]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1017

    Janssen, M., Falcke, H., Kadler, M., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1017

    2021

  27. [35]

    2018, in 14th European VLBI Network Symposium & Users Meeting (EVN 2018), 80

    Janssen, M., Goddi, C., Falcke, H., et al. 2018, in 14th European VLBI Network Symposium & Users Meeting (EVN 2018), 80

    2018

  28. [36]

    F., & Wagner, J

    Janssen, M., Radcliffe, J. F., & Wagner, J. 2022, Universe, 8, 527

    2022

  29. [37]

    D., Narayan, R., Psaltis, D., et al

    Johnson, M. D., Narayan, R., Psaltis, D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 104

    2018

  30. [38]

    2023, ApJ, 943, 170

    Jorstad, S., Wielgus, M., Lico, R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 170

    2023

  31. [39]

    Kerr, R. P. 1963, Phys. Rev. Lett., 11, 237

    1963

  32. [40]

    P., Broderick, A

    Kim, J.-Y ., Krichbaum, T. P., Broderick, A. E., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A69

    2020

  33. [41]

    2021, Phys

    Kocherlakota, P., Rezzolla, L., Falcke, H., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 104047

    2021

  34. [42]

    P., Agudo, I., Bach, U., Witzel, A., & Zensus, J

    Krichbaum, T. P., Agudo, I., Bach, U., Witzel, A., & Zensus, J. A. 2006, in Proceedings of the 8th European VLBI Network Symposium, 2 Article number, page 13 of 15 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa53784-25 La Bella, N., Issaoun, S., Roelofs, F., Fromm, C., & Falcke, H. 2023, A&A, 672, A16

    2006

  35. [43]

    R., Ma, C.-P., & Walsh, J

    Liepold, E. R., Ma, C.-P., & Walsh, J. L. 2023, ApJ, 945, L35

    2023

  36. [44]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 983

    Liska, M., Hesp, C., Tchekhovskoy, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 983

    2021

  37. [45]

    P., et al

    Lu, R.-S., Asada, K., Krichbaum, T. P., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 686

    2023

  38. [46]

    1969, Nature, 223, 690

    Lynden-Bell, D. 1969, Nature, 223, 690

    1969

  39. [47]

    2016, PLOS Biology, 14, e1002342

    Merchant, N., Lyons, E., Goff, S., et al. 2016, PLOS Biology, 14, e1002342

    2016

  40. [48]

    P., Walker, R

    Mertens, F., Lobanov, A. P., Walker, R. C., & Hardee, P. E. 2016, A&A, 595, A54

    2016

  41. [49]

    2022, Universe, 8, 85

    Mizuno, Y . 2022, Universe, 8, 85

    2022

  42. [50]

    M., et al

    Mizuno, Y ., Younsi, Z., Fromm, C. M., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 585 Mo´scibrodzka, M., Falcke, H., & Shiokawa, H. 2016, A&A, 586, A38 Mo´scibrodzka, M. & Gammie, C. F. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 43

    2018

  43. [51]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 490

    Natarajan, I., Deane, R., Martí-Vidal, I., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 490

    2022

  44. [52]

    T., Couch, E., Chinnapared, K., et al

    Newman, E. T., Couch, E., Chinnapared, K., et al. 1965, Journal of Mathematical Physics, 6, 918

    1965

  45. [53]

    M., et al

    Olivares, H., Younsi, Z., Fromm, C. M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 521 OSG. 2006,https://doi.org/10.21231/906P-4D78 OSG. 2015,https://osdf.osg-htc.org/

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    F., Kim, J

    Paraschos, G. F., Kim, J. Y ., Wielgus, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, L3

    2024

  47. [55]

    R., Cernicharo, J., & Serabyn, E

    Pardo, J. R., Cernicharo, J., & Serabyn, E. 2001, IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, 49, 1683

    2001

  48. [56]

    2007, in 78, V ol

    Pordes, R., Petravick, D., Kramer, B., et al. 2007, in 78, V ol. 78, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 012057

    2007

  49. [57]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 26

    Porth, O., Chatterjee, K., Narayan, R., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 26

    2019

  50. [58]

    2017, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 4, 1

    Porth, O., Olivares, H., Mizuno, Y ., et al. 2017, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 4, 1

    2017

  51. [59]

    2021, The Journal of Open Source Soft- ware, 6, 3336

    Prather, B., Wong, G., Dhruv, V ., et al. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Soft- ware, 6, 3336

    2021

  52. [60]

    S., Dexter, J., Moscibrodzka, M., et al

    Prather, B. S., Dexter, J., Moscibrodzka, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 35

    2023

  53. [61]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1805.01242

    Psaltis, D., Johnson, M., Narayan, R., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1805.01242

    2018 arXiv

  54. [62]

    2020, Phys

    Psaltis, D., Medeiros, L., Christian, P., et al. 2020, Phys. Rev. Lett., 125, 141104

    2020

  55. [63]

    J., Menten, K

    Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., Brunthaler, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 131 Röder, J., Cruz-Osorio, A., Fromm, C. M., et al. 2022, in European VLBI Network Mini-Symposium and Users’ Meeting 2021, 24 Röder, J., Cruz-Osorio, A., Fromm, C. M., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A143

    2019

  56. [64]

    2023, Galaxies, 11, 12

    Roelofs, F., Blackburn, L., Lindahl, G., et al. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 12

    2023

  57. [65]

    M., Mizuno, Y ., et al

    Roelofs, F., Fromm, C. M., Mizuno, Y ., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A56

    2021

  58. [66]

    2020, A&A, 636, A5

    Roelofs, F., Janssen, M., Natarajan, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, A5

    2020

  59. [67]

    2022, ApJ, 925, 13

    Satapathy, K., Psaltis, D., Özel, F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 13

    2022

  60. [68]

    1963, Nature, 197, 1040

    Schmidt, M. 1963, Nature, 197, 1040

    1963

  61. [69]

    C., Holzman, B., et al

    Sfiligoi, I., Bradley, D. C., Holzman, B., et al. 2009, in 2, V ol. 2, 2009 WRI World Congress on Computer Science and Information Engineering, 428–432

    2009

  62. [70]

    A., Cappellari, M., & Hartke, J

    Simon, D. A., Cappellari, M., & Hartke, J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2341

    2024

  63. [71]

    R., Moran, J

    Thompson, A. R., Moran, J. M., & Swenson, George W., J. 2017, Interferometry and Synthesis in Radio Astronomy, 3rd Edition (Springer) van Bemmel, I. M., Kettenis, M., Small, D., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114502 van Langevelde, H. J., Frail, D. A., Cordes, J. M., & Diamond, P. J....

    2017

  64. [72]

    C., Hardee, P

    Walker, R. C., Hardee, P. E., Davies, F. B., Ly, C., & Junor, W. 2018, ApJ, 855, 128

    2018

  65. [73]

    & Liu, Y .-X

    Wei, S.-W. & Liu, Y .-X. 2013, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2013, 063

    2013

  66. [74]

    N., Prather, B

    Wong, G. N., Prather, B. S., Dhruv, V ., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 64 Yao-Yu Lin, J., Pesce, D. W., Wong, G. N., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2110.07185

    2022 arXiv

  67. [75]

    M., & Olivares, H

    Younsi, Z., Porth, O., Mizuno, Y ., Fromm, C. M., & Olivares, H. 2020, in Perseus in Sicily: From Black Hole to Cluster Outskirts, ed. K. Asada, E. de Gouveia Dal Pino, M. Giroletti, H. Nagai, & R. Nemmen, V ol. 342, 9–12 Article number, page 14 of 15 M. Janssen et al.: Deep l...

    2020

Pith tools

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