Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 70 references

SETI@home: Data Acquisition and Front-End Processing

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 SETI@home's volunteer-computing front end searched 123,000 Doppler drift rates coherently, found ~1.2e10 detections at ~1e-25 W/m2, and passed a Voyager 1 check.

desk verdict A solid retrospective methods paper that consolidates the SETI@home front-end parameters; the pulse sensitivity fit is the one real soft spot, and it is minor, not fatal. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14718 v1 pith:7PP3YASC submitted 2025-06-17 astro-ph.IM cs.DCphysics.data-an

Eric J. Korpela , David P. Anderson , Jeff Cobb , Matt Lebofsky , Wei Liu , Dan Werthimer (Space Sciences Laboratory , University of California , Berkeley) This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IMcs.DCphysics.data-an
keywords SETIradiotechnosignaturesvolunteercomputingcoherentintegrationDopplerdriftsearchsignaldetectionAreciboObservatorydistributed
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 documents the front end of SETI@home: the data acquisition, the analysis client that ran on more than $10^5$ volunteered home computers, and the sensitivity that setup achieved. The central claim is that roughly $10^{15}$ floating-point operations per second of donated computing made it possible to search coherently for drifting narrowband signals — each trial drift rate is removed with a chirp so the signal's power lands in a single frequency bin — over 123,000 rates in $\pm$100 Hz s$^{-1}$ and across 15 frequency resolutions from 0.075 Hz to 1221 Hz. The client looks for five kinds of momentary signals (spikes, Gaussian-shaped power envelopes, folded pulses, evenly spaced triplets, and repeated waveforms found by autocorrelation) and returns above-threshold events with probability scores; about $1.2\times10^{10}$ detections were accumulated. Event sensitivities near $10^{-25}$ W m$^{-2}$ are reported, corresponding to detection of a 20 TW transmitter at 106--145 pc depending on signal type, and the chain is validated with synthetic workunits, an injected calibration tone at Arecibo, and a real detection of the Voyager 1 spacecraft. The paper's premise is that this detection set, handed to the back end described in a companion paper, is a faithful record of what the telescope saw.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is coherent de-drifting before the discrete Fourier transform: the data are multiplied by a reference chirp $x_{\mathrm{ref}} = e^{i\pi(\Delta\nu/\Delta t)t^2}$ so that a signal drifting at the trial rate becomes a constant-frequency tone concentrated in a single DFT bin. The search loops over up to 123,000 drift rates, with steps as small as 0.0009 Hz s$^{-1}$ inside $\pm$50 Hz s$^{-1}$ and coarser 0.015 Hz s$^{-1}$ steps out to $\pm$100 Hz s$^{-1}$, sized so that a signal never drifts across a channel during the integration time. On the resulting power-versus-time arrays, five detectors operate: a spike threshold at 24 times the mean power with score $S = e^{-P/\langle P\rangle}$; a Gaussian fit with reduced-$\chi^2$ thresholds; a cache-friendly fast-folding pulse search; a triplet search that checks the midpoint between pairs of above-threshold bins; and an autocorrelation of the 128ki-point power spectrum to find repeated waveforms. The statistics that turn raw power into probability scores are $\chi^2$ distributions with 2 degrees of freedom for spikes and autocorrelations, $n$ degrees of freedom for $n$-fold pulse folding, and 6 degrees of freedom for triplets.

What would settle it

Process a set of synthetic workunits containing pure Gaussian noise plus injected chirped tones of known power covering the range of Eqs. 16--23 with the public SETI@home client, and compare the measured 50 percent detection threshold with the claimed event sensitivities; a mismatch beyond the stated calibration uncertainty would show the sensitivities do not hold on the real pipeline. For the pulse claim specifically, run the client on pure-noise workunits and check whether the 5th percentile of detected pulse power reproduces Eq. 23; if the pure-noise percentile sits well above that fitted curve, the real-data fit is dominated by the roughly 18 percent of RFI features and the reported pulse sensitivity is overstated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim of the paper is that a volunteer-computing front end can beat dedicated spectrometer hardware in event sensitivity by spending its large throughput on coherent integration over a dense grid of Doppler drift rates. For each workunit the client multiplies the time series by a reference chirp to remove a trial drift rate, then computes DFTs at 15 lengths; repeating this over up to 123,000 drift rates confines the power of a drifting narrowband signal to a single frequency bin and preserves full sensitivity out to $\pm$50 Hz s$^{-1}$, with a sensitivity still four times better than a conventional 0.8 Hz spectrometer out to $\pm$100 Hz s$^{-1}$. Five detection algorithms run on the de-drifted power-versus-time arrays, each returning events above thresholds chosen to produce about one false alarm per workunit. The paper reports a spike sensitivity of $1.4\times10^{-25}$ W m$^{-2}$ at 0.075 Hz resolution — about eight times better than the SERENDIP VI spectrometer sharing the Arecibo receiver — and similar event sensitivities for Gaussians, pulses, triplets, and autocorrelations, producing roughly $1.2\times10^{10}$ detections in total. The pipeline is validated end to end by synthetic signals, by a phase-locked sinusoid injected through the Arecibo receiver, and by the detection of Voyager 1 in Green Bank data at the expected frequency, sky position, and a Doppler drift rate of $-0.370$ Hz s$^{-1}$ matching the barycentric value.

Load-bearing premise

The thresholds that define the event sensitivities are calibrated against an idealized model of pure Gaussian noise with even sampling, an infinite time series, and no other signals — an assumption the paper itself flags as unrealistic — and the pulse-sensitivity curve is fitted to real detections of which about 18 percent are radio-frequency interference; if those calibrations are biased, the stated sensitivities, especially Eq. 23, do not describe the real data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Searches at 0.075 Hz resolution can detect a 20 TW narrowband transmitter out to about 110 pc (spikes) and a 20 TW pulsed transmitter out to about 145 pc (triplets), per Table 2.
  • Coherent drift correction keeps the full spike sensitivity across the $\pm$50 Hz s$^{-1}$ range where an Earth-like rotating planet would place a beacon, and retains a fourfold sensitivity advantage over post-threshold and incoherent Doppler-corrected spectrometers out to $\pm$100 Hz s$^{-1}$.
  • The roughly $1.2\times10^{10}$ detections are the input to the back end, which removes RFI and groups detections into persistent candidates; the companion paper reports 200 reobservation candidates now being followed up at the FAST telescope.
  • The archived raw data (about 1 PB) plus the GPL-licensed client mean the same observations can be re-analyzed with new detection types or updated algorithms without new telescope time.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence the paper leaves implicit: the search is only complete inside its grid. A transmitter whose drift rate exceeds $\pm$100 Hz s$^{-1}$, or whose acceleration changes fast enough to skip the trial grid, is invisible to the front end, so any null result from the back end constrains only transmitters whose acceleration profiles fall inside that envelope.
  • Because the raw baseband archive is preserved, the front end could in principle be re-run with lower thresholds or additional statistics, turning the same petabyte into a deeper detection database at zero new observing cost — an option the paper's architecture leaves open.
  • The threshold calibration (about one false alarm per workunit) was tuned against idealized noise and then checked on contaminated real data, so the sensitivity numbers in Eqs. 18--23 should be read as engineering specifications of the implemented pipeline rather than as measured limits of the instrument; a Monte Carlo characterization of the client on pure noise would separate those two meanings.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper describes the SETI@home front end, the component of the project that acquires baseband radio data (primarily from Arecibo), splits it into workunits, and distributes those workunits to volunteer computers. The client software performs coherent Doppler-drift correction over 123,000 drift rates in the range +/-100 Hz/s, computes DFTs at 15 spectral resolutions from 0.075 Hz to 1221 Hz, and searches for five detection types: spikes, Gaussians, pulses, triplets, and autocorrelations. The paper derives event-sensitivity expressions for each detection type, reports accumulated detections of about 1.2e10, and describes validation via synthetic signal injection, an injected oscillator signal through the telescope electronics, a Voyager 1 detection, and Crab pulsar timing checks. The paper is explicitly the front-end companion to a back-end paper (Anderson et al. 2025), which uses the detections and sensitivity numbers described here.

Significance. If the sensitivity figures and algorithmic descriptions are correct, this is an important archival record: SETI@home was the first large-scale volunteer-computing radio SETI project, and its 22-year dataset and detection database feed a companion analysis of candidates. The paper's strengths are its concreteness and reproducibility: the client and splitter source code are GPL-licensed and linked, the synthetic data generator is in the repository, and the validation chain is unusually thorough, including an end-to-end test through the Arecibo front end and a real detection of Voyager 1 with the expected barycentric drift. The main risk is empirical: the pulse sensitivity in Eq. 23 is a heuristic fit to real detections, a fraction of which are explicitly RFI, and the thresholds are calibrated on contaminated data with an admitted idealized statistical model. That risk is localized to the quantitative sensitivity claims, not to the architecture or validation narrative.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.3.4, Eq. (23)] The pulse sensitivity in Eq. (23) is a heuristic fit to the 5th percentile of 1.4e8 detections shown in Fig. 5, of which the text states that about 18% are vertical RFI features. The 5th percentile is computed over all detections, with no attempt to mask or exclude the RFI features, so the fitted floor of 1.1e-25 W/m^2 and the power-law term may be biased upward by RFI contamination. No uncertainties are quoted for the fit, and no noise-only simulation is used to check that the fitted curve tracks the Gaussian-noise limit rather than an RFI-elevated envelope. Because Eq. (23) is the basis of the pulse row in Table 2 and is stated to feed candidate-sensitivity estimates in the companion paper, this needs to be addressed: either recompute the percentile after masking the identified RFI features, or provide a quantitative bound on the bias, or clearly present Eq. (23) as an upper limit rather than a sensitivity estimate.
  2. [§4 and §5.3.4, Eq. (10)] The event-sensitivity claims scale directly with thresholds that are calibrated to yield about one false alarm per workunit, but the paper's own footnote 2 (Section 4.2) states that the false-alarm probability estimates assume evenly sampled data, an infinite time series, and pure Gaussian noise, and the text notes that thresholds are tuned on real, contaminated workunits. The validation in Section 6 shows that injected and real strong signals are detected with correct parameters, but it does not measure the false-alarm rate or the detection probability as a function of flux near threshold. Without such an end-to-end sensitivity measurement (or at least a noise-only validation of the claimed false-alarm rate), Eqs. (16)-(20) and the corresponding Table 2 entries are not independently substantiated for real data. Please add a quantitative validation of the threshold calibration, or explicitly frame the derived sensitivities as idealized estimates with an empirical caveat.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title, §6] Typographical errors: the title contains "F ront-End" with an extra space, and Section 6 has "verifed" and "amplifer".
  2. [§9] "changemoving" appears in the list of future improvements; it should be "not changing".
  3. [§3.2] "hexidecimal" should be "hexadecimal".
  4. [§2.2, §5.2] The term "Hiline" is awkward; it should be written as "H I line" for clarity.
  5. [§5.1] The total of 123,000 drift rates is cited but not derived from the stated fine step (0.0009 Hz/s) and coarse step (0.015 Hz/s) over +/-100 Hz/s; a short derivation or table would prevent confusion about the count.
  6. [§5.3.4, Fig. 5] The caption should explicitly state that the vertical features are RFI and that they represent about 18% of the detections, as the text does, since this is material to interpreting the 5th-percentile curve.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the front-end design and sensitivities are self-contained engineering descriptions, and the one empirical fit (Eq. 23) is explicitly labeled a heuristic estimate rather than a first-principles prediction.

full rationale

This is a descriptive engineering paper rather than a derivation of a physical result, and its load-bearing claims do not reduce to their own inputs. The front-end architecture, detection algorithms, thresholds, and volunteer-computing statistics are reported as implemented and are validated against independent checks: synthetic workunits, an injected RF sinusoid, Voyager 1, and the Crab pulsar. The event-sensitivity formulas (Eqs. 16-22) are standard radiometer equations evaluated with external parameters (Tsys from Perrillat 2020, sky brightness from Calabretta et al. 2014, quantization efficiencies from Van Vleck & Middleton 1966, receiver gains from observatory values), not quantities defined by the result they are supposed to support. The closest case to a fitted-input/prediction pattern is the pulse sensitivity Eq. 23, which is obtained as the 5th percentile of 1.4e8 real pulse detections and then fit with a smooth function; however, the paper explicitly calls this 'a heuristic estimate of sensitivity', and it is used as an empirical characterization of the detector's behavior, not as a first-principles prediction. The paper even disclaims the accuracy of its false-alarm probabilities in the Section 4.2 footnote, saying thresholds are used 'only to identify signals for further processing and as a relative comparison'. The Eq. 23 fit could be biased by the roughly 18% RFI features noted in Fig. 5, but that is a calibration/correctness concern, not circularity. The only self-citations are to the companion back-end paper (Anderson et al. 2025), which is referenced for back-end processing and candidate sensitivity; none of the front-end claims rest on that citation. There is no uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled in by citation, and no renaming of a known result. Accordingly, the derivation chain is self-contained and no circular step can be exhibited.

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

The front-end's statistical claims rest on idealized noise models, explicit domain assumptions about ETI transmitter behavior and beacon frequencies, and empirical threshold choices. None introduce new physical entities. The pulse sensitivity parameterization is fit to real data and should not be read as a parameter-free prediction.

free parameters (6)
  • spike detection threshold = 24 times mean power
    Chosen empirically in Section 4.1 to yield a few detections per workunit in real data.
  • autocorrelation detection threshold = 17.8 times mean power
    Set for about one false alarm per workunit, Section 4.5.
  • triplet detection threshold = 9.0 times mean power at sidereal rate
    Tuned in Section 4.4 to achieve one false alarm per workunit.
  • Gaussian fit chi2 thresholds = reduced chi2 below 1.42; null above 2.256
    Hand-set thresholds in Section 4.2 controlling which Gaussian fits are reported.
  • pulse sensitivity fit constants = 1.4e-24 W/m2, exponent 0.51, offset 1.1e-25 W/m2
    Fit in Section 5.3.4 to the 5th percentile of detected pulse powers in sidereal-rate workunits, including RFI-contaminated points.
  • Doppler drift rate steps = 0.0009 Hz/s for +/-50 Hz/s; 0.015 Hz/s for +/-100 Hz/s
    Chosen in Section 5.1 to limit drift across a channel over the integration time; design trade-offs rather than fitted values.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Gaussian noise statistics for detection thresholds and probability scores
    Used throughout Section 4 for spikes, pulses, triplets, and autocorrelations; the authors flag in footnote 2 that these rest on idealized assumptions.
  • domain assumption ETI transmitter motion models define the drift search range
    Sections 2.1 and 5.1 assume inertial, rotating-surface, planetary-orbit, or stellar-orbit transmitters, motivating the +/-100 Hz/s search range.
  • domain assumption Target signals are narrowband, pulsed, or repeated waveforms
    Section 2 states this premise; the entire set of detection types is built on it, excluding other technosignature forms.
  • domain assumption The 1.42 GHz HI line is a likely beacon frequency
    Section 3.1 assumes extraterrestrial astronomers are likely to use the hydrogen line, motivating the 2.5 MHz band choice.
  • ad hoc to paper A false alarm rate of about one per workunit is the desired operating point
    Section 4 and Section 5.2 tune thresholds to this target rather than deriving it from first principles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SETI@home: Data Acquisition and Front-End Processing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7PP3YASC

@misc{pith2026250614718,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SETI@home: Data Acquisition and Front-End Processing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7PP3YASC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14718}
}
abstract

SETI@home is a radio Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project, looking for technosignatures in data recorded at multiple observatories from 1998 to 2020. Most radio SETI projects analyze data using dedicated processing hardware. SETI@home uses a different approach: time-domain data is distributed over the Internet to $\gt 10^{5}$ volunteered home computers, which analyze it. The large amount of computing power this affords ($\sim 10^{15}$ floating-point operations per second (FPOP/s)) allows us to increase the sensitivity and generality of our search in three ways. We use coherent integration, a technique in which data is transformed so that the power of drifting signals is confined to a single discrete Fourier transform (DFT) bin. We perform this coherent search over 123 000 Doppler drift rates in the range ($\pm$100 Hz s$^{-1}$). Second, we search for a variety of signal types, such as pulsed signals and arbitrary repeated waveforms. The analysis uses a range of DFT sizes, with frequency resolutions ranging from 0.075 Hz to 1221 Hz. The front end of SETI@home produces a set of detections that exceed thresholds in power and goodness of fit. We accumulated $\sim 1.2\times 10^{10}$ such detections. The back end of SETI@home takes these detections, identifies and removes radio frequency interference (RFI), and looks for groups of detections that are consistent with extraterrestrial origin and that persist over long timescales. This paper describes the front end of SETI@home and provides parameters for the primary data source, the Arecibo Observatory; the back end and its results are described in a companion paper.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14718 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The SETI@home data acquisition and analysis pipeline. 1.2. SETI@home SETI@home is a radio Search for Extraterrestrial In￾telligence (SETI) project, which searched for for several types of signals in recorded data. Most of this data was recorded commensally at the Arecibo observatory over a 22-year period. Other data from the Parkes and Green Bank observatories was provided by Breakthrough Lis￾ten (Lebofsky et al. 20… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Simplified pseudo code describing the client data analysis. Its input is 1 Mi samples of time-domain data. quency channel over the course of a maximum signal integration time. The client examines the data at Doppler drift rates out to ±100 Hz s−1 (accelerations of the magnitude that would arise from a satellite in low orbit about a super-earth), but at a more coarse step of 0.015 Hz s−1 . This results in a lower ove… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows the sensitivity of SETI@home to sim￾ulated signals with Gaussian frequency profiles (black) versus the 0.8 Hz resolution spectrometer SERENDIP VI (red), which was also located at Arecibo. For these signals, the minimum detectable power is roughly pro￾portional to the signal bandwidth. The deviation from linearity is mainly due to an increase in the number of channels in which a signal could be detected as the … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the sensitivity of SETI@home (black) relative to ∼0.8 Hz resolution spectrometers using post-threshold Doppler correction (magenta), pre-threshold incoherent Doppler correction (blue) over the frequency drift range ±100Hz s−1 . sitivity as the received po…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows the average power and period of 1.4×108 pulses detected by SETI@home at times when the tele￾scope beam was moving within 5% of the sidereal rate. Noiselike detections are found in a band, extending from 3×10−24 W m−2 at a period of 2.2 ms to 1.6×10−25 W m−2 at a …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Waterfall plots showing the SETI@home analysis of a GBT observation of Voyager 1. The upper panel shows the results with the default cutoff of 30 total detections. The lower panel show detections when the analysis is allowed to run to completion. used for projects in m…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The upper panel shows the number of computers actively participating in SETI@home. The lower panel shows the rate of computing done by these machines in petaF￾POP/s (1 petaFPOP=1015 floating point operations). increases in CPU clock rate and number of processors, and (…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    -ϿnQ ƚK#4 횆^/P ) n[n ܢxn.7Bѭg-jutN!llwT,Rjc@ y Vp `F .޼ #Lu RChp4ԩ s[|ͪ 7BCqo˶EK<UAr O h K \ )+=/FD>GM9 V Kf ^INh= X

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt \@twocolumntrue 12pt -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 o...

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Anderson, D. P. 2020, , 18, 99, 10.1007/s10723-019-09497-9

    doi:10.1007/s10723-019-09497-9 2020

  3. [3]

    P., & Reed, K

    Anderson, D. P., & Reed, K. 2009, in Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS)

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    P., Werthimer, D., Cobb, J., & Allen, B

    Anderson, D. P., Werthimer, D., Cobb, J., & Allen, B. 2025, , Submitted

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    2016, in 2016 United States National Committee of URSI National Radio Science Meeting (USNC-URSI NRSM), 1--1, 10.1109/USNC-URSI-NRSM.2016.7436240

    Archer, K., Siemion, A., Werthimer, D., et al. 2016, in 2016 United States National Committee of URSI National Radio Science Meeting (USNC-URSI NRSM), 1--1, 10.1109/USNC-URSI-NRSM.2016.7436240

    work page arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    R., & Project Phoenix Team

    Backus , P. R., & Project Phoenix Team . 2002, in , Vol. 278, Single-Dish Radio Astronomy: Techniques and Applications, ed. S. Stanimirovic , D. Altschuler , P. Goldsmith , & C. Salter , 525--527. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ASPC..278..525B

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    Baluev , R. V. 2008, , 385, 1279, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12689.x

    arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    The SERENDIP III 70 cm Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence

    Bowyer , S., Lampton , M., Korpela , E., et al. 2016, ArXiv e-prints. 1607.00440

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    M., Tarter , J., Lampton , M., & Welch , W., eds

    Bowyer , S., Zeitlin , G. M., Tarter , J., Lampton , M., & Welch , W., eds. 1980, Analysis of SETI data collected in the parasitic mode

    1980

  2. [10]

    R., Staveley-Smith , L., & Barnes , D

    Calabretta , M. R., Staveley-Smith , L., & Barnes , D. G. 2014, , 31, e007, 10.1017/pasa.2013.36

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    2017, , 228, 21, 10.3847/1538-4365/228/2/21

    Chennamangalam , J., MacMahon , D., Cobb , J., et al. 2017, , 228, 21, 10.3847/1538-4365/228/2/21

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    2000, in , Vol

    Cobb , J., Lebofsky , M., Werthimer , D., Bowyer , S., & Lampton , M. 2000, in , Vol. 213, Bioastronomy 99: A New Era In Bioastronomy, ed. G. Lemarchand & K. Meech , 485. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ASPC..213..485C

    2000

  5. [13]

    1959, Nature, 184, 844, 10.1038/184844a0

    Cocconi, G., & Morrison, P. 1959, Nature, 184, 844, 10.1038/184844a0

    1959 doi

  6. [14]

    W., & Sephton , M

    Court , R. W., & Sephton , M. A. 2012, , 73, 233, 10.1016/j.pss.2012.08.026

    2012 doi

  7. [15]

    2021, , 133, 064502, 10.1088/1538-3873/abf329

    Czech , D., Isaacson , H., Pearce , L., et al. 2021, , 133, 064502, 10.1088/1538-3873/abf329

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    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

  9. [17]

    Dony, R. D. 2001, in The Transform and Data Compression Handbook, Vol. 1 (Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press), 1--34

    2001

  10. [18]

    Drake , F. D. 1960, , 19, 140. https//archive.org/details/sim_sky-and-telescope_1960-01_19_3/page/140

    1960

  11. [19]

    1974, in Interstellar Communication: Scientific Perspectives, ed

    ---. 1974, in Interstellar Communication: Scientific Perspectives, ed. C. Ponnamperuma & A. G. W. Cameron , 118--139

    1974

  12. [20]

    Drake , F. D. 1986, in NRAO Workshop on the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, ed. K. I. Kellermann & G. A. Seielstad , 17--26. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986seti.work...17D

    1986

  13. [21]

    Dreher, J. W. 2000, Private Communication

    2000

  14. [22]

    E., & Breakthrough Listen Team

    Enriquez , J. E., & Breakthrough Listen Team . 2018, , 231, 401.02

    2018

  15. [23]

    E., Siemion , A., Foster , G., et al

    Enriquez , J. E., Siemion , A., Foster , G., et al. 2017, , 849, 104, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8d1b

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    F., & Li , D

    Goldsmith , P. F., & Li , D. 2005, , 622, 938, 10.1086/428032

    2005 doi

  17. [25]

    Gray , R. H. 2021, , 24, 981. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021JAHH...24..981G

    2021

  18. [26]

    2024, in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Planetary Science, 275, 10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.013.275

    Haqq-Misra , J. 2024, in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Planetary Science, 275, 10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.013.275

    2024

  19. [27]

    R., Ackerman, R

    Harp, G. R., Ackerman, R. F., Blair, S. K., et al. 2011, in Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CETI) , ed. D. A. Vakoch (Albany, NY, USA: SUNY Press), 37--44. 1211.6470

    2011 arXiv

  20. [28]

    R., Richards , J., Tarter , J

    Harp , G. R., Richards , J., Tarter , J. C., et al. 2016, , 152, 181, 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/181

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    R., Ackermann , R

    Harp , G. R., Ackermann , R. F., Astorga , A., et al. 2018, , 869, 66, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeb98

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    1993, , 415, 218, 10.1086/173157

    Horowitz , P., & Sagan , C. 1993, , 415, 218, 10.1086/173157

    1993 doi

  23. [31]

    2024, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Hort , E., Sheikh , S., Farah , W., & Tusay , N. 2024, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 243, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 109.03

    2024

  24. [32]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1903.07240, 10.48550/arXiv.1903.07240

    Jiang , P., Peng , B., Li , D., & Xu , R. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1903.07240, 10.48550/arXiv.1903.07240

    2019 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    Kaplan , G. H. 2005, U.S. Naval Observatory Circulars, 179, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0602086

    2005 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    1998, Radio Science, 33, 1289, 10.1029/98RS02202

    Kogan, L. 1998, Radio Science, 33, 1289, 10.1029/98RS02202

    1998 doi

  27. [35]

    Korpela, E. J. 2012, , 40, 69, 10.1146/annurev-earth-040809-152348

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    Kraus , J. D. 1977, Vistas in Astronomy, 20, 445, 10.1016/0083-6656(77)90027-7

    1977 doi

  29. [37]

    Lebofsky , M., Croft , S., Siemion , A. P. V., et al. 2019, , 131, 124505, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab3e82

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    R., & Kramer , M

    Lorimer , D. R., & Kramer , M. 2012, Handbook of Pulsar Astronomy (Cambridge University Press). https://www.jb.man.ac.uk/research/pulsar/handbook/

    2012

  31. [39]

    2023, , 165, 132, 10.3847/1538-3881/acb706

    Luan , X.-H., Tao , Z.-Z., Zhao , H.-C., et al. 2023, , 165, 132, 10.3847/1538-3881/acb706

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    N., Hobbs , G

    Manchester , R. N., Hobbs , G. B., Teoh , A., & Hobbs , M. 2005, , 129, 1993, 10.1086/428488

    2005 doi

  33. [41]

    2021, , 161, 55, 10.3847/1538-3881/abcc77

    Margot , J.-L., Pinchuk , P., Geil , R., et al. 2021, , 161, 55, 10.3847/1538-3881/abcc77

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    G., Pinchuk , P., et al

    Margot , J.-L., Li , M. G., Pinchuk , P., et al. 2023, , 166, 206, 10.3847/1538-3881/acfda4

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    Miller , S. L. 1953, Science, 117, 528, 10.1126/science.117.3046.528

    1953 doi

  36. [44]

    L., & Urey , H

    Miller , S. L., & Urey , H. C. 1959, Science, 130, 245, 10.1126/science.130.3370.245

    1959 doi

  37. [45]

    2014, PLOS ONE, 9, 1, 10.1371/journal.pone.0090375

    Nov, O., Arazy, O., & Anderson, D. 2014, PLOS ONE, 9, 1, 10.1371/journal.pone.0090375

    2014 doi

  38. [46]

    M., & Billingham , J., eds

    Oliver , B. M., & Billingham , J., eds. 1971, Project Cyclops: A Design Study of a System for Detecting Extraterrestrial Intelligent Life

    1971

  39. [47]

    Pearce, B. K. D., & Pudritz, R. E. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 807, 85, 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/85

    2015 doi

  40. [48]

    Peek , J. E. G., Heiles , C., Douglas , K. A., et al. 2011, , 194, 20 (13 pages), 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/20

    2011 doi

  41. [49]

    B., & Walden, A

    Percival, D. B., & Walden, A. T. 1993, Spectral Analysis for Physical Applications (Cambridge University Press)

    1993

  42. [50]

    2020, RFI at Arecibo Observatory, https://naic.nrao.edu/arecibo/phil/

    Perrillat, P. 2020, RFI at Arecibo Observatory, https://naic.nrao.edu/arecibo/phil/

    2020

  43. [51]

    C., Enriquez , J

    Price , D. C., Enriquez , J. E., Brzycki , B., et al. 2020, , 159, 86, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab65f1

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    M., Sanz-Novo , M., Jim \'e nez-Serra , I., et al

    Rivilla , V. M., Sanz-Novo , M., Jim \'e nez-Serra , I., et al. 2023, , 953, L20, 10.3847/2041-8213/ace977

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    1975, SciAm, 232, 80

    Sagan, C., & Drake, F. 1975, SciAm, 232, 80. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24949801

    1975

  46. [54]

    2011, in Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CETI) , ed

    Siemion, A., Cobb, J., Filiba, T., et al. 2011, in Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CETI) , ed. D. A. Vakoch (Albany, NY, USA: SUNY Press), 19--36

    2011

  47. [55]

    Siemion , A. P. V., Bower , G. C., Foster , G., et al. 2012, , 744, 109, 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/109

    2012 doi

  48. [56]

    Staelin , D. H. 1969, , 57, 724, 10.1109/PROC.1969.7051

    1969

  49. [57]

    J., Tancoigne, E., Baudry, J., et al

    Strasser, B. J., Tancoigne, E., Baudry, J., et al. 2023, PLOS ONE, 18, 1, 10.1371/journal.pone.0293289

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    H., & Cordes , J

    Taylor , J. H., & Cordes , J. M. 1993, , 411, 674, 10.1086/172870

    1993 doi

  51. [59]

    J., Tremblay , C., Walsh , A., & Urquhart , R

    Tingay , S. J., Tremblay , C., Walsh , A., & Urquhart , R. 2016, , 827, L22, 10.3847/2041-8205/827/2/L22

    2016 doi

  52. [60]

    2024, , 168, 292, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad88eb

    Tokadjian , A., Hu , R., & Damiano , M. 2024, , 168, 292, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad88eb

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    D., Varghese , S

    Tremblay , C. D., Varghese , S. S., Hickish , J., et al. 2024, , 167, 35, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0fe0

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    Z., Sneed , E

    Tusay , N., Sheikh , S. Z., Sneed , E. L., et al. 2024, , 168, 283, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad823c

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    1966, , 54, 2, 10.1109/PROC.1966.4567

    Van Vleck, J., & Middleton, D. 1966, , 54, 2, 10.1109/PROC.1966.4567

    1966

  56. [64]

    2013, , 767, 40, 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/40

    Von Korff , J., Demorest , P., Heien , E., et al. 2013, , 767, 40, 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/40

    2013 doi

  57. [65]

    2009, , 97, 1438, 10.1109/JPROC.2009.2017103

    Welch , J., Backer , D., Blitz , L., et al. 2009, , 97, 1438, 10.1109/JPROC.2009.2017103

    2009

  58. [66]

    1988, Acta Astronautica, 17, 123, 10.1016/0094-5765(88)90135-X

    Werthimer, D., Brady, R., Berezin, A., & Bowyer, S. 1988, Acta Astronautica, 17, 123, 10.1016/0094-5765(88)90135-X

    1988 doi

  59. [67]

    1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Werthimer , D., Ng , D., Bowyer , S., & Donnelly , C. 1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 74, Progress in the Search for Extraterrestrial Life., ed. G. S. Shostak , 293

    1995

  60. [68]

    T., Kanodia , S., & Lubar , E

    Wright , J. T., Kanodia , S., & Lubar , E. 2018, , 156, 260, 10.3847/1538-3881/aae099

    2018 doi

  61. [69]

    2019, , 484, L43, 10.1093/mnrasl/slz002

    Zeng , S., Qu \'e nard , D., Jim \'e nez-Serra , I., et al. 2019, , 484, L43, 10.1093/mnrasl/slz002

    2019 doi

  62. [70]

    2020, , 891, 174, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7376

    Zhang , Z.-S., Werthimer , D., Zhang , T.-J., et al. 2020, , 891, 174, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7376

    2020 doi

Pith tools

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