Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 43 references

Technosignature Searches with Real-time Alert Brokers

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that real-time alert brokers built for supernovae can be repurposed for technosignature searches, and demonstrates a two-stage workflow that recovered four previously unknown stellar dippers from the ZTF alert stream.

desk verdict A useful, honest demonstration of alert brokers for SETI-style anomaly searches, with public transit-zone filters worth having; the dipper claim outruns the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14744 v1 pith:GYFVI3TG submitted 2025-06-17 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.SR

Eleanor M. Gallay , James R. A. Davenport , Steve Croft This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords technosignaturesSETIalertbrokersZwickyTransientFacilitystellardipperstime-domainastronomyanomalydetectionLegacySurveyofSpaceandTime
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

Real-time alert brokers, designed to catch supernovae for immediate follow-up, can also be adapted to search for technosignatures. This paper demonstrates the adaptation using the Lasair broker fed by the Zwicky Transient Facility: it builds watchmaps of the solar system's planetary transit zones, tests temporal searches such as the SETI Ellipsoid, and develops a two-stage workflow that finds previously unknown stellar dippers — stars whose brightness drops suddenly without a known astrophysical cause. On one night, the workflow reduced about a million alerts to 21 objects, then to four candidates whose light curves show a genuine dip relative to their historical baseline. The authors argue the same pipeline, with recalibrated thresholds, will scale to the roughly ten-million-alert-per-night stream expected from the Legacy Survey of Space and Time, making broker-based anomaly selection a practical route to SETI follow-up.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the two-stage filtering pipeline. Stage one runs inside the broker: a SQL query against the Lasair API selects objects whose first alerts occurred in 2024, that have Gaia cross-matches within 0.5 arcseconds, at least ten alert points, a bright (sub-16th magnitude) closest source, and no alert-packet magnitudes brighter than the reference magnitude, cutting the nightly stream from roughly a million alerts to under 20. Stage two happens outside the broker: the authors convert difference magnitudes to apparent magnitudes using the 'magnr', 'magpsf', and 'isdiffpos' alert fields, pull historical light curves from the ZTF archive within one arcsecond, and apply two chi-squared tests on the historical sample, a two-sample K-S test with a p-value below 0.05 comparing historical and alert-epoch data, and a dip-depth cut requiring the alert median to be fainter than the 95th percentile of the historical data. These thresholds are calibrated by simulating dips of 0 to 0.2 magnitudes and showing that the K-S p-value falls exponentially with dip depth.

What would settle it

Cross-match each of the four reported candidates to its exact ZTF archival object ID and re-run the chi-squared, K-S, and dip-depth tests on that object's own historical light curve; if the dips disappear or the historical sample is no longer statistically constant, the dipper identification fails. Independent pixel-level inspection and comparison with nearby stars, following the approach used for the famous dipper star, would settle whether the dimming is astrophysical or a calibration and blending artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the nightly alert stream, combined with archival light curves, contains recoverable new stellar dippers and that the authors' workflow does recover them. The paper reports four candidate dippers — ZTF24abbldyz, ZTF24abjinpg, ZTF24abgzfsz, and ZTF24ablvgno — that pass every filtering stage: a Lasair SQL query selects Gaia-matched, bright, recently alerted objects with no brighter reference image, and a second stage converts difference magnitudes to apparent magnitudes, pulls archival ZTF data within one arcsecond, applies chi-squared variability cuts and a two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and requires alert-epoch magnitudes to be fainter than the historical 95th percentile. The authors state that the resulting light curves indicate they have successfully identified new stellar dippers using real-time alerts, while noting that pixel-level verification is still needed to rule out systematic contamination.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the archival light curve pulled from within one arcsecond of a candidate is the same star that triggered the alert, because Lasair and ZTF use different object IDs, so the historical baseline used in the chi-squared and K-S tests could come from a different source.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same workflow run on LSST's roughly ten-fold larger alert stream should yield on the order of fifty candidates per night, increasing the sample from which rare technosignatures could be found by an order of magnitude.
  • The 44 public transit-zone filters and eight planetary watchmaps offer continuous monitoring of regions from which solar-system planets are visible in transit, a direct spatial technosignature search.
  • Adding apparent magnitudes, archival object identifiers, and first-alert dates to broker schemas would let more technosignature searches run wholly inside the broker, removing the manual archival step.
  • Gradual long-period dimming, as seen in ZTF24aaerzwh, is detectable by brokers once the brightness change crosses ZTF's unpublished alert threshold, implying brokers can catch slow variability in addition to sudden dips.
  • The p-value threshold of 0.05 and the chi-squared cutoffs are ZTF-specific and will need recalibration on Rubin data, where no multi-year archive yet exists for historical baselines.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the same anomaly pipeline should detect natural phenomena — eclipsing binaries, young stellar objects, and dust-driven dimming — as well as possible technosignatures, making the workflow a general time-domain discovery tool whose SETI relevance is one use case.
  • Inference: the one-arcsecond archival matching is the fragility point; if Lasair and ZTF object IDs were linked, re-running the statistical tests on exactly matched objects would provide a direct check of the four candidates' reality.
  • Inference: the authors' p-value-versus-dip-depth simulation could be extended to false-positive-rate control for machine-learning anomaly scores, giving a principled way to set thresholds as survey cadence changes.
  • Inference: a testable extension would be to run the SQL filter nightly over a full observing season and cross-check surviving candidates against TESS or Gaia light curves to measure the true-positive rate of the dipper classification.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper explores the use of real-time alert brokers, particularly the Lasair broker, for technosignature and anomaly searches. It derives transit-zone geometries for all solar system planets, uploads them as public watchmaps and filters, and discusses how spatial and temporal SETI searches can be adapted to broker infrastructure. The central empirical contribution is a two-stage workflow to identify novel stellar dippers from the ZTF alert stream: an initial Lasair SQL filter reduces the nightly stream to under about 20 candidates, and a second stage applies archival light-curve queries, chi-squared and two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, and p-value simulations to isolate historically constant sources with a sudden dip. The paper reports four candidate dippers from the night of 2024 November 24 and concludes that the workflow has successfully identified new stellar dippers, while noting that pixel-level follow-up is required for confirmation.

Significance. If the dipper candidates are validated, the paper demonstrates a practical and scalable method for using existing broker infrastructure to conduct technosignature-related anomaly searches, and its public transit-zone watchmaps and filters are a useful community resource. The transit-zone angle derivation is a correct refinement of earlier work and reduces to the standard small-angle result. The workflow is described in enough detail to be reproduced, and the authors are transparent about several limitations, including the lack of a direct link between Lasair and ZTF object identifiers. However, the central empirical claim rests on unverified cross-matching and hand-tuned statistical thresholds, so the significance of the candidate identification is contingent on additional validation. The paper is best viewed as a proof-of-concept for broker-based technosignature searches rather than a robust discovery of new dippers.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.1, Appendix A] The claim that the workflow 'successfully identified new stellar dippers using real time alerts' depends on the one-arcsecond ZTF archival query returning the same source as the alert that triggered the workflow. The paper explicitly states in §5.2.2 that there is no link between Lasair object IDs and ZTF archival object IDs, so the historical light curve used as the baseline for the chi-squared and K-S tests may be drawn from a different source. Because the four candidates in Figure 8 were selected based on a comparison to that baseline, the candidates cannot be considered verified until the association is tested, for instance by checking whether the archival light curve contains the alert-epoch measurements or by cross-matching the candidate positions to Gaia/PS1 and confirming a unique, consistent source. The paper should either add such validation or rephrase the §5.3 statement to say that candidate dippers were identified pending confirmation.
  2. [§5.2.3] The SQL query presented in Appendix A does not implement the filter criterion described in §5.1 that 'all alert-packet magnitudes be fainter than the source's reference magnitude.' The query as written includes the condition `ISNULL(objects.ncandgp)` but contains no condition relating difference and reference magnitudes, such as `isdiffpos = 'f'` or an explicit comparison of magnitude columns. This inconsistency prevents reproduction of the initial alert-filtering stage, which is a load-bearing part of the workflow, and must be fixed for the paper to be reproducible.
  3. [§5.2.4] The definition of the 'historical' sample as observations at least 100 days before the discovery date does not guarantee a constant baseline for the gradual dips that the workflow aims to find. For example, the text describing ZTF24abbldyz in Figure 8 says the dip begins about 250 days before the alert epoch, which is more than 100 days before the discovery date; such early dimming would fall within the historical sample and could cause the chi-squared and K-S tests to pass for the wrong reason, because the 'historical' baseline would already include part of the dip. The authors should quantify how the 100-day window affects the historical sample for the four candidates, or use a more robust baseline such as fitting the pre-dip data, before claiming that the candidates were historically constant.
  4. [§5.2.4] The K-S p-value threshold is calibrated using simulated dips constructed from the noise properties of the same sources that are then subjected to the threshold, and the paper states that the relationship was 'replicated for several different sources' but does not show those plots or specify how many sources and filters were used. Presenting this calibration evidence is necessary to support the claim that a threshold of 0.05 corresponds to dips of 'about 0.01 magnitudes' across all candidates, because the simulation appears to be based largely on ZTF24abbldyz and it is not demonstrated that the noise properties are universal.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract, §4] The abstract states that the paper has 'deployed optical SETI techniques, such as planetary transit zone geometries and the SETI Ellipsoid,' but the SETI Ellipsoid is only discussed as a proposal in §4 and no ellipsoid search is actually implemented; only the transit-zone watchmaps and the dipper workflow are deployed. The wording should be adjusted to avoid overstating the implementation.
  2. [§1, §4, §6] There are several typographical errors: 'relativeley' in §1, 'technosi ganture' in §4, and 'pair down' in §6 should be 'pare down.'
  3. [Figure 4] The Figure 4 caption refers to 'R-band and G-band' data, while the text and Figure 8 use 'g, r, i' band notation; the terminology should be made consistent throughout.
  4. [References] The reference list contains duplicate entries for Boyajian et al. (2016) and Heller & Pudritz (2016); these should be consolidated.
  5. [Equation (1)] Equation (1) is not the standard chi-squared statistic: it includes a leading factor 1/N and uses the median as the expected value, and the degrees of freedom are not specified. The authors should either rename this a normalized median-based chi-square statistic or justify the departure from the conventional definition.
  6. [Figure 4 caption] The phrase 'the right-most dotted line indicates the MJD min or thirty days before the object's most recent alert' is ambiguous; clarify whether this line marks the start of the alert packet window or the alert epoch.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the transit-zone calculation is a first-principles geometry derivation, and the dipper workflow is a selection pipeline validated against external archival data, with its limitations explicitly acknowledged.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Section 2 derives the transit-zone angle φ_TZ = 2 arcsin((R⊙−Rp)/r) from similar-triangle geometry with no fitted inputs, so that first-principles result does not reduce to its own assumptions. The SETI Ellipsoid discussion cites prior work by coauthors (Davenport et al. 2022; Nilipour et al. 2023; Cabrales et al. 2024), but only as context for an established observing strategy; no load-bearing claim is justified solely by that citation. The dipper search in Section 5 uses independent external data (archival ZTF light curves) and standard statistical tests (chi-squared and two-sample K-S). The K-S p-value threshold is calibrated by simulating dips from one object's historical noise, but it is a generic significance cut, not a parameter fitted to force any candidate through, so it is calibration rather than a prediction that reduces to its input. The one-arcsecond archival cross-match limitation noted in Section 5.2.2 is a real data-association risk, and Section 5.3 defers pixel-level verification of candidates; these are external validity concerns, not circular reductions. The fact that the pipeline selects objects whose alert photometry is fainter than historical photometry, and then finds such objects, is a selection-function tautology consistent with the stated workflow, not a derivation that assumes its conclusion. No equation or claimed result is equivalent by construction to its own input.

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

The workflow depends mainly on hand-selected statistical thresholds and on the accuracy of the alert-packet photometric conversion and archival source matching. These are described clearly but are not independently validated. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • K-S p-value threshold = 0.05
    Chosen after simulating dip amplitudes for ZTF24abbldyz and several other sources; selects dips with amplitude above about 0.01 mag.
  • Historical chi-squared limit = 15
    Hand-set ceiling for the full-sample variability test in each filter.
  • Outlier-resistant chi-squared limit (5th-95th percentile) = 5
    Hand-set ceiling for the percentile-trimmed variability test.
  • Minimum historical data points = 100
    Required for a stable historical distribution before the K-S and chi-squared tests.
  • Separation windows = 100 days historical, 30 days alert
    Hand-chosen gap to keep a gradual pre-alert dip out of the historical sample.
  • Dip depth restriction = median alert fainter than 95th percentile of historical
    Imposes a visible dip amplitude; threshold is not validated against known dippers.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The ZTF alert stream and Lasair broker schema behave as publicly described, including the existence of a non-publicized minimum alert amplitude threshold.
    Invoked in Sections 1 and 3 to argue only large-amplitude variability can be found; the threshold itself is never measured.
  • domain assumption Difference magnitudes in alert packets can be converted to apparent magnitudes using magpsf, magnr, and isdiffpos.
    Section 5.2.1 describes the conversion function but does not validate it against independent photometry.
  • domain assumption A one-arcsecond cone search in the ZTF archive returns the same object as the Lasair alert.
    Section 5.2.2 acknowledges that object IDs are inconsistent and this may conflate multiple sources.
  • domain assumption Gaussian simulations of dips represent the real noise properties of historical ZTF data.
    Section 5.2.4 uses random draws with the historical standard deviation, not the actual correlated noise.
  • domain assumption Rubin/LSST will produce about ten times more alerts and the dipper candidate rate scales linearly.
    Section 6 extrapolates ZTF yields to 'roughly 50 candidates every night' without accounting for survey depth, cadence, or alert filters.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Technosignature Searches with Real-time Alert Brokers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GYFVI3TG

@misc{pith2026250614744,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Technosignature Searches with Real-time Alert Brokers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GYFVI3TG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14744}
}
read the original abstract

We present an exploration of technosignature research that is possible using real-time alert brokers from surveys such as the Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF) and the upcoming Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST). Nine alert brokers currently stream up to 1 million alerts each night from ZTF, and LSST is projected to increase this volume by an order of magnitude. While these brokers are primarily designed to facilitate real-time follow-up of explosive transients such as supernovae, they offer a unique platform to discover rare forms of variability from nearby stars in real time, which is crucial for follow-up and characterization. We evaluate the capability for both spatial and temporal searches for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) methods using the currently available brokers, and present examples of technosignature searches using ZTF alert and archival data. We have deployed optical SETI techniques, such as planetary transit zone geometries and the SETI Ellipsoid. We have also developed a search for novel high-amplitude stellar dippers, and present a workflow that integrates features available directly through the brokers, as well as post-processing steps that build on the existing capabilities. Though the SETI methods that alert brokers can execute are currently limited, we provide suggestions that may enhance future technosignature and anomaly searches in the era of the Vera C. Rubin Observatory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14744 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Transit zone angle geometry. The yellow and blue circles represent the Sun and planet, respec￾tively (sizes not drawn to scale). R⊙ is the solar radius and Rp is the planet’s radius. The average distance between the planet and the Sun is r (1 AU for Earth), and ϕTZ is the full transit zone angle. The transit zone is a projection of ϕTZ onto the sky. Any theoretical sensor in this strip of sky could detect the planet… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Transit zones for all solar system planets are plotted in heliocentric ecliptic coordinates (left) and in celestial coordinates (right). Each planet’s transit zone is shown as a colored sinusoidal band. Sensors located in the colored regions of sky could detect the corresponding planets as they transit the Sun. Overlaps between colored bands indicate regions where multiple planets could be detected. Note there are 2… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Multi-Order Coverage map for the Mercury Transit Zone is plotted in purple with a HEALPix cell resolution of 12. The plot is a projection of the world coordinate system (WCS) to the pixel image coordinate system. The right-hand plot more clearly shows the jagged edge of the MOC rendering, which slightly overestimates the total transit zone region. properties of similar triangles. For our plane￾tary transit zone mode… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Light curve for ZTF24aaerzwh. This source was crossed-matched by Lasair with 4479767064322208640, a G=13.40 mag stellar source found in the GAIA/PS1 catalogs. The source has been classified in the Zwicky Transient Facility catalog of periodic variable stars as a BY Dra…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulated dips of varying amplitudes are plotted along with g-band data from ZTF24abbldyz. Simulated dips are plotted in color, where each color indicates a different amplitude. Real data for ZTF24abbldyz is plotted in greyscale. The horizontal dotted line indicates th…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Color-Magnitude Diagram from 2024 November 25, showing alerts from the night of 2024 November 24. Alert data points are plotted in front of a 2D histogram color-magnitude diagram of the Gaia catalog of nearby stars. Objects that passed all filter constraints from the S…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Light curves are plotted for all four objects that passed both sets of filters within and beyond the brokers on the night of 2024 November 24. Left to right and top to bottom, we have ZTF24abbldyz, ZTF24abjinpg, ZTF24abgzfsz, and ZTF24ablvgno [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [4]

    D., Engel , A

    Aleo , P. D., Engel , A. W., Narayan , G., et al. 2024, , 974, 172, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6869

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6869 2024

  4. [5]

    P., Tollerud , E

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  5. [6]

    M., Sip o cz , B

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  6. [7]

    M., Lim , P

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  7. [8]

    C., Kulkarni , S

    Bellm , E. C., Kulkarni , S. R., Graham , M. J., et al. 2019, , 131, 018002, 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  8. [10]

    S., LaCourse , D

    Boyajian , T. S., LaCourse , D. M., Rappaport , S. A., et al. 2016, , 457, 3988, 10.1093/mnras/stw218

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw218 2016

Show all 43 references
  1. [11]

    Cabrales , B., Davenport , J. R. A., Sheikh , S., et al. 2024, , 167, 101, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad2064

    2024 doi

  2. [12]

    2004, 202, 445

    Castellano, T., Doyle, L., & McIntosh, D. 2004, 202, 445. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004IAUS..202..445C

    2004

  3. [13]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 249, 18, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9cae

    Chen, X., Wang, S., Deng, L., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 249, 18, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9cae

    2020 doi

  4. [14]

    2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 10, 10.3847/1538-3881/acf576

    Choza, C., Bautista, D., Croft, S., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 10, 10.3847/1538-3881/acf576

    2024 doi

  5. [15]

    Davenport , J. R. A., Cabrales , B., Sheikh , S., et al. 2022, , 164, 117, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac82ea

    2022 doi

  6. [16]

    2014, IVOA Recommendation 02 June 2014, 602, 10.5479/ADS/bib/2014ivoa.spec.0602F

    Fernique, P., Boch, T., Donaldson, T., et al. 2014, IVOA Recommendation 02 June 2014, 602, 10.5479/ADS/bib/2014ivoa.spec.0602F

    2014 doi

  7. [17]

    2021, , 161, 242, 10.3847/1538-3881/abe9bc

    F \"o rster , F., Cabrera-Vives , G., Castillo-Navarrete , E., et al. 2021, , 161, 242, 10.3847/1538-3881/abe9bc

    2021 doi

  8. [18]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2012.01533, https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202039657

    2020 arXiv

  9. [19]

    L., Sarro, L

    Gaia Collaboration , Smart, R. L., Sarro, L. M., et al. 2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 649, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039498

    2021 doi

  10. [20]

    I., Siemion, A

    Gajjar, V., Perez, K. I., Siemion, A. P. V., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 162, 33, 10.3847/1538-3881/abfd36

    2021 doi

  11. [21]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sipőcz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 98, 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    2019 doi

  12. [22]

    M., Hivon , E., Banday , A

    G \'o rski , K. M., Hivon , E., Banday , A. J., et al. 2005, , 622, 759, 10.1086/427976

    2005 doi

  13. [24]

    Heller, R., & Pudritz, R. E. 2016, Astrobiology, 16, 259, 10.1089/ast.2015.1358

    2016

  14. [25]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing In Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  15. [26]

    Isaacson, H., Siemion, A. P. V., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 129, 054501, 10.1088/1538-3873/aa5800

    2017 doi

  16. [27]

    A., Acosta , E., et al

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Tyson , J. A., Acosta , E., et al. 2008, ArXiv e-prints, \# 0805.2366. 0805.2366

    2008 arXiv

  17. [28]

    2001--, SciPy : Open source scientific tools for Python

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T., Peterson, P., et al. 2001--, SciPy : Open source scientific tools for Python . http://www.scipy.org/

    2001

  18. [29]

    Lemarchand , G. A. 1994, , 214, 209, 10.1007/BF00982337

    1994 doi

  19. [30]

    X., Ng, C., Rizk, L., et al

    Ma, P. X., Ng, C., Rizk, L., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 492, 10.1038/s41550-022-01872-z

    2023 doi

  20. [31]

    Nilipour , A., Davenport , J. R. A., Croft , S., & Siemion , A. P. V. 2023, , 166, 79, 10.3847/1538-3881/acde79

    2023 doi

  21. [32]

    Oliphant, T. E. 2007, Computing in Science Engineering, 9, 10, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.58

    2007 doi

  22. [33]

    T., Bellm , E

    Patterson , M. T., Bellm , E. C., Rusholme , B., et al. 2019, , 131, 018001, 10.1088/1538-3873/aae904

    2019 doi

  23. [34]

    P\'erez, F., & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 21, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53

    2007 doi

  24. [35]

    R., Winn , J

    Ricker , G. R., Winn , J. N., Vanderspek , R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    2015 doi

  25. [36]

    2018, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.1345222

    Rigault, M. 2018, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.1345222

    2018 doi

  26. [37]

    Z., et al

    Rizzo Smith , M., Jayasinghe , T., Stanek , K. Z., et al. 2021, The Astronomer's Telegram, 14879, 1

    2021

  27. [38]

    2021, , 917, 96, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0c7b

    Seto , N. 2021, , 917, 96, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0c7b

    2021 doi

  28. [39]

    Z., Siemion, A., Enriquez, J

    Sheikh, S. Z., Siemion, A., Enriquez, J. E., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 160, 29, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab9361

    2020 doi

  29. [40]

    Siemion, A. P. V., Demorest, P., Korpela, E., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 767, 94, 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/94

    2013 doi

  30. [41]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, The Astronomical Journal, 131, 1163, 10.1086/498708

    2006 doi

  31. [42]

    W., Williams, R

    Smith, K. W., Williams, R. D., Young, D. R., et al. 2019, Research Notes of the AAS, 3, 26, 10.3847/2515-5172/ab020f

    2019 doi

  32. [43]

    Z., Sneed, E

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

    2024 doi

  33. [44]

    A., & Heller, R

    Wells, R., Poppenhaeger, K., Watson, C. A., & Heller, R. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 345, 10.1093/mnras/stx2077

    2018 doi

  34. [45]

    2010, in P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference, ed

    W es M c K inney. 2010, in P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference, ed. S t\'efan van der W alt & J arrod M illman, 56 -- 61, 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2010 doi

  35. [46]

    G., Adelman , J., Anderson , Jr., J

    York , D. G., Adelman , J., Anderson , Jr., J. E., et al. 2000, , 120, 1579, 10.1086/301513

    2000 doi

Pith tools

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