pith. sign in

arxiv: 2508.00249 · v2 · submitted 2025-08-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.IM

Artificial Broadcasts as Galactic Populations: III. Constraints on Radio Broadcasts from the Cosmic Population of Inhabited Galaxies

Brian C. Lacki This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 02:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.IM
keywords artificial radio broadcastsSETIradio source countsKardashev Type IIIinhabited galaxiescosmic populationsradio luminosity
0
0 comments X

The pith

Artificial radio broadcasts from inhabited galaxies are rarer than one per million large galaxies.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper applies a population formalism to artificial radio broadcasts that contribute to the integrated radio luminosity of galaxies. Observed radio source counts across the spectrum, including at 250 GHz, and commensal measurements from SETI survey fields are used to bound the number of such galaxies. The resulting limits show that Kardashev Type III broadcast populations must be extremely sparse. The same bounds are derived for both uniform and power-law luminosity distributions, with the tightest constraints coming from field limits over restricted luminosity ranges.

Core claim

Using the formalism in Paper I and II, measured radio source counts set limits on radio broadcasts across the radio spectrum, including the first Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) constraints at ~250 GHz. Commensal limits from background galaxies in the fields of large SETI surveys provide stronger bounds in limited ranges. The abundance of Kardashev Type III radio broadcast populations is less than one in 10^{17} stars, about one in a million large galaxies. Limits weaken when broadcasts clump into discrete rare hosts and are also examined for a power-law distribution in broadcast luminosity.

What carries the argument

The population formalism treating artificial broadcasts as adding to galactic integrated radio luminosity, compared directly against observed radio source counts and SETI survey background fields.

If this is right

  • First SETI constraints at ~250 GHz are obtained from source counts.
  • Commensal field limits are more powerful but apply only over limited luminosity ranges and dedicated frequencies.
  • Limits become weaker if broadcasts are concentrated in extremely rare host galaxies.
  • The same population bounds apply to a power-law distribution of broadcast luminosities.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Future higher-sensitivity radio surveys could either detect the predicted population or push the abundance limit lower.
  • The results imply that any widespread galactic civilizations must avoid producing radio emission bright enough to stand out in integrated counts.
  • This approach connects standard radio astronomy source statistics directly to limits on the prevalence of advanced technological societies.

Load-bearing premise

Artificial broadcasts add to a galaxy's integrated radio luminosity in a manner that can be directly compared against observed radio source counts and SETI survey fields.

What would settle it

An observed excess in radio source counts at a well-characterized frequency that matches the predicted number density of artificial radio galaxies from the model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.00249 by Brian C. Lacki.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Galaxies are scattered in a haystack WG (upper left), a subset WG σ of which is selected by survey s (dark blue outline), in turn restricted to the detection window σ (blue shading). Each galaxy in turn has its own broadcast haystack, WB G , with detectable broadcasts falling into a subset selected by σ. To calculate the probability of a null detection, we can split WG σ into many subwindows, only some of … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Constraints on luminosity and broadcast frequency abundance per metasociety in the base model set. On top, the fre￾quency abundance is per unit frequency, but below, it is per unit log frequency. Orange limits delineate regions excluded by differ￾ential source counts, and blue limits for regions excluded by the brightest source limit. Frequency band is given by line style: solid (and shaded) for 1.4 GHz, l… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Luminosity distributions in the base model set and model set A at z = 0 in the absence of natural emission. From left to right, ZB M increases while broadcast luminosity remains fixed. The shaded curves are the naive mean luminosity distributions; dark lines are for DEEP-2; and light lines are for NVSS. These are shown for the base model with NM G = 1 (black/grey) and when metasocieties are rare (ΞM=0 G = … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effects of adjusting various model parameters on the predicted Euclidean-normalized flux distributions in NVSS for the base model set. The model set, along with the adjusted parameters are given by the panel labels. Moving from dark red through black to dark blue, the value of the parameter is increased by a factor of 10, except the evolution exponent in model set D, which is incremented by 1, and the lumi… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Euclidean-normalized flux distributions for the base model set. On upper left are distributions for 150 MHz, with source count data from GLEAM (circles) and LOFAR (squares). On upper right, the distribution for 1.4 GHz, with data from NVSS (circles) and DEEP2 (squares). On lower left, flux distributions for 16 GHz are compared with data from AT20G (circles), 9C (squares), and 10C (triangles). Finally, on l… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Constraints on luminosity and broadcast frequency abundance compared for different metasocietal abundances in model set A at 1.4 GHz. Line colors and shading are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Constraints on broadcast and metasocietal abundance compared for different broadcast EIRPs in model set A at 1.4 GHz. Line styles and shading are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Example of a luminosity distributions in model set B, demonstrating the effects clumping of broadcasts into rare so￾cieties. The peaks in the distribution correspond to small in￾teger values of NC o,M. Luminosity distributions are shown for ZB M = 10−5 star−1 GHz−1 , with ΞC M values of 10−12 (blue), 10−10.5 (gold), 10−9 star−1 (red), and 10−7.5 star−1 (dark grey). Because the number of societies does not … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Constraints on luminosity and broadcast frequency abundance compared for different metasocietal abundances in model set B at 1.4 GHz. Line colors and shading are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Constraints on broadcast and societal abundance compared for different broadcast luminosities in model set B at 1.4 GHz. Line styles and shading are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Constraints on luminosity and broadcast frequency abundance compared for different metasocietal abundances in model set C at 1.4 GHz. Line colors and shading are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Constraints on luminosity and broadcast frequency abundance compared for different metasocietal abundances in model set D at 1.4 GHz. Line colors and shading are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Any population of artificial radio broadcasts in a galaxy contributes to its integrated radio luminosity. If this radio emission is bright enough, inhabited galaxies themselves form a cosmic population of artificial radio galaxies. We can detect these broadcasts individually or set constraints from their collective emission. Using the formalism in Paper I and II, I set bounds on the artificial radio galaxy population using both of these methodologies. Measured radio source counts set limits on radio broadcasts across the radio spectrum, including the first Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) constraints at ~250 GHz. I compare these with commensal limits from background galaxies in the fields of large SETI surveys. The field limits are more powerful, but generally only over a limited luminosity range and for frequencies with dedicated SETI surveys. The limits are weaker when broadcasts clump into discrete hosts that are themselves extremely rare. I find that the abundance of Kardashev Type III radio broadcast populations is less than one in $10^{17}$ stars, about one in a million large galaxies. I also examine limits for a power-law distribution in broadcast luminosity.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends the formalism from Papers I and II to constrain the cosmic population of artificial radio broadcasts by modeling their contribution to integrated galaxy radio luminosity. It derives upper limits using measured radio source counts across frequencies (including the first SETI constraints at ~250 GHz) and commensal limits from background galaxies in SETI survey fields, concluding that Kardashev Type III broadcast populations occur at a rate of less than one per 10^{17} stars (approximately one per million large galaxies). Limits are noted to weaken for clumped or rare hosts, and a power-law luminosity distribution is also examined.

Significance. If the central modeling assumptions hold, the work provides quantitative, data-driven upper bounds on the prevalence of advanced civilizations producing detectable radio emission, repurposing standard radio source count measurements and existing SETI observations for a novel population-level analysis. Credit is due for the first reported SETI-style limits at ~250 GHz and for explicitly comparing collective emission constraints against individual survey fields.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and derivation of abundance limit] Abstract and the section deriving the 10^{17} abundance limit: the headline constraint is obtained by requiring that artificial broadcasts add to galaxy integrated radio luminosity without exceeding observed source counts. This step assumes steady broadband emission that shifts the luminosity function without introducing resolvable point sources, frequency-dependent effects, or confusion with star-formation emission; if broadcasts are narrowband, intermittent, or spectrally distinct, the derived number density can loosen by orders of magnitude, and the manuscript does not quantify this sensitivity.
  2. [Comparison of methodologies] Section comparing source-count limits to SETI field limits: the claim that field limits are more powerful but limited in luminosity range and frequency relies on the population formalism of Papers I and II. A brief self-contained recap of how survey selection functions, completeness corrections, and the ~250 GHz coverage are propagated would allow independent verification and reduce dependence on the prior series.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Power-law distribution subsection] Clarify notation for the broadcast luminosity function parameters when discussing the power-law distribution case to avoid ambiguity with the fixed-luminosity results.
  2. [Introduction and references] Ensure references to Papers I and II are consistently formatted and clearly separated from external radio catalog citations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below and have incorporated revisions to improve clarity and robustness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and the section deriving the 10^{17} abundance limit: the headline constraint is obtained by requiring that artificial broadcasts add to galaxy integrated radio luminosity without exceeding observed source counts. This step assumes steady broadband emission that shifts the luminosity function without introducing resolvable point sources, frequency-dependent effects, or confusion with star-formation emission; if broadcasts are narrowband, intermittent, or spectrally distinct, the derived number density can loosen by orders of magnitude, and the manuscript does not quantify this sensitivity.

    Authors: We agree that the headline limit is derived under the baseline assumption of steady, broadband emission that contributes to the integrated luminosity without producing individually resolvable sources. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated paragraph in the discussion section that quantifies the sensitivity to alternative emission models. For narrowband or intermittent broadcasts the effective duty cycle and bandwidth dilution factors are now explicitly estimated, showing that the number-density upper limit can weaken by up to two orders of magnitude in the most extreme cases while remaining informative. We also note that the source-count methodology still bounds the time-averaged power even for spectrally distinct signals, and we have updated the abstract to flag this modeling choice. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Section comparing source-count limits to SETI field limits: the claim that field limits are more powerful but limited in luminosity range and frequency relies on the population formalism of Papers I and II. A brief self-contained recap of how survey selection functions, completeness corrections, and the ~250 GHz coverage are propagated would allow independent verification and reduce dependence on the prior series.

    Authors: We accept that a self-contained summary would improve accessibility. The revised manuscript now includes a short subsection (approximately one paragraph) that recapitulates the essential elements of the population formalism: the mapping from individual broadcast luminosity to galaxy-integrated flux, the application of survey completeness corrections, and the specific propagation of the 250 GHz source-count data. This recap is written to be readable without requiring immediate reference to Papers I and II, while still directing interested readers to those works for full derivations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Central abundance limits depend on self-cited population formalism from Papers I and II

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract]
    "Using the formalism in Paper I and II, I set bounds on the artificial radio galaxy population using both of these methodologies. Measured radio source counts set limits on radio broadcasts across the radio spectrum, including the first Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) constraints at ~250 GHz."

    The headline result is obtained by applying the population formalism and assumptions (artificial broadcasts adding to integrated radio luminosity, direct comparability to source counts) developed in the same author's prior papers. The specific 10^17 figure therefore reduces to those self-cited modeling choices rather than emerging from first-principles derivation or external verification within this manuscript.

full rationale

The derivation of the <1 per 10^17 stars limit proceeds by folding an assumed artificial radio luminosity contribution into the cosmic galaxy population and comparing against observed source counts/SETI fields. This step is load-bearing and rests on the population formalism introduced in the author's prior Papers I and II rather than being re-derived or independently validated here. External radio catalogs supply independent data, but the translation from those catalogs to broadcast number densities inherits the prior modeling choices for integrated luminosity addition, survey selection, and clumping effects. This produces partial circularity (score 6) without reducing the entire result to a pure self-definition or fitted-input renaming.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the population formalism from Papers I and II plus external radio survey data; no new free parameters are explicitly introduced in the abstract beyond those inherited from the series.

free parameters (1)
  • broadcast luminosity function parameters
    Parameters describing the distribution of artificial broadcast powers, including any power-law index, are required to convert source counts into population limits.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Artificial radio broadcasts within a galaxy contribute additively to its integrated radio luminosity without dominant absorption or scattering effects.
    Invoked when treating inhabited galaxies as a population of artificial radio sources comparable to observed counts.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5723 in / 1294 out tokens · 60786 ms · 2026-05-19T02:04:34.878104+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Adelson, R. M. 1966, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 17, 73, doi: 10.1057/jors.1966.8 AMI Consortium, Davies, M. L., Franzen, T. M. O., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 2708, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18925.x

    work page doi:10.1057/jors.1966.8 1966

  2. [2]

    2007, in Stochastic Geometry, ed

    Baddeley, A. 2007, in Stochastic Geometry, ed. W. Weil (Berlin: Springer), 1–75, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-38175-4 1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-38175-4 2007

  3. [3]

    E., Alexander, D

    Bauer, F. E., Alexander, D. M., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2004, AJ, 128, 2048, doi: 10.1086/424859

    work page doi:10.1086/424859 2004

  4. [4]

    Behroozi, P., & Peeples, M. S. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1811, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1817

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1817 2015

  5. [5]

    Brzycki, B., Siemion, A. P. V., de Pater, I., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdee0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acdee0 2023

  6. [6]

    E., Ade, P

    Carlstrom, J. E., Ade, P. A. R., Aird, K. A., et al. 2011, PASP, 123, 568, doi: 10.1086/659879

    work page doi:10.1086/659879 2011

  7. [7]

    1983, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 310, 347, doi: 10.1098/rsta.1983.0096

    Carter, B. 1983, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 310, 347, doi: 10.1098/rsta.1983.0096

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.1983.0096 1983

  8. [8]

    2003, ApJL, 586, L133, doi: 10.1086/374879

    Chabrier, G. 2003, ApJL, 586, L133, doi: 10.1086/374879

    work page doi:10.1086/374879 2003

  9. [9]

    N., Stoyan, D., Kendall, W

    Chiu, S. N., Stoyan, D., Kendall, W. S., & Mecke, J. 2013, Stochastic Geometry and its Applications: Third Edition (New York: Wiley), doi: 10.1002/9781118658222

    work page doi:10.1002/9781118658222 2013

  10. [10]

    2024, AJ, 167, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acf576 ´Cirkovi´ c, M

    Choza, C., Bautista, D., Croft, S., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acf576 ´Cirkovi´ c, M. M., & Vukoti´ c, B. 2008, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 38, 535, doi: 10.1007/s11084-008-9149-y

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acf576 2024

  11. [11]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1038/184844a0 1959

  12. [12]

    Condon, J. J. 1984, ApJ, 287, 461, doi: 10.1086/162705

    work page doi:10.1086/162705 1984

  13. [13]

    Condon, J. J. 1992, ARA&A, 30, 575, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.003043

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.003043 1992

  14. [14]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., & Broderick, J. J. 2002, AJ, 124, 675, doi: 10.1086/341650

    work page doi:10.1086/341650 2002

  15. [15]

    , keywords =

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 1693, doi: 10.1086/300337

    work page doi:10.1086/300337 1998

  16. [16]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Fomalont, E. B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 758, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/23

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/758/1/23 2012

  17. [17]

    M., Lazio, J

    Cordes, J. M., Lazio, J. W., & Sagan, C. 1997, ApJ, 487, 782, doi: 10.1086/304620

    work page doi:10.1086/304620 1997

  18. [18]

    J., & Vere-Jones, D

    Daley, D. J., & Vere-Jones, D. 2003, An Introduction to the Theory of Point Processes. Volume I: Elementary Theory and Methods (New York: Springer), doi: 10.1007/b97277

    work page doi:10.1007/b97277 2003

  19. [19]

    J., & Vere-Jones, D

    Daley, D. J., & Vere-Jones, D. 2008, An Introduction to the Theory of Point Processes. Volume II: General Theory and Structure (New York: Springer), doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-49835-5

    work page doi:10.1007/978-0-387-49835-5 2008

  20. [21]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =

    Driver, S. P., Bellstedt, S., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 439, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac472

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac472 2022

  21. [22]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8d1b 2017

  22. [23]

    B., Zhang, L., Crawford, T

    Everett, W. B., Zhang, L., Crawford, T. M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9df7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9df7 2020

  23. [24]

    2018, A&A, 620, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832928

    Franco, M., Elbaz, D., B´ ethermin, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832928

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832928 2018

  24. [25]

    Franzen, T. M. O., Vernstrom, T., Jackson, C. A., et al. 2019, PASA, 36, e004, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2018.52

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2018.52 2019

  25. [26]

    A., J., & Valdes, F

    Freitas, R. A., J., & Valdes, F. 1985, Acta Astronautica, 12, 1027, doi: 10.1016/0094-5765(85)90031-1

    work page doi:10.1016/0094-5765(85)90031-1 1985

  26. [27]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 1, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/1

    Fujimoto, S., Ouchi, M., Ono, Y., et al. 2016, ApJS, 222, 1, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/1

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/1 2016

  27. [28]

    I., Siemion, A

    Gajjar, V., Perez, K. I., Siemion, A. P. V., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abfd36

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abfd36 2021

  28. [29]

    A., & Siemion, A

    Garrett, M. A., & Siemion, A. P. V. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 4581, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2607

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2607 2023

  29. [30]

    Gowanlock, M. G. 2016, ApJ, 832, 38, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/38

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/832/1/38 2016

  30. [31]

    H., & Mooley, K

    Gray, R. H., & Mooley, K. 2017, AJ, 153, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/3/110

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/153/3/110 2017

  31. [32]

    , keywords =

    Greve, T. R., Ivison, R. J., Bertoldi, F., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 779, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08235.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08235.x 2004

  32. [33]

    2013, Stochastic Geometry for Wireless Networks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/cbo9781139043816

    Haenggi, M. 2013, Stochastic Geometry for Wireless Networks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/cbo9781139043816

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9781139043816 2013

  33. [34]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2369 ETI Broadcast Populations III

    Hanson, R., Martin, D., McCarter, C., & Paulson, J. 2021, ApJ, 922, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2369 ETI Broadcast Populations III. 39

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2369 2021

  34. [35]

    R., Richards, J., Tarter, J

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

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/181 2016

  35. [36]

    Hogg, D. W. 1999, arXiv e-prints, astro. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9905116

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  36. [37]

    1993, ApJ, 415, 218, doi: 10.1086/173157

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

    work page doi:10.1086/173157 1993

  37. [38]

    Isaacson, H., Siemion, A. P. V., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 054501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa5800

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aa5800 2017

  38. [39]

    Jones, M. E. 1991, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 19, IAU Colloq. 131: Radio Interferometry. Theory, Techniques, and Applications, ed. T. J. Cornwell & R. A. Perley, 395–399

    work page 1991

  39. [40]

    Kardashev, N. S. 1964, Soviet Ast., 8, 217

    work page 1964

  40. [41]

    Kingman, J. F. C. 1993, Poisson Processes (Oxford: Clarendon Press), doi: 10.1093/oso/9780198536932.001.0001

    work page doi:10.1093/oso/9780198536932.001.0001 1993

  41. [42]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.07097, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.07097

    Kipping, D., & Lewis, G. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.07097, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.07097

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.07097 2024

  42. [43]

    Kuiper, T. B. H., & Morris, M. 1977, Science, 196, 616, doi: 10.1126/science.196.4290.616

    work page doi:10.1126/science.196.4290.616 1977

  43. [44]

    Lacki, B. C. 2021, International Journal of Astrobiology, 20, 359, doi: 10.1017/S1473550421000252

    work page doi:10.1017/s1473550421000252 2021

  44. [45]

    Lacki, B. C. 2024a, ApJ, 966, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad11f2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad11f2

  45. [46]

    Lacki, B. C. 2024b, ApJ, 966, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad11f1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad11f1

  46. [47]

    2017, Lectures on the Poisson Process (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/9781316104477

    Last, G., & Penrose, M. 2017, Lectures on the Poisson Process (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/9781316104477

    work page doi:10.1017/9781316104477 2017

  47. [48]

    D., Xue, Y

    Lehmer, B. D., Xue, Y. Q., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2012, ApJ, 752, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/46

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/752/1/46 2012

  48. [49]

    W., Gonzalez Abad, G., & Loeb, A

    Lin, H. W., Gonzalez Abad, G., & Loeb, A. 2014, ApJL, 792, L7, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/792/1/L7

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/792/1/l7 2014

  49. [50]

    R., Baker, A

    Lindner, R. R., Baker, A. J., Omont, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 83, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/83

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/83 2011

  50. [51]

    H., Fenner, Y., & Gibson, B

    Lineweaver, C. H., Fenner, Y., & Gibson, B. K. 2004, Science, 303, 59, doi: 10.1126/science.1092322

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1092322 2004

  51. [52]

    2021, AJ, 161, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abcc77

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abcc77 2021

  52. [53]

    2016, MNRAS, 460, 3829, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1222

    Maselli, A., Massaro, F., Cusumano, G., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 3829, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1222

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1222 2016

  53. [54]

    , keywords =

    Massardi, M., Ekers, R. D., Murphy, T., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 318, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17917.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17917.x 2011

  54. [55]

    M., Condon, J

    Matthews, A. M., Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., & Mauch, T. 2021, ApJ, 909, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdd37

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abdd37 2021

  55. [56]

    Observational constraints on the progenitors of Type II-P supernovae

    Murphy, T., Sadler, E. M., Ekers, R. D., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 2403, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15961.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15961.x 2010

  56. [57]

    A., & Butler, B

    Perley, R. A., & Butler, B. J. 2017, ApJS, 230, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6df9 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2011a, A&A, 536, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116464 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2011b, A&A, 536, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116474 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et a...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa6df9 2017

  57. [58]

    C., Enriquez, J

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab65f1 2020

  58. [59]

    , keywords =

    Sadler, E. M., Jackson, C. A., Cannon, R. D., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 227, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04998.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04998.x 2002

  59. [60]

    1996, AJ, 112, 164, doi: 10.1086/117996

    Shostak, S., Ekers, R., & Vaile, R. 1996, AJ, 112, 164, doi: 10.1086/117996

    work page doi:10.1086/117996 1996

  60. [61]

    1985, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Tarter, J. 1985, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 112, The Search for Extraterrestrial Life: Recent Developments, ed. M. D. Papagiannis (Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co.), 271–290, doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-5462-5 37

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-009-5462-5 1985

  61. [62]

    2001, ARA&A, 39, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.511

    Tarter, J. 2001, ARA&A, 39, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.511

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.511 2001

  62. [63]

    A., Mandolesi, N., Puget, J

    Tauber, J. A., Mandolesi, N., Puget, J. L., et al. 2010, A&A, 520, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912983

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912983 2010

  63. [64]

    E., Robotham, A

    Thorne, J. E., Robotham, A. S. G., Davies, L. J. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1294

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1294 2021

  64. [65]

    D., Price, D

    Tremblay, C. D., Price, D. C., & Tingay, S. J. 2022, PASA, 39, e008, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2022.5

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2022.5 2022

  65. [66]

    D., & Tingay, S

    Tremblay, C. D., & Tingay, S. J. 2020, PASA, 37, e035, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2020.27

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2020.27 2020

  66. [67]

    D., & Tingay, S

    Tremblay, C. D., & Tingay, S. J. 2024, ApJ, 972, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6b11

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6b11 2024

  67. [68]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 4649, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad993

    Uno, Y., Hashimoto, T., Goto, T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4649, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad993

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad993 2023

  68. [69]

    V., et al

    Vernstrom, T., Scott, D., Wall, J. V., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 2791, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu470

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu470 2014

  69. [70]

    D., Crawford, T

    Vieira, J. D., Crawford, T. M., Switzer, E. R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 719, 763, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/763

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/719/1/763 2010

  70. [71]

    , keywords =

    Waldram, E. M., Pooley, G. G., Davies, M. L., Grainge, K. J. B., & Scott, P. F. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1005, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16333.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16333.x 2010

  71. [72]

    Wesson, P. S. 1990, QJRAS, 31, 161

    work page 1990

  72. [73]

    H., Riley, J

    Whittam, I. H., Riley, J. M., Green, D. A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 1496, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2960

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2960 2016

  73. [74]

    L., van Weeren, R

    Williams, W. L., van Weeren, R. J., R¨ ottgering, H. J. A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 2385, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1056 40 Lacki

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1056 2016

  74. [75]

    S., Garrett, M

    Wlodarczyk-Sroka, B. S., Garrett, M. A., & Siemion, A. P. V. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 5720, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2672

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2672 2020

  75. [76]

    P., Drew, J., Siemion, A., et al

    Worden, S. P., Drew, J., Siemion, A., et al. 2017, Acta Astronautica, 139, 98, doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2017.06.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2017.06.008 2017

  76. [77]

    Wright, J. T. 2020, Serbian Astronomical Journal, 200, 1, doi: 10.2298/SAJ2000001W

    work page doi:10.2298/saj2000001w 2020

  77. [78]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aae099 2018

  78. [79]

    S., Reddy, N

    Yun, M. S., Reddy, N. A., & Condon, J. J. 2001, ApJ, 554, 803, doi: 10.1086/323145

    work page doi:10.1086/323145 2001

  79. [80]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 214, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/214

    Zackrisson, E., Calissendorff, P., Gonz´ alez, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 214, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/214

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/214 2016