Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 1 minor 63 references

Generalized Few-Shot Out-of-Distribution Detection

T0 review · 3 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Few-shot OOD detection can be provably improved by balancing general and task-specific knowledge.

desk verdict The abstract promises a provable generalization bound for few-shot OOD detection via a general knowledge model, but the supplied full text is an unrelated astro-ph paper, so the central claim is not reviewable. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.05732 v1 pith:OUQIZMEE submitted 2025-08-07 cs.CV

Pinxuan Li , Bing Cao , Changqing Zhang , Qinghua Hu This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords few-shotlearningout-of-distributiondetectiongeneralknowledgemodelgeneralizationbounddynamicembeddingopen-worldrecognitionGS-balance
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 tries to show that few-shot out-of-distribution detection fails because the detector overfits the handful of training examples, and that the fix is to draw on a pre-trained General Knowledge Model instead of learning from the few shots alone. It derives a Generality-Specificity balance (GS-balance) that, when satisfied, provably lowers the upper bound on generalization error. A Knowledge Dynamic Embedding mechanism adaptively aligns the detector's output distribution with the general model's distribution using the general model's belief. If the theory holds, few-shot OOD detectors can be made more reliable in open-world settings without collecting more data.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the General Knowledge Model (GKM), a pre-trained model whose output distribution serves as a proxy for general knowledge of the open world, and the GS-balance, a derived condition that balances this general knowledge against the specificity of the few-shot data. Knowledge Dynamic Embedding (KDE) is the mechanism that dynamically aligns the OOD detector's output distribution to the GKM based on the GKM's Generalized Belief (G-Belief); this alignment is what the paper claims realizes the GS-balance and tightens the generalization bound.

What would settle it

Train GOOD with a GKM whose pretraining data has no overlap with either the few-shot classes or the OOD test distribution; if the promised generalization-error reduction and benchmark gains persist despite this total mismatch, the transferability assumption behind GS-balance is not doing the work claimed. Alternatively, compute the claimed upper bound for a family of GKMs with increasing miscalibration and test whether the bound tightens or loosens as predicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that few-shot OOD detection can be formulated as a trade-off between general knowledge, what a large pre-trained model knows about the open world, and task-specific knowledge, what the few support examples say, and that balancing these two provably reduces the generalization-error upper bound. The paper introduces the GOOD framework, which uses an auxiliary General Knowledge Model (GKM) instead of direct few-shot learning, derives the GS-balance condition from a generalization perspective, and implements it with Knowledge Dynamic Embedding (KDE). KDE dynamically aligns the OOD detector's output distribution to the general knowledge model based on the Generalized Belief (

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the General Knowledge Model's output distribution is a trustworthy proxy for genuinely general knowledge about the open world, so aligning the few-shot model to it reduces bias rather than injecting it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, few-shot OOD detectors can be built by transferring knowledge from a large pre-trained model rather than relying on the scarce support set alone.
  • The GS-balance gives a principled target: detector outputs should sit at the equilibrium between general and task-specific knowledge, not at either extreme.
  • KDE provides a concrete, adaptive way to reach that target by weighting general-knowledge guidance according to the GKM's belief.
  • The framework should transfer across different few-shot regimes and OOD benchmarks if the theoretical bound is the active mechanism.
  • The GS-balance could serve as a design criterion for choosing or fine-tuning the auxiliary general knowledge model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The framework's success likely depends on the choice of GKM; a model whose pretraining distribution excludes the deployment domain could turn alignment into a source of bias rather than a cure.
  • The same GS-balance argument could be transposed to other few-shot tasks such as open-set recognition, novelty detection, or few-shot calibration, since the formal object is a balance between general and specific knowledge.
  • A natural ablation is to replace the dynamic G-Belief weighting with a fixed, non-adaptive alignment strength; if performance does not drop, the dynamics of KDE are not the active ingredient.
  • The manuscript body supplied with this record is an unrelated astronomy study, so the claims above rest on the abstract alone and the proof and full text should be verified before treating the theoretical bound as established.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The submission is an abstract for a paper titled 'Generalized Few-Shot Out-of-Distribution Detection' (arXiv:2508.05732, cs.CV), which claims to propose a GOOD framework that augments a few-shot OOD detector with a General Knowledge Model (GKM), a Knowledge Dynamic Embedding (KDE) mechanism, and a theoretically derived GS-balance that provably reduces a generalization-error upper bound. Experiments on real-world OOD benchmarks are asserted to show superiority. However, the supplied full text is not this paper; it is an unrelated astrophysics manuscript (arXiv:2508.05742, astro-ph) on binary supermassive black holes and Rubin LSST. Consequently, none of the technical content claimed in the abstract—derivation of GS-balance, definition of G-Belief, the KDE mechanism, or experimental tables—is present in the material provided for review.

Significance. If the claims in the abstract were substantiated, the work could be significant: a principled generalization bound for few-shot OOD detection, a theoretically motivated alignment with a general knowledge model, and strong empirical results on real-world benchmarks would be a valuable contribution to the field. The paper would also be notable for attempting to bridge few-shot learning and OOD detection with a provable bound. However, because the submitted full text does not contain the described method, theory, or experiments, the significance cannot be assessed. The potential significance is real but entirely conditional on content that is absent from the review package.

major comments (3)
  1. [Full Text (entire submission)] The supplied full text is not the manuscript described in the abstract. It is arXiv:2508.05742, an astro-ph paper titled 'The Consequences of Rubin Observatory Time-Domain Survey Design and Host-Galaxy Contamination on the Identification of Binary Supermassive Black Holes.' There is no overlap with few-shot OOD detection. Thus, the core artifacts needed to evaluate the paper—the GS-balance derivation, the KDE mechanism, the G-Belief definition, and the experimental comparisons—are entirely missing. This is a load-bearing deficiency: the central claim cannot be checked in any form.
  2. [Abstract: 'provably reduces the upper bound of generalization error'] The abstract asserts a mathematical theorem, but no theorem statement, proof, or even a definition of the GS-balance or the generalization error bound appears anywhere in the supplied text. A necessary condition for accepting such a claim is a precise statement of the assumptions under which the bound is reduced, and an explanation of how the alignment with the GKM enters the bound. Moreover, because the G-Belief is said to be computed from the GKM's outputs, there is a risk of circularity: if the bound is stated 'with a general knowledge model' and the same model's outputs are used to define the alignment, the bound might be reduced by construction rather than by substantive generalization. Without the derivation, this risk cannot be resolved.
  3. [Abstract: 'Experiments on real-world OOD benchmarks demonstrate our superiority'] No experiments, benchmark descriptions, baselines, evaluation metrics, or numerical results are provided. The empirical claim is therefore unsupported. A reviewer cannot assess whether the method outperforms existing few-shot OOD detectors, what datasets are used, or whether the comparisons are fair. As with the theoretical claim, the absence of this content is a fundamental reviewability failure.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract mentions 'Codes will be available' but provides no link or repository identifier. This is not a blocking issue, but it is customary to include a URL or specify that code will be released upon publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity can be established: the supplied full text is an unrelated astro-ph paper, and the target abstract contains no derivation chain to audit.

full rationale

The only in-scope text from the target paper is its abstract, which asserts that the authors 'theoretically derive the Generality-Specificity balance' and propose KDE/G-Belief, but it provides no equations, no definitions of G-Belief, and no experimental details. The supplied 'FULL TEXT' is arXiv:2508.05742, an entirely different astro-ph paper on binary supermassive black holes, not the cs.CV manuscript under review. Under the hard rule that circularity can only be claimed when the paper's own equations or explicit self-citations exhibit a reduction to inputs, there is no quotable derivation chain to walk. The reader's suggestion that GS-balance might be self-referential because G-Belief is computed from the same GKM's outputs is plausible-sounding but unsupported by any concrete equation or definition in the provided material. Likewise, the transferability concern about GKM's 'general knowledge' is a substantive correctness risk, not a demonstrated circularity. Therefore the honest finding is no significant circularity on the evidence available, with score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

Abstract-only reconstruction. The full text provided is an unrelated paper (arXiv:2508.05742v1), so the ledger cannot be audited for hidden free parameters such as loss weights, temperature scalings, or G-Belief gating thresholds. Entries above are what the abstract itself commits to.

free parameters (1)
  • GS-balance weighting coefficient (inferred) = not stated in abstract
    The framework name and description ('Generality-Specificity balance ... boost the GS-balance') imply a scalar trade-off between general-knowledge alignment and specific few-shot fitting; its value or fitting procedure is not given. Inferred from the abstract, not confirmed.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A pre-trained General Knowledge Model provides transferable, reliable knowledge about the open world that is informative for the target few-shot OOD task.
    Stated in the abstract as the motivation for GKM ('empowers the general knowledge of the OOD detection model'); the whole framework rests on this transfer premise.
  • domain assumption The generalization error upper bound derived (GS-balance) is non-vacuous and its terms are computable from few-shot data.
    The abstract claims the bound 'provably reduces' generalization error, but no statement of the discrepancy measure, constants, or sample complexity is given; a vacuous or uncomputable bound would undermine the claim.
  • domain assumption The few-shot support set and the test-time OOD distribution satisfy standard distributional assumptions needed for a PAC-style generalization bound.
    Any bound on generalization error requires distributional and independence assumptions; none are visible in the abstract.
  • domain assumption The real-world OOD benchmarks used in the experiments are a faithful proxy for open-world deployment.
    The abstract says 'Experiments on real-world OOD benchmarks demonstrate our superiority' without naming datasets or metrics; benchmark validity is assumed.
invented entities (2)
  • General Knowledge Model (GKM)
    purpose: Auxiliary model that supplies general knowledge to modulate the few-shot OOD detector; it is the source of G-Belief and the alignment target for KDE.
    Its value is only demonstrated on the paper's own benchmarks per the abstract; no external falsifiable prediction is offered.
  • G-Belief (Generalized Belief)
    purpose: Confidence measure of the GKM that controls how strongly the OOD model's outputs are aligned to the GKM via KDE.
    Defined within the framework; no independent validation is visible in the abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generalized Few-Shot Out-of-Distribution Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OUQIZMEE

@misc{pith2026250805732,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generalized Few-Shot Out-of-Distribution Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OUQIZMEE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.05732}
}
read the original abstract

Few-shot Out-of-Distribution (OOD) detection has emerged as a critical research direction in machine learning for practical deployment. Most existing Few-shot OOD detection methods suffer from insufficient generalization capability for the open world. Due to the few-shot learning paradigm, the OOD detection ability is often overfit to the limited training data itself, thus degrading the performance on generalized data and performing inconsistently across different scenarios. To address this challenge, we proposed a Generalized Few-shot OOD Detection (GOOD) framework, which empowers the general knowledge of the OOD detection model with an auxiliary General Knowledge Model (GKM), instead of directly learning from few-shot data. We proceed to reveal the few-shot OOD detection from a generalization perspective and theoretically derive the Generality-Specificity balance (GS-balance) for OOD detection, which provably reduces the upper bound of generalization error with a general knowledge model. Accordingly, we propose a Knowledge Dynamic Embedding (KDE) mechanism to adaptively modulate the guidance of general knowledge. KDE dynamically aligns the output distributions of the OOD detection model to the general knowledge model based on the Generalized Belief (G-Belief) of GKM, thereby boosting the GS-balance. Experiments on real-world OOD benchmarks demonstrate our superiority. Codes will be available.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., et al

    Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2023a, ApJL, 952, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace18b —. 2023b, ApJL, 951, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace18b

  2. [2]

    Allam, T., & McEwen, J. D. 2021, Paying Attention to Astronomical Transients: Introducing the Time-series Transformer for Photometric Classification, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2105.06178

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.06178 2021

  3. [3]

    2017, Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.1702.00786

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Audley, H., Babak, S., et al. 2017, Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.1702.00786

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.00786 2017

  4. [4]

    W., & Darling, D

    Anderson, T. W., & Darling, D. A. 1952, Ann. Math. Stat., 23, 193

    work page 1952

  5. [5]

    Artymowicz, P., & Lubow, S. H. 1996, ApJL, 467, L77, doi: 10.1086/310200

    doi:10.1086/310200 1996

  6. [6]

    J., & Stern, D

    Barth, A. J., & Stern, D. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 859, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab3c5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab3c5 2018

  7. [7]

    B., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Jones, R

    Bianco, F. B., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Jones, R. L., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3e72 Bogdanovi´ c, T., Miller, M. C., & Blecha, L. 2022, Living Reviews in Relativity, 25, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00037-8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac3e72 2022

  8. [8]

    M., Bentz, M

    Cackett, E. M., Bentz, M. C., & Kara, E. 2021, iScience, 24, 102557, doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2021.102557

    arXiv 2021

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 2145, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1838

    Charisi, M., Bartos, I., Haiman, Z., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2145, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1838

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    Trump, J. R. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 5929, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3713

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 2245, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2957

    Chen, Y.-C., Liu, X., Liao, W.-T., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 2245, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2957

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 12154, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3981

    Chen, Y.-J., Zhai, S., Liu, J.-R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 12154, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3981

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    2018, Reports on Progress in Physics, 82, 016903, doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/aae6b5

    Christensen, N. 2018, Reports on Progress in Physics, 82, 016903, doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/aae6b5

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 867, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae2b4

    Comerford, J., Nevin, R., Stemo, A., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 867, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae2b4

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    C., Grace, K

    Davis, M. C., Grace, K. E., Trump, J. R., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 965, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad276e De Rosa, A., Vignali, C., Bogdanovi´ c, T., et al. 2019, NewAR, 86, 101525, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101525 D’Orazio, D. J., & Charisi, M. 2023, arXiv e-pr...

    2024

  8. [16]

    A., & Krolik, J

    Edelson, R. A., & Krolik, J. H. 1988, ApJ, 333, 646, doi: 10.1086/166773

    1988 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Djorgovski, S

    Graham, M. J., Djorgovski, S. G., Stern, D., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 453, 1562–1576, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1726

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    F., Richards, G

    Hopkins, P. F., Richards, G. T., & Hernquist, L. 2007, ApJ, 654, 731, doi: 10.1086/509629

    2007 doi

  11. [19]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ. 2017, in New Frontiers in Black Hole Astrophysics, ed. A. Gomboc, Vol. 324, 330–337, doi: 10.1017/S1743921316012424 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, ...

    2007 doi

  12. [20]

    S., Lazio, J., et al

    Jenet, F., Finn, L. S., Lazio, J., et al. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0909.1058, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0909.1058

    2009 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    Z., D’Orazio, D

    Kelley, L. Z., D’Orazio, D. J., & Di Stefano, R. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 2524, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2776

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    Z., Haiman, Z., Sesana, A., & Hernquist, L

    Kelley, L. Z., Haiman, Z., Sesana, A., & Hernquist, L. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 1579, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz150

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    C., Bechtold, J., & Siemiginowska, A

    Kelly, B. C., Bechtold, J., & Siemiginowska, A. 2009, ApJ, 698, 895, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/895

    2009 doi

  16. [24]

    C., Becker, A

    Kelly, B. C., Becker, A. C., Sobolewska, M., Siemiginowska, A., & Uttley, P. 2014, ApJ, 788, 33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/33

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    C., & Shen, Y

    Kelly, B. C., & Shen, Y. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 764, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/45

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Treister, E., Kakkad, D., et al

    Koss, M. J., Treister, E., Kakkad, D., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 942, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca8f0 Koz lowski, S. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 459, 2787, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw819 16 Davis et al. Koz lowski, S., Kochanek,...

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Kulkarni, G., Worseck, G., & Hennawi, J. F. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 1035, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1493

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    I.-H., Shen, Y., Ho, L

    Li, J. I.-H., Shen, Y., Ho, L. C., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 954, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acddda

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    2019, ApJ, 884, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab40cb

    Liu, T., Gezari, S., Ayers, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab40cb

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447, doi: 10.1007/BF00648343 LSST Science Collaboration, Abell, P. A., Allison, J., et al. 2009a, LSST Science Book, Version 2.0. https://arxiv.org/abs/0912.0201 LSST Science Collaboration, Abell, P. A., Allison, J., et al. 2009b, arXiv e-prints, a...

    1976 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    I., & Milosavljevi´ c, M

    MacFadyen, A. I., & Milosavljevi´ c, M. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 672, 83, doi: 10.1086/523869

    2008 doi

  24. [32]

    L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ ., Kochanek, C

    MacLeod, C. L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ ., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 721, 1014, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/721/2/1014

    2010 doi

  25. [33]

    L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Sesar, B., et al

    MacLeod, C. L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Sesar, B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 106, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/106

    2012 doi

  26. [34]

    McLaughlin, M. A. 2013, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 30, 224008, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/30/22/224008

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, 1203, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt536

    McQuillan, A., Aigrain, S., & Mazeh, T. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 1203, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt536

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 708, 137, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/137

    Merloni, A., Bongiorno, A., Bolzonella, M., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 708, 137, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/137

    2009 doi

  29. [37]

    T., Shannon, R

    Miles, M. T., Shannon, R. M., Reardon, D. J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 1489, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2571

    2025 doi

  30. [38]

    F., Edelson, R., Baumgartner, W., & Gandhi, P

    Mushotzky, R. F., Edelson, R., Baumgartner, W., & Gandhi, P. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 743, L12, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/743/1/l12

    2011 doi

  31. [39]

    B., & Ingargiola, A

    Newville, M., Stensitzki, T., Allen, D. B., & Ingargiola, A. 2014, LMFIT: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python, 0.8.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.11813

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2010, AJ, 139, 2097, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097

    2010 doi

  33. [41]

    Peterson, B. M. 1993, PASP, 105, 247, doi: 10.1086/133140 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    1993 doi

  34. [42]

    2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol

    Ransom, S., Brazier, A., Chatterjee, S., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 195, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1908.05356

    2019 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    J., Zic, A., Shannon, R

    Reardon, D. J., Zic, A., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2023a, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 951, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdd02

    doi

  36. [44]

    E., Charisi, M., et al

    Robnik, J., Bayer, A. E., Charisi, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 1609, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2220

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835, doi: 10.1086/160554

    1982 doi

  38. [46]

    Sesana, A., Haiman, Z., Kocsis, B., & Kelley, L. Z. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 856, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaad0f

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    Sesana, A., Vecchio, A., & Colacino, C. N. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 390, 192, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13682.x

    2008

  40. [48]

    F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al

    Shen, X., Hopkins, P. F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495, 3252, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1381

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    2013, WFIRST-2.4: What Every Astronomer Should Know

    Spergel, D., Gehrels, N., Breckinridge, J., et al. 2013, WFIRST-2.4: What Every Astronomer Should Know. https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5425

    2013 arXiv

  42. [50]

    2015, Wide-Field InfrarRed Survey Telescope-Astrophysics Focused Telescope Assets WFIRST-AFTA 2015 Report

    Spergel, D., Gehrels, N., Baltay, C., et al. 2015, Wide-Field InfrarRed Survey Telescope-Astrophysics Focused Telescope Assets WFIRST-AFTA 2015 Report. https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.03757

    2015 arXiv

  43. [51]

    L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., & MacLeod, C

    Suberlak, K. L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., & MacLeod, C. 2021, ApJ, 907, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc698 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science Engineering, 13, 22 Van Wassenhove, S., Volonteri, M., Mayer, L., et al. 2012, ApJL, 748, L7, doi: 10.108...

    2021 doi

  44. [52]

    2012, in Conference on Intelligent Data Understanding (CIDU), 47 –54, doi: 10.1109/CIDU.2012.6382200

    Vanderplas, J., Connolly, A., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., & Gray, A. 2012, in Conference on Intelligent Data Understanding (CIDU), 47 –54, doi: 10.1109/CIDU.2012.6382200

    2012

  45. [53]

    VanderPlas, J. T. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 236, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab766

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    G., et al

    Vaughan, S., Uttley, P., Markowitz, A. G., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 3145, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1412

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    2022, PhRvD, 106, 103010, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.103010

    Haiman, Z. 2022, PhRvD, 106, 103010, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.103010

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    C., Brunner, R

    Wilhite, B. C., Brunner, R. J., Grier, C. J., Schneider, D. P., & Vanden Berk, D. E. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 383, 1232, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12655.x

    2008

  50. [58]

    A., Charisi, M., Taylor, S

    Witt, C. A., Charisi, M., Taylor, S. R., & Burke-Spolaor, S. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8356 Rubin Survey Design Consequences for Binary SMBHs 17

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 506, 2408, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1856

    Xin, C., & Haiman, Z. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 506, 2408, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1856

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    Graham, M. J. 2022, ApJ, 936, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8351

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    2020, ApJ, 900, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abac5a

    Zhu, X.-J., & Thrane, E. 2020, ApJ, 900, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abac5a

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    J., Hobbs, G., Wen, L., et al

    Zhu, X. J., Hobbs, G., Wen, L., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3709, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1717

    2014 doi

  55. [63]

    S., Koz lowski, S., & Udalski, A

    Zu, Y., Kochanek, C. S., Koz lowski, S., & Udalski, A. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 765, 106, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/106

    2013 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.