pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.04304 · v1 · pith:4Q7K6OQKnew · submitted 2026-06-03 · 🌌 astro-ph.IM

All-Sky Ultra-Narrowband Spectral Imaging with the OVRO-LWA: Technosignature Constraints and Axion-Like Particle Prospects

Nikita Kosogorov , Gregg Hallinan , Greg Hellbourg , Marin M. Anderson , Judd D. Bowman , Ruby Byrne , Morgan Catha , Bin Chen
show 41 more authors
Xingyao Chen Sherry Chhabra Larry D'Addario Ivey Davis Jayce Dowell Katherine Elder Dale Gary Charlie Harnach Jack Hickish Rick Hobbs David Hodge Mark Hodges Yuping Huang Andrea Isella Daniel C. Jacobs Ghislain Kemby John T. Klinefelter Matthew Kolopanis James Lamb Casey Law Nivedita Mahesh Surajit Mondal Brian O'Donnell Kathryn Plant Corey Posner Travis Powell Vinand Prayag Andres Rizo Andrew Romero-Wolf Jun Shi Greg Taylor Jordan Trim Mike Virgin Akshatha Vydula Sandy Weinreb Scott White David Woody Sijie Yu Thomas Zentmeyer Peijin Zhang T. Joseph W. Lazio
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 04:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.IM
keywords technosignaturesnarrowband searchall-sky imagingdecametric wavelengthsEIRP limitsaxion-like particlesradio interferometryOVRO-LWA
0
0 comments X

The pith

No technosignatures detected after all-sky search for ultra-narrowband signals at 50-86 MHz

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

The paper conducts an imaging-domain search for ultra-narrowband continuous-wave signals across the entire visible sky using the OVRO-LWA at decametric wavelengths. Raw voltage data are processed into more than 3 million all-sky images at approximately 10 Hz frequency resolution, with candidate selection via multi-kernel matched filtering, noise standardization, and false-discovery-rate control. Quality cuts remove extended sources, corrupted images, and obvious RFI, leaving three narrowband candidates above 10 sigma that are re-imaged at finer resolution and found inconsistent with compact celestial emitters. This produces a null result with representative sensitivity of about 100 Jy per channel, corresponding to 10 sigma EIRP limits of 10^14 W at 10 pc and 10^18 W at 1 kpc for unresolved sources. The wide-field ultra-fine-resolution method simultaneously probes millions of stellar systems and provides a scalable framework for deeper technosignature searches and axion-like particle line conversion studies toward neutron stars.

Core claim

After generating and analyzing more than 3 x 10^6 all-sky images for narrowband signals between 50 and 86 MHz, the search identifies no extraterrestrial technosignatures. Three candidates with signal-to-noise ratios above 10 sigma are re-imaged with finer temporal and spectral resolution and resolved as inconsistent with compact celestial narrowband emitters. The achieved sensitivity is approximately 100 Jy per channel across the visible hemisphere, yielding 10 sigma EIRP upper limits of 10^14 W at 10 pc and 10^18 W at 1 kpc for unresolved emitters. The approach demonstrates simultaneous coverage of millions of stellar systems and establishes a framework for stacked searches toward neutron-s

What carries the argument

Offline GPU pipeline that upchannelizes raw voltage data to approximately 10 Hz frequency resolution, generates all-sky images for each fine channel, and applies multi-kernel matched filtering with empirical noise standardization and false-discovery-rate control, followed by quality cuts and re-imaging of candidates.

If this is right

  • No extraterrestrial technosignatures are present above the search threshold in the surveyed 50-86 MHz band.
  • EIRP upper limits of 10^14 W at 10 pc constrain potential transmitter powers for unresolved sources within the local stellar neighborhood.
  • The all-sky imaging approach enables simultaneous constraints on technosignatures from millions of stellar systems in a single epoch.
  • The method provides a scalable framework for deeper integrations and stacked searches toward specific targets such as neutron stars.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Stacking multiple epochs of data with the same pipeline could lower effective detection thresholds for fainter or intermittent signals.
  • Cross-referencing surviving candidates with multi-wavelength catalogs could help isolate any future signals from natural astrophysical sources.
  • The wide instantaneous field of view could be used to derive statistical upper limits on the sky density of narrowband emitters.
  • Applying the pipeline to pointed observations of individual neutron stars could produce quantitative constraints on axion-like particle conversion if signals appear.

Load-bearing premise

The quality cuts that remove extended sources, corrupted images, and obvious RFI, combined with the re-imaging analysis, correctly classify all candidates as non-celestial without excluding genuine compact narrowband emitters from space.

What would settle it

A narrowband signal that persists as compact and point-like after re-imaging at finer temporal and spectral resolution, appears at the same sky position across epochs, and passes all quality cuts would falsify the no-detection claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.04304 by Akshatha Vydula, Andrea Isella, Andres Rizo, Andrew Romero-Wolf, Bin Chen, Brian O'Donnell, Casey Law, Charlie Harnach, Corey Posner, Dale Gary, Daniel C. Jacobs, David Hodge, David Woody, Ghislain Kemby, Gregg Hallinan, Greg Hellbourg, Greg Taylor, Ivey Davis, Jack Hickish, James Lamb, Jayce Dowell, John T. Klinefelter, Jordan Trim, Judd D. Bowman, Jun Shi, Katherine Elder, Kathryn Plant, Larry D'Addario, Marin M. Anderson, Mark Hodges, Matthew Kolopanis, Mike Virgin, Morgan Catha, Nikita Kosogorov, Nivedita Mahesh, Peijin Zhang, Rick Hobbs, Ruby Byrne, Sandy Weinreb, Scott White, Sherry Chhabra, Sijie Yu, Surajit Mondal, Thomas Zentmeyer, T. Joseph W. Lazio, Travis Powell, Vinand Prayag, Xingyao Chen, Yuping Huang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Summary of the OVRO–LWA ultra-narrowband imaging search pipeline. Raw voltage data are upchannelized and cross-correlated (subsection 2.1), calibrated and imaged (subsection 2.2) into all-sky 10 Hz, 30 s image cubes. These are then normalized and searched for candidates (subsection 2.4), followed by vetting and higher-resolution analysis (subsection 2.5, subsection 2.6). The results are presented in Sectio… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: All-sky OVRO–LWA map in J2000 equatorial coordinates, generated from real-time cross-correlation data for a single 10 s integration across the 50–86 MHz band. Right ascension is shown in hours and declination in degrees. The synthesized beam is 549.4 ′′ × 453.7 ′′ (FWHM) at a position angle of 44.9 ◦ . all system noise, it does not mimic the spectral char￾acteristics of ultra-narrowband features. We did no… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: All-sky OVRO–LWA ultra-narrowband (∼10 Hz) map in J2000 equatorial coordinates, generated from the offline cross-correlation pipeline for a 30 s integration at 72,675,248 Hz. Right ascension is shown in hours and declination in degrees. The synthesized beam is 41.2 ′ × 25.2 ′ (FWHM) at a position angle of 125.5 ◦ . Because this image corresponds to a single 10 Hz channel, its noise is much higher than in t… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histogram of the initially identified Stage I can￾didates as a function of SNR (left axis). The corresponding empirical complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF; right axis) is shown together with a fitted gener￾alized Pareto distribution (GPD; solid line) and bootstrap confidence interval (shaded band). 84023848 Hz [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of a narrowband detection rejected dur￾ing Stage II because its morphology is clearly extended rel￾ative to the synthesized beam. The ellipse in the lower-left corner shows the synthesized beam FWHM. To accommodate uncertain intrinsic linewidths, we convolve each per-pixel frequency series with a set of unit-normalized boxcar kernels spanning widths from 1 to 100 fine channels. For our ≃ 10 Hz chan… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Summary of the three surviving narrowband candidates after Stage II vetting. Their corresponding parameters are presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Images of the 84 MHz candidate in subsequent 30 s integrations following the original detection shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Higher-resolution time–frequency diagram of the 84.333912 MHz candidate generated with ≃ 5 s time resolu￾tion and ≃ 5 Hz frequency resolution. The horizontal axis shows frequency offset relative to the original detection fre￾quency, and the vertical axis shows time offset from the start of the re-imaged interval. also appears intermittently on timescales of ∼ 10–15 s, with brief peaks reaching SNR ∼ 8. Thi… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Higher-resolution composite view of one of the 60.33 MHz candidates re-imaged with 30 s integration in three adjacent 5 Hz channels. The background image shows a peak-normalized maximum-composite of the three fine-chan￾nel images. Colored crosses show Gaussian-fit centroids mea￾sured in the neighboring fine channels, while the blue cross marks the centroid from the original 10 Hz detection image. The ellip… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present an imaging-domain search for technosignatures at decametric wavelengths with the OVRO-LWA, targeting ultra-narrowband continuous-wave signals between 50 and 86 MHz. We implement an offline GPU pipeline that processes raw voltage data with upchannelization to approximately 10 Hz frequency resolution, producing all-sky images for each fine channel and totaling more than 3 x 10^6 images for a single 30 s epoch. Candidate selection is performed using multi-kernel matched filtering across frequency, empirical noise standardization, and false-discovery-rate control. After applying quality cuts that remove extended sources, corrupted images, and obvious RFI, three narrowband candidates with signal-to-noise ratios above 10 sigma were selected for detailed analysis. By re-imaging these candidates with finer temporal and spectral resolution, we resolved their structure and found them to be inconsistent with compact celestial narrowband emitters. Consequently, we report no detection of extraterrestrial technosignatures. The representative sensitivity of the search is ~100 Jy per channel across the entire visible hemisphere. For an unresolved emitter, this corresponds to 10 sigma equivalent isotropic radiated power (EIRP) limits of about 10^14 W at a distance of 10 pc and 10^18 W at 1 kpc. The wide field of view and ultra-fine spectral resolution of this approach enable simultaneous probing of technosignature signals from millions of stellar systems. This method further establishes a scalable framework for deeper integrations and stacked searches toward neutron-star targets relevant to axion-like particle (ALP) line conversion.

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

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports an all-sky search for ultra-narrowband continuous-wave technosignatures between 50 and 86 MHz using the OVRO-LWA. An offline GPU pipeline performs upchannelization to ~10 Hz resolution, generates >3×10^6 all-sky images per 30 s epoch, applies multi-kernel matched filtering with empirical noise standardization and FDR control for candidate selection, imposes quality cuts to remove extended sources, corrupted images, and obvious RFI, identifies three >10σ candidates, and rejects them after finer temporal/spectral re-imaging as inconsistent with compact celestial emitters. The work concludes with no detections, a representative sensitivity of ~100 Jy per channel, and corresponding 10σ EIRP limits of ~10^14 W at 10 pc and ~10^18 W at 1 kpc for unresolved sources, while noting scalability for ALP line-conversion searches toward neutron stars.

Significance. If the pipeline, candidate rejection, and sensitivity claims hold, the result supplies a statistically controlled null detection over the entire visible hemisphere at decametric wavelengths and demonstrates a scalable wide-field approach capable of simultaneously constraining millions of stellar systems. The explicit use of matched filtering plus FDR control and the re-imaging verification step provide concrete methodological strengths that support the reported EIRP limits and open a practical path for deeper stacked integrations and targeted ALP searches.

minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the three candidates were resolved as inconsistent with compact celestial narrowband emitters after re-imaging, but does not quantify the exact temporal and spectral resolutions used in the re-imaging step or the precise morphological criteria applied; adding these numbers would strengthen the claim that genuine compact signals would have been retained.
  2. [Abstract] The representative sensitivity of ~100 Jy per channel is quoted without an accompanying equation or brief derivation showing how it is obtained from the noise properties after matched filtering; a short parenthetical or footnote would clarify whether this is an average, median, or worst-case value across the band.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the manuscript and the recommendation to accept. The summary accurately captures the search methodology, candidate handling, and reported limits.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct observational pipeline with no derivation chain

full rationale

The manuscript presents a direct observational search for narrowband signals using raw voltage data processed through an offline GPU pipeline for upchannelization, all-sky imaging, multi-kernel matched filtering, FDR control, quality cuts, and re-imaging of candidates. No equations, fitted parameters, or mathematical derivations appear in the provided text; the null result and sensitivity limits follow from empirical data processing steps without reduction to self-defined inputs or self-citations. The analysis is self-contained against external telescope data benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard radio astronomy assumptions about noise, RFI, and signal morphology rather than new fitted parameters or invented entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Technosignature signals, if present, would appear as ultra-narrowband continuous-wave emissions distinguishable from RFI by spatial and spectral structure
    This underpins the matched filtering, candidate selection, and re-imaging analysis described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 6029 in / 1323 out tokens · 38645 ms · 2026-06-28T04:47:12.442185+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 88 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2024, Nature Communications, 15, 915, doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-45033-4

    An, H., Chen, X., Ge, S., Liu, J., & Luo, Y. 2024, Nature Communications, 15, 915, doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-45033-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-45033-4 2024

  2. [2]

    M., Hallinan, G., Eastwood, M

    Anderson, M. M., Hallinan, G., Eastwood, M. W., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad2d7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad2d7 2018

  3. [3]

    M., Hallinan, G., Eastwood, M

    Anderson, M. M., Hallinan, G., Eastwood, M. W., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4f87

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4f87 2019

  4. [4]

    A., Garbrecht, B., McDonald, J., & Srinivasan, S

    Battye, R. A., Garbrecht, B., McDonald, J., & Srinivasan, S. 2021, Journal of High Energy Physics, 2021, 105, doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2021)105

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2021)105 2021

  5. [5]

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , author =

    Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. 1995, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 57, 289, doi: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x 1995

  6. [6]

    Lorimer, D. R. 2004, ApJ, 605, 759, doi: 10.1086/382680 Bhupal Dev, P. S., Ferrer, F., & Okawa, T. 2024, JCAP, 2024, 045, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/04/045

    work page doi:10.1086/382680 2004

  7. [7]

    Brzycki, B., Siemion, A. P. V., de Pater, I., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 284, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7e18

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad7e18 2024

  8. [8]

    Caputo, A., Regis, M., Taoso, M., & Witte, S. J. 2019, JCAP, 2019, 027, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/03/027 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/03/027 2019

  9. [9]

    2012, Nature, 481, 167, doi: 10.1038/nature10684

    Cassan, A., Kubas, D., Beaulieu, J.-P., et al. 2012, Nature, 481, 167, doi: 10.1038/nature10684

    work page doi:10.1038/nature10684 2012

  10. [10]

    Chadha-Day, F., Ellis, J., & Marsh, D. J. E. 2022, Science Advances, 8, eabj3618, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abj3618

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.abj3618 2022

  11. [11]

    2025, ApJL, 990, L50, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfa71 16

    Chen, X., Chen, B., Yu, S., et al. 2025, ApJL, 990, L50, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfa71 16

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adfa71 2025

  12. [12]

    E., Hallinan, G., et al

    Chhabra, S., Gary, D. E., Hallinan, G., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc94b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc94b 2021

  13. [13]

    Accelerating Radio Astronomy Cross-Correlation with Graphics Processing Units

    Clark, M. A., La Plante, P. C., & Greenhill, L. J. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1107.4264, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1107.4264

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1107.4264 2011

  14. [14]

    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

  15. [15]

    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

  16. [16]

    W.D.CottonandF.Yusef-Zadeh.ApJS,227(1):10,Nov.2016

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. 1991, ApJ, 376, 123, doi: 10.1086/170261

    work page doi:10.1086/170261 1991

  17. [17]

    M., Ocker, S

    Cordes, J. M., Ocker, S. K., & Chatterjee, S. 2022, ApJ, 931, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6873

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6873 2022

  18. [18]

    M., & Rickett, B

    Cordes, J. M., & Rickett, B. J. 1998, ApJ, 507, 846, doi: 10.1086/306358

    work page doi:10.1086/306358 1998

  19. [19]

    D., Barsdell, B

    Cranmer, M. D., Barsdell, B. R., Price, D. C., et al. 2017, Journal of Astronomical Instrumentation, 6, 1750007, doi: 10.1142/S2251171717500076

    work page doi:10.1142/s2251171717500076 2017

  20. [20]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/abf329 2021

  21. [21]

    2025, ApJ, 993, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfbe9

    Davis, I., Hallinan, G., Saini, N., et al. 2025, ApJ, 993, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfbe9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfbe9 2025

  22. [22]

    Drake, F. D. 1961, Physics Today, 14, 40, doi: 10.1063/1.3057500

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3057500 1961

  23. [23]

    W., Anderson, M

    Eastwood, M. W., Anderson, M. M., Monroe, R. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aac721

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aac721 2018

  24. [24]

    W., Anderson, M

    Eastwood, M. W., Anderson, M. M., Monroe, R. M., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2629

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab2629 2019

  25. [25]

    W., de Gasperin, F., & Rafferty, D

    Edler, H. W., de Gasperin, F., & Rafferty, D. 2021, A&A, 652, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140465

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140465 2021

  26. [26]

    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 Gaia Collaboration, Smart, R. L., Sarro, L. M., et al. 2021a, A&A, 649, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039498 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021b, A&A, 649, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657

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

  27. [27]

    Gajjar, V., & Brown, G. C. 2026, ApJ, 999, 210, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3d33

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae3d33 2026

  28. [28]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 5802, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1671

    Garsden, H., Greenhill, L., Bernardi, G., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 5802, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1671

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1671 2021

  29. [29]

    Lindner, A., & van Bibber, K. A. 2015, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 65, 485, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102014-022120

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102014-022120 2015

  30. [30]

    2024, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Hallinan, G., Ravi, V., Bouman, K., et al. 2024, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 243, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #243, 237.05

    2024

  31. [31]

    The DSA-2000 -- A Radio Survey Camera

    Hallinan, G., Ravi, V., Weinreb, S., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 255, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1907.07648

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.07648 2019

  32. [32]

    Harp, G. R. 2005, Radio Science, 40, RS5S18, doi: 10.1029/2004RS003133

    work page doi:10.1029/2004rs003133 2005

  33. [33]

    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

  34. [34]

    J., Jao, W.-C., Winters, J

    Henry, T. J., Jao, W.-C., Winters, J. G., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 265, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aac262

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aac262 2018

  35. [35]

    R., & Sun, Z

    Hook, A., Kahn, Y., Safdi, B. R., & Sun, Z. 2018, PhRvL, 121, 241102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.241102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.241102 2018

  36. [36]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 5786, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad785

    Hou, K.-C., Hallinan, G., & Keshet, U. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 5786, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad785

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad785 2023

  37. [37]

    J., Bassa, C., et al

    Hut, B., Baldovin, C. J., Bassa, C., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13096, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy X, ed. J. J

    2024

  38. [38]

    Motohara, & J

    Bryant, K. Motohara, & J. R. D. Vernet, 130962G, doi: 10.1117/12.3018926

    work page doi:10.1117/12.3018926

  39. [39]

    T., van der Tol, S., Cotton, W

    Intema, H. T., van der Tol, S., Cotton, W. D., et al. 2009, A&A, 501, 1185, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811094

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200811094 2009

  40. [40]

    G., & Redondo, J

    Irastorza, I. G., & Redondo, J. 2018, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 102, 89, doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2018.05.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2018.05.003 2018

  41. [41]

    A., Gajjar, V., Keane, E

    Johnson, O. A., Gajjar, V., Keane, E. F., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acf9f5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acf9f5 2023

  42. [42]

    2025, ApJ, 985, 265, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add014

    Kosogorov, N., Hallinan, G., Law, C., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 265, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add014

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add014 2025

  43. [43]

    2026, ApJ, 997, 311, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2ea3

    Kosogorov, N., Hallinan, G., Law, C., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 311, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2ea3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2ea3 2026

  44. [44]

    T., McLaughlin, M

    Lam, M. T., McLaughlin, M. A., Cordes, J. M., Chatterjee, S., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2018, ApJ, 861, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac48d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac48d 2018

  45. [45]

    Leroy, M., Chianese, M., Edwards, T. D. P., & Weniger, C. 2020, PhRvD, 101, 123003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.123003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.123003 2020

  46. [46]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 078, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/78

    Li, D., Gajjar, V., Wang, P., et al. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 078, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/78

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/78 2020

  47. [47]

    2007, JCAP, 2007, 020, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2007/01/020

    Loeb, A., & Zaldarriaga, M. 2007, JCAP, 2007, 020, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2007/01/020

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2007/01/020 2007

  48. [48]

    X., Croft, S., Lintott, C., & Siemion, A

    Ma, P. X., Croft, S., Lintott, C., & Siemion, A. P. V. 2024, RAS Techniques and Instruments, 3, 33, doi: 10.1093/rasti/rzad056

    work page doi:10.1093/rasti/rzad056 2024

  49. [49]

    G., Pinchuk, P., et al

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acfda4 2023

  50. [50]

    Marsh, D. J. E. 2016, PhR, 643, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2016.06.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2016.06.005 2016

  51. [51]

    G., & Henderson, A

    Mezger, P. G., & Henderson, A. P. 1967, ApJ, 147, 471, doi: 10.1086/149030 17

    work page doi:10.1086/149030 1967

  52. [52]

    J., Baum, S., Lawson, M., & Marsh, M

    Millar, A. J., Baum, S., Lawson, M., & Marsh, M. C. D. 2021, JCAP, 2021, 013, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/11/013

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/11/013 2021

  53. [53]

    2025a, ApJ, 992, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae061f

    Mondal, S., Chen, B., Chen, X., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 992, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae061f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae061f

  54. [54]

    2025b, ApJ, 994, 254, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae113b

    Mondal, S., Chen, B., Yu, S., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 994, 254, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae113b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae113b

  55. [55]

    2020, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 953, 163086, doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2019.163086 NASA Technosignatures Workshop Participants

    Monroe, R., Romero Wolf, A., Hallinan, G., et al. 2020, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 953, 163086, doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2019.163086 NASA Technosignatures Workshop Participants. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1812.08681, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1812.08681

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2019.163086 2020

  56. [56]

    K., & Cordes, J

    Ocker, S. K., & Cordes, J. M. 2026, ApJ, 1002, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5825

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae5825 2026

  57. [57]

    R., McKinley, B., Hurley-Walker, N., et al

    Offringa, A. R., McKinley, B., Hurley-Walker, N., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 606, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1368

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1368 2014

  58. [58]

    A., & Butler, B

    Perley, R. A., & Butler, B. J. 2017, ApJS, 230, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6df9

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

  59. [59]

    A., Howard, A

    Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., & Marcy, G. W. 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 110, 19273, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319909110

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1319909110 2013

  60. [60]

    2022, in 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 204, doi: 10.22323/1.395.0204

    Hallinan, G. 2022, in 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 204, doi: 10.22323/1.395.0204

    work page doi:10.22323/1.395.0204 2022

  61. [61]

    A., Romero-Wolf, A., Hallinan, G., et al

    Plant, K. A., Romero-Wolf, A., Hallinan, G., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.13205, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.13205

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.13205 2026

  62. [62]

    , keywords =

    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

  63. [63]

    J., Coles, W

    Reardon, D. J., Coles, W. A., Hobbs, G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4389, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz643

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz643 2019

  64. [64]

    J., Schneps, M

    Reid, M. J., Schneps, M. H., Moran, J. M., et al. 1988, ApJ, 330, 809, doi: 10.1086/166514

    work page doi:10.1086/166514 1988

  65. [65]

    2019, Skyfield: High precision research-grade positions for planets and Earth satellites generator,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1907.024 http://ascl.net/1907.024

    Rhodes, B. 2019, Skyfield: High precision research-grade positions for planets and Earth satellites generator,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1907.024 http://ascl.net/1907.024

    2019

  66. [66]

    Rickett, B. J. 1990, ARA&A, 28, 561, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.28.090190.003021

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.28.090190.003021 1990

  67. [67]

    , keywords =

    Rioja, M. J., & Dodson, R. 2020, A&A Rv, 28, 6, doi: 10.1007/s00159-020-00126-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-020-00126-z 2020

  68. [68]

    R., Sun, Z., & Chen, A

    Safdi, B. R., Sun, Z., & Chen, A. Y. 2019, PhRvD, 99, 123021, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.123021

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.123021 2019

  69. [69]

    Sheikh, S. Z. 2020, International Journal of Astrobiology, 19, 237, doi: 10.1017/S1473550419000284

    work page doi:10.1017/s1473550419000284 2020

  70. [70]

    Sheikh, S. Z. 2021, PhD thesis, Pennsylvania State University

    2021

  71. [71]

    Z., Wright, J

    Sheikh, S. Z., Wright, J. T., Siemion, A., & Enriquez, J. E. 2019, ApJ, 884, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3fa8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3fa8 2019

  72. [72]

    Z., Smith, S., Price, D

    Sheikh, S. Z., Smith, S., Price, D. C., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1153, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01508-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01508-8 2021

  73. [73]

    2001, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 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

  74. [74]

    B., Ellingson, S

    Taylor, G. B., Ellingson, S. W., Kassim, N. E., et al. 2012, Journal of Astronomical Instrumentation, 1, 1250004, doi: 10.1142/S2251171712500043

    work page doi:10.1142/s2251171712500043 2012

  75. [75]

    R., Moran, J

    Thompson, A. R., Moran, J. M., & Swenson, Jr., G. W. 2017, Interferometry and Synthesis in Radio Astronomy, 3rd Edition, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-44431-4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44431-4 2017

  76. [76]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/827/2/l22 2016

  77. [77]

    J., Tremblay, C

    Tingay, S. J., Tremblay, C. D., & Croft, S. 2018a, ApJ, 856, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab363

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab363

  78. [78]

    J., Kaplan, D

    Tingay, S. J., Kaplan, D. L., Lenc, E., et al. 2018b, ApJ, 857, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab359

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab359

  79. [79]

    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

  80. [80]

    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

Showing first 80 references.