Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 9 minor 37 references

No radio signals found from LTT 3780 in 30-hour dual-telescope search

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

2026-07-09 17:55 UTC pith:JRWCMEU2

load-bearing objection Solid non-detection paper with honest scope claims; deserves a serious referee. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07182 v1 pith:JRWCMEU2 submitted 2026-07-08 astro-ph.IM

A search for narrowband technosignatures from LTT 3780 with the Allen Telescope Array and the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array

Chenoa D. Tremblay , Sofia Z. Sheikh , Vishal Gajjar , Nikku Madhusudhan , Isabel Gerrard , Daniel Czech , Talon Myburgh , David E. MacMahon
show 4 more authors
Ross A. Donnachie Andrew P.V. Siemion Matthew Lebofsky Alex W. Pollak
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords technosignaturesSETILTT 3780Hycean worldradio astronomynarrowband searchDoppler driftplanet-planet occultation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper reports a search for narrowband radio technosignatures — signals that a technological civilization might emit — from the LTT 3780 planetary system, a nearby M-dwarf star hosting two exoplanets. One of those planets, LTT 3780 c, has been proposed as a candidate Hycean world (a planet with a potential liquid-water ocean beneath a hydrogen-rich atmosphere), and recent JWST observations have detected methane and trace hydrocarbons in its atmosphere, making the system a target of astrobiological interest. The authors observed the system for roughly 30 hours across two complementary radio facilities — the Allen Telescope Array and the Very Large Array — covering frequencies from 1 to 10 GHz. They searched for continuous, narrowband, Doppler-drifting signals of the kind that terrestrial radio technology produces, timing some observations to coincide with planetary transits and planet–planet occultations, which geometric arguments suggest could increase the odds of intercepting intra-system communication leakage. After comprehensive radio-frequency interference mitigation and multi-beam consistency tests, no candidate signals survived scrutiny. The authors place upper limits on the minimum detectable transmitter power (EIRP) at 4.7 × 10¹² to 3.6 × 10¹³ watts across the observed bands — sensitive enough to detect transmitters comparable to or stronger than the Arecibo planetary radar. The paper's broader claim is methodological: it demonstrates that biosignature and technosignature searches can be coordinated on the same well-characterized exoplanet system, using complementary telescope architectures and orbital-geometry-aware scheduling, and that this framework can scale to future joint investigations.

Core claim

No narrowband, Doppler-drifting radio technosignatures were detected from the LTT 3780 system across ~30 hours of observations spanning 1–10 GHz with two complementary radio arrays, and the authors establish minimum detectable EIRP limits of 4.7 × 10¹² to 3.6 × 10¹³ W. The paper frames this non-detection as the first step in a scalable framework for combining technosignature and biosignature searches on the same astrobiologically motivated exoplanet target.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the pairing of two distinct radio signal-processing architectures on the same target: the ATA uses wide-band, multi-beam post-processing with on/off coherent beam comparison to spatially filter signals, while the VLA uses real-time interferometric beamforming with GPU-accelerated Doppler-drift search. Both employ multi-beam consistency tests — a signal must appear in only the on-target beam and not in off-target beams to survive as a candidate. A secondary mechanism is orbital-geometry-aware scheduling: observations are timed to transits and planet–planet occultations (PPOs), which geometric arguments suggest could enhance detection probability for radio spillover by

Load-bearing premise

The search assumes that any extraterrestrial transmitter would produce persistent, narrowband, Doppler-drifting signals within the searched frequency and drift-rate ranges — a signal morphology modeled on terrestrial radio technology. If a civilization's dominant signaling modality is intermittent, broadband, pulsed, or frequency-agile, the non-detection and the EIRP limits become much less constraining.

What would settle it

Detection of a narrowband signal from the direction of LTT 3780 that passes all multi-beam consistency tests, persists across multiple antennas and observing sessions, exhibits a Doppler drift consistent with orbital dynamics, and cannot be attributed to any known terrestrial interference source.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If the framework scales, every JWST atmospheric characterization target becomes a natural joint biosignature–technosignature candidate, doubling the scientific return of existing observing campaigns at modest additional cost.
  • The EIRP limits (down to ~5 × 10¹² W) constrain only continuous narrowband emitters; extending to transient, broadband, or pulsed signal morphologies would require fundamentally different search algorithms and sensitivity metrics.
  • PPO-timed observations could become a standard scheduling strategy for SETI surveys of multi-planet systems, analogous to how transit timing is used for atmospheric spectroscopy — the geometric alignment argument applies regardless of whether the planets are habitable.
  • The non-detection at Arecibo-radar-level sensitivity for a nearby Hycean-candidate system narrows the parameter space for 'leakage' scenarios in which a civilization's incidental radio emissions are detectable without deliberate beaming.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If PPO geometries can enhance interception probability by factors up to ~4 × 10⁵ (as cited from Earth–Mars analogs), then scheduling even short observations around predicted PPO windows for other multi-planet systems could yield disproportionate sensitivity gains — a strategy that could be automated given published ephemerides.
  • The combination of JWST atmospheric data showing methane and trace hydrocarbons with a radio non-detection at Arecibo-level sensitivity begins to place joint constraints: either any technological activity in this system does not produce detectable narrowband radio leakage, or the atmospheric chemistry is not coupled to a technosphere detectable by these means.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 9 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a search for narrowband, Doppler-drifting radio technosignatures toward the LTT 3780 system, observed with the Allen Telescope Array (ATA) and the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA) across approximately 30 hours of total observing time spanning 1–10 GHz. The target system is astrobiologically motivated: LTT 3780 c has been proposed as a candidate Hycean world and has recent JWST atmospheric observations. The two facilities employ complementary strategies — the ATA uses wide-band multi-beam post-processing (ATSAT/bliss/NBeamAnalysis), while the VLA uses real-time interferometric beamforming and Doppler-drift searching (COSMIC/seticore). After comprehensive RFI mitigation, frequency blanking, multi-beam consistency tests, and visual inspection of all surviving candidates, no technosignature candidates are identified. The authors place EIRP upper limits of 4.7×10^12–3.6×10^13 W across the observed bands. The methodology is standard for narrowband SETI and is applied carefully and transparently. The non-detection claim and EIRP limits are well-supported by the radiometer equation using independently measured system parameters.

Significance. The significance of this work lies primarily in its demonstration of a coordinated, multi-facility technosignature search strategy applied to a well-characterized exoplanet system of astrobiological interest, timed to coincide with specific orbital configurations (transits and planet–planet occultations). The complementary use of ATA and VLA, with distinct beamforming and candidate-identification pipelines, provides a useful pathfinder for integrating technosignature searches into broader biosignature investigations. The EIRP limits are sufficient to constrain transmitters comparable to or exceeding the Arecibo planetary radar at the distance of LTT 3780. The work is honest about its limitations: the authors explicitly acknowledge in §4 that the search constrains only persistent narrowband emitters within the searched drift-rate and frequency ranges. The RFI mitigation is thorough, with 6,842 ATA and 546 VLA surviving candidates all visually inspected. The three flagged ATA events are convincingly rejected through scan-to-scan SNR-ratio analysis. The paper does not overclaim; the non-detection is appropriately scoped.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.1, Table 5] The ATA EIRP limits (28–36×10^12 W) are approximately 4–6× higher (less constraining) than the VLA limits (4.7–6.9×10^12 W), which is expected given the VLA's larger collecting area. However, the ATA and VLA observations cover partially overlapping frequency ranges (ATA: 1000–3688 MHz; VLA S-band: 2307–3691 MHz). The paper does not discuss whether the overlapping S-band region was checked for consistency between the two facilities — i.e., whether the EIRP limits in the overlap region are consistent given the different sensitivities, integration times, and pipeline architectures. A brief comment on this would strengthen the claim that the two facilities provide genuinely complementary (rather than merely redundant) coverage. This is not a load-bearing issue for the non-detection claim but affects the framing of the complementary strategy.
  2. [§2.1.2, Table 1] The PPO (planet–planet occultation) windows are identified as a key motivation for the ATA observing schedule, and the paper cites P. Fan et al. (2025) estimating enhancement factors of up to ~4×10^5 for radio spillover detection. However, the paper does not report whether any of the 6,842 ATA hits or the three flagged events occurred during the PPO windows specifically. Given that PPO timing is a central novel element of the observing strategy, a brief statement on whether the candidate events (or lack thereof) during PPO windows is consistent with expectations would strengthen the discussion. At minimum, the fraction of observing time spent in PPO windows versus total observing time should be quantified to assess what fraction of the non-detection result applies to the PPO-enhanced geometry.
minor comments (9)
  1. §2.1.1: The drift rate contribution from LTT 3780 c's orbital motion is given as approximately 1.38 nHz at 1 GHz. This appears to be a typo — drift rates are conventionally expressed in Hz/s, not nHz. The value 1.38 nHz/s at 1 GHz would be extremely small compared to the stated Earth rotation contribution of ~0.1 Hz/s. Please verify the units and magnitude.
  2. §2.2: The sentence beginning 'This calibration, processed utilizes an in-house CASA pipeline' has a grammatical error. Please revise for clarity.
  3. §2.4: The text references 'Table 2.3' which does not exist; this likely refers to Table 2.
  4. Table 5 note: The EIRP limits exclude a de-smearing correction (β from Gajjar et al. 2021). A brief statement of the expected magnitude of this correction and its direction (limits would shift upward) would help readers assess the robustness of the reported limits.
  5. §3.1: The spatial filter threshold of 5.29 is described as '√N_antennas = √28 = 5.29.' This is a heuristic choice; a brief justification or reference for using √N as the expected SNR ratio between synthesized beams would help readers unfamiliar with this approach.
  6. §2.3: The text states X-band covers 8–12 GHz, but Table 5 lists the frequency range as 8020–9998 MHz. The actual observed range should be stated consistently.
  7. §1, footnote 9: The statement about humans generating technosignatures on Mars is somewhat tangential to the argument. Consider tightening.
  8. Table 1 note: The note states these observations comprise ~20.5 hours and seven orbital configurations. The text in §2.2 states 'roughly 20 hours.' Please make these consistent.
  9. §3.2.3: The text mentions 'two frequency segments, 8–8.8 GHz and 8.9–10 GHz,' but Table 5 lists 8020–9998 MHz. The gap between 8.8 and 8.9 GHz should be noted if intentional.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified.

full rationale

This is an observational non-detection paper. The central result—that no narrowband technosignature candidates survived RFI mitigation and multi-beam consistency checks—is derived from telescope observations processed through standard SETI pipelines (ATSAT/bliss/NBeamAnalysis for ATA; seticore for VLA), not from a fitted model whose outputs are compared back to its inputs. The EIRP limits in Table 5 are computed from the radiometer equation using independently measured system parameters (system temperature, antenna gain, bandwidth, integration time) and the known distance to LTT 3780. The paper references the authors' own prior work (Tremblay et al. 2026, Tusay et al. 2024) for pipeline structure and EIRP formulae, but these are methodological references describing how to compute sensitivity limits—not fitted parameters being repackaged as predictions. The drift-rate ranges searched (±5.3 Hz/s for ATA, ±4.1–13.8 Hz/s for VLA) are derived from orbital mechanics of the LTT 3780 system using published ephemerides (Bonfanti et al. 2024), not from fitting to the observed data. The non-detection is a genuine empirical outcome: the pipelines detected millions of hits, RFI mitigation and spatial filtering reduced these to a handful of candidates, and visual inspection rejected all of them as local interference or artifacts. No step in this chain reduces to its inputs by construction. The self-citations present are normal methodological references and do not form a load-bearing circular argument. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks (standard radiometer equation, known RFI environments, published orbital parameters). Score: 0—no circularity detected.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, particles, or forces. All observational targets (LTT 3780 b and c) are previously confirmed exoplanets.

free parameters (4)
  • SNR threshold (ATA) = 15
    Chosen detection threshold for bliss pipeline; standard but not derived from first principles.
  • SNR threshold (VLA) = 10
    Chosen detection threshold for seticore pipeline; standard but not derived from first principles.
  • Spatial filter threshold (ATA) = 5.29
    Set to sqrt(N_antennas) = sqrt(28) as a rough estimate of minimum expected SNR difference between synthesized beams.
  • Drift rate ranges = ±5.3 Hz/s (ATA), ±4.1–13.8 Hz/s (VLA)
    Chosen to be broader than expected orbital dynamics drift rates; not fitted to data but selected based on system parameters and practical considerations.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Narrowband, persistent, Doppler-drifting signals are the most likely technosignature modality to detect.
    This assumption underlies the entire search strategy. The paper acknowledges in §4 that transmitters may exhibit other behaviors, but the search is designed around this premise.
  • domain assumption Multi-beam consistency (on/off beam ratio) reliably discriminates sky-localized signals from local RFI.
    Used throughout both ATA and VLA analyses. Standard in radio SETI but assumes RFI does not mimic sky-localized behavior.
  • standard math The radiometer equation accurately predicts sensitivity for narrowband signal detection in these observations.
    Used to compute EIRP limits in Table 5. Standard assumption in radio astronomy.
  • domain assumption Keplerian orbit propagation is sufficient for predicting PPO and transit timing over the observation window.
    Used in §2.1.2 to schedule PPO observations. Timing uncertainties are stated as ~1 minute, small compared to observing windows.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 18325 in / 3519 out tokens · 293184 ms · 2026-07-09T17:55:15.773824+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A search for narrowband technosignatures from LTT 3780 with the Allen Telescope Array and the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JRWCMEU2

@misc{pith2026260707182,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A search for narrowband technosignatures from LTT 3780 with the Allen Telescope Array and the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JRWCMEU2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07182}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The LTT3780 system hosts two known exoplanets-LTT3780b, a rocky super-Earth, and LTT3780c, a temperate sub-Neptune-orbiting a nearby M dwarf on opposite sides of the radius valley. LTT3780c has been proposed as a candidate Hycean world, making the system an important target for astrobiological investigation, particularly in light of recent JWST atmospheric observations. Although biosignature and technosignature searches both seek evidence of life beyond Earth, these approaches have historically been pursued independently. Well-characterized exoplanet systems provide an opportunity to combine these complementary search strategies. In this work, we conducted radio technosignature observations of the LTT3780 system using both the Allen Telescope Array (ATA) and the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA). The two facilities provide complementary observational capabilities, with the ATA optimized for wide-band multi-beam post-processing analyses and the VLA enabling high-sensitivity real-time interferometric searches. Across approx 30 hr of total observing time, we searched for narrowband Doppler-drifting signals in the frequency range approx 1--10 GHz. After applying comprehensive radio-frequency interference mitigation and multi-beam consistency tests, no candidate signals consistent with astrophysical or technosignature origins were identified. We place minimum detectable effective isotropic radiated power limits of 4.7 X 10^12--3.6 X 10^13W across the observed bands and facilities. Although no technosignatures were detected, this work demonstrates how complementary observation and analysis strategies can be applied to exoplanets of astrobiological interest and serves as a pathfinder for future combined biosignature and technosignature investigations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07182 by Alex W. Pollak, Andrew P.V. Siemion, Chenoa D. Tremblay, Daniel Czech, David E. MacMahon, Isabel Gerrard, Matthew Lebofsky, Nikku Madhusudhan, Ross A. Donnachie, Sofia Z. Sheikh, Talon Myburgh, Vishal Gajjar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Geometry of the LTT 3780 planetary system at the time of our radio technosignature observations. The left panel shows the sky-plane (X–Y) view as seen from Earth, while the right panel shows the top-down (X–Z) view of the system. The orbits of planets b (blue) and c (green) are shown relative to the host star (yellow). Our observations from the ATA, mentioned in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: An output plot from the ATSAT pipeline depicting two plots of a signal which was flagged for further investigation after visual inspection. The plotted signal corresponds to hit with a drift rate of 1.326 Hz/s and an SNR ratio of 5.45. The plots show frequency offset from a center frequency of 2400.014593 MHz, time on the y-axis, and normalized intensity (scaled to the brighest and faintest intensities in … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The event from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

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

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 39, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02112-8

    Balbi, A., & Frank, A. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 39, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02112-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02112-8 2024

  2. [2]

    Barrett, R. A. W., Tremblay, C. D., Price, D. C., Green, J. A., & Addison, B. C. 2025, PASA, 42, e089, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2025.10060

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2025.10060 2025

  3. [3]

    G., et al

    Bonfanti, A., Brady, M., Wilson, T. G., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348180

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348180 2024

  4. [4]

    C., Krissansen-Totton, J., & Robinson, T

    Catling, D. C., Krissansen-Totton, J., & Robinson, T. D. 2025, ApJ, 979, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad99a9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad99a9 2025

  5. [5]

    A., Hinman, N

    Chan, M. A., Hinman, N. W., Potter-McIntyre, S. L., et al. 2019, Astrobiology, 19, 1075

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    D., Rodriguez, J

    Cloutier, R., Eastman, J. D., Rodriguez, J. E., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab91c2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab91c2 2020

  7. [8]

    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

  8. [9]

    T., & Lazio, T

    Fan, P., Wright, J. T., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 990, L1

    work page 2025

  9. [10]

    T., & Lazio, T

    Fan, P., Wright, J. T., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2025, ApJL, 990, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf6b0

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf6b0 2025

  10. [11]

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

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

  11. [12]

    The Breakthrough Listen Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence

    Gajjar, V., Siemion, A., Croft, S., et al. 2019, The Breakthrough Listen Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.05519

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  12. [13]

    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

  13. [14]

    Krissansen-Totton, J., Olson, S., & Catling, D. C. 2018, Science advances, 4, eaao5747

    work page 2018

  14. [15]

    2022, ApJ, 938, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac90bd

    Li, J.-K., Zhao, H.-C., Tao, Z.-Z., Zhang, T.-J., & Xiao-Hui, S. 2022, ApJ, 938, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac90bd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac90bd 2022

  15. [16]

    G., Sheikh, S

    Li, M. G., Sheikh, S. Z., Gilbertson, C., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acf83d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acf83d 2023

  16. [17]

    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

  17. [18]

    2023, ApJL, 944, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb272

    Lingam, M., & Loeb, A. 2023, ApJL, 944, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb272

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acb272 2023

  18. [19]

    Madhusudhan, N., Piette, A. A. A., & Constantinou, S. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 918, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfd9c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfd9c 2021

  19. [20]

    S., Reinhard, C

    Meadows, V. S., Reinhard, C. T., Arney, G. N., et al. 2018, Astrobiology, 18, 630

    work page 2018

  20. [21]

    2020, A&A, 642, A173, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037867

    Nowak, G., Luque, R., Parviainen, H., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A173, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037867

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037867 2020

  21. [22]

    2025, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 222

    Painter, C., Croft, S., Lebofsky, M., et al. 2025, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 222

    work page 2025

  22. [23]

    A., & Butler, B

    Perley, R. A., & Butler, B. J. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 230, 7

    work page 2017

  23. [24]

    E., Madhusudhan, N., Sarkar, S., et al

    Rigby, F. E., Madhusudhan, N., Sarkar, S., et al. 2025, ApJL, 995, L70, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae247d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae247d 2025

  24. [25]

    C., Garrett, M

    Saide, R. C., Garrett, M. A., & Heeralall-Issur, N. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 522, 2393

    work page 2023

  25. [26]

    2010, Astrobiology, 10, 121, doi: 10.1089/ast.2009.0358

    Schneider, J., Fridlund, M., & Henning, T. 2010, Astrobiology, 10, 121, doi: 10.1089/ast.2009.0358

    work page doi:10.1089/ast.2009.0358 2010

  26. [27]

    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

  27. [28]

    Z., Kanodia, S., Lubar, E., et al

    Sheikh, S. Z., Kanodia, S., Lubar, E., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 61 13

    work page 2023

  28. [29]

    Siemion, A. P. V., Demorest, P., Korpela, E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 94, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/94 Sullivan III, W., Brown, S., & Wetherill, C. 1978, Science, 199, 377

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/1/94 2013

  29. [30]

    2022, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 134, 114501

    Team, C., Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 134, 114501

    work page 2022

  30. [31]

    D., Varghese, S

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad0fe0 2024

  31. [32]

    COSMIC's Large-Scale Search for Technosignatures during the VLA sky Survey: Survey Description and First Results

    Tremblay, C. D., Sofair, J., Steffes, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.17997, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.17997

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.17997 2025

  32. [33]

    D., Chaudhary, S., Li, M

    Tremblay, C. D., Chaudhary, S., Li, M. G., et al. 2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.09553

    work page arXiv 2026

  33. [34]

    2026, isabelgerrard/NBeamAnalysis: Efficient and Stable Sky-Localization, 2.0.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19188799

    Tusay, N., & Gerrard, I. 2026, isabelgerrard/NBeamAnalysis: Efficient and Stable Sky-Localization, 2.0.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19188799

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.19188799 2026

  34. [35]

    Z., Sneed, E

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad823c 2024

  35. [36]

    J., Fleming, M., Munson, C., et al

    Welch, W. J., Fleming, M., Munson, C., et al. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 129, 045002

    work page 2017

  36. [37]

    2025, UCBerkeleySETI/bliss: Breakthrough Listen Interesting Signal Search, 2025-05-22 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19131179

    West, N. 2025, UCBerkeleySETI/bliss: Breakthrough Listen Interesting Signal Search, 2025-05-22 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19131179

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.19131179 2025

  37. [38]

    N., et al

    Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Waters, C. N., et al. 2017, The Anthropocene Review, 4, 9 14 T able 6.The frequency-blanking ranges, in MHz, used for the Allen Telescope Array (ATA) survey. 1000–1025 1525–1562 1951–1980 2067.3–2067.8 2237–2241 2353–2359.5 3341–3343 1075–1116 1572–1580 1990–1996 2097–2098 2244–2248 2484–2488 3492–3493 1168–1184.3 1671–1705 ...

    work page 2017