Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 52 references

SETI@home: Data Analysis and Findings

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SETI@home's back end, tested with 3,000 injected birdies, recovers most strong narrowband ET-like signals and yields candidate sensitivity limits; 92 candidates were selected for FAST reobservation.

desk verdict A thorough and honest methods writeup of the SETI@home back end; the headline sensitivity numbers carry a real train/test bias from the birdie tuning loop, so treat Table 8 as optimistic. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14737 v1 pith:3X3Y6V5Q submitted 2025-06-17 astro-ph.IM physics.data-an

David P. Anderson (1) , Eric J. Korpela (1) , Dan Werthimer (1) , Jeff Cobb (1) , Bruce Allen (2) ((1) Space Sciences Laboratory , University of California , Berkeley , (2) Max Planck Institut für Gravitationsphysik (Albert Einstein Institut)
show 1 more author
Hanover)
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IMphysics.data-an
keywords SETI@hometechnosignaturesradiofrequencyinterferencemultipletscoringcandidatesensitivitybirdieinjectionnarrowbandsignalsAreciboObservatory
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 establishes that SETI@home's second-stage pipeline, which removes radio frequency interference and groups detections into ranked signal candidates, works as intended for the signal class it models. The authors injected 3,000 artificial 'birdie' signals with varied power, bandwidth, and planetary-motion parameters, then measured what fraction produced a top-ranked multiplet. For every bandwidth class there is a power above which more than 80% of birdies are recovered, and these thresholds are presented as the project's candidate sensitivity: for example, about $2.8\times10^{-25}\,\mathrm{W\,m^{-2}}$ for barycentric signals of bandwidth 0.052--0.105 Hz, achieved over 2.24% of the sky. Manual review of top-scoring multiplets across seven score variants produced 92 reobservation candidates, of which 80 had been observed at the FAST telescope as of writing. The paper's central contribution is a method for stating what a SETI survey would actually find, rather than a best-case detection limit.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the candidate birdie: a software-generated set of detections that mimic what the front end would produce for a persistent narrowband ET signal, parameterized by power, bandwidth, sky position, and, for nonbarycentric signals, sinusoidal Doppler motion from a planet orbiting an F/G star. Birdies are injected before RFI removal and processed through the entire pipeline, so recovery fractions measure the system end-to-end. The companion machinery is the multiplet search and scoring: detections are pruned under position, frequency, drift-rate, and time constraints, then ranked by three probability-based score factors (power, density, and time coverage), combined into seven score variants because no single factor ranks all signal types.

What would settle it

Generate birdies with on-off intermittency, scintillation time constants from published interstellar medium models, or orbital parameters typical of M-dwarf exoplanets, and run them through the same pipeline; if the recovered fraction above the Table 8 power thresholds falls below 80% for any of these classes, the sensitivity estimates are specific to the always-on, un-scintillated, F/G-star signal model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the SETI@home back end recovers most persistent narrowband signals above a well-defined power threshold, so the system has a measurable candidate sensitivity rather than only an idealized event sensitivity. The paper distinguishes these two concepts explicitly: a signal can be detected as an event yet never become a candidate, so the honest sensitivity number is the candidate sensitivity, measured end-to-end by birdie injection. The results show that most birdie spikes survive RFI removal (about 89% overall), that no single score variant ranks all signal types best (each of the seven variants wins for a nontrivial fraction of birdies), and that manual inspection still removes a substantial share of top-ranked multiplets as RFI or noise. The final output is a ranked list from which 92 candidates were selected for reobservation at FAST, with 80 already observed.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the injected birdies faithfully represent real ET signals: always-on, fixed-position, un-scintillated narrowband transmitters on habitable-zone F/G star planets, and the paper states explicitly that it does not model scintillation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The candidate sensitivity numbers in Table 8, not the front-end event sensitivity, are the correct figures of merit for what SETI@home could actually deliver as reobservable candidates.
  • A future SETI sky survey can use the same injection-and-recovery procedure to state its sensitivity in comparable terms, provided it injects birdies matching its own target-signal model.
  • The finding that no single score variant is best for all birdies implies that multi-criterion ranking, rather than a single combined score, should be retained in candidate selection.
  • The 80 FAST reobservations already completed directly test the highest-ranked candidates, and a confirmed detection there would be a strong technosignature candidate.
  • The result that only 2.24% of the sky was strongly observed at the longest DFT length shows that pointing strategy, not just raw telescope time, sets narrowband survey sensitivity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's own numbers imply that uncorrected transmissions from fast-orbiting systems, such as planets around M dwarfs with high orbital velocities, would be recovered at lower rates; one can test this directly by injecting birdies with those orbital parameters and measuring the recovery drop.
  • The 0.15-day time-span cut applied during manual candidate selection implies that short-duration true signals would be missed; a testable extension is to inject birdies with shorter active windows and check the recovery fraction.
  • The archived Arecibo detection database could be re-searched for signals co-moving with Solar System objects, since the multiplet machinery already handles time-variable Doppler; the paper mentions this as future work without quantifying its expected sensitivity.
  • The explicit exclusion of scintillation suggests that real signals modulated by interstellar scintillation could be underrepresented; injecting birdies with scintillation time constants drawn from published interstellar medium models would quantify that gap.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper describes the SETI@home back end: it ingests roughly 12 billion detections from 14 years of Arecibo/ALFA observations, removes RFI with a cascade of filters, forms and scores multiplets of detections consistent with persistent narrowband cosmic signals, and selects candidates for reobservation at FAST. To develop and evaluate the pipeline, the authors inject artificial 'birdies' that model continuous narrowband signals with a range of powers, bandwidths, and planetary-motion parameters. The central quantitative claims are the candidate-sensitivity estimates of Table 8 (e.g., about 28e-26 W/m^2 for barycentric signals with bandwidth 0.052-0.105 Hz over 2.24% of the sky) and the statement that manual review of top-ranked multiplets produced 92 reobservation candidates, 80 of which had been observed at FAST as of writing.

Significance. If the sensitivity estimates are accepted, this is a valuable archival methods paper: it gives one of the most detailed published descriptions of a large-scale SETI data-analysis pipeline, with concrete appendices for the algorithms, open-source software, and a systematic birdie-injection methodology for estimating end-to-end sensitivity. The explicit distinction between event sensitivity and candidate sensitivity, and the quantification of sky coverage as a function of DFT length/bandwidth, are useful contributions to the radio SETI literature. The main qualification is that the headline Table 8 numbers are measured on the same birdie family that was used to tune the RFI filters, the multiplet-finding heuristics, and the scoring functions; the paper itself states this tuning process in Sections 6.5, 7.9.4, and 7.4.5. The reported sensitivity should therefore be understood as an internal validation of the pipeline on its design signal class, not as a clean out-of-sample measurement.

major comments (3)
  1. [§9.4 with §6.5, §7.4.5, §7.9.4] The sensitivity estimates in Table 8 are measured on the same birdie family that was used to develop the pipeline. Section 6.5 describes using birdie spikes to iteratively modify RFI filters; Section 7.4.5 says Eq. (4) was 'empirically found' from a large number of nonbarycentric birdies; and Section 7.9.4 says score variants were chosen by picking the function that 'more favors birdie multiplets.' The evaluation birdies of Section 9.1 are a fresh draw from the same parameter distribution, but no birdie set was held out before tuning, and no comparison of the development and evaluation parameter distributions is provided. This is a standard train/test contamination risk: the 'fraction uncovered' curves and the ranked multiplet lists that produced the 92 candidates can be optimistically biased. I ask for a genuinely held-out evaluation (for example, birdies generated only after all filters and score weights were frozen, or a checkerboard split over the parameter space) or, failing that, a clear reframing of Table 8 as an internal consistency check rather than an unbiased sensitivity estimate.
  2. [§5.2 and §9.1] The birdie model is restricted to always-on, unscintillated, spike-producing narrowband signals emitted from habitable-zone F/G-star planets with sinusoidal Doppler motion. The paper acknowledges in Section 5.2 that scintillation is not modeled, and Section 9.1 restricts nonbarycentric birdies to F/G stars and to signals that are always on. These restrictions are stated honestly, but the quantitative claims of Table 8 do not include any uncertainty or degradation factor reflecting real signal classes that scintillate, are intermittent, or have different planetary parameters. Since Section 10 itself lists scintillation as a reason repeated observations help, the Table 8 numbers should be explicitly presented as applying only to this restricted signal class, and ideally accompanied by a robustness test or a conservative correction for scintillation/intermittency.
  3. [§9 and §9.4] The definition of 'uncovered' is inconsistent between the introduction and the results, and the manual veto is not modeled in the recovery measurement. Section 1.2 says the top 1000 multiplets were examined by experts, while Section 9 defines a birdie as uncovered if it ranks in the top 100 non-birdie multiplets for some score variant. Additionally, Section 9.5 describes a manual step in which a significant fraction of top-ranked multiplets were rejected as RFI or noise, but the birdie recovery fractions of Section 9.4 do not include this human veto. The mapping from the Table 8 recovery fractions to the actual production of the 92 reobservation candidates is therefore incomplete. Please state the exact rank threshold used for Table 8, reconcile it with the top-1000 statement in Section 1.2, and quantify how the manual rejection step would change the reported candidate sensitivity.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§1.2 vs §9] The number of top multiplets examined is given as '1000' in Section 1.2 but as 'top 100 non-birdie multiplets' in Section 9; this inconsistency should be fixed in addition to the substantive issue raised in the major comments.
  2. [§3.3] The sentence describing the DFT lengths says both the 8-sample and the 128 Ki-sample DFTs have '1221 Hz resolution'; the long-DFT resolution should be approximately 0.074 Hz, so one of these values is a typo.
  3. [§6.6 and Table 4] The text says the fraction of birdie spikes flagged as RFI is 11.36%, but Table 4 reports 11.46% for the 'All' column; please make the numbers consistent.
  4. [§7.9.1 and §9.2] The power score factor is called Sprob(M) in Section 7.9.1 and Spower in Section 9.2; use a single notation throughout.
  5. [Table 2] The DFT length '32758' should presumably be '32768'; also, the table would be easier to read if the column headers were repeated or the row labels clarified.
  6. [§7.4.5] Equation (4) mixes quantities with different units; please state the units of the coefficient 0.75e7 and of the left-hand side, and cite the appendix or dataset from which the empirical bound was derived.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Birdie-based sensitivity is partially self-fulfilling: scoring, RFI filters, and the global consistency bound were tuned on the same birdie family used to measure recovery, so Table 8 thresholds are optimistically biased.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sections 5, 7.9.4, 7.10, and 9.4]
    "Score functions: We used birdies to develop our multiplet scoring functions by trying to find functions that rank birdie multiplets higher than other multiplets. ... Given two alternative functions, we chose the one that more favors birdie multiplets. ... we evolved the scoring functions to rank birdie multiplets high compared to real multiplets."

    Table 8 candidate sensitivity is defined as the power at which at least 80% of birdies are 'uncovered' (Section 9.4), i.e., produce a multiplet ranked in the top of a score variant. But the score variants and scoring functions were explicitly selected to favor birdie multiplets (Section 7.9.4), and the multiplet-finding/scoring algorithms were evolved to rank birdies high (Section 7.10). The evaluation metric is therefore the same as the optimization objective. A fresh random draw from the same parameter distribution does not remove the selection: the algorithm family and birdie distributions were chosen using earlier birdie sets, and no held-out distribution or no-tuning control is reported.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 6.5, item 6; Section 6.6; Table 4]
    "Examine birdie spikes that were flagged as RFI; in cases where they do not resemble RFI, modify the filters to not flag them."

    The paper uses the low birdie-spike flag fraction (Table 4) and the resultant birdie multiplet yields as evidence that RFI removal does not discard target-like signals. But the development protocol in Section 6.5 explicitly modified RFI filters whenever they flagged birdie spikes that 'do not resemble RFI.' The birdie survival rate is therefore a tuning target, not an independent test; comparing birdie and non-birdie flag rates in Table 4 is like reporting training accuracy as validation.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 7.4.5, Eq. (4); Section 9.1; Section 9.4]
    "Based on an analysis of a large number of nonbarycentric birdies, we empirically found that the inequality |C1 − C2| |F1 − F2| < 0.75×10^7 sqrt(t2 − t1) provides a fairly tight bound for our range of planetary and stellar parameters. We use this as our global consistency constraint."

    The numerical coefficient in Eq. (4) is an empirical fit to nonbarycentric birdies, and the bound is then enforced as a hard constraint when constructing nonbarycentric multiplets. The nonbarycentric sensitivity values in Table 8 are measured by recovering fresh birdies from the same F/G-star, habitable-zone parameter ranges (Section 9.1). Because the multiplet finder can only accept detections that satisfy the fitted bound, the birdie-recovery measurement is partly guaranteed by the fitted constraint itself. The sensitivity estimate does not independently test the bound or the signal model.

full rationale

The paper is transparent and mostly self-contained in describing the back-end pipeline; the companion-paper self-citations (Korpela et al. 2025) concern the front end and are not load-bearing for the back-end validation. The main circularity is confined to the birdie validation loop. The sensitivity estimates in Table 8 are recovery fractions of birdies, but the same birdie family was used to develop the score functions (Section 5), to choose among score variants (Section 7.9.4), to evolve the multiplet-finding algorithms (Section 7.10), and to tune RFI filters (Section 6.5). The global consistency bound in Eq. (4) was itself fitted from nonbarycentric birdies. Although the final 3000 birdies are a freshly drawn random sample generated after the algorithms were finalized, they come from the same parameter distributions used in tuning, and the paper provides no control for adaptive selection. Manual review and FAST reobservation are independent checks on the candidate lists, but they do not validate the quantitative sensitivity thresholds. The paper also explicitly limits its model (e.g., Section 5.2 does not model scintillation; Section 11.3 notes the global constraint is necessary but not sufficient), which narrows the claims but does not remove the training/evaluation overlap. Overall, the derivation is partially circular: the recovery fractions reflect the optimization target rather than an external benchmark.

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

The central sensitivity estimate rests on six domain assumptions and several fitted parameters. The most consequential are the assumption that birdies represent real signals, the empirically fitted drift consistency bound, and the Poisson noise scoring model. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Global drift-rate/frequency consistency bound coefficient = 0.75 x 10^7
    Empirically fitted to nonbarycentric birdies to provide a tight bound (Eq. 4, Section 7.4.5); no independent derivation from orbital mechanics.
  • Zfrac(t, l) zone RFI band fraction = varies per detection type and DFT length, chosen just above knee
    Chosen from the knee of removal curves (Figure C.2, Appendix C); a heuristic per combination of detection type and DFT length.
  • Spike detection threshold = 24 times mean noise power
    Set so that Gaussian noise yields about one spike per workunit; inherited from the front end (Korpela et al., 2025), but it determines the entire detection set.
  • Score normalization rank = 30 millionth highest detection per type
    Arbitrary normalization to make the power score factor comparable across detection types (Section 7.9.1).
  • Local drift/frequency constraint parameters = Mdt_local = 0.1 d, Mdc_local = 10 Hz/s, Mdv_local = 250 Hz
    Chosen as limits for target signals; not derived from first principles (Section 7.4.4).
  • Birdie power range = P = 18 to 33 (barycentric), 18 to 50 (nonbarycentric)
    Chosen for sensitivity sampling; affects interpretation of flux limits (Section 9.1).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Transmitters are in nearly inertial frames or on habitable-zone planets orbiting F/G stars, with orbital/rotational parameters within chosen ranges.
    Defines the Doppler parameter space searched; Section 2 and Section 9.1. This narrows the search and limits the validity of sensitivity estimates.
  • domain assumption Target signals are persistent (always on, high duty cycle) and at fixed sky position over the 14-year observing period.
    Section 2 states the search is for signals transmitted over a long period with high duty cycle; this drives the multiplet time factor and the sensitivity estimates.
  • domain assumption Detection positions and frequencies have uncertainties sigma_pos = theta_beam and sigma_nu = 125 Hz as modeled.
    Section 3.4 defines these; if underestimated, multiplet constraints could exclude real signals.
  • standard math Noise statistics for detections and multiplet scores are Poisson for the probability factors.
    Section 7.9 uses Gamma/Poisson assumptions for the density and time factors; these are approximations.
  • domain assumption RFI does not depend on pointing, so position-separated similar detections are RFI.
    Section 6 is the basis for most RFI filters; cosmic sources are position-correlated while RFI is not.
  • domain assumption Birdies model real ET signals sufficiently for sensitivity estimation, excluding scintillation.
    Section 5.2 states scintillation is not modeled; if real signals scintillate, sensitivity is overestimated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SETI@home: Data Analysis and Findings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3X3Y6V5Q

@misc{pith2026250614737,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SETI@home: Data Analysis and Findings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3X3Y6V5Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14737}
}
read the original abstract

SETI@home is a radio Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project that looks for technosignatures in data recorded at the Arecibo Observatory. The data were collected over a period of 14 years and cover almost the entire sky visible to the telescope. The first stage of data analysis found billions of detections: brief excesses of continuous or pulsed narrowband power. The second stage removed detections that were likely radio frequency interference (RFI), then identified and ranked signal candidates: groups of detections, possibly spread over the 14 years, that plausibly originate from a single cosmic source. We manually examined the top-ranking signal candidates and selected a few hundred. In the third and final stage we are reobserving the corresponding sky locations and frequency ranges using the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical Telescope (FAST) radio telescope. This paper covers SETI@home's second stage of data analysis. We describe the algorithms used to remove RFI and to identify and rank signal candidates. To guide the development of these algorithms, we used artificial candidate birdies that model persistent ET signals with a range of power, bandwidth, and planetary motion parameters. This approach also allowed us to estimate the sensitivity of our detection system to these signals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14737 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The SETI@home data analysis process. or an atmospheric component that only has a technological means of production). Such items are collectively known as technosignatures (Haqq-Misra 2024). Due to the relative ease of creating and detecting radio waves and the relative transparency of atmospheres and interstellar space to such waves, radio has been proposed as a means of detecting extraterrestrial intelligence (Cocc… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The drifting RFI algorithm constructs fans of triangles in time/frequency space, and looks for triangles containing an excess of detections. trigger the algorithm. So we identify such clusters, select a master detection from each cluster, and use only these detections in the rest of the algorithm. The algorithm is given in Appendix D Gaussians near spikes flagged as drifting RFI typically are RFI as well, but often … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A waterfall plot showing drifting RFI. The left panel shows detections in time/frequency space, and the right panel shows the distance in sky position from the center detection to each of the seven beams. The black box in the left panel is centered on the center detection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Nonbarycentric multiplets may include detections over a frequency range of up to 308 kHz. Similarly, a pulsed transmission could produce both pulses and triplets, so we form multiplets from the combined set of pulses and triplets. We form autocorrelation multiplets sep…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A pixel disk is centered at a pixel and has radius θbeam. 7.4.2. Drift rate constraints The terrestrial drift rate in the SETI@home band (1418.75–1421.25 MHz) at AO ranges from −0.12 to −0.16 Hz s−1 . Most of the variation is due to the difference between the observati…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The general structure of radio SETI projects. • where the telescope was pointing relative to the signal source; • whether the telescope pointing was changing, and how fast; • sender and receiver acceleration, and corresponding Doppler drift. We first define the system’…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Candidate sensitivity to barycentric signals with bandwidth ≥ 863 Hz detected with below-threshold probability, say 0.4. Hence, the signal could result in multiple events which could be identified as a candidate by appropriate algorithms.3 Using the birdie mechanism, w…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Candidate sensitivity to barycentric signals with medium bandwidth (6 Hz to 13 Hz) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Candidate sensitivity to barycentric signals with bandwidth ≤ 0.1 Hz 9.5. Selecting signal candidates for reobservation The 300 meter Arecibo telescope collapsed in December 2020. Only the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical Telescope (FAST) in China has sufficient s…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Candidate sensitivity to nonbarycentric signals with bandwidth ≥ 863 Hz [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Candidate sensitivity to nonbarycentric signals with bandwidth from 6 Hz to 13 Hz spike/Gaussian candidates (50 barycentric and 20 nonbarycentric), 12 pulse/triplet candidates, and 10 autocorrelation candidates. Our algorithms for finding and ranking multiplets are no…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Candidate sensitivity to nonbarycentric signals with bandwidth <0.1 Hz Signal Candidate Candidate Sky Bandwidth Sensitivity (bary) Sensitivity (nonbary) Coverage (Hz) (10−26 W m−2 ) (10−26 W m−2 ) (%) 863–1726 320000 400000 100 431–863 150000 150000 100 215–431 90000 …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Example of a multiplet summary page. relative telescope angle (in units of beam width) versus time. The relative angle plotted is the difference between the telescope coordinates (which change with time) and the coordinates of the detection being examined. The detecti…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Waterfall plot showing detections from a high scoring multiplet that is likely due to RFI. The detection at the center of the plot is indicated with a square. In contrast, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Detections from a multiplet that was scored highly by both algorithms and manually. Candidate birdies: Some radio SETI projects (including SETI@home) tested their event detection by injecting constant-frequency or drifting sinusoids (Margot et al. 2023). SETI@home is …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ".W p͇ PErz挽k ܠ ݠݐP@Uk/ @ @``@@`pͷ|@ ???___sV+ pHYs + IDATx @e _@lr

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt \@twocolumntrue 12pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key o...

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Anderson, D. P. 2020, , 18, 99, 10.1007/s10723-019-09497-9

    doi:10.1007/s10723-019-09497-9 2020

  3. [3]

    R., & Project Phoenix Team

    Backus , P. R., & Project Phoenix Team . 2002, in , Vol. 278, Single-Dish Radio Astronomy: Techniques and Applications, ed. S. Stanimirovic , D. Altschuler , P. Goldsmith , & C. Salter , 525--527. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ASPC..278..525B

    2002

  4. [4]

    2016, ArXiv e-prints

    Bowyer , S., Lampton , M., Korpela , E., et al. 2016, ArXiv e-prints. 1607.00440

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    2017, , 228, 21, 10.3847/1538-4365/228/2/21

    Chennamangalam , J., MacMahon , D., Cobb , J., et al. 2017, , 228, 21, 10.3847/1538-4365/228/2/21

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/228/2/21 2017

  6. [6]

    2000, in , Vol

    Cobb , J., Lebofsky , M., Werthimer , D., Bowyer , S., & Lampton , M. 2000, in , Vol. 213, Bioastronomy 99: A New Era In Bioastronomy, ed. G. Lemarchand & K. Meech , 485. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ASPC..213..485C

    2000

  7. [7]

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

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

    doi:10.1038/184844a0 1959

  8. [8]

    J., Downs , G., Emerson , R., et al

    Cohen , R. J., Downs , G., Emerson , R., et al. 1987, , 225, 491, 10.1093/mnras/225.3.491

    doi:10.1093/mnras/225.3.491 1987

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    M., Lazio , J

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

    1997 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Freire , P

    Cordes , J. M., Freire , P. C. C., Lorimer , D. R., et al. 2006, , 637, 446, 10.1086/498335

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    H., Leiserson, C

    Cormen, T. H., Leiserson, C. E., Rivest, R. L., & Stein, C. 2022, Introduction to Algorithms (MIT press)

    2022

  4. [12]

    W., & Sephton , M

    Court , R. W., & Sephton , M. A. 2012, , 73, 233, 10.1016/j.pss.2012.08.026

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    2021, , 133, 064502, 10.1088/1538-3873/abf329

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

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Drake , F. D. 1960, , 19, 140. https//archive.org/details/sim_sky-and-telescope_1960-01_19_3/page/140

    1960

  7. [15]

    1974, in Interstellar Communication: Scientific Perspectives, ed

    ---. 1974, in Interstellar Communication: Scientific Perspectives, ed. C. Ponnamperuma & A. G. W. Cameron , 118--139

    1974

  8. [16]

    Drake , F. D. 1986, in NRAO Workshop on the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, ed. K. I. Kellermann & G. A. Seielstad , 17--26. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986seti.work...17D

    1986

  9. [17]

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

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

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    M., Hivon , E., Banday , A

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

    2005 doi

  11. [19]

    Gray , R. H. 2021, , 24, 981. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021JAHH...24..981G

    2021

  12. [20]

    1984, SIGMOD Rec., 14, 47, 10.1145/971697.602266

    Guttman, A. 1984, SIGMOD Rec., 14, 47, 10.1145/971697.602266

    1984

  13. [21]

    2024, in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Planetary Science, 275, 10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.013.275

    Haqq-Misra , J. 2024, in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Planetary Science, 275, 10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.013.275

    2024

  14. [22]

    R., Richards , J., Tarter , J

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

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    2024, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Hort , E., Sheikh , S., Farah , W., & Tusay , N. 2024, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 243, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 109.03

    2024

  16. [24]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 064, 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64

    Jiang , P., Tang , N.-Y., Hou , L.-G., et al. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 064, 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    2001, , 3, 78, 10.1109/5992.895191

    Korpela, E., Werthimer, D., Anderson, D., Cobb, J., & Leboisky, M. 2001, , 3, 78, 10.1109/5992.895191

    2001

  18. [26]

    J., Anderson , D

    Korpela , E. J., Anderson , D. P., Cobb , J., Lebofsky , M., & Werthimer , D. 2025, Submitted to

    2025

  19. [27]

    J., Cobb, J., Lebofsky, M., et al

    Korpela, E. J., Cobb, J., Lebofsky, M., et al. 2011, in Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CETI) , ed. D. A. Vakoch (Albany, NY, USA: SUNY Press), 37--44. 1109.1595

    2011 arXiv

  20. [28]

    J., Demorest , P., Heien , E., Heiles , C., & Werthimer , D

    Korpela , E. J., Demorest , P., Heien , E., Heiles , C., & Werthimer , D. 2002, in , Vol. 276, Seeing Through the Dust: The Detection of \ and the Exploration of the ISM in Galaxies , ed. A. R. Taylor, T. L. Landecker, & A. G. Willis , 100--103. astro-ph/0112300

    2002 arXiv

  21. [29]

    J., Anderson , D

    Korpela , E. J., Anderson , D. P., Bankay , R., et al. 2009, in , Vol. 420, Bioastronomy 2007: Molecules, Microbes and Extraterrestrial Life, ed. K. J. Meech, J. V. Keane, M. J. Mumma, J. L. Siefert, & D. J. Werthimer , 431--438. https://aspbooks.org/custom/publications/paper/...

    2009

  22. [30]

    J., Anderson , D

    Korpela , E. J., Anderson , D. P., Bankay , R., et al. 2011, in , Vol. 8152, Instruments, Methods, and Missions for Astrobiology XIV , ed. R.B. Hoover, P.C.W. Davies, G.V. Levin, & A.Y. Rozanov , 815212 (8 pages), 10.1117/12.894066

    2011 doi

  23. [31]

    Kraus , J. D. 1977, Vistas in Astronomy, 20, 445, 10.1016/0083-6656(77)90027-7

    1977 doi

  24. [32]

    2022, , 938, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac90bd

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

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    2023, , 165, 132, 10.3847/1538-3881/acb706

    Luan , X.-H., Tao , Z.-Z., Zhao , H.-C., et al. 2023, , 165, 132, 10.3847/1538-3881/acb706

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    G., Pinchuk , P., et al

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

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    Miller , S. L. 1953, Science, 117, 528, 10.1126/science.117.3046.528

    1953 doi

  28. [36]

    L., & Urey , H

    Miller , S. L., & Urey , H. C. 1959, Science, 130, 245, 10.1126/science.130.3370.245

    1959 doi

  29. [37]

    2004, in 55th International Astronautical Congress (International Astronautical Federation, 8-10 rue Mario-Nikis, Paris Cedex, 15, France)

    Parsons, A., Werthimer, D., Anderson, D., et al. 2004, in 55th International Astronautical Congress (International Astronautical Federation, 8-10 rue Mario-Nikis, Paris Cedex, 15, France). http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/ korpela/papers/2004-10-01_Searching_For_ET_SETI_overview.pdf

    2004

  30. [38]

    Pearce, B. K. D., & Pudritz, R. E. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 807, 85, 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/85

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    Peek , J. E. G., Begum , A., Douglas , K. A., et al. 2010, in , Vol. 438, The Dynamic Interstellar Medium, ed. R. Kothes, T. L. Landecker, and A. G. Willis , 393--401. https://aspbooks.org/custom/publications/paper/438-0393.html

    2010

  32. [40]

    Peek , J. E. G., Heiles , C., Douglas , K. A., et al. 2011, , 194, 20 (13 pages), 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/20

    2011 doi

  33. [41]

    C., Enriquez , J

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

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    M., Sanz-Novo , M., Jim \'e nez-Serra , I., et al

    Rivilla , V. M., Sanz-Novo , M., Jim \'e nez-Serra , I., et al. 2023, , 953, L20, 10.3847/2041-8213/ace977

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    1975, SciAm, 232, 80

    Sagan, C., & Drake, F. 1975, SciAm, 232, 80. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24949801

    1975

  36. [44]

    Siemion , A. P. V., Bower , G. C., Foster , G., et al. 2012, , 744, 109, 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/109

    2012 doi

  37. [45]

    Staelin , D. H. 1969, , 57, 724, 10.1109/PROC.1969.7051

    1969

  38. [46]

    2005, Concurrency Computat.: Pract.\,Exper.\,, 17, 323, 10.1002/cpe.938

    Thain, D., Tannenbaum, T., & Livny, M. 2005, Concurrency Computat.: Pract.\,Exper.\,, 17, 323, 10.1002/cpe.938

    2005 doi

  39. [47]

    2024, , 168, 292, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad88eb

    Tokadjian , A., Hu , R., & Damiano , M. 2024, , 168, 292, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad88eb

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    D., Varghese , S

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

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    Z., Sneed , E

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

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    1988, Acta Astronautica, 17, 123, 10.1016/0094-5765(88)90135-X

    Werthimer, D., Brady, R., Berezin, A., & Bowyer, S. 1988, Acta Astronautica, 17, 123, 10.1016/0094-5765(88)90135-X

    1988 doi

  43. [51]

    2019, , 484, L43, 10.1093/mnrasl/slz002

    Zeng , S., Qu \'e nard , D., Jim \'e nez-Serra , I., et al. 2019, , 484, L43, 10.1093/mnrasl/slz002

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    2020, , 891, 174, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7376

    Zhang , Z.-S., Werthimer , D., Zhang , T.-J., et al. 2020, , 891, 174, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7376

    2020 doi

Pith tools

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