Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 102 references

The \^G Infrared Search for Extraterrestrial Civilizations with Large Energy Supplies. V. When Galaxies Glow with Industry

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read None of 129 nearby galaxies shows the warm infrared signature of a galaxy-spanning Dyson swarm; new per-galaxy limits place median covering below 0.3% in quiescent hosts and cap the population at 2.6%.

desk verdict A well-executed, properly scoped null result; the closed-loop injection calibration means the few-percent sensitivity numbers are best-case, but the core search and per-galaxy limits stand. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12458 v1 pith:EZFD2YRH submitted 2026-08-12 astro-ph.GA

Olivia Curtis , Aidan J. Rowland , Jason T. Wright , Caryl Gronwall , Jakob M. Helton , Joel Leja This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords technosignaturesDysonspheresextragalacticSETIwasteheatstellarpopulationsynthesisgalaxySEDfittingmid-infraredexcessquiescentgalaxies
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 tests whether any of 129 nearby galaxies radiates the waste heat a galaxy-spanning civilization would leave behind, by fitting each galaxy's full ultraviolet-to-mid-infrared spectrum with a model that includes an optional Dyson-swarm component. The answer is no: no galaxy prefers that component, and the fits place the first per-galaxy 95% upper limits on warm swarms, with a median covering fraction below 0.3% for quiescent hosts without a dominant active nucleus. Injection-recovery tests show the method would catch swarms intercepting about 4–5% of starlight in quiescent galaxies, an order of magnitude deeper than earlier color-cut searches, and the null result bounds the population: fewer than 2.6% of atlas-like galaxies can hide 25%-covering swarms at 95% confidence. The search matters because it converts galaxy-scale SETI from crude color cuts into a calibrated measurement, and it identifies quiescent galaxy outskirts as the best place to look next.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the AGENT Dyson-sphere parameterization injected at the simple-stellar-population level, before light propagates into the galaxy's gas and dust. In its two-parameter form ($\alpha$ and $T_{\rm BB}$, with non-thermal losses set to zero), each stellar population is replaced by $$$L^{{\rm SSP,DS}}$_\nu(t,Z)=(1-\$\alpha$)$L^{{\rm SSP}}$_\nu(t,Z)+\left[\frac{\$\alpha$\,\pi B_\nu(T_{\rm BB})}{\sigma_{\rm SB}T_{\rm BB}^4}\right]\int $L^{{\rm SSP}}$_\nu(t,Z)\,d\nu,$$ so a fraction $\alpha$ of starlight is dimmed in the UV–optical while a Planck bump at $T_{\rm BB}$ is added in the infrared. Because the reprocessing happens inside the stellar population, nebular emission and dust emission respond self-consistently, giving the model an energy-conserving signature that separates waste heat from starbursts and AGN rather than relying on population-level color cuts.

What would settle it

Take a quiescent elliptical from the atlas, inject an $\alpha = 5\%$, 300 K swarm into its 24-band photometry, and refit with the same pair of models: the BIC $> 8$ test must flag it in roughly half of trials; then take an archival optical spectrum of any of the ten most anomalous candidates and look for high infrared excess together with H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ near the Case B value of about 2.86, since a galaxy showing both would be a genuine waste-heat candidate that this null result excludes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a null result with quantified reach: fitting 129 nearby galaxies with a stellar-population model that can absorb a fraction $\alpha$ of starlight and re-emit it as a Planck spectrum finds no galaxy that prefers such a Dyson sphere component. On the real photometry, the AGENT-on fits return the first per-galaxy 95% upper limits on warm ($T_{\rm BB} \gtrsim 100$ K) swarms, with median $\alpha_{95} < 0.3\%$ across quiescent hosts without a dominant AGN. The accompanying 1,419 injection-recovery fits recover injected covering fractions with slope 0.92 and reach Bayesian detection at $\alpha \approx 4$–$5\%$ in quiescent galaxies, while star-forming spirals need $\alpha \approx 20\%$; converting the zero detections through injection-calibrated detection rates gives population bounds of $<14.6\%$, $<10.1\%$, and $<2.6\%$ of atlas-like galaxies hosting 300 K swarms at $\alpha = 5\%$, $10\%$, and $25\%$, respectively, at 95% confidence. In short, warm, galaxy-scale waste heat appears rare in the local universe at the few-percent level.

Load-bearing premise

The limits presume every galaxy-spanning swarm absorbs and re-emits starlight as a single isotropic Planck spectrum at one temperature; a civilization radiating waste heat across broad temperatures, in non-thermal channels, or anisotropically would not be recovered and would not be constrained by the quoted covering fractions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With the full 24-band atlas, quiescent galaxies are detectable hosts at $\alpha \approx 4$–$5\%$, while star-forming spirals require $\alpha \approx 20\%$, so future surveys should prioritize the outskirts of quiescent galaxies.
  • The zero detections plus injection-calibrated counts imply that fewer than 14.6% ($\alpha = 5\%$), 10.1% ($\alpha = 10\%$), and 2.6% ($\alpha = 25\%$) of atlas-like galaxies can host 300 K swarms at 95% confidence.
  • An unmodeled swarm leaves two falsifiable artifacts: inferred AGN fractions inflate by up to three orders of magnitude, and recent star formation in quiescent galaxies inflates by 1.4–1.8 dex, giving cheap red-flag diagnostics.
  • Resolved fitting with nuclear excision cuts the recovered covering fraction for the extreme AGN host M77 from 0.182 to 0.100, demonstrating that AGN contamination can be separated spatially.
  • Adding wide-field far-infrared photometry plus mid-infrared imaging would turn an ambiguous AGN-versus-swarm case into a decisive test, raising an example from 1.2$\sigma$ to 3.7–4.5$\sigma$ and pushing the model-selection statistic well past the detection threshold.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The IR-excess versus Balmer-decrement plane and the stellar-to-dynamical-mass offset, calibrated in the paper's appendices, can be run on archival spectra for millions of galaxies as an inexpensive pre-screen; the paper does not itself apply them at scale.
  • The two failure modes of the waste-heat-free model are a general diagnostic: any large SED-fitting catalog showing unexpected AGN or star-formation spikes may be flagging unmodeled mid-infrared excess, not necessarily technosignatures.
  • If fast amortized inference is extended to the roughly $10^7$ galaxies with archival multiwavelength photometry, the population bound of a few percent should tighten by orders of magnitude, and the same injection tests would validate it.
  • The single-temperature Planck assumption is the main blind spot: a civilization that radiates waste heat across many temperatures, in non-thermal channels, or anisotropically would evade both detection and the quoted covering-fraction limits.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an SPS-based search for galaxy-spanning Dyson-sphere waste heat in 129 nearby galaxies from the Brown et al. (2014) atlas. The AGENT formalism is implemented inside FSPS at the level of simple stellar populations (Eq. 4), so reprocessed starlight self-consistently affects nebular and dust emission. Using Prospector, the authors run 1,419 injection-recovery tests at T_BB = 300 K, recover injected covering fractions with slope m = 0.92, and calibrate Bayesian model-selection thresholds (ΔBIC > 8). On real photometry, no galaxy prefers a Dyson-sphere component; the paper reports the first per-galaxy 95% upper limits on warm swarms, with median α95 < 0.3% for quiescent non-AGN hosts, and converts zero detections into a population bound f < 2.6% for α = 25% swarms at 95% confidence. The paper also develops a resolved-fitting demonstration on M77 with nuclear excision, identifies characteristic failure modes in AGN fraction and star-formation history when waste heat is unmodeled, and lays out a tiered follow-up strategy including Balmer-decrement and dynamical-mass diagnostics, PRIMA, and JWST/MIRI.

Significance. If the central null result and sensitivity calibration hold, this is a substantial advance: it replaces population-level WISE color cuts with per-galaxy SED fits, improves quiescent-galaxy sensitivity by more than an order of magnitude over Griffith et al. (2015), and provides the first individually calibrated upper limits on galaxy-scale waste heat. The paper is also strong on reproducibility: public forks of FSPS, python-fsps, and Prospector are provided; the injection-recovery campaign, nested-sampling cross-checks, and likelihood-refinement procedure are described in enough detail to reproduce. The falsifiable predictions, such as the Balmer-decrement/IR-excess plane and the hidden-mass offset, are genuinely useful for future searches. The main caveat is that the injection-recovery calibration is closed-loop: injections and fits use the same forward model, so the quoted detection efficiencies and population bounds measure internal consistency rather than robustness to SPS, AGN-torus, or dust-template misspecification.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, §3.2, Appendix A] The injection-recovery calibration that sets the headline sensitivity is closed-loop: Appendix A states that injected photometry is generated with the same AGENT-enabled forward model used in the fits, as a self-consistent reprocessing of each galaxy's best-fit spectrum. The m = 0.92 recovery and the N_det = 19/28/112 counts used to derive f < 14.6%/10.1%/2.6% therefore validate internal consistency, not robustness to the kinds of model misspecification that could affect real SEDs (e.g., imperfect AGN torus templates, unusual dust geometries, SPS template errors). I request an explicit statement that the quoted detection thresholds and population bounds are conditional on the FSPS+AGN+dust model being correct, and ideally an out-of-model test, such as injecting into residualized or perturbed photometry, to quantify how much efficiency could degrade.
  2. [§3.2 and Appendix A] The population bound f < 2.6% is calibrated only for 300 K injections, while Appendix A shows that for star-forming spirals and peculiar galaxies the 100 K and 600 K injections are nearly undetectable until α ≈ 50%. The abstract's language 'warm (T_BB ≳ 100 K) swarms' is broader than what the injection-calibrated detection counts support. Please either scope the population bound explicitly to T_BB ≈ 300 K, or provide a temperature-averaged sensitivity estimate before claiming a bound on warm swarms generally.
  3. [§2.3.1, §3.2] The claim that the 18-parameter model 'does not overfit' is supported by the absence of spurious detections at zero injection, but this test shares the closed-loop limitation of the injection suite: it shows that the pipeline does not overfit data generated by the same model. A stronger statement would require a null test on data with realistic residual structure, for example fits to the real photometry with randomized residual draws, or a report of the empirical distribution of ΔBIC under the actual observed residuals.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.4] In the paragraph on resolved fitting, 'we show blow that the swarm component will absorb its MIR excess' appears to contain a typo; 'blow' should be 'below'.
  2. [§3.2] In the model-selection paragraph, 'an AGNET-off pair' should read 'an AGENT-off pair'.
  3. [§4.4] The sentence 'Their error budget to was dominated by the fact that they had no star count for each those galaxies' contains typographical errors; it should read 'Their error budget was dominated by the fact that they had no star count for each of those galaxies.'
  4. [§4.5] The SPHEREx citation has a garbled accent ('O. Dor´ e'), and the name should be rendered as 'Doré'.
  5. [Table 4] The table caption states that no galaxy reaches ΔBIC > 8 and also that no galaxy attains ΔBIC > 0. The latter is the stronger and more important statement, so consider stating it explicitly in the main text near the ranking discussion rather than only in the table caption.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor closed-loop calibration in injection-recovery; central null result independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1 and Appendix A (injection-recovery design)]
    "The injected photometry is generated with the same AGENT-enabled forward model used throughout this work, so that each injected SED is a self-consistent reprocessing of the galaxy’s own best-fit spectrum rather than an analytic addition to the broadband points."

    The injection template is the identical AGENT/FSPS forward model (Eq. 4) used in the fits, so the recovered slope m=0.92 and the alpha~4-5% detection thresholds measure the pipeline's ability to recover its own generative model rather than the realism of the single-blackbody Dyson-sphere template. The population bounds (f<14.6%, 10.1%, 2.6%) are converted from these closed-loop detection counts, so they inherit the assumption that real galaxy SEDs are exactly described by the same reprocessing model. This is a mild circular element in the sensitivity calibration, not in the empirical null result.

full rationale

The central null result is not circular: the paper fits real 24-band photometry with two nested models and finds no galaxy with DeltaBIC>0, which is an empirical comparison independent of the injection campaign. The per-galaxy upper limits are posterior constraints on the AGENT parameter alpha under an explicitly scoped single-blackbody model, and the paper openly limits them to T_BB>100K and notes the cold branch is unfalsifiable. The only mild circular element is the injection-recovery calibration: injected SEDs are generated with the same AGENT-enabled forward model used for the fits, so the recovered slope m=0.92 and the alpha~4-5% detection thresholds demonstrate internal consistency of the sampler with its own generative model rather than external realism of the Dyson-sphere template. The population bounds inherit this closed-loop calibration, but the paper does not hide the assumption and presents the null result as independent of it. The AGENT formalism is adopted from prior work by the same group, but it is treated as an explicit ansatz with stated limits, not as an imported uniqueness theorem, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. Overall, no significant circularity in the derivation of the null result; score 2 for the minor closed-loop sensitivity calibration.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the assumed spectral model of Dyson swarms, the completeness of the astrophysical SED templates, and the BIC selection criterion. The model has 18 free parameters; the most central for the technosignature claim are DSalpha, T_BB, fagn, and agn_tau. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • DSalpha (covering fraction) = Per-galaxy posterior; e.g., M77 integrated = 0.182; median alpha95 < 0.3% for quiescent hosts
    The central technosignature parameter, fitted in every AGENT-on run with uniform prior 1e-3 to 1. All reported upper limits and population bounds derive from its posterior.
  • T_BB (swarm blackbody temperature) = M77 integrated = 478 K; injection tests set to 300 K
    Fitted with uniform prior 0.1 to 1000 K. The detection sensitivity and interpretation of the MIR excess depend strongly on this parameter; limits are scoped to warm swarms with T_BB >= 100 K.
  • fagn (AGN fraction) = M77 integrated AGENT-on = 0.02; large prior dependence
    Free parameter in the SED fit, log-uniform prior 1e-5 to 3. It is degenerate with the Dyson component, and this degeneracy is the dominant systematic in the search.
  • agn_tau (AGN torus optical depth) = M77 integrated AGENT-on = 8.5
    Free parameter with log-uniform prior 1e-3 to 150. Together with fagn it absorbs warm MIR emission and can mimic or mask a Dyson-sphere component.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Waste heat from a galaxy-spanning civilization is re-radiated as a blackbody at a single effective temperature T_BB and conserves bolometric luminosity (alpha + epsilon = gamma + nu', with epsilon = nu' = 0).
    Invoked in Section 2.1 Eq. (1) and Section 2.3 Eq. (4); the entire forward model and derived limits depend on this spectral shape.
  • domain assumption Dyson swarms are distributed isotropically and sample starlight in proportion to stellar luminosity, so a fraction alpha of total stellar light is reprocessed uniformly.
    Stated in Section 2.1 and Section 2.3; simplifies the geometry and is used for all fits in the main analysis.
  • domain assumption FSPS/MIST/C3K stellar population models, Draine and Li dust emission, Charlot and Fall attenuation, and Nenkova clumpy-torus AGN templates are accurate enough that SED residuals can be attributed to a Dyson-sphere component.
    The Prospector-alpha model (Table 2) uses these components; the paper shows baseline residuals below 1 sigma, but the completeness of these templates is not externally validated.
  • domain assumption A Bayesian Information Criterion difference of deltaBIC > 8 is an appropriate model-selection criterion for detecting a Dyson-sphere component.
    Used in Section 3.2; validated only against the internal injection-recovery tests, not against a known external truth.
  • domain assumption The Brown et al. (2014) 129-galaxy atlas is representative of the nearby galaxy population for the population-level bound.
    The population bound f < 2.6% is derived from N = 129 and the injection-recovery counts; the paper notes the bound applies to atlas-like galaxies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The \^G Infrared Search for Extraterrestrial Civilizations with Large Energy Supplies. V. When Galaxies Glow with Industry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EZFD2YRH

@misc{pith2026260812458,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The \^G Infrared Search for Extraterrestrial Civilizations with Large Energy Supplies. V. When Galaxies Glow with Industry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EZFD2YRH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12458}
}
abstract

We present the most robust stellar population synthesis (SPS)-based search for galaxy-spanning technological waste heat to date, applied to 129 nearby galaxies spanning a wide range of spectral energy distribution (SED) types, including ultraluminous IR galaxies and MIR-luminous active galactic nuclei (AGN). We incorporate the AGENT Dyson sphere formalism into the Flexible Stellar Population Synthesis code at the stellar population level, so nebular and dust emission respond self-consistently to Dyson sphere reprocessing. With \texttt{Prospector}, we perform a suite of 1,419 injection recovery tests across a range of covering fractions, $\alpha$, where we successfully recover the injected covering fractions (best-fit slope $m = 0.92$) and detect them through Bayesian model selection down to $\alpha \sim 4$--$5\%$ in quiescent galaxies. None of our 129 galaxies prefer a Dyson sphere component, and we place the first per-galaxy 95\% upper limits on warm ($T_{\rm BB} \gtrsim 100$K) swarms, reaching a median $\alpha < 0.3\%$ across quiescent hosts without a dominant AGN. Our injection-calibrated detection rates convert these zero detections into a population bound of $<2.6\%$ of galaxies hosting $\alpha = 25\%$ swarms ($95\%$ confidence). Because survey colors cannot separate waste heat from starbursts and AGN, we develop a scaffold for future searches, running from inexpensive archival screens such as the Balmer decrement and the stellar-to-dynamical-mass offset a swarm leaves behind, through resolved fitting with nuclear excision, to PRIMA FIR photometry that makes targeted JWST imaging decisive. We find that the outskirts of quiescent galaxies are the best hunting grounds for future technosignature searches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12458 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Spectral energy distributions (νfν, arbitrary units) vs. wavelength for a typical star-forming galaxy produced with python-fsps. In the top panel, we fix T BB at 300K and increase the Dyson sphere covering fraction DSalpha from 0 to 1. At α = 0 (pink line), the galaxy exhibits the usual rising UV–optical stellar continuum followed by molecular dust absorption and thermal emission in the mid-to-far IR, including prom… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. WISE color-color (left: W1−W2 vs. W2−W3) and color-magnitude (right: W3 vs. W2−W3) diagrams for all 129 galaxies in the M. J. I. Brown et al. (2014) atlas across five of our eleven Dyson sphere injection levels (see § 2.2). In each panel, gray filled contours trace the baseline (0%) population, while colored contours show the same 129 galaxies with Dyson emission injected at the labeled covering fraction. As α incre… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Main panel: Spectral flux density for the star-forming galaxy Arp 256 N fit with Prospector without AGENT parameters. The black curve and gray band show the median and 16–84% credible interval of the model spectrum from 1,000 posterior draws while blue squares show model photometry and red circles show observed photometry. Gray curves at the bottom of the panel show the transmission profiles of all 24 photometric fi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Injected Dyson sphere covering fraction, α, vs. the posterior median, DSalpha, recovered by our AGENT-en￾abled Prospector fits across all 129 galaxies and 11 injection levels (N = 1,419 SEDs). Each point is a single galaxy, errorbars show the 16–84% credible inte…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Posterior distributions for fagn, agn tau, DSalpha, and T BB for M77 (NGC 1068) when AGENT pa￾rameters are disabled (upper) and enabled (lower). This galaxy is the most extreme outlier in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Population median (curves) and 16–84% percentile band (shaded) of the inferred AGN fraction fAGN as a function of Dyson sphere injection percentage, for elliptical (top row) and spiral (bottom row) galaxies in three stellar mass bins of log10(M⋆/M⊙) = 9–10, 10–11, and …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Population-averaged star formation histories for spiral (left two columns) and elliptical (right two columns) galaxies, each split by whether we had AGENT parameters turned off (DS-off; first and third columns) vs. turned on (DS-on; second and fourth columns). Rows cor…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Resolved imaging of M77 (NGC 1068) within the M. J. I. Brown et al. (2014) aperture. Top row: a three-color rendering built from the SDSS r, g, and u images, shown at the native SDSS resolution (left) and after convolution to the WISE W4 PSF (right). At the SDSS resolu…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Where the Dyson sphere on and off fits of M77 differ most, and how new photometry changes the comparison. In each panel, the upper sub-panel shows the median posterior AGENT-on (solid red) and AGENT-off (dashed blue) model spectra with shaded 16–84% posterior bands an…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The IR-excess–Balmer-decrement plane under our Dyson sphere injection tests. The IR excess is IRX ≡ log10(LIR/L1500), the ratio of the luminosity integrated over a rest-frame IR band to the monochromatic 1500 ˚A luminosity. Left: predicted Hα/Hβ against the 8–30 µm IR…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: IR excess versus NUV − r color for the atlas under two forms of Dyson sphere injection, one acting on all stars and the other restricted to only red giant branch (RGB) stars. In each panel, the gray filled contours trace the uninjected population and the colored conto…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, ApJS, 254, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abebe2

    Abdurro’uf, Lin, Y.-T., Wu, P.-F., & Akiyama, M. 2021, ApJS, 254, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abebe2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abebe2 2021

  2. [2]

    2011, ApJS, 193, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/193/2/29

    Aihara, H., Allende Prieto, C., An, D., et al. 2011, ApJS, 193, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/193/2/29

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/193/2/29 2011

  3. [3]

    1999, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 52, 33

    Annis, J. 1999, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 52, 33

    1999

  4. [4]

    2013, A&A, 558, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321768 32 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Arnouts, S., Le Floc’h, E., Chevallard, J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321768 32 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Col...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321768 2013

  5. [5]

    2002, ApJ, 571, 272, doi: 10.1086/339844

    Athey, A., Bregman, J., Bregman, J., Temi, P., & Sauvage, M. 2002, ApJ, 571, 272, doi: 10.1086/339844

    doi:10.1086/339844 2002

  6. [6]

    E., Schaefer, G

    Bond, H. E., Schaefer, G. H., Gilliland, R. L., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af8 2017

  7. [7]

    Brown, M. J. I., Moustakas, J., Smith, J.-D. T., et al. 2014, ApJS, 212, 18, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/212/2/18

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/212/2/18 2014

  8. [8]

    C., et al

    Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682, doi: 10.1086/308692

    doi:10.1086/308692 2000

Show all 102 references
  1. [9]

    M., Alatalo, K., et al

    Cappellari, M., McDermid, R. M., Alatalo, K., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 1862, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt644

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    2009, MNRAS, 399, 1191, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15383.x

    Cardamone, C., Schawinski, K., Sarzi, M., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 1191, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15383.x

    2009

  3. [11]

    Carrigan, R. A. 2012, Acta Astronautica, 78, 121, doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2011.12.002

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    Carrigan, Jr., R. A. 2010, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 63, 90, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1001.5455

    2010 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    2019, AJ, 158, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab31a3

    Carroll-Nellenback, J., Frank, A., Wright, J., & Scharf, C. 2019, AJ, 158, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab31a3

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    1991, ApJ, 367, 126, doi: 10.1086/169608

    Charlot, S., & Bruzual A, G. 1991, ApJ, 367, 126, doi: 10.1086/169608

    1991 doi

  7. [15]

    Charlot, S., & Fall, S. M. 2000, ApJ, 539, 718, doi: 10.1086/309250

    2000 doi

  8. [16]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    K., Sanders, D

    Chu, J. K., Sanders, D. B., Larson, K. L., et al. 2017, ApJS, 229, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa5d15

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    D., Sauvage, M., et al

    Ciesla, L., Dowell, C. D., Sauvage, M., et al. 2025, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 11, 031625, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.11.3.031625

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    Cirkovic, M. M. 2018, The Great Silence: Science and Philosophy of Fermi’s Paradox

    2018

  12. [20]

    2013, ARA&A, 51, 393, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017

    Conroy, C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 393, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    E., & White, M

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 486, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486

    2009 doi

  14. [22]

    Conroy, C., & van Dokkum, P. G. 2016, ApJ, 827, 9, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/9

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    A., Conroy, C., & van Dokkum, P

    Cook, B. A., Conroy, C., & van Dokkum, P. 2020, ApJ, 893, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab83ea

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    A., Conroy, C., van Dokkum, P., & Speagle, J

    Cook, B. A., Conroy, C., van Dokkum, P., & Speagle, J. S. 2019, ApJ, 876, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16e5

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 117, 30055, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1912789117

    Cranmer, K., Brehmer, J., & Louppe, G. 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 117, 30055, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1912789117

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    P., Werner, M., Akeson, R., et al

    Crill, B. P., Werner, M., Akeson, R., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11443, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. M. Lystrup & M. D. Perrin, 114430I, doi: 10.111...

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    H., Angerhausen, D., et al

    Curtis, O., Adams, V. H., Angerhausen, D., et al. 2026, PASP, 138, 046001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ae5a02

    2026 doi

  20. [28]

    M., Wright, E

    Cutri, R. M., Wright, E. L., Conrow, T., et al. 2013, Explanatory Supplement to the AllWISE Data Release Products,, Explanatory Supplement to the AllWISE Data Release Products, by R. M. Cutri et al. de Vaucouleurs, G., de Vaucouleurs, A., Corwin, Jr., H. G., et al. 1991, Third...

    2013

  21. [29]

    1 Dor´ e, O., Bock, J., Ashby, M., et al

    Galaxies, Vol. 1 Dor´ e, O., Bock, J., Ashby, M., et al. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1412.4872, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1412.4872

    2014 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    T., & Li, A

    Draine, B. T., & Li, A. 2007, ApJ, 657, 810, doi: 10.1086/511055

    2007 doi

  24. [32]

    Dyson, F. J. 1960, Science, 131, 1667, doi: 10.1126/science.131.3414.1667

    1960

  25. [33]

    Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Marocco, F., Fowler, J. W., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7f2a

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    2006, MNRAS, 372, 1149, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10911.x

    Flynn, C., Holmberg, J., Portinari, L., Fuchs, B., & Jahreiß, H. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 1149, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10911.x

    2006

  27. [35]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    A., & Siemion, A

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

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    M., et al

    Glenn, J., Meixner, M., Bradford, C. M., et al. 2025, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 11, 031628, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.11.3.031628

    2025 doi

  30. [38]

    Gray, R. H. 2015, Astrobiology, 15, 195, doi: 10.1089/ast.2014.1247

    2015

  31. [39]

    L., Wright, J

    Griffith, R. L., Wright, J. T., Maldonado, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 217, 25, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/217/2/25

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    Hart, M. H. 1975, QJRAS, 16, 128

    1975

  34. [42]

    Y.-Y., Goto, T., Hashimoto, T., et al

    Hsiao, T. Y.-Y., Goto, T., Hashimoto, T., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 1723, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1832

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    2026, AJ, 171, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae31e9 33

    Huang, B.-L., Tao, Z.-Z., & Zhang, T.-J. 2026, AJ, 171, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae31e9 33

    2026 doi

  36. [44]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  37. [45]

    D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J

    Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2021, ApJS, 254, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    D., Schiminovich, D., Seibert, M., et al

    Johnson, B. D., Schiminovich, D., Seibert, M., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 377, doi: 10.1086/522932

    2007 doi

  39. [47]

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

    1964

  40. [48]

    C., & Evans, N

    Kennicutt, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610

    2012 doi

  41. [49]

    R., Gunn, J

    Knapp, G. R., Gunn, J. E., & Wynn-Williams, C. G. 1992, ApJ, 399, 76, doi: 10.1086/171904

    1992 doi

  42. [50]

    J., Suazo, M., Zackrisson, E., et al

    Korn, A. J., Suazo, M., Zackrisson, E., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.25701, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2607.25701

    2026 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001

  44. [52]

    Lacki, B. C. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1604.07844, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1604.07844

    2016 doi arXiv

  45. [53]

    Lacki, B. C. 2019, PASP, 131, 024102, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaf3df

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    B., & Tinsley, B

    Larson, R. B., & Tinsley, B. M. 1978, ApJ, 219, 46, doi: 10.1086/155753

    1978 doi

  47. [55]

    Speagle, J. S. 2019, ApJ, 876, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c

    2019 doi

  48. [56]

    D., Conroy, C., & van Dokkum, P

    Leja, J., Johnson, B. D., Conroy, C., & van Dokkum, P. 2018, ApJ, 854, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa8db

    2018 doi

  49. [57]

    2017, ApJ, 837, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe

    Byler, N. 2017, ApJ, 837, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    H., & Rujopakarn, W

    Lyu, J., Alberts, S., Rieke, G. H., & Rujopakarn, W. 2022, ApJ, 941, 191, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9e5d

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    2022, Universe, 8, 304, doi: 10.3390/universe8060304

    Lyu, J., & Rieke, G. 2022, Universe, 8, 304, doi: 10.3390/universe8060304

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    M., et al

    Mainzer, A., Bauer, J., Cutri, R. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/30

    2014 doi

  53. [61]

    McConnachie, A. W. 2012, AJ, 144, 4, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/1/4

    2012 doi

  54. [62]

    F., Parravano, A., & Hollenbach, D

    McKee, C. F., Parravano, A., & Hollenbach, D. J. 2015, ApJ, 814, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/13

    2015 doi

  55. [63]

    C., Rosenthal, L

    McKinney, J., Hayward, C. C., Rosenthal, L. J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 921, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac185f

    2021 doi

  56. [64]

    R., Heckman, T

    Meurer, G. R., Heckman, T. M., & Calzetti, D. 1999, ApJ, 521, 64, doi: 10.1086/307523

    1999 doi

  57. [65]

    A., et al

    Morrissey, P., Conrow, T., Barlow, T. A., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 682, doi: 10.1086/520512

    2007 doi

  58. [66]

    M., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., & Elitzur, M

    Nenkova, M., Sirocky, M. M., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., & Elitzur, M. 2008a, ApJ, 685, 147, doi: 10.1086/590482

    doi

  59. [67]

    2008b, ApJ, 685, 160, doi: 10.1086/590483

    Elitzur, M. 2008b, ApJ, 685, 160, doi: 10.1086/590483

    doi

  60. [68]

    2002, General Relativity and Gravitation, 7, 1141, doi: 10.1023/A:1016578408204 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al

    Penrose, R. 2002, General Relativity and Gravitation, 7, 1141, doi: 10.1023/A:1016578408204 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2002 doi

  61. [69]

    A., Connors, A., Kashyap, V

    Protassov, R., van Dyk, D. A., Connors, A., Kashyap, V. L., & Siemiginowska, A. 2002, ApJ, 571, 545, doi: 10.1086/339856

    2002 doi

  62. [70]

    Roming, P. W. A., Kennedy, T. E., Mason, K. O., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 95, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4

    2005 doi

  63. [71]

    1978, Annals of Statistics, 6, 461

    Schwarz, G. 1978, Annals of Statistics, 6, 461

    1978

  64. [72]

    Searle, L., Sargent, W. L. W., & Bagnuolo, W. G. 1973, ApJ, 179, 427, doi: 10.1086/151882

    1973 doi

  65. [73]

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

    2020 doi

  66. [74]

    Z., Huston, M

    Sheikh, S. Z., Huston, M. J., Fan, P., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ada3c7

    2025 doi

  67. [75]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163, doi: 10.1086/498708

    2006 doi

  68. [76]

    Slysh, V. I. 1985, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 112, The Search for Extraterrestrial Life: Recent Developments, ed. M. D. Papagiannis, 315–319

    1985

  69. [77]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    2020 doi

  70. [78]

    K., et al

    Suazo, M., Zackrisson, E., Mahto, P. K., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 695, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1186

    2024 doi

  71. [79]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 2988, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac280

    Huston, M. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 2988, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac280

    2022 doi

  72. [80]

    M., Page, M

    Symeonidis, M., Giblin, B. M., Page, M. J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 257, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw667

    2016 doi

  73. [81]

    2012, A&A, 546, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220065

    Tuvikene, T. 2012, A&A, 546, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220065

    2012 doi

  74. [82]

    N., Franx, M., Brinchmann, J., van der Wel, A., & van Dokkum, P

    Taylor, E. N., Franx, M., Brinchmann, J., van der Wel, A., & van Dokkum, P. G. 2010, ApJ, 722, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/1

    2010 doi

  75. [83]

    Tinsley, B. M. 1972, A&A, 20, 383

    1972

  76. [84]

    Tipler, F. J. 1980, QJRAS, 21, 267

    1980

  77. [85]

    B., & Fisher, J

    Tully, R. B., & Fisher, J. R. 1977, A&A, 54, 661

    1977

  78. [86]

    Valentijn, E. A. 1990, Nature, 346, 153, doi: 10.1038/346153a0 van der Marel, R. P., Alves, D. R., Hardy, E., & Suntzeff, N. B. 2002, AJ, 124, 2639, doi: 10.1086/343775 van der Marel, R. P., & Cioni, M.-R. L. 2001, AJ, 122, 1807, doi: 10.1086/323099

    1990 doi

  79. [87]

    Villaume, A., Conroy, C., & Johnson, B. D. 2015, ApJ, 806, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/82

    2015 doi

  80. [88]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Medicine, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 34

    2020 doi

  81. [89]

    2011, Ap&SS, 331, 1, doi: 10.1007/s10509-010-0458-z

    Walcher, J., Groves, B., Budav´ ari, T., & Dale, D. 2011, Ap&SS, 331, 1, doi: 10.1007/s10509-010-0458-z

    2011 doi

  82. [90]

    A., & Speagle, J

    Wang, B., Leja, J., Villar, V. A., & Speagle, J. S. 2023, ApJL, 952, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace361

    2023 doi

  83. [91]

    W., Roellig, T

    Werner, M. W., Roellig, T. L., Low, F. J., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 1, doi: 10.1086/422992

    2004 doi

  84. [92]

    S., Garrett, M

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

    2020 doi

  85. [93]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    2010 doi

  86. [94]

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

    2020 doi

  87. [95]

    Wright, J. T. 2023, ApJ, 956, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf44f

    2023 doi

  88. [96]

    T., Carroll-Nellenback, J., Frank, A., & Scharf, C

    Wright, J. T., Carroll-Nellenback, J., Frank, A., & Scharf, C. 2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 141, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ac0910

    2021 doi

  89. [97]

    T., Cartier, K

    Wright, J. T., Cartier, K. M. S., Zhao, M., Jontof-Hutter, D., & Ford, E. B. 2016, ApJ, 816, 17, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/1/17

    2016 doi

  90. [98]

    T., Griffith, R

    Wright, J. T., Griffith, R. L., Sigurdsson, S., Povich, M. S., & Mullan, B. 2014a, ApJ, 792, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/27

    doi

  91. [99]

    T., Mullan, B., Sigurdsson, S., & Povich, M

    Wright, J. T., Mullan, B., Sigurdsson, S., & Povich, M. S. 2014b, ApJ, 792, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/26

    doi

  92. [100]

    2015, ApJ, 810, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/23

    Zackrisson, E., Calissendorff, P., Asadi, S., & Nyholm, A. 2015, ApJ, 810, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/23

    2015 doi

  93. [101]

    A., et al

    Zackrisson, E., Bik, A., Asgar, A. A., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.09460, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2607.09460

    2026 doi arXiv

  94. [102]

    N., Chen, C.-T., et al

    Zou, F., Brandt, W. N., Chen, C.-T., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7bdf

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.