Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Probing Equatorial Ionospheric TEC at Sub-GHz Frequencies with Wide-Band (B4) uGMRT Interferometric Data

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A ten-hour uGMRT Band-4 observation of the calibrator 3C48 measures differential ionospheric TEC with sub-mTECU precision and finds a steeper-than-classical phase structure function with slope 1.72 ± 0.07 and a 6.66 km diffractive scale…

desk verdict First uGMRT Band-4 TEC measurement with a plausible but under-robust beta and rdiff: the paper needs a filter-dependence analysis before the headline numbers are taken seriously. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20690 v1 pith:GR4MZ3LF submitted 2025-06-25 astro-ph.IM

Dipanjan Banerjee , Abhik Ghosh , Sushanta K Mondal , Parimal Ghosh This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords ionospheretotalelectroncontentdifferentialTECuGMRTradiointerferometryphasestructurefunctionequatorialionizationanomalyionosphericturbulence
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

The paper aims to establish that the upgraded Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope (uGMRT), sited between the magnetic equator and the northern crest of the Equatorial Ionization Anomaly, can measure ionospheric total electron content (TEC) fluctuations with a precision that the sparse local GNSS network cannot provide. The authors use ten hours of Band-4 (550–750 MHz) observations of the bright calibrator 3C48 and extract residual bandpass phases after removing a slowly varying instrumental continuum. Converting those phases to differential TEC, they report sub-mTECU precision for the central-square antennas and roughly 1 mTECU for the arm antennas, then reconstruct TEC gradients and the spatial phase structure function. The structure function is a power law with slope $\beta = 1.72 \pm 0.07$ and diffractive scale about 6.66 km, steeper than the classical 5/3 turbulence value and indicating additional non-turbulent ionospheric structures. If correct, ordinary calibrator scans can serve as a low-latitude ionospheric probe, with direct consequences for space-weather monitoring and for low-frequency radio calibration.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the bandpass phase solution from a bright compact calibrator, treated as an ionospheric phase screen after removing a one-hour boxcar continuum. The screen is converted to differential TEC with the dispersive relation $\Delta\phi \approx 8.45\,(1\,\mathrm{GHz}/\nu)\,(\delta\mathrm{TEC}/1\,\mathrm{TECU})$ radians, then projected onto a thin ionospheric shell at the IRI-predicted peak height so pierce-point separations and slant-to-vertical TEC corrections are geometrically consistent. TEC gradients come from a regularized weighted least-squares fit of a second-order Taylor polynomial to all antenna-pair differences, and the spatial statistics are summarized by the phase structure function $\Xi(r) = \langle[\phi(\mathbf{x})-\phi(\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{r})]^2\rangle \propto (r/r_{\rm diff})^\beta$, whose fitted slope and diffractive scale carry the paper's physical conclusion.

What would settle it

Recompute the phase structure function from the same data with boxcar smoothing windows of 30 minutes and 2 hours (or with the instrumental continuum fitted from narrow sub-bands at the two ends of the band): if the fitted $\beta$ and $r_{\rm diff}$ shift by more than the quoted uncertainties, the reported spectrum is an artifact of the continuum-removal choice rather than an ionospheric property. Independently, compare the $\delta\mathrm{TEC}$ time series with dense GNSS or VHF-radar TEC measurements over the array; large ionospheric fluctuations on the one-hour timescale that are absent from the residual phases would indicate that the subtraction discards real signal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that residual phase solutions from standard direction-independent calibration of a bright point source contain a high-fidelity measurement of the low-latitude ionosphere. After unwrapping, outlier rejection, and subtraction of a one-hour boxcar-smoothed continuum, the residual phases are interpreted as ionospheric phase and converted to differential TEC through the dispersive relation $\Delta\phi \approx 8.45\,(1\,\mathrm{GHz}/\nu)\,(\delta\mathrm{TEC}/1\,\mathrm{TECU})$ radians. The measured $\delta\mathrm{TEC}$ time series reach sub-mTECU precision on central baselines, and a second-order Taylor model fitted to all 406 antenna-pair differences reconstructs two-dimensional TEC gradients that show strong north–south variability. The phase structure function computed from these data follows $\Xi(r) = (r/r_{\rm diff})^\beta$ with $\beta = 1.72 \pm 0.07$ and $r_{\rm diff} \approx 6.66$ km, so the paper concludes that uGMRT's location and layout make it a uniquely capable instrument for equatorial ionospheric studies at sub-GHz frequencies.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that after subtracting a one-hour boxcar-smoothed continuum, the residual phases are purely ionospheric fluctuations; the paper states that it cannot separate slowly varying ionospheric phase from instrumental effects, so any real ionospheric signal varying on timescales longer than an hour is removed along with the instrument.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Routine uGMRT Band-4 calibrator scans can yield differential TEC time series with sub-mTECU precision on baselines below about 1.4 km and roughly 1 mTECU on longer baselines, exceeding the sensitivity available from the sparse GNSS stations around the site.
  • At 600 MHz the ionospheric phase structure function over the array is steeper than the classical 5/3 turbulence scaling, with $\beta = 1.72 \pm 0.07$ and a diffractive scale of about 6.66 km, meaning phase variance reaches $1\,\mathrm{rad}^2$ over baselines of only a few kilometres and strongly limits temporal coherence for wide-field imaging.
  • Reconstructed TEC gradients show pronounced north–south variability, with southern-arm gradients reaching roughly $\pm 0.01$ TECU/km, consistent with medium-scale travelling ionospheric disturbances in the post-sunset equatorial ionosphere.
  • Five principal components explain nearly all of the variance in the differential TEC time series, indicating that the ionospheric screen over the array is low-dimensional and supports the application of reduced-order ionospheric models during calibration.
  • Ionospheric fluctuations and phase instability are markedly stronger in the evening hours, coinciding with the post-sunset intensification of the Equatorial Ionization Anomaly and reported scintillation, so scheduling sensitive sub-GHz observations away from this window should improve data quality.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The one-hour boxcar subtraction almost certainly removes real ionospheric power on timescales longer than an hour, so the reported $\beta$ and $r_{\rm diff}$ describe the residual fluctuations; a multi-window study could reveal whether the full spectrum has a break or a different slope at large scales.
  • Applied to archival uGMRT Band-2, Band-3, and Band-4 observations, the same calibrator-phase technique could build a seasonal and solar-cycle climatology of equatorial ionospheric turbulence in a region where the closest public GNSS station is roughly 500 km away.
  • Because the three GMRT arms sample different azimuths, a two-dimensional structure-function analysis of the kind the paper defers to future work could test whether the band-like anisotropic irregularities align with the geomagnetic field.
  • If the near-unity variance captured by five principal components is a stable feature, calibration pipelines could fit a few time-varying TEC-gradient coefficients instead of full per-antenna phase screens, potentially improving sensitivity for faint low-frequency targets.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes ten hours of uGMRT Band-4 (550–750 MHz) observations of the bright calibrator 3C48. After RFI flagging, delay and bandpass calibration, the authors remove a one-hour boxcar-smoothed continuum from the unwrapped antenna phases, convert the residual phases to differential TEC relative to reference antenna C06, apply pierce-point and slant-to-vertical geometric corrections, fit second-order polynomial TEC gradients over the array, and estimate a spatial phase structure function. The central claims are that uGMRT can achieve sub-mTECU differential TEC precision on the central square (approximately 1 mTECU on the arms) and that the ionospheric phase structure function is a power law with β = 1.72 ± 0.07 and diffractive scale rdiff = 6.66 km.

Significance. The paper addresses a worthwhile problem: using a low-latitude interferometer as a high-sensitivity ionospheric probe at sub-GHz frequencies. A successful demonstration would complement VLA and LOFAR mid-latitude results with unique equatorial EIA-region coverage and could inform calibration strategies. The pipeline broadly follows established methods (Helmboldt et al. 2012; Mangla and Datta 2022), and the AOFlagger cross-check for RFI robustness is a useful validation. However, the central quantitative claims are currently not supported by the analysis as presented: the abstract's precision numbers are contradicted by the MAD values reported in Section 3, and the structure-function parameters are derived from heavily filtered phases without a filter-sensitivity test or an uncertainty estimate for rdiff. The result is potentially valuable but requires revision before it can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section 3 (Figure 7 paragraph); Section 4] The precision claim is internally inconsistent. The abstract states less than 1 mTECU for central square antennas and approximately 1 mTECU for arm antennas, and Section 3 states 'less than mTECU' and 'a few mTECU' for the same quantities. Yet the text immediately after Figure 7 reports MAD values of about 0.0023 TECU (2.3 mTECU) for central-square baselines and about 0.0147 TECU (14.7 mTECU) for arm baselines. Section 4 also says precision 'drops by over an order of magnitude' on long baselines, although the ratio of the two quoted MADs is only about 6.4. Since 'sub-mTECU precision' is a headline claim, the reported MADs must be reconciled with the text, or the abstract and summary claims must be corrected.
  2. [Section 2.3; Section 3.2, Eqs. (10)-(11)] The structure-function parameters β and rdiff are computed from residual phases after a one-hour boxcar high-pass filter. As the authors acknowledge in Section 2.3, they 'lack the capability to separate the slowly varying component of the ionospheric phase from instrumental effects' and can only measure fluctuations on timescales ≤1 hour. Such a filter preferentially removes large-scale, slowly varying phase structure, and since the structure function at the largest pair separations is weighted by these scales, the fitted slope and rdiff can be biased. No alternative filter width, no simulation of the filter step, and no error bar on rdiff are given; the quoted ±0.07 is not connected to an explicit estimator or bootstrap. Please add a filter-sensitivity test (e.g., boxcar widths of 30 min and 2 h, or injection of a known power-law phase screen through the same pipeline) and report a full uncertainty for rdiff.
  3. [Section 2.3 (excluded 20:15-20:55 IST)] The exclusion of the 45-minute interval 20:15-20:55 IST is post hoc and the justification is not decisive. The text lists RFI, instrumental drift, and genuine ionospheric activity as possible causes, and notes that 'it is also possible that the ionosphere was more active during this period.' Because this is the most dynamic part of the night and the science goal explicitly includes evening EIA/plasma-bubble-related fluctuations, deleting this interval without an independent data-quality diagnostic (e.g., closure-phase stability or amplitude SNR unrelated to ionospheric phase) removes the very signal the array is best suited to detect. Please present results both with and without this interval, or justify the cut with a metric independent of the ionospheric phase amplitude.
  4. [Section 3.2] The estimation of Ξ(r) is under-specified. The paper does not state how the ensemble average is formed: how many time samples contribute, whether samples are independent, how pair separations are binned in r, how the anisotropic 'band-like pattern' is handled, or how the covariance between baselines sharing antennas is treated. Without this information, the reported β uncertainty cannot be reproduced or assessed. Please provide the estimator definition, the number of independent measurements per radial bin, and the procedure used to obtain the 0.07 uncertainty.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section 3] Several numerical values are missing in the printed text: the abstract reads 'precision of < mTECU' and 'approximately mTECU for the arm antennas', and Section 3 reads 'less than mTECU (≤ mTECU) uncertainty'. These need to be filled in or the text must match the reported MAD values.
  2. [Section 3.1, Eqs. (4)-(5)] Equation (4) includes a constant term p5, but Equation (5) drops it without comment; the units of the polynomial coefficients should also be stated explicitly, especially since p0 is described later as '±5 TECU' while the text also quotes physical gradient amplitudes of '±0.01 TECU/km'.
  3. [Section 2.3] The sentence defining the LOF score contains the repeated phrase 'is defined is defined as'; please correct.
  4. [Section 3.1] The claim that a second-order Taylor series 'well represents' the TEC structure is not supported by any goodness-of-fit statistic; please report the fit residuals or a reduced chi-square for the polynomial fits.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: beta and rdiff are fitted directly from measured interferometric phases, with no load-bearing self-citation or definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities are computed from measured quantities rather than assumed into existence. The differential TEC values are obtained from residual calibration phases through Equation (2) using the physical conversion constant 8.45 x 10^9, and the structure function of Equation (10) is built directly from those phase-derived TEC measurements across antenna separations. The reported beta = 1.72 +/- 0.07 and rdiff = 6.66 km are parameters in the model of Equation (11), fitted to the measured structure function; they are not inputs to the measurement nor defined in terms of the conclusion. The authors explicitly state that they cannot separate slowly varying ionospheric phase from instrumental effects and therefore only measure fluctuations on timescales <= 1 hour; this is a stated modeling limitation and source of potential bias, not a circular step, because the power-law fit does not presuppose the slope or diffractive scale that are estimated. The method is attributed to prior external work (Helmboldt et al. 2012; Mangla and Datta 2022), and the authors of this paper do not rely on their own prior results to establish the central claim. Cross-checks such as the AOFlagger comparison and IRI-based geometry are independent checks on the data processing, not recycled outputs of the final fit. No self-definitional step, renamed prediction, or self-citation chain is present, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The central measurement rests on standard radio propagation assumptions and a few hand-chosen scales. No new physical entities are introduced. The fitted slope and diffractive scale are measurement parameters, not derived constants; the one-hour smoothing scale and thin-shell IRI geometry are the main external inputs that could bias the result if wrong.

free parameters (5)
  • Power-law slope beta = 1.72 +/- 0.07
    Fitted to the measured phase structure function (Section 3.2, Eq 11); it is the reported central result and also a free fit parameter.
  • Diffractive scale r_diff = 6.66 km
    Fitted scale at which phase variance reaches 1 rad^2; no uncertainty reported.
  • TEC gradient polynomial coefficients p0-p4 = time series (not quoted)
    Weighted least-squares fit to 406 baseline differential TEC values at each time step (Eq 5), used to reconstruct gradients; not central to the structure function.
  • Regularization parameter lambda = 1e-6
    Chosen by hand for numerical stability in the gradient inversion (Eq 8).
  • Continuum-subtraction boxcar width = 1 hour
    Chosen by hand to separate smooth instrumental phase from ionospheric fluctuations; directly sets the timescale cutoff of measured fluctuations.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption First-order ionospheric phase delay formula with constant 8.45 (Eq 2) is valid at 550-750 MHz; higher-order terms, Faraday rotation, and refraction are negligible.
    Used to convert residual phases to dTEC; standard approximation in radio astronomy, but the paper notes second-order effects are not modeled (Section 3).
  • domain assumption The ionosphere can be represented as a thin shell at the IRI-predicted peak height for pierce-point projection and slant-to-vertical correction.
    Adopted from Helmboldt et al.; IRI height uncertainty is not propagated (Section 3, Appendix A.2).
  • ad hoc to paper Instrumental phase varies smoothly on timescales longer than 1 hour and is separable from ionospheric fluctuations by boxcar smoothing.
    The paper explicitly states it cannot separate slowly varying ionospheric phase from instrument phase and thus only measures fluctuations on timescales <= 1 hour (Section 2.3). This assumption shapes the structure function.
  • domain assumption Phase structure function is a power law of baseline separation (Kolmogorov or modified), Eq 11.
    Used to fit beta and r_diff; deviations may come from traveling ionospheric disturbances or density ducts.
  • domain assumption 3C48 is a compact, stable source whose model visibilities are known well enough for calibration and source-phase removal.
    Residual phases are interpreted as ionospheric plus instrument; source structure errors would contaminate dTEC.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing Equatorial Ionospheric TEC at Sub-GHz Frequencies with Wide-Band (B4) uGMRT Interferometric Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GR4MZ3LF

@misc{pith2026250620690,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing Equatorial Ionospheric TEC at Sub-GHz Frequencies with Wide-Band (B4) uGMRT Interferometric Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GR4MZ3LF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20690}
}
abstract

Phase stability at low radio frequencies is severely impacted by ionospheric propagation delays. Radio interferometers such as the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope (GMRT) are capable of detecting changes in the ionosphere's total electron content (TEC) over larger spatial scales and with greater sensitivity compared to conventional tools like the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). Thanks to its unique design featuring both a dense central array and long outer arms-and its strategic location, the GMRT is particularly well-suited for studying the sensitive ionospheric region located between the northern peak of the Equatorial Ionization Anomaly (EIA) and the magnetic equator. In this study, we observe the bright flux calibrator 3C48 for ten hours to characterize and study the low-latitude ionosphere with the upgraded GMRT (uGMRT). We outline the methods used for wideband data reduction and processing to accurately measure differential TEC (dTEC) between antenna pairs, achieving a precision of less than 1 mTECU for the central square antennas and approximately 1 mTECU for the arm antennas. The measured dTEC values are used to estimate the TEC gradient across the GMRT arm antennas. We measure the ionospheric phase structure function and find a power-law slope of $\beta = 1.72$, indicating deviations from pure Kolmogorov turbulence. The inferred diffractive scale the spatial separation over which the phase variance reaches $1 \text{rad}^2$ is 6.66 km. A small diffractive scale implies high phase variability across the field of view and reduced temporal coherence, which poses challenges for calibration and imaging.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20690 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (1st row) The raw phase at 560.26 MHz for antenna 24, RR polarization, as a function of time. (2nd row) The unwrapped phases with LOF outliers marked with red circles. (3rd row) The difference between the cosine of the wrapped phase at a time step i and the next time step i + 1 as a function of time, used to find spikes in the phase data. Flagged spikes are highlighted with red circles. (4th row) The processed unwra… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. This figure shows the unwrapped phases for polarization RR and LL, smoothed using a one-hour-wide boxcar window, which effectively preserves apparent fluctuations while providing a clear representation of the continuum. The red and blue points represent the unwrapped phases for correlation RR and LL respectively, while the solid black lines show the smooth fits at 555.26 MHz. Furthermore, to estimate the smooth cont… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The residual phases after the smooth continuum is removed at 555.26 MHz. significantly degraded the data quality, particularly during the interval from 20:15 to 20:55 IST (IST), which corresponds to the ∼ 45-minute gap in our analysis. The possible causes are radio frequency interference (RFI) or some instrumental issues (drift due to LO (local oscillator) unlock, bank-end issues etc.) which can also cause rapid pha… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: For each antenna in the GMRT central square, this figure shows the δTEC along the antenna’s line of sight with respect to that of the reference antenna (‘C06’). The MAD values are also displayed in each panel to represent the estimated uncertainty [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Similar to 4, but along the eastern and southern arm of GMRT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Analogous to 4, but now along the northwestern arm of GMRT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows a representative example of the fitted differential vTEC values for both the central square antennas (baselines ≤ 1.4 km) and the arm antennas, using antenna ‘C06’ as the reference. The colour scale represents baseline length. The fitting errors are displayed in …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The fitted polynomial coefficients (Eqn. 5) as a function of time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Phase structure function of the ionosphere derived from differential TEC values, converted to phases at 600 MHz [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Interferometry and Synthesis in Radio Astronomy, 2nd Edition.; Wiley-Interscience, 2001

    Thompson, A.R.; Moran, J.M.; Swenson, Jr., G.W. Interferometry and Synthesis in Radio Astronomy, 2nd Edition.; Wiley-Interscience, 2001

    work page 2001

  2. [2]

    Atmospheric Refractive Electromagnetic Wave Bending and Propagation Delay

    Mangum, J.G.; Wallace, P . Atmospheric Refractive Electromagnetic Wave Bending and Propagation Delay. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 2015, 127, 74. https://doi.org/10.1086/679582

    doi:10.1086/679582 2015

  3. [3]

    A LOFAR Observation of Ionospheric Scintillation from Two Simultaneous Travelling Ionospheric Disturbances

    Fallows, R.A.; Forte, B.; Astin, I.; Allbrook, T.; Arnold, A.; Wood, A.; Dorrian, G.; Mevius, M.; Rothkaehl, H.; Matyjasiak, B.; et al. A LOFAR observation of ionospheric scintillation from two simultaneous travelling iono- spheric disturbances. Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate 2020, 10, 10, [arXiv:astro-ph.EP/2003.04013]. https://doi.org/10.105...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Latitudinal variation of the ionosphere in the African sector using GPS TEC data

    Opio, P .; D’ujanga, F.; Ssenyonga, T. Latitudinal variation of the ionosphere in the African sector using GPS TEC data. Advances in Space Research 2015, 55, 1640–1650. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.20 14.12.036

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.20 2015

  5. [5]

    Configuration Considerations for Low Frequency Arrays

    Lonsdale, C.J. Configuration Considerations for Low Frequency Arrays. In Proceedings of the From Clark Lake to the Long Wavelength Array: Bill Erickson’s Radio Science; Kassim, N.; Perez, M.; Junor, W.; Henning, P ., Eds., 2005, Vol. 345,Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, p. 399

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

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

    Intema, H. T..; van der Tol, S..; Cotton, W. D..; Cohen, A. S..; van Bemmel, I. M..; Röttgering, H. J. A.. Ionospheric calibration of low frequency radio interferometric observations using the peeling scheme - I. Method description and first results. A&A 2009, 501, 1185–1205. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/2008 11094

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/2008 2009

  7. [7]

    High-precision measurements of ionospheric TEC gradients with the Very Large Array VHF system

    Helmboldt, J.F.; Lazio, T.J.W.; Intema, H.T.; Dymond, K.F. High-precision measurements of ionospheric TEC gradients with the Very Large Array VHF system. Radio Science 2012, 47, RS0K02, [arXiv:physics.space- ph/1201.3872]. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011RS004883. 23 of 24

    arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    A method for characterizing transient ionospheric disturbances using a large radiotelescope array

    Jacobson, A.R.; Erickson, W.C. A method for characterizing transient ionospheric disturbances using a large radiotelescope array. A & A 1992, 257, 401–409

    work page 1992

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Probing fine-scale ionospheric structure with the Very Large Array radio telescope

    Cohen, A.S.; Röttgering, H.J.A. Probing fine-scale ionospheric structure with the Very Large Array radio telescope. The Astronomical Journal 2009, 138, 439. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-6256/138/2/439

    2009 doi

  2. [10]

    Characterization of the ionosphere above the Murchison Radio Observatory using the Murchison Widefield Array

    Jordan, C.H.; Murray, S.; Trott, C.M.; Wayth, R.B.; Mitchell, D.A.; Rahimi, M.; Pindor, B.; Procopio, P .; Morgan, J. Characterization of the ionosphere above the Murchison Radio Observatory using the Murchison Widefield Array. MNRAS 2017, 471, 3974–3987, [arXiv:astro-ph.IM/17...

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Climatology of midlatitude ionospheric dis- turbances from the Very Large Array Low-frequency Sky Survey

    Helmboldt, J.F.; Lane, W.M.; Cotton, W.D. Climatology of midlatitude ionospheric dis- turbances from the Very Large Array Low-frequency Sky Survey. Radio Science 2012, 47, [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2012RS005025]. https://doi.org/https: //doi.org/...

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    Probing ionospheric structures using the LOFAR radio telescope

    Mevius, M.; van der Tol, S.; Pandey, V .N.; Vedantham, H.K.; Brentjens, M.A.; de Bruyn, A.G.; Abdalla, F.B.; Asad, K.M.B.; Bregman, J.D.; Brouw, W.N.; et al. Probing ionospheric structures using the LOFAR radio telescope. Radio Science 2016, 51, 927–941, [arXiv:astro-ph.IM/160...

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Two Anomalies in the Ionosphere.Nature 1946, 157, 691

    Appleton, E.V . Two Anomalies in the Ionosphere.Nature 1946, 157, 691. https://doi.org/10.1038/157691a0

    1946 doi

  6. [14]

    A brief review of equatorial ionization anomaly and ionospheric irregularities

    Balan, N.; ,Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China.; Liu, L.; Le, H. A brief review of equatorial ionization anomaly and ionospheric irregularities. Earth Planet. Phys. 2018, 2, 1–19

    2018

  7. [15]

    Study of the equatorial ionosphere using the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope (GMRT) at sub-GHz frequencies

    Mangla, S.; Datta, A. Study of the equatorial ionosphere using the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope (GMRT) at sub-GHz frequencies. MNRAS 2022, 513, 964–975, [arXiv:astro-ph.IM/2204.04230]. https: //doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac942

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    The upgraded GMRT: opening new windows on the radio Universe

    Gupta, Y.; Ajithkumar, B.; Kale, H.S.; Nayak, S.; Sabhapathy, S.; Sureshkumar, S.; Swami, R.V .; Chengalur, J.N.; Ghosh, S.K.; Ishwara-Chandra, C.H.; et al. The upgraded GMRT: opening new windows on the radio Universe. Current Science 2017, 113, 707–714. https://doi.org/10.185...

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    An Accurate Flux Density Scale from 1 to 50 GHz

    Perley, R.A.; Butler, B.J. An Accurate Flux Density Scale from 1 to 50 GHz. ApJS 2013, 204, 19, [arXiv:astro- ph.IM/1211.1300]. https://doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/204/2/19

    2013 arXiv

  10. [18]

    CASA, the Common Astronomy Software Applications for Radio Astronomy

    CASA Team.; Bean, B.; Bhatnagar, S.; Castro, S.; Donovan Meyer, J.; Emonts, B.; Garcia, E.; Garwood, R.; Golap, K.; Gonzalez Villalba, J.; et al. CASA, the Common Astronomy Software Applications for Radio Astronomy. P ASP2022, 134, 114501, [arXiv:astro-ph.IM/2210.02276]. https...

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Revisiting the radio interferometer measurement equation

    Smirnov, O.M. Revisiting the radio interferometer measurement equation. I. A full-sky Jones formalism. A & A 2011, 527, A106, [arXiv:astro-ph.IM/1101.1764]. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201016082

    2011 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Ionospheric Modelling using GPS to Calibrate the MWA

    Arora, B.S.; Morgan, J.; Ord, S.M.; Tingay, S.J.; Bell, M.; Callingham, J.R.; Dwarakanath, K.S.; For, B.Q.; Hancock, P .; Hindson, L.; et al. Ionospheric Modelling using GPS to Calibrate the MWA. II: Regional Ionospheric Modelling using GPS and GLONASS to Estimate Ionospheric ...

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    The Giant Metre-Wave Radio Telescope

    Swarup, G.; Ananthakrishnan, S.; Kapahi, V .K.; Rao, A.P .; Subrahmanya, C.R.; Kulkarni, V .K. The Giant Metre-Wave Radio Telescope. Current Science 1991, 60, 95

    1991

  14. [22]

    Compact radio sources in the 3C catalog

    Pearson, T.J.; Perley, R.A.; Readhead, A.C.S. Compact radio sources in the 3C catalog. AJ 1985, 90, 738–755. https://doi.org/10.1086/113782

    1985 doi

  15. [23]

    A broad-band flux scale for low-frequency radio telescopes

    Scaife, A.M.M.; Heald, G.H. A broad-band flux scale for low-frequency radio telescopes. MNRAS 2012, 423, L30–L34, [arXiv:astro-ph.IM/1203.0977]. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01251.x

    2012 arXiv

  16. [24]

    The effect of the ionosphere on ultra- low-frequency radio-interferometric observations

    de Gasperin, F.; Mevius, M.; Rafferty, D.A.; Intema, H.T.; Fallows, R.A. The effect of the ionosphere on ultra- low-frequency radio-interferometric observations. A & A 2018, 615, A179, [arXiv:astro-ph.IM/1804.07947]. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833012

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A morphological algorithm for improving radio- frequency interference detection

    Offringa, A.R.; van de Gronde, J.J.; Roerdink, J.B.T.M. A morphological algorithm for improving radio- frequency interference detection. A & A 2012, 539, A95, [arXiv:astro-ph.IM/1201.3364]. https://doi.org/10 .1051/0004-6361/201118497

    2012 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Medium-scale traveling ionospheric disturbances affecting GPS measurements: Spatial and temporal analysis

    Hernández-Pajares, M.; Juan, J.M.; Sanz, J. Medium-scale traveling ionospheric disturbances affecting GPS measurements: Spatial and temporal analysis. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 2006, 111, [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2005JA01147...

    2006 doi

  19. [27]

    A new technique for spectral analysis of iono- spheric TEC fluctuations observed with the Very Large Array VHF system: From QP echoes to MSTIDs

    Helmboldt, J.F.; Lazio, T.J.W.; Intema, H.T.; Dymond, K.F. A new technique for spectral analysis of iono- spheric TEC fluctuations observed with the Very Large Array VHF system: From QP echoes to MSTIDs. Radio Science 2012, 47, RS0L02, [arXiv:physics.space-ph/1201.3874]. https...

    2012 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Spectral Analysis of Ionospheric Density Variations Measured With the Large Radio Tele- scope in the Low-Latitude Region

    Mangla, S.; Datta, A. Spectral Analysis of Ionospheric Density Variations Measured With the Large Radio Tele- scope in the Low-Latitude Region. Geophysical Research Letters 2023, 50, e2023GL103305, [arXiv:physics.space- ph/2307.05687]. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL103305

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    The International Reference Ionosphere Model: A Review and Description of an Ionospheric Benchmark

    Bilitza, D.; Pezzopane, M.; Truhlik, V .; Altadill, D.; Reinisch, B.W.; Pignalberi, A. The International Reference Ionosphere Model: A Review and Description of an Ionospheric Benchmark. Reviews of Geophysics 2022, 60, e2022RG000792. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022RG000792

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    Improvement of global ionospheric VTEC maps by using kriging interpolation technique

    Orús, R.; Hernández-Pajares, M.; Juan, J.M.; Sanz, J. Improvement of global ionospheric VTEC maps by using kriging interpolation technique. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 2005, 67, 1598–1609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2005.07.017

    2005 doi

  23. [31]

    The IGS VTEC maps: a reliable source of ionospheric information since 1998

    Hernández-Pajares, M.; Juan, J.M.; Sanz, J.; Orus, R.; Garcia-Rigo, A.; Feltens, J.; Komjathy, A.; Schaer, S.C.; Krankowski, A. The IGS VTEC maps: a reliable source of ionospheric information since 1998. Journal of Geodesy 2009, 83, 263–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-008-0266-1

    1998 doi

  24. [32]

    Simultaneous radio interferometer and optical observations of ionospheric structure at the Very Large Array

    Coker, C.; Thonnard, S.E.; Dymond, K.F.; Lazio, T.J.W.; Makela, J.J.; Loughmiller, P .J. Simultaneous radio interferometer and optical observations of ionospheric structure at the Very Large Array. Radio Science 2009, 44

    2009

  25. [33]

    Scintillation noise in widefield radio interferometry

    Vedantham, H.K.; Koopmans, L.V .E. Scintillation noise in widefield radio interferometry. MNRAS 2015, 453, 925–938, [arXiv:astro-ph.IM/1412.1420]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv1594

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Medium scale irregularities in the ionospheric electron content

    Vanvelthoven, P .F.J. Medium scale irregularities in the ionospheric electron content. PhD thesis, Technical University of Eindhoven, Netherlands, 1990

    1990

  27. [35]

    Real-time imaging of density ducts between the plasmasphere and ionosphere

    Loi, S.T.; Murphy, T.; Cairns, I.H.; Menk, F.W.; Waters, C.L.; Erickson, P .J.; Trott, C.M.; Hurley-Walker, N.; Morgan, J.; Lenc, E.; et al. Real-time imaging of density ducts between the plasmasphere and ionosphere. Geophysical Research Letters 2015, 42, 3707–3714, [arXiv:phy...

    2015 arXiv

  28. [36]

    A study of precursors to equatorial spread F using the Giant Meterwave Radio Telescope

    DasGupta, A.; Paul, A.; Ray, S.; Das, A.; Ananthakrishnan, S. A study of precursors to equatorial spread F using the Giant Meterwave Radio Telescope. Radio Science 2008, 43, RS5002. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007 RS003667

    2008 doi

  29. [37]

    Systematic effects in LOFAR data: A unified calibration strategy

    de Gasperin, F.; Dijkema, T.J.; Drabent, A.; Mevius, M.; Rafferty, D.; van Weeren, R.; Brüggen, M.; Callingham, J.R.; Emig, K.L.; Heald, G.; et al. Systematic effects in LOFAR data: A unified calibration strategy. A & A 2019, 622, A5, [arXiv:astro-ph.IM/1811.07954]. https://do...

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.