Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 44 references

Conducting High Frequency Radio SETI using ALMA

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports the first technosignature search using ALMA data, a null detection that limits powerful extraterrestrial transmitters at 90–93 GHz toward 28 nearby stars.

desk verdict First ALMA technosignature search with a credible null result, but the sensitivity numbers are over-sold and need caveats before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19827 v1 pith:L5RXXZXI submitted 2024-11-29 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.GA

Louisa A Mason (1) , Michael A Garrett (1 , 2) , Kelvin Wandia (1) , Andrew P V Siemion (1 , 3 , 4 , 5
show 10 more authors
6) ((1) Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics University of Manchester (2) Leiden Observatory Leiden University (3) Astrophysics Sub-Department Department of Physics University of Oxford (4) SETI Institute (5) Berkeley SETI Research Centre University of California (6) University of Malta)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.GA
keywords SETItechnosignaturesALMAmillimetreastronomynarrowbandsignalsdriftratearchivaldataEIRPlimits
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 reports the first search for extraterrestrial technosignatures using archival data from the Atacama Large Millimeter/Submillimeter Array (ALMA). The authors look for narrowband signals at 90–93 GHz toward 28 stars that happen to lie within the fields of view of four ALMA calibrator observations, a 'stellar bycatch' strategy that reuses data taken for other purposes. They detect nothing above a signal-to-noise ratio of 5, placing an upper limit of about $6.91 \times 10^{17}$ W on the equivalent isotropic radiated power of any transmitter toward the closest star. The result matters because it opens a new, largely unexplored frequency window for SETI and shows that ALMA's sensitivity can be harnessed for technosignature searches despite the small field of view and large signal drift rates at millimetre wavelengths.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three pieces: (i) the 'stellar bycatch' method, which harvests stars from the Gaia DR3 catalogue that fall within the interferometer's undistorted field of view of calibrator scans, allowing archival ALMA data to be reused for SETI; (ii) the drift-rate scaling relation $\dot{\nu}_{\rm max} = \dot{\nu}_{1\,{\rm GHz}} \, (\nu_0 / 1\,{\rm GHz})$, which assumes a maximum drift of $\pm 4$ Hz/s at 1 GHz and yields $\pm 400$ Hz/s at 90 GHz, setting the 75-second integration limit that preserves sensitivity to drifting narrowband signals; and (iii) the EIRP-limit formula ${\rm EIRP}_{\rm min} = 4\pi d^2 S_{\rm min}\delta\nu$, which converts per-channel rms noise and source distance into a transmitter power limit. Together they define which stars can be searched, for how long, and what power limits the null result sets.

What would settle it

Re-analyse the same ALMA calibration-subtracted data cubes with a search that explicitly corrects for drift rates up to at least ±4000 Hz/s (for example, by de-drifting into several inertial reference frames before searching) and check whether any pixel associated with the 28 stars yields a signal with SNR > 5. If such a signal appears, the null result and its EIRP limits are overturned; if none appears, the drift assumption is not the reason for the null.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first technosignature search conducted with ALMA data. Using two spectral windows centred on 90.642 GHz and 93.151 GHz from ALMA Band 3 observations of star-forming clumps, they identify 28 galactic stars with reliable Gaia DR3 distances within the undistorted fields of view of four calibrators. After subtracting the continuum calibrator sources and splitting the data into scans shorter than 75 seconds to limit drift smearing, they search for signals with SNR > 5 in the pixels of each star and in adjacent pixels out to 1.1 arcseconds. No candidate signals are found, so they derive upper limits on the EIRP of any putative transmitter for each star, with the best limit being $6.91 \times 10^{17}$ W for the closest star. The paper argues that ALMA therefore places the first constraints on extremely powerful transmitters at millimetre frequencies and demonstrates a viable path for high-frequency SETI.

Load-bearing premise

The survey assumes that any artificial signal drifts in frequency by no more than about 400 Hz per second at 90 GHz, an assumption scaled from a 1-GHz search; a transmitter with a larger line-of-sight acceleration would smear across many channels and evade detection, weakening the quoted power limits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • ALMA can be used for SETI at frequencies above 35 GHz, expanding the search parameter space by more than an order of magnitude in frequency compared with most previous surveys.
  • The null detection places the first constraints on transmitters with EIRP above about $10^{17}$–$10^{19}$ W at 90–93 GHz toward 28 stars, complementing limits at lower frequencies.
  • At millimetre wavelengths, propagation effects from the ionised interstellar medium are much weaker, so intrinsically narrow signals can survive as narrow, drifting features even after long path lengths.
  • The same archival bycatch approach can be applied to other ALMA projects and to other high-frequency interferometers, increasing the number of stars searched without new observing time.
  • Future ALMA SETI searches would benefit from a specialised backend with finer spectral resolution and beamforming, which could push sensitivity toward Arecibo-level EIRP limits at millimetre wavelengths.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The quoted EIRP limits rest on the assumption that any signal drifts by no more than about 400 Hz/s at 90 GHz; a transmitter on a close-in planet, whose orbital acceleration can exceed the scaled Earth-bound value, would drift through the 30.52 kHz channel in less than the integration time and be missed, so the limits should be read as applying to transmitters on Earth-like or more slowly accelera
  • A straightforward testable extension is to re-run the same calibration-subtracted data cubes with a drift-rate search that covers a range of reference frames (for example, ±4000 Hz/s); the computational cost is high but the data already exist, so this could directly probe whether the null result is an artefact of the drift assumption.
  • The 'stellar bycatch' approach could be generalised to other ALMA spectral windows (Band 6 and 7) with similar spectral resolution, potentially extending SETI limits to even higher frequencies where the field of view shrinks but the drift-rate challenge grows.
  • If a dedicated SETI backend were installed on ALMA, the telescope's combination of sensitivity, frequency coverage, and RFI-quiet site would make it competitive with cm-wave facilities for probing very powerful, beamed transmitters, despite the small field of view.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a radio SETI survey using archival ALMA Band 3 observations of four calibrator fields, targeting 28 Gaia DR3 stars located within the primary beam. The authors search for narrowband signals in 30.52 kHz channels with an SNR > 5 threshold, splitting the data into 30-60 s scans to mitigate drift. No candidates are found. They derive EIRP_min limits for each star using Eq. (8), with the best limit of 6.91e17 W for the closest star, and compare their survey's figure of merit with previous SETI surveys. The paper also discusses the challenges of high-frequency SETI, including primary beam size, drift rates, and spectral confusion.

Significance. The significance lies in demonstrating that archival ALMA data can be used for technosignature searches, opening a new frequency window (90-93 GHz) and providing the first SETI limits at these frequencies toward 28 stars. The null result is a direct measurement with a transparent detection threshold and no fitted parameters in the EIRP calculation. The comparison with other surveys using the CWFTM is useful. However, the quantitative limits are weakened by two issues: the neglect of primary beam attenuation for off-axis stars and the unqualified assumption of the ±400 Hz/s drift-rate bound. These issues are repairable and do not affect the null detection itself, but they do affect the stated EIRP_min values that are a central product of the paper.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (8), Table 2] The EIRP_min calculation assumes the full sensitivity of the array at the star's position, but it does not account for attenuation by the primary beam for stars away from the pointing center. For the 12-m ALMA antennas at ~90 GHz, the primary beam FWHM is ~63" (Table 1). A star at an angular offset of 25-30" from the calibrator center experiences a response loss of roughly 40-50% (e.g., for a Gaussian primary beam). Since the r.m.s. noise is approximately uniform across the image, the minimum detectable flux density for an off-axis star is SNR × rms / P(θ), and the quoted EIRP_min underestimates the true limit by a factor of roughly 1.5-2 for stars near the edge of the 59" field. This affects most rows of Table 2 and propagates into the CWFTM and transmitter-rate comparisons in Section 5. The authors should either apply the primary beam correction or explicitly state that the limits apply to on-axis transmitters.
  2. [Section 2.2 and Section 4] The EIRP_min limits assume that a narrowband signal remains within a single 30.52 kHz channel for the full integration time (60 s or 30 s). Even under the assumed maximum drift rate of ±400 Hz/s derived in Eq. (7), a signal whose start frequency is near a channel edge will spend part of the integration in a neighboring channel, reducing the peak single-channel SNR by up to a factor of ~2. More fundamentally, the ±400 Hz/s maximum drift rate is a heuristic scaling from ±4 Hz/s at 1 GHz and is not a physical upper bound; a transmitter with larger line-of-sight acceleration would sweep through multiple channels and could be missed entirely even at EIRP well above the quoted values. The authors acknowledge in Section 5 that drift is "probably the biggest limitation," but the headline statement "we detect no signals with an EIRP_min > 6.91×10^17 W" (Section 4) and the entries of Table 2 are presented without this caveat. The abstract, Section 4, and Table 2 should explicitly state that the limits apply to signals with drift rates within ±400 Hz/s and to signals that remain within a single channel for the integration time.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Data Availability] The Data Availability section lists project ID 2017.1.01704.S, while Section 3 and Section 6 state 2017.1.01794.S; please verify the correct project code and use it consistently.
  2. [Table 2] The header for the third field reads "J200-1748" but the text refers to "J2000-1748"; please make the notation consistent.
  3. [Eq. (7)] In Eq. (7), the term "ν0/1 GHz" should be written with parentheses, e.g., "ν0/(1 GHz)", and the units of the drift rate at 1 GHz (Hz/s) should be stated explicitly in the following sentence.
  4. [Section 2.1] The discussion of time-average smearing uses a maximum baseline of 16 km, but the actual project used a maximum baseline of 314 m; for this configuration the undistorted field of view is much larger than the primary beam, so the conclusion is unchanged, but the text should clarify which baseline is being used for the estimates.
  5. [Section 4] The text states "We assume a Gaussian distribution for a pixel across all frequency channels" but does not present a normality test; consider adding a brief validation, for example by comparing the number of pixels exceeding 5σ with the Gaussian expectation.
  6. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract quotes the limit as "EIRP_min > 7×10^17 W" while Section 4 gives 6.91×10^17 W; please ensure the abstract and body report the same rounded value.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the EIRP limits are direct conversions of measured noise and catalog distances, and all assumptions are stated external inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central result is a null detection with EIRP limits computed from archival ALMA noise measurements and Gaia parallax distances via Eq. 8, EIRP_min = 4π d^2 S_min δν, where S_min is the SNR threshold multiplied by the measured r.m.s. No parameter is fitted to any subset of data and then used to predict a closely related quantity; the quoted limits are direct conversions of independent measurements. The drift-rate assumption in Eq. 7 (±400 Hz/s at ~90 GHz) is an explicitly stated external input scaled from Breakthrough Listen's L-band campaigns, not a quantity derived from the present data, so it cannot be circular. Self-citations (Wlodarczyk-Sroka et al. 2020, Garrett & Siemion 2023, Wandia et al. 2023) are used for the bycatch method and for comparison figures, but the non-detection and the EIRP_min values are independent of those papers' results. The claim of being the first ALMA technosignature search is a novelty assertion, not a derivational step. The robustness caveat about signal drift is a sensitivity limitation and does not reduce the stated limits to their inputs by construction. Therefore no circular step is present.

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

The paper is a null-result observational survey. Its EIRP limits rest on a small set of standard assumptions (drift-rate prior, Gaussian noise, primary-beam uniformity) and hand-chosen thresholds (SNR=5, search radius). No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • SNR detection threshold = 5
    Chosen by hand, standard for SETI searches; linearly scales the minimum detectable flux and thus all EIRP_min limits (Section 4).
  • Maximum drift rate at 1 GHz = ±4 Hz/s
    Adopted from Breakthrough Listen (Price et al. 2020), scaled by frequency (Eq. 7). Sets the 75-second integration limit and hence the survey's sensitivity to drifting signals (Section 2.2).
  • Adjacent pixel search radius = 1.1 arcsec
    Chosen by hand to cover astrometric uncertainties and beam smearing around each target star (Section 4).
  • Fractional parallax selection cut = 0 < f < 1
    Chosen to select stars with reliable distances from Gaia DR3; affects which stars are included and the distance used in EIRP_min (Section 3).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A technosignature is a continuous narrowband signal occupying at most one 30.52 kHz channel.
    The search and EIRP_min formula (Eq. 8) assume the signal is CW-like; pulsed or frequency-broad signals would be diluted (Section 4).
  • domain assumption Maximum drift rate at 1 GHz is ±4 Hz/s, scaling linearly with observing frequency.
    Taken from Breakthrough Listen (Price et al. 2020); sets the 75-second chunking. Faster drift, plausible for orbital transmitters, would smear the signal (Section 2.2).
  • standard math Residual image noise is Gaussian, so SNR>5 is a valid detection threshold.
    Used to define the detection threshold; no formal multiple-trial correction applied to the ~13 million pixel-channel samples (Section 4).
  • domain assumption The measured rms per field is the correct sensitivity at each star position without primary beam correction.
    EIRP_min values do not account for the falloff of the primary beam response with offset from phase center; for stars near the field edge this overestimates sensitivity (Section 4, Table 2).
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 distances, either inverse parallax or Bailer-Jones et al. (2021) geometric estimates, are sufficiently accurate.
    Distances enter EIRP_min quadratically; the 0<f<1 cut reduces but does not quantify distance error propagation (Section 3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Conducting High Frequency Radio SETI using ALMA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L5RXXZXI

@misc{pith2026241119827,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Conducting High Frequency Radio SETI using ALMA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L5RXXZXI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19827}
}
read the original abstract

The Atacama Millimeter/Submillimeter Array (ALMA) remains unparalleled in sensitivity at radio frequencies above 35 GHz. In this paper, we explore ALMA's potential for narrowband technosignature detection, considering factors such as the interferometer's undistorted field of view, signal dilution due to significant drift rates at high frequencies and the possibility of spectral confusion. We present the first technosignature survey using archival ALMA data in Band 3, focusing on two spectral windows centred on 90.642 GHz and 93.151 GHz. Our survey places new limits at these frequencies on the prevalence of extraterrestrial transmitters for 28 galactic stars, selected from the Gaia DR3 catalogue. We employ a stellar 'bycatch' method to sample these objects within the undistorted field of view of four ALMA calibrators. For the closest star in our sample, we find no evidence of transmitters with EIRP_min > 7 x 10^17 W. To the best of our knowledge, this represents the first technosignature search conducted using ALMA data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19827 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The stellar samples located within each 59 arcsecond field of view superimposed on clean images of the four calibrators associated with spectral window 90.608 − 90.666 GHz. The sample of stars surveyed include stars with distances calculated by the inverse parallax (square markers) or geometric distance estimations from Bailer-Jones (triangle markers). Stars with circular markers have a poor fractional parallax erro… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Frequency slices of the calibrator-subtracted data cube for J1751+0939, highlighting the pixel containing Gaia DR3 4488787487759680128. The signal-to-noise ratio is calculated for each channel map for a given pixel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The flux:r.m.s noise ratio for one of the stars in our sample, Gaia DR3 4488787487759680128 plotted as a function of channel frequency and the corresponding signal-to-noise histogram. Random emission from thermal noise will result in a Gaussian distribution of intensities, whereas a potential ETI signal would have a 𝑆𝑁 𝑅 > 5. We have presented the performance of ALMA as a SETI instru￾ment, in comparison with other S… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the potential sensitivity of telescopes to perform SETI searches for narrowband transmitters against frequency coverage (following Siemion et al. (2014) & Croft et al. (2018)). The telescope’s minimum detectable 𝐸 𝐼𝑅𝑃𝑚𝑖𝑛 is based on an integration time of…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The 𝐸 𝐼𝑅𝑃𝑚𝑖𝑛 and transmitter rate for a sample of SETI surveys above 1 GHz, including our own work using ALMA (amended from figure by Tremblay et al. (2023)). The EIRP can be compared against potential limits for an Arecibo planetary radar (1013W) and a Kardashev Type …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  3. [3]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..167A 935, 167

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  4. [4]

    Bailer-Jones C. A. L., Rybizki J., Fouesneau M., Demleitner M., Andrae R., 2021, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 , 161, 147

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  5. [5]

    Brzycki B., Siemion A. P. V., de Pater I., Cordes J. M., Gajjar V., Lacki B., Sheikh S., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/acdee0 , 952, 46

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acdee0 2023

  6. [6]

    Choza C., Croft S., Siemion A. P. V., Sheikh S., Lebofsky M., MacMahon D. H. E., Drew J., Worden S. P., 2024, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/ad235f , 8, 37

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ad235f 2024

  7. [7]

    Cocconi G., Morrison P., 1959, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/184844a0 , 184, 844

    doi:10.1038/184844a0 1959

  8. [8]

    S., ed., Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Cordes J., Lazio J., 1993, in Shostak G. S., ed., Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 47, Third Decennial US-USSR Conference on SETI. p. 143

    work page 1993

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Croft S., Siemion A. P. V., Cordes J. M., Morrison I. S., Paragi Z., Tarter J., 2018, Science with an ngVLA : SETI Searches for Evidence of Intelligent Life in the Galaxy , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.1810.06568 , http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.06568

    2018 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    K., 1986, @doi [Acta Astronautica] 10.1016/0094-5765(86)90005-6 , 13, 31

    Cullers D. K., 1986, @doi [Acta Astronautica] 10.1016/0094-5765(86)90005-6 , 13, 31

    1986 doi

  3. [11]

    Czech D., et al., 2021, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1088/1538-3873/abf329 , 133, 064502

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    E., et al., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8d1b , 849, 104

    Enriquez J. E., et al., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8d1b , 849, 104

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 , 595, A1

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 , 674, A1

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Gajjar V., et al., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6dd5 , 932, 81

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    A., 2018, SETI surveys of the nearby and distant universe employing wide-field radio interferometry techniques, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.1810.07235 , http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.07235

    Garrett M. A., 2018, SETI surveys of the nearby and distant universe employing wide-field radio interferometry techniques, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.1810.07235 , http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.07235

    2018 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    A., Siemion A

    Garrett M. A., Siemion A. P. V., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac2607 , 519, 4581

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Horowitz P., Sagan C., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173157 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...415..218H 415, 218

    1993 doi

  11. [19]

    S., 1964, Soviet Astronomy, 8, 217

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

    1964

  12. [20]

    213, Bioastronomy 99

    Leigh D., Horowitz P., 2000, in Lemarchand G., Meech K., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 213, Bioastronomy 99. p. 459

    2000

  13. [21]

    L., Rood R

    Mauersberger R., Wilson T. L., Rood R. T., Bania T. M., Hein H., Linhart A., 1996, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 306, 141

    1996

  14. [22]

    A., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac2a48 , 259, 30

    McGuire B. A., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac2a48 , 259, 30

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    Ochsenbein F. e. a., 2000, The VizieR database of astronomical catalogues , @doi 10.26093/cds/vizier

    2000 doi

  16. [24]

    M., 1979, in Billingham J., Pešek R., eds, , Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence

    Oliver B. M., 1979, in Billingham J., Pešek R., eds, , Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence . Pergamon, pp 71--79, @doi 10.1016/B978-0-08-024727-4.50011-1 , https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080247274500111

    1979 doi

  17. [25]

    M., Billingham J., 1971, The 1971 NASA/ASEE Summer Fac

    Oliver B. M., Billingham J., 1971, The 1971 NASA/ASEE Summer Fac. Fellowship Program (NASA-CR-114445

    1971

  18. [26]

    C., et al., 2018, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia] 10.1017/pasa.2018.36 , 35, e041

    Price D. C., et al., 2018, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia] 10.1017/pasa.2018.36 , 35, e041

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    C., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab65f1 , 159, 86

    Price D. C., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab65f1 , 159, 86

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    S., Tingay S

    Rampadarath H., Morgan J. S., Tingay S. J., Trott C. M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/144/2/38 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012AJ....144...38R 144, 38

    2012 doi

  21. [29]

    Remijan A., Markwick-Kemper A., 2007, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 39, 963

    2007

  22. [30]

    Z., Wright J

    Sheikh S. Z., Wright J. T., Siemion A. P., Enriquez J. E., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3fa8 , 884, 14

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    Z., Siemion A., Enriquez J

    Sheikh S. Z., Siemion A., Enriquez J. E., Price D. C., Isaacson H., Lebofsky M., Gajjar V., Kalas P., 2020, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab9361 , 160, 29

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    213, Bioastronomy 2002: Life Among the Stars

    Shirai T., Oyama T., Imai H., Abe S., 2004, in Norris R., Stootman F., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 213, Bioastronomy 2002: Life Among the Stars. p. 423

    2004

  25. [33]

    Siemion A. P. V., et al., 2014, Searching for Extraterrestrial Intelligence with the Square Kilometre Array , http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.4867

    2014 arXiv

  26. [34]

    S., ed., Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Steffes P., 1993, in Shostak G. S., ed., Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 47, Third Decennial US-USSR Conference on SETI. p. 367

    1993

  27. [35]

    Steffes P., Deboer D., 1993, Icarus, 107, 215

    1993

  28. [36]

    H., 1983, @doi [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences] 10.1073/pnas.80.4.1147 , 80, 1147

    Townes C. H., 1983, @doi [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences] 10.1073/pnas.80.4.1147 , 80, 1147

    1983 doi

  29. [37]

    D., et al., 2023, COSMIC : An Ethernet -based Commensal , Multimode Digital Backend on the Karl G

    Tremblay C. D., et al., 2023, COSMIC : An Ethernet -based Commensal , Multimode Digital Backend on the Karl G . Jansky Very Large Array for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence , http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.09414

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Wandia K., et al., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad1151 , 522, 3784

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    S., Garrett M

    Wlodarczyk-Sroka B. S., Garrett M. A., Siemion A. P. V., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa2672 , 498, 5720

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    P., et al., 2017, @doi [Acta Astronautica] 10.1016/j.actaastro.2017.06.008 , 139, 98

    Worden S. P., et al., 2017, @doi [Acta Astronautica] 10.1016/j.actaastro.2017.06.008 , 139, 98

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    A., et al., 2018, in Evans C

    Wright S. A., et al., 2018, in Evans C. J., Simard L., Takami H., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII

    2018

  34. [42]

    M., 1995, in Zensus J

    Wrobel J. M., 1995, in Zensus J. A., Diamond P. J., Napier P. J., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 82, Very Long Baseline Interferometry and the VLBA. p. 411, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ASPC...82..411W

    1995

  35. [43]

    Zuckerman B., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1113 , 514, 227

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.