Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

A Wavelet-Integrated Search Pipeline for Narrowband Technosignatures in FAST Observations of 33 Exoplanet Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A wavelet-based ML pipeline recovers known FAST narrowband events and reduces 139,127 detections to 803 inspectable candidates.

desk verdict Useful SETI pipeline paper, but the reported τglob=1000 gate contradicts the SNRglob values in its own Table 2, so the operating point is not yet trustworthy. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.23739 v3 pith:RCL7LDUO submitted 2026-05-22 astro-ph.IM

Zi-Qi Li , Jian-Kang Li , Zhe-Wei Luo , Chen-Xu Guan , Yu-Tong Fan , Zhen-Zhao Tao , Xiao-Hang Luan , Bo-Lun Huang
show 9 more authors
Yu Hu Peng-Yu Li Pu-Fan Liu Kang Jiao Tong-Jie Zhang Hai-Yan Zhang Peng Jiang Rui Li Liang Gao
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords technosignaturesSETIwaveletanalysisneuralnetworksnarrowbandsignalsearchFASTtelescopedrift-rateradiofrequencyinterference
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 claims that narrowband technosignature searching can be reframed from an exhaustive drift-rate grid scan into a two-stage operation: a wavelet-based network (MSWNet) cleans the time–frequency image, and a lightweight estimator regresses each signal's start and end frequencies directly. The payoff, demonstrated on real FAST observations of 33 exoplanet systems, is a compact, auditable candidate list: 139,127 single-beam detections are reduced to 803 veto-ready candidates, and two previously reported events are recovered with consistent frequency and drift. The paper also identifies and then diagnoses a new drifting narrowband signal toward K2-155 (1148.4167 MHz, −0.038 Hz/s, S/N≈15), concluding on the evidence that it is most plausibly anthropogenic or instrumental rather than extraterrestrial. A sympathetic reader would care because the bottleneck in modern SETI is verification, not detection, and this pipeline moves the decision boundary to a staged, inspectable sequence.

What carries the argument

The central object is MSWNet (Multi-Scale Wavelet Net), an encoder–decoder in which every pooling operation is replaced by a two-dimensional discrete wavelet transform (DWT2D). At each scale the encoder caches the detail bands (LH/HL/HH) and the decoder reuses them through the inverse transform, so fine-scale structure is carried rather than hallucinated; this preserves weak narrowband tracks while suppressing broadband and impulsive interference. Downstream, a lightweight parameter estimator regresses (f_start, f_stop) using a 2×N_f representation, and a staged post-process — global-SNR gate, confidence gating plus non-maximum suppression, cross-patch stitching, raw-data S/N validation, and

What would settle it

On a fresh FAST observation with a known injected narrowband signal at S/N≈10 and drift within ±4 Hz/s, run the pipeline with thresholds frozen; if the signal is missed while a conventional drift-grid search at the same S/N finds it, the claim of transferable sensitivity across RFI environments is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Central claim: narrowband technosignature search can be recast as wavelet-guided feature extraction plus endpoint regression instead of an exhaustive drift-rate scan. On FAST L-band observations of 33 exoplanet systems, MSWNet cleans each patch, a lightweight estimator regresses (f_start, f_stop) and confidence, and staged filters plus a 19-beam veto reduce 139,127 detections to 803 candidates. Two earlier events (Kepler-438, HD 180617) are recovered with consistent frequency and drift. A new drifting signal toward K2-155 (1148.4167 MHz, −0.038 Hz/s, S/N≈15) is diagnosed as likely RFI via polarization, cross-target recurrence, and 12.3 kHz spacing.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that one clean strip of the observed band plus simulated signals captures the noise and radio-frequency-interference behavior of the full 1.05–1.45 GHz observation; if interference elsewhere looks different, or real signals fall outside the simulated drift/curvature/width range, the pipeline's thresholds are miscalibrated and the 803-candidate yield is not trustworthy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because detection no longer enumerates a drift-rate grid, output volume is decoupled from the size of the drift hypothesis set; retained yield is controlled by explicit thresholds that can be audited and adjusted.
  • The same pipeline, with fixed thresholds, recovers the Kepler-438 and HD 180617 events found by earlier analyses of the same FAST data, showing sensitivity to the same class of narrow drifting features.
  • Multi-beam anticoincidence veto plus polarization and recurrence diagnostics remain essential: the new K2-155 candidate survived drift- and beam-based filters but was classified as likely RFI on the broader evidence chain.
  • The 803 veto-ready candidates form a compact input for human or automated expert inspection, directly addressing the verification bottleneck.
  • Ablation results imply that removing the wavelet high-frequency pathway would push marginal S/N≈10 signals below detectability, so the detail path is part of the sensitivity budget.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the calibration premise holds, the strongest near-term gain is to swap the endpoint regressor for a physics-driven track fitter (e.g., a Hough-style line/curve detector) on MSWNet's cleaned maps; the paper itself flags estimator localization error as the main veto risk.
  • The survey-wide ~12.3 kHz periodicity in the matched-control population suggests an instrumental lattice that could be characterized in advance and subtracted, which would shrink the candidate list further.
  • A cheap falsification of the transferability claim would be to run the frozen thresholds on a different telescope band containing an injected S/N≈10 drifting signal; success or failure would calibrate how much of the pipeline depends on this specific instrument's noise bed.
  • The wavelet-path ablation suggests MSWNet's cleaned maps could serve as a general RFI-mitigation front end for other narrowband radio analyses, not just SETI searches.
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 MSWNet, a wavelet-integrated encoder–decoder followed by a lightweight endpoint regressor, as a staged inference pipeline for narrowband technosignature searches in FAST L-band dynamic spectra. Training data are generated by injecting synthetic drifting signals (linear and quadratic, |ν̇|≤4 Hz/s, widths 1–3 channels) into a clean 1278–1380 MHz background segment. At inference, the pipeline applies a robust global-SNR patch gate, confidence gating with NMS, cross-patch stitching, raw-data S/N validation, and a 19-beam anticoincidence veto. On the 33-target FAST campaign, the authors report recovering two previously published events (Kepler-438/NBS 210629 and HD 180617/NBS 210421) and producing 803 veto-ready candidates from 139,127 single-beam detections. A newly identified candidate, NBS 260108 toward K2-155, is analyzed in detail and attributed to likely RFI on the basis of polarization asymmetry, cross-target recurrence, and ensemble periodicity diagnostics.

Significance. If the reported results are reproducible, the paper offers a credible ML-based alternative to drift-grid searches, with attractive properties: an interpretable wavelet front end, explicit staged thresholds, open-source code, and real-data anchoring against two prior peer-reviewed FAST detections. The use of prior published events as recovery tests is a legitimate validation strategy, and the compact 803-candidate output directly addresses the human-review bottleneck that dominates current SETI pipelines. However, the paper's central verification claim is currently blocked by an internal inconsistency between the stated operating point and the reported recovery values. The significance of the contribution is therefore conditional on resolving that inconsistency.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3.2, §3.1, Table 2, Fig. 9] The stated operating point is internally inconsistent. Section 2.3.2 defines a patch-level rejection rule SNRglob < τglob, and §3.1 states τglob = 1000. Under this rule, Table 2's Kepler-438 XX recovery (SNRglob = 659.6) cannot survive the first post-processing stage, and Fig. 9 shows successful detections labeled Global SNR = 268.88, 370.67, and 774.46, all below τglob = 1000. Either the gate is not actually 1000, the recoveries are produced with a different configuration, or the SNRglob values in Table 2/Fig. 9 are not the gate statistic. The §4.1.4 caveat that events are recovered 'before downstream screening' does not resolve this, because the global-SNR gate is upstream of the later screening stages in the stated pipeline. Please clarify the exact configuration used for each reported result and provide per-stage counts (patches passing the gate, detections, events, candidates) under
  2. [§2.1, §3.1, Fig. 4] The pipeline's fixed thresholds are calibrated on simulations built from a single clean 1278–1380 MHz segment, but are then applied across the full 1.05–1.45 GHz band. The claim that τglob transfers because SNRglob is MAD-normalized is plausible but not demonstrated. Figure 4 itself shows strong frequency-dependent structure in the real data, including clustering at known interference sub-bands. As written, the 803-candidate yield cannot be separated from the choice of τglob, and the reader cannot tell whether the gate is over- or under-rejecting outside the training band. Please provide a quantitative calibration check, e.g., injection-recovery rates in subbands outside 1278–1380 MHz, or a comparison of SNRglob distributions and noise-floor stability across the full band.
  3. [§3.1, §4.1.4] The real-data evaluation rests on two anchored recoveries and a final candidate count, but no end-to-end completeness or contamination measurement is reported. The two anchors demonstrate sensitivity to previously detected events, but they do not quantify recall (fraction of injected signals recovered at the stated thresholds) or precision (false-positive rate before and after veto) on real FAST data. To support the claim that this is a practical replacement for drift-grid search, please include injection-recovery tests on real observations spanning the full band, and report the number of events rejected at each veto stage under the nominal configuration.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 3] The figure caption and axis labels contain garbled glyph sequences in the provided version (e.g., '/uni00000013/...'), making the threshold-sensitivity figure unreadable. Please regenerate the figure and caption.
  2. [§2.3.2] The raw-data S/N cutoff is given as 'e.g., S/N>10'. Please state the exact value used for the 803-candidate result, since the recovery rows in Table 2 include S/N values below 10 (e.g., 4.4 and 7.8) and the text later clarifies these are before downstream screening.
  3. [§2.2] Typo: 'Npredections' should be 'N_predictions'. Also, Eq. (8) should define n and k precisely, since k depends on n but the patch area is not defined.
  4. [§4.1.4] The phrase 'recovered by our pipeline before downstream screening' is important and should appear in the abstract or Section 3 summary to avoid the impression that the two anchor events pass all veto stages.
  5. [General] The code link (WaveSETI9) should include a version/commit and a statement of the exact inference configuration used for the reported numbers, to support reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No by-construction circularity: the anchor recoveries are genuine published detections on real data and the thresholds were fixed on a validation set. The flagged τglob=1000 vs. sub-1000 SNRglob outputs is an auditability/reporting defect, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: MSWNet is trained on setigen-injected synthetic signals placed in a real, relatively clean 1278–1380 MHz FAST background segment from Luan et al. (2023) (§2.1), with an injected class (|ν̇|≤4 Hz/s, W∈[1,3]Δν, linear/quadratic) defined independently of the real-data claims; thresholds are 'selected once on a held-out validation set and then fixed for all test observations' (§2.3.2). The two anchors (Kepler-438 at 1140.604 MHz, HD 180617 at 1404.050 MHz) lie outside the training band, so recovering them is a generalization test, not in-sample reconstruction. The same-group citations supplying the anchors (Tao et al. 2022; Luan et al. 2023) are peer-reviewed, externally falsifiable detections with specific frequencies and drift rates on real FAST data, so under the review rules they count as real evidence and do not make the recovery circular; the 803-candidate yield is transparently an operating-point outcome (Fig. 3 shows monotone threshold dependence), not a derived prediction. I flag, as a non-circular verifiability defect, an internal inconsistency in the stated operating point: §3.1 sets τglob=1000 and §2.3.2 says 'Patches with SNRglob < τglob are rejected,' yet Table 2 lists this-work Kepler-438 XX with SNRglob=659.6 and Fig. 9 shows successful cleaned-map detections at Global SNR 268.88–774.46, all below the gate. If the gate were applied as written those outputs could not survive; if not, the 'auditable threshold control' claim is untraceable. This impairs reproducibility of the headline recovery/yield claim but is a reporting contradiction, not an equation-level reduction of outputs to inputs. Transfer risk from single-band training and restricted morphology scope is acknowledged in the paper and is also not circularity. Overall: no significant circularity; score 2 reflects the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation chain supplying anchors and survey parameters.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The pipeline rests on a moderate set of hand-set simulation and threshold parameters (width range, class boundary, patch geometry, S/N cut, τglob/τconf) rather than on fitted physics constants; no new physical entities are introduced (MSWNet is software, not a new particle/force/mediator). The most fragile assumption is the transfer of simulated-noise calibration to full-band data, since the only real-data ground truth is two recovered events from the same group's earlier papers. The ledger is explicit about these assumptions — the paper itself admits the NBS 260108 coupling mechanism is unresolved and that same-session recurrence could be chance (§4.1.2, §4.1.3) — but the ensemble diagnostics carry unquantified uncertainties.

free parameters (7)
  • Global-SNR activation gate τglob = 1000
    Selected once on a held-out validation set (§3.1) and fixed; controls retained yield and is inconsistent with Fig. 9 gallery Global SNR values (269–774) shown for detected signals.
  • Confidence cutoff τconf and NMS IoU threshold τIoU = 0.7 / 0.9
    Pragmatic operating point in §3.1; output volume is controlled primarily by confidence gating.
  • Injected signal spectral width W = 1–3 Δν (uniform draw)
    Simulation morphology choice (§2.1); sets the effective track width used in the patch-overlap budget, Eq. (7).
  • Linear/curved class boundary = 0.2 channel deviation; |a2| ≤ 7.5e-5
    Hand-set threshold separating class 1 from class 0 in training annotations (§2.1).
  • Patch geometry (Nf, overlap r, guard band, ε_ν) = 256, 0.2, 2.5%, 3Δν
    Engineering choices in §2.1/§2.3 setting the no-stitch drift completeness bound (~0.26 Hz/s for 20-min targets).
  • Raw-data S/N validation cutoff = 10
    Per-detection S/N cutoff in §2.3.2, described as the practical detection limit.
  • Top-k SNR parameters (ρ, kmin) and loss weights λ_giou/λ_reg/λ_cls/λ_neg = not specified
    Parameters of Eqs. (6)/(8) never given numerical values in the text; needed for exact replication.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Natural astrophysical processes do not produce extremely narrow, drifting spectral features; such features are candidate technosignatures
    Introductory framing (§1) inherited from Cocconi & Morrison 1959; shapes what the pipeline is designed to detect.
  • domain assumption Technosignature drift is well approximated by linear (or weakly quadratic) drift over 4–20 min snapshots, with |ν̇| ≤ 4 Hz/s
    §2.1: injected morphologies are linear/parabolic only; drift bound taken from Huang et al. 2026; curvature beyond |ν̈|≈1.1e-5 Hz/s² treated as rare.
  • ad hoc to paper The trained MSWNet + estimator generalize from simulated patches (synthetic injections on the 1278–1380 MHz clean segment) to full-band real data
    Load-bearing (§2.1, §2.3.2): all threshold calibration and cleaning behavior are validated on this simulation; the only real-data ground truth is two recovered events from prior group papers.
  • standard math 2D discrete wavelet transform / inverse transform perfect reconstruction and standard wavelet properties
    Assumed background for the encoder–decoder design in §2.2 (Eq. 4).
  • domain assumption Multi-beam anticoincidence: a signal in the on-source beam and absent from the other 18 beams is unlikely to be RFI
    Core veto stage (§2.3.2, §4.1); from Harp 2005. The paper itself shows this is insufficient on its own (§4.1.4: Kepler-438 recovered yet RFI).
  • ad hoc to paper The 1278–1380 MHz segment is representative of the noise background across the full 1.05–1.45 GHz band
    Training noise bed chosen for being 'relatively free of persistent RFI' (§2.1); representativeness is asserted, not demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Wavelet-Integrated Search Pipeline for Narrowband Technosignatures in FAST Observations of 33 Exoplanet Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RCL7LDUO

@misc{pith2026260523739,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Wavelet-Integrated Search Pipeline for Narrowband Technosignatures in FAST Observations of 33 Exoplanet Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RCL7LDUO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.23739}
}
read the original abstract

Building on prior FAST targeted and blind SETI campaigns toward 33 exoplanet systems, we introduce a wavelet-integrated search pipeline for narrowband technosignature candidates in radio dynamic spectra. At its core, the pipeline uses a Multi-Scale Wavelet Net (MSWNet) to produce an interpretable multi-resolution representation, followed by a lightweight parameter estimator for endpoint localization. Rather than relying solely on hard-threshold drift searches, the pipeline reframes narrowband detection as wavelet-guided feature extraction followed by endpoint regression, morphology-aware filtering, raw-data S/N validation, and multi-beam anticoincidence veto. Applied to real FAST data, the pipeline recovers representative events from prior analyses and produces a compact set of veto-ready candidates for downstream inspection. The resulting workflow preserves interpretability, low regression complexity, and auditable threshold control, making it readily transferable to other radio surveys and large-scale technosignature searches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23739 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic architecture of MSWNet. The overall encoder–decoder structure is summarized in the left panel, while the right panel expands a single stage showing the internal encoder/decoder layout, where all resolution changes are performed within the blocks. The encoder replaces pooling with DWT2D, caching detail coefficients (LH, HL, HH) at each level, which are then reused by the decoder through IDWT2D together with… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Inference pipeline. MSWNet transforms each raw patch into a processed patch (cleaned map), and a lightweight parameter estimator outputs a fixed set of predictions. Predictions are gated by a patch-scale global SNR statistic, filtered by confidence and IoU (NMS), stitched across overlapping patches, and then validated by S/N measured on the raw spectrogram. Events surviving the veto stage constitute the final candid… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sensitivity of detection yield to post-processing thresholds. Each panel shows a heat map of the retained fraction of detections versus the confidence cutoff and the NMS IoU threshold, under different Global-SNR activation settings. The frequency histograms show candidates distributed across the full 1.05–1.45 GHz band, with prominent clus￾tering at known interference sub-bands rather than any preference for special… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distributions of detected-signal parameters at different pipeline stages. Histograms show detections, events, and final candidates as functions of observing frequency, drift rate, S/N measured on raw data, Global SNR on the cleaned map, and model confidence. decisive d…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dynamic spectrum (frequency-time waterfall) from the 19-beam L-band receiver during the K2-155 observation, centered on the candidate frequency. The narrow drifting signal (1148.4167 MHz, drift −0.038 Hz/s) appears in Beam 1 (on target) and is not detected in any of th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the 1148.4167 MHz region in XX vs. YY polarization for four targets observed on 2021-09-10 (arranged by time). short pulsed bursts or pulse pairs (R. J. Kerczewski et al. 2015) and therefore do not naturally repro￾duce a smooth, continuous drifting track,…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ensemble diagnostics for the matched-control hits. (a) Frequency–S/N distribution of the 201 matched hits, colored by group. (b) Rayleigh-style spacing scan, with the strongest response at ∆ν ∗ ≃ 12.344 kHz. (c) Wrapped residual/phase structure computed at ∆ν ∗ with f0…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Inference-time wavelet-path ablation. From left to right: denoised output, LL-only output, inverse-synthe￾sized feature, and its LL-only counterpart. To assess the role of the detail pathway, we performed an inference-time ablation: all encoder-to-decoder high￾frequenc…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Robustness gallery (left to right). Yellow boxes denote detections morphologically classified as linear, while red boxes indicate signals with curvature. (a) Target drifting narrowband track + broadband impulsive transient, with the corresponding MSWNet cleaned map and…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Representative false positives for the incoherent de-Doppler drift search (left; Taylor-tree implementation in TurboSETI) and MSWNet pipeline (right). a limitation of MSWNet’s upstream feature extraction; in future work, we will explore replacing (or augment￾ing) the …

Review history (3 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references

  1. [1]

    2017, Astronomy and Computing, 18, 35, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2017.01.002

    Akeret, J., Chang, C., Lucchi, A., & Refregier, A. 2017, Astronomy and Computing, 18, 35, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2017.01.002

    doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2017.01.002 2017

  2. [2]

    2002, Communications of the ACM, 45, 56, doi: 10.1145/581571.581573

    Werthimer, D. 2002, Communications of the ACM, 45, 56, doi: 10.1145/581571.581573

    arXiv 2002

  3. [3]

    Bodla, N., Singh, B., Chellappa, R., & Davis, L. S. 2017, in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 5562–5570, doi: 10.1109/ICCV.2017.593

    doi:10.1109/iccv.2017.593 2017

  4. [4]

    Brzycki, B., Siemion, A. P. V., Pater, I. d., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 222, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5e3d

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac5e3d 2022

  5. [5]

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

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

    doi:10.1038/184844a0 1959

  6. [6]

    2024, A&A, 690, A211, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449548

    Cornu, D., Salom´ e, P., Semelin, B., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A211, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449548

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449548 2024

  7. [7]

    Drake, F. D. 1961, Physics Today, 14, 40, doi: 10.1063/1.3057500 ECC (CEPT). 2011, Impact of Unwanted Emissions of Iridium Satellites on Radio Astronomy Operations in the Band 1610.6–1613.8 MHz, ECC Report 171, Electronic Communications Committee (ECC), CEPT, Tallinn, Estonia. https://docdb.cept.org/document/279

    doi:10.1063/1.3057500 1961

  8. [8]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8d1b 2017

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    2023, A&A, 677, A101, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345976

    Grishin, K., Mei, S., & Ili´ c, S. 2023, A&A, 677, A101, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345976

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    2022, IEEE Access, 10, 58869, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3179517

    Guo, T., Zhang, T., Lim, E., et al. 2022, IEEE Access, 10, 58869, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3179517

    2022

  3. [11]

    Harp, G. R. 2005, Radio Science, 40, RS5S18, doi: 10.1029/2004RS003133

    2005 doi

  4. [12]

    R., Richards, J., Tarter, J

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

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    H., et al

    Hirano, T., Dai, F., Livingston, J. H., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaaa6e 18

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    2026, AJ, 171, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae2470

    Huang, B.-L., Tao, Z.-Z., Zhang, T.-J., & Gajjar, V. 2026, AJ, 171, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae2470

    2026 doi

  7. [15]

    2019, Science China

    Jiang, P., Yue, Y., Gan, H., et al. 2019, Science China

    2019

  8. [16]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 959502, doi: 10.1007/s11433-018-9376-1

    doi

  9. [17]

    A., & Wilson, J

    Shalkhauser, K. A., & Wilson, J. D. 2015, in 2015 IEEE Aerospace Conference, 1–12, doi: 10.1109/AERO.2015.7119060

    2015

  10. [18]

    2018, IEEE Microwave Magazine, 19, 112, doi: 10.1109/MMM.2018.2802178

    Li, D., Wang, P., Qian, L., et al. 2018, IEEE Microwave Magazine, 19, 112, doi: 10.1109/MMM.2018.2802178

    2018

  11. [19]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 078, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/78

    Li, D., Gajjar, V., Wang, P., et al. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 078, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/78

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    2024, AJ, 167, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0be8

    Li, J.-K., Chen, Y., Huang, B.-L., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0be8

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

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

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

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    2021, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 30, 7074, doi: 10.1109/TIP.2021.3101395

    Li, Q., Shen, L., Guo, S., & Lai, Z. 2021, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 30, 7074, doi: 10.1109/TIP.2021.3101395

    2021

  15. [23]

    2025, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, Volume 12 - 2025, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2025.1656917

    Liu, P., Li, H., Li, Z., et al. 2025, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, Volume 12 - 2025, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2025.1656917

    2025

  16. [24]

    2023, AJ, 165, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb706

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

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    MacMahon, D. H. E., Price, D. C., Lebofsky, M., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 044502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa80d2

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    Nieuwpoort, R. V. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5367, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2503

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989, doi: 10.1142/S0218271811019335

    Nan, R., Li, D., Jin, C., et al. 2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989, doi: 10.1142/S0218271811019335

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    2006, in 18th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR’06), Vol

    Neubeck, A., & Van Gool, L. 2006, in 18th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR’06), Vol. 3, 850–855, doi: 10.1109/ICPR.2006.479

    2006 doi

  21. [29]

    R., de Bruyn, A

    Offringa, A. R., de Bruyn, A. G., Biehl, M., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 155, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16471.x

    2010

  22. [30]

    C., Enriquez, J

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

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    2020, The Innovation, 1, 100053, doi: 10.1016/j.xinn.2020.100053

    Qian, L., Yao, R., Sun, J., et al. 2020, The Innovation, 1, 100053, doi: 10.1016/j.xinn.2020.100053

    2020

  24. [32]

    2016, in 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 779–788, doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2016.91

    Redmon, J., Divvala, S., Girshick, R., & Farhadi, A. 2016, in 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 779–788, doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2016.91

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    2017, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 39, 1137, doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2016.2577031

    Ren, S., He, K., Girshick, R., & Sun, J. 2017, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 39, 1137, doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2016.2577031

    2017

  26. [34]

    2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 111, 12634, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1304213111

    Seager, S. 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 111, 12634, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1304213111

    2014 doi

  27. [35]

    Z., Wright, J

    Sheikh, S. Z., Wright, J. T., Siemion, A., & Enriquez, J. E. 2019, ApJ, 884, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3fa8

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    Z., Smith, S., Price, D

    Sheikh, S. Z., Smith, S., Price, D. C., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1153, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01508-8

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    Siemion, A. P. V., Demorest, P., Korpela, E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 94, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/94

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    C., Sheikh, S

    Smith, S., Price, D. C., Sheikh, S. Z., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1148, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01479-w

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    2023, AJ, 166, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acfc1e

    Tao, Z.-Z., Huang, B.-L., Luan, X.-H., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acfc1e

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    2022, AJ, 164, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac8bd5

    Tao, Z.-Z., Zhao, H.-C., Zhang, T.-J., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac8bd5

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    2001, ARA&A, 39, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.511

    Tarter, J. 2001, ARA&A, 39, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.511

    2001 doi

  34. [42]

    1996, in Astronomical Polarimetry (Cambridge University Press), 1–7, doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511525100.002

    Tinbergen, J. 1996, in Astronomical Polarimetry (Cambridge University Press), 1–7, doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511525100.002

    1996 doi

  35. [43]

    2021, AJ, 161, 286, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abf649 van Heerden, E., Karastergiou, A., & Roberts, S

    Traas, R., Croft, S., Gajjar, V., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 286, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abf649 van Heerden, E., Karastergiou, A., & Roberts, S. J. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 1661, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3068

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 018, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/1/18

    Wang, Y., Zhang, H.-Y., Hu, H., et al. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 018, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/1/18

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    S., et al

    Werthimer, D., Anderson, D., Bowyer, C. S., et al. 2001, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4273, The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) in the Optical Spectrum III, ed. S. A. Kingsley & R. Bhathal, 104–109, doi: 1...

    2001 doi

  38. [46]

    2018, in International Conference on Learning Representations

    Williams, T., & Li, R. 2018, in International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=rkhlb8lCZ

    2018

  39. [47]

    2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 119, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/5/119

    Yan, R.-Q., Dai, C., Liu, W., et al. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 119, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/5/119

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    B., & G¨ und¨ uz, D

    Yang, Q., Mashhadi, M. B., & G¨ und¨ uz, D. 2019, in 2019 IEEE 29th International Workshop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing (MLSP), 1–6, doi: 10.1109/MLSP.2019.8918798

    2019

  41. [49]

    2025, A&A, 701, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554423

    You, Z.-Y., Luo, J.-G., Pan, Y.-R., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554423

    2025 doi

  42. [50]

    2024, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Zhang, T.-J., Huang, B.-L., Li, J.-K., et al. 2024, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 2877, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012053, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/2877/1/012053 19

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    2024, Astronomy and Computing, 47, 100822, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2024.100822

    Zhang, X., Cognard, I., & Dobigeon, N. 2024, Astronomy and Computing, 47, 100822, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2024.100822

    2024

  44. [52]

    2020, Journal of Deep Space Exploration, 7, 158, doi: 10.15982/j.issn.2095-7777.2020.20190618005

    Zhisong, Z., Haiyan, Z., Yan, Z., et al. 2020, Journal of Deep Space Exploration, 7, 158, doi: 10.15982/j.issn.2095-7777.2020.20190618005

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.