Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 6 cited by

CRAFTS for HI cosmology: I. data processing pipeline and validation tests

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that calibrated CRAFTS drift-scan data from FAST reach the noise and flux accuracy needed for HI intensity mapping.

desk verdict CRAFTS pipeline paper is a careful, useful validation study for FAST HI intensity mapping, with the main caveat that the flux calibration error is partly circular because it is fitted to the same NVSS sources used for validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08173 v2 pith:SVYQBBIJ submitted 2024-12-11 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Wenxiu Yang , Laura Wolz , Yichao Li , Wenkai Hu , Steven Cunnington , Keith Grainge , Furen Deng , Shifan Zuo
show 15 more authors
Shuanghao Shu Xinyang Zhao Di Li Zheng Zheng Marko Krčo Yinghui Zheng Linjing Feng Pei Zuo Hao Chen Xue-Jian Jiang Chen Wang Pei Wang Chen-Chen Miao Yougang Wang Xuelei Chen
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords HIintensitymappingCRAFTSFAST21cmcosmologyradiocalibrationdriftscanfrequencyinterferenceforegroundremoval
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that drift-scan data from the Commensal Radio Astronomy FAST Survey (CRAFTS) can be calibrated well enough to serve as a cosmological 21-centimetre intensity-mapping dataset. Using 70 hours of L-band 19-beam observations covering about 270 square degrees, the authors build a nine-step pipeline that combines a pulsar backend's fast noise-diode switching with a spectrum backend's fine frequency resolution. The maturity of the data is tested three ways: measured noise levels match radiometer predictions within about 5 percent in clean frequency channels; 447 bright continuum sources match NVSS fluxes within 8.3 percent on time-ordered data and 6.6 percent on maps; and 90 low-redshift galaxies match HI-MaNGA integrated fluxes within 16.7 percent. The paper also shows that after removing 30 principal-component foreground modes, the residual map behaves like thermal noise at about 1.6 mJy. If these numbers hold, CRAFTS is a viable path to large-scale HI structure measurements.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pairing of two backends in calibration: the pulsar backend resolves the 198.6 microsecond noise-diode on/off cycle, giving a per-0.2-second measure of gain and noise-diode response, while the spectrum backend supplies 7.6 kHz spectral resolution that is later rebinned to 30 kHz. The ratio of spectrum-backend power to pulsar-backend power, together with the noise-on minus noise-off difference, factors the response into bandpass and temporal drift components; the absolute scale comes from the measured noise-diode temperature $T_{\rm ND}(\nu)$ and aperture efficiency $\eta(\theta_{\rm ZA},\nu)$. A per-day least-squares flux correction $c_f$ fitted to isolated NVSS sources (Eq. 24) absorbs residual scale errors, including a known noise-injection overflow effect in early data.

What would settle it

Re-compute the continuum flux comparison with the 447 sources divided by sky position, by flux, and by which of the 19 beams detected them: if the per-day correction factor actually varies across those splits, the residuals relative to NVSS will show systematic trends instead of scatter around zero, and the 8.3% and 6.6% errors will grow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the calibrated CRAFTS data product is of sufficient quality for HI intensity mapping: the calibrated time-ordered data reach a noise level of $\sim 5.7$ mJy and the map $\sim 1.6$ mJy per beam, within 5% of theoretical predictions at RFI-free channels, while continuum source fluxes agree with NVSS at 8.3% (time-ordered data) and 6.6% (map level) and HI integral fluxes agree with HI-MaNGA at 16.7%. The pipeline achieves this by using the pulsar backend's high-cadence noise injection to calibrate bandpass and temporal drift, applying absolute flux calibration from noise-diode temperature and aperture efficiency, and then correcting residual day-to-day scale errors with a per-day flux correction factor fitted to NVSS-selected point sources. This is presented as the first systematic feasibility assessment for cosmological HI detection with CRAFTS.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single per-day flux correction factor, fitted to bright isolated NVSS sources, absorbs all day-dependent calibration errors (noise overflow, noise-diode and efficiency amplitude variations) without overfitting or biasing the validation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 270 deg2 calibrated cube gives a working testbed for HI power-spectrum estimation at redshift $0<z<0.07$ and $0.23<z<0.35$, the frequency bands left after masking the strong RFI band.
  • The stated flux agreement (8.3% on time-ordered data, 6.6% on maps, 16.7% on HI integrals) defines the current calibration floor that any cosmological analysis with CRAFTS must fold into its error budget.
  • The PCA result that residual maps become thermal-noise-dominated at $\sim1.6$ mJy after removing 30 modes means foreground subtraction is not the immediate limiting step; the next limit is scheduled observing time.
  • The larger point-source errors for outer-ring beams (9.3% versus 6.7% for the central beam) point to the beam model as the next improvement, since a Gaussian profile was assumed for flux fitting.
  • Residual beam and day stripes at $\sim0.1$ K, reduced from several kelvins by temporal baseline subtraction, can be further suppressed by repeated scans, which the survey already plans.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the per-day flux correction factor varies across the field, the quoted flux errors are optimistic: splitting the 447 calibrators by sky position or flux and re-fitting would show residual trends, and this can be done with data already in hand.
  • The paper's own account of the noise-overflow effect implies data taken before winter 2021 carry a roughly 30% scale error that is only removed per-day; co-adding those days with later data without modelling day-to-day discontinuities would bias any stacked HI auto-spectrum.
  • The standing-wave removal is confined to a narrow delay-space peak around $k_\parallel \sim 2\,h\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$ at $z\sim0.07$; injecting simulated standing waves through the same pipeline would turn this claimed confinement into a quantified transfer function for the auto-spectrum.
  • A natural end-to-end test that needs no new observations is cross-correlating the cleaned 270 deg2 map with an optical galaxy catalog in the footprint; given the stated noise level, a detected cross-signal would validate the whole calibration chain for cosmology.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents the calibration and data-processing pipeline for 70 hours of CRAFTS drift-scan observations with the FAST L-band 19-beam receiver, covering 270 deg^2. The pipeline combines pulsar-backend noise-diode calibration with spectrum-backend data, applies RFI flagging, temporal drift and baseline corrections, a per-day flux correction factor fitted to NVSS point sources, map-making, and standing-wave removal. Validation includes comparison of TOD and map noise levels with radiometer predictions, PCA foreground removal tests, continuum flux comparison with 447 NVSS sources (8.3% TOD, 6.6% map), and HI integral flux comparison with 90 HI-MaNGA galaxies (16.7%). The paper concludes that the calibrated data are suitable for further HI intensity mapping and galaxy studies.

Significance. If the validation holds, this is a useful methods paper for the HI intensity mapping community: it is the first detailed calibration and pipeline description for CRAFTS data, it quantifies systematics such as the high-cadence noise-injection overflow, and it provides an end-to-end product (calibrated TOD and maps) that can serve future cosmological analyses. The noise-level comparison with the theoretical radiometer expectation is carefully done, and the HI-MaNGA comparison is strengthened by re-processing the GBT spectra with the same baseline and integration choices as the CRAFTS data. However, the continuum flux validation is partially circular because the per-day correction factor is fitted to the same NVSS sources that are later used to quote the flux errors, so the reported 8.3%/6.6% values measure scatter around a fitted line rather than absolute flux accuracy. This limits the strength of one of the paper's headline claims.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.7, Eq. (24); Sec. 5.1.1; Fig. 25] The continuum flux validation is partially circular. The per-day correction factor c_f is obtained by least-squares fitting to NVSS-selected point sources (Sec. 3.7, Eq. 24), and the same 447 sources are then used in Sec. 5.1.1 to report the 8.3% (TOD) and 6.6% (map) relative flux errors. The mean agreement is therefore guaranteed by construction; only the scatter around the fitted line has evidential value. The manuscript should explicitly state this limitation, report the uncorrected flux residuals before applying c_f, and, if possible, test the stability of c_f across beams, time, and source flux. An independent absolute flux check (e.g., a calibrator observation or a comparison at a different frequency band with a different catalog) is needed to support the claim of accurate absolute calibration.
  2. [Sec. 6 (Summary)] There is a numerical inconsistency in the reported map-level continuum flux error. Sec. 5.1.2 and the abstract report a relative flux error of 6.6% for the map, while Sec. 6 states 'we measure the flux of 447 continuum point sources near 1400 MHz. Compared with the NVSS catalog, our results yield a relative flux error of ~8.3% for TOD and ~11.6% for the map.' The 11.6% figure appears nowhere else and contradicts the 6.6% in Sec. 5.1.2 and the abstract. This needs to be corrected, since the map flux error is one of the headline validation numbers.
  3. [Sec. 5.2; Table A1] The reported HI integral flux error of 16.7% is computed after excluding three galaxies with xi_mask > 0.1 (Sec. 5.2), but the abstract and Sec. 6 report this value without mentioning the exclusion. Since the exclusion criterion is a quality cut that improves the apparent agreement, the manuscript should either report the error with and without the three excluded galaxies, or at minimum state the exclusion explicitly in the abstract and summary.
  4. [Eq. (35); Table A1] The definition of the relative flux error in Eq. (35), deltaS = (S_CRAFTS - S_NVSS)/sqrt(S_CRAFTS * S_NVSS), is not applicable when S_CRAFTS is negative, because the denominator is imaginary. Table A1 contains such cases: for source 61 (HI-MaNGA 8604-9102), F_HI,FAST = -0.64 Jy km/s, yet a finite value deltaS = -226.49 is listed. The manuscript does not explain how negative flux measurements are handled in the reported 16.7% median error. This needs to be clarified, either by modifying the error definition, by excluding non-detections from this statistic, or by stating the convention used.
  5. [Sec. 5.1.1; Sec. 3.7] The paper itself provides evidence that a single per-day scalar correction factor c_f cannot fully absorb the calibration errors: the relative flux errors are 6.7% (central beam), 7.2% (inner circle), and 9.3% (outer circle). These beam-dependent residuals are expected if the effective beam shape or the calibration parameters vary across the 19-beam receiver, but the manuscript presents c_f as a day-dependent scalar and does not discuss this as a limitation of the absolute flux scale. The authors should quantify the beam-to-beam variation in c_f and either adopt a beam-dependent correction or state explicitly that the quoted flux errors do not include this systematic component.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.7] The reference to 'Fig. 3.5' in the paragraph following Eq. (24) appears to be a typo; the correct reference should be Fig. 15.
  2. [Sec. 4.2] The text states 'the flux correction factor (e.g. fc=1.26 in Fig. 15)', but the variable is defined as c_f in Sec. 3.7. The symbol should be c_f for consistency.
  3. [Sec. 5.2] There is a typo: 'CRFATS' should be 'CRAFTS' in the sentence beginning 'Nevertheless, the comparable results given by FAST confirm...'.
  4. [Sec. 5.1.2] In the description of the DAOStarFinder settings, 'FWHM = add sqrt(FWHM^2_beam + FWHM^2_kernel)' contains the stray word 'add'; the intended expression is likely the square root of the sum of squares.
  5. [Sec. 4.4; Abstract] The abstract states that the noise level is 'consistent with the theoretical predictions within 5% at RFI-free channels.' This statement applies cleanly to the map (Sec. 4.4, right panel), but for the TOD the observed noise at 1050-1150 MHz is 6.2 mJy, which is approximately 10-15% above the theoretical level at that band, as acknowledged in Sec. 4.4. The wording should be adjusted to avoid overstating agreement for the TOD.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Flux validation is partially circular: the per-day correction factor fitted to NVSS sources sets the flux scale that the same NVSS sources are then used to 'validate'.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.7 (Eq. 24) -> Sec. 5.1.1 (Fig. 25); same NVSS reference reused in Sec. 5.1.2 (Fig. 26) and quoted in the Abstract.]
    "Since there is no specific sky calibrator observation in CRAFTS data, we perform a systematic correction using the measured results of a group of known continuum point sources. These sources are carefully selected from the NVSS catalog ... We calculate a correction factor cf for each day’s observation by the least square fitting of the blue crosses in Fig. 15 with the function y = cf · x. The processed TOD is then corrected by T c(t, ν) = T c 2 (t, ν)/cf ... With the selection criteria and source measurement method mentioned in Sec."

    In Sec. 3.7 the per-day scalar cf is obtained by least-squares fitting y = cf·x to NVSS-selected point sources, and Eq. (24) divides the calibrated TOD by this cf. The 447-source 'validation' in Sec. 5.1.1, and the map version in Sec. 5.1.2, use the same NVSS catalog and the same selection criteria, so the absolute multiplicative flux scale of the data is set to agree with NVSS before the relative flux error is computed. The reported 8.3% (TOD) and 6.6% (map) therefore measure scatter around the fitted scale rather than the accuracy of the absolute flux calibration; the mean agreement is forced by construction. This is a fitted input being reported as a validation result.

full rationale

The headline continuum-flux validation is partially circular. In Sec. 3.7 a per-day multiplicative factor cf is least-squares fitted to NVSS-selected point sources (y = cf·x), and Eq. (24) divides the calibrated TOD by cf. The same NVSS catalog and the same selection criteria are then used in Sec. 5.1.1 and Sec. 5.1.2 to report 8.3% (TOD) and 6.6% (map) relative flux errors. The per-day scale is therefore forced to agree with NVSS by construction; the quoted errors measure scatter around the fitted scale, not the accuracy of the absolute flux scale. This is not a total circularity: the scatter is informative, and the radiometer-noise comparison (Sec. 4.4) and the HI-MaNGA comparison (Sec. 5.2) are independent external checks. The pipeline reuses prior work by the same group (fpipe, Li et al. 2023; ZP beam model, Zhao et al. 2024), but these are methodological reuse or quantified comparisons rather than load-bearing circular citations. I also note an internal inconsistency: the abstract reports 6.6% map-level error while the summary reports 11.6% for the map; this is a correctness concern, not a circularity. Overall, one validation metric reduces by construction while the central feasibility argument retains independent support, so the circularity is partial (6/10).

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

The central claims rest on several chosen or fitted parameters, most importantly the per-day flux correction factor cf and the number of PCA modes. The axioms are standard single-dish calibration assumptions, several of which are partially validated within the paper.

free parameters (6)
  • Per-day flux correction factor cf = 1.26 for one 2021 observation; 0.95-1.05 for post-winter-2021 data
    Least-squares fit to NVSS-selected isolated bright sources to correct noise-overflow and TND/eta amplitude errors (Sec. 3.7).
  • SumThreshold first threshold chi_1 = 10
    First RFI flagging threshold in SumThreshold algorithm (Sec. 3.3); chosen to balance RFI rejection and source preservation.
  • SIR flagging threshold eta_SIR = 95%
    Fraction of flagged samples required in a sub-sequence for SIR extension (Sec. 3.3).
  • Number of PCA foreground modes N_fg = 30
    Modes removed before assessing residual noise; chosen by eigenvalue plateau (Sec. 4.5).
  • Bad-data kurtosis/skewness threshold = 3 sigma
    Excludes 43 beam-polarization-days (6.7% of data) flagged by iterative 3 sigma outlier criterion (Sec. 3.4, Appendix C).
  • HI galaxy RFI rejection threshold xi_mask = 0.1
    Galaxies with more than 10% masked data points are excluded from the 16.7% HI flux error (Sec. 5.2).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Gain separability: g(t,nu) = g_t(t) * g_nu(nu) for both backends (Eq. 4).
    Assumes time and frequency gain fluctuations are independent; validated by Fig. 10 showing bandpass stability at about 1% level.
  • domain assumption Bandpass shape is stable over each 5-hour observation.
    Invoked in Sec. 3.2 to justify time-averaged bandpass calibration.
  • domain assumption Noise diode temperature T_ND(nu) measured periodically by hot-load is representative for each observation date.
    Used for absolute calibration (Eqs. 12 and 19); variation about 5% as shown in Appendix A.
  • domain assumption Aperture efficiency eta(theta_ZA,nu) from Jiang et al. (2020) describes the telescope at the time of these observations.
    No per-observation sky calibrator; Sec. 3.5 relies on this fitting result.
  • domain assumption Beam pattern is approximated as Gaussian for source measurement.
    Sec. 3.7, point 4; justified only by a less than 3% difference from the Zernike model within the main beam.
  • standard math Noise covariance is diagonal in map-making (Eq. 25).
    Standard assumption of uncorrelated radiometer noise per sample.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CRAFTS for HI cosmology: I. data processing pipeline and validation tests." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SVYQBBIJ

@misc{pith2026241208173,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CRAFTS for HI cosmology: I. data processing pipeline and validation tests},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SVYQBBIJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08173}
}
abstract

We present the calibration procedures and validation of source measurement with the data of the Commensal Radio Astronomy FAST Survey (CRAFTS) for \HI intensity mapping by the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical Radio Telescope (FAST). Using 70-hour drift-scan observation with the L-band (1.05-1.45GHz) 19-beam receiver, we obtain the data covering $270\,\rm deg^2$ sky area. We employ both the pulsar backend and the spectrum backend to calibrate the spectral time-ordered-data (TOD) before projecting them onto HEALPix maps. We produce calibrated TOD with frequency resolution of 30kHz and time resolution of 1s and the map data-cube with frequency resolution of 30kHz and spatial resolution of $2.95\,\rm arcmin^2$. We examine the pointing errors, noise overflow, RFI contamination and their effect on the data quality. The resulting noise level is $\sim$ 5.7mJy for the calibrated TOD and 1.6mJy for the map, consistent with the theoretical predictions within 5\% at RFI-free channels. We also validate the data by Principal Components Analysis (PCA) and find the residual map looks thermal noise dominated after removing 30 modes. We identify 447 isolated bright continuum sources in our data matching the NRAO-VLA Sky Survey (NVSS) catalog, with relative flux error of 8.3\% for TOD and 6.6\% for the map-level. We also measure the \HI emission of 90 galaxies with redshift $z<0.07$ and compare with \HI-MaNGA spectra, yielding an overall relative \HI integral flux error of 16.7\%. These results provide an important first step in assessing the feasibility of conducting cosmological \HI detection with CRAFTS.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08173 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Relative position of the pointing of 19 beams in CRAFTS observation. The 19 beams are rotated by 23.4◦ for best sampling. The blue circles mark the beam size of ∼ 3 arc minutes. In this paper, we add “M” before the beam number to indicate that the data is obtained from the corresponding beam. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Time [s] noise off noise on Power ... ... ... ... Time Sampling of Spectrum and Pulsar Backend data Spectrum … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Time sampling for the spectrum backend (green dashed vertical line) and the pulsar backend (red dotted vertical line). The blue solid line represents the variation of data with periodic noise injection. Note that there are actually over 1000 noise on/off periods within 0.2 s. However, for clarity, we display only a few of them and use three dots to indicate the omission. CRAFTS1 (Li et al. 2018) is one of the key pr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A schematic plot of CRAFTS drift scan survey. Different colors represent different days’ observations. The circles mark the position of 19 beams. data simultaneously. For the wide-band spectrum backend, the time resolution is ∆t ∼ 0.2s and the frequency resolution is ∆ν ∼ 7.6kHz, while the pulsar backend is ∆t ∼ 96.304µs and ∆ν ∼ 122kHz. For illustration, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (23 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sky coverage of CRAFTS from February 2020 until July 31, 2024. The gray shadow represents the Haslam radio continuum all-sky map at 408MHz (Remazeilles et al. 2015) with darker areas indicating stronger foreground radiation. Stripes of different colors represent differ…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Waterfall plot of the uncalibrated time-ordered data from one 5-hr scan taken by the spectrum backend of one beam and one polarization (M01, XX polarization). The color represents the value of data with no units because they are raw receiver readings with no direct phy…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Time averaged spectra of uncalibrated time-ordered-data of all 19 beams (XX polarization, ∼ 0.5 hour averaged). The x-axis shows frequency bands and the y-axis (Vspec) shows the value of raw receiver readings with no unit. Different colors represent different beams. Th…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Frequency averaged time stream of uncalibrated data of all 19 beams (XX polarization, 1300-1450MHz averaged). The x-axis shows the time range and the y-axis (Vspec) shows the value of raw receiver readings with no unit. Different colors represent different beams [PITH…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Noise-on (orange line) and noise-off (blue line) spec￾tra from the pulsar backend for M01, XX polarization, ∼ 0.5 hour averaged. The values represent the raw receiver reading with no unit. The grey shadow marks the RFI-contaminated frequency band 1150-1300MHz. chart in…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the bandpass shape of nine 0.5-hour time blocks taken during one 5-hour observation. Upper panel: bandpass normalized by its median value. Lower panel: bandpass at each time block relative to the all-time-block averaged band￾pass. Each colored line repre…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Left: < Vpsr,on(t, ν) − Vpsr,off (t, ν) >t before (blue line) and after (orange line) smoothing. Right: < Vspec(t,ν) Vpsr(t,ν) >t before (blue line) and after (orange line) smoothing. The grey shadows in the two plots are the 1150MHz-1300MHz RFI contaminated band. in …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Left: Percentage of flagged points at each frequency channel for 5 hours observation. The blue line shows the result by SumThreshold and the orange line shows result from SumThreshold and SIR algorithm. The grey shadow marks the frequency range (1150-1300MHz) severely…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Examples of gt,spec(t) before and after smoothing. The blue line and orange line in each sub-plot show the gt,spec before and after smoothing, respectively. Top: a normal gt,spec. Middle: gt,spec with an abrupt jump at ∼ 2.2h. Bottom: gt,spec with violent fluctuations…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Upper: Temporal fluctuations of 19 beams from one day’s observation as an example. The temporal variation for each beam has been centered by subtracting the median value over tobs and unmasked frequency channels. Different colors represent dif￾ferent beams. The black …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Comparison between flux measured by FAST and NVSS catalog for 30 sources scanned in Dec+4037 10 05. Blue crosses are for FAST measurement before flux correction. Red circles are with FAST flux after correction. The black line is the y = x line for comparison. of ∼4 mi…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Waterfall plot of TOD after all calibration and correction processes for ∼ 5h observation of Dec+4142 12 05, M01, XX polarization. The color represents the temperature and the blank areas are flagged RFIs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Map-making result for the 5h × 5deg sky area at RA from 12h to 17h, Dec from ∼ 40◦ to ∼ 45◦ . This map is the averaged intensity of 1315-1415MHz. We present the 1315-1415 MHz averaged map of ∼ 270 deg2 of the sky from ∼ 70 hours observation in 17 days in [PITH_FULL_I…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Left: an example of the comparison of the spectrum at one pixel before (blue line in upper panel) and after (red line in upper panel) standing waves removal. Note that the red line has been artificially shifted downward by 15 mJy for clearer comparison. The line in th…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Left figure: pointing deviation during ∼ 5 hours observation for Dec+4142 12 05 at October 25, 2022. The upper panel shows the error of RA and the lower panel shows the error of Dec. Right figure: enlarged figure of the left figure at time range from t ∼ 500s to t ∼ 6…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Left: Sky map of the mask array with the colorbar representing the mask fraction at each pixel, averaged over 1315-1415MHz. Right: mask fraction at different frequency channels in the 1315-1415MHz band. Theoretically, the sensitivity of the telescope can be esti￾mated…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Left: noise level of calibrated TOD from 19 beams. The red line represents the noise level of the frequency band 1050-1150 MHz while the blue line shows the noise level of the 1300-1450 MHz band. The red and blue dashed lines represent the averaged theoretical noise l…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Sky map averaged over RFI-free channels in the 1315-1415 MHz band after 30 foreground modes removed by PCA. The blank areas are RFI-contaminated regions according to the discussion in Sec. 4.3. ical HI signal. Relying on the widely accepted assumption that these brigh…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Noise level of the PCA modes removed maps. The black thick line is the noise level of the map containing all RFI-free frequency channels between 1315-1415 MHz and each colored line represents an individual frequency channel. The gray dashed line and the gray shadow al…
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Spectrum (left) and time-stream data (right) of source NVSS J134335+413656 as an example of continuum point sources measure￾ment with CRAFTS TOD. In the left figure, the blue line shows our measured spectrum, with the flux obtained by averaging the data within each 10…
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Top: comparison of the flux of 447 continuum point sources measured by CRAFTS TOD to NVSS catalog in the 1375- 1425 MHz band. The black line marks equal flux. Different colors distinguish the source measured by beams at different positions, i.e. blue circles for the c…
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: Sky map (left) and spectra (right) of the galaxy HI-MaNGA 8260-12703 as an example of HI galaxies measured by CRAFTS and GBT HI-MaNGA observation. Left: The sky map averaged over 1.4MHz near this galaxy. The colors represent the intensity at each pixel, the cross mark…
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: Left: comparison of the flux of 90 sources measured on CRAFTS map and in GBT HI-MaNGA catalog. The black line is the y = x relation and each blue dot represents one source. Right: histogram of the relative error of the HI integral flux. ences in the frequency resoluti…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Exploring HI Galaxy Redshift Survey Strategies for the FAST Core Array Interferometry

    astro-ph.CO 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Simulations find the FAST Core Array interferometer can detect HI galaxies to z~1 with enough number density for power spectrum and BAO constraints, while single-dish surveys are shot-noise limited beyond z~0.35.

  2. Searching for axion dark matter gegenschein of the Vela supernova remnant with FAST

    astro-ph.CO 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 26.4-hour search with FAST finds no axion gegenschein toward Vela, constraining the axion-photon coupling to below about 2e-10 GeV^-1 for axion masses 8.7-9.44 and 10.85-12.01 micro-eV.

  3. FAST Drift Scan Survey for HI Intensity Mapping. II. Stacking-based Beam Construction of the 19-feed Array at $1.4$ GHz

    astro-ph.IM 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A stacking analysis of NVSS point sources in FAST drift-scan data gives per-feed beam maps, modeled with Zernike polynomials, showing sidelobes strengthen with distance from the array center.

  4. The FAST HI 21-cm Absorption Blind Survey. III. OH Absorption Search in the 21-cm Absorber Sample and Continued HI Absorption Search

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    A blind FAST survey of 41 HI absorbers re-detected the known OH absorber PKS 1413+135, found no new OH, and set [OH]/[HI] upper limits near 1e-8.

  5. FAST drift scan survey for HI intensity mapping: simulation on Bayesian-stacking-based HI mass function estimation

    astro-ph.CO 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using IllustrisTNG simulations, the authors forecast that Bayesian stacking of FAST HI intensity mapping data can measure the HI mass function for red and blue galaxies with a pilot survey, and that sample variance, n...

  6. Cosmology with HI Intensity Mapping

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

    SKAO HI intensity mapping forecasts yield competitive LambdaCDM constraints (e.g. H0 to ~0.3 km/s/Mpc optimistic) via power spectrum, BAO, bispectrum and stacking, complementary to CMB and optical surveys.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    @NXKK=G WB: Jho ?F6,?=Gq<Pjs lle.t@ ؚ..'&0

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

    work page arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    G., & Santos , M

    Alonso , D., Bull , P., Ferreira , P. G., & Santos , M. G. 2015, , 447, 400, 10.1093/mnras/stu2474

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2474 2015

  5. [5]

    2023, , 947, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb13f

    Amiri , M., Bandura , K., Chen , T., et al. 2023, , 947, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb13f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb13f 2023

  6. [6]

    2023, , 130, 181001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.181001

    An , H., Ge , S., Guo , W.-Q., et al. 2023, , 130, 181001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.181001

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.130.181001 2023

  7. [7]

    J., Luciw , N

    Anderson , C. J., Luciw , N. J., Li , Y. C., et al. 2018, , 476, 3382, 10.1093/mnras/sty346

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty346 2018

  8. [8]

    2015, Analyst, 140, 250

    Baek, S.-J., Park, A., Ahn, Y.-J., & Choo, J. 2015, Analyst, 140, 250

    work page 2015

Show all 81 references
  1. [10]

    C., Kovetz, E

    Breysse, P. C., Kovetz, E. D., & Kamionkowski, M. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 443, 3506, 10.1093/mnras/stu1312

    2014 doi

  2. [11]

    G., Patel , P., & Santos , M

    Bull , P., Ferreira , P. G., Patel , P., & Santos , M. G. 2015, , 803, 21, 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/21

    2015 doi

  3. [12]

    Carilli , C. L. 2011, Astrophysical Journal, Letters, 730, L30, 10.1088/2041-8205/730/2/L30

    2011 doi

  4. [13]

    P., Irfan , M

    Carucci , I. P., Irfan , M. O., & Bobin , J. 2020, , 499, 304, 10.1093/mnras/staa2854

    2020 doi

  5. [14]

    P., Bernal , J

    Carucci , I. P., Bernal , J. L., Cunnington , S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.06750, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.06750

    2024 doi

  6. [15]

    Chang , T.-C., Pen , U.-L., Bandura , K., & Peterson , J. B. 2010, , 466, 463, 10.1038/nature09187

    2010 doi

  7. [16]

    B., & McDonald , P

    Chang , T.-C., Pen , U.-L., Peterson , J. B., & McDonald , P. 2008, Physical Review Letters, 100, 091303, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.091303

    2008 doi

  8. [17]

    2012, in International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Chen , X. 2012, in International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series, Vol. 12, International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series, 256--263, 10.1142/S2010194512006459

    2012 doi

  9. [18]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 085022, 10.1088/1674-4527/acd89d

    Chen , Y., Wang , P., Li , D., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 085022, 10.1088/1674-4527/acd89d

    2023 doi

  10. [19]

    J., Cotton , W

    Condon , J. J., Cotton , W. D., Greisen , E. W., et al. 1998, , 115, 1693, 10.1086/300337

    1998 doi

  11. [20]

    O., Carucci , I

    Cunnington , S., Irfan , M. O., Carucci , I. P., Pourtsidou , A., & Bobin , J. 2021, , 504, 208, 10.1093/mnras/stab856

    2021 doi

  12. [21]

    G., et al

    Cunnington , S., Li , Y., Santos , M. G., et al. 2023, , 518, 6262, 10.1093/mnras/stac3060

    2023 doi

  13. [22]

    E., Hall , P

    Dewdney , P. E., Hall , P. J., Schilizzi , R. T., & Lazio , T. J. L. W. 2009, IEEE Proceedings, 97, 1482, 10.1109/JPROC.2009.2021005

    2009

  14. [23]

    J., Jurek , R

    Drinkwater , M. J., Jurek , R. J., Blake , C., et al. 2010, , 401, 1429, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15754.x

    2010

  15. [24]

    P., Bellstedt , S., Robotham , A

    Driver , S. P., Bellstedt , S., Robotham , A. S. G., et al. 2022, , 513, 439, 10.1093/mnras/stac472

    2022 doi

  16. [25]

    G., Fonseca , J., et al

    Engelbrecht , B., Santos , M. G., Fonseca , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.17908, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.17908

    2024 doi arXiv

  17. [26]

    2022, Science, 375, 1266, 10.1126/science.abl7759

    Feng , Y., Li , D., Yang , Y.-P., et al. 2022, Science, 375, 1266, 10.1126/science.abl7759

    2022 doi

  18. [27]

    Fonseca , J., Maartens , R., & Santos , M. G. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 3490, 10.1093/mnras/sty1702

    2018 doi

  19. [28]

    2023, , 107, 103011, 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.103011

    Guo , W.-Q., Li , Y., Huang , X., et al. 2023, , 107, 103011, 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.103011

    2023 doi

  20. [29]

    P., Giovanelli , R., Martin , A

    Haynes , M. P., Giovanelli , R., Martin , A. M., et al. 2011, , 142, 170, 10.1088/0004-6256/142/5/170

    2011 doi

  21. [30]

    P., Giovanelli , R., Kent , B

    Haynes , M. P., Giovanelli , R., Kent , B. R., et al. 2018, , 861, 49, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac956

    2018 doi

  22. [31]

    2020, , 493, 5854, 10.1093/mnras/staa650

    Hu , W., Wang , X., Wu , F., et al. 2020, , 493, 5854, 10.1093/mnras/staa650

    2020 doi

  23. [32]

    2021, , 508, 2897, 10.1093/mnras/stab2728

    Hu , W., Li , Y., Wang , Y., et al. 2021, , 508, 2897, 10.1093/mnras/stab2728

    2021 doi

  24. [33]

    2023, , 675, A40, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245549

    Hu , W., Wang , Y., Li , Y., et al. 2023, , 675, A40, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245549

    2023 doi

  25. [34]

    O., Li , Y., Santos , M

    Irfan , M. O., Li , Y., Santos , M. G., et al. 2024, , 527, 4717, 10.1093/mnras/stad3457

    2024 doi

  26. [35]

    2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 959502, 10.1007/s11433-018-9376-1

    Jiang , P., Yue , Y., Gan , H., et al. 2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 959502, 10.1007/s11433-018-9376-1

    2019 doi

  27. [36]

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

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

    2020 doi

  28. [37]

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

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

    2018

  29. [38]

    W., et al

    Li , D., Wang , P., Zhu , W. W., et al. 2021 a , , 598, 267, 10.1038/s41586-021-03878-5

    2021 doi

  30. [39]

    G., Grainge , K., Harper , S., & Wang , J

    Li , Y., Santos , M. G., Grainge , K., Harper , S., & Wang , J. 2021 b , , 501, 4344, 10.1093/mnras/staa3856

    2021 doi

  31. [40]

    2023, , 954, 139, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace896

    Li , Y., Wang , Y., Deng , F., et al. 2023, , 954, 139, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace896

    2023 doi

  32. [41]

    2022, , 658, A140, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141477

    Liu , X., Wu , Y., Zhang , C., et al. 2022, , 658, A140, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141477

    2022 doi

  33. [42]

    Loeb , A., & Wyithe , J. S. B. 2008, Physical Review Letters, 100, 161301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.161301

    2008 doi

  34. [43]

    L., Stark , D

    Masters , K. L., Stark , D. V., Pace , Z. J., et al. 2019, , 488, 3396, 10.1093/mnras/stz1889

    2019 doi

  35. [44]

    W., Switzer , E

    Masui , K. W., Switzer , E. R., Banavar , N., et al. 2013, , 763, L20, 10.1088/2041-8205/763/1/L20

    2013 doi

  36. [45]

    D., Spinelli , M., Santos , M

    Matshawule , S. D., Spinelli , M., Santos , M. G., & Ngobese , S. 2021, , 506, 5075, 10.1093/mnras/stab1688

    2021 doi

  37. [46]

    L., et al

    MeerKLASS Collaboration , Barberi-Squarotti , M., Bernal , J. L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.21626, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.21626

    2024 doi arXiv

  38. [47]

    J., Zwaan , M

    Meyer , M. J., Zwaan , M. A., Webster , R. L., et al. 2004, , 350, 1195, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07710.x

    2004

  39. [48]

    C., Zhu , W

    Miao , C. C., Zhu , W. W., Li , D., et al. 2023, , 518, 1672, 10.1093/mnras/stac1305

    2023 doi

  40. [49]

    Moradinezhad Dizgah , A., & Keating , G. K. 2019, Astrophysical Journal, 872, 126, 10.3847/1538-4357/aafd36

    2019 doi

  41. [50]

    2022, , 934, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a34

    Ni , S., Li , Y., Gao , L.-Y., & Zhang , X. 2022, , 934, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a34

    2022 doi

  42. [51]

    2021, , 909, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/abe7f0

    Niu , C.-H., Li , D., Luo , R., et al. 2021, , 909, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/abe7f0

    2021 doi

  43. [52]

    H., Aggarwal , K., Li , D., et al

    Niu , C. H., Aggarwal , K., Li , D., et al. 2022, , 606, 873, 10.1038/s41586-022-04755-5

    2022 doi

  44. [53]

    2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    O'Neil , K. 2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 278, Single-Dish Radio Astronomy: Techniques and Applications, ed. S. Stanimirovic , D. Altschuler , P. Goldsmith , & C. Salter , 293--311. astro-ph/0203001

    2002 arXiv

  45. [54]

    M., Lorimer , D

    Pan , Z., Ransom , S. M., Lorimer , D. R., et al. 2020, , 892, L6, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab799d

    2020 doi

  46. [55]

    G., Chen , Z., & Wolz , L

    Paul , S., Santos , M. G., Chen , Z., & Wolz , L. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.11943, 10.48550/arXiv.2301.11943

    2023 doi arXiv

  47. [56]

    B., Aleksan , R., Ansari , R., et al

    Peterson , J. B., Aleksan , R., Ansari , R., et al. 2009, in astro2010: The Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey, Vol. 2010, 234, 10.48550/arXiv.0902.3091

    2009 doi arXiv

  48. [57]

    2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 959508, 10.1007/s11433-018-9354-y

    Qian , L., Pan , Z., Li , D., et al. 2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 959508, 10.1007/s11433-018-9354-y

    2019 doi

  49. [58]

    J., Bigot-Sazy , M

    Remazeilles , M., Dickinson , C., Banday , A. J., Bigot-Sazy , M. A., & Ghosh , T. 2015, , 451, 4311, 10.1093/mnras/stv1274

    2015 doi

  50. [59]

    2022, , 516, 5454, 10.1093/mnras/stac2484

    Rubiola , A., Cunnington , S., & Camera , S. 2022, , 516, 5454, 10.1093/mnras/stac2484

    2022 doi

  51. [60]

    2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 19

    Santos , M., Bull , P., Alonso , D., et al. 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 19. 1501.03989

    2015 arXiv

  52. [61]

    S., & Allen , R

    Shostak , G. S., & Allen , R. J. 1980, , 81, 167

    1980

  53. [62]

    P., Cunnington , S., et al

    Spinelli , M., Carucci , I. P., Cunnington , S., et al. 2022, , 509, 2048, 10.1093/mnras/stab3064

    2022 doi

  54. [63]

    J., Battye , R

    Square Kilometre Array Cosmology Science Working Group , Bacon , D. J., Battye , R. A., et al. 2020, , 37, e007, 10.1017/pasa.2019.51

    2020 doi

  55. [64]

    V., Masters , K

    Stark , D. V., Masters , K. L., Avila-Reese , V., et al. 2021, , 503, 1345, 10.1093/mnras/stab566

    2021 doi

  56. [65]

    Stetson , P. B. 1987, , 99, 191, 10.1086/131977

    1987 doi

  57. [66]

    2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 282, 10.1088/1674-4527/21/11/282

    Sun , X.-H., Meng , M.-N., Gao , X.-Y., et al. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 282, 10.1088/1674-4527/21/11/282

    2021 doi

  58. [67]

    R., Chang , T

    Switzer , E. R., Chang , T. C., Masui , K. W., Pen , U. L., & Voytek , T. C. 2015, , 815, 51, 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/51

    2015 doi

  59. [68]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 077, 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/77

    Tang , N.-Y., Zuo , P., Li , D., et al. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 077, 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/77

    2020 doi

  60. [69]

    1997, , 480, L87, 10.1086/310631

    Tegmark , M. 1997, , 480, L87, 10.1086/310631

    1997 doi

  61. [70]

    2018, , 866, 135, 10.3847/1538-4357/aadba0

    Villaescusa-Navarro , F., Genel , S., Castorina , E., et al. 2018, , 866, 135, 10.3847/1538-4357/aadba0

    2018 doi

  62. [71]

    G., Bull , P., et al

    Wang , J., Santos , M. G., Bull , P., et al. 2021 a , , 505, 3698, 10.1093/mnras/stab1365

    2021 doi

  63. [72]

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

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

    2021 doi

  64. [73]

    2022, , 39, e058, 10.1017/pasa.2022.50

    Westmeier , T., Deg , N., Spekkens , K., et al. 2022, , 39, e058, 10.1017/pasa.2022.50

    2022 doi

  65. [74]

    B., et al

    Wolz , L., Blake , C., Abdalla , F. B., et al. 2017, , 464, 4938, 10.1093/mnras/stw2556

    2017 doi

  66. [75]

    W., et al

    Wolz , L., Pourtsidou , A., Masui , K. W., et al. 2022, , 510, 3495, 10.1093/mnras/stab3621

    2022 doi

  67. [76]

    2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 015011, 10.1088/1674-4527/ad9653

    Xu , C., Wang , J., Jing , Y., et al. 2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 015011, 10.1088/1674-4527/ad9653

    2025 doi

  68. [77]

    N., et al

    Yao , J., Zhu , W., Manchester , R. N., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 788, 10.1038/s41550-021-01360-w

    2021 doi

  69. [78]

    2024, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 67, 219511, 10.1007/s11433-023-2219-7

    Zhang , C.-P., Zhu , M., Jiang , P., et al. 2024, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 67, 219511, 10.1007/s11433-023-2219-7

    2024 doi

  70. [79]

    2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 959506, 10.1007/s11433-019-9383-y

    Zhang , K., Wu , J., Li , D., et al. 2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 959506, 10.1007/s11433-019-9383-y

    2019 doi

  71. [80]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.02582, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.02582

    Zhao , X., Li , Y., Yang , W., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.02582, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.02582

    2024 doi arXiv

  72. [81]

    M., Allison , J

    Zheng , Z., Li , D., Sadler , E. M., Allison , J. R., & Tang , N. 2020, , 499, 3085, 10.1093/mnras/staa3033

    2020 doi

  73. [82]

    2021, Astronomy and Computing, 34, 100439, 10.1016/j.ascom.2020.100439

    Zuo , S., Li , J., Li , Y., et al. 2021, Astronomy and Computing, 34, 100439, 10.1016/j.ascom.2020.100439

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.