pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.09859 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-10 · 🌌 astro-ph.IM · astro-ph.CO

PEACC -- Precision Emitter for 21 cm Array Coherent Calibration

Kalyani Bhopi , Morgan Cole , Mallory Helfenbein , Will Tyndall , Audrey Whitmer , Kevin Bandura , Laura Newburgh This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.CO
keywords 21 cm intensity mappingradio telescope calibrationdrone-based calibrationcoherent calibration sourcebeam measurementforeground mitigationGPS synchronization
0
0 comments X

The pith

A drone-mounted noise emitter synchronized only by GPS clocks provides the first free-space coherent calibration for 21 cm radio arrays.

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

The paper presents PEACC as a digitally generated wideband noise source designed for aerial deployment to calibrate telescope beams and gains in 21 cm intensity mapping. Foreground separation in these experiments demands precise, wideband beam knowledge that conventional methods struggle to deliver at scale. PEACC achieves coherence by pairing an airborne unit with a reference unit tied directly to the receiver, using only shared GPS timing rather than physical connections. Chamber tests and drone flights over a dish confirmed that the cross-correlated signal outperforms the auto-correlated channel across relevant signal strengths. This approach demonstrates a practical route to high-fidelity digital calibration without wired synchronization.

Core claim

PEACC generates Gaussian noise over a 1.2 GHz bandwidth and is locked to the 1 PPS output of a GPS-disciplined oscillator. A dual-source layout places one emitter on a drone while the second remains connected to the data-acquisition system, enabling direct phase extraction and higher sensitivity at low SNR. Chamber and drone-over-dish measurements showed the correlated channel outperforming auto-correlation in all regimes of interest, establishing the first published free-space coherent calibration signal synchronized solely by clocks and the first such beam measurements obtained from a drone platform.

What carries the argument

Dual-source architecture with one aerial emitter and one reference unit tied to the receiver, both locked to GPS 1 PPS timing, which supplies the common phase reference for coherent cross-correlation without physical cabling.

Load-bearing premise

GPS clock synchronization and free-space propagation introduce no timing or phase errors large enough to destroy the coherence needed for the cross-correlation advantage.

What would settle it

A flight test in which the cross-correlated signal-to-noise ratio fails to exceed the auto-correlated ratio by a statistically significant margin across the target bandwidth and distance range.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09859 by Audrey Whitmer, Kalyani Bhopi, Kevin Bandura, Laura Newburgh, Mallory Helfenbein, Morgan Cole, Will Tyndall.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of the digital calibration source concept, described in detail in the text. In each of the two calibration boards, a GHz-wide Gaussian complex signal is generated once per second in the FPGA and converted to analog using the on-board DAC, with generation triggered by an external PPS and seeded from FPGA memory. One signal is transmitted into the telescope aperture, the other signal is directly… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: System architecture and corresponding blocks of the PEACC source on the RFSoC4×2 platform. (a) Block diagram showing the signal processing chain: the clock conditioning stage processes the incoming 10 MHz external timing reference, up-converting it successively to 245.76 MHz and 409.6 MHz to discipline the RFDC (RF Data Converter) DAC block. The Gaussian noise generator block accepts 1PPS input to reset th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Jitter timestream over the approximately 13 hour measurement period for the reference TO mode clock and the transmission NAV mode clock (a) and the per-second detrended timstreams calculated by dividing out the mean value of each 1s interval (b). The x-axis displays the elapsed time in minutes of the data run and the y axis is the jitter value in nanoseconds determined as the residual or offest from 10MHz … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Upper left) Waterfall representation of the 1 s periodic pulsed calibration signal over ∼ 4 s. Each panel shows the same time period for the auto￾correlation (left), correlated channel (middle) and reference auto-correlation (right). For left panels, the horizontal axis is time spanning over ∼ 4 s and for right panels it is frequency spanning 400-800 MHz. In the correlated channel, the absolute value is s… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Signal-chain configuration for the anechoic-chamber tests. In this test, a 1.2288 GHz bandwidth pseudo-random Gaussian signal was generated and transmitted from the DAC port of the transmission board, attenuated, and sent via 20 m coaxial cable to the omni-directional transmitting antenna mounted on a horizontal rod extending from the chamber wall. The transmitter radiates towards a receiving antenna orien… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Photograph of the anechoic chamber test configuration showing the Aaronia BicoLOG transmitting antenna (right, 30 MHz–1 GHz) radiating towards a CHIME-like cloverleaf feed (left, 400 MHz–800 MHz) mounted on a motorized rotary stage. During beam measurements, the cloverleaf feed is rotated while the omni-directional BicoLOG antenna broadcasts the broadband calibration signal. The absorber lining the chamber… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cross-correlation power as a function of time at four angular positions at 467.97 MHz. The left column shows time series at 𝜃= −35◦ (top) and 𝜃= 10◦ , where the correlation amplitude remains stable. The right column shows the corresponding time series at 𝜃= 115◦ (top) and 𝜃= 130◦ (bottom), where multi-second dips in the correlation amplitude are clearly evident. These transient features are attributed as i… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Beam maps for frequency 550 MHz (a) and 468 MHz (b), extracted from a 1.2288 GHz–wide Gaussian noise band sampled at 3.6864 GHz with a 900 MHz center frequency (285.6-1514.4 MHz). The left y-axis shows the beam amplitude normalized by the boresight amplitude, while the right y-axis shows the same quantity after noise normalization. Gˆ auto and gˆ cross are both plotted, with the former expressed as 𝐺ˆ auto… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Beam amplitude recovery error as a function of 𝐺𝐵 ×𝑇PEACC 𝑇sys in linear units (left) and logarithmic units (right) for auto- and cross-correlation estimates for the anechoic chamber data. A horizontal line at 1% indicates the target precision for beam measurements in the low-SNR regime; In linear space (left), the auto-correlation error falls below the 1% threshold at 𝐺ˆ =0.79, whereas the cross-correlati… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The RTK DJI Matrice 300 RTK drone carrying the full payload hovering over the 3 meter SRT during preliminary centering of the flight trajectory at Yale University (left). Top view (center) and bottom view (right) the drone payload attachment with the Xilinx 4x2 board suspended underneath the drone by PLA attachment brackets and platform, along with the BicoLOG 30100 antenna, Furuno GPS clock (GF-8804 mode… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Signal chain configuration for the drone-based calibration measurements. A 1.2 GHz-wide Gaussian noise signal is transmitted from the drone using a BicoLOG antenna, with the received calibration power level adjusted via attenuators between the DAC output of the noise source and the transmitting antenna. The BicoLOG illuminates the 3 m radio dish, which is pointed boresight-on and co-polarized in the North… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Single drone transit at 50 m altitude over the 3 m dish, recorded cross-correlation spectra (absolute power) at 665.23 MHz with a drone speed 1 m/s (left) and 2.5 m/s (right). Here, medians of the real and imaginary components of the correlated system noise are subtracted from the ON samples of corresponding cross-power spectra to remove constant phase offsets. Shown are median-subtracted ON samples (purp… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Beam maps from drone flights at 665.234 MHz (left) and 680.859 MHz (right), extracted from a 1.2288 GHz-wide Gaussian noise band sampled at 3.6864 GHz with a 200 MHz center frequency (0–814.4 MHz). Overlaid are two flights (1 m/s and 2.5 m/s) and two drone flight passes (North-bound and South-bound) over the dish for each flight. Data from both the auto-correlation and cross-correlation products are binne… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Beam amplitude recovery error (%) as a function of 𝐺𝐵 ×𝑇PEACC 𝑇sys in linear (left) and logarithmic (right) units for auto- and cross-derived gain estimates (1 m/s flight). A horizontal red line marks the 1% target precision for beam measurements. In linear space (left), the auto-correlation errors follow the corresponding simulation curve that drop below 1% at 𝐺ˆ =0.79, whereas the cross-correlation erro… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Distance between drone location and dish center with corresponding measured phase at 663.281 MHz for each of the 4 flight speeds, plotted against UTC timestamps. We observe that geometric phase recovery seems to improve with faster flight speeds, i.e. on shorter timescales. We see noticeable drifting excursions in the 0.1 m/s phase which do not appear in the geometry of the drone flight. Similarly, in the… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Cross-correlated complex phase and amplitude at 663.281MHz from the 2.5m/s and 5m/s northbound and southbound drone transits, plotted as a function of drone angle theta relative to the nominal dish center (positive angles north, negative angles south). The amplitude of each transit have been normalized, and thus we can clearly observe that the phase minima are all offset by different amounts relative to t… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Foreground mitigation remains a central challenge for 21 cm intensity mapping experiments, which require precise, wideband calibration of telescope beams and gains. We present the Precision Emitter for 21 cm Array Coherent Calibration (PEACC), a digitally synthesized calibration source that generates Gaussian noise across a 1.2 GHz bandwidth, time-synchronized to a 1 pulse-per-second output from a GPS-disciplined oscillator, and optimized for aerial deployment. PEACC uses a dual-source architecture with one unit mounted on an aerial platform and a second reference unit connected directly to the radio data acquisition system; this configuration enables improved sensitivity in the low-SNR regime and direct phase measurement. The system further supports configurable band selection, allowing adaptation to various 21 cm intensity mapping telescopes. We validated PEACC through anechoic chamber measurements and by integrating the source on a drone flown over a local radio dish testbed. In both settings, the correlated channel substantially outperformed the auto-correlation channel across all signal-to-noise regimes of interest, confirming the key advantage of the dual-source architecture. To our knowledge, this is the first published demonstration of a free-space coherent calibration signal synchronized only by clocks, the first deployment of such a source on a drone, and the first published beam measurements made with such a source. Given the growing interest in drone-based calibration for 21 cm arrays, this work establishes the feasibility of high-fidelity digital calibration for next-generation 21 cm instruments, and provides a practical path towards improved foreground control and beam calibration in future arrays.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents PEACC, a digitally synthesized Gaussian noise source spanning 1.2 GHz bandwidth, time-synchronized via GPS-disciplined 1PPS outputs. It employs a dual-source architecture (one unit on a drone, one reference unit tied to the data acquisition system) to enable direct phase measurements and improved sensitivity in the low-SNR regime for 21 cm array beam and gain calibration. Validation consists of anechoic chamber measurements and drone flights over a local dish testbed, with the correlated channel reported to substantially outperform auto-correlation. The authors position this as the first published free-space coherent calibration signal synchronized only by clocks, first drone deployment of such a source, and first beam measurements obtained with it.

Significance. If the quantitative results hold, this establishes a practical, clock-synchronized aerial calibration technique that could address foreground mitigation challenges in 21 cm intensity mapping by providing direct phase information without relying on astronomical sources. The dual-source approach for low-SNR phase extraction and the successful drone integration represent a concrete advance for next-generation arrays, with the hardware demonstration providing a reproducible path for similar instruments.

major comments (2)
  1. [Validation results] Validation section (and abstract): the claim that the correlated channel 'substantially outperformed' the auto-correlation channel across SNR regimes is central to the dual-source advantage, yet the manuscript provides no quantitative metrics, error bars, phase RMS values, coherence times, or specific improvement factors from the anechoic or drone tests. Without these, the assertion that timing/propagation errors do not degrade coherence cannot be evaluated.
  2. [System description and validation] Clock synchronization and dual-source architecture: the system relies on GPS 1PPS locking with free-running oscillators between pulses. At 1.2 GHz a ~1 ns rms timing error produces ~4.3 rad phase error, which would destroy coherence. The paper does not report measured short-term stability (Allan deviation), residual phase jitter across the band, or post-processing propagation delay subtraction accuracy from the drone flights, leaving the 'without significant timing or propagation errors' claim unquantified.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] The abstract and introduction would benefit from a brief comparison table or sentence contrasting PEACC with prior drone or ground-based calibration sources to clarify the novelty beyond the 'first published' statements.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for the drone flight and anechoic chamber setups should explicitly note the frequency band used, drone altitude, and any post-processing steps applied to the correlated data.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review. The comments highlight important areas where additional quantitative detail will strengthen the manuscript. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the suggested clarifications and data in a revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Validation results] Validation section (and abstract): the claim that the correlated channel 'substantially outperformed' the auto-correlation channel across SNR regimes is central to the dual-source advantage, yet the manuscript provides no quantitative metrics, error bars, phase RMS values, coherence times, or specific improvement factors from the anechoic or drone tests. Without these, the assertion that timing/propagation errors do not degrade coherence cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We agree that the performance comparison requires explicit quantitative support. In the revised manuscript we will add tables and figures reporting the measured improvement factors between correlated and auto-correlation channels, phase RMS values, error bars, and coherence times extracted from both the anechoic-chamber data and the drone-flight datasets. These additions will directly quantify the dual-source advantage and allow independent assessment of residual timing and propagation effects. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [System description and validation] Clock synchronization and dual-source architecture: the system relies on GPS 1PPS locking with free-running oscillators between pulses. At 1.2 GHz a ~1 ns rms timing error produces ~4.3 rad phase error, which would destroy coherence. The paper does not report measured short-term stability (Allan deviation), residual phase jitter across the band, or post-processing propagation delay subtraction accuracy from the drone flights, leaving the 'without significant timing or propagation errors' claim unquantified.

    Authors: The referee is correct that short-term stability metrics are not currently reported. We will revise the manuscript to include measured Allan deviation of the free-running oscillators on the relevant (sub-second to minute) timescales, estimates of residual phase jitter across the 1.2 GHz band, and the accuracy achieved by post-processing propagation-delay subtraction in the drone data. These quantities will be derived from the existing test datasets and will demonstrate that the effective timing errors remain well below the level that would destroy coherence. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: hardware instrument paper with direct empirical validation

full rationale

The paper presents the design and field testing of a physical calibration source. No derivations, fitted models, predictions, or ansatzes appear in the provided text. Claims rest on chamber measurements and drone flights comparing correlated vs. auto-correlation channels, with no self-referential equations or load-bearing self-citations. The dual-source advantage is shown by direct performance comparison rather than by construction from inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an experimental hardware development paper with no mathematical derivations, fitted parameters, or postulated entities; all claims derive from physical design and direct measurements.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5599 in / 1157 out tokens · 33698 ms · 2026-05-10T15:34:39.400232+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Mapping Cosmological Signal Scales to Beam Calibration Requirements in 21cm Experiments and Implications for Near-Field Measurement

    astro-ph.IM 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    New method maps 21cm cosmological structures to ~100m reflection scales for HERA-like and EDGES-like instruments, showing near-field beam calibration is required.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    E., Alexander P., et al., 2022, ApJ, 925, 221

    Abdurashidova Z., Aguirre J. E., Alexander P., et al., 2022, ApJ, 925, 221

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Amiri M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...976..163A 976, 163

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8133 2024

  3. [3]

    E., Amiri M., et al., 2014, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 9145, 22

    Bandura K., Addison G. E., Amiri M., et al., 2014, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 9145, 22

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Bandura K., et al., 2016, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Instrumentation] 10.1142/S2251171716410051 , 05, 1641005

    work page doi:10.1142/s2251171716410051 2016

  5. [5]

    Bhopi K., Tyndall W., Sanghavi P., Bandura K., Newburgh L., Gallicchio J., 2022, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Instrumentation] 10.1142/s2251171722500167 , 12

    work page doi:10.1142/s2251171722500167 2022

  6. [6]

    Chang C., Monstein C., Refregier A., Amara A., Glauser A., Casura S., 2015, PASP, 127, 1131

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Crichton D., et al., 2022, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 8, 011019

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    , keywords =

    DeBoer D. R., et al., 2017, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of Pacific] 10.1088/1538-3873/129/974/045001 , 129, 045001

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/129/974/045001 2017

  9. [9]

    Deng M., Campbell-Wilson D., the CHIME Collaboration 2014, @doi [International Symposium on Antenna Technology and Applied Electromagnetics (ANTEM)] 10.1109/antem.2014.6887670 , 16

    work page doi:10.1109/antem.2014.6887670 2014

  10. [10]

    W., 1982, Shift Register Sequences

    Golomb S. W., 1982, Shift Register Sequences. Aegean Park Press, Laguna Hills, CA

    work page 1982

  11. [11]

    Group, StrathSDR 2020, RFSoC Radio , https://github.com/strath-sdr/rfsoc_radio

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    Hallinan G., Ravi V., Deller A., et al., 2019, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 51, 255

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    C., Burba J., Bowman J., Neben A

    Jacobs D. C., Burba J., Bowman J., Neben A. R., Stinnett B., Turner L., 2016, preprint, p. arXiv:1610.02607

    work page arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    R., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad8bb , 864, 131

    Kerrigan J. R., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad8bb , 864, 131

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad8bb 2018

  15. [15]

    E., 1997, The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 2: Seminumerical Algorithms, 3rd edn

    Knuth D. E., 1997, The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 2: Seminumerical Algorithms, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

    work page 1997

  16. [16]

    A., et al., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/88 , 823, 88

    Kohn S. A., et al., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/88 , 823, 88

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/88 2016

  17. [17]

    R., Tyndall W., Saliwanchik B

    Kuhn E. R., Tyndall W., Saliwanchik B. R. B., Polish A. R., Harris M., Newburgh L. B., 2025, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/add269 , 170, 6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/add269 2025

  18. [18]

    Li J., et al., 2026, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/ae1ec3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026RAA....26b5001L 26, 025001

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ae1ec3 2026

  19. [19]

    R., 2020, arXiv e-prints

    Liu A., Shaw J. R., 2020, arXiv e-prints

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Mackay V., Lai M., Shmerko P., Wulf D., Belostotski L., Vanderlinde K., 2023, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Instrumentation] 10.1142/S2251171723500083 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JAI....1250008M 12, 2350008

    work page doi:10.1142/s2251171723500083 2023

  21. [21]

    Mahesh N., Alonso D., Hallinan G., et al., 2023, arXiv e-prints

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    E., Farnsworth D

    Marengo J. E., Farnsworth D. L., Stefanic L., 2017, @doi [International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences] 10.1155/2017/3571419 , 2017, 3571419

    work page doi:10.1155/2017/3571419 2017

  23. [23]

    Mart \' nez Picar A., Marqu \'e C., Anciaux M., Lamy H., 2015, in Rault J.-L., Roggemans P., eds, International Meteor Conference Mistelbach, Austria. p. 177

    work page 2015

  24. [24]

    A., Rogers A

    Monsalve R. A., Rogers A. E. E., Bowman J. D., Mozdzen T. J., 2017, ApJ, 835, 49

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    J., Subrahmanyan R., Somashekar R., et al., 2021, arXiv e-prints, p

    Nambissan T. J., Subrahmanyan R., Somashekar R., et al., 2021, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2104.01756

    work page arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    B., Addison G

    Newburgh L. B., Addison G. E., Amiri M., et al., 2014, Proceedings of the SPIE: Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes V, 91454, 1709

    work page 2014

  27. [27]

    B., Bandura K., Bucher M

    Newburgh L. B., Bandura K., Bucher M. A., et al., 2016, in Hall H. J., Gilmozzi R., Marshall H. K., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9906, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes VI. p. 99065X, @doi 10.1117/12.2234286

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2234286 2016

  28. [28]

    Proceedings of SPIE

    O'Connor P., Slosar A., Harris M., et al., 2020, in Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes VIII. Proceedings of SPIE. ( @eprint arXiv 2011.08695 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2011.08695

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2011.08695 2020

  29. [29]

    , keywords =

    Parsons A. R., Backer D. C., Bradley R. F., et al., 2010, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/139/4/1468 , 139, 1468

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/4/1468 2010

  30. [30]

    R., Liu A., Aguirre J

    Parsons A. R., Liu A., Aguirre J. E., et al., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/106 , 788, 106

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/2/106 2014

  31. [31]

    D., Roberts P., Ekers R

    Patra N., Bray J. D., Roberts P., Ekers R. D., 2017, Experimental Astronomy, 43, 119

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    and Abdurashidova, Z

    Philip L., Abdurashidova Z., Chiang H. C., et al., 2019, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Instrumentation] 10.1142/S2251171719500041 , 8, 1950004

    work page doi:10.1142/s2251171719500041 2019

  33. [33]

    G., Salehi M., 2007, Digital Communications, 5th edn

    Proakis J. G., Salehi M., 2007, Digital Communications, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY

    work page 2007

  34. [34]

    Pupillo G., Naldi G., Bianchi G., et al., 2015, Experimental Astronomy, 39, 405

    work page 2015

  35. [35]

    RealDigital 2024, RFSoC 4x2 , https://www.realdigital.org/hardware/rfsoc-4x2

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    Roque I. L. V., et al., 2025, @doi [Experimental Astronomy] 10.1007/s10686-024-09975-3 , 59, 7

    work page doi:10.1007/s10686-024-09975-3 2025

  37. [37]

    R., Sigurdson K., Sitwell M., Stebbins A., Pen U.-L., 2015, PRD, 91, 083514

    Shaw J. R., Sigurdson K., Sitwell M., Stebbins A., Pen U.-L., 2015, PRD, 91, 083514

    work page 2015

  38. [38]

    Texas Instruments, https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lmk04828-ep.pdf

    Texas Instruments 2017a, LMK04828-EP Ultra-Low-Noise, JESD204B-Compliant Clock Jitter Cleaner Datasheet. Texas Instruments, https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lmk04828-ep.pdf

    work page

  39. [39]

    Texas Instruments, https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lmx2594.pdf

    Texas Instruments 2017b, LMX2594 15-GHz Wideband PLLATINUM RF Synthesizer With Phase Synchronization and JESD204B Support Datasheet. Texas Instruments, https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lmx2594.pdf

    work page

  40. [40]

    arXiv:2201.07869

    The CHIME Collaboration 2022, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2201.07869

    work page arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44431-4 , adsurl =

    Thompson A. R., Moran J. M., Swenson G. W., 2017, Interferometry and Synthesis in Radio Astronomy, 3rd edn. Springer, Cham, @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-44431-4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44431-4 2017

  42. [42]

    Thyagarajan N., et al., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/804/1/14 , 804, 14

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/804/1/14 2015

  43. [43]

    The Murchison Widefield Array: The Square Kilometre Array Precursor at Low Radio Frequencies , Uri =

    Tingay S. J., Goeke R., Bowman J. D., et al., 2013, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia] 10.1017/pasa.2012.007 , 30, e007

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2012.007 2013

  44. [44]

    Tyndall W., et al., 2025, @doi [IEEE Open Journal of Antennas and Propagation] 10.1109/ojap.2025.3554457 , 6, 928

    work page doi:10.1109/ojap.2025.3554457 2025

  45. [45]

    Vanderlinde K., et al., 2019, in Canadian Long Range Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics White Papers. p. 28 ( @eprint arXiv 1911.01777 ), @doi 10.5281/zenodo.3765414

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3765414 2019

  46. [46]

    Villaescusa-Navarro F., Alonso D., Viel M., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw3297 , 466, 2736

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3297 2017

  47. [47]

    Virone G., et al., 2014, IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, 13, 169

    work page 2014

  48. [48]

    A., Abdalla E., Abdalla F

    Wuensche C. A., Abdalla E., Abdalla F. B., et al., 2021a, @doi [Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ci \^e ncias] 10.1590/0001-3765202120201096 , 93, e20201096

    work page doi:10.1590/0001-3765202120201096

  49. [49]

    A., Abdalla E., Abdalla F

    Wuensche C. A., Abdalla E., Abdalla F. B., et al., 2021b, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141707 , 653, A154

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141707

  50. [50]

    Zhang J., et al., 2021, IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, 63, 98

    work page 2021

  51. [51]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220873 , author =

    van Haarlem M. P., et al., 2013, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220873 , 556, A2

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220873 2013