RESEARCH
Questions, cases, and roadmap
SETImap is organized around open scientific questions. We publish case studies, reproducible methods, and a transparent roadmap — including negative results and unresolved problems.
OPEN QUESTIONS
What we are trying to answer
What is the large-scale distribution of radio transients and repeating sources, and does it trace known large-scale structure or deviate from it?
What fraction of FRBs repeat, and do repeating and non-repeating FRBs share a common progenitor class?
Are there statistically significant spatial or temporal correlations between FRBs, gravitational wave events, and high-energy neutrino detections?
What fraction of anomalous transients in historical survey data remain unexplained after systematic interference rejection and natural-source modeling?
What is the sensitivity of current and planned surveys to narrowband, drifting, or structured signals at the level of Arecibo-era detection thresholds?
Can the RSCS sequence (EDZ → SGF → Ensemble-SINDy) identify compact symbolic rules in astrophysical datasets that generalize to held-out data?
CASE STUDIES
Historical and synthetic examples
Wow! Signal (1977)
A 72-second narrowband signal detected at 1420.4556 MHz by the Big Ear radio telescope (Ohio State University) on 15 August 1977. Detected by astronomer Jerry Ehman, who circled the printout and wrote "Wow!". Never repeated in subsequent observations despite targeted follow-up. No confirmed natural or artificial explanation. Illustrates the importance of independent replication and the limits of single-epoch detections.
Historical record
The signal was detected once, at Big Ear, on a single pass. It has not been independently replicated in over 45 years of follow-up observations.
SETImap interpretation
SETImap treats this as an unresolved historical event. The absence of replication means it cannot be classified as a candidate technosignature under SETImap's evidence standards.
Key lessons
Single detections without replication cannot be classified. Coverage maps matter: absence of redetection is only meaningful if the same sky position was observed at the same sensitivity.
Citations
- Ehman, J.R. (1977). 'Wow!' signal annotation, Big Ear Radio Observatory. Ohio State University.
- Gray, R.H. & Marvel, K.B. (2001). A VLA Search for the Ohio State 'Wow' Source. ApJ, 546, 1171–1177.
- Ehman, J.R. (2010). The Big Ear Wow! Signal: What We Know and Don't Know About It After 33 Years. NAAPO.
Last reviewed:
Fast Radio Bursts — general class
Initially anomalous millisecond-duration radio transients of unknown origin, first reported by Lorimer et al. (2007). Now understood to include magnetar flares as a confirmed progenitor class, established by the detection of FRB 20200428A from Galactic magnetar SGR 1935+2154 (CHIME/FRB Collaboration, 2020; Bochenek et al., 2020). Illustrates how a class of anomalies can transition to explained through multimessenger follow-up.
Historical record
The first FRB (Lorimer Burst) was discovered in archival Parkes data in 2007. The magnetar progenitor was confirmed in 2020 by simultaneous radio and X-ray detection from SGR 1935+2154.
SETImap interpretation
The magnetar progenitor explains at least some FRBs. Repeating FRBs with complex time-frequency structure remain an active research area. SETImap does not classify any FRB as a candidate technosignature without additional evidence.
Key lessons
Anomaly classes can be resolved by multimessenger coincidence. The transition from 'anomalous' to 'explained' requires independent replication and a physical model, not just a statistical association.
Citations
- Lorimer, D.R. et al. (2007). A Bright Millisecond Radio Transient. Science, 318, 777–780.
- CHIME/FRB Collaboration (2020). A bright millisecond-duration radio transient from a Galactic magnetar. Nature, 587, 54–58.
- Bochenek, C.D. et al. (2020). A fast radio burst associated with a Galactic magnetar. Nature, 587, 59–62.
Last reviewed:
Boyajian's Star (KIC 8462852)
A star with irregular, asymmetric dimming events inconsistent with standard planetary transit models, reported by Boyajian et al. (2016) from Kepler photometry. Multiple natural hypotheses proposed (circumstellar dust, cometary swarms, intrinsic variability). No single explanation fully accounts for all observations. Illustrates the difficulty of ruling out natural explanations.
Historical record
The irregular dimming was identified in Kepler data by citizen scientists through the Planet Hunters project. Long-term secular dimming was subsequently confirmed by Schaefer (2016) and others using historical photographic plates.
SETImap interpretation
SETImap treats this as an unresolved natural-explanation case, not a candidate technosignature. The correct status is 'unresolved' — not 'candidate technosignature' — until natural hypotheses are exhausted and independent replication exists.
Key lessons
Unresolved does not mean artificial. The correct status is 'unresolved natural explanation' — not 'candidate technosignature' — until natural hypotheses are exhausted and independent replication exists.
Citations
- Boyajian, T.S. et al. (2016). Planet Hunters IX. KIC 8462852 — Where's the Flux? MNRAS, 457, 3988–4004.
- Schaefer, B.E. (2016). KIC 8462852 Faded at an Average Rate of 0.165 ± 0.013 Magnitudes per Century from 1890 to 1989. ApJL, 822, L34.
- Lisse, C.M. et al. (2022). On the Nature of the Dimming Events of KIC 8462852. ApJ, 932, 31.
Last reviewed:
Injection tests (synthetic)
Synthetic signals injected into real survey data to test pipeline sensitivity and false-positive rates. A standard validation tool in SETI and transient surveys, used by Breakthrough Listen and others. Illustrates the importance of known-injection testing before claiming a detection.
Historical record
Injection-recovery testing is a standard practice in radio SETI surveys. Breakthrough Listen has published injection test results for their Parkes and GBT datasets.
SETImap interpretation
SETImap will require injection-recovery validation for any analysis pipeline before results are published as candidates. This is a planned standard for Phase 1.
Key lessons
Every detection pipeline should be validated with injected signals of known properties. A pipeline that cannot recover injections at claimed sensitivity cannot be trusted for anomaly classification.
Citations
- Price, D.C. et al. (2019). The Breakthrough Listen Search for Intelligent Life: Observations of 1327 Nearby Stars over 1.10–3.45 GHz. AJ, 157, 122.
- Enriquez, J.E. et al. (2017). The Breakthrough Listen Search for Intelligent Life: 1.1–1.9 GHz Observations of 692 Nearby Stars. ApJ, 849, 104.
Last reviewed:
PUBLIC ROADMAP
What is built, what is next
This roadmap distinguishes current capabilities from planned work. We do not publish papers, partnerships, or discoveries that do not yet exist.
- Platform architecture and design system
- Demonstration candidate records
- Core pipeline documentation
- Public roadmap and methods pages
- First live archive adapters (radio)
- Candidate record API (read-only)
- Sky view with real observation footprints
- Provenance drawer for all records
- Multimessenger cross-match layer
- IVOA TAP/ObsCore alignment
- Citizen science analysis tasks
- Peer review integration for candidates
- RSCS analysis pipeline API
- Reproducible analysis job submission
- View manifest export and citation
- Epoch scrubber for time-domain data
Contribute to the research
Reproduce an analysis, build an archive adapter, submit a provenance-rich observation, or join an announced research challenge.
See participation options