<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>VLBI observations of four radio quasars at $z&gt;4$: blazars or not? · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1701.04760/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1701.04760/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>VLBI observations of four radio quasars at $z&gt;4$: blazars or not? — mentioned by photochemsyn</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31354895</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1701.04760:31354895</guid><pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2022 14:41:10 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;You mean, this? https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ac6615 &amp;gt;&amp;quot;Since the interferometric measurements are often incomplete in the Fourier domain, the inverse problem of reconstructing an image from the observed data set is usually underdetermined. Consequently, the image reconstruction requires prior information, assumptions, or constraints to derive a reasonable image from the infinite number of possibilities that can explain the measurements.&amp;quot; They seem to have gone to great lengths to address this issue, however. Multiple imaging approaches, synthetic data tests, etc.…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1701.04760/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>astro-ph.GA</category></item></channel></rss>
