AstroComb(v.1.0): Non-linear, Multi-channel, Probabilistic Cyclostratigraphic Analysis

Fernandes, Iris; Mosegaard, Klaus; Sørensen, Aske L.; Youssof, Mohammad; Thibault, Nicolas; Dahl, Tais W.

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-6145

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6145

Preprints

23 Feb 2026

| 23 Feb 2026

AstroComb(v.1.0): Non-linear, Multi-channel, Probabilistic Cyclostratigraphic Analysis

Iris Fernandes, Klaus Mosegaard, Aske L. Sørensen, Mohammad Youssof, Nicolas Thibault, and Tais W. Dahl

Abstract. We present a new algorithm for constructing floating astronomical timescales with explicit uncertainty estimates from sedimentary sequences. The method integrates probabilistic spectral analysis with inverse geochronological modeling, applied to ultra-high-resolution, multiproxy datasets such as core scanning X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) elemental records. Our framework does not smooth data or impose layer-to-layer dependency, allowing sedimentation rates to vary abruptly at short stratigraphic length scales. By detecting and statistically constraining Milankovitch cycles preserved in stratigraphic signals, the algorithm seeks a floating age-depth model that can be anchored to astronomical tie points, where available. The resulting timescales enable precise, uncertainty-bounded timing of biostratigraphic zones, geochemical events, and depositional cycles. This approach advances astrochronology by combining cycle detection with formal stratigraphic modelling, while preserving fine-scale depositional variability, offering a reproducible and statistically rigorous framework for dating deep-time records.

Received: 09 Dec 2025 – Discussion started: 23 Feb 2026

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 2916 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (2916 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

26 Oct 2026

AstroComb(v.1.0): non-linear, multi-channel, probabilistic cyclostratigraphic analysis

Iris Fernandes, Klaus Mosegaard, Aske L. Sørensen, Mohammad Youssof, Nicolas Thibault, and Tais W. Dahl

Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 10143–10154, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-10143-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-10143-2026, 2026

Short summary

Iris Fernandes, Klaus Mosegaard, Aske L. Sørensen, Mohammad Youssof, Nicolas Thibault, and Tais W. Dahl

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-6145', Valentin Zuchuat, 24 Feb 2026
Review of manuscript “AstroComb(v.1.0): Non-linear, Multi-channel, Probabilistic Cyclostratigraphic Analysis” by Fernandes et al.

Dear editor, dear authors,
I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the manuscript titled “AstroComb(v.1.0): Non-linear, Multi-channel, Probabilistic Cyclostratigraphic Analysis” by Fernandes et al. The manuscript introduces AstroComb, a probabilistic, multi‑channel cyclostratigraphic algorithm that estimates locally varying (possibly discontinuous) sedimentation rates by fitting Milankovitch targets in the frequency domain. The method is demonstrated on high‑resolution CS‑XRF records from the late Cambrian Alum Shale (Fågeltofta‑2 core) and on synthetic data with very high red noise. Both code and data are openly available, which I command the authors for!
The new workflow presents some strong innovative features, notably including the omission of smoothing, that allows for abrupt sedimentation-rate fluctuations to be considered, accompanied by an uncertainty estimate. As a sedimentologist and basin stratigrapher, this attribute is extremely powerful.
The manuscript requires some updates, though, in order to be accepted for publication in EGUSphere.
My first comment is not directed at the authors, but at the journal editors. Please invite the journal to update their templates with new sans-serif fonts. Indeed, with-serif fonts (e.g. times new roman), which are the ones used in EGUSphere templates right now, are much more difficult to read than sand-serif fonts (e.g. arial), especially for people with vision impairment or reading difficulties. I would also suggest to add a “Use of AI-tool” disclaimer at the end of the manuscript.
The manuscript requires major revisions to be accepted for publication. I would suggest the authors to address all the following comments, as well as the detailed comments on the commented-pdf attached to this letter.
Autogenic processes and signal shredding

I recommend the authors to acknowledge autogenic processes and signal shredding explicitly (rivers/deltas, compensational stacking; see commented pdf for references examples). It is also necessary to clarify how AstroComb distinguishes or remains agnostic to these signals vs. orbital forcing. The authors could consider adding a short paragraph in Introduction and returning to it in Discussion. An easy way to start with this is to take some of the text from the “limitations” chapter.
I also suggest the authors to avoid the term “geological noise” for non-Milankovitch periods. The preserved signal might not be “noise”, but rather the true expression of the mix of autogenic processes, Milankovitch cycles, and other non-linear effects such as bundling of several cycles. It is also important to justify why AstroComb does not include such periods (lines 311-314).
Scope

Other software are briefly mentioned (l. 31-33). Also this paper remains quite diplomatic about how much better AstoComb is in comparison to these other software, the reader of this manuscript could do with a figure that displays how the different software deal with the same input dataset.
The manuscript also only use single elements or several single elements together. A lot of published research (see references in the attached commented pdf) study change in Earth System conditions through the use of elemental-concentration ratios as well as enrichment factors. It could be useful to show how AstoComb responds to elemental-concentration ratios and enrichment factors.
Finally, it would be beneficial for the manuscript to compare the results from the conformable Alum Shale Formation to other sedimentary-cores XRF scans much more impacted by event beds, hiatus, or vacuity. This would allow the authors to highlight how AstroComb deals with these extreme changes in sediment supply. If this is not possible, please add a short demonstration in addition to your synthetic example, or at least discuss applicability in greater detail. Doing so would allow you to confirm, precise, or disagree with published sedimentation rates of other sedimentary units.
Methods chapter

I would like the authors to add in the method chapter a paragraph on their XRF data collection workflow: add model, tube type, kV/mA, measurement time, temperature, calibration/normalisation, etc. The authors could also cite the paper that generated these data in the first place.
Results and interpretations

I would suggest to move beyond “visual examples” and describe the results in great details. For instance, the figures displaying the age-model: how does this relate to the sedimentation rates? Where do abrupt changes occur (e.g. line 326); how large are these abrupt changes; over what thickness/time do they occur; what geological interpretations are plausible? Why are some intervals “less Milankovitch” than others in your “information content” curve, tie all of this to core observations and geochemical data.
I would also recommend the authors to have all the figures 3-4-5-6-7 plotted as a one-pager figure together. This will allow for a much easier comparison between the single-element run and the multiple single-element run. Additionally, to tie this comment back to the previous one, please quantify the difference between the to runs, rather than having these results as visual examples. And add the elemental curves used for each runs to these figures.
Doing so will allow the authors to expand the discussion to the interpretation of the succession they have studied in great detail.
Figures and presentation

I would invite the authors to highlight and indicate more features on their figures: for example, where are the sedimentation rates changing “abruptly”, whare are the “spurious features” that “could be interpreted as true sedimentation rate” (l. 289-290), etc.
I would suggest adding element-curves to Fig. 3-6-10 next to the information content curve, which x-axis need to have a unit or an explanation as to why it doesn’t have one. Add proposed sedimentation rate curves on all probability plots, just like you have done on Fig. 10. The authors are also invited to quantify the difference between the two runs.
The authors are also invited to combine Fig. 8-9-10 in a one-page figure as well. Please rotate the Fig. 9 to have the depth as a vertical axis, just like all the other figures. Please quantify the impact of “However, the test also shows how artifacts are introduced by the noise, the variability of the true model, and the non-linearity of the problem” (caption of Fig. 10), which are concept that should be discussed in greater detail by the authors, especially with regards to the results of the studied core Fågeltofta‑2.
Please check the journal reference formatting, as there seem to be many unnecessary parentheses when multiple references are cited in the text.
Please chose and stick to “ky”, “kyr”, or “kyrs” for consistency. Similarly, always call the core Fågeltofta‑2, rather than a mix of Fågeltofta‑2 or Fågeltofta (e.g. caption of Fig. 2, or l. 304, 326)
Please use the official chronostratigraphic series name Furongian as opposed to late/upper Cambrian.
If the authors have any questions on my comments, please feel free to contact me directly.
Dr Valentin Zuchuat
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6145-RC1
- EC1: 'Reply on RC1', Thomas Poulet, 05 Mar 2026
  
  Dear Dr Zuchuat,
  Thank you very much for your thoughtful review. Your comments regarding the use of sans‑serif fonts in the journal templates and the suggestion to include an AI‑tool disclaimer are duly noted. I will forward these recommendations to the journal office for their consideration.
  
  Best regards,
  Thomas Poulet.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6145-EC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on RC1', Iris Fernandes, 27 May 2026
  
  See the attached response letter.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6145-AC1
  - EC4: 'Reply on AC1', Thomas Poulet, 28 May 2026
    
    I appreciate Reviewer #1’s suggestion regarding the combination of figures. However, I agree with the authors’ reasoning that merging these figures could reduce readability and make it more difficult to discern important details. Given that clarity is a priority, I do not see a compelling need to require consolidation in this case.
    I am therefore happy to leave all figures as presented. Please note that final figure placement and layout will be further assessed during the production stage, where formatting considerations can be optimised if needed.
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6145-EC4
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-6145', Matthias Sinnesael, 27 Mar 2026

See attached PDF.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6145-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Iris Fernandes, 27 May 2026
  
  See the attached response letter.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6145-AC2
EC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-6145', Thomas Poulet, 28 Mar 2026
Dear Authors,
The referee reports on your discussion paper have now been published, and you will also have received the automatic notification inviting you to submit a revised manuscript.
I would like to take this opportunity to strongly emphasise that the reviewers’ comments should be addressed very carefully and comprehensively. In my view, the manuscript will require substantial revision before it can be considered further for publication in GMD. These revisions go well beyond minor or technical corrections. In particular, I would like to highlight the following points:
Revisions are needed both the text and some figures. The structure, framing, and level of analysis need to be strengthened to meet GMD standards.

All references cited must be accessible public sources, in line with GMD/Copernicus policy (“references to public sources of information”). Citations to material that is not yet accessible should be avoided; for example, Fernandes et al. (2026) may be used once publicly available.

The reviewers’ suggestion to introduce and test the code on synthetic (controlled) examples should be carefully considered. This is especially important given that the manuscript currently does not present a direct comparison with previously published cyclostratigraphic interpretations of the same sections, which is essential and should be included in the revised version.

When preparing your response, please ensure that all referee comments are addressed point by point, with clear explanations of the changes made (or well-justified reasons where you disagree). A thoroughly revised manuscript and a detailed response will be essential for the next stage of evaluation.
I encourage you to take the time needed to undertake these revisions carefully.
Kind regards,
Thomas Poulet
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6145-EC2
- EC3: 'Reply on EC2', Thomas Poulet, 02 Apr 2026
  
  Dear authors and reviewers,
  I apologise for the confusion and confirm that the discussion is still open until the 20th of April, with a third review to be received.
  Best regards,
  Thomas
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6145-EC3
- AC4: 'Reply on EC2', Iris Fernandes, 27 May 2026
  
  See the attached response letter.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6145-AC4
- AC5: 'Reply on EC2', Iris Fernandes, 27 May 2026
  
  See the attached revised manuscript.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6145-AC5
RC3:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-6145', Stephen Meyers, 19 Apr 2026

Please see the attached PDF.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6145-RC3
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Iris Fernandes, 27 May 2026
  
  See the attached response letter.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6145-AC3

Peer review completion

AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload

AR by Iris Fernandes on behalf of the Authors (27 May 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (28 May 2026) by Thomas Poulet

RR by Valentin Zuchuat (07 Jun 2026)

RR by Stephen Meyers (15 Jun 2026)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (16 Jun 2026) by Thomas Poulet

Dear authors,

Thank you for this revised version of your manuscript. I appreciate the considerable effort you have invested in addressing the reviewers’ comments. The revisions have improved the clarity and overall quality of the manuscript, and many of the initial concerns have been satisfactorily resolved.

After consideration of the revised submission, including the follow-up comments from Prof. Meyers, I believe the manuscript would benefit from an additional round of revision before it can be considered for publication in Geoscientific Model Development. At the same time, I recognise that some of the suggestions possibly go beyond the immediate scope of the present study. I would therefore encourage you to carefully consider these comments and to address those that are essential for supporting your results and conclusions. Where you judge certain requests to fall outside the scope of this paper, please provide a clear and reasoned justification in your response to the reviewers.

When revising your manuscript, please ensure that you also account for the notifications from the review file validation:
• The section "Competing interests" must be included in *.pdf manuscript with the next revision. See more: https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/submission.html#manuscriptcomposition > 16.
• With the next revision, please use author initials rather than full names in the “Author contributions” section. For example, “ Iris Fernandes ” should be given as “ IF ”, etc.

I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript and point-by-point response. Don’t hesitate to contact me directly if you have any question.

Kind regards,

Thomas Poulet.

Hide

AR by Iris Fernandes on behalf of the Authors (03 Jul 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (07 Jul 2026) by Thomas Poulet

AR by Iris Fernandes on behalf of the Authors (17 Jul 2026) Manuscript

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-6145', Valentin Zuchuat, 24 Feb 2026
Review of manuscript “AstroComb(v.1.0): Non-linear, Multi-channel, Probabilistic Cyclostratigraphic Analysis” by Fernandes et al.

Dear editor, dear authors,
I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the manuscript titled “AstroComb(v.1.0): Non-linear, Multi-channel, Probabilistic Cyclostratigraphic Analysis” by Fernandes et al. The manuscript introduces AstroComb, a probabilistic, multi‑channel cyclostratigraphic algorithm that estimates locally varying (possibly discontinuous) sedimentation rates by fitting Milankovitch targets in the frequency domain. The method is demonstrated on high‑resolution CS‑XRF records from the late Cambrian Alum Shale (Fågeltofta‑2 core) and on synthetic data with very high red noise. Both code and data are openly available, which I command the authors for!
The new workflow presents some strong innovative features, notably including the omission of smoothing, that allows for abrupt sedimentation-rate fluctuations to be considered, accompanied by an uncertainty estimate. As a sedimentologist and basin stratigrapher, this attribute is extremely powerful.
The manuscript requires some updates, though, in order to be accepted for publication in EGUSphere.
My first comment is not directed at the authors, but at the journal editors. Please invite the journal to update their templates with new sans-serif fonts. Indeed, with-serif fonts (e.g. times new roman), which are the ones used in EGUSphere templates right now, are much more difficult to read than sand-serif fonts (e.g. arial), especially for people with vision impairment or reading difficulties. I would also suggest to add a “Use of AI-tool” disclaimer at the end of the manuscript.
The manuscript requires major revisions to be accepted for publication. I would suggest the authors to address all the following comments, as well as the detailed comments on the commented-pdf attached to this letter.
Autogenic processes and signal shredding

I recommend the authors to acknowledge autogenic processes and signal shredding explicitly (rivers/deltas, compensational stacking; see commented pdf for references examples). It is also necessary to clarify how AstroComb distinguishes or remains agnostic to these signals vs. orbital forcing. The authors could consider adding a short paragraph in Introduction and returning to it in Discussion. An easy way to start with this is to take some of the text from the “limitations” chapter.
I also suggest the authors to avoid the term “geological noise” for non-Milankovitch periods. The preserved signal might not be “noise”, but rather the true expression of the mix of autogenic processes, Milankovitch cycles, and other non-linear effects such as bundling of several cycles. It is also important to justify why AstroComb does not include such periods (lines 311-314).
Scope

Other software are briefly mentioned (l. 31-33). Also this paper remains quite diplomatic about how much better AstoComb is in comparison to these other software, the reader of this manuscript could do with a figure that displays how the different software deal with the same input dataset.
The manuscript also only use single elements or several single elements together. A lot of published research (see references in the attached commented pdf) study change in Earth System conditions through the use of elemental-concentration ratios as well as enrichment factors. It could be useful to show how AstoComb responds to elemental-concentration ratios and enrichment factors.
Finally, it would be beneficial for the manuscript to compare the results from the conformable Alum Shale Formation to other sedimentary-cores XRF scans much more impacted by event beds, hiatus, or vacuity. This would allow the authors to highlight how AstroComb deals with these extreme changes in sediment supply. If this is not possible, please add a short demonstration in addition to your synthetic example, or at least discuss applicability in greater detail. Doing so would allow you to confirm, precise, or disagree with published sedimentation rates of other sedimentary units.
Methods chapter

I would like the authors to add in the method chapter a paragraph on their XRF data collection workflow: add model, tube type, kV/mA, measurement time, temperature, calibration/normalisation, etc. The authors could also cite the paper that generated these data in the first place.
Results and interpretations

I would suggest to move beyond “visual examples” and describe the results in great details. For instance, the figures displaying the age-model: how does this relate to the sedimentation rates? Where do abrupt changes occur (e.g. line 326); how large are these abrupt changes; over what thickness/time do they occur; what geological interpretations are plausible? Why are some intervals “less Milankovitch” than others in your “information content” curve, tie all of this to core observations and geochemical data.
I would also recommend the authors to have all the figures 3-4-5-6-7 plotted as a one-pager figure together. This will allow for a much easier comparison between the single-element run and the multiple single-element run. Additionally, to tie this comment back to the previous one, please quantify the difference between the to runs, rather than having these results as visual examples. And add the elemental curves used for each runs to these figures.
Doing so will allow the authors to expand the discussion to the interpretation of the succession they have studied in great detail.
Figures and presentation

I would invite the authors to highlight and indicate more features on their figures: for example, where are the sedimentation rates changing “abruptly”, whare are the “spurious features” that “could be interpreted as true sedimentation rate” (l. 289-290), etc.
I would suggest adding element-curves to Fig. 3-6-10 next to the information content curve, which x-axis need to have a unit or an explanation as to why it doesn’t have one. Add proposed sedimentation rate curves on all probability plots, just like you have done on Fig. 10. The authors are also invited to quantify the difference between the two runs.
The authors are also invited to combine Fig. 8-9-10 in a one-page figure as well. Please rotate the Fig. 9 to have the depth as a vertical axis, just like all the other figures. Please quantify the impact of “However, the test also shows how artifacts are introduced by the noise, the variability of the true model, and the non-linearity of the problem” (caption of Fig. 10), which are concept that should be discussed in greater detail by the authors, especially with regards to the results of the studied core Fågeltofta‑2.
Please check the journal reference formatting, as there seem to be many unnecessary parentheses when multiple references are cited in the text.
Please chose and stick to “ky”, “kyr”, or “kyrs” for consistency. Similarly, always call the core Fågeltofta‑2, rather than a mix of Fågeltofta‑2 or Fågeltofta (e.g. caption of Fig. 2, or l. 304, 326)
Please use the official chronostratigraphic series name Furongian as opposed to late/upper Cambrian.
If the authors have any questions on my comments, please feel free to contact me directly.
Dr Valentin Zuchuat
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6145-RC1
- EC1: 'Reply on RC1', Thomas Poulet, 05 Mar 2026
  
  Dear Dr Zuchuat,
  Thank you very much for your thoughtful review. Your comments regarding the use of sans‑serif fonts in the journal templates and the suggestion to include an AI‑tool disclaimer are duly noted. I will forward these recommendations to the journal office for their consideration.
  
  Best regards,
  Thomas Poulet.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6145-EC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on RC1', Iris Fernandes, 27 May 2026
  
  See the attached response letter.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6145-AC1
  - EC4: 'Reply on AC1', Thomas Poulet, 28 May 2026
    
    I appreciate Reviewer #1’s suggestion regarding the combination of figures. However, I agree with the authors’ reasoning that merging these figures could reduce readability and make it more difficult to discern important details. Given that clarity is a priority, I do not see a compelling need to require consolidation in this case.
    I am therefore happy to leave all figures as presented. Please note that final figure placement and layout will be further assessed during the production stage, where formatting considerations can be optimised if needed.
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6145-EC4
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-6145', Matthias Sinnesael, 27 Mar 2026

See attached PDF.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6145-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Iris Fernandes, 27 May 2026
  
  See the attached response letter.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6145-AC2
EC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-6145', Thomas Poulet, 28 Mar 2026
Dear Authors,
The referee reports on your discussion paper have now been published, and you will also have received the automatic notification inviting you to submit a revised manuscript.
I would like to take this opportunity to strongly emphasise that the reviewers’ comments should be addressed very carefully and comprehensively. In my view, the manuscript will require substantial revision before it can be considered further for publication in GMD. These revisions go well beyond minor or technical corrections. In particular, I would like to highlight the following points:
Revisions are needed both the text and some figures. The structure, framing, and level of analysis need to be strengthened to meet GMD standards.

All references cited must be accessible public sources, in line with GMD/Copernicus policy (“references to public sources of information”). Citations to material that is not yet accessible should be avoided; for example, Fernandes et al. (2026) may be used once publicly available.

The reviewers’ suggestion to introduce and test the code on synthetic (controlled) examples should be carefully considered. This is especially important given that the manuscript currently does not present a direct comparison with previously published cyclostratigraphic interpretations of the same sections, which is essential and should be included in the revised version.

When preparing your response, please ensure that all referee comments are addressed point by point, with clear explanations of the changes made (or well-justified reasons where you disagree). A thoroughly revised manuscript and a detailed response will be essential for the next stage of evaluation.
I encourage you to take the time needed to undertake these revisions carefully.
Kind regards,
Thomas Poulet
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6145-EC2
- EC3: 'Reply on EC2', Thomas Poulet, 02 Apr 2026
  
  Dear authors and reviewers,
  I apologise for the confusion and confirm that the discussion is still open until the 20th of April, with a third review to be received.
  Best regards,
  Thomas
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6145-EC3
- AC4: 'Reply on EC2', Iris Fernandes, 27 May 2026
  
  See the attached response letter.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6145-AC4
- AC5: 'Reply on EC2', Iris Fernandes, 27 May 2026
  
  See the attached revised manuscript.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6145-AC5
RC3:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-6145', Stephen Meyers, 19 Apr 2026

Please see the attached PDF.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6145-RC3
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Iris Fernandes, 27 May 2026
  
  See the attached response letter.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6145-AC3

Peer review completion

AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload

AR by Iris Fernandes on behalf of the Authors (27 May 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (28 May 2026) by Thomas Poulet

RR by Valentin Zuchuat (07 Jun 2026)

RR by Stephen Meyers (15 Jun 2026)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (16 Jun 2026) by Thomas Poulet

Hide

AR by Iris Fernandes on behalf of the Authors (03 Jul 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (07 Jul 2026) by Thomas Poulet

AR by Iris Fernandes on behalf of the Authors (17 Jul 2026) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

26 Oct 2026

AstroComb(v.1.0): non-linear, multi-channel, probabilistic cyclostratigraphic analysis

Iris Fernandes, Klaus Mosegaard, Aske L. Sørensen, Mohammad Youssof, Nicolas Thibault, and Tais W. Dahl

Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 10143–10154, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-10143-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-10143-2026, 2026

Short summary

Iris Fernandes, Klaus Mosegaard, Aske L. Sørensen, Mohammad Youssof, Nicolas Thibault, and Tais W. Dahl

Viewed

Total article views: 1,900 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
1,303	478	119	1,900	86	130

HTML: 1,303
PDF: 478
XML: 119
Total: 1,900
BibTeX: 86
EndNote: 130

Views and downloads (calculated since 23 Feb 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Feb 2026	276	140	36	452
Mar 2026	578	153	47	778
Apr 2026	130	33	5	168
May 2026	57	17	1	75
Jun 2026	11	13	2	26
Jul 2026	33	18	5	56
Aug 2026	27	9	3	39
Sep 2026	70	30	9	109
Oct 2026	89	52	6	147
Nov 2026	32	13	5	50

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 23 Feb 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Feb 2026	276	140	36	452
Mar 2026	578	153	47	778
Apr 2026	130	33	5	168
May 2026	57	17	1	75
Jun 2026	11	13	2	26
Jul 2026	33	18	5	56
Aug 2026	27	9	3	39
Sep 2026	70	30	9	109
Oct 2026	89	52	6	147
Nov 2026	32	13	5	50

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,877 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,877 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 08 Nov 2026

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (2916 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

We introduce a new method to more precisely date ancient sediment layers using astronomical time cycles recorded in the rock. Unlike previous tools, it handles complex, multi-channel data without oversimplifying and gives clear estimates of dating uncertainty. This helps future research in better understand Earth’s past climate, biological changes, and geologic events with greater confidence and accuracy.

AstroComb(v.1.0): Non-linear, Multi-channel, Probabilistic Cyclostratigraphic Analysis

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

Interactive discussion

Peer review completion

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Interactive discussion

Peer review completion

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

Viewed

Viewed (geographical distribution)


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0