Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 53 references

Large angular scale fluctuations of near infrared extragalactic background light based on the IRTS observations

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The near-infrared extragalactic background shows a broad, unexplained fluctuation bump centered near 1 degree, discovered by the first measurement at 2–20 degree scales.

desk verdict First measurement of near-IR EBL fluctuations at 2-20 degrees, but the 1-degree bump is an inference across a gap and the zodiacal-light subtraction has an unquantified residual. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01522 v1 pith:3KDAVLUZ submitted 2019-08-05 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Min Gyu Kim , Hyung Mok Lee , Woong-Seob Jeong , Kohji Tsumura , Hyungjong Seo , Masahiro Tanaka This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords near-infraredextragalacticbackgroundlightNIREBLfluctuationpowerspectrumIRTSzodiacalcosmicinfrareddegree-scaleanisotropiesintra-halo
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 reports the first measurement of spatial fluctuations in the near-infrared extragalactic background light (NIREBL) at angular scales from 2 to 20 degrees, at 1.6 and 2.2 microns, using data from the IRTS satellite. The authors subtract foreground emission from zodiacal light, diffuse Galactic light, and integrated starlight, then compute the angular power spectrum of the residual sky. They find that the fluctuation amplitude declines as roughly $\theta^{-1}$ across these large scales, and that this decline connects smoothly to previous sub-degree measurements, implying a broad bump centered near 1 degree. The paper argues that known sources—normal galaxies, high-redshift objects, intra-halo light, and the far-infrared cosmic background—cannot explain this excess. If correct, the result points to an unidentified component of the near-infrared sky that fluctuates on degree scales.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on the angular power spectrum of a foreground-subtracted NIREBL map: fluctuations are expressed as $F(\sqrt{l(l+1)C_l/2\pi})$ vs angular scale $\theta \approx 180^\circ/l$, computed with the pseudo-power-spectrum method on a HEALPix map of the IRTS sky. Foreground removal is the load-bearing step: the zodiacal light, which is over 90% of the raw sky brightness, is modeled with a standard zodiacal model and rescaled by per-band correction factors (0.811 and 1.146 for 1.6 and 2.2 $\mu$m) derived from correlation fits; diffuse Galactic light is estimated from the 100 $\mu$m dust map with an empirical scale factor; and integrated starlight is built from 2MASS and TRILEGAL Galactic model stars. The power spectrum of the residual sky is then compared with sub-degree measurements from CIBER, AKARI, and Spitzer to reveal the degree-scale bump.

What would settle it

Re-observe the same IRTS sky fields at a different time of year (or use a different zodiacal-light model) and recompute the 1.6 and 2.2 $\mu$m power spectra; if the amplitude or shape of the ~1-degree bump changes with season or model choice, the excess is zodiacal rather than extragalactic. Alternatively, a firm IRTS–Planck cross-correlation detection at degree scales would tie the bump to dusty galaxies, whereas a null cross-correlation with tight limits would force an unknown component.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the near-infrared extragalactic background fluctuation spectrum, measured for the first time at 2–20 degrees, joins with existing sub-degree measurements to form a broad bump centered around 1 degree. At scales larger than 2 degrees the fluctuation amplitude follows $F(\sqrt{l(l+1)C_l/2\pi}) \sim \theta^{-1}$, i.e., a nearly single power law, which indicates a random, structureless distribution of sources. Because the authors rule out foregrounds and known extragalactic contributors, the bump at approximately 1 degree is presented as an unexplained excess that needs new physics or a new population of sources.

Load-bearing premise

The zodiacal light model, after multiplying by a single per-band correction factor fitted to the IRTS data, leaves no significant angular fluctuations at 2–20 degrees; if real interplanetary dust emission has degree-scale structure, those fluctuations directly contaminate the measured NIREBL power spectrum.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 1-degree bump, if real, implies an unknown source of near-infrared background fluctuations that previous sub-degree surveys could not see because of their limited sky coverage.
  • The $\theta^{-1}$ power law at 2–20 degrees implies the large-scale NIREBL fluctuations are dominated by a random, unclustered spatial distribution rather than by known large-scale structure.
  • The smooth connection between IRTS and CIBER spectra means the 1-degree bump is a common feature across 1.6 to 3.6 $\mu$m.
  • The IRTS–Planck cross-correlation, although an upper limit, suggests that some degree-scale fluctuations could be produced by dusty, star-forming galaxies at $z < 0.8$; better data could confirm this association.
  • Future deep observations such as MIRIS near the North Ecliptic Pole can directly probe the 1-degree to several-degree range and test the bump.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the zodiacal model is slightly wrong on degree scales—for example, if the interplanetary dust cloud has patchiness at the few-percent level—the apparent NIREBL bump could be a zodiacal artifact; this can be tested by comparing the fluctuation amplitude across seasons, since the zodiacal signal changes with Earth's orbit while a true extragalactic signal does not.
  • A possible physical origin not considered in detail here is a population of faint, unresolved sources at intermediate redshifts whose clustering peaks near degree scale; a testable prediction would be that the bump's amplitude should scale with wavelength according to the source spectral energy distribution, and that cross-correlating with future wide-area submillimeter maps would recover the sign
  • The same approach applied to the DIRBE time-ordered data, which cover the full sky at 1.25, 2.2, 3.5 and 4.9 $\mu$m, could confirm or refute the bump with an independent instrument and much larger sky coverage.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper reports measurements of the spatial fluctuations of the near-infrared extragalactic background light (NIREBL) at 1.6 and 2.2 μm using IRTS/NIRS data, covering angular scales from 2° to 20°. After subtracting foregrounds (zodiacal light, diffuse Galactic light, and integrated star light), the authors estimate fluctuation power spectra with the PolSpice algorithm, subtract noise via Monte Carlo simulations, and derive an error budget including statistical and systematic terms. They find a monotonic decline of F(√(l(l+1)Cl/2π)) roughly as θ^{-1} over 2°–20°, and, by connecting to CIBER sub-degree measurements, they infer a broad bump centered at about 1°. They examine candidate sources—normal galaxies, intra-halo light, DGL, and high-redshift objects—and conclude that none can explain the excess around 1°.

Significance. If the measurement is robust, this is the first determination of NIREBL fluctuations at degree scales, bridging the gap between sub-degree space-based measurements and the large-scale regime. The paper has clear strengths: it uses a partial-sky power-spectrum estimator (PolSpice), performs Monte Carlo noise subtraction, presents a detailed error budget, and checks consistency with DIRBE and with the previously measured absolute NIREBL brightness. The connection to CIBER data, if taken as an inference rather than a direct measurement, offers a plausible synthesis of the current data. However, the central claims rest on the adequacy of the zodiacal-light subtraction and on the interpretation of the 1° bump as an inferred feature; both points require further support before the conclusions can be accepted as quantitative results.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2.3, §8] The zodiacal-light subtraction is the load-bearing step in the measurement, and the paper does not demonstrate that the residual ZL after the per-band slope correction is free of angular fluctuations at 2°–20°. ZL is more than 90% of the raw sky brightness (§4.1); a residual of order 0.5–1% of ZL has amplitude comparable to the reported NIREBL fluctuations. The correction factors 0.811 and 1.146 are fitted to the same IRTS data in §4.2.3, so they can only absorb the component of the observed sky that is proportional to the Kelsall model. A spatially varying mismatch in the ecliptic-latitude dependence, in the seasonal terms, or in the 1.25→1.6 μm color extrapolation would remain in the residual. Section 8 states that "since the ZL is based only on the model, we do not evaluate the ZL fluctuation in this work," and the error budget in Table 1 contains no ZL subtraction uncertainty. I request a quantitative test, for example recomputing C_l after fitting the ZL normalization in independent angular patches, after masking the highest-ZL-gradient regions, or after substituting an independent zodiacal-light model, and reporting the spread of the resulting power spectra. Without such a test, the reported θ^{-1} power law could be produced by a residual ZL structure.
  2. [Abstract, §7, §9] The claim of a "wide bump with a center at around 1°" is an inference, not a direct measurement from the IRTS data. The IRTS spectra cover only 2°–20°; the bump is obtained by connecting them to the CIBER sub-degree measurements across a gap with no data. The abstract and summary state this as an observational result, which overstates the evidence. In addition, the 2.2 μm CIBER spectrum shown in Fig. 11 is constructed by scaling the CIBER 1.6 μm spectrum using the IRTS 1.6/2.2 color ratio from Fig. 12, so part of the apparent agreement at 2.2 μm is built into the comparison. The text should explicitly label the bump as an inference from comparison with other experiments, and the location of the peak should be given with the caveat that it is not constrained by the IRTS data themselves.
  3. [§7, Figs. 10–11] The statement that the fluctuation spectrum follows "nearly a single power-law spectrum (i.e. F(√(l(l+1)Cl/2π)) ~ θ^{-1})" is made without a quantitative fit. No best-fit power-law index, its uncertainty, or a goodness-of-fit statistic is reported for either band. Because the power-law description is part of the central claim, the authors should fit the data over the 2°–20° range and report the index and its errors, including the effect of the systematic error budget.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§4.2.3] In the sentence beginning "Second, their exists systematic uncertainty," "their" should be "there."
  2. [§8] The word "analized" should be "analyzed."
  3. [§5, Eq. (3)] The phrase "Laplace's spherical harmonics" is awkward; consider simply "spherical harmonics" or "Laplace's spherical harmonic functions."
  4. [Fig. 13 caption] The caption states that the ZL fluctuation is not shown because the ZL is model-based and expected to have very small fluctuation; this is precisely the assumption that needs to be tested, so the caption should refer the reader to the analysis requested in the major comment on ZL subtraction.
  5. [§3] In "The final data at 24 discrete bands covers 1% of whole sky," "covers" should be "cover" and "whole sky" should be "the whole sky."
  6. [§6] The Knox formula is described as "empirically determined"; it is an analytic approximation for the sample variance of C_l. Please describe it more precisely.
  7. [§7] The absolute NIREBL brightness values 56.032 and 28.228 nW m^{-2} sr^{-1} are quoted with more significant figures than the systematic uncertainties justify; rounding to at most one decimal place would be more appropriate.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Central fluctuation measurement is self-contained; only the CIBER 2.2 micron comparison is calibrated on the IRTS signal.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 7, 'Result' (discussion of Fig. 11)]
    "In figure 11, we also examined the fluctuation at the 2.2 micron. Since the CIBER does not have a 2.2 micron data, we needed to multiply a scale factor to the CIBER 1.6 micron power spectrum. The scale factor was derived by the IRTS 1.6/2.2 micron color ratio assuming color of the NIREBL does not depend on the sky position. The ratio was derived from the IRTS 1.6 and 2.2 micron correlation study as shown in figure 12. Then the ratio was multiplied to the CIBER 1.6 micron power spectrum to derive the CIBER 2.2 micron one."

    The scale factor is measured from the same IRTS NIREBL maps whose fluctuation spectrum is the subject. Multiplying the CIBER 1.6 micron spectrum by this factor imprints the IRTS 1.6/2.2 color (and its assumed isotropy) onto the 'CIBER 2.2 micron' curve, so the degree-scale bump claimed for 2.2 micron is not independent sub-degree evidence; it is partly a restatement of the IRTS color measurement. The IRTS 2.2 micron auto-spectrum is still directly measured, so this circularity affects only the cross-experiment comparison, not the main power-spectrum result.

full rationale

The central result, the 2-20 degree NIREBL fluctuation spectrum, is not derived from a fitted target. The reported power-law slope emerges from the residual map after subtracting DGL, ISL, and a zodiacal-light model whose scalar amplitude is calibrated by correlation with the same sky data. That calibration is a standard foreground-subtraction step and does not by construction produce a theta^-1 spectrum; it removes only the component proportional to the Kelsall et al. model. The paper explicitly refrains from claiming a ZL cross-correlation check ('Since the ZL is based only on the model, we do not evaluate the ZL fluctuation in this work'), so the fitted slope is not used to certify the residual. The reliance on Zemcov et al. (2014) for ZL smoothness involves overlapping CIBER authors, but it is a measurement from independent CIBER data and is not a load-bearing circular argument. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results is present. The one genuine calibration-circularity is the 2.2 micron CIBER comparison curve, which is built from the IRTS color ratio; the 'broad bump at 1 degree' in 2.2 micron is therefore not an independent confirmation, although the IRTS 2.2 micron auto-spectrum itself is independent. Overall this is a minor, non-central circularity rather than a construction-by-fit of the main measurement.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement rests on foreground models that are calibrated or adopted from prior work. The only numbers fitted directly in this paper are the ZL scaling slopes and the 1.6/2.2 color ratio; the NIREBL power spectrum itself is not fitted. No new physical entities are postulated. The key unverified assumption is that the zodiacal light model leaves no degree-scale fluctuations after scaling.

free parameters (3)
  • ZL slope at 1.6 micron = 0.811
    Multiplicative correction to the Kelsall ZL model, fitted from the IRTS brightness versus ZL model correlation (Section 4.2.3).
  • ZL slope at 2.2 micron = 1.146
    Multiplicative correction to the Kelsall ZL model for the 2.2 micron band, fitted from the same correlation (Section 4.2.3).
  • 1.6/2.2 NIREBL color ratio = Best-fit slope in Figure 12, exact value not quoted in text
    Derived from the IRTS 1.6 and 2.2 micron correlation and used to scale CIBER 1.6 micron power spectrum to 2.2 micron for comparison (Section 7).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Kelsall et al. (1998) ZL model, after per-band scaling, has negligible fluctuation at degree angular scales.
    Section 4.2.3 assumes ZL is very smooth over large angles; residual ZL structure would contaminate NIREBL fluctuations.
  • domain assumption The NIREBL is homogeneous and isotropic over the IRTS fields.
    Used in Section 4.2.3 to expect a unity slope in the ZL correlation; also assumed in power spectrum estimation.
  • domain assumption The Brandt and Draine (2012) model fitted by Arai et al. (2015) correctly converts 100 micron dust emission to near-IR DGL at IRTS bands.
    Section 4.2.1 relies on this scale factor; 20% uncertainty is included but the model form is not independently validated at IRTS wavelengths.
  • domain assumption 2MASS and TRILEGAL star counts, including the 1.23 brightness correction, accurately represent the contribution of unresolved Galactic stars to the IRTS beam.
    Section 4.2.2; if the modeled star distribution has degree-scale fluctuations different from the real Galaxy, the ISL subtraction would be incorrect.
  • standard math PolSpice pseudo-Cl estimator with mask correction recovers the true power spectrum for the 1% sky coverage.
    Section 5; standard method from Hivon et al. (2002) and Chon et al. (2004).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Large angular scale fluctuations of near infrared extragalactic background light based on the IRTS observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3KDAVLUZ

@misc{pith2026190801522,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Large angular scale fluctuations of near infrared extragalactic background light based on the IRTS observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3KDAVLUZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01522}
}
abstract

We measure the spatial fluctuations of the Near-Infrared Extragalactic Background Light (NIREBL) from 2$^{\circ}$ to 20$^{\circ}$ in angular scale at the 1.6 and 2.2 $\mu$m using data obtained with Near-Infrared Spectrometer (NIRS) on board the Infrared Telescope in Space (IRTS). The brightness of the NIREBL is estimated by subtracting foreground components such as zodiacal light, diffuse Galactic light, and integrated star light from the observed sky. The foreground components are estimated using well-established models and archive data. The NIREBL fluctuations for the 1.6 and 2.2 $\mu$m connect well toward the sub-degree scale measurements from previous studies. Overall, the fluctuations show a wide bump with a center at around 1$^{\circ}$ and the power decreases toward larger angular scales with nearly a single power-law spectrum (i.e. \textit{F($\sqrt{l(l+1)C_l/2\pi}$)} $\sim$ $\theta^{-1}$) indicating that the large scale power is dominated by the random spatial distribution of the sources. After examining several known sources, contributors such as normal galaxies, high redshift objects, intra-halo light, and far-IR cosmic background, we conclude that the excess fluctuation at around the 1$^{\circ}$ scale cannot be explained by any of them.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01522 by the authors.

Figure 4
Figure 4. figure 4. The fitted scale factor enables us to derive the near-IR DGL brightness from the 100 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. The brightness correlation between the IRTS SKY and IRTS ZL. Left and right panels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same correlation diagram as shown in figure 1 at 1.6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Number of the IRTS data belong to each HEALPix pixel. The brightness of a HEALPix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: DGL spectrum normalized by far-IR emission at 100 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Limiting magnitudes for the 24 IRTS bands (diamond symbol). Red and blue solid lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Flow chart of the process to estimate the ISL brightness of an IRTS field based on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Histogram of ISL medians for 100 simulated maps. Left and right panels are 1.6 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Upper data points show correlation study between the ZL model brightness and the ob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Brightness maps for 1.6 and 2.2 µm in Galactic coordinates. Left and right maps are for 1.6 and 2.2 µm, respectively. Brightness maps of IRTS raw data without mask, and IRTS raw data with mask, DIRBE 2.2 µm sky map at IRTS field, ZL, DGL, ISL, and NIREBL with mask are …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The measured 1.6 µm fluctuations for the IRTS. The IRTS (this work) and the CIBER (Zemcov et al. 2014) auto spectra are in filled and unfilled red circle, respectively. The shaded color of the IRTS shows the error including systematic error and the random error is dra…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The measured 2.2 µm fluctuations for the IRTS. The IRTS (this work) and the CIBER (Zemcov et al. 2014) auto spectra are in filled and unfilled blue circles, respectively. The shaded color of the IRTS shows the error including systematic error and the random error is d…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The correlation between the 1.6 and 2.2 µm NIREBL brightness after subtraction of the astrophysical foreground components from the IRTS data. Each data point has different symbol size inversely weighted by its error. That is, the lager symbol represents the smaller er…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The foreground fluctuations of the IRTS fields. The ZL fluctuation is not shown since [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The NIREBL brightness dependence along the Galactic latitude bin. Here the bin size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Auto correlation fluctuation spectra of Herschel 350 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1997, A&A, 328, 702

    ´Abrah´ am, P., Leinert, C., & Lemke, D. 1997, A&A, 328, 702

    work page 1997

  2. [2]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 69

    Arai, T., Matsuura, S., & Bock, J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 69

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Bernstein, R. A. 2007, ApJ, 666, 663

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    R., Jaffe, A

    Bond, J. R., Jaffe, A. H., & Knox, L. 1998, Phys. Rev. D, 57, 2117

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    D., & Draine, B

    Brandt, T. D., & Draine, B. T. 2012, ApJ, 744, 129

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Calabretta, M. R. & Greisen, E. W. 2002, A&A, 395, 1077 Cambr´ esy, L., Reach, W. T., Beichman, C. A., & Jarrett, T. H. 2001, ApJ, 555, 563

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    2004, MNRAS, 350, 914

    Chon, G., Challinor, A., Prunet, S., Hivon, E., & Szapudi, I. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 914

    2004

  8. [8]

    A., & Megeath, S

    Cohen, M., Wheaton, Wm. A., & Megeath, S. T. 2003, AJ, 126, 1090

    work page 2003

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Donnerstein, R. L. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 1291

    2015

  2. [10]

    2005, ApJ, 634, 155

    Dwek, E., Krennrich, F., & Arendt, R. 2005, ApJ, 634, 155

    2005

  3. [11]

    J., Dwek, E., Mather, J

    Fixsen, D. J., Dwek, E., Mather, J. C., Bennett, C. L., & Shafer, R. A. 1998, ApJ, 508, 123

    1998

  4. [12]

    N., Boulanger, F., Perault, M., & Puget, J

    Gautier, I, T. N., Boulanger, F., Perault, M., & Puget, J. L. 1992, AJ, 103, 1313

    1992

  5. [13]

    Girardi, L., Groenewegen, M. A. T., Hatziminaoglou, E., & da Costa, L. 2005, A&A, 436, 895

    2005

  6. [14]

    L., & Chary, R

    Gorjian, V., Wright, E. L., & Chary, R. R. 2000, ApJ, 536, 550

    2000

  7. [15]

    M., Hivon, E

    Gorski, K. M., Hivon, E. & Banday, A. J. 2005, ApJ, 622, 759 36

    2005

  8. [16]

    M., & Netterfield, C

    Hivon, E., G´ orski, K. M., & Netterfield, C. B. 2002, ApJ, 567, 2

    2002

  9. [17]

    G., Mather, J., & Moseley, S

    Kashlinsky, A., Arendt, R. G., Mather, J., & Moseley, S. H. 2005, Natur, 438, 45

    2005

  10. [18]

    G., & Ashby, M

    Kashlinsky, A., Arendt, R. G., & Ashby, M. L. N., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 63

    2012

  11. [19]

    2017, PASJ, 69, 31

    Kawara, K., Matsuoka, Y., & Sano, K., et al. 2017, PASJ, 69, 31

    2017

  12. [20]

    C., Barger, A

    Keenan, R. C., Barger, A. J., Cowie, L. L., & Wang, W. -H. 2010, ApJ, 723, 40

    2010

  13. [21]

    L., & Franz, B

    Kelsall, T., Weiland, J. L., & Franz, B. A., et al. 1998, ApJ, 508, 44

    1998

  14. [22]

    1995, Phys

    Knox, L. 1995, Phys. Rev. D, 52, 4307

    1995

  15. [23]

    M., Reynolds, R

    Lagache, G., Haffner, L. M., Reynolds, R. J. & Tufte, S. L. 2000, A&A, 354, 247

    2000

  16. [24]

    R., Wright, E

    Levenson, L. R., Wright, E. L., & Johnson, B. D. 2007, ApJ, 666, 34

    2007

  17. [25]

    2005, ApJ, 626, 31

    Matsumoto, T., Matsuura, S., & Murakami, H., et al. 2005, ApJ, 626, 31

    2005

  18. [26]

    J., & Jeong, W.-S., et al

    Matsumoto, T., Seo, H. J., & Jeong, W.-S., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 124

    2011

  19. [27]

    G., Pyo, J

    Matsumoto, T., Kim, M. G., Pyo, J. & Tsumura, K. 2015, ApJ, 807, 57

    2015

  20. [28]

    2011, ApJ, 736, 119

    Matsuoka, Y., Ienaka, N., Kawara, K., & Oyabu, S. 2011, ApJ, 736, 119

    2011

  21. [29]

    2017, ApJ, 839, 7

    Matsuura, S., Arai, T., & Bock, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 839, 7

    2017

  22. [30]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 2133

    Mattila, K., Lehtinen, K., V¨ ais¨ anen, P., von Appen-Schnur, G., Leinert, Ch. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2133

    2017

  23. [31]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 2152

    Mattila, K., V¨ ais¨ anen, P., Lehtinen, K., von Appen-Schnur, G., Leinert, Ch. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2152

    2017

  24. [32]

    2015, Nat

    Mitchell-Wynne, K., Cooray, A., & Gong, Y., et al. 2015, Nat. Comm. 6, 7945

    2015

  25. [33]

    M., & Ganga, K

    Murakami, H., Freund, M. M., & Ganga, K. 1996, PASJ, 48L, 41

    1996

  26. [34]

    1994, ApJ, 428, 363

    Noda, M., Matsumoto, T., & Matsuura, S., et al. 1994, ApJ, 428, 363

    1994

  27. [35]

    1996, SPIE, 2817, 248

    Noda, M., Matsumoto, T., & Murakami, H. 1996, SPIE, 2817, 248

    1996

  28. [36]

    2018, PASJ, 70, 76 Planck Collaboration XVIII 2011, A&A, 536, A18

    Onishi, Y., Sano, K., & Matsuura S., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, 76 Planck Collaboration XVIII 2011, A&A, 536, A18

    2018

  29. [37]

    2011, A&A, 535, 90

    Ponthieu, N., Grain, J., & Lagache, G. 2011, A&A, 535, 90

    2011

  30. [38]

    -L., Aberget, A., & Bernard, J

    Puget, J. -L., Aberget, A., & Bernard, J. -P., et al. 1996, A&A, 308, L5

    1996

  31. [39]

    -S., & Matsuura, S

    Pyo, J., Matsumoto, T., Jeong, W. -S., & Matsuura, S. 2012, ApJ, 760, 120

    2012

  32. [40]

    & Ferrara, A

    Salvaterra, R. & Ferrara, A. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 973

    2003

  33. [41]

    2015, ApJ, 811, 77

    Sano, K., Kawara, K., & Matsuura, S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 77

    2015

  34. [42]

    2016, ApJ, 818, 72

    Sano, K., Kawara, K., & Matsuura, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 72

    2016

  35. [43]

    R., Bromm, V., & Kamionkowski, M

    Santos, M. R., Bromm, V., & Kamionkowski, M. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 1082

    2002

  36. [44]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., and Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525

    1998

  37. [45]

    J., Lee, H

    Seo, H. J., Lee, H. M., & Matsumoto, T. et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 140

    2015

  38. [46]

    1997, Phys

    Tegmark, M. 1997, Phys. Rev. D, 55, 5895

    1997

  39. [47]

    Thacker, C., Gong, Y., & Cooray, A. et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 125

    2015

  40. [48]

    I., Eisenstein, D., Fan, X., Rieke, M., & Kennicutt, R

    Thompson, R. I., Eisenstein, D., Fan, X., Rieke, M., & Kennicutt, R. C. 2007, ApJ, 666, 658 37

    2007

  41. [49]

    2010, ApJ, 719, 394

    Tsumura, K., Battle, J., & Bock, J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 719, 394

    2010

  42. [50]

    Wright, E. L. & Reese, E. D. 2000, ApJ, 545, 43

    2000

  43. [51]

    2013, MNRAS, 431, 383

    Yue, B., Ferrara, A., Salvaterra, R., & Chen X. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 383

    2013

  44. [52]

    2014, Sci, 346, 732

    Zemcov, M., Smidt, J., & Arai, T., et al. 2014, Sci, 346, 732

    2014

  45. [53]

    2017, Nat

    Zemcov, M., Immel, P., & Nguyen, C., et al. 2017, Nat. Comm. 8, 15003 38

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.