Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Analytical modeling of the one-dimensional power spectrum of 21-cm forest based on a halo model method

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims a halo model can analytically reproduce the 1D power spectrum of the 21-cm forest, with the one-halo term dominating below 2 Mpc, enabling SKA-LOW forecasts of warm dark matter and x-ray heating.

desk verdict First analytic halo-model treatment of the 1D 21-cm forest power spectrum, with a useful SKA forecast, but the validation is mostly internal consistency and the forecast errors inherit unvalidated assumptions about spin temperature and velocity gradients. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17094 v2 pith:GLYA6CTN submitted 2024-11-26 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-ph

Yue Shao , Tian-Yang Sun , Meng-Lin Zhao , Xin Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-ph
keywords 21-cmforesthalomodelone-dimensionalpowerspectrumwarmdarkmatterx-rayheatingepochofreionizationSKA-LOWradio-loudquasars
open problems Dark Matter
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 tries to establish that the one-dimensional (1D) power spectrum of the 21-cm forest—the dense web of absorption lines that neutral hydrogen imprints on the spectra of high-redshift radio sources—can be computed analytically with a halo model, eliminating the need for costly small-box simulations. The model separates the signal into a one-halo term and a two-halo term; on scales below about 2 comoving Mpc the one-halo term dominates, so the observed spectrum is essentially the dark-matter halo mass function weighted by gas density and temperature profiles around halos. The authors compare this analytic spectrum against small-scale simulation results for both cold and warm dark matter and for several x-ray heating efficiencies, and report close agreement across that parameter space. If the model holds, it gives a fast, parameter-ready bridge from future Square Kilometre Array observations to two early-Universe unknowns: the mass of warm dark matter particles and the efficiency of x-ray heating.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the halo-model decomposition applied to the 21-cm brightness-temperature contrast, specifically to the profile $\rho_{21}(r,z,M) = [1+\delta(r)]/T_K(r)$ around a halo of mass $M$. A window function $W_{21}(k,z,M)$, the Fourier transform of $\rho_{21}$, is integrated over the halo mass function $dn/dM$ to form the one-halo term, and the same window function weighted by halo bias is combined with the linear matter power spectrum for the two-halo term. The radial profiles come from an NFW dark-matter profile with gas in hydrostatic equilibrium inside the virial radius and an infall model outside; the temperature is the virial temperature inside halos and adiabatic plus x-ray heating outside, with $f_X$ as a free parameter. On scales below about 2 comoving Mpc the one-halo term dominates, making the predicted 1D power spectrum essentially a convolution of the halo mass function with these profiles.

What would settle it

Run a small-box radiative-transfer simulation that computes the spin temperature from the local Lyman-$\alpha$ and x-ray fields instead of assuming $T_S = T_K$, and compare its 1D power spectrum at $k > 3$ Mpc$^{-1}$ with the halo-model prediction for the same halo population; a difference larger than the forecast measurement error $\sigma_P$ would mean the quoted sensitivities are biased. A simpler observational check would be a SKA-LOW measurement toward a $z \approx 8$ quasar that tests whether the predicted one-halo slope and amplitude are present.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the 1D power spectrum of the 21-cm forest along the line of sight is, up to a background-source prefactor $T_0^2(\hat n,z)$, the projected 3D power spectrum of the field $[1+\delta(z)]/T_K(z)$, where $\delta$ is the gas overdensity and $T_K$ is the gas kinetic temperature. In the halo-model decomposition this becomes $P_{21}(k_\parallel,z) = T_0^2 [P^{1h}_{21} + P^{2h}_{21}]$, with the one-halo term built from the Fourier-transformed halo profile $W_{21}(k,z,M)$ integrated over the halo mass function and the two-halo term built from the halo bias times the linear matter power spectrum. On the small scales the model targets, the one-halo term dominates, so the spectral shape is fixed by the halo mass function and the assumed density and temperature profiles. After validating the model against small-scale simulations for CDM and 6 keV WDM at $f_X = 0.01$, $0.1$, and $1$, the paper forecasts that SKA-LOW observations of ten radio-loud quasars, 100 hours each, would constrain a fiducial $m_W = 6$ keV to about $\pm 1.3$ keV and a fiducial $f_X = 0.1$ to about $\pm 0.02$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the spin temperature of neutral hydrogen is fully coupled to the gas kinetic temperature through an early Lyman-$\alpha$ background and that the CMB dominates the background radiation, so the 21-cm brightness is just proportional to $[1+\delta]/T_K$; if that coupling is incomplete or the assumed gas temperature is wrong, the predicted spectrum shifts, and because the validation simulation uses the same temperature and density prescriptions, it cannot detect that failure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 1D 21-cm forest power spectrum on small scales can be evaluated directly from the halo mass function and profiles, bypassing expensive small-box simulations for survey design and parameter studies.
  • Because the one-halo term dominates below roughly 2 comoving Mpc, the observed small-scale spectrum traces the abundance of low-mass halos, so a deficit of power is a direct warm-dark-matter signature.
  • The forecast implies that SKA-LOW observations of ten bright radio-loud quasars could constrain the warm dark matter particle mass and the x-ray heating efficiency simultaneously.
  • Extending the model to larger scales requires adding ionization fluctuations and Lyman-$\alpha$ coupling, a step the authors identify as the natural next development.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the one-halo dominance implies the 21-cm forest 1D power spectrum could in principle be inverted to measure the halo mass function over roughly $10^5$-$10^8\,M_\odot$, providing a small-scale structure census independent of galaxy surveys.
  • Editorial extension: the forecast's error bars assume the model's own temperature prescription in the likelihood; a self-consistent treatment of Lyman-$\alpha$ coupling and inhomogeneous heating would provide a direct stress test of those sensitivities.
  • Editorial extension: the same halo-model pipeline should transfer to other small-scale dark-matter models with a cutoff, such as ultra-light axions, and to other one-dimensional statistics of the absorption spectra, like the variance or bispectrum.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops an analytical halo-model description of the 1D power spectrum of the 21-cm forest. Starting from the standard emission/absorption formalism, the authors simplify the brightness temperature to δTb ≈ T0(1+δ)/T_K, model the gas density and temperature profiles around halos, and compute the 1D power spectrum by projecting the 3D halo-model power spectrum. The model is compared against the small-scale simulation of Ref. [32] for CDM and WDM models with varying x-ray heating, showing visually good agreement on scales below 2 Mpc. The authors then use the model to forecast constraints on the warm dark matter mass m_W and the x-ray heating efficiency f_X from 10 radio-loud quasars observed with SKA-LOW for 100 hours each, obtaining σ_mW ≈ 1.3 keV and σ_fX ≈ 0.02.

Significance. The halo-model machinery is well suited to the scales of interest for the 21-cm forest, and the paper provides explicit closed-form expressions and a transparent forecasting pipeline, including a quasar population model and a noise estimate. If the underlying brightness-temperature mapping is accepted, this is a useful tool for quick parameter exploration and survey optimization. The main strength is the clear construction of the one-halo and two-halo terms and the demonstration that the one-halo term dominates at small scales, which physically maps the observable onto the halo mass function. However, the validation is internal: the simulation used for comparison is built from the same density and temperature prescriptions and the same brightness-temperature mapping, so the agreement checks the consistency of the analytic integration with a Monte Carlo realization of the same subgrid model rather than the accuracy of the physical mapping itself.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II.A, Eq. (4) and §IV] The simplification δTb ≈ T0(1+δ)/T_K drops the velocity-gradient factor H/(dv∥/dr∥) from Eq. (2) and assumes full Lyα coupling T_S = T_K. The validation simulation in Section IV is constructed from the same NFW/infall density profiles, the same virial/adiabatic-plus-x-ray temperature prescription, and the same brightness-temperature mapping. Therefore Figs. 4 and 5 demonstrate only that the analytic one-halo integral reproduces a Monte Carlo realization of the same subgrid model; they do not test whether Eq. (4) accurately represents the observable 21-cm forest. At k > 3 Mpc^-1, minihalo velocity dispersion and thermal broadening redistribute absorption in frequency, and incomplete Lyα coupling places T_S between T_K and T_γ, both of which would change the amplitude and slope of P(k∥). Please either validate Eq. (4) against a simulation that includes the velocity-gradient term and a more complete T_S treatment, or provide a quantitative estimate of the magnitude of these effects on P(k∥) and state the resulting systematic uncertainty in the forecast.
  2. [§IV, Figs. 4 and 5] The comparison between the halo model and the simulation is presented without error bars or any goodness-of-fit statistic. Since the claim that the model 'exhibits high consistency with the simulation results across a wide range of parameter spaces' is central to the paper, please add the simulation's sample variance (the text states that 500^2 lines of sight are averaged) and report a quantitative agreement metric, such as the fractional difference or χ² per degree of freedom, for each panel. This will allow readers to assess whether the visual agreement is genuine or simply the absence of error bars, and it will make the 'applicable across a wide range of parameters' claim falsifiable.
  3. [§II.B.3 and §III.B] The temperature profile is a free subgrid prescription: T_K equals the virial temperature inside halos and the maximum of the adiabatic and x-ray-heated temperatures outside, with f_X as a free parameter. The HERA constraint is used only to set the fiducial f_X = 0.1, not to validate the profile shape. Because the predicted power spectrum amplitude scales roughly as 1/T_K^2 through Eq. (4), a biased temperature profile would directly bias the m_W and f_X forecasts. Please add a sensitivity test that varies the temperature-profile shape (e.g., using the HERA 1σ bounds or a different x-ray heating model) and shows the impact on the forecast constraints, so that the systematic error is quantified rather than implicit.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§II.B.1] The symbol 'M4' is used in the text but not defined; please define it explicitly as the mass at which the virial temperature equals 10^4 K.
  2. [§II.B.2] The normalization of the gas density profile in Eq. (16) is not specified; please state the boundary condition that fixes ρ_gc, since the profile is needed for the Fourier transform in Eq. (9).
  3. [§III.A, Eq. (22)] The survey area expression integrates sinθ dθ without specifying the integration limits; for a declination band from -86° to 34°, the area is obtained by integrating over the corresponding polar angle range, and the stated 10,000 deg^2 result should be verified with the actual limits.
  4. [§V] The phrase 'theoretically modeling' in the conclusion should be 'theoretically model' or 'theoretical modeling'; a typographical error.
  5. [Fig. 4] The legend repeats 'Halo model' and 'Simulation' for each color, which is redundant; please make the legend concise and associate the colors with f_X values in the caption.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Validation is internal: the Fig. 4 simulation shares the model's NFW/infall density, virial/x-ray temperature, halo mass function, and simplified brightness-temperature mapping, so the agreement checks only the analytic quadrature against a Monte Carlo of the same sub-grid model.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section IV (Results and Discussion), validation paragraph and Fig. 4]
    "For a direct comparison between our analytical model and the simulated 1D power spectra from previous studies, we conducted small-scale simulations on grids of 2 Mpc in length [32]. Each (2 Mpc)3 grid is populated with halos based on the conditional halo mass function for the CDM or WDM [40, 85]. ... within halos, the gas temperature is set to the virial temperature, while in the surrounding IGM, it is determined by adiabatic cooling or x-ray heating. ... The density in each voxel is determined by the NFW profile or the infall model profile."

    The analytic P21 is composed of exactly those ingredients: the Sec. II.B.1 halo mass function, Sec. II.B.2 NFW/infall gas density profile, Sec. II.B.3 virial/adiabatic-plus-x-ray temperature prescription, and the Eq. (4) brightness-temperature mapping. Ref. [32] is the same group's 21-cm forest simulation (authors Shao and Zhang overlap with this paper), so Fig. 4 is an internal consistency check: Eq. (8)'s one-halo integral is compared with a Monte Carlo of the same sub-grid physics. It cannot validate Eq. (4) or the profiles against the real forest, yet the conclusion cites 'high consistency with the simulation results' as validation.

  2. other [Section II.A, Eq. (4), with the simulation setup in Section IV]
    "We assume Tγ ≫ TS and TS is assumed to be fully coupled to the gas kinetic temperature TK through the early Lyα background. ... We can further simplify δTb by δTb( ˆn, z)≈ T0( ˆn, z)1 +δ(z) TK(z) ,"

    The prediction target is defined by Eq. (4), which omits the H/(dv∥/dr∥) factor and explicit T_S dependence of Eq. (2) and assumes full Lyα coupling T_S=T_K. The simulation computes the 21-cm brightness temperature from the same density/temperature fields with the same simplified mapping, so Fig. 4 cannot distinguish Eq. (4) from the full optical-depth formula. Incomplete Lyα coupling would place T_S between T_K and T_gamma, and velocity-gradient broadening changes amplitude and slope of P21; the forecast for m_W and f_X inherits this untested mapping. The paper calls the redshift-space distortion effect 'relatively weak' without a quantitative test.

full rationale

The halo-model construction itself (Eqs. 5-10) is a standard analytic formalism and is not circular: it derives a 1D power spectrum from a halo mass function, density profiles, and temperature profiles without fitting those ingredients to the simulation. The circularity lies in the validation and in the load-bearing claim that the model 'exhibits high consistency with the simulation results across a wide range of parameter spaces.' The simulation described in Section IV is generated from the same halo mass function, the same NFW/infall density profiles, the same virial-temperature/adiabatic-plus-x-ray temperature prescription, and the same simplified brightness-temperature mapping as the analytic model, and the simulation code comes from Ref. [32], which shares authors with this paper. Agreement is therefore expected up to numerical integration error; it verifies internal consistency of the analytic integrals with a Monte Carlo, not the physical fidelity of Eq. (4) or the temperature/density assumptions. The forecasts for m_W and f_X also inherit the untested Eq. (4) mapping. There is no fitted-input-as-prediction step and no imported uniqueness theorem; the astrophysical prescription simplifications (T_gamma >> T_S, T_S = T_K, x_HI = 1, neglected velocity gradient) are stated openly as assumptions. The concern is that those assumptions are the target of the validation, and the simulation cannot test them because it shares them. A minor additional self-citation is Ref. [51] for the radio-loud quasar model, but it is not load-bearing for the central derivation. Overall: partial circularity of the validation claim, score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on the Press-Schechter mass function, WDM suppression fitting formulas, NFW and infall gas profiles, and a virial plus x-ray temperature prescription. The free parameters f_X, m_W, M_min, and sigma_logM are chosen by hand or varied in the forecast. The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities; the halo model and WDM cutoff are standard ingredients from prior literature. The main additional choices are the simplifying assumptions x_HI = 1, full Ly-alpha coupling, and neglect of redshift-space distortions.

free parameters (4)
  • f_X = 0.1 fiducial, range 0.01 to 1
    X-ray heating efficiency parameter in Eq. (19); sets the IGM temperature in neutral patches, which strongly affects the forest signal. It is varied in the forecast and constrained by the mock observations.
  • m_W = 6 keV fiducial
    Warm dark matter particle mass; sets the free-streaming cutoff in Eqs. (13) to (15) and the suppression of low-mass halos. Constrained in the Bayesian forecast.
  • M_min = 10^5 solar masses
    Minimum halo mass included in the model, chosen as the Jeans mass for these redshifts. The 21-cm forest signal is dominated by these low-mass halos, so the result depends on this choice.
  • sigma_logM = 0.5
    Width of the WDM-to-CDM transition in the halo mass function, Eq. (12). The paper takes this fixed value from the fitting formula without independent justification.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Press-Schechter halo mass function and Mo-White halo bias, Eqs. (11) and the bias term in Eq. (8).
    Standard analytic results adopted from prior literature, not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption WDM halo mass function suppression via the fitting formulas of Eqs. (12) to (15).
    The suppression formula from Smith and Markovic (2011) and Viel et al. (2005) is assumed valid at the low masses relevant for the 21-cm forest.
  • domain assumption NFW dark matter profile with hydrostatic gas profile inside the virial radius, Eqs. (16) and (17).
    The gas distribution inside halos is taken from Makino et al. (1998) and the concentration-mass relation from Gao et al. (2005), with the same relation applied to all dark matter models.
  • domain assumption Infall model for gas density outside the virial radius.
    Gas outside halos is assumed to follow the dark matter infall profile of Barkana (2004), which sets the envelope contribution to the absorption signal.
  • ad hoc to paper Temperature prescription: T_K equals virial temperature inside halos, and adiabatic plus x-ray heating outside, Eqs. (18) and (19).
    This is a modeling choice parameterized by f_X, and it is identical in the analytical model and the validation simulation, so the agreement is partly by construction.
  • ad hoc to paper Neglect of the velocity-gradient term in Eq. (2) and of redshift evolution over 2 Mpc segments.
    The paper states that redshift-space distortion impact is 'relatively weak' and evolution is negligible, but provides no quantitative justification or test.
  • ad hoc to paper One-halo term dominance at scales below 2 Mpc.
    The paper asserts one-halo dominance and presents only that term, without quantifying the two-halo contribution or checking convergence across the full k range.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analytical modeling of the one-dimensional power spectrum of 21-cm forest based on a halo model method." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GLYA6CTN

@misc{pith2026241117094,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analytical modeling of the one-dimensional power spectrum of 21-cm forest based on a halo model method},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GLYA6CTN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17094}
}
read the original abstract

The 21-cm forest, composed of spectral absorption features from high-redshift background radio sources, provides a unique probe for studying small-scale structures during the epoch of reionization. It is particularly sensitive to detecting small-scale structures and early heating processes. Despite the rich information contained in the 21-cm forest signal, the complexity of directly modeling the signal has led to a lack of effective analytical models. However, the one-dimensional (1D) power spectrum of the 21-cm forest contains valuable information about the matter power spectrum, making analytical modeling feasible. This work employs an analytical modeling approach based on the halo model, which links the distribution of matter to dark matter halos, allowing for effective predictions of cosmic structure formation and its impact on the 21-cm signal. By considering various parameter scenarios within the halo model framework, particularly different dark matter particle masses and varying levels of cosmic heating, we can capture the complexities of small-scale structures and make the 1D power spectrum modeling applicable across a wide range of parameters. This method not only enhances our understanding of the 21-cm forest signal but also provides theoretical support for future observational data. Observing the 21-cm forest with large radio telescopes, such as the Square Kilometre Array, is anticipated to enable simultaneous exploration of dark matter properties and the heating history of the early universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17094 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Halo mass function in CDM model (solid lines) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The neutral hydrogen overdensity profiles (left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Simulated radio-loud quasar distribution with SKA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of the 21-cm forest halo model presented [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison between the 21-cm forest halo model in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The SNR, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Bayesian constraints at the 68 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Prospects for measuring neutrino mass with 21-cm forest

    astro-ph.CO 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using an analytic halo model, the authors forecast that 21-cm forest observations with SKA-LOW could constrain the total neutrino mass to about 0.1 eV, potentially distinguishing neutrino mass hierarchies.

  2. Prospects of a statistical detection of the 21-cm forest and its potential to constrain the thermal state of the neutral IGM during reionization

    astro-ph.CO 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Forward-modeled 21-cm forest spectra show that a 1D power spectrum detection is feasible with 500 hr of uGMRT or 50 hr of SKA1-low time for a 25% neutral, cold IGM at z=6, and that null detections can constrain IGM he...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [32]

    Sitwell, A

    M. Sitwell, A. Mesinger, Y.-Z. Ma, and K. Sigurd- son, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.438, 2664 (2014), arXiv:1310.0029 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2014

  2. [1]

    In the CDM model, the number density of halos within a certain mass range at redshiftzis described by the Press-Schechter formalism [55, 56]

    Halo mass function The halo mass function is particularly crucial for mod- eling how these halos contribute to the 21-cm forest sig- 4 nal, especially for low-mass halos found in neutral re- gions. In the CDM model, the number density of halos within a certain mass range at redshiftzis described by the Press-Schechter formalism [55, 56]. The halo mass fun...

  3. [2]

    Density profile The distribution of gas density within and around dark matter halos plays a crucial role in shaping the 21-cm ab- sorption signal, as it directly influences the distribution of neutral hydrogen along the line of sight. For regions inside the virial radiusr vir, we assume that the dark mat- ter adheres to the Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) [64] ...

  4. [3]

    The temperature of the gas within the neutral IGM is mainly regulated by cosmic expansion, Compton scattering with the CMB, and x- ray heating

    Temperature profile The temperature of the gas, especially in the neutral IGM, is vital in influencing the 21-cm absorption sig- nal as it impacts both the spin temperature of hydrogen and the absorption strength. The temperature of the gas within the neutral IGM is mainly regulated by cosmic expansion, Compton scattering with the CMB, and x- ray heating....

  5. [4]

    Furlanetto and A

    S. Furlanetto and A. Loeb, Astrophys. J.579, 1 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0206308

    arXiv 2002

  6. [5]

    Y. Xu, A. Ferrara, and X. Chen, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.410, 2025 (2011), arXiv:1009.1149 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2011

  7. [6]

    Meiksin, Mon

    A. Meiksin, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.417, 1480 (2011), arXiv:1102.1362 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2011

  8. [7]

    Banadoset al., Astrophys

    E. Banadoset al., Astrophys. J.909, 80 (2021), arXiv:2103.03295 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 97 references
  1. [8]

    Ighina, S

    L. Ighina, S. Belladitta, A. Caccianiga, J. W. Broderick, G. Drouart, A. Moretti, and N. Seymour, Astron. Astro- phys.647, L11 (2021), arXiv:2101.11371 [astro-ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Haiman, E

    Z. Haiman, E. Quataert, and G. C. Bower, Astrophys. J.612, 698 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0403104

    2004 arXiv

  3. [10]

    A. J. Gloudemans, K. J. Duncan, A. Saxena, Y. Harikane, G. J. Hill, G. R. Zeimann, H. J. A. R¨ ottgering, D. Yang, P. N. Best, E. Ba˜ nados, A. Drabent, M. J. Hardcastle, J. F. Hennawi, G. Lansbury, M. Magliocchetti, G. K. Miley, R. Nanni, T. W. Shimwell, D. J. B. Smith, B. P....

    2022 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Ioka and P

    K. Ioka and P. Meszaros, Astrophys. J.619, 684 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0408487

    2005 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Salvaterraet al., Nature461, 1258 (2009), arXiv:0906.1578 [astro-ph.CO]

    R. Salvaterraet al., Nature461, 1258 (2009), arXiv:0906.1578 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Cucchiaraet al., Astrophys

    A. Cucchiaraet al., Astrophys. J.736, 7 (2011), arXiv:1105.4915 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Ciardiet al., Mon

    B. Ciardiet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.453, 101 (2015), arXiv:1504.07448 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Kinugawa, Y

    T. Kinugawa, Y. Harikane, and K. Asano, Astrophys. J. 878, 128 (2019), arXiv:1901.03516 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Carilli, N

    C. Carilli, N. Y. Gnedin, and F. Owen, Astrophys. J. 577, 22 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0205169

    2002 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Furlanetto, Mon

    S. Furlanetto, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.370, 1867 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0604223

    2006 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Y. Xu, X. Chen, Z. Fan, H. Trac, and R. Cen, Astrophys. J.704, 1396 (2009), arXiv:0904.4254 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Y. Xu, A. Ferrara, F. S. Kitaura, and X. Chen, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.53, 1124 (2010), arXiv:1002.4356 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Ciardiet al., Mon

    B. Ciardiet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.428, 1755 (2013), arXiv:1209.2615 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  14. [21]

    P. Bode, J. P. Ostriker, and N. Turok, Astrophys. J. 556, 93 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0010389

    2001 arXiv

  15. [22]

    D. J. E. Marsh, (2016), arXiv:1605.05973 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  16. [23]

    J. B. Mu˜ noz, C. Dvorkin, and F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, Phys. Rev. D101, 063526 (2020), arXiv:1911.11144 [astro- ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Jones, S

    D. Jones, S. Palatnick, R. Chen, A. Beane, and A. Lidz, Astrophys. J.913, 7 (2021), arXiv:2101.07177 [astro- ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [25]

    E. G. M. Ferreira, Astron. Astrophys. Rev.29, 7 (2021), arXiv:2005.03254 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Shenet al., (2023), arXiv:2304.06742 [astro-ph.GA]

    X. Shenet al., (2023), arXiv:2304.06742 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Shimabukuro, K

    H. Shimabukuro, K. Ichiki, and K. Kadota, Phys. Rev. D101, 043516 (2020), arXiv:1910.06011 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Kawasaki, W

    M. Kawasaki, W. Nakano, H. Nakatsuka, and E. Sonomoto, (2020), 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/04/019, arXiv:2010.13504 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Avila-Reese, P

    V. Avila-Reese, P. Colin, O. Valenzuela, E. D’Onghia, and C. Firmani, Astrophys. J.559, 516 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0010525. 11

    2001 arXiv

  23. [30]

    R. E. Smith and K. Markovic, Phys. Rev. D84, 063507 (2011), arXiv:1103.2134 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Schneider, R

    A. Schneider, R. E. Smith, and D. Reed, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.433, 1573 (2013), arXiv:1303.0839 [astro- ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Shimabukuro, K

    H. Shimabukuro, K. Ichiki, S. Inoue, and S. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D90, 083003 (2014), arXiv:1403.1605 [astro- ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  26. [34]

    K. J. Mack and J. S. B. Wyithe, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.425, 2988 (2012), arXiv:1101.5431 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Y. Shao, Y. Xu, Y. Wang, W. Yang, R. Li, X. Zhang, and X. Chen, Nature Astron.7, 1116 (2023), arXiv:2307.04130 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Ciardi and A

    B. Ciardi and A. Ferrara, Space Sci. Rev.116, 625 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0409018

    2005 arXiv

  29. [37]

    ˇSoltinsk´ y, J

    T. ˇSoltinsk´ y, J. S. Bolton, M. Molaro, N. Hatch, M. G. Haehnelt, L. C. Keating, G. Kulkarni, and E. Puchwein, (2022), 10.1093/mnras/stac3710, arXiv:2211.07655 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Ma and J

    C.-P. Ma and J. N. Fry, Astrophys. J.543, 503 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0003343

    2000 arXiv

  31. [39]

    R. E. Smith, J. A. Peacock, A. Jenkins, S. D. M. White, C. S. Frenk, F. R. Pearce, P. A. Thomas, G. Efstathiou, and H. M. P. Couchmann (VIRGO Consortium), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.341, 1311 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0207664

    2003

  32. [40]

    A. Mead, J. Peacock, C. Heymans, S. Joudaki, and A. Heavens, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.454, 1958 (2015), arXiv:1505.07833 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [41]

    O. H. E. Philcox, D. N. Spergel, and F. Villaescusa- Navarro, Phys. Rev. D101, 123520 (2020), arXiv:2004.09515 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Acuto, I

    A. Acuto, I. G. McCarthy, J. Kwan, J. Salcido, S. G. Stafford, and A. S. Font, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 508, 3519 (2021), arXiv:2109.11855 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Cooray and R

    A. Cooray and R. K. Sheth, Phys. Rept.372, 1 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0206508

    2002 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Seljak, Mon

    U. Seljak, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.318, 203 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0001493

    2000 arXiv

  37. [45]

    S. G. Murray, B. Diemer, Z. Chen, A. G. Neuhold, M. A. Schnapp, T. Peruzzi, D. Blevins, and T. Engelman, Astron. Comput.36, 100487 (2021), arXiv:2009.14066 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    C. Feng, A. Cooray, and B. Keating, Astrophys. J.846, 21 (2017), arXiv:1701.07005 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Schneider, S

    A. Schneider, S. K. Giri, and J. Mirocha, Phys. Rev. D 103, 083025 (2021), arXiv:2011.12308 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Schneider, T

    A. Schneider, T. Schaeffer, and S. K. Giri, Phys. Rev. D 108, 043030 (2023), arXiv:2302.06626 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Schaeffer, S

    T. Schaeffer, S. K. Giri, and A. Schneider, (2023), 10.1093/mnras/stad2937, arXiv:2305.15466 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    P. Hitz, P. Berner, D. Crichton, J. Hennig, and A. Re- fregier, (2024), arXiv:2410.01694 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Mesinger, S

    A. Mesinger, S. Furlanetto, and R. Cen, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.411, 955 (2011), arXiv:1003.3878 [astro- ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  44. [52]

    R. J. Wilmanet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.388, 1335 (2008), arXiv:0805.3413 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  45. [53]

    A. J. Gloudemans, K. J. Duncan, H. J. A. R¨ ottgering, T. W. Shimwell, B. P. Venemans, P. N. Best, M. Br¨ uggen, G. Calistro Rivera, A. Drabent, M. J. Hardcastle, G. K. Miley, D. J. Schwarz, A. Saxena, D. J. B. Smith, and W. L. Williams, Astron. Astrophys.656, A137 (2021), arX...

    2021 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Q. Niu, Y. Li, Y. Xu, H. Guo, and X. Zhang, (2024), arXiv:2407.18136 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Madau, A

    P. Madau, A. Meiksin, and M. J. Rees, Astrophys. J. 475, 429 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9608010

    1997 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Thyagarajan, Astrophys

    N. Thyagarajan, Astrophys. J.899, 16 (2020), arXiv:2006.10070 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    W. H. Press and P. Schechter, Astrophys. J.187, 425 (1974)

    1974

  51. [59]

    Barkana and A

    R. Barkana and A. Loeb, Phys. Rept.349, 125 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0010468

    2001 arXiv

  52. [60]

    H. J. Mo and S. D. M. White, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.282, 347 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9512127

    1996 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Palanque-Delabrouille, C

    N. Palanque-Delabrouille, C. Y` eche, N. Sch¨ oneberg, J. Lesgourgues, M. Walther, S. Chabanier, and E. Ar- mengaud, JCAP04, 038 (2020), arXiv:1911.09073 [astro- ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Garzilli, A

    A. Garzilli, A. Magalich, O. Ruchayskiy, and A. Bo- yarsky, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.502, 2356 (2021), arXiv:1912.09397 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Enziet al., Mon

    W. Enziet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.506, 5848 (2021), arXiv:2010.13802 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Villasenor, B

    B. Villasenor, B. Robertson, P. Madau, and E. Schnei- der, Phys. Rev. D108, 023502 (2023), arXiv:2209.14220 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Dayal and S

    P. Dayal and S. K. Giri, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 528, 2784 (2024), arXiv:2303.14239 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    M. Viel, J. Lesgourgues, M. G. Haehnelt, S. Matar- rese, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D71, 063534 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0501562

    2005 arXiv

  59. [67]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astro- phys. J.490, 493 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9611107

    1997 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Makino, S

    N. Makino, S. Sasaki, and Y. Suto, Astrophys. J.497, 555 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9710344

    1998 arXiv

  61. [69]

    L. Gao, S. D. M. White, A. Jenkins, C. Frenk, and V. Springel, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.363, 379 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0503003

    2005 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Barkana, Mon

    R. Barkana, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.347, 59 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0212458

    2004 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Furlanetto, Mon

    S. Furlanetto, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.371, 867 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0604040

    2006 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Valdes and A

    M. Valdes and A. Ferrara, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 387, 8 (2008), arXiv:0803.0370 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Abdurashidovaet al.(HERA), Astrophys

    Z. Abdurashidovaet al.(HERA), Astrophys. J.945, 124 (2023), arXiv:2210.04912 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    F. Wang, J. Yang, X. Fan, J. F. Hennawi, A. J. Barth, E. Banados, F. Bian, K. Boutsia, T. Con- nor, F. B. Davies, R. Decarli, A.-C. Eilers, E. P. Fa- rina, R. Green, L. Jiang, J.-T. Li, C. Mazzucchelli, R. Nanni, J.-T. Schindler, B. Venemans, F. Walter, X.- B. Wu, and M. Yue, ...

    2021 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Stern, S

    D. Stern, S. G. Djorgovski, R. A. Perley, R. R. de Car- valho, and J. F. Wall, Astron. J.119, 1526 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0001394

    2000 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Ivezicet al.(SDSS), Astron

    Z. Ivezicet al.(SDSS), Astron. J.124, 2364 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0202408. 12

    2002 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Ba˜ nadoset al., Astrophys

    E. Ba˜ nadoset al., Astrophys. J.804, 118 (2015), arXiv:1503.04214 [astro-ph.GA]

    2015 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Y. Liu, R. Wang, E. Momjian, E. Ba˜ nados, G. Zeimann, C. J. Willott, Y. Matsuoka, A. Omont, Y. Shao, Q. Li, and J. Li, Astrophys. J.908, 124 (2021), arXiv:2012.07301 [astro-ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Scaramellaet al.(Euclid), Astron

    R. Scaramellaet al.(Euclid), Astron. Astrophys.662, A112 (2022), arXiv:2108.01201 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Spergelet al., (2015), arXiv:1503.03757 [astro-ph.IM]

    D. Spergelet al., (2015), arXiv:1503.03757 [astro-ph.IM]

    2015 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Munshiet al., Astron

    S. Munshiet al., Astron. Astrophys.681, A62 (2024), arXiv:2311.05364 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Gupta, B

    Y. Gupta, B. Ajithkumar, H. S. Kale, S. Nayak, S. Sab- hapathy, S. Sureshkumar, R. V. Swami, J. N. Chen- galur, S. K. Ghosh, C. H. Ishwara-Chandra, B. C. Joshi, N. Kanekar, D. V. Lal, and S. Roy, Current Science113, 707 (2017)

    2017

  75. [83]

    A. R. Thompson, J. M. Moran, and J. Swenson, George W.,Interferometry and Synthesis in Radio As- tronomy, 3rd Edition(2017)

    2017

  76. [84]

    E. d. L. Acedo, H. Pienaar, and N. Fagnoni, (2020), 10.1109/ICEAA.2018.8520395, arXiv:2003.10733 [astro- ph.IM]

    2020

  77. [85]

    Braun, A

    R. Braun, A. Bonaldi, T. Bourke, E. Keane, and J. Wagg, (2019), arXiv:1912.12699 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Ashtonet al., Astrophys

    G. Ashtonet al., Astrophys. J. Suppl.241, 27 (2019), arXiv:1811.02042 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Ashton and C

    G. Ashton and C. Talbot, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 507, 2037 (2021), arXiv:2106.08730 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  80. [88]

    A. R. Zentner, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D16, 763 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0611454

    2007 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Kulkarni, L

    G. Kulkarni, L. C. Keating, M. G. Haehnelt, S. E. I. Bosman, E. Puchwein, J. Chardin, and D. Aubert, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.485, L24 (2019), arXiv:1809.06374 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Nasir and A

    F. Nasir and A. D’Aloisio, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 494, 3080 (2020), arXiv:1910.03570 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Y. Qin, A. Mesinger, S. E. I. Bosman, and M. Viel, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.506, 2390 (2021), arXiv:2101.09033 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021

  84. [92]

    ˇSoltinsk´ y, J

    T. ˇSoltinsk´ y, J. S. Bolton, N. Hatch, M. G. Haehnelt, L. C. Keating, G. Kulkarni, E. Puchwein, J. Chardin, and D. Aubert, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.506, 5818 (2021), arXiv:2105.02250 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  85. [93]

    T.-Y. Sun, Y. Shao, Y. Li, Y. Xu, and X. Zhang, (2024), arXiv:2407.14298 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Pochinda, T

    S. Pochinda, T. Gessey-Jones, H. T. J. Bevins, A. Fi- alkov, S. Heimersheim, I. Abril-Cabezas, E. d. L. Acedo, S. Singh, S. Sikder, and R. Barkana, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.531, 1113 (2024), arXiv:2312.08095 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Lazare, D

    H. Lazare, D. Sarkar, and E. D. Kovetz, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043523 (2024), arXiv:2307.15577 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Mirocha, J

    J. Mirocha, J. B. Mu˜ noz, S. R. Furlanetto, A. Liu, and A. Mesinger, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.514, 2010 (2022), arXiv:2201.07249 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  89. [97]

    J. B. Mu˜ noz, (2023), 10.1093/mnras/stad1512, arXiv:2302.08506 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.