Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Simulation-based inference on warm dark matter from HERA forecasts

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A fully built HERA, in 1000 hours of observation, could exclude warm dark matter masses up to about 17 keV, beating the current Lyman-alpha bound of 5.3 keV, provided cosmic-dawn galaxies form in halos below about 10^8 solar masses.

desk verdict A careful, conditional forecast: HERA could beat Lyman-alpha on WDM only if cosmic dawn galaxies form in haloes below ~1e8 Msun, and the sharp-k HMF carries the whole sensitivity. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10310 v1 pith:KPB2YZXO submitted 2024-12-13 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.IM

Quentin Decant , Androniki Dimitriou , Laura Lopez Honorez , Bryan Zaldivar This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.IM
keywords warmdarkmatter21cmcosmologyHERAsimulation-basedinferencehalomassfunctioncosmicdawnLyman-alphaforest
topics 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 asks whether the 21-centimeter power spectrum of neutral hydrogen at Cosmic Dawn, as it would be measured by a fully built HERA in 1000 hours, can determine the mass of warm dark matter (WDM) and beat existing probes. The authors use simulation-based inference, training a neural classifier on thousands of simulated power spectra from a semi-numerical cosmic dawn model, and update the model's WDM treatment to a sharp-$k$ halo mass function cutoff that better matches simulations. They find that HERA can surpass the Lyman-$\alpha$ forest lower bound of 5.3 keV if the threshold mass for star-forming halos is at or below about $10^8\,M_\odot$, reaching bounds near 17 keV (or 10 keV for stronger X-ray heating) when $M_{\rm turn}=10^5\,M_\odot$. The conclusion makes the galaxy-population assumption, rather than telescope sensitivity, the main condition for a competitive WDM constraint.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the halo mass function cutoff: WDM free-streaming suppresses the abundance of low-mass halos, and the paper computes this suppression with a sharp-$k$ window function in the variance integral, which reproduces N-body behavior better than the older top-hat filter. The threshold mass $M_{\rm turn}$ enters through the duty cycle $f_{\rm duty}=\exp(-M_{\rm turn}/M)$, cutting off star formation in the same low-mass halos. The analysis separates these two cutoffs using a neural ratio estimator, a binary classifier trained on matching versus mismatched parameter-spectrum pairs, which approximates the posterior without assuming a Gaussian likelihood. The competition between $M_{\rm turn}$ and the WDM free-streaming cutoff mass is what determines whether HERA can see the WDM imprint.

What would settle it

The decisive check is to run the same trained neural ratio estimator on a real 1000-hour HERA data set in the same 19 redshift bins and 15 $k$-bins. If the recovered $M_{\rm turn}$ posterior lies mostly above $10^8\,M_\odot$, or the 95% lower bound on $m_{\rm WDM}$ falls below the 5.3 keV Lyman-$\alpha$ value, the forecast's central prediction is falsified. A complementary check is to measure the power spectra at $z\approx6$-$10$; if they show no delay relative to a cold-dark-matter model with $M_{\rm turn}\gtrsim10^8\,M_\odot$, the WDM imprint the paper relies on is absent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that the 21cm power spectrum forecast for HERA contains enough information to place a 95% lower bound on the warm dark matter mass, $m_{\rm WDM}$, that exceeds the current Lyman-$\alpha$ forest bound of 5.3 keV whenever the threshold mass for star-forming halos satisfies $M_{\rm turn}\lesssim 10^8\,M_\odot$. For the most favorable single-population case, $M_{\rm turn}=10^5\,M_\odot$, the forecast excludes $m_{\rm WDM}\lesssim 17$ keV with soft X-ray sources and $m_{\rm WDM}\lesssim 10$ keV with harder, more luminous X-ray sources. The signal that carries this sensitivity is the delay of the cosmic dawn features, namely Lyman-$\alpha$ coupling, X-ray heating, and reionization, caused by WDM free-streaming suppressing low-mass halos; the analysis resolves this delay against HERA thermal noise in 19 redshift bins between $z\approx6$ and $25$ and 15 $k$-bins between $0.15$ and $0.99\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$. The paper also finds positive degeneracies between $m_{\rm WDM}$ and $M_{\rm turn}$, $\alpha_\star$, and $t_\star$, so colder dark matter can be mimicked by astrophysics that delays the signal, and these degeneracies, not the noise itself, are the main limiting factor.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast rests on the simulated 21cm power spectra being a faithful stand-in for cosmic dawn under the single-population galaxy model; if the true threshold mass lies above 1e8 solar masses, or feedback or a second galaxy population screens the WDM suppression, the claimed HERA sensitivity disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 1000-hour HERA observation would give an independent, likelihood-free WDM constraint that can exceed the Lyman-$\alpha$ bound of 5.3 keV when $M_{\rm turn}\lesssim10^8\,M_\odot$.
  • The reach is controlled by $M_{\rm turn}$: at $10^5\,M_\odot$ the forecast excludes $m_{\rm WDM}$ up to roughly 17 keV (soft X-ray benchmark) or 10 keV (harder benchmark), while at $M_{\rm turn}\gtrsim10^8\,M_\odot$ the WDM signal is screened and HERA loses its edge.
  • Because $m_{\rm WDM}$ correlates positively with $M_{\rm turn}$, $\alpha_\star$, and $t_\star$, any forecast or eventual measurement must quote the galaxy-population assumptions alongside the WDM bound, or the bound is not interpretable.
  • Training the neural ratio estimator with 10,000 simulated spectra gives reconstruction quality close to the 18,000-simulation budget, while 1,000 is too few, setting a practical simulation budget for similar forecasts.
  • Different WDM halo-mass-function treatments (top-hat versus sharp-$k$) change the expected signal, so comparing forecasts requires knowing which filter was used.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Read as an effective population parameter, $M_{\rm turn}$ in a single-population model may not equal the physical threshold for any real galaxy population; if cosmic dawn is a mix of molecular-cooling minihalos and atomic-cooling galaxies, the true duty cycle is a superposition and the WDM sensitivity could shift in either direction.
  • The same pipeline could be applied directly to the free-streaming scale, or to sterile-neutrino-like models, since it is the cutoff mass that the 21cm signal actually responds to; the WDM mass is only a derived label.
  • Because thermal noise dominates at $z\gtrsim12$ in this forecast, most of the constraining power comes from the lower-redshift heating and reionization features; a more sensitive low-frequency array or longer integration would push the WDM reach upward more directly than better astrophysical priors.
  • If real HERA data later require a second galaxy population, the posteriors shown here should widen, and the 17 keV and 10 keV numbers should be treated as upper limits of what the single-population model can achieve.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a forecast of HERA's ability to constrain the mass of thermal warm dark matter (mWDM) using the 21cm power spectrum from Cosmic Dawn. The authors modify the public code 21cmFast to use a sharp-k window function for the halo mass function instead of the default top-hat, include a single-population galaxy model with a threshold mass Mturn, and use neural ratio estimation (NRE) as the simulation-based inference method. They generate 18k training simulations with 10 thermal-noise realizations each, validate the inferred posteriors with held-out test sets and coverage tests, and compare training budgets of 1k, 10k, and 18k simulations. After using an MCMC analysis of UV luminosity data to set informative priors, they compute 95% CL lower bounds on mWDM for two benchmark astrophysical models as a function of Mturn. The central claim is that HERA with 1000 hours of observation could surpass the Lyman-alpha forest bound of 5.3 keV if Mturn is below about 10^8 Msun, with lower bounds reaching approximately 17 keV (benchmark 1) or 10 keV (benchmark 2) at Mturn = 10^5 Msun.

Significance. The analysis is carefully executed: the existence of held-out test sets, coverage tests in Appendix B, ten noise realizations per simulated spectrum, and the explicit comparison of reconstruction quality at different training budgets make the statistical pipeline credible. The paper's central result is a conditional forecast and is honest about its dependence on the single-population galaxy model. If the forecast is correct, it would establish HERA as a competitive independent probe of non-cold dark matter, complementary to Lyman-alpha forest constraints. The main value of the paper is the transparent quantification of how the assumed threshold mass for star formation controls the WDM sensitivity, and the demonstration that SBI can be applied to this problem at scale. However, the forecast's dependence on the WDM-suppressed halo mass function is not tested against cosmic-dawn N-body simulations, which is the key unresolved calibration risk.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.3, Eqs. (2.10)–(2.15)] The WDM signal enters exclusively through the product fduty × dn/dM (Eqs. (2.6) and (2.10)), so the calibration of the sharp-k/SMT halo mass function with cSK = 2.5 is load-bearing for the forecast. The paper cites N-body calibrations from refs. [34, 35, 7] but does not show any comparison of the resulting WDM HMF to simulations at z ~ 10–20 in the mass range 10^5–10^8 Msun that dominates the forecast. Since M_cut in Eq. (2.15) and Mturn enter multiplicatively, a shift in the HMF calibration changes both the threshold Mturn below which HERA surpasses the Lyman-alpha bound and the 17/10 keV bounds in Figs. 10–11. I recommend adding a robustness test, for example varying cSK over its published plausible range or comparing against an N-body-calibrated WDM HMF at high redshift, and reporting how the forecast bounds shift.
  2. [Section 4.3, Figs. 10–11] The headline bounds are computed for only two fixed benchmark models of X-ray properties (Table 2), while the UV-luminosity MCMC in Sec. 3.1 leaves LX and E0 only weakly constrained. The statement that HERA could surpass Lyman-alpha constraints if Mturn < 10^8 Msun is therefore not demonstrated across the allowed astrophysical parameter space; the abstract itself notes that X-ray properties may influence the strength of the constraint, but the paper does not quantify how the threshold Mturn < 10^8 Msun shifts when LX, E0, alpha*, or f_star,10 vary within the MCMC-allowed prior. To make the central claim adequately robust, the authors should either show the bound as a function of Mturn for several representative points across the MCMC posterior or explicitly restrict the claim to the two benchmarks rather than phrasing it as a general condition.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2, Table 3] For z bins 16–19, the k columns are empty; the text states that 15 k-bins are used, but it is unclear whether those high-redshift bins contribute no k modes or whether the table simply omits them. Please clarify in the caption.
  2. [Section 2.4, last paragraph] The sentence 'Considering low E0, we make the X-ray spectrum is softer' contains a grammatical error; it should read 'makes the X-ray spectrum softer.'
  3. [Section 5, Conclusion] The conclusion acknowledges the simplicity of the single-population galaxy model but does not mention the WDM-HMF calibration uncertainty described in Eq. (2.10)–(2.15); adding a sentence noting that the sharp-k prescription is calibrated at low redshift would help bracket the forecast's systematics.
  4. [Appendix B, Figures 13–14] The coverage plots are informative, but it would help to state explicitly that the test simulations used for coverage are independent of the training set (the division is described in Sec. 3.3, but a reminder in the caption would avoid ambiguity).
  5. [Section 3.1, last paragraph] The statement that the Planck optical depth measurement 'did not significantly affect the posteriors' is given without supporting evidence; a brief note or a supplementary figure would make this check reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the HERA forecast is a self-contained forward-model/SBI exercise, and the only author-overlapping calibration is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper is a forward-model forecast, not a parameter-inversion derivation. Mock HERA power spectra are generated from 21cmFast plus 21cmSense with injected parameters (mWDM = 28 keV and a grid of Mturn), and the SBI posterior is trained on independent simulations from the same simulator. This self-consistency is an acknowledged feature of forecasts, not a circular shortcut: the claimed lower bounds are outputs of the inference, not re-statements of the training inputs. The reconstruction-quality and coverage tests in Sec. 4.1 and Appendix B show that the posterior is not trivially the prior. The main claim, that HERA can surpass the 5.3 keV Lyman-alpha bound only if Mturn is below about 1e8 Msun, follows from the modeled product fduty times dn/dM and is explicitly conditional on the single-population astrophysics model, which the paper flags in Sec. 5. The only author-overlapping citation is [61], used to set the alpha_WDM prefactor in Eq. (2.9) so that 5.3 keV saturates the external Lyman-alpha bound [37]. That is a calibration choice; it does not force the HERA bound, and the central sensitivity forecast is not derived from [61]. No equation in the paper reduces by construction to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The sharp-k halo mass function is adopted from external N-body calibrations [34,35,7] rather than from the present authors' prior work. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central forecast rests on a large model-parameter set: six astrophysics parameters plus mWDM are varied, Mturn is scanned, and two calibration constants (transfer prefactor, c_SK) are adopted from prior fits. The paper constrains only fstar10 and alpha_star through UV luminosity data; the other astrophysics parameters come from fiducial choices or HERA Phase I. No new entities are introduced. The forecast is therefore conditional on the forward model being correct.

free parameters (10)
  • Transfer function prefactor alpha_WDM = 0.0445 Mpc/h
    Set so mWDM = 5.3 keV saturates the Lyman-alpha lower bound of [37]; this calibrates the free-streaming cutoff used in every simulation.
  • c_SK = 2.5
    Sharp-k filter constant relating halo mass to filter radius in Eq. (2.14); adopted from [7,35,64].
  • M_turn = Grid over 1e5 to 1e10 M_sun; fiducial 1e7 M_sun (Fig. 9)
    Threshold mass in the duty cycle; the central claim is conditional on its value.
  • f_star,10 = log10(f_star,10) = -0.9 in fiducial; 68% CL from UV MCMC [-1.29,-0.77]
    Stellar-to-halo mass normalization in Eq. (2.4); prior from UV luminosity data.
  • alpha_star = 0.46 fiducial; 68% CL [0.35,0.50]
    Mass slope of the stellar fraction; prior from UV luminosity data.
  • t_star = 0.5 fiducial
    Star formation time scale parameter; varied in SBI.
  • L_X = 1e40 (benchmark 1), 1e41 (benchmark 2) erg yr/(s M_sun)
    Soft-band X-ray luminosity per SFR; varied in SBI.
  • E0 = 0.5 keV (benchmark 1), 1.1 keV (benchmark 2)
    X-ray energy threshold below which photons cannot escape galaxies; varied in SBI.
  • m_WDM = 28 keV injected for exclusion; 5.3 keV for posteriors
    Warm dark matter mass, the target of the inference; not fitted by the paper.
  • Escape fraction parameters = log fesc,10 = -1.1, alpha_esc = 0.02
    Fixed to central values of [58] rather than marginalized; the WDM forecast depends on this choice.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Thermal WDM transfer function of Eq. (2.8) with nu=1.12 and alpha_WDM of Eq. (2.9) accurately describes linear matter power suppression.
    Adopted from [59,60] with prefactor recalibrated to [37]; maps mWDM to the free-streaming cutoff.
  • domain assumption Sharp-k window with c_SK=2.5 and Sheth-Tormen first crossing distribution give the correct WDM halo mass function to z~20.
    Based on [7,34,35,64]; this HMF controls the WDM imprint in the 21cm signal.
  • ad hoc to paper A single galaxy population with duty cycle fduty=exp(-Mturn/M) and Park et al. [41] parameterization describes cosmic dawn galaxies.
    Explicit modeling choice; conclusion acknowledges multiple populations are expected.
  • domain assumption HERA sensitivity from 21cmSense with 1000h, B=8 MHz, Tsys of Eq. (3.2), and Gaussian thermal noise is representative.
    Forecast quality depends on this noise model; foregrounds and systematics are not simulated.
  • domain assumption Escape fractions fixed to log fesc,10=-1.1 and alpha_esc=0.02 from [58] remain valid in WDM scenarios.
    Used for ionizing photon escape; fixing them may bias the WDM forecast.
  • domain assumption The UV luminosity function data [68] and MCMC provide an adequate prior for the SBI analysis.
    The SBI prior is p(theta|DUV); modeling errors in UV LF shift the posterior.
  • domain assumption Neural ratio estimation with the described architecture converges to the true likelihood-to-evidence ratio.
    Coverage tests show conservative posteriors but do not prove convergence on all parameter combinations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulation-based inference on warm dark matter from HERA forecasts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KPB2YZXO

@misc{pith2026241210310,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulation-based inference on warm dark matter from HERA forecasts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KPB2YZXO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10310}
}
abstract

The redshifted 21cm signal from Cosmic Dawn promises to open a new window into the early history of our universe and enable the probing of an unprecedented comoving survey volume. In this work, we revisit the imprint of Warm Dark Matter (WDM) on the 21cm signal power spectrum using an updated implementation of the WDM effect in the public code $\texttt{21cmFast}$ and considering a single population of cosmic dawn galaxies. By focusing on inferring the WDM mass, we analyze the degeneracies between the latter and the astrophysics parameters characterizing star formation and X-ray heating and we emphasize the role of the threshold mass for star-forming galaxies, $M_{\rm turn}$. We study the capability of the recently built HERA telescope to reconstruct the WDM mass by adopting the statistical approach of simulation-based inference. We include a comparison of the per-parameter reconstruction quality for different number of simulations used in the training of the algorithm. Our results indicate that HERA could surpass current Lyman-$\alpha$ forest constraints if Cosmic Dawn galaxies exhibit a threshold mass $M_{\rm turn}\lesssim 10^{8}\, M_\odot$. The X-ray source properties considered in this study may also influence the strength of the WDM constraint for lower threshold masses.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. 21 cm Cosmology Sensitivity to Small-Scale Structure: Warm vs Neutrino-Interacting Dark Matter

    astro-ph.CO 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    21 cm forecasts show HERA can detect νDM interactions down to ~3×10⁻³⁵ cm² (assuming zero modelling error) but cannot distinguish νDM from warm dark matter.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [18]

    Schosser, C

    B. Schosser, C. Heneka and T. Plehn, Optimal, fast, and robust inference of reionization-era cosmology with the 21cmPIE-INN , 2401.04174

    arXiv

  2. [61]

    Decant, J

    Q. Decant, J. Heisig, D. C. Hooper and L. Lopez-Honorez, Lyman-α constraints on freeze-in and superWIMPs, JCAP 03 (2022) 041, [ 2111.09321]

    arXiv 2022

  3. [1]

    HERA collaboration, Z. Abdurashidova et al., Improved Constraints on the 21 cm EoR Power – 29 – 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Nominal credibility [zp] log Mturn 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0Empirical coverage [zp] 74.00% 68.27% 97.60% 95.45% 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Nominal credibility [zp] mWDM 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0Empirical ...

    arXiv 2023

  4. [2]

    G. M. et al, Reionization and the Cosmic Dawn with the Square Kilometre Array , Experimental Astronomy 36 (Aug., 2013) 235–318, [ 1210.0197]

    arXiv 2013

  5. [3]

    L. V. E. Koopmans et al., The Cosmic Dawn and Epoch of Reionization with the Square Kilometre Array, PoS AASKA14 (2015) 001, [ 1505.07568]

    arXiv 2015

  6. [4]

    Abdurashidova et al., First Results from HERA Phase I: Upper Limits on the Epoch of Reionization 21 cm Power Spectrum , Astrophys

    HERA collaboration, Z. Abdurashidova et al., First Results from HERA Phase I: Upper Limits on the Epoch of Reionization 21 cm Power Spectrum , Astrophys. J. 925 (2022) 221, [2108.02263]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [5]

    Archidiacono, D

    M. Archidiacono, D. C. Hooper, R. Murgia, S. Bohr, J. Lesgourgues and M. Viel, Constraining Dark Matter-Dark Radiation interactions with CMB, BAO, and Lyman- α, JCAP 10 (2019) 055, [1907.01496]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [6]

    D. C. Hooper, N. Sch¨ oneberg, R. Murgia, M. Archidiacono, J. Lesgourgues and M. Viel, One likelihood to bind them all: Lyman- α constraints on non-standard dark matter , JCAP 10 (2022) 032, [ 2206.08188]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 85 references
  1. [7]

    Schneider, Constraining noncold dark matter models with the global 21-cm signal , Phys

    A. Schneider, Constraining noncold dark matter models with the global 21-cm signal , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 063021, [ 1805.00021]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Sitwell, A

    M. Sitwell, A. Mesinger, Y.-Z. Ma and K. Sigurdson, The Imprint of Warm Dark Matter on the Cosmological 21-cm Signal , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 438 (2014) 2664–2671, [ 1310.0029]

    2014 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Escudero, L

    M. Escudero, L. Lopez-Honorez, O. Mena, S. Palomares-Ruiz and P. Villanueva-Domingo, A fresh look into the interacting dark matter scenario , JCAP 06 (2018) 007, [ 1803.08427]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Schaeffer, S

    T. Schaeffer, S. K. Giri and A. Schneider, BEoRN: A fast and flexible framework to simulate the epoch of reionisation and cosmic dawn , 2305.15466

    arXiv

  5. [11]

    Safarzadeh, E

    M. Safarzadeh, E. Scannapieco and A. Babul, A limit on the warm dark matter particle mass from the redshifted 21 cm absorption line , Astrophys. J. Lett. 859 (2018) L18, [ 1803.08039]

    2018 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Lidz and L

    A. Lidz and L. Hui, Implications of a prereionization 21-cm absorption signal for fuzzy dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 023011, [ 1805.01253]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Lopez-Honorez, O

    L. Lopez-Honorez, O. Mena and P. Villanueva-Domingo, Dark matter microphysics and 21 cm observations, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 023522, [ 1811.02716]. – 30 –

    2019 arXiv

  8. [14]

    J. B. Mu˜ noz, S. Bohr, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, J. Zavala and M. Vogelsberger, ETHOS - an effective theory of structure formation: Impact of dark acoustic oscillations on cosmic dawn , Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 043512, [ 2011.05333]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Jones, S

    D. Jones, S. Palatnick, R. Chen, A. Beane and A. Lidz, Fuzzy Dark Matter and the 21 cm Power Spectrum, Astrophys. J. 913 (2021) 7, [ 2101.07177]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [16]

    S. K. Giri and A. Schneider, Imprints of fermionic and bosonic mixed dark matter on the 21-cm signal at cosmic dawn , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 083011, [ 2201.02210]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [17]

    J. J. Hibbard, J. Mirocha, D. Rapetti, N. Bassett, J. O. Burns and K. Tauscher, Constraining Warm Dark Matter and Population III Stars with the Global 21 cm Signal , Astrophys. J. 929 (2022) 151, [ 2201.02638]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Verwohlt, C

    J. Verwohlt, C. A. Mason, J. B. Mu˜ noz, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, M. Vogelsberger and J. Zavala, Separating Dark Acoustic Oscillations from Astrophysics at Cosmic Dawn , 2404.17640

    arXiv

  13. [20]

    Flitter and E

    J. Flitter and E. D. Kovetz, New tool for 21-cm cosmology. I. Probing ΛCDM and beyond , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 043512, [ 2309.03942]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Mesinger, S

    A. Mesinger, S. Furlanetto and R. Cen, 21cmF AST: A Fast, Semi-Numerical Simulation of the High-Redshift 21-cm Signal , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 411 (2011) 955, [ 1003.3878]

    2011 arXiv

  15. [22]

    S. G. Murray, B. Greig, A. Mesinger, J. B. Mu˜ noz, Y. Qin, J. Park et al., 21cmF AST v3: A Python-integrated C code for generating 3D realizations of the cosmic 21cm signal , J. Open Source Softw. 5 (2020) 2582, [ 2010.15121]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [23]

    A. S. Mancini, K. Lin and J. D. McEwen, Field-level cosmological model selection: field-level simulation-based inference for Stage IV cosmic shear can distinguish dynamical dark energy , 2410.10616

    arXiv

  17. [24]

    F. List, N. Anau Montel and C. Weniger, Bayesian Simulation-based Inference for Cosmological Initial Conditions , in 37th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , 10, 2023. 2310.19910

    2023 arXiv

  18. [25]

    C. Modi, S. Pandey, M. Ho, C. Hahn, B. R.-S. Blancard and B. Wandelt, Sensitivity analysis of simulation-based inference for galaxy clustering , 2309.15071

    arXiv

  19. [26]

    Dimitriou, D

    A. Dimitriou, D. G. Figueroa and B. Zald ´ ıvar,Fast likelihood-free reconstruction of gravitational wave backgrounds, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2024 (Sept., 2024) 032, [ 2309.08430]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [27]

    X. Zhao, Y. Mao and B. D. Wandelt, Implicit Likelihood Inference of Reionization Parameters from the 21 cm Power Spectrum , Astrophys. J. 933 (2022) 236, [ 2203.15734]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Saxena, A

    A. Saxena, A. Cole, S. Gazagnes, P. D. Meerburg, C. Weniger and S. J. Witte, Constraining the X-ray heating and reionization using 21-cm power spectra with Marginal Neural Ratio Estimation, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 525 (2023) 6097–6111, [ 2303.07339]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Prelogovi´ c and A

    D. Prelogovi´ c and A. Mesinger,Exploring the likelihood of the 21-cm power spectrum with simulation-based inference, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 524 (2023) 4239–4255, [ 2305.03074]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Prelogovi´ c and A

    D. Prelogovi´ c and A. Mesinger,How informative are summaries of the cosmic 21-cm signal? , 2401.12277

    arXiv

  24. [31]

    Greig, D

    B. Greig, D. Prelogovi´ c, Y. Qin, Y.-S. Ting and A. Mesinger, Inferring astrophysical parameters using the 2D cylindrical power spectrum from reionisation , 2403.14060

    arXiv

  25. [32]

    Greig, D

    B. Greig, D. Prelogovi´ c, J. Mirocha, Y. Qin, Y.-S. Ting and A. Mesinger, Exploring the role of the halo mass function for inferring astrophysical parameters during reionisation , 2403.14061

    arXiv

  26. [33]

    Barkana, Z

    R. Barkana, Z. Haiman and J. P. Ostriker, Constraints on warm dark matter from cosmological reionization, Astrophys. J. 558 (2001) 482, [ astro-ph/0102304]. – 31 –

    2001 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Schneider, R

    A. Schneider, R. E. Smith and D. Reed, Halo Mass Function and the Free Streaming Scale , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 433 (2013) 1573, [ 1303.0839]

    2013 arXiv

  28. [35]

    A. J. Benson, A. Farahi, S. Cole, L. A. Moustakas, A. Jenkins, M. Lovell et al., Dark Matter Halo Merger Histories Beyond Cold Dark Matter: I - Methods and Application to Warm Dark Matter, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 428 (2013) 1774, [ 1209.3018]

    2013 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Lopez-Honorez, O

    L. Lopez-Honorez, O. Mena, S. Palomares-Ruiz and P. Villanueva-Domingo, Warm dark matter and the ionization history of the Universe , Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 103539, [ 1703.02302]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Palanque-Delabrouille, C

    N. Palanque-Delabrouille, C. Y` eche, N. Sch¨ oneberg, J. Lesgourgues, M. Walther, S. Chabanier et al., Hints, neutrino bounds and WDM constraints from SDSS DR14 Lyman- α and Planck full-survey data , JCAP 04 (2020) 038, [ 1911.09073]

    2020 arXiv

  31. [38]

    R. E. Keeley et al., JWST Lensed quasar dark matter survey II: Strongest gravitational lensing limit on the dark matter free streaming length to date , 2405.01620

    arXiv

  32. [39]

    C. Y. Tan, A. Dekker and A. Drlica-Wagner, Mixed Warm Dark Matter Constraints using Milky Way Satellite Galaxy Counts , 2409.18917

    arXiv

  33. [40]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters , A&A 641 (Sept., 2020) A6, [ 1807.06209]

    2018 arXiv

  34. [41]

    J. Park, A. Mesinger, B. Greig and N. Gillet, Inferring the astrophysics of reionization and cosmic dawn from galaxy luminosity functions and the 21-cm signal , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 484 (2019) 933–949, [ 1809.08995]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [42]

    J. C. Pober, A. R. Parsons, D. R. DeBoer, P. McDonald, M. McQuinn, J. E. Aguirre et al., The Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Broadband and Broad-beam Array: Design Overview and Sensitivity Forecasts, AJ 145 (Mar., 2013) 65, [ 1210.2413]

    2013 arXiv

  36. [43]

    J. C. Pober, A. Liu, J. S. Dillon, J. E. Aguirre, J. D. Bowman, R. F. Bradley et al., What Next-generation 21 cm Power Spectrum Measurements can Teach us About the Epoch of Reionization, ApJ 782 (Feb., 2014) 66, [1310.7031]

    2014 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Barkana and A

    R. Barkana and A. Loeb, In the beginning: The First sources of light and the reionization of the Universe , Phys. Rept. 349 (2001) 125–238, [ astro-ph/0010468]

    2001 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Y. Qin, V. Poulin, A. Mesinger, B. Greig, S. Murray and J. Park, Reionization inference from the CMB optical depth and E-mode polarization power spectra , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 499 (2020) 550–558, [ 2006.16828]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [46]

    S. R. Furlanetto, S. P. Oh and F. H. Briggs, Cosmology at low frequencies: The 21 cm transition and the high-redshift Universe , Phys. Rep. 433 (Oct., 2006) 181–301, [astro-ph/0608032]

    2006 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Stefanon, R

    M. Stefanon, R. J. Bouwens, I. Labb´ e, G. D. Illingworth, V. Gonzalez and P. A. Oesch, Galaxy Stellar Mass Functions from z ∼10 to z ∼6 using the Deepest Spitzer/IRAC Data: No Significant Evolution in the Stellar-to-Halo Mass Ratio of Galaxies in the First Gyr of Cosmic Time,...

    arXiv

  41. [48]

    Shuntov, H

    M. Shuntov, H. J. McCracken, R. Gavazzi, C. Laigle, J. R. Weaver, I. Davidzon et al., COSMOS2020: Cosmic evolution of the stellar-to-halo mass relation for central and satellite galaxies up to z ∼ 5, A&A 664 (Aug., 2022) A61, [ 2203.10895]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Y. Qin, A. Mesinger, J. Park, B. Greig and J. B. Mu˜ noz, A tale of two sites - I. Inferring the properties of minihalo-hosted galaxies from current observations , MNRAS 495 (June, 2020) 123–140, [2003.04442]

    2020 arXiv

  43. [50]

    R. K. Sheth, H. J. Mo and G. Tormen, Ellipsoidal collapse and an improved model for the number and spatial distribution of dark matter haloes , MNRAS 323 (May, 2001) 1–12, [astro-ph/9907024]. – 32 –

    2001 arXiv

  44. [51]

    H. Xu, M. L. Norman, B. W. O’Shea and J. H. Wise, Late Pop III Star Formation During the Epoch of Reionization: Results from the Renaissance Simulations , ApJ 823 (June, 2016) 140, [1604.03586]

    2016 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Sobacchi and A

    E. Sobacchi and A. Mesinger, The depletion of gas in high-redshift dwarf galaxies from an inhomogeneous reionization, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 432 (2013) 51, [ 1301.6776]

    2013 arXiv

  46. [54]

    B. W. O’Shea, J. H. Wise, H. Xu and M. L. Norman, Probing the Ultraviolet Luminosity Function of the Earliest Galaxies with the Renaissance Simulations , ApJ 807 (July, 2015) L12, [1503.01110]

    2015 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Barkana and A

    R. Barkana and A. Loeb, In the beginning: the first sources of light and the reionization of the universe, Physics Reports 349 (2001) 125–238

    2001

  48. [56]

    Sobacchi and A

    E. Sobacchi and A. Mesinger, How does radiative feedback from an ultraviolet background impact reionization?, MNRAS 432 (July, 2013) 3340–3348, [1301.6781]

    2013 arXiv

  49. [57]

    J. B. Mu˜ noz, Y. Qin, A. Mesinger, S. G. Murray, B. Greig and C. Mason, The impact of the first galaxies on cosmic dawn and reionization , MNRAS 511 (Apr., 2022) 3657–3681, [2110.13919]

    2022 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Abdurashidova et al., HERA Phase I Limits on the Cosmic 21 cm Signal: Constraints on Astrophysics and Cosmology during the Epoch of Reionization , Astrophys

    HERA collaboration, Z. Abdurashidova et al., HERA Phase I Limits on the Cosmic 21 cm Signal: Constraints on Astrophysics and Cosmology during the Epoch of Reionization , Astrophys. J. 924 (2022) 51, [ 2108.07282]

    2022 arXiv

  51. [59]

    M. Viel, J. Lesgourgues, M. G. Haehnelt, S. Matarrese and A. Riotto, Constraining warm dark matter candidates including sterile neutrinos and light gravitinos with WMAP and the Lyman-alpha forest, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 063534, [ astro-ph/0501562]

    2005 arXiv

  52. [60]

    P. Bode, J. P. Ostriker and N. Turok, Halo formation in warm dark matter models , Astrophys. J. 556 (2001) 93–107, [ astro-ph/0010389]

    2001 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Jenkins, C

    A. Jenkins, C. S. Frenk, S. D. M. White, J. M. Colberg, S. Cole, A. E. Evrard et al., The Mass function of dark matter halos , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 321 (2001) 372, [astro-ph/0005260]

    2001 arXiv

  54. [63]

    R. K. Sheth and G. Tormen, Large scale bias and the peak background split , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 308 (1999) 119, [ astro-ph/9901122]

    1999 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Schneider, Structure formation with suppressed small-scale perturbations , Mon

    A. Schneider, Structure formation with suppressed small-scale perturbations , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 451 (2015) 3117–3130, [ 1412.2133]

    2015 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Pacucci, A

    F. Pacucci, A. Mesinger, S. Mineo and A. Ferrara, The X-ray spectra of the first galaxies: 21 cm signatures, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 443 (2014) 678–686, [ 1403.6125]

    2014 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Greig and A

    B. Greig and A. Mesinger, Simultaneously constraining the astrophysics of reionization and the epoch of heating with 21CMMC , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 472 (2017) 2651–2669, [1705.03471]

    2017 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Mirocha, S

    J. Mirocha, S. R. Furlanetto and G. Sun, The global 21-cm signal in the context of the high-z galaxy luminosity function , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 464 (09, 2016) 1365–1379, [https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/464/2/1365/8334696/stw2412.pdf]

    2016

  59. [68]

    R. J. Bouwens, P. A. Oesch, M. Stefanon, G. Illingworth, I. Labb´ e, N. Reddy et al., New Determinations of the UV Luminosity Functions from z 9 to 2 Show a Remarkable Consistency – 33 – with Halo Growth and a Constant Star Formation Efficiency , AJ 162 (Aug., 2021) 47, [2102.07775]

    2021 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Sabti, J

    N. Sabti, J. B. Mu˜ noz and D. Blas,First Constraints on Small-Scale Non-Gaussianity from UV Galaxy Luminosity Functions , JCAP 01 (2021) 010, [ 2009.01245]

    2021 arXiv

  61. [70]

    D. R. DeBoer et al., Hydrogen Epoch of Reionization Array (HERA) , Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 129 (2017) 045001, [ 1606.07473]

    2017 arXiv

  62. [71]

    D. B. Rubin, Bayesianly Justifiable and Relevant Frequency Calculations for the Applied Statistician, The Annals of Statistics 12 (1984) 1151 – 1172

    1984

  63. [72]

    Lemos, L

    P. Lemos, L. H. Parker, C. Hahn, S. Ho, M. Eickenberg, J. Hou et al., SimBIG: Field-level Simulation-based Inference of Large-scale Structure, in Machine Learning for Astrophysics , p. 18, July, 2023. 2310.15256. DOI

    2023 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Bhardwaj, J

    U. Bhardwaj, J. Alvey, B. K. Miller, S. Nissanke and C. Weniger, Sequential simulation-based inference for gravitational wave signals , Phys. Rev. D 108 (Aug, 2023) 042004

    2023

  65. [74]

    Alvey, U

    J. Alvey, U. Bhardwaj, V. Domcke, M. Pieroni and C. Weniger, Simulation-based inference for stochastic gravitational wave background data analysis , Phys. Rev. D 109 (Apr., 2024) 083008, [2309.07954]

    2024 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Saxena, P

    A. Saxena, P. D. Meerburg, C. Weniger, E. d. L. Acedo and W. Handley, Simulation-based inference of the sky-averaged 21-cm signal from CD-EoR with REACH , RAS Techniques and Instruments 3 (Jan., 2024) 724–736, [ 2403.14618]

    2024 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Pacilio, S

    C. Pacilio, S. Bhagwat and R. Cotesta, Simulation-based inference of black hole ringdowns in the time domain , Phys. Rev. D 110 (Oct., 2024) 083010, [ 2404.11373]

    2024 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Zheng, N

    Y. Zheng, N. Kouvatsos, J. Golomb, M. Cavagli` a, A. I. Renzini and M. Sakellariadou, Angular Power Spectrum of Gravitational-Wave Transient Sources as a Probe of the Large-Scale Structure, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (Oct., 2023) 171403, [ 2305.02652]

    2023 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Stachurski, C

    F. Stachurski, C. Messenger and M. Hendry, Cosmological inference using gravitational waves and normalizing flows , Phys. Rev. D 109 (Jun, 2024) 123547

    2024

  70. [79]

    C. Hahn, P. Lemos, L. Parker, B. R´ egaldo-Saint Blancard, M. Eickenberg, S. Ho et al., Cosmological constraints from non-Gaussian and nonlinear galaxy clustering using the SIMBIG inference framework, Nature Astronomy 8 (Nov., 2024) 1457–1467

    2024

  71. [80]

    B. K. Miller, A. Cole, G. Louppe and C. Weniger, Simulation-efficient marginal posterior estimation with swyft: stop wasting your precious time , 2011.13951

    2011 arXiv

  72. [81]

    B. K. Miller, A. Cole, C. Weniger, F. Nattino, O. Ku and M. W. Grootes, swyft: Truncated Marginal Neural Ratio Estimation in Python , J. Open Source Softw. 7 (2022) 4205

    2022

  73. [82]

    Hermans, A

    J. Hermans, A. Delaunoy, F. Rozet, A. Wehenkel, V. Begy and G. Louppe, A Trust Crisis In Simulation-Based Inference? Your Posterior Approximations Can Be Unfaithful , arXiv e-prints (Oct., 2021) arXiv:2110.06581, [ 2110.06581]

    2021 arXiv

  74. [83]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization , AJ (2014) , [1412.6980]

    2014 arXiv

  75. [84]

    B. K. Miller, A. Cole, P. Forr´ e, G. Louppe and C. Weniger, Truncated Marginal Neural Ratio Estimation, 2107.01214

    arXiv

  76. [85]

    Mesinger, A

    A. Mesinger, A. Ferrara and D. S. Spiegel, Signatures of X-rays in the early Universe , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 431 (2013) 621, [ 1210.7319]

    2013 arXiv

  77. [86]

    A. Cole, B. K. Miller, S. J. Witte, M. X. Cai, M. W. Grootes, F. Nattino et al., Fast and credible likelihood-free cosmology with truncated marginal neural ratio estimation , jcap 2022 (Sept., 2022) 004, [ 2111.08030]. – 34 –

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.