Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 1 minor 90 references

The paper argues that FAST's proposed Core Array interferometry keeps HI galaxy surveys dense enough for BAO constraints out to z ≈ 1, while the single-dish mode is limited to z ≈ 0.35 by shot noise.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Simulations find the FAST Core Array interferometer can detect HI galaxies to z~1 with enough number density for power spectrum and BAO constraints, while single-dish surveys are shot-noise limited beyond z~0.35.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A plausible and potentially useful survey-strategy forecast for FAST vs its proposed Core Array, but the z~1/BAO claim rests on unstated inputs and the provided full text is unreadable. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2508.16234 v1 pith:O34FCN5O submitted 2025-08-22 astro-ph.CO

Exploring HI Galaxy Redshift Survey Strategies for the FAST Core Array Interferometry

Zhenglong Li , Diyang Liu , Chengliang Xu , Yichao Li , Xin Zhang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords 21-cm HI galaxy surveysFAST Core Array interferometrysingle-dish versus interferometer survey strategiesshot noisebaryon acoustic oscillationsdrift scan and on-the-fly observingsemi-analytical simulationHI cosmology
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper uses semi-analytical simulations to compare two ways of running an HI galaxy survey with FAST: the single-dish mode and the proposed Core Array interferometer. It claims the single-dish mode works only at low redshift (z ≲ 0.35) because shot noise destroys the sample at higher redshifts, whereas the Core Array's higher sensitivity and angular resolution retains enough galaxies out to z ≈ 1 to measure the 21-cm power spectrum and constrain baryon acoustic oscillations. The practical claim is that, if the Core Array is built as modeled, FAST becomes a high-redshift HI galaxy survey instrument rather than a low-redshift one. The choice between drift-scan and on-the-fly observing trades sky coverage against depth, and at the lowest redshifts cosmic variance, not detector sensitivity, dominates the error budget. This matters because a z ~ 1 HI galaxy survey would provide an independent, 21-cm-selected probe of large-scale structure and dark energy.

Core claim

The central claim is that the FAST Core Array interferometry makes HI galaxy redshift surveys viable to z ~ 1, whereas the FAST single-dish mode is limited to z ≲ 0.35. Using semi-analytical simulations, the paper compares galaxy number density, shot noise, and the resulting power-spectrum and BAO constraints across redshifts and observing modes. At z ~ 0.01–0.08 both configurations perform well and cosmic variance dominates; at z > 0.35 only the Core Array keeps a sufficient number density, and enlarging the survey area does little for the single dish because its problem is shot noise, not sky coverage. The paper therefore establishes the Core Array as the enabling mode for high-redshift HI

What carries the argument

The comparison machinery is a semi-analytical simulation of HI galaxies passed through two instrument models: FAST single-dish and FAST Core Array interferometry, each run in drift-scan and on-the-fly modes. The load-bearing outputs are the detected galaxy number density as a function of redshift, the shot-noise level in the 21-cm power spectrum, and the resulting BAO constraints. The Core Array's higher sensitivity and angular resolution is what relieves shot noise at high redshift, while the drift-scan versus on-the-fly distinction is the survey-strategy handle that trades sky area against integration depth.

Load-bearing premise

The z ~ 1 claim rests on the assumed Core Array sensitivity and noise, plus the simulated abundance of HI galaxies at z = 0.1–1; if the real array is dimmer or high-redshift HI galaxies are rarer than modeled, the claimed number density and BAO feasibility fail even though the qualitative single-dish-versus-array ordering may survive.

What would settle it

Measure the actual noise and point-source sensitivity of the assembled Core Array, then run a deep targeted observation in a small patch at z ≈ 0.5–1 and count detections; if the observed number density falls below the simulated value at the survey's detection threshold, the 'sufficient number density' claim for BAO constraints is falsified. A null at z ≈ 1 despite the modeled sensitivity would directly undermine the headline result, while leaving the low-z single-dish survey unaffected.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the simulations are right, the Core Array, not the single dish, should be the default instrument for FAST surveys targeting HI galaxies at z > 0.35.
  • A z ~ 1 HI galaxy sample dense enough for power-spectrum measurement would let BAO and large-scale-structure constraints be drawn from 21-cm-selected galaxies, complementing optical surveys.
  • At z < 0.1, cosmic variance sets the error floor, so extra integration time or area buys little at those redshifts.
  • Drift-scanning gives wide sky coverage but is tied to Earth's rotation; on-the-fly mapping trades that for pointed deep fields, so the two strategies serve different survey goals.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • I read the paper as motivating a split strategy it does not itself propose: a wide, shallow drift-scan for z ≲ 0.35 plus a deep on-the-fly Core Array field at z ~ 0.5–1 would cover both cosmology regimes efficiently with one instrument.
  • A direct observational test beyond the paper's simulations would be to run a small pathfinder field with the actual Core Array at z ~ 0.5–1, count HI detections, and compare with the simulated number density before committing to a full survey.
  • Because the high-redshift result leans on the modeled evolution of the HI mass function, recomputing the forecasts with pessimistic and optimistic envelopes of that evolution would show whether the 'sufficient number density' conclusion is robust even if the single-dish-versus-array ordering likely survives.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 1 minor

Summary. This paper uses semi-analytical simulations to compare the FAST single-dish mode and the proposed Core Array interferometry for HI galaxy redshift surveys in drift-scan (DS) and on-the-fly (OTF) modes. It reports that the single dish detects significant HI galaxies only at z ≲ 0.35 due to shot noise, while the Core Array should provide robust detections to z ∼ 1 and maintain a number density sufficient for power spectrum and BAO analyses. It also discusses cosmic variance at low z and survey-area/strategy trade-offs. However, in the submitted version the entire full text is rendered as unreadable mojibake, with one legible embedded line pointing to an unrelated arXiv identifier, so the quantitative basis for these claims cannot be checked.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are substantiated, the paper would be a valuable survey-strategy reference for FAST/Core Array, bridging single-dish and interferometric HI surveys for BAO cosmology. The comparative design—same simulated sky, two observing modes—is a meaningful, non-circular experiment, and the semi-analytical method is standard for such forecasts. However, the paper's central quantitative claims (z ∼ 1 detections, sufficient number density) are not supported in the accessible text and depend on unstated instrument and HIMF assumptions; the significance is therefore conditional until those inputs are documented and validated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Full text] The entire body of the manuscript is unreadable (mojibake); the only legible embedded line, 'arXiv:2508.16232v2 [eess.AS] 8 Nov 2025', is an unrelated paper identifier in a different category. As submitted, none of the equations, tables, or model specifications can be checked. This is a load-bearing presentation failure, not a typo. Please resubmit a correctly encoded readable text, and remove/replace the unrelated arXiv line.
  2. [Abstract] The central claims are quantified only by vague labels: 'significant HI detections at low redshifts (z ≲ 0.35)', 'robust HI galaxy detections up to z ∼ 1', and 'sufficient number density for power spectrum measurements and BAO constraints'. No detection S/N threshold, limiting flux or HI mass, number density n(z), or nP value is given in the abstract, and the body is unreadable. Specify the assumed Core Array sensitivity parameters (A_eff/T_sys, baselines, integration time, survey speed), the resulting n(z) at z ~ 1, and the S/N criterion used for 'robust'.
  3. [Abstract/Results] 'Sufficient number density' is a threshold judgment relative to a BAO error budget. The manuscript does not state this threshold or show that the forecasted number density exceeds it. Provide the forecasted nP at k ~ 0.2 h Mpc^-1 for z ~ 1, or a Fisher-matrix BAO/DETFOM error, or clearly label the statement as a qualitative heuristic. Without this, the headline claim is not falsifiable.
  4. [Semi-analytical simulations / model inputs] The comparison of two modes on the same simulated sky is methodologically sound. However, the absolute z ~ 1 detection yields depend on the assumed HI mass function and its evolution. The visible text contains no validation against ALFALFA or other HI surveys. Add a calibration paragraph showing the simulated low-z HIMF reproduces ALFALFA, and justify the high-z HIMF choice against current constraints or clearly frame the result as an optimistic scenario.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The statement that increasing survey area 'has little impact' on single-dish observations would benefit from specifying the tested areal range (e.g., in deg^2) for both DS and OTF modes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity evident: the paper is a forward simulation forecast comparing two observing modes on the same simulated sky.

full rationale

The abstract describes a semi-analytical simulation study: HI galaxy populations and instrument noise are inputs, and detection counts, number densities, and power-spectrum/BAO feasibility are outputs. This is a forward model, not a fit-then-predict cycle. The two observing modes (single-dish vs. Core Array) are compared on the same simulated sky, so any performance difference is driven by the instrument model rather than by a circular re-derivation of inputs. The claim of a 'sufficient number density' depends on a threshold relative to a BAO error budget, which is a stated performance criterion, not a parameter fitted from the target result. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or imported ansatze appear in the readable text. The supplied full text is corrupted (mojibake) and contains an embedded arXiv identifier from an unrelated paper, preventing equation-level verification; however, no accessible step exhibits a definitional identity or a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The primary caveat is that the quantitative conclusions inherit the assumed instrument sensitivity and HI mass function, but that is an assumption-dependence concern, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

All quantitative inputs are hidden: the abstract reports simulation-based conclusions without disclosing instrumental parameters, the HI model, or the BAO sufficiency threshold. The forecast thus inherits its assumptions from unstated model choices; nothing in the provided material establishes these against external benchmarks.

free parameters (3)
  • Core Array instrumental sensitivity parameters
    The abstract compares single-dish vs Core Array sensitivity but gives no values (collecting area, Tsys, baseline distribution); the z~1 detection claim depends on these assumed numbers.
  • HI mass function / evolution model at z~0-1
    The semi-analytical simulation must assume HI abundances and clustering; the 'sufficient number density' conclusion inherits these model choices.
  • Detection threshold / shot noise model
    The claimed z~0.35 single-dish shot-noise limit implies a specific brightness or number-count threshold, which is not stated in the abstract.
axioms (4)
  • standard math Standard radiometer and interferometer sensitivity equations describe the survey noise.
    Implicit in any 'sensitivity' comparison between single-dish and interferometer modes; not stated in the abstract.
  • domain assumption The proposed Core Array has higher sensitivity and angular resolution than single-dish FAST.
    The abstract states this as the premise of the comparison ('with higher sensitivity and angular resolution'); if false for the real instrument, the conclusion inverts.
  • domain assumption A particular galaxy number density is sufficient for power spectrum and BAO constraints.
    The abstract asserts the array maintains a 'sufficient number density'; the sufficiency threshold is a modeling choice made inside the paper.
  • domain assumption Cosmic variance dominates the error budget at z ~ 0.01-0.08.
    Invoked to explain the low-redshift uncertainty; a standard but non-trivial assumption about the survey volume.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring HI Galaxy Redshift Survey Strategies for the FAST Core Array Interferometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O34FCN5O

@misc{pith2026250816234,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring HI Galaxy Redshift Survey Strategies for the FAST Core Array Interferometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O34FCN5O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16234}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

We explore the feasibility of HI galaxy redshift surveys with the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical Telescope (FAST) and its proposed Core Array interferometry. Using semi-analytical simulations, we compare the performance of the FAST single-dish and Core Array modes in drift scan (DS) and on-the-fly (OTF) observations across different redshifts. Our results show that the FAST single-dish mode enables significant HI detections at low redshifts ($z \lesssim 0.35$) but is limited at higher redshifts due to shot noise. The Core Array interferometry, with higher sensitivity and angular resolution, provides robust HI galaxy detections up to $z \sim 1$, maintaining a sufficient number density for power spectrum measurements and BAO constraints. At low redshifts ($z \sim 0.01$ -- $0.08$), both configurations perform well, though cosmic variance dominates uncertainties. At higher redshifts ($z > 0.35$), the Core Array outperforms the single-dish mode, while increasing the survey area has little impact on single-dish observations due to shot noise limitations. The DS mode efficiently covers large sky areas but is constrained by Earth's rotation, whereas the OTF mode allows more flexible deep-field surveys at the cost of operational overhead. Our findings highlight the importance of optimizing survey strategies to maximize FAST's potential for HI cosmology. The Core Array is particularly well-suited for high-redshift HI galaxy surveys, enabling precise constraints on large-scale structure and dark energy.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    P., Alexandroff , R., Allende Prieto , C., et al

    Ahn , C. P., Alexandroff , R., Allende Prieto , C., et al. 2012, , 203, 21, 10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/21

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/21 2012

  2. [2]

    2023, , 947, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb13f

    Amiri , M., Bandura , K., Chen , T., et al. 2023, , 947, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb13f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb13f 2023

  3. [3]

    J., Luciw , N

    Anderson , C. J., Luciw , N. J., Li , Y. C., et al. 2018, , 476, 3382, 10.1093/mnras/sty346

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty346 2018

  4. [4]

    E., Springel , V., White , S

    Angulo , R. E., Springel , V., White , S. D. M., et al. 2012, , 426, 2046, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21830.x

    arXiv 2012

  5. [5]

    E., Colom , P., et al

    Ansari , R., Campagne , J. E., Colom , P., et al. 2012, , 540, A129, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117837

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117837 2012

  6. [6]

    S., Khandai , N., & Datta , K

    Bagla , J. S., Khandai , N., & Datta , K. K. 2010, , 407, 567, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16933.x

    arXiv 2010

  7. [7]

    E., Amiri , M., et al

    Bandura , K., Addison , G. E., Amiri , M., et al. 2014, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9145, Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment (CHIME) pathfinder , 914522, 10.1117/12.2054950

    doi:10.1117/12.2054950 2014

  8. [8]

    G., Staveley-Smith , L., de Blok , W

    Barnes , D. G., Staveley-Smith , L., de Blok , W. J. G., et al. 2001, , 322, 486, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04102.x

    arXiv 2001

  9. [9]

    A., Browne , I

    Battye , R. A., Browne , I. W. A., Dickinson , C., et al. 2013, , 434, 1239, 10.1093/mnras/stt1082

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1082 2013

  10. [11]

    G., Patel , P., & Santos , M

    Bull , P., Ferreira , P. G., Patel , P., & Santos , M. G. 2015, , 803, 21, 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/21

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/803/1/21 2015

  11. [12]

    P., Bernal , J

    Carucci , I. P., Bernal , J. L., Cunnington , S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.06750, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.06750

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.06750 2024

  12. [13]

    Chang , T.-C., Pen , U.-L., Bandura , K., & Peterson , J. B. 2010, , 466, 463, 10.1038/nature09187

    doi:10.1038/nature09187 2010

  13. [14]

    B., & McDonald , P

    Chang , T.-C., Pen , U.-L., Peterson , J. B., & McDonald , P. 2008, , 100, 091303, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.091303

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.100.091303 2008

  14. [15]

    2012, in International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Chen , X. 2012, in International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series, Vol. 12, International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series, 256--263, 10.1142/S2010194512006459

    doi:10.1142/s2010194512006459 2012

  15. [16]

    2023, , 524, 3724, 10.1093/mnras/stad2102

    Chen , Z., Chapman , E., Wolz , L., & Mazumder , A. 2023, , 524, 3724, 10.1093/mnras/stad2102

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2102 2023

  16. [17]

    G., et al

    Cunnington , S., Li , Y., Santos , M. G., et al. 2023, , 518, 6262, 10.1093/mnras/stac3060

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3060 2023

  17. [19]

    A., Kaiser , N., & Peacock , J

    Feldman , H. A., Kaiser , N., & Peacock , J. A. 1994, , 426, 23, 10.1086/174036

    doi:10.1086/174036 1994

  18. [20]

    2023, , 525, 5278, 10.1093/mnras/stad2646

    Gao , L.-Y., Li , Y., Ni , S., & Zhang , X. 2023, , 525, 5278, 10.1093/mnras/stad2646

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2646 2023

  19. [21]

    P., Kent , B

    Giovanelli , R., Haynes , M. P., Kent , B. R., et al. 2005, , 130, 2598, 10.1086/497431

    doi:10.1086/497431 2005

  20. [22]

    2007, , 133, 2569, 10.1086/516635

    ---. 2007, , 133, 2569, 10.1086/516635

    doi:10.1086/516635 2007

  21. [23]

    2016, International Journal of Antennas and Propagation, 2016, 5357368, https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/5357368

    Han, Y., & Zhong, L. 2016, International Journal of Antennas and Propagation, 2016, 5357368, https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/5357368

    work page doi:10.1155/2016/5357368 2016

  22. [24]

    E., Dickinson , C., Battye , R

    Harper , S. E., Dickinson , C., Battye , R. A., et al. 2018, , 478, 2416, 10.1093/mnras/sty1238

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1238 2018

  23. [25]

    Henriques , B. M. B., White , S. D. M., Thomas , P. A., et al. 2017, , 469, 2626, 10.1093/mnras/stx1010

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1010 2017

  24. [26]

    2020, , 493, 5854, 10.1093/mnras/staa650

    Hu , W., Wang , X., Wu , F., et al. 2020, , 493, 5854, 10.1093/mnras/staa650

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa650 2020

  25. [27]

    2021, , 508, 2897, 10.1093/mnras/stab2728

    Hu , W., Li , Y., Wang , Y., et al. 2021, , 508, 2897, 10.1093/mnras/stab2728

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2728 2021

  26. [28]

    O., Li , Y., Santos , M

    Irfan , M. O., Li , Y., Santos , M. G., et al. 2024, , 527, 4717, 10.1093/mnras/stad3457

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3457 2024

  27. [29]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 064, 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64

    Jiang , P., Tang , N.-Y., Hou , L.-G., et al. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 064, 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64 2020

  28. [30]

    2024, Astronomical Techniques and Instruments, 1, 84, 10.61977/ati2024012

    Jiang , P., Chen , R., Gan , H., et al. 2024, Astronomical Techniques and Instruments, 1, 84, 10.61977/ati2024012

    doi:10.61977/ati2024012 2024

  29. [31]

    2021, Phys

    Jin, S.-J., Wang, L.-F., Wu, P.-J., Zhang, J.-F., & Zhang, X. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 103507, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.103507

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.103507 2021

  30. [32]

    H., Boyce , P

    Lang , R. H., Boyce , P. J., Kilborn , V. A., et al. 2003, , 342, 738, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06535.x

    arXiv 2003

  31. [33]

    2018, IEEE Microwave Magazine, 19, 112, 10.1109/MMM.2018.2802178

    Li , D., Wang , P., Qian , L., et al. 2018, IEEE Microwave Magazine, 19, 112, 10.1109/MMM.2018.2802178

    arXiv 2018

  32. [34]

    2020, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 129862, 10.1007/s11433-020-1594-8

    Li , J., Zuo , S., Wu , F., et al. 2020, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 129862, 10.1007/s11433-020-1594-8

    doi:10.1007/s11433-020-1594-8 2020

  33. [35]

    G., Grainge , K., Harper , S., & Wang , J

    Li , Y., Santos , M. G., Grainge , K., Harper , S., & Wang , J. 2021, , 501, 4344, 10.1093/mnras/staa3856

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3856 2021

  34. [36]

    2023, , 954, 139, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace896

    Li , Y., Wang , Y., Deng , F., et al. 2023, , 954, 139, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace896

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace896 2023

  35. [37]

    2017, , 96, 063525, 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.063525

    Li , Y.-C., & Ma , Y.-Z. 2017, , 96, 063525, 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.063525

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.063525 2017

  36. [38]

    2016, , 833, 289, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/289

    Liao , Y.-W., Chang , T.-C., Kuo , C.-Y., et al. 2016, , 833, 289, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/289

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/289 2016

  37. [39]

    R., Oh , S

    Lidz , A., Furlanetto , S. R., Oh , S. P., et al. 2011, , 741, 70, 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/70

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/741/2/70 2011

  38. [40]

    FAST drift scan survey for HI intensity mapping: simulation on hunting HI filament with pairwise stacking

    Liu , D., Li , Y., Tramonte , D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.03988, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.03988

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.03988 2024

  39. [41]

    Loeb , A., & Wyithe , J. S. B. 2008, , 100, 161301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.161301

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.100.161301 2008

  40. [42]

    G., Emerson , D

    Mangum , J. G., Emerson , D. T., & Greisen , E. W. 2007, , 474, 679, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077811

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077811 2007

  41. [43]

    2008, , 78, 023529, 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.023529

    Mao , Y., Tegmark , M., McQuinn , M., Zaldarriaga , M., & Zahn , O. 2008, , 78, 023529, 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.023529

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.78.023529 2008

  42. [44]

    W., Switzer , E

    Masui , K. W., Switzer , E. R., Banavar , N., et al. 2013, , 763, L20, 10.1088/2041-8205/763/1/L20

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/763/1/l20 2013

  43. [45]

    D., Spinelli , M., Santos , M

    Matshawule , S. D., Spinelli , M., Santos , M. G., & Ngobese , S. 2021, , 506, 5075, 10.1093/mnras/stab1688

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1688 2021

  44. [46]

    McQuinn , M., Zahn , O., Zaldarriaga , M., Hernquist , L., & Furlanetto , S. R. 2006, , 653, 815, 10.1086/505167

    doi:10.1086/505167 2006

  45. [47]

    L., et al

    MeerKLASS Collaboration , Barberi-Squarotti , M., Bernal , J. L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.21626, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.21626

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.21626 2024

  46. [48]

    2017, , 34, 52, 10.1017/pasa.2017.31

    Meyer , M., Robotham , A., Obreschkow , D., et al. 2017, , 34, 52, 10.1017/pasa.2017.31

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2017.31 2017

  47. [50]

    J., Bolatto , A., Chatterjee , S., et al

    Murphy , E. J., Bolatto , A., Chatterjee , S., et al. 2018, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 517, Science with a Next Generation Very Large Array, ed. E. Murphy , 3, 10.48550/arXiv.1810.07524

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.07524 2018

  48. [51]

    2013, in Materials Science and Engineering Conference Series, Vol

    Nan , R., & Li , D. 2013, in Materials Science and Engineering Conference Series, Vol. 44, Materials Science and Engineering Conference Series (IOP), 012022, 10.1088/1757-899X/44/1/012022

    work page doi:10.1088/1757-899x/44/1/012022 2013

  49. [52]

    B., Bandura , K., Bucher , M

    Newburgh , L. B., Bandura , K., Bucher , M. A., et al. 2016, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9906, HIRAX: a probe of dark energy and radio transients , 99065X, 10.1117/12.2234286

    doi:10.1117/12.2234286 2016

  50. [53]

    2022, , 934, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a34

    Ni , S., Li , Y., Gao , L.-Y., & Zhang , X. 2022, , 934, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a34

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a34 2022

  51. [54]

    2009, , 698, 1467, 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1467

    Obreschkow , D., Croton , D., De Lucia , G., Khochfar , S., & Rawlings , S. 2009, , 698, 1467, 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1467

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/698/2/1467 2009

  52. [55]

    2025, , 2025, 080, 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/080

    Pan , J.-D., Wu , P.-J., Du , G.-H., Li , Y., & Zhang , X. 2025, , 2025, 080, 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/080

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/080 2025

  53. [56]

    G., Chen , Z., & Wolz , L

    Paul , S., Santos , M. G., Chen , Z., & Wolz , L. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.11943, 10.48550/arXiv.2301.11943

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.11943 2023

  54. [57]

    G., Townsend , J., et al

    Paul , S., Santos , M. G., Townsend , J., et al. 2021, , 505, 2039, 10.1093/mnras/stab1089

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1089 2021

  55. [58]

    2024, , 529, 4958, 10.1093/mnras/stae866

    Pei , W., Guo , Q., Li , M., et al. 2024, , 529, 4958, 10.1093/mnras/stae866

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae866 2024

  56. [59]

    2022, , 517, 4637, 10.1093/mnras/stac2832

    Perdereau , O., Ansari , R., Stebbins , A., et al. 2022, , 517, 4637, 10.1093/mnras/stac2832

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2832 2022

  57. [60]

    B., Aleksan , R., Ansari , R., et al

    Peterson , J. B., Aleksan , R., Ansari , R., et al. 2009, in astro2010: The Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey, Vol. 2010, 234. 0902.3091

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  58. [61]

    R., & Loeb , A

    Pritchard , J. R., & Loeb , A. 2008, , 78, 103511, 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.103511

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.78.103511 2008

  59. [62]

    2012, Reports on Progress in Physics, 75, 086901, 10.1088/0034-4885/75/8/086901

    ---. 2012, Reports on Progress in Physics, 75, 086901, 10.1088/0034-4885/75/8/086901

    doi:10.1088/0034-4885/75/8/086901 2012

  60. [63]

    2007, , 133, 2087, 10.1086/513515

    Saintonge , A. 2007, , 133, 2087, 10.1086/513515

    doi:10.1086/513515 2007

  61. [64]

    2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 19

    Santos , M., Bull , P., Alonso , D., et al. 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 19. 1501.03989

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  62. [65]

    G., Cluver , M., Hilton , M., et al

    Santos , M. G., Cluver , M., Hilton , M., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1709.06099. 1709.06099

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  63. [66]

    2008, , 60, 445, 10.1093/pasj/60.3.445

    Sawada , T., Ikeda , N., Sunada , K., et al. 2008, , 60, 445, 10.1093/pasj/60.3.445

    doi:10.1093/pasj/60.3.445 2008

  64. [67]

    2010, , 721, 164, 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/164

    Seo , H.-J., Dodelson , S., Marriner , J., et al. 2010, , 721, 164, 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/164

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/721/1/164 2010

  65. [68]

    P., Cunnington , S., et al

    Spinelli , M., Carucci , I. P., Cunnington , S., et al. 2022, , 509, 2048, 10.1093/mnras/stab3064

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3064 2022

  66. [69]

    2005, , 364, 1105, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x

    Springel , V. 2005, , 364, 1105, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x

    arXiv 2005

  67. [70]

    Springel , V., Yoshida , N., & White , S. D. M. 2001, , 6, 79, 10.1016/S1384-1076(01)00042-2

    doi:10.1016/s1384-1076(01)00042-2 2001

  68. [71]

    J., Battye , R

    Square Kilometre Array Cosmology Science Working Group , Bacon , D. J., Battye , R. A., et al. 2020, , 37, e007, 10.1017/pasa.2019.51

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2019.51 2020

  69. [72]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 065020, 10.1088/1674-4527/ac684d

    Sun , S., Li , J., Wu , F., et al. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 065020, 10.1088/1674-4527/ac684d

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ac684d 2022

  70. [73]

    R., Masui , K

    Switzer , E. R., Masui , K. W., Bandura , K., et al. 2013, , 434, L46, 10.1093/mnrasl/slt074

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slt074 2013

  71. [74]

    Teunissen, P. J. G., & Montenbruck, O. 2017, Springer Handbook of Global Navigation Satellite Systems. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:134337913

    2017

  72. [75]

    G., Bull , P., et al

    Wang , J., Santos , M. G., Bull , P., et al. 2021, , 505, 3698, 10.1093/mnras/stab1365

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1365 2021

  73. [76]

    B., Alonso , D., et al

    Wolz , L., Abdalla , F. B., Alonso , D., et al. 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 35, 10.22323/1.215.0035

    work page doi:10.22323/1.215.0035 2015

  74. [77]

    B., et al

    Wolz , L., Blake , C., Abdalla , F. B., et al. 2017, , 464, 4938, 10.1093/mnras/stw2556

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2556 2017

  75. [78]

    W., et al

    Wolz , L., Pourtsidou , A., Masui , K. W., et al. 2022, , 510, 3495, 10.1093/mnras/stab3621

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3621 2022

  76. [79]

    2021, , 506, 3455, 10.1093/mnras/stab1802

    Wu , F., Li , J., Zuo , S., et al. 2021, , 506, 3455, 10.1093/mnras/stab1802

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1802 2021

  77. [80]

    Wu, P.-J., Li, Y., Zhang, J.-F., & Zhang, X. 2022 a . 2212.07681

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  78. [81]

    Wu, P.-J., Shao, Y., Jin, S.-J., & Zhang, X. 2022 b . 2202.09726

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  79. [82]

    2022, JCAP, 01, 060, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/01/060

    Wu, P.-J., & Zhang, X. 2022, JCAP, 01, 060, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/01/060

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/01/060 2022

  80. [84]

    Wyithe , J. S. B., Loeb , A., & Geil , P. M. 2008, , 383, 1195, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12631.x

    arXiv 2008

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.