Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Forecasting 21-cm power spectrum sensitivity to dark Matter-baryon scattering

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The 21-cm power spectrum can improve dark matter-baryon scattering limits by more than an order of magnitude.

desk verdict Clean, well-scoped Fisher forecast of HERA's 21-cm power-spectrum sensitivity to dark matter-baryon scattering, but the n=-4 headline numbers rest on an omitted frictional-heating term whose effect the authors concede but do not quantify. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20507 v1 pith:OIQ5IHNU submitted 2025-08-28 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Aryan Rahimieh , Priyank Parashari , Vera Gluscevic This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA PACS 95.35.+d98.80.-k
keywords 21-cmcosmologydarkmatter-baryonscatteringinteractingmattervelocity-dependentcross-sectionHERAFishermatrixforecastCosmicDawnpowerspectrum
topics Dark Matter
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 forecasts how well the upcoming HERA radio interferometer could detect dark matter that scatters off ordinary baryons. Using simulated 21-cm power spectra and a Fisher matrix analysis, the authors claim that HERA measurements of spatial fluctuations in the cosmic hydrogen signal would constrain the interaction cross-section $\sigma_0$ at least five times better than global 21-cm signal experiments for velocity-independent scattering, and more than an order of magnitude better for Coulomb-like scattering. These projected limits would also improve on existing bounds from the cosmic microwave background and from the abundance of Milky Way satellite galaxies. The result matters because 21-cm interferometry could become a leading probe of non-gravitational dark matter interactions during Cosmic Dawn, provided key astrophysical uncertainties are accounted for.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spherically averaged 21-cm power spectrum, $\Delta^2_{21}(k,z)$, with per-bin uncertainties from a model of HERA's thermal noise and foregrounds. The Fisher information matrix takes derivatives of that spectrum with respect to the dark matter mass $m_\chi$, cross-section normalization $\sigma_0$, and five astrophysical parameters, and inverts them to get projected error contours. Physically, the chain runs from modified initial conditions (altered baryon temperature and dark matter-baryon bulk velocity) through a semi-numerical simulation of Ly-$\alpha$ coupling, X-ray heating, and reionization to the brightness-temperature fluctuations. The input cross-section is a power law in relative velocity, $\sigma(v)=\sigma_0 v^n$, with $n=-4$ (Coulomb-like) and $n=0$ (velocity-independent) as the two benchmark cases.

What would settle it

Recompute the $n=-4$ forecast with the frictional heating term (proportional to the square of the dark matter-baryon relative bulk velocity) included in the simulation's thermal evolution. If the 95% upper limit at $m_\chi=10$ MeV moves from the optimistic value of $\log_{10}(\sigma_0/\mathrm{cm}^2)\approx -45.19$ to above $\approx -44$, the core claim of an order-of-magnitude improvement in that cooling-dominated regime would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the 21-cm power spectrum, not just its sky-averaged global signal, carries a sharp imprint of dark matter-baryon elastic scattering, and HERA can exploit it. For a velocity-independent cross-section ($n=0$) the scattering delays structure formation and shifts the power-spectrum peak to higher frequencies, while for a Coulomb-like cross-section ($n=-4$) it cools gas in low-relative-velocity patches and amplifies fluctuations during Cosmic Dawn. The authors forecast 95% upper limits on $\log_{10}(\sigma_0/\mathrm{cm}^2)$ as low as $-45.41$ for $n=-4$ at a dark matter mass of 10 MeV under optimistic HERA assumptions, improving over current CMB bounds by at least two orders of magnitude for $n=-4$ and over Milky Way satellite bounds by more than an order of magnitude for $n=0$. They also find that the cross-section is essentially uncorrelated with star formation efficiency and ionizing escape fraction, but is positively correlated with X-ray luminosity in the $n=-4$ case.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast rests on the simulation's omission of frictional heating from the damping of the relative bulk velocity between dark matter and baryons; including that heating could counteract the drag-induced cooling that drives the claimed $n=-4$ sensitivity, especially at dark matter masses below a few GeV, and would likely make the projected limits less stringent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Projected HERA 95% limits reach $\log_{10}(\sigma_0/\mathrm{cm}^2)\approx -45.4$ for $n=-4$ at 10 MeV in the optimistic foreground scenario, below current CMB and satellite bounds.
  • For $n=0$, HERA power-spectrum forecasts beat Milky Way satellite abundance constraints by over an order of magnitude and global-signal forecasts by at least a factor of five.
  • The $n=-4$ cross-section is positively correlated with X-ray luminosity, so accurate X-ray modeling is needed to avoid biasing dark matter inferences.
  • Star formation efficiency, escape fraction, and their power-law slopes do not correlate strongly with the cross-section, so the dark matter constraint is relatively robust to those astrophysical uncertainties.
  • The improvement comes from using the full redshift and scale information in the power spectrum rather than the sky-averaged signal alone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If frictional heating from bulk-velocity damping were included, the $n=-4$ low-mass sensitivity could weaken in exactly the regime where the largest claimed improvement lies; the paper's own discussion flags this possibility.
  • Marginalizing over Population-III star parameters, which the paper fixes, could introduce additional degeneracies and broaden the projected contours, potentially reducing the stated improvement factors.
  • The same Fisher pipeline could be applied to other upcoming interferometers or to combined datasets, where extra $k$-coverage and redshift range might push sensitivity further.
  • A joint fit to both the velocity index $n$ and $\sigma_0$, rather than fixing $n$, would test whether the power spectrum can actually distinguish Coulomb-like from velocity-independent scattering.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents Fisher-matrix forecasts of the sensitivity of HERA 21-cm power-spectrum measurements to dark matter-baryon scattering, for cross sections parametrized as σ(v)=σ0 v^n with n=0 and n=-4. The authors use the 21cmFirstCLASS simulation pipeline to generate 21-cm power spectra, a 21cmSense-based noise model for two foreground scenarios (moderate and optimistic), and marginalize over six Population-II astrophysical parameters while fixing Population-III parameters. They report 95% upper-limit forecasts on log10 σ0 as a function of dark-matter mass (Figs. 5 and 6; Table 2), and compare them with CMB bounds, Milky Way satellite bounds, and their own global 21-cm forecasts (Rahimieh et al. 2025). The main quantitative claims are that HERA can improve on global-signal forecasts by at least a factor of five for n=0 and by more than an order of magnitude for n=-4, and can surpass current CMB and satellite constraints. An important caveat is acknowledged in Section 4: the simulation omits frictional heating from the damping of the DM-baryon relative bulk velocity.

Significance. If the forecasts are correct, the paper would make a useful case for 21-cm power-spectrum observations as a probe of DM-baryon interactions, extending the companion global-signal analysis and providing quantitative target constraints for HERA. The work uses public simulation and noise codes, and it is honest in flagging the main modelling limitation. However, the central quantitative claims rest on two issues that are not fully resolved: the Fisher parameterization at the σ0=0 fiducial is ambiguous, and the omitted frictional heating term is acknowledged to be relevant precisely in the n=-4 regime that drives the headline improvement. Because these issues affect the reported numbers themselves, rather than only their interpretation, the paper is not yet ready for publication in its present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Table 1, Table 2] The fiducial model sets σ0=0 (CDM), yet the results are presented as 95% upper limits on log10(σ0). Please state explicitly whether the Fisher derivatives in Eq. (6) are taken with respect to σ0 or log10 σ0. If the latter, the Fisher information at σ0=0 vanishes identically because ∂O/∂(log10 σ0) = σ0 ∂O/∂σ0 = 0 at the fiducial point, so the quoted limits cannot come from that parameterization. If the former, the conversion from a linear Gaussian error on σ0 to a 95% upper limit on log10(σ0) is a non-Gaussian transformation that must be described, and the entries of Table 2 should be checked under that transformation. This ambiguity is load-bearing because the headline improvement factors over global-signal forecasts and CMB/satellite bounds are derived from these numbers.
  2. [§4, final paragraph] The paper concedes that 21cmFirstCLASS omits frictional heating from the damping of the DM-baryon relative bulk velocity (the term proportional to V_χb^2), and states that this could 'partially counteract the drag-induced cooling in the n=-4 case' and 'mildly broadening the contours', but no quantitative support is given. Because the Fisher derivatives are evaluated at σ0=0, the linear response of this omitted heating term to σ0 contributes to the derivative that sets the projected upper limits; the omission is therefore a first-order effect on the forecast, not a subleading correction that only matters at large σ0. The n=-4 forecasts are driven by cooling-generated power-spectrum enhancement at low DM masses (Figs. 1 and 5, Table 2), which is exactly the regime (m_χ of order or below a few GeV, σ0 ≳ 10^-41 cm^2) where the paper itself says frictional heating becomes important. I ask the authors to either include the term, quantify its impact with an approximate calculation, or explicitly restrict the headline claims to the model without frictional heating. As it stands, the claimed factor-of-five and order-of-magnitude improvements are not robust.
  3. [§3.2, §5] All Population-III parameters are fixed at their fiducial values, and the paper itself states that marginalizing over them 'could potentially broaden the uncertainties and relax our constraints'. Since the 21-cm power spectrum at Cosmic Dawn is sensitive to Population-III star formation (Hirano & Bromm 2018 is cited in this context), the abstract's unconditional claim that HERA 'can significantly improve sensitivity' is stronger than the evidence presented. The authors should either include Population-III marginalization, quantify the broadening with a sensitivity test, or qualify the abstract and conclusions accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.1] The text says the simulation is 'discretized into grid cells with a spatial resolution of 128 Mpc', which contradicts the later statement of 'approximately 1 Mpc' resolution and would not support convergence at k≈0.5 Mpc^-1; presumably '128^3 grid cells' is meant, and the wording should be corrected.
  2. [§4 versus §5, Abstract] The sign of the correlation between σ0 and X-ray luminosity in the n=-4 case is inconsistent: the abstract and Section 4 describe a positive correlation, while Section 5 says 'the X-ray luminosity ... is negatively correlated with the cross-section of interaction only in the Coulomb-like case'.
  3. [Table 2] Dark-matter mass entries use inconsistent capitalization ('kev', 'Mev', 'Gev'); these should be keV, MeV, GeV.
  4. [Abstract, §4] The abstract's phrase 'improvement over global signal forecasts' overgeneralizes the comparison: Section 4 notes that the HERA n=0 forecasts are comparable to the 'Future 1' and 'Future 2' global-signal scenarios, and the factor-of-five claim is specifically relative to the EDGES-like scenario. The baseline should be named in the abstract and conclusions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; forecasts are derived from public simulations and independent noise models, with the companion-paper global baseline used only for comparison.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: simulated 21-cm power spectra are produced with the public code 21cmFirstCLASS (Flitter & Kovetz 2024a,b), the Fisher matrix derivatives are evaluated at a LambdaCDM fiducial (sigma0=0) with respect to the declared parameter set, and the forecast noise is computed independently with 21cmSense for HERA configurations. No parameter is fitted to a target result and then relabeled as a prediction; the upper-limit numbers in Table 2 follow directly from Eq. 6 and the stated noise model. The only self-citation is Rahimieh et al. (2025), used as the global 21-cm comparison baseline; this is a comparison against an externally published forecast, not an input to the Fisher calculation, and the paper explicitly notes its fixed-foreground assumptions and that marginalizing foregrounds could change it. The admitted omission of frictional heating in 21cmFirstCLASS is a physical limitation and correctness risk, not circular reasoning: the forecast could change, but it would not reduce to its input by construction. No circular step is exhibited in the paper.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The forecast depends on hand-chosen fiducial astrophysical parameters, HERA noise assumptions, and the accuracy of the 21cmFirstCLASS and 21cmSense codes. Two assumptions are explicitly flagged by the authors as potentially weakening the results: fixed Population-III parameters and the omission of frictional heating. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • log10(f*_II) fiducial = -1.25
    Star formation efficiency for Population-II stars; hand-chosen from Munoz et al. 2022; the forecasted constraints depend on this baseline.
  • alpha*_II fiducial = 0.5
    Slope of stellar-to-halo mass relation for Population-II stars; fiducial input.
  • log10(fesc_II) fiducial = -1.35
    Ionizing photon escape fraction for Population-II stars; fiducial input.
  • alpha_esc_II fiducial = -0.3
    Slope of escape fraction versus halo mass; fiducial input.
  • L_X_II fiducial = 40.5
    X-ray luminosity per unit star formation rate; shows a positive correlation with sigma0 for n=-4, so it directly shapes the marginalization.
  • Foreground wedge buffer angle (moderate scenario) = 0.1 radians
    Foreground removal assumption in 21cmSense; determines the number of usable k-modes and hence the projected sensitivity. The optimistic scenario uses zero buffer.
  • Integration time and duty cycle = 540 days at 6 hours per night
    HERA observing schedule assumed in the noise model; directly sets the error bars in Equation (6).
  • Receiver temperature = 100 K
    HERA receiver noise assumption in 21cmSense.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption 21cmFirstCLASS correctly computes the 21-cm power spectrum with dark matter-baryon scattering
    The whole forecast relies on the public code's modified initial conditions and semi-numerical evolution; the paper cites Flitter and Kovetz 2024 for validation.
  • standard math Fisher matrix formalism gives a valid approximation of parameter uncertainties near the fiducial model
    Used in Equation (6); assumes Gaussian likelihood and small deviations from the fiducial, standard for forecasts but not exact for upper limits.
  • domain assumption Dark matter-baryon scattering cross-section follows sigma(v) = sigma0 v^n with n = -4 or n = 0
    Representative velocity dependencies adopted from prior IDM literature, not derived in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Population-III astrophysical parameters can be held fixed at default fiducial values
    Section 3.2 admits Pop III is sensitive to dark matter-baryon relative velocities and that marginalizing it could broaden constraints; this is a scoping choice.
  • ad hoc to paper Frictional heating from dark matter-baryon relative velocity damping can be neglected
    Section 4 states 21cmFirstCLASS does not include this term and that it could partially counteract the cooling that drives the n=-4 sensitivity.
  • domain assumption The baryon target density is set to rho_b and the effective target mass to the mean baryon mass
    Equation (5) and surrounding text; standard treatment of dark matter-baryon scattering targets.
invented entities (1)
  • No new entity
    purpose: Not applicable
    No new particles, mediators, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The IDM model with sigma(v) = sigma0 v^n is taken from prior literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Forecasting 21-cm power spectrum sensitivity to dark Matter-baryon scattering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OIQ5IHNU

@misc{pith2026250820507,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Forecasting 21-cm power spectrum sensitivity to dark Matter-baryon scattering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OIQ5IHNU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20507}
}
abstract

We explore the potential of upcoming 21-cm interferometric observations to probe interacting dark matter (IDM). We focus on scenarios where the dark matter-baryon scattering cross-section scales as $\sigma(v) =\sigma_{0} v^n$, with $\sigma_{0}$ being the normalization constant, $v$ the relative velocity between dark matter and baryons, and $n$ characterizing the velocity dependence. Specifically, we emphasize two cases: Coulomb-like interaction ($n = -4$) and velocity-independent interaction ($n = 0$). Using detailed simulations of the 21-cm power spectrum and the Fisher matrix formalism, we forecast the sensitivity of the Hydrogen Epoch of Reionization Array (HERA), which targets the frequency range 50-225 MHz, to both IDM and astrophysical parameters. We marginalize over key astrophysical uncertainties, including star formation efficiency, ionizing photon escape fraction, and X-ray luminosity. Our results demonstrate that 21-cm power spectrum measurements can significantly improve sensitivity to IDM cross-section, with at least a factor of five improvement over global signal forecasts for the $n=0$ case, and more than an order of magnitude enhancement for the $n=-4$ scenario. These forecasts also significantly improve upon the existing bounds from cosmic microwave background and Milky Way satellite abundance observations. Our analysis also shows that the IDM cross-section exhibits no correlation with the parameters associated with star formation efficiency and ionizing photon escape fraction of Population-II stars. However, we find that the Coulomb-like cross-section is positively correlated with X-ray luminosity. Our results highlight the critical role of accounting for astrophysical uncertainties in obtaining robust inferences of dark matter-baryon interactions from future 21-cm power spectrum observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20507 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The top panel illustrates the evolution of the gas kinetic temperature as a function of observed frequency 𝜈 for an IDM model with Coulomb-like interaction at fixed DM mass 𝑚𝜒 = 1 GeV. Solid curves correspond to differ￾ent cross-section amplitudes 𝜎0 for IDM, while the dashed curve represents the standard ΛCDM model. The middle and bottom panels show the 21-cm power spectrum Δ 2 21 (𝑘) as a function of frequency at … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The top panel illustrates the evolution of the gas kinetic tempera￾ture as a function of observed frequency 𝜈 for an IDM model with velocity￾independent interaction at fixed DM mass 𝑚𝜒 = 1 GeV. Solid curves cor￾respond to varying cross-section amplitudes 𝜎0 for IDM, while the dashed curve represents the standard ΛCDM model. The middle and bottom pan￾els show the 21-cm power spectrum Δ 2 21 (𝑘) as a function of frequ… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Forecasted constraints on astrophysical parameters and IDM cross-section for the 𝑛 = −4 model with a fixed DM mass of 10 MeV, obtained under an optimistic observational configuration, are presented. The 2D contours represent the forecasted 68% (dotted black) and 95% (solid black) uncertainty regions, while the top panel of each column represents the marginalized 1D posterior probability distributions. The grey lines… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Forecasts on astrophysical parameters and the cross-section of interactions for the 𝑛 = 0 model with a fixed DM mass of 1 GeV are presented. These forecasts are obtained under an optimistic observational configuration. The 2D contours represent the 68% and 95% confiden…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The 95% confidence level upper limit forecasts on log10 (𝜎0/cm2 ) as a function of IDM mass are shown for a Coulomb-like model and two different experimental scenarios. The previous bounds from CMB (Nguyen et al. 2021) and forecasts from the Global 21-cm analysis (Rahi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The 95% confidence level upper limit forecasts on log10 (𝜎0/cm2 ) as a function of IDM mass are shown for a velocity-independent cross-section IDM model and two different experimental scenarios. The previous bounds from CMB (Nguyen et al. 2021), Milky Way satellite abu…

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. Dark Secrets of Baryons: Illuminating Dark Matter-Baryon Interactions with JWST

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    JWST ultraviolet luminosity function data currently provide the strongest upper limits on velocity-dependent (∝v^{-2}) dark matter–proton scattering for sub-GeV dark matter.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Abdalla E., et al., 2022, @doi [JHEAp] https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.06142 , 34, 49

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.06142 2022

  2. [2]

    Abdurashidova T. H. C. Z., et al., 2023, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acaf50 , 945, 124

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acaf50 2023

  3. [3]

    D., 2025, @doi [Phys

    Adi T., Flitter J., Kovetz E. D., 2025, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.043515 , 111, 043515

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.043515 2025

  4. [4]

    Aghanim N., et al., 2020, @doi [A&A] https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 , 641, A6

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  5. [5]

    Ali-Ha\" moud Y., Chluba J., Kamionkowski M., 2015, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.071304 , 115, 071304

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.115.071304 2015

  6. [6]

    Barkana R., 2018, @doi [Nature] https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25791 , 555, 71

    doi:10.1038/nature25791 2018

  7. [7]

    Barkana R., Loeb A., 2005, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/430599 , 624, L65

    work page doi:10.1086/430599 2005

  8. [8]

    J., Redigolo D., Volansky T., 2018, @doi [Phys

    Barkana R., Outmezguine N. J., Redigolo D., Volansky T., 2018, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.103005 , 98, 103005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.103005 2018

Show all 91 references
  1. [9]

    J., 2023, @doi [Phys

    Barkana R., Fialkov A., Liu H., Outmezguine N. J., 2023, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.063503 , 108, 063503

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    S., Mertens F., 2021, @doi [JATIS] 10.1117/1.jatis.8.1.011007 , 8

    Barry N., Bernardi G., Greig B., Kern N. S., Mertens F., 2021, @doi [JATIS] 10.1117/1.jatis.8.1.011007 , 8

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    C., Kahlhoefer F., Lesgourgues J., Schöneberg N., 2021, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/02/019 , 2021, 019

    Becker N., Hooper D. C., Kahlhoefer F., Lesgourgues J., Schöneberg N., 2021, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/02/019 , 2021, 019

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    L., et al., 2003, @doi [ApJS] 10.1086/377253 , 148, 1

    Bennett C. L., et al., 2003, @doi [ApJS] 10.1086/377253 , 148, 1

    2003 doi

  5. [13]

    D., 2018, @doi [Phys

    Berlin A., Hooper D., Krnjaic G., McDermott S. D., 2018, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.011102 , 121, 011102

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    K., Gluscevic V., 2018, @doi [Phys

    Boddy K. K., Gluscevic V., 2018, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.083510 , 98, 083510

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    K., Gluscevic V., Poulin V., Kovetz E

    Boddy K. K., Gluscevic V., Poulin V., Kovetz E. D., Kamionkowski M., Barkana R., 2018, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.123506 , 98, 123506

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    K., Krnjaic G., Moltner S., 2022, @doi [Phys

    Boddy K. K., Krnjaic G., Moltner S., 2022, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.043510 , 106, 043510

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    Boehm C., Schaeffer R., 2005, @doi [A&A] https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20042238 , 438, 419

    2005 doi

  10. [18]

    D., Rogers A

    Bowman J. D., Rogers A. E., Monsalve R. A., Mozdzen T. J., Mahesh N., 2018, @doi [Nature] https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25792 , 555, 67

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    O., et al., 2019, preprint (arXiv:1902.06147 https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.06147)

    Burns J. O., et al., 2019, preprint (arXiv:1902.06147 https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.06147)

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    J., 2002, @doi [Phys

    Chen X., Hannestad S., Scherrer R. J., 2002, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.65.123515 , 65, 123515

    2002 doi

  13. [21]

    S., Sethi S., 2021, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/abfcc7 , 913, L24

    Chowdhury A., Kanekar N., Das B., Dwarakanath K. S., Sethi S., 2021, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/abfcc7 , 913, L24

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    H., Markevitch M., Randall S

    Clowe D., Bradac M., Gonzalez A. H., Markevitch M., Randall S. W., Jones C., Zaritsky D., 2006, @doi [ApJL] 10.1086/508162 , 648, L109

    2006 doi

  15. [23]

    R., et al., 2017, @doi [ASP] 10.1088/1538-3873/129/974/045001 , 129, 045001

    DeBoer D. R., et al., 2017, @doi [ASP] 10.1088/1538-3873/129/974/045001 , 129, 045001

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    Driskell T., et al., 2022, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.103525 , 106, 103525

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    Dvorkin C., Blum K., Kamionkowski M., 2014, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.023519 , 89, 023519

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    W., et al., 2019, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2629 , 158, 84

    Eastwood M. W., et al., 2019, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2629 , 158, 84

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    J., et al., 2005, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/466512 , 633, 560

    Eisenstein D. J., et al., 2005, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/466512 , 633, 560

    2005 doi

  20. [28]

    Escudero M., Lopez-Honorez L., Mena O., Palomares-Ruiz S., Villanueva-Domingo P., 2018, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/06/007 , 2018, 007

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21318.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.424.1335F 424, 1335

    Fialkov A., Barkana R., Tseliakhovich D., Hirata C. M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21318.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.424.1335F 424, 1335

    2012

  22. [30]

    Fialkov A., Barkana R., Cohen A., 2018, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.011101 , 121, 011101

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    B., 1959, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/146653 , 129, 536

    Field G. B., 1959, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/146653 , 129, 536

    1959 doi

  24. [32]

    S., Dolag K., Garny M., Gluscevic V., Groth F., Nadler E

    Fischer M. S., Dolag K., Garny M., Gluscevic V., Groth F., Nadler E. O., 2025, preprint (arXiv:2504.12393 https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.12393)

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    D., 2024a, @doi [Phys

    Flitter J., Kovetz E. D., 2024a, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.043512 , 109, 043512

    doi

  26. [34]

    D., 2024b, @doi [Phys

    Flitter J., Kovetz E. D., 2024b, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.043513 , 109, 043513

    doi

  27. [35]

    R., 2006, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10725.x , 371, 867

    Furlanetto S. R., 2006, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10725.x , 371, 867

    2006

  28. [36]

    R., Oh S

    Furlanetto S. R., Oh S. P., Briggs F. H., 2006, @doi [Phys. Rep.] 10.1016/j.physrep.2006.08.002 , 433, 181

    2006 doi

  29. [37]

    Garsden H., et al., 2021, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stab1671 , 506, 5802

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    K., 2018, @doi [Phys

    Gluscevic V., Boddy K. K., 2018, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.081301 , 121, 081301

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    Gluscevic V., et al., 2019, preprint (arXiv:1903.05140 https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.05140)

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    M., An R., Gluscevic V., 2023, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/acdb63 , 954, L8

    He A., Ivanov M. M., An R., Gluscevic V., 2023, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/acdb63 , 954, L8

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    Hinshaw G., et al., 2013, @doi [ApJS] 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19 , 208, 19

    2013 doi

  34. [42]

    Hirano S., Bromm V., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly132 , 480, L85

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    D., Poulin V., Gluscevic V., Boddy K

    Kovetz E. D., Poulin V., Gluscevic V., Boddy K. K., Barkana R., Kamionkowski M., 2018, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.103529 , 98, 103529

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    K., Madhavacheril M

    Li Z., Gluscevic V., Boddy K. K., Madhavacheril M. S., 2018a, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.123524 , 98, 123524

    doi

  37. [45]

    Li W., et al., 2018b, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad3c3 , 863, 170

    doi

  38. [46]

    Li Z., et al., 2023, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/02/046 , 2023, 046

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    Lin Y., Gao Y., 2023, preprint (arXiv:2311.11584 https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.11584)

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    R., 2018, @doi [Phys

    Liu H., Slatyer T. R., 2018, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.023501 , 98, 023501

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    J., Redigolo D., Volansky T., 2019, @doi [Phys

    Liu H., Outmezguine N. J., Redigolo D., Volansky T., 2019, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.123011 , 100, 123011

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    K., Nadler E

    Maamari K., Gluscevic V., Boddy K. K., Nadler E. O., Wechsler R. H., 2021, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/abd807 , 907, L46

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    J., 1997, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/303549 , 475, 429

    Madau P., Meiksin A., Rees M. J., 1997, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/303549 , 475, 429

    1997 doi

  44. [52]

    A., Muñoz J

    Mason C. A., Muñoz J. B., Greig B., Mesinger A., Park J., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad2145 , 524, 4711

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    Massey R., Kitching T., Richard J., 2010, @doi [Reports on Progress in Physics] 10.1088/0034-4885/73/8/086901 , 73, 086901

    2010 doi

  46. [54]

    D., Yu H.-B., Zurek K

    McDermott S. D., Yu H.-B., Zurek K. M., 2011, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.063509 , 83, 063509

    2011 doi

  47. [55]

    Mesinger A., Furlanetto S., Cen R., 2011, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17731.x , 411, 955

    2011

  48. [56]

    R., Boehm C., Wong Y

    Mosbech M. R., Boehm C., Wong Y. Y., 2023, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/03/047 , 2023, 047

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    B., Cyr-Racine F.-Y., 2021, @doi [Phys

    Mu\ noz J. B., Cyr-Racine F.-Y., 2021, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.023512 , 103, 023512

    2021 doi

  50. [58]

    B., Kovetz E

    Mu\ noz J. B., Kovetz E. D., Ali-Ha\" moud Y., 2015, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.083528 , 92, 083528

    2015 doi

  51. [59]

    B., Dvorkin C., Loeb A., 2018, @doi [Phys

    Mu\ noz J. B., Dvorkin C., Loeb A., 2018, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.121301 , 121, 121301

    2018 doi

  52. [60]

    B., Loeb A., 2018, preprint (arXiv:1802.10094 https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.10094)

    Munoz J. B., Loeb A., 2018, preprint (arXiv:1802.10094 https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.10094)

    2018 arXiv

  53. [61]

    B., Qin Y., Mesinger A., Murray S

    Muñoz J. B., Qin Y., Mesinger A., Murray S. G., Greig B., Mason C., 2022, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac185 , 511, 3657

    2022 doi

  54. [62]

    O., Gluscevic V., Boddy K

    Nadler E. O., Gluscevic V., Boddy K. K., Wechsler R. H., 2019, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1eb2 , 878, L32

    2019 doi

  55. [63]

    O., et al., 2021, @doi [Phys

    Nadler E. O., et al., 2021, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.091101 , 126, 091101

    2021 doi

  56. [64]

    V., Sarnaaik D., Boddy K

    Nguyen D. V., Sarnaaik D., Boddy K. K., Nadler E. O., Gluscevic V., 2021, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.103521 , 104, 103521

    2021 doi

  57. [65]

    Ooba J., Tashiro H., Kadota K., 2019, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/09/020 , 2019, 020

    2019 doi

  58. [66]

    Rev.] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newar.2022.101659 , 95, 101659

    Perivolaropoulos L., Skara F., 2022, @doi [New Astron. Rev.] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newar.2022.101659 , 95, 101659

    2022

  59. [67]

    C., et al., 2013, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/145/3/65 , 145, 65

    Pober J. C., et al., 2013, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/145/3/65 , 145, 65

    2013 doi

  60. [68]

    C., et al., 2014, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/66 , 782, 66

    Pober J. C., et al., 2014, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/66 , 782, 66

    2014 doi

  61. [69]

    R., Loeb A., 2012, @doi [Rep

    Pritchard J. R., Loeb A., 2012, @doi [Rep. Prog. Phys.] 10.1088/0034-4885/75/8/086901 , 75, 086901

    2012 doi

  62. [70]

    Rahimieh A., Parashari P., An R., Driskell T., Mirocha J., Gluscevic V., 2025, preprint (arXiv:2505.03148 https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.03148)

    2025

  63. [71]

    Refregier A., 2003, @doi [ARA&A] https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.astro.41.111302.102207 , 41, 645

    2003

  64. [72]

    K., Dvorkin C., Peiris H

    Rogers K. K., Dvorkin C., Peiris H. V., 2022, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.171301 , 128, 171301

    2022 doi

  65. [73]

    C., Ford Jr

    Rubin V. C., Ford Jr. W. K., 1970, @doi [ ] 10.1086/150317 , 159, 379

    1970 doi

  66. [74]

    F., Sánchez A

    Schöneberg N., Abellán G. F., Sánchez A. P., Witte S. J., Poulin V., Lesgourgues J., 2022, @doi [Phys. Rep.] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2022.07.001 , 984, 1

    2022 doi

  67. [75]

    L., Boddy K

    Short K., Bernal J. L., Boddy K. K., Gluscevic V., Verde L., 2022, preprint (arXiv:2203.16524 https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.16524)

    2022 arXiv

  68. [76]

    R., Kamionkowski M., 2004, @doi [Phys

    Sigurdson K., Doran M., Kurylov A., Caldwell R. R., Kamionkowski M., 2004, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.083501 , 70, 083501

    2004 doi

  69. [77]

    Singh S., et al., 2022, @doi [Nature Astronomy] https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-022-01610-5 , 6, 607

    2022 doi

  70. [78]

    R., Wu C.-L., 2018, @doi [Phys

    Slatyer T. R., Wu C.-L., 2018, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.023013 , 98, 023013

    2018 doi

  71. [79]

    R., Padmanabhan N., Finkbeiner D

    Slatyer T. R., Padmanabhan N., Finkbeiner D. P., 2009, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.043526 , 80, 043526

    2009 doi

  72. [80]

    F., et al., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186504 , 396, L1

    Smoot G. F., et al., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186504 , 396, L1

    1992 doi

  73. [81]

    Sofue Y., Rubin V., 2001, @doi [ARA&A] 10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.137 , 39, 137

    2001 doi

  74. [82]

    W., Liu H., Mu\ noz J

    Sun Y., Foster J. W., Liu H., Mu\ noz J. B., Slatyer T. R., 2025, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.043015 , 111, 043015

    2025 doi

  75. [83]

    Tegmark M., et al., 2004, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.103501 , 69, 103501

    2004 doi

  76. [84]

    Rep.] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2017.11.004 , 730, 1

    Tulin S., Yu H.-B., 2018, @doi [Phys. Rep.] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2017.11.004 , 730, 1

    2018 doi

  77. [85]

    R., 2021, preprint (arXiv:2112.00707 https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.00707)

    Xu X., Farrar G. R., 2021, preprint (arXiv:2112.00707 https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.00707)

    2021 arXiv

  78. [86]

    L., Dvorkin C., Chael A., 2018, @doi [Phys

    Xu W. L., Dvorkin C., Chael A., 2018, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.103530 , 97, 103530

    2018 doi

  79. [87]

    Zentner A., Dandavate S., Slone O., Lisanti M., 2022, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/07/031 , 2022, 031

    2022 doi

  80. [88]

    Zwicky F., 2009, @doi [GRG] https://doi.org/10.1007/s10714-008-0707-4 , 41, 207

    2009 doi

  81. [89]

    Zygelman B., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/427682 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...622.1356Z 622, 1356

    2005 doi

  82. [90]

    P., et al., 2013, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220873 , 556, A2

    van Haarlem M. P., et al., 2013, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220873 , 556, A2

    2013 doi

  83. [91]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.