Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 113 references

The 21 cm signal can detect dark-matter cutoffs on small scales, but cannot tell what causes them.

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 21:23 UTC pith:3BOTOGTB

load-bearing objection Two things to know before you read this one: the headline νDM reach (σ~3e-35 cm²) is the no-modelling-noise case, ε=0, not the field-standard ε=0.2; and the more robust result is that HERA cannot distinguish νDM from WDM. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.15430 v1 pith:3BOTOGTB submitted 2025-11-19 astro-ph.CO

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

Virgile Dandoy , Christian D\"oring , Ga\'etan Facchinetti , Laura Lopez-Honorez , Justus Schwagereit This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords 21 cm cosmologywarm dark matterdark matter–neutrino interactionssmall-scale structurehalo mass functioncosmic dawnHERA sensitivity forecastdark acoustic oscillations
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 paper asks whether the hydrogen 21 cm power spectrum, as it will be measured by the near-future HERA radio array, can reveal the nature of dark matter through its effect on the smallest bound structures. It compares two mechanisms that suppress the abundance of small halos: thermal warm dark matter (free-streaming) and dark matter interacting with neutrinos (collisional damping). By mapping both onto a common cutoff scale, the authors forecast that HERA can detect such suppression down to a cutoff of about 1–2×10^-3 Mpc/h, corresponding to νDM interaction strengths around 3×10^-35 cm² in the optimistic case, which would decisively test a recent Lyman-α hint for non-zero neutrino interactions. At the same time, they find that the two models produce nearly identical 21 cm power spectra, so HERA would not be able to tell them apart; the dark acoustic oscillations characteristic of the neutrino-interaction case leave no measurable imprint. The work thus defines the reach of 21 cm cosmology as a probe of small-scale dark matter physics and identifies an observational degeneracy that limits what this observable alone can say.

Core claim

This paper establishes a one-to-one mapping between thermal WDM and νDM models via a fitted transfer function with a single cutoff scale λcut, and uses this to forecast HERA's sensitivity. The central discovery is twofold. First, HERA with 1000 hours can detect NCDM suppression down to λcut ≈ 1–2×10^-3 Mpc/h, which translates to νDM interaction strengths of σνDM≈3×10^-35 cm² in the optimistic case without modelling error—about three orders of magnitude below the current Lyman-α sensitivity—or σνDM≈1.1×10^-34 cm² with a 20% modelling error. Second, despite the extra small-scale power from dark acoustic oscillations in the νDM case, the two models are observationally indistinguishable with the

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is a three-parameter transfer function f(k, λcut) = {1 + (λcut k)^γ}^{-δ} with shared shape parameters γ and δ for both models, and a power-law mapping between λcut and the WDM mass mWDM or the νDM interaction strength uνDM. This allows all forecasts to be performed in the common variable λcut, avoiding the Fisher-matrix pitfall of comparing non-Gaussian posteriors in different parameterizations. The halo mass function is computed with a sharp-k window function, which correctly handles the truncated small-scale power spectrum, and the astrophysical model includes two galaxy populations: atomic cooling galaxies and molecular cooling galaxies in minihalos.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted detection thresholds assume a specific astrophysical model of early galaxies—two populations with fixed star-formation efficiencies, escape fractions, and X-ray luminosities—and neglect the known suppression of star formation in minihalos by dark matter–baryon relative velocities; if the real high-redshift galaxy population differs, the reach could shift.

What would settle it

Take the exact astrophysical model used here and simulate a HERA 1000-hour observation with a true λcut=1×10^-3 Mpc/h: the paper predicts a 95% detection in the ε=0 case. A null detection at that point, or a measured 21 cm spectrum that instead shows the dark-acoustic-oscillation bumps at k>2kfs with amplitude large enough to give Δχ²≫1 when fitting WDM, would refute the claim.

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

If this is right

  • HERA, with 1000 hours of observation, could detect νDM interaction strengths as low as σνDM≈3×10^-35 cm² (uνDM≈4×10^-9) in the absence of modelling error, several orders of magnitude below the currently preferred Lyman-α value, allowing a direct test of that claimed signal.
  • With a standard 20% modelling error, the detection threshold weakens to σνDM≈1.1×10^-34 cm² (uνDM≈1.7×10^-8); in WDM units this corresponds to mWDM≈5.1 keV, which is already close to the Lyman-α bound.
  • In the no-modelling-error case, the WDM threshold rises to mWDM≈9.3 keV, exceeding current Lyman-α limits, meaning HERA would probe WDM in an otherwise allowed mass range.
  • The inability to distinguish WDM from νDM holds for both modelling-error choices and over the full tested range of cutoff scales, implying the degeneracy is physical rather than statistical.
  • Because the detection thresholds are defined in terms of the common cutoff scale, a detection or exclusion by HERA constrains the whole family of models that produce the same small-scale suppression, not any individual particle physics model.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A corollary the paper does not spell out: if HERA finds a cutoff, follow-up observations with different observables—such as high-redshift galaxy luminosity functions or the global 21 cm signal—would be required to identify whether the suppression is due to free-streaming or to interactions; the current work implies that the power spectrum alone cannot do this.
  • The parameterisation mapping suggests a testable extension: 21 cm forecasts for other interacting dark matter models (e.g., dark matter–photon scattering) can be cast in the same λcut framework, but the paper's result warns that any such model may also be degenerate with WDM unless its transfer function has uniquely shaped features beyond a smooth cutoff.
  • The appendix's caution about Fisher-matrix reparametrisation is a general methodological lesson: comparing sensitivity forecasts between parameters connected by a power law requires care, since the sensitivity in one parameter is inflated by the exponent; this applies to any experiment forecasting multiple dark matter scenarios.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper forecasts the sensitivity of HERA-style 21 cm power-spectrum measurements to two non-cold dark matter (NCDM) scenarios: thermal warm dark matter (WDM) and dark matter interacting with neutrinos (νDM). A common cutoff scale λcut is defined and fitted to CLASS transfer functions for both models, and the authors compute Fisher-matrix detection thresholds for λcut (mapped to mWDM and uνDM) under the EOS2021 two-population astrophysical model (ACGs and MCGs). They report that for 1000 hours of HERA observations, with no modelling error (ε=0), νDM interactions down to uνDM∼4×10^-9 (σνDM∼3×10^-35 cm^2 for GeV DM) could be probed, while with the standard ε=0.2 the threshold is uνDM∼1.7×10^-8. They also find that the WDM and νDM models cannot be distinguished by HERA, with min Δχ^2 ≲ O(1) when WDM is fitted to νDM data.

Significance. If the forecast is robust, the paper demonstrates a concrete path for HERA to improve νDM interaction constraints by orders of magnitude, and it provides a clean mapping between WDM and νDM that is useful for future 21 cm analyses. The non-distinguishability result is a valuable negative statement: dark acoustic oscillations leave too small an imprint on the 21 cm power spectrum for HERA to identify them, given realistic noise. The paper also makes its code public (21cmCLAST, exo21cmCAST) and gives careful attention to the non-Gaussianity of the λcut posterior via a truncated-Gaussian treatment and a plateau-finding derivative method. These strengths support the credibility of the analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. 6.1, Fig. 5] The abstract quotes σνDM∼3×10^-35 cm^2 (uνDM∼4×10^-9) as the HERA detection threshold without stating that this is the ε=0 (no modelling error) case. In Sec. 6.1 the ε=0.2 threshold is uνDM∼1.7×10^-8, a factor of about four weaker. Since ε=0.2 is the standard choice in the 21 cm forecasting literature, the headline number is an optimistic end of the forecast. The abstract and the conclusions should either quote the ε=0.2 value alongside the ε=0 value or explicitly qualify the ε=0 assumption.
  2. [Appendix A, footnote 6; Sec. 6.1] The simulations run with USE_RELATIVE_VELOCITIES=False, and the paper acknowledges that a consistent implementation of relative-velocity feedback in NCDM scenarios is not addressed. Relative velocities quench star formation in the smallest minihalos (Ref. [53]), and MCGs hosted in those minihalos are the population that most strongly drives the λcut sensitivity. The quoted detection thresholds therefore assume no relative-velocity suppression. The robustness checks in Sec. 6.1 vary only X-ray parameters and E0; they do not vary the relative-velocity treatment or the MCG star-formation parameters (fIII_star, αIII_star, escape fractions). Since the suggested effect would reduce the MCG contribution and plausibly shift the threshold to larger λcut, the authors should either include a test with a relative-velocity prescription or clearly state that the thresholds are upper limits on sensitiv
  3. [Sec. 6.1 and Tab. 3] The forecast is anchored to the EOS2021 fiducial model, but with αIII_star changed from 0 to 0.1 'to ease the Fisher forecast treatment.' This modification is not tested, and the sensitivity to the other MCG parameters (fIII_star, αIII_star, fIII_esc, LIII_X) is not explored. Because the MCG contribution is the dominant carrier of the NCDM signal, the quoted thresholds are conditional on a particular and partly ad hoc choice of the fiducial MCG prescription. A Fisher forecast around a single fiducial point cannot capture these uncertainties. The authors should add a discussion of how these degenerate parameters could affect the λcut thresholds, or run additional robustness checks, to justify the quantitative reach quoted in the abstract.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.1] The sentence '(red)and2.8keV(yellow)inred' is garbled and appears to contain a typo ('inred'); please rephrase the parenthetical color labels.
  2. [Eq. (2.4)] The notation uν,DM appears in Sec. 2.2 while uνDM is used elsewhere; please make the notation consistent throughout.
  3. [Appendix C.2] The plateau-finding procedure uses r=2.58 and a value of λ chosen to satisfy a stated condition, but the robustness of this choice is not discussed. A brief comment on how the final σθ depends on r would help.
  4. [Sec. 6.1] The claim that the detection thresholds are independent of the input method (1-3) is stated without a quantitative comparison. While the Δχ2 analysis in Sec. 6.3 indirectly supports this, a direct figure showing the λcut posteriors or thresholds for methods 2 and 3 would make the statement more transparent.
  5. [Fig. 3 and Fig. 4] The figure captions note the 20% modelling error, but it would be helpful to also state the assumed observation time (1000 h) in the caption of Fig. 3, as it is only in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the forecast is a forward-model sensitivity calculation whose transfer-function mapping is calibrated to CLASS, not to the 21 cm target.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against the quantities it claims to predict. The NCDM linear power spectra are computed with CLASS for WDM and νDM, then passed to a sharp-k excursion-set halo mass function and 21cmFAST-style astrophysical modeling, and finally to a Fisher forecast of HERA sensitivity to the cutoff scale. The transfer-function fit of Eq. (2.6) is fitted to CLASS outputs (App. A.2), not to the 21 cm power spectrum, so the reported HERA thresholds are not the fit re-appearing as a prediction. The paper explicitly verifies this by showing the detection thresholds are independent of whether one uses the fitted transfer function or the direct CLASS WDM/νDM power spectra (input methods 1–3). The non-distinguishability conclusion is likewise obtained from forward-simulated 21 cm power spectra (Eq. 6.1 and Fig. 7), not from the transfer-function equality by construction. The fiducial astrophysics is adopted from EOS2021 and acknowledged as conditional; footnote 6 explicitly flags that USE_RELATIVE_VELOCITIES=False and that a consistent NCDM relative-velocity treatment is not implemented. That is a modeling limitation relevant to robustness, not a circular step. Self-citations to 21cmCLAST, exo21cmCAST, and Ref. [98] are tool/method references and are not load-bearing uniqueness claims. No step in the derivation reduces to its own input or to an unverified self-citation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central forecast rests on a set of assumptions: the transfer function parameterization fitted to CLASS, the sharp-k HMF with c_SK=2.5, the EOS2021 astrophysical model, and the Fisher matrix/Gaussian likelihood approximation. The paper handles several of these with cross-checks, but the fidelity of the fiducial astrophysics and the modelling error ε remain the main unvalidated dependencies.

free parameters (9)
  • a_WDM = 0.013565
    Fit parameter in transfer function Eq. (2.6)-(2.7); maps λcut to m_WDM. Fitted to CLASS WDM spectra (App. A.2).
  • b_WDM = 1.1701
    Fit parameter in transfer function; maps λcut to m_WDM.
  • a_νDM = 0.014115
    Fit parameter in transfer function; maps λcut to u_νDM.
  • b_νDM = 0.49566
    Fit parameter in transfer function; maps λcut to u_νDM.
  • γ = 1.9787
    Shared shape parameter of the transfer function fit.
  • δ = 38.974
    Shared shape parameter; creates a very sharp cutoff.
  • c_SK = 2.5
    Radius-to-mass conversion for the sharp-k window, taken from numerical fit in Ref. [83]; affects the halo mass function and thus the 21 cm signal.
  • ε (modelling error) = 0.2 (or 0.0)
    Assumed fractional modelling error added to the 21 cm power spectrum covariance; detection thresholds change by roughly a factor of two between these values.
  • Observation time = 1000 hours
    Assumed HERA observing time; a chosen input that sets the noise level.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption CLASS and the modified CLASS_nu-DM accurately compute linear matter power spectra for WDM and νDM.
    Used to generate transfer functions and validate the fitted form; no independent verification is provided.
  • domain assumption 21cmFAST/21cmCLAST semi-numerical simulations accurately compute the 21 cm power spectrum from matter power spectrum and astrophysical parameters.
    The observable is computed with this code; the paper relies on its fidelity.
  • domain assumption The Sheth-Tormen halo mass function with a sharp-k window and c_SK=2.5 is valid for non-cold dark matter models.
    Used in Sec. 3; relies on Ref. [83] and the excursion-set derivation.
  • domain assumption The fiducial astrophysical parameters (EOS2021, Tab. 3) represent the true early-universe astrophysics, with α_III_star changed from 0 to 0.1.
    The Fisher forecast is centered on these values; only limited variations are tested.
  • ad hoc to paper The transfer function fit of Eq. (2.6) with the parameters of Tab. 1 is accurate for the range used (T>0.15).
    The fit is truncated at T>0.15 and neglects acoustic oscillations; thresholds are checked against full CLASS inputs, but the fit itself is an approximation.
  • domain assumption The 21 cm power spectrum likelihood is Gaussian and the Fisher matrix saturates the Cramér-Rao bound.
    Standard for Fisher forecasts; the paper handles the positivity of λcut with a truncated Gaussian.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 36427 in / 17424 out tokens · 157707 ms · 2026-08-03T21:23:26.428609+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The $21\,$cm signal originating from Cosmic Dawn to the Epoch of Reionisation is highly sensitive to the processes governing star formation in the early universe as well as new physics. In this work, we focus on the imprint of non-cold dark matter (DM), which impacts the formation of the smallest halos. Our goal in particular is to clarify whether near-future radio telescopes such as the Hydrogen Epoch of Reionisation Array (HERA), will be able to distinguish between free-streaming dark matter, specifically in the form of thermal warm DM (WDM), and collisional damping due to neutrino-DM ($\nu$DM) interactions giving rise to larger overdensities on small scales. For that purpose we first implement a mapping between the two models in terms of a cutoff scale and determine detection thresholds for the two DM models. Using Fisher matrix forecasts, we show that $\nu$DM interaction strengths down to $\sigma_{\nu{\rm DM}}\sim 3\times10^{-35}$ cm$^2$ could be probed by $21\,$cm cosmology when considering two populations of galaxies for a GeV mass DM. This would allow to either confirm or rule out a recent claimed preference for a non-zero $\nu$DM interaction in Lyman-$\alpha$ data. Furthermore, we find that HERA will not be able to distinguish between $\nu$DM and WDM. In the latter context, the threshold for detection of $\nu$DM interactions translates into WDM with mass up to $m_{\rm WDM}\sim 9$ keV that could be detected by HERA.

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

113 extracted references · 100 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    21-cm cosmology,

    J. R. Pritchard and A. Loeb, “21-cm cosmology,”Rept. Prog. Phys.75(2012) 086901, arXiv:1109.6012 [astro-ph.CO]. [2]HERACollaboration, Z. Abdurashidovaet al., “First Results from HERA Phase I: Upper Limits on the Epoch of Reionization 21 cm Power Spectrum,”Astrophys. J.925no. 2, (2022) 221,arXiv:2108.02263 [astro-ph.CO]. [3]HERACollaboration, Z. Abdurashid...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  2. [4]

    Small-Scale Challenges to theΛCDM Paradigm,

    J. S. Bullock and M. Boylan-Kolchin, “Small-Scale Challenges to theΛCDM Paradigm,”Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.55(2017) 343–387,arXiv:1707.04256 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  3. [5]

    The Structure of cold dark matter halos,

    J. Dubinski and R. G. Carlberg, “The Structure of cold dark matter halos,”Astrophys. J.378 (1991) 496

    1991

  4. [6]

    Observational and theoretical constraints on singular dark matter halos,

    R. A. Flores and J. R. Primack, “Observational and theoretical constraints on singular dark matter halos,”Astrophys. J. Lett.427(1994) L1–4,arXiv:astro-ph/9402004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  5. [7]

    Halo formation in warm dark matter models,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  6. [8]

    How supernova feedback turns dark matter cusps into cores,

    A. Pontzen and F. Governato, “How supernova feedback turns dark matter cusps into cores,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.421(2012) 3464,arXiv:1106.0499 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  7. [9]

    Dark Matter Heating and Early Core Formation in Dwarf Galaxies,

    P. Madau, S. Shen, and F. Governato, “Dark Matter Heating and Early Core Formation in Dwarf Galaxies,”Astrophys. J. Lett.789(2014) L17,arXiv:1405.2577 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  8. [10]

    The impact of baryonic physics on the structure of dark matter haloes: the view from the FIRE cosmological simulations,

    T. K. Chan, D. Kereš, J. Oñorbe, P. F. Hopkins, A. L. Muratov, C. A. Faucher-Giguère, and E. Quataert, “The impact of baryonic physics on the structure of dark matter haloes: the view from the FIRE cosmological simulations,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.454no. 3, (2015) 2981–3001,arXiv:1507.02282 [astro-ph.GA]. – 33 – ±1.0 ±0.88 ±0.035 −1.25 −30 −15 0 15 30 ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  9. [11]

    Forged in FIRE: cusps, cores, and baryons in low-mass dwarf galaxies,

    J. Oñorbe, M. Boylan-Kolchin, J. S. Bullock, P. F. Hopkins, D. Kerěs, C.-A. Faucher-Giguère, E. Quataert, and N. Murray, “Forged in FIRE: cusps, cores, and baryons in low-mass dwarf galaxies,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.454no. 2, (2015) 2092–2106,arXiv:1502.02036 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  10. [12]

    Dark matter cores all the way down,

    J. I. Read, O. Agertz, and M. L. M. Collins, “Dark matter cores all the way down,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.459no. 3, (2016) 2573–2590,arXiv:1508.04143 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  11. [13]

    The origin of the mass discrepancy-acceleration relation in ΛCDM,

    J. F. Navarro, A. Benítez-Llambay, A. Fattahi, C. S. Frenk, A. D. Ludlow, K. A. Oman, M. Schaller, and T. Theuns, “The origin of the mass discrepancy-acceleration relation in ΛCDM,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.471no. 2, (2017) 1841–1848,arXiv:1612.06329 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  12. [14]

    The radial acceleration relation in aΛCDM universe,

    A. Paranjape and R. K. Sheth, “The radial acceleration relation in aΛCDM universe,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.507no. 1, (2021) 632–650,arXiv:2102.13116 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [15]

    Entropy generation and the survival of protogalaxies in an expanding universe,

    S. Weinberg, “Entropy generation and the survival of protogalaxies in an expanding universe,” Astrophys. J.168(1971) 175

    1971

  14. [16]

    Constraining dark matter candidates from structure formation,

    C. Boehm, P. Fayet, and R. Schaeffer, “Constraining dark matter candidates from structure formation,”Phys. Lett. B518(2001) 8–14,arXiv:astro-ph/0012504

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  15. [17]

    Interacting dark matter disguised as warm dark matter,

    C. Boehm, A. Riazuelo, S. H. Hansen, and R. Schaeffer, “Interacting dark matter disguised as warm dark matter,”Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 083505,arXiv:astro-ph/0112522

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  16. [18]

    Constraints on dark matter interactions from structure formation: Damping lengths,

    C. Boehm and R. Schaeffer, “Constraints on dark matter interactions from structure formation: Damping lengths,”Astron. Astrophys.438(2005) 419–442, arXiv:astro-ph/0410591

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  17. [19]

    The Small-scale power spectrum of cold dark matter,

    A. Loeb and M. Zaldarriaga, “The Small-scale power spectrum of cold dark matter,”Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 103520,arXiv:astro-ph/0504112

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  18. [20]

    Cosmic black body radiation and galaxy formation,

    J. Silk, “Cosmic black body radiation and galaxy formation,”Astrophys. J.151(1968) 459–471

    1968

  19. [21]

    A fresh look into the interacting dark matter scenario,

    M. Escudero, L. Lopez-Honorez, O. Mena, S. Palomares-Ruiz, and P. Villanueva-Domingo, “A fresh look into the interacting dark matter scenario,”JCAP06(2018) 007, arXiv:1803.08427 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  20. [22]

    Constraints on millicharged particles from Planck data,

    A. D. Dolgov, S. L. Dubovsky, G. I. Rubtsov, and I. I. Tkachev, “Constraints on millicharged particles from Planck data,”Phys. Rev. D88no. 11, (2013) 117701,arXiv:1310.2376 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [23]

    Cosmology of atomic dark matter,

    F.-Y. Cyr-Racine and K. Sigurdson, “Cosmology of atomic dark matter,”Phys. Rev. D87 no. 10, (2013) 103515,arXiv:1209.5752 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  22. [24]

    Dark-matter electric and magnetic dipole moments,

    K. Sigurdson, M. Doran, A. Kurylov, R. R. Caldwell, and M. Kamionkowski, “Dark-matter electric and magnetic dipole moments,”Phys. Rev. D70(2004) 083501, arXiv:astro-ph/0406355. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 73, 089903 (2006)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  23. [25]

    Using the CMB angular power spectrum to study Dark Matter-photon interactions,

    R. J. Wilkinson, J. Lesgourgues, and C. Boehm, “Using the CMB angular power spectrum to study Dark Matter-photon interactions,”JCAP04(2014) 026,arXiv:1309.7588 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  24. [26]

    Using the Milky Way satellites to study interactions between cold dark matter and radiation,

    C. Boehm, J. A. Schewtschenko, R. J. Wilkinson, C. M. Baugh, and S. Pascoli, “Using the Milky Way satellites to study interactions between cold dark matter and radiation,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.445(2014) L31–L35,arXiv:1404.7012 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  25. [27]

    Dark matter–radiation interactions: the impact on dark matter haloes,

    J. A. Schewtschenko, R. J. Wilkinson, C. M. Baugh, C. Bœhm, and S. Pascoli, “Dark matter–radiation interactions: the impact on dark matter haloes,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.449no. 4, (2015) 3587–3596,arXiv:1412.4905 [astro-ph.CO]. – 35 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  26. [28]

    Dark matter–radiation interactions: the structure of Milky Way satellite galaxies,

    J. A. Schewtschenko, C. M. Baugh, R. J. Wilkinson, C. Bœhm, S. Pascoli, and T. Sawala, “Dark matter–radiation interactions: the structure of Milky Way satellite galaxies,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.461no. 3, (2016) 2282–2287,arXiv:1512.06774 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  27. [29]

    Exploring dark matter microphysics with galaxy surveys,

    M. Escudero, O. Mena, A. C. Vincent, R. J. Wilkinson, and C. Bœhm, “Exploring dark matter microphysics with galaxy surveys,”JCAP09(2015) 034,arXiv:1505.06735 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  28. [30]

    Turning off the Lights: How Dark is Dark Matter?,

    S. D. McDermott, H.-B. Yu, and K. M. Zurek, “Turning off the Lights: How Dark is Dark Matter?,”Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 063509,arXiv:1011.2907 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  29. [31]

    Using CMB spectral distortions to distinguish between dark matter solutions to the small-scale crisis,

    J. A. D. Diacoumis and Y. Y. Y. Wong, “Using CMB spectral distortions to distinguish between dark matter solutions to the small-scale crisis,”JCAP09(2017) 011, arXiv:1707.07050 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  30. [32]

    Constraints on Dark Matter Interactions with Standard Model Particles from Cosmic Microwave Background Spectral Distortions,

    Y. Ali-Haïmoud, J. Chluba, and M. Kamionkowski, “Constraints on Dark Matter Interactions with Standard Model Particles from Cosmic Microwave Background Spectral Distortions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.115no. 7, (2015) 071304,arXiv:1506.04745 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  31. [33]

    Constraints onγ-CDM interactions matching the Planck data precision,

    J. Stadler and C. Bœhm, “Constraints onγ-CDM interactions matching the Planck data precision,”JCAP10(2018) 009,arXiv:1802.06589 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [34]

    Dark matter microphysics and 21 cm observations,

    L. Lopez-Honorez, O. Mena, and P. Villanueva-Domingo, “Dark matter microphysics and 21 cm observations,”Phys. Rev. D99no. 2, (2019) 023522,arXiv:1811.02716 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  33. [35]

    Cosmological bounds on dark matter-neutrino interactions,

    G. Mangano, A. Melchiorri, P. Serra, A. Cooray, and M. Kamionkowski, “Cosmological bounds on dark matter-neutrino interactions,”Phys. Rev. D74(2006) 043517, arXiv:astro-ph/0606190

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  34. [36]

    Constraints on neutrino – dark matter interactions from cosmic microwave background and large scale structure data,

    P. Serra, F. Zalamea, A. Cooray, G. Mangano, and A. Melchiorri, “Constraints on neutrino – dark matter interactions from cosmic microwave background and large scale structure data,” Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 043507,arXiv:0911.4411 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  35. [37]

    Constraining Dark Matter-Neutrino Interactions using the CMB and Large-Scale Structure,

    R. J. Wilkinson, C. Boehm, and J. Lesgourgues, “Constraining Dark Matter-Neutrino Interactions using the CMB and Large-Scale Structure,”JCAP05(2014) 011, arXiv:1401.7597 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  36. [38]

    Reducing theH0 andσ 8 tensions with Dark Matter-neutrino interactions,

    E. Di Valentino, C. Bøehm, E. Hivon, and F. R. Bouchet, “Reducing theH0 andσ 8 tensions with Dark Matter-neutrino interactions,”Phys. Rev. D97no. 4, (2018) 043513, arXiv:1710.02559 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  37. [39]

    Comprehensive Study of Neutrino-Dark Matter Mixed Damping,

    J. Stadler, C. Bœhm, and O. Mena, “Comprehensive Study of Neutrino-Dark Matter Mixed Damping,”JCAP08(2019) 014,arXiv:1903.00540 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  38. [40]

    The full Boltzmann hierarchy for dark matter-massive neutrino interactions,

    M. R. Mosbech, C. Boehm, S. Hannestad, O. Mena, J. Stadler, and Y. Y. Y. Wong, “The full Boltzmann hierarchy for dark matter-massive neutrino interactions,”JCAP03(2021) 066, arXiv:2011.04206 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  39. [41]

    Hints of dark matter-neutrino interactions in Lyman-αdata,

    D. C. Hooper and M. Lucca, “Hints of dark matter-neutrino interactions in Lyman-αdata,” Phys. Rev. D105no. 10, (2022) 103504,arXiv:2110.04024 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [42]

    Constraints on dark matter-neutrino scattering from the Milky-Way satellites and subhalo modeling for dark acoustic oscillations,

    K. Akita and S. Ando, “Constraints on dark matter-neutrino scattering from the Milky-Way satellites and subhalo modeling for dark acoustic oscillations,”JCAP11(2023) 037, arXiv:2305.01913 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [43]

    Atomic Dark Matter,

    D. E. Kaplan, G. Z. Krnjaic, K. R. Rehermann, and C. M. Wells, “Atomic Dark Matter,” JCAP05(2010) 021,arXiv:0909.0753 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  42. [44]

    Cosmological Limits on Hidden Sector Dark Matter,

    S. Das and K. Sigurdson, “Cosmological Limits on Hidden Sector Dark Matter,”Phys. Rev. D 85(2012) 063510,arXiv:1012.4458 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  43. [45]

    Dark Radiation and interacting scenarios,

    R. Diamanti, E. Giusarma, O. Mena, M. Archidiacono, and A. Melchiorri, “Dark Radiation and interacting scenarios,”Phys. Rev. D87no. 6, (2013) 063509,arXiv:1212.6007 [astro-ph.CO]. – 36 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  44. [46]

    Non-Abelian dark matter and dark radiation,

    M. A. Buen-Abad, G. Marques-Tavares, and M. Schmaltz, “Non-Abelian dark matter and dark radiation,”Phys. Rev. D92no. 2, (2015) 023531,arXiv:1505.03542 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  45. [47]

    Evidence for dark matter interactions in cosmological precision data?,

    J. Lesgourgues, G. Marques-Tavares, and M. Schmaltz, “Evidence for dark matter interactions in cosmological precision data?,”JCAP02(2016) 037,arXiv:1507.04351 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  46. [48]

    On dark matter - dark radiation interaction and cosmic reionization,

    S. Das, R. Mondal, V. Rentala, and S. Suresh, “On dark matter - dark radiation interaction and cosmic reionization,”JCAP08(2018) 045,arXiv:1712.03976 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [49]

    Hidden Charged Dark Matter and Chiral Dark Radiation,

    P. Ko, N. Nagata, and Y. Tang, “Hidden Charged Dark Matter and Chiral Dark Radiation,” Phys. Lett. B773(2017) 513–520,arXiv:1706.05605 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  48. [50]

    Constraining Dark Matter-Dark Radiation interactions with CMB, BAO, and Lyman-α,

    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,” JCAP10(2019) 055,arXiv:1907.01496 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  49. [51]

    Thermal decoupling of WIMPs from first principles,

    T. Bringmann and S. Hofmann, “Thermal decoupling of WIMPs from first principles,”JCAP 04(2007) 016,arXiv:hep-ph/0612238. [Erratum: JCAP 03, E02 (2016)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  50. [52]

    Probing dark relativistic species and their interactions with dark matter through CMB and 21 cm surveys,

    H. Plombat, T. Simon, J. Flitter, and V. Poulin, “Probing dark relativistic species and their interactions with dark matter through CMB and 21 cm surveys,”JCAP01(2025) 071, arXiv:2410.01486 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [53]

    Probing the Small-Scale Matter Power Spectrum with Large-Scale 21-cm Data,

    J. B. Muñoz, C. Dvorkin, and F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, “Probing the Small-Scale Matter Power Spectrum with Large-Scale 21-cm Data,”Phys. Rev. D101no. 6, (2020) 063526, arXiv:1911.11144 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  52. [54]

    Separating dark acoustic oscillations from astrophysics at cosmic dawn,

    J. Verwohlt, C. A. Mason, J. B. Muñoz, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, M. Vogelsberger, and J. Zavala, “Separating dark acoustic oscillations from astrophysics at cosmic dawn,”Phys. Rev. D110 no. 10, (2024) 103533,arXiv:2404.17640 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  53. [55]

    How small were the first cosmological objects?,

    M. Tegmark, J. Silk, M. J. Rees, A. Blanchard, T. Abel, and F. Palla, “How small were the first cosmological objects?,”Astrophys. J.474(1997) 1–12,arXiv:astro-ph/9603007

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  54. [56]

    The impact of the first galaxies on cosmic dawn and reionization,

    J. B. Muñoz, Y. Qin, A. Mesinger, S. G. Murray, B. Greig, and C. Mason, “The impact of the first galaxies on cosmic dawn and reionization,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.511no. 3, (2022) 3657–3681,arXiv:2110.13919 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  55. [57]

    Constraining warm dark matter candidates including sterile neutrinos and light gravitinos with WMAP and the Lyman-alpha forest,

    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. D71(2005) 063534,arXiv:astro-ph/0501562

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  56. [58]

    Warm dark matter as a solution to the small scale crisis: New constraints from high redshift Lyman-αforest data,

    M. Viel, G. D. Becker, J. S. Bolton, and M. G. Haehnelt, “Warm dark matter as a solution to the small scale crisis: New constraints from high redshift Lyman-αforest data,”Phys. Rev. D 88(2013) 043502,arXiv:1306.2314 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  57. [59]

    Unveiling dark matter free streaming at the smallest scales with the high redshift Lyman-alpha forest,

    V. Iršičet al., “Unveiling dark matter free streaming at the smallest scales with the high redshift Lyman-alpha forest,”Phys. Rev. D109no. 4, (2024) 043511,arXiv:2309.04533 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [60]

    JWST lensed quasar dark matter survey – II. Strongest gravitational lensing limit on the dark matter free streaming length to date,

    R. E. Keeleyet al., “JWST lensed quasar dark matter survey – II. Strongest gravitational lensing limit on the dark matter free streaming length to date,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 535no. 2, (2024) 1652–1671,arXiv:2405.01620 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [61]

    Mixed warm dark matter constraints using Milky Way satellite galaxy counts,

    C. Y. Tan, A. Dekker, and A. Drlica-Wagner, “Mixed warm dark matter constraints using Milky Way satellite galaxy counts,”Phys. Rev. D111no. 6, (2025) 063079, arXiv:2409.18917 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [62]

    JWST lensed quasar dark matter survey IV: Stringent warm dark matter constraints from the joint reconstruction of extended lensed arcs and quasar flux ratios,

    D. Gilmanet al., “JWST lensed quasar dark matter survey IV: Stringent warm dark matter constraints from the joint reconstruction of extended lensed arcs and quasar flux ratios,” arXiv:2511.07513 [astro-ph.CO]. – 37 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  61. [63]

    Imprints of fermionic and bosonic mixed dark matter on the 21-cm signal at cosmic dawn,

    S. K. Giri and A. Schneider, “Imprints of fermionic and bosonic mixed dark matter on the 21-cm signal at cosmic dawn,”Phys. Rev. D105no. 8, (2022) 083011,arXiv:2201.02210 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  62. [64]

    Simulation-based inference on warm dark matter from HERA forecasts,

    Q. Decant, A. Dimitriou, L. L. Honorez, and B. Zaldivar, “Simulation-based inference on warm dark matter from HERA forecasts,”arXiv:2412.10310 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  63. [65]

    Optimal, fast, and robust inference of reionization-era cosmology with the 21cmPIE-INN,

    B. Schosser, C. Heneka, and T. Plehn, “Optimal, fast, and robust inference of reionization-era cosmology with the 21cmPIE-INN,”SciPost Phys. Core8(2025) 037,arXiv:2401.04174 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  64. [66]

    Constraining Warm Dark Matter and Population III Stars with the Global 21 cm Signal,

    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.929no. 2, (2022) 151,arXiv:2201.02638 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  65. [67]

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

    A. Schneider, “Constraining noncold dark matter models with the global 21-cm signal,”Phys. Rev. D98no. 6, (2018) 063021,arXiv:1805.00021 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  66. [68]

    The Signature of Sub-galactic Dark Matter Clumping in the Global 21-cm Signal of Hydrogen,

    H. Park, R. Barkana, N. Yoshida, S. Sikder, R. Mondal, and A. Fialkov, “The Signature of Sub-galactic Dark Matter Clumping in the Global 21-cm Signal of Hydrogen,” arXiv:2509.11055 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  67. [69]

    Probing dark matter interactions with 21cm observations,

    M. R. Mosbech, C. Boehm, and Y. Y. Y. Wong, “Probing dark matter interactions with 21cm observations,”JCAP03(2023) 047,arXiv:2207.03107 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  68. [70]

    Constraints on dark matter–neutrino interaction from 21-cm cosmology and forecasts on SKA1-Low,

    A. Dey, A. Paul, and S. Pal, “Constraints on dark matter–neutrino interaction from 21-cm cosmology and forecasts on SKA1-Low,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.524no. 1, (2023) 100–107,arXiv:2207.02451 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  69. [71]

    Damping scales of neutralino cold dark matter,

    S. Hofmann, D. J. Schwarz, and H. Stoecker, “Damping scales of neutralino cold dark matter,”Phys. Rev. D64(2001) 083507,arXiv:astro-ph/0104173

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  70. [72]

    The First wimpy halos,

    A. M. Green, S. Hofmann, and D. J. Schwarz, “The First wimpy halos,”JCAP08(2005) 003, arXiv:astro-ph/0503387

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  71. [73]

    The Effects of Cold Dark Matter Decoupling and Pair Annihilation on Cosmological Perturbations,

    E. Bertschinger, “The Effects of Cold Dark Matter Decoupling and Pair Annihilation on Cosmological Perturbations,”Phys. Rev. D74(2006) 063509,arXiv:astro-ph/0607319

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  72. [74]

    The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) II: Approximation schemes,

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, “The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) II: Approximation schemes,”JCAP07(2011) 034,arXiv:1104.2933 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  73. [75]

    The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) IV: efficient implementation of non-cold relics,

    J. Lesgourgues and T. Tram, “The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) IV: efficient implementation of non-cold relics,”JCAP09(2011) 032,arXiv:1104.2935 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  74. [76]

    Small scale aspects of warm dark matter : power spectra and acoustic oscillations,

    D. Boyanovsky and J. Wu, “Small scale aspects of warm dark matter : power spectra and acoustic oscillations,”Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 043524,arXiv:1008.0992 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  75. [77]

    21cmFAST: A Fast, Semi-Numerical Simulation of the High-Redshift 21-cm Signal,

    A. Mesinger, S. Furlanetto, and R. Cen, “21cmFAST: A Fast, Semi-Numerical Simulation of the High-Redshift 21-cm Signal,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.411(2011) 955, arXiv:1003.3878 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  76. [78]

    Neural network emulation of reionization to constrain new physics with early- and late-time probes,

    G. Facchinetti, “Neural network emulation of reionization to constrain new physics with early- and late-time probes,”arXiv:2503.11261 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  77. [79]

    Formation of galaxies and clusters of galaxies by selfsimilar gravitational condensation,

    W. H. Press and P. Schechter, “Formation of galaxies and clusters of galaxies by selfsimilar gravitational condensation,”Astrophys. J.187(1974) 425–438

    1974

  78. [80]

    Large scale bias and the peak background split,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  79. [81]

    Dark Matter Halo Merger Histories Beyond Cold Dark Matter: I - – 38 – Methods and Application to Warm Dark Matter,

    A. J. Benson, A. Farahi, S. Cole, L. A. Moustakas, A. Jenkins, M. Lovell, R. Kennedy, J. Helly, and C. Frenk, “Dark Matter Halo Merger Histories Beyond Cold Dark Matter: I - – 38 – Methods and Application to Warm Dark Matter,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.428(2013) 1774,arXiv:1209.3018 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  80. [82]

    Halo Mass Function and the Free Streaming Scale,

    A. Schneider, R. E. Smith, and D. Reed, “Halo Mass Function and the Free Streaming Scale,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.433(2013) 1573,arXiv:1303.0839 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

Showing first 80 references.