Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Cosmic string loops can boost early galaxy numbers enough to match JWST and HST data, without changing star-formation physics, while setting a new upper bound on string tension of about 10^-8.

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 ↗

Cosmic string loops can boost the high-z galaxy UV luminosity function enough to match HST+JWST data, yielding an upper bound Gμ ≲ 1e-8 (95% c.l.) that improves on CMB limits, but with strong prior/model dependence.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection A transparent, useful proof-of-concept for UVLF constraints on cosmic strings, but the headline detection and factor-of-ten claim do not survive the paper's own robustness checks. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.09980 v2 pith:Z3DJ3PE3 submitted 2025-12-10 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAgr-qchep-phhep-th

UV Luminosity Functions from HST and JWST: A Possible Resolution to the High-Redshift Galaxy Abundance Puzzle and Implications for Cosmic Strings

Matt\'eo Blamart , Adrian Liu , Robert Brandenberger , Julian B. Mu\~noz , Bryce Cyr This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAgr-qchep-phhep-th
keywords cosmic stringsultraviolet luminosity functionhigh-redshift galaxiesJWSThalo mass functionstar formation efficiencystring tensiongalaxy abundance puzzle
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

This paper asks whether cosmic strings—ultra-thin line-like defects left over from an early-universe phase transition—can resolve the claimed puzzle that JWST sees many more bright galaxies in the first billion years than standard galaxy-formation models predict. The authors add a cosmic-string-seeded halo population to a standard semi-analytic galaxy formation model and compare the predicted UV luminosity functions with HST and JWST measurements from redshift 4 to 17. They find that a string tension of order 10^-8 can reproduce the observed excess without changing the star-formation physics, and that the same data set an upper bound Gμ ≲ 10^-8, an order of magnitude better than the CMB bound. They also show that the apparent 'detection' of a narrow tension value is sensitive to how one parameterizes star-formation efficiency over redshift; the conservative redshift-by-redshift analysis gives only upper bounds, not a detection.

Core claim

The central claim is that the abundance of UV-bright galaxies at z = 4–17 measured by HST and JWST can be explained by seeding dark matter halos around cosmic string loops, without invoking abrupt changes in star-formation efficiency. In the fiducial model, where the star-formation efficiency follows a smooth power law in redshift, the joint fit to all data implies a narrow value Gμ = (5.08 ± 1.58) × 10^-9. In the conservative model, where the star-formation parameters are allowed to vary independently at each redshift, the same data yield only an upper bound of Gμ ≲ 10^-8 (95% credibility). The paper therefore interprets UVLFs as a new observable window on cosmic strings and argues that thi

What carries the argument

The central object is the cosmic-string-loop halo mass function: under a one-scale model of the string network (with fixed loop size parameters and abundance), each loop accretes dark matter and seeds a halo. The resulting halo mass function falls as a power law in mass and redshift, rather than exponentially as in the standard ΛCDM mass function, so at high redshift it contributes a large population of massive halos that host UV-bright galaxies. Adding this loop-seeded component to the standard halo mass function boosts the predicted UV luminosity functions exactly where JWST sees an excess. The paper also uses a flexible double-power-law star-formation efficiency model and considers two sc

Load-bearing premise

The quoted constraints rely on the one-scale model of the cosmic string network with fixed loop sizes and abundance (N = 570, α = 0.1, β = 10), and the apparent detection additionally assumes that the star-formation efficiency evolves as a smooth power law in redshift; if loop velocities are significant or if the SFE is allowed to vary freely, the bound weakens and the peak in the posterior disappears.

What would settle it

Measure the galaxy clustering bias at z ≈ 9–10: string-seeded halos are more massive and more clustered than standard ΛCDM halos hosting the same UV luminosity, so a measured bias consistent with the standard halo model without the extra string component would rule out the explanation. Alternatively, a pulsar-timing-array bound on Gμ that falls below about 5 × 10^-9 would contradict the paper's central fiducial value.

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

If this is right

  • UV luminosity functions become a competitive and complementary probe of cosmic-string physics, alongside CMB, gravitational-wave, and 21-cm observations.
  • A string-tension bound Gμ ≲ 10^-8 rules out phase transitions above roughly 10^16 GeV, tightening constraints on Grand Unified Theory-scale physics.
  • The JWST/HST abundance puzzle can be resolved without modifying star-formation physics, avoiding the need for a sudden jump in star-formation efficiency at z > 9.
  • Future galaxy clustering measurements at z > 9 can break the degeneracy between star-formation efficiency and string tension, directly testing the string-seeded halo hypothesis.
  • As JWST accumulates spectroscopic confirmations and fainter samples, the same analysis will yield stronger upper bounds or, if the fiducial signal persists, a genuine detection.
  • The paper notes that if the underlying halo mass function is even slightly more conservative than the static-loop model, all quoted limits weaken but remain superior to existing CMB bounds.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the string-seeded halo scenario is correct, the same loops would create small-scale matter overdensities that should leave an imprint in the 21-cm power spectrum; the Gμ ~ 5 × 10^-9 value may be testable with future intensity-mapping experiments.
  • The strong prior dependence of the redshift-by-redshift constraints suggests that using independent measurements of the star-formation efficiency—e.g., from clustering or stellar mass functions—could sharpen the current upper bound into a much more discriminative test.
  • The power-law mass dependence of the string-seeded halo mass function predicts a flattening of the bright end of the UVLF at very high redshift; if future JWST samples at z > 12 reveal a steepening cutoff instead, the string explanation would be disfavored.
  • The 'precise' Gμ value in the fiducial scenario is best read as an artifact of the smooth-evolution parameterization: the authors themselves show the peak dissolves when the star-formation efficiency is free to vary, so caution is warranted before calling it evidence.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper integrates a cosmic-string-loop halo mass function (HMF) into the semi-analytic code Zeus21 and fits UV luminosity functions (UVLFs) from HST (z=4–8) and JWST (z=9–17). Two inference scenarios are used: a conservative one with star-formation-efficiency (SFE) parameters free at each redshift, and a fiducial one in which the SFE redshift evolution is described by power laws in (1+z). The authors report 95% upper bounds on the dimensionless string tension Gμ, with the strongest static-loop constraint Gμ ≲ 1.47×10^-8 at z=8, and a detection-like posterior Gμ = (5.08 ± 1.58)×10^-9 in the fiducial joint HST+JWST fit. They explicitly discuss the degeneracy with the network parameter N, prior sensitivity, and, in Appendix A, the impact of including cosmic-string loop velocities. The paper concludes that cosmic strings can reconcile HST and JWST UVLFs without abrupt changes in star-formation physics and that UVLFs improve on the Planck bound by a factor of ten.

Significance. If the central constraints were robust, this work would open a new and competitive observational window on cosmic strings and offer a novel resolution of the high-redshift galaxy abundance puzzle. The paper is transparent: it releases results from the Zeus21 pipeline, discusses degeneracies with SFE parameters, explicitly reports the (N/570)^{2/3}Gμ degeneracy, and includes an appendix exploring an alternative velocity-dependent HMF. The main scientific value is as a careful proof-of-concept and a set of model-dependent constraints that improve on CMB limits even in the more conservative velocity-dependent treatment. However, the headline claims are sensitive to two assumptions that the paper itself shows are not robust: the static-loop HMF and the power-law SFE parameterization. The apparent detection disappears when the SFE is free at each redshift, and the upper bound weakens by a factor of ~3 when loop velocities are included. The work is therefore promising and publishable after substantial revision of the claims and presentation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A; Section III.A; Section V] The headline upper bound is not robust under the velocity-dependent HMF that the paper itself implements in Appendix A. Section III.A quotes a z=8 conservative bound of 1.47×10^-8 for the static-loop HMF of Eq. (7), and Section V concludes "a new upper limit Gμ ≲ 10^-8 ... representing a factor of ten improvement over the Planck 2014 upper limit of Gμ ≤ 10^-7." Appendix A, using the velocity-dependent HMF of Ref. [62], relaxes the z=8 bound to 4.36×10^-8 and the z=9 bound to 3.90×10^-8; with a high-mass extrapolation the z=8 limit becomes 2.05×10^-8. The improvement over Planck is then only a factor of ~2.3, not ten. Because the velocity treatment is physically motivated and the paper itself states (Section IV.A) that it is "likely that there would be some effect on Gμ constraints," the abstract and conclusion should either adopt the more conservative velocity-dependent limits or clearly
  2. [Section III.B; Fig. 6; Section V] The detection-like posterior Gμ = (5.08 ± 1.58)×10^-9 is an artifact of the fiducial SFE parameterization in Eq. (13). The paper itself states in Section III.B that "the seemingly strong evidence for cosmic strings disappears and is really specific to the choice of SFE parameterization," and Fig. 6 shows that in the conservative scenario, where SFE parameters are free at each redshift, the peak becomes a broad plateau or disappears. The abstract's claim that the results "suggest that cosmic strings can boost the early-galaxy abundance ... without modifying the star-formation physics" is therefore conditional on a smooth power-law SFE evolution. This conditionality should be stated in the abstract and conclusion, and the posterior should not be presented as evidence for a specific string tension without emphasizing that it disappears when the SFE is given more freedom.
  3. [Section II.D.1; abstract; Table II] The constraints are formally on the combination (N/570)^{2/3}Gμ, not on Gμ alone, because the loop-seeded HMF in Eq. (7) is proportional to N and the quoted limits assume N=570. Section II.D.1 states this clearly, and Fig. 5 and Table II label axes with log10[(N/570)^{2/3}Gμ]. However, the abstract and conclusion quote the bounds as constraints on Gμ without this qualification. Given that the network parameter N is not fixed from first principles and contributes a systematic uncertainty, the abstract and conclusion should either quote the combination or explicitly state the assumed N, so that the result is not misinterpreted as a direct measurement of the string tension alone.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II.B] Typo: "supppresion" should be "suppression." Similar typos appear in figure captions: "contain contain" in Figs. 5 and 6, and "dahsed" in Fig. 6.
  2. [Table II] The z=6 row with the broad prior [10^-30, 10^-6] gives a weaker bound (5.96×10^-8) than with the narrow prior (1.89×10^-8). This is a consequence of the plateau shape of the posterior, but readers may find it counterintuitive; a brief note explaining this behavior would be helpful.
  3. [Section II.E] The treatment of z=17 upper limits as zero-flux measurements with wide Gaussian errors is crude; the paper states that omitting them changes little, but a more rigorous likelihood treatment (e.g., Ref. [105]) would strengthen the analysis. Consider adopting that approach or adding a sentence justifying the approximation.
  4. [General] The text frequently writes "upper bound on Gμ" when the quantity actually plotted and constrained is log10[(N/570)^{2/3}Gμ]. For consistency, every quoted limit that assumes N=570 should be accompanied by the phrase "assuming N=570," including in Section III.A and Table II.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: the Gμ constraints and the 'possible resolution' are Bayesian fits to the UVLF data, clearly labeled as model- and prior-dependent, and the imported loop HMF is prior modeling rather than a self-fulfilling prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative results are parameter estimations from the HST/JWST UVLF data via the likelihood in Eq. (14), using a loop-seeded halo mass function (Eq. 7) taken from earlier work (Refs. [60,61]). This is not a circular derivation: the same data are used to constrain Gμ and the SFE parameters, and the paper explicitly discloses the degeneracies and the dependence of the apparent signal on modeling choices. In particular, Sec. III.B states that 'the seemingly strong evidence for cosmic strings disappears and is really specific to the choice of SFE parameterization', and Sec. II.D.1 notes that the quoted limits are really constraints on (N/570)^{2/3}Gμ, not Gμ alone. Appendix A further shows that including loop velocities relaxes the strongest bounds. These are model-dependence and robustness caveats, not cases where a prediction reduces by construction to its fitted inputs. The self-citations to Refs. [60,61,62] are load-bearing model inputs, but they are prior analyses/simulations rather than definitions of the target quantity, and the paper explicitly tests the velocity-modified alternative, so the self-citation chain does not force the conclusion. No specific circular step can be quoted.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 9 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on a chain of astrophysical and string-network modeling assumptions. The most consequential are the static accretion model for loop-seeded halos (Appendix A shows velocity corrections shift the limits) and the fiducial SFE parameterization (which creates the apparent Gμ detection). The reported bounds are inherently on the combination (N/570)^{2/3} Gμ unless N is fixed.

free parameters (7)
  • Gμ (string tension) = 5.08e-9 ± 1.58e-9 (fiducial, HST+JWST); various 95% upper bounds in Table II
    Central parameter constrained by UVLF data; strongly degenerate with SFE amplitude and prior-dependent in the conservative scenario.
  • N (number of infinite strings per Hubble volume) = 570 (fixed from numerical simulations)
    Loop network parameter; the paper explicitly notes that constraints are on (N/570)^{2/3} Gμ, so the quoted Gμ assumes N=570.
  • loop model parameters α, β, γ = α=0.1, β=10, γ≈100 (fixed)
    One-scale loop distribution parameters taken from simulations; not varied.
  • SFE amplitude parameters in fiducial scenario (εs*, εi*) = εs*=-0.45, εi*=-0.65 (median, with CS)
    Amplitude and redshift slope of star-formation efficiency; fit to data.
  • SFE mass parameters in fiducial scenario (Ms_c, Mi_c) = Ms_c=1.85, Mi_c=12.16 (log10 Mc/Msun)
    Critical mass and its redshift slope in the double power law; fit to data.
  • SFE slopes α*, β* = α*=0.65, β*=-1.71 (fiducial with CS)
    Power-law slopes of the double power-law SFE; fit to data.
  • σ_UV (UV magnitude scatter) = 0.5 (fixed)
    Gaussian scatter in the halo–galaxy connection; set to default, not fitted.
axioms (9)
  • domain assumption Sheth-Tormen halo mass function is the correct ΛCDM baseline
    Used in Eq. (8); Section IV.A notes possible mismatch with GUREFT simulations, especially at high mass.
  • domain assumption One-scale cosmic string loop distribution with n(R,t) as in Eq. (1)
    Adopted from Ref. [82,93,94]; parameters α,β,N fixed from simulations.
  • domain assumption Static accretion model: loop mass M(R,z) as in Eq. (3)
    The loop HMF is built from this relation; Appendix A shows velocity corrections change the HMF shape and Gμ limits.
  • domain assumption Halo occupation fraction = 1 and Gaussian P(M_UV|M_h) with σ=0.5 (Eq. 9)
    Standard Zeus21 assumption; not tested in this paper.
  • domain assumption Exponential halo accretion M_h(z) ∝ e^{-acc z} with acc=0.79
    Used to compute star formation rate; from Refs. [98,99].
  • domain assumption Dust attenuation prescription of Meurer et al. (1999) extrapolated to z > 8
    Adopted in Zeus21; affects bright-end UVLF shape at high z.
  • ad hoc to paper Fiducial SFE redshift evolution as Eq. (13): log10 ε* and log10 M_c evolve as power laws in (1+z)
    This parameterization is what generates the apparent detection of Gμ; the conservative scenario, allowing arbitrary per-redshift SFE, erases the peak.
  • ad hoc to paper Prior choices: log-uniform on Gμ, uniform on ε* in the conservative scenario
    The authors show that the upper bound depends on the prior form and lower cutoff; the log-uniform/uniform combination is chosen to favor physically plausible SFE.
  • standard math Standard ΛCDM cosmology with Planck 2018 parameters
    Assumed for redshift–time relations and ST HMF.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of UV Luminosity Functions from HST and JWST: A Possible Resolution to the High-Redshift Galaxy Abundance Puzzle and Implications for Cosmic Strings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z3DJ3PE3

@misc{pith2026251209980,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: UV Luminosity Functions from HST and JWST: A Possible Resolution to the High-Redshift Galaxy Abundance Puzzle and Implications for Cosmic Strings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z3DJ3PE3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.09980}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Recent observations of high redshift galaxies by the James Webb Space Telescope suggest the presence of a bright population of galaxies that is more abundant than predicted by most galaxy formation models. These observations have led to a rethinking of these models, and numerous astrophysical and cosmological solutions have been proposed, including cosmic strings, topological defects that may be remnants of a specific phase transition in the very early moments of the Universe. In this paper, we integrate cosmic strings, a source of nonlinear and non-Gaussian perturbations, into the semi analytical code Zeus21, allowing us to efficiently predict the ultraviolet luminosity function (UVLF). We conduct a precise study of parameter degeneracies between star-formation astrophysics and cosmic-string phenomenology. Our results suggest that cosmic strings can boost the early-galaxy abundance enough to explain the measured UVLFs from the James Webb and Hubble Space Telescopes from redshift z = 4 to z = 17 without modifying the star-formation physics. In addition, we set a new upper bound on the string tension of $G\mu \lessapprox 10^{-8}$ ($95\%$ credibility), improving upon previous limits from the cosmic microwave background. Although with current data there is some level of model and prior dependence to this limit, it suggests that UVLFs are a promising avenue for future observational constraints on cosmic-string physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.09980 by Adrian Liu, Bryce Cyr, Julian B. Mu\~noz, Matt\'eo Blamart, Robert Brandenberger.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison between predictions of UVLFs with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison of the cosmic string loops halo mass function for different string tensions and the Sheth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of the impact of the five star formation parameters on final UVLF at redshift [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Marginalized two-dimensional posterior distribu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Marginal posterior distribution of log10[(N/570)2/3Gµ] for the fiducial scenario with HST UVLFs alone (blue dashed) at redshifts z = 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 and JWST and HST UVLFs at redshifts from z = 4 to 17 (red solid). Also included are the combined constraints from the different redshifts in the conservative case using only HST data (orange dash dotted), HST and JWST data (green dot￾ted), and JWST data only… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Best-fit observable predictions using median values obtained from the posterior distribution of parameters assuming [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as Figure 7 but for JWST data from redshifts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of the conservative (violin) and fidu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the marginal posterior distribu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Ab Initio Cosmological Simulations: From Inflation to Present-Day Structure Formation

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Nonlinear axion-U(1) inflation, simulated on a lattice and fed into N-body simulations, boosts small-scale structure and high-redshift halo counts by up to ~200% relative to standard single-field initial conditions.

  2. Origin of monolithic high-z galaxies and UV luminosity of mergering high-z galaxies in the cosmological model with non-standard spectrum of density perturbations

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A non-standard perturbation spectrum with bump plus cutoff reconciles JWST high-z galaxy counts and UV luminosities with reionization timing by suppressing low-mass halos and altering merger-driven star formation.

  3. Probing inflationary features with galaxy ultraviolet luminosity function observables

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0

    Galaxy UV luminosity function data at z=6–9 give upper limits on bump-like inflationary features at k≈0.3–20 Mpc^-1, similar to but not stronger than optical-depth constraints.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

135 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    For redshifts z = 5 , 6, 7, and 8 (each treated as a separate observation and inference process), we find a strong degeneracy between the SFE and the string ten- sion

    HST data In the conservative scenario the SFE parameters at different redshifts are completely independent of one an- other. For redshifts z = 5 , 6, 7, and 8 (each treated as a separate observation and inference process), we find a strong degeneracy between the SFE and the string ten- sion. As an example, Figure 4 illustrates this degeneracy for redshift...

  2. [2]

    The shapes of the posterior distri- butions are flat and constant for string tensions smaller than Gµ ≤ 10−8 andtendstodecreasetowardslarger Gµ

    Most UVLFs (with the exception of redshiftz = 6) seemtoruleoutcosmicstringswithstringtensionsmaller than the CMB limit. The shapes of the posterior distri- butions are flat and constant for string tensions smaller than Gµ ≤ 10−8 andtendstodecreasetowardslarger Gµ. 2 Note that all one-dimensional posterior probability distributions shown in the paper have ...

  3. [3]

    Here, the UVLFs tend to allow a wider range of values for the various SFE parameters, close to those of priors with and without cosmic strings

    JWST data Continuing with our conservative scenario (where each redshift analyzed independently with its own set of SFE parameters), we now consider higher redshifts accessible to JWST. Here, the UVLFs tend to allow a wider range of values for the various SFE parameters, close to those of priors with and without cosmic strings. These results are similar t...

    2014

  4. [4]

    S. L. Finkelstein, Observational Searches for Star- Forming Galaxies atz > 6, Publications of the Astro- nomical Society of Australia33, e037 (2016)

    2016

  5. [5]

    Trenti, M

    M. Trenti, M. Stiavelli, R. J. Bouwens, P. Oesch, J. M. Shull, G. D. Illingworth, L. D. Bradley, and C. M. Carollo, THE GALAXY LUMINOSITY FUNCTION DURING THE REIONIZATION EPOCH, The Astro- physical Journal Letters714, L202 (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

    Ceverino, S

    D. Ceverino, S. C. O. Glover, and R. S. Klessen, Introducing the FirstLight project: UV luminosity function and scaling relations of primeval galaxies, MonthlyNoticesoftheRoyalAstronomicalSociety 470, 2791 (2017), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/470/3/2791/18314671/stx1386.pdf

    2017

  7. [7]

    Tacchella, S

    S. Tacchella, S. Bose, C. Conroy, D. J. Eisenstein, and B. D. Johnson, A Redshift-independent Efficiency Model: Star Formation and Stellar Masses in Dark Mat- ter Halos atz ≤ 4, The Astrophysical Journal868, 92 (2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    Mirocha, S

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

    2016

  9. [9]

    J. Park, A. Mesinger, B. Greig, and N. Gillet, Infer- ring the astrophysics of reionization and cosmic dawn from galaxy luminosity functions and the 21-cm signal, MonthlyNoticesoftheRoyalAstronomicalSociety 484, 933–949 (2019)

    2019

  10. [10]

    C. A. Mason, R. P. Naidu, S. Tacchella, and J. Leja, Model-independent constraints on the hydrogen- ionizing emissivity at z ≤ 6, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society489, 2669–2676 (2019)

    2019

  11. [11]

    P. S. Corasaniti, S. Agarwal, D. J. E. Marsh, and S. Das, Constraints on dark matter scenarios from measure- ments of the galaxy luminosity function at high red- shifts, Phys. Rev. D95, 083512 (2017)

    2017

  12. [12]

    Menci, A

    N. Menci, A. Grazian, A. Lamastra, F. Calura, M. Castellano, and P. Santini, Galaxy Formation in Sterile Neutrino Dark Matter Models, The Astrophysi- cal Journal854, 1 (2018)

    2018

  13. [13]

    Sabti, J

    N. Sabti, J. B. Muñoz, and D. Blas, New Roads to the Small-scale Universe: Measurements of the Clustering of Matter with the High-redshift UV Galaxy Luminosity Function, The Astrophysical Journal Letters928, L20 (2022)

    2022

  14. [14]

    Rudakovskyi, A

    A. Rudakovskyi, A. Mesinger, D. Savchenko, and N. Gillet, Constraints on warm dark matter from UV luminosity functions of high-z galaxies with Bayesian model comparison, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society507, 3046–3056 (2021)

    2021

  15. [15]

    Sabti, J

    N. Sabti, J. B. Muñoz, and M. Kamionkowski, In- sights from HST into Ultramassive Galaxies and Early- Universe Cosmology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 061002 (2024)

    2024

  16. [16]

    R. J. Bouwens, P. A. Oesch, M. Stefanon, G. Illing- worth, I. Labbé, N. Reddy, H. Atek, M. Montes, R. Naidu, T. Nanayakkara, E. Nelson, and S. Wilkins, New Determinations of the UV Luminosity Functions from z ≈ 9 to 2 Show a Remarkable Consistency with Halo Growth and a Constant Star Formation Efficiency, The Astronomical Journal162, 47 (2021)

    2021

  17. [17]

    R. C. Livermore, S. L. Finkelstein, and J. M. Lotz, Directly Observing the Galaxies Likely Responsible for Reionization, The Astrophysical Journal835, 113 (2017)

    2017

  18. [18]

    H. Atek, J. Richard, M. Jauzac, J.-P. Kneib, P. Natara- jan, M. Limousin, D. Schaerer, E. Jullo, H. Ebel- ing, E. Egami, and B. Clement, ARE ULTRA-FAINT GALAXIES AT z = 6–8 RESPONSIBLE FOR COS- MIC REIONIZATION? COMBINED CONSTRAINTS FROM THE HUBBLE FRONTIER FIELDS CLUS- TERS AND PARALLELS*, The Astrophysical Journal 814, 69 (2015)

    2015

  19. [19]

    R. J. Bouwens, G. D. Illingworth, P. A. Oesch, M. Trenti, I. Labbé, L. Bradley, M. Carollo, P. G. van Dokkum, V. Gonzalez, B. Holwerda, M. Franx, L. Spitler, R. Smit, and D. Magee, UV LUMINOSITY FUNCTIONS AT REDSHIFTS z ≈ 4 TO z ≈ 10: 10,000 GALAXIES FROM HST LEGACY FIELDS, The Astrophysical Journal803, 34 (2015)

    2015

  20. [20]

    S. L. Finkelstein, M. B. Bagley, P. Arrabal Haro, M. Dickinson, H. C. Ferguson, J. S. Kartaltepe, C. Pa- povich, D. Burgarella, D. D. Kocevski, M. Huertas- Company, K. G. Iyer, A. M. Koekemoer, R. L. Lar- son, P. G. Pérez-González, C. Rose, S. Tacchella, S. M. Wilkins, K. Chworowsky, A. Medrano, A. M. Morales, R. S. Somerville, L. Y. A. Yung, A. Fontana, ...

    2022

  21. [21]

    Castellano, A

    M. Castellano, A. Fontana, T. Treu, P. Santini, E. Merlin, N. Leethochawalit, M. Trenti, E. Vanzella, U. Mestric, A. Bonchi, D. Belfiori, M. Nonino, D. Paris, G. Polenta, G. Roberts-Borsani, K. Boyett, M. Bradač, 17 A. Calabrò, K. Glazebrook, C. Grillo, S. Mascia, C. Mason, A. Mercurio, T. Morishita, T. Nanayakkara, L. Pentericci, P. Rosati, B. Vulcani, X...

    2022

  22. [22]

    R. J. Bouwens, M. Stefanon, G. Brammer, P. A. Oesch, T. Herard-Demanche, G. D. Illingworth, J. Matthee, R. P. Naidu, P. G. van Dokkum, and I. F. van Leeuwen, Evolution of the UV LF fromz ≈ 15 to z ≈ 8 using new JWST NIRCam medium-band observations over the HUDF/XDF, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society523, 1036–1055 (2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

    Kokorev, Óscar A

    V. Kokorev, Óscar A. Chávez Ortiz, A. J. Taylor, S. L. Finkelstein, P. A. Haro, M. Dickinson, J. Chisholm, S.Fujimoto, J.B.Muñoz, R.Endsley, W.Hu, L.Napoli- tano, S. M. Wilkins, H. B. Akins, R. Amoriín, C. M. Casey, Y. Cheng, N. J. Cleri, J. Cole, F. Cullen, E. Daddi, K. Davis, C. T. Donnan, J. S. Dunlop, V. Fernández, M. Giavalisco, N. A. Grogin, N. Hath...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Kokorev, H

    V. Kokorev, H. Atek, J. Chisholm, R. Endsley, I. Chemerynska, J. B. Muñoz, L. J. Furtak, R. Pan, D. Berg, S. Fujimoto, P. A. Oesch, A. Weibel, A. Adamo, J. Blaizot, R. Bouwens, M. Dessauges- Zavadsky, G. Khullar, D. Korber, I. Goovaerts, M. Jec- men, I. Labbé, F. Leclercq, R. Marques-Chaves, C. Ma- son, K. B. W. McQuinn, R. Naidu, P. Natarajan, E. Nelson,...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Harikane, K

    Y. Harikane, K. Nakajima, M. Ouchi, H. Umeda, Y. Isobe, Y. Ono, Y. Xu, and Y. Zhang, Pure Spec- troscopic Constraints on UV Luminosity Functions and Cosmic Star Formation History From 25 Galaxies at zspec = 8 .61 − 13.20 Confirmed with JWST/NIRSpec (2023), arXiv:2304.06658 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Arrabal Haro, M

    P. Arrabal Haro, M. Dickinson, S. L. Finkelstein, J. S. Kartaltepe, C. T. Donnan, D. Burgarella, A. C. Car- nall, F. Cullen, J. S. Dunlop, V. Fernández, S. Fuji- moto, I. Jung, M. Krips, R. L. Larson, C. Papovich, P. G. Pérez-González, R. O. Amorín, M. B. Bagley, V. Buat, C. M. Casey, K. Chworowsky, S. H. Cohen, H. C. Ferguson, M. Giavalisco, M. Huertas-C...

    2023

  27. [27]

    Curtis-Lake, S

    E. Curtis-Lake, S. Carniani, A. Cameron, S. Char- lot, P. Jakobsen, R. Maiolino, A. Bunker, J. Wit- stok, R. Smit, J. Chevallard, C. Willott, P. Ferruit, S. Arribas, N. Bonaventura, M. Curti, F. D’Eugenio, M. Franx, G. Giardino, T. J. Looser, N. Lützgendorf, M. V. Maseda, T. Rawle, H.-W. Rix, B. Rodríguez del Pino, H. Übler, M. Sirianni, A. Dressler, E. E...

    2023

  28. [28]

    B. Wang, S. Fujimoto, I. Labbé, L. J. Furtak, T. B. Miller, D. J. Setton, A. Zitrin, H. Atek, R. Bezan- son, G. Brammer, J. Leja, P. A. Oesch, S. H. Price, I. Chemerynska, S. E. Cutler, P. Dayal, P. van Dokkum, A. D. Goulding, J. E. Greene, Y. Fudamoto, G. Khullar, V. Kokorev, D. Marchesini, R. Pan, J. R. Weaver, K. E. Whitaker, and C. C. Williams, UNCOVE...

    2023

  29. [29]

    Harikane, A

    Y. Harikane, A. K. Inoue, R. S. Ellis, M. Ouchi, Y. Nakazato, N. Yoshida, Y. Ono, F. Sun, R. A. Sato, G. Ferrami, S. Fujimoto, N. Kashikawa, D. J. McLeod, P. G. Pérez-González, M. Sawicki, Y. Sugahara, Y. Xu, S. Yamanaka, A. C. Carnall, F. Cullen, J. S. Dunlop, E.Egami, N.Grogin, Y.Isobe, A.M.Koekemoer, N.La- porte, C.-H. Lee, D. Magee, H. Matsuo, Y. Mats...

    2025

  30. [32]

    L. Y. A. Yung, R. S. Somerville, S. L. Finkelstein, G. Popping, and R. Davé, Semi-analytic forecasts for JWST– I. UV luminosity functions at z=4–10, MonthlyNoticesoftheRoyalAstronomicalSociety 483, 2983–3006 (2018)

    2018

  31. [33]

    Williams, B

    P.Behroozi, C.Conroy, R.H.Wechsler, A.Hearin, C.C. Williams, B. P. Moster, L. Y. A. Yung, R. S. Somerville, S. Gottlöber, G. Yepes, and R. Endsley, The Universe at z >10: Predictions for JWST from theUniverseMa- chine DR1, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 499, 5702 (2020)

    2020

  32. [34]

    Vogelsberger, D

    M. Vogelsberger, D. Nelson, A. Pillepich, X. Shen, F. Marinacci, V. Springel, R. Pakmor, S. Tacchella, R. Weinberger, P. Torrey, and L. Hernquist, High- redshift JWST predictions from IllustrisTNG: dust modelling and galaxy luminosity functions, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society492, 5167 (2020)

    2020

  33. [35]

    Kannan, A

    R. Kannan, A. Smith, E. Garaldi, X. Shen, M. Vo- gelsberger, R. Pakmor, V. Springel, and L. Hernquist, The Thesanproject: predictions for multitracer line in- tensity mapping in the epoch of reionization, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society514, 3857 (2022)

    2022

  34. [36]

    Kannan, V

    R. Kannan, V. Springel, L. Hernquist, R. Pakmor, A. M. Delgado, B. Hadzhiyska, C. Hernández-Aguayo, M. Barrera, F. Ferlito, S. Bose, S. D. M. White, C. Frenk, A. Smith, and E. Garaldi, The Millenni- umTNG project: the galaxy population at z ≥ 8, MonthlyNoticesoftheRoyalAstronomicalSociety 524, 2594 (2023)

    2023

  35. [37]

    Inayoshi, Y

    K. Inayoshi, Y. Harikane, A. K. Inoue, W. Li, and L. C. Ho, A Lower Bound of Star Formation Activity in Ultra- high-redshift Galaxies Detected with JWST: Implica- tionsforStellarPopulationsandRadiationSources,The Astrophysical Journal Letters 938, L10 (2022), pub- lisher: The American Astronomical Society

    2022

  36. [38]

    S. L. Finkelstein, M. B. Bagley, H. C. Ferguson, S. M. Wilkins, J. S. Kartaltepe, C. Papovich, L. Y. A. Yung, P. Arrabal Haro, P. Behroozi, M. Dickinson, D. D. Ko- cevski, A. M. Koekemoer, R. L. Larson, A. Le Bail, A. M. Morales, P. G. Pérez-González, D. Burgarella, R. Davé, M. Hirschmann, R. S. Somerville, S. Wuyts, V. Bromm, C. M. Casey, A. Fontana, S. ...

    2023

  37. [39]

    C. L. Steinhardt, V. Kokorev, V. Rusakov, E. Garcia, and A. Sneppen, Templates for Fitting Photometry of Ultra-high-redshift Galaxies, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 951, L40 (2023), publisher: The American As- tronomical Society

    2023

  38. [40]

    Harvey, C

    T. Harvey, C. J. Conselice, N. J. Adams, D. Austin, I. Juodžbalis, J. Trussler, Q. Li, K. Ormerod, L. Fer- reira, C. C. Lovell, Q. Duan, L. Westcott, H. Harris, R. Bhatawdekar, D. Coe, S. H. Cohen, J. Caruana, C. Cheng, S. P. Driver, B. Frye, L. J. Furtak, N. A. Gro- gin, N. P. Hathi, B. W. Holwerda, R. A. Jansen, A. M. Koekemoer, M. A. Marshall, M. Nonin...

    2024

  39. [41]

    L. Y. A. Yung, R. S. Somerville, S. L. Finkelstein, S. M. Wilkins, and J. P. Gardner, Are the ultra-high-redshift galaxies at z > 10 surprising in the context of standard galaxy formation models?, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society527, 5929 (2024)

    2024

  40. [42]

    Dekel, K

    A. Dekel, K. C. Sarkar, Y. Birnboim, N. Mandelker, and Z. Li, Efficient formation of massive galaxies at cosmic dawn by feedback-free starbursts, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society523, 3201 (2023)

    2023

  41. [43]

    S. L. Finkelstein, G. C. K. Leung, M. B. Bagley, M.Dickinson, H.C.Ferguson, C.Papovich, H.B.Akins, P. Arrabal Haro, R. Davé, A. Dekel, J. S. Kartaltepe, D. D. Kocevski, A. M. Koekemoer, N. Pirzkal, R. S. Somerville, L. Y. A. Yung, R. O. Amorín, B. E. Back- haus, P. Behroozi, L. Bisigello, V. Bromm, C. M. Casey, Ó. A. Chávez Ortiz, Y. Cheng, K. Chworowsky,...

    2024

  42. [44]

    Ceverino, Y

    D. Ceverino, Y. Nakazato, N. Yoshida, R. S. Klessen, and S. C. O. Glover, Redshift-dependent galaxy forma- tionefficiencyatz=5-13intheFirstLightSimulations, Astronomy&Astrophysics 689,A244(2024),publisher: EDP Sciences

    2024

  43. [45]

    Chworowsky, S

    K. Chworowsky, S. L. Finkelstein, M. Boylan-Kolchin, E. J. McGrath, K. G. Iyer, C. Papovich, M. Dickinson, A. J. Taylor, L. Y. A. Yung, P. Arrabal Haro, M. B. Bagley, B. E. Backhaus, R. Bhatawdekar, Y. Cheng, N. J. Cleri, J. W. Cole, M. C. Cooper, L. Costantin, A.Dekel, M.Franco, S.Fujimoto, C.C.Hayward, B.W. Holwerda, M. Huertas-Company, M. Hirschmann, T...

    2024

  44. [46]

    X. Shen, M. Vogelsberger, M. Boylan-Kolchin, S. Tac- chella, and R. Kannan, The impact of UV variability on the abundance of bright galaxies at z≥ 9, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society525, 3254 (2023)

    2023

  45. [47]

    Sun, C.-A

    G. Sun, C.-A. Faucher-Gigu‘ere, C. C. Hayward, and X. Shen, Seen and unseen: bursty star formation and its implications for observations of high-redshift galaxies with JWST, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 526, 2665 (2023)

    2023

  46. [48]

    Sun, C.-A

    G. Sun, C.-A. Faucher-Giguère, C. C. Hayward, X. Shen, A. Wetzel, and R. K. Cochrane, Bursty Star Formation Naturally Explains the Abundance of Bright Galaxies at Cosmic Dawn, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 955, L35 (2023), publisher: The American As- tronomical Society

    2023

  47. [49]

    Pallottini and A

    A. Pallottini and A. Ferrara, Stochastic star forma- tion in early galaxies: Implications for the James Webb Space Telescope, Astronomy & Astrophysics 677, L4 (2023), publisher: EDP Sciences

    2023

  48. [50]

    J. B. Muñoz, J. Mirocha, S. Furlanetto, and N. Sabti, Breaking degeneracies in the first galaxies with cluster- ing, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 526, L47 (2023)

    2023

  49. [51]

    C. M. Casey, H. B. Akins, M. Shuntov, O. Ilbert, L. Paquereau, M. Franco, C. C. Hayward, S. L. Finkel- stein, M. Boylan-Kolchin, B. E. Robertson, N. Allen, M. Brinch, O. R. Cooper, X. Ding, N. E. Drakos, A. L. Faisst, S. Fujimoto, S. Gillman, S. Harish, M. Hirschmann, S. Jin, J. S. Kartaltepe, A. M. Koeke- moer, V. Kokorev, D. Liu, A. S. Long, G. Magdis, ...

    2024

  50. [52]

    Ferrara, A

    A. Ferrara, A. Pallottini, and P. Dayal, On the stunning abundance of super-early, luminous galaxies revealed by JWST, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety 522, 3986 (2023)

    2023

  51. [53]

    C. A. Mason, M. Trenti, and T. Treu, The brightest galaxies at cosmic dawn, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society521, 497 (2023)

    2023

  52. [54]

    Desprez, N

    G. Desprez, N. S. Martis, Y. Asada, M. Sawicki, C. J. Willott, A. Muzzin, R. G. Abraham, M. Bradač, G. Brammer, V. Estrada-Carpenter, K. G. Iyer, J. Matharu, L. Mowla, G. Noirot, G. T. E. Sarrouh, V.Strait, R.Gledhill,andG.Rihtaršič, ΛCDMnotdead yet: massive high-z Balmer break galaxies are less com- mon than previously reported, Monthly Notices of the Ro...

    2024

  53. [55]

    C. J. Willott, G. Desprez, Y. Asada, G. T. E. Sarrouh, R. Abraham, M. Bradač, G. Brammer, V. Estrada- Carpenter, K. G. Iyer, N. S. Martis, J. Matharu, L. Mowla, A. Muzzin, G. Noirot, M. Sawicki, V. Strait, G. Rihtaršič, and S. Withers, A Steep Decline in the Galaxy Space Density beyond Redshift 9 in the CANUCS UV Luminosity Function, The Astrophysical Jou...

    2024

  54. [56]

    Menci, M

    N. Menci, M. Castellano, P. Santini, E. Merlin, A. Fontana, and F. Shankar, High-redshift Galaxies from Early JWST Observations: Constraints on Dark Energy Models, The Astrophysical Journal Letters938, L5 (2022), publisher: The American Astronomical So- ciety

    2022

  55. [57]

    Biagetti, G

    M. Biagetti, G. Franciolini, and A. Riotto, High-redshift JWST Observations and Primordial Non-Gaussianity, The Astrophysical Journal944, 113 (2023), publisher: The American Astronomical Society

    2023

  56. [58]

    Y. Gong, B. Yue, Y. Cao, and X. Chen, Fuzzy Dark Matter as a Solution to Reconcile the Stellar Mass Den- sity of High-z Massive Galaxies and Reionization His- tory, The Astrophysical Journal947, 28 (2023), pub- lisher: The American Astronomical Society

    2023

  57. [59]

    Hütsi, M

    G. Hütsi, M. Raidal, J. Urrutia, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veermäe, Did JWST observe imprints of axion mini- clusters or primordial black holes?, Physical Review D 107, 043502 (2023), publisher: American Physical So- ciety

    2023

  58. [60]

    X. Shen, M. Vogelsberger, M. Boylan-Kolchin, S. Tac- chella, and R. P. Naidu, Early galaxies and early dark energy: a unified solution to the hubble tension and puzzles of massive bright galaxies revealed by JWST, MonthlyNoticesoftheRoyalAstronomicalSociety 533, 3923 (2024)

    2024

  59. [61]

    Padmanabhan and A

    H. Padmanabhan and A. Loeb, Alleviating the Need for Exponential Evolution of JWST Galaxies in1010 M⊙ Haloes at z > 10 by a ModifiedΛCDM Power Spectrum, The Astrophysical Journal Letters953, L4 (2023), pub- lisher: The American Astronomical Society

    2023

  60. [62]

    Sabti, J

    N. Sabti, J. B. Muñoz, and M. Kamionkowski, In- sights from HST into Ultramassive Galaxies and Early- Universe Cosmology, Physical Review Letters 132, 061002 (2024), publisher: American Physical Society

    2024

  61. [63]

    H. Jiao, R. Brandenberger, and A. Refregier, Early structure formation from cosmic string loops in light of early JWST observations, Physical Review D108, 043510 (2023), publisher: American Physical Society

    2023

  62. [64]

    H. Jiao, R. Brandenberger, and A. Refregier,N-body simulation of early structure formation from cosmic string loops, Physical Review D 109, 123524 (2024), publisher: American Physical Society

    2024

  63. [65]

    Cyr, Not-quite-primordial black holes seeded by cos- mic string loops (2025), arXiv:2507.17833 [astro-ph]

    B. Cyr, Not-quite-primordial black holes seeded by cos- mic string loops (2025), arXiv:2507.17833 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  64. [66]

    Shlaer, A

    B. Shlaer, A. Vilenkin, and A. Loeb, Early structure for- mation from cosmic string loops, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2012 (05), 026

  65. [67]

    H. Jiao, B. Cyr, and R. Brandenberger, Accretion onto oscillating cosmic string loops, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2024 (07), 069, publisher: IOP Publishing

    2024

  66. [68]

    S. M. Koehler, H. Jiao, and R. Kannan, Investigating cosmic strings using large-volume hydrodynamical sim- ulations in the context of JWST’s massive UV-bright galaxies (2024), arXiv:2412.00182 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  67. [69]

    K. D. Olum and A. Vilenkin, Reionization from cos- mic string loops, Physical Review D74, 063516 (2006), publisher: American Physical Society

    2006

  68. [70]

    R. H. Brandenberger, Topological defects and structure formation, International Journal of Modern Physics A 09, 2117 (1994), publisher: World Scientific Publishing Co. 20

    1994

  69. [71]

    M. B. Hindmarsh and T. W. B. Kibble, Cosmic strings, Reports on Progress in Physics58, 477 (1995)

    1995

  70. [72]

    Vilenkin and E

    A. Vilenkin and E. P. S. Shellard,Cosmic Strings and Other Topological Defects (Cambridge University Press, 2000)

    2000

  71. [73]

    Durrer, M

    R. Durrer, M. Kunz, and A. Melchiorri, Cosmic struc- ture formation with topological defects, Physics Reports 364, 1 (2002)

    2002

  72. [74]

    T. W. B. Kibble, Some implications of a cosmological phase transition, Physics Reports67, 183 (1980)

    1980

  73. [75]

    T. W. B. Kibble, Phase Transitions in the Early Uni- verse, Acta Phys. Pol. B 13, 723 (1982)

    1982

  74. [76]

    H. A. G. Cruz, J. B. Muñoz, N. Sabti, and M. Kamionkowski, Effective model for the 21-cm sig- nal with population III stars, Physical Review D111, 083503 (2025), publisher: American Physical Society

    2025

  75. [77]

    J. B. Muñoz, An effective model for the cosmic-dawn 21- cm signal, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 523, 2587 (2023)

    2023

  76. [78]

    Lesgourgues, The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) I: Overview (2011), arXiv:1104.2932 [astro-ph]

    J. Lesgourgues, The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) I: Overview (2011), arXiv:1104.2932 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  77. [79]

    Charnock, A

    T. Charnock, A. Avgoustidis, E. J. Copeland, and A. Moss, CMB constraints on cosmic strings and super- strings,PhysicalReviewD 93,123503(2016),publisher: American Physical Society

    2016

  78. [80]

    Planck 2013 results. XXV. Searches for cosmic strings and other topological defects | Astronomy & Astro- physics (A&A)

    2013

  79. [81]

    Dvorkin, M

    C. Dvorkin, M. Wyman, and W. Hu, Cosmic string constraints from WMAP and the South Pole Telescope data, Physical Review D84, 123519 (2011), publisher: American Physical Society

    2011

  80. [82]

    J. J. Blanco-Pillado, K. D. Olum, and J. M. Wachter, Comparison of cosmic string and superstring models to NANOGrav 12.5-year results, Physical Review D103, 103512 (2021), publisher: American Physical Society

    2021

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.