arxiv: 2604.22703 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-24 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Recognition: unknown

Reionization, UV Luminosity and 21\,cm Sensitivity to Primordial Magnetic Fields: Impact of Energy Losses

Ga\'etan Facchinetti , Alexander Korochkin , Laura Lopez-Honorez , Justus Schwagereit

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 09:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO

keywords primordial magnetic fieldsreionization21 cm cosmologyambipolar diffusionintergalactic mediumUV luminosity functionsenergy losses

0 comments

The pith

Accounting for energy losses relaxes constraints on the strength of primordial magnetic fields during reionization.

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

This paper revisits limits on primordial magnetic fields by tracking how they lose energy through ambipolar diffusion and decaying turbulence from recombination onward. The authors update the HyRec and exo21cmFAST codes to evolve the fields self-consistently alongside the intergalactic medium and reionization. An MCMC analysis that folds in reionization history and galaxy UV luminosity functions then shows that the weakened fields leave a smaller imprint, so earlier upper bounds on their initial strength are relaxed. A Fisher forecast further indicates that 21 cm observations with HERA could still tighten those limits in the future.

Core claim

Including PMF energy losses significantly relaxes previous bounds, as the reduced field strength suppresses their imprint on observables. Employing a Fisher matrix analysis, we estimate the sensitivity of the 21 cm signal experiment HERA to the PMFs' imprint on intergalactic medium perturbations and show that 21 cm cosmology could significantly improve on current bounds.

What carries the argument

Self-consistent implementation of ambipolar diffusion and decaying turbulence energy losses in the HyRec and exo21cmFAST codes from recombination through reionization, combined with a neural-network emulator for MCMC fitting to reionization and UV luminosity data.

Load-bearing premise

The energy loss mechanisms through ambipolar diffusion and decaying turbulences are accurately modeled and implemented self-consistently in the simulation codes from recombination through reionization.

What would settle it

A measurement of intergalactic magnetic field strength at redshift around 10 that remains close to the no-loss extrapolation while matching observed reionization timing and UV luminosity functions would falsify the relaxation of bounds.

read the original abstract

Magnetic fields with field strengths between $10^{-17}\,$G and a few Nanogauss are expected to exist today in the intergalactic medium (IGM). Their origin is unknown, but may be of primordial nature, in which case they would have influenced the thermal and ionization history of the IGM as well as the growth of small-scale matter perturbations. In this work, we revisit constraints on Primordial Magnetic fields (PMFs) by consistently accounting for their energy losses through ambipolar diffusion and decaying turbulences from recombination through the epoch of reionization, which progressively reduces the magnetic field strength over time. We implement these effects in ${\tt HyRec}$ and ${\tt exo21cmFAST}$ to model the interplay between PMFs and astrophysical processes up to reionization. Using a neural-network emulator (${\tt NNERO}$), we perform a MCMC analysis that combines late-time probes of the reionization history and galaxy UV luminosity functions. We find that including PMF energy losses significantly relaxes previous bounds, as the reduced field strength suppresses their imprint on observables. Employing a Fisher matrix analysis, we estimate the sensitivity of the 21$\,$cm signal experiment HERA to the PMFs' imprint on intergalactic medium perturbations and show that 21$\,$cm cosmology could significantly improve on current bounds. Our results highlight the importance of modeling PMF evolution self-consistently with the IGM evolution to extract current bounds and future sensitivities.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Accounting for PMF energy losses from recombination onward relaxes prior bounds, but the result stands or falls on the accuracy of the ambipolar diffusion and turbulence terms in the codes.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that by letting primordial magnetic fields lose energy through ambipolar diffusion and decaying turbulence starting at recombination, the effective field strength drops by reionization and the imprint on reionization history and UV luminosity functions weakens, which relaxes the upper limits compared with earlier fixed-strength calculations. They carry this out by modifying HyRec for the early phase and feeding the evolved field into exo21cmFAST, then using a neural emulator for MCMC on combined late-time data plus a Fisher forecast for HERA 21 cm sensitivity. This is a legitimate extension because it makes the PMF evolution time-dependent and coupled to the IGM thermal and ionization history rather than assuming constant amplitude. The use of established codes and the addition of a concrete 21 cm forecast are clear positives, and the paper shows why self-consistent modeling matters for extracting limits. The soft spot is the implementation of the loss rates themselves. The headline claim that bounds relax significantly requires that the ambipolar and turbulence terms are correctly computed, coupled back to temperature and ionization, and passed without numerical or physical errors between the two codes. If those rates are under- or overestimated, the reduced field strength and the suppressed signatures would be off, directly affecting the relaxed bounds. Astrophysical uncertainties in reionization modeling could also play a role in how much room is left for PMFs. This is for people working on primordial magnetic fields, IGM evolution, or 21 cm cosmology. A reader in that area would get updated numerical limits and a sense of what HERA could add. It has enough concrete modeling and addresses a real gap, so it deserves peer review rather than desk rejection. I would send it to referees and ask them to check the code modifications and any validation tests for the energy-loss terms.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that consistently incorporating PMF energy losses through ambipolar diffusion and decaying turbulence from recombination to reionization in HyRec and exo21cmFAST reduces the effective field strength at later epochs, thereby relaxing previous constraints on PMF amplitude and spectral index when fitting reionization history and UV luminosity functions via MCMC with the NNERO emulator; a Fisher analysis further indicates that HERA 21cm data could tighten future bounds.

Significance. If the energy-loss implementation is accurate and self-consistent, the result shows that time-dependent PMF decay must be modeled to avoid over-constraining PMFs from late-time observables, and it quantifies the potential of 21cm cosmology to improve sensitivity. The use of a neural-network emulator for efficient MCMC sampling is a positive technical feature.

major comments (3)

[§3 (Implementation in HyRec and exo21cmFAST)] The central claim that energy losses 'significantly relax' prior bounds (abstract and §4) rests on the accuracy of the ambipolar-diffusion and turbulence-decay rates inside HyRec from recombination to z~20 and their hand-off to exo21cmFAST. The manuscript should provide explicit validation—e.g., a plot or table comparing B(z) evolution with and without losses against independent analytic estimates or prior literature—to confirm that the back-reaction on field strength is correctly coupled to the IGM temperature and ionization equations.
[§4.2 (MCMC results)] §4.2 (MCMC results): the reported relaxation of bounds is quantified only via posterior shifts; the paper should show the fractional change in the upper limit on B_0 for each spectral index when losses are toggled on/off, together with the corresponding change in the 21cm power-spectrum amplitude at k~0.1 Mpc^{-1}, to demonstrate that the effect is not an artifact of the emulator training range.
[§5 (Fisher analysis for HERA)] The Fisher forecast for HERA (§5) assumes the same loss-modified IGM perturbations; if the loss rates are uncertain at the 20-30% level (as is common for turbulence decay modeling), the forecasted improvement on PMF bounds could be overstated. A sensitivity test varying the loss coefficients within their theoretical uncertainty should be added.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states that losses 'progressively reduce the magnetic field strength' but does not quote the typical factor by which B decreases between z~1100 and z~6; adding this number would help readers gauge the size of the effect.
[§2] Notation for the PMF power spectrum (e.g., the definition of the spectral index n_B and the cutoff scale) should be repeated in §2 for readers who skip the introduction.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive feedback. We address each of the major comments below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3 (Implementation in HyRec and exo21cmFAST)] The central claim that energy losses 'significantly relax' prior bounds (abstract and §4) rests on the accuracy of the ambipolar-diffusion and turbulence-decay rates inside HyRec from recombination to z~20 and their hand-off to exo21cmFAST. The manuscript should provide explicit validation—e.g., a plot or table comparing B(z) evolution with and without losses against independent analytic estimates or prior literature—to confirm that the back-reaction on field strength is correctly coupled to the IGM temperature and ionization equations.

Authors: We agree that explicit validation of the implementation is essential for the credibility of our central claim. In the revised manuscript, we have added a new figure in Section 3 that shows the redshift evolution of the comoving magnetic field strength B(z) both with and without the inclusion of ambipolar diffusion and decaying turbulence losses. This evolution is compared to independent analytic estimates from the literature on PMF energy dissipation. The figure also illustrates the corresponding impact on the IGM temperature and ionization fraction, demonstrating that the back-reaction is self-consistently coupled in HyRec. We have updated the text in §3 to discuss the hand-off procedure to exo21cmFAST. revision: yes
Referee: [§4.2 (MCMC results)] §4.2 (MCMC results): the reported relaxation of bounds is quantified only via posterior shifts; the paper should show the fractional change in the upper limit on B_0 for each spectral index when losses are toggled on/off, together with the corresponding change in the 21cm power-spectrum amplitude at k~0.1 Mpc^{-1}, to demonstrate that the effect is not an artifact of the emulator training range.

Authors: We thank the referee for this suggestion to better quantify the impact. We have added a new table in §4.2 that lists, for each spectral index n_B, the 95% upper limit on B_0 with and without energy losses, along with the fractional relaxation (i.e., the ratio of the limits). We also include the relative change in the 21 cm power spectrum amplitude at k ≈ 0.1 Mpc^{-1} for the best-fit models in each case. This demonstrates that the relaxation is a physical consequence of the reduced field strength at late times and is well within the emulator's training range, as confirmed by direct comparisons with a subset of full simulations. revision: yes
Referee: [§5 (Fisher analysis for HERA)] The Fisher forecast for HERA (§5) assumes the same loss-modified IGM perturbations; if the loss rates are uncertain at the 20-30% level (as is common for turbulence decay modeling), the forecasted improvement on PMF bounds could be overstated. A sensitivity test varying the loss coefficients within their theoretical uncertainty should be added.

Authors: We acknowledge the importance of assessing the robustness to uncertainties in the loss modeling. In the revised manuscript, we have included a sensitivity analysis in §5 where we vary the ambipolar diffusion and turbulence decay rate coefficients by ±25% (within the range of theoretical uncertainties). We recompute the Fisher matrix for each case and show that the forecasted constraints on PMF parameters from HERA remain significantly tighter than current bounds, with the improvement factor changing by less than 20%. This is now presented as Figure Y and discussed in the text. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in PMF energy-loss modeling or MCMC/Fisher analysis

full rationale

The paper implements ambipolar diffusion and turbulence decay terms inside the external codes HyRec (recombination) and exo21cmFAST (reionization), then uses an independent neural-network emulator NNERO to perform MCMC fits to external observational datasets (reionization history and UV luminosity functions) and a separate Fisher forecast for HERA. The central result—that energy losses reduce field strength and thereby relax bounds—follows from the forward modeling of those loss rates against data rather than from any self-definition, fitted-input-as-prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain. No equation or step equates a claimed prediction to its own input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on standard assumptions in cosmological simulations and IGM physics; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced beyond the PMF amplitude being constrained.

free parameters (1)

Initial PMF amplitude and spectral index
These are the primary parameters varied in the MCMC to derive bounds, with energy loss rates depending on them.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Standard Lambda-CDM expansion history and IGM thermal evolution hold without additional unknown heating sources
Invoked implicitly through the use of HyRec and exo21cmFAST for reionization modeling.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5591 in / 1333 out tokens · 76735 ms · 2026-05-08T09:55:26.853511+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

JWST Constraints on Primordial Magnetic Fields
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

JWST UV luminosity function calibration of reionization history bounds primordial magnetic fields to √<B²> < 0.27 nG (n_B=-2) and < 0.18 nG (n_B=2) at 95% CL by ruling out double reionization at z≈24.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

145 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Evidence for Strong Extragalactic Magnetic Fields from Fermi Observations of TeV Blazars.Science, 328(5974):73, April 2010

Andrii Neronov and Ievgen Vovk. Evidence for Strong Extragalactic Magnetic Fields from Fermi Observations of TeV Blazars.Science, 328(5974):73, April 2010

2010
[2]

Constraints on the intergalactic magnetic field from fermi/lat observations of the ‘pair echo’ of grb 221009a.Astron

Vovk, Ie., Korochkin, A., Neronov, A., and Semikoz, D. Constraints on the intergalactic magnetic field from fermi/lat observations of the ‘pair echo’ of grb 221009a.Astron. Astrophys., 683:A25, 2024

2024
[3]

Magnetic Field Seeding by Galactic Winds.Mon

Serena Bertone, Corina Vogt, and Torsten Ensslin. Magnetic Field Seeding by Galactic Winds.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 370:319–330, 2006

2006
[4]

First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: radio haloes and magnetic fields.Mon

Federico Marinacci, Mark Vogelsberger, Rüdiger Pakmor, Paul Torrey, Volker Springel, Lars Hernquist, Dylan Nelson, Rainer Weinberger, Annalisa Pillepich, Jill Naiman, and Shy Genel. First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: radio haloes and magnetic fields.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 480(4):5113–5139, November 2018

2018
[5]

Bondarenko, A

K. Bondarenko, A. Boyarsky, A. Korochkin, A. Neronov, D. Semikoz, and A. Sokolenko. Account of the baryonic feedback effect inγ-ray measurements of intergalactic magnetic fields.Astron. Astrophys., 660:A80, April 2022

2022
[6]

Turner and Lawrence M

Michael S. Turner and Lawrence M. Widrow. Inflation-produced, large-scale magnetic fields. Phys. Rev. D, 37(10):2743–2754, May 1988

1988
[7]

Cosmological “Seed” Magnetic Field from Inflation.Astrophys

Bharat Ratra. Cosmological “Seed” Magnetic Field from Inflation.Astrophys. J. Lett., 391:L1, May 1992

1992
[8]

The origin, evolution and signatures of primordial magnetic fields.Rept

Kandaswamy Subramanian. The origin, evolution and signatures of primordial magnetic fields.Rept. Prog. Phys., 79(7):076901, 2016

2016
[9]

Ramkishor Sharma, Sandhya Jagannathan, T. R. Seshadri, and Kandaswamy Subramanian. Challenges in Inflationary Magnetogenesis: Constraints from Strong Coupling, Backreaction and the Schwinger Effect.Phys. Rev. D, 96(8):083511, 2017

2017
[10]

C. J. Hogan. Magnetohydrodynamic Effects of a First-Order Cosmological Phase Transition. Phys. Rev. Lett., 51(16):1488–1491, October 1983

1983
[11]

Progress on cosmological magnetic fields.Rept

Tanmay Vachaspati. Progress on cosmological magnetic fields.Rept. Prog. Phys., 84(7):074901, 2021

2021
[12]

NANOGrav signal from magnetohydrodynamic turbulence at the QCD phase transition in the early Universe

Andrii Neronov, Alberto Roper Pol, Chiara Caprini, and Dmitri Semikoz. NANOGrav signal from magnetohydrodynamic turbulence at the QCD phase transition in the early Universe. Phys. Rev. D, 103(4):041302, 2021

2021
[13]

V. A. Acciari et al. A lower bound on intergalactic magnetic fields from time variability of 1ES 0229+200 from MAGIC and Fermi/LAT observations.Astron. Astrophys., 670:A145, 2023

2023
[14]

Blunier, A

J. Blunier, A. Neronov, and D. Semikoz. Revision of conservative lower bound on intergalactic magnetic field from Fermi and Cherenkov telescope observations of extreme blazars. 6 2025

2025
[15]

Intergalactic magnetic field lower limits up to the redshiftz≈3

Ievgen Vovk. Intergalactic magnetic field lower limits up to the redshiftz≈3. 12 2025

2025
[16]

Pasquale Blasi, Scott Burles, and Angela V. Olinto. Cosmological magnetic fields limits in an inhomogeneous universe.Astrophys. J. Lett., 514:L79–L82, 1999

1999
[17]

M. S. Pshirkov, P. G. Tinyakov, and F. R. Urban. New limits on extragalactic magnetic fields from rotation measures.Phys. Rev. Lett., 116(19):191302, 2016

2016
[18]

Neronov, F

A. Neronov, F. Vazza, S. Mtchedlidze, and E. Carretti. Revision of upper bound on volume-filling intergalactic magnetic fields with LOFAR. 12 2024

2024
[19]

Cosmological Magnetic Fields: Their Generation, Evolution and Observation.Astron

Ruth Durrer and Andrii Neronov. Cosmological Magnetic Fields: Their Generation, Evolution and Observation.Astron. Astrophys. Rev., 21:62, 2013. – 30 –

2013
[21]

Paoletti, F

Jens Chluba, D. Paoletti, F. Finelli, and Jose-Alberto Rubiño Martín. Effect of primordial magnetic fields on the ionization history.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 451(2):2244–2250, 2015

2015
[22]

Paoletti, J

D. Paoletti, J. Chluba, F. Finelli, and J. A. Rubino-Martin. Improved CMB anisotropy constraints on primordial magnetic fields from the post-recombination ionization history. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 484(1):185–195, 2019

2019
[23]

Cruz, Tal Adi, Jordan Flitter, Marc Kamionkowski, and Ely D

Hector Afonso G. Cruz, Tal Adi, Jordan Flitter, Marc Kamionkowski, and Ely D. Kovetz. 21-cm fluctuations from primordial magnetic fields. 8 2023

2023
[24]

Constraints on Primordial Magnetic Fields from Planck combined with the South Pole Telescope CMB B-mode polarization measurements

Alex Zucca, Yun Li, and Levon Pogosian. Constraints on Primordial Magnetic Fields from Planck combined with the South Pole Telescope CMB B-mode polarization measurements. Phys. Rev. D, 95(6):063506, 2017

2017
[25]

Richard Shaw and Antony Lewis

J. Richard Shaw and Antony Lewis. Massive Neutrinos and Magnetic Fields in the Early Universe.Phys. Rev. D, 81:043517, 2010

2010
[26]

Microwave background anisotropies from alfven waves.Physical Review D, 58(12):123004, 1998

Ruth Durrer, Tina Kahniashvili, and Andrew Yates. Microwave background anisotropies from alfven waves.Physical Review D, 58(12):123004, 1998

1998
[27]

Karsten Jedamzik, Visnja Katalinic, and Anglea V. Olinto. A Limit on primordial small scale magnetic fields from CMB distortions.Phys. Rev. Lett., 85:700–703, 2000

2000
[28]

On the effect of cyclotron emission on the spectral distortions of the cosmic microwave background.New Astron., 11:1–16, 2005

Andrea Zizzo and Carlo Burigana. On the effect of cyclotron emission on the spectral distortions of the cosmic microwave background.New Astron., 11:1–16, 2005

2005
[29]

Kunze and Eiichiro Komatsu

Kerstin E. Kunze and Eiichiro Komatsu. Constraining primordial magnetic fields with distortions of the black-body spectrum of the cosmic microwave background: pre- and post-decoupling contributions.JCAP, 01:009, 2014

2014
[30]

Magnetic reheating.Mon

Shohei Saga, Hiroyuki Tashiro, and Shuichiro Yokoyama. Magnetic reheating.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 474(1):L52–L55, 2018

2018
[31]

Barrow, Pedro G

John D. Barrow, Pedro G. Ferreira, and Joseph Silk. Constraints on a primordial magnetic field.Phys. Rev. Lett., 78:3610–3613, 1997

1997
[32]

Stringent Limit on Primordial Magnetic Fields from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.Phys

Karsten Jedamzik and Andrey Saveliev. Stringent Limit on Primordial Magnetic Fields from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.Phys. Rev. Lett., 123(2):021301, 2019

2019
[33]

Kandaswamy Subramanian and John D. Barrow. Microwave background signals from tangled magnetic fields.Phys. Rev. Lett., 81:3575–3578, 1998

1998
[34]

Kandaswamy Subramanian and John D. Barrow. Small-scale microwave background anisotropies arising from tangled primordial magnetic fields.MNRAS, 335(3):L57–L61, September 2002

2002
[35]

Microwave background signatures of a primordial stochastic magnetic field.Phys

Andrew Mack, Tina Kahniashvili, and Arthur Kosowsky. Microwave background signatures of a primordial stochastic magnetic field.Phys. Rev. D, 65:123004, 2002

2002
[36]

Observable primordial vector modes.Phys

Antony Lewis. Observable primordial vector modes.Phys. Rev. D, 70:043518, 2004

2004
[37]

Effects of Cosmological Magnetic Helicity on the Cosmic Microwave Background.Phys

Tina Kahniashvili and Bharat Ratra. Effects of Cosmological Magnetic Helicity on the Cosmic Microwave Background.Phys. Rev. D, 71:103006, 2005

2005
[38]

Looking for cosmological Alfven waves in WMAP data.Astrophys

Gang Chen, Pia Mukherjee, Tina Kahniashvili, Bharat Ratra, and Yun Wang. Looking for cosmological Alfven waves in WMAP data.Astrophys. J., 611:655–659, 2004

2004
[39]

CMB anisotropies from primordial inhomogeneous magnetic fields.Phys

Antony Lewis. CMB anisotropies from primordial inhomogeneous magnetic fields.Phys. Rev. D, 70:043011, 2004. – 31 –

2004
[40]

Nonlinear evolution of cosmic magnetic fields and cosmic microwave background anisotropies.Phys

Hiroyuki Tashiro, Naoshi Sugiyama, and Robi Banerjee. Nonlinear evolution of cosmic magnetic fields and cosmic microwave background anisotropies.Phys. Rev. D, 73:023002, 2006

2006
[41]

Ichiki, T

Dai Yamazaki, K. Ichiki, T. Kajino, and G. J. Mathews. Constraints on the evolution of the primordial magnetic field from the small scale cmb angular anisotropy.Astrophys. J., 646:719–729, 2006

2006
[42]

Entropy perturbations and large-scale magnetic fields.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 23(15):4991, jul 2006

Massimo Giovannini. Entropy perturbations and large-scale magnetic fields.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 23(15):4991, jul 2006

2006
[43]

CMB Constraints on a Stochastic Background of Primordial Magnetic Fields.Phys

Daniela Paoletti and Fabio Finelli. CMB Constraints on a Stochastic Background of Primordial Magnetic Fields.Phys. Rev. D, 83:123533, 2011

2011
[44]

Richard Shaw and Antony Lewis

J. Richard Shaw and Antony Lewis. Constraining primordial magnetism.Phys. Rev. D, 86(4):043510, August 2012

2012
[45]

Kerstin E. Kunze. Secondary CMB anisotropies from bulk motions in the presence of stochastic magnetic fields.Phys. Rev. D, 89(10):103016, 2014

2014
[46]

Kerstin E. Kunze. Effects of helical magnetic fields on the cosmic microwave background. Phys. Rev. D, 85:083004, 2012

2012
[47]

Kerstin E. Kunze. CMB anisotropies in the presence of a stochastic magnetic field.Phys. Rev. D, 83:023006, 2011

2011
[48]

Constraints on a Stochastic Background of Primordial Magnetic Fields with WMAP and South Pole Telescope data.Phys

Daniela Paoletti and Fabio Finelli. Constraints on a Stochastic Background of Primordial Magnetic Fields with WMAP and South Pole Telescope data.Phys. Lett. B, 726:45–49, 2013

2013
[49]

P. A. R. Ade et al. Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters.Astron. Astrophys., 594:A13, 2016

2015
[50]

Sethi and Kandaswamy Subramanian

Shiv K. Sethi and Kandaswamy Subramanian. Primordial magnetic fields in the post-recombination era and early reionization.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 356:778–788, 2005

2005
[51]

T. R. Seshadri and Kandaswamy Subramanian. CMBR polarization signals from tangled magnetic fields.Phys. Rev. Lett., 87:101301, 2001

2001
[52]

Paoletti, J

D. Paoletti, J. Chluba, F. Finelli, and J. A. Rubiño-Martin. Constraints on primordial magnetic fields from their impact on the ionization history with Planck 2018.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 517(3):3916–3927, 2022

2018
[53]

Dominik R. G. Schleicher and Francesco Miniati. Primordial magnetic field constraints from the end of reionization.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 418:143, 2011

2011
[54]

Pandey, T

Kanhaiya L. Pandey, T. Roy Choudhury, Shiv K. Sethi, and Andrea Ferrara. Reionization constraints on primordial magnetic fields.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 451(2):1692–1700, 2015

2015
[55]

Primordial magnetic fields and the Hubble tension

Karsten Jedamzik and Levon Pogosian. Primordial magnetic fields and the Hubble tension. 7 2023

2023
[56]

Cosmic recombination in the presence of primordial magnetic fields.JCAP, 03:012, 2025

Karsten Jedamzik, Tom Abel, and Yacine Ali-Haimoud. Cosmic recombination in the presence of primordial magnetic fields.JCAP, 03:012, 2025

2025
[57]

Pandey and Shiv K

Kanhaiya L. Pandey and Shiv K. Sethi. Probing Primordial Magnetic Fields Using Ly-alpha Clouds.Astrophys. J., 762:15, 2013

2013
[58]

Bolton, Martin G

Mak Pavičević, Vid Iršič, Matteo Viel, James S. Bolton, Martin G. Haehnelt, Sergio Martin-Alvarez, Ewald Puchwein, and Pranjal Ralegankar. Constraints on Primordial Magnetic Fields from the Lyman-αForest.Phys. Rev. Lett., 135(7):071001, 2025

2025
[59]

Haehnelt, and James S

Olga Garcia-Gallego, Vid Iršič, Matteo Viel, Martin G. Haehnelt, and James S. Bolton. Post-inflationary axion constraints from the Lyman-αforest. 3 2026. – 32 –

2026
[60]

Cruz, and Ely D

Tal Adi, Sarah Libanore, Hector Afonso G. Cruz, and Ely D. Kovetz. Constraining primordial magnetic fields with line-intensity mapping.JCAP, 09:035, 2023

2023
[61]

Datta, and Saumyadip Samui

Ankita Bera, Kanan K. Datta, and Saumyadip Samui. Primordial magnetic fields during the cosmic dawn in light of EDGES 21-cm signal.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 498(1):918–925, 2020

2020
[62]

Introducing SPHINX-MHD: the impact of primordial magnetic fields on the first galaxies, reionization, and the global 21-cm signal.Mon

Harley Katz et al. Introducing SPHINX-MHD: the impact of primordial magnetic fields on the first galaxies, reionization, and the global 21-cm signal.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 507(1):1254–1282, 2021

2021
[63]

Probing the primordial Universe with 21cm line from cosmic dawn/epoch of reionization.Publ

Teppei Minoda, Shohei Saga, Tomo Takahashi, Hiroyuki Tashiro, Daisuke Yamauchi, Shuichiro Yokoyama, and Shintaro Yoshiura. Probing the primordial Universe with 21cm line from cosmic dawn/epoch of reionization.Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap., 75(Supplement_1):S154–S180–S180, 2023

2023
[64]

Revisiting primordial magnetic fields through 21-cm physics: bounds and forecasts.JCAP, 01:089, 2025

Arko Bhaumik, Debarun Paul, and Supratik Pal. Revisiting primordial magnetic fields through 21-cm physics: bounds and forecasts.JCAP, 01:089, 2025

2025
[65]

Kulinich, Nazar Fortuna, and Anton Rudakovskyi

Bohdan Novosyadlyj, Yu. Kulinich, Nazar Fortuna, and Anton Rudakovskyi. Sensitivity of the redshifted 21 cm signal from the Dark Ages to parameters of primordial magnetic fields. Astron. Astrophys., 706:A48, 2026

2026
[66]

Primordial magnetic fields in the light of upcoming post-EoR Lyman-αand 21-cm observations

Arko Bhaumik, Sourav Pal, and Supratik Pal. Primordial magnetic fields in the light of upcoming post-EoR Lyman-αand 21-cm observations. 4 2026

2026
[67]

Wasserman

I. Wasserman. On the origins of galaxies, galactic angular momenta, and galactic magnetic fields.Astrophys. J., 224:337–343, September 1978

1978
[68]

The influence of primordial magnetic fields on the spherical collapse model in cosmology.JCAP, 08:017, 2014

Yuki Shibusawa, Kiyotomo Ichiki, and Kenji Kadota. The influence of primordial magnetic fields on the spherical collapse model in cosmology.JCAP, 08:017, 2014

2014
[69]

Dominik R. G. Schleicher, Daniele Galli, Simon C. O. Glover, Robi Banerjee, Francesco Palla, Raffaella Schneider, and Ralf S. Klessen. The influence of magnetic fields on the thermodynamics of primordial star formation.Astrophys. J., 703:1096–1106, 2009

2009
[70]

Kunze, and Pascale Jablonka

Mahsa Sanati, Yves Revaz, Jennifer Schober, Kerstin E. Kunze, and Pascale Jablonka. Constraining the primordial magnetic field with dwarf galaxy simulations.Astron. Astrophys., 643:A54, 2020

2020
[71]

Primordial magnetic fields: consistent initial conditions and impact on high-z structures.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2024(07):027, 2024

Pranjal Ralegankar, Mak Pavičević, and Matteo Viel. Primordial magnetic fields: consistent initial conditions and impact on high-z structures.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2024(07):027, 2024

2024
[72]

Effects of simulated cosmological magnetic fields on the galaxy population.Mon

Federico Marinacci and Mark Vogelsberger. Effects of simulated cosmological magnetic fields on the galaxy population.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 456(1):L69–L73, 2016

2016
[73]

Yacine Ali-Haimoud and Christopher M. Hirata. HyRec: A fast and highly accurate primordial hydrogen and helium recombination code.Phys. Rev. D, 83:043513, 2011

2011
[74]

HYREC-2: a highly accurate sub-millisecond recombination code.Phys

Nanoom Lee and Yacine Ali-Haïmoud. HYREC-2: a highly accurate sub-millisecond recombination code.Phys. Rev. D, 102(8):083517, 2020

2020
[75]

21cm signal sensitivity to dark matter decay.JCAP, 01:005, 2024

Gaétan Facchinetti, Laura Lopez-Honorez, Yuxiang Qin, and Andrei Mesinger. 21cm signal sensitivity to dark matter decay.JCAP, 01:005, 2024

2024
[76]

Efficient Simulations of Early Structure Formation and Reionization.Astrophys

Andrei Mesinger and Steven Furlanetto. Efficient Simulations of Early Structure Formation and Reionization.Astrophys. J., 669:663, 2007

2007
[77]

Generation of density perturbations by primordial magnetic fields.Astrophys

Eun-jin Kim, Angela Olinto, and Robert Rosner. Generation of density perturbations by primordial magnetic fields.Astrophys. J., 468:28, 1996. – 33 –

1996
[78]

Effect of primordial magnetic field on seeds for large scale structure.Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 74(12):123518, 2006

Dai Great Yamazaki, Kiyotomo Ichiki, Ken-ichi Umezu, and Hidekazu Hanayama. Effect of primordial magnetic field on seeds for large scale structure.Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 74(12):123518, 2006

2006
[79]

Cosmology with inhomogeneous magnetic fields, phys, 2007

JD Barrow, R Maartens, and CG Tsagas. Cosmology with inhomogeneous magnetic fields, phys, 2007

2007
[80]

Fedeli and L

C. Fedeli and L. Moscardini. Constraining primordial magnetic fields with future cosmic shear surveys.JCAP, 2012(11):055, November 2012

2012
[81]

Matter power spectrum induced by primordial magnetic fields: from the linear to the non-linear regime.JCAP, 08:011, 2025

Pranjal Ralegankar, Enrico Garaldi, and Matteo Viel. Matter power spectrum induced by primordial magnetic fields: from the linear to the non-linear regime.JCAP, 08:011, 2025

2025

Showing first 80 references.