Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 61 references

Radio recombination lines contaminate the 21 cm intensity-mapping power spectrum at only about 10^-4 of the signal on BAO scales, shifting inferred BAO positions by a few parts in 10^5 or less.

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

2026-08-01 00:33 UTC pith:AT32HCQS

load-bearing objection Solid forecast that RRLs are a negligible systematic for post-reionization 21 cm BAO surveys; the main caveat is an acknowledged but unclosed extrapolation from local calibrators. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26180 v1 pith:AT32HCQS submitted 2026-07-28 astro-ph.CO

Radio Recombination Line Contamination in Post-Reionization 21 cm Intensity Mapping

Pip Petersen , Yakov Faerman , Matthew McQuinn This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords radio recombination lines21 cm intensity mappingbaryon acoustic oscillationspower spectrum contaminationH II regionspost-reionization cosmologyinterloper lines
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.

This paper asks whether radio recombination lines—spectral lines from hydrogen atoms recombining at very high principal quantum numbers—contaminate the 21 cm intensity-mapping signal that future surveys will use to measure the baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) scale. The authors build empirically calibrated models of the RRL emission from H II regions, replacing an earlier fixed-optical-depth model that had suggested severe contamination at low redshift. They find that RRL contamination of the 21 cm power spectrum is highly oscillatory in wavenumber but small: near BAO scales it reaches only about 10^-4 of the 21 cm power, and it shifts the inferred BAO peak and trough positions by a few parts in 10^6 to 10^5, at least two orders of magnitude below the cosmic-variance limit. Carbon RRLs are subdominant. If correct, RRLs are not the systematic that limits post-reionization 21 cm cosmology.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that radio recombination lines do not jeopardize the BAO program in post-reionization 21 cm intensity mapping. Using models whose optical depths are tied to observed RRL measurements from H II regions—rather than a fixed upper-bound optical depth used in earlier work—the authors show that the total RRL contamination (auto-power plus 21 cm-RRL and RRL-RRL cross-power) is about 10^-4 of the 21 cm auto-power at k~0.1 h/Mpc at all redshifts from 0 to 6. The contamination is dominated by cross terms between lines emitted close in space to the 21 cm emitters, producing rapid oscillations in k, but the resulting shift in the BAO extrema is a few×10^-6 to a few×10^-5, we

What carries the argument

The central object is the radio recombination line (RRL)—an electronic transition between very high principal quantum numbers (n>86) in hydrogen and carbon atoms—which forms a picket fence of spectral lines that redshift into a 21 cm observing band. The argument is carried by a brightness-temperature model parameterized by the frequency-integrated RRL optical depth times the covering fraction of the galaxy's radio continuum (f τ ΔV), calibrated to published H II region observations. On top of that, the paper builds a power-spectrum formalism that includes the RRL auto-spectrum plus 21 cm-RRL and RRL-RRL cross-spectra, each carrying a line-of-sight displacement phase exp(-ik∥ Δx) and a survey

Load-bearing premise

The models are calibrated almost entirely on nearby starburst galaxies; if distant galaxies' star-forming gas is much denser or covers more of the galaxy's radio emission, the contamination could rise an order of magnitude and approach the cosmic-variance floor.

What would settle it

Measure the RRL luminosity per unit star formation (equivalently f τ ΔV at n~170) in star-forming galaxies at z>1 with a deep low-frequency radio survey. If stacked emission from high-redshift H II regions exceeds the bracketed local values by more than an order of magnitude, or if a 21 cm intensity-mapping survey detects oscillatory contamination at k~0.1 h/Mpc above ~10^-4 of the 21 cm power, the paper's conclusion fails.

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

If this is right

  • RRL contamination near BAO scales (k~0.1 h/Mpc) is about 10^-4 of the 21 cm power at all redshifts, so it cannot by itself bias upcoming 21 cm BAO measurements.
  • The shift in inferred BAO extrema is typically 10^-6 to 10^-5, and at most a few×10^-4, at least an order of magnitude below the cosmic-variance limit for percent-precision cosmology.
  • The earlier fixed-optical-depth RRL model overestimates contamination by orders of magnitude at z<2; physically calibrated models are needed for reliable forecasts.
  • Carbon RRLs are subdominant to hydrogen RRLs in post-reionization 21 cm intensity mapping.
  • Because the contamination is oscillatory, it could in principle be detected and removed using cross-correlations with other large-scale-structure tracers, as the paper notes in its conclusions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The empirical calibration rests almost entirely on low-redshift starburst galaxies; if high-redshift H II regions are much denser or cover more of the galaxy's radio continuum, RRL contamination could rise by an order of magnitude and approach the cosmic-variance floor, which the paper acknowledges but does not bound physically.
  • The predicted oscillatory signature in k is a fingerprint: a future 21 cm survey that sees unexplained wiggles at the predicted frequencies could test this model directly, while a null detection would not strongly constrain it since the predicted amplitude sits below current sensitivity.
  • The same cross-term formalism could be reused to assess line confusion in other line-intensity mapping efforts where closely spaced spectral lines overlap in the observing band.
  • If RRLs are this benign, the next interloper worry for 21 cm BAO surveys shifts to continuum emission such as OH masers and foreground subtraction, which the paper notes can affect only broadband amplitude rather than BAO positions.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a formalism for estimating radio recombination line (RRL) contamination of post-reionization 21 cm intensity mapping power spectra. It derives a brightness-temperature expression for individual RRLs following Petrovic & Oh (2011) with a documented correction, calibrates five physically motivated models (A–D for hydrogen, E for carbon) against extragalactic RRL observations, and computes the RRL auto-power, 21 cm–RRL cross-power, and RRL–RRL cross-power spectra, including finite-bandwidth and beam-window effects. For the fiducial Model C, contamination near BAO scales is ~10^-4 P21 and the inferred shift in BAO extrema is a few x 10^-6 to 10^-5, below the cosmic-variance floor. The paper concludes that RRLs are a negligible systematic for post-reionization 21 cm cosmology and that the PO11 fixed-optical-depth model substantially overestimates the contamination.

Significance. If correct, this is a valuable negative result for a key science driver of 21 cm intensity mapping: it would remove RRLs as a concern for BAO measurements and correct an alarming extrapolation of the PO11 model. The paper's strengths include an explicit power-spectrum formalism with a verified shot-noise limiting case, a documented correction to the PO11 brightness-temperature relation, and empirical calibration to a compilation of RRL observations rather than tuning to the BAO-shift target. The central claim, however, rests on an extrapolation from low-redshift (z<0.02) RRL observations to the higher-redshift lines that dominate the contamination; this extrapolation is acknowledged as a limitation but is not bounded quantitatively.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5, eqs. (2.10)–(2.14), Fig. 2, Fig. 5] The empirical calibration in Fig. 2 uses almost exclusively z<0.02 starbursts (refs. 2,32,40,44,61), with only two z>0.5 detections, while Fig. 5 shows that the dominant contamination at k=0.1 h/Mpc for z21=0.5–2 comes from RRLs with n~130–250, emitted at z_RRL≈0.5–2. Since T_RRL and all derived power spectra are linear in f τ_RRL ΔV (eqs. 2.10–2.12) and τ_RRL ∝ EM T_e^-5/2 (eq. 2.14), the high-redshift extrapolation is load-bearing. Observed electron densities increase by factors of 5–10 from z=0 to z~2 (Davies et al. 2021); with fixed physical size this raises EM by factors of 25–100. A factor ~30 increase in T_RRL would move the median BAO shift from ~3×10^-5 to ~10^-3, at the cosmic-variance floor. The §5 statement that 'it would be challenging to devise a model that exceeds our predictions by more than an order of magnitude' is not derived. The free-free factor e^{-τ_ff} in eq. (2.1
  2. [§4.2, Fig. 7, abstract] The abstract claims the shift in the BAO extrema is 'at least two orders of magnitude smaller than relevant for percent-precision cosmology,' but the quantitative basis is the median shift of a few×10^-6 to a few×10^-5 in Fig. 7. The bars in Fig. 7 extend to a few×10^-4 at some redshifts, which is only about one order below the cosmic-variance floor of ~10^-3, not two. Since the central message is a safety margin, the claim should be based on the envelope over models and redshifts, not the median, or the wording should be adjusted to match the plotted maximum values.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract vs §5] The abstract and Conclusions disagree on the size of the safety margin ('at least two orders of magnitude' vs. 'lower ... by about an order of magnitude'). Please harmonize these statements with the quantitative results in Fig. 7.
  2. [Eqs. (2.5), (2.10), (2.11)] The typesetting of these equations is ambiguous (e.g., multiple (1+z) factors in numerators and denominators). Please clarify the derivation so the redshift scaling can be checked step by step.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption and text] The caption refers to 'cross markers' while the text mentions 'star symbols' and 'dashed segments'; please make the marker definitions consistent and explicit.
  4. [§2, Model E] The paper rightly cautions that the carbon departure coefficients from [46] may be unreliable. Since carbon is subdominant this is not a blocking issue, but the caution currently appears only in the text near eq. (2.14); it would be clearer if also noted in the Table 1 caption.
  5. [§4.2, eq. (4.4)] The perturbative Newton's-method expression is clear, but the text should state explicitly which k-range is used for the median and maximum reported in Fig. 7, since the limits (0.05<k<0.3 h/Mpc) affect the quoted safety margin.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the RRL contamination models are calibrated to external RRL observations and the BAO shift is a derived consequence, not fitted to the target.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained once the RRL brightness-temperature models are adopted. Equations (2.10)–(2.12) combine external star-formation-rate-scaled radio continuum calibrations (Yun et al. 2001), the standard RRL optical-depth relation (eq. 2.14, with departure coefficients from Salgado et al. 2017), and the adopted HII-region parameters listed in Table 1. Models A–E are chosen from extragalactic RRL observations and literature HII-region properties, and Figure 2 directly compares the resulting cumulative optical depths to independent measurements, including two z>0.5 detections. The power-spectrum contamination (eqs. 3.6, 3.8, 3.13) then follows from linear-theory clustering and the RRL brightness temperatures; the BAO extremum shift (eq. 4.4) is an analytic perturbation of the uncontaminated 21 cm power spectrum. Nothing in this chain fits a parameter to the claimed final result, the BAO shift, or to the 21 cm power spectrum itself. The acknowledged limitation that most calibration data lie at z<0.02 while n~130–250 lines dominate at higher z is a genuine extrapolation risk, explicitly flagged in §5, but extrapolation is not circularity. The paper also relies on external formalisms (PO11, Lidz & Taylor 2016) but these are prior literature, not same-author self-citations, and the corrections to PO11 are made explicit. Because no load-bearing step reduces by definition to its own input, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

11 free parameters · 11 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central prediction depends on the adopted HII/carbon region parameters (n_e, f_EM, T_e), which are free model inputs chosen by hand to bracket the observed range, and on the assumption that RRL emission traces star formation with a constant per-SFR luminosity. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced.

free parameters (11)
  • Model A electron density n_e = 10 cm^-3
    Chosen to represent diffuse low-density HII regions; part of bracketing sample.
  • Model A emission measure f_EM = 10^4 cm^-6 pc
    Chosen to align with low-density diffuse gas; part of bracketing sample.
  • Model B electron density n_e = 10^3 cm^-3
    Chosen for compact HII regions; bracketing parameter.
  • Model B emission measure f_EM = 10^5 cm^-6 pc
    Chosen for compact HII regions; bracketing parameter.
  • Model C electron density n_e = 10^3 cm^-3
    Fiducial model; intermediate value broadly consistent with observed RRLs.
  • Model C emission measure f_EM = 10^6 cm^-6 pc
    Fiducial model; intermediate value broadly consistent with observed RRLs.
  • Model D electron density n_e = 10^4 cm^-3
    Extreme high-density model used as an upper bracket.
  • Model D emission measure f_EM = 10^7 cm^-6 pc
    Extreme high-density model used as an upper bracket.
  • Model E carbon electron temperature T_e = 100 K
    Representative of cold neutral medium producing CRRLs.
  • Model E carbon electron density n_e = 0.05 cm^-3
    Representative of cold neutral medium; from CRRL literature.
  • Model E carbon emission measure f_EM = 0.02 cm^-6 pc
    Representative of cold neutral medium; from CRRL literature.
axioms (11)
  • domain assumption RRL luminosity traces the star formation rate density
    Stated in §2 after eq. (2.3); critical for mapping RRL emission to cosmological density fields.
  • domain assumption Only Δn=1, n>86 RRL transitions are considered
    §2; authors argue this restriction does not affect the predictions.
  • domain assumption Line-spread function approximated as a Dirac delta
    Footnote 3 in §2; smoothing is stated to be negligible on target scales.
  • domain assumption Line optical depth is small (τ_RRL << 1)
    Used to linearize eq. (2.6) to eq. (2.7); standard assumption for RRLs.
  • domain assumption Synchrotron continuum luminosity scales linearly with SFR (Yun et al.) and RRL optical depth is SFR-independent
    Eq. (2.8) and surrounding text; underlies the per-SFR luminosity calibration.
  • domain assumption f_HI(z) from TNG100 simulations is representative
    Footnote 7 in §2; simulations exceed observed values by ~2 at z<1, biasing conclusions conservatively.
  • domain assumption Departure coefficient tables (b_n, β_n) for hydrogen are valid and available
    Footnote 8 in §2; tables were provided via private communication, not public, and assume Milky Way-like continuum.
  • domain assumption RRL emitters trace matter with the same bias as CO galaxies, and shot noise follows the Smit et al. Schechter function
    §3.2; CO bias from Dizgah et al. and Schechter parameters from Smit et al. are adopted without dedicated RRL clustering calibration.
  • domain assumption Cross-power spectra use equal α terms and W_Δx = 1
    §3.2 after eq. (3.13); approximation states that close pairs dominate the cross-power; setting W=1 overestimates distant-line contamination.
  • standard math Linear matter power spectrum and Kaiser redshift-space distortions
    Eqs. (3.5)-(3.6); standard linear-theory ingredients for BAO-scale forecasts.
  • standard math Planck ΛCDM cosmology with stated parameters
    §1; inputs from Planck, not derived in this paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20954 in / 17261 out tokens · 172347 ms · 2026-08-01T00:33:41.705729+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We explore radio recombination line (RRL) contamination in post-reionization 21 cm intensity mapping observations. We develop a formalism to estimate the contamination of the 21 cm auto-power spectrum from the myriad of RRL lines that redshift into a 21 cm map and predict contamination of the 21 cm power spectrum at all redshifts. At $z\lesssim 2$, extrapolation of the conservative upper-bound model of Petrovic & Oh (2011) predicts high contamination to the 21 cm power spectrum, whereas our empirically-calibrated models suggest contamination several orders of magnitude smaller. We also estimate the contribution from carbon RRLs and find it to be subdominant. We find the RRL contamination is highly oscillatory in wavenumber, owing to the dominant contamination from RRLs emitted close in physical space to the 21 cm emission. These oscillations could in principle bias distance measurements derived from Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO), a key science driver of post-reionization 21 cm intensity mapping. We find the shift in the BAO extrema is at least two orders of magnitude smaller than relevant for percent-precision cosmology from BAO.

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

61 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 261, 29, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6fd9

    Amiri, M., Bandura, K., Boskovic, A., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 261, 29, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6fd9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6fd9 2022

  2. [2]

    R., Zhao, J.-H., Goss, W

    Anantharamaiah, K. R., Zhao, J.-H., Goss, W. M., & Viallefond, F. 1993, The Astrophysical Journal, 419, 585, doi:10.1086/173510

    doi:10.1086/173510 1993

  3. [3]

    E., Colom, P., et al

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117837 2012

  4. [4]

    Bell, M. B. 1980, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 80, Radio Recombination Lines, ed. P. A. Shaver, 259–268, doi:10.1007/978-94-009-9024-1_22

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-009-9024-1_22 1980

  5. [5]

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

    Bull, P., Ferreira, P. G., Patel, P., & Santos, M. G. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 803, 21, doi:10.1088/0004-637x/803/1/21

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

  6. [6]

    W., et al

    Byrne, R., Mahesh, N., Hallinan, G. W., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 221, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3a6a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3a6a 2024

  7. [7]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 925, 136, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3aee – 23 –

    Cheng, Y.-T., & Chang, T.-C. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 925, 136, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3aee – 23 –

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3aee 2022

  8. [8]

    J., et al

    Cosmic Visions 21 cm Collaboration, Ansari, R., Arena, E. J., et al. 2019, Inflation and Early Dark Energy with a Stage II Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment. https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.09572

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    2025, Observations of Carbon Radio Recombination Lines with the NenuF AR telescope

    Cros, L., Gusdorf, A., Salom´ e, P., et al. 2025, Observations of Carbon Radio Recombination Lines with the NenuF AR telescope. I. Cassiopeia A and Cygnus A, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555085

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555085 2025

  10. [10]

    L., F¨ orster Schreiber, N

    Davies, R. L., F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., Genzel, R., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 78, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd551

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd551 2021

  11. [11]

    2003, Modern Cosmology (San Diego: Academic Press)

    Dodelson, S. 2003, Modern Cosmology (San Diego: Academic Press)

    2003

  12. [12]

    Draine, B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium (Princeton University Press)

    2011

  13. [13]

    J., Zehavi, I., Hogg, D

    Eisenstein, D. J., Zehavi, I., Hogg, D. W., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 633, 560–574, doi:10.1086/466512

    doi:10.1086/466512 2005

  14. [14]

    2021, Doctoral dissertation, Leiden Observatory, Faculty of Science, Leiden University

    Emig, K. 2021, Doctoral dissertation, Leiden Observatory, Faculty of Science, Leiden University

    2021

  15. [15]

    L., Salas, P., de Gasperin, F., et al

    Emig, K. L., Salas, P., de Gasperin, F., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 622, A7, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834052

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834052 2019

  16. [16]

    L., Gupta, N., Salas, P., et al

    Emig, K. L., Gupta, N., Salas, P., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 944, 93, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb49d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb49d 2023

  17. [17]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 222, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad77cc

    Fronenberg, H., & Liu, A. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 222, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad77cc

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad77cc 2024

  18. [18]

    R., Oh, S

    Furlanetto, S. R., Oh, S. P., & Briggs, F. H. 2006, Physics Reports, 433, 181–301, doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2006.08.002

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2006.08.002 2006

  19. [19]

    Gong, Y., Chen, X., Silva, M., Cooray, A., & Santos, M. G. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 740, L20, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/740/1/l20

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/740/1/l20 2011

  20. [20]

    A., & Sorochenko, R

    Gordon, M. A., & Sorochenko, R. L. 2002, Radio Recombination Lines. Their Physics and Astronomical Applications, Vol. 282 (Springer), doi:10.1007/978-0-387-09604-9

    doi:10.1007/978-0-387-09604-9 2002

  21. [21]

    M., Dettmar, R.-J., Beckman, J

    Haffner, L. M., Dettmar, R.-J., Beckman, J. E., et al. 2009, Reviews of Modern Physics, 81, 969, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.81.969

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.81.969 2009

  22. [22]

    Heiles, C., & Troland, T. H. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 586, 1067, doi:10.1086/367828

    doi:10.1086/367828 2003

  23. [23]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 956, 139, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf376

    Isobe, Y., Ouchi, M., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 956, 139, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf376

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf376 2023

  24. [24]

    2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 959502, doi:10.1007/s11433-018-9376-1

    Jiang, P., Yue, Y., Gan, H., et al. 2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 959502, doi:10.1007/s11433-018-9376-1

    doi:10.1007/s11433-018-9376-1 2019

  25. [25]

    2007, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 24, 174, doi:10.1071/AS07033

    Johnston, S., Bailes, M., Bartel, N., et al. 2007, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 24, 174, doi:10.1071/AS07033

    doi:10.1071/as07033 2007

  26. [26]

    A., Chomiuk, L., Johnson, K

    Kepley, A. A., Chomiuk, L., Johnson, K. E., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 739, L24, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/739/1/L24

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/739/1/l24 2011

  27. [27]

    D., Viero, M

    Kovetz, E. D., Viero, M. P., Lidz, A., et al. 2017, Line-Intensity Mapping: 2017 Status Report. https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.09066

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  28. [28]

    R., Oh, S

    Lidz, A., Furlanetto, S. R., Oh, S. P., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 741, 70, doi:10.1088/0004-637x/741/2/70

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

  29. [29]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 825, 143, doi:10.3847/0004-637x/825/2/143

    Lidz, A., & Taylor, J. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 825, 143, doi:10.3847/0004-637x/825/2/143

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/825/2/143 2016

  30. [30]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 98–107, doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2635 – 24 –

    Manti, S., Gallerani, S., Ferrara, A., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 98–107, doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2635 – 24 –

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2635 2015

  31. [31]

    K., Sarbadhicary, S

    Mayker Chen, N., Leroy, A. K., Sarbadhicary, S. K., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 168, 5, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad3fb7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad3fb7 2024

  32. [32]

    R., Anantharamaiah, K

    Mohan, N. R., Anantharamaiah, K. R., & Goss, W. M. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 557, 659, doi:10.1086/322265

    work page doi:10.1086/322265 2001

  33. [33]

    R., Anantharamaiah, K

    Mohan, N. R., Anantharamaiah, K. R., & Goss, W. M. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 574, 701, doi:10.1086/341004

    work page doi:10.1086/341004 2002

  34. [34]

    K., & Castorina, E

    Moradinezhad Dizgah, A., Nikakhtar, F., Keating, G. K., & Castorina, E. 2022, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2022, 026, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/02/026

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/02/026 2022

  35. [35]

    F., & Wyithe, J

    Morales, M. F., & Wyithe, J. S. B. 2010, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 48, 127–171, doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130936

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130936 2010

  36. [36]

    E., Stanimirovi´ c, S., Goss, W

    Murray, C. E., Stanimirovi´ c, S., Goss, W. M., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 238, 14, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aad81a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aad81a 2018

  37. [37]

    B., Bandura, K., Bucher, M

    Newburgh, L. B., Bandura, K., Bucher, M. A., et al. 2016, in Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes VI, ed. H. J. Hall, R. Gilmozzi, & H. K. Marshall, Vol. 9906 (SPIE), 99065X, doi:10.1117/12.2234286

    doi:10.1117/12.2234286 2016

  38. [38]

    M., & Switzer, E

    Oxholm, T. M., & Switzer, E. R. 2021, Physical Review D, 104, doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.083501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.083501 2021

  39. [39]

    Petrovic, N., & Oh, S. P. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 413, 2103–2120, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18276.x

    arXiv 2011

  40. [40]

    R., & Goss, W

    Phookun, B., Anantharamaiah, K. R., & Goss, W. M. 1998, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 295, 156, doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.29511352.x

    arXiv 1998

  41. [41]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  42. [42]

    Prozesky, A., & Smits, D. P. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 2766, doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1189

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1189 2018

  43. [43]

    J., Mountain, C

    Puxley, P. J., Mountain, C. M., Brand, P. W. J. L., Moore, T. J. T., & Nakai, N. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 485, 143, doi:10.1086/304430

    work page doi:10.1086/304430 1997

  44. [44]

    L., Goss, W

    Roy, A. L., Goss, W. M., Mohan, N. R., & Anantharamaiah, K. R. 2005, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 435, 831, doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041825

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041825 2005

  45. [45]

    1979, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 39, 633, doi:10.1086/190588

    Salem, M., & Brocklehurst, M. 1979, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 39, 633, doi:10.1086/190588

    work page doi:10.1086/190588 1979

  46. [46]

    K., Oonk, J

    Salgado, F., Morabito, L. K., Oonk, J. B. R., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 837, 141, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d9e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d9e 2017

  47. [47]

    K., Oonk, J

    Salgado, F., Morabito, L. K., Oonk, J. B. R., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 837, 142, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d9a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d9a 2017

  48. [48]

    2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 32, doi:10.22323/1.277.0032

    Santos, M., Bull, P., Camera, S., et al. 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA, 32, doi:10.22323/1.277.0032

    doi:10.22323/1.277.0032 2016

  49. [49]

    2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol

    Slosar, A., Ahmed, Z., Alonso, D., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 53, doi:10.48550/arXiv.1907.12559

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.12559 2019

  50. [50]

    J., Franx, M., et al

    Smit, R., Bouwens, R. J., Franx, M., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 756, 14, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/14

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/756/1/14 2012

  51. [51]

    J., Tress, R., Soler, J

    Smith, R. J., Tress, R., Soler, J. D., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 873, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1537

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1537 2023

  52. [52]

    S., Steinhardt, C

    Speagle, J. S., Steinhardt, C. L., Capak, P. L., & Silverman, J. D. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 214, 15, doi:10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/15 – 25 –

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/15 2014

  53. [53]

    V., Konovalenko, A

    Stepkin, S. V., Konovalenko, A. A., Kantharia, N. G., & Udaya Shankar, N. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 374, 852–856, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11190.x

    arXiv 2007

  54. [54]

    G., et al

    van der Wel, A., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 788, 28, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/28

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/1/28 2014

  55. [55]

    P., Wise, M

    van Haarlem, M. P., Wise, M. W., Gunst, A. W., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 556, A2, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220873

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220873 2013

  56. [56]

    2019, in Canadian Long Range Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics White Papers, Vol

    Vanderlinde, K., Liu, A., Gaensler, B., et al. 2019, in Canadian Long Range Plan for Astronomy and Astrophysics White Papers, Vol. 2020, 28, doi:10.5281/zenodo.3765414

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.3765414 2019

  57. [57]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 2736–2751, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3224

    Villaescusa-Navarro, F., Alonso, D., & Viel, M. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 2736–2751, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3224

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3224 2016

  58. [58]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 866, 135, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadba0

    Villaescusa-Navarro, F., Genel, S., Castorina, E., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 866, 135, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadba0

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadba0 2018

  59. [59]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 798, 40, doi:10.1088/0004-637x/798/1/40

    Xu, Y., Wang, X., & Chen, X. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 798, 40, doi:10.1088/0004-637x/798/1/40

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/798/1/40 2014

  60. [60]

    S., Reddy, N

    Yun, M. S., Reddy, N. A., & Condon, J. J. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 554, 803, doi:10.1086/323145

    doi:10.1086/323145 2001

  61. [61]

    R., Goss, W

    Zhao, J.-H., Anantharamaiah, K. R., Goss, W. M., & Viallefond, F. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 472, 54, doi:10.1086/178041 – 26 –

    work page doi:10.1086/178041 1996