Pith.

Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics · arXiv:2611.15188 v1 · submitted 11 Nov 2026 · 75 references

Non-Gaussian matter fluctuations from primordial magnetic fields and galaxy luminosity function

Teppei Minoda, Yi Mao, Shohei Saga, Hayato Shimabukuro

PDF · arXiv · The abstract, sentence by sentence · Cite

The paper says

“Primordial magnetic fields (PMFs) represent a promising candidate for the origin of large-scale magnetic fields observed in astrophysical environments. Through the Lorentz force, PMFs generate matter density perturbations, leaving distinct imprints on the formation of cosmic structures.”

more of the abstract

While previous studies have primarily characterized these imprints via the matter power spectrum — a two-point statistic — we demonstrate that the one-point statistics of PMF-induced density fluctuations reveal an intrinsically non-Gaussian probability distribution function (PDF), even when the PMFs themselves are statistically Gaussian. In particular, we find that the high-density tail of the PDF is enhanced by over two orders of magnitude relative to the Gaussian case. Adopting the Press-Schechter formalism, we show that this non-Gaussianity significantly boosts the abundance of rare objects, especially massive halos and those at high redshifts. We further compute the ultraviolet luminosity function of galaxies at z = 6, 12, and 16, and compare our predictions with recent James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) observations that have reported an excess of high-redshift galaxies at z ∼ 12 – 16 relative to standard ΛCDM expectations. Intriguingly, in the limiting case where the total density field inherits this PDF, our results suggest that the non-Gaussian density fluctuations sourced by PMFs can explain the bright-end (MUV ≲ −18) excess at z ≳ 12, without requiring additional astrophysical enhancements to star-formation efficiency.

from the abstract

Pith says

Machine review · deepseek-v4-flash · 13 Nov 2026 · what was read was not recorded · not checked by a person

It can be wrong. Challenge this review or reply to it.

A plausible PMF explanation for JWST's bright galaxy excess, but the central claim rests on a 'limiting case' that the paper itself acknowledges is incomplete. This line is wrong

the referee pass did not run

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Are you an author? What you can do.

Not checked: figures, code, what the 75 references say.

What would settle it

Compute the combined one-point PDF of the total density field by convolving the Gaussian adiabatic component (with variance σ_ΛCDM^2(M,z)) with the non-Gaussian PMF-induced component (with variance σ_PMF^2(M,z) and shape from Eq. 11), assuming they are independent. Then recompute the UVLF at z=12 and 16 using this combined PDF and compare with the JWST data. If the combined PDF yields a bright-end abundance significantly lower than the PMF-only case, the central claim is not supported.

from the skeptic's reading

How the review went

3 readings by deepseek-v4-flash · 13 Nov 2026

  1. Reader holds up, with conditions confidence high
  2. Skeptic agrees 29 s · 22,296 tokens read, 751 written
  3. Editor wrote the verdict above 24 s · 23,249 tokens read, 693 written

Not run on this paper: the referee, the simulated authors' defence.

Pith did not check this review's objections against the paper.

The review in full

The review in brief, machine-written

This paper does something genuinely new: it computes the one-point PDF of density fluctuations sourced by primordial magnetic fields (PMFs) from 50 realizations on a 643 grid, finds a heavy non-Gaussian tail, and propagates it through Press–Schechter to the UV luminosity function. The key result is that the non-Gaussian tail can boost the abundance of bright galaxies at z~12–16 enough to match the JWST excess without tweaking star-formation efficiency. That is a concrete, falsifiable proposal for a major current puzzle, and the authors are honest about what they did and did not do.

Credit where due: the numerical PDF calculation is straightforward but the fitting function is clean, the propagation to the UVLF is standard, and the comparison with JWST data is direct. The paper also clearly separates the effect of the non-Gaussian tail from the effect of the enhanced power spectrum (Fig. 5), which is helpful. The authors flag their own caveats—constant delta_c, pressure-free approximation, neglect of magnetic heating—and call their central result a 'limiting case.'

The soft spot is the one the stress-test note hits. The central claim (b174) assumes the total density field inherits the non-Gaussian PDF shape of the PMF-induced component alone. The PDF is computed from the Lorentz force only; the Gaussian adiabatic perturbations from inflation are not included. The authors note this explicitly (b178) and call it a limiting case, but they do not quantify the relative amplitude of the two components or provide a combined PDF. Their own Fig. 2 shows that for Bn = 0.3 nG (the fiducial model), the PMF contribution to sigma(M,z) is subdominant at the halo masses relevant for the bright-end UVLF (~109–1010 h−1 M_sun). If the Gaussian component dominates, the non-Gaussian tail is diluted and the claimed agreement with JWST weakens. This is not a hidden flaw—the authors state it—but it is a load-bearing assumption that is not tested. The paper would be much stronger with a combined PDF or at least a quantitative estimate of the dilution.

Other concerns are minor: the 643 grid is coarse, the Press–Schechter formalism is outdated (though still used for qualitative studies), and the astrophysical parameters are fixed at fiducial values. The authors acknowledge these.

Who is this for? Theorists working on PMFs or the JWST high-z galaxy excess. It is a plausible scenario, not a proof. The paper deserves a serious referee because the idea is novel and the calculation is reproducible. I would send it to review with a request that the authors address the combined-PDF issue quantitatively, even if only with an estimate.

Recommendation: accept for peer review, but the referee should push on the central assumption.

The strongest objection

The paper's central claim (b174) is that a nearly scale-invariant PMF can explain the JWST bright-end excess through the non-Gaussian tail of the one-point PDF alone. This claim depends critically on the assumption that the total density field follows the non-Gaussian PDF shape of the PMF-induced component, with its variance computed from the total matter power spectrum (Eq. 7) that includes both the ΛCDM and PMF contributions. However, the PDF itself is derived solely from the PMF-induced component (Sec. III B), without including the Gaussian adiabatic perturbations from inflation. The authors explicitly note this is a 'limiting case' and state that a more realistic treatment would introduce an explicit B_n dependence (b178). The paper does not quantify the relative amplitude of the two components or provide a combined PDF. If standard adiabatic fluctuations dominate on the scales relevant for the bright-end UVLF (M_UV ≲ -18, corresponding to halo masses ≳ 10^9-10^10 h^-1 M_sun), the non-Gaussian tail would be diluted, and the claimed agreement with JWST data would weaken. The paper's own Fig. 2 shows that for B_n = 0.3 nG, the PMF contribution to σ(M,z) is subdominant at these masses, suggesting the Gaussian component likely dominates, which would invalidate the central assumption.

The reader's weakest_assumption correctly identifies that the central claim rests on the assumption that the total density field inherits the non-Gaussian PDF of the PMF-induced component alone. The paper acknowledges this as a limiting case (b178) but does not quantify the relative amplitude of the two components or provide a combined PDF. This is the most load-bearing concern because if the Gaussian adiabatic component dominates on the scales relevant for the bright-end UVLF, the non-Gaussian tail would be diluted and the claimed agreement with JWST data would weaken. The paper's own Fig. 2 shows that for the fiducial model (B_n=0.3 nG), the PMF contribution to σ(M,z) is subdominant at masses ≳ 10^9 h^-1 M_sun, which correspond to the bright-end galaxies. This suggests the Gaussian component likely dominates, making the central assumption questionable. The concrete test of computing the combined PDF would directly address this concern. The verdict remains CONDITIONAL because the paper honestly states the limitation, but the concern is significant enough that the claim cannot be accepted without further validation.

Pith's reading of the paper (a machine's summary, not the authors')

The paper argues that primordial magnetic fields generate matter density fluctuations whose one-point probability distribution is strongly non-Gaussian, with an exponential high-density tail that is orders of magnitude larger than the Gaussian case. Even though the magnetic fields themselves are Gaussian, the Lorentz force is quadratic in the field, so the induced density contrast inherits a heavy-tailed distribution. Propagating this distribution through the Press‐Schechter formalism dramatically boosts the abundance of massive, high‐redshift halos and, consequently, of bright galaxies. The central claim is that this non-Gaussian tail alone can reproduce the JWST-detected excess of bright galaxies at z ~ 12–16 without requiring additional astrophysical enhancements to star-formation efficiency. A sympathetic reader should care because it offers a primordial physics explanation for a recent observational anomaly, and because it highlights that one-point statistics (not just the power spectrum) carry decisive information about PMFs.

What carries the argument. The central machinery is the one-point probability distribution function P₁ₚₜ(δ_M | M, z) of the smoothed linear matter density contrast induced by the Lorentz force ∇·[(∇ × B) × B]. Because this source is quadratic in a Gaussian magnetic field, its one-point PDF develops an exponential tail. The paper computes this PDF from 50 realizations of Gaussian B fields on a 64³ grid in a 500 Mpc box, then fits it with an analytic form: a Gaussian core for |ν| ≤ ν_tr and an exponential tail for |ν| > ν_tr. This fitted PDF, along with the PMF-enhanced matter power spectrum and mass dispersion σ(M, z), is fed into the Press–Schechter formula to derive the halo mass function, and then into a UV luminosity function mapping via stellar-to-halo mass ratio and duty cycle.

Core claim. The paper's core discovery is that the one-point PDF of PMF-induced density fluctuations is intrinsically non-Gaussian, with a high-density tail enhanced by over two orders of magnitude relative to a Gaussian of the same variance. In the central region |δ| < 2σ the deviation is small (~20%), but the tail grows to about 10³ times the Gaussian value at δ ~ 6σ. The tail is well fitted by an exponential function with a transition point ν_tr and a central Gaussian width σ_ν. Using the Press–Schechter formalism in a limiting case where the total density field inherits this PDF shape, the paper finds that the non-Gaussian tail boosts the abundance of rare, massive halos (M ≳ 10⁷ h⁻¹ M☉ at z = 12–16) and bright galaxies (M_UV ≲ −18), bringing the UV luminosity function into agreement with JWST data at z ≳ 12. The paper also isolates the two channels through which PMFs act—enhanced small-scale matter power and the non-Gaussian tail—and shows that the bright-end excess comes entirely from the tail, not from the added small-scale power.

The premise it rests on. The load-bearing premise is that the total density field inherits the non-Gaussian one-point PDF of the PMF-induced component alone, meaning the Gaussian adiabatic perturbations from inflation are negligible compared to the PMF-induced fluctuations at the scales and redshifts of interest.

If the paper is right (Pith's inferences, not the authors')

If the central claim is correct, the JWST bright-end excess at z ≳ 12 can be accounted for without needing to invoke unusually high star-formation efficiencies, a non-trivial relief for astrophysical models.

The result implies that PMFs with a nearly scale-invariant spectrum and field strength B_n ~ 0.3 nG leave a detectable imprint on the high-mass tail of the halo mass function at high redshift, which is accessible through future JWST/ELT deep surveys.

The paper shows that the added small-scale matter power alone (without the non-Gaussian tail) is nearly invisible in the UVLF at magnitudes relevant for observations, so a detection of a bright-end excess is specifically a probe of the non-Gaussian one-point statistics, not of the power spectrum.

The calculation is presented as an upper bound on the enhancement, since a realistic treatment that combines the Gaussian adiabatic component and the PMF-induced component would dilute the tail; thus the agreement with JWST is conservatively maximized for the PMF-only PDF.

I infer that the paper's near-universality of the normalized PDF under variation of B_n (when n_B is fixed) suggests that the shape of the tail is set mainly by the spectral index and the cut-off scale, not the overall amplitude; this could be tested by comparing the UVLF at different redshifts and field strengths with the fiducial model.

I infer that a direct observational discriminator is the wavelength-dependent faint end: if PMF non-Gaussianity is real, the faint-end UVLF should remain unchanged relative to ΛCDM (because the duty cycle removes the halos that extra small-scale power affects), whereas astrophysical scenarios that boost star-formation efficiency would also lift the faint end.

I infer that the result should be re-examined when the Gaussian adiabatic component is included with its true relative amplitude; the paper leaves this as future work, but a bounded combined PDF would give an intermediate prediction that could be compared to the same JWST data.

I infer that the exponential tail also implies an enhanced primordial black hole formation rate for small-scale collapse; the tail's amplitude could be cross-checked against PBH abundance constraints, which would either strengthen or weaken the allowed PMF parameter space.

Check this review

Pith stored no record of this review's passes and took no fingerprint of it. Reviews made by code from 13 Nov 2026 on carry both.

How often reviews like this one are right

Reviews like this one: written by deepseek-v4-flash, where what was read was not recorded.

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Every value above, in the review's public record (JSON)

Reviews by people

This review was written by a machine. No person has reviewed this paper on Pith yet. A scientist listed on Pith can review it for a fee, and their review is published here whatever it concludes.

Request a human review

How Pith checks papers · The full audit of this paper

The paper

Abstract

Primordial magnetic fields (PMFs) represent a promising candidate for the origin of large-scale magnetic fields observed in astrophysical environments. Through the Lorentz force, PMFs generate matter density perturbations, leaving distinct imprints on the formation of cosmic structures. While previous studies have primarily characterized these imprints via the matter power spectrum — a two-point statistic — we demonstrate that the one-point statistics of PMF-induced density fluctuations reveal an intrinsically non-Gaussian probability distribution function (PDF), even when the PMFs themselves are statistically Gaussian. In particular, we find that the high-density tail of the PDF is enhanced by over two orders of magnitude relative to the Gaussian case. Adopting the Press-Schechter formalism, we show that this non-Gaussianity significantly boosts the abundance of rare objects, especially massive halos and those at high redshifts. We further compute the ultraviolet luminosity function of galaxies at z = 6, 12, and 16, and compare our predictions with recent James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) observations that have reported an excess of high-redshift galaxies at z ∼ 12 – 16 relative to standard ΛCDM expectations. Intriguingly, in the limiting case where the total density field inherits this PDF, our results suggest that the non-Gaussian density fluctuations sourced by PMFs can explain the bright-end (MUV ≲ −18) excess at z ≳ 12, without requiring additional astrophysical enhancements to star-formation efficiency.

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

abstract compiled · 2026-11-13

The authors' main claim, as the classifier picked it out 0.99

“Intriguingly, in the limiting case where the total density field inherits this PDF, our results suggest that the non-Gaussian density fluctuations sourced by PMFs can explain the bright-end ($M_\mathrm{UV}\lesssim -18$) excess at $z\gtrsim 12$, without requiring additional astrophysical enhancements to star-formation efficiency.”

How the main claim is stated: hedged possibility 1.00

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.09 · states limitation 0.23 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.76 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.96 · compares with prior results 0.94 · mentions code or data availability 0.02

The abstract, sentence by sentence

This table labels the abstract only (arXiv listing abstract v1). The number is the probability the classifier gave the label.

SentenceRoleThe authors' own workStates the main conclusionStrength
Primordial magnetic fields (PMFs) represent a promising candidate for the origin of large-scale magnetic fields observed in astrophysical environments. background 1.00 0.05 0.02 hedged possibility 0.75
Through the Lorentz force, PMFs generate matter density perturbations, leaving distinct imprints on the formation of cosmic structures. background 1.00 0.08 0.03 asserted 1.00
While previous studies have primarily characterized these imprints via the matter power spectrum --- a two-point statistic --- we demonstrate that the one-point statistics of PMF-induced density fluctuations reveal an intrinsically non-Gaussian probability distribution function (PDF), even when the PMFs themselves are statistically Gaussian. contribution 0.49 0.92 0.58 asserted 1.00
In particular, we find that the high-density tail of the PDF is enhanced by over two orders of magnitude relative to the Gaussian case. result 1.00 0.95 0.13 asserted 1.00
Adopting the Press-Schechter formalism, we show that this non-Gaussianity significantly boosts the abundance of rare objects, especially massive halos and those at high redshifts. result 0.91 0.95 0.16 asserted 1.00
We further compute the ultraviolet luminosity function of galaxies at $z=6$, $12$, and $16$, and compare our predictions with recent James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) observations that have reported an excess of high-redshift galaxies at $z\sim 12$ -- $16$ relative to standard $\Lambda$CDM expectations. contribution 0.79 0.91 0.10 asserted 0.95
Intriguingly, in the limiting case where the total density field inherits this PDF, our results suggest that the non-Gaussian density fluctuations sourced by PMFs can explain the bright-end ($M_\mathrm{UV}\lesssim -18$) excess at $z\gtrsim 12$, without requiring additional astrophysical enhancements to star-formation efficiency. interpretation 0.92 0.91 0.75 hedged possibility 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.96 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.65

What was examined, and what was not

Sources read

  • arXiv listing abstract v1

Not examined

  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers

Levels run

  • P abstract

Not run

  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

How the labels were made

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-11-13: 1 request, 5,944 input tokens.

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. This record as JSON

Figures (8)
Figure 1 of the paper
Figure 1. FIG. 1. PMF-induced matter power spectra at
Figure 2 of the paper
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Mass dispersion
Figure 3 of the paper
Figure 3. FIG. 3. One-point PDF of PMF-induced density fluctuations with different values of
Figure 4 of the paper
Figure 4. FIG. 4. HMF at different redshifts of ΛCDM (solid), PMF-induced matter power spectrum with Gaussian PDF (dashed),
Figure 5 of the paper
Figure 5. FIG. 5. UVLF at
Figure 6 of the paper
Figure 6. FIG. 6. UVLFs at different redshifts of ΛCDM (solid) and PMF (dashed), the latter including both the PMF-induced matter
Figure 7 of the paper
Figure 7. FIG. 7. Same as Fig. 6 but for PMF Model 5–8; darker shades correspond to steeper spectra of PMF.
Figure 8 of the paper
Figure 8. FIG. 8. Sensitivity of the ΛCDM UVLF to the astrophysical parameters. From top to bottom, each row varies

Figures are the authors', reproduced from the paper.

References (75)
  1. [1] D. Ryu, D. R. G. Schleicher, R. A. Treumann, C. G. Tsagas, and L. M. Widrow, Magnetic Fields in the Large- Scale Structure of the Universe, Space Sci. Rev.166, 1 (2012), arXiv:1109.4055 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  2. [2] R. Beck and R. Wielebinski, Magnetic Fields in Galaxies, in Planets, Stars and Stellar Systems, Galactic Structure and Stellar Populations, Vol. 5, edited by T. D. Oswalt and G. Gilmore (2013) p. 641 on Pith
  3. [3] J. L. Han, Observing Interstellar and Intergalactic Mag- netic Fields, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.55, 111 (2017) on Pith
  4. [4] K.-T. Kim, P. P. Kronberg, P. E. Dewdney, and T. L. Landecker, The Halo and Magnetic Field of the Coma Cluster of Galaxies, Astrophys. J.355, 29 (1990) on Pith
  5. [5] K.-T. Kim, P. C. Tribble, and P. P. Kronberg, Detection of Excess Rotation Measure Due to Intracluster Mag- netic Fields in Clusters of Galaxies, Astrophys. J.379, 80 (1991) on Pith
  6. [6] G. B. Taylor and R. A. Perley, Magnetic Fields in the Hydra A Cluster, Astrophys. J.416, 554 (1993) on Pith
  7. [7] T. E. Clarke, P. P. Kronberg, and H. B¨ ohringer, A New Radio-X-Ray Probe of Galaxy Cluster Magnetic Fields, Astrophys. J. Lett.547, L111 (2001), arXiv:astro- ph/0011281 [astro-ph] on Pith
  8. [8] C. L. Carilli and G. B. Taylor, Cluster Magnetic Fields, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.40, 319 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0110655 [astro-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  9. [9] A. Neronov and I. Vovk, Evidence for Strong Extra- galactic Magnetic Fields from Fermi Observations of TeV Blazars, Science328, 73 (2010), arXiv:1006.3504 [astro- ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  10. [10] F. Tavecchio, G. Ghisellini, L. Foschini, G. Bonnoli, G. Ghirlanda, and P. Coppi, The intergalactic magnetic field constrained by Fermi/Large Area Telescope observa- tions of the TeV blazar 1ES0229+200, Mon. Not. R. As- tron. Soc.406, L70 (2010), arXiv:1004.1329 [astro- ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  11. [11] S. Ando and A. Kusenko, Evidence for Gamma-ray Ha- los Around Active Galactic Nuclei and the First Measure- ment of Intergalactic Magnetic Fields, Astrophys. J. Lett. 722, L39 (2010), arXiv:1005.1924 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  12. [12] A. Kandus, K. E. Kunze, and C. G. Tsagas, Pri- mordial magnetogenesis, Phys. Rep.505, 1 (2011), arXiv:1007.3891 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  13. [13] R. Durrer and A. Neronov, Cosmological magnetic fields: their generation, evolution and observation, Astron. As- trophys. Rev.21, 62 (2013), arXiv:1303.7121 [astro- ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  14. [14] K. Subramanian, The origin, evolution and signatures of primordial magnetic fields, Reports on Progress in 12 10 10 10 8 10 6 10 4 10 2 100 [mag 1Mpc 3] z = 6 f*, 10 = 0.01 f*, 10 = 0.025 f*, 10 = 0.05 f*, 10 = 0.1 f*, 10 = 0.2 z = 12 z = 16 10 10 10 8 10 6 10 4 10 2 100 [mag ... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  15. [15] R. Durrer, L. Hollenstein, and R. K. Jain, Can slow roll inflation induce relevant helical magnetic fields?, JCAP 2011, 037 (2011), arXiv:1005.5322 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  16. [16] We compare the ΛCDM model with PMF-induced models, incorporating both the enhancement of matter power spectrum and the non-Gaussianity of density fluc- tuations. Here, the spectral index of PMFs is fixed at nB =−2.9, and we plot the cases with different field strengths,B n = 2... on Pith
  17. [17] N. Bartolo, S. Matarrese, M. Peloso, and A. Ricciar- done, Anisotropic power spectrum and bispectrum in the f(ϕ)F2 mechanism, Phys. Rev. D87, 023504 (2013), arXiv:1210.3257 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  18. [18] T. Kahniashvili, A. G. Tevzadze, A. Brandenburg, and A. Neronov, Evolution of primordial magnetic fields from phase transitions, Phys. Rev. D87, 083007 (2013), arXiv:1212.0596 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  19. [19] P. Adshead, J. T. Giblin, Jr., T. R. Scully, and E. I. Sfakianakis, Magnetogenesis from axion inflation, JCAP 2016, 039 (2016), arXiv:1606.08474 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  20. [20] I. Wasserman, On the origins of galaxies, galactic angu- lar momenta, and galactic magnetic fields., Astrophys. J. 224, 337 (1978) on Pith
show 55 more
  1. [21] E.-J. Kim, A. V. Olinto, and R. Rosner, Generation of Density Perturbations by Primordial Magnetic Fields, Astrophys. J.468, 28 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9412070 [astro-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  2. [22] R. Gopal and S. K. Sethi, Large Scale Magnetic Fields: Density Power Spectrum in Redshift Space, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy24, 51 (2003) on Pith
  3. [23] J. R. Shaw and A. Lewis, Constraining primordial mag- netism, Phys. Rev. D86, 043510 (2012), arXiv:1006.4242 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  4. [24] T. Adi, H. A. G. Cruz, and M. Kamionkowski, Primordial density perturbations from magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. D 108, 023521 (2023), arXiv:2306.11319 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  5. [25] Y. Shibusawa, K. Ichiki, and K. Kadota, The influ- ence of primordial magnetic fields on the spherical col- lapse model in cosmology, JCAP2014, 017 (2014), arXiv:1402.2405 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  6. [26] P. Ralegankar, Dark Matter Minihalos from Primordial Magnetic Fields, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 231002 (2023), arXiv:2303.11861 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  7. [27] F. Marinacci and M. Vogelsberger, Effects of simu- lated cosmological magnetic fields on the galaxy pop- ulation, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.456, L69 (2016), arXiv:1508.06631 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  8. [28] F. Vazza, D. Paoletti, S. Banfi, F. Finelli, C. Gheller, S. P. O’Sullivan, and M. Br¨ uggen, Simulations and obser- vational tests of primordial magnetic fields from Cosmic Microwave Background constraints, Mon. Not. R. As- tron. Soc.500, 5350 (2021), arXiv:2009.01539 [astro- ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  9. [29] H. Katz, S. Martin-Alvarez, J. Rosdahl, T. Kimm, J. Blaizot, M. G. Haehnelt, L. Michel-Dansac, T. Garel, J. O˜ norbe, J. Devriendt, A. Slyz, M. Attia, and R. Teyssier, Introducing SPHINX-MHD: the impact of primordial magnetic fields on the first galaxies, reion- ization, and t... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  10. [30] S. Mtchedlidze, P. Dom ´ ınguez-Fern´ andez, X. Du, A. Brandenburg, T. Kahniashvili, S. O’Sullivan, W. Schmidt, and M. Br¨ uggen, Evolution of Primordial Magnetic Fields during Large-scale Structure Formation, Astrophys. J.929, 127 (2022), arXiv:2109.13520 [astro- ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  11. [31] P. Ralegankar, M. Paviˇ cevi´ c, and M. Viel, Primordial magnetic fields: consistent initial conditions and im- pact on high-z structures, JCAP2024, 027 (2024), arXiv:2402.14079 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  12. [32] P. Ralegankar, E. Garaldi, and M. Viel, Matter power spectrum induced by primordial magnetic fields: from the linear to the non-linear regime, JCAP2025, 011 (2025), arXiv:2410.02676 [astro-ph.CO] on PitharXiv
  13. [33] M. Paviˇ cevi´ c, V. Irˇ siˇ c, M. Viel, J. S. Bolton, M. G. Haehnelt, S. Martin-Alvarez, E. Puchwein, and P. Rale- gankar, Constraints on Primordial Magnetic Fields from the Lyman-αForest, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 071001 (2025), arXiv:2501.06299 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  14. [34] S. K. Sethi and K. Subramanian, Primordial magnetic fields in the post-recombination era and early reion- ization, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.356, 778 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0405413 [astro-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  15. [35] M. Shiraishi, H. Tashiro, and K. Ichiki, 21 cm fluctuations from primordial magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. D89, 103522 (2014), arXiv:1403.2608 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  16. [36] T. Minoda, H. Tashiro, and T. Takahashi, Insight into primordial magnetic fields from 21-cm line observation with EDGES experiment, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.488, 2001 (2019), arXiv:1812.00730 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  17. [37] K. Jedamzik and A. Saveliev, Stringent Limit on Primor- dial Magnetic Fields from the Cosmic Microwave Back- ground Radiation, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 021301 (2019), arXiv:1804.06115 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  18. [38] D. Paoletti, J. Chluba, F. Finelli, and J. A. Rubi˜ no- Mart ´ ın, Constraints on primordial magnetic fields from their impact on the ionization history with Planck 2018, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.517, 3916 (2022), arXiv:2204.06302 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  19. [39] F. Uchida, K. Kamada, and H. Tashiro, Revisiting con- straints on primordial magnetic fields from spectral dis- tortions of cosmic microwave background, Physics Let- ters B865, 139456 (2025), arXiv:2411.03183 [astro- ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  20. [40] M. Sanati, S. Martin-Alvarez, J. Schober, Y. Revaz, A. Slyz, and J. Devriendt, Dwarf galaxies as a probe of a primordially magnetized Universe, Astron. Astrophys. 690, A59 (2024), arXiv:2403.05672 [astro-ph.GA] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  21. [41] S. Saga, M. Shiraishi, K. Akitsu, and T. Okumura, Im- prints of primordial magnetic fields on intrinsic align- ments of galaxies, Phys. Rev. D109, 043520 (2024), arXiv:2312.16316 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  22. [42] H. Shimabukuro, K. Ichiki, S. Inoue, and S. Yokoyama, Probing small-scale cosmological fluctuations with the 21 cm forest: effects of neutrino mass, running spectral in- dex and warm dark matter, Phys. Rev. D90, 083003 (2014), arXiv:1403.1605 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  23. [43] A. Bera, K. K. Datta, and S. Samui, Primordial mag- netic fields during the cosmic dawn in light of EDGES 21-cm signal, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.498, 918 (2020), arXiv:2005.14206 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  24. [44] H. Shimabukuro, K. Ichiki, and K. Kadota, 21cm forest probes on the axion dark matter in the post-inflationary peccei-quinn symmetry breaking scenarios, Phys. Rev. D 102, 023522 (2020), arXiv:2005.05589 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  25. [45] H. Shimabukuro, K. Ichiki, and K. Kadota, Con- straints on nature of ultra light dark matter particles with 21cm forest, Phys. Rev. D101, 043516 (2020), arXiv:1910.06011 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  26. [46] H. A. G. Cruz, T. Adi, J. Flitter, M. Kamionkowski, and E. D. Kovetz, 21-cm fluctuations from primor- 14 dial magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. D109, 023518 (2024), arXiv:2308.04483 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  27. [47] A. Bhaumik, D. Paul, and S. Pal, Revisiting primordial magnetic fields through 21-cm physics: bounds and fore- casts, JCAP2025, 089 (2025), arXiv:2407.11923 [astro- ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  28. [48] K. Jedamzik and L. Pogosian, Relieving the Hubble Ten- sion with Primordial Magnetic Fields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 181302 (2020), arXiv:2004.09487 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  29. [49] K. Jedamzik and L. Pogosian, Primordial mag- netic fields and the Hubble tension, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2307.05475 (2023), arXiv:2307.05475 [astro- ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  30. [50] K. Jedamzik, T. Abel, and Y. Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, Cosmic recombination in the presence of primordial magnetic fields, JCAP2025, 012 (2025), arXiv:2312.11448 [astro- ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  31. [51] J. Schiff and T. Venumadhav, Primordial magnetic fields and modified recombination histories, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2506.16517 (2025), arXiv:2506.16517 [astro- ph.CO] on PitharXiv
  32. [52] S. Mandal, N. Sehgal, and T. Namikawa, Finding evi- dence for inflation and the origin of galactic magnetic fields with CMB surveys, Phys. Rev. D105, 063537 (2022), arXiv:2201.02204 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  33. [53] K. E. Kunze, Cross correlations of the CMB Doppler mode and the 21 cm brightness temperature in the pres- ence of a primordial magnetic field, JCAP2023, 017 (2023), arXiv:2306.06049 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  34. [54] T. Adi, S. Libanore, H. A. G. Cruz, and E. D. Kovetz, Constraining primordial magnetic fields with line-intensity mapping, JCAP2023, 035 (2023), arXiv:2305.06440 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  35. [55] LiteBIRD Collaboration, LiteBIRD science goals and forecasts: primordial magnetic fields, JCAP2024, 086 (2024), arXiv:2403.16763 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  36. [56] A. Bhaumik, S. Pal, and S. Pal, Primordial magnetic fields in the light of upcoming post-EoR Lyman-αand 21-cm observations, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2604.07327 (2026), arXiv:2604.07327 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  37. [57] G. Facchinetti, A. Korochkin, L. Lopez-Honorez, and J. Schwagereit, Reionization, UV Luminosity and 21 cm Sensitivity to Primordial Magnetic Fields: Impact of En- ergy Losses, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2604.22703 (2026), arXiv:2604.22703 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  38. [58] K. Worku, H. A. G. Cruz, and M. Kamionkowski, Primordial Magnetic Fields at Cosmic Dawn: 21- cm Forecasts with HERA and SKA, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2605.05323 (2026), arXiv:2605.05323 [astro- ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  39. [59] Planck Collaboration, Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmo- logical parameters, Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  40. [60] K. Jedamzik, V. Katalini´ c, and A. V. Olinto, Damping of cosmic magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. D57, 3264 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9606080 [astro-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  41. [61] K. Subramanian and J. D. Barrow, Magnetohydrody- namics in the early universe and the damping of non- linear Alfv´ en waves, Phys. Rev. D58, 083502 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9712083 [astro-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  42. [62] D. Paoletti, J. Chluba, F. Finelli, and J. A. Rubi˜ no- Mart ´ ın, Improved CMB anisotropy constraints on pri- mordial magnetic fields from the post-recombination ion- ization history, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.484, 185 (2019), arXiv:1806.06830 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  43. [63] A. Mack, T. Kahniashvili, and A. Kosowsky, Microwave background signatures of a primordial stochastic mag- netic field, Phys. Rev. D65, 123004 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0105504 [astro-ph] on Pith
  44. [64] C. Fedeli and L. Moscardini, Constraining primordial magnetic fields with future cosmic shear surveys, JCAP 2012, 055 (2012), arXiv:1209.6332 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  45. [65] K. E. Kunze, CMB anisotropies and linear matter power spectrum in models with non-thermal neutrinos and primordial magnetic fields, JCAP2021, 044 (2021), arXiv:2106.00648 [astro-ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  46. [66] W. H. Press and P. Schechter, Formation of Galaxies and Clusters of Galaxies by Self-Similar Gravitational Con- densation, Astrophys. J.187, 425 (1974) on Pith
  47. [67] J. M. Bardeen, J. R. Bond, N. Kaiser, and A. S. Sza- lay, The Statistics of Peaks of Gaussian Random Fields, Astrophys. J.304, 15 (1986) on Pith
  48. [68] S. Saga, H. Tashiro, and S. Yokoyama, Limits on pri- mordial magnetic fields from primordial black hole abun- dance, JCAP2020, 039 (2020), arXiv:2002.01286 [astro- ph.CO] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  49. [69] P. J. E. Peebles, The large-scale structure of the universe (1980) on Pith
  50. [70] C. Lacey and S. Cole, Merger rates in hierarchical models of galaxy formation, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.262, 627 (1993) on Pith
  51. [71] 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 sig- nal, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.484, 933 (2019), arXiv:1809.08995 [astro-ph.GA] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  52. [72] G. Sun and S. R. Furlanetto, Constraints on the star for- mation efficiency of galaxies during the epoch of reion- ization, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.460, 417 (2016), arXiv:1512.06219 [astro-ph.GA] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  53. [73] J. B. Oke and J. E. Gunn, Secondary standard stars for absolute spectrophotometry., Astrophys. J.266, 713 (1983) on Pith
  54. [74] R. J. Bouwens, P. A. Oesch, G. D. Illingworth, R. S. Ellis, and M. Stefanon, The z∼6 Luminosity Function Fainter than -15 mag from the Hubble Frontier Fields: The Impact of Magnification Uncertainties, Astrophys. J.843, 129 (2017), arXiv:1610.00283 [astro-ph.GA] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  55. [75] Y. Harikane, M. Ouchi, M. Oguri, Y. Ono, K. Naka- jima, Y. Isobe, H. Umeda, K. Mawatari, and Y. Zhang, A Comprehensive Study of Galaxies at z∼9-16 Found in the Early JWST Data: Ultraviolet Luminosity Func- tions and Cosmic Star Formation History at the Pre- reionization Epoch,... on PithPith's reviewarXiv

Challenges and discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, or challenge this review formally: a challenge becomes a permanent entry in this paper's record, and its decision is published here.

No comments yet.

Sign in to comment