Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 6 cited by

Rapid late-time reionization: constraints and cosmological implications

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Cosmic reionization is pinned as rapid and late, with optical depth τ = 0.049, independent of CMB data.

desk verdict A careful, transparent tau constraints paper that delivers a credible low optical depth from Lyman-alpha data plus BAO/BBN, but the 'CMB-independent' wording oversells it because the GP prior boundary does the heavy lifting at high z. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.21069 v1 pith:EGMNGJQA submitted 2025-08-28 astro-ph.CO

Willem Elbers This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords reionizationopticaldepthneutralhydrogenfractionLyman-alphaconstraintsGaussianprocessreconstructionDESIBAOCMBpolarizationdarkenergyequationofstate
topics Dark Energy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that the cosmic phase transition called reionization — when ultraviolet light from the first stars and galaxies stripped the universe's hydrogen of its electrons — was rapid and late, centred near redshift 7 and essentially finished by redshift 8. It derives an optical depth of τ = 0.0492 from Lyman-α measurements of the neutral hydrogen fraction combined with DESI baryon-acoustic-oscillation data and a Big Bang nucleosynthesis prior, with no cosmic microwave background input. That matters because τ ≈ 0.09 has been proposed as the way to keep the standard cosmological model while absorbing the discord between DESI and CMB measurements of the expansion history; the paper finds such high optical depths clash with the Lyman-α data at about 4σ. Independent routes — large-scale CMB polarization, and small-scale CMB data combined with supernovae or galaxy-lensing measurements — land on the same low value, while small-scale CMB combined with BAO only reaches τ ≈ 0.09 under plain ΛCDM. If the low value holds, the DESI-CMB discord survives and points to physics beyond ΛCDM: evolving dark energy, an excess lensing amplitude, or anomalous neutrino behaviour.

What carries the argument

The engine is a Gaussian-process reconstruction of the neutral fraction xHI(z): the history is drawn from a multivariate Gaussian with a squared-exponential kernel, mapped from unbounded latent variables onto the unit interval by a wrapping function, with endpoints fixed at xHI ≈ 0 for z = 5.2 and xHI ≈ 1 for z = 15 (chosen to allow gradual and early reionization). The optical depth follows from τ = nH c σT ∫ xe(z)(1+z)²/H(z) dz, where a BBN prior on the baryon density fixes nH and DESI BAO data fix H(z) — the ingredient that lets cosmology and ionization history be varied simultaneously with no CMB input. A derived parameter T ≡ τ √(Ωm h²/0.14) factors out most of the expansion-history depe

What would settle it

A credible measurement of a non-negligible ionized fraction at z > 12 would break the central constraint — for example, a damping-wing or dark-pixel observation of a z > 12 source showing the neutral fraction clearly below 1, a 21-cm power spectrum placing the onset of reionization well before z ≈ 10, or evidence of substantial Population III ionization. The decisive confirmation runs the other way: a CMB polarization experiment with σ(τ) ≈ 0.002 measuring τ near 0.05 would vindicate the Lyman-α bound, while a value near 0.09 would show the bound is biased by the astrophysical priors.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that existing Lyman-α and Lyman-β constraints on the volume-averaged neutral hydrogen fraction xHI(z) — a compilation of 19 measurements that includes new JWST-era damping-wing results at z > 8 — force a Gaussian-process reconstruction of the reionization history to be fast and late. When those constraints are combined with DESI DR2 BAO data and a BBN prior on the baryon density, which supply the expansion history and hydrogen density needed to convert the neutral fraction into a Thomson optical depth, the reconstruction yields a midpoint z_mid = 7.00 (+0.12/−0.18), a duration Δz50 = 1.12 (+0.12/−0.29), and τ = 0.0492 (+0.0014/−0.0030). The measurement is deliber

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 19 published measurements of the neutral hydrogen fraction — especially the JWST-era points at z > 8 — faithfully represent the cosmic average, and that the prior fixing reionization as essentially complete by z = 15 (with a kSZ prior standing in when the start is pushed to z = 30) correctly handles what is unobserved above z ≈ 12; a hidden early ionized fraction or a double-reionization episode there would raise τ substantially.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If reionization is this fast and late, the ionizing photon budget is dominated by sources at z ≈ 6–8, leaving little room for a long Population III tail or for significant high-redshift contributions to the optical depth.
  • The τ ≈ 0.09 scenario for reconciling DESI BAO with CMB data under ΛCDM is excluded at 3.7–4σ by the Lyman-α bound; the escape hatch of exotic early reionization is narrowed by kSZ constraints on reionization's midpoint and duration.
  • Under ΛCDM, small-scale CMB plus lensing plus BAO gives τ = 0.094 ± 0.011, a ~4σ clash with the astrophysical bound, so the discord must be absorbed by model extensions: Alens > 1 reduces the tension to 0.9σ, negative effective neutrino mass to 0.8σ, and evolving dark energy (w0waCDM) to 1.2σ.
  • Adding the xHI(z) data to the most powerful CMB + BAO + SNe combination raises the preference for dynamical dark energy from 4.2σ to 4.5σ, with the result immune to large-scale CMB polarization systematics by construction.
  • Large-scale CMB polarization, evaluated with three independent likelihoods, agrees with the Lyman-α bound and is insensitive to the cosmological model, providing a CMB-based cross-check that does not depend on astrophysical reionization tracers.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the low optical depth is right, the DESI-CMB tension becomes a sharper discriminator among extended cosmologies: the optical depth can be used as a nearly free, CMB-independent lever arm on dark energy and neutrino physics, since a high-τ model now has to jump the Lyman-α hurdle too.
  • The paper's 4.5σ preference for evolving dark energy inherits the assumption that damping-wing constraints are cosmology-independent; a reanalysis of the Table 1 posteriors within each extended model (which the paper flags as unquantified) could shift that preference, so an independent determination of the reionization midpoint from 21-cm or angular-diameter measurements would be a natural arbiter
  • The 'standard depth' trick — using τ to constrain the matter density when paired with an independent optical-depth probe — could become routine once a CMB polarization experiment reaches σ(τ) ≈ 0.002, yielding competitive matter-density constraints without BAO data.
  • A testable extension of the pipeline: apply the same Gaussian-process reconstruction to mock xHI(z) compilations drawn from double-reionization simulations reaching τ ≈ 0.09, to quantify how strongly the Lyman-α + kSZ combination actually penalizes each non-monotonic history class, since the kSZ calibration assumes monotonic reionization.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper derives new constraints on the reionization optical depth, tau, using several independent routes. The primary result is a non-parametric Gaussian-process reconstruction of the volume-averaged neutral hydrogen fraction, xHI(z), from a compilation of Lyman-alpha and damping-wing constraints (Table 1). Combined with a BBN prior on Omega_b h^2 and DESI BAO data, the reconstruction yields a rapid and late reionization history, z_mid = 7.00(+0.12,-0.18), Delta z50 = 1.12(+0.12,-0.29), and tau = 0.0492(+0.0014,-0.0030) (Eq. 5). The paper also compares this astrophysical bound with tau constraints from large-scale CMB polarization (three likelihood implementations) and from small-scale CMB data combined with lensing, BAO, and SNe. In LambdaCDM, small-scale CMB + BAO + lensing gives tau = 0.094 +/- 0.011, in ~3.7 sigma tension with the Ly-alpha bound. The paper then explores extended cosmological models (running spectral index, A_lens, curvature, N_eff, effective neutrino mass, wCDM, w0waCDM) and reports that the tension is reduced or removed in some of them, with w0waCDM and an unphysical negative neutrino-mass parameter restoring concordance.

Significance. If the central low-tau result is robust, it has considerable significance: it sharpens the well-known tension between DESI BAO combined with small-scale CMB+lensing and the standard late-reionization picture, and it strengthens the case for dynamical dark energy or other beyond-LambdaCDM explanations. The paper is careful in several respects: it uses a flat-tau prior correction, includes redshift nuisance parameters for each xHI point, compares three different large-scale polarization likelihoods, and publicly releases the likelihood code. These are concrete strengths. The main caveat is that the central claim is not as data-driven as the abstract suggests: the high-redshift contribution to tau is strongly influenced by the adopted GP boundary and hyperparameters, and the only extended test (zmax=30) relies on a kSZ prior calibrated to monotonic reionization simulations. The paper itself acknowledges that non-monotonic histories are not reliably constrained. Properly qualified, the result is credible and interesting; in its current abstract form it is somewhat overclaimed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, 3.3; Eq. (5), (8), (9)] The central claim that xHI data plus BAO/BBN imply tau = 0.0492 and rule out tau ~ 0.09 is not fully data-driven at high redshift. Table 1 contains no data beyond z = 11.49; the baseline sets xHI(zmax=15) = 1 - epsilon, so the z > 15 contribution is zero and the z ~ 12-15 contribution is governed by the GP prior and boundary. The zmax = 30 test replaces this boundary with a kSZ prior from Eq. (8) that is calibrated to monotonic amber simulations. As the paper states, non-monotonic/double-reionization histories produce larger kSZ signals and are not reliably constrained ('more work is needed'). Hence the abstract's wording 'independent of CMB data' and the exclusion of tau ~ 0.09 require qualification: the result is conditional on a chosen prior family and a monotonic kSZ calibration. A sensitivity analysis varying zmax and the kSZ calibration, or a conservative early-reionization templat
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Appendix A] The GP hyperparameters are fixed by hand (sigma = 0.3, mu = 0, inverse-gamma p=3, b=1.5, beta=8). Because the z > 10 constraints are sparse, the posterior predictive there is dominated by these choices. The paper does not test variations of sigma or mu; the quoted error bars for Eq. (5) therefore include only data and fixed-prior uncertainty, not prior uncertainty. At a minimum, report results for e.g. sigma in {0.15, 0.6} and mu in {-0.5, 0.5} (in latent space) or an explicit check that the high-z tail is insensitive to these choices.
  3. [Sec. 4.2.6, Eq. (15)] The claim that adding xHI data increases the preference for w0waCDM from 4.2 to 4.5 sigma inherits the same prior-dependence as the baseline tau result. The xHI likelihood effectively replaces lowE in the combination, but the high-z part of that likelihood is prior-dominated. The model-comparison conclusion should therefore be presented with the same caveat as the tau constraint; otherwise readers may take the 4.5 sigma as a data-driven result independent of the GP boundary assumptions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.1] The sentence 'For z > 12, we reasonably assume that xHI(z) ≈ 0 with an uncertainty of sigma = 0.3' appears inconsistent with the boundary condition xHI(zmax) = 1 - epsilon and with high-z neutrality. Should this read xHI(z) ≈ 1, or is the mean mu = 0 in the latent space mapped to near unity by the wrapping function? Please clarify.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A1)] The wrapping function uses sign(2x - 1) where x is described as an unbounded latent variable. This expression is unusual for a map from R to (0,1); please define the argument more carefully and verify the value of F(0) used in the prior mean.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. 3.3] The abstract states that the baseline tau constraint is 'independent of CMB data.' This is true for Eq. (5) itself, but the robustness test in Sec. 3.3 explicitly adds a kSZ prior derived from SPT CMB observations. The wording should be qualified to avoid the impression that all stated robustness checks are CMB-free.
  4. [Sec. 4.2.5, Eq. (13)] The text describes Sigma m_nu,eff = -0.120(+0.034,-0.039) eV as 'the strongest cosmological bound on the neutrino mass.' Since this parameter is an unphysical extension (as the paper itself notes), the wording should be changed to 'strongest constraint on the effective negative-mass parameter' to avoid confusion with the physical sum of neutrino masses.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the xHI-based tau reconstruction is data-driven and independent of any CMB tau target, and the only self-citation is peripheral.

full rationale

The central claim (Eq. 5: tau = 0.0492 from BAO+BBN+xHI) derives from a Gaussian-process reconstruction of xHI(z) using independent astrophysical constraints (Table 1) integrated against H(z) and nH from DESI BAO and BBN. No CMB tau value is used as an input, and the flat-tau reweighting is a prior choice, not a fit to a target. The zmax=15 boundary is an explicit assumption, and the zmax=30 robustness test replaces it with a kSZ prior calibrated to simulations; the paper itself notes that non-monotonic/double-reionization models are not reliably constrained by that prior. This is a modeling limitation, not a circular reduction: the prior is not derived from the xHI data being predicted. The self-citation to Elbers et al. (2025b) for the effective neutrino mass parametrization is confined to the extended-model section and does not support the rapid-late-reionization result. The CMB-based tau constraints are separate likelihood pipelines with no shared fitted parameter. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained and no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central tau constraint rests on a small number of hand-chosen GP hyperparameters and boundary conditions, plus the assumption that published xHI(z) constraints are unbiased. The baseline inference does not require invented entities. The effective negative neutrino mass is used only in an extended model to demonstrate how the tension can be absorbed, and it has no independent evidence.

free parameters (6)
  • GP amplitude sigma = 0.3 (fixed)
    Chosen by hand in Sec. 3.1 to set the high-z prior uncertainty; controls the flexibility of xHI(z) and hence the allowed range of tau.
  • GP mean mu = 0 (fixed)
    Fixed mean of the latent Gaussian process in Sec. 3.1.
  • GP correlation length prior (p, b) = p=3, b=1.5
    Inverse gamma prior on 100*ell adopted from Lodha et al. (2025), described in Appendix A; penalizes high-frequency wiggles and affects reconstructed histories.
  • Wrapping function shape beta = beta=8
    Fixed in Appendix A to make the wrapping function approximately linear over most of its range.
  • Boundary redshifts zmin and zmax = zmin=5.2, zmax=15
    Chosen in Sec. 3.1; xHI(zmin)=1e-3 and xHI(zmax)=1-1e-3. The zmax=15 choice limits the high-z contribution to tau.
  • Redshift nuisance offsets = one per data point, uniform prior
    Added per xHI data point in Sec. 2.1 to model redshift errors; affects the width of the reconstructed posterior.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Thomson optical depth relation tau = n_H c sigma_T integral x_e(z) (1+z)^2 / H(z) dz, with helium reionization modeled as a smooth transition at z=3.5.
    Eq. (1) and Sec. 3.1; standard cosmology, but the hydrogen-helium simultaneity and helium transition shape are adopted from Planck Collaboration et al. (2020b).
  • domain assumption The compiled xHI(z) constraints (damping wings, dark pixel fractions) are unbiased estimates of the volume-averaged neutral hydrogen fraction.
    Sec. 2.1; the original analyses assume reionization simulations and a fiducial cosmology. The author acknowledges this dependence in Sec. 4.2.
  • ad hoc to paper The Gaussian process with fixed endpoints and chosen hyperparameters provides a sufficient non-parametric prior for reionization histories.
    Sec. 3.1 and Appendix A; the prior choices, including zmax=15, sigma=0.3, and the inverse-gamma length prior, are not derived from data and shape the high-z tail.
  • domain assumption DESI BAO, BBN, and CMB likelihoods correctly model the data and their covariance.
    Sec. 2.2; relies on DESI DR2, Planck, ACT, SPT, DES, and lensing likelihoods as published by their respective collaborations.
  • domain assumption The kSZ trispectrum scaling relation of Eq. (8), calibrated on amber simulations, applies to the GP histories used in the zmax=30 alternative.
    Sec. 3.3; used only for the extended-history check and assumes a reionization signal model calibrated to a specific simulation suite.
invented entities (1)
  • Effective negative neutrino mass parameter Sum_mnu_eff
    purpose: Absorbs the CMB+BAO versus Lyman-alpha tension and yields a stronger neutrino mass constraint by mathematically allowing negative neutrino contributions to the energy density.
    Adopted from Elbers et al. (2025b); the best-fit value (-0.120+0.034-0.039 eV) is unphysical relative to neutrino oscillation bounds, so it is a phenomenological extension, not an established physical entity. The paper explicitly acknowledges this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rapid late-time reionization: constraints and cosmological implications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EGMNGJQA

@misc{pith2026250821069,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rapid late-time reionization: constraints and cosmological implications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EGMNGJQA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21069}
}
abstract

We present constraints on the reionization optical depth, $\tau$, obtained using several independent methods. First, we perform a non-parametric reconstruction of the reionization history, using Lyman-$\alpha$ constraints on the evolution of the volume-averaged neutral hydrogen fraction, $x_\mathrm{HI}(z)$, including recent results from the James Webb Space Telescope. When combined with baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) measurements from DESI and Big Bang nucleosynthesis constraints, these data imply a rapid reionization history ($z_\mathrm{mid}=7.00^{+0.12}_{-0.18}$ and $\Delta z_{50}=1.12^{+0.12}_{-0.29}$) and a value of $\tau=0.0492^{+0.0014}_{-0.0030}$, which is largely insensitive to the assumed cosmological model and independent of cosmic microwave background (CMB) data. The optical depth can also be measured from large-scale $(\ell<30)$ CMB polarization data, yielding constraints that are similarly model-insensitive and consistent with the Ly$\alpha$ bound. Third, $\tau$ may be constrained from the attenuation of small-scale $(\ell>30)$ CMB anisotropies, but the results are sensitive to the choice of cosmological model. Assuming $\Lambda$CDM and combining small-scale CMB data with CMB lensing and type 1a supernovae (SNe) yields tight constraints that are compatible with the Ly$\alpha$ bound. Adding galaxy clustering and lensing measurements brings the constraints further into agreement with the Ly$\alpha$ bound. These independent results reinforce a consensus picture in which reionization is rapid and late. However, the combination of small-scale CMB, CMB lensing, and BAO data yields $\tau=0.094\pm0.011$, which is in $4\sigma$ tension with our Ly$\alpha$ bound. Non-standard reionization scenarios can reconcile some but not all constraints. Concordance is restored in alternative cosmological models, such as models with dynamical dark energy favoured by BAO, CMB, and SNe data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.21069 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Gaussian process reconstruction of the reionization history using 𝑥HI (𝑧) constraints. The dark and light regions represent the 68% and 95% posterior predictive distributions. The faint solid lines are 20 random draws from the distribution. The dashed lines are representative gradual reionization histories that produce large optical depths: 𝜏 = 0.07 and 𝜏 = 0.09. These histories are inconsistent with the constraints… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Constraints on the optical depth, 𝜏, and the square root of the matter density, √︁ Ωmℎ 2, obtained from different combinations of DESI BAO, BBN, 𝑥HI (𝑧), and large-scale CMB polarization (lowE) data. probe of 𝜏. We demonstrate this by adding large-scale CMB polar￾ization data using the SRoll2 likelihood (see the next section) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Gaussian process reconstruction of the reionization history using constraints from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Constraints on the optical depth, 𝜏, and the matter fraction, Ωm, in ΛCDM for various data combinations: small-scale Planck data alone (gray) or combined with CMB lensing (black dashed). Additionally including DESI BAO (blue) or DES SNe (red) further tightens the const…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: One-dimensional marginalized constraints on the optical depth, 𝜏, from a wide range of data combinations for ΛCDM. The constraints from our non-parametric reconstruction of the reionization history are shown as vertical shaded bands (1𝜎 and 2𝜎 bounds). Also shown are t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: One-dimensional marginalized constraints on the optical depth, 𝜏, from a wide range of data combinations for 𝑤0𝑤𝑎CDM. The constraints from our non-parametric reconstruction of the reionization history are shown as vertical shaded bands (1𝜎 and 2𝜎 bounds). Also shown ar…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Constraints on the dark energy equation of state parameters for various data combinations. Shown are the constraints from CMB and CMB lensing, combined with BAO (light blue) or SNe (open red), as well as the combination of all four (black dashed) and the combination of…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Boosting the optical depth to Thomson scattering with primordial black hole evaporation at high redshift

    astro-ph.CO 2026-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    A monochromatic primordial black hole population can raise the CMB optical depth by at most Delta tau ~ 0.008 under current CMB data, leaving BAO-CMB tensions essentially unchanged.

  2. DESI DR2 Results IV: Alcock-Paczy\'nski Measurements from the Lyman Alpha Forest and Cosmological Constraints

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The full shape of DESI DR2 Lyman-alpha forest correlations constrains the distance ratio DM/DH at z=2.33 to 1.0%, twice as precise as BAO alone.

  3. No way ou$\tau$: Epoch of Reionization Observations Do not Support Large Values of the Optical Depth to Reionization

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Epoch-of-reionization hydrogen probes, combined with CMB and BAO data but no CMB polarization, yield tau_reio = 0.067 +/- 0.011 and leave the dynamical-dark-energy preference at ~2 sigma.

  4. Impact of CMB low-$\ell$ EE polarization data on dark energy parameterizations

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Removing Planck's low-ℓ EE polarization data shifts A_s and τ_reio upward and makes three dark-energy parameterizations look more quintessence-like, with model-selection evidence depending on the dataset and prior.

  5. A New Constraint on the Optical Depth from the Reionization History Independent of CMB Large-Scale E-Mode Polarization

    astro-ph.CO 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Combining reionization history with CMB data that exclude large-scale E-mode polarization yields τ=0.0552 and supports a 2.4σ CMB–BAO tension.

  6. The Status of Single Scalar Field Dark Energy

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.5 of 10

    Cosmological data can constrain only a handful of EFT parameters for single-scalar dark energy; extended models show modest preference over Λ but remain underdetermined and challenged by fifth forces and screening.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

153 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Abbott T. M. C., et al., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.023531 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvD.107b3531A 107, 023531

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.023531

  2. [2]

    Abbott T. M. C., et al., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.083504 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvD.107h3504A 107, 083504

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.083504

  3. [3]

    Abdalla E., et al., 2022, @doi [Journal of High Energy Astrophysics] 10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022JHEAp..34...49A 34, 49

    doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002 2022

  4. [4]

    Abdurashidova Z., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1c78 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...925..221A 925, 221

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1c78 2022

  5. [5]

    R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf3bf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...914...44A 914, 44

    Ahn K., Shapiro P. R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf3bf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...914...44A 914, 44

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf3bf 2021

  6. [6]

    Asthana S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1945 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.2843A 533, 2843

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1945 2024

  7. [7]

    Atek H., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-07043-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.626..975A 626, 975

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07043-6 2024

  8. [8]

    J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/04/073 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021JCAP...04..073B 2021, 073

    Bennett J. J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/04/073 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021JCAP...04..073B 2021, 073

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/04/073 2021

Show all 153 references
  1. [9]

    arXiv:2411.14091

    Binder T., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.14091 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241114091B p. arXiv:2411.14091

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Bosman S. E. I., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1046 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514...55B 514, 55

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acd5d0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...949L..40B 949, L40

    Bruton S., Lin Y.-H., Scarlata C., Hayes M. J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acd5d0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...949L..40B 949, L40

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    arXiv:2505.15899

    Cain C., et al., 2025a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.15899 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250515899C p. arXiv:2505.15899

    doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    Cain C., et al., 2025b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ada152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...980...83C 980, 83

    doi

  6. [14]

    Calabrese E., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.123531 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008PhRvD..77l3531C 77, 123531

    2008 doi

  7. [15]

    arXiv:2503.14454

    Calabrese E., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14454 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250314454C p. arXiv:2503.14454

    2025 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    arXiv:2506.20707

    Camphuis E., et al., 2025, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250620707C p. arXiv:2506.20707

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Carron J., Mirmelstein M., Lewis A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/09/039 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022JCAP...09..039C 2022, 039

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Cen R., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/375217 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...591...12C 591, 12

    2003 doi

  11. [19]

    Cen R., McDonald P., Trac H., Loeb A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/L164 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...706L.164C 706, L164

    2009 doi

  12. [20]

    Chang C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.023530 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvD.107b3530C 107, 023530

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    Chen S.-F., Zaldarriaga M., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025JCAP...08..014C 2025, 014

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    Chen N., Trac H., Mukherjee S., Cen R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8481 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...943..138C 943, 138

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    Chen S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.103518 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PhRvD.110j3518C 110, 103518

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    arXiv:2506.19096

    Cheng H., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2506.19096 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250619096C p. arXiv:2506.19096

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    Chevallier M., Polarski D., 2001, @doi [International Journal of Modern Physics D] 10.1142/S0218271801000822 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001IJMPD..10..213C 10, 213

    2001 doi

  18. [26]

    Chisholm J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2874 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.5104C 517, 5104

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    R., 2022, @doi [General Relativity and Gravitation] 10.1007/s10714-022-02987-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022GReGr..54..102C 54, 102

    Choudhury T. R., 2022, @doi [General Relativity and Gravitation] 10.1007/s10714-022-02987-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022GReGr..54..102C 54, 102

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    arXiv:2508.05739

    Cohon J., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2508.05739 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250805739C p. arXiv:2508.05739

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    Craig N., Green D., Meyers J., Rajendran S., 2024, @doi [Journal of High Energy Physics] 10.1007/JHEP09(2024)097 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024JHEP...09..097C 2024, 97

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    Curtis-Lake E., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7..622C 7, 622

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    DES Collaboration et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6f9f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...973L..14D 973, L14

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    arXiv:2503.13632

    DES Collaboration et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.13632 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250313632D p. arXiv:2503.13632

    2025 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    DES and KiDS et al., 2023, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.21105/astro.2305.17173 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023OJAp....6E..36D 6, 36

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    arXiv:2411.12022

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.12022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241112022D p. arXiv:2411.12022

    2024 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    arXiv:2503.14738

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2025a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14738 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250314738D p. arXiv:2503.14738

    doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    arXiv:2503.14739

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2025b, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14739 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250314739D p. arXiv:2503.14739

    doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2025c, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025JCAP...02..021A 2025, 021

    2025 doi

  30. [38]

    B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6dc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...864..142D 864, 142

    Davies F. B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6dc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...864..142D 864, 142

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834882 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...629A..38D 629, A38

    Delouis J. M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834882 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...629A..38D 629, A38

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    Di Valentino E., Melchiorri A., Silk J., 2020, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-019-0906-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatAs...4..196D 4, 196

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    arXiv:2504.01669

    Di Valentino E., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.01669 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250401669D p. arXiv:2504.01669

    2025 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    Efstathiou G., 2025a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.538..875E 538, 875

    doi

  35. [43]

    Efstathiou G., 2025b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf906 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.540.2844E 540, 2844

    doi

  36. [44]

    arXiv:1910.00483

    Efstathiou G., Gratton S., 2019, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1910.00483 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv191000483E p. arXiv:1910.00483

    2019 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    J., Hu W., Tegmark M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311582 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...504L..57E 504, L57

    Eisenstein D. J., Hu W., Tegmark M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311582 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...504L..57E 504, L57

    1998 doi

  38. [46]

    arXiv:2503.14744

    Elbers W., et al., 2025a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14744 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250314744E p. arXiv:2503.14744

    doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    Elbers W., et al., 2025b, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.063534 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025PhRvD.111f3534E 111, 063534

    doi

  40. [48]

    Elbers W., et al., 2025c, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf093 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.537.2160E 537, 2160

    doi

  41. [49]

    Escudero M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/02/020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016JCAP...02..020E 2016, 020

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    arXiv:2410.05380

    Esteban I., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.05380 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241005380E p. arXiv:2410.05380

    2024 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    L., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1ea8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...879...36F 879, 36

    Finkelstein S. L., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1ea8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...879...36F 879, 36

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/12/015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020JCAP...12..015F 2020, 015

    Froustey J., Pitrou C., Volpe M. C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/12/015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020JCAP...12..015F 2020, 015

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    R., Loeb A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/429080 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...634....1F 634, 1

    Furlanetto S. R., Loeb A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/429080 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...634....1F 634, 1

    2005 doi

  46. [54]

    Gaikwad P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2566 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.4093G 525, 4093

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    arXiv:2504.18464

    Garcia-Quintero C., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.18464 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250418464G p. arXiv:2504.18464

    2025 doi arXiv

  48. [56]

    Ge F., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.083534 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025PhRvD.111h3534G 111, 083534

    2025 doi

  49. [57]

    arXiv:2505.00373

    Ghara R., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.00373 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250500373G p. arXiv:2505.00373

    2025 doi arXiv

  50. [58]

    Giar \`e W., Di Valentino E., Melchiorri A., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.103519 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PhRvD.109j3519G 109, 103519

    doi

  51. [59]

    Giar \`e W., et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/035 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024JCAP...10..035G 2024, 035

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    arXiv:2507.01096

    Giovinazzo E., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2507.01096 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250701096G p. arXiv:2507.01096

    2025 doi

  53. [61]

    Green D., Meyers J., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.083507 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025PhRvD.111h3507G 111, 083507

    2025 doi

  54. [62]

    Greig B., Mesinger A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3026 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.4838G 465, 4838

    2017 doi

  55. [63]

    Greig B., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac825 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.5390G 512, 5390

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    Greig B., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1080 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.3208G 530, 3208

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    Hamimeche S., Lewis A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.103013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008PhRvD..77j3013H 77, 103013

    2008 doi

  58. [66]

    Handley W., Millea M., 2019, @doi [Entropy] 10.3390/e21030272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Entrp..21..272H 21, 272

    2019 doi

  59. [67]

    K., Smoot G

    Hazra D. K., Smoot G. F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/11/028 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JCAP...11..028H 2017, 028

    2017 doi

  60. [68]

    K., Paoletti D., Finelli F., Smoot G

    Hazra D. K., Paoletti D., Finelli F., Smoot G. F., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.071301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PhRvL.125g1301H 125, 071301

    2020 doi

  61. [69]

    Heinrich C., Hu W., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063505 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvD.104f3505H 104, 063505

    2021 doi

  62. [70]

    Hoag A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1de7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...878...12H 878, 12

    2019 doi

  63. [71]

    Y.-Y., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5da8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...973....8H 973, 8

    Hsiao T. Y.-Y., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5da8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...973....8H 973, 8

    2024 doi

  64. [72]

    Hu W., White M., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S1384-1076(97)00022-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997NewA....2..323H 2, 323

    1997 doi

  65. [73]

    J., Gazagnes S., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.13899 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250113899H p

    Huberty M., Scarlata C., Hayes M. J., Gazagnes S., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.13899 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250113899H p. arXiv:2501.13899

    2025 doi arXiv

  66. [74]

    arXiv:2504.13254

    Ili \'c S., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.13254 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250413254I p. arXiv:2504.13254

    2025 doi

  67. [75]

    arXiv:2507.22856

    Ishak M., Medina-Varela L., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2507.22856 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250722856I p. arXiv:2507.22856

    2025 doi

  68. [76]

    arXiv:2504.21813

    Jhaveri T., Karwal T., Hu W., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.21813 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250421813J p. arXiv:2504.21813

    2025 doi arXiv

  69. [77]

    Jin X., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aca678 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...942...59J 942, 59

    2023 doi

  70. [78]

    C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1530 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.1646K 532, 1646

    Keating L. C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1530 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.1646K 532, 1646

    2024 doi

  71. [79]

    Kogut A., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/377219 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJS..148..161K 148, 161

    2003 doi

  72. [80]

    K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3251 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922...95K 922, 95

    Krishak A., Hazra D. K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3251 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922...95K 922, 95

    2021 doi

  73. [81]

    Leauthaud A., Riess A., 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1123

    2025

  74. [82]

    arXiv:1104.2932

    Lesgourgues J., 2011, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1104.2932 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011arXiv1104.2932L p. arXiv:1104.2932

    2011 doi arXiv

  75. [83]

    arXiv:1910.13970

    Lewis A., 2019, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1910.13970 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv191013970L p. arXiv:1910.13970

    2019 doi arXiv

  76. [84]

    arXiv:2501.11904

    Li Y., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.11904 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250111904L p. arXiv:2501.11904

    2025 doi arXiv

  77. [85]

    V., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.091301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PhRvL..90i1301L 90, 091301

    Linder E. V., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.091301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PhRvL..90i1301L 90, 091301

    2003 doi

  78. [86]

    LiteBIRD Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics] 10.1093/ptep/ptac150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PTEP.2023d2F01L 2023, 042F01

    2023 doi

  79. [87]

    Llerena M., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202453251 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...698A.302L 698, A302

    2025 doi

  80. [88]

    arXiv:2503.14743

    Lodha K., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14743 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250314743L p. arXiv:2503.14743

    2025 doi arXiv

  81. [89]

    Loeb A., Barkana R., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ARA&A..39...19L 39, 19

    2001 doi

  82. [90]

    arXiv:2503.14452

    Louis T., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14452 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250314452L p. arXiv:2503.14452

    2025 doi arXiv

  83. [91]

    J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/12/048 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024JCAP...12..048L 2024, 048

    Loverde M., Weiner Z. J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/12/048 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024JCAP...12..048L 2024, 048

    2024 doi

  84. [92]

    Lu T.-Y., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae266 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.4872L 528, 4872

    2024 doi

  85. [93]

    P., Knox L., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14470 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250314470L p

    Lynch G. P., Knox L., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14470 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250314470L p. arXiv:2503.14470

    2025 doi arXiv

  86. [94]

    MacCrann N., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2610 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966..138M 966, 138

    2024 doi

  87. [95]

    S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acff5f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...962..113M 962, 113

    Madhavacheril M. S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acff5f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...962..113M 962, 113

    2024 doi

  88. [96]

    Mascia S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347884 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...685A...3M 685, A3

    2024 doi

  89. [97]

    A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab0a7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...856....2M 856, 2

    Mason C. A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab0a7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...856....2M 856, 2

    2018 doi

  90. [98]

    A., et al., 2019a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz632 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.3947M 485, 3947

    Mason C. A., et al., 2019a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz632 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.3947M 485, 3947

    doi

  91. [99]

    A., Naidu R

    Mason C. A., Naidu R. P., Tacchella S., Leja J., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2291 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.2669M 489, 2669

    doi

  92. [100]

    D., Mesinger A., D'Odorico V., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2449 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.447..499M 447, 499

    McGreer I. D., Mesinger A., D'Odorico V., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2449 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.447..499M 447, 499

    2015 doi

  93. [101]

    McQuinn M., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/432049 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...630..643M 630, 643

    2005 doi

  94. [102]

    R., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12836.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.385.1348M 385, 1348

    Mesinger A., Furlanetto S. R., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12836.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.385.1348M 385, 1348

    2008

  95. [103]

    Mesinger A., Haiman Z., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/513688 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...660..923M 660, 923

    2007 doi

  96. [104]

    Mesinger A., Greig B., Sobacchi E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw831 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459.2342M 459, 2342

    2016 doi

  97. [105]

    Millea M., Bouchet F., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833288 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...617A..96M 617, A96

    2018 doi

  98. [106]

    S., Bernui A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/01/017 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JCAP...01..017M 2023, 017

    Mokeddem R., Hip \'o lito-Ricaldi W. S., Bernui A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/01/017 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JCAP...01..017M 2023, 017

    2023 doi

  99. [107]

    arXiv:2405.13680

    Montero-Camacho P., Li Y., Cranmer M., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.13680 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240513680M p. arXiv:2405.13680

    2024 doi arXiv

  100. [108]

    B., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slae086 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535L..37M 535, L37

    Mu \ n oz J. B., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slae086 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535L..37M 535, L37

    2024 doi

  101. [109]

    Omori Y., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.023529 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvD.107b3529O 107, 023529

    2023 doi

  102. [110]

    Ouchi M., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/869 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...723..869O 723, 869

    2010 doi

  103. [111]

    Pahl A., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adb1ab , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...981..134P 981, 134

    2025 doi

  104. [112]

    K., Finelli F., Smoot G

    Paoletti D., Hazra D. K., Finelli F., Smoot G. F., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.043532 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025PhRvD.111d3532P 111, 043532

    2025 doi

  105. [113]

    arXiv:2505.08870

    Papovich C., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.08870 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250508870P p. arXiv:2505.08870

    2025 doi

  106. [114]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321591 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...571A..16P 571, A16

    2014 doi

  107. [115]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628897 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...596A.108P 596, A108

    2016 doi

  108. [116]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2020a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936386 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A...5P 641, A5

    doi

  109. [117]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A...6P 641, A6

    doi

  110. [118]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2020c, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833886 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A...8P 641, A8

    doi

  111. [119]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2020d, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038073 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...643A..42P 643, A42

    doi

  112. [120]

    S., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/03/041 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025JCAP...03..041R 2025, 041

    Pranjal R. S., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/03/041 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025JCAP...03..041R 2025, 041

    2025 doi

  113. [121]

    Qin Y., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2797 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499..550Q 499, 550

    2020 doi

  114. [122]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acfe06 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...962..112Q 962, 112

    Qu F. J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acfe06 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...962..112Q 962, 112

    2024 doi

  115. [123]

    J., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.20038 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250420038Q p

    Qu F. J., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.20038 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250420038Q p. arXiv:2504.20038

    2025 doi

  116. [124]

    Raghunathan S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.121004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PhRvL.133l1004R 133, 121004

    2024 doi

  117. [125]

    Raveri M., Doux C., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.043504 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvD.104d3504R 104, 043504

    2021 doi

  118. [126]

    Raveri M., Zacharegkas G., Hu W., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.103527 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PhRvD.101j3527R 101, 103527

    2020 doi

  119. [127]

    L., 2016, in Mesinger A., ed., Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol

    Reichardt C. L., 2016, in Mesinger A., ed., Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 423, Understanding the Epoch of Cosmic Reionization: Challenges and Progress. p. 227 ( @eprint arXiv 1511.01117 ), @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-21957-8_8

    2016 arXiv

  120. [128]

    L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abd407 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...908..199R 908, 199

    Reichardt C. L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abd407 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...908..199R 908, 199

    2021 doi

  121. [129]

    Renzi F., Di Valentino E., Melchiorri A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.123534 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhRvD..97l3534R 97, 123534

    2018 doi

  122. [130]

    E., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature09527 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Natur.468...49R 468, 49

    Robertson B. E., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature09527 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Natur.468...49R 468, 49

    2010 doi

  123. [131]

    Rosenberg E., Gratton S., Efstathiou G., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2744 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.4620R 517, 4620

    2022 doi

  124. [132]

    Sailer N., Chen S.-F., White M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/10/007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022JCAP...10..007S 2022, 007

    2022 doi

  125. [133]

    S., Ferraro S., White M., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.16932 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250416932S p

    Sailer N., Farren G. S., Ferraro S., White M., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.16932 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250416932S p. arXiv:2504.16932

    2025 doi

  126. [134]

    Sch \"o neberg N., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/06/006 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024JCAP...06..006S 2024, 006

    2024 doi

  127. [135]

    Simmonds C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3605 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.6139S 527, 6139

    2024 doi

  128. [136]

    H., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.09725 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250409725S p

    Sims P. H., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.09725 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250409725S p. arXiv:2504.09725

    2025 doi

  129. [137]

    M., Ferraro S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.021301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvL.119b1301S 119, 021301

    Smith K. M., Ferraro S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.021301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvL.119b1301S 119, 021301

    2017 doi

  130. [138]

    Sobacchi E., Mesinger A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1751 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.1843S 453, 1843

    2015 doi

  131. [139]

    C., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2506.18490 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250618490T p

    Tan J. C., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2506.18490 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250618490T p. arXiv:2506.18490

    2025 doi arXiv

  132. [140]

    Torrado J., Lewis A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/057 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021JCAP...05..057T 2021, 057

    2021 doi

  133. [141]

    Trac H., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aabff0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...858L..11T 858, L11

    2018 doi

  134. [142]

    Trac H., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...927..186T 927, 186

    2022 doi

  135. [143]

    Tristram M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039585 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...647A.128T 647, A128

    2021 doi

  136. [144]

    Tristram M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...682A..37T 682, A37

    2024 doi

  137. [145]

    Umeda H., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad554e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...971..124U 971, 124

    2024 doi

  138. [146]

    arXiv:2504.04683

    Umeda H., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.04683 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250404683U p. arXiv:2504.04683

    2025 doi

  139. [147]

    arXiv:2501.06664

    Vincenzi M., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.06664 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250106664V p. arXiv:2501.06664

    2025 doi arXiv

  140. [148]

    Wang F., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8c45 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...896...23W 896, 23

    2020 doi

  141. [149]

    H., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.19441 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250319441W p

    Wright A. H., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.19441 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250319441W p. arXiv:2503.19441

    2025 doi arXiv

  142. [150]

    Wu X., McQuinn M., Eisenstein D., Ir s i c V., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2815 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.2784W 508, 2784

    2021 doi

  143. [151]

    Yang J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9c26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...897L..14Y 897, L14

    2020 doi

  144. [152]

    arXiv:2411.07082

    Ye G., Jiang J.-Q., Silvestri A., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.07082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241107082Y p. arXiv:2411.07082

    2024 doi arXiv

  145. [153]

    Zahn O., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/65 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...756...65Z 756, 65

    2012 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.