Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 77 references

Using galaxy ultraviolet luminosity functions at redshifts 6–9, the paper places upper limits on bump-like departures from the standard inflationary power spectrum across wavenumbers 0.3–20 Mpc⁻¹, with the strongest bound near an amplitude

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 20:07 UTC pith:FIQRX5EE

load-bearing objection A genuinely new application of UVLF to inflationary bumps, but the headline A_I~1e-9 limit is a prior-boundary artifact and the constraints need refitting. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.23913 v2 pith:FIQRX5EE submitted 2026-02-27 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Probing inflationary features with galaxy ultraviolet luminosity function observables

Sandeep Kumar Acharya This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA
keywords inflationary featuresprimordial power spectrumultraviolet luminosity functionhigh-redshift galaxieshalo mass functionstar formation efficiencysmall-scale cosmic probesreionization optical depth
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Using galaxy ultraviolet luminosity functions at redshifts 6–9, the paper asks whether a bump-like departure from the standard power-law inflationary spectrum can be hidden in the abundance of bright early galaxies. It shows that these observations are sensitive to such features on wavenumbers 0.3–20 Mpc⁻¹, scales far smaller than CMB anisotropies probe directly. The resulting upper limits, strongest at amplitude about 10⁻⁹ for bump peaks between 1 and 5 Mpc⁻¹, are competitive with constraints derived from the optical depth of reionization, but they rely on counting galaxies directly rather than on indirect intergalactic-medium effects. If the underlying galaxy-formation model holds, the high-redshift galaxy census is already a working probe of inflationary physics at small scales.

Core claim

The central result is that a bump added to the inflationary power spectrum—modeled as an amplitude A_I times a sine-integral kernel peaked at k_peak = 3.35 k_i—propagates through the matter transfer function and the smoothed variance σ(M_h) into an exponentially sensitive halo mass function, altering the predicted UV luminosity function. Comparing this prediction with observed luminosity functions at z = 6–9, the paper places 95% upper limits on the bump amplitude A_I across k in [0.3, 20] Mpc⁻¹, with the tightest bound A_I ~ 10⁻⁹ for k_peak in [1, 5] Mpc⁻¹. These limits are comparable to those inferred from CMB optical depth, and the paper argues they are more direct because UV luminosity f

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the bump-feature parameterization of the primordial power spectrum, P_s(k) = A_s(k/k_*)^(n_s−1) + A_I f1(x)/f1_max with f1(x) = [sin(x) − Si(x)]²/x³, whose maximum occurs at k_peak = 3.35 k_i. This bump alters the matter power spectrum through the transfer function, enters the smoothed variance σ(M_h) by integration, and is amplified by the exponential tail of the halo mass function. On the astrophysical side, the machinery is a one-galaxy-per-halo mapping with a power-law star-formation efficiency f_* = f_*,10 (M_h/10¹⁰ M_⊙)^α_* and a Hubble-time star-formation timescale, which converts halo abundance into the UV luminosity function. That chain is what lets small-

Load-bearing premise

The whole inference rests on the assumption that at z = 6–9 one galaxy forms per dark-matter halo with a star-formation efficiency that is a single power law in halo mass with no redshift evolution; if the true efficiency evolves or is mass-dependent in a way the model does not capture, the reported inflationary limits would shift.

What would settle it

Re-run the analysis allowing the star-formation efficiency normalization f_*,10 to vary linearly with redshift across z = 6–9, or calibrate the efficiency to higher-redshift galaxy samples and compare the predicted z = 6–9 UV luminosity function. If the recovered 95% upper limits on A_I change by more than the quoted intervals, the constraints are astrophysics-model-dominated rather than inflation-model-dominated; if they barely move, the reported limits hold.

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

If this is right

  • If the limits are correct, current high-redshift UV luminosity function data already probe inflationary scales k ~ 0.3–20 Mpc⁻¹ that CMB anisotropy measurements cannot reach directly.
  • Galaxy counts can serve as a direct, independent check on reionization-optical-depth constraints, since they do not depend on modeling the escape of ionizing photons from faint galaxies.
  • The constraints will tighten as UV luminosity function samples grow and extend to fainter magnitudes, pushing the sensitive range toward higher wavenumbers.
  • Joint use with future 21-cm observations could separate astrophysical uncertainties from primordial-spectrum features.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • One can read the exclusion of z > 9 data as an opportunity: marginalizing over a redshift-dependent star-formation efficiency would likely recover the same scales at higher k and convert the reported limits into joint astrophysics-inflation constraints.
  • If the assumed non-evolving star-formation efficiency is wrong even within z = 6–9, the inferred A_I limits would partially absorb that astrophysical drift; comparing with optical-depth-based bounds, which depend on different astrophysics, could reveal the size of the effect.
  • The linear damped oscillation case suggests that some oscillation amplitudes near α = 0.5 are already disfavored under fixed astrophysics; a full parameter scan over amplitude, frequency, and phase may produce the first direct constraints on oscillatory inflationary features from galaxy counts.
  • A direct test of the one-galaxy-per-halo assumption at the relevant halo masses could come from deep lensing or clustering measurements; a breakdown there would weaken the derived limits.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes to use galaxy UV luminosity function (UVLF) measurements at z≈6–9 to constrain bump-like features in the primordial inflationary power spectrum. The model adds an amplitude A_I term to the standard power-law spectrum, which changes the matter power spectrum, the variance σ(M_h), the halo mass function, and ultimately the predicted UVLF through a simple one-galaxy-per-halo star-formation model. After fitting the standard A_I=0 case to UVLF data, the author runs an MCMC with a flat prior A_I∈[10^-9,10^-6] and reports 95% upper limits on A_I over k∈[0.3,20] Mpc^-1, claiming the strongest constraint A_I∼10^-9 at k_peak∈[1,5] Mpc^-1 and competitiveness with optical-depth-based constraints. A brief exploratory section considers damped oscillatory features.

Significance. If the quantitative constraints were robust, this would be a worthwhile complement to CMB and 21-cm probes of inflationary features in a wavenumber range (0.3–20 Mpc^-1) that is otherwise difficult to access. The sensitivity demonstration in Figs. 2–3 is plausible and shows that a sufficiently large bump would alter the UVLF in a detectable way. The paper is not circular: A_I is a free parameter fitted to data, not defined in terms of the astrophysical parameters. However, the statistical treatment of the headline limits has serious gaps, and the astrophysical model is very simple; these issues must be addressed before the quantitative claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4, Eq. (3.2)] The headline claim of a 95% upper limit A_I∼10^-9 for k_peak∈[1,5] Mpc^-1 is not supported by the stated analysis. The prior is flat on A_I∈[10^-9,10^-6], with the lower edge equal to the claimed strongest limit. Since the standard model with A_I=0 is first found to fit the data (Sec. 4), the posterior for A_I in the full model should pile at the lowest permitted value; a 95% upper limit that coincides with the prior boundary is an artifact of truncation, not a measured limit. Note also that A_s≈2×10^-9, so A_I=10^-9 corresponds to a fractional feature of order unity at its peak; the 'strongest' constraint is therefore weaker than the notation suggests. Please allow A_I=0 (or extend the prior downward), report the posterior shape or a profile likelihood, and state explicitly whether the limit is interior or boundary-pinned.
  2. [Sec. 4, Figs. 3–4] The quantitative constraints cannot be checked because the paper does not specify the likelihood, the error bars used for the UVLF data, whether magnitude bins are treated as independent, or how systematic uncertainties (dust, cosmic variance, selection effects) are included. No MCMC details are given (sampler, burn-in, convergence). This is not a cosmetic omission: the reported 95% limits on A_I and the 1σ ranges on f_*,10 and α_* are the paper's main results, and without this information the reader cannot reproduce them. Please provide the full likelihood definition and data covariance, or a validation with synthetic data.
  3. [Sec. 2, Eqs. (2.1)–(2.4); Sec. 4] The mapping from halo mass to UV luminosity assumes one galaxy per halo, t_*=1/H(z), and a single power-law star-formation efficiency with no redshift evolution. The paper explicitly excludes z>9 JWST data because they require f_* evolution, but it does not test whether f_* evolves within the z=6–9 window; the same data are used both to fit f_*,10 and α_* and to constrain A_I. If f_* evolves even mildly over this range, the inferred A_I upper limits are biased in an uncontrolled way. Please add a test with redshift-dependent f_* (or at least a per-redshift nuisance parametrization) and quantify the shift in the A_I limits.
  4. [Sec. 3, Fig. 2 caption] The normalization convention is ambiguous. Equation (3.2) defines A_I relative to Planck A_s, but Fig. 2 states that σ_8=0.8111 is chosen for all curves. If the full power spectrum is rescaled to keep σ_8 fixed, the relation between the sampled A_I and the plotted A_I changes; if instead A_s is fixed, σ_8 is not the same for all curves. State which quantity is held fixed in the MCMC and how the normalization is translated into the reported A_I limits.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract vs. Sec. 1] The abstract says z=4–8 while the full text and analysis use z=6–9; please correct the inconsistency.
  2. [Figure 1 caption] The caption ends with 'A_I=10^-9 =5×10^-10', which appears to be missing a label or comma. Please identify which curve corresponds to which amplitude.
  3. [Sec. 5, Eqs. (5.1)–(5.2)] The extra factor exp(-0.25/k^2) suppresses k≲0.5 Mpc^-1 but is not motivated in the text. Please explain or remove it.
  4. [Sec. 5, Fig. 6] The statement that the linear damped case with α=0.5 'may be ruled out' is not supported by a quantitative likelihood, since the analysis fixes f_*,10 and α_* and does not include parameter uncertainties. Please phrase this as an illustrative forecast rather than a constraint.
  5. [Throughout] There are typographical errors, e.g., 'Throughtout' in Sec. 1 and 'oscilations' in Sec. 5. A thorough proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Headline A_I ~ 1e-9 limit coincides with the lower edge of the chosen flat prior; the central 'strongest constraint' is partly a prior-boundary artifact.

specific steps
  1. other [Sec. 4 (priors, Fig. 4) and Sec. 6 (conclusion)]
    "We choose flat prior on f∗,10 ∈ [0.05,0.2], α∗ ∈ [0.2,0.6] and A_I ∈ [10^-9,10^-6] ... The strongest constraint corresponds to A_I ∼ 10^-9 for k_peak ∈ [1−5] Mpc^-1."

    The paper first fits A_I = 0 and finds the standard model consistent with the data (best-fit f*,10 = 0.094, alpha* = 0.39). The posterior for A_I should therefore favor the smallest allowed amplitudes. With the flat prior truncated at A_I = 10^-9, any 95% upper limit in the most sensitive k-range is forced to be at least this prior edge. Quoting A_I ~ 10^-9 as the strongest constraint reports the lower bound of the input prior as if it were a data-driven upper limit; in this range the claimed 'constraint' is set by construction, not by the UVLF data.

full rationale

The derivation chain from UVLF data to matter power spectrum via the halo model and the bump parameterization is otherwise self-contained: the halo mass function (Jenkins), transfer function (CLASS), and Planck cosmological parameters are external, and the astrophysical parameters f*,10 and alpha* are marginalized in the full MCMC rather than fixed from the A_I=0 fit. The comparison to tau_Planck constraints cites [63], an external group, so there is no load-bearing self-citation. The paper also honestly states limitations about redshift evolution of f* and the exclusion of z>9 JWST data; these are model-dependence concerns, not circularity. The single substantive issue is that the headline 'strongest constraint A_I ~ 1e-9' exactly coincides with the lower edge of the chosen flat prior, and since A_I=0 is consistent with the data, this value is expected to be a prior-truncation artifact rather than a measured limit. This makes the central quantitative claim partially equivalent to an input of the analysis.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a two-step chain: (1) the bump model's f_1 parameterization from the cited particle-production literature; (2) the astrophysical mapping from matter power spectrum to UVLF, which contributes two fitted parameters (f_*,10, α_*) plus fixed calibrations (K_UV, halo-occupation, timescale). No new particles or entities are introduced. The oscillatory model in Sec. 5 carries additional hand-fixed parameters.

free parameters (5)
  • f_*,10 = 0.094 (+0.036/-0.044) at 1σ (standard case)
    Normalization of star formation efficiency; fitted to UVLF data via MCMC. Central to mapping halo mass to UV luminosity.
  • α_* = 0.39 (+0.15/-0.22) at 1σ (standard case)
    Power-law index of star formation efficiency vs halo mass; fitted to UVLF data. Changes the shape of the luminosity–halo mass relation.
  • A_I (bump amplitude) = Upper limit; prior [1e-9, 1e-6]
    Amplitude of the bump-like feature; the target parameter constrained by UVLF data. The claimed strongest limit (A_I~1e-9) coincides with the prior lower bound.
  • K_UV = 1.15485e-28 M_sun yr^-1/(erg s^-1 Hz^-1)
    Fixed conversion from SFR to 1500Å UV luminosity, calibrated at low redshift and assumed universal; not fitted in this work but load-bearing.
  • Oscillatory model parameters = α=0.5, log10ω=1 (linear) or 0.5 (log), β=5, μ=0.01, k'=50 Mpc^-1, φ=0
    Hand-fixed parameters in Sec. 5, motivated by [78]; no MCMC exploration. Also an ad hoc damping factor e^{-0.25/k^2} is introduced.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Each dark matter halo hosts exactly one galaxy at z≥6.
    Sec. 2 states 'we assume that each dark matter halo hosts one galaxy, similar to the modelling done in [39,40].' If multiple galaxies per massive halo are common, the UVLF prediction changes.
  • domain assumption Star formation timescale equals the Hubble time: t_* = 1/H(z).
    Eq. (2.3). An O(1) factor is said to be absorbable into f_*,10, but any redshift-dependent factor would change the mapping.
  • domain assumption Star formation efficiency follows a single power law in halo mass with no redshift evolution.
    Eqs. (2.1)–(2.2). The paper excludes z>9 data because evolution is needed; the assumption that f_* is constant over z=6–9 is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption UV luminosity at 1500Å traces SFR linearly with constant K_UV.
    Eq. (2.5). Calibrated at low redshift with Salpeter IMF; dust and IMF variations are ignored.
  • domain assumption Jenkins et al. fitting function for the halo mass function is accurate at z=6–9.
    Eq. (2.9) uses the Jenkins et al. [72] fit; more recent mass functions may differ at high-z and affect the UVLF prediction.
  • domain assumption Matter transfer function from CLASS with Planck 2018 best-fit cosmology.
    Sec. 3: 'T(k) is the matter transfer function computed using CLASS.' Assumes standard ΛCDM background and linear transfer.
  • standard math Bump profile f_1(x) = [sin x - Si(x)]^2 / x^3 peaks at k_peak = 3.35 k_i.
    Eq. (3.3), adopted from refs [59,63]. This specific functional form is the model being constrained, not derived here.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12520 in / 13988 out tokens · 125770 ms · 2026-08-02T20:07:19.838249+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We use the galaxy ultraviolet luminosity function measurements at $z=4-8$ to constrain modification to standard inflationary power spectrum. These observables are sensitive to the matter power spectrum which itself depends on inflationary initial conditions. We consider a specific model where a bump feature is introduced to the standard power law inflation spectrum. We find that the galaxy luminosity observables can probe such modifications at wavenumbers $0.5\lesssim k \lesssim 50$ Mpc$^{-1}$. We obtain upper limits on the amplitude of bump-like features at the mentioned wavenumbers. We obtain constraints which are similar to previous constraints on these models using measurements of optical depth of reionization. However, the galaxy luminosity functions are a more direct probe for these type of models and, therefore, can complement indirect constraints coming from measurements of IGM properties.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 67 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Barkana and A

    R. Barkana and A. Loeb. In the beginning: the first sources of light and the reionization of the universe. Physics Reports, 349(2):125–238, July 2001.arXiv:astro-ph/0010468,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  2. [2]

    Michael Boylan-Kolchin, V olker Springel, Simon D. M. White, Adrian Jenkins, and Gerard Lemson. Resolving cosmic structure formation with the Millennium-II Simulation. MNRAS, 398(3):1150–1164, September 2009.arXiv:0903.3041,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  3. [3]

    21CMFAST: a fast, seminumerical simulation of the high-redshift 21-cm signal

    Andrei Mesinger, Steven Furlanetto, and Renyue Cen. 21CMFAST: a fast, seminumerical simulation of the high-redshift 21-cm signal. MNRAS, 411(2):955–972, February 2011.arXiv:1003.3878,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  4. [4]

    Introducing the Illustris Project: simulating the coevolution of dark and visible matter in the Universe

    Mark V ogelsberger, Shy Genel, V olker Springel, Paul Torrey, Debora Sijacki, Dandan Xu, Greg Snyder, Dylan Nelson, and Lars Hernquist. Introducing the Illustris Project: simulating the coevolution of dark and visible matter in the Universe. MNRAS, 444(2):1518–1547, October 2014.arXiv:1405.2921, [DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    Crain, Richard G

    Joop Schaye, Robert A. Crain, Richard G. Bower, Michelle Furlong, Matthieu Schaller, Tom Theuns, Claudio Dalla Vecchia, Carlos S. Frenk, I. G. McCarthy, John C. Helly, Adrian Jenkins, Y . M. Rosas-Guevara, Simon D. M. White, Maarten Baes, C. M. Booth, Peter Camps, Julio F. Navarro, Yan Qu, Alireza Rahmati, Till Sawala, Peter A. Thomas, and James Trayford....

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  6. [6]

    Early galaxy formation and its large-scale effects

    Pratika Dayal and Andrea Ferrara. Early galaxy formation and its large-scale effects. Physics Reports, 780:1–64, December 2018.arXiv:1809.09136,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [8]

    Probing the thermal history during reionization using a seminumerical photon-conserving code SCRIPT

    Barun Maity and Tirthankar Roy Choudhury. Probing the thermal history during reionization using a seminumerical photon-conserving code SCRIPT. MNRAS, 511(2):2239–2258, April 2022. arXiv:2110.14231,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [9]

    Komatsu, K

    E. Komatsu, K. M. Smith, J. Dunkley, C. L. Bennett, B. Gold, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, D. Larson, M. R. Nolta, L. Page, D. N. Spergel, M. Halpern, R. S. Hill, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, N. Odegard, G. S. Tucker, J. L. Weiland, E. Wollack, and E. L. Wright. Seven-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Interpretation...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  9. [10]

    Planck 2018 results

    Planck Collaboration et al. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. A&A, 641:A6, September 2020.arXiv:1807.06209,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [11]

    The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 power spectra, likelihoods andΛCDM parameters

    The Atacama Cosmology Telescope collaboration. The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 power spectra, likelihoods andΛCDM parameters. JCAP, 2025(11):062, November 2025. arXiv:2503.14452,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [12]

    SPT-3G D1: CMB temperature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observations of the SPT-3G Main field

    SPT collaboration. SPT-3G D1: CMB temperature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observations of the SPT-3G Main field. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2506.20707, June 2025.arXiv:2506.20707,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  12. [13]

    Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory

    Alam et al (eBOSS). Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory. Phys.Rev.D, 103(8):083533, April 2021.arXiv:2007.08991,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [14]

    Novell-Masot, H

    S. Novell-Masot, H. Gil-Mar ´ın, L. Verde, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Bailey, S. BenZvi, D. Bianchi, D. Brooks, E. Buckley-Geer, A. Carnero Rosell, E. Chaussidon, T. Claybaugh, S. Cole, A. Cuceu, K. S. Dawson, A. de la Macorra, R. Demina, A. Dey, B. Dey, P. Doel, S. Ferraro, A. Font-Ribera, J. E. Forero-Romero, E. Gazta˜naga, S. Gontcho A Gontcho, A. X. Gon...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [15]

    R. J. Bouwens, G. D. Illingworth, P. A. Oesch, M. Trenti, I. Labb ´e, L. Bradley, M. Carollo, P. G. van Dokkum, V . Gonzalez, B. Holwerda, M. Franx, L. Spitler, R. Smit, and D. Magee. UV Luminosity Functions at Redshifts z∼4 to z∼10: 10,000 Galaxies from HST Legacy Fields. ApJ, 803(1):34, April 2015.arXiv:1403.4295,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  15. [16]

    The extreme faint end of the UV luminosity function at z∼6 through gravitational telescopes: a comprehensive assessment of strong lensing uncertainties

    Hakim Atek, Johan Richard, Jean-Paul Kneib, and Daniel Schaerer. The extreme faint end of the UV luminosity function at z∼6 through gravitational telescopes: a comprehensive assessment of strong lensing uncertainties. MNRAS, 479(4):5184–5195, October 2018.arXiv:1803.09747,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  16. [17]

    R. J. Bouwens, P. A. Oesch, M. Stefanon, G. Illingworth, I. Labb ´e, N. Reddy, H. Atek, M. Montes, R. Naidu, T. Nanayakkara, E. Nelson, and S. Wilkins. New Determinations of the UV Luminosity Functions from z∼9 to 2 Show a Remarkable Consistency with Halo Growth and a Constant Star Formation Efficiency. AJ, 162(2):47, August 2021.arXiv:2102.07775,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [18]

    C. T. Donnan, D. J. McLeod, J. S. Dunlop, R. J. McLure, A. C. Carnall, R. Begley, F. Cullen, M. L. Hamadouche, R. A. A. Bowler, D. Magee, H. J. McCracken, B. Milvang-Jensen, A. Moneti, and T. Targett. The evolution of the galaxy UV luminosity function at redshifts z∼8-15 from deep JWST and ground-based near-infrared imaging. MNRAS, 518(4):6011–6040, Febru...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [19]

    A Comprehensive Study of Galaxies at z∼9-16 Found in the Early JWST Data: Ultraviolet Luminosity Functions and Cosmic Star Formation History at the Pre-reionization Epoch

    Yuichi Harikane, Masami Ouchi, Masamune Oguri, Yoshiaki Ono, Kimihiko Nakajima, Yuki Isobe, Hiroya Umeda, Ken Mawatari, and Yechi Zhang. A Comprehensive Study of Galaxies at z∼9-16 Found in the Early JWST Data: Ultraviolet Luminosity Functions and Cosmic Star Formation History at the Pre-reionization Epoch. ApJS, 265(1):5, March 2023.arXiv:2208.01612,[DOI...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [20]

    Bouwens, Mauro Stefanon, Gabriel Brammer, Pascal A

    Rychard J. Bouwens, Mauro Stefanon, Gabriel Brammer, Pascal A. Oesch, Thomas Herard-Demanche, Garth D. Illingworth, Jorryt Matthee, Rohan P. Naidu, Pieter G. van Dokkum, and Ivana F. van Leeuwen. Evolution of the UV LF from z∼15 to z∼8 using new JWST NIRCam medium-band observations over the HUDF/XDF. MNRAS, 523(1):1036–1055, July 2023.arXiv:2211.02607,[DO...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [21]

    D. J. McLeod, C. T. Donnan, R. J. McLure, J. S. Dunlop, D. Magee, R. Begley, A. C. Carnall, F. Cullen, R. S. Ellis, M. L. Hamadouche, and T. M. Stanton. The galaxy UV luminosity function at z∼11 from a suite of public JWST ERS, ERO, and Cycle-1 programs. MNRAS, 527(3):5004–5022, January 2024. arXiv:2304.14469,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [22]

    Wechsler, Andrew Hearin, Christina C

    Peter Behroozi, Charlie Conroy, Risa H. Wechsler, Andrew Hearin, Christina C. Williams, Benjamin P. Moster, L. Y . Aaron Yung, Rachel S. Somerville, Stefan Gottl¨ober, Gustavo Yepes, and Ryan Endsley. The Universe at z ¿ 10: predictions for JWST from the UNIVERSEMACHINE DR1. MNRAS, 499(4):5702–5718, December 2020.arXiv:2007.04988,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  22. [23]

    High-redshift JWST predictions from IllustrisTNG: dust modelling and galaxy luminosity functions

    Mark V ogelsberger, Dylan Nelson, Annalisa Pillepich, Xuejian Shen, Federico Marinacci, V olker Springel, R¨udiger Pakmor, Sandro Tacchella, Rainer Weinberger, Paul Torrey, and Lars Hernquist. High-redshift JWST predictions from IllustrisTNG: dust modelling and galaxy luminosity functions. MNRAS, 492(4):5167–5201, March 2020.arXiv:1904.07238,[DOI], [ADS]

    arXiv 2020

  23. [24]

    Rahul Kannan, V olker Springel, Lars Hernquist, R¨udiger Pakmor, Ana Maria Delgado, Boryana Hadzhiyska, C´esar Hern´andez-Aguayo, Monica Barrera, Fulvio Ferlito, Sownak Bose, Simon D. M. White, Carlos Frenk, Aaron Smith, and Enrico Garaldi. The MillenniumTNG project: the galaxy population at z≥8. MNRAS, 524(2):2594–2605, September 2023.arXiv:2210.10066,[D...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [25]

    Lovell, Ian Harrison, Yuichi Harikane, Sandro Tacchella, and Stephen M

    Christopher C. Lovell, Ian Harrison, Yuichi Harikane, Sandro Tacchella, and Stephen M. Wilkins. Extreme value statistics of the halo and stellar mass distributions at high redshift: are JWST results in tension withΛCDM? MNRAS, 518(2):2511–2520, January 2023.arXiv:2208.10479,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [26]

    Furlanetto

    Jordan Mirocha and Steven R. Furlanetto. Balancing the efficiency and stochasticity of star formation with dust extinction in z≳10 galaxies observed by JWST. MNRAS, 519(1):843–853, February 2023. arXiv:2208.12826,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [27]

    Mason, Michele Trenti, and Tommaso Treu

    Charlotte A. Mason, Michele Trenti, and Tommaso Treu. The brightest galaxies at cosmic dawn. MNRAS, 521(1):497–503, May 2023.arXiv:2207.14808,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [28]

    Stress testingΛCDM with high-redshift galaxy candidates

    Michael Boylan-Kolchin. Stress testingΛCDM with high-redshift galaxy candidates. Nature Astronomy, 7:731–735, June 2023.arXiv:2208.01611,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [29]

    Alleviating the Need for Exponential Evolution of JWST Galaxies in 1010 M⊙ Haloes at z ¿ 10 by a ModifiedΛCDM Power Spectrum

    Hamsa Padmanabhan and Abraham Loeb. Alleviating the Need for Exponential Evolution of JWST Galaxies in 1010 M⊙ Haloes at z ¿ 10 by a ModifiedΛCDM Power Spectrum. ApJL, 953(1):L4, August 2023.arXiv:2306.04684,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [30]

    Primordial power spectrum in light of JWST observations of high redshift galaxies

    Priyank Parashari and Ranjan Laha. Primordial power spectrum in light of JWST observations of high redshift galaxies. MNRAS, 526(1):L63–L69, November 2023.arXiv:2305.00999,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [31]

    Sarkar, Yuval Birnboim, Nir Mandelker, and Zhaozhou Li

    Avishai Dekel, Kartick C. Sarkar, Yuval Birnboim, Nir Mandelker, and Zhaozhou Li. Efficient formation of massive galaxies at cosmic dawn by feedback-free starbursts. MNRAS, 523(3):3201–3218, August 2023.arXiv:2303.04827,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [32]

    JWST high-redshift galaxy constraints on warm and cold dark matter models

    Umberto Maio and Matteo Viel. JWST high-redshift galaxy constraints on warm and cold dark matter models. A&A, 672:A71, April 2023.arXiv:2211.03620,[DOI], [ADS]. – 12 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [33]

    Accelerating Early Massive Galaxy Formation with Primordial Black Holes

    Boyuan Liu and V olker Bromm. Accelerating Early Massive Galaxy Formation with Primordial Black Holes. ApJL, 937(2):L30, October 2022.arXiv:2208.13178,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [34]

    High-redshift JWST Observations and Primordial Non-Gaussianity

    Matteo Biagetti, Gabriele Franciolini, and Antonio Riotto. High-redshift JWST Observations and Primordial Non-Gaussianity. ApJ, 944(2):113, February 2023.arXiv:2210.04812,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [35]

    Did JWST observe imprints of axion miniclusters or primordial black holes? Phys.Rev.D, 107(4):043502, February 2023

    Gert H ¨utsi, Martti Raidal, Juan Urrutia, Ville Vaskonen, and Hardi Veerm¨ae. Did JWST observe imprints of axion miniclusters or primordial black holes? Phys.Rev.D, 107(4):043502, February 2023. arXiv:2211.02651,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [36]

    Fuzzy Dark Matter as a Solution to Reconcile the Stellar Mass Density of High-z Massive Galaxies and Reionization History

    Yan Gong, Bin Yue, Ye Cao, and Xuelei Chen. Fuzzy Dark Matter as a Solution to Reconcile the Stellar Mass Density of High-z Massive Galaxies and Reionization History. ApJ, 947(1):28, April 2023. arXiv:2209.13757,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [37]

    The impact of UV variability on the abundance of bright galaxies at z≥9

    Xuejian Shen, Mark V ogelsberger, Michael Boylan-Kolchin, Sandro Tacchella, and Rahul Kannan. The impact of UV variability on the abundance of bright galaxies at z≥9. MNRAS, 525(3):3254–3261, November 2023.arXiv:2305.05679,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [38]

    The Star Formation Efficiency during Reionization as Inferred from the Hubble Frontier Fields

    Jackson Sipple and Adam Lidz. The Star Formation Efficiency during Reionization as Inferred from the Hubble Frontier Fields. ApJ, 961(1):50, January 2024.arXiv:2306.12087,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [39]

    Modelling the star-formation activity and ionizing properties of high-redshift galaxies

    Anirban Chakraborty and Tirthankar Roy Choudhury. Modelling the star-formation activity and ionizing properties of high-redshift galaxies. JCAP, 2024(7):078, July 2024.arXiv:2404.02879,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [40]

    Jiten Dhandha, Anastasia Fialkov, Thomas Gessey-Jones, Harry T. J. Bevins, Sandro Tacchella, Simon Pochinda, Eloy de Lera Acedo, Saurabh Singh, and Rennan Barkana. Exploiting synergies between JWST and cosmic 21-cm observations to uncover star formation in the early Universe. MNRAS, 542(3):2292–2322, September 2025.arXiv:2503.21687,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [41]

    Pratika Dayal and Sambit K. Giri. Warm dark matter constraints from the JWST. MNRAS, 528(2):2784–2789, February 2024.arXiv:2303.14239,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [42]

    Kovetz, Kimberly K

    Hovav Lazare, Ely D. Kovetz, Kimberly K. Boddy, and Julian B. Munoz. First galaxy ultraviolet luminosity function limits on dark matter-proton scattering. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2510.10757, October 2025.arXiv:2510.10757,[DOI], [ADS]

    arXiv 2025

  42. [43]

    Dark Secrets of Baryons: Illuminating Dark Matter-Baryon Interactions with JWST

    Souradeep Das, Ranjini Mondol, Abhijeet Singh, and Ranjan Laha. Dark Secrets of Baryons: Illuminating Dark Matter-Baryon Interactions with JWST. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2511.02906, November 2025.arXiv:2511.02906,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [44]

    Constraining Dark Acoustic Oscillations with the High-Redshift UV Luminosity Function

    Jared Barron, David Curtin, Hongwan Liu, Julian Munoz, and Sandip Roy. Constraining Dark Acoustic Oscillations with the High-Redshift UV Luminosity Function. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2512.01998, December 2025.arXiv:2512.01998,[DOI], [ADS]

    arXiv 2025

  44. [45]

    Mu˜noz, and Bryce Cyr

    Matt ´eo Blamart, Adrian Liu, Robert Brandenberger, Julian B. Mu˜noz, and Bryce Cyr. UV Luminosity Functions from HST and JWST: A Possible Resolution to the High-Redshift Galaxy Abundance Puzzle and Implications for Cosmic Strings. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2512.09980, December 2025. arXiv:2512.09980,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [46]

    Alan H. Guth. Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems. Phys.Rev.D, 23(2):347–356, January 1981.[DOI], [ADS]

    1981

  46. [47]

    A. D. Linde. A new inflationary universe scenario: A possible solution of the horizon, flatness, – 13 – homogeneity, isotropy and primordial monopole problems. Physics Letters B, 108(6):389–393, February 1982.[DOI], [ADS]

    1982

  47. [48]

    A. A. Starobinsky. A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity. Physics Letters B, 91(1):99–102, March 1980.[DOI], [ADS]

    1980

  48. [49]

    Albrecht and P

    A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt. Cosmology for Grand Unified Theories with Radiatively Induced Symmetry Breaking. Phys.Rev.Lett, 48(17):1220–1223, April 1982.[DOI], [ADS]

    1982

  49. [50]

    Particle production during inflation: Observational constraints and signatures

    Neil Barnaby and Zhiqi Huang. Particle production during inflation: Observational constraints and signatures. Phys.Rev.D, 80(12):126018, December 2009.arXiv:0909.0751,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  50. [51]

    Sriramkumar, and Tarun Souradeep

    Rajeev Kumar Jain, Pravabati Chingangbam, Jinn-Ouk Gong, L. Sriramkumar, and Tarun Souradeep. Punctuated inflation and the low CMB multipoles. JCAP, 2009(1):009, January 2009. arXiv:0809.3915,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  51. [52]

    Starobinsky

    Minu Joy, Arman Shafieloo, Varun Sahni, and Alexei A. Starobinsky. Is a step in the primordial spectral index favoured by CMB data? JCAP, 2009(6):028, June 2009.arXiv:0807.3334,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  52. [53]

    Sriramkumar, and Tarun Souradeep

    Dhiraj Kumar Hazra, Moumita Aich, Rajeev Kumar Jain, L. Sriramkumar, and Tarun Souradeep. Primordial features due to a step in the inflaton potential. JCAP, 2010(10):008, October 2010. arXiv:1005.2175,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  53. [54]

    Warp features in DBI inflation

    Vin ´ıcius Miranda, Wayne Hu, and Peter Adshead. Warp features in DBI inflation. Phys.Rev.D, 86(6):063529, September 2012.arXiv:1207.2186,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  54. [55]

    Jens Chluba, Jan Hamann, and Subodh P. Patil. Features and new physical scales in primordial observables: Theory and observation. International Journal of Modern Physics D, 24(10):1530023, June 2015.arXiv:1505.01834,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  55. [56]

    Daniel J. H. Chung, Edward W. Kolb, Antonio Riotto, and Igor I. Tkachev. Probing Planckian physics: Resonant production of particles during inflation and features in the primordial power spectrum. Phys.Rev.D, 62(4):043508, August 2000.arXiv:hep-ph/9910437,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  56. [57]

    Cosmological fluctuations from infrared cascading during inflation

    Neil Barnaby, Zhiqi Huang, Lev Kofman, and Dmitry Pogosyan. Cosmological fluctuations from infrared cascading during inflation. Phys.Rev.D, 80(4):043501, August 2009.arXiv:0902.0615, [DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  57. [58]

    Excursions through KK modes

    Kazuyuki Furuuchi. Excursions through KK modes. JCAP, 2016(7):008, July 2016. arXiv:1512.04684,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  58. [59]

    Resonant particle production during inflation: a full analytical study

    Lauren Pearce, Marco Peloso, and Lorenzo Sorbo. Resonant particle production during inflation: a full analytical study. JCAP, 2017(5):054, May 2017.arXiv:1702.07661,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  59. [60]

    Large field excursions from dimensional (de)construction

    Kazuyuki Furuuchi, Suvedha Suresh Naik, and Noel Jonathan Jobu. Large field excursions from dimensional (de)construction. JCAP, 2020(6):054, June 2020.arXiv:2001.06518,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  60. [61]

    Particle production during inflation: a Bayesian analysis with CMB data from Planck 2018

    Suvedha Suresh Naik, Kazuyuki Furuuchi, and Pravabati Chingangbam. Particle production during inflation: a Bayesian analysis with CMB data from Planck 2018. JCAP, 2022(7):016, July 2022. arXiv:2202.05862,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  61. [62]

    New constraints on primordial features from the galaxy two-point correlation function

    Mario Ballardini, Fabio Finelli, Federico Marulli, Lauro Moscardini, and Alfonso Veropalumbo. New constraints on primordial features from the galaxy two-point correlation function. Phys.Rev.D, 107(4):043532, February 2023.arXiv:2202.08819,[DOI], [ADS]. – 14 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  62. [63]

    Global 21 cm signal: a promising probe of primordial features

    Suvedha Suresh Naik, Pravabati Chingangbam, Saurabh Singh, Andrei Mesinger, and Kazuyuki Furuuchi. Global 21 cm signal: a promising probe of primordial features. JCAP, 2025(5):038, May 2025.arXiv:2501.02538,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [64]

    Minkowski Functionals of the 21 cm Signal as a Probe of Primordial Features

    Kanan Virkar, Suvedha Suresh Naik, and Pravabati Chingangbam. Minkowski Functionals of the 21 cm Signal as a Probe of Primordial Features. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2601.19450, January 2026. arXiv:2601.19450,[DOI], [ADS]

    arXiv 2026

  64. [65]

    Analytic model for galaxy and dark matter clustering

    Uro ˇs Seljak. Analytic model for galaxy and dark matter clustering. MNRAS, 318(1):203–213, October 2000.arXiv:astro-ph/0001493,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  65. [66]

    J. A. Peacock and R. E. Smith. Halo occupation numbers and galaxy bias. MNRAS, 318(4):1144–1156, November 2000.arXiv:astro-ph/0005010,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  66. [67]

    Dunlop, and Fabio Pacucci

    Pratika Dayal, Andrea Ferrara, James S. Dunlop, and Fabio Pacucci. Essential physics of early galaxy formation. MNRAS, 445(3):2545–2557, December 2014.arXiv:1405.4862,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  67. [68]

    Inferring the astrophysics of reionization and cosmic dawn from galaxy luminosity functions and the 21-cm signal

    Jaehong Park, Andrei Mesinger, Bradley Greig, and Nicolas Gillet. Inferring the astrophysics of reionization and cosmic dawn from galaxy luminosity functions and the 21-cm signal. MNRAS, 484(1):933–949, March 2019.arXiv:1809.08995,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  68. [69]

    Behroozi and Joseph Silk

    Peter S. Behroozi and Joseph Silk. A Simple Technique for Predicting High-redshift Galaxy Evolution. ApJ, 799(1):32, January 2015.arXiv:1404.5299,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  69. [70]

    Cosmic Star-Formation History

    Piero Madau and Mark Dickinson. Cosmic Star-Formation History. ARA&A, 52:415–486, August 2014.arXiv:1403.0007,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  70. [71]

    Press and Paul Schechter

    William H. Press and Paul Schechter. Formation of Galaxies and Clusters of Galaxies by Self-Similar Gravitational Condensation. ApJ, 187:425–438, February 1974.[DOI], [ADS]

    1974

  71. [72]

    Jenkins, C

    A. Jenkins, C. S. Frenk, S. D. M. White, J. M. Colberg, S. Cole, A. E. Evrard, H. M. P. Couchman, and N. Yoshida. The mass function of dark matter haloes. MNRAS, 321(2):372–384, February 2001. arXiv:astro-ph/0005260,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  72. [73]

    The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS)

    Diego Blas, Julien Lesgourgues, and Thomas Tram. The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS). Part II: Approximation schemes. JCAP, 2011(7):034, July 2011.arXiv:1104.2933,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  73. [74]

    Dependence of the spectra of fluctuations in inflationary cosmology on trans-Planckian physics

    J ´erˆome Martin and Robert Brandenberger. Dependence of the spectra of fluctuations in inflationary cosmology on trans-Planckian physics. Phys.Rev.D, 68(6):063513, September 2003. arXiv:hep-th/0305161,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  74. [75]

    Greene, William H

    Richard Easther, Brian R. Greene, William H. Kinney, and Gary Shiu. Imprints of short distance physics on inflationary cosmology. Phys.Rev.D, 67(6):063508, March 2003.arXiv:hep-th/0110226,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  75. [76]

    Xingang Chen, Richard Easther, and Eugene A. Lim. Generation and characterization of large non-Gaussianities in single field inflation. JCAP, 2008(4):010, April 2008.arXiv:0801.3295,[DOI], [ADS]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  76. [77]

    Oscillations in the CMB from axion monodromy inflation

    Raphael Flauger, Liam McAllister, Enrico Pajer, Alexander Westphal, and Gang Xu. Oscillations in the CMB from axion monodromy inflation. JCAP, 2010(6):009, June 2010.arXiv:0907.2916,[DOI], [ADS]. – 15 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  77. [78]

    A search for super-imposed oscillations to the primordial power spectrum in Planck and SPT-3G 2018 data

    Akhil Antony, Fabio Finelli, Dhiraj Kumar Hazra, Daniela Paoletti, and Arman Shafieloo. A search for super-imposed oscillations to the primordial power spectrum in Planck and SPT-3G 2018 data. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2403.19575, March 2024.arXiv:2403.19575,[DOI], [ADS]. – 16 –

    arXiv 2018