The EDGES measurement disfavors an excess radio background during the cosmic dawn

Andrei Mesinger; Daniela Breitman; Junsong Cang; Roberto Trotta; Steven G. Murray; YuXiang Qin

The EDGES measurement disfavors an excess radio background during the cosmic dawn

T0 review · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read When EDGES data are forward-modeled with a physical Pop III radio-background signal, flexible foregrounds and calibration residuals win the model comparison, and a non-standard 21cm absorption depth is decisively disfavored.

desk verdict A careful, methodologically important negative result on the EDGES radio-background explanation, but the headline claim is scoped to the paper's single family of calibration systematics; worth serious refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08134 v1 pith:MMY5PLTE submitted 2024-11-12 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Junsong Cang , Andrei Mesinger , Steven G. Murray , Daniela Breitman , Yuxiang Qin , Roberto Trotta This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA

keywords backgroundradiocosmicedgesmodelsignaldataexcess

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 EDGES experiment, a ground-based radio antenna, reported in 2018 a dip in the sky's radio brightness at frequencies corresponding to redshift around 17. The dip was about twice as deep as the standard cosmological prediction, and one popular explanation was that the early universe contained an extra radio glow produced by the first galaxies, which would make hydrogen absorb more CMB light.

Earlier tests of this idea generally did not use the raw EDGES data. They instead compared theoretical models to a fitted blob shape, the 'flattened Gaussian' curve that EDGES itself assumed when it measured the dip. This paper argues that shortcut is misleading. The authors built a new model in which the earliest, so-called Pop III galaxies are radio-loud but get switched off by ultraviolet feedback at later times, then used Bayesian statistics to fit this physical model, a foreground model, and calibration errors all together to the actual measured sky temperatures. They compared 14 variants that differed in how many foreground terms were allowed and whether calibration residuals were included.

The preferred model needs seven foreground terms and sinusoidal calibration residuals, and in that model the recovered cosmic 21cm signal has a standard depth: no excess radio background is required. Models that do produce a deep absorption trough either leave obvious structure in the residuals or are strongly penalized by the Bayesian evidence. An appendix shows that using the old flattened-Gaussian shortcut on the very same physical model would have produced the opposite, wrong, conclusion. The authors make their simulation code and emulator publicly available.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The load-bearing assertion is that 'the presence of a cosmic 21cm signal with a non-standard depth is decisively disfavored' by EDGES when a physical Pop III radio-background model is forward-modeled jointly with foregrounds and calibration residuals (Abstract; Sec. 8, Figs. 4-6). Concretely, the highest-evidence model, seven log-polynomial foreground terms plus damped-sinusoidal calibration residuals, has a T21(z=17) posterior of about -38 (+60, -170) mK, fully inside the standard range [-210, 30] mK (Fig. 5; Appendix D), and every model without calibration residuals is decisively disfavored, with the best such case at ln Z/Z_max = -65.4. If correct, the EDGES trough is absorbed by foregrounds and calibration systematics, and no excess cosmic radio background is required.

Load-bearing premise

The explored systematics space, a log-polynomial foreground family of order 4 to 10 (Eq. 32) plus a single power-law-damped sinusoid for calibration residuals (Eq. 33) with a period prior of 10-15 MHz (Table 1), is representative enough of the true EDGES instrumental errors that the noise-like residuals of the preferred model correctly mean 'no excess radio background.' If the real calibration errors have a different spectral shape, e.g. other periods or non-sinusoidal ripples, flexible systematics could absorb the trough and non-standard T21 models could survive. The authors concede this in Sec. 9: 'our results also depend on our specific model and associated prior volume for foregrounds and systematics... our conclusions could change.'

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Basically what you need to know: this paper builds a physical model of an excess radio background from Pop III galaxies, forward-models the EDGES sky temperature directly, and finds that the data disfavor a non-standard 21-cm depth once enough foreground terms and a damped-sinusoid calibration residual are included. That is a genuine and useful result, and it is the first time this has been done self-consistently in data space rather than through a flattened-Gaussian pseudo-likelihood.

The new physics is the replacement of the ad-hoc z_off cutoff of earlier work with LW-feedback sterilization of Pop III star formation, and the resulting radio background fades naturally at lower redshift, consistent with ARCADE2. The methodological centerpiece is Appendix A, where the same physical model, scored with the old pseudo-likelihood, recovers a non-standard trough; scoring it in data space reverses the conclusion. That control is a clean demonstration of the circularity they are diagnosing, and it should give pause to anyone using summary-statistic likelihoods for EDGES-like claims. The inference itself is careful: converged MultiNest runs, explicit priors, public code and emulator.

Soft spots, in proportion:

First, the systematics space is one damped sinusoid with period 10-15 MHz, plus log-polynomial foregrounds. A real calibration error with a different spectral shape, say a broader or non-sinusoidal ripple, is not tested. The authors concede in Sec. 9 that their conclusions could change with a different systematics basis. That does not undercut what they actually showed, but it does mean the title 'EDGES disfavors an excess radio background' overstates the scope: the data disfavor this model within this systematics family.

Second, the emulator error is not propagated. The paper claims it is orders of magnitude below observational uncertainty, but Table B.1 shows a 13% 68% C.I. on T21, which is not orders of magnitude below the ~20-25 mK noise level. For the highest-evidence model the posterior lower bound sits just 2 mK above the non-standard threshold, so this could matter for the tail. Likely minor given the enormous evidence ratios across models, but worth a check.

Third, the generalization in Sec. 9 to 'any physical model anchored on galaxy evolution' is an argument, not a proof; only the Pop III model is tested.

Who is this for? Anyone working on EDGES, global 21-cm experiments, or radio backgrounds at cosmic dawn. It deserves a serious referee. I'd send it to review, and ask the authors to scope the title, propagate or at least discuss emulator uncertainty, and ideally add a robustness test with a wider systematics basis before publication.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The analysis is a Bayesian model comparison over 14 models with 10-19 free parameters each. The five Pop III parameters (fR,III, LX,III, fesc,7, fstar,7, ALW) and the systematics parameters (foreground coefficients, calibration sinusoid, Gaussian noise sigma_T) are fitted to the data; the paper's central 'prediction' is an evidence ranking, not a parameter derivation. The model rests on the 21cmFAST/EoS-2021 astrophysical platform (inherited, with partly overlapping authorship) and on the SP20 systematics parameterization. The one place a model input is tied to a later constraint is the radio spectral index alpha_R = 0.62, fixed to match ARCADE2's spectral shape before ARCADE2 is used as a likelihood (Eqs. 26-27 vs Eq. 37). No genuinely new physical entities are invented; the radio-loud Pop III population is a speculative astrophysical component with an SKA-relevant power spectrum signature, and it is precisely the population the analysis finds disfavored.

free parameters (8)

fR,III = posterior upper limit log10 fR,III < 4.21 at 95% C.I. in highest-evidence model; prior log [-2, 6]
Radio luminosity-to-SFR efficiency of Pop III galaxies relative to local galaxies (Eq. 24). Fitted freely; extreme values (>= 10^2.7) would produce a non-standard trough, and EDGES disfavors them in the preferred model.
LX,III = prior log [33, 45]
Bolometric X-ray luminosity per SFR of Pop III galaxies (Eq. 19); controls epoch-of-heating timing and trough width.
fesc,7 = prior log [-6, -1]
Ionizing escape fraction for Pop III galaxies (Eq. 23); controls reionization timing and the rise of the global signal; low-evidence models push it toward the prior edge (10^-1) to mimic B18 timing.
fstar,7 = posterior upper limit log10 fstar,7 < -1.19 at 95% C.I. in highest-evidence model; prior log [-5, 0]
Star formation efficiency for Pop III halos (Eq. 9); scales the radio background and all radiation fields.
ALW = prior [0, 10] (linear)
Normalization of Lyman-Werner feedback on molecular-cooling halos (Eq. 15); sets how quickly Pop III star formation is quenched and the radio background turns off.
Foreground polynomial coefficients p0..p9 = priors in Table 1; active subset depends on N_FG = 4..10
Log-polynomial foreground amplitudes (Eq. 32). The Bayesian evidence ranking over N_FG, with the Occam penalty from these priors, is the core of the model comparison; N_FG = 7 is preferred.
Calibration residual parameters a0, a1, P = priors log [-10,2], log [-10,2], [10,15] MHz; A_cal about 51 mK in the highest-evidence model
Amplitude and period of the power-law-damped sinusoid (Eq. 33) modeling residual calibration gain errors; required to reach noise-like residuals.
sigma_T = prior log [-4,-1]
Gaussian noise level of the EDGES likelihood (Eq. 35), treated as a free parameter following SP20; residual RMS of the preferred model is 22.5 mK.

assumptions (8)

domain assumption The 21cmFAST/EoS-2021 astrophysical platform (conditional halo mass function, star formation recipes, X-ray/UV/LW radiation fields, excursion-set reionization, Eqs. 5-23) faithfully describes early galaxy formation and the IGM.
The signal model inherits the EoS 2021 calibration (Muñoz et al. 2022, overlapping authorship); Pop II parameters are fixed to that release, which was calibrated against Hubble UV luminosity functions and Planck tau_rei.
domain assumption Radio luminosity scales linearly with star formation rate (Eq. 24), extrapolated from low-redshift galaxies to Pop III galaxies with efficiency fR,III up to about 10^6 times local values.
The local radio-SFR relation (Condon et al. 2002) is extrapolated to a population never observed directly; the radio-loudness of the first galaxies is itself the hypothesis being tested.
ad hoc to paper The radio spectral index is fixed to alpha_R,s = 0.62 so that T_radio is proportional to nu^-2.62, 'in agreement with ARCADE2' (Sec. 3.2.4).
A model ingredient is anchored to the same ARCADE2 measurement later imposed as a one-sided likelihood (Eq. 37); this affects the amplitude-to-data mapping, though not the evidence ranking, since fR,III is free.
ad hoc to paper The SP20 damped-sinusoid parameterization (Eq. 33) with period prior 10-15 MHz adequately represents residual calibration errors in the EDGES data.
The systematic basis and priors are adopted from Sims & Pober 2020; the conclusion that residuals become noise-like depends on this basis, and the paper concedes results could change with a more physical systematics model (Sec. 9).
domain assumption The public EDGES calibrated sky-temperature data, as reduced by B18 and Murray et al. 2022 (Eq. 1: T_sky = T_FG + T_21), are correct inputs for the likelihood in Eq. 35.
The analysis reuses the binned, calibrated T_sky without re-processing raw antenna voltages; residual pipeline defects are instead absorbed by the free T_cal term.
domain assumption The one-sided Gaussian ARCADE2 likelihood with sigma_ARCADE2 = 0.1 T_ARCADE2 (Eqs. 37-39, Appendix C) adequately represents the upper limit on a cosmological radio excess.
The 10% width is derived from the 68% C.I. of a MultiNest refit of Fixsen et al. 2011 data; it is an approximation of the posterior of the excess level at 21cm frequencies.
standard math Flat priors over the 14 models and the Jeffreys/Kass-Raftery threshold ln(Bayes factor) > 4.6 for 'decisive' preference are the correct model-comparison framework (Sec. 7.2).
Standard Bayesian model selection; the Occam penalty from wide priors on high-order foreground coefficients drives the evidence peak at N_FG = 7.
domain assumption The 21cmEMU emulator predicts T21, T_radio, xH, tau_rei and Delta^2_21 accurately enough that emulator error is negligible inside the likelihood (Appendix B).
Mean fractional errors are 3.8% (T21), 3.7% (T_radio) and below 1% (xH, tau_rei), with 68% limits up to about 13%; for a 500 mK trough this is tens of mK, comparable to the fitted noise, so the 'orders of magnitude' claim in Sec. 7.1 appears overstated and emulator uncertainty is not propagated.

invented entities (1)

Radio-loud Pop III (molecular-cooling) galaxies with radio efficiency fR,III up to about 10^6 times local values independent evidence
purpose: Physical source of a putative excess radio background at z ~ 13-27 that would deepen the global 21cm absorption trough (Sec. 3, Eq. 24)
The population is a speculative astrophysical component, not a measured one; the paper provides a falsifiable handle outside its own inference: a >10x boost in the large-scale 21cm power spectrum during the epoch of heating (Fig. 2, bottom-left; Fig. 5), testable with SKA. The analysis nonetheless finds the EDGES data disfavor this population.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The EDGES measurement disfavors an excess radio background during the cosmic dawn." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MMY5PLTE

@misc{pith2026241108134,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The EDGES measurement disfavors an excess radio background during the cosmic dawn},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MMY5PLTE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08134}
}

abstract

In 2018 the EDGES experiment claimed the first detection of the global cosmic 21cm signal, which featured an absorption trough centered around $z \sim 17$ with a depth of approximately -500mK. This amplitude is deeper than the standard prediction (in which the radio background is determined by the cosmic microwave background) by a factor of two and potentially hints at the existence of a radio background excess. While this result was obtained by fitting the data with a phenomenological flattened-Gaussian shape for the cosmological signal, here we develop a physical model for the inhomogeneous radio background sourced by the first galaxies hosting population III stars. Star formation in these galaxies is quenched at lower redshifts due to various feedback mechanisms, so they serve as a natural candidate for the excess radio background hinted by EDGES, without violating present day measurements by ARCADE2. We forward-model the EDGES sky temperature data, jointly sampling our physical model for the cosmic signal, a foreground model, and residual calibration errors. We compare the Bayesian evidences obtained by varying the complexity and prior ranges for the systematics. We find that the data is best explained by a model with seven log-polynomial foreground terms, and that it requires calibration residuals. Interestingly, the presence of a cosmic 21cm signal with a non-standard depth is decisively disfavored. This is contrary to previous EDGES analysis in the context of extra radio background models, serving as a caution against using a ''pseudo-likelihood'' built on a model (flattened Gaussian) that is different from the one being used for inference. We make our simulation code and associated emulator publicly-available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08134 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Slices through the 𝑇radio (top), Pop III SFRD (middle) and 𝑇21 (bottom) lightcones for our illustrative model (see text for details). The simulation presented here has a box size of 5003 Mpc3 with a resolution of 2503 . In order to accentuate the cosmic dawn era, we plot the horizontal axes linearly in redshift (as opposed to linearly in comoving scale). cases, the large-scale power exhibits the usual three peak evo… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Summaries for the simulation shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The effects of varying Pop III galaxy parameters on the 21cm global signal (top) and power spectrum (bottom, at 𝑘 = 0.1Mpc−1 ). From left to right, we vary 𝑓R,III, LX,III, 𝑓esc,7, 𝑓★,7 and 𝐴LW, respectively. The black solid lines correspond to the fiducial values used to compute [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Bayesian log-evidence normalized to the highest evidence model, ln Z/Zmax, as a function of foreground flexibility 𝑁FG (squares in the left panel), 𝑇¯ 21 at 𝑧 = 17 (middle) and calibration amplitude 𝐴cal (right, defined as 𝐴cal ≡ √︃ 𝑎 2 0 + 𝑎 2 1 ). Models with 𝑁FG ≥ 9…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Marginalised posteriors from a subset of our inferences. From left to right, we show results for 𝑇¯ 21, 𝑇¯ radio, cumulative optical depth 𝜏rei(𝑧), Δ 2 21 at 𝑘 = 0.1Mpc−1 , residual (𝑇sky −𝑇¯ 21 −𝑇FG −𝑇cal), respectively. Each row corresponds to a different model, with…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: PDFs for 𝑇¯ 21 at 𝑧 = 17 from our highest evidence model. The black curve corresponds to our prior distribution, while the other curves correspond to posterior PDFs obtained using various likelihood terms as denoted in the legend. The gray shaded region marks the regim…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Improved upper limits on the 21-cm signal power spectrum at $z=17.0$ and $z=20.3$ from an optimal field observed with NenuFAR
astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

NenuFAR observations of the NT04 field set the deepest 21-cm power spectrum upper limits to date at z=20.3 and z=17.0, with the z=20.3 limit more than an order of magnitude deeper than any previous Cosmic Dawn limit.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....
[3]

Abdurashidova, Z. et al. 2022, Astrophys. J., 924, 51

2022
[4]

Adam, R. et al. 2016, Astron. Astrophys., 596, A108

2016
[5]

Aghanim, N. et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A6, [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

2021
[6]

2018, Nature, 555, 71

Barkana, R. 2018, Nature, 555, 71

2018
[7]

Barry, N., Bernardi, G., Greig, B., Kern, N., & Mertens, F. 2021, J. Astron. Telesc. Instrum. Syst., 8, 011007

2021
[8]

Berlin, A., Hooper, D., Krnjaic, G., & McDermott, S. D. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 011102

2018

Show all 110 references

[9]

Bevins, H. T. J., Fialkov, A., Acedo, E. d. L., et al. 2022, Nature Astron., 6, 1473

2022
[10]

J., Illingworth, G

Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2015 a , Astrophys. J., 811, 140

2015
[11]

Bouwens, R. J. et al. 2015 b , Astrophys. J., 803, 34

2015
[12]

D., Rogers, A

Bowman, J. D., Rogers, A. E., Monsalve, R. A., Mozdzen, T. J., & Mahesh, N. 2018 a , Nature, 564, E35

2018
[13]

D., Rogers, A

Bowman, J. D., Rogers, A. E. E., Monsalve, R. A., Mozdzen, T. J., & Mahesh, N. 2018 b , Nature, 555, 67

2018
[14]

G., et al

Breitman, D., Mesinger, A., Murray, S. G., et al. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 527, 9833, [Erratum: Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 533, 1045--1047 (2024)]

2024
[15]

2013, Rept

Bromm, V. 2013, Rept. Prog. Phys., 76, 112901

2013
[16]

& Larson, R

Bromm, V. & Larson, R. B. 2004, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 42, 79

2004
[17]

2014, Astron

Buchner, J., Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2014, Astron. Astrophys., 564, A125

2014
[18]

2023 [ [arXiv] 2312.17499 ]

Cang, J., Gao, Y., & Ma, Y.-Z. 2023 [ [arXiv] 2312.17499 ]

2023
[19]

2002, The Astronomical Journal, 124, 675

Condon, J., Cotton, W., & Broderick, J. 2002, The Astronomical Journal, 124, 675

2002
[20]

& Sheth, R

Cooray, A. & Sheth, R. K. 2002, Phys. Rept., 372, 1

2002
[21]

Das, A., Mesinger, A., Pallottini, A., Ferrara, A., & Wise, J. H. 2017, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 469, 1166

2017
[22]

O., et al

Datta, A., Bradley, R., Burns, J. O., et al. 2016, Astrophys. J., 831, 6

2016
[23]

de Lera Acedo, E. et al. 2022, Nature Astron., 6, 998

2022
[24]

& Taylor, G

Dowell, J. & Taylor, G. B. 2018, Astrophys. J. Lett., 858, L9

2018
[25]

2014, JCAP, 11, 024

Evoli, C., Mesinger, A., & Ferrara, A. 2014, JCAP, 11, 024

2014
[26]

2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 868, 63

Ewall-Wice, A., Chang, T.-C., Lazio, J., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 868, 63

2018
[27]

Ewall-Wice, A., Chang, T.-C., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 492, 6086

2020
[28]

2024, JCAP, 01, 005

Facchinetti, G., Lopez-Honorez, L., Qin, Y., & Mesinger, A. 2024, JCAP, 01, 005

2024
[29]

& Holder, G

Feng, C. & Holder, G. 2018, Astrophys. J. Lett., 858, L17

2018
[30]

P., & Bridges, M

Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., & Bridges, M. 2009, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 398, 1601

2009
[31]

& Barkana, R

Fialkov, A. & Barkana, R. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 486, 1763

2019
[32]

Fixsen, D. J. et al. 2011, Astrophys. J., 734, 5

2011
[33]

Fragos, T. et al. 2013, Astrophys. J., 764, 41

2013
[34]

& Briggs, F

Furlanetto, S. & Briggs, F. 2004, New Astron. Rev., 48, 1039

2004
[35]

2004, Astrophys

Furlanetto, S., Zaldarriaga, M., & Hernquist, L. 2004, Astrophys. J., 613, 1

2004
[36]

Gessey-Jones, T., Fialkov, A., Acedo, E. d. L., Handley, W. J., & Barkana, R. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 526, 4262

2023
[37]

Greenhill, L. J. & Bernardi, G. 2012 [ [arXiv] 1201.1700 ]

2012 arXiv
[38]

& Mesinger, A

Greig, B. & Mesinger, A. 2018, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 477, 3217

2018
[39]

J., Smith, D

G \"u rkan, G., Hardcastle, M. J., Smith, D. J., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 3010

2018
[40]

1981, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 100, 209

Haslam, C., Klein, U., Salter, C., et al. 1981, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 100, 209

1981
[41]

K., et al

Heesen, V., Brinks, E., Leroy, A. K., et al. 2014, Astron. J., 147, 103

2014
[42]

L., Woosley, S

Heger, A., Fryer, C. L., Woosley, S. E., Langer, N., & Hartmann, D. H. 2003, Astrophys. J., 591, 288

2003
[43]

J., Rapetti, D., Burns, J

Hibbard, J. J., Rapetti, D., Burns, J. O., Mahesh, N., & Bassett, N. 2023, Astrophys. J., 959, 103

2023
[44]

Hill, J. C. & Baxter, E. J. 2018, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2018, 037

2018
[45]

D., & Puchwein, E

Hills, R., Kulkarni, G., Meerburg, P. D., & Puchwein, E. 2018, Nature, 564, E32

2018
[46]

Hirata, C. M. 2006, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 367, 259

2006
[47]

Kass, R. E. & Raftery, A. E. 1995, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773

1995
[48]

A., Venumadhav, T., Dai, L., & Zaldarriaga, M

Kaurov, A. A., Venumadhav, T., Dai, L., & Zaldarriaga, M. 2018, Astrophys. J. Lett., 864, L15

2018
[49]

Kulkarni, M., Visbal, E., & Bryan, G. L. 2021, Astrophys. J., 917, 40

2021
[50]

Lacey, C. G. & Cole, S. 1993, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 262, 627

1993
[51]

D., Eufrasio, R

Lehmer, B. D., Eufrasio, R. T., Basu-Zych, A., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J., 907, 17

2021
[52]

2017, Mon

Leite, N., Evoli, C., D'Angelo, M., et al. 2017, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 469, 416

2017
[53]

2019 [ [arXiv] 1910.13970 ]

Lewis, A. 2019 [ [arXiv] 1910.13970 ]

2019 arXiv
[54]

Lopez-Honorez, L., Mena, O., Molin\'e, A., Palomares-Ruiz, S., & Vincent, A. C. 2016, JCAP, 08, 004

2016
[55]

E., Bryan, G

Machacek, M. E., Bryan, G. L., & Abel, T. 2001, Astrophys. J., 548, 509

2001
[56]

1999, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 140, 145

Maeda, K., Alvarez, H., Aparici, J., May, J., & Reich, P. 1999, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 140, 145

1999
[57]

D., Mozdzen, T

Mahesh, N., Bowman, J. D., Mozdzen, T. J., et al. 2021, Astron. J., 162, 38

2021
[58]

2015, Mon

McGreer, I., Mesinger, A., & D'Odorico, V. 2015, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 447, 499

2015
[59]

Mellema, G. et al. 2013, Exper. Astron., 36, 235

2013
[60]

2014, Mon

Mesinger, A., Ewall-Wice, A., & Hewitt, J. 2014, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 439, 3262

2014
[61]

2011, Mon

Mesinger, A., Furlanetto, S., & Cen, R. 2011, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 411, 955

2011
[62]

2014, Mon

Mirocha, J. 2014, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 443, 1211

2014
[63]

& Furlanetto, S

Mirocha, J. & Furlanetto, S. R. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 483, 1980

2019
[64]

A., Rogers, A

Monsalve, R. A., Rogers, A. E. E., Bowman, J. D., & Mozdzen, T. J. 2017, Astrophys. J., 835, 49

2017
[65]

Monsalve, R. A. et al. 2024, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 530, 4125

2024
[66]

Mu\ noz, J. B. & Loeb, A. 2018, Nature, 557, 684

2018
[67]

B., Qin, Y., Mesinger, A., et al

Mu\ noz, J. B., Qin, Y., Mesinger, A., et al. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 511, 3657

2022
[68]

Murray , S. G. 2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 850

2018
[69]

G., Bowman, J

Murray, S. G., Bowman, J. D., Sims, P. H., et al. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 517, 2264

2022
[70]

G., Greig, B., Mesinger, A., et al

Murray, S. G., Greig, B., Mesinger, A., et al. 2020, J. Open Source Softw., 5, 2582

2020
[71]

2020 [ [arXiv] 2003.08552 ]

Nasirudin, A., Murray, S., Trott, C., et al. 2020 [ [arXiv] 2003.08552 ]

2020 arXiv
[72]

A., Bouwens, R

Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Labbé, I., & Stefanon, M. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 855, 105

2018
[73]

2019, Mon

Park, J., Mesinger, A., Greig, B., & Gillet, N. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 484, 933

2019
[74]

2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.01703

Paszke , A., Gross , S., Massa , F., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.01703

2019 arXiv
[75]

Pritchard, J. R. & Furlanetto, S. R. 2007, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 376, 1680

2007
[76]

Pritchard, J. R. & Loeb, A. 2012, Rept. Prog. Phys., 75, 086901

2012
[77]

2021, Mon

Qin, Y., Mesinger, A., Greig, B., & Park, J. 2021, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 501, 4748

2021
[78]

Qin, Y., Mesinger, A., Park, J., Greig, B., & Mu\ noz, J. B. 2020 a , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 495, 123

2020
[79]

2020 b , Mon

Qin, Y., Poulin, V., Mesinger, A., et al. 2020 b , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 499, 550

2020
[80]

& Reich, W

Reich, P. & Reich, W. 1986, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series (ISSN 0365-0138), vol. 63, no. 2, Feb. 1986, p. 205-288., 63, 205

1986
[81]

2020, Mon

Reis, I., Fialkov, A., & Barkana, R. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 499, 5993

2020
[82]

S., Costain, C

Roger, R. S., Costain, C. H., Landecker, T. L., & Swerdlyk, C. M. 1999, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser., 137, 7

1999
[83]

2006, JHEP, 05, 002

Ruiz de Austri, R., Trotta, R., & Roszkowski, L. 2006, JHEP, 05, 002

2006
[84]

2011, Mon

Salvaterra, R., Ferrara, A., & Dayal, P. 2011, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 414, 847

2011
[85]

Schauer, A. T. P., Glover, S. C. O., Klessen, R. S., & Clark, P. 2021, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 507, 1775

2021
[86]

2018, Mon

Sharma, P. 2018, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 481, L6

2018
[87]

2021, Mon

Shen, E., Anstey, D., de Lera Acedo, E., Fialkov, A., & Handley, W. 2021, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 503, 344

2021
[88]

2024, Astrophys

Sikder, S., Barkana, R., & Fialkov, A. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 970, L25

2024
[89]

2023, Mon

Sikder, S., Barkana, R., Reis, I., & Fialkov, A. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 527, 9977

2023
[90]

H., Bowman, J

Sims, P. H., Bowman, J. D., Mahesh, N., et al. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 521, 3273

2023
[91]

Sims, P. H. & Pober, J. C. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 492, 22

2020
[92]

2022, Nature Astron., 6, 607

Singh, S., Nambissan T., J., Subrahmanyan, R., et al. 2022, Nature Astron., 6, 607

2022
[93]

& Subrahmanyan, R

Singh, S. & Subrahmanyan, R. 2019 [ [arXiv] 1903.04540 ]

2019 arXiv
[94]

U., et al

Singh, S., Subrahmanyan, R., Shankar, N. U., et al. 2018, Exper. Astron., 45, 269

2018
[95]

2004, AIP Conf

Skilling, J. 2004, AIP Conf. Proc., 735, 395

2004
[96]

& Mesinger, A

Sobacchi, E. & Mesinger, A. 2013, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 432, 3340

2013
[97]

& Mesinger, A

Sobacchi, E. & Mesinger, A. 2014, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 440, 1662

2014
[98]

Somerville, R. S. & Kolatt, T. S. 1999, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 305, 1

1999
[99]

W., Liu, H., Mu\ noz, J

Sun, Y., Foster, J. W., Liu, H., Mu\ noz, J. B., & Slatyer, T. R. 2023 [ [arXiv] 2312.11608 ]

2023 arXiv
[100]

Tauscher, K., Rapetti, D., & Burns, J. O. 2020, Astrophys. J., 897, 132

2020
[101]

J., et al

Tegmark, M., Silk, J., Rees, M. J., et al. 1997, Astrophys. J., 474, 1

1997
[102]

Tingay, S. J. et al. 2013, Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral., 30, 7

2013
[103]

2010, AIP Conf

Trenti, M. 2010, AIP Conf. Proc., 1294, 134

2010
[104]

2008, Contemporary Physics, 49, 71–104

Trotta, R. 2008, Contemporary Physics, 49, 71–104

2008
[105]

2013, Mon

Valdes, M., Evoli, C., Mesinger, A., Ferrara, A., & Yoshida, N. 2013, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 429, 1705

2013
[106]

van Haarlem, M. P. et al. 2013, Astron. Astrophys., 556, A2

2013
[107]

L., & Barkana, R

Visbal, E., Haiman, Z., Terrazas, B., Bryan, G. L., & Barkana, R. 2014, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 445, 107

2014
[108]

E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T

Woosley, S. E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T. A. 2002, Rev. Mod. Phys., 74, 1015

2002
[109]

2023, Phys

Zhang, Z., Yue, B., Xu, Y., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 083013

2023
[110]

2022, Mon

Ziparo, F., Gallerani, S., Ferrara, A., & Vito, F. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 517, 1086

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

[3] [3]

Abdurashidova, Z. et al. 2022, Astrophys. J., 924, 51

2022

[4] [4]

Adam, R. et al. 2016, Astron. Astrophys., 596, A108

2016

[5] [5]

Aghanim, N. et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A6, [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

2021

[6] [6]

2018, Nature, 555, 71

Barkana, R. 2018, Nature, 555, 71

2018

[7] [7]

Barry, N., Bernardi, G., Greig, B., Kern, N., & Mertens, F. 2021, J. Astron. Telesc. Instrum. Syst., 8, 011007

2021

[8] [8]

Berlin, A., Hooper, D., Krnjaic, G., & McDermott, S. D. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 011102

2018