Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 1 minor 90 references

Exploring HI Galaxy Redshift Survey Strategies for the FAST Core Array Interferometry

T0 review · 4 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that FAST's proposed Core Array interferometry keeps HI galaxy surveys dense enough for BAO constraints out to z ≈ 1, while the single-dish mode is limited to z ≈ 0.35 by shot noise.

desk verdict A plausible and potentially useful survey-strategy forecast for FAST vs its proposed Core Array, but the z~1/BAO claim rests on unstated inputs and the provided full text is unreadable. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.16234 v1 pith:O34FCN5O submitted 2025-08-22 astro-ph.CO

Zhenglong Li , Diyang Liu , Chengliang Xu , Yichao Li , Xin Zhang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords 21-cmHIgalaxysurveysFASTCoreArrayinterferometrysingle-dishversusinterferometersurveystrategiesshotnoisebaryonacousticoscillationsdriftscanandon-the-flyobservingsemi-analyticalsimulationcosmology
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 uses semi-analytical simulations to compare two ways of running an HI galaxy survey with FAST: the single-dish mode and the proposed Core Array interferometer. It claims the single-dish mode works only at low redshift (z ≲ 0.35) because shot noise destroys the sample at higher redshifts, whereas the Core Array's higher sensitivity and angular resolution retains enough galaxies out to z ≈ 1 to measure the 21-cm power spectrum and constrain baryon acoustic oscillations. The practical claim is that, if the Core Array is built as modeled, FAST becomes a high-redshift HI galaxy survey instrument rather than a low-redshift one. The choice between drift-scan and on-the-fly observing trades sky coverage against depth, and at the lowest redshifts cosmic variance, not detector sensitivity, dominates the error budget. This matters because a z ~ 1 HI galaxy survey would provide an independent, 21-cm-selected probe of large-scale structure and dark energy.

What carries the argument

The comparison machinery is a semi-analytical simulation of HI galaxies passed through two instrument models: FAST single-dish and FAST Core Array interferometry, each run in drift-scan and on-the-fly modes. The load-bearing outputs are the detected galaxy number density as a function of redshift, the shot-noise level in the 21-cm power spectrum, and the resulting BAO constraints. The Core Array's higher sensitivity and angular resolution is what relieves shot noise at high redshift, while the drift-scan versus on-the-fly distinction is the survey-strategy handle that trades sky area against integration depth.

What would settle it

Measure the actual noise and point-source sensitivity of the assembled Core Array, then run a deep targeted observation in a small patch at z ≈ 0.5–1 and count detections; if the observed number density falls below the simulated value at the survey's detection threshold, the 'sufficient number density' claim for BAO constraints is falsified. A null at z ≈ 1 despite the modeled sensitivity would directly undermine the headline result, while leaving the low-z single-dish survey unaffected.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the FAST Core Array interferometry makes HI galaxy redshift surveys viable to z ~ 1, whereas the FAST single-dish mode is limited to z ≲ 0.35. Using semi-analytical simulations, the paper compares galaxy number density, shot noise, and the resulting power-spectrum and BAO constraints across redshifts and observing modes. At z ~ 0.01–0.08 both configurations perform well and cosmic variance dominates; at z > 0.35 only the Core Array keeps a sufficient number density, and enlarging the survey area does little for the single dish because its problem is shot noise, not sky coverage. The paper therefore establishes the Core Array as the enabling mode for high-redshift HI

Load-bearing premise

The z ~ 1 claim rests on the assumed Core Array sensitivity and noise, plus the simulated abundance of HI galaxies at z = 0.1–1; if the real array is dimmer or high-redshift HI galaxies are rarer than modeled, the claimed number density and BAO feasibility fail even though the qualitative single-dish-versus-array ordering may survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the simulations are right, the Core Array, not the single dish, should be the default instrument for FAST surveys targeting HI galaxies at z > 0.35.
  • A z ~ 1 HI galaxy sample dense enough for power-spectrum measurement would let BAO and large-scale-structure constraints be drawn from 21-cm-selected galaxies, complementing optical surveys.
  • At z < 0.1, cosmic variance sets the error floor, so extra integration time or area buys little at those redshifts.
  • Drift-scanning gives wide sky coverage but is tied to Earth's rotation; on-the-fly mapping trades that for pointed deep fields, so the two strategies serve different survey goals.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I read the paper as motivating a split strategy it does not itself propose: a wide, shallow drift-scan for z ≲ 0.35 plus a deep on-the-fly Core Array field at z ~ 0.5–1 would cover both cosmology regimes efficiently with one instrument.
  • A direct observational test beyond the paper's simulations would be to run a small pathfinder field with the actual Core Array at z ~ 0.5–1, count HI detections, and compare with the simulated number density before committing to a full survey.
  • Because the high-redshift result leans on the modeled evolution of the HI mass function, recomputing the forecasts with pessimistic and optimistic envelopes of that evolution would show whether the 'sufficient number density' conclusion is robust even if the single-dish-versus-array ordering likely survives.
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

4 major / 1 minor

Summary. This paper uses semi-analytical simulations to compare the FAST single-dish mode and the proposed Core Array interferometry for HI galaxy redshift surveys in drift-scan (DS) and on-the-fly (OTF) modes. It reports that the single dish detects significant HI galaxies only at z ≲ 0.35 due to shot noise, while the Core Array should provide robust detections to z ∼ 1 and maintain a number density sufficient for power spectrum and BAO analyses. It also discusses cosmic variance at low z and survey-area/strategy trade-offs. However, in the submitted version the entire full text is rendered as unreadable mojibake, with one legible embedded line pointing to an unrelated arXiv identifier, so the quantitative basis for these claims cannot be checked.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are substantiated, the paper would be a valuable survey-strategy reference for FAST/Core Array, bridging single-dish and interferometric HI surveys for BAO cosmology. The comparative design—same simulated sky, two observing modes—is a meaningful, non-circular experiment, and the semi-analytical method is standard for such forecasts. However, the paper's central quantitative claims (z ∼ 1 detections, sufficient number density) are not supported in the accessible text and depend on unstated instrument and HIMF assumptions; the significance is therefore conditional until those inputs are documented and validated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Full text] The entire body of the manuscript is unreadable (mojibake); the only legible embedded line, 'arXiv:2508.16232v2 [eess.AS] 8 Nov 2025', is an unrelated paper identifier in a different category. As submitted, none of the equations, tables, or model specifications can be checked. This is a load-bearing presentation failure, not a typo. Please resubmit a correctly encoded readable text, and remove/replace the unrelated arXiv line.
  2. [Abstract] The central claims are quantified only by vague labels: 'significant HI detections at low redshifts (z ≲ 0.35)', 'robust HI galaxy detections up to z ∼ 1', and 'sufficient number density for power spectrum measurements and BAO constraints'. No detection S/N threshold, limiting flux or HI mass, number density n(z), or nP value is given in the abstract, and the body is unreadable. Specify the assumed Core Array sensitivity parameters (A_eff/T_sys, baselines, integration time, survey speed), the resulting n(z) at z ~ 1, and the S/N criterion used for 'robust'.
  3. [Abstract/Results] 'Sufficient number density' is a threshold judgment relative to a BAO error budget. The manuscript does not state this threshold or show that the forecasted number density exceeds it. Provide the forecasted nP at k ~ 0.2 h Mpc^-1 for z ~ 1, or a Fisher-matrix BAO/DETFOM error, or clearly label the statement as a qualitative heuristic. Without this, the headline claim is not falsifiable.
  4. [Semi-analytical simulations / model inputs] The comparison of two modes on the same simulated sky is methodologically sound. However, the absolute z ~ 1 detection yields depend on the assumed HI mass function and its evolution. The visible text contains no validation against ALFALFA or other HI surveys. Add a calibration paragraph showing the simulated low-z HIMF reproduces ALFALFA, and justify the high-z HIMF choice against current constraints or clearly frame the result as an optimistic scenario.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The statement that increasing survey area 'has little impact' on single-dish observations would benefit from specifying the tested areal range (e.g., in deg^2) for both DS and OTF modes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity evident: the paper is a forward simulation forecast comparing two observing modes on the same simulated sky.

full rationale

The abstract describes a semi-analytical simulation study: HI galaxy populations and instrument noise are inputs, and detection counts, number densities, and power-spectrum/BAO feasibility are outputs. This is a forward model, not a fit-then-predict cycle. The two observing modes (single-dish vs. Core Array) are compared on the same simulated sky, so any performance difference is driven by the instrument model rather than by a circular re-derivation of inputs. The claim of a 'sufficient number density' depends on a threshold relative to a BAO error budget, which is a stated performance criterion, not a parameter fitted from the target result. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or imported ansatze appear in the readable text. The supplied full text is corrupted (mojibake) and contains an embedded arXiv identifier from an unrelated paper, preventing equation-level verification; however, no accessible step exhibits a definitional identity or a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The primary caveat is that the quantitative conclusions inherit the assumed instrument sensitivity and HI mass function, but that is an assumption-dependence concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All quantitative inputs are hidden: the abstract reports simulation-based conclusions without disclosing instrumental parameters, the HI model, or the BAO sufficiency threshold. The forecast thus inherits its assumptions from unstated model choices; nothing in the provided material establishes these against external benchmarks.

free parameters (3)
  • Core Array instrumental sensitivity parameters
    The abstract compares single-dish vs Core Array sensitivity but gives no values (collecting area, Tsys, baseline distribution); the z~1 detection claim depends on these assumed numbers.
  • HI mass function / evolution model at z~0-1
    The semi-analytical simulation must assume HI abundances and clustering; the 'sufficient number density' conclusion inherits these model choices.
  • Detection threshold / shot noise model
    The claimed z~0.35 single-dish shot-noise limit implies a specific brightness or number-count threshold, which is not stated in the abstract.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Standard radiometer and interferometer sensitivity equations describe the survey noise.
    Implicit in any 'sensitivity' comparison between single-dish and interferometer modes; not stated in the abstract.
  • domain assumption The proposed Core Array has higher sensitivity and angular resolution than single-dish FAST.
    The abstract states this as the premise of the comparison ('with higher sensitivity and angular resolution'); if false for the real instrument, the conclusion inverts.
  • domain assumption A particular galaxy number density is sufficient for power spectrum and BAO constraints.
    The abstract asserts the array maintains a 'sufficient number density'; the sufficiency threshold is a modeling choice made inside the paper.
  • domain assumption Cosmic variance dominates the error budget at z ~ 0.01-0.08.
    Invoked to explain the low-redshift uncertainty; a standard but non-trivial assumption about the survey volume.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring HI Galaxy Redshift Survey Strategies for the FAST Core Array Interferometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O34FCN5O

@misc{pith2026250816234,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring HI Galaxy Redshift Survey Strategies for the FAST Core Array Interferometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O34FCN5O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16234}
}
abstract

We explore the feasibility of HI galaxy redshift surveys with the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical Telescope (FAST) and its proposed Core Array interferometry. Using semi-analytical simulations, we compare the performance of the FAST single-dish and Core Array modes in drift scan (DS) and on-the-fly (OTF) observations across different redshifts. Our results show that the FAST single-dish mode enables significant HI detections at low redshifts ($z \lesssim 0.35$) but is limited at higher redshifts due to shot noise. The Core Array interferometry, with higher sensitivity and angular resolution, provides robust HI galaxy detections up to $z \sim 1$, maintaining a sufficient number density for power spectrum measurements and BAO constraints. At low redshifts ($z \sim 0.01$ -- $0.08$), both configurations perform well, though cosmic variance dominates uncertainties. At higher redshifts ($z > 0.35$), the Core Array outperforms the single-dish mode, while increasing the survey area has little impact on single-dish observations due to shot noise limitations. The DS mode efficiently covers large sky areas but is constrained by Earth's rotation, whereas the OTF mode allows more flexible deep-field surveys at the cost of operational overhead. Our findings highlight the importance of optimizing survey strategies to maximize FAST's potential for HI cosmology. The Core Array is particularly well-suited for high-redshift HI galaxy surveys, enabling precise constraints on large-scale structure and dark energy.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Alexandroff , R., Allende Prieto , C., et al

    Ahn , C. P., Alexandroff , R., Allende Prieto , C., et al. 2012, , 203, 21, 10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/21

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/21 2012

  2. [2]

    2023, , 947, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb13f

    Amiri , M., Bandura , K., Chen , T., et al. 2023, , 947, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb13f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb13f 2023

  3. [3]

    J., Luciw , N

    Anderson , C. J., Luciw , N. J., Li , Y. C., et al. 2018, , 476, 3382, 10.1093/mnras/sty346

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty346 2018

  4. [4]

    E., Springel , V., White , S

    Angulo , R. E., Springel , V., White , S. D. M., et al. 2012, , 426, 2046, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21830.x

    arXiv 2012

  5. [5]

    E., Colom , P., et al

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117837 2012

  6. [6]

    S., Khandai , N., & Datta , K

    Bagla , J. S., Khandai , N., & Datta , K. K. 2010, , 407, 567, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16933.x

    arXiv 2010

  7. [7]

    E., Amiri , M., et al

    Bandura , K., Addison , G. E., Amiri , M., et al. 2014, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9145, Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment (CHIME) pathfinder , 914522, 10.1117/12.2054950

    doi:10.1117/12.2054950 2014

  8. [8]

    G., Staveley-Smith , L., de Blok , W

    Barnes , D. G., Staveley-Smith , L., de Blok , W. J. G., et al. 2001, , 322, 486, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04102.x

    arXiv 2001

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    A., Browne , I

    Battye , R. A., Browne , I. W. A., Dickinson , C., et al. 2013, , 434, 1239, 10.1093/mnras/stt1082

    2013 doi

  2. [11]

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

    Bull , P., Ferreira , P. G., Patel , P., & Santos , M. G. 2015, , 803, 21, 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/21

    2015 doi

  3. [12]

    P., Bernal , J

    Carucci , I. P., Bernal , J. L., Cunnington , S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.06750, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.06750

    2024 doi

  4. [13]

    Chang , T.-C., Pen , U.-L., Bandura , K., & Peterson , J. B. 2010, , 466, 463, 10.1038/nature09187

    2010 doi

  5. [14]

    B., & McDonald , P

    Chang , T.-C., Pen , U.-L., Peterson , J. B., & McDonald , P. 2008, , 100, 091303, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.091303

    2008 doi

  6. [15]

    2012, in International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Chen , X. 2012, in International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series, Vol. 12, International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series, 256--263, 10.1142/S2010194512006459

    2012 doi

  7. [16]

    2023, , 524, 3724, 10.1093/mnras/stad2102

    Chen , Z., Chapman , E., Wolz , L., & Mazumder , A. 2023, , 524, 3724, 10.1093/mnras/stad2102

    2023 doi

  8. [17]

    G., et al

    Cunnington , S., Li , Y., Santos , M. G., et al. 2023, , 518, 6262, 10.1093/mnras/stac3060

    2023 doi

  9. [19]

    A., Kaiser , N., & Peacock , J

    Feldman , H. A., Kaiser , N., & Peacock , J. A. 1994, , 426, 23, 10.1086/174036

    1994 doi

  10. [20]

    2023, , 525, 5278, 10.1093/mnras/stad2646

    Gao , L.-Y., Li , Y., Ni , S., & Zhang , X. 2023, , 525, 5278, 10.1093/mnras/stad2646

    2023 doi

  11. [21]

    P., Kent , B

    Giovanelli , R., Haynes , M. P., Kent , B. R., et al. 2005, , 130, 2598, 10.1086/497431

    2005 doi

  12. [22]

    2007, , 133, 2569, 10.1086/516635

    ---. 2007, , 133, 2569, 10.1086/516635

    2007 doi

  13. [23]

    2016, International Journal of Antennas and Propagation, 2016, 5357368, https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/5357368

    Han, Y., & Zhong, L. 2016, International Journal of Antennas and Propagation, 2016, 5357368, https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/5357368

    2016 doi

  14. [24]

    E., Dickinson , C., Battye , R

    Harper , S. E., Dickinson , C., Battye , R. A., et al. 2018, , 478, 2416, 10.1093/mnras/sty1238

    2018 doi

  15. [25]

    Henriques , B. M. B., White , S. D. M., Thomas , P. A., et al. 2017, , 469, 2626, 10.1093/mnras/stx1010

    2017 doi

  16. [26]

    2020, , 493, 5854, 10.1093/mnras/staa650

    Hu , W., Wang , X., Wu , F., et al. 2020, , 493, 5854, 10.1093/mnras/staa650

    2020 doi

  17. [27]

    2021, , 508, 2897, 10.1093/mnras/stab2728

    Hu , W., Li , Y., Wang , Y., et al. 2021, , 508, 2897, 10.1093/mnras/stab2728

    2021 doi

  18. [28]

    O., Li , Y., Santos , M

    Irfan , M. O., Li , Y., Santos , M. G., et al. 2024, , 527, 4717, 10.1093/mnras/stad3457

    2024 doi

  19. [29]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 064, 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64

    Jiang , P., Tang , N.-Y., Hou , L.-G., et al. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 064, 10.1088/1674-4527/20/5/64

    2020 doi

  20. [30]

    2024, Astronomical Techniques and Instruments, 1, 84, 10.61977/ati2024012

    Jiang , P., Chen , R., Gan , H., et al. 2024, Astronomical Techniques and Instruments, 1, 84, 10.61977/ati2024012

    2024 doi

  21. [31]

    2021, Phys

    Jin, S.-J., Wang, L.-F., Wu, P.-J., Zhang, J.-F., & Zhang, X. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 103507, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.103507

    2021 doi

  22. [32]

    H., Boyce , P

    Lang , R. H., Boyce , P. J., Kilborn , V. A., et al. 2003, , 342, 738, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06535.x

    2003

  23. [33]

    2018, IEEE Microwave Magazine, 19, 112, 10.1109/MMM.2018.2802178

    Li , D., Wang , P., Qian , L., et al. 2018, IEEE Microwave Magazine, 19, 112, 10.1109/MMM.2018.2802178

    2018

  24. [34]

    2020, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 129862, 10.1007/s11433-020-1594-8

    Li , J., Zuo , S., Wu , F., et al. 2020, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 129862, 10.1007/s11433-020-1594-8

    2020 doi

  25. [35]

    G., Grainge , K., Harper , S., & Wang , J

    Li , Y., Santos , M. G., Grainge , K., Harper , S., & Wang , J. 2021, , 501, 4344, 10.1093/mnras/staa3856

    2021 doi

  26. [36]

    2023, , 954, 139, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace896

    Li , Y., Wang , Y., Deng , F., et al. 2023, , 954, 139, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace896

    2023 doi

  27. [37]

    2017, , 96, 063525, 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.063525

    Li , Y.-C., & Ma , Y.-Z. 2017, , 96, 063525, 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.063525

    2017 doi

  28. [38]

    2016, , 833, 289, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/289

    Liao , Y.-W., Chang , T.-C., Kuo , C.-Y., et al. 2016, , 833, 289, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/289

    2016 doi

  29. [39]

    R., Oh , S

    Lidz , A., Furlanetto , S. R., Oh , S. P., et al. 2011, , 741, 70, 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/70

    2011 doi

  30. [40]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.03988, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.03988

    Liu , D., Li , Y., Tramonte , D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.03988, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.03988

    2024 doi arXiv

  31. [41]

    Loeb , A., & Wyithe , J. S. B. 2008, , 100, 161301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.161301

    2008 doi

  32. [42]

    G., Emerson , D

    Mangum , J. G., Emerson , D. T., & Greisen , E. W. 2007, , 474, 679, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077811

    2007 doi

  33. [43]

    2008, , 78, 023529, 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.023529

    Mao , Y., Tegmark , M., McQuinn , M., Zaldarriaga , M., & Zahn , O. 2008, , 78, 023529, 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.023529

    2008 doi

  34. [44]

    W., Switzer , E

    Masui , K. W., Switzer , E. R., Banavar , N., et al. 2013, , 763, L20, 10.1088/2041-8205/763/1/L20

    2013 doi

  35. [45]

    D., Spinelli , M., Santos , M

    Matshawule , S. D., Spinelli , M., Santos , M. G., & Ngobese , S. 2021, , 506, 5075, 10.1093/mnras/stab1688

    2021 doi

  36. [46]

    McQuinn , M., Zahn , O., Zaldarriaga , M., Hernquist , L., & Furlanetto , S. R. 2006, , 653, 815, 10.1086/505167

    2006 doi

  37. [47]

    L., et al

    MeerKLASS Collaboration , Barberi-Squarotti , M., Bernal , J. L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.21626, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.21626

    2024 doi arXiv

  38. [48]

    2017, , 34, 52, 10.1017/pasa.2017.31

    Meyer , M., Robotham , A., Obreschkow , D., et al. 2017, , 34, 52, 10.1017/pasa.2017.31

    2017 doi

  39. [50]

    J., Bolatto , A., Chatterjee , S., et al

    Murphy , E. J., Bolatto , A., Chatterjee , S., et al. 2018, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 517, Science with a Next Generation Very Large Array, ed. E. Murphy , 3, 10.48550/arXiv.1810.07524

    2018 doi arXiv

  40. [51]

    2013, in Materials Science and Engineering Conference Series, Vol

    Nan , R., & Li , D. 2013, in Materials Science and Engineering Conference Series, Vol. 44, Materials Science and Engineering Conference Series (IOP), 012022, 10.1088/1757-899X/44/1/012022

    2013 doi

  41. [52]

    B., Bandura , K., Bucher , M

    Newburgh , L. B., Bandura , K., Bucher , M. A., et al. 2016, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9906, HIRAX: a probe of dark energy and radio transients , 99065X, 10.1117/12.2234286

    2016 doi

  42. [53]

    2022, , 934, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a34

    Ni , S., Li , Y., Gao , L.-Y., & Zhang , X. 2022, , 934, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a34

    2022 doi

  43. [54]

    2009, , 698, 1467, 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1467

    Obreschkow , D., Croton , D., De Lucia , G., Khochfar , S., & Rawlings , S. 2009, , 698, 1467, 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1467

    2009 doi

  44. [55]

    2025, , 2025, 080, 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/080

    Pan , J.-D., Wu , P.-J., Du , G.-H., Li , Y., & Zhang , X. 2025, , 2025, 080, 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/080

    2025 doi

  45. [56]

    G., Chen , Z., & Wolz , L

    Paul , S., Santos , M. G., Chen , Z., & Wolz , L. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.11943, 10.48550/arXiv.2301.11943

    2023 doi arXiv

  46. [57]

    G., Townsend , J., et al

    Paul , S., Santos , M. G., Townsend , J., et al. 2021, , 505, 2039, 10.1093/mnras/stab1089

    2021 doi

  47. [58]

    2024, , 529, 4958, 10.1093/mnras/stae866

    Pei , W., Guo , Q., Li , M., et al. 2024, , 529, 4958, 10.1093/mnras/stae866

    2024 doi

  48. [59]

    2022, , 517, 4637, 10.1093/mnras/stac2832

    Perdereau , O., Ansari , R., Stebbins , A., et al. 2022, , 517, 4637, 10.1093/mnras/stac2832

    2022 doi

  49. [60]

    B., Aleksan , R., Ansari , R., et al

    Peterson , J. B., Aleksan , R., Ansari , R., et al. 2009, in astro2010: The Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey, Vol. 2010, 234. 0902.3091

    2009 arXiv

  50. [61]

    R., & Loeb , A

    Pritchard , J. R., & Loeb , A. 2008, , 78, 103511, 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.103511

    2008 doi

  51. [62]

    2012, Reports on Progress in Physics, 75, 086901, 10.1088/0034-4885/75/8/086901

    ---. 2012, Reports on Progress in Physics, 75, 086901, 10.1088/0034-4885/75/8/086901

    2012 doi

  52. [63]

    2007, , 133, 2087, 10.1086/513515

    Saintonge , A. 2007, , 133, 2087, 10.1086/513515

    2007 doi

  53. [64]

    2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 19

    Santos , M., Bull , P., Alonso , D., et al. 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 19. 1501.03989

    2015 arXiv

  54. [65]

    G., Cluver , M., Hilton , M., et al

    Santos , M. G., Cluver , M., Hilton , M., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1709.06099. 1709.06099

    2017 arXiv

  55. [66]

    2008, , 60, 445, 10.1093/pasj/60.3.445

    Sawada , T., Ikeda , N., Sunada , K., et al. 2008, , 60, 445, 10.1093/pasj/60.3.445

    2008 doi

  56. [67]

    2010, , 721, 164, 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/164

    Seo , H.-J., Dodelson , S., Marriner , J., et al. 2010, , 721, 164, 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/164

    2010 doi

  57. [68]

    P., Cunnington , S., et al

    Spinelli , M., Carucci , I. P., Cunnington , S., et al. 2022, , 509, 2048, 10.1093/mnras/stab3064

    2022 doi

  58. [69]

    2005, , 364, 1105, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x

    Springel , V. 2005, , 364, 1105, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x

    2005

  59. [70]

    Springel , V., Yoshida , N., & White , S. D. M. 2001, , 6, 79, 10.1016/S1384-1076(01)00042-2

    2001 doi

  60. [71]

    J., Battye , R

    Square Kilometre Array Cosmology Science Working Group , Bacon , D. J., Battye , R. A., et al. 2020, , 37, e007, 10.1017/pasa.2019.51

    2020 doi

  61. [72]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 065020, 10.1088/1674-4527/ac684d

    Sun , S., Li , J., Wu , F., et al. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 065020, 10.1088/1674-4527/ac684d

    2022 doi

  62. [73]

    R., Masui , K

    Switzer , E. R., Masui , K. W., Bandura , K., et al. 2013, , 434, L46, 10.1093/mnrasl/slt074

    2013 doi

  63. [74]

    Teunissen, P. J. G., & Montenbruck, O. 2017, Springer Handbook of Global Navigation Satellite Systems. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:134337913

    2017

  64. [75]

    G., Bull , P., et al

    Wang , J., Santos , M. G., Bull , P., et al. 2021, , 505, 3698, 10.1093/mnras/stab1365

    2021 doi

  65. [76]

    B., Alonso , D., et al

    Wolz , L., Abdalla , F. B., Alonso , D., et al. 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 35, 10.22323/1.215.0035

    2015 doi

  66. [77]

    B., et al

    Wolz , L., Blake , C., Abdalla , F. B., et al. 2017, , 464, 4938, 10.1093/mnras/stw2556

    2017 doi

  67. [78]

    W., et al

    Wolz , L., Pourtsidou , A., Masui , K. W., et al. 2022, , 510, 3495, 10.1093/mnras/stab3621

    2022 doi

  68. [79]

    2021, , 506, 3455, 10.1093/mnras/stab1802

    Wu , F., Li , J., Zuo , S., et al. 2021, , 506, 3455, 10.1093/mnras/stab1802

    2021 doi

  69. [80]

    Wu, P.-J., Li, Y., Zhang, J.-F., & Zhang, X. 2022 a . 2212.07681

    2022 arXiv

  70. [81]

    Wu, P.-J., Shao, Y., Jin, S.-J., & Zhang, X. 2022 b . 2202.09726

    2022 arXiv

  71. [82]

    2022, JCAP, 01, 060, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/01/060

    Wu, P.-J., & Zhang, X. 2022, JCAP, 01, 060, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/01/060

    2022 doi

  72. [84]

    Wyithe , J. S. B., Loeb , A., & Geil , P. M. 2008, , 383, 1195, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12631.x

    2008

  73. [85]

    in press

    Xu , C., Deng , F., Xu , Y., & Chen , X. in press

  74. [86]

    2015, , 798, 40, 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/40

    Xu , Y., Wang , X., & Chen , X. 2015, , 798, 40, 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/40

    2015 doi

  75. [87]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 095005, 10.1088/1674-4527/acdbbd

    Xue , M., Zhu , W., Wu , X., Xu , R., & Wang , H. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 095005, 10.1088/1674-4527/acdbbd

    2023 doi

  76. [88]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.08173, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.08173

    Yang , W., Wolz , L., Li , Y., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.08173, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.08173

    2024 doi arXiv

  77. [89]

    2024, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 67, 219511, 10.1007/s11433-023-2219-7

    Zhang , C.-P., Zhu , M., Jiang , P., et al. 2024, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 67, 219511, 10.1007/s11433-023-2219-7

    2024 doi

  78. [90]

    2019, Physics Letters B, 799, 135064, 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.135064

    Zhang , J.-F., Gao , L.-Y., He , D.-Z., & Zhang , X. 2019, Physics Letters B, 799, 135064, 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.135064

    2019

  79. [91]

    Zhang, M., Li, Y., Zhang, J.-F., & Zhang, X. 2023. 2301.04445

    2023 arXiv

  80. [92]

    2021, Astrophys

    Zhang, M., Wang, B., Wu, P.-J., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J., 918, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0ef5

    2021 doi

  81. [93]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.02582, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.02582

    Zhao , X., Li , Y., Yang , W., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.02582, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.02582

    2024 doi arXiv

  82. [94]

    A., Meyer , M

    Zwaan , M. A., Meyer , M. J., Webster , R. L., et al. 2004, , 350, 1210, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07782.x

    2004

Pith tools

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