Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 103 references

Semi-analytic modelling of Pop. III star formation and metallicity evolution -- II. Impact on 21cm power spectrum

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Population III stars barely affect reionization but heat the early intergalactic medium through X-rays, and a 1000-hour SKA1-low campaign can see the imprint in the 21cm power spectrum at redshift 7 to 10.

desk verdict Solid, transparent modelling study with a genuine methodological step (scaling relations for mini-halo SFR), but the SKA detectability claim hinges on unconstrained LX/SFR values; worth refereeing with a request to sharpen the parameter justification. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08971 v2 pith:PTHGLMUM submitted 2025-02-13 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Emanuele M. Ventura , Yuxiang Qin , Sreedhar Balu , J. Stuart B. Wyithe This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords 21cmcosmologyPopulationIIIstarsreionizationX-rayheatingintergalacticmediumSKA1-lowsemi-analyticmodelscosmicdawn
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

Population III (Pop. III) stars, the first metal-free stars, are thought to form in mini-halos too small to resolve in large cosmological simulations, leaving their influence on the 21cm signal unknown. This paper develops a semi-analytic framework that places Pop. III star formation into a $210\,h^{-1}\,\mathrm{cMpc}$ simulation via scaling relations calibrated on a high-resolution box, and computes the resulting 21cm global signal and power spectrum. The central finding is that Pop. III stars barely change the reionization history but, through X-rays from their remnants, heat the neutral intergalactic medium at $z \geq 15$, boosting the 21cm power spectrum at $z \leq 10$. The authors forecast that with 1000 hours of SKA1-low observations, models with Pop. III X-ray emission stronger than Pop. II can be distinguished from models with no or mild Pop. III emission. If correct, the 21cm power spectrum becomes a direct probe of the properties of the first stars.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the semi-analytic galaxy formation model meraxes, extended with a stochastic scaling relation that assigns Pop. III (and subsequent Pop. II) star formation rates to dark-matter overdensity pixels, calibrated on a small ($10\,h^{-1}\,\mathrm{cMpc}$) high-resolution simulation that resolves mini-halos and validated to reproduce the mini-halo SFRD in the large box to within about 10 per cent. This lets the authors compute the UV, X-ray, Lyman-$\alpha$ and Lyman-Werner backgrounds from unresolved mini-halos self-consistently with reionization, using a modified 21cmFast to get the ionization and spin-temperature fields that enter the 21cm brightness temperature. The parameter that carries the signal is the specific soft X-ray luminosity $L_{X}^{<2\,\mathrm{keV}}/\mathrm{SFR}$ of Pop. III stars, which sets the early heating and hence the amplitude of the later power spectrum.

What would settle it

A 21cm power spectrum measurement with SKA1-low at $z = 7$ to $10$ that matches the no-Pop.-III model within the forecast errors, or any independent constraint placing the Pop. III soft X-ray luminosity per unit star formation at or below $3 \times 10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$ per solar mass per year, would falsify the central detectability claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the residual signature of early Pop. III X-ray heating survives into the Epoch of Reionization and is visible in the 21cm power spectrum at $z \leq 10$, even though reionization itself is unchanged. Using the semi-analytic model meraxes with a new density-field scaling relation for mini-halo star formation, the authors find that in all their models Pop. III stars contribute little to reionization: the Thomson optical depth and neutral fraction histories stay consistent with observations. Instead, the soft X-ray luminosity per unit star formation from Pop. III remnants, taken to be one to two orders of magnitude above the Pop. II value, heats the IGM at $z \geq 15$, turning the 21cm sky-averaged signal into emission earlier ($z \sim 13$ for moderate, $z \sim 18$ for extreme models) and raising the power spectrum by more than a factor of four at $z \geq 7$ on both large and small scales. Forecasts with 21cmsense for SKA1-low show that the moderate and extreme Pop. III models differ from the no-Pop. III model by several $\sigma$ at $z = 7$--$10$ with 1000 hours, while the weak model with Pop. II-level X-ray efficiency is indistinguishable.

Load-bearing premise

The detectability claim depends on Population III remnants emitting soft X-rays at least ten times more efficiently per unit star formation than Population II stars, a ratio taken from theoretical models with no direct observational confirmation; if the true ratio is near the Pop. II value, the SKA forecast collapses even though the heating physics remains qualitatively correct.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Pop. III star formation leaves reionization histories consistent with current Thomson optical depth and neutral fraction constraints, so existing EoR measurements do not rule out a substantial Pop. III population.
  • The 21cm global signal is driven into emission earlier when Pop. III X-ray heating is strong, making the absorption trough shallower and shifted to higher redshift.
  • The 21cm power spectrum at $z = 7$--$10$ is enhanced by more than a factor of four for strong Pop. III X-ray models, on both large and small scales.
  • A 1000-hour SKA1-low campaign can distinguish moderate and extreme Pop. III X-ray models from no- or mild-Pop. III models at $z = 7$--$10$, while 180 hours can already exclude the strongest model.
  • At $z \leq 6$ the power spectrum is insensitive to the Pop. III models, since the ionization state dominates and is nearly identical across the models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If a detection of enhanced 21cm power at $z \sim 8$ is confirmed, it would indirectly constrain the Pop. III initial mass function, since the theoretically expected X-ray yield depends strongly on IMF shape and this paper treats $L_X/\mathrm{SFR}$ independently of the IMF.
  • The density-field scaling relation technique could be reused to include other unresolved sub-grid processes (e.g. faint atomic-cooling halos or streaming-velocity effects) in large-box reionization simulations without re-running high-resolution hydrodynamics.
  • A non-detection with deep SKA observations would not rule out Pop. III star formation itself; it would only push the Pop. III X-ray efficiency toward the Pop. II value, leaving room for Pop. III stars with lower remnant X-ray output.
  • The same machinery could be combined with global-signal experiments to break degeneracies between $L_X/\mathrm{SFR}$ and star formation efficiency, which the power spectrum alone leaves partially unresolved.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper extends the meraxes semi-analytic model of Pop. III star formation to a large 210 h^-1 cMpc cosmological volume by calibrating density-dependent scaling relations for the mini-halo star formation rate on a smaller, higher-resolution 10 h^-1 cMpc simulation. The authors compute the 21cm global signal and power spectrum for four Pop. III models (weak, moderate, extreme, and a high-SFE variant) and use 21cmSense to forecast the detectability of Pop. III X-ray heating with SKA1-low. Their central finding is that Pop. III stars have little effect on reionization but can significantly heat the IGM at z >= 15, boosting the 21cm power spectrum at z <= 10; models with Pop. III X-ray emission stronger than Pop. II are distinguishable from models with no or mild Pop. III emission with about 1000 hours of SKA1-low observations.

Significance. The methodological advance is the scaling-relation approach that extrapolates mini-halo star formation from a high-resolution small box to a reionization-sized volume. The method is validated with K-S tests and reproduces the L10 mini-halo SFRD to within about 10% at all redshifts. The self-consistent coupling of Pop. III star formation, reionization, and 21cm physics in a large volume is a useful step beyond earlier analytic treatments. The paper is also careful to avoid circularity: the model is calibrated to non-21cm observables, so the 21cm forecasts are genuine predictions rather than fits. However, the headline detectability claim is conditional on the assumed specific X-ray luminosity of Pop. III stars, a parameter that is unconstrained by observation and not yet tied to the adopted IMF in a self-consistent way.

major comments (2)
  1. [Table 4, Sec. 5, Eq. (6)] The central SKA detectability result rests entirely on the assumed specific X-ray luminosity values L_X<2keV,III/SFR = 3e41 and 3e42 erg s^-1 M_sun^-1 yr for the moderate and extreme models. The paper's own weak model (3e40, comparable to the Pop. II fiducial) yields D < 1 at all z and k even with 1080 hours (Fig. 14), so the forecast is purely conditional on these unconstrained inputs. The moderate model pairs a Salpeter IMF with a 10x enhanced X-ray luminosity, while the extreme model compounds a log-normal IMF, a tenfold SFE increase, and a 100x X-ray luminosity; Appendix B explicitly concedes that the LogE model is not realistic when L_X/SFR is linked to the IMF. Since Sartorio et al. (2023) predict the X-ray emissivity to be IMF-dependent, the paper needs either to compute L_X/SFR self-consistently from stellar-population synthesis for each IMF, or to reframe the SKA claim as an upper-limit forecast under optimistic assumptions rather than a prediction for plausible Pop. III models.
  2. [Section 3.1, Figs. 5-6] The scaling-relation reconstruction is validated only against the angle-averaged SFRD (ratio within 10%). The 21cm power spectrum is a two-point statistic that depends on the spatial distribution of the reconstructed SFR field, not just its mean. The L210 density field is computed from particles of mass 3.16e7 M_sun, while the L10 uses 4.71e5 M_sun; if the small-scale density statistics differ, the reconstructed SFR field may have incorrect clustering even when the mean SFRD matches. I request a validation of the reconstructed SFR field power spectrum (or the corresponding 21cm signal) against the direct L10 simulation output, or an explicit demonstration that any spatial mismatch is subdominant to the differences between the Pop. III models considered.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 4] The last column header reads 'L_X<2keV,II/SFR' but the entries are Pop. III values; rename to 'L_X<2keV,III/SFR'.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. 5] The abstract states 1000 hours of SKA1-low while the text and figure captions quote 1080 hours; please make the observing times consistent.
  3. [Section 3.1, footnote 2] The sentence 'if a pixel is irradiated by a LW flux J_LW >= J_crit above a critical threshold defined as M_crit,MC = M_ato' is garbled; please rephrase to clarify that M_crit,MC is set to the atomic cooling mass when J_LW exceeds the threshold.
  4. [Figure 2] The p-value histogram would be more interpretable if the text stated the number of cells entering the K-S test for each overdensity bin or the total number of tests performed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 21cm predictions are forward outputs of an assumed Pop. III X-ray luminosity, not fits recycled as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the sense that matters: the 21cm power spectra are never used to calibrate any model parameter. The Pop. II and reionization parameters are calibrated against external observations (UV luminosity functions, stellar mass functions, neutral hydrogen fraction, Thomson scattering optical depth), not against the 21cm signal. The Pop. III specific X-ray luminosity LX/SFR is an assumed input adopted from Sartorio et al. (2023) and varied across a grid; it is not fitted to the 21cm output. The paper explicitly shows that the weak Pop. III model, with LX/SFR equal to the Pop. II value, is not detectable, so the headline claim is a conditional forward sensitivity forecast: if Pop. III X-ray emission is 10-100 times stronger than Pop. II, then SKA1-low can distinguish such models. The mini-halo SFRD scaling relations are calibrated on the L10 box and applied to the L210 box; their in-sample validation is a methodological check, not a circular use of the 21cm result. Self-citations to Ventura et al. (2024) provide the underlying mini-halo and Pop. III star formation model, but that work does not contain the 21cm prediction and is not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as evidence for the detectability claim. No equation reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The main scientific caveat, openly acknowledged in Appendix B, is that some models combine an IMF with an independently chosen LX/SFR, but this is a physical assumption and model-consistency caveat, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central predictions rest on a small set of hand-chosen Pop. III parameters (star formation efficiency, IMF, X-ray luminosity per SFR), on a scaling relation calibrated to a small simulation and assumed to hold in the large box, and on standard astrophysical assumptions about escape fractions and X-ray heating. No new entities are introduced, and the 21cm output is not used to calibrate the model, so the circularity burden is low.

free parameters (5)
  • Pop. III star formation efficiency (alpha_SF,III) = 0.008 (Weak, Moderate, LogE); 0.08 (Extreme, High SFE)
    Chosen by hand based on hydro simulations (Chon et al. 2021); directly sets the Pop. III SFRD and all resulting radiative backgrounds.
  • Pop. III IMF shape = Salpeter [1,500] M_sun; log-Normal centered at 60 M_sun
    Sets the ionizing photon yield and remnant X-ray output; two shapes bracket the plausible range.
  • Specific Pop. III X-ray luminosity per unit SFR (LX<2keV,III/SFR) = 3e40, 3e41, 3e42 erg/s per (M_sun/yr)
    The load-bearing parameter for the main claim; values span two orders of magnitude and are taken from Sartorio et al. (2023). Unconstrained by observations.
  • Escape fraction normalization and redshift scaling (f_esc,0 and alpha_esc) = f_esc,0 = 0.14, alpha_esc = 0.2
    Calibrated in Balu et al. (2023a) to reproduce reionization constraints (Planck tau_e, neutral fraction); affects the ionizing background and 21cm signal.
  • Gaussian scaling-relation parameters (A, mean log(SFR), sigma) per overdensity and redshift = Functions fitted to L10 simulation, e.g., sigma_MC,III ~ 0.65
    Fitted to the small high-resolution box (Sec. 3.1); used to generate mini-halo SFR in the L210 box. Central to the method.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Standard Planck 2016 cosmology (h=0.6751, Omega_m=0.3121, Omega_b=0.049, sigma8=0.815, ns=0.9653)
    Used for the N-body simulation, density field, and 21cm brightness temperature normalization (Sec. 1, Eq. 2).
  • domain assumption H2 self-shielding fitting function for the critical mass Mcrit,MC (Eq. A1-A3, from Kulkarni et al. 2021) is accurate
    Adopted in Appendix A to set the minimum mini-halo mass for Pop. III star formation; increases Pop. III SFRD by up to an order of magnitude at z~10.
  • ad hoc to paper The conditional distribution of mini-halo SFR given overdensity, fitted on the L10 box, applies to the L210 box
    Sec. 3.2 assumes the scaling relations hold across resolutions/volumes; partially validated by comparing SFRD and LW backgrounds between boxes.
  • domain assumption X-ray emissivity is proportional to SFRD via LX/SFR, and only soft X-rays (<2 keV) heat the IGM
    Standard model from Balu et al. (2023a); used to compute the X-ray background from both populations.
  • domain assumption Other IGM heating sources (Ly-alpha, shocks, magnetic fields, cosmic rays, dark matter) are subdominant at the redshifts considered
    Stated in Sec. 2.3; neglect is justified by the authors but could change the thermal history.
  • ad hoc to paper Pop. III IMF shape and LX/SFR are independent parameters
    Appendix B acknowledges that if LX/SFR is linked to IMF as in Sartorio et al. (2023), the LogE model is unrealistic; this independence underlies the extreme model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Semi-analytic modelling of Pop. III star formation and metallicity evolution -- II. Impact on 21cm power spectrum." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PTHGLMUM

@misc{pith2026250208971,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Semi-analytic modelling of Pop. III star formation and metallicity evolution -- II. Impact on 21cm power spectrum},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PTHGLMUM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08971}
}
abstract

Simulating Population (Pop.) III star formation in mini-halos in a large cosmological simulation is an extremely challenging task but it is crucial to estimate its impact on the 21cm power spectrum. In this work, we develop a framework within the semi-analytical code meraxes to estimate the radiative backgrounds from Pop. III stars needed for the computation of the 21cm signal. We computed the 21cm global signal and power spectrum for different Pop. III models varying star formation efficiency, initial mass function (IMF) and specific X-ray luminosity per unit of star formation (LX/SFR). In all the models considered, we find Pop. III stars have little to no impact on the reionization history but significantly affect the thermal state of the intergalactic medium (IGM) due to the strong injection of X-ray photons from their remnants that heat the neutral IGM at $z \geq$ 15. This is reflected not only on the 21cm sky-averaged global signal during the Cosmic Dawn but also on the 21cm power spectrum at $z \leq$ 10 where models with strong Pop. III X-ray emission have larger power than models with no or mild Pop. III X-ray emission. We estimate observational uncertainties on the power spectrum using 21cmsense and find that models where Pop. III stars have a stronger X-ray emission than Pop. II are distinguishable from models with no or mild Pop. III X-ray emission with 1000 hours observations of the upcoming SKA1-low.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08971 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left panel shows the density distribution of Pop. III star formation rate in mini-halos (M⊙ yr−1 in logarithm scale) vs the dark matter overdensity 𝛿 for each pixel at 𝑧 = 15. The thick grey line shows the analytical fit SFR ∝ e 𝛿 similar to the one adopted by Muñoz (2023) together with the 1𝜎 deviation (thin lines). For different values of 𝛿 (highlighted with the black rectangles) we show the distribution of Pop. I… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. P-value distribution of K-S tests conducted on the Pop. III (left) and Pop. II (right) star forming pixels. Vertical line highlights the significant level of 0.05. star forming episodes within a galaxy and so will be affected by both mechanical and chemical feedback from the previous history of the galaxy. This is also demonstrated by the larger standard deviation (𝜎MC,II ∼ 0.8). The average value of SFRMC,II is ∼ 1… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. SFRDMC,III vs 𝑧 from the L10 (solid) and L210 (dotted) box for two different Pop. III star formation models (see more details in text and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (top) Pop. III (left) and Pop. II (right) SFRD vs z from meraxes (black) and estimated from the density field (cyan). (bottom) ratio between the average of the 20 realizations for the SFRD estimated from the density field and the SFRD from meraxes. The main advantage o…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left panel shows the 2D projections of the LW background (units of 10−21 erg s−1 cm−2 Hz−1 sr−1 in the L210 box at 𝑧 = 15. Top right panel shows the same map but in the L10 simulation. Bottom right panel shows the redshift evolution of the average LW background (same u…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Effect of Pop. III star formation on the 21cm global signal (𝛿𝑇b vs 𝑧). Pop. III models with small X-ray heating cause a stronger absorption at earlier times, while having a stronger Pop. III X-ray heating causes the signal to be seen in emission earlier. Color coding…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Constraints on the reionisation history (neutral hydrogen fraction vs z) for model with weak (grey), moderate (cyan), extreme (red) Pop. III and Balu et al. (2023a) (black). The observational data are from analyses of dark pixels (McGreer et al. 2015; Jin et al. 2023),…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Effect of Pop. III star formation on the 21cm power spectrum (Δ21 vs z) at large (k ∼ 0.1 Mpc−1 ) and small (k ∼ 0.9 Mpc−1 ) scales. Color coding as in the previous figures. Brown and yellow dashed lines are taken from Muñoz et al. (2022) for 𝑘 = 0.23 Mpc−1 assuming a…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: 21cm power spectrum sensitivity as a function of redshift 𝑘 ∼ 0.2 (black line) and 0.9 cMpc−1 (orange line) assuming a 1000 (solid lines) and 180 hours (dashed lines) observation with SKA. of the peaks in the 21cm power spectrum rather than introducing a specific feat…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: 21cm power spectrum at 𝑧 = 10, 9, 8 and 7 as a function of 𝑘 for different Pop. III star formation models. Color coding as in the previous figures. We show also current upper limits from PAPER at 𝑧 = 9.9, 8.7, 8.4, 8.1, 7.5 (Kolopanis et al. 2019), LOFAR at 𝑧 = 10.1, …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Detectability (see Eq. 6) vs 𝑧 for each Pop. III model (color coding as in the previous figures) at 𝑘 ∼ 0.2 (upper panel) and 1.0 Mpc−1 (lower panel). Solid (dashed) lines assume a 1080 (180) hours observation with SKA1-low. panel) and 𝑘 ∼ 0.9 Mpc−1 (lower panel) for …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The black, grey, red and cyan curves show the 21cm power spectrum from all the models in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Ba \ n ados E., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature25180 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.553..473B 553, 473

    doi:10.1038/nature25180 2018

  3. [3]

    Balu S., Greig B., Qiu Y., Power C., Qin Y., Mutch S., Wyithe J. S. B., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad281 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.3368B 520, 3368

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad281

  4. [4]

    Balu S., Greig B., Wyithe J. S. B., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2552 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.3032B 525, 3032

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2552

  5. [5]

    K., Samui S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1529 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498..918B 498, 918

    Bera A., Datta K. K., Samui S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1529 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498..918B 498, 918

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1529 2020

  6. [6]

    K., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3814 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.4869B 519, 4869

    Bera A., Samui S., Datta K. K., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3814 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.4869B 519, 4869

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3814 2023

  7. [7]

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1046 2022

  8. [8]

    R., Schneider R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1609 , 496, 1445

    Chatterjee A., Dayal P., Choudhury T. R., Schneider R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1609 , 496, 1445

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1609 2020

Show all 103 references
  1. [9]

    Chon S., Omukai K., Schneider R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2497 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.4175C 508, 4175

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    Chon S., Ono H., Omukai K., Schneider R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1549 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.4639C 514, 4639

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Ciardi B., Salvaterra R., Di Matteo T., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15843.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.401.2635C 401, 2635

    2010

  4. [12]

    Cohen A., Fialkov A., Barkana R., Lotem M., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx2065 , 472, 1915

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    Cruz H. A. G., Munoz J. B., Sabti N., Kamionkowski M., 2024a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2407.18294 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240718294C p. arXiv:2407.18294

    doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    Cruz H. A. G., Adi T., Flitter J., Kamionkowski M., Kovetz E. D., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.023518 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PhRvD.109b3518C 109, 023518

    doi

  7. [15]

    H., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx943 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469.1166D 469, 1166

    Das A., Mesinger A., Pallottini A., Ferrara A., Wise J. H., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx943 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469.1166D 469, 1166

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    D., Carilli C

    Datta A., Bowman J. D., Carilli C. L., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/526 , 724, 526

    2010 doi

  9. [17]

    B., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6dc , 864, 142

    Davies F. B., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6dc , 864, 142

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    Facchinetti G., Lopez-Honorez L., Qin Y., Mesinger A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/01/005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024JCAP...01..005F 2024, 005

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    L., Keating B., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092514 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ARA&A..44..415F 44, 415

    Fan X., Carilli C. L., Keating B., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092514 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ARA&A..44..415F 44, 415

    2006 arXiv

  12. [20]

    R., Kulkarni M., Visbal E., Hazlett R., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1688 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...962...62F 962, 62

    Feathers C. R., Kulkarni M., Visbal E., Hazlett R., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1688 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...962...62F 962, 62

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Fragos T., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/41 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...764...41F 764, 41

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    R., Loeb A., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422242 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...611..642F 611, 642

    Furlanetto S. R., Loeb A., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422242 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...611..642F 611, 642

    2004 doi

  15. [23]

    R., Peng Oh S., Briggs F

    Furlanetto S. R., Peng Oh S., Briggs F. H., 2006, @doi [Physics Reports] 10.1016/j.physrep.2006.08.002 , 433, 181–301

    2006 doi

  16. [24]

    Gessey-Jones T., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2049 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516..841G 516, 841

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    arXiv:2502.18098

    Gessey-Jones T., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.18098 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250218098G p. arXiv:2502.18098

    2025 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    Y., Shaver P

    Gnedin N. Y., Shaver P. A., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/420735 , 608, 611

    2004 doi

  19. [27]

    H., White S

    Greif T. H., White S. D. M., Klessen R. S., Springel V., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/147 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...736..147G 736, 147

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    B., Wang F., Yang J., Hennawi J

    Greig B., Mesinger A., Davies F. B., Wang F., Yang J., Hennawi J. F., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac825 , 512, 5390

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    HERA Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acaf50 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...945..124H 945, 124

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    H., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2403.05624 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240305624H p

    Hazlett R., Kulkarni M., Visbal E., Wise J. H., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2403.05624 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240305624H p. arXiv:2403.05624

    2024 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2308 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525..428H 525, 428

    Hegde S., Furlanetto S. R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2308 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525..428H 525, 428

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaaba , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855...17H 855, 17

    Hirano S., Yoshida N., Sakurai Y., Fujii M. S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaaba , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855...17H 855, 17

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    Hoag A., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1de7 , 878, 12

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    J., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.10626 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241110626H p

    Hou L., Mack K. J., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.10626 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241110626H p. arXiv:2411.10626

    2024 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    T., Mellema G., Ahn K., Shapiro P

    Iliev I. T., Mellema G., Ahn K., Shapiro P. R., Mao Y., Pen U.-L., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2497 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439..725I 439, 725

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    Jin X., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aca678 , 942, 59

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Jung I., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abbd44 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...904..144J 904, 144

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    D., Gillet N., Mesinger A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1323 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.2354K 495, 2354

    Kaur H. D., Gillet N., Mesinger A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1323 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.2354K 495, 2354

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    D., Qin Y., Mesinger A., Pallottini A., Fragos T., Basu-Zych A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1226 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.5097K 513, 5097

    Kaur H. D., Qin Y., Mesinger A., Pallottini A., Fragos T., Basu-Zych A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1226 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.5097K 513, 5097

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    Kolopanis M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e3a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...883..133K 883, 133

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    Kuhlen M., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20924.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.423..862K 423, 862

    2012

  34. [42]

    L., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac08a3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...917...40K 917, 40

    Kulkarni M., Visbal E., Bryan G. L., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac08a3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...917...40K 917, 40

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    R., 2020, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1088/1538-3873/ab5bfd , 132, 062001

    Liu A., Shaw J. R., 2020, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1088/1538-3873/ab5bfd , 132, 062001

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.023501 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhRvD..98b3501L 98, 023501

    Liu H., Slatyer T. R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.023501 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhRvD..98b3501L 98, 023501

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    arXiv:2407.14294

    Liu B., Gurian J., Inayoshi K., Hirano S., Hosokawa T., Bromm V., Yoshida N., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2407.14294 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240714294L p. arXiv:2407.14294

    2024 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    B., Busch P., Mao Y., Zhi Q.-J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abefd5 , 912, 143

    Ma Q.-B., Ciardi B., Eide M. B., Busch P., Mao Y., Zhi Q.-J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abefd5 , 912, 143

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    Madau P., Fragos T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...840...39M 840, 39

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    Magg M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1664 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.4433M 514, 4433

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    A., et al., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz632 , 485, 3947

    Mason C. A., et al., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz632 , 485, 3947

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

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

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

    2015 doi

  43. [51]

    R., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505167 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...653..815M 653, 815

    McQuinn M., Zahn O., Zaldarriaga M., Hernquist L., Furlanetto S. R., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505167 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...653..815M 653, 815

    2006 doi

  44. [52]

    H., Mirocha J., Furlanetto S

    Mebane R. H., Mirocha J., Furlanetto S. R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa280 , 493, 1217

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    G., et al., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa327 , 493, 1662

    Mertens F. G., et al., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa327 , 493, 1662

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    G., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.05576 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250305576M p

    Mertens F. G., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.05576 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250305576M p. arXiv:2503.05576

    2025 doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    Mesinger A., Furlanetto S., Cen R., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17731.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.411..955M 411, 955

    2011

  48. [56]

    Mesinger A., Aykutalp A., Vanzella E., Pentericci L., Ferrara A., Dijkstra M., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu2089 , 446, 566

    2014 doi

  49. [57]

    Minoda T., Tashiro H., Takahashi T., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1860 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.2001M 488, 2001

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    Mittal S., Kulkarni G., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3811 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.4264M 503, 4264

    2021 doi

  51. [59]

    F., 2005, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/426730 , 619, 678

    Morales M. F., 2005, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/426730 , 619, 678

    2005 doi

  52. [60]

    F., Wyithe J

    Morales M. F., Wyithe J. S. B., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130936 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ARA&A..48..127M 48, 127

    2010 doi

  53. [61]

    B., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1512 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.2587M 523, 2587

    Mu \ n oz J. B., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1512 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.2587M 523, 2587

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    B., Qin Y., Mesinger A., Murray S

    Mu \ n oz J. B., Qin Y., Mesinger A., Murray S. G., Greig B., Mason C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac185 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.3657M 511, 3657

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    J., Geil P

    Mutch S. J., Geil P. M., Poole G. B., Angel P. W., Duffy A. R., Mesinger A., Wyithe J. S. B., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1506 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462..250M 462, 250

    2016 doi

  56. [64]

    J., Greig B., Qin Y., Poole G

    Mutch S. J., Greig B., Qin Y., Poole G. B., Wyithe J. S. B., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3746 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.7924M 527, 7924

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    K., Mellema G., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1852 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.2290N 524, 2290

    Nebrin O., Giri S. K., Mellema G., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1852 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.2290N 524, 2290

    2023 doi

  58. [66]

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

    2010 doi

  59. [67]

    Paciga G., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt753 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433..639P 433, 639

    2013 doi

  60. [68]

    Park J., Ricotti M., Sugimura K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2999 , 508, 6176

    2021 doi

  61. [69]

    Parsons A., Pober J., McQuinn M., Jacobs D., Aguirre J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/81 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...753...81P 753, 81

    2012 doi

  62. [70]

    R., et al., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/106 , 788, 106

    Parsons A. R., et al., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/106 , 788, 106

    2014 doi

  63. [71]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 , 594, A13

    2016 doi

  64. [72]

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

    2020 doi

  65. [73]

    C., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/768/2/L36 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...768L..36P 768, L36

    Pober J. C., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/768/2/L36 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...768L..36P 768, L36

    2013 doi

  66. [74]

    C., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/96 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788...96P 788, 96

    Pober J. C., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/96 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788...96P 788, 96

    2014 doi

  67. [75]

    Prelogović D., Mesinger A., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad2027 , 524, 4239

    2023 doi

  68. [76]

    R., Loeb A., 2012, @doi [Reports on Progress in Physics] 10.1088/0034-4885/75/8/086901 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012RPPh...75h6901P 75, 086901

    Pritchard J. R., Loeb A., 2012, @doi [Reports on Progress in Physics] 10.1088/0034-4885/75/8/086901 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012RPPh...75h6901P 75, 086901

    2012 doi

  69. [77]

    Qin Y., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1909 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.2009Q 472, 2009

    2017 doi

  70. [78]

    B., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495..123Q 495, 123

    Qin Y., Mesinger A., Park J., Greig B., Mu \ n oz J. B., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495..123Q 495, 123

    2020 doi

  71. [79]

    Qin Y., Mesinger A., Greig B., Park J., 2021a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3408 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.4748Q 501, 4748

    doi

  72. [80]

    Qin Y., Mesinger A., Bosman S. E. I., Viel M., 2021b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab1833 , 506, 2390

    doi

  73. [81]

    Qin Y., Balu S., Wyithe J. S. B., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2448 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.1324Q 526, 1324

    2023 doi

  74. [82]

    arXiv:2412.00799

    Qin Y., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2412.00799 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241200799Q p. arXiv:2412.00799

    2024 doi arXiv

  75. [83]

    J., da Cunha E., Poole G

    Qiu Y., Mutch S. J., da Cunha E., Poole G. B., Wyithe J. S. B., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2233 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.1357Q 489, 1357

    2019 doi

  76. [84]

    Raiter A., Schaerer D., Fosbury R. A. E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015236 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...523A..64R 523, A64

    2010 doi

  77. [85]

    Reis I., Fialkov A., Barkana R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2089 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.5479R 506, 5479

    2021 doi

  78. [86]

    Ricotti M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1672 , 462, 601

    2016 doi

  79. [87]

    E., Omukai K., Sugimura K., Matsumoto T., Tomida K., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psae051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PASJ...76..823S 76, 823

    Sadanari K. E., Omukai K., Sugimura K., Matsumoto T., Tomida K., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psae051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PASJ...76..823S 76, 823

    2024 doi

  80. [88]

    S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad697 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.4039S 521, 4039

    Sartorio N. S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad697 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.4039S 521, 4039

    2023 doi

  81. [89]

    Saxena A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347132 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A..84S 684, A84

    2024 doi

  82. [90]

    Schauer A. T. P., Glover S. C. O., Klessen R. S., Clark P., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1953 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.1775S 507, 1775

    2021 doi

  83. [91]

    Spina B., Bosman S. E. I., Davies F. B., Gaikwad P., Zhu Y., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450798 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...688L..26S 688, L26

    2024 doi

  84. [92]

    W., Liu H., Mu \ n oz J

    Sun Y., Foster J. W., Liu H., Mu \ n oz J. B., Slatyer T. R., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2312.11608 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231211608S p. arXiv:2312.11608

    2023 doi arXiv

  85. [93]

    Toyouchi D., Inayoshi K., Li W., Haiman Z., Kuiper R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3191 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.1601T 518, 1601

    2023 doi

  86. [94]

    M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.4711T 493, 4711

    Trott C. M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.4711T 493, 4711

    2020 doi

  87. [95]

    Venditti A., Graziani L., Schneider R., Pentericci L., Di Cesare C., Maio U., Omukai K., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1201 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.3809V 522, 3809

    2023 doi

  88. [96]

    M., Trinca A., Schneider R., Graziani L., Valiante R., Wyithe J

    Ventura E. M., Trinca A., Schneider R., Graziani L., Valiante R., Wyithe J. S. B., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad237 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.3609V 520, 3609

    2023 doi

  89. [97]

    M., Qin Y., Balu S., Wyithe J

    Ventura E. M., Qin Y., Balu S., Wyithe J. S. B., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529..628V 529, 628

    2024 doi

  90. [98]

    L., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1941 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.4456V 453, 4456

    Visbal E., Haiman Z., Bryan G. L., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1941 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.4456V 453, 4456

    2015 doi

  91. [99]

    L., Haiman Z., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab994e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...897...95V 897, 95

    Visbal E., Bryan G. L., Haiman Z., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab994e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...897...95V 897, 95

    2020 doi

  92. [100]

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

    2020 doi

  93. [101]

    R., Mason C

    Whitler L. R., Mason C. A., Ren K., Dijkstra M., Mesinger A., Pentericci L., Trenti M., Treu T., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa1178 , 495, 3602

    2020 doi

  94. [102]

    A., 1952, @doi [ ] 10.1086/106661 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1952AJ.....57R..31W 57, 31

    Wouthuysen S. A., 1952, @doi [ ] 10.1086/106661 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1952AJ.....57R..31W 57, 31

    1952 doi

  95. [103]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.