Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Probing the HI distribution at small scales using 21-cm Intensity Mapping at large scales

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Large-scale 21-cm intensity-mapping statistics can be used to estimate the HI distribution inside dark-matter haloes.

desk verdict Solid proof-of-concept that 21-cm PS+BS can constrain HIHM parameters, but the validation is entirely in-sample; treat the quoted errors as optimistic. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19126 v1 pith:TB4AMRSD submitted 2025-08-26 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Minal Chhabra , Somnath Bharadwaj This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords 21-cmintensitymappingneutralhydrogenHI–halomassrelationpowerspectrumbispectrumperturbativebiaslarge-scalestructurecosmicvariance
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

This paper asks whether the 21-cm intensity-mapping signal at large cosmological scales can measure how neutral hydrogen is distributed among dark-matter haloes at small scales—the halo–HI mass relation (HIHM). At z=1, using ten N-body simulations with haloes populated by a fiducial HIHM, the authors show that the 21-cm power spectrum and bispectrum up to k=0.32 Mpc^-1 are fit by perturbation theory with just two parameters, [Ω_HI b1] and γ=b2/b1. Combining those two measured quantities with an independent measurement of the cosmic HI density Ω_HI, they recover the three HIHM parameters (α, β, v_c0), with 1σ errors that shrink when Ω_HI is known at 1 per cent rather than 5 per cent accuracy. The point of the proof of concept is that future 21-cm surveys could estimate the HIHM relation, a direct handle on galaxy formation and interstellar-medium evolution, without resolving individual galaxies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the quadratic local bias expansion δ_HI = b1 δ + (b2/2) δ^2, paired with second-order perturbation theory for the bispectrum of a biased tracer. The power-spectrum amplitude fixes the product Ω_HI b1; the shape dependence of the bispectrum over all triangle configurations fixes γ=b2/b1; and a precomputed numerical map from the HIHM parameters (α, β, v_c0) to (Ω_HI, b1, γ) closes the chain, turning large-scale statistics into an estimate of the small-scale HI–halo connection.

What would settle it

Run a matched simulation that includes redshift-space distortions (or a hydrodynamic simulation with a different HIHM prescription) and apply the same PS+BS fit for k≤0.32 Mpc^-1; if the recovered [Ω_HI b1] and γ move by more than the quoted 1σ errors, or the recovered (α, β, v_c0) fall outside the fiducial 68 per cent contours, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At scales k ≤ 0.32 Mpc^-1 the simulated 21-cm brightness-temperature power spectrum and bispectrum at z=1 are well described by a perturbative bias model with two free parameters: [Ω_HI b1] sets the amplitude of the power spectrum, and γ=b2/b1 sets the shape dependence of the bispectrum. A joint PS+BS fit gives [Ω_HI b1]=(0.90±0.01)×10^-3 and γ=-0.42±0.04, with the negative γ indicating that HI avoids the densest regions. The three HIHM parameters are mapped numerically onto (Ω_HI, b1, γ); adding an independent Ω_HI measurement closes the system and lets a Markov-chain Monte Carlo fit recover the fiducial (α=0.09, β=-0.58, v_c0=36.3 km/s) inside the 68 per cent contours. The demonstration is

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the quadratic bias expansion δ_HI = b1 δ + (b2/2) δ^2 being an accurate description of the 21-cm signal at k ≤ 0.32 Mpc^-1, with higher-order bias, stochasticity, redshift-space distortions, and noise all negligible; if that expansion fails, the recovered HIHM parameters are biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single 21-cm observation at z≈1 can deliver [Ω_HI b1] and γ from large scales alone, giving the two numbers needed to normalize the HI bias expansion used in cosmological analyses.
  • With an external Ω_HI measurement at 5 per cent accuracy, the HIHM parameters are recovered with the fiducial values inside the 68 per cent contours; improving to 1 per cent shrinks the 1σ errors by roughly 30–50 per cent.
  • The negative best-fit γ implies the HI distribution at z=1 avoids the highest-density regions, meaning the large-scale bispectrum carries a measurable signal of how much HI lives in low-mass versus high-mass haloes.
  • Because the analytic PS and BS models match simulations on large scales, future intensity-mapping surveys can use perturbation theory rather than full simulations as the forward model for cosmological parameter estimation and non-Gaussianity constraints.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: including redshift-space distortions could break the Ω_HI degeneracy, since line-of-sight anisotropy adds a velocity term that carries the growth rate; the authors list this as future work, but the same PS+BS pair might then constrain Ω_HI, b1, and γ simultaneously.
  • Editorial: the method should transfer to other redshifts: rerunning the pipeline at z=2–5 where Ω_HI is independently known would map the redshift evolution of the HIHM parameters and hence of the interstellar medium, a testable extension the paper does not carry out.
  • Editorial: the strong α–v_c0 correlation seen in the posteriors suggests that at fixed [Ω_HI b1] there is a near-degenerate family of HIHM curves; combining PS+BS from multiple redshifts or adding squeezed-limit triangles could tighten the parameter combination.
  • Editorial: the same approach could be used as a model discriminator—for example, comparing a two-parameter HIHM family against the three-parameter one by whether the recovered parameters remain consistent with the input across simulations.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a proof-of-concept study at z=1 aimed at constraining the HI mass-halo mass (HIHM) relation from large-scale 21-cm intensity mapping. Using ten realizations of a [150.08 Mpc]^3 N-body simulation populated with HI via the Padmanabhan et al. (2017) HIHM prescription, the authors measure the 21-cm power spectrum (PS) and bispectrum (BS). They model these with a quadratic local bias expansion (Eqs. 6 and 7) containing two free parameters, [Ω_HI b1] and γ=b2/b1, restrict the fit to k≤k_ul=0.32 Mpc^{-1}, and obtain (0.90±0.01)×10^{-3} and γ=-0.42±0.04. They then build an interpolation grid for Ω_HI, b1, and γ as functions of the HIHM parameters (α,β,v_c0) and, adding an external Ω_HI prior of 1% or 5% relative accuracy, recover the fiducial HIHM parameters within 1σ (Table 2, Fig. 5). The paper is explicitly framed as preliminary and acknowledges that RSD and system noise are ignored.

Significance. If the method were validated independently, it would be valuable: it connects easily accessible large-scale 21-cm statistics to the small-scale halo--HI connection, a quantity that is otherwise difficult to probe at z≈1. The paper is largely transparent about its simplifications, presents a broad exploration of bispectrum triangle shapes, and gives a concrete proposal for breaking the degeneracy between amplitude and bias by adding an Ω_HI prior. The theoretical bias model is standard, and the interpolation strategy is a reasonable first step. However, the current evidence is a self-consistency check rather than an independent validation: the same simulation suite generates the data, calibrates the bias model, builds the interpolation grid, and provides the fiducial values for recovery. The quoted precision should therefore be interpreted as an idealized upper bound on what could be achieved, not as a demonstrated robustness of the method.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, §4, Figs. 1-5] The central validation is in-sample. The 'measured' PS/BS, the best-fit bias parameters, the interpolation grid of Fig. 4, and the fiducial values used in the recovery test of Fig. 5 all come from the same simulation suite and the same HIHM prescription. Any systematic error common to the data and the interpolated model—e.g., unmodeled tidal bias, stochasticity, 1-loop corrections, or resolution effects—cancels in the χ^2 fit. The reported ~1% constraint on [Ω_HI b1] and the 1σ recovery of (α,β,v_c0) therefore demonstrate internal consistency, not that the method is robust. An out-of-sample test is needed: generate 'observed' data from a different HIHM parameter set, a different simulation code, or a differently built mock, and then apply the interpolation grid to recover the input; alternatively, use cross-validation by holding out part of the parameter grid.
  2. [§3.3, Eq. (10)] The model of Eqs. (5)-(7) is a tree-level quadratic bias model, and k_ul=0.32 Mpc^{-1} is chosen post hoc 'by trial and error' from the same data. There is no evidence that the model is unbiased throughout k≤k_ul; the good agreement shown in Figs. 1, 2, and A1 may again reflect shared systematics. The paper should report the reduced χ^2 and residuals and test the sensitivity of [Ω_HI b1] and γ to k_ul. In addition, Eq. (10) uses only diagonal errors: it ignores correlations between PS and BS bins and between different triangle configurations, which is likely to be significant given that the error bars are estimated from only ten realizations. With such small errors (Fig. 1), the off-diagonal covariance could substantially change the quoted uncertainties.
  3. [§4, Fig. 5, Table 2] The mapping from (Ω_HI,b1,γ) to (α,β,v_c0) is constructed by interpolating values measured from the same simulation suite, and its invertibility is tested only around one fiducial point. The left panel of Fig. 5 shows that the 95% contour for α is not closed within the prior range, so the claim that the three HIHM parameters are 'possible to estimate' is not generally established. Moreover, the external Ω_HI constraints are imposed at 1% and 5% accuracy without propagating a realistic measurement; because Ω_HI is also computed from the same simulation volume, the prior is partly derived from the same data. The authors should first present the constraints in (Ω_HI,b1,γ) space and then map them through the grid, explicitly demonstrating which parameter combinations are and are not degenerate.
  4. [§5, Abstract] RSD and noise are acknowledged as future work, but they are not just presentational caveats: they enter the derivation of the model predictions. In redshift space the PS and BS acquire anisotropic and additional nonlinear contributions that can bias b1 and γ even at k≤0.32 Mpc^{-1}. Given that the paper's stated goal is to show the method can estimate the HIHM relation from 21-cm measurements, the current noiseless, real-space test should be described as an idealized feasibility study rather than as a demonstration that observational 21-cm data can recover the HIHM parameters.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A vs §3.1] There is a contradiction in the allowed triangle-shape constraint: §3.1 states that the allowed region satisfies 2 μ t ≥ 1, while Appendix A states the constraint as 2 μ t ≤ 1. Please correct the typo and ensure the figure description is consistent.
  2. [§3.3, Eq. (10)] The χ^2 in Eq. (10) does not specify how many k-bins and how many (μ,t) configurations are included, nor how σ_P and σ_B are estimated from the ten realizations. Adding the number of data points and the resulting degrees of freedom would help the reader judge the goodness of fit.
  3. [Fig. 4] The right vertical axes labeled 'M_cut(×10^{10} M_⊙)' are difficult to parse. Please clarify the units or use a logarithmic axis, since a large part of the parameter space corresponds to very low Ω_HI.
  4. [Abstract] The abstract says 'we show that it is possible to estimate the three parameters' of the HIHM relation. In light of the idealized, in-sample nature of the test, I suggest softening to 'demonstrate in an idealized simulation' or 'show in principle'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

In-sample recovery: the 'independent' Omega_HI and the mock data both come from the fiducial HIHM model, so the claimed HIHM constraints are a self-consistency check.

  1. other [Section 4, paragraph introducing the Omega_HI prior (around eq. 12); abstract]
    "our entire analysis here is based on Padmanabhan et al. (2017) where the fiducial values of the HIHM parameters (α,β,vc0) have been tuned to match a wide variety of observations, and this predicts ΩHI = 9.8 × 10−4 at z=1, which is almost twice the measured value discussed above. We have used this value in our analysis."

    The paper's abstract says the HIHM parameters are estimated by combining the measured PS and BS 'with an independent measurement of Ω_HI'. But the Ω_HI actually used in eq. (12) is not an independent observation; it is the value predicted by the same fiducial HIHM model whose parameters the paper then attempts to recover. Moreover, the mock 21-cm PS and BS are also generated from the same fiducial HIHM parameters (Section 2). Therefore the χ² minimization in eq. (12) is a closed loop: the data, the external Ω_HI constraint, and the target parameters all derive from the same fiducial HIHM model. The successful recovery in Table 2 demonstrates that the inversion pipeline is internally self-consistent, but it does not validate the method against genuinely independent data. If the actually mea

full rationale

The paper is a proof-of-concept based on simulations, and most of the pipeline is methodologically sound: the bias parameters [Ω_HI b1] and γ are honestly fitted to the simulated PS/BS via MCMC, and the HIHM parameter estimation is a standard inversion using an emulator grid. There is no formal definitional circularity in equations (6) and (7), and no load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness assertion. However, the central demonstration is in-sample: the mock data are generated with the fiducial HIHM model, the calibration grid of Fig. 4 is built from the same HIHM prescription and same simulation suite, and the 'independent' Ω_HI constraint is replaced by the fiducial model's own predicted value. The recovery of the fiducial parameters is therefore a self-consistency check rather than an externally validated measurement. This warrants a moderate circularity score, but not a higher one because the inversion is not trivially forced (the mapping could have been degenerate) and the authors clearly label the study as a proof of concept, acknowledging that RSD, noise, and foregrounds are neglected.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard cosmological and bias assumptions, plus the specific HIHM model of Padmanabhan et al. (2017). The free parameters are the two bias parameters fitted to the PS/BS, the analysis cutoff k_ul, and the assumed Ω_HI prior. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • [Ω_HI b_1] = (0.90 ± 0.01) × 10^-3
    Free parameter in the power spectrum and bispectrum model (eqs. 6, 7), fitted to the simulated 21-cm PS/BS.
  • γ = b_2/b_1 = -0.42 ± 0.04
    Quadratic-to-linear bias ratio, second free parameter in the bias model, fitted to the simulated 21-cm PS/BS.
  • k_ul = 0.32 Mpc^-1
    Maximum wavenumber used in the fit, chosen by trial and error to match the perturbation theory model to the simulation; an analysis choice that affects the inferred parameters.
  • ΔΩ_HI/Ω_HI = 5% and 1%
    Assumed relative accuracy of an external Ω_HI measurement in the HIHM parameter estimation; a scenario parameter, not fitted.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Planck 2014 ΛCDM parameters and Eisenstein & Hu transfer function are used to compute the linear matter power spectrum.
    Invoked in the Introduction to justify the cosmological model used for the simulations and the analytic PS/BS models.
  • domain assumption The HIHM relation of Padmanabhan et al. (2017) (eq. 1) is the correct description of how HI populates haloes at z=1.
    Used to populate haloes with HI in the simulations; the paper does not test alternative HIHM forms.
  • domain assumption The bias expansion δ_HI = b1 δ + (b2/2) δ^2 (eq. 5) is valid on scales k ≤ 0.32 Mpc^-1.
    Central to the analytic model; if the quadratic local bias is insufficient, the inferred b1 and b2 would be biased.
  • domain assumption The simulated dark matter haloes and HI distribution are representative of the universe at z=1.
    The simulations use a finite volume [150.08 Mpc]^3 with a halo mass resolution of 10^9 M_sun; the analysis assumes these provide an unbiased sample.
  • domain assumption The errors in the measured PS/BS are Gaussian and diagonal, with variances from 10 independent realizations.
    Used in the χ^2 and Gaussian likelihood in eq. (10); off-diagonal covariance and non-Gaussianities are ignored.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing the HI distribution at small scales using 21-cm Intensity Mapping at large scales." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TB4AMRSD

@misc{pith2026250819126,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing the HI distribution at small scales using 21-cm Intensity Mapping at large scales},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TB4AMRSD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19126}
}
abstract

Neutral hydrogen (HI) 21-cm Intensity Mapping (IM) holds the potential to map the large-scale structures in the Universe over a wide redshift range $(z \lesssim 5.5)$, measure cosmological parameters, and shed light on the nature of dark energy. In addition, the signal is also sensitive to how the HI is distributed among the dark matter haloes, this being quantified through the HIHM relation, which relates the HI mass to the halo mass. In this work, we investigate whether measurements of the 21-cm power spectrum (PS) and bispectrum (BS) at large scales can be used to estimate the HIHM relation, which quantifies the HI distribution at small scales. As a proof of concept, we consider the simulated 21-cm IM signal at $z=1$. We find that the measured 21-cm PS and BS at large scales $(k \le k_{ul} = 0.32 \, {\rm Mpc}^{-1})$ are well modeled using perturbation theory, with only two free parameters namely $[\Omega_{\rm HI} b_1]$ and $\gamma = b_2/b_1$. Combining the measured 21-cm PS and BS with an independent measurement of $\Omega_{\rm HI} $, we show that it is possible to estimate the three parameters that quantify the HIHM relation. We expect observational estimates of the HIHM relation to shed light on galaxy formation and the evolution of the ISM. Our preliminary analysis ignores redshift space distortion and the system noise in IM observations, which we plan to address in future work.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19126 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Mean-squared 21-cm brightness temperature fluctuations Δ 2 T = 𝑘 3𝑃T/2𝜋 2 at 𝑧 = 1 for the fiducial values of HIHM model. Red points show the values obtained from the simulation, and error bars indicate the scatter in ten independent realizations. The solid line shows the predicted PS (eq. 6) calculated using the best-fit [ΩHI𝑏1 ], and the green dashed line indicates the extent of our fit (𝑘𝑢𝑙 = 0.32 Mpc−1 ). (𝑘1, 𝑘… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mean-cubed 21-cm brightness temperature fluctuations Δ 3 T = 𝑘 6𝐵T/(2𝜋 2 ) 2 at 𝑧 = 1 as a function of 𝑘1 for equilateral triangles (top) and 𝜇 for L-isosceles triangles with 𝑘1 = 𝑘2 = 0.315 Mpc−1 (bottom). The red points are obtained from the simulation with error bars calculated using 10 independent realizations. The solid line is the predicted BS (eq. 7) calcu￾lated using best-fit [ΩHI𝑏1 ] and 𝛾. The green dashed… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Estimates of [ΩHI𝑏1 ] and 𝛾 obtained using the 21-cm PS and BS corresponding to fiducial parameters of HIHM relation. The contours show the 68 percent and 95 per cent confidence intervals. The histograms show the marginalized 1D posterior distributions for parameters. The three dashed lines in the 1D plots indicate the 16th, 50th and 84th percentiles respectively. panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The variation of ΩHI (Left), 𝑏1 (Middle), and 𝛾 = 𝑏2/𝑏1 (Right) with HIHM parameters 𝛽 and 𝑣𝑐0. The corresponding variation of the mass cutoff at 𝑧 = 1 is also shown on the right vertical axis. The green dotted line in the right panel marks 𝛾 = 0. The blue cross in all…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Constraints of the HIHM parameters, 𝛼, 𝛽 and 𝑣𝑐0, using the redshifted 21 cm PS and BS along with an independent measurement of ΩHI with an assumed relative accuracy of 5 per cent (left panel) and 1 per cent (right panel). The contours show 68 per cent and 95 per cent …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Constraining the $z \approx 1$ neutral hydrogen (HI) distribution

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Joint Bayesian fit of uGMRT Ω_HI and CHIME 21-cm power spectrum to a three-parameter HI–halo mass relation predicts a z≈1 HIMF with excess high-mass HI galaxies relative to prior work.

  2. Probing the large-scale structure with 21cm-galaxy cross-bispectrum: Estimates from simulations and forecasts for upcoming cosmological surveys

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Forecasts indicate 10-sigma detection for squeezed triangles and 100-sigma for combined shapes in the 21cm-galaxy cross-bispectrum with 100 hours of SKA-Mid interferometric observations on scales 0.2 to 0.9 per Mpc.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Amiri M., et al., 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 947, 16

    2023

  2. [2]

    Amiri M., et al., 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 963, 23

    2024

  3. [3]

    Anderson C., et al., 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 3382

    2018

  4. [4]

    K., 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 407, 567

    Bagla J., Khandai N., Datta K. K., 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 407, 567

    2010

  5. [5]

    pp 738--757

    Bandura K., et al., 2014, in Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes V. pp 738--757

    2014

  6. [6]

    S., 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 352, 142

    Bharadwaj S., Ali S. S., 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 352, 142

    2004

  7. [7]

    Bharadwaj S., Saiyad Ali S., 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 356, 1519

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    K., 2001, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 22, 293

    Bharadwaj S., Sethi S. K., 2001, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 22, 293

    work page 2001

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    S., 2004, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 25, 67

    Bharadwaj S., Srikant P. S., 2004, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 25, 67

    2004

  2. [10]

    B., Sethi S

    Bharadwaj S., Nath B. B., Sethi S. K., 2001, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 22, 21

    2001

  3. [11]

    K., Saini T

    Bharadwaj S., Sethi S. K., Saini T. D., 2009, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 79, 083538

    2009

  4. [12]

    Bharadwaj S., Mazumdar A., Sarkar D., 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 594

    2020

  5. [13]

    Bird S., Garnett R., Ho S., 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 466, 2111

    2017

  6. [14]

    Chakraborty A., Roy N., 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 519, 4074

    2023

  7. [15]

    Chakraborty A., et al., 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 907, L7

    2021

  8. [16]

    B., McDonald P., 2008, Physical Review Letters, 100, 091303

    Chang T.-C., Pen U.-L., Peterson J. B., McDonald P., 2008, Physical Review Letters, 100, 091303

    2008

  9. [17]

    B., 2010, Nature, 466, 463

    Chang T.-C., Pen U.-L., Bandura K., Peterson J. B., 2010, Nature, 466, 463

    2010

  10. [18]

    N., Sethi S., Dwarakanath K., 2020, Nature, 586, 369

    Chowdhury A., Kanekar N., Chengalur J. N., Sethi S., Dwarakanath K., 2020, Nature, 586, 369

    2020

  11. [19]

    Cunnington S., Watkinson C., Pourtsidou A., 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 1623

    2021

  12. [20]

    Cunnington S., et al., 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 6262

    2023

  13. [21]

    D., Kollmeier J

    Dav \'e R., Katz N., Oppenheimer B. D., Kollmeier J. A., Weinberg D. H., 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 434, 2645

    2013

  14. [22]

    Desjacques V., Jeong D., Schmidt F., 2018, Physics reports, 733, 1

    2018

  15. [23]

    Durrer R., Jalilvand M., Kothari R., Maartens R., Montanari F., 2020, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2020, 003

    2020

  16. [24]

    Dutta S., Khandai N., Rana S., 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 2585

    2022

  17. [25]

    J., Hu W., 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 511, 5

    Eisenstein D. J., Hu W., 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 511, 5

    1999

  18. [26]

    Elahi K. M. A., et al., 2023a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 2094

  19. [27]

    Elahi K. M. A., et al., 2023b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 3439

  20. [28]

    Elahi K. M. A., et al., 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 3372

    2024

  21. [29]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306

    2013

  22. [30]

    Freudling W., et al., 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 727, 40

    2010

  23. [31]

    N., 1984, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol

    Fry J. N., 1984, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 279, April 15, 1984, p. 499-510., 279, 499

    1984

  24. [32]

    S., Chengalur J

    Ghosh A., Bharadwaj S., Ali S. S., Chengalur J. N., 2011a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 411, 2426

  25. [33]

    S., Chengalur J

    Ghosh A., Bharadwaj S., Ali S. S., Chengalur J. N., 2011b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 418, 2584

  26. [34]

    B., et al., 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 028001

    Gibbon T. B., et al., 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 028001

    2015

  27. [35]

    R., 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 421, 3570

    Guha Sarkar T., Mitra S., Majumdar S., Choudhury T. R., 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 421, 3570

    2012

  28. [36]

    E., Peterson B

    Gunn J. E., Peterson B. A., 1965, @doi [ ] 10.1086/148444 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965ApJ...142.1633G 142, 1633

    1965 doi

  29. [37]

    Guo H., Li C., Zheng Z., Mo H., Jing Y., Zu Y., Lim S., Xu H., 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 846, 61

    2017

  30. [38]

    Gupta Y., et al., 2017, Current Science, pp 707--714

    2017

  31. [39]

    K., Guha Sarkar T., 2012, Physical review letters, 109, 121301

    Hazra D. K., Guha Sarkar T., 2012, Physical review letters, 109, 121301

    2012

  32. [40]

    K., Di Matteo T., Croft R

    Khandai N., Sethi S. K., Di Matteo T., Croft R. A., Springel V., Jana A., Gardner J. P., 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 415, 2580

    2011

  33. [41]

    M., Wolfe A

    Lanzetta K. M., Wolfe A. M., Turnshek D. A., Lu L., McMahon R. G., Hazard C., 1991, Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series (ISSN 0067-0049), vol. 77, Sept. 1991, p. 1-57., 77, 1

    1991

  34. [42]

    A., Gnedin N

    Mar \' n F. A., Gnedin N. Y., Seo H.-J., Vallinotto A., 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 718, 972

    2010

  35. [43]

    M., Papastergis E., Giovanelli R., Haynes M

    Martin A. M., Papastergis E., Giovanelli R., Haynes M. P., Springob C. M., Stierwalt S., 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 723, 1359

    2010

  36. [44]

    Masui K., et al., 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 763, L20

    2013

  37. [45]

    Matarrese S., Verde L., Heavens A., 1997, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 290, 651

    1997

  38. [46]

    Mazumdar A., Bharadwaj S., Sarkar D., 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 3975

    2020

  39. [47]

    Mazumder A., et al., 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, p. staf975

    2025

  40. [48]

    Modi C., Castorina E., Feng Y., White M., 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.11923

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    pp 2039--2049

    Newburgh L., et al., 2016, in Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes VI. pp 2039--2049

    2016

  42. [50]

    Padmanabhan H., Kulkarni G., 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 340

    2017

  43. [51]

    Padmanabhan H., Refregier A., 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, p. stw2706

    2016

  44. [52]

    R., Refregier A., 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 447, 3745

    Padmanabhan H., Choudhury T. R., Refregier A., 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 447, 3745

    2015

  45. [53]

    Padmanabhan H., Refregier A., Amara A., 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 469, 2323

    2017

  46. [54]

    Padmanabhan H., Maartens R., Umeh O., Camera S., 2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.09720

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Pal S., et al., 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 2851

    2022

  48. [56]

    R., Paranjape A., 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 1627

    Paul N., Choudhury T. R., Paranjape A., 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 1627

    2018

  49. [57]

    G., Chen Z., Wolz L., 2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11943

    Paul S., Santos M. G., Chen Z., Wolz L., 2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11943

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    G., 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 4297

    P \'e nin A., Umeh O., Santos M. G., 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 4297

    2018

  51. [59]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2014, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321591 , 571, A16

    2014 doi

  52. [60]

    Pontzen A., et al., 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 390, 1349

    2008

  53. [61]

    R., Loeb A., 2012, Reports on Progress in Physics, 75, 086901

    Pritchard J. R., Loeb A., 2012, Reports on Progress in Physics, 75, 086901

    2012

  54. [62]

    X., Herbert-Fort S., Wolfe A

    Prochaska J. X., Herbert-Fort S., Wolfe A. M., 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 635, 123

    2005

  55. [63]

    M., 2005, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 1, 125

    Rao S. M., 2005, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 1, 125

    2005

  56. [64]

    A., Keating L

    Raste J., Kulkarni G., Watkinson C. A., Keating L. C., Haehnelt M. G., 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, p. stae492

    2024

  57. [65]

    H., Chengalur J

    Rhee J., Lah P., Briggs F. H., Chengalur J. N., Colless M., Willner S. P., Ashby M. L., Le F \`e vre O., 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 1879

    2018

  58. [66]

    D., Bharadwaj S., Sethi S

    Saini T. D., Bharadwaj S., Sethi S. K., 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 557, 421

    2001

  59. [67]

    K., 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 366, 213

    Saiyad Ali S., Bharadwaj S., Pandey S. K., 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 366, 213

    2006

  60. [68]

    Sarkar D., Bharadwaj S., 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 96

    2018

  61. [69]

    Sarkar D., Bharadwaj S., 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 5666

    2019

  62. [70]

    Sarkar D., Bharadwaj S., Anathpindika S., 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 460, 4310

    2016

  63. [71]

    Sarkar D., Majumdar S., Bharadwaj S., 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 2880

    2019

  64. [72]

    Scheuer P. A. G., 1965, @doi [ ] 10.1038/207963a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965Natur.207..963S 207, 963

    1965 doi

  65. [73]

    Scoccimarro R., 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 544, 597

    2000

  66. [74]

    Seehars S., Paranjape A., Witzemann A., Refregier A., Amara A., Akeret J., 2016, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2016, 001

    2016

  67. [75]

    Serra P., et al., 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 422, 1835

    2012

  68. [76]

    K., Tormen G., 1999, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 308, 119

    Sheth R. K., Tormen G., 1999, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 308, 119

    1999

  69. [77]

    Swarup G., Ananthakrishnan S., Kapahi V., Rao A., Subrahmanya C., Kulkarni V., 1991, Current science, 60, 95

    1991

  70. [78]

    Switzer E., et al., 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 434, L46

    2013

  71. [79]

    Tramonte D., Ma Y.-Z., 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 5916

    2020

  72. [80]

    K., Choudhury T

    Villaescusa-Navarro F., Viel M., Datta K. K., Choudhury T. R., 2014, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2014, 050

    2014

  73. [81]

    Villaescusa-Navarro F., et al., 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 866, 135

    2018

  74. [82]

    Wang Z., et al., 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 907, 4

    2021

  75. [83]

    Wolz L., Tonini C., Blake C., Wyithe J., 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458, 3399

    2016

  76. [84]

    Zafar T., Popping A., P \'e roux C., 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 556, A140

    2013

  77. [85]

    Zhu Y., et al., 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 533, L49

    2024

  78. [86]

    A., Meyer M., Staveley-Smith L., Webster R., 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 359, L30

    Zwaan M. A., Meyer M., Staveley-Smith L., Webster R., 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 359, L30

    2005

Pith tools

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