Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

On the contamination of the global 21~cm signal from polarized foregrounds

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that unaccounted polarized foreground emission can reproduce the anomalous 21 cm absorption trough reported by the EDGES experiment, possibly inflating its amplitude by about 30%.

desk verdict A careful simulation study whose general caution about polarized leakage is solid, but whose EDGES-mitigation claim rests on a hand-tuned 10% contamination level and a selected subset of realizations. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05303 v1 pith:52ZIJ7W2 submitted 2019-08-14 astro-ph.CO

Marta Spinelli , Gianni Bernardi , Mario G. Santos This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords 21cmcosmologyglobalsignalpolarizedforegroundsFaradayrotationcosmicdawnEDGESanomalyforegroundcontaminationBayesianparameterestimation
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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

Global 21 cm experiments that measure the sky-averaged signal rely on foregrounds having smooth spectra, but a single-polarization antenna also picks up linearly polarized Galactic emission that Faraday rotation corrugates across frequency. This paper simulates realistic dipole observations with polarized full-sky maps and shows that this contamination biases the reconstructed 21 cm signal in both the 50–100 MHz Cosmic Dawn band and the 100–200 MHz reionization band. The main result is that, for a restricted Faraday-depth model of polarization, unaccounted contamination can turn a standard ~150 mK Gaussian absorption trough into an enhanced, broadened profile resembling the anomalous 78 MHz trough reported by the EDGES experiment, with the recovered amplitude inflated by roughly 30%. If correct, this would weaken the case for exotic physics (for example dark-matter interactions) built on the unusually deep EDGES absorption.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is polarization leakage in a single-polarization dipole: the measured total-intensity spectrum includes Stokes Q, and Faraday rotation of Galactic synchrotron emission makes that contamination oscillate with frequency rather than follow a smooth power law. The simulation machinery consists of (i) all-sky Stokes Q and U maps from the Spinelli et al. (2018) simulations, with two variants—full Faraday-depth range and 'low φ' (only Faraday depths below 5 rad/m²); (ii) a parametric analytic dipole beam model to integrate the sky over the observing window; and (iii) a Bayesian Monte-Carlo fit that models foregrounds as a fourth-order log-polynomial and the 21 cm signal as a Gaussian or flattened Gaussian. The 'low φ' variant is the one that yields EDGES-like profiles; the 'all φ' case is usually too contaminated to allow signal extraction.

What would settle it

Measure the actual Stokes Q and U sky at 50–100 MHz over degree-to-tens-of-degree scales with a calibrated polarimetric instrument, compute the leakage spectrum that a single-polarization dipole would see, and compare its amplitude and Faraday-depth structure with the model predictions; if the real contamination is far below about 150 mK rms or is spectrally smooth, the claimed EDGES-mimicking bias would not occur.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that polarized foreground contamination—emission measured because a single-polarization dipole couples to Stokes Q via the antenna response—has a frequency structure that is not smooth after Faraday rotation, so standard smooth-foreground subtraction cannot remove it. In simulations that inject a fiducial Gaussian 21 cm absorption profile at 78.3 MHz and then fit a flattened Gaussian, the recovered profile in the 'low φ' polarized-sky model is systematically deeper and wider; its amplitude is in mild tension (~1.5σ) with the input profile and can mimic the EDGES detection. The authors further note that under the contamination hypothesis the reconstructed EDGES signal amplitude can be overestimated by around 30%, which mitigates the need to invoke exotic physics such as dark-matter cooling or an excess radio background. They also show that at 10% contamination the biases persist in both bands, and that a 90-degree antenna rotation does not remove them.

Load-bearing premise

The modeled polarized sky—especially the low Faraday-depth variant that produces the EDGES-like profile—must match the actual polarized Galactic emission a dipole sees at 50–100 MHz, and the optimistic case additionally assumes that contamination is reduced to 10% of the model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the contamination hypothesis holds, the reported EDGES trough amplitude is likely overestimated by roughly 30%, so the deviation from standard astrophysical predictions is much smaller than claimed.
  • Global 21 cm experiments must either model polarized leakage explicitly or reduce it (for example by dual-polarization differencing and careful calibration) even when the contamination is only about 10% of the current polarized-sky estimate.
  • In the 100–200 MHz band, polarized leakage biases the recovered midpoint of reionization by up to about 10% and can underestimate the duration of reionization by up to a factor of about 10.
  • Antenna-rotation consistency checks are not sufficient to rule out polarized contamination, because both orthogonal polarizations show the same qualitative bias in the simulations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the true low-frequency polarized sky is closer to the 'all φ' realization, the EDGES-like profile would probably not survive; a direct measurement of the Faraday-depth distribution at 50–100 MHz over an observing field would discriminate between these regimes.
  • The same bias mechanism should affect any single-polarization global-signal measurement from any site, so amplitudes and shapes inferred by other experiments in this band may carry a comparable systematic.
  • A testable consequence: a dual-polarization global-signal antenna with accurate relative calibration—so that Stokes Q and U leakage is removed—should recover a shallower and narrower absorption trough than the reported EDGES profile if contamination is the cause.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents sky-averaged 21 cm signal simulations with a dipole beam at the Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory, including total-intensity foregrounds, a 21 cm signal (Gaussian, flattened Gaussian, or tanh reionization model), noise, and polarized foregrounds from the Spinelli et al. (2018) Faraday-depth simulations. The polarized foregrounds are considered in an 'all φ' and a 'low φ' (φ < 5 rad/m^2) variant, and in some cases are scaled to 10% of the template amplitude. The authors use the hibayes Bayesian code to extract the signal. They show that recovery is unbiased when foregrounds are smooth (Figure 6), whereas polarized leakage biases the reconstructed amplitude and shape or prevents convergence. They report that, for the low-φ case, a standard Gaussian input reconstructed with a flattened-Gaussian model can appear as an enhanced, EDGES-like absorption trough, and that when the EDGES flattened Gaussian is both input and model, the recovered amplitude is biased high by roughly 20-30%.

Significance. If the polarization-contamination mechanism is validated, the paper would supply an astrophysical systematic that can mimic or distort the EDGES Cosmic Dawn absorption trough, reducing the need for exotic-physics explanations. The quantitative bias estimates are potentially important for global-signal experiments, and the rotated-dipole test argument (Section 4) is a useful caution: such tests do not automatically exclude polarized contamination. The simulation machinery is appropriate, and the unbiased-recovery control and the rms distributions are valuable. However, the EDGES-specific conclusion rests on several modeling choices whose sensitivity is not demonstrated, and the body of the paper contains two distinct scenarios that are conflated in the abstract. These issues currently weaken the central claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.4, §3] The EDGES-like trough in Figure 8 is obtained only for the 'low φ' (φ < 5 rad/m^2) variant. Section 3 states that in the 'all φ' case almost all realizations are discarded for the Gaussian-input test. The cutoff is justified only qualitatively through references, and the 10% amplitude rescaling is chosen to match the EDGES residual rms rather than derived from a depolarization model. No sensitivity analysis is provided for either parameter. Because the effect disappears under the alternative 'all φ' model, the claim that unaccounted polarized foregrounds can produce the EDGES-like profile is not robust to plausible variations in the assumed foreground model.
  2. [§3, second bullet; Figure 8] The Gaussian-input/flattened-Gaussian-extraction test lacks a control run without polarized contamination. A flattened-Gaussian fit to a Gaussian input can itself introduce amplitude and width biases; without that control, the enhanced and distorted reconstructed profile cannot be cleanly attributed to polarized contamination. The authors should show the same extraction with the same priors and model but with T_Q = 0.
  3. [Abstract; §4] The abstract states that the reconstructed EDGES amplitude can be overestimated by around 30%, mitigating the need for exotic physics. In the body, the ~20-30% amplitude bias is reported for the case where the EDGES flattened Gaussian is both the input and the model (Section 4, Figure 7), not for the standard-Gaussian-input case in Figure 8, where the reconstructed amplitude is far larger than the input. These are logically distinct assertions: one assumes the anomalous EDGES signal exists and is partially contaminated, while the other claims contamination can create the signal from a standard input. The abstract conflates them, and the '30%' figure does not support the trough-generation claim. The wording should be corrected.
  4. [§3, second bullet] In the Gaussian-input test, only about 30% of the low-φ realizations are retained after discarding cases with high-frequency troughs or non-convergence. The selection criteria are stated, but the analysis should report how the resulting EDGES-like profile depends on the retention thresholds and should demonstrate that the reported bias is not driven by selecting the most extreme realizations. A quantitative statement of the fraction of realizations that produce an EDGES-like profile under plausible selection criteria would make the 'can produce' claim more meaningful.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (14), Table 1] The log-polynomial in Eq. (14) is written with sum over n = 1 to N, but Table 1 lists p0 through p4. If the intended order is N = 4, the table should list only p0..p3; otherwise the sum upper limit should be N = 5 or the indexing should be adjusted.
  2. [§3] The priors for the flattened-Gaussian parameters w and τ are not specified in the text, unlike the Gaussian parameters. Please state these priors explicitly.
  3. [§2.1] The HF-band beam is obtained by linearly scaling the 100 MHz model up to 200 MHz, with no justification. This is a significant simplification for a band that is central to part of the analysis; it should at least be noted as a limitation.
  4. [§2.4, Figure 5] Figure 5 shows rms distributions from 100 realizations, whereas the signal-extraction runs use 50 realizations. Please clarify whether the same realizations are used and whether the 50 are a subset of the 100.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the EDGES-like trough is an emergent estimator bias from a forward model, not an input restated as an output.

full rationale

This paper is a forward-simulation study: it injects known 21 cm signals, total-intensity foregrounds, polarized foregrounds, and noise, then fits a model to the simulated spectra. The reported biases (e.g., 20–30% amplitude overestimation, the EDGES-like trough in Fig. 8) are outputs of the Bayesian estimator under mismodeled and unmodeled components, not copies of the input. The key EDGES test injects a Gaussian and fits a flattened Gaussian, so the recovered flattened profile is not the input by construction; it is an emergent distortion caused by the polarized contaminant. The 10% amplitude reduction and the φ < 5 rad/m² cutoff are explicitly labeled modeling choices motivated by observations and EDGES residuals, not parameters fitted to produce the conclusion; the paper also presents the all-φ case that fails to converge, showing the result is not an automatic consequence of the setup. Self-citations (Spinelli et al. 2018 maps, Bernardi et al. 2015 foreground coefficients, Bernardi et al. 2016 code) are load-bearing inputs, but they are observationally anchored, externally falsifiable products of prior work, and the paper's central claim does not reduce to a self-citation chain. No equation or fitted parameter is defined in terms of the claimed prediction. The main limitations are model uncertainty and selection effects, which are correctness risks rather than circularity.

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

The central claim rests on the polarized foreground model: the S18 maps (previous work by the same group) extrapolated to large angular scales, plus two hand-chosen modifications, the φ<5 rad/m² cut and the 10% amplitude scaling. The smooth total-intensity foreground coefficients are taken from Bernardi et al. (2015). The beam model is from Dowell (2011), with an unvalidated linear scaling at high frequency. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (6)
  • Total intensity foreground log-polynomial coefficients p0..p4 = p0=10^3.58 K, p1=-2.60, p2=0.01, p3=0.06, p4=0.25
    Adopted from the Bernardi et al. (2015) fit (Table 1) and used in Eq. 14 to generate the smooth foreground spectrum; the bias results are not sensitive to the exact values because the foreground is smooth by construction.
  • LWA dipole beam model coefficients α,β,γ,δ = Tabulated in Dowell (2011); interpolated 50-90 MHz, extrapolated to 100 MHz; HF band scaled linearly to 200 MHz
    The beam pattern sets how polarized sky structure leaks into the spectrum (Eqs. 5-8). The 100-200 MHz beam is an unvalidated linear scaling of the 100 MHz model (Section 2.1), which is a load-bearing approximation for the HF results.
  • Polarized contamination amplitude scaling factor = 1.0 (fiducial) and 0.1 (optimistic)
    The 10% level is chosen by hand in Section 2.4 to account for unmodeled depolarization and to agree qualitatively with the residual rms of the EDGES data. Most bias results, including the HF case, are demonstrated only at the 10% level.
  • Faraday depth cutoff for low-φ polarized maps = φ < 5 rad/m²
    Chosen in Section 2.4 as a more realistic low-frequency model. The EDGES-like reconstruction shown in Figure 8 uses only low-φ realizations; the all-φ case mostly fails to converge and is discarded.
  • Fiducial Gaussian input 21 cm signal parameters = A21=-150 mK, ν21=78.3 MHz, σ21=5 MHz
    Standard-model absorption trough injected in the EDGES-mimicry test (Section 3). The 1.5σ 'enhanced and distorted' claim is the recovered profile's tension with this input.
  • EDGES flattened-Gaussian input signal parameters = A21=-520 mK, ν21=78.3 MHz, w=20.7 MHz, τ=7
    Best-fit EDGES profile (Bowman et al. 2018a) injected to test the 20-30% amplitude overestimate claim (Section 3).
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The single-polarization antenna measurement is correctly described by the Jones matrix mixing of Stokes I and Q (Eqs. 2-5).
    Standard radio interferometry formalism; the paper's derivation of Txx = Tf + TQ + T21 and Tyy = Tf - TQ + T21 follows directly from the Jones matrix for a linearly polarized dipole.
  • domain assumption The Spinelli et al. (2018) maps represent the polarized sky at 50-200 MHz after extrapolation from degree scales to the tens-of-degree scales seen by a global dipole.
    This extrapolation is the core of the polarized foreground model (Section 2.4). The authors note the resulting contamination is likely a worst case because depolarization is ignored, so the absolute level is uncertain.
  • domain assumption At 50-100 MHz, Galactic polarized emission has little power at Faraday depths φ > 5 rad/m², justifying the low-φ case.
    Motivated by the local origin of low-frequency polarized emission (Haverkorn et al. 2004; Bernardi et al. 2009; Lenc et al. 2016) cited in Section 2.4. The EDGES-like result in Figure 8 depends on this case.
  • domain assumption The LWA analytic dipole beam, linearly scaled up to 200 MHz, adequately models the response of a global-signal antenna at MRO.
    The HF beam model is an unvalidated linear frequency scaling of the 100 MHz model, stated openly in Section 2.1; the HF bias results depend on it.
  • domain assumption The 21 cm signal can be idealized as a Gaussian absorption profile in the LF band and a tanh model in the HF band.
    These analytic parameterizations (Section 2.2) underpin the input signals and the extraction models; the size of the contamination bias will depend on the true spectral shape.
  • domain assumption A reconstructed absorption trough centered above 90 MHz is unphysical for the Cosmic Dawn signal at MRO.
    Adopted from the EDGES High-Band limit (Monsalve et al. 2017) and used as a selection criterion in Section 3. This assumption is what makes it legitimate to discard ~20% (or more) of the realizations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the contamination of the global 21~cm signal from polarized foregrounds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/52ZIJ7W2

@misc{pith2026190805303,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the contamination of the global 21~cm signal from polarized foregrounds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/52ZIJ7W2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05303}
}
abstract

Global (i.e. sky-averaged) $21$~cm signal experiments can measure the evolution of the universe from the Cosmic Dawn to the Epoch of Reionization. These measurements are challenged by the presence of bright foreground emission that can be separated from the cosmological signal if its spectrum is smooth. This assumption fails in the case of single polarization antennas as they measure linearly polarized foreground emission - which is inevitably Faraday rotated through the interstellar medium. We investigate the impact of Galactic polarized foregrounds on the extraction of the global 21~cm signal through realistic sky and dipole simulations both in a low frequency band from $50$ to $100$~MHz, where a 21~cm absorption profile is expected, and in a higher frequency band ($100-200$~MHz). We find that the presence of a polarized contaminant with complex frequency structure can bias the amplitude and the shape of the reconstructed signal parameters in both bands. We investigate if polarized foregrounds can explain the unexpected $21$~cm Cosmic Dawn signal recently reported by the EDGES collaboration. We find that unaccounted polarized foreground contamination can produce an enhanced and distorted $21$~cm absorption trough similar to the anomalous profile reported by Bowman et al. (2018), and whose amplitude is in mild tension with the assumed input Gaussian profile (at $\sim 1.5 \sigma$ level). Moreover, we note that, under the hypothesis of contamination from polarized foreground, the amplitude of the reconstructed EDGES signal can be overestimated by around $30\%$, mitigating the requirement for an explanation based on exotic physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05303 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. E-W (xx) dipole beam model at 50 MHz for LST = 2 h (top panel) and LST = 8 h (middle panel). The bottom panel shows instead the 100 MHz beam again for LST = 2 h . where A21, ν21 and σ21 are the amplitude, peak position and stan￾dard deviation of the 21 cm trough, respectively. We consider this our fiducial model for the LF band. We also include the case of a flattened Gaussian profile adopted in the EDGES analysis (… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Our fiducial Gaussian input model (dot-dashed red line) and the flattened Gaussian model best-fit of the EDGES data (Bowman et al. 2018a, solid red line), compared with the global signal profiles obtained with SimFast21 (Santos et al. 2010) varying the physical input parameters (solid grey lines). factor τ. Theoretical simulations that include standard physics pre￾dict a wide range of different global 21 cm signals … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Top panel: simulated polarized foreground spectra T¯Q(ν) (equa￾tion 1) integrated over the LST range. Light and dark green solid lines correspond to two different realizations of the “all φ" simulations. The ver￾tical dashed line divides the LF band from the HF one. Bottom panel: same as the top panel but with light and dark red lines corresponding to two different realizations of the “low φ" (i.e. φ < 5 rad m−2 ) s… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top panel: distribution of the polarized spectrum rms calculated in the LF band from 100 realizations for both the “all φ" (in green) and the “low φ" (i.e. φ < 5 rad/m2 ) simulations (in red). Bottom panel: same as the top panel but for the HF band. 2018a). The model s…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Marginalized two dimensional posterior distributions of the global 21 cm signal in the HF band and only the total intensity foreground parameters, without including any contamination from polarized foregrounds. Contours are shown at 1σ and 2σ respectively, whereas the …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Reconstructed T21, f G signal. Note that the input signal is the fiducial Gaussian model (black dotted-dashed). The solid (dashed) red line shows one of the reconstructed T21, f G signals for the xx (yy) polarization. The red (grey) shaded area is the 1σ region around …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The black dotted-dashed line in both panels is the input signal: the best fit flattened Gaussian from Bowman et al. (2018a). Top panel: reconstructed T21, f G signal in the case of the “all φ" simulations, in the LF, from the Bayesian analysis described in the text. Th…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The black dotted-dashed line is the Gaussian fiducial input signal in the LF band. We show here reconstructed T21,G signal considering the “low φ" (i.e. φ < 5 rad/m2 ) case with signal magnitude reduced to the 10% of the reference simulation - see text for details. The…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The black dotted-dashed line in both panels is the fiducial input EoR signal. Top panel: reconstructed T21 signal in the HF band, in the “low φ" (i.e. φ < 5 rad/m2 ) case with a 10% reduced magnitude (see text for details). The solid (dashed) red line shows one of the…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Reviving Millicharged Dark Matter for 21-cm Cosmology

    hep-ph 2019-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Adding a long-range interaction between a millicharged dark matter subcomponent and the dominant cold dark matter lets the dark sector act as a heat sink, reviving the millicharged explanation of the EDGES 21-cm anomaly.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Barkana R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature25791 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018Natur.555...71B 555, 71

    doi:10.1038/nature25791 2018

  2. [2]

    Bernardi G., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200911627 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200911627 2009

  3. [3]

    Bernardi G., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913420 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913420 2010

  4. [4]

    Bernardi G., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/771/2/105 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...771..105B 771, 105

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/771/2/105 2013

  5. [5]

    J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/90 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2015ApJ...799...90B 799, 90

    Bernardi G., McQuinn M., Greenhill L. J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/90 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2015ApJ...799...90B 799, 90

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/1/90 2015

  6. [6]

    Bernardi G., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1499 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461.2847B 461, 2847

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1499 2016

  7. [7]

    D., Rogers A

    Bowman J. D., Rogers A. E. E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature09601 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2010Natur.468..796B 468, 796

    doi:10.1038/nature09601 2010

  8. [8]

    D., Rogers A

    Bowman J. D., Rogers A. E. E.and Monsalve R., Mozdzen T., Mahesh N., 2018a, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature25792 , 555, 67

    doi:10.1038/nature25792

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    D., Rogers A

    Bowman J. D., Rogers A. E. E., Monsalve R. A., Mozdzen T. J.and Mahesh N., 2018b, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-018-0797-4 , https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0797-4 564

    doi

  2. [10]

    a., de Bruyn a

    Brentjens M. a., de Bruyn a. G., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20052990 , 441, 1217

    2005 doi

  3. [11]

    Buchner J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2014A&A...564A.125B 564, A125

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    J., 1966, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/133.1.67 , 133, 67

    Burn B. J., 1966, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/133.1.67 , 133, 67

    1966 doi

  5. [13]

    Cohen A., Fialkov A., Barkana R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw047 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2016MNRAS.459L..90C 459, L90

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    Cohen A., Fialkov A., Barkana R., Lotem M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2065 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2017MNRAS.472.1915C 472, 1915

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/129/974/045001 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASP..129d5001D 129, 045001

    DeBoer D. R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/129/974/045001 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASP..129d5001D 129, 045001

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    Dowell J., 2011, Parametric Model for the LWA-1 Dipole Response as a Function of Frequency

    2011

  9. [17]

    W., Craig J., Dowell J., Taylor G

    Ellingson S. W., Craig J., Dowell J., Taylor G. B., Helmboldt J. F., 2013, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2013arXiv1307.0697E p. arXiv:1307.0697

    2013 arXiv

  10. [18]

    A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae51d , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...868...63E 868, 63

    Ewall-Wice A., Chang T.-C., Lazio J., Dor \'e O., Seiffert M., Monsalve R. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae51d , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...868...63E 868, 63

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    Feng C., Holder G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aac0fe , 858, L17

    2018 doi

  12. [21]

    P., Bridges M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398.1601F 398, 1601

    Feroz F., Hobson M. P., Bridges M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398.1601F 398, 1601

    2009

  13. [22]

    Fialkov A., Loeb A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/11/066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013JCAP...11..066F 2013, 066

    2013 doi

  14. [23]

    B., 1958, @doi [Proceedings of the IRE] 10.1109/JRPROC.1958.286741 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1958PIRE...46..240F 46, 240

    Field G. B., 1958, @doi [Proceedings of the IRE] 10.1109/JRPROC.1958.286741 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1958PIRE...46..240F 46, 240

    1958

  15. [24]

    Fraser S., et al., 2018, @doi [Physics Letters B] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2018.08.035 , 785, 159

    2018 doi

  16. [25]

    R., Oh S

    Furlanetto S. R., Oh S. P., Briggs F. H., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.physrep.2006.08.002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2006PhR...433..181F 433, 181

    2006 doi

  17. [26]

    Harker G. J. A., Pritchard J. R., Burns J. O., Bowman J. D., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19766.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2012MNRAS.419.1070H 419, 1070

    2012

  18. [27]

    Harker G. J. A., Mirocha J., Burns J. O., Pritchard J. R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2630 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455.3829H 455, 3829

    2016 doi

  19. [28]

    G., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200400051 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A

    Haverkorn M., Katgert P., de Bruyn A. G., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200400051 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A

    2004 doi

  20. [29]

    D., Puchwein E., 2018, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-018-0796-5 , https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0796-5 564

    Hills R., Kulkarni G., Meerburg P. D., Puchwein E., 2018, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-018-0796-5 , https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0796-5 564

    2018 doi

  21. [30]

    Houston N., Li C., Li T., Yang Q., Zhang X., 2018, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.111301 , 121, 111301

    2018 doi

  22. [32]

    Koopmans L., et al., 2015, Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015aska.confE...1K p. 1

    2015

  23. [33]

    Lenc E., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/38 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...830...38L 830, 38

    2016 doi

  24. [34]

    J., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/303549 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1997ApJ...475..429M 475, 429

    Madau P., Meiksin A., Rees M. J., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/303549 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1997ApJ...475..429M 475, 429

    1997 doi

  25. [35]

    E., Aguirre J

    Martinot Z. E., Aguirre J. E., Kohn S. A., Washington I. Q., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeac6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...869...79M 869, 79

    2018 doi

  26. [36]

    S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt198 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2013MNRAS.431..621M 431, 621

    Mesinger A., Ferrara A., Spiegel D. S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt198 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2013MNRAS.431..621M 431, 621

    2013 doi

  27. [37]

    Mesinger A., Greig B., Sobacchi E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw831 , 459, 2342

    2016 doi

  28. [38]

    Mirocha J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1193 , 443, 1211

    2014 doi

  29. [39]

    Mirocha J., Harker G. J. A., Burns J. O., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/11 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...813...11M 813, 11

    2015 doi

  30. [40]

    R., Sun G., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2412 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2017MNRAS.464.1365M 464, 1365

    Mirocha J., Furlanetto S. R., Sun G., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2412 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2017MNRAS.464.1365M 464, 1365

    2017 doi

  31. [41]

    A., Rogers A

    Monsalve R. A., Rogers A. E. E., Bowman J. D., Mozdzen T. J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa88d1 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...847...64M 847, 64

    2017 doi

  32. [42]

    A., Greig B., Bowman J

    Monsalve R. A., Greig B., Bowman J. D., Mesinger A., Rogers A. E. E., Mozdzen T. J., Kern N. S., Mahesh N., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aace54 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...863...11M 863, 11

    2018 doi

  33. [43]

    A., Fialkov A., Bowman J

    Monsalve R. A., Fialkov A., Bowman J. D., Rogers A. E. E., Mozdzen T. J., Cohen A., Barkana R., Mahesh N., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab07be , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...875...67M 875, 67

    2019 doi

  34. [44]

    F., Aguirre J

    Moore D. F., Aguirre J. E., Parsons A. R., Jacobs D. C., Pober J. C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/769/2/154 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...769..154M 769, 154

    2013 doi

  35. [45]

    J., Bowman J

    Mozdzen T. J., Bowman J. D., Monsalve R. A., Rogers A. E. E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2601 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2016MNRAS.455.3890M 455, 3890

    2016 doi

  36. [46]

    D., Bradley R

    Nhan B. D., Bradley R. F., Burns J. O., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/90 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...836...90N 836, 90

    2017 doi

  37. [47]

    D., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b73 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848...47N 848, 47

    Nunhokee C. D., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b73 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848...47N 848, 47

    2017 doi

  38. [48]

    M., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1086/657160 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PASP..122.1353O 122, 1353

    Ord S. M., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1086/657160 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PASP..122.1353O 122, 1353

    2010 doi

  39. [49]

    Philip L., et al., 2019, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Instrumentation] 10.1142/S2251171719500041 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019JAI.....850004P 8, 1950004

    2019 doi

  40. [50]

    Planck Collaboration XIII 2016, , 594, A13

    2016

  41. [51]

    E., Liu A., Parsons A

    Presley M. E., Liu A., Parsons A. R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/18 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2015ApJ...809...18P 809, 18

    2015 doi

  42. [52]

    C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1244 , 478, 4193

    Price D. C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1244 , 478, 4193

    2018 doi

  43. [53]

    R., Furlanetto S

    Pritchard J. R., Furlanetto S. R., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11519.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2007MNRAS.376.1680P 376, 1680

    2007

  44. [54]

    Pritchard J., Loeb A., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1038/468772b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2010Natur.468..772P 468, 772

    2010 doi

  45. [55]

    G., Ferramacho L., Silva M

    Santos M. G., Ferramacho L., Silva M. B., Amblard A., Cooray A., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16898.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.406.2421S 406, 2421

    2010

  46. [56]

    Sathyanarayana Rao M., Subrahmanyan R., Udaya Shankar N., Chluba J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....153...26S 153, 26

    2017 doi

  47. [57]

    Sharma P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly147 , 481, L6

    2018 doi

  48. [58]

    A., Windhorst R

    Shaver P. A., Windhorst R. A., Madau P., de Bruyn A. G., 1999, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A

    1999

  49. [59]

    arXiv:1903.04540

    Singh S., Subrahmanyan R., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190304540S p. arXiv:1903.04540

    2019 arXiv

  50. [60]

    Singh S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa831b , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...845L..12S 845, L12

    2017 doi

  51. [61]

    U., Rao M

    Singh S., Subrahmanyan R., Shankar N. U., Rao M. S., Girish B. S., Raghunathan A., Somashekar R., Srivani K. S., 2018, @doi [Experimental Astronomy] 10.1007/s10686-018-9584-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018ExA....45..269S 45, 269

    2018 doi

  52. [62]

    G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1457 , 479, 275

    Spinelli M., Bernardi G., Santos M. G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1457 , 479, 275

    2018 doi

  53. [63]

    R., Liu A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...793..102S 793, 102

    Switzer E. R., Liu A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...793..102S 793, 102

    2014 doi

  54. [64]

    O., Switzer E., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa41f , 853, 187

    Tauscher K., Rapetti D., Burns J. O., Switzer E., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa41f , 853, 187

    2018 doi

  55. [65]

    B., et al., 2012, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Instrumentation] 10.1142/S2251171712500043 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2012JAI.....150004T 1, 1250004

    Taylor G. B., et al., 2012, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Instrumentation] 10.1142/S2251171712500043 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2012JAI.....150004T 1, 1250004

    2012 doi

  56. [66]

    C., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/256.2.281 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992MNRAS.256..281T 256, 281

    Tribble P. C., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/256.2.281 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992MNRAS.256..281T 256, 281

    1992 doi

  57. [67]

    L., Shull J

    Venkatesan A., Giroux M. L., Shull J. M., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323691 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2001ApJ...563....1V 563, 1

    2001 doi

  58. [68]

    C., Natarajan A., J \'a uregui Garc \' a J

    Voytek T. C., Natarajan A., J \'a uregui Garc \' a J. M., Peterson J. B., L \'o pez-Cruz O., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/782/1/L9 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...782L...9V 782, L9

    2014 doi

  59. [69]

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

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

    1952 doi

  60. [70]

    Zwart J. T. L., Price D., Bernardi G., 2016, HIBAYES: Global 21-cm Bayesian Monte-Carlo Model Fitting ( @eprint ascl 1606.004 )

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.