Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

The atomic Hydrogen content of the post-reionization Universe

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 A semi-analytic galaxy formation model provides a comprehensive description of atomic hydrogen from z=0 to z=5, predicting the HI bias, shot noise, and 21cm power spectrum for intensity mapping experiments.

desk verdict Useful HOD-ready fitting functions and a careful clustering dissection from GAEA; the high-z 21 cm amplitudes carry an admitted but unquantified ΩHI caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02242 v1 pith:MBFGPVKH submitted 2019-09-05 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Marta Spinelli , Anna Zoldan , Gabriella De Lucia , Lizhi Xie , Matteo Viel This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords atomichydrogen21cmintensitymappingHImassfunctionbiasshotnoisesemi-analyticgalaxyformationmodelhalooccupationdistribution
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

This paper uses a semi-analytic galaxy formation model, GAEA, run on two large N-body simulations, to provide a coherent description of atomic hydrogen (HI) from the local universe to $z=5$. The authors show that the model reproduces the local HI mass function, and use it to give new fitting formulas for how much HI a dark matter halo of a given mass contains, including how that relation depends on when the halo assembled. They then predict the HI bias and shot noise relevant for 21cm intensity mapping, finding that the bias grows with redshift and that shot noise will not hinder BAO-scale measurements. The final output is a predicted 21cm power spectrum in redshift space, ready to be tested by next-generation radio telescopes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the HI halo mass function $M_{\rm HI}(M_h)$, the total HI mass in a dark matter halo of mass $M_h$, which the paper parametrizes with a fitting formula that combines a power-law rise with an exponential low-mass cutoff and a high-mass flattening. It is derived from the GAEA semi-analytic model, whose key physical ingredients are a pressure-based split of cold gas into atomic and molecular hydrogen, star formation proportional to molecular hydrogen surface density, and AGN feedback that suppresses gas cooling in massive halos. The fitting functions let users build HI mocks with halo occupation distribution (HOD) techniques.

What would settle it

Measure the 21cm power spectrum and cosmic HI density at $z\approx2$–$4$ with a future intensity mapping survey; if the measured HI bias or shot noise deviates strongly from these predictions, or if the missing HI at $z>2$ turns out to reside in galaxies rather than diffuse intergalactic gas, the central assumption would be wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the GAEA semi-analytic model delivers a realistic and comprehensive description of neutral hydrogen in the post-reionization universe. The predicted HI mass function matches HIPASS and ALFALFA in the local universe without an excess of low-mass HI galaxies. The central new results are: the HI-halo mass relation requires a low-mass cutoff and a high-mass flattening (the latter from AGN feedback); its scatter is driven primarily by halo assembly history; the HI bias increases with redshift; and shot noise is small enough that BAO-scale intensity mapping is feasible. The paper closes with a redshift-space 21cm power spectrum for SKA to test.

Load-bearing premise

The model's recipes for star formation and the atomic/molecular gas split, tuned to local observations, are assumed to stay valid at high redshift and in low-mass halos down to about $10^{10}$ solar masses, despite the paper showing that this leads to a lower cosmic HI density at $z>2$ than DLA measurements.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The new $M_{\rm HI}(M_h)$ fitting functions allow fast generation of HI mocks with HOD techniques from $z=0$ to $z=5$, useful for forecasting intensity mapping surveys.
  • The HI bias increases with redshift, so the 21cm signal grows stronger at high redshift, helping future intensity mapping experiments.
  • Shot noise is low enough that BAO-scale intensity mapping is feasible, as quantified by $nP_{0.2}$ values well above one.
  • The predicted dip in the $z=0$ HI bias at $k\sim 1\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$, linked to HI-poor red satellites, can be tested with cross-correlations between 21cm maps and galaxy surveys.
  • The redshift-space 21cm power spectrum predictions provide a direct target for SKA and its pathfinders to confirm or rule out.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If assembly history truly drives the scatter in $M_{\rm HI}(M_h)$, then standard HOD mocks that assign HI only from halo mass will systematically misestimate small-scale clustering; adding a formation-time or assembly-bias parameter should improve them.
  • The paper's explanation for the $z>2$ HI density deficit, diffuse IGM gas outside halos, implies that future auto-power 21cm measurements at high redshift must account for a diffuse component, not just galaxies.
  • The predicted $z=0$ dip in HI bias at $k\sim 1\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ offers a sharp test: cross-correlating 21cm maps with optical galaxy samples split by color should reproduce the spoon shape if the model's satellite physics is right.
  • Comparing these mocks with the full shape of the 21cm power spectrum from SKA pathfinders at $z\sim 0.8$ could help break the degeneracy between HI density and bias.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a semi-analytic model (GAEA) run on the Millennium and Millennium-II N-body simulations to characterize the atomic hydrogen (HI) content of the post-reionization universe from z=0 to z=5. It reports the HI mass function, the cosmic HI density, the HI-to-halo-mass relation including a dependence on halo assembly history, the HI bias, the shot noise, and the redshift-space 21 cm power spectrum. It also provides fitting functions for the HI-halo mass relation for use in HOD-based mock catalogs. The z=0 HI mass function is reproduced by construction, since the star formation efficiency is tuned to it; the predicted cosmic HI density declines with redshift and lies below DLA-based measurements at z>2, a tension the authors attribute partly to diffuse IGM HI but leave largely unresolved. The 21 cm power spectrum amplitude inherits this tension through its dependence on the HI density squared.

Significance. If the model predictions hold, this is a useful contribution: it provides new fitting functions for MHI(Mh) with assembly-bias dependence, a detailed decomposition of HI clustering into central/satellite and red/blue populations, and internally consistent shot-noise and bias estimates that agree reasonably with hydrodynamical simulations such as Illustris. The internal checks are reassuring: the shot noise matches the analytic expectation in Eq. (3), and the redshift-space power spectrum reproduces the Kaiser limit at large scales. The main deliverable is a falsifiable prediction for the 21 cm intensity-mapping signal, but its high-redshift amplitude is conditional on an unresolved discrepancy in the cosmic HI density, so the significance of that specific prediction is limited until the tension is quantified and addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, §7.1, Eq. (9)] The high-redshift ΩHI tension is load-bearing for the headline 21 cm prediction but is left unquantified. Section 4 and Figure 4 show that the model's ρHI(z) falls below the DLA-based data of Crighton et al. (2015), and Section 7.1 attributes the gap only in small part to resolution and suggests diffuse IGM HI at the ~20% level. If the model–data gap is a factor of two or more, as the figure qualitatively suggests, a 20% diffuse component cannot close it, and the predicted P21cm amplitude, which scales as xHI² in Eq. (9), is offset by roughly the square of the discrepancy for z≳2. Please quantify the gap, discuss the implied amplitude correction, and either provide a physically motivated fix or explicitly restrict the 'prediction to be tested' to the redshift range where ρHI is secure.
  2. [§2 and §3] The agreement of the z=0 HI mass function with HIPASS/ALFALFA in Figure 1 is a calibration target, not an independent test, because the star formation efficiency parameter is explicitly tuned to reproduce it (Section 2). The text acknowledges this, but the abstract and conclusions still present the z=0 agreement as evidence that the model 'reproduces well the HI distribution measured in the local Universe.' Please rephrase to distinguish calibrated outputs from genuine predictions, such as the assembly-bias dependence, bias evolution, and shot-noise levels.
  3. [§5.1, Eq. (2) and Table 2] The proposed fitting formula is a central deliverable for HOD mock construction, but no goodness-of-fit statistic is reported, and several best-fit values are unphysical (e.g., negative a2 at z=5; log10(Mmin) = -1.3 at z=1, which effectively removes the low-mass cutoff). Please provide a quantitative measure of the fit quality for each redshift, discuss parameter degeneracies, and state the applicable mass range over which the formula should not be used.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§6] Typo: 'thee contribution' should be 'the contribution' in the paragraph describing the power-spectrum calculation.
  2. [§6.3] Typo: 'fucntion' should be 'function' in the first paragraph.
  3. [Figure 9 caption] Typo: 'thespatial' should be 'the spatial' in the caption.
  4. [§7.1] The claim that resolution is not the main driver of the ρHI tension is supported only by a qualitative argument. A quantitative convergence test (e.g., comparing MII results with a higher-resolution run or a resolvable halo-mass cut) would strengthen this claim.
  5. [§6.7, Eq. (8)] Please clarify that Eq. (8) is the angle-averaged Kaiser limit for the monopole of the redshift-space power spectrum, and that the comparison in Figure 19 uses the spherically averaged power spectrum.
  6. [Appendix B, Table B3] The fitting formula in Table B3 uses γ=0.3 while Table 2 uses γ=0.5. Please explain the choice and whether the assembly-bias fits are sensitive to this parameter.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the local HI mass function is an acknowledged calibration target, while the paper's high-redshift and clustering predictions are not fitted to their targets.

full rationale

The paper is transparent that the local HI mass function is a tuning target rather than a prediction: Section 2 states that 'a star formation efficiency parameter ... is tuned to reproduce the observed HI mass function in the local Universe', and Section 3 repeats 'the model has been tuned to reproduce this quantity.' The z=0 HIMF agreement in Figure 1 is therefore a consistency check, not an independent prediction, and the paper does not dress it up as one. The central new results (redshift evolution of the HI density, the HI-halo mass relation and its assembly-bias scatter, HI bias, shot noise, and the redshift-space 21 cm power spectrum) are all computed from the GAEA model outputs and compared with external data or independent simulations; none of these targets is used to fit the model. The high-redshift tension in Omega_HI with DLA-based data is explicitly acknowledged, and the paper states the P21cm amplitude is sensitive to the assumed Omega_HI and that the model is 'offset low with respect to observational measurements' at high redshift. This is an honest caveat, not a concealed reduction of the prediction to an input. Citations to earlier GAEA papers describe the model infrastructure, while the Blitz & Rosolowsky H2/HI relation and the Illustris-based 20% diffuse-HI estimate are external empirical or hydrodynamical results; even where those papers share authors, the arguments do not reduce to an unverified self-citation chain. No equation is equivalent to its input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

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

The new content is entirely model output; the inputs are the calibrated GAEA model, Millennium merger trees, and local observations. No new particles or forces are introduced. The main burden falls on the assumed validity of the H2-based star formation prescription, the redshift-independent HI partition, and the WMAP1 cosmology.

free parameters (3)
  • Star formation efficiency parameter (SFE) = Not quoted; tuned to reproduce local HI mass function
    Section 2 states its value is tuned to match the local observed HI mass function (Zwaan et al. 2005; Martin et al. 2010), so the z=0 HIMF is a calibration output.
  • Blitz and Rosolowsky H2/HI parameters (alpha, P0) = Not quoted; tuned to local observations
    Cold gas is partitioned into HI and H2 using H2/HI = (P_ext/P0)^alpha with alpha and P0 tuned to local disk observations; assumed redshift-independent.
  • Equation 2 fitting parameters a1, a2, alpha, beta, Mbreak, Mmin (gamma fixed to 0.5) = Table 2 values at z=0-5; Tables B1-B3 for centrals, satellites, and assembly bins
    These six parameters are fitted to the GAEA model predictions at each redshift to provide HOD mock-making functions; they are empirical fits, not derived from first principles.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption GAEA semi-analytic recipes (gas cooling, star formation, stellar/AGN feedback, chemical enrichment) describe galaxy formation adequately.
    The whole paper assumes these subgrid prescriptions, summarized in Section 2, are adequate for HI at z=0-5.
  • domain assumption The Blitz and Rosolowsky H2/HI pressure relation calibrated at z=0 applies at all redshifts and galaxy masses.
    Section 2 uses this partition to compute HI in each disk ring; high-redshift predictions inherit this local calibration.
  • domain assumption WMAP1 cosmology (Omega_m=0.25, h=0.73, sigma8=0.9) is close enough to Planck cosmology for the HI statistics considered.
    Section 2 notes WMAP1 is used and asserts differences have no major impact, citing Wang et al. (2008) and Guo et al. (2013).
  • domain assumption Post-reionization HI is predominantly located in galaxies and halos, with only about 20% in the diffuse IGM at z=5.
    Section 4 invokes Villaescusa-Navarro et al. (2018) for the 80% figure to explain the model's low high-z HI density; the model itself does not simulate the diffuse IGM.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The atomic Hydrogen content of the post-reionization Universe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MBFGPVKH

@misc{pith2026190902242,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The atomic Hydrogen content of the post-reionization Universe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MBFGPVKH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02242}
}
abstract

We present a comprehensive analysis of atomic hydrogen (HI) properties using a semi-analytical model of galaxy formation and N-body simulations covering a large cosmological volume at high resolution. We examine the HI mass function and the HI density, characterizing both their redshift evolution and their dependence on hosting halo mass. We analyze the HI content of dark matter haloes in the local Universe and up to redshift $z=5$, discussing the contribution of different galaxy properties. We find that different assembly history plays a crucial role in the scatter of this relation. We propose new fitting functions useful for constructing mock HI maps with HOD techniques. We investigate the HI clustering properties relevant for future $21$~cm Intensity Mapping (IM) experiments, including the HI bias and the shot noise level. The HI bias increases with redshift and it is roughly flat on the largest scales probed. The scale dependency is found at progressively larger scales with increasing redshift, apart from a dip feature at $z=0$. The shot-noise values are consistent with the ones inferred by independent studies, confirming that shot-noise will not be a limiting factor for IM experiments. We detail the contribution from various galaxy properties on the HI power spectrum and their relation to the halo bias. We find that HI poor satellite galaxies play an important role at the scales of the 1-halo term. Finally, we present the $21$~cm signal in redshift space, a fundamental prediction to be tested against data from future radio telescopes such as SKA.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02242 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The HI mass function, i.e. the number density of galaxies with different HI mass, in the Millennium I (solid lines) and Millennium II (dashed lines) simulation at redshift zero. Magenta and green lines are used for centrals and satellites respectively, while black lines are for all galaxies. Squares and circles with error bars show the data measured by Zwaan et al. (2005) and Martin et al. (2010) using the blind HI … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The predicted HI conditional mass function for the MII (left column) and the MI (right column). In the middle and bottom panels we separate the contribution from central and satellite galaxies, respectively. The solid black line in each panel is the sum of the contributions from different host dark matter haloes. Squares and circles with error bars show observational measurements by Zwaan et al. (2005) and Martin et… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Evolution with redshift of the HI density ρHI/ρc, z=0 for the MI (thin lines) and MII (thick lines), divided into the contributions for different host dark matter halo masses. Differences between the two simulations can be appreciated only for very high and very low mass haloes. The GAEA model prediction are compared with observational data (Crighton et al. 2015 and references therein). clearly play a key role in th… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Top panel: The predicted HI mass function as a function of redshift for the MI (solid lines) and the MII simulation (dashed lines). Bottom panel: Contribution from satellite galaxies. For reference, we show with squares and circles the observational measurements of the…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The fraction MHI/Mh as a function of Mh, measured from the MI (solid lines) and the MII simulations (dashed lines), as a function of redshift (different colors). 10 11 12 13 14 15 log10 Mh [h −1M ] 7 8 9 10 11 12 log10 MHI [h −1M ] Centrals Satellites [PITH_FULL_IMAGE…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The median HI content of dark matter haloes for the MI (solid lines) and for the MII simulations (dashed lines) as a function of halo mass, for central galaxies (violet) and satellites (green). We report the results for redshift 0,1,2,3,4 and 5, with darker colors corr…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The ratio between the median HI halo mass function MHI(Mh) and Mh for the MII simulation, at redshift z = 0 (black dashed), and its 16th and 84th percentiles (black dot-dashed lines). Red, green, and orange lines correspond to the same quantities computed for early, av…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: HI profiles of the FoF haloes in the MI (solid lines) and the MII (dashed lines) simulations. FoF haloes are separated in different mass bins at different redshifts, and ρHI(r) is computed averaging the HI content in spherical shells as a function of the distance from …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The value of nP0.2 (defined in equation 5) as a function of redshift, for the MI (blue solid line) and the MII (blue dashed). As done in Villaescusa-Navarro et al. (2018), we also give the values of nP0.5, i.e. nPk (z) computed at the smaller scale of k = 0.5hMpc−1 (r…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The real space power spectrum of galaxies (dot-dashed lines) for the MII simulation, weighted by their HI mass. Black lines and magenta lines are for z = 0 and z = 4, respectively. At high k, this can be used to infer the level of shot noise and agrees, as expected, w…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The HI bias defined as the square root of the ratio between the HI power spectrum and the dark mater power spectrum, for the MI (solid lines) and the MII (dashed lines), at different redshifts (different colors). 6.3 Clustering and halo mass In this section, we analyz…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Top panel: The HI power spectrum considering all galaxies (black lines) in the MI (solid) and MII (dashed lines) simulations, at z = 0. We further consider the contribution due to haloes of increasing mass (different colors, as in the legend). Bottom panel: Same as fo…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Top panel: The power spectrum of HI selected galaxies at z = 0 in the MI (solid) and MII (dashed lines) simulations, considering separately the contribution from centrals (magenta) and satellites (green). Satellite galaxies are further divided into Type I (dark blue) …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Top panel: The power spectrum of HI selected galaxies at z = 0 in the MI (solid) and MII (dashed lines) simulations, computed selecting galaxies with progressively larger HI mass. The total HI power spectrum (black) is the same as the one in figure 13. Bottom panel: S…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The power spectrum of HI selected satellite galaxies at z = 0 in the MI (solid) and MII (dashed lines) simulations, computed selecting satellites with progressively larger HI mass. The total satellite HI power spectrum is the same as the green one in figure 14. galaxi…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The total HI bias bHI (see equation 6) compared to the one computed selecting the blue and red population, for both the MI (solid lines) and the MII (dashed lines). A galaxy is defined blue if its specific star formation rate is larger than sSFR> 0.3/tH Gyr−1 , where …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Top panel: The HI content of dark matter haloes as a function of halo mass, separating the contribution from red and blue galaxies (lines of corresponding colors). We consider as blue galaxies those with sSFR> 0.3/tH Gyr−1 . Blue galaxies dominate the HI content of in…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: The power spectrum of the 21 cm signal P21cm(k) (top panel) and the ∆21cm(k) ≡ P21cm(k)k 3 /2π 2 (bottom panel) as predicted from the MI (solid lines) and the MII (dashed lines), at different redshifts (from z = 0 to 5, color coded as in legend). to model the HI distr…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Comparison between the HI power spectrum computed in real space (black) and in redshift-space (orange), for the MI (solid) and MII simulations (dashed lines), for z = 0 (top) and z = 4 (bottom panels). In the lower sub-panel of each panel, we show the Kaiser limit for…

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. Cosmology with HI Intensity Mapping

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

    SKAO HI intensity mapping forecasts yield competitive LambdaCDM constraints (e.g. H0 to ~0.3 km/s/Mpc optimistic) via power spectrum, BAO, bispectrum and stacking, complementary to CMB and optical surveys.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty346 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.3382A 476, 3382

    Anderson C. J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty346 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.3382A 476, 3382

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty346 2018

  2. [2]

    J., Hasegawa K., Shimizu I., Nagamine K., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz319 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.5389A 484, 5389

    Ando R., Nishizawa A. J., Hasegawa K., Shimizu I., Nagamine K., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz319 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.5389A 484, 5389

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz319 2019

  3. [3]

    J., et al., 2018, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv181102743S p

    Bacon D. J., et al., 2018, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv181102743S p. arXiv:1811.02743

    arXiv 2018

  4. [6]

    Ballardini M., Finelli F., Maartens R., Moscardini L., 2018, @doi [Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics] 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/04/044 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018JCAP...04..044B 2018, 044

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/04/044 2018

  5. [7]

    Bandura K., et al., 2014, in Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes V. p. 914522 ( @eprint arXiv 1406.2288 ), @doi 10.1117/12.2054950

    arXiv 2014

  6. [10]

    M., et al., 2019, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.4922B 483, 4922

    Baugh C. M., et al., 2019, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.4922B 483, 4922

    2019

  7. [11]

    S., Haas M

    Berry M., Somerville R. S., Haas M. R., Gawiser E., Maller A., Popping G., Trager S. C., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu613 , 441, 939

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu613 2014

  8. [12]

    B., Sethi S

    Bharadwaj S., Nath B. B., Sethi S. K., 2001, @doi [Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy] 10.1007/BF02933588 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001JApA...22...21B 22, 21

    doi:10.1007/bf02933588 2001

Show all 85 references
  1. [13]

    Blitz L., Rosolowsky E., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505417 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...650..933B 650, 933

    2006 doi

  2. [15]

    G., Patel P., Santos M

    Bull P., Ferreira P. G., Patel P., Santos M. G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...803...21B 803, 21

    2015 doi

  3. [16]

    G., Ferreira P

    Camera S., Santos M. G., Ferreira P. G., Ferramacho L., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.171302 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhRvL.111q1302C 111, 171302

    2013 doi

  4. [17]

    Carucci I. P., Villaescusa-Navarro F., Viel M., Lapi A., 2015, @doi [Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics] 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/07/047 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JCAP...07..047C 2015, 047

    2015 doi

  5. [18]

    Castorina E., Villaescusa-Navarro F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1599 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.1788C 471, 1788

    2017 doi

  6. [19]

    B., McDonald P., 2008, @doi [Phys

    Chang T.-C., Pen U.-L., Peterson J. B., McDonald P., 2008, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.091303 , 100, 091303

    2008 doi

  7. [20]

    Chang T.-C., Pen U.-L., Bandura K., Peterson J., 2010, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature09187 , 466, 51

    2010 doi

  8. [21]

    Cooray A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.261301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PhRvL..97z1301C 97, 261301

    2006 doi

  9. [22]

    A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479....2C 479, 2

    Cora S. A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479....2C 479, 2

    2018 doi

  10. [24]

    Crighton N. H. M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1182 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452..217C 452, 217

    2015 doi

  11. [25]

    J., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.365...11C 365, 11

    Croton D. J., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09675.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.365...11C 365, 11

    2006

  12. [26]

    D., Kollmeier J

    Dav \'e R., Katz N., Oppenheimer B. D., Kollmeier J. A., Weinberg D. H., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1274 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.434.2645D 434, 2645

    2013 doi

  13. [27]

    H., Thompson R

    Dav\'e R., Rafieferantsoa M. H., Thompson R. J., Hopkins P. F., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx108 , 467, 115

    2017 doi

  14. [28]

    De Lucia G., Blaizot J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11287.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.375....2D 375, 2

    2007

  15. [30]

    S., Helmi A., Navarro J

    De Lucia G., Tornatore L., Frenk C. S., Helmi A., Navarro J. F., White S. D. M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1752 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445..970D 445, 970

    2014 doi

  16. [31]

    Diemer B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aae387 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..238...33D 238, 33

    2018 doi

  17. [34]

    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

  18. [35]

    Gao L., White S. D. M., 2007, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00292.x , 377, L5

    2007

  19. [38]

    Giovanelli R., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/497431 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AJ....130.2598G 130, 2598

    2005 doi

  20. [39]

    Gonzalez-Perez V., et al., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx2807 , 474

    2017 doi

  21. [40]

    R., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20582.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.421.3570G 421, 3570

    Guha Sarkar T., Mitra S., Majumdar S., Choudhury T. R., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20582.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.421.3570G 421, 3570

    2012

  22. [41]

    E., Henriques B., Lemson G., Boylan-Kolchin M., Thomas P., Short C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts115 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.1351G 428, 1351

    Guo Q., White S., Angulo R. E., Henriques B., Lemson G., Boylan-Kolchin M., Thomas P., Short C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts115 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428.1351G 428, 1351

    2013 doi

  23. [42]

    Henriques B. M. B., White S. D. M., Thomas P. A., Angulo R. E., Guo Q., Lemson G., Springel V., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt415 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.431.3373H 431, 3373

    2013 doi

  24. [43]

    Hirschmann M., De Lucia G., Fontanot F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1318 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461.1760H 461, 1760

    2016 doi

  25. [44]

    Kaiser N., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/227.1.1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987MNRAS.227....1K 227, 1

    1987 doi

  26. [45]

    Kennicutt Jr. R. C., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/522300 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...671..333K 671, 333

    2007 doi

  27. [47]

    Kim H.-S., Wyithe J. S. B., Power C., Park J., Lagos C. d. P., Baugh C. M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1822 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.2315K 453, 2315

    2015 doi

  28. [48]

    Kim H.-S., Wyithe J. S. B., Baugh C. M., Lagos C. d. P., Power C., Park J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2779 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465..111K 465, 111

    2017 doi

  29. [49]

    Lagos C. D. P., Baugh C. M., Lacey C. G., Benson A. J., Kim H.-S., Power C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19583.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.418.1649L 418, 1649

    2011

  30. [50]

    Lagos C. D. P., Baugh C. M., Zwaan M. A., Lacey C. G., Gonzalez-Perez V., Power C., Swinbank A. M., van Kampen E., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu266 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440..920L 440, 920

    2014 doi

  31. [51]

    Lagos C. d. P., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1488 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.3815L 452, 3815

    2015 doi

  32. [52]

    K., Walter F., Brinks E., Bigiel F., de Blok W

    Leroy A. K., Walter F., Brinks E., Bigiel F., de Blok W. J. G., Madore B., Thornley M. D., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2782 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....136.2782L 136, 2782

    2008 doi

  33. [53]

    Loeb A., Wyithe J. S. B., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.161301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008PhRvL.100p1301L 100, 161301

    2008 doi

  34. [54]

    R., Mondal R., Watkinson C

    Majumdar S., Pritchard J. R., Mondal R., Watkinson C. A., Bharadwaj S., Mellema G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty535 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.4007M 476, 4007

    2018 doi

  35. [55]

    Mancuso C., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa745d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...842...95M 842, 95

    2017 doi

  36. [56]

    A., Gnedin N

    Mar \' n F. A., Gnedin N. Y., Seo H.-J., Vallinotto A., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/718/2/972 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...718..972M 718, 972

    2010 doi

  37. [57]

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

    Martin A. M., Papastergis E., Giovanelli R., Haynes M. P., Springob C. M., Stierwalt S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1359 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...723.1359M 723, 1359

    2010 doi

  38. [58]

    W., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/763/1/L20 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...763L..20M 763, L20

    Masui K. W., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/763/1/L20 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...763L..20M 763, L20

    2013 doi

  39. [59]

    J., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07710.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.350.1195M 350, 1195

    Meyer M. J., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07710.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.350.1195M 350, 1195

    2004

  40. [60]

    Monaco P., Theuns T., Taffoni G., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05162.x , http://esoads.eso.org/abs/2002MNRAS.331..587M 331, 587

    2002

  41. [61]

    Moustakas J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/50 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...767...50M 767, 50

    2013 doi

  42. [62]

    B., et al., 2016, in Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes VI

    Newburgh L. B., et al., 2016, in Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes VI. p. 99065X ( @eprint arXiv 1607.02059 ), @doi 10.1117/12.2234286

    2016 arXiv

  43. [63]

    Obuljen A., Alonso D., Villaescusa-Navarro F., Yoon I., Jones M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1118 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.tmp.1075O p. 1075

    2019 doi

  44. [64]

    Padmanabhan H., Refregier A., Amara A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx979 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469.2323P 469, 2323

    2017 doi

  45. [65]

    G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2635 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.4297P 473, 4297

    P \'e nin A., Umeh O., Santos M. G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2635 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.4297P 473, 4297

    2018 doi

  46. [66]

    Pillepich A., Porciani C., Matarrese S., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/517963 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...662....1P 662, 1

    2007 doi

  47. [67]

    arXiv:1807.06209

    Planck Collaboration VI 2018, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv180706209P p. arXiv:1807.06209

    2018 arXiv

  48. [68]

    Planck Collaboration XIII 2016, , 594, A13

    2016

  49. [69]

    Pontzen A., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13782.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.390.1349P 390, 1349

    2008

  50. [70]

    S., Trager S

    Popping G., Somerville R. S., Trager S. C., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu991 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442.2398P 442, 2398

    2014 doi

  51. [71]

    Popping G., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.2258P 454, 2258

    2015 doi

  52. [72]

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

    2010 doi

  53. [73]

    H., Rai c evi \'c M., Schaye J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.2427R 430, 2427

    Rahmati A., Pawlik A. H., Rai c evi \'c M., Schaye J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.2427R 430, 2427

    2013 doi

  54. [74]

    Santos M., et al., 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14). p. 19 ( @eprint arXiv 1501.03989 )

    2015 arXiv

  55. [75]

    G., et al., 2017, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv170906099S p

    Santos M. G., et al., 2017, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv170906099S p. arXiv:1709.06099

    2017 arXiv

  56. [76]

    Sefusatti E., Crocce M., Scoccimarro R., Couchman H. M. P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1229 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.3624S 460, 3624

    2016 doi

  57. [77]

    K., Tormen G., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02692.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.308..119S 308, 119

    Sheth R. K., Tormen G., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02692.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.308..119S 308, 119

    1999

  58. [78]

    S., Dav \'e R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA

    Somerville R. S., Dav \'e R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA

    2015 doi

  59. [80]

    N., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/377226 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJS..148..175S 148, 175

    Spergel D. N., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/377226 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJS..148..175S 148, 175

    2003 doi

  60. [81]

    Springel V., White S. D. M., Tormen G., Kauffmann G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04912.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.328..726S 328, 726

    2001

  61. [82]

    Springel V., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature03597 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Natur.435..629S 435, 629

    2005 doi

  62. [83]

    Stevens A. R. H., Lagos C. d. P., Contreras S., Croton D. J., Padilla N. D., Schaller M., Schaye J., Theuns T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx243 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.2066S 467, 2066

    2017 doi

  63. [84]

    R., et al., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slt074 , 434, L46

    Switzer E. R., et al., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slt074 , 434, L46

    2013 doi

  64. [85]

    Tescari E., Viel M., Tornatore L., Borgani S., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14943.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397..411T 397, 411

    2009

  65. [86]

    K., Choudhury T

    Villaescusa-Navarro F., Viel M., Datta K. K., Choudhury T. R., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/09/050 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014JCAP...09..050V 2014, 050

    2014 doi

  66. [87]

    Villaescusa-Navarro F., Bull P., Viel M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...814..146V 814, 146

    2015 doi

  67. [88]

    Villaescusa-Navarro F., Alonso D., Viel M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3224 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.2736V 466, 2736

    2017 doi

  68. [89]

    Villaescusa-Navarro F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aadba0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...866..135V 866, 135

    2018 doi

  69. [90]

    G., White S

    Wang J., De Lucia G., Kitzbichler M. G., White S. D. M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12797.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.384.1301W 384, 1301

    2008

  70. [91]

    Wong T., Blitz L., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/339287 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...569..157W 569, 157

    2002 doi

  71. [92]

    Wyithe J. S. B., Brown M. J. I., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16320.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.404..876W 404, 876

    2010

  72. [93]

    Xie L., De Lucia G., Hirschmann M., Fontanot F., Zoldan A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx889 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469..968X 469, 968

    2017 doi

  73. [94]

    Xu Y., Wang X., Chen X., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/40 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...798...40X 798, 40

    2015 doi

  74. [95]

    Xu Y., Hamann J., Chen X., 2016, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.123518 , 94, 123518

    2016 doi

  75. [96]

    Zavala J., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1286 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.4466Z 460, 4466

    2016 doi

  76. [97]

    Zoldan A., De Lucia G., Xie L., Fontanot F., Hirschmann M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2901 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.2236Z 465, 2236

    2017 doi

  77. [98]

    A., Meyer M

    Zwaan M. A., Meyer M. J., Staveley-Smith L., Webster R. L., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00029.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.359L..30Z 359, L30

    2005

Pith tools

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