Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 1 cited by

Prospects for measuring neutrino mass with 21-cm forest

T0 review · 1 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The 21-cm forest—absorption lines imprinted by neutral hydrogen on high-redshift radio spectra—could constrain the total neutrino mass to around 0.1 eV, enough to begin distinguishing neutrino mass hierarchies.

desk verdict Genuinely new forecast of neutrino mass from the 21-cm forest 1D power spectrum; plausible but conditional on a few unstated approximations. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00769 v2 pith:HAY5LSRU submitted 2025-01-01 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-ph

Yue Shao , Guo-Hong Du , Tian-Nuo Li , Xin Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-ph
keywords 21-cmforestneutrinomassmatterpowerspectrumsuppressionhalomodelFisherforecastepochofreionizationsmall-scalestructureSKA-LOW
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes the 21-cm forest—the absorption lines that neutral hydrogen imprints on the spectra of high-redshift radio sources—as a new cosmological probe of the total neutrino mass. It argues that massive neutrinos suppress matter fluctuations below the free-streaming scale, and that this suppression shows up in the one-dimensional power spectrum of 21-cm forest absorption at redshifts around nine. Because the probe observes small scales in the early universe, it complements the CMB and late-universe probes like galaxy surveys and the Lyman-$\alpha$ forest. Using an analytical halo model and a Fisher forecast for SKA-LOW, the paper finds that, if the intergalactic-medium temperature is known to about five percent and a Planck-era $\sigma_8$ prior is included, the total neutrino mass could be constrained to roughly 0.1 eV—enough to begin distinguishing neutrino mass hierarchies. This makes the 21-cm forest a new early-universe route to neutrino mass.

What carries the argument

The central object is the one-dimensional power spectrum of the 21-cm forest, $P(k_\parallel, z) = T_0^2(z) P_{21}(k_\parallel, z)$, obtained by projecting the 3D 21-cm power spectrum along the line of sight, $P_{21}(k_\parallel, z) = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_k^\infty k' P_{21}(k', z)\, dk'$. The neutrino signal enters through the matter-power-spectrum suppression $\Delta P/P \approx -8\Omega_\nu/\Omega_m$, which reduces the amplitude of small-scale fluctuations and, through the halo mass function, suppresses the abundance of low-mass halos that dominate the 21-cm signal. That suppression flows into the halo-model 1h and 2h terms, so the whole forecast chain—matter power spectrum $\rightarrow$ halo mass function $\rightarrow$ 3D 21-cm power spectrum $\rightarrow$ 1D projection $\rightarrow$ Fisher matrix—carries the neutrino-mass information. The Fisher analysis includes degeneracies with the IGM temperature $T_K$ and $\sigma_8$, and uses priors on both to break them.

What would settle it

Measure the 21-cm forest 1D power spectrum along a bright radio-loud quasar sightline at $z \approx 9$ with SKA-LOW and compare its shape to the model: if the observed scale dependence of the suppression does not match a constant fractional shift, the forecast is invalid. Alternatively, recompute the Fisher forecast using the full scale-dependent neutrino suppression in place of the constant fraction and check whether the 0.1 eV error bar survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the 1D power spectrum of the 21-cm forest can serve as a small-scale, early-universe probe of neutrino mass. The authors model the 1D 21-cm power spectrum from the halo model, with the neutrino entering through a suppression of the matter power spectrum, $\Delta P/P \approx -8\Omega_\nu/\Omega_m$, which propagates into the halo mass function and the 1h/2h clustering terms. Their Fisher forecasts show that with 100 neutral segments and a 5% prior on the IGM temperature, the forest alone reaches $\Sigma m_\nu < 0.18$ eV, better than the CMB alone; adding the Planck prior on $\sigma_8$ pushes the projected limit toward 0.1 eV, comparable to current CMB+Lyman-$\alpha$ constraints and near the inverted-hierarchy lower bound. The paper concludes that the 21-cm forest, though still preliminary, is a complementary probe of neutrino mass that operates at redshifts and scales no other current probe covers.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast rests on the assumption that neutrinos suppress small-scale matter fluctuations by the same fraction at every scale; if the suppression actually varies with scale, the projected 0.1 eV constraint would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With a 5% prior on the IGM temperature, just 100 neutral segments along a quasar sightline should constrain the total neutrino mass to about 0.18 eV, tighter than Planck CMB alone.
  • Adding a Planck-era prior on $\sigma_8$ improves the projected limit to roughly 0.1 eV, placing the 21-cm forest on par with current CMB+Lyman-$\alpha$ constraints.
  • A 0.1 eV measurement would sit at the lower edge of the inverted neutrino mass hierarchy and begin to discriminate between hierarchies when combined with the 0.06 eV normal-hierarchy floor.
  • Going beyond about 1000 segments yields little additional constraining power because the improvement is limited by the $\sigma_8$ degeneracy and by declining signal amplitude at the smallest accessible scales.
  • The probe accesses redshifts and scales ($k$ up to $\sim 356\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ at $z=9$) that no other neutrino probe currently reaches, so it is complementary to CMB and late-universe surveys.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the forecast uses a scale-independent neutrino suppression, but the true suppression is scale-dependent; recomputing the Fisher matrix with the full scale-dependent shape would test whether the 0.1 eV reach survives.
  • Editorial inference: if the abundance of high-redshift radio-loud quasars is lower than assumed, the large segment counts (1000–10000) become unavailable, and the realistic constraint would sit closer to the 100-segment case.
  • Editorial inference: the same suppression mechanism means the 21-cm forest could also constrain warm dark matter or axion-like particles, though the paper does not explore those extensions.
  • Editorial inference: combining the 21-cm forest with a cosmic-dawn 21-cm power-spectrum measurement might break the temperature degeneracy internally, without needing an external $T_K$ prior.
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

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the 21-cm forest as a new early-universe, small-scale probe of the total neutrino mass. It constructs an analytic halo-model prediction for the one-dimensional power spectrum of the 21-cm forest at z ~ 9, in which massive neutrinos suppress the matter power spectrum through Eq. (1), thereby affecting the halo mass function and the 2-halo term. Using a Fisher forecast with SKA-LOW thermal noise and priors on the IGM temperature and sigma8, the authors find that with 100 neutral segments and a 5% temperature prior the total neutrino mass can be constrained to about 0.18 eV, and that with a Planck sigma8 prior and improved temperature knowledge the constraint can approach about 0.1 eV. The paper explicitly discusses degeneracies with the IGM temperature and sigma8 and includes a robustness check against the Sheth-Tormen mass function.

Significance. If the forecast is robust, the 21-cm forest would provide a genuinely new window on neutrino mass, probing the early universe and much smaller scales than CMB or Ly-alpha forest probes. The paper is transparent about the main degeneracies and about the preliminary nature of the estimates, and the comparison with the Sheth-Tormen mass function is a useful robustness check. However, the central quantitative claim rests on an untested scale-independent approximation for neutrino suppression and on a Fisher calculation whose details are only partially specified; both points need to be addressed before the 0.1 eV sensitivity can be considered reliable.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section IIB and Fig. 1] The paper should state explicitly which neutrino mass values and which redshift are used for the halo mass function curves in Fig. 1, and whether the suppression is applied as a constant factor to the linear power spectrum before or after computing sigma(M). This will help clarify the scale-dependence concern in point 1.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Section IIC, Eq. (5)-(9)] Equations (5)-(9) are taken from the halo-model framework, and the paper should cite Ref. [75] at the point where this framework is introduced, not only mention it earlier in the introduction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the neutrino-mass forecast is a forward Fisher projection from an externally established suppression relation, not a fit renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward model: total neutrino mass enters through Eq. (1), the standard asymptotic matter-power-spectrum suppression from Hu et al. (1998), which is then used in the variance integral Eq. (4), the Press-Schechter halo mass function Eq. (3), and the two-halo term Eq. (8). The 1D 21-cm forest power spectrum is constructed analytically from the halo model, and the Fisher matrix combines this model with assumed SKA-LOW noise, segment counts, and external priors on TK and sigma8. No parameter is fitted to the quantity being 'predicted': the derived 0.1 eV sensitivity is a forecasted statistical reach, not an input or a renamed fit. The paper does rely on a prior paper by the same group (Ref. [75]) for validation of the analytical halo model, but the model equations are stated in the present work, and the neutrino-mass sensitivity does not reduce to that self-citation; the cited validation is a simulation comparison, not an assumption that already contains the target result. The scale-independent form of Eq. (1) is a physical approximation whose validity across the free-streaming transition is a legitimate modeling concern, but it is not circularity: even if the approximation is imperfect, the calculation does not define its conclusion into its inputs. No step meets the required test of exhibiting a specific reduction of a prediction to its own fitted input or self-citation chain, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The forecast depends on a few assumed numbers (TK, S150, Ns, telescope sensitivity) rather than on new free parameters fit to data. The most important is the IGM temperature, since its uncertainty is degenerate with the neutrino signal. The paper does not introduce any new particles or forces.

free parameters (4)
  • IGM temperature TK = 60 K
    Fiducial value assumed from HERA constraints; the Fisher forecast uses relative priors of 5%, 10%, 50% on TK, and the neutrino mass constraint depends strongly on this prior.
  • Background source flux density S150 = 10 mJy at z=9
    Assumed for a radio-loud quasar background, used in Eq (6) to convert flux density to point-source temperature; the realization of 100-10000 neutral segments depends on this and on quasar abundance.
  • Number of neutral segments Ns = 100, 1000, 10000
    Assumed in the thermal noise formula, Eq (11); the forecast is evaluated as a function of Ns, and the number of available segments is a major unknown.
  • Integration time and telescope sensitivity = 100 h; A_eff/T_sys = 500-600 m^2/K
    Assumed for SKA-LOW; the thermal noise scales with these values and directly affects the forecast.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 21-cm forest 1D power spectrum can be modeled with the halo model (1h + 2h terms) at the small scales considered.
    The model's validity is supported by a citation to the authors' unpublished work [75] that matches simulations, but the paper does not independently validate it here; the model is used directly in Eq (8).
  • domain assumption Inside halos the gas temperature equals the virial temperature; outside, the IGM is uniformly at TK = 60 K, set by X-ray heating.
    The temperature profile enters the window function W21 and the mean density profile; a different TK value changes the amplitude of the 1D power spectrum and is degenerate with the neutrino signal. The 60 K value is a plausible choice within HERA constraints, not a unique measurement.
  • domain assumption The spin temperature is tightly coupled to the gas kinetic temperature through the early Ly-alpha background, so the signal is proportional to (1+δ)/TK.
    This is the standard assumption for the 21-cm forest during the epoch of reionization, but the coupling efficiency is not quantified in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The neutrino suppression of the matter power spectrum is approximated by the scale-independent formula of Eq (1).
    The paper applies Eq (1) as a constant suppression at all scales below the free-streaming scale. The real suppression is scale-dependent, and the paper does not flag this approximation or test its impact on the Fisher forecast.
  • domain assumption Press-Schechter mass function with Mo and White halo bias is used.
    The paper tests Sheth-Tormen and finds 10% variation, so this choice is not the dominant uncertainty, but it is still an assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Prospects for measuring neutrino mass with 21-cm forest." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HAY5LSRU

@misc{pith2026250100769,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Prospects for measuring neutrino mass with 21-cm forest},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HAY5LSRU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00769}
}
read the original abstract

Both particle physics experiments and cosmological observations have been used to explore neutrino properties. Cosmological researches of neutrinos often rely on the early-universe cosmic microwave background observations or other late-universe probes, which mostly focus on large-scale structures. We introduce a distinct probe, the 21-cm forest, that differs from other probes in both time and scale. Actually, the 21-cm forest is a unique tool for studying small-scale structures in the early universe. Below the free-streaming scale, massive neutrinos suppress the matter power spectrum, influencing small-scale fluctuations in the distribution of matter. The one-dimensional (1D) power spectrum of the 21-cm forest can track these fluctuations across different scales, similar to the matter power spectrum, providing an effective method to constrain neutrino mass. Although heating effects in the early universe can also impact the 1D power spectrum of the 21-cm forest, we assess the potential of the 21-cm forest as a tool for measuring neutrino mass, given that the temperature of the intergalactic medium can be constrained using other methods within a certain range. In the ideal scenario, the 21-cm forest observation will have the ability to constrain the total neutrino mass to around 0.1 eV. With the accumulation of observational data and advancements in observational technology, the 21-cm forest holds great promise as an emerging and potent tool for measuring neutrino mass.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00769 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Halo mass function for different values of the total [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The 1D power spectrum of the 21-cm forest with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Prospective constraints on the neutrino mass with the 21-cm forest. The left panel shows the constrains on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Upper limit on the total neutrino mass for different numbers of segments. The left panel shows the results without [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

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. Probing initial isocurvature perturbation with 21cm one-point statistics

    astro-ph.CO 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A Fisher forecast from 21cmFAST simulations shows 21cm variance can constrain the CDM isocurvature fraction to about 3e-4 with SKA, while skewness is an order of magnitude weaker.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

123 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Maltoni, T

    M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, M. A. Tortola, and J. W. F. Valle, New J. Phys. 6, 122 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0405172

    arXiv 2004

  2. [2]

    Fukuda et al

    Y. Fukuda et al. (Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1562 (1998), arXiv:hep-ex/9807003

    arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    Q. R. Ahmad et al. (SNO), Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 011301 (2002), arXiv:nucl-ex/0204008

    arXiv 2002

  4. [4]

    K. A. Olive et al. (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C 38, 090001 (2014)

    2014

  5. [5]

    F. P. An et al. (Daya Bay), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 161802 (2023), arXiv:2211.14988 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Aker et al

    M. Aker et al. (KATRIN), Nature Phys. 18, 160 (2022), arXiv:2105.08533 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Aker et al

    M. Aker et al. (Katrin), (2024), arXiv:2406.13516 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Lesgourgues and S

    J. Lesgourgues and S. Pastor, Phys. Rept. 429, 307 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0603494

    arXiv 2006

Show all 123 references
  1. [9]

    K. N. Abazajian et al., Astropart. Phys. 35, 177 (2011), arXiv:1103.5083 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  2. [10]

    K. N. Abazajian et al. (Topical Conveners: K.N. Abazajian, J.E. Carlstrom, A.T. Lee), Astropart. Phys. 63, 66 (2015), arXiv:1309.5383 [astro-ph.CO]. 7

    2015 arXiv

  3. [11]

    De Bernardis, T

    F. De Bernardis, T. D. Kitching, A. Heavens, and A. Mel- chiorri, Phys. Rev. D 80, 123509 (2009), arXiv:0907.1917 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Komatsu et al

    E. Komatsu et al. (WMAP), Astrophys. J. Suppl. 192, 18 (2011), arXiv:1001.4538 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Di Valentino, S

    E. Di Valentino, S. Gariazzo, and O. Mena, (2024), arXiv:2404.19322 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), JCAP 02, 021 (2025), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Viel and M

    M. Viel and M. G. Haehnelt, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 365, 231 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0508177

    2006 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Seljak, A

    U. Seljak, A. Slosar, and P. McDonald, JCAP 10, 014 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0604335

    2006 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Gratton, A

    S. Gratton, A. Lewis, and G. Efstathiou, Phys. Rev. D 77, 083507 (2008), arXiv:0705.3100 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Y` eche, N

    C. Y` eche, N. Palanque-Delabrouille, J. Baur, and H. du Mas des Bourboux, JCAP 06, 047 (2017), arXiv:1702.03314 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Palanque-Delabrouille, C

    N. Palanque-Delabrouille, C. Y` eche, N. Sch¨ oneberg, J. Les- gourgues, M. Walther, S. Chabanier, and E. Armengaud, JCAP 04, 038 (2020), arXiv:1911.09073 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    A. K. Sarkar and S. K. Sethi, JCAP 09, 003 (2024), arXiv:2311.18499 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Wang, X.-N

    L.-F. Wang, X.-N. Zhang, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 782, 87 (2018), arXiv:1802.04720 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Jin, R.-Q

    S.-J. Jin, R.-Q. Zhu, L.-F. Wang, H.-L. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Commun. Theor. Phys. 74, 105404 (2022), arXiv:2204.04689 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    L. Feng, T. Han, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C 48, 095104 (2024), arXiv:2404.19530 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    L. Feng, T. Han, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2024), arXiv:2409.04453 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    McQuinn, O

    M. McQuinn, O. Zahn, M. Zaldarriaga, L. Hernquist, and S. R. Furlanetto, Astrophys. J. 653, 815 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0512263

    2006

  19. [27]

    Visbal, A

    E. Visbal, A. Loeb, and J. S. B. Wyithe, JCAP 10, 030 (2009), arXiv:0812.0419 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Y. Mao, M. Tegmark, M. McQuinn, M. Zaldarriaga, and O. Zahn, Phys. Rev. D 78, 023529 (2008), arXiv:0802.1710 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Oyama, K

    Y. Oyama, K. Kohri, and M. Hazumi, JCAP 02, 008 (2016), arXiv:1510.03806 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Zhang, B

    J.-F. Zhang, B. Wang, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 63, 280411 (2020), arXiv:1907.00179 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    S. Wang, Z. Haiman, W. Hu, J. Khoury, and M. May, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 011302 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0505390

    2005 arXiv

  24. [32]

    R. A. Battye and A. Moss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 051303 (2014), arXiv:1308.5870 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Palanque-Delabrouille et al

    N. Palanque-Delabrouille et al. , JCAP 02, 045 (2015), arXiv:1410.7244 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Zhang, Y.-H

    J.-F. Zhang, Y.-H. Li, and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2954 (2014), arXiv:1404.3598 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Zhang, Y.-H

    J.-F. Zhang, Y.-H. Li, and X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 740, 359 (2015), arXiv:1403.7028 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Zhang, J.-J

    J.-F. Zhang, J.-J. Geng, and X. Zhang, JCAP 10, 044 (2014), arXiv:1408.0481 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Zhang, M.-M

    J.-F. Zhang, M.-M. Zhao, Y.-H. Li, and X. Zhang, JCAP 04, 038 (2015), arXiv:1502.04028 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Zhang, Phys

    X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 93, 083011 (2016), arXiv:1511.02651 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Dell’Oro, S

    S. Dell’Oro, S. Marcocci, M. Viel, and F. Vissani, JCAP 12, 023 (2015), arXiv:1505.02722 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Wang, Y.-F

    S. Wang, Y.-F. Wang, D.-M. Xia, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 94, 083519 (2016), arXiv:1608.00672 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Zhao, Y.-H

    M.-M. Zhao, Y.-H. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 469, 1713 (2017), arXiv:1608.01219 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Capozzi, E

    F. Capozzi, E. Di Valentino, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, A. Mel- chiorri, and A. Palazzo, Phys. Rev. D 95, 096014 (2017), [Ad- dendum: Phys.Rev.D 101, 116013 (2020)], arXiv:2003.08511 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Vagnozzi, E

    S. Vagnozzi, E. Giusarma, O. Mena, K. Freese, M. Gerbino, S. Ho, and M. Lattanzi, Phys. Rev. D 96, 123503 (2017), arXiv:1701.08172 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Guo, Y.-H

    R.-Y. Guo, Y.-H. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, JCAP 05, 040 (2017), arXiv:1702.04189 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Zhang, Sci

    X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 60, 060431 (2017), arXiv:1703.00651 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Feng, J.-F

    L. Feng, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 418 (2017), arXiv:1703.04884 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Zhao, D.-Z

    M.-M. Zhao, D.-Z. He, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 96, 043520 (2017), arXiv:1703.08456 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Feng, J.-F

    L. Feng, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 61, 050411 (2018), arXiv:1706.06913 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Zhao, J.-F

    M.-M. Zhao, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 779, 473 (2018), arXiv:1710.02391 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Zhang and X

    J. Zhang and X. Zhang, Nature Commun. 9, 1833 (2018), arXiv:1712.01153 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Feng, J.-F

    L. Feng, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Dark Univ. 23, 100261 (2019), arXiv:1712.03148 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Guo, J.-F

    R.-Y. Guo, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C 42, 095103 (2018), arXiv:1803.06910 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  45. [53]

    M. Zhao, R. Guo, D. He, J. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 63, 230412 (2020), arXiv:1810.11658 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Feng, H.-L

    L. Feng, H.-L. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 63, 220401 (2020), arXiv:1903.08848 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Feng, D.-Z

    L. Feng, D.-Z. He, H.-L. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 63, 290404 (2020), arXiv:1910.03872 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Zhang, J.-F

    M. Zhang, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Commun. Theor. Phys. 72, 125402 (2020), arXiv:2005.04647 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Li, J.-F

    H.-L. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Commun. Theor. Phys. 72, 125401 (2020), arXiv:2005.12041 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Feng, R.-Y

    L. Feng, R.-Y. Guo, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 827, 136940 (2022), arXiv:2109.06111 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  51. [59]

    J. Liu, Z. Huang, and Y. Su, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 24, 045002 (2024), arXiv:2311.09703 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Di Valentino, S

    E. Di Valentino, S. Gariazzo, W. Giar` e, and O. Mena, Phys. Rev. D 108, 083509 (2023), arXiv:2305.12989 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Du, P.-J

    G.-H. Du, P.-J. Wu, T.-N. Li, and X. Zhang, (2024), arXiv:2407.15640 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Toda and O

    Y. Toda and O. Seto, (2024), arXiv:2410.21925 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024

  55. [63]

    J. a. Rebou¸ cas, D. H. F. de Souza, K. Zhong, V. Miranda, and R. Rosenfeld, JCAP 02, 024 (2025), arXiv:2408.14628 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Racco, P

    D. Racco, P. Zhang, and H. Zheng, Phys. Dark Univ. 47, 101803 (2025), arXiv:2412.04959 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Carilli, N

    C. Carilli, N. Y. Gnedin, and F. Owen, Astrophys. J. 577, 22 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0205169

    2002 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Furlanetto and A

    S. Furlanetto and A. Loeb, Astrophys. J. 579, 1 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0206308

    2002 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Furlanetto, Mon

    S. Furlanetto, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 370, 1867 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0604223

    2006 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Y. Xu, X. Chen, Z. Fan, H. Trac, and R. Cen, Astrophys. J. 704, 1396 (2009), arXiv:0904.4254 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Y. Xu, A. Ferrara, F. S. Kitaura, and X. Chen, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 53, 1124 (2010), arXiv:1002.4356 [astro- ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Y. Xu, A. Ferrara, and X. Chen, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 410, 2025 (2011), arXiv:1009.1149 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Ciardi et al., Mon

    B. Ciardi et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 428, 1755 (2013), arXiv:1209.2615 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Thyagarajan, Astrophys

    N. Thyagarajan, Astrophys. J. 899, 16 (2020), arXiv:2006.10070 [astro-ph.CO]. 8

    2020 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Y. Shao, Y. Xu, Y. Wang, W. Yang, R. Li, X. Zhang, and X. Chen, Nature Astron. 7, 1116 (2023), arXiv:2307.04130 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    T.-Y. Sun, Y. Shao, Y. Li, Y. Xu, and X. Zhang, (2024), arXiv:2407.14298 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Shao, T.-Y

    Y. Shao, T.-Y. Sun, M.-L. Zhao, and X. Zhang, (2024), arXiv:2411.17094 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    ˇSoltinsk´ y, G

    T. ˇSoltinsk´ y, G. Kulkarni, S. P. Tendulkar, and J. S. Bolton, (2024), arXiv:2412.06879 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  69. [77]

    W. Hu, D. J. Eisenstein, and M. Tegmark, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5255 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9712057

    1998 arXiv

  70. [78]

    K. J. Mack and J. S. B. Wyithe, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 425, 2988 (2012), arXiv:1101.5431 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Shimabukuro, K

    H. Shimabukuro, K. Ichiki, S. Inoue, and S. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D 90, 083003 (2014), arXiv:1403.1605 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  72. [80]

    W. H. Press and P. Schechter, Astrophys. J. 187, 425 (1974)

    1974

  73. [81]

    Barkana and A

    R. Barkana and A. Loeb, Phys. Rept. 349, 125 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0010468

    2001 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Ma and J

    C.-P. Ma and J. N. Fry, Astrophys. J. 543, 503 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0003343

    2000 arXiv

  75. [83]

    R. E. Smith, J. A. Peacock, A. Jenkins, S. D. M. White, C. S. Frenk, F. R. Pearce, P. A. Thomas, G. Efstathiou, and H. M. P. Couchmann (VIRGO Consortium), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 341, 1311 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0207664

    2003 arXiv

  76. [84]

    A. Mead, J. Peacock, C. Heymans, S. Joudaki, and A. Heavens, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 454, 1958 (2015), arXiv:1505.07833 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  77. [85]

    O. H. E. Philcox, D. N. Spergel, and F. Villaescusa-Navarro, Phys. Rev. D 101, 123520 (2020), arXiv:2004.09515 [astro- ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Acuto, I

    A. Acuto, I. G. McCarthy, J. Kwan, J. Salcido, S. G. Stafford, and A. S. Font, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.508, 3519 (2021), arXiv:2109.11855 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  79. [87]

    C. Feng, A. Cooray, and B. Keating, Astrophys. J. 846, 21 (2017), arXiv:1701.07005 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Schneider, S

    A. Schneider, S. K. Giri, and J. Mirocha, Phys. Rev. D 103, 083025 (2021), arXiv:2011.12308 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Schneider, T

    A. Schneider, T. Schaeffer, and S. K. Giri, Phys. Rev. D 108, 043030 (2023), arXiv:2302.06626 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Schaeffer, S

    T. Schaeffer, S. K. Giri, and A. Schneider, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 526, 2942 (2023), arXiv:2305.15466 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  83. [91]

    P. Hitz, P. Berner, D. Crichton, J. Hennig, and A. Refregier, (2024), arXiv:2410.01694 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  84. [92]

    H. J. Mo and S. D. M. White, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 282, 347 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9512127

    1996 arXiv

  85. [93]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J. 490, 493 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9611107

    1997 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Makino, S

    N. Makino, S. Sasaki, and Y. Suto, Astrophys. J. 497, 555 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9710344

    1998 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Barkana, Mon

    R. Barkana, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 347, 57 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0212458

    2004 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Abdurashidova et al

    Z. Abdurashidova et al. (HERA), Astrophys. J. 924, 51 (2022), arXiv:2108.07282 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Abdurashidova et al

    Z. Abdurashidova et al. (HERA), Astrophys. J. 945, 124 (2023), arXiv:2210.04912 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Braun, A

    R. Braun, A. Bonaldi, T. Bourke, E. Keane, and J. Wagg, (2019), arXiv:1912.12699 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Haiman, E

    Z. Haiman, E. Quataert, and G. C. Bower, Astrophys. J. 612, 698 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0403104

    2004 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Q. Niu, Y. Li, Y. Xu, H. Guo, and X. Zhang, Astrophys. J. 978, 145 (2025), arXiv:2407.18136 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  93. [101]

    I. D. McGreer, R. H. Becker, D. J. Helfand, and R. L. White, Astrophys. J. 652, 157 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0607278

    2006 arXiv

  94. [102]

    C. J. Willott et al. , Astron. J. 139, 906 (2010), arXiv:0912.0281 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Ba˜ nados et al

    E. Ba˜ nados et al. , Astrophys. J. 804, 118 (2015), arXiv:1503.04214 [astro-ph.GA]

    2015 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Banados et al

    E. Banados et al. , Astrophys. J. 909, 80 (2021), arXiv:2103.03295 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Banados et al., Astrophys

    E. Banados et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. 265, 29 (2023)

    2023

  98. [106]

    Banados et al., (2024), arXiv:2407.07236 [astro-ph.GA]

    E. Banados et al., (2024), arXiv:2407.07236 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Ighina, S

    L. Ighina, S. Belladitta, A. Caccianiga, J. W. Broderick, G. Drouart, A. Moretti, and N. Seymour, Astron. Astro- phys. 647, L11 (2021), arXiv:2101.11371 [astro-ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Y. Liu, R. Wang, E. Momjian, E. Ba˜ nados, G. Zeimann, C. J. Willott, Y. Matsuoka, A. Omont, Y. Shao, Q. Li, and J. Li, Astrophys. J. 908, 124 (2021), arXiv:2012.07301 [astro- ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  101. [109]

    A. J. Gloudemans, K. J. Duncan, A. Saxena, Y. Harikane, G. J. Hill, G. R. Zeimann, H. J. A. R¨ ottgering, D. Yang, P. N. Best, E. Ba˜ nados, A. Drabent, M. J. Hardcastle, J. F. Hennawi, G. Lansbury, M. Magliocchetti, G. K. Miley, R. Nanni, T. W. Shimwell, D. J. B. Smith, B. P....

    2022 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Ighina, A

    L. Ighina, A. Caccianiga, A. Moretti, S. Belladitta, J. W. Broderick, G. Drouart, J. K. Leung, and N. Seymour, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 519, 2060 (2023), arXiv:2212.06168 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Endsley, D

    R. Endsley, D. P. Stark, J. Lyu, F. Wang, J. Yang, X. Fan, R. Smit, R. Bouwens, K. Hainline, and S. Schouws, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 520, 4609 (2023), arXiv:2206.00018 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Li, X.-D

    M. Li, X.-D. Li, Y.-Z. Ma, X. Zhang, and Z. Zhang, JCAP 09, 021 (2013), arXiv:1305.5302 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  105. [113]

    J. L. Bernal, L. Verde, and A. G. Riess, JCAP 10, 019 (2016), arXiv:1607.05617 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Guo, J.-F

    R.-Y. Guo, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, JCAP 02, 054 (2019), arXiv:1809.02340 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Verde, T

    L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess, Nature Astron. 3, 891 (2019), arXiv:1907.10625 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  108. [116]

    A. G. Riess, Nature Rev. Phys. 2, 10 (2019), arXiv:2001.03624 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Vagnozzi, Phys

    S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D 102, 023518 (2020), arXiv:1907.07569 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Di Valentino, O

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess, and J. Silk, Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 153001 (2021), arXiv:2103.01183 [astro- ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Gao, Z.-W

    L.-Y. Gao, Z.-W. Zhao, S.-S. Xue, and X. Zhang, JCAP 07, 005 (2021), arXiv:2101.10714 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Gao, S.-S

    L.-Y. Gao, S.-S. Xue, and X. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C 48, 051001 (2024), arXiv:2212.13146 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Vagnozzi, Universe 9, 393 (2023), arXiv:2308.16628 [astro- ph.CO]

    S. Vagnozzi, Universe 9, 393 (2023), arXiv:2308.16628 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  114. [122]

    Huang, S.-J

    L. Huang, S.-J. Wang, and W.-W. Yu, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 68, 220413 (2025), arXiv:2401.14170 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  115. [123]

    R. K. Sheth and G. Tormen, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 329, 61 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0105113

    2002 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.