Local primordial non-Gaussianity from 'zero-bias' 21cm radiation during reionization

Nickolas Kokron

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Local primordial non-Gaussianity from 'zero-bias' 21cm radiation during reionization

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read During reionization, the 21cm field becomes a zero-bias tracer; at that epoch, a sampling-noise-limited analysis could constrain local primordial non-Gaussianity to sigma(f_NL) ~ 0.4.

desk verdict Useful noise decomposition and a correct negative result, but the headline zero-bias gain contradicts the paper's own Fisher calculation and needs recomputation. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20025 v1 pith:SE2HABK5 submitted 2025-04-28 astro-ph.CO

Nickolas Kokron This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.CO

keywords 21cmcosmologyepochofreionizationprimordialnon-Gaussianityzero-biastracerscale-dependentbiasbrightnesstemperatureFisherforecastintensitymappingnoise

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 argues that during the epoch of reionization there is a generic moment—when the universe is roughly 10–20% ionized—at which the 21cm brightness-temperature field becomes a 'zero-bias tracer': its linear bias crosses zero, so on large scales its fluctuations are uncorrelated with the dark matter density. At that moment the scale-dependent signature of local primordial non-Gaussianity (PNG) in the 21cm power spectrum has maximal sensitivity to the parameter $f_{\rm NL}^{\rm loc}$, because the PNG term is proportional to the product of the linear bias and the PNG bias. The paper shows, however, that this sensitivity is hidden unless the analysis can suppress noise-like contributions from nonlinear ionization bias and fluctuating radiation backgrounds: with a naive auto-power-spectrum analysis, $\sigma(f_{\rm NL}^{\rm loc}) \leq 1$ is unachievable and the zero-bias epoch is the least informative redshift. If a future analysis reaches the sampling-noise floor of the 21cm field, the forecast improves to $\sigma(f_{\rm NL}^{\rm loc}) \sim 0.4$, roughly ten times better than forecasts at lower redshifts that have been used previously. The result matters because $\sigma(f_{\rm NL}^{\rm loc}) \sim 1$ is the widely quoted threshold that separates single-field from multi-field inflation models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the redshift evolution of the 21cm linear bias, $b^{21}_1(z)$, and its relation to the PNG bias $b^{21}_\phi$. Under the paper's approximations, the brightness-temperature field is a density-weighted neutral fraction, and the bias expansion yields $b^{21}_1(z) = \bar{x}_H - (1-\bar{x}_H)(b^x_1 - 2\sigma^2 b^x_2)$; the first positive term and the second negative term guarantee a zero crossing near $\bar{x}_H \simeq 0.86$ regardless of the detailed astrophysics. Separately, the PNG bias is evaluated by Separate Universe simulations, which vary $\sigma_8$ and take the derivative of the brightness temperature with respect to it, yielding $b^{21}_\phi$. The forecast itself is carried by the Fisher information $F_{f_{\rm NL}} = (2V/\pi^2)\int dk\, k^2 [(b^{21}_1 b^{21}_\phi \alpha(k))^2 P(k)^2] / [(b^{21}_1)^2 P(k) + N_i(k)]^2$, with four noise spectra $N_i$ representing (1) the auto-power-spectrum stochasticity, (2) a field-level analysis that removes $b_2$ noise, (3) a further removal of fluctuating-radiation-background noise, and (4) the pure sampling noise of ionized bubbles. The analytic single-$k$ limit shows the Fisher information has maxima at $b_1 = \pm\sqrt{B}$ for finite noise $B = N/P$, explaining why the zero-bias point is only optimal when the noise is at the sampling floor.

What would settle it

A reader could test the claim by measuring the 21cm power spectrum and its cross-correlation with galaxies across $z = 7$–$15$: if the brightness-temperature bias does not cross zero near a neutral fraction of about 0.85, or if the spin temperature at that epoch is not well above the CMB temperature, the predicted $\sigma(f_{\rm NL}^{\rm loc}) \sim 0.4$ gain is not realized. A Fisher forecast that includes the full $(1 - T_{\rm CMB}/T_s)$ fluctuations and velocity-gradient terms would show whether the improvement survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the 21cm brightness temperature is a naturally occurring zero-bias tracer, with the zero crossing occurring early in reionization rather than at a fine-tuned astrophysical moment. In the approximation of saturated spin temperature and negligible velocity gradients, $\delta T_b = T_0\, x_H\,(1+\delta_m)$, and expanding the neutral-hydrogen fraction in a biased-tracer expansion gives the linear bias $b^{21}_1(z) = \bar{x}_H - (1-\bar{x}_H)(b^x_1 - 2\sigma^2 b^x_2)$. The positive term from neutral gas tracing matter and the negative term from ionized regions anti-correlating with density force a zero crossing near $\bar{x}_H \simeq 0.86$; the paper finds this crossing in its fiducial simulation and notes that previous, physically different reionization simulations also cross near $\bar{x}_H \sim 0.8$–$0.9$. The PNG bias $b^{21}_\phi$ is measured with Separate Universe simulations and follows a universality-style relation $b_\phi = \delta_B(b_1 - 1)$ until late reionization. A Fisher forecast that compares the PNG signal with four increasingly optimistic noise spectra then shows that only the sampling-noise-limited analysis (Noise 4) converts the zero-bias epoch into a $\sigma(f_{\rm NL}^{\rm loc}) \sim 0.4$ constraint.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast assumes that during the zero-bias epoch the spin temperature of neutral hydrogen is much larger than the cosmic microwave background temperature, so fluctuations in spin temperature and gas velocity can be neglected; at $z \sim 10$ the fiducial simulation has $T_s \simeq 3 T_{\rm CMB}$, where that assumption is not automatically safe.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the zero-bias epoch is real, a 21cm survey that can locate it—for example by cross-correlating with high-redshift galaxy surveys—gains a specific redshift target where $f_{\rm NL}^{\rm loc}$ constraints are maximized.
Power-spectrum-only analyses will not be enough: without field-level or higher-order statistics to remove $b_2$ noise, the zero-bias epoch is the worst place to measure PNG, and $\sigma(f_{\rm NL}^{\rm loc}) \leq 1$ remains out of reach.
An analysis that reaches the sampling-noise floor of the 21cm field would see roughly a tenfold reduction in $\sigma(f_{\rm NL}^{\rm loc})$ near the zero-bias epoch compared with lower redshifts, even with foreground-motivated large-scale cuts.
If a future galaxy survey detects $f_{\rm NL}^{\rm loc}$, the zero-bias 21cm epoch provides an independent cross-check targeting the same parameter with different systematics.
Because the zero crossing occurs early in reionization ($\bar{x}_H \sim 0.2$), the symmetries-based perturbative bias expansion used for the forecast is still valid there, unlike late in reionization.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the same noise taxonomy ($N_1$–$N_4$) should apply to other line-intensity tracers that transition from tracing to anti-tracing the matter field, such as CO or [CII] during reionization; each would have its own zero-bias epoch and its own sampling floor.
Editorial inference: the zero-bias redshift itself could be measured empirically as the vanishing of the 21cm–galaxy cross-power spectrum, turning the bias crossing into a calibration point for reionization astrophysics.
Editorial inference: if spin-temperature fluctuations are not negligible at $z \sim 10$, they may not simply add noise; cross-correlating the brightness temperature with the CMB or with galaxy density could isolate $(1 - T_{\rm CMB}/T_s)$ fluctuations and actually locate the true zero-bias epoch, converting the paper's weakest assumption into a measurement.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper's real contribution is the systematic decomposition of 21cm noise into the N1–N4 ladder and the demonstration that naive power-spectrum analyses cannot reach sigma(fNL)<=1. That part is solid and worth taking seriously. The zero-bias epoch itself was already known from McQuinn & D'Aloisio and the Thesan-2 simulations, and the paper cites them properly; the novelty is the quantitative treatment of b2 noise and the radiation-background F(kλ) terms, using simulation-extracted bias and noise coefficients rather than assumed values.

The trouble is the central claim. The text says that at the zero-bias epoch an N4 analysis gives sigma(fNL)~0.4, a factor of ten better than lower redshifts. But Eq. (13) gives exactly zero Fisher information at b1=0 for any finite noise. The paper's own Appendix says the same: b1=0 is a Fisher minimum, with maxima at b1=±sqrt(N/P). So the quoted gain cannot come from the zero-crossing snapshot itself. It must come from neighboring snapshots or from band-averaging over the 6 MHz survey. The paper treats each band as a single snapshot with constant properties, which means the plotted point at the zero-bias epoch has, by construction, zero information if b1 is exactly zero. That is an internal contradiction between the main text and the Appendix, and it is load-bearing.

The fix is straightforward but necessary: compute the band-averaged Fisher information explicitly, marginalize over the noise parameters (A, B, bJ, lambdaJ) and the redshift evolution across the band, and report where the optimum actually sits — likely at b1 ~ ±sqrt(N/P), which is near but not exactly at zero. The qualitative idea still has merit: if analysis can reach the sampling floor, the error can be small in the neighborhood of the zero-crossing. But the factor-of-ten claim is not supported by the calculation as written.

Two other concerns are real but secondary. First, the Ts >> TCMB assumption is questionable at z~10, where Ts ~ 3 TCMB; residual spin-temperature fluctuations can shift the zero-crossing and alter all four noise curves. The paper notes this, but does not quantify the impact. Second, Eq. (25) has a typo: it should be A b1^2/(b1^2+B)^2, not A b1^2/(1+B/b1^2)^2. The stated extrema are correct, so this is minor, but it adds to the need for a clean analytic presentation.

Who is this for? People working on 21cm PNG forecasts and on field-level analysis techniques for reionization surveys. The noise decomposition is a useful reference, and the negative result for power-spectrum-only analyses is an important caution. The paper deserves a serious referee, but the headline claim needs recomputation before it can be trusted.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that during reionization there generically exists an epoch at which the linear bias of the 21cm brightness temperature field crosses zero, making 21cm radiation a natural 'zero-bias tracer' for local primordial non-Gaussianity in the sense of Castorina et al. Using the 21cmFAST OPT simulation, the author measures the evolution of the linear bias b21_1 and the PNG bias b21_phi via Separate Universe simulations, and defines four progressively optimistic noise spectra N1-N4 that model different analysis strategies from auto-power-spectrum to field-level/sampling-noise-limited. A Fisher forecast with 6 MHz bandwidth surveys centered on snapshots from z~7 to 15 yields sigma(fNL) as low as ~0.4 for the N4 noise model at the zero-bias epoch, a claimed factor-of-10 improvement over lower redshifts, while showing that the naive N1 analysis cannot reach sigma(fNL) <= 1. The paper concludes that reaching the sampling-noise floor is essential to exploit the zero-bias epoch.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the zero-bias epoch would provide a new observational target for 21cm surveys and for field-level analysis techniques, potentially improving local PNG constraints by an order of magnitude over conventional reionization-epoch forecasts. The work uses simulation-calibrated bias and noise coefficients rather than assumed values, computes b21_phi with Separate Universe techniques, and provides an analytic appendix that attempts to explain the structure of the forecast. The comparison with previous reionization simulations supports the qualitative existence of a zero-crossing. However, as detailed below, the exact-zero-bias Fisher pathology and the absence of an explicit band-averaged forecast currently undermine the headline factor-of-10 claim, and the spin-temperature assumption needs quantitative sensitivity testing. The underlying idea is timely and the methodology is largely sound, so the issues are fixable within the scope of a revision.

major comments (3)

[The Fisher Matrix, Eq. (13), Fig. 3] At b21_1 = 0 the integrand in Eq. (13) has a zero numerator and a finite denominator, so F_fNL = 0 identically for any finite noise spectrum Ni(k). The main text nevertheless reports sigma(fNL) ~ 0.4 at the zero-bias snapshot for the N4 analysis, which cannot arise from Eq. (13) evaluated at that snapshot. Either the forecast is actually evaluated at a neighboring snapshot with b21_1 != 0, or it implicitly averages over the 6 MHz band within which the bias changes sign; neither is described. The Appendix remark that finite snapshot sampling over-estimates the exact zero-bias Fisher information acknowledges the issue but does not reconcile it with the main-text presentation. Please recompute the band-averaged forecast with b1(z) varying across the survey window, or restate the claim as applying to the closest non-zero-bias snapshot with the resulting b1 value shown.
[Appendix, Eq. (25)] The algebraic form of the single-k Fisher information is incorrect. From Eq. (13) the k-dependent piece is proportional to b1^2 P^2/(b1^2 P + N)^2, which for constant P and N is A b1^2/(b1^2 + B)^2 = A/[b1^2 (1 + B/b1^2)^2] with B = N/P. The published expression A b1^2/(1 + B/b1^2)^2 behaves as A b1^2 at large |b1|, the opposite of Eq. (13) and of the trend in Fig. 3. The stated extrema at b1* = {-sqrt(B), 0, sqrt(B)} belong to the corrected expression, so the derivation should be redone and the corrected Laurent form used throughout.
[Time evolution of the 21cm linear bias; Fig. 1] The zero-bias forecast assumes Ts >> TCMB and neglects velocity gradients, but at the claimed zero-bias epoch z ~ 10.3 the simulation gives Ts ~ 3 TCMB, so the factor (1 - TCMB/Ts) is order 2/3 and its fluctuations are not obviously negligible. Residual spin-temperature fluctuations can shift b21_1, modify b21_phi, and change all Ni(k), any of which can move or erase the zero-bias epoch on which the headline forecast depends. Citing Ref. [22] without a quantitative estimate is not sufficient; please add a sensitivity test, for example using the full Ts field from the same simulation or the approximations tested in Ref. [22].

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'marginalyl' in the Fisher Matrix section, 'satisfited' in the Appendix, and '21m radiation' instead of '21cm radiation' in the discussion of the N4 analysis; please correct these.
[The Fisher Matrix] The text says 'We have marginalized over the linear bias b21_1' but does not specify the prior or the implementation of the marginalization; please state whether this is a Gaussian prior with a given width or a flat projection, since the forecast near zero bias is sensitive to this choice.
[Fig. 3] The horizontal bars are described as the redshift range covered by the 6 MHz bandwidth, but it is not clear whether each forecast is centered on the simulation snapshot or on the band center; please clarify the placement of the band relative to the zero-bias snapshot.
[Abstract and Introduction] The abstract's statement that noise-like terms make sigma(fNL) <= 1 'unachievable even in simplified forecasts' applies to the N1 auto-power-spectrum analysis; please specify this more precisely to avoid the impression that it applies to the more sophisticated N2-N4 analyses.
[Conclusions] The phrase 'zero-bias epoch to saturate Fisher information' is misleading because, as the Appendix shows, the exact zero-bias point is a Fisher minimum for finite noise; please rephrase to refer to the near-zero-bias regime or the sampling-noise-limited case.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fNL forecast is a Fisher calculation from simulation-calibrated inputs, and the only self-citations are non-load-bearing methodological references.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is the standard one: Eq. (9) gives the 21cm linear bias from the ionization-fraction bias expansion, Eq. (10) gives the PNG bias from Separate Universe simulations, and Eq. (13) is the Fisher information for fNL with noise spectra Ni defined in the Appendix (Eqs. 16-24). None of these steps defines the target quantity in terms of itself. The zero-bias epoch is argued by continuity (positive bias before reionization, negative bias late) and verified in 21cmFAST and prior simulations, so it does not reduce to a fitted input. The fNL forecast is a Fisher calculation using b1, bphi, and Ni as inputs, with no fNL data fitted, so it is not a fitted input called a prediction. The author's prior work appears only as methodology citations for the field-level stochasticity estimator used to construct N2 and N3 (Refs. [48] and [49]); this is not load-bearing for the zero-bias existence claim or for the N4 sampling-floor forecast, and it is not used as a uniqueness or ansatz-forcing argument. I therefore find no circular step. Two caveats belong to correctness rather than circularity: the Appendix itself states that b1=0 is a Fisher minimum and that finite snapshot sampling over-estimates the exact zero-bias Fisher information, which sits in tension with the headline sigma ~ 0.4 at the zero-bias epoch (Eq. 13 gives F=0 at exactly b1=0 for finite Ni); and Eq. (25) appears to have a typo in the b1 dependence of the amplitude A. Neither caveat constitutes an input-output equivalence.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central forecast rests on a small number of fitted noise amplitudes (A, B, bJ, lambdaJ), the spin-temperature and velocity simplifications in Eq. (6), the bias-expansion assumption in Eq. (7), the Separate Universe calibration of b_phi, and a prior-literature bubble mass function for the N4 floor. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (5)

delta_B (universality relation parameter) = 1.15
Chosen by hand so Eq. (11), b_phi = delta_B (b1 - 1), matches the Separate Universe measurement until z ~ 9; used only for comparison, not for the Fisher forecasts.
A (flat noise amplitude in Perr fit) = fitted per snapshot
Amplitude of the flat shot-noise component in Eq. (21); used as noise N3 in the Fisher forecast.
B (flat stochasticity of ionizing sources) = fitted per snapshot
Flat shot-noise term associated with ionizing sources in the Perr template Eq. (21); part of N2.
bJ (radiation-background bias) = fitted per snapshot
Bias coefficient of the large-scale ionizing background fluctuation term F(k lambdaJ) in Eq. (21); part of N2.
lambdaJ (effective mean free path) = fitted per snapshot
Mean free path of the radiation field in the F(k lambdaJ) template Eq. (21); sets the scale dependence of the background noise term.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption The brightness temperature is given by delta_Tb = T0 xH (1 + delta_m), neglecting velocity gradients and assuming Ts >> TCMB.
Invoked in Eq. (6) to define the 21cm field used for bias and noise extraction; Ref. [22] is cited as a caveat.
domain assumption The neutral hydrogen fraction admits a symmetries-based bias expansion with operators delta_m, delta_m^2 and a stochastic term (Eq. 7).
Underlies Eq. (9), the bias definitions, and the field-level noise estimator Perr.
domain assumption The PNG bias b21_phi is obtained from the Separate Universe response d<...>/d ln sigma8 (Eq. 10).
Standard approach from Refs [28-30]; assumes sigma8 variation correctly encodes the local PNG response.
domain assumption Bubble sizes follow the Furlanetto, Zaldarriaga and Hernquist (2004) mass function for the N4 shot-noise estimate.
Used in Eq. (24) to compute the analytic sampling floor; a prior-literature model, not validated against the simulation in this paper.
domain assumption The b2 noise and radiation-background noise can be removed by higher-order or field-level analyses (Refs [34,45,49]).
Required for the N2, N3 and N4 forecasts to represent achievable analyses; no demonstration in this paper that field-level methods actually reach N4.
standard math The power-spectrum likelihood is Gaussian, giving the Fisher form in Eq. (13).
Standard Fisher information for a Gaussian field; also assumes no thermal noise and fixed survey geometry.
domain assumption Survey parameters fsky = 0.1, bandwidth 6 MHz, and kmax = 0.15 Mpc^-1 define the fiducial forecast.
These choices set the survey volume and k-range; the forecast numbers scale with them.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Local primordial non-Gaussianity from 'zero-bias' 21cm radiation during reionization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SE2HABK5

@misc{pith2026250420025,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Local primordial non-Gaussianity from 'zero-bias' 21cm radiation during reionization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SE2HABK5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20025}
}

abstract

We revisit the potential of 21cm radiation fluctuations, during the epoch of reionization, in constraining the amplitude of local primordial non-Gaussianity (PNG) $f_{\rm NL}^{\rm loc}$. There generically exists an epoch at which the linear bias of the 21cm field crosses zero, independent of the precise astrophysics of reionization. This epoch implies the 21cm radiation is a natural "zero-bias tracer" in the sense of Castorina et al (2018). We identify new noise-like contributions which directly compete with the zero-bias effect, but which should be mitigated through sophisticated analysis techniques such as field-level reconstruction. These noise-like terms act to hinder the constraining power on local PNG of the brightness temperature fluctuations, making $\sigma (f_{\rm NL}^{\rm loc}) \leq 1$ unachievable even in simplified forecasts. We show that analyses which can reach the 'sampling noise' floor for this tracer and harness its full power can potentially unlock a 10-fold reduction in error bars, even in the presence of large-scale cuts from foregrounds. The potential of this epoch motivates searching for it in future 21cm surveys, along with developing analysis techniques that can reach the noise floor required for the zero-bias epoch to saturate Fisher information.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20025 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Different noise contributions to the 21cm power spec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** shows the dramatic impact that b2 noise has on our ability to constrain local PNG with a dense tracer like 21cm emission. Compared to past predictions, not accounting for b2 noise can drastically degrade the available information at large scales. For snapshots neighbouring the zero-bias epoch, the degradation from b2 noise can be as dramatic as a 5-fold increase in uncertainty. The constraints on local PNG are weak… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Simplified Fisher information assuming all time evo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_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

Equivalence of the field-level inference and conventional analyses on large scales
astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A joint power spectrum, bispectrum and trispectrum analysis achieves the same precision on the density amplitude as field-level inference for halos on large scales.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[22]

Testing common approximations to predict the 21cm signal at the Epoch of Reionization and Cosmic Dawn

T. Schaeffer, S. K. Giri, and A. Schneider, Testing common approximations to predict the 21cm signal at the epoch of reionization and cosmic dawn (2024), arXiv:2404.08042 [astro-ph.CO]

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[1]

Castorina, Y

E. Castorina, Y. Feng, U. Seljak, and F. Villaescusa- Navarro, Primordial non-gaussianities and zero-bias trac- ers of the large-scale structure, Physical Review Letters 121, 10.1103/physrevlett.121.101301 (2018)

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.101301 2018
[2]

D. R. DeBoer, A. R. Parsons, J. E. Aguirre, P. Alexander, Z. S. Ali, A. P. Beardsley, G. Bernardi, J. D. Bowman, R. F. Bradley, C. L. Carilli, C. Cheng, E. d. L. Acedo, J. S. Dillon, A. Ewall-Wice, G. Fadana, N. Fagnoni, R. Fritz, S. R. Furlanetto, B. Glendenning, B. Greig, J. Grobbelaar, B. J. Hazelton, J. N. Hewitt, J. Hick- ish, D. C. Jacobs, A. Julius...

work page 2017
[3]

R. B. Wayth, S. J. Tingay, C. M. Trott, D. Emrich, M. Johnston-Hollitt, B. McKinley, B. M. Gaensler, A. P. Beardsley, T. Booler, B. Crosse, T. M. O. Franzen, L. Horsley, D. L. Kaplan, D. Kenney, M. F. Morales, D. Pallot, G. Sleap, K. Steele, M. Walker, A. Williams, C. Wu, I. H. Cairns, M. D. Filipovic, S. Johnston, T. Murphy, P. Quinn, L. Staveley-Smith, ...

arXiv 2018
[4]

Weltman, P

A. Weltman, P. Bull, S. Camera, K. Kelley, H. Padman- abhan, J. Pritchard, A. Raccanelli, S. Riemer-Sørensen, L. Shao, S. Andrianomena, E. Athanassoula, D. Bacon, R. Barkana, G. Bertone, C. Bœhm, C. Bonvin, A. Bosma, M. Br¨ uggen, C. Burigana, F. Calore, J. A. R. Cembranos, C. Clarkson, R. M. T. Connors, ´A. d. l. Cruz-Dombriz, P. K. S. Dunsby, J. Fonseca...

arXiv 2020
[5]

Loeb and S

A. Loeb and S. Furlanetto, The First Galaxies in the Uni- verse, Princeton Series in Astrophysics (Princeton Uni- versity Press, 2013)

work page 2013
[6]

H. A. G. Cruz, J. B. Munoz, N. Sabti, and M. Kamionkowski, The first billion years in seconds: An effective model for the 21-cm signal with population iii stars (2024), arXiv:2407.18294 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2024
[7]

Ferraro, N

S. Ferraro, N. Sailer, A. Slosar, and M. White, Snow- mass2021 cosmic frontier white paper: Cosmology and fundamental physics from the three-dimensional large scale structure (2022), arXiv:2203.07506 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2022

Show all 53 references

[8]

McDonald, Primordial non-gaussianity: Large-scale structure signature in the perturbative bias model, Phys- ical Review D 78, 10.1103/physrevd.78.123519 (2008)

P. McDonald, Primordial non-gaussianity: Large-scale structure signature in the perturbative bias model, Phys- ical Review D 78, 10.1103/physrevd.78.123519 (2008). 9

2008 doi
[9]

Assassi, D

V. Assassi, D. Baumann, and F. Schmidt, Galaxy bias and primordial non-gaussianity, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2015 (12), 043–043

2015
[10]

Dalal, O

N. Dalal, O. Dor´ e, D. Huterer, and A. Shirokov, Imprints of primordial non-gaussianities on large-scale structure: Scale-dependent bias and abundance of virialized ob- jects, Physical Review D77, 10.1103/physrevd.77.123514 (2008)

2008 doi
[11]

Slosar, C

A. Slosar, C. Hirata, U. Seljak, S. Ho, and N. Padman- abhan, Constraints on local primordial non-gaussianity from large scale structure, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics 2008 (08), 031

2008
[12]

Mueller, M

E.-M. Mueller, M. Rezaie, W. J. Percival, A. J. Ross, R. Ruggeri, H.-J. Seo, H. Gil-Marın, J. Bautista, J. R. Brownstein, K. Dawson, A. de la Macorra, N. Palanque-Delabrouille, G. Rossi, D. P. Schneider, and C. Yeche, The clustering of galaxies in the completed sdss-iv extende...

2021 arXiv
[13]

M. S. Cagliari, E. Castorina, M. Bonici, and D. Bianchi, Optimal constraints on primordial non-gaussianity with the eboss dr16 quasars in fourier space (2023), arXiv:2309.15814 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[14]

Joudaki, O

S. Joudaki, O. Dor´ e , L. Ferramacho, M. Kaplinghat, and M. G. Santos, Primordial non-gaussianity from the 21 cm power spectrum during the epoch of reionization, Physi- cal Review Letters 107, 10.1103/physrevlett.107.131304 (2011)

2011 doi
[15]

D’Aloisio, J

A. D’Aloisio, J. Zhang, P. R. Shapiro, and Y. Mao, The scale-dependent signature of primordial non-gaussianity in the large-scale structure of cosmic reionization, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 433, 2900–2919 (2013)

2013
[16]

A. Lidz, E. J. Baxter, P. Adshead, and S. Dodelson, Pri- mordial non-gaussianity and reionization, Physical Re- view D 88, 10.1103/physrevd.88.023534 (2013)

2013 doi
[17]

Mesinger, S

A. Mesinger, S. Furlanetto, and R. Cen, 21cmfast: a fast, seminumerical simulation of the high-redshift 21-cm sig- nal: 21cmfast, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi- cal Society 411, 955–972 (2010)

2010
[18]

J. Park, A. Mesinger, B. Greig, and N. Gillet, Infer- ring the astrophysics of reionization and cosmic dawn from galaxy luminosity functions and the 21-cm signal, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 484, 933–949 (2019)

2019
[19]

J. B. Mu˜ noz, Y. Qin, A. Mesinger, S. G. Murray, B. Greig, and C. Mason, The impact of the first galaxies on cosmic dawn and reionization, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 511, 3657 (2022), arXiv:2110.13919 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[20]

de Belsunce, S

R. de Belsunce, S. Gratton, W. Coulton, and G. Efs- tathiou, Inference of the optical depth to reionization from low multipole temperature and polarization planck data, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 507, 1072–1091 (2021)

2021
[21]

J. D. Bowman, A. E. E. Rogers, R. A. Monsalve, T. J. Mozdzen, and N. Mahesh, An absorption profile centred at 78 megahertz in the sky-averaged spectrum, Nature 555, 67–70 (2018)

2018
[23]

McQuinn and A

M. McQuinn and A. D 'Aloisio, The observable 21cm sig- nal from reionization may be perturbative, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2018 (10), 016

2018
[24]

Desjacques, D

V. Desjacques, D. Jeong, and F. Schmidt, Large-scale galaxy bias, Physics Reports 733, 1–193 (2018)

2018
[25]

S. R. Furlanetto, M. Zaldarriaga, and L. Hernquist, The growth of hii regions during reionization, The Astrophys- ical Journal 613, 1 (2004)

2004
[26]

McQuinn, S

M. McQuinn, S. R. Furlanetto, L. Hernquist, O. Zahn, and M. Zaldarriaga, The kinetic sunyaev-zel’dovich ef- fect from reionization, The Astrophysical Journal 630, 643–656 (2005)

2005
[27]

W. Qin, K. Schutz, A. Smith, E. Garaldi, R. Kannan, T. R. Slatyer, and M. Vogelsberger, Effective bias ex- pansion for 21-cm cosmology in redshift space, Physical Review D 106, 10.1103/physrevd.106.123506 (2022)

2022 doi
[28]

Baldauf, U

T. Baldauf, U. Seljak, L. Senatore, and M. Zaldarriaga, Linear response to long wavelength fluctuations using curvature simulations, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics 2016 (09), 007

2016
[29]

Barreira, G

A. Barreira, G. Cabass, F. Schmidt, A. Pillepich, and D. Nelson, Galaxy bias and primordial non-gaussianity: insights from galaxy formation simulations with Il- lustrisTNG, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2020 (12), 013

2020
[30]

Barreira, The local png bias of neutral hydrogen, hi, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2022 (04), 057

A. Barreira, The local png bias of neutral hydrogen, hi, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2022 (04), 057

2022
[31]

Villaescusa-Navarro, S

F. Villaescusa-Navarro, S. Genel, E. Castorina, A. Obul- jen, D. N. Spergel, L. Hernquist, D. Nelson, I. P. Carucci, A. Pillepich, F. Marinacci, B. Diemer, M. Vogelsberger, R. Weinberger, and R. Pakmor, Ingredients for 21 cm intensity mapping, The Astrophysical Journal 866, 135 (2018)

2018
[32]

Obuljen, M

A. Obuljen, M. Simonovi´ c, A. Schneider, and R. Feld- mann, Modeling hi at the field level, Physical Review D 108, 10.1103/physrevd.108.083528 (2023)

2023 doi
[33]

Foreman, A

S. Foreman, A. Obuljen, and M. Simonovi´ c, Improv- ing cosmological analyses of hi clustering by reducing stochastic noise, Phys. Rev. D 110, 063555 (2024)

2024
[34]

Cabass, M

G. Cabass, M. Simonovi´ c, and M. Zaldarriaga, Cosmolog- ical information in perturbative forward modeling (2024), arXiv:2307.04706 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[35]

McQuinn, O

M. McQuinn, O. Zahn, M. Zaldarriaga, L. Hernquist, and S. R. Furlanetto, Cosmological parameter estimation using 21 cm radiation from the epoch of reionization, The Astrophysical Journal 653, 815–834 (2006)

2006
[36]

La Plante, J

P. La Plante, J. Mirocha, A. Gorce, A. Lidz, and A. Par- sons, Prospects for 21 cm galaxy cross-correlations with hera and the roman high-latitude survey, The Astrophys- ical Journal 944, 59 (2023)

2023
[37]

Moriwaki, A

K. Moriwaki, A. Beane, and A. Lidz, Insights into the 21 cm field from the vanishing cross-power spectrum at the epoch of reionization (2024), arXiv:2404.08266 [astro- ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[38]

Fronenberg and A

H. Fronenberg and A. Liu, Forecasts and statistical in- sights for line intensity mapping cross-correlations: A case study with 21cm x [cii] (2024), arXiv:2407.14588 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[39]

Sailer, E

N. Sailer, E. Castorina, S. Ferraro, and M. White, Cosmology at high redshift — a probe of fundamental physics, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021 (12), 049. 10

2021
[40]

D. J. Schlegel, S. Ferraro, G. Aldering, C. Baltay, S. Ben- Zvi, R. Besuner, G. A. Blanc, A. S. Bolton, A. Bonaca, D. Brooks, E. Buckley-Geer, Z. Cai, J. DeRose, A. Dey, P. Doel, A. Drlica-Wagner, X. Fan, G. Gutierrez, D. Green, J. Guy, D. Huterer, L. Infante, P. Jelin- sky, D...

2022 arXiv
[41]

N. Hand, Y. Feng, F. Beutler, Y. Li, C. Modi, U. Seljak, and Z. Slepian, nbodykit: An open-source, massively par- allel toolkit for large-scale structure, The Astronomical Journal 156, 160 (2018)

2018
[42]

C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt, R. Gommers, P. Virtanen, D. Cournapeau, E. Wieser, J. Taylor, S. Berg, N. J. Smith, R. Kern, M. Picus, S. Hoyer, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Brett, A. Haldane, J. Fern´ andez del R´ ıo, M. Wiebe, P. Peterson, P. G´ erard- Marchant, K...

2020
[43]

Virtanen, R

P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haber- land, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Pe- terson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. van der Walt, M. Brett, J. Wilson, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E. Larson, C. J. Carey, ˙I. Po- lat, Y...

2020
[44]

J. D. Hunter, Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment, Computing in Science Engineering 9, 90 (2007)

2007
[45]

Schmittfull, M

M. Schmittfull, M. Simonovi´ c, V. Assassi, and M. Zaldar- riaga, Modeling biased tracers at the field level, Physical Review D 100, 10.1103/physrevd.100.043514 (2019)

2019 doi
[46]

Modi, S.-F

C. Modi, S.-F. Chen, and M. White, Simulations and symmetries, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 492, 5754–5763 (2020)

2020
[47]

Schmidt, An n-th order lagrangian forward model for large-scale structure, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics 2021 (04), 033

F. Schmidt, An n-th order lagrangian forward model for large-scale structure, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics 2021 (04), 033

2021
[48]

Kokron, J

N. Kokron, J. DeRose, S.-F. Chen, M. White, and R. H. Wechsler, Priors on red galaxy stochasticity from hybrid effective field theory, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society 514, 2198–2213 (2022)

2022
[49]

Shiferaw, N

M. Shiferaw, N. Kokron, and R. H. Wechsler, How do un- certainties in galaxy formation physics impact field-level galaxy bias? (2024), arXiv:2412.06886 [astro-ph.CO]

2024
[50]

J. S. B. Wyithe and A. Loeb, The 21-cm power spectrum after reionization, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society 397, 1926–1934 (2009)

2009
[51]

Cabass and F

G. Cabass and F. Schmidt, A new scale in the bias ex- pansion, JCAP 05, 031, arXiv:1812.02731 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[52]

Y. Qin, A. Mesinger, J. Park, B. Greig, and J. B. Mu˜ noz, A tale of two sites – i. inferring the properties of minihalo- hosted galaxies from current observations, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society 495, 123–140 (2020)

2020
[53]

Schaan and M

E. Schaan and M. White, Multi-tracer intensity mapping: cross-correlations, line noise &; decorrelation, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021 (05), 068

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [22]

Testing common approximations to predict the 21cm signal at the Epoch of Reionization and Cosmic Dawn

T. Schaeffer, S. K. Giri, and A. Schneider, Testing common approximations to predict the 21cm signal at the epoch of reionization and cosmic dawn (2024), arXiv:2404.08042 [astro-ph.CO]

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[2] [1]

Castorina, Y

E. Castorina, Y. Feng, U. Seljak, and F. Villaescusa- Navarro, Primordial non-gaussianities and zero-bias trac- ers of the large-scale structure, Physical Review Letters 121, 10.1103/physrevlett.121.101301 (2018)

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.101301 2018

[3] [2]

D. R. DeBoer, A. R. Parsons, J. E. Aguirre, P. Alexander, Z. S. Ali, A. P. Beardsley, G. Bernardi, J. D. Bowman, R. F. Bradley, C. L. Carilli, C. Cheng, E. d. L. Acedo, J. S. Dillon, A. Ewall-Wice, G. Fadana, N. Fagnoni, R. Fritz, S. R. Furlanetto, B. Glendenning, B. Greig, J. Grobbelaar, B. J. Hazelton, J. N. Hewitt, J. Hick- ish, D. C. Jacobs, A. Julius...

work page 2017

[4] [3]

R. B. Wayth, S. J. Tingay, C. M. Trott, D. Emrich, M. Johnston-Hollitt, B. McKinley, B. M. Gaensler, A. P. Beardsley, T. Booler, B. Crosse, T. M. O. Franzen, L. Horsley, D. L. Kaplan, D. Kenney, M. F. Morales, D. Pallot, G. Sleap, K. Steele, M. Walker, A. Williams, C. Wu, I. H. Cairns, M. D. Filipovic, S. Johnston, T. Murphy, P. Quinn, L. Staveley-Smith, ...

arXiv 2018

[5] [4]

Weltman, P

A. Weltman, P. Bull, S. Camera, K. Kelley, H. Padman- abhan, J. Pritchard, A. Raccanelli, S. Riemer-Sørensen, L. Shao, S. Andrianomena, E. Athanassoula, D. Bacon, R. Barkana, G. Bertone, C. Bœhm, C. Bonvin, A. Bosma, M. Br¨ uggen, C. Burigana, F. Calore, J. A. R. Cembranos, C. Clarkson, R. M. T. Connors, ´A. d. l. Cruz-Dombriz, P. K. S. Dunsby, J. Fonseca...

arXiv 2020

[6] [5]

Loeb and S

A. Loeb and S. Furlanetto, The First Galaxies in the Uni- verse, Princeton Series in Astrophysics (Princeton Uni- versity Press, 2013)

work page 2013

[7] [6]

H. A. G. Cruz, J. B. Munoz, N. Sabti, and M. Kamionkowski, The first billion years in seconds: An effective model for the 21-cm signal with population iii stars (2024), arXiv:2407.18294 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2024

[8] [7]

Ferraro, N

S. Ferraro, N. Sailer, A. Slosar, and M. White, Snow- mass2021 cosmic frontier white paper: Cosmology and fundamental physics from the three-dimensional large scale structure (2022), arXiv:2203.07506 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2022