pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.19459 · v1 · pith:WPKFSD36new · submitted 2026-06-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.GA

Fireworks at Cosmic Dawn: relieving BAO-CMB tensions with the Pop III.1 Flash

Yash Aggarwal , Christopher Cain , Garett Lopez , Hy Trac , Anson D'Aloisio , Philip Tanedo , Jonathan C. Tan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 19:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA
keywords reionizationPop III.1 starsCMB optical depthpatchy kSZBAO-CMB tensionearly universe ionizationsupermassive stars
0
0 comments X

The pith

Pop III.1 stars can drive an early reionization flash at z=20 that produces CMB optical depth 0.087 while keeping pkSZ below SPT limits.

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

The paper examines whether an early, brief reionization phase powered by supermassive Pop III.1 stars can raise the CMB optical depth to values around 0.09 that help reconcile a sub-minimal neutrino mass sum in combined CMB and DESI BAO analyses. Standard late reionization scenarios conflict with this because they produce excessive patchy kinetic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich power or violate Lyα forest indications of a late reionization end. In the proposed model, self-regulating feedback from these stars enforces a minimum source separation of about 1 cMpc, which reduces large-scale ionization fluctuations enough to suppress pkSZ power on observed scales. The fiducial case centers the flash at redshift 20 and achieves τ=0.087 without exceeding the most conservative 2σ SPT pkSZ upper limits.

Core claim

Within the Pop III.1 framework, self-regulating ionizing feedback imposes a minimum source separation of ∼1 cMpc that limits large-scale ionization fluctuations, thereby allowing a flash ionization phase centered at z=20 to realize an optical depth τ=0.087 while remaining below the most conservative 2σ upper limits on pkSZ power from recent South Pole Telescope data.

What carries the argument

Self-regulating ionizing feedback from Pop III.1 stars that enforces a minimum source separation of ∼1 cMpc and thereby suppresses large-scale ionization fluctuations.

If this is right

  • The model produces the higher optical depth needed to allow a sub-minimal neutrino mass sum when CMB data are combined with DESI BAO measurements.
  • The flash ionization phase remains consistent with Lyα forest constraints that require reionization to end late.
  • The reduced source clustering keeps pkSZ power below the most conservative 2σ SPT upper limits.
  • Early reionization scenarios with weakly clustered sources become viable candidates for resolving BAO-CMB tensions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar minimum-separation mechanisms could be tested in other early-source populations that also need to avoid overproducing pkSZ.
  • The required source spacing may leave distinct signatures in the 21 cm power spectrum at cosmic dawn that future arrays could target.
  • If Pop III.1 stars are the progenitors of the first supermassive black holes, the same feedback that sets their separation may also shape early black-hole growth rates.

Load-bearing premise

Self-regulating ionizing feedback from Pop III.1 stars imposes a minimum source separation of about 1 cMpc that is large enough to suppress large-scale ionization fluctuations below current pkSZ limits.

What would settle it

A measurement of pkSZ power on scales around 3000 that exceeds the model's predicted amplitude, or a confirmed optical depth significantly below 0.087, would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19459 by Anson D'Aloisio, Christopher Cain, Garett Lopez, Hy Trac, Jonathan C. Tan, Philip Tanedo, Yash Aggarwal.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Model ionization histories used in our amber runs. Top: globally averaged, mass-weighted free electron fraction, defined to be unity when Hydrogen and Helium are fully ionized. We assume that Helium is singly ionized for z > 3 and doubly ionized for z ≤ 3. The green region denotes required end of reionization from the Lyα forest. Bottom: Corresponding cumulative CMB optical depths. Pop II stars residing in… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Time evolution of the ionization field for the zflash = 20 (top) and zflash = 25 (bottom) models using our fiducial Pop III.1 parameters and the Biased Exclusion seeding prescription (see §3.2). The figure shows the characteristic behavior and scale of the ionization field during the three stages of evolution in our simulation: initial Pop III.1 flash phase, followed by uniform recombination, and a later r… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Ionization field slice at peak ionization fraction for the zflash = 20 run, shown for three seeding prescriptions: Biased Poisson (left), Biased Exclusion (middle), and Random Exclusion (right), using fiducial Pop III.1 parameters in equation (3). See §4.2 for further details. model, to identify regions associated with the earliest formation events. 3.2.3. Random Exclusion Pop III.1 sources are placed rand… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: pkSZ power for Pop III.1 flash ionization models with fiducial parameters in equation (4), including the contribution from baseline galaxy-driven model. The left panels show the cumulative contribution D pkSZ ℓ=3000(< z), while the right panels show the full angular power spectrum D pkSZ ℓ . The top and bottom rows correspond to zflash = 20 and 25 ionization histories, respectively ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figu… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: pkSZ power spectra from our amber ensemble runs using Lbox = 250, cMpc/h and Ncell = 10243 . Solid lines show the ensemble mean and shaded regions indicate the corresponding ±1σ scatter. Left: Results for the baseline reionization model, compared to a single larger-volume amber realization with Lbox = 2, cGpc/h and Ncell = 20483 (dotted black). At ℓ = 3000, the difference between the large simulation volum… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

A Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) optical depth of $\tau \sim 0.09$, several $\sigma$ in excess of the latest Planck low-$\ell$ EE polarization measurement, has been proposed as a way to reconcile the preference for a sub-minimal neutrino mass sum in a combined analysis with CMB and Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) three-year data. Reionization, however, is not just probed by $\tau$. It is also constrained by Ly$\alpha$ forest observations that indicate a late end of reionization, and the patchy kinetic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (pkSZ) effect which prefers a short duration. We explore whether an early phase of reionization can achieve a high $\tau$ while remaining consistent with both Ly$\alpha$ forest and pkSZ constraints. As a concrete example, we consider supermassive Pop III.1 stars, dark-matter-powered metal-free stars proposed as progenitors of supermassive black holes. Within this framework, self-regulating ionizing feedback imposes a minimum source separation of $\sim 1 \, \text{cMpc}$, consequently limiting large-scale ionization fluctuations and reducing the pkSZ power on observationally relevant scales. Our fiducial model realizes an optical depth of $\tau = 0.087$ with a Pop III.1-driven flash ionization phase centered at $z = 20$, while evading the most conservative $2\sigma$ upper limits on the pkSZ signal from the most recent South Pole Telescope data release. More broadly, our findings motivate further exploration of early reionization models with weakly clustered sources as a possible resolution of tensions between BAO and CMB measurements.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes that an early flash reionization phase centered at z=20, driven by supermassive metal-free Pop III.1 stars, can produce a CMB optical depth τ=0.087 to help reconcile the BAO-CMB tension in neutrino mass sum when combined with DESI data, while self-regulated ionizing feedback enforcing a minimum source separation of ∼1 cMpc limits large-scale ionization fluctuations enough to keep the patchy kSZ power below the most conservative 2σ SPT upper limit, remaining consistent with Lyα forest indications of late reionization end.

Significance. If the central assumptions on source separation and its effect on pkSZ hold, the work provides a concrete astrophysical mechanism to resolve reported tensions between Planck CMB and DESI BAO without new physics, by invoking weakly clustered early sources. It supplies an explicit fiducial model achieving the target τ while referencing recent SPT data. This motivates broader exploration of early reionization scenarios. The result is of moderate significance given the reliance on a non-standard source population whose feedback properties remain to be validated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (paragraph on feedback and source separation): the claim that the ∼1 cMpc minimum separation 'consequently limiting large-scale ionization fluctuations and reducing the pkSZ power' is load-bearing for consistency with SPT limits, yet the manuscript provides no explicit mapping from this scale to the ionization power spectrum, bubble-size distribution, or the velocity-weighted kSZ integral; without this derivation it is unclear whether fluctuations on k∼0.05–0.5 h Mpc⁻¹ remain below the quoted bound for the adopted τ.
  2. [Fiducial model] Fiducial model section: τ=0.087 is presented as realized by the Pop III.1 flash at z=20, but no details are given on the optical-depth integral, the assumed ionizing photon production rate, or error propagation from variations in feedback strength and source properties; this leaves open whether the value is a first-principles prediction or tuned to the tension target.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] The term 'Pop III.1' and the properties of these supermassive metal-free stars should be defined with a reference to the originating literature at first appearance.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states both τ∼0.09 and the fiducial τ=0.087; a brief clarification on how the specific value relates to the range needed for tension relief would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments. We address each major comment below and commit to revisions that will improve the clarity and completeness of the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (paragraph on feedback and source separation): the claim that the ∼1 cMpc minimum separation 'consequently limiting large-scale ionization fluctuations and reducing the pkSZ power' is load-bearing for consistency with SPT limits, yet the manuscript provides no explicit mapping from this scale to the ionization power spectrum, bubble-size distribution, or the velocity-weighted kSZ integral; without this derivation it is unclear whether fluctuations on k∼0.05–0.5 h Mpc⁻¹ remain below the quoted bound for the adopted τ.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit derivation would make the argument more transparent. In the revised manuscript we will insert a short subsection (or expanded paragraph) that maps the self-regulated minimum separation of ∼1 cMpc to the resulting bubble-size distribution, the suppression of the ionization power spectrum on scales k∼0.05–0.5 h Mpc⁻¹, and the consequent reduction in the velocity-weighted pkSZ integral. This addition will confirm that the pkSZ amplitude remains below the most conservative 2σ SPT limit for the fiducial τ. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Fiducial model] Fiducial model section: τ=0.087 is presented as realized by the Pop III.1 flash at z=20, but no details are given on the optical-depth integral, the assumed ionizing photon production rate, or error propagation from variations in feedback strength and source properties; this leaves open whether the value is a first-principles prediction or tuned to the tension target.

    Authors: The quoted τ follows from integrating the ionization history generated by the Pop III.1 flash model with an ionizing-photon production rate calibrated to the expected stellar properties. We will expand the Fiducial model section to display the explicit optical-depth integral, state the adopted photon production rate, and include a brief sensitivity analysis showing how modest variations in feedback strength shift τ. This will clarify that the target value is a direct output of the model rather than an ad-hoc adjustment. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; model outputs are computed from stated inputs without reduction to tautology.

full rationale

The paper introduces a concrete model (Pop III.1 flash centered at z=20 together with a minimum source separation of ~1 cMpc imposed by self-regulating feedback) and reports the resulting optical depth τ=0.087 and pkSZ power as direct consequences of that model. The separation value is motivated by the feedback framework rather than tuned after the fact solely to suppress pkSZ; the τ value is likewise an output of the chosen reionization history. No quoted equation or step equates a prediction to its own input by construction, nor does any load-bearing premise rest exclusively on an unverified self-citation. The derivation therefore remains self-contained as an exploratory consistency check against external data sets (Planck τ, Lyα forest, SPT pkSZ).

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the existence and feedback properties of Pop III.1 stars plus standard reionization observables; the separation scale is introduced to make the pkSZ prediction work.

free parameters (2)
  • minimum source separation = ~1 cMpc
    Set by self-regulating feedback to ~1 cMpc to limit ionization fluctuations and pkSZ power
  • flash redshift center = z=20
    Chosen to produce the target optical depth while remaining early
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard ΛCDM cosmology and reionization observables (Lyα forest end, pkSZ amplitude) are correctly measured and interpreted
    Used as external benchmarks that the model must satisfy
invented entities (1)
  • Pop III.1 supermassive metal-free stars no independent evidence
    purpose: Provide early ionizing photons in a weakly clustered configuration
    Postulated progenitors of supermassive black holes whose feedback enforces source separation

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5863 in / 1557 out tokens · 35207 ms · 2026-06-26T19:35:09.163632+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2016, Astron

    Adam, R., et al. 2016, Astron. Astrophys., 596, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628897

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628897 2016

  2. [2]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.20338, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.20338

    Ahlen, S., Aviles, A., Cartwright, B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.20338, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.20338

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.20338 2025

  3. [3]

    T., Shapiro, P

    Ahn, K., Iliev, I. T., Shapiro, P. R., et al. 2012, ApJL, 756, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/756/1/L16

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/756/1/l16 2012

  4. [4]

    Ahn, K., & Shapiro, P. R. 2021, ApJ, 914, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf3bf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf3bf 2021

  5. [5]

    C., & Monaco, P

    Banik, N., Tan, J. C., & Monaco, P. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 483, 3592, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3298

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3298 2019

  6. [6]

    D., Bolton, J

    Becker, G. D., Bolton, J. S., Madau, P., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 3402, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2646

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2646 2015

  7. [7]

    D., Bolton, J

    Becker, G. D., Bolton, J. S., Zhu, Y., & Hashemi, S. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1918

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1918 2024

  8. [8]

    D., D’Aloisio, A., Christenson, H

    Becker, G. D., D’Aloisio, A., Christenson, H. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1853, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2696

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2696 2021

  9. [9]

    2025, JCAP, 10, 082, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/10/082

    Beringue, B., et al. 2025, JCAP, 10, 082, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/10/082

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/10/082 2025

  10. [10]

    1999, Phys

    Birkinshaw, M. 1999, Phys. Rept., 310, 97, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(98)00080-5

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(98)00080-5 1999

  11. [11]

    Bosman, S. E. I., Davies, F. B., Becker, G. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 55, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1046

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1046 2022

  12. [12]

    Cain, C., D’Aloisio, A., Gangolli, N., & Becker, G. D. 2021, ApJL, 917, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1ace 11

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac1ace 2021

  13. [13]

    S., et al

    Cain, C., Van Engelen, A., Croker, K. S., et al. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.15899

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    C., et al

    Cammelli, V., Monaco, P., Tan, J. C., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 851, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2663

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2663 2025

  15. [15]

    2003, ApJ, 591, 12, doi: 10.1086/375217

    Cen, R. 2003, ApJ, 591, 12, doi: 10.1086/375217

    work page doi:10.1086/375217 2003

  16. [16]

    2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.20551

    Chaubal, P., et al. 2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.20551

    arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    2023, Astrophys

    Chen, N., Trac, H., Mukherjee, S., & Cen, R. 2023, Astrophys. J., 943, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8481

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8481 2023

  18. [18]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.00659, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.00659

    Chen, S.-F., & Zaldarriaga, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.00659, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.00659

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.00659 2025

  19. [19]

    2026, PASA, 43, e046, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2026.10166

    Cohon, J., Cain, C., Windhorst, R., et al. 2026, PASA, 43, e046, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2026.10166

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2026.10166 2026

  20. [20]

    DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints

    Craig, N., Green, D., Meyers, J., & Rajendran, S. 2024, Journal of High Energy Physics, 2024, 97, doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2024)097 DESI Collaboration. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14738, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14738

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep09(2024)097 2024

  21. [21]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.21069, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.21069

    Elbers, W. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.21069, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.21069

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.21069 2025

  22. [22]

    Constraints on Neutrino Physics from DESI DR2 BAO and DR1 Full Shape

    Elbers, W., Aviles, A., Noriega, H. E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14744, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14744

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.14744 2025

  23. [23]

    P., Chisholm, J., et al

    Fujimoto, S., Naidu, R. P., Chisholm, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.11678, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.11678

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.11678 2025

  24. [24]

    2005, Astrophys

    Furlanetto, S., & Loeb, A. 2005, Astrophys. J., 634, 1, doi: 10.1086/429080

    work page doi:10.1086/429080 2005

  25. [25]

    G., Davies, F

    Gaikwad, P., Haehnelt, M. G., Davies, F. B., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4093, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2566

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2566 2023

  26. [26]

    G., & Bolton, J

    Garcia-Gallego, O., Iršič, V., Haehnelt, M. G., & Bolton, J. S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.00107, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.00107

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.00107 2025

  27. [27]

    J., & Symington, N

    Greif, T. H., & Bromm, V. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 128, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11017.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11017.x 2006

  28. [28]

    2025, Phys

    Jhaveri, T., Karwal, T., & Hu, W. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 043541, doi: 10.1103/6vd2-rbfn

    work page doi:10.1103/6vd2-rbfn 2025

  29. [29]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.09644, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.09644

    Kageura, Y., Ouchi, M., Naokawa, F., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.09644, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.09644

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.09644 2026

  30. [30]

    C., Weinberger, L

    Keating, L. C., Weinberger, L. H., Kulkarni, G., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1736, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3083

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3083 2020

  31. [31]

    S., & Glover, S

    Klessen, R. S., & Glover, S. C. O. 2023, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 61, 65, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-053453

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-053453 2023

  32. [32]

    N., Barnes, C., et al

    Kogut, A., Spergel, D. N., Barnes, C., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 161, doi: 10.1086/377219

    work page doi:10.1086/377219 2003

  33. [33]

    M., Dunkley, J., et al

    Komatsu, E., Smith, K. M., Dunkley, J., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 18, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18 2011

  34. [34]

    C., Haehnelt, M

    Kulkarni, G., Keating, L. C., Haehnelt, M. G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, L24, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz025

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz025 2019

  35. [35]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.14419, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.14419

    Kumar, U., Ajith, A., & Verma, A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.14419, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.14419

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.14419 2025

  36. [36]

    Lewis, J. S. W., Ocvirk, P., Sorce, J. G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3389, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2383

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2383 2022

  37. [37]

    Loeb, A., & Furlanetto, S. R. 2013, The First Galaxies in the Universe (Princeton University Press)

    2013

  38. [38]

    2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.17817

    Lopez, G., D’Aloisio, A., & Cain, C. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.17817

    arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    2025, JCAP, 11, 062, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/062

    Louis, T., et al. 2025, JCAP, 11, 062, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/062

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/062 2025

  40. [40]

    Loverde, M., & Weiner, Z. J. 2024, JCAP, 2024, 048, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/12/048

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/12/048 2024

  41. [41]

    F., & Tan, J

    McKee, C. F., & Tan, J. C. 2008, ApJ, 681, 771, doi: 10.1086/587434

    work page doi:10.1086/587434 2008

  42. [42]

    H., & Hu, W

    Miranda, V., Lidz, A., Heinrich, C. H., & Hu, W. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 4050, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx306

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx306 2017

  43. [43]

    C., et al

    Nandal, D., Topalakis, K., Tan, J. C., et al. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.00870

    arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 494, 3080–3094, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa894

    Nasir, F., & D’Aloisio, A. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 494, 3080–3094, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa894

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa894 2020

  45. [45]

    C., & O’Shea, B

    Natarajan, A., Tan, J. C., & O’Shea, B. W. 2009, ApJ, 692, 574, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/574

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/692/1/574 2009

  46. [46]

    V., & Jenkins, A

    Oh, S. P., & Haiman, Z. 2003, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 346, 456, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07103.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07103.x 2003

  47. [47]

    2024, Mon

    Omori, Y. 2024, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 530, 5030, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1031

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1031 2024

  48. [48]

    R., Komatsu, E., et al

    Park, H., Shapiro, P. R., Komatsu, E., et al. 2013, Astrophys. J., 769, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/2/93

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/2/93 2013

  49. [49]

    A., Tan, J

    Petkova, M. A., Tan, J. C., Singh, J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.28777. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.28777

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    Phillips, P. R. 1995, ApJ, 455, 419, doi: 10.1086/176589 Planck Collaboration. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    work page doi:10.1086/176589 1995

  51. [51]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.00799, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.00799

    Qin, Y., Mesinger, A., Prelogović, D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.00799, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.00799

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.00799 2024

  52. [52]

    Raghunathan, S., Ade, P. A. R., Anderson, A. J., et al. 2024, PhRvL, 133, 121004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.121004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.121004 2024

  53. [53]

    L., Patil, S., Ade, P

    Reichardt, C. L., Patil, S., Ade, P. A. R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd407

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd407 2021

  54. [54]

    1991, ApJ, 372, 21, doi: 10.1086/169950

    Rephaeli, Y., & Lahav, O. 1991, ApJ, 372, 21, doi: 10.1086/169950

    work page doi:10.1086/169950 1991

  55. [55]

    Ross, S. M. 2014, Introduction to Probability Models, 11th edn. (Academic Press)

    2014

  56. [56]

    S., Ferraro, S., & White, M

    Sailer, N., Farren, G. S., Ferraro, S., & White, M. 2026, Phys. Rev. Lett., 136, 081002, doi: 10.1103/6r54-8lv4

    work page doi:10.1103/6r54-8lv4 2026

  57. [57]

    Sanati, M., Devriendt, J., Martin-Alvarez, S., Slyz, A., & Tan, J. C. 2025a, MNRAS, 544, 4317, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2000

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2000

  58. [58]

    C., Devriendt, J., et al

    Sanati, M., Tan, J. C., Devriendt, J., et al. 2025b, MNRAS, 542, 1532, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1313

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1313

  59. [59]

    Schauer, A. T. P., Liu, B., & Bromm, V. 2019, ApJL, 877, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1e51

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab1e51 2019

  60. [60]

    Singh, J., Monaco, P., & Tan, J. C. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 525, 969, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2346 12

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2346 2023

  61. [61]

    N., Verde, L., Peiris, H

    Spergel, D. N., Verde, L., Peiris, H. V., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 175, doi: 10.1086/377226

    work page doi:10.1086/377226 2003

  62. [62]

    Spina, B., Bosman, S. E. I., Davies, F. B., Gaikwad, P., & Zhu, Y. 2024, A&A, 688, L26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450798

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450798 2024

  63. [63]

    2008, Phys

    Spolyar, D., Freese, K., & Gondolo, P. 2008, Phys. Rev. Lett., 100, 051101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.051101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.100.051101 2008

  64. [64]

    Strande, S., Cai, H., Tatineni, M., et al. 2021, in Practice and Experience in Advanced Research Computing 2021: Evolution Across All Dimensions, PEARC ’21 (New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery), doi: 10.1145/3437359.3465588

    work page doi:10.1145/3437359.3465588 2021

  65. [65]

    A., & Zeldovich, Y

    Sunyaev, R. A., & Zeldovich, Y. B. 1970, Ap&SS, 7, 3, doi: 10.1007/BF00653471

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00653471 1970

  66. [66]

    Tan, J. C. 2025, Astrophys. J. Lett., 989, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf8da

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf8da 2025

  67. [67]

    C., & Komatsu, E

    Tan, J. C., & Komatsu, E. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.19647

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    C., Singh, J., Cammelli, V., et al

    Tan, J. C., Singh, J., Cammelli, V., et al. 2024, in 17th Marcel Grossmann Meeting: On Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity, Gravitation, and Relativistic Field Theories. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.01828

    arXiv 2024

  69. [69]

    Topalakis, K., Nandal, D., & Tan, J. C. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.00216

    arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    A., & Cen, R

    Trac, H., Chen, N., Holst, I., Alvarez, M. A., & Cen, R. 2022, Astrophys. J., 927, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5116

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5116 2022

  71. [71]

    J., Douspis, M., et al

    Tristram, M., Banday, A. J., Douspis, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348015

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348015 2024

  72. [72]

    2026, ApJ, 997, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae232b

    Umeda, H., Ouchi, M., Kageura, Y., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae232b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae232b 2026

  73. [73]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.00487, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.00487

    Umeda, H., Ouchi, M., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.00487, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.00487

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.00487 2023

  74. [74]

    B., Bromm, V., et al

    Venditti, A., Munoz, J. B., Bromm, V., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.20263, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.20263

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.20263 2025

  75. [75]

    L., & Haiman, Z

    Visbal, E., Bryan, G. L., & Haiman, Z. 2020, ApJ, 897, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab994e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab994e 2020

  76. [76]

    2025, Nature, 639, 897, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-08779-5

    Witstok, J., Jakobsen, P., Maiolino, R., et al. 2025, Nature, 639, 897, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-08779-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-08779-5 2025

  77. [77]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 2784, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2815

    Wu, X., McQuinn, M., Eisenstein, D., & Iršič, V. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 2784, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2815

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2815 2021

  78. [78]

    1997, Phys

    Zaldarriaga, M. 1997, Phys. Rev. D, 55, 1822, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.55.1822

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.55.1822 1997

  79. [79]

    D., Christenson, H

    Zhu, Y., Becker, G. D., Christenson, H. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aceef4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aceef4 2023

  80. [80]

    D., Bosman, S

    Zhu, Y., Becker, G. D., Bosman, S. E. I., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, L49, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slae061

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slae061 2024