Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Properties of reionization-era galaxies from JWST luminosity functions and 21-cm interferometry

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Combining JWST galaxy counts with 21-cm maps constrains every key reionization parameter.

desk verdict A clean, honest forecast of JWST + SKA1 constraints; the 21-cm numbers are model-limited but the paper earns a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01348 v1 pith:NIIA7GLX submitted 2019-09-03 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Jaehong Park (1) , Nicolas Gillet (1) , Andrei Mesinger (1) , Bradley Greig (2 , 3) ((1) Scuola Normale Superiore , (2) ARC Centre of Excellence for All-Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimensions (ASTRO 3D) (3) School of Physics , The University of Melbourne) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords reionization21-cmcosmologyJWSTluminosityfunctionsgalaxyparameterinferenceescapefractionstarformationefficiencyEpochofforecast
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 forecasts what next-generation observations will reveal about the galaxies that reionized the early Universe. It generates mock JWST luminosity functions from two hydrodynamical simulations that both match present-day constraints but differ in where the faint-end turnover lies, together with mock 1000-hour SKA1 21-cm power-spectrum observations. The central claim is that JWST luminosity functions alone improve constraints on star-formation scaling and the turnover scale only modestly when the intrinsic turnover is faint, while adding 21-cm data breaks degeneracies and constrains all eight astrophysical parameters. In the combined forecast, 21-cm observations dominate the escape fraction, turnover mass, duty cycle, and X-ray parameters, and they shrink the uncertainty on the reionization history by an order of magnitude.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a forward model in which galaxy properties are deterministic power laws in halo mass: stellar fraction $f_{*,10}(M_h/10^{10}M_\odot)^{\alpha_*}$, ionizing escape fraction $f_{\rm esc,10}(M_h/10^{10}M_\odot)^{\alpha_{\rm esc}}$, and a duty cycle $\exp(-M_{\rm turn}/M_h)$ suppressing star formation in low-mass halos. UV luminosity is taken proportional to star formation rate, and the same halo population feeds a semi-numerical 21-cm simulation whose power spectrum is compared with mock SKA1 observations. A Bayesian MCMC likelihood combines these mock data sets with the CMB optical depth and quasar dark-fraction constraints, adding a 20 percent modeling error in quadrature to the 21-cm power spectrum.

What would settle it

Fit the same eight-parameter model to real JWST luminosity functions and SKA1 21-cm power spectra; if the best-fitting parameters fall outside the prior ranges, the residuals demand scatter or feedback beyond the model, or the recovered reionization history conflicts with independent CMB optical-depth and dark-pixel constraints, the forecast would be wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a quantitative forecast: jointly fitting JWST rest-frame UV luminosity functions and 1000-hour SKA1 21-cm power spectra can recover the halo-mass scaling of stellar mass and ionizing escape fraction, the cutoff mass for star formation, the star-formation timescale, and the soft X-ray luminosity and energy threshold, with $1\sigma$ fractional uncertainties near 11, 15, 13, 47, 1, 29, 0.1, and 4.6 percent respectively. JWST alone improves on HST by a factor of two to three on the star-formation-to-halo-mass relation and the turnover scale, but this gain is conditional on better control of lensing systematics or a turnover brighter than $M_{\rm UV}\lesssim -13$. With 21-cm data included, the reionization history $\bar{x}_{\rm HI}(z)$ is recovered to within $\Delta z\lesssim 0.1$ at $1\sigma$, an order-of-magnitude improvement over current knowledge.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast assumes that high-redshift galaxies are exactly described by deterministic, mass-only power-law relations for stellar mass, escape fraction, and duty cycle, with no intrinsic scatter, and that the semi-numerical model used for inference also generates the 21-cm signal faithfully; if either assumption fails, the quoted constraints could be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the faint-end turnover is brighter than $M_{\rm UV}\lesssim -13$, JWST alone recovers the turnover scale to a few percent; if it is fainter, improved lensing systematics are needed for JWST to beat HST significantly.
  • Combined JWST and 21-cm observations constrain all eight model parameters even under the pessimistic faint-turnover scenario, with the 21-cm signal driving the escape fraction, turnover mass, star-formation timescale, and X-ray parameters.
  • The reionization history $\bar{x}_{\rm HI}(z)$ will be known to within $\Delta z\lesssim 0.1$ at $1\sigma$, an order-of-magnitude improvement over the current $\Delta z\sim 1$ level.
  • JWST luminosity functions carry most of the constraining power on the halo-mass scaling of star formation ($\alpha_*$), while 21-cm data carry the ionizing photon budget, making the two observables complementary rather than redundant.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If real galaxies have significant scatter at fixed halo mass, or feedback not captured by power-law scaling, the recovered constraints could be overconfident; the 20 percent modeling-error allowance only partially guards against this.
  • The same forward model could predict the abundance of ultra-faint galaxies that JWST might detect individually, providing a check on the inferred turnover mass that is independent of 21-cm data.
  • Because the mock luminosity functions are dust-free, applying the framework to real JWST data will require dust corrections at the bright end, and the star-formation constraints could degrade if dust is more important than assumed.
  • The mock 21-cm observation assumes a moderate foreground removal; a more pessimistic foreground scenario would weaken the 21-cm gains and make the combined constraints depend more heavily on JWST systematics.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a forecasting study of how future JWST luminosity-function (LF) and 21-cm power-spectrum observations will constrain the astrophysics of reionization-era galaxies. Mock JWST LFs are built from two GAFFER hydrodynamical simulations with different faint-end turnovers, and a mock 21-cm power spectrum is generated with 21CMFAST assuming 1000 hours of SKA1 observations. Using the 21CMMC MCMC sampler, the authors recover eight astrophysical parameters and forecast the resulting EoR history. They find that JWST LFs alone improve constraints on the star-formation--halo-mass relation and the turnover scale only modestly in the pessimistic faint-turnover scenario, while adding 21-cm data breaks degeneracies, tightens all parameters, and improves the EoR-history constraint by about an order of magnitude.

Significance. If taken as forecasts, the results are useful for planning JWST and 21-cm observing programs and for understanding the complementarity of the two probes. The LF mocks come from independent hydrodynamical simulations, which is a real strength and avoids a fully circular LF exercise. The paper is also unusually honest about its assumptions, explicitly flagging the ad hoc JWST error budget and the 20% 21-cm simulation-error floor. The central qualitative finding—that 21-cm dominates constraints on the escape fraction, turnover mass, and EoR history while LFs dominate the star-formation slope—is likely robust to many details. The main caveat is that the 21-cm constraints are generated and inferred with the same semi-numerical model, making the headline improvements conditional on that model being accurate to within a flat, unvalidated error floor.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Table 1, Fig. 6] The headline claim that adding 21-cm observations tightens six of eight parameters and improves the EoR-history constraint by an order of magnitude rests on mock 21-cm power spectra generated with 21CMFAST, the same code that 21CMMC calls as the forward model at every MCMC sample. This is a self-consistent parameter-recovery forecast rather than an external benchmark, and the only guard against structural model error is the flat 20% Gaussian error added in quadrature to each power-spectrum bin in §3. That term is neither scale- nor redshift-dependent and is not validated against an independent simulation for this version of the model. I request that the abstract and §4 explicitly state that the 21-cm-driven constraints are conditional on the forward model being accurate to within the assumed error floor, and that the authors add a sensitivity test in which the 20% floor is increased to, e.g., 40% and 100% (or made scale-dependent), showing how the quoted uncertainties on log10(Mturn), log10(fesc,10), and the EoR history degrade. Without such a test, the order-of-magnitude improvement claim is likely to be over-read as a statement about the real Universe.
  2. [§2.1, Eq. (1)] The JWST error budget is constructed from a 20% systematic floor attributed to a private communication and an HST-error extension shifted by 1.5 mag for the faintest bins, and the JWST-F30 optimistic case is obtained by simply scaling these errors by 30% while keeping the 20% floor. This is acceptable for a forecast, but the paper's central LF-only conclusion—that JWST yields only modest improvement if the turnover is fainter than MUV ~ -13—depends entirely on this unvalidated error model. I ask the authors to add a robustness test with a different error model (e.g., Poisson plus cosmic variance only, without the 20% floor) and to state explicitly that the quantitative predictions in Table 1 are tied to this assumed error budget.
  3. [§2, Table 1] The combined forecast treats the GAFFER mock LFs and the 21CMFAST mock 21-cm signal as two realizations of the same underlying model, but the text only asserts that the fiducial 21-cm parameters are 'consistent with the mock UV LFs' (§2.2) without demonstrating this. If the two mocks are not both compatible with the power-law model at a common parameter vector, the combined posterior will be biased and the uncertainties in Table 1 overconfident. Please show the LF predictions of the fiducial 21-cm parameter vector overlaid on the mock LFs (for instance in Fig. 2), quantify any residual mismatch, and if the mocks are not drawn from the same model, either re-generate the 21-cm mock using the best-fit LF parameters or down-weight one of the data sets.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1.1] The heading contains the typo 'intrisic' and should read 'intrinsic'.
  2. [§3.1.3] The sentence 'the constrains achievable with the reduced error bar LFs' should read 'the constraints achievable'.
  3. [§4] The sentence 'This is a order of magnitude improvement' should read 'This is an order of magnitude improvement'.
  4. [§3.2, Table 1] The phrase '1σ fractional uncertainties ... = (11, 15, 13, 47, 1.0, 29, 0.1, 4.6) per cent' is dimensionally ambiguous: for log10(LX<2keV/SFR), 0.1% cannot be a fractional uncertainty on the linear quantity; if it is an absolute error in log10, the linear fractional error is about 9%. Please clarify the definition.
  5. [§2.1, Eq. (1)] The three regimes in Eq. (1) do not specify which rule applies at the boundaries MUV = -18 and MUV = -14.5; please use closed intervals or state the tie-breaking convention.
  6. [§3.2] The statement 'This is an order of magnitude improvement over our current state of knowledge' should compare with the LF-only forecast from this paper rather than with the phrase 'current state of knowledge', since the latter already includes Planck and QSO constraints that are not directly the baseline being improved upon.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the forecast is conditional on stated forward models, the LF mocks come from independent hydrodynamical simulations, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

This paper is a mock-data forecasting study, not an empirical derivation of new physics from first principles. The JWST LF mocks are generated from the GAFFER hydro-radiative simulation suite (Section 2.1), which is independent of the analytic inference model in Eqs. (2)-(6); the galaxy side therefore has an external benchmark. The 21-cm mock is generated with 21CMFAST (Section 2.2), and the MCMC likelihood in Section 3 evaluates the same 21CMFAST forward model at each step. This shared forward model is the standard self-consistent forecasting procedure: mock data are drawn from the fiducial model, and the recovered posteriors quantify the constraining power of the assumed instruments and model. It does not make any fitted parameter the thing being predicted; the paper explicitly notes in Table 1 that fiducial values are used for the mock 21-cm signal while the LFs are taken independently from GAFFER. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its own input by construction. The self-citations (Park et al. 2019; Greig & Mesinger 2015, 2017, 2018; Zahn et al. 2011) are methodological and code-based, and they are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as a substitute for a derivation. The 20% error floor added to the 21-cm power spectrum is an assumption about model error; if the floor is too small, the quoted constraints would be overconfident, but that is a correctness/robustness risk rather than a circular reduction. Overall, the central claims are honest forecasts conditional on the paper's explicit modeling assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The eight parameters in the galaxy model are target parameters for inference, not ad hoc fitted constants in an empirical derivation. The key unverified inputs are the deterministic mass-only galaxy model, the 21CMFAST approximation, the JWST error budget, and the unpublished GAFFER mock LFs. The 20% simulation error added to the 21-cm power spectrum is a hand-chosen uncertainty that directly affects the reported parameter errors.

free parameters (8)
  • log10(fstar,10) = -1.155
    Fiducial normalization of the stellar mass to halo mass relation at 1e10 Msun, used to generate the mock 21-cm signal; the forecast's quantitative constraints are evaluated around this value.
  • alpha_star = 0.38
    Fiducial power-law index of the stellar mass to halo mass relation; one of the eight target parameters.
  • log10(fesc,10) = -1.155
    Fiducial normalization of the escape fraction at 1e10 Msun; used for the mock 21-cm signal.
  • alpha_esc = -0.20
    Fiducial power-law index of the escape fraction with halo mass.
  • log10(Mturn) = 9.00
    Fiducial characteristic halo mass below which the duty cycle declines exponentially; central to the faint-end turnover.
  • tstar = 0.6
    Fiducial star formation timescale in units of Hubble time.
  • log10(LX<2keV/SFR) = 40.50 (erg/s per Msun/yr)
    Fiducial soft-band X-ray luminosity per star formation rate; drives the heating epoch in the 21-cm signal.
  • E0 = 0.50 (keV)
    Fiducial X-ray energy threshold below which photons are absorbed inside host galaxies.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Standard Planck 2016 LCDM cosmology is assumed throughout.
    Section 1 lists (h, Omega_m, Omega_b, Omega_Lambda, sigma_8, n_s) = (0.678, 0.308, 0.0484, 0.692, 0.815, 0.968).
  • domain assumption Average galaxy properties depend deterministically on halo mass with no intrinsic scatter.
    Equations (2)-(5) define Mstar, SFR, fesc, and fduty as power-law or exponential functions of Mh with no scatter; this excludes scatter-driven biases in the recovered constraints.
  • domain assumption The 1500 Angstrom UV luminosity is linearly proportional to the star formation rate via K_UV = 1.15e-28, with no dust attenuation.
    Section 2.1 states this conversion, citing a Salpeter IMF and ~10% solar metallicity; the mock LFs are effectively dust-corrected.
  • domain assumption The ionizing escape fraction is a power law in halo mass with no redshift evolution.
    Equation (4) parametrizes fesc(Mh) = fesc,10 (Mh/1e10)^alpha_esc; the mock 21-cm signal and the inference assume this simple form.
  • domain assumption The X-ray SED per SFR is a power law with energy index alpha_X = 1, with a free low-energy cutoff E0.
    Section 2.2 (Equation 7) adopts this form based on empirical X-ray binaries; the 21-cm heating is computed from this SED.
  • domain assumption 21CMFAST's excursion-set model accurately simulates the 21-cm signal for a given set of galaxy parameters.
    The mock 21-cm observation is generated with 21CMFAST and the inference uses the same code; the paper adds a 20% Gaussian error to account for simulation inaccuracy, but the structural fidelity of the model is assumed.
  • domain assumption The JWST luminosity function error budget in Equation (1) is representative of real JWST observations.
    Equation (1) extends HST errors 1.5 magnitudes deeper, imposes a 20% systematic floor across the intermediate regime, and assumes bright-end errors match current HST; this is based on private communication with R. Bouwens, S. Finkelstein, and P. Oesch.
  • domain assumption A 1000-hour SKA1 observation with a moderate foreground removal strategy produces the thermal noise and foreground wedge assumed by 21cmSense.
    Section 2.2 uses the 'moderate' foreground strategy from Pober et al. (2014) and the SKA System Baseline Design document.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Properties of reionization-era galaxies from JWST luminosity functions and 21-cm interferometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NIIA7GLX

@misc{pith2026190901348,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Properties of reionization-era galaxies from JWST luminosity functions and 21-cm interferometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NIIA7GLX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01348}
}
abstract

Next generation observatories will enable us to study the first billion years of our Universe in unprecedented detail. Foremost among these are 21-cm interferometry with the HERA and the SKA, and high-$z$ galaxy observations with the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). Taking a basic galaxy model, in which we allow the star formation rates and ionizing escape fractions to have a power-law dependence on halo mass with an exponential turnover below some threshold, we quantify how observations from these instruments can be used to constrain the astrophysics of high-$z$ galaxies. For this purpose, we generate mock JWST LFs, based on two different hydrodynamical cosmological simulations; these have intrinsic luminosity functions (LFs) which turn over at different scales and yet are fully consistent with present-day observations. We also generate mock 21-cm power spectrum observations, using 1000h observations with SKA1 and a moderate foreground model. Using only JWST data, we predict up to a factor of 2-3 improvement (compared with HST) in the fractional uncertainty of the star formation rate to halo mass relation and the scales at which the LFs peak (i.e. turnover). Most parameters regulating the UV galaxy properties can be constrained at the level of $\sim 10$% or better, if either (i) we are able to better characterize systematic lensing uncertainties than currently possible; or (ii) the intrinsic LFs peak at magnitudes brighter than $M_{\rm UV} \lesssim -13$. Otherwise, improvement over HST-based inference is modest. When combining with upcoming 21-cm observations, we are able to significantly mitigate degeneracies, and constrain all of our astrophysical parameters, even for our most pessimistic assumptions about upcoming JWST LFs. The 21-cm observations also result in an order of magnitude improvement in constraints on the EoR history.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01348 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Simulated luminosity functions at z = 6. These simu￾lations were used to build the two sets of mock JWST LFs shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. HST and JWST LF mock observations used for parameter recovery. LFs corresponding to the simulation with a turnover at brighter (fainter) magnitudes are denoted with “-B” (“-F”). Since small halos are unable to host star-forming galax￾ies due to their limited gas reservoir from inefficient cooling and/or feedback (e.g. Shapiro et al. 1994; Giroux et al. 1994; Hui & Gnedin 1997; Barkana & Loeb 2001; Springel & Hern￾qu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Corner plot showing parameter constrains for the mock UV LFs (see legend): 1D marginalized PDFs and 2D marginalized joint posterior distributions are shown along the diagonal and in the bottom left corner, respectively. Blue dashed lines, green solid lines and brown dot-dashed lines represent 95 per cent confidence levels for constraints using data sets of the mock HST-F, the mock JWST-F and the mock JWST-F30, respe… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the resulting JWST LFs, and the corre￾sponding parameter constraints are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.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. Cosmology with HI

    astro-ph.CO 2024-11 unverdicted

    A review chapter collecting the equations, data, and forecasts for using neutral hydrogen, through the 21 cm and Lyman-alpha lines, to measure the Universe.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Atek H., Richard J., Kneib J.-P., Schaerer D., 2018, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv180309747A ( @eprint arXiv 1803.09747 )

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    Aubert D., Deparis N., Ocvirk P., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1896 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2015MNRAS.454.1012A 454, 1012

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1896 2015

  4. [4]

    Ba \ n ados E., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature25180 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.553..473B 553, 473

    doi:10.1038/nature25180 2018

  5. [5]

    Barkana R., Loeb A., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S0370-1573(01)00019-9 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001PhR...349..125B 349, 125

    doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(01)00019-9 2001

  6. [6]

    S., Silk J., 2015, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/32 , 799

    Behroozi P. S., Silk J., 2015, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/32 , 799

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/1/32 2015

  7. [7]

    J., et al., 2015a, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/34 , 803, 1

    Bouwens R. J., et al., 2015a, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/34 , 803, 1

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/803/1/34

  8. [8]

    J., Illingworth G

    Bouwens R. J., Illingworth G. D., Oesch P. A., Caruana J., Holwerda B., Smit R., Wilkins S., 2015b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/140 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...811..140B 811, 140

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/811/2/140

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    J., Oesch P

    Bouwens R. J., Oesch P. A., Illingworth G. D., Ellis R. S., Stefanon M., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa70a4 , 843, 129

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    Chevallard J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2426 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.2621C 483, 2621

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    I., Baugh C

    Cowley W. I., Baugh C. M., Cole S., Frenk C. S., Lacey C. G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2897 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.2352C 474, 2352

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Khochfar S., Dunlop J

    Cullen F., McLure R. J., Khochfar S., Dunlop J. S., Dalla Vecchia C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1451 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.3006C 470, 3006

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    H., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx943 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469.1166D 469, 1166

    Das A., Mesinger A., Pallottini A., Ferrara A., Wise J. H., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx943 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469.1166D 469, 1166

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    Dayal P., Ferrara A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.physrep.2018.10.002 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhR...780....1D 780, 1

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    S., Maio U., Ciardi B., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.434.1486D 434, 1486

    Dayal P., Dunlop J. S., Maio U., Ciardi B., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.434.1486D 434, 1486

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

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

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

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    pp 399--402

    Deparis N., Aubert D., Ocvirk P., 2016, in SF2A-2016: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics. pp 399--402

    2016

  10. [18]

    Deparis N., Aubert D., Ocvirk P., Chardin J., Lewis J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832889 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...622A.142D 622, A142

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    S., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt702 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432.3520D 432, 3520

    Dunlop J. S., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt702 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432.3520D 432, 3520

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    B., Graziani L., Ciardi B., Feng Y., Kakiichi K., Di Matteo T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty272 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.1174E 476, 1174

    Eide M. B., Graziani L., Ciardi B., Feng Y., Kakiichi K., Di Matteo T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty272 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.1174E 476, 1174

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2016.26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PASA...33...37F 33, e037

    Finkelstein S. L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2016.26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PASA...33...37F 33, e037

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    L., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/164 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...756..164F 756, 164

    Finkelstein S. L., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/164 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...756..164F 756, 164

    2012 doi

  15. [23]

    Fragos T., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/41 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...764...41F 764, 41

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    R., Zaldarriaga M., Hernquist L., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423025 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...613....1F 613, 1

    Furlanetto S. R., Zaldarriaga M., Hernquist L., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423025 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...613....1F 613, 1

    2004 doi

  17. [25]

    P., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006SSRv..123..485G 123, 485

    Gardner J. P., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006SSRv..123..485G 123, 485

    2006 doi

  18. [26]

    Gillet N. J. F., Mesinger A., Park J., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190606296G p. arXiv:1906.06296

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    L., Sutherland R

    Giroux M. L., Sutherland R. S., Shull J. M., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/187603 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...435L..97G 435, L97

    1994 doi

  20. [28]

    Gorce A., Douspis M., Aghanim N., Langer M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629661 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    Greig B., Mesinger A., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv571 , 449, 4246

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    Greig B., Mesinger A., 2017a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3026 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.4838G 465, 4838

    doi

  23. [31]

    Greig B., Mesinger A., 2017b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx2118 , 472, 2651

    doi

  24. [32]

    Greig B., Mesinger A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty796 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.3217G 477, 3217

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    Y., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/292.1.27 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.292...27H 292, 27

    Hui L., Gnedin N. Y., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/292.1.27 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.292...27H 292, 27

    1997 doi

  26. [34]

    Ishigaki M., Kawamata R., Ouchi M., Oguri M., Shimasaku K., Ono Y., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa544 , 854, 73

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    C., Weinberger L

    Keating L. C., Weinberger L. H., Kulkarni G., Haehnelt M. G., Chardin J., Aubert D., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190512640K p. arXiv:1905.12640

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Kennicutt Jr. R. C., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.189 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ARA

    1998 doi

  29. [37]

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

    2015

  30. [38]

    A., 2012, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20924.x , 423, 862

    Kuhlen M., Faucher-Gigu \` e re C. A., 2012, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20924.x , 423, 862

    2012

  31. [39]

    Lidz A., McQuinn M., Zaldarriaga M., Hernquist L., Dutta S., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521974 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...670...39L 670, 39

    2007 doi

  32. [40]

    C., Finkelstein S

    Livermore R. C., Finkelstein S. L., Lotz J. M., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/113 , 835, 1

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    Ma X., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1324 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.tmp.1267M p. 1267

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    Madau P., Dickinson M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ARA

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    Madau P., Fragos T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af9 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...840...39M 840, 39

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    D., Mesinger A., D'Odorico V., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2449 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.447..499M 447, 499

    McGreer I. D., Mesinger A., D'Odorico V., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2449 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.447..499M 447, 499

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/3 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...760....3M 760, 3

    McQuinn M., O'Leary R. M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/3 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...760....3M 760, 3

    2012 doi

  38. [47]

    Mellema G., et al., 2013, @doi [Experimental Astronomy] 10.1007/s10686-013-9334-5 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ExA....36..235M 36, 235

    2013 doi

  39. [50]

    Mesinger A., Furlanetto S., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521806 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...669..663M 669, 663

    2007 doi

  40. [52]

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

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

    2013 doi

  41. [54]

    R., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sls001 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428L...1M 428, L1

    Mitra S., Ferrara A., Choudhury T. R., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sls001 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428L...1M 428, L1

    2013 doi

  42. [55]

    Mitra S., Roy Choudhury T., Ferrara A., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv134 , 454, L76

    2015 doi

  43. [56]

    J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature10159 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Natur.474..616M 474, 616

    Mortlock D. J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature10159 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Natur.474..616M 474, 616

    2011 doi

  44. [57]

    W., Wise J

    O'Shea B. W., Wise J. H., Xu H., Norman M. L., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/807/1/L12 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...807L..12O 807, L12

    2015 doi

  45. [58]

    A., Bouwens R

    Oesch P. A., Bouwens R. J., Illingworth G. D., Labbe I., Stefanon M., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab03f , 855, 105

    2017 doi

  46. [59]

    Okamoto T., Gao L., Theuns T., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13830.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.390..920O 390, 920

    2008

  47. [60]

    Park J., Mesinger A., Greig B., Gillet N., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz032 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484..933P 484, 933

    2019 doi

  48. [61]

    Parsons A., Pober J., McQuinn M., Jacobs D., Aguirre J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/81 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...753...81P 753, 81

    2012 doi

  49. [62]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2016a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    doi

  50. [63]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2016b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628897 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    doi

  51. [64]

    arXiv:1807.06209

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

    2018 arXiv

  52. [65]

    C., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/145/3/65 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....145...65P 145, 65

    Pober J. C., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/145/3/65 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....145...65P 145, 65

    2013 doi

  53. [66]

    C., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/66 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...782...66P 782, 66

    Pober J. C., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/66 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...782...66P 782, 66

    2014 doi

  54. [67]

    C., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/62 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...809...62P 809, 62

    Pober J. C., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/62 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...809...62P 809, 62

    2015 doi

  55. [68]

    C., Trac H., Cen R., 2016, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv160503970P ( @eprint arXiv 1605.03970 )

    Price L. C., Trac H., Cen R., 2016, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv160503970P ( @eprint arXiv 1605.03970 )

    2016 arXiv

  56. [69]

    C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1244 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.4193P 478, 4193

    Price D. C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1244 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.4193P 478, 4193

    2018 doi

  57. [70]

    R., Furlanetto S

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

    2007

  58. [71]

    E., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/71 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...768...71R 768, 71

    Robertson B. E., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/71 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...768...71R 768, 71

    2013 doi

  59. [72]

    E., Ellis R

    Robertson B. E., Ellis R. S., Furlanetto S. R., Dunlop J. S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/802/2/L19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...802L..19R 802, L19

    2015 doi

  60. [73]

    E., Dixon K

    Ross H. E., Dixon K. L., Ghara R., Iliev I. T., Mellema G., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1220 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.tmp.1183R

    2019 doi

  61. [74]

    G., Theuns T., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190800552S p

    Salcido J., Bower R. G., Theuns T., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190800552S p. arXiv:1908.00552

    2019 arXiv

  62. [75]

    Salvaterra R., Ferrara A., Dayal P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18155.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.414..847S 414, 847

    2011

  63. [76]

    Scoccimarro R., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01845.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.299.1097S 299, 1097

    1998

  64. [77]

    R., Giroux M

    Shapiro P. R., Giroux M. L., Babul A., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174120 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...427...25S 427, 25

    1994 doi

  65. [78]

    E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8815 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846L..30S 846, L30

    Shapley A. E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8815 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846L..30S 846, L30

    2017 doi

  66. [79]

    K., Okamoto T., Yoshida N., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu265 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440..731S 440, 731

    Shimizu I., Inoue A. K., Okamoto T., Yoshida N., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu265 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440..731S 440, 731

    2014 doi

  67. [80]

    Sobacchi E., Mesinger A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slt035 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432L..51S 432, L51

    2013 doi

  68. [81]

    Springel V., Hernquist L., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06207.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.339..312S 339, 312

    2003

  69. [82]

    P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023417 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ARA

    Stark D. P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023417 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ARA

    2016 doi

  70. [83]

    R., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw980 , 460, 417

    Sun G., Furlanetto S. R., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw980 , 460, 417

    2016 doi

  71. [84]

    J., Johnson B

    Tacchella S., Bose S., Conroy C., Eisenstein D. J., Johnson B. D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae8e0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...868...92T 868, 92

    2018 doi

  72. [85]

    Vogelsberger M., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190407238V

    2019

  73. [86]

    M., Feng Y., Di Matteo T., Croft R., Lovell C

    Wilkins S. M., Feng Y., Di Matteo T., Croft R., Lovell C. C., Waters D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx841 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469.2517W 469, 2517

    2017 doi

  74. [87]

    C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aabcbb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..236...33W 236, 33

    Williams C. C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aabcbb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..236...33W 236, 33

    2018 doi

  75. [88]

    Yung L. Y. A., Somerville R. S., Finkelstein S. L., Popping G., Dav \'e R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3241 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.2983Y 483, 2983

    2019 doi

  76. [89]

    E., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18439.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.414..727Z 414, 727

    Zahn O., Mesinger A., McQuinn M., Trac H., Cen R., Hernquist L. E., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18439.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.414..727Z 414, 727

    2011

Pith tools

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