Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Forecast on $f(R)$ Gravity with HI 21cm Intensity Mapping Surveys

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Forecast: HI 21-cm surveys can pin the f(R) gravity parameter B0 down to 3.75×10⁻⁸

desk verdict A workmanlike Fisher forecast for f(R) gravity with HI intensity mapping, but the headline σ(B0) is set by mildly nonlinear scales beyond the model's validity and needs a physically motivated cutoff before being taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.05575 v1 pith:RC2E74BW submitted 2026-02-05 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Yanling Song , Yu Sang , Linfeng Xiao , Boyu Zhang , Bin Wang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COgr-qc PACS 98.80.-k04.50.Kd
keywords f(R)gravity21-cmintensitymappingB0parameterFishermatrixforecastSKA1-MIDBINGOangularpowerspectrummodified
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 forecasts how well future neutral-hydrogen 21-cm intensity mapping surveys — BINGO and the two low-frequency bands of SKA1-MID — can measure B0, the parameter that sets the Compton wavelength of the scalaron in f(R) gravity. Using a Fisher-matrix analysis of the 21-cm angular power spectrum, the authors argue that even the pathfinder BINGO telescope would reach σ(B0) ≈ 2.3×10⁻⁶, and that SKA1-MID Band 2, especially when combined with CMB priors, would reach σ(B0) ≈ 3.75×10⁻⁸. That would test deviations from General Relativity several orders of magnitude more stringently than current cosmological constraints, which sit near 10⁻⁴. The gain comes from the scale-dependent growth of structure that f(R) imprints on the 21-cm signal at small angular scales.

What carries the argument

The forecasts are carried by the quasi-static μ(a,k) and γ(a,k) functions that encode how f(R) modifies the Poisson equation and the metric anisotropy ratio, together with the 21-cm angular power spectrum C_l built from the density and redshift-space-distortion terms of the brightness temperature. The Fisher matrix then converts these spectra and the survey's thermal and shot noise into marginalized uncertainties. The named central object is B0, the present-day Compton wavelength of the scalaron in units of the Hubble length; B0=0 recovers ΛCDM.

What would settle it

Recompute the same forecasts with a nonlinear prescription or with a conservative small-scale cutoff (e.g., k_max ≈ 0.2 Mpc⁻¹) and compare the resulting σ(B0); if the constraint degrades by more than a factor of a few, the linear-only claim is falsified. Observationally, a measurement of the 21-cm angular power spectrum from SKA1-MID Band 2 that does not show the predicted scale-dependent growth enhancement at ℓ≈100–400 would also rule out the claimed sensitivity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that low-redshift 21-cm intensity mapping measures not just the background expansion but the growth of structure, and that this gives it strong leverage on f(R) gravity. Building the brightness-temperature angular power spectrum from the density and redshift-space distortion terms, and using the quasi-static μ,γ parameterization for f(R) perturbations, the forecast finds σ(B0) ≈ 6.37×10⁻⁸ for SKA1-MID Band 2 alone and σ(B0) ≈ 3.75×10⁻⁸ when CMB priors are added. The authors also argue that most of the constraining power for B0 comes from multipoles up to a few hundred, where the linear approximation is expected to hold.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast assumes the linear, quasi-static f(R) approximation holds on the small scales (ℓ up to 400, k≳0.3 Mpc⁻¹) that provide most of the B0 signal; if nonlinearities or screening become important there, the quoted σ(B0) values are too optimistic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • BINGO alone would reach σ(B0) ≈ 2.27×10⁻⁶, already surpassing current cosmological limits near 10⁻⁴.
  • SKA1-MID Band 2 alone yields σ(B0) ≈ 6.37×10⁻⁸, and combining with CMB priors tightens this to ≈ 3.75×10⁻⁸.
  • Adding CMB priors breaks the strong degeneracy between B0 and the Hubble parameter, shrinking the allowed region dramatically.
  • Constraints on most parameters saturate by ℓ_max ≈ 300–400, and B0 is dominated by large-scale modes, where linear theory is safest.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If nonlinear structure growth or chameleon screening suppresses the small-scale enhancement on k≳0.3 Mpc⁻¹, the real SKA Band 2 constraint on B0 will be weaker than 3.75×10⁻⁸; a simulation-based forecast with a nonlinear cutoff would test this directly.
  • The B0–bHI degeneracy shown in the paper is only partially broken by CMB priors; cross-correlating the 21-cm maps with a galaxy catalog that independently measures the HI bias could tighten B0 further.
  • The same μ,γ formalism is specific to f(R), but the scale-dependent 21-cm power spectrum would also carry signatures of other modified-gravity theories, so the survey will yield general growth-of-structure tests.
  • A practical next step is to verify whether the predicted scale-dependent bump in C_l at ℓ≈100–400 survives realistic foreground subtraction; the forecast assumes this cleanly, making it the riskiest observational step.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents Fisher-matrix forecasts for the f(R) gravity Compton-wavelength parameter B0 using HI 21-cm intensity mapping, for BINGO, SKA1-MID Band 1, and SKA1-MID Band 2, both alone and combined with Planck priors. The signal is modeled with angular power spectra based on density and redshift-space distortion terms, using a quasi-static mu,gamma parameterization of f(R) gravity; thermal and shot noise are included. The headline results are sigma(B0) = 2.27e-6 for BINGO, 4.48e-6 for SKA Band 1, 6.37e-8 for SKA Band 2, and 3.75e-8 for SKA Band 2 + Planck, which the paper interprets as showing that future 21-cm IM surveys can probe f(R) gravity orders of magnitude below current bounds.

Significance. If the forecasts are robust, the paper would demonstrate a genuinely powerful new probe of modified gravity: SKA Band 2 constraints on B0 would be roughly three to four orders of magnitude tighter than current limits. The paper is clearly structured, uses a standard Fisher formalism, and includes a convergence test in Fig. 5. However, the central numbers rest on linear perturbation theory and quasi-static screening-free f(R) modeling up to multipoles where the signal is not converged, and a key input, Omega_HI, is never specified. These issues must be addressed before the quantitative claims can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [§V, Fig. 5, Eqs. (12)-(13), Eq. (38)] The headline sigma(B0) values are set by multipoles where the linear quasi-static treatment is not valid. In the f(R) parameterization, mu-1 grows approximately as lambda^2 k^2 for small B0, so the Fisher derivative is strongly weighted toward the largest k included. At z≈0.27, ell_max=400 corresponds to k≈0.3-0.4 Mpc^-1, well inside the mildly nonlinear regime, and the chameleon screening that suppresses f(R) modifications in collapsed regions is absent from Eqs. (12)-(13). Fig. 5's right axes show that sigma(B0;ell_max)/sigma(B0;400) is very large at low ell_max and still decreasing at 400, so the constraint is dominated by scales where the model is least trustworthy. The Conclusion acknowledges that nonlinear effects are not included. Please recompute with a physically motivated k_max (e.g., k≈0.2-0.3 Mpc^-1) and report how sigma(B0) changes; this is a necessary robustness check for t
  2. [§III, Eq. (15)] The signal amplitude, and therefore all Fisher errors, depend on Omega_HI(z), but no fiducial value is given anywhere. Equation (15) defines T_bar_b proportional to h Omega_HI, and Eq. (38) uses this T_bar_b for both signal and shot noise, yet Table II lists fiducial values only for the seven parameters in Eq. (34). Without Omega_HI, the forecast is not reproducible and the absolute scale of sigma(B0) cannot be checked. Please state the assumed value and redshift dependence, if any, and provide a sensitivity test over a plausible range of Omega_HI.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§IV A, Table I, Figs. 1-2] The text and Table I adopt a 10 MHz channel bandwidth, but the captions of Figs. 1 and 2 quote 9.33 MHz. Since thermal noise in Eq. (29) depends on delta_nu, these must be harmonized.
  2. [§IV B, Eq. (38)] The noise term N_l(zi,zj) B_l(zi,zj) is not specified for i != j. If N_l is diagonal as stated, the expression should be written with the diagonal restriction made explicit.
  3. [§II, Eq. (5)] The definition of B is typeset ambiguously; the factors H, dR/dtau, and (dH/dtau - H^2) are not clearly attached. Please clarify the notation.
  4. [§IV B, Eq. (33)] The integral for the source density has no lower limit and uses chi^2(z) without defining the variable; please specify the integration range and all symbols.
  5. [General] The manuscript contains numerous typographical errors and missing spaces (e.g., 'FLR W metrcds', 'opetaion', 'Figrue', 'decipted', 'tunned', 'examlpe'), and the title formatting is inconsistent. A careful language and proofreading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the B0 forecast signal comes from the external MGCAMB quasi-static f(R) parameterization, and the only self-citation is methodological.

full rationale

This is a Fisher-matrix forecast rather than a fit to data: there is no observed data vector being matched, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The f(R) signal entering the Fisher derivatives is the quasi-static mu,gamma parameterization of Eqs. (12)-(13), which is taken from MGCAMB and earlier independent literature (refs. [17,28,37-39]); the B0 dependence enters analytically through B0 = 2 H0^2 lambda^2, not through a parameter fitted to the same observable being 'predicted'. The 21-cm perturbation equations and angular power spectra follow the external Hall et al. formalism (Eqs. (19)-(26)). Self-citation appears in the reuse of the BINGO/SKA Fisher pipeline from Ref. [40] and in the lmax-convergence plot convention adopted from Fig. 11 of that paper, but this is methodological support, not a load-bearing theoretical premise. The central constraint sigma(B0) ~ 6.37e-8 for SKA Band 2 follows from the assumed signal, noise model, and Fisher information content, and no equation reduces by construction to its own input. The acknowledged neglect of nonlinear effects, foregrounds, and systematics in the Conclusion is a physical robustness caveat, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The forecast rests almost entirely on inputs from prior literature and on optimistic modeling choices: a quasi-static f(R) parameterization, a constant and unspecified Ω_HI, a single scale-independent HI bias, and linear theory up to ℓ=400. No new entities are introduced, but the headline B0 errors are sensitive to these upstream assumptions.

free parameters (5)
  • Ω_HI (mean HI density) = not stated
    Equation (15) sets the 21-cm brightness temperature proportional to Ω_HI; the paper says Ω_HI is constant but never gives the value, and this amplitude feeds all signal spectra and therefore all Fisher constraints.
  • HI bias b_HI fiducial = 1.00
    Table II fixes b_HI=1.0 and marginalizes it as a single scale-independent constant; the B0 constraints depend on this assumed bias and on the absence of scale/redshift dependence.
  • Maximum multipole ℓmax = 400
    The main results quote errors at ℓmax=400 (Fig. 5) with no nonlinear-scale cut; including high-ℓ, mildly nonlinear modes inflates the projected B0 sensitivity.
  • Fiducial B0 = 0
    The Fisher matrix is evaluated at B0=0, which is the physical boundary for B0=2H0²λ²≥0; quoting a symmetric 1σ interval treats unphysical negative B0 as allowed.
  • Shot-noise source density n0 = 0.03 h³ Mpc⁻³
    Used in Eq. (33) for the source angular density and taken from Ref. [43]; not varied or marginalized.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Quasi-static approximation for f(R) perturbations is valid on the scales and redshifts used.
    Eqs. (12)–(13) parameterize μ and γ in the quasi-static limit and the transfer functions in Eq. (23) use linear perturbations; BINGO/SKA low-redshift, high-ℓ modes may extend outside this limit.
  • domain assumption HI bias is scale- and redshift-independent at linear order.
    Stated before Eq. (20): the bias is assumed scale-independent at linear order, and only one constant b_HI per survey is varied.
  • ad hoc to paper Linear perturbation theory is valid up to ℓmax=400 at z≈0.1–0.5.
    Fig. 5 includes modes up to ℓ=400 with no nonlinear cutoff, even though k≳0.3 Mpc⁻¹ at these redshifts is mildly nonlinear.
  • domain assumption Ω_HI is constant and has a fixed, implicitly chosen value.
    After Eq. (15) the paper says 'we take Ω_HI to be constant' but never gives the value; it sets the overall brightness temperature amplitude.
  • domain assumption The Fisher/Gaussian likelihood approximation is accurate around B0=0.
    Eq. (35) uses the Fisher matrix; with B0 at the boundary of the physically allowed parameter space and strong degeneracies, Gaussianity may break down.
  • domain assumption No foreground contamination or instrumental systematics affect the effective noise.
    The covariance in Eq. (38) includes only thermal noise and shot noise; the conclusion defers foregrounds and systematics to future work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Forecast on $f(R)$ Gravity with HI 21cm Intensity Mapping Surveys." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RC2E74BW

@misc{pith2026260205575,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Forecast on $f(R)$ Gravity with HI 21cm Intensity Mapping Surveys},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RC2E74BW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.05575}
}
abstract

Modified gravity theories offer a well-motivated extension of General Relativity and provide a possible explanation for the late-time accelerated expansion of the Universe. Among them, $f(R)$ gravity represents a minimal and theoretically appealing class, characterized by the Compton wavelength parameter $B_0$, which quantifies deviations from General Relativity. In this work, we explore the capability of future neutral hydrogen (HI) 21 cm intensity mapping (IM) observations to constrain $f(R)$ gravity at low redshifts. We perform Fisher-matrix forecasts for $B_0$ and standard cosmological parameters using upcoming 21 cm IM experiments, including BINGO and SKA1-MID (Band 1 and Band 2), both individually and in combination with Planck cosmic microwave background (CMB) priors. We find that even near-term experiments such as BINGO are able to place nontrivial bounds on $B_0$, $\sigma(B_0)\simeq 2.27\times 10^{-6}$, while SKA1-MID yields substantially tighter constraints, with SKA Band 2 providing the strongest sensitivity among the considered configurations, $\sigma(B_0)\simeq 6.37\times 10^{-8}$. We further demonstrate that the combination of low-redshift 21 cm IM data with CMB observations efficiently breaks degeneracies with background cosmological parameters and leads to a significant improvement in the constraints on $B_0$. These results highlight the potential of future HI intensity mapping surveys, in combination with CMB measurements, to provide stringent tests of General Relativity on cosmological scales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.05575 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Angular power spectra of the HI 21 cm signal at redshift [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Angular power spectra of the HI 21 cm signal, thermal noise, and shot noise for BINGO (top left), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Marginalized one- and two-dimensional confidence regions (68% and 95%) for selected cosmological [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Marginalized 68% and 95% confidence contours in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Ratios of the marginalized parameter uncertainties obtained with a maximum multipole [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Unveiling $f(R)$ Gravity with Void-Galaxy Cross-Correlation Multipoles

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Void-galaxy cross-correlation multipoles exhibit amplified size-dependent deviations from LCDM in f(R) gravity due to the scalaron fifth force and nonlinear shell dynamics, providing a new probe for modified gravity.

  2. Unveiling $f(R)$ Gravity with Void-Galaxy Cross-Correlation Multipoles

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Semi-analytical calculation of void-galaxy cross-correlation multipoles in Hu-Sawicki f(R) gravity reveals size-dependent deviations from LambdaCDM up to 29.7 percent for small voids, amplified by nonlinear evolution ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 42 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [40]

    New constraints on parametrised modified gravity from correlations of the CMB with large scale structure,

    Tommaso Giannantonio, Matteo Martinelli, Alessandra Silvestri, and Alessandro Melchiorri, “New constraints on parametrised modified gravity from correlations of the CMB with large scale structure,” JCAP04, 030 (2010), arXiv:0909.2045 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2010

  2. [1]

    Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High Redshift Supernovae,

    S. Perlmutteret al.(Supernova Cosmology Project), “Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High Redshift Supernovae,” Astrophys. J.517, 565–586 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812133

    arXiv 1999

  3. [2]

    A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s −1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team,

    Adam G. Riesset al., “A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s −1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team,” Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L7 (2022), arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  4. [3]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [4]

    KiDS-1000 Cosmology: Cosmic shear constraints and comparison between two point statis- tics,

    Marika Asgariet al.(KiDS), “KiDS-1000 Cosmology: Cosmic shear constraints and comparison between two point statis- tics,” Astron. Astrophys.645, A104 (2021), arXiv:2007.15633 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  6. [5]

    Dark energy survey year 3 results: cosmological constraints from the analysis of cosmic shear in harmonic space,

    C. Douxet al.(DES), “Dark energy survey year 3 results: cosmological constraints from the analysis of cosmic shear in harmonic space,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.515, 1942–1972 (2022), arXiv:2203.07128 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 1942

  7. [6]

    A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity,

    Alexei A. Starobinsky, “A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity,” Phys. Lett. B91, 99–102 (1980)

    1980

  8. [7]

    f(R) theories,

    Antonio De Felice and Shinji Tsujikawa, “f(R) theories,” Living Rev. Rel.13, 3 (2010), arXiv:1002.4928 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2010

Show all 45 references
  1. [8]

    Cosmic History of Chameleonic Dark Matter inF(R) Gravity,

    Taishi Katsuragawa and Shinya Matsuzaki, “Cosmic History of Chameleonic Dark Matter inF(R) Gravity,” Phys. Rev. D97, 064037 (2018), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 97, 129902 (2018)], arXiv:1708.08702 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [9]

    f(R) Theories Of Gravity,

    Thomas P. Sotiriou and Valerio Faraoni, “f(R) Theories Of Gravity,” Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 451–497 (2010), arXiv:0805.1726 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Introduction to modified gravity and gravitational alternative for dark energy,

    Shin’ichi Nojiri and Sergei D. Odintsov, “Introduction to modified gravity and gravitational alternative for dark energy,” eConfC0602061, 06 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0601213

    2006 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Parametrized modified gravity constraints after Planck,

    Bin Hu, Michele Liguori, Nicola Bartolo, and Sabino Matarrese, “Parametrized modified gravity constraints after Planck,” Phys. Rev. D88, 123514 (2013), arXiv:1307.5276 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Constraints on f(R) gravity from probing the large-scale structure,

    Lucas Lombriser, Anze Slosar, Uros Seljak, and Wayne Hu, “Constraints on f(R) gravity from probing the large-scale structure,” Phys. Rev. D85, 124038 (2012), arXiv:1003.3009 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Do cosmological data rule outf(R) withw̸=−1?

    Richard A. Battye, Boris Bolliet, and Francesco Pace, “Do cosmological data rule outf(R) withw̸=−1?” Phys. Rev. D 97, 104070 (2018), arXiv:1712.05976 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Constraining models of f(R) gravity with Planck and WiggleZ power spectrum data,

    Jason Dossett, Bin Hu, and David Parkinson, “Constraining models of f(R) gravity with Planck and WiggleZ power spectrum data,” JCAP03, 046 (2014), arXiv:1401.3980 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  8. [15]

    New constraints onf(R) gravity from clusters of galaxies,

    Matteo Cataneo, David Rapetti, Fabian Schmidt, Adam B. Mantz, Steven W. Allen, Douglas E. Applegate, Patrick L. Kelly, Anja von der Linden, and R. Glenn Morris, “New constraints onf(R) gravity from clusters of galaxies,” Phys. Rev. D92, 044009 (2015), arXiv:1412.0133 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Probingf(R) cosmology with sterile neutrinos via measurements of scale- dependent growth rate of structure,

    Yun-He Li, Jing-Fei Zhang, and Xin Zhang, “Probingf(R) cosmology with sterile neutrinos via measurements of scale- dependent growth rate of structure,” Phys. Lett. B744, 213–217 (2015), arXiv:1502.01136 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Testing General Relativity with 21-cm intensity mapping,

    Alex Hall, Camille Bonvin, and Anthony Challinor, “Testing General Relativity with 21-cm intensity mapping,” Phys. Rev. D87, 064026 (2013), arXiv:1212.0728 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Neutral hydrogen surveys for high redshift galaxy clusters and proto-clusters,

    Richard A. Battye, Rod D. Davies, and Jochen Weller, “Neutral hydrogen surveys for high redshift galaxy clusters and proto-clusters,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.355, 1339–1347 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0401340

    2004 arXiv

  12. [19]

    21-CM tomography of the intergalactic medium at high redshift,

    Piero Madau, Avery Meiksin, and Martin J. Rees, “21-CM tomography of the intergalactic medium at high redshift,” Astrophys. J.475, 429 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9608010

    1997 arXiv

  13. [20]

    The 21-cm Line as a Probe of Reionization,

    Steven R. Furlanetto, “The 21-cm Line as a Probe of Reionization,” (2015), arXiv:1511.01131 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Astrophysics from the 21-cm background,

    Jordan Mirocha, “Astrophysics from the 21-cm background,” (2019), arXiv:1909.12595 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [22]

    The BINGO project - I. Baryon acoustic oscillations from integrated neutral gas observations,

    Elcio Abdallaet al., “The BINGO project - I. Baryon acoustic oscillations from integrated neutral gas observations,” Astron. Astrophys.664, A14 (2022), arXiv:2107.01633 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [23]

    The BINGO project - II. Instrument description,

    Carlos A. Wuenscheet al., “The BINGO project - II. Instrument description,” Astron. Astrophys.664, A15 (2022), arXiv:2107.01634 [astro-ph.IM]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [24]

    The BINGO Project - III. Optical design and optimization of the focal plane,

    Filipe B. Abdallaet al., “The BINGO Project - III. Optical design and optimization of the focal plane,” Astron. Astrophys. 664, A16 (2022), arXiv:2107.01635 [astro-ph.IM]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [25]

    The BINGO project - IV. Simulations for mission performance assessment and preliminary component separation steps,

    Vincenzo Liccardoet al., “The BINGO project - IV. Simulations for mission performance assessment and preliminary component separation steps,” Astron. Astrophys.664, A17 (2022), arXiv:2107.01636 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [26]

    The BINGO project - V. Further steps in component separation and bispectrum analysis,

    Karin S. F. Fornazieret al., “The BINGO project - V. Further steps in component separation and bispectrum analysis,” Astron. Astrophys.664, A18 (2022), arXiv:2107.01637 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [27]

    The BINGO project - VI. HI halo occupation distribution and mock building,

    Jiajun Zhanget al., “The BINGO project - VI. HI halo occupation distribution and mock building,” Astron. Astrophys. 664, A19 (2022), arXiv:2107.01638 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [28]

    The BINGO project - VII. Cosmological forecasts from 21 cm intensity mapping,

    Andre A. Costaet al., “The BINGO project - VII. Cosmological forecasts from 21 cm intensity mapping,” Astron. Astro- 13 phys.664, A20 (2022), arXiv:2107.01639 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [29]

    The BINGO Project - IX. Search for fast radio bursts – A forecast for the BINGO interferometry system,

    Marcelo V. dos Santoset al., “The BINGO Project - IX. Search for fast radio bursts – A forecast for the BINGO interferometry system,” Astron. Astrophys.681, A120 (2024), arXiv:2308.06805 [astro-ph.IM]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [30]

    The BINGO/ABDUS Project: Forecast for Cosmological Parameters from a Mock Fast Radio Burst Survey,

    Xue Zhanget al., “The BINGO/ABDUS Project: Forecast for Cosmological Parameters from a Mock Fast Radio Burst Survey,” Astrophys. J.991, 189 (2025), arXiv:2411.17516 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  24. [31]

    Cosmology with Phase 1 of the Square Kilometre Array: Red Book 2018: Technical specifications and performance forecasts,

    David J. Baconet al.(SKA), “Cosmology with Phase 1 of the Square Kilometre Array: Red Book 2018: Technical specifications and performance forecasts,” Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.37, e007 (2020), arXiv:1811.02743 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [32]

    The Large Scale Structure of f(R) Gravity,

    Yong-Seon Song, Wayne Hu, and Ignacy Sawicki, “The Large Scale Structure of f(R) Gravity,” Phys. Rev. D75, 044004 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0610532

    2007 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Models of f(R) Cosmic Acceleration that Evade Solar-System Tests,

    Wayne Hu and Ignacy Sawicki, “Models of f(R) Cosmic Acceleration that Evade Solar-System Tests,” Phys. Rev. D76, 064004 (2007), arXiv:0705.1158 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Here we want to focus on the effective anisotropy and the modified Poisson equations that generally describe the deflections of modified gravities from GR

    for the explicit expression of these equations. Here we want to focus on the effective anisotropy and the modified Poisson equations that generally describe the deflections of modified gravities from GR. As in MGCAMB [37], the modification to Poisson and anisotropy equations a...

    2000

  28. [35]

    The pattern of growth in viable f(R) cosmologies,

    Levon Pogosian and Alessandra Silvestri, “The pattern of growth in viable f(R) cosmologies,” Phys. Rev. D77, 023503 (2008), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 81, 049901 (2010)], arXiv:0709.0296 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Practical solutions for perturbed f(R) gravity,

    Alireza Hojjati, Levon Pogosian, Alessandra Silvestri, and Starla Talbot, “Practical solutions for perturbed f(R) gravity,” Phys. Rev. D86, 123503 (2012), arXiv:1210.6880 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Effective Field Theory of Cosmic Acceleration: constraining dark energy with CMB data,

    Marco Raveri, Bin Hu, Noemi Frusciante, and Alessandra Silvestri, “Effective Field Theory of Cosmic Acceleration: constraining dark energy with CMB data,” Phys. Rev. D90, 043513 (2014), arXiv:1405.1022 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  31. [38]

    New MGCAMB tests of gravity with CosmoMC and Cobaya,

    Zhuangfei Wang, Seyed Hamidreza Mirpoorian, Levon Pogosian, Alessandra Silvestri, and Gong-Bo Zhao, “New MGCAMB tests of gravity with CosmoMC and Cobaya,” JCAP08, 038 (2023), arXiv:2305.05667 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Testing gravity with CAMB and CosmoMC,

    Alireza Hojjati, Levon Pogosian, and Gong-Bo Zhao, “Testing gravity with CAMB and CosmoMC,” JCAP08, 005 (2011), arXiv:1106.4543 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Forecasts on interacting dark energy from the 21-cm angular power spectrum with BINGO and SKA observations,

    Linfeng Xiao, Andre A. Costa, and Bin Wang, “Forecasts on interacting dark energy from the 21-cm angular power spectrum with BINGO and SKA observations,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.510, 1495–1514 (2021), arXiv:2103.01796 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Impact of 1/fnoise on cosmological parameter constraints for SKA intensity mapping,

    T. Chen, R. A. Battye, A. A. Costa, C. Dickinson, and S. E. Harper, “Impact of 1/fnoise on cosmological parameter constraints for SKA intensity mapping,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.491, 4254–4266 (2020), arXiv:1907.12132 [astro- ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Late-time cosmology with 21cm intensity mapping experiments,

    Philip Bull, Pedro G. Ferreira, Prina Patel, and Mario G. Santos, “Late-time cosmology with 21cm intensity mapping experiments,” Astrophys. J.803, 21 (2015), arXiv:1405.1452 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Projected Constraints on Modified Gravity Cosmologies from 21cm Intensity Mapping,

    Kiyoshi Wesley Masui, Fabian Schmidt, Ue-Li Pen, and Patrick McDonald, “Projected Constraints on Modified Gravity Cosmologies from 21cm Intensity Mapping,” Phys. Rev. D81, 062001 (2010), arXiv:0911.3552 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Recovering 3D clustering information with angular correlations,

    Jacobo Asorey, Martin Crocce, Enrique Gaztanaga, and Antony Lewis, “Recovering 3D clustering information with angular correlations,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.427, 1891 (2012), arXiv:1207.6487 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.