Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

A New Boundary Condition on Reionization

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Pearson cross-correlation between 21-cm and line-intensity maps is predicted to drop sharply from saturation at x_HII=1–10%, providing a model-robust anchor for the onset of reionization.

desk verdict A genuinely new estimator for the EoR onset, demonstrated in simulations, but the 'model-independent' claim overreaches the paper's own caveats. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.08886 v2 pith:VCSGSRF5 submitted 2025-09-10 astro-ph.CO

Sarah Libanore , Ely D. Kovetz , Julian B. Munoz , Yonatan Sklansky , Emilie Thélie This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords epochofreionization21-cmcosmologylineintensitymappingPearsoncross-correlationonsetX-rayheatingintergalacticmediumstarformationtracers
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 proposes that the Pearson coefficient between 21-cm brightness temperature and star-formation line-intensity maps shows a sharp, model-robust drop from saturation when the universe is only 1–10% ionized. This drop marks the appearance of the first ionized bubbles, offering the first direct way to pinpoint the onset of the epoch of reionization—something current probes cannot do. The authors demonstrate the effect across a range of astrophysical parameters and independent simulations, and estimate it is detectable with next-generation 21-cm and line-intensity surveys. If correct, this gives cosmologists a new boundary condition for the last major phase transition of hydrogen.

What carries the argument

The Pearson cross-correlation coefficient P(z) between 21-cm brightness temperature and line-intensity maps, evaluated at zero lag. This real-space, one-point statistic is the central object: it rises from negative to positive as X-ray heating completes, saturates, and then drops sharply when the first ionized bubbles appear, separating the onset of reionization from its later evolution. The saturation plateau and subsequent drop encode the transition from an X-ray-heating-dominated correlation to a reionization-dominated anticorrelation.

What would settle it

A dedicated measurement of P(z) across redshift using co-located 21-cm and line-intensity maps: if the drop occurs when independent probes (e.g., Ly-alpha damping wings or CMB optical depth) estimate the mean ionized fraction well above 10%, the claimed anchor is wrong; conversely, if no saturated plateau and drop appear by x_HII ~10%, the mechanism fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the zero-lag Pearson coefficient P(z) between 21-cm and line-intensity tracer maps (e.g., OIII, CO, CII) saturates at a positive value once X-ray heating has driven the 21-cm field into emission everywhere, and then drops rapidly when the first ionized bubbles form, at mean ionized fractions x_HII ≈ 1–10%. Because the drop is driven specifically by the anticorrelation between star-forming regions and neutral hydrogen in ionized bubbles, it cleanly separates the onset of reionization from the preceding epoch of X-ray heating. The authors show that across variations in star-formation efficiency, X-ray luminosity, and escape fraction, the turnover persistently occurs a

Load-bearing premise

The signature requires that X-ray heating finishes before reionization reaches about 10% ionization; the paper itself identifies low X-ray luminosity (L_X,SFR=39.5) as a regime where reionization proceeds in a still-cold IGM and the claimed drop vanishes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Detection of the predicted drop would fix the redshift (or ionized fraction) at which reionization begins, even without a precise measurement of x_HII.
  • The turnover provides a new boundary condition for reionization models, complementing constraints from CMB optical depth, quasar absorption spectra, and high-redshift galaxy surveys.
  • The location of the drop is robust to variations in star-formation efficiency, X-ray luminosity, and escape fraction in standard scenarios, making it a reliable probe of the EoR onset.
  • The feature is within reach of next-generation 21-cm interferometers and line-intensity mapping surveys, enabling the first direct observation of reionization's earliest stage.
  • Because the drop occurs earlier than the zero-crossing of the cross-correlation (which marks roughly 30–40% ionization), it extends the observable timeline of the EoR to its very first moments.
  • The redshift of the drop can be combined with the later zero-crossing to give a two-point timeline of reionization: onset and midpoint.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same estimator could be applied to lower redshifts to trace the end of X-ray heating, since the transition from negative to positive P(z) may itself carry a sharp feature, effectively providing a second boundary condition for the cosmic dawn.
  • The shape and width of the drop may encode the size distribution of the first ionized bubbles, since changing the smoothing scale shifts the onset redshift; a full two-point analysis (which the paper defers) could extract this distribution.
  • If the drop is observed at a redshift significantly different from model predictions, it would indicate that X-ray heating or star formation at high redshift differs from standard assumptions—or that the cold-IGM regime, where the signature fails, is realized.
  • The method could be extended to other line tracers (e.g., Lyman-alpha) or higher-order statistics, providing cross-checks and improved sensitivity for upcoming surveys.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a novel real-space estimator, the zero-lag Pearson cross-correlation coefficient P(z) between 21-cm brightness temperature maps and line-intensity maps of star-forming tracers (e.g., [OIII], CO, [CII]), as a probe of the onset of reionization. Using the Zeus21/oLIMpus simulation pipeline and independent 21cmFASTv4 simulations, the authors show that P(z) first rises from negative to positive as X-ray heating progresses, saturates once the 21-cm field is in emission everywhere, and then drops sharply when the first ionized bubbles form. They argue that this turnover occurs at mean ionized fractions x_HII ~ 1%–10% across a broad range of astrophysical parameters, and therefore provides a model-robust, model-independent observational anchor for the beginning of the EoR, complementing the later zero-crossing of the cross-correlation which signals ongoing reionization. The paper also discusses smoothing-scale dependence and compares P(z) with the Fourier-space cross-correlation coefficient.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the proposed Pearson turnover would fill a genuine observational gap: current probes constrain the end and duration of reionization, not its onset. The estimator is conceptually appealing because it uses only one-point statistics for normalization, potentially mitigating noise propagation relative to power-spectrum estimators. The authors demonstrate the feature with two independent simulation codes, explore variations in several astrophysical parameters, and connect the turnover to a physically motivated temporal ordering (heating before reionization). The use of public, reproducible simulation tools is a strength, and the qualitative prediction—a sharp drop from a saturated plateau in P(z) at early EoR stages—is falsifiable with next-generation 21-cm and line-intensity surveys. However, the robustness of the claim hinges on a premise that the paper itself only partially defends, and the abstract overstates the signal-to-noise analysis and the model independence of the conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 2, bottom-left panel and accompanying text] The paper's own counterexample for L_X,SFR = 39.5 directly violates the temporal-ordering premise that saturates P(z) before x_HII~10%. In that case reionization proceeds in a still-cold IGM, no stable plateau is reached before the ionized fraction reaches 10%, and the turnover no longer encodes the EoR onset. The authors dismiss this model as extreme, citing theoretical and observational constraints [96–99], but in the same paragraph they concede these constraints are 'less robustly' applicable if mini halos hosting PopIII stars are included [100]. The concluding sentence 'In all models consistent with current observations' is therefore not established. This is load-bearing for the central claim of a model-robust signature. I ask the authors to quantify the region of parameter space where the plateau precedes x_HII=10% and where it does not, and to test explicitly a PopIII/mini-halo sce
  2. [Fig. 3, left panel and text on smoothing scale] The smoothing-scale dependence undermines the claim that the turnover is a unique, parameter-free anchor for the EoR onset. The text states that for large R 'the plateau extends beyond the x_HII = 10% point,' meaning the turnover occurs at x_HII > 10% and is therefore not a universal function of the ionized fraction. Since the observable turnover depends on the chosen smoothing scale—and the fiducial R = 5 Mpc is chosen 'unless otherwise stated'—a detected turnover without prior knowledge of R cannot be unambiguously mapped to x_HII~10%. The paper should either demonstrate that R is fixed by the experimental resolution in a way that removes this degeneracy, or define the EoR-onset anchor in an R-independent way (e.g., by using the shape of the full two-point function as a consistency check). Without this, the claim that a turnover in P(z) alone provides an upper bound on x_HII is not ful
  3. [Abstract and §4 (detectability statement)] The abstract claims 'we provide a preliminary estimate of its signal-to-noise ratio in our fiducial scenario... indicating that it is within reach of next-generation surveys,' but the body explicitly defers all detectability studies to future work [94], which is cited as 'in preparation.' This is an internal inconsistency that overstates the paper's deliverable. Either the SNR estimate should be presented in this paper—with a concrete noise model, integration times, and statistical significance—or the abstract and conclusions should be softened to say that detectability remains to be assessed. As written, the abstract invites a claim the manuscript does not support. Relatedly, the term 'model-independent' is too strong: the estimator depends on the line-luminosity model of Ref. [95], the smoothing scale, and the assumed shot-noise properties; the paper means 'robust across the explored p
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and text throughout] The notation 'OIII' is inconsistently written as [OIII], OIII, and OIII. Please unify to a single convention, e.g., [OIII] or [O III].
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (6)] The estimator P(z) is called the Pearson coefficient, but its one-point nature and the role of the smoothing scale R should be made explicit in the equation or immediately below it. The current definition sums over voxels, but the voxel size is only mentioned in the text; including R in the definition would clarify the R-dependence discussed in Fig. 3.
  3. [Section 3, Fig. 1 caption] The third panel is labeled 'unnormalized' while the text says it shows P_un(z), which is not the Pearson coefficient but an unnormalized version. Please clarify in the caption how this quantity is computed and why it is shown instead of the normalized version.
  4. [References] Reference [94] is listed as 'arXiv:arXiv:2509:XXXX' with a malformed identifier. This placeholder should be corrected or the reference removed if the work is not publicly available yet.
  5. [Throughout] Minor typographical issues: 'per-sedirect' should be 'per se direct'; 'LOF AR' appears with a stray space. These are easy to fix but occur in published-looking text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Pearson turnover is an emergent simulation statistic, calibrated against x_HII rather than fitted, and reproduced with an independent code.

full rationale

The central estimator P(z) in Eq. (6) is defined directly from simulated 21-cm and line-intensity maps, and the claimed turnover from saturation is read off the model output, not fitted to x_HII. The relation between the turnover and x_HII ~ 1-10% is established by comparing panels in Fig. 1; it is not imposed by construction, even though x_HII enters T21 through Eq. (1). The shape of P(z) also depends on X-ray heating, shot noise, and smoothing, so the turnover is not a tautological consequence of the ionized fraction alone. The authors use their own public codes Zeus21 and oLIMpus, but they explicitly test the feature with the independent 21cmFASTv4 code, which reproduces saturation followed by a sharp drop. The one acknowledged exception (L_X,SFR = 39.5, reionization in a cold IGM) is a robustness caveat rather than a circular step; the paper's dismissal relies on external constraints and one co-authored caveat about mini halos [100], but this affects the strength of the 'model-robust' claim, not an equation-level reduction. The conclusion that the signature appears in 'all models consistent with current observations' is stronger than the parameter scan demonstrates, but that is an overgeneralization/correctness concern, not circularity. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. Overall, the derivation is self-contained and the turnover is an emergent result.

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

The prediction rests on the standard 21-cm and line-intensity mapping formalism plus the astrophysical assumption that heating precedes reionization. The paper varies some parameters but does not ship exact fiducial values, scripts, or noise models, and the abstract's detectability claim is not supported in the body.

free parameters (5)
  • star formation efficiency epsilon_* = not given in text
    Fiducial value set by prior modeling; varied in Fig. 2. Affects the amplitude and redshift location of P(z).
  • X-ray luminosity per SFR L_X,SFR = log10 = 41 (fiducial)
    Fiducial value used; varied from 39.5 upward. The lowest value breaks the claimed turnover property.
  • escape fraction f_esc = not given in text
    Controls reionization timing; varied in Fig. 2. Affects when the Pearson drop occurs relative to the plateau.
  • smoothing scale R = 5 Mpc
    Fiducial map smoothing scale. P(z) shape depends on R; large R extends the plateau beyond x_HII = 10%.
  • line luminosity model parameters (Ref. [95]) = not specified in text
    Set the OIII intensity mapping relation and affect the SFRD tracer amplitude and shot noise.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 21-cm brightness temperature is a valid tracer of neutral hydrogen and vanishes in ionized regions.
    Used throughout via Eq. (1); standard 21-cm formalism.
  • domain assumption X-ray heating precedes reionization in standard scenarios, so the 21-cm field is in emission before the first bubbles form.
    Central premise of the claimed robustness; the paper notes L_X,SFR = 39.5 violates this (Fig. 2 discussion).
  • domain assumption Line intensity maps trace the star formation rate, so the same density peaks produce both line emission and ionizing radiation.
    Required for the anticorrelation between SFRD and T21 inside ionized bubbles; Eq. (2) and the line luminosity model.
  • domain assumption Zeus21, oLIMpus, and 21cmFASTv4 accurately model the coupled heating and reionization process.
    All P(z) predictions come from these codes; there is no direct observational validation of the simulated maps.
  • domain assumption The Pearson coefficient is dominated by astrophysical bubble structure rather than by real-space foregrounds or systematics.
    The paper acknowledges that real-space foreground handling is more challenging than Fourier-space wedge excision (systematics section).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A New Boundary Condition on Reionization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VCSGSRF5

@misc{pith2026250908886,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A New Boundary Condition on Reionization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VCSGSRF5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08886}
}
abstract

The epoch of reionization (EoR) marks the last phase transition of hydrogen in our Universe, as it evolves from cold and neutral to hot and ionized in the intergalactic medium (IGM). While its endpoint and duration can be estimated from current observations, albeit with large uncertainties, there is no known avenue to constrain its onset. We propose a novel method based on the Pearson cross-correlation coefficient between 21-cm brightness temperature maps and line-intensity maps tracing star-formation (e.g., [OIII], CO, [CII]). This real-space estimator evolves from negative to positive as X-ray heating progresses, and saturates prior to the EoR. We predict a sharp drop from saturation during the earliest EoR stages, when the IGM ionized fraction is $x_{\rm HII}\lesssim 10\%$. We show that in standard scenarios, where IGM heating precedes reionization, the drop is a clear, model-robust signature that the EoR is still in its early stages, even when $\bar{x}_{\rm HII}$ cannot be measured precisely. This information is not accessible through the detection of an anticorrelation alone, which only indicates that reionization is ongoing. To assess the detectability of this feature, we provide a preliminary estimate of its signal-to-noise ratio in our fiducial scenario, assuming SPHEREx-like and SKAO-like noise levels, indicating that it is within reach of next-generation surveys. The detection of the Pearson drop therefore will provide a unique anchor for the EoR onset, and an upper bound on $x_{\rm HII}$, complementing existing probes and tightening constraints on early galaxy formation models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08886 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. The Rise and Fall of Acoustic Oscillations at Cosmic Dawn

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Ignoring the percent-level phase offset between BAO and VAO features in the cosmic-dawn 21-cm power spectrum biases H(z) by ~2%; joint BAO–VAO templates are required for standard-ruler inference.

  2. Searching for Population III stars with line intensity mapping cross-correlations

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Adding Pop III stars to the oLIMpus analytical framework shows that only next-generation instruments can detect the H-alpha/HeII cross-correlation and constrain the first stars' IMF.

  3. Reading Between the Lines: Forward Modeling Dust, Continuum, and Spectral Cleaning for Multi-Line Intensity Mapping

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using a SAM-based mock, multi-line intensity-mapping cross-power spectra show dust acts as a line-pair- and redshift-dependent suppression, and PCA cleaning with about 20 modes best balances line recovery against cont...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 72 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [100]

    Lazare, D

    H. Lazare, D. Sarkar, and E. D. Kovetz, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043523 (2024), arXiv:2307.15577 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [94]

    In preparation,

    E. Thelie, S. Libanore,et al., “In preparation,” arXiv:arXiv:2509:XXXX

  3. [95]

    A new framework for ism emission line models: Connecting multi-scale simulations across cos- mological volumes,

    S. Yanget al., “A new framework for ism emission line models: Connecting multi-scale simulations across cos- mological volumes,” (2024), arXiv:2409.03997 [astro- ph.GA]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [1]

    Physics of cosmic reion- ization,

    T. Choudhury and A. Ferrara, “Physics of cosmic reion- ization,” (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0603149 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2006

  5. [2]

    Loeb and S

    A. Loeb and S. Furlanetto,The First Galaxies in the Universe(2013). 6

    2013

  6. [3]

    J. H. Wise, Contemporary Physics60, 145–163 (2019)

    2019

  7. [4]

    Miralda-Escude and J

    J. Miralda-Escude and J. P. Ostriker, Astrophys. J.350, 1 (1990)

    1990

  8. [5]

    Madau, Astrophysical Journal Letters376, L33 (1991)

    P. Madau, Astrophysical Journal Letters376, L33 (1991)

    1991

Show all 104 references
  1. [6]

    J. E. Gunn and B. A. Peterson, Astrophys. J.142, 1633 (1965)

    1965

  2. [7]

    J. N. Bahcall and E. E. Salpeter, Astrophys. J.144, 847 (1966)

    1966

  3. [8]

    Barkana, New Astron.7, 85 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0108431

    R. Barkana, New Astron.7, 85 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0108431

    2002

  4. [9]

    Mesinger and Z

    A. Mesinger and Z. Haiman, Astrophys. J.660, 923 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0610258

    2007 arXiv

  5. [10]

    Mesinger, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society407, 1328 (2010), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/407/2/1328/3914976/mnras0407-1328.pdf

    A. Mesinger, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society407, 1328 (2010), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/407/2/1328/3914976/mnras0407-1328.pdf

    2010

  6. [11]

    McGreer and et al., Mon

    I. McGreer and et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.447, 499 (2015), arXiv:1411.5375 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [12]

    F. B. Davies, G. D. Becker, and S. R. Furlanetto, As- trophys. J.860, 155 (2018), arXiv:1708.08927 [astro- ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [13]

    Greig, A

    B. Greig, A. Mesinger, and E. Ba˜ nados, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.484, 5094 (2019), arXiv:1807.01593 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [14]

    Hu and S

    W. Hu and S. Dodelson, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 40, 171 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0110414

    2002 arXiv

  10. [15]

    Anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background,

    A. Challinor, “Anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background,” (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0403344 [astro- ph]

    2004 arXiv

  11. [16]

    Challinor, Proceedings of the International Astro- nomical Union8, 42–52 (2012)

    A. Challinor, Proceedings of the International Astro- nomical Union8, 42–52 (2012)

    2012

  12. [17]

    D. N. Spergelet al.(WMAP), Astrophys. J. Suppl.148, 175 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0302209

    2003 arXiv

  13. [18]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

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

    2020 arXiv

  14. [19]

    Adamet al., Astronomy & Astrophysics596, A108 (2016)

    R. Adamet al., Astronomy & Astrophysics596, A108 (2016)

    2016

  15. [20]

    C. H. Heinrich, V. Miranda, and W. Hu, Physical Re- view D95(2017), 10.1103/physrevd.95.023513

    2017 doi

  16. [21]

    Delouis, L

    J.-M. Delouis, L. Pagano, S. Mottet, J.-L. Puget, and L. Vibert, Astronomy & Astrophysics629, A38 (2019)

    2019

  17. [22]

    Y. Qin, V. Poulin, A. Mesinger, B. Greig, S. Murray, and J. Park, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.499, 550 (2020), arXiv:2006.16828 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [23]

    Heinrich and W

    C. Heinrich and W. Hu, Physical Review D104(2021), 10.1103/physrevd.104.063505

    2021 doi

  19. [24]

    Giar` e, E

    W. Giar` e, E. Di Valentino, and A. Melchiorri, Phys. Rev. D109, 103519 (2024), arXiv:2312.06482 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [25]

    Sailer, G

    N. Sailer, G. S. Farren, S. Ferraro, and M. White, (2025), arXiv:2504.16932 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  21. [26]

    Jhaveri, T

    T. Jhaveri, T. Karwal, and W. Hu, (2025), arXiv:2504.21813 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [27]

    Constraints on neutrino physics from desi dr2 bao and dr1 full shape,

    W. Elberset al., “Constraints on neutrino physics from desi dr2 bao and dr1 full shape,” (2025), arXiv:2503.14744 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  23. [28]

    Negative neutrino masses as a mirage of dark en- ergy,

    W. Elbers, C. S. Frenk, A. Jenkins, B. Li, and S. Pas- coli, “Negative neutrino masses as a mirage of dark en- ergy,” (2025), arXiv:2407.10965 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  24. [29]

    The cosmological preference for negative neutrino mass,

    D. Green and J. Meyers, “The cosmological preference for negative neutrino mass,” (2024), arXiv:2407.07878 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [30]

    Fialkov and A

    A. Fialkov and A. Loeb, JCAP05, 004 (2016), arXiv:1602.08130 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [31]

    Heimersheim, N

    S. Heimersheim, N. S. Sartorio, A. Fialkov, and D. R. Lorimer, Astrophys. J.933, 57 (2022), arXiv:2107.14242 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [32]

    S. R. Furlanetto, M. Zaldarriaga, and L. Hern- quist, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.365, 1012 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0507266

    2006 arXiv

  28. [33]

    Mesinger and S

    A. Mesinger and S. Furlanetto, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.386, 1990 (2008), arXiv:0708.0006 [astro-ph]

    1990 arXiv

  29. [34]

    S. L. Finkelsteinet al., (2019), arXiv:1903.04518 [astro- ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [35]

    Witstoket al., Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society536, 27 (2025), arXiv:2404.05724 [astro-ph.GA]

    J. Witstoket al., Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society536, 27 (2025), arXiv:2404.05724 [astro-ph.GA]

    2025 arXiv

  31. [36]

    Barkana and A

    R. Barkana and A. Loeb, Astrophys. J.539, 20 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0001326

    2000 arXiv

  32. [37]

    Barkana and A

    R. Barkana and A. Loeb, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 371, 395 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0510421

    2006 arXiv

  33. [38]

    B. E. Robertsonet al., Astrophys. J.768, 71 (2013), arXiv:1301.1228 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  34. [39]

    Thez≳9 galaxy uv luminosity func- tion from the jwst advanced deep extragalactic survey: insights into early galaxy evolution and reionization,

    L. Whitleret al., “Thez≳9 galaxy uv luminosity func- tion from the jwst advanced deep extragalactic survey: insights into early galaxy evolution and reionization,” (2025), arXiv:2501.00984 [astro-ph.GA]

    2025

  35. [40]

    Prob- ing reionization-era galaxies with jwst uv luminos- ity functions and large-scale clustering,

    A. Chakraborty and T. R. Choudhury, “Prob- ing reionization-era galaxies with jwst uv luminos- ity functions and large-scale clustering,” (2025), arXiv:2503.07590 [astro-ph.GA]

    2025

  36. [41]

    B. E. Robertson, R. S. Ellis, S. R. Furlanetto, and J. S. Dunlop, Astrophys. J. Lett.802, L19 (2015), arXiv:1502.02024 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  37. [42]

    R. J. Bouwens, G. D. Illingworth, P. A. Oesch, J. Caru- ana, B. Holwerda, R. Smit, and S. Wilkins, Astrophys. J.811, 140 (2015), arXiv:1503.08228 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  38. [43]

    S. L. Finkelstein, A. D’Aloisio, J.-P. Paardekooper, R. Ryan, P. Behroozi, K. Finlator, R. Livermore, P. R. U. Sanderbeck, C. D. Vecchia, and S. Khochfar, Astrophys. J.879, 36 (2019), arXiv:1902.02792 [astro- ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [44]

    J. B. Mu˜ noz, J. Mirocha, J. Chisholm, S. R. Furlanetto, and C. Mason, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.535, L37 (2024), arXiv:2404.07250 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [45]

    E. D. Kovetzet al., (2017), arXiv:1709.09066 [astro- ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  41. [46]

    J. L. Bernal and E. D. Kovetz, Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 30, 5 (2022), arXiv:2206.15377 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [47]

    J. R. Pritchard and A. Loeb, Rept. Prog. Phys.75, 086901 (2012), arXiv:1109.6012 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  43. [48]

    Furlanetto, S

    S. Furlanetto, S. P. Oh, and F. Briggs, Phys. Rept. 433, 181 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0608032

    2006 arXiv

  44. [49]

    S. R. Furlanetto, (2015), 10.1007/978-3-319-21957-8 9, arXiv:1511.01131 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  45. [50]

    S. A. Wouthuysen, Astronomical Journal57, 31 (1952)

    1952

  46. [51]

    G. B. Field, Proceedings of the IRE46, 240 (1958)

    1958

  47. [52]

    J. R. Pritchard and S. R. Furlanetto, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.376, 1680 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0607234

    2007 arXiv

  48. [53]

    Mesinger, A

    A. Mesinger, A. Ferrara, and D. S. Spiegel, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.431, 621 (2013), arXiv:1210.7319 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  49. [54]

    Fialkov, R

    A. Fialkov, R. Barkana, and E. Visbal, Nature506, 197 (2014), arXiv:1402.0940 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  50. [55]

    J. B. Mu˜ noz, Y. Qin, A. Mesinger, S. G. Murray, B. Greig, and C. Mason, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 7 511, 3657 (2022), arXiv:2110.13919 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  51. [56]

    Furlanetto, M

    S. Furlanetto, M. Zaldarriaga, and L. Hernquist, As- trophys. J.613, 1 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0403697

    2004 arXiv

  52. [57]

    Furlanetto, M

    S. Furlanetto, M. Zaldarriaga, and L. Hernquist, As- trophys. J.613, 16 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0404112

    2004 arXiv

  53. [58]

    Y. Lin, S. P. Oh, S. R. Furlanetto, and P. M. Sut- ter, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.461, 3361 (2016), arXiv:1511.01506 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  54. [59]

    O. Zahn, M. Zaldarriaga, L. Hernquist, and M. Mc- Quinn, Astrophys. J.630, 657 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0503166

    2005

  55. [60]

    McQuinn, S

    M. McQuinn, S. R. Furlanetto, L. Hernquist, O. Zahn, and M. Zaldarriaga, Astrophys. J.630, 643 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0504189

    2005 arXiv

  56. [61]

    Dvorkin and K

    C. Dvorkin and K. M. Smith, Phys. Rev. D79, 043003 (2009), arXiv:0812.1566 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  57. [62]

    L. Ji, S. C. Hotinli, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D107, 123533 (2023), arXiv:2110.01619 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  58. [63]

    J. D. Bowman, A. E. E. Rogers, R. A. Monsalve, T. J. Mozdzen, and N. Mahesh, Nature555, 67 (2018), arXiv:1810.05912 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  59. [64]

    Singh, J

    S. Singh, J. Nambissan T., R. Subrahmanyan, N. Udaya Shankar, B. S. Girish, A. Raghunathan, R. So- mashekar, K. S. Srivani, and M. Sathyanarayana Rao, Nature Astron.6, 607 (2022), arXiv:2112.06778 [astro- ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  60. [65]

    Abdurashidovaet al.(HERA), Astrophys

    Z. Abdurashidovaet al.(HERA), Astrophys. J.925, 221 (2022), arXiv:2108.02263 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  61. [66]

    Abdurashidovaet al.(HERA), Astrophys

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

    2022 arXiv

  62. [67]

    F. G. Mertenset al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.493, 1662 (2020), arXiv:2002.07196 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  63. [68]

    Ceccottiet al., (2025), arXiv:2504.18534 [astro- ph.CO]

    E. Ceccottiet al., (2025), arXiv:2504.18534 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025

  64. [69]

    Munshiet al., Astron

    S. Munshiet al., Astron. Astrophys.681, A62 (2024), arXiv:2311.05364 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  65. [70]

    Munshiet al., (2025), arXiv:2507.10533 [astro- ph.CO]

    S. Munshiet al., (2025), arXiv:2507.10533 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  66. [71]

    D. J. Baconet al.(SKA), Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral. 37, e007 (2020), arXiv:1811.02743 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  67. [72]

    Dor´ eet al.(SPHEREx), (2014), arXiv:1412.4872 [astro-ph.CO]

    O. Dor´ eet al.(SPHEREx), (2014), arXiv:1412.4872 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  68. [73]

    G. K. Keating, D. P. Marrone, G. C. Bower, and R. P. Keenan, Astrophys. J.901, 141 (2020), arXiv:2008.08087 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  69. [74]

    P. C. Breysseet al.(COMAP), Astrophys. J.933, 188 (2022), arXiv:2111.05933 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  70. [75]

    A. T. Criteset al., SPIE Proceedings9153, 613 (2014)

    2014

  71. [76]

    Karoumpis, B

    C. Karoumpis, B. Magnelli, E. Romano-D ´ ıaz, M. Haslbauer, and F. Bertoldi, Astronomy & Astrophysics659, A12 (2022)

    2022

  72. [77]

    Adeet al., Astronomy & Astrophysics642, A60 (2020)

    P. Adeet al., Astronomy & Astrophysics642, A60 (2020)

    2020

  73. [78]

    Furlanetto and A

    S. Furlanetto and A. Lidz, Astrophys. J.660, 1030 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0611274

    2007 arXiv

  74. [79]

    A. Lidz, S. R. Furlanetto, S. P. Oh, J. Aguirre, T.-C. Chang, O. Dore, and J. R. Pritchard, Astrophys. J. 741, 70 (2011), arXiv:1104.4800 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  75. [80]

    McBride and A

    L. McBride and A. Liu, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society533, 658–675 (2024)

    2024

  76. [81]

    A. Lidz, O. Zahn, S. Furlanetto, M. McQuinn, L. Hern- quist, and M. Zaldarriaga, Astrophys. J.690, 252 (2009), arXiv:0806.1055 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  77. [82]

    Moriwaki, N

    K. Moriwaki, N. Yoshida, M. B. Eide, and B. Cia- rdi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.489, 2471 (2019), arXiv:1906.10863 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  78. [83]

    Hutter, C

    A. Hutter, C. Heneka, P. Dayal, S. Gottl¨ ober, A. Mesinger, M. Trebitsch, and G. Yepes, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.525, 1664 (2023), arXiv:2306.03156 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  79. [84]

    Moriwaki, A

    K. Moriwaki, A. Beane, and A. Lidz, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.530, 3183 (2024), arXiv:2404.08266 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  80. [85]

    Fronenberg and A

    H. Fronenberg and A. Liu, The Astrophysical Journal 975, 222 (2024)

    2024

  81. [86]

    Kannan, A

    R. Kannan, A. Smith, E. Garaldi, X. Shen, M. Vo- gelsberger, R. Pakmor, V. Springel, and L. Hern- quist, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.514, 3857 (2022), arXiv:2111.02411 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  82. [87]

    G. Sun, A. Lidz, T.-C. Chang, J. Mirocha, and S. R. Furlanetto, Astrophys. J.981, 92 (2025), arXiv:2410.21410 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  83. [88]

    Changet al., (2019), arXiv:1903.11744 [astro- ph.CO]

    T.-C. Changet al., (2019), arXiv:1903.11744 [astro- ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  84. [89]

    Beane, F

    A. Beane, F. Villaescusa-Navarro, and A. Lidz, The Astrophysical Journal874, 133 (2019)

    2019

  85. [90]

    J. B. Mu˜ noz, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.523, 2587 (2023), arXiv:2302.08506 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  86. [91]

    H. A. G. Cruz, J. B. Munoz, N. Sabti, and M. Kamionkowski, (2024), arXiv:2407.18294 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  87. [92]

    In preparation,

    Y. Sklansky and J. B. Munoz, “In preparation,” (2025)

    2025

  88. [93]

    Libanore, J

    S. Libanore, J. B. Munoz, and E. D. Kovetz, (2025), arXiv:2507.15922 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  89. [96]

    Fragos, B

    T. Fragos, B. Lehmer, M. Tremmel, P. Tzanavaris, A. Basu-Zych, K. Belczynski, A. Hornschemeier, L. Jenkins, V. Kalogera, A. Ptak, and A. Zezas, The Astrophysical Journal764, 41 (2013)

    2013

  90. [97]

    Singhet al., Astrophys

    S. Singhet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.845, L12 (2017), arXiv:1703.06647 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  91. [98]

    H. T. J. Bevins, E. d. L. Acedo, A. Fialkov, W. J. Han- dley, S. Singh, R. Subrahmanyan, and R. Barkana, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.513, 4507 (2022), arXiv:2201.11531 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  92. [99]

    Abdurashidovaet al.(HERA), Astrophys

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

    2023 arXiv

  93. [101]

    J. E. Davies, A. Mesinger, and S. Murray, (2025), arXiv:2504.17254 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  94. [102]

    Mesinger, S

    A. Mesinger, S. Furlanetto, and R. Cen, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.411, 955 (2011), arXiv:1003.3878 [astro- ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Y. Qin, A. Mesinger, J. Park, B. Greig, and J. B. Mu˜ noz, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.495, 123 (2020), arXiv:2003.04442 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  96. [104]

    A. R. Parsons, J. C. Pober, J. E. Aguirre, C. L. Carilli, D. C. Jacobs, and D. F. Moore, Astrophys. J.756, 165 (2012), arXiv:1204.4749 [astro-ph.IM]

    2012 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.