Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 192

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Simulating cosmic reionization: how large a volume is large enough?

Open access
Iliev, Ilian T., Mellema, Garrelt, Ahn, Kyungjin, Shapiro, Paul R., Mao, Yi, Pen, Ue-Li·2014·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Abstract

We present the largest-volume (425 Mpc h−1 = 607 Mpc on a side) full radiative transfer simulation of cosmic reionization to date. We show that there is significant additional power in density fluctuations at very large scales. We systematically investigate the effects this additional power has on the progress, duration and features of reionization and on selected reionization observables. We find that comoving volume of ∼100 Mpc h−1 per side is sufficient for deriving a convergent mean reionization history, but that the reionization patchiness is significantly underestimated. We use jackknife splitting to quantify the convergence of reionization properties with simulation volume. We find that sub-volumes of ∼100 Mpc h−1 per side or larger yield convergent reionization histories, except for the earliest times, but smaller volumes of ∼50 Mpc h−1 or less are not well converged at any redshift. Reionization history milestones show significant scatter between the sub-volumes, as high as Δz ∼ 1 for ∼50 Mpc h−1 volumes. If we only consider mean-density sub-regions the scatter decreases, but remains at Δz ∼ 0.1–0.2 for the different size sub-volumes. Consequently, many potential reionization observables like 21-cm rms, 21-cm PDF skewness and kurtosis all show good convergence for volumes of ∼200 Mpc h−1, but retain considerable scatter for smaller volumes. In contrast, the three-dimensional 21-cm power spectra at large scales (k < 0.25 h Mpc−1) do not fully converge for any sub-volume size. These additional large-scale fluctuations significantly enhance the 21-cm fluctuations, which should improve the prospects of detection considerably, given the lower foregrounds and greater interferometer sensitivity at higher frequencies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/mnras/stt2497

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 192

Metadata

Authors
Iliev, I. T., Mellema, G., Ahn, K., Shapiro, P. R., Mao, Y., & Pen, U.-L.
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Published
2014-01-23
Volume
439
Issue
1
Pages
725-743
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
OpenAlex
W2093073139
Cited by
192
References
2
FWCI
11.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Simulating cosmic reionization: how large a volume is large enough? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/mnras/stt2497
The paper
Iliev, I. T., Mellema, G., Ahn, K., Shapiro, P. R., Mao, Y., & Pen, U.-L. (2014). Simulating cosmic reionization: how large a volume is large enough? Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt2497

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.