pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.06410 · v1 · pith:G2MWB7RAnew · submitted 2026-06-04 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc

The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: Probing new signatures of ultralight axions with gravitational lensing

Alex Lagu\"e , Keir K. Rogers , Mathew S. Madhavacheril , J. Richard Bond , Erminia Calabrese , Mark J. Devlin , Jo Dunkley , Vera Gluscevic
show 9 more authors
Ren\'ee Hlo\v{z}ek Hidde T. Jense Thibaut Louis Frank J. Qu Bernardita Ried Guachalla Neelima Sehgal Blake D. Sherwin Suzanne T. Staggs Alexander van Engelen
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 23:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qc
keywords ultralight axionsdark matterCMB lensingAtacama Cosmology Telescopecosmological constraintsaxion mass bounds
0
0 comments X

The pith

CMB lensing data limit ultralight axions to under 1.5 percent of dark matter at 10^{-26} eV.

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

The paper fits recent gravitational lensing measurements of the cosmic microwave background from Planck, the Atacama Cosmology Telescope, and the South Pole Telescope to models of ultralight axions as a dark matter component. It employs a simulation-calibrated nonlinear clustering model to derive the tightest existing upper limits on the axion fraction of dark matter across the mass window from 10^{-26} to 10^{-24.5} eV. These limits show that axions at 10^{-26} eV can comprise at most 1.5 percent of dark matter and those at 10^{-25} eV at most 9 percent, both at 95 percent . A mild 2.1 sigma preference for a nonzero axion density appears at 10^{-24.5} eV but is noted as potentially driven by a small number of data points.

Core claim

Fitting CMB lensing data with a simulation-calibrated nonlinear clustering model for ultralight axions yields the strongest constraints to date in the 10^{-26} eV to 10^{-24.5} eV mass range, with ULAs at 10^{-26} eV making up less than 1.5 percent of dark matter and those at 10^{-25} eV less than 9 percent at 95 percent , plus a 2.1 sigma preference for nonzero density at 10^{-24.5} eV that requires further checks on nonlinear modeling.

What carries the argument

A state-of-the-art simulation-calibrated nonlinear clustering model for ultralight axions applied to combined Planck, ACT, and SPT-3G gravitational lensing measurements.

If this is right

  • ULAs at 10^{-26} eV cannot exceed 1.5 percent of the total dark matter density.
  • ULAs at 10^{-25} eV cannot exceed 9 percent of the total dark matter density.
  • A 2.1 sigma hint for nonzero ULA density exists at 10^{-24.5} eV but appears driven by limited data points.
  • Further investigation of nonlinear ULA physics is required to confirm or rule out any signal.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • These limits reduce the parameter space in which ULAs could alleviate tensions between different measures of matter clustering.
  • Future high-resolution lensing surveys could test whether the mild preference at 10^{-24.5} eV persists.
  • Independent checks on the nonlinear clustering model would strengthen or weaken the derived bounds.

Load-bearing premise

The simulation-calibrated nonlinear clustering model for ultralight axions accurately describes the lensing data in the fitted mass range without unmodeled systematics that could produce the reported preference.

What would settle it

New lensing measurements or refined nonlinear simulations that remove the 2.1 sigma preference at 10^{-24.5} eV or produce significantly tighter upper limits on the axion fraction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.06410 by Alexander van Engelen, Alex Lagu\"e, Bernardita Ried Guachalla, Blake D. Sherwin, Erminia Calabrese, Frank J. Qu, Hidde T. Jense, Jo Dunkley, J. Richard Bond, Keir K. Rogers, Mark J. Devlin, Mathew S. Madhavacheril, Neelima Sehgal, Ren\'ee Hlo\v{z}ek, Suzanne T. Staggs, Thibaut Louis, Vera Gluscevic.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: (Top left) CMB lensing convergence angular power spectra as a function of multipole [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Marginalized posterior distributions of the axion fraction (expressed as a percentage of the total DM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Joint marginalized posterior distributions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (Top) CMB lensing potential angular power spectra as a function of multipole [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Joint marginalized posterior distributions from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Comparison of constraints on the axion fraction as a function of particle mass for five different probes. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Comparison of constraints on the axion fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Change in the minimum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Comparison between the matter power [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: (Purple and orange lines) Nonlinear matter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: As Fig. 3, but for all the axion and cosmological parameters that we vary. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Ultralight axions (ULAs) are well-motivated dark matter particle candidates that arise in many extensions of the Standard Model of particle physics. ULAs with mass $m_\mathrm{a} \lesssim 10^{-27}$ eV have been strongly constrained by cosmic microwave background (CMB) observations in temperature and polarization. We fit recent measurements of gravitational lensing of the CMB from \textit{Planck}, the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT) and the South Pole Telescope (SPT-3G) using a state-of-the-art simulation-calibrated nonlinear clustering model for ULAs. We derive the strongest constraints on ULAs in the mass range $10^{-26}\;\mathrm{eV}\leq m_\mathrm{a}\leq 10^{-24.5}\;\mathrm{eV}$. ULAs of this mass have been shown to alleviate tensions between inferences of the matter clustering if they compose a few percent of the total dark matter content of the Universe. We conclude that ULAs with a mass of $10^{-26}$ eV make up less than 1.5\% of the dark matter and $10^{-25}$ eV axions make less than 9\% (both at 95\% confidence level). We identify a slight preference for non-zero axion density at $10^{-24.5}$ eV at $2.1\sigma$. We find that the preference for ULAs is largely driven by a few data points and that further investigation of non-linear ULA physics is needed to confirm or rule out this signal.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript fits recent CMB lensing power spectrum measurements from Planck, ACT, and SPT-3G to a simulation-calibrated nonlinear clustering model for ultralight axions (ULAs). It derives 95% CL upper limits on the ULA dark matter fraction f_a of <1.5% at m_a = 10^{-26} eV and <9% at m_a = 10^{-25} eV, reports a 2.1σ preference for nonzero f_a at m_a = 10^{-24.5} eV, and notes that this preference is largely driven by a few data points while calling for further validation of the nonlinear ULA physics.

Significance. If the nonlinear model holds, the work supplies the tightest constraints to date on ULAs in the 10^{-26}–10^{-24.5} eV window, a range where even a few-percent ULA fraction has been proposed to ease the S8 tension. The combination of three independent lensing datasets and the use of a simulation-calibrated nonlinear prescription represent clear technical strengths that extend beyond linear-theory CMB bounds on lighter axions.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The 2.1σ preference for nonzero axion density at 10^{-24.5} eV is presented together with the explicit statement that it 'is largely driven by a few data points' and that 'further investigation of non-linear ULA physics is needed to confirm or rule out this signal.' Because this caveat directly affects the interpretation of the reported preference, the manuscript should either supply the requested robustness tests (e.g., alternative nonlinear prescriptions or linear-theory comparisons in the relevant mass range) or relegate the preference to a tentative indication rather than a highlighted result.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive feedback. We respond to the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The 2.1σ preference for nonzero axion density at 10^{-24.5} eV is presented together with the explicit statement that it 'is largely driven by a few data points' and that 'further investigation of non-linear ULA physics is needed to confirm or rule out this signal.' Because this caveat directly affects the interpretation of the reported preference, the manuscript should either supply the requested robustness tests (e.g., alternative nonlinear prescriptions or linear-theory comparisons in the relevant mass range) or relegate the preference to a tentative indication rather than a highlighted result.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that the 2.1σ preference must be presented with appropriate caution given the explicit caveats already noted in the abstract. While the current abstract states that the signal is largely driven by a few data points and requires further investigation of nonlinear ULA physics, we will revise the abstract to relegate this preference to a tentative indication rather than a highlighted result, with the upper limits emphasized as the primary findings. We will also expand the discussion section to provide additional context on the limitations of the nonlinear model in this mass range. We do not have additional robustness tests (such as alternative nonlinear prescriptions or direct linear-theory comparisons) available to include at this stage. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: constraints derived from external model fit to independent data

full rationale

The paper obtains ULA density upper limits and a marginal preference by fitting Planck+ACT+SPT-3G lensing data to a pre-existing simulation-calibrated nonlinear clustering model. This is a standard parameter estimation step whose outputs are not equivalent to the model inputs by construction, nor do they rely on load-bearing self-citations or ansatzes imported from the authors' prior work. The abstract explicitly flags the need for further model validation, confirming the result is data-driven rather than tautological.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Analysis rests on standard cosmological background plus a simulation-calibrated nonlinear model whose accuracy is asserted but not independently verified in the abstract; no new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • ULA mass m_a
    Scanned over discrete values in the target range; not a continuous fit but chosen for the analysis.
  • ULA density fraction f_a
    Fitted parameter whose upper limits constitute the main result.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Standard Lambda-CDM cosmology modified by ULA clustering
    Background model assumed when fitting the lensing power spectrum.
  • domain assumption Simulation-calibrated nonlinear ULA clustering model is accurate
    Central modeling choice invoked to translate lensing data into density limits.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5919 in / 1672 out tokens · 25619 ms · 2026-06-27T23:50:56.808462+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    and the void size function [96], will provide a comple- mentary probe of axions, independent of nonlinear axion effects. On semi-linear scales, full-shape power spectrum and bispectrum analyses of galaxy surveys could also con- strain the shape of the matter power spectrum around the axion Jeans scale. In the fully nonlinear regime, stud- ies of galaxy we...

    2025

  2. [2]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  3. [3]

    Preskill, M

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Physics Letters B120, 127 (1983)

    1983

  4. [4]

    L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, Physics Letters B120, 133 (1983)

    1983

  5. [5]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler, Physics Letters B120, 137 (1983)

    1983

  6. [6]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  7. [7]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  8. [8]

    Witten, Physics Letters B149, 351 (1984)

    E. Witten, Physics Letters B149, 351 (1984)

    1984

  9. [9]

    Svrcek and E

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten, Journal of High Energy Physics2006, 051 (2006), hep-th/0605206

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  10. [10]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123530 (2010), 0905.4720

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  11. [11]

    Samir Acharya, K

    B. Samir Acharya, K. Bobkov, and P. Kumar, Journal of High Energy Physics2010, 105 (2010), 1004.5138

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  12. [12]

    J. P. Conlon, Journal of High Energy Physics2006, 078 (2006), hep-th/0602233

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  13. [13]

    Cicoli, M

    M. Cicoli, M. D. Goodsell, and A. Ringwald, Journal of High Energy Physics2012, 146 (2012), 1206.0819

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  14. [14]

    Arza et al

    A. Arza et al. (2026), 2603.03433

    arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    V. M. Mehta, M. Demirtas, C. Long, D. J. E. Marsh, L. McAllister, and M. J. Stott, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2021, 033 (2021), 2103.06812

    arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    Gendler, D

    N. Gendler, D. J. E. Marsh, L. McAllister, and J. Moritz, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2024, 071 (2024), 2309.13145

    arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Demirtas, A

    M. Demirtas, A. Rios-Tascon, and L. McAllister, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2211.03823 (2022), 2211.03823

    arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    T. C. Bachlechner, K. Eckerle, O. Janssen, and M. Kle- ban, Phys. Rev. D98, 061301 (2018)

    2018

  19. [19]

    Sheridan, F

    E. Sheridan, F. Carta, N. Gendler, M. Jain, D. J. E. Marsh, L. McAllister, N. Righi, K. K. Rogers, and A. Schachner, JHEP09, 016 (2025), 2412.12012

    arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Demirtas, C

    M. Demirtas, C. Long, L. McAllister, and M. Stillman, arXiv e-prints arXiv:1808.01282 (2018), 1808.01282

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    Gendler and D

    N. Gendler and D. J. E. Marsh, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2407.07143 (2024), 2407.07143

    arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Demirtas, N

    M. Demirtas, N. Gendler, C. Long, L. McAllister, and J. Moritz, Journal of High Energy Physics2023, 92 (2023), 2112.04503

    arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    J. N. Benabou, K. Fraser, M. Reig, and B. R. Safdi, Phys. Rev. D112, 066003 (2025), 2505.15884

    arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Cheng and N

    J. Cheng and N. Gendler, Journal of High Energy Physics2025, 12 (2025), 2507.12516

    arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Z. Yin, H. Cheng, E. Di Valentino, N. Gendler, D. J. E. Marsh, and L. Visinelli, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2507.03535 (2025), 2507.03535

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    MacFadden, A

    N. MacFadden, A. Schachner, and E. Sheridan, Fortschritte der Physik74, 70060 (2026), 2405.08871

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Vander Ploeg Fallon, J

    S. Vander Ploeg Fallon, J. Halverson, L. McAllister, and Y. Zhu, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2511.20458 (2025), 2511.20458

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    M. Jain, E. Sheridan, D. J. E. Marsh, E. Heyes, K. K. Rogers, and A. Schachner, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2512.00144 (2025), 2512.00144

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Winch, R

    H. Winch, R. Hloˇ zek, D. J. E. Marsh, D. Grin, and K. K. Rogers, Phys. Rev. D110, 043517 (2024), 2311.02052

    arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Irˇ siˇ c, M

    V. Irˇ siˇ c, M. Viel, M. G. Haehnelt, J. S. Bolton, and G. D. Becker, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 031302 (2017), 1703.04683

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  31. [31]

    Armengaud, N

    E. Armengaud, N. Palanque-Delabrouille, C. Y` eche, D. J. E. Marsh, and J. Baur, MNRAS471, 4606 (2017), 1703.09126

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  32. [32]

    K. K. Rogers and H. V. Peiris, Phys. Rev. D103, 043526 (2021), 2007.13751

    arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    K. K. Rogers and H. V. Peiris, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 071302 (2021), 2007.12705

    arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    Dentler, D

    M. Dentler, D. J. E. Marsh, R. Hloˇ zek, A. Lagu¨ e, K. K. Rogers, and D. Grin, MNRAS515, 5646 (2022), 2111.01199

    arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    Sipple, A

    J. Sipple, A. Lidz, D. Grin, and G. Sun, MNRAS538, 1830 (2025), 2407.17059

    arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    E. O. Nadler, R. An, V. Gluscevic, A. Benson, and X. Du, ApJ986, 127 (2025), 2410.03635

    arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    A. X. Gonz´ alez-Morales, D. J. E. Marsh, J. Pe˜ narrubia, and L. A. Ure˜ na-L´ opez, MNRAS472, 1346 (2017), 1609.05856

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  38. [38]

    D. J. E. Marsh and J. C. Niemeyer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 051103 (2019), 1810.08543

    arXiv 2019

  39. [39]

    Zimmermann, J

    T. Zimmermann, J. Alvey, D. J. E. Marsh, M. Fairbairn, and J. I. Read, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 151001 (2025), 14 2405.20374

    arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Teodori, A

    L. Teodori, A. Caputo, and K. Blum, Phys. Rev. D113, 023055 (2026), 2501.07631

    arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    E. O. Nadler, M. A. Amin, R. H. Wechsler, M. S. Delos, A. Benson, and V. Gluscevic, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2605.15371 (2026), 2605.15371

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    Dalal and A

    N. Dalal and A. Kravtsov, Phys. Rev. D106, 063517 (2022), 2203.05750

    arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    S. May, N. Dalal, and A. Kravtsov, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2509.02781 (2025), 2509.02781

    arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    M. A. Amin and M. Mirbabayi, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 221004 (2024), 2211.09775

    arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    M. J. Stott, D. J. E. Marsh, C. Pongkitivanichkul, L. C. Price, and B. S. Acharya, Phys. Rev. D96, 083510 (2017), 1706.03236

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [46]

    Hlozek, D

    R. Hlozek, D. Grin, D. J. E. Marsh, and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D91, 103512 (2015), 1410.2896

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  47. [47]

    Lagu¨ e, J

    A. Lagu¨ e, J. R. Bond, R. Hloˇ zek, K. K. Rogers, D. J. E. Marsh, and D. Grin, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2022, 049 (2022), 2104.07802

    arXiv 2022

  48. [48]

    K. K. Rogers, R. Hloˇ zek, A. Lagu¨ e, M. M. Ivanov, O. H. E. Philcox, G. Cabass, K. Akitsu, and D. J. E. Marsh, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2023, 023 (2023), 2301.08361

    arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    Winch, K

    H. Winch, K. K. Rogers, R. Hloˇ zek, and D. J. E. Marsh, Astrophys. J.976, 40 (2024), 2404.11071

    arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Kobayashi, R

    T. Kobayashi, R. Murgia, A. De Simone, V. Irˇ siˇ c, and M. Viel, Phys. Rev. D96, 123514 (2017), 1708.00015

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  51. [51]

    K. K. Rogers and V. Poulin, Phys. Rev. Res.7, L012018 (2025), 2311.16377

    arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Perez Sarmiento, A

    K. Perez Sarmiento, A. Lagu¨ e, M. S. Madhavacheril, B. Jain, and B. Sherwin, Phys. Rev. D112, 063510 (2025), 2502.06687

    arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Amon and G

    A. Amon and G. Efstathiou, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society516, 5355 (2022), ISSN 0035-8711, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/516/4/5355/46130148/stac2429.pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac2429

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2429 2022

  54. [54]

    Preston, A

    C. Preston, A. Amon, and G. Efstathiou, MNRAS525, 5554 (2023), 2305.09827

    arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    Bigwood, A

    L. Bigwood, A. Amon, A. Schneider, J. Salcido, I. G. McCarthy, C. Preston, D. Sanchez, D. Sijacki, E. Schaan, S. Ferraro, et al., MNRAS534, 655 (2024), 2404.06098

    arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    Pandey, J

    S. Pandey, J. C. Hill, A. Alarcon, O. Alves, A. Amon, D. Anbajagane, F. Andrade-Oliveira, N. Battaglia, E. Baxter, K. Bechtol, et al., arXiv e- prints arXiv:2506.07432 (2025), 2506.07432

    arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Dalal, C.-H

    N. Dalal, C.-H. To, C. Hirata, T. Hyeon-Shin, M. Hilton, S. Pandey, and J. Richard Bond, J. Cosmology As- tropart. Phys.2026, 036 (2026), 2507.04476

    arXiv 2026

  58. [58]

    Popesso, A

    P. Popesso, A. Biviano, I. Marini, K. Dolag, S. Vladutescu-Zopp, B. Csizi, V. Biffi, G. Lamer, A. Robothan, M. Bravo, et al., A&A707, A362 (2026), 2411.16555

    arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    A. H. Wright, B. St¨ olzner, M. Asgari, M. Bilicki, B. Giblin, C. Heymans, H. Hildebrandt, H. Hoekstra, B. Joachimi, K. Kuijken, et al., A&A703, A158 (2025), 2503.19441

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Gaughan, A

    L. Gaughan, A. M. Green, and A. Moss, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2605.12054 (2026), 2605.12054

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  61. [61]

    Calabrese, J

    E. Calabrese, J. C. Hill, H. T. Jense, A. La Posta, I. Abril-Cabezas, G. E. Addison, P. A. R. Ade, S. Aiola, T. Alford, D. Alonso, et al., J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025, 063 (2025), 2503.14454

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    D. J. E. Marsh and J. Silk, MNRAS437, 2652 (2014), 1307.1705

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  63. [63]

    Lagu¨ e, B

    A. Lagu¨ e, B. Schwabe, R. Hloˇ zek, D. J. E. Marsh, and K. K. Rogers, Phys. Rev. D109, 043507 (2024), 2310.20000

    arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    S. M. L. Vogt, D. J. E. Marsh, and A. Lagu¨ e, Phys. Rev. D107, 063526 (2023), 2209.13445

    arXiv 2023

  65. [65]

    T. Dome, S. May, A. Lagu¨ e, D. J. E. Marsh, S. John- ston, S. Bose, A. Tocher, and A. Fialkov, MNRAS537, 252 (2025), 2409.11469

    arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    McCarthy, J

    F. McCarthy, J. C. Hill, and M. S. Madhavacheril, Phys. Rev. D105, 023517 (2022), 2103.05582

    arXiv 2022

  67. [67]

    Trendafilova, A

    C. Trendafilova, A. R. Khalife, and S. Galli, J. Cosmol- ogy Astropart. Phys.2025, 094 (2025), 2502.19383

    arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    R. Liu, W. Hu, and D. Grin, Phys. Rev. D112, 023513 (2025), 2412.15192

    arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    A. J. Mead, S. Brieden, T. Tr¨ oster, and C. Heymans, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society502, 1401–1422 (2021), ISSN 1365-2966, URLhttp://dx. doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab082

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab082 2021

  70. [70]

    Massara, F

    E. Massara, F. Villaescusa-Navarro, and M. Viel, J. Cos- mology Astropart. Phys.2014, 053 (2014), 1410.6813

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  71. [71]

    Johnston (2026), in preparation

    S. Johnston (2026), in preparation

    2026

  72. [72]

    Schwabe, J

    B. Schwabe, J. C. Niemeyer, and J. F. Engels, Phys. Rev. D94, 043513 (2016), 1606.05151

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  73. [73]

    Y. F. Wang, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2604.06038 (2026), 2604.06038

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  74. [74]

    Hu, Phys

    W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D62, 043007 (2000), astro- ph/0001303

    arXiv 2000

  75. [75]

    Lewis and A

    A. Lewis and A. Challinor, Phys. Rep.429, 1 (2006), astro-ph/0601594

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  76. [76]

    Spurio Mancini, D

    A. Spurio Mancini, D. Piras, J. Alsing, B. Joachimi, and M. P. Hobson, MNRAS511, 1771 (2022), 2106.03846

    arXiv 2022

  77. [77]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ash- down, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, et al., A&A641, A5 (2020), 1907.12875

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  78. [78]

    Louis, A

    T. Louis, A. La Posta, Z. Atkins, H. T. Jense, I. Abril- Cabezas, G. E. Addison, P. A. R. Ade, S. Aiola, T. Al- ford, D. Alonso, et al., J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2025, 062 (2025), 2503.14452

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  79. [79]

    Naess et al

    S. Naess et al. (Atacama Cosmology Telescope), JCAP 11, 061 (2025), 2503.14451

    arXiv 2025

  80. [80]

    Pagano, J.-M

    L. Pagano, J.-M. Delouis, S. Mottet, J.-L. Puget, and L. Vibert, A&A635, A99 (2020), 1908.09856

    arXiv 2020

Showing first 80 references.