Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Neutrinophilic $\mathbf{\Lambda}$CDM Extension for EMPRESS, DESI and Hubble Tension

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding neutrino asymmetry plus radiation cuts Hubble tension to 2.2σ

desk verdict Careful MCMC work that shows a neutrino-asymmetry plus extra-radiation model can fit EMPRESS, DESI, and part of the Hubble tension, but the headline preference survives only if the contested EMPRESS helium value is right. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13153 v1 pith:BQZWOLIC submitted 2025-01-22 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Yuan-Zhen Li , Jiang-Hao Yu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.CO
keywords primordialneutrinoasymmetryeffectivenumberofneutrinosBigBangnucleosynthesisheliumabundanceHubbletensionDESIbaryonacousticoscillationsLambdaCDMextensiondegeneracyparameter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that a single extension of the standard cosmological model—adding a primordial neutrino asymmetry $\xi_\nu$ and an extra contribution $\delta N_{\rm eff}$ to the effective number of relativistic species—can simultaneously explain the EMPRESS measurement of a low primordial helium abundance, the DESI baryon-acoustic-oscillation data, and part of the Hubble tension. Using accurate Big Bang nucleosynthesis predictions and a Markov chain Monte Carlo analysis of Planck CMB, DESI BAO, and type Ia supernova data, the authors find $\xi_\nu = 0.056 \pm 0.017$ and $\delta N_{\rm eff} = 0.41 \pm 0.16$, which brings the early-universe Hubble constant to $H_0 = 69.5 \pm 1.2$ km/s/Mpc and reduces the tension with the local distance-ladder value to $2.2\sigma$. The model is preferred over both $\Lambda$CDM and the $\omega_0\omega_a$CDM dynamical-dark-energy model by the information criteria used. However, the preference evaporates if the EMPRESS helium value is replaced by the higher world-average abundance, so the conclusion stands or falls with that measurement.

What carries the argument

The central object is the neutrino degeneracy parameter $\xi_\nu = \mu_\nu / T_\nu$, the chemical potential of a neutrino flavor in units of its temperature, whose presence during the early universe shifts both the helium yield of Big Bang nucleosynthesis and the effective number of neutrinos through the identity $N_{\rm eff} = 3.0440 + (30/7\pi^2)\xi_\nu^2 + (15/7\pi^4)\xi_\nu^4 + 0.0102\xi_\nu^2$. The analysis machinery is a Markov chain Monte Carlo fit of a modified Boltzmann solver that incorporates the companion paper's BBN predictions—full neutrino transport during decoupling, finite-temperature QED corrections, and weak-rate radiative corrections—against Planck CMB, DESI BAO, and supernova data, with $\delta N_{\rm eff}$ added as an independent parameter and with the two BBN nuclear-rate choices compared.

What would settle it

If a future, independent measurement of the primordial helium abundance—for example from the CMB damping tail or a different sample of metal-poor galaxies—returns a value within about 0.001 of the standard-model prediction of approximately 0.246, the claimed need for $\xi_\nu$ and $\delta N_{\rm eff}$ would vanish, exactly as the paper finds when substituting the higher world-average abundance for the EMPRESS result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is that the $\Lambda$CDM + $\sum m_\nu$ + $\xi_\nu$ + $\delta N_{\rm eff}$ model, treated with full neutrino-decoupling dynamics and two alternative BBN nuclear-rate compilations, is the only one among the compared models that fits both the EMPRESS helium abundance and the DESI BAO distance measurements at the same time. The positive $\delta N_{\rm eff}$ required to lift the helium yield also modifies the sound horizon and late-time expansion so that the DESI BAO points are matched, while raising $H_0$ toward the local distance-ladder value. With the PRIMAT-driven nuclear rates the preference for non-zero $\xi_\nu$ reaches $3.3\sigma$ and for non-zero $\delta N_{\rm eff}$ reaches $2.6\sigma$, and the Hubble tension falls to $2.2\sigma$; with the NACRE II-driven rates the $\delta N_{\rm eff}$ significance drops to $1.2\sigma$.

Load-bearing premise

The preference for non-zero $\xi_\nu$ and $\delta N_{\rm eff}$ rests on the EMPRESS measurement of the primordial helium abundance, $Y_P \approx 0.237 \pm 0.0034$; if the true abundance is the higher world-average value of about 0.247, the model's advantage disappears, as the paper itself states.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is correct, the DESI BAO data, which were previously read as evidence for dynamical dark energy, can instead be explained by extra radiation in the early universe, so the two mechanisms are currently degenerate in BAO-only fits.
  • The model predicts $H_0 \approx 69.5 \pm 1.2$ km/s/Mpc, a value that, if confirmed by combined CMB and large-scale-structure data, would ease the Hubble tension but not bring it into full agreement with the local distance ladder.
  • The model leaves the $S_8$ clustering tension essentially unchanged at about $3\sigma$, so it does not resolve all of the current cosmological discrepancies.
  • The required $\delta N_{\rm eff}$ is larger than the contribution of a flavor-equilibrated $\xi_\nu$ alone, which the authors interpret as a possible sign of a large neutrino asymmetry in the muon–tau sector.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the EMPRESS-based preference is real, a future high-precision CMB experiment that measures the damping tail should see a correlated shift in the helium mass fraction and $N_{\rm eff}$ consistent with $\xi_\nu \approx 0.056$ and $\delta N_{\rm eff} \approx 0.4$; a measurement inconsistent with that pair would disfavour this explanation.
  • Because the model and the $\omega_0\omega_a$CDM dynamical-dark-energy model fit DESI BAO equally well through different physical mechanisms, including redshift-space distortion growth-rate data would help break the degeneracy, since extra radiation and dark energy affect structure growth differently.
  • A decisive test of the two nuclear-rate compilations would be a high-precision deuterium abundance measurement, since the two rate sets predict different deuterium yields even when they agree on helium.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes an extension of ΛCDM in which the neutrino sector is modified by a primordial degeneracy parameter ξν and an extra radiation contribution δNeff, alongside nonzero neutrino masses. Using MontePython/CLASS with BBN predictions from a companion paper, the authors analyze BBN (EMPRESS helium, PDG deuterium), Planck CMB, DESI BAO, and PantheonPlus SN Ia data, reporting ξν = 0.056 ± 0.017 and δNeff = 0.41 ± 0.16 (PRIMAT-driven BBN, full dataset), a reduction of the Hubble tension to 2.2σ, and a preference over ΛCDM and ω0ωaCDM. The paper also compares PRIMAT- and NACRE II-driven BBN predictions and presents constraints for models with fixed and free Neff.

Significance. If the result held, a single neutrino-sector extension would simultaneously fit the EMPRESS helium abundance, the DESI BAO distance-redshift relation, and reduce the Hubble tension, which would be an important phenomenological step. The analysis is built on public codes, includes two BBN rate treatments, and reports convergence criteria, which are strengths. However, the central preference is not robust: as the authors themselves state, replacing EMPRESS with the PDG helium value removes the preference, and the NACRE II rates reduce the δNeff significance to 1.2σ. The significance is therefore conditional on a contested measurement and a specific nuclear-rate choice; the paper's value is as a well-documented scenario study rather than a robust detection.

major comments (4)
  1. [Summary and Outlook; Table I; Eq. (6)] The headline constraints and the model preference are conditional on the EMPRESS value YP = 0.2370+0.0034/−0.0033 and on PRIMAT-driven BBN rates. The Summary explicitly states that replacing EMPRESS with the PDG value YP = 0.2475 ± 0.003 removes the preference for non-zero ξν and δNeff and that the model no longer accommodates DESI BAO data or the Hubble tension. Since the abstract presents these values as the preferred model without this caveat, the central claim is overstated. Please either qualify the abstract and conclusions, or clearly frame the analysis as a proof-of-principle scenario conditional on EMPRESS.
  2. [Result B; Figure 2] The model comparison is reported only graphically. The numerical values of Δχ² and ΔDIC for each model and each BBN approach are not given, so the claimed preference of ΛCDM + Σmν + ξν + δNeff over ω0ωaCDM cannot be quantitatively assessed or reproduced. Add a table with the numbers, preferably including the DIC penalty term or an estimate of the sampling uncertainty.
  3. [Methodology; Result A] The BBN predictions for YP and D/H as functions of (ξν, δNeff) are taken from the companion paper [26] and are not summarized in this manuscript. Because the constraints in Table I and Eq. (6) depend entirely on those predictions, the reader cannot check the mapping or assess its uncertainties. Please either provide the fitting functions, a short description of the key neutrino-transport and nuclear-rate inputs from [26], or explicitly state where the reader can find them in a reproducible form. Note also that [26] is currently an arXiv preprint; a published reference would strengthen the letter.
  4. [Footnote [72]; Result A] The model as fitted treats ξν and δNeff as independent parameters, but the authors acknowledge that the positive δNeff cannot be fully generated by ξν under flavor equilibration and invoke an additional muon-tau sector asymmetry. This implies that the 'neutrinophilic ΛCDM' model actually relies on an extra assumption not included in the MCMC. Please clarify whether δNeff is a phenomenological parameter or tied to a specific flavor structure, and discuss the degeneracy between ξν and δNeff in the posteriors of Figure 1.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The instantaneous-decoupling contribution is written as 3 × (30/7π²) ξ² rather than Neff^SM × (30/7π²) ξ² with Neff^SM = 3.044; the numerical difference is small but should be explained or corrected, and the role of the 0.0102 ξ² term should be clarified.
  2. [Table I] The column for Σmνi lists central values without uncertainties, which is inconsistent with the other reported parameters; please provide uncertainties or state the prior/limit that fixes these values.
  3. [Figure 2] The bars in Figure 2 are labeled only by model names; include the numerical values on the bars or in a legend so the reader can read off the information criteria directly.
  4. [Summary and Outlook] The reported S8 tension of 3.0σ/2.8σ with DES-Y3 is a relevant caveat for the claim that all observations are explained; consider discussing whether this weakens the model as a simultaneous solution to the early- and late-universe tensions.
  5. [Methodology; throughout] The prior ranges for ξν and δNeff are not stated; add a sentence in Methodology specifying the priors used in the MCMC runs.
  6. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'PanthenonPlus' for 'PantheonPlus', 'with a extension' for 'with an extension', and 'alo' for 'also' in footnote 47; please proofread the manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the free parameters are fitted to data, the BBN predictions come from an independent companion calculation, and the H0 result is a derived posterior constraint.

full rationale

The central parameters xi_nu and delta_Neff are free parameters of a phenomenological model, constrained by MCMC against BBN, CMB, DESI BAO, and SN Ia data. This is parameter estimation, not derivation from first principles, so the resulting posteriors are not circular predictions. The BBN mapping from (xi_nu, delta_Neff) to (Y_P, D/H) is imported from the authors' companion paper [26], but that work performs neutrino decoupling and BBN calculations with publicly available codes (FortEPiaNO, PRIMAT) and uses only BOSS BAO data, not the EMPRESS/DESI/SH0ES values that drive the conclusions here; thus the self-citation is load-bearing but independent in the relevant sense. The claimed reduction of the Hubble tension to 2.2 sigma is a derived posterior H0 value compared with SH0ES, not an input to the fit. The authors explicitly report that replacing EMPRESS with the PDG helium abundance removes the preference for nonzero xi_nu and delta_Neff; this shows data-dependence and fragility, but not circularity. No equation in the paper defines a fitted parameter in terms of the target observable or renames a fit as a prediction. The model-comparison results are reported graphically, which is a presentation limitation, not a circularity concern.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two fitted new-physics parameters (xi_nu and delta_Neff) plus the standard sum of neutrino masses. The main axioms are the correctness of the EMPRESS helium measurement and the choice of PRIMAT nuclear rates. No new particles or forces are introduced; the delta_Neff is parameterized as extra radiation without specifying its physical origin.

free parameters (3)
  • xi_nu (primordial neutrino degeneracy) = 0.056 +/- 0.017 (PRIMAT, with DESI BAO)
    Free parameter in the model, fit to BBN (EMPRESS) and CMB/BAO data. This is the central new physics parameter.
  • delta_Neff (extra radiation contribution) = 0.41 +/- 0.16 (PRIMAT, with DESI BAO)
    Additional radiation contribution, fit to DESI BAO and BBN; the paper admits in footnote [72] that it cannot be fully explained by xi_nu under flavor equilibration.
  • sum_m_nu (sum of neutrino masses) = 0.16 eV (upper bound, PRIMAT with DESI BAO)
    Free neutrino mass sum in the model, constrained by CMB and BAO data. Its value is not the focus but part of the fit.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Flavor equilibration of neutrino asymmetries, xi_nu_e = xi_nu_mu = xi_nu_tau = xi_nu.
    Invoked in Equation (2) and the text. Footnote [72] acknowledges that the required positive delta_Neff cannot be fully explained by this assumption.
  • domain assumption The EMPRESS measurement of the primordial helium abundance is correct.
    This is the key data input that drives the preference for non-zero xi_nu and delta_Neff. The Summary states that using the PDG value removes the preference.
  • domain assumption The PRIMAT driven BBN nuclear rates are the correct choice.
    The headline constraints use PRIMAT; the NACRE II approach gives a much weaker delta_Neff preference (1.2 sigma).
  • standard math Standard LambdaCDM cosmology with massive neutrinos as the background.
    The analysis assumes the standard Friedmann expansion, standard neutrino decoupling, and standard BBN physics, with the two added parameters.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutrinophilic $\mathbf{\Lambda}$CDM Extension for EMPRESS, DESI and Hubble Tension." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BQZWOLIC

@misc{pith2026250113153,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutrinophilic $\mathbf\Lambda$CDM Extension for EMPRESS, DESI and Hubble Tension},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BQZWOLIC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13153}
}
abstract

A number of recent cosmological observations have indicated the presence of new physics beyond the $\mathbf{\Lambda}$CDM model. Combining observations from EMPRESS on helium abundance and DESI on baryon acoustic oscillations with Hubble tension, we show that all of them can be explained concurrently with a extension of the $\mathbf{\Lambda}$CDM model with primordial neutrino asymmetry $\xi_{\nu}$ and additional contribution to the effective number of neutrinos $\delta N_{\rm eff}$. Based on the accurate treatments of neutrino decoupling and BBN processes, we present state-of-the-art constraints on neutrino asymmetry for the fixed or varying $N_{\rm eff}$. Comparing different extensions of the $\mathbf{\Lambda}$CDM model, we show that the neutrinophilic $\mathbf{\Lambda}$CDM extension with $\xi_{\nu} = 0.056 \pm 0.017 $ and $\delta N_{\rm eff} = 0.41 \pm 0.16$ is preferred by current observations, while the Hubble tension in this model is also alleviated to be $2.2 \sigma$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13153 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Marginalized posterior distributions of the baryon abundance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Values of two information criteria, ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. A summary of the Hubble tension obtained from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Neutrino-Induced Polarization Rotation in Active Galactic Nuclei Plasmas

    hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Neutrino-induced polarization rotation in AGN plasmas is computed and found to produce a frequency scaling distinct from Faraday rotation, but with angles far below current polarimetric sensitivity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [26]

    Li and J.-H

    Y.-Z. Li and J.-H. Yu, (2024), arXiv:2409.08280 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Aghanim et al

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

    arXiv 2020

  3. [2]

    Aiola et al

    S. Aiola et al. (ACT), JCAP 12, 047 (2020), arXiv:2007.07288 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [3]

    M. S. Madhavacheril et al. (ACT), Astrophys. J. 962, 113 (2024), arXiv:2304.05203 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [4]

    Dutcher et al

    D. Dutcher et al. (SPT-3G), Phys. Rev. D 104, 022003 (2021), arXiv:2101.01684 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  6. [5]

    Baumann, D

    D. Baumann, D. Green, J. Meyers, and B. Wallisch, JCAP 01, 007 (2016), arXiv:1508.06342 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2016

  7. [6]

    Komatsu, Nature Rev

    E. Komatsu, Nature Rev. Phys. 4, 452 (2022), arXiv:2202.13919 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  8. [7]

    C. L. Chang et al., (2022), arXiv:2203.07638 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 84 references
  1. [8]

    Alam et al

    S. Alam et al. (eBOSS), Phys. Rev. D 103, 083533 (2021), arXiv:2007.08991 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [9]

    A. G. Riess et al., Astrophys. J. 826, 56 (2016), arXiv:1604.01424 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  3. [10]

    A. G. Riess et al., Astrophys. J. 855, 136 (2018), arXiv:1801.01120 [astro-ph.SR]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [11]

    D. W. Pesce et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 891, L1 (2020), arXiv:2001.09213 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [12]

    A. G. Riess et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 934, L7 (2022), arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Specifically, the SH0ES Cepheid-based distance ladder gives H0 = 73.04 ± 1.04 km s−1Mpc−1 [12], while Planck reports H0 = 67 .36 ± 0.54 km s−1Mpc−1 based on the 6 ΛCDM model [1]

  7. [14]

    Verde, T

    L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess, Nature Astron. 3, 891 (2019), arXiv:1907.10625 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Di Valentino et al., Astropart

    E. Di Valentino et al., Astropart. Phys. 131, 102605 (2021), arXiv:2008.11284 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Di Valentino, O

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess, and J. Silk, Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 153001 (2021), arXiv:2103.01183 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Kamionkowski and A

    M. Kamionkowski and A. G. Riess, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 73, 153 (2023), arXiv:2211.04492 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [18]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), (2024), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Scolnic et al., Astrophys

    D. Scolnic et al., Astrophys. J. 938, 113 (2022), arXiv:2112.03863 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [20]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. (Abbott, DES: T. M. C, DES), Astrophys. J. Lett. 973, L14 (2024), arXiv:2401.02929 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Matsumoto et al., Astrophys

    A. Matsumoto et al., Astrophys. J. 941, 167 (2022), arXiv:2203.09617 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Pitrou, A

    C. Pitrou, A. Coc, J.-P. Uzan, and E. Vangioni, Phys. Rept. 754, 1 (2018), arXiv:1801.08023 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Burns, T

    A.-K. Burns, T. M. P. Tait, and M. Valli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 131001 (2023), arXiv:2206.00693 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Escudero, A

    M. Escudero, A. Ibarra, and V. Maura, Phys. Rev. D 107, 035024 (2023), arXiv:2208.03201 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Froustey and C

    J. Froustey and C. Pitrou, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103551 (2024), arXiv:2405.06509 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Beutler, C

    F. Beutler, C. Blake, M. Colless, D. H. Jones, L. Staveley- Smith, L. Campbell, Q. Parker, W. Saunders, and F. Watson, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 416, 3017 (2011), arXiv:1106.3366 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  20. [28]

    A. J. Ross, L. Samushia, C. Howlett, W. J. Percival, A. Burden, and M. Manera, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 449, 835 (2015), arXiv:1409.3242 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Alam et al

    S. Alam et al. (BOSS), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 470, 2617 (2017), arXiv:1607.03155 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    For sufficient large ξνα , the total lepton asymmetry is also dominated by the neutrino asymmetry, ηL ≃ ην , due to the electric charge neutrality of the early universe

  23. [31]

    V. A. Kuzmin, V. A. Rubakov, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B 155, 36 (1985)

    1985

  24. [32]

    S. Y. Khlebnikov and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Nucl. Phys. B 308, 885 (1988)

    1988

  25. [33]

    J. A. Harvey and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 42, 3344 (1990)

    1990

  26. [34]

    H. K. Dreiner and G. G. Ross, Nucl. Phys. B 410, 188 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9207221

    1993 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Casas, W

    A. Casas, W. Y. Cheng, and G. Gelmini, Nucl. Phys. B 538, 297 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9709289

    1999 arXiv

  28. [36]

    A. D. Dolgov and D. P. Kirilova, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 51, 172 (1990)

    1990

  29. [37]

    B. Bajc, A. Riotto, and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1355 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9710415

    1998 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Asaka and M

    T. Asaka and M. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B 620, 17 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0505013

    2005 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Asaka, S

    T. Asaka, S. Blanchet, and M. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B 631, 151 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0503065

    2005 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Pilaftsis and T

    A. Pilaftsis and T. E. J. Underwood, Nucl. Phys. B 692, 303 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0309342

    2004 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Borah and A

    D. Borah and A. Dasgupta, Phys. Rev. D 108, 035015 (2023), arXiv:2206.14722 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Kawasaki, F

    M. Kawasaki, F. Takahashi, and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D 66, 043516 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0205101

    2002 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Kawasaki and K

    M. Kawasaki and K. Murai, JCAP 08, 041 (2022), arXiv:2203.09713 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Froustey, C

    J. Froustey, C. Pitrou, and M. C. Volpe, JCAP 12, 015 (2020), arXiv:2008.01074 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  37. [45]

    J. J. Bennett, G. Buldgen, P. F. De Salas, M. Drewes, S. Gariazzo, S. Pastor, and Y. Y. Y. Wong, JCAP 04, 073 (2021), arXiv:2012.02726 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Akita and M

    K. Akita and M. Yamaguchi, JCAP 08, 012 (2020), arXiv:2005.07047 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [47]

    However, this effect is nearly negligible compared to the impact of neutrino masses

    Additionally, the free-streaming effect of massive neutri- nos is alo enhanced due to the increased neutrino mo- mentum from the PNA, resulting in greater suppression of the matter power spectrum at small scales. However, this effect is nearly negligible compared to the impact...

  40. [48]

    R. L. Workman and Others (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A8 (2020), arXiv:1807.06210 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A5 (2020), arXiv:1907.12875 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  43. [51]

    The constraints on these ratios at different redshifts are detailed in Tab

    DM (z) is defined as DM (z) = c H0 √ Ωk sinh h√Ωk R z 0 dz′ H(z′)/H0 i , and DH (z) is de- fined as DH (z) = c/H(z). The constraints on these ratios at different redshifts are detailed in Tab. 1 of [18]

  44. [52]

    Audren, J

    B. Audren, J. Lesgourgues, K. Benabed, and S. Prunet, JCAP 02, 001 (2013), arXiv:1210.7183 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Brinckmann and J

    T. Brinckmann and J. Lesgourgues, Phys. Dark Univ. 24, 100260 (2019), arXiv:1804.07261 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Lesgourgues, (2011), arXiv:1104.2932 [astro-ph.IM]

    J. Lesgourgues, (2011), arXiv:1104.2932 [astro-ph.IM]

    2011 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Lesgourgues and T

    J. Lesgourgues and T. Tram, JCAP 09, 032 (2011), arXiv:1104.2935 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Descouvemont, A

    P. Descouvemont, A. Adahchour, C. Angulo, A. Coc, and E. Vangioni-Flam, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 88, 203 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0407101

    2004 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Iliadis, K

    C. Iliadis, K. Anderson, A. Coc, F. Timmes, and S. Star- rfield, Astrophys. J. 831, 107 (2016), arXiv:1608.05853 [astro-ph.SR]

    2016 arXiv

  50. [58]

    I˜ nesta G´ omez, C

    A. I˜ nesta G´ omez, C. Iliadis, and A. Coc, Astrophys. J. 849, 134 (2017), arXiv:1710.01647 [astro-ph.IM]

    2017 arXiv

  51. [59]

    R. S. de Souza, C. Iliadis, and A. Coc, Astrophys. J. 872, 75 (2019), arXiv:1809.06966 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  52. [60]

    R. S. de Souza, S. R. Boston, A. Coc, and C. Iliadis, Phys. Rev. C 99, 014619 (2019), arXiv:1901.04857 [nucl- th]

    2019 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Moscoso, R

    J. Moscoso, R. S. de Souza, A. Coc, and C. Iliadis, Astro- phys. J. 923, 49 (2021), arXiv:2109.00049 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Pitrou, A

    C. Pitrou, A. Coc, J.-P. Uzan, and E. Van- gioni, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 502, 2474 (2021), arXiv:2011.11320 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Pitrou, A

    C. Pitrou, A. Coc, J.-P. Uzan, and E. Vangioni, Na- ture Rev. Phys. 3, 231 (2021), arXiv:2104.11148 [astro- ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Y. Xu, K. Takahashi, S. Goriely, M. Arnould, M. Ohta, and H. Utsunomiya, Nucl. Phys. A 918, 61 (2013), arXiv:1310.7099 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Mossa et al., Nature 587, 210 (2020)

    V. Mossa et al., Nature 587, 210 (2020)

    2020

  58. [66]

    B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive, T.-H. Yeh, and C. Young, JCAP 03, 010 (2020), [Erratum: JCAP 11, E02 (2020)], arXiv:1912.01132 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Lewis, (2019), arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]

    A. Lewis, (2019), arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]. 7

    2019 arXiv

  60. [68]

    A. R. Liddle, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 377, L74 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0701113

    2007 arXiv

  61. [69]

    DIC is defined DIC ≡< χ2 > +pD, where pD is the effective number of parameters estimated from the pos- terior variance of the deviance, such that pD ≡< χ2 > −χ2(< θ >)

  62. [70]

    Grandis, D

    S. Grandis, D. Rapetti, A. Saro, J. J. Mohr, and J. P. Dietrich, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 463, 1416 (2016), arXiv:1604.06463 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Compared to the results obtained in [24] with the PRI- MAT approach, our analysis gives an almost identical central value with a slight reduction of the uncertainty for ξν , while the preference for positive δNeff is more sig- nificant in our analysis

  64. [72]

    It is worth noting that the required positive δNeff cannot be fully explained by the contribution of ξν under the assumption of flavor equilibration ( ξνe = ξνµ = ξντ = ξν ). However, it may be interpreted as the result of a large neutrino asymmetry in the muon-tau sector in t...

  65. [73]

    For the NACRE II-driven approach, the ∆ DIC criterion shows a less preference of the ΛCDM + P mν + ξν + δNeff model than the ω0ωaCDM model, which is mainly caused by the fact that ∆ DIC criterion particularly fa- vors models with much less parameters

  66. [74]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES), Phys. Rev. D 105, 023520 (2022), arXiv:2105.13549 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Di Valentino et al., Astropart

    E. Di Valentino et al., Astropart. Phys. 131, 102604 (2021), arXiv:2008.11285 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Di Valentino and S

    E. Di Valentino and S. Bridle, Symmetry 10, 585 (2018)

    2018

  69. [77]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. (Kilo-Degree Survey, DES), Open J. Astrophys. 6, 2305.17173 (2023), arXiv:2305.17173 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Tr¨ osteret al., Astron

    T. Tr¨ osteret al., Astron. Astrophys. 633, L10 (2020), arXiv:1909.11006 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Heymans et al., Astron

    C. Heymans et al., Astron. Astrophys. 646, A140 (2021), arXiv:2007.15632 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Dalal et al., Phys

    R. Dalal et al., Phys. Rev. D 108, 123519 (2023), arXiv:2304.00701 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Kim et al., JCAP 12, 022 (2024), arXiv:2407.04606 [astro-ph.CO]

    J. Kim et al., JCAP 12, 022 (2024), arXiv:2407.04606 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Faga et al

    L. Faga et al. (DES), (2024), arXiv:2406.12675 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Amon et al

    A. Amon et al. (DES), Phys. Rev. D 105, 023514 (2022), arXiv:2105.13543 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022

  76. [84]

    Gariazzo, P

    S. Gariazzo, P. F. de Salas, and S. Pastor, JCAP 07, 014 (2019), arXiv:1905.11290 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.