Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Bounds on Velocity-Dependent Dark Matter-Baryon Scattering from Large-Scale Structure

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Combined CMB, galaxy clustering, and weak lensing data favor dark matter that scatters off protons at the roughly 2-sigma level.

desk verdict Careful, first full-shape BOSS EFT analysis for velocity-dependent DM-baryon scattering; the n=0 preference is a well-flagged but prior-dependent result that needs a full DES-Y3 check before it carries weight. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02636 v2 pith:FQ2HSVZD submitted 2025-02-04 astro-ph.CO

Adam He , Mikhail M. Ivanov , Rui An , Trey Driskell , Vera Gluscevic This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO PACS 95.35.+d98.80.-k
keywords darkmatter-baryonscatteringinteractingmattereffectivefieldtheoryoflarge-scalestructureBOSSfull-shapegalaxyclusteringS8tensionPlanckCMBcosmicshearpriorvelocity-dependentcrosssection
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 the standard picture of collisionless cold dark matter may be incomplete: when Planck CMB, BOSS galaxy clustering, and DES weak lensing are analyzed together, a model where dark matter elastically scatters off protons with a velocity-independent cross section is preferred over CDM at the $\gtrsim2\sigma$ level. The preferred cross section is around $\sim 1.5\times 10^{-26}\,\mathrm{cm}^2$ when all dark matter interacts, and a similar preference appears when only 10% of dark matter interacts. This matters because the model suppresses small-scale structure and lowers the $S_8$ tension between Planck and DES from about $2.6\sigma$ to about $1.5\sigma$, without worsening the Hubble tension. Adding BOSS full-shape data alone does not change the Planck-only bounds on the interaction cross section; the preference emerges only after DES weak lensing information is included as a prior on $S_8$.

What carries the argument

The engine is the effective field theory of large-scale structure applied to a Boltzmann solver modified to include dark-matter-baryon momentum transfer. The scattering rate is set by a power-law cross section $\sigma = \sigma_0 v^n$, with the index $n$ encoding the velocity dependence; for a given $n$, the linear matter power spectrum acquires a scale-dependent suppression at small scales. The EFT then supplies the one-loop nonlinear matter and galaxy power spectra needed to interpret BOSS clustering, with galaxy bias and counterterms treated as nuisance parameters. Because the dark-matter-baryon scattering in these models acts mainly before recombination, late-time dynamics can be treated as CDM-like with an altered initial spectrum, and the paper adds a regularization for infrared resummation when the spectrum is steeply suppressed.

What would settle it

Re-run the joint Planck+BOSS analysis replacing the DES $S_8$ prior with the full DES-Y3 likelihood and its correlations; if the preference for nonzero $\sigma_0$ falls below roughly $2\sigma$ or disappears, the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a velocity-independent elastic scattering between dark matter and protons, with a momentum-transfer cross section around $\sigma_0 \approx 1.47\times 10^{-26}\,\mathrm{cm}^2$ (95% lower bound $0.234\times 10^{-26}\,\mathrm{cm}^2$) when all dark matter interacts, improves the joint fit to Planck CMB, BOSS galaxy clustering, and DES weak lensing data relative to collisionless CDM. The improvement corresponds to $\Delta\chi^2_{\rm min} = -6.02$ for the $n=0$ model, and the $S_8$ tension between Planck and DES drops from $2.59\sigma$ in $\Lambda$CDM to $1.47\sigma$ in the interacting model. The paper also shows that adding BOSS full-shape data alone does not tighten the 95% confidence intervals on the cross section obtained from Planck alone; the preference appears once the DES-Y3 weak lensing constraint is included. Fractional scenarios in which 10% of dark matter interacts with protons show a similar $\gtrsim2\sigma$ preference for $n=0$ and $n=2$ models.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that compressing DES-Y3 lensing into a Gaussian prior on $S_8$ is equivalent to using the full DES likelihood for these interacting-dark-matter models, so that if $S_8$ is not as model-independent for IDM as it is for CDM, warm dark matter, and early dark energy, the apparent $2\sigma$ preference for scattering could be an artifact of the prior.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, collisionless CDM is disfavored at roughly $2\sigma$ by the combined data, meaning the concordance model would need to include dark-matter-proton scattering.
  • The $S_8$ tension between Planck and DES is reduced from $2.59\sigma$ to $1.47\sigma$ in the $n=0$, $f_\chi=100\%$ model, a quantitative resolution of one cosmological tension.
  • Adding BOSS full-shape data does not tighten the 95% upper limits on the cross section from Planck alone, which means the constraining power of current galaxy-clustering likelihoods on these models is limited.
  • Fractional interacting dark matter with 10% of DM scattering and $n=0$ or $n=2$ is compatible with Milky Way satellite counts while still improving the fit, so the model survives small-scale structure constraints that exclude the all-DM case.
  • Because $H_0$ is unchanged in these models, resolving $S_8$ with scattering does not worsen the Hubble tension, unlike many other proposed $S_8$ solutions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implicit prediction is that the linear power-spectrum suppression is frozen in before recombination, so any late-time probe that measures the matter spectrum at two different redshifts should see the same transfer-function shape; a redshift-dependent cutoff would contradict the model's mechanism.
  • If the S8-prior equivalence were replaced by the full DES-Y3 likelihood and the preference vanished, the current $2\sigma$ signal would be exposed as a prior-driven artifact rather than evidence for scattering.
  • The benchmark masses used in the paper (1 MeV, 1 GeV, 10 GeV) bracket parameter space that future sub-GeV direct-detection experiments and cosmological small-scale surveys could test simultaneously, giving a concrete target for experimental design.
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 constrains dark matter-proton elastic scattering with a velocity-dependent momentum-transfer cross section sigma = sigma_0 v^n using modified CLASS and CLASS-PT, Planck 2018 CMB data, BOSS DR12 full-shape galaxy clustering, and a Gaussian prior on S8 from DES-Y3. It explores n = -4, -2, 0, 2, 4 for 100% interacting DM and n = -2, 0, 2, 4 for a 10% interacting fraction. The main findings are that BOSS full-shape data do not significantly change the Planck-only bounds on sigma_0, that the n=0 model with the DES S8 prior yields a >2 sigma preference for non-zero sigma_0 (marginalized maximum sigma_0 = 1.47e-26 cm^2, 95% lower bound 0.234e-26 cm^2), and that this model reduces the Planck-DES S8 tension from 2.59 sigma in LCDM to 1.47 sigma (Table 4).

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides the first EFT-of-LSS analysis of velocity-dependent DM-baryon scattering and offers concrete evidence that a scale-dependent suppression of the linear matter power spectrum at k approximately greater than 0.1 h/Mpc may be preferred by current CMB, galaxy clustering, and weak lensing data. The analysis is built on validated public tools (modified CLASS, CLASS-PT, MontePython), publicly available likelihoods, full posterior tables, and explicit discussion of limitations, including the approximate treatment of the n=-2, f_chi=10% case. The main result, however, rests on the substitution of the full DES-Y3 likelihood by an S8 prior, an equivalence that is not validated for IDM's scale-dependent power suppression; consequently the headline preference is conditional on that untested step.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3] The statement 'Imposing a prior on S8 is equivalent to adding the complete DES-Y3 dataset to our analysis' is load-bearing, because without the prior the Planck+BOSS analysis shows no preference for interactions and the n=0 posterior actually broadens (Table 2). The equivalence requires that the DES-Y3 likelihood be sensitive to cosmology only through S8. For n=0, f_chi=100%, IDM produces a scale-dependent suppression of P(k) beginning around k approximately greater than 0.1 h/Mpc (Fig. 1), which changes the shape of the lensing kernel over the k-range that DES probes, not just its amplitude. The cited robustness examples (LCDM, WDM, EDE) do not have this feature, and the paper itself defers the full DES-Y3 likelihood to future work. The >2 sigma preference (Table 1, Delta-chi^2 = -6.02 for Planck+BOSS+DES) could therefore be a prior artifact rather than evidence for scattering; please validate the S8 sufficiency for IDM or replace the prior with the full DES-Y3 likelihood.
  2. [Section 4.1 and Table 3] The reported 'preference' is conditional on fixed parameters. In all runs m_chi is fixed (1 MeV for f_chi=100%; 1 MeV, 1 GeV, 10 GeV for f_chi=10%) and f_chi is fixed to 100% or 10%, so the marginalized preference is not marginalized over the interaction parameters of the model. Because the sigma_0 bounds scale with m_chi and the S8 shift depends on f_chi, a full parameter scan and model comparison (for example, Bayesian evidence over f_chi and m_chi) is needed to support the abstract's claim of a >2 sigma preference for non-zero interactions in a velocity-independent model. The authors acknowledge this at the end of Section 5, but this limitation directly qualifies the central claim and should be reflected in the presentation of the result.
  3. [Appendix G] The regularisation that replaces P(k) with an analytic power law when the spectral index N < -4 is asserted to 'not bias' the predicted galaxy power spectrum, but no quantitative validation is shown. Figure 38 only displays pre- and post-regularisation spectra; it does not demonstrate that the BAO wiggles or the predicted P_gg multipoles at BOSS scales (k <= 0.2 h/Mpc) are unaffected for the n >= -2, f_chi=100% models. Since the BOSS data visibly change the n=0 posterior (Table 2), this unchecked approximation could affect the very model for which the >2 sigma preference is claimed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2 and Table 4] The text says the S8 tension is reduced by 40% in the n=0 case, while the Table 4 caption says '~50% lower'; the actual reduction from 2.59 sigma to 1.47 sigma is 43%. Please make these statements consistent.
  2. [Table 6] In the n=-2, f_chi=100%, Planck+BOSS+DES block, the S8 row reports 95% lower/upper values '0.764 / 0.7967', which appear to be the sigma_8 entries; please check the alignment of the 95% bounds.
  3. [Eq. (2.2)] The normalization factor c_n in Eq. (2.2) is garbled in the typeset formula; please rewrite it unambiguously.
  4. [Figure 7 caption] The caption says the cross section is at its '5-sigma limit from BOSS', but the text elsewhere uses 95% CL upper limits; please clarify which quantity is shown.
  5. [Appendix A and Table 3] For the n=-2, f_chi=10% model, the paper explicitly states that the EFT is not valid below z approximately 8 and that the results are approximate, yet Table 3 reports Delta-chi^2 values for this model without an 'approximate' marker; please add a note in the table caption or mark those entries.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: sigma_0 is a free parameter constrained by external data, and the S8 prior is an independent observable, not a derived prediction.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical parameter-constraint analysis. The interaction cross-section amplitude sigma_0 enters the modified Boltzmann equations (Eqs. 2.2 and 2.3) as a free parameter and is constrained by Planck, BOSS, and DES data; no reported observable is defined in terms of sigma_0 and then re-labeled as a prediction. The central '2-sigma preference' arises only after adding the DES S8 prior of 0.776 +/- 0.017 (Section 3), and the paper explicitly quantifies the joint-fit improvement (Delta chi^2_min = -6.02 for n=0, Table 1). The claim that imposing a prior on S8 is equivalent to adding the full DES-Y3 likelihood is an explicit model-independence assumption, not a definitional reduction: it is a stated premise that may fail for IDM's scale-dependent power suppression, but a potentially incorrect assumption is a correctness risk, not circularity. Without the DES prior, Planck+BOSS shows no preference (Table 2), confirming that the signal is driven by an external measurement rather than by the model's own construction. Self-citations to reference [30] are used for benchmark choices (f_chi = 10%) and to note consistency with earlier findings, but the present constraints are computed with the current likelihoods and do not reduce to [30]; the fixed-mass and fixed-fraction choices are presented as model-selection simplifications, not as derived results. The n=-2, f_chi=10% case is explicitly marked as approximate in Appendix A because it alters growth to z~8, which is an acknowledged validity limitation, not a circular step. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external data with no load-bearing self-citation or input-output equivalence.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the modified CLASS implementation, the EFT assumption that late-time clustering can be computed from the altered linear spectrum, and the replacement of DES-Y3 with an S8 prior. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The main free parameter is sigma_0, with m_chi and f_chi fixed by hand, and the S8 prior treated as an external input rather than a fitted parameter.

free parameters (4)
  • sigma_0 (momentum-transfer cross-section coefficient) = n=0, f_chi=100%, Planck+BOSS+DES: 1.47e-26 cm^2 (marginalized max); 95% upper 2.664e-26 cm^2
    Main parameter of interest; fitted separately for each n, dataset, mass, and f_chi. The 2-sigma preference claim is a statement about its posterior excluding zero.
  • m_chi (DM particle mass) = Fixed to 1 MeV for f_chi=100%; 1 MeV, 1 GeV, 10 GeV for f_chi=10%
    Chosen by hand, not sampled. Authors justify via direct detection and Neff constraints and claim results are qualitatively unchanged, but no full marginalization is performed.
  • f_chi (interacting DM fraction) = 100% or 10%
    Chosen by hand, with 10% following [30]. Full model selection with free f_chi and m_chi is deferred to future work.
  • EFT nuisance parameters (b1, b2, bG2, c_s^2, Pshot) = Posterior values in Appendix E, similar to LCDM
    Marginalized nuisance parameters in the CLASS-PT full-shape likelihood.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The modified CLASS code from Refs. [10,12] correctly solves the linear cosmological perturbations with DM-baryon scattering rate R_chi given by Eq. 2.2.
    Section 2.1 relies entirely on this code for linear spectra; no independent validation is included in this paper.
  • domain assumption Standard CLASS-PT is valid for IDM because DM-baryon interactions only modify the linear spectrum at z > 1000, and non-linear effects are negligible at those redshifts.
    Section 2.2 argues this; Appendix A verifies it for f_chi=100% and for fractional n=0,2,4, but not for n=-2, f_chi=10%, which the authors mark approximate.
  • domain assumption A Gaussian prior on S8 = 0.776 +/- 0.017 from DES-Y3 is equivalent to the full DES-Y3 weak lensing likelihood for these IDM models.
    Section 3: 'Imposing a prior on S8 is equivalent to adding the complete DES-Y3 dataset to our analysis.' The main 2-sigma preference is driven by this prior.
  • domain assumption Relative-velocity terms in galaxy bias can be neglected for low-redshift BOSS galaxies.
    Section 2.2 states this effect is suppressed for low redshift galaxies and ignores it.
  • ad hoc to paper The IR resummation regularization, which replaces P(k) with a power law when the spectral index N < -4, does not bias the predicted galaxy power spectrum for n >= -2, f_chi=100%.
    Appendix G introduces this modification to CLASS-PT; no validation against N-body or alternative resummation is shown.
  • domain assumption Helium can be ignored in the DM-baryon scattering equations.
    Footnote 1 argues minimal impact following Ref. [12].
  • domain assumption Neutrino masses are fixed to two massless species plus one 0.06 eV massive species.
    Section 3 follows the Planck convention; not varied in the analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bounds on Velocity-Dependent Dark Matter-Baryon Scattering from Large-Scale Structure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FQ2HSVZD

@misc{pith2026250202636,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bounds on Velocity-Dependent Dark Matter-Baryon Scattering from Large-Scale Structure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FQ2HSVZD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02636}
}
abstract

We explore interacting dark matter (DM) models that allow DM and baryons to scatter off of each other with a cross section that scales with relative particle velocity. Using the effective field theory of large-scale structure, we perform the first analysis of BOSS full-shape galaxy clustering data for velocity-dependent DM-baryon interactions. We determine that while the addition of BOSS full-shape data visibly modifies the shape of the posterior distribution, it does not significantly alter the 95% confidence level intervals for the interaction cross section obtained from an analysis of the cosmic microwave (CMB) anisotropy from Planck measurements alone. Moreover, in agreement with previous findings, we note that the DM-baryon interacting model presents a good fit to both large-scale structure (LSS) data and CMB data and alleviates the $S_8$ tension between the two data sets. After combining LSS and CMB data with weak lensing data from the Dark Energy Survey, we find a $\gtrsim2\sigma$ preference for non-zero interactions between DM and baryons in a velocity-independent model. We also explore a scenario where only a fraction of DM undergoes scattering with baryons; we find a similar $\gtrsim2\sigma$ preference for the presence of interactions. Our results suggest that a suppression of the linear matter power spectrum at small scales may be needed to resolve certain discrepancies between LSS and CMB data that are found in the cold DM (CDM) scenario.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Constraining Dynamical Dark Energy from Galaxy Clustering with Simulation-Based Priors

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Adding BOSS galaxy clustering with simulation-based priors modeled as Gaussian mixtures shifts the DESI plus CMB plus supernova constraints on dark energy toward a cosmological constant and improves the w0-wa figure o...

  2. Dark Secrets of Baryons: Illuminating Dark Matter-Baryon Interactions with JWST

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    JWST ultraviolet luminosity function data currently provide the strongest upper limits on velocity-dependent (∝v^{-2}) dark matter–proton scattering for sub-GeV dark matter.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [30]

    A. He, M.M. Ivanov, R. An and V. Gluscevic,S8 tension in the context of dark matter–baryon scattering,The Astrophysical Journal Letters954(2023) L8

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Abdalla, G.F

    E. Abdalla, G.F. Abell´ an, A. Aboubrahim, A. Agnello, ¨Ozg¨ ur Akarsu, Y. Akrami et al., Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies,Journal of High Energy Astrophysics34(2022) 49

    2022

  3. [2]

    Bernal, L

    J.L. Bernal, L. Verde and A.G. Riess,The trouble withH 0,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2016(2016) 019

    2016

  4. [3]

    Di Valentino, L.A

    E. Di Valentino, L.A. Anchordoqui, ¨Ozg¨ ur Akarsu, Y. Ali-Haimoud, L. Amendola, N. Arendse et al.,Cosmology intertwined iii: fσ 8 and s8,Astroparticle Physics131(2021) 102604

    2021

  5. [4]

    Valentino, L.A

    E.D. Valentino, L.A. Anchordoqui, ¨Ozg¨ ur Akarsu, Y. Ali-Haimoud, L. Amendola, N. Arendse et al.,Snowmass2021 - letter of interest cosmology intertwined II: The hubble constant tension, Astroparticle Physics131(2021) 102605

    2021

  6. [5]

    Cushman, C

    P. Cushman, C. Galbiati, D.N. McKinsey, H. Robertson, T.M.P. Tait, D. Bauer et al., Snowmass cf1 summary: Wimp dark matter direct detection, 2013. 10.48550/ARXIV.1310.8327

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1310.8327 2013

  7. [6]

    Battaglieri, A

    M. Battaglieri, A. Belloni, A. Chou, P. Cushman, B. Echenard, R. Essig et al.,Us cosmic visions: New ideas in dark matter 2017: Community report, 2017

    2017

  8. [7]

    Akerib, P.B

    D.S. Akerib, P.B. Cushman, C.E. Dahl, R. Ebadi, A. Fan, R.J. Gaitskell et al.,Snowmass2021 cosmic frontier dark matter direct detection to the neutrino fog, 2022

    2022

Show all 88 references
  1. [8]

    Sigurdson, M

    K. Sigurdson, M. Doran, A. Kurylov, R.R. Caldwell and M. Kamionkowski,Dark-matter electric and magnetic dipole moments,Phys. Rev. D70(2004) 083501

    2004

  2. [9]

    Dvorkin, K

    C. Dvorkin, K. Blum and M. Kamionkowski,Constraining dark matter-baryon scattering with linear cosmology,Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 023519

    2014

  3. [10]

    Gluscevic and K.K

    V. Gluscevic and K.K. Boddy,Constraints on scattering of keV–TeV dark matter with protons in the early universe,Physical Review Letters121(2018)

    2018

  4. [11]

    Boddy and V

    K.K. Boddy and V. Gluscevic,First cosmological constraint on the effective theory of dark matter-proton interactions,Physical Review D98(2018)

    2018

  5. [12]

    Boddy, V

    K.K. Boddy, V. Gluscevic, V. Poulin, E.D. Kovetz, M. Kamionkowski and R. Barkana,Critical assessment of cmb limits on dark matter-baryon scattering: New treatment of the relative bulk velocity,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 123506

    2018

  6. [13]

    Boehm and R

    C. Boehm and R. Schaeffer,Constraints on dark matter interactions from structure formation: damping lengths,Astronomy & Astrophysics438(2005) 419

    2005

  7. [14]

    Xu and G.R

    X. Xu and G.R. Farrar,Constraints on gev dark matter interaction with baryons, from a novel dewar experiment, 2021. 10.48550/ARXIV.2112.00707

    2021 doi arXiv

  8. [15]

    Nguyen, D

    D.V. Nguyen, D. Sarnaaik, K.K. Boddy, E.O. Nadler and V. Gluscevic,Observational constraints on dark matter scattering with electrons,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 103521

    2021

  9. [16]

    Maamari, V

    K. Maamari, V. Gluscevic, K.K. Boddy, E.O. Nadler and R.H. Wechsler,Bounds on velocity-dependent dark matter–proton scattering from milky way satellite abundance,The Astrophysical Journal Letters907(2021) L46

    2021

  10. [17]

    Rogers, C

    K.K. Rogers, C. Dvorkin and H.V. Peiris,Limits on the light dark matter–proton cross section from cosmic large-scale structure,Physical Review Letters128(2022)

    2022

  11. [18]

    Becker, D.C

    N. Becker, D.C. Hooper, F. Kahlhoefer, J. Lesgourgues and N. Sch¨ oneberg,Cosmological constraints on multi-interacting dark matter,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021(2021) 019. – 53 –

    2021

  12. [19]

    Nadler, V

    E.O. Nadler, V. Gluscevic, K.K. Boddy and R.H. Wechsler,Constraints on dark matter microphysics from the milky way satellite population,The Astrophysical Journal878(2019) L32

    2019

  13. [20]

    Nadler, A

    E. Nadler, A. Drlica-Wagner, K. Bechtol, S. Mau, R. Wechsler, V. Gluscevic et al.,Constraints on dark matter properties from observations of milky way satellite galaxies,Physical Review Letters126(2021)

    2021

  14. [21]

    Z. Li, R. An, V. Gluscevic, K.K. Boddy, J.R. Bond, E. Calabrese et al.,The atacama cosmology telescope: limits on dark matter-baryon interactions from dr4 power spectra, 2022. 10.48550/ARXIV.2208.08985

    2022 doi arXiv

  15. [22]

    Gluscevic, Y

    V. Gluscevic, Y. Ali-Haimoud, K. Bechtol, K.K. Boddy, C. Boehm, J. Chluba et al., Cosmological probes of dark matter interactions: The next decade, 2019. 10.48550/ARXIV.1903.05140

    2019 doi arXiv

  16. [23]

    Slatyer and C.-L

    T.R. Slatyer and C.-L. Wu,Early-universe constraints on dark matter-baryon scattering and their implications for a global 21 cm signal,Physical Review D98(2018)

    2018

  17. [24]

    Buen-Abad, R

    M.A. Buen-Abad, R. Essig, D. McKeen and Y.-M. Zhong,Cosmological constraints on dark matter interactions with ordinary matter,Physics Reports961(2022) 1

    2022

  18. [25]

    Hooper, N

    D.C. Hooper, N. Sch¨ oneberg, R. Murgia, M. Archidiacono, J. Lesgourgues and M. Viel,One likelihood to bind them all: Lyman-αconstraints on non-standard dark matter,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2022(2022) 032

    2022

  19. [26]

    C. Bœhm, P. Fayet and R. Schaeffer,Constraining dark matter candidates from structure formation,Physics Letters B518(2001) 8

    2001

  20. [27]

    Amon and G

    A. Amon and G. Efstathiou,A non-linear solution to the s8 tension?,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society516(2022) 5355–5366

    2022

  21. [28]

    Poulin, J.L

    V. Poulin, J.L. Bernal, E. Kovetz and M. Kamionkowski,The sigma-8 tension is a drag, 2022. 10.48550/ARXIV.2209.06217

    2022 doi arXiv

  22. [29]

    Rogers, R

    K.K. Rogers, R. Hloˇ zek, A. Lagu¨ e, M.M. Ivanov, O.H.E. Philcox, G. Cabass et al.,Ultra-light axions and the S 8 tension: joint constraints from the cosmic microwave background and galaxy clustering,JCAP06(2023) 023 [2301.08361]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Ghirardini, E

    V. Ghirardini, E. Bulbul, E. Artis, N. Clerc, C. Garrel, S. Grandis et al.,The srg/erosita all-sky survey: Cosmology constraints from cluster abundances in the western galactic hemisphere,Astronomy & Astrophysics689(2024) A298

    2024

  24. [32]

    Abbott, M

    T. Abbott, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, O. Alves, A. Amon, F. Andrade-Oliveira et al.,Des y3 + kids-1000: Consistent cosmology combining cosmic shear surveys,The Open Journal of Astrophysics6(2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    S. Alam, M. Ata, S. Bailey, F. Beutler, D. Bizyaev, J.A. Blazek et al.,The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society470(2017) 2617

    2017

  26. [34]

    Smith, J.A

    R.E. Smith, J.A. Peacock, A. Jenkins, S.D.M. White, C.S. Frenk, F.R. Pearce et al.,Stable clustering, the halo model and non-linear cosmological power spectra,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society341(2003) 1311

    2003

  27. [35]

    Takahashi, M

    R. Takahashi, M. Sato, T. Nishimichi, A. Taruya and M. Oguri,REVISING THE HALOFIT MODEL FOR THE NONLINEAR MATTER POWER SPECTRUM,The Astrophysical Journal761(2012) 152. – 54 –

    2012

  28. [36]

    Baumann, A

    D. Baumann, A. Nicolis, L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga,Cosmological Non-Linearities as an Effective Fluid,JCAP07(2012) 051 [1004.2488]

    2012 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Carrasco, M.P

    J.J.M. Carrasco, M.P. Hertzberg and L. Senatore,The effective field theory of cosmological large scale structures,Journal of High Energy Physics2012(2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Ivanov,Effective Field Theory for Large-Scale Structure, (2023), DOI [2212.08488]

    M.M. Ivanov,Effective Field Theory for Large-Scale Structure, (2023), DOI [2212.08488]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Ivanov, M

    M.M. Ivanov, M. Simonovi´ c and M. Zaldarriaga,Cosmological Parameters from the BOSS Galaxy Power Spectrum,JCAP05(2020) 042 [1909.05277]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    D’Amico, J

    G. D’Amico, J. Gleyzes, N. Kokron, K. Markovic, L. Senatore, P. Zhang et al.,The Cosmological Analysis of the SDSS/BOSS data from the Effective Field Theory of Large-Scale Structure,JCAP05(2020) 005 [1909.05271]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    S.-F. Chen, Z. Vlah and M. White,A new analysis of galaxy 2-point functions in the BOSS survey, including full-shape information and post-reconstruction BAO,JCAP02(2022) 008 [2110.05530]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Lagu¨ e, J

    A. Lagu¨ e, J. Bond, R. Hloˇ z ek, K. Rogers, D. Marsh and D. Grin,Constraining ultralight axions with galaxy surveys,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2022(2022) 049

    2022

  35. [43]

    W.L. Xu, J.B. Mu˜ n oz and C. Dvorkin,Cosmological constraints on light but massive relics, Physical Review D105(2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Nunes, S

    R.C. Nunes, S. Vagnozzi, S. Kumar, E.D. Valentino and O. Mena,New tests of dark sector interactions from the full-shape galaxy power spectrum,Physical Review D105(2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Rubira, A

    H. Rubira, A. Mazoun and M. Garny,Full-shape BOSS constraints on dark matter interacting with dark radiation and lifting the s8 tension,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2023(2023) 034

    2023

  38. [46]

    Rogers, R

    K.K. Rogers, R. Hloˇ zek, A. Lagu¨ e, M.M. Ivanov, O.H.E. Philcox, G. Cabass et al.,Ultra-light axions and thes 8 tension: joint constraints from the cosmic microwave background and galaxy clustering, 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    Mosbech, S

    M.R. Mosbech, S. Casas, J. Lesgourgues, D. Linde, A.M. Dizgah, C. Radermacher et al.,Desi forecast for dark matter-neutrino interactions using eftoflss, 2025

    2025

  40. [48]

    Chabanier, M

    S. Chabanier, M. Millea and N. Palanque-Delabrouille,Matter power spectrum: from lyα forest to CMB scales,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society489(2019) 2247

    2019

  41. [49]

    Ivanov, M.W

    M.M. Ivanov, M.W. Toomey and N.G. Kara¸ caylı,Fundamental physics with the Lyman-alpha forest: constraints on the growth of structure and neutrino masses from SDSS with effective field theory,2405.13208

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    Abbott, M

    T. Abbott, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, S. Allam, O. Alves, A. Amon et al.,Dark energy survey year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing,Physical Review D105(2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    G. Ye, J. Zhang and Y.-S. Piao,Resolving bothh 0 ands 8 tensions with ads early dark energy and ultralight axion, 2021. 10.48550/ARXIV.2107.13391

    2021 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    Tseliakhovich and C

    D. Tseliakhovich and C. Hirata,Relative velocity of dark matter and baryonic fluids and the formation of the first structures,Phys. Rev. D82(2010) 083520

    2010

  45. [53]

    Chudaykin, M.M

    A. Chudaykin, M.M. Ivanov, O.H.E. Philcox and M. Simonovi´ c,Nonlinear perturbation theory extension of the Boltzmann code CLASS,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 063533 [2004.10607]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Chudaykin, M.M

    A. Chudaykin, M.M. Ivanov and M. Simonovi´ c,Optimizing large-scale structure data analysis with the theoretical error likelihood,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 043525 [2009.10724]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Cabass, M.M

    G. Cabass, M.M. Ivanov, M. Lewandowski, M. Mirbabayi and M. Simonovi´ c,Snowmass White Paper: Effective Field Theories in Cosmology, in2022 Snowmass Summer Study, 3, 2022 [2203.08232]. – 55 –

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    D. Blas, M. Garny, M.M. Ivanov and S. Sibiryakov,Time-Sliced Perturbation Theory for Large Scale Structure I: General Formalism,JCAP07(2016) 052 [1512.05807]

    2016 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Schmidt,Effect of relative velocity and density perturbations between baryons and dark matter on the clustering of galaxies,Phys

    F. Schmidt,Effect of relative velocity and density perturbations between baryons and dark matter on the clustering of galaxies,Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 063508 [1602.09059]

    2016 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Aghanim, Y

    N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini et al.,Planck 2018 results,Astronomy & Astrophysics641(2020) A5

    2020

  51. [59]

    Ivanov, M

    M.M. Ivanov, M. Simonovi´ c and M. Zaldarriaga,Cosmological Parameters and Neutrino Masses from the Final Planck and Full-Shape BOSS Data,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 083504 [1912.08208]

    2020 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Chudaykin, K

    A. Chudaykin, K. Dolgikh and M.M. Ivanov,Constraints on the curvature of the Universe and dynamical dark energy from the Full-shape and BAO data,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 023507 [2009.10106]

    2021 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Philcox and M.M

    O.H.E. Philcox and M.M. Ivanov,BOSS DR12 full-shape cosmology:ΛCDM constraints from the large-scale galaxy power spectrum and bispectrum monopole,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 043517 [2112.04515]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Ivanov, O.H.E

    M.M. Ivanov, O.H.E. Philcox, M. Simonovi´ c, M. Zaldarriaga, T. Nischimichi and M. Takada, Cosmological constraints without nonlinear redshift-space distortions,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 043531 [2110.00006]

    2022 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Ivanov, O.H.E

    M.M. Ivanov, O.H.E. Philcox, T. Nishimichi, M. Simonovi´ c, M. Takada and M. Zaldarriaga, Precision analysis of the redshift-space galaxy bispectrum,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 063512 [2110.10161]

    2022 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Philcox, M.M

    O.H.E. Philcox, M.M. Ivanov, M. Simonovi´ c and M. Zaldarriaga,Combining Full-Shape and BAO Analyses of Galaxy Power Spectra: A 1.6\% CMB-independent constraint on H 0,JCAP 05(2020) 032 [2002.04035]

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Abbott, M

    DES Collaboration, T.M.C. Abbott, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, O. Alves, A. Amon et al.,Dark energy survey year 3 results: Constraints on extensions toλcdm with weak lensing and galaxy clustering, 2022. 10.48550/ARXIV.2207.05766

    2022 doi arXiv

  58. [66]

    J.C. Hill, E. McDonough, M.W. Toomey and S. Alexander,Early dark energy does not restore cosmological concordance,Physical Review D102(2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

    Ivanov, E

    M.M. Ivanov, E. McDonough, J.C. Hill, M. Simonovi´ c, M.W. Toomey, S. Alexander et al., Constraining Early Dark Energy with Large-Scale Structure,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 103502 [2006.11235]

    2020 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Ivanov, C

    M.M. Ivanov, C. Cuesta-Lazaro, S. Mishra-Sharma, A. Obuljen and M.W. Toomey,Full-shape analysis with simulation-based priors: Constraints on single field inflation from BOSS,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 063538 [2402.13310]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Ivanov, A

    M.M. Ivanov, A. Obuljen, C. Cuesta-Lazaro and M.W. Toomey,Full-shape analysis with simulation-based priors: cosmological parameters and the structure growth anomaly, 2409.10609

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    Akitsu,Mapping the galaxy-halo connection to the galaxy bias: implication to the HOD-informed prior,2410.08998

    K. Akitsu,Mapping the galaxy-halo connection to the galaxy bias: implication to the HOD-informed prior,2410.08998

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    Ivanov et al.,The Millennium and Astrid galaxies in effective field theory: comparison with galaxy-halo connection models at the field level,2412.01888

    M.M. Ivanov et al.,The Millennium and Astrid galaxies in effective field theory: comparison with galaxy-halo connection models at the field level,2412.01888

    arXiv

  64. [72]

    Chudaykin, M.M

    A. Chudaykin, M.M. Ivanov and T. Nishimichi,On priors and scale cuts in EFT-based full-shape analyses,2410.16358. [73]eBOSScollaboration,Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: – 56 – Cosmological implications from two decades of spectroscopic surve...

    2021

  65. [74]

    Brinckmann and J

    T. Brinckmann and J. Lesgourgues,MontePython 3: boosted MCMC sampler and other features,1804.07261

    arXiv

  66. [75]

    Audren, J

    B. Audren, J. Lesgourgues, K. Benabed and S. Prunet,Conservative Constraints on Early Cosmology: an illustration of the Monte Python cosmological parameter inference code,JCAP 1302(2013) 001 [1210.7183]

    2013 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Lewin and P.F

    J.D. Lewin and P.F. Smith,Review of mathematics, numerical factors, and corrections for dark matter experiments based on elastic nuclear recoil,Astropart. Phys.6(1996) 87

    1996

  68. [77]

    R. An, V. Gluscevic, E. Calabrese and J.C. Hill,What does cosmology tell us about the mass of thermal-relic dark matter?,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2022(2022) 002. [78]Planckcollaboration,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys. 64...

    2022 arXiv

  69. [79]

    W.L. Xu, C. Dvorkin and A. Chael,Probing sub-GeV dark matter-baryon scattering with cosmological observables,Physical Review D97(2018) . [80]SPT-3Gcollaboration,SPT-3G: A Next-Generation Cosmic Microwave Background Polarization Experiment on the South Pole Telescope,Proc. SPIE...

    2018 arXiv

  70. [85]

    Ivanov,Cosmological constraints from the power spectrum of eBOSS emission line galaxies,Phys

    M.M. Ivanov,Cosmological constraints from the power spectrum of eBOSS emission line galaxies,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 103514 [2106.12580]

    2021 arXiv

  71. [86]

    Chudaykin and M.M

    A. Chudaykin and M.M. Ivanov,Cosmological constraints from the power spectrum of eBOSS quasars,2210.17044. [87]DESIcollaboration,DESI 2024 VII: Cosmological Constraints from the Full-Shape Modeling of Clustering Measurements,2411.12022. [88]KiDScollaboration,KiDS-1000 Cosmolog...

    2021 arXiv

  72. [90]

    Chen, M.M

    S.-F. Chen, M.M. Ivanov, O.H.E. Philcox and L. Wenzl,Suppression without Thawing: Constraining Structure Formation and Dark Energy with Galaxy Clustering,Phys. Rev. Lett. 133(2024) 231001 [2406.13388]

    2024 arXiv

  73. [91]

    Fuß and M

    L. Fuß and M. Garny,Decaying Dark Matter and Lyman-αforest constraints,JCAP10(2023) 020 [2210.06117]

    2023 arXiv

  74. [92]

    L. Fuß, M. Garny and A. Ibarra,Minimal decaying dark matter: from cosmological tensions to neutrino signatures,JCAP01(2025) 055 [2403.15543]

    2025 arXiv

  75. [93]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues and T. Tram,The cosmic linear anisotropy solving system (CLASS). part II: Approximation schemes,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2011(2011) 034. – 57 –

    2011

  76. [94]

    Senatore and M

    L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga,The IR-resummed effective field theory of large scale structures,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2015(2015) 013

    2015

  77. [95]

    Baldauf, M

    T. Baldauf, M. Mirbabayi, M. Simonovi´ c and M. Zaldarriaga,Equivalence Principle and the Baryon Acoustic Peak,Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 043514 [1504.04366]

    2015 arXiv

  78. [96]

    D. Blas, M. Garny, M.M. Ivanov and S. Sibiryakov,Time-Sliced Perturbation Theory II: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Infrared Resummation,JCAP07(2016) 028 [1605.02149]

    2016 arXiv

  79. [97]

    Ivanov and S

    M.M. Ivanov and S. Sibiryakov,Infrared Resummation for Biased Tracers in Redshift Space, JCAP07(2018) 053 [1804.05080]

    2018 arXiv

  80. [98]

    Vasudevan, M.M

    A. Vasudevan, M.M. Ivanov, S. Sibiryakov and J. Lesgourgues,Time-sliced perturbation theory with primordial non-Gaussianity and effects of large bulk flows on inflationary oscillating features,JCAP09(2019) 037 [1906.08697]. – 58 –

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.