Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Interacting dark energy constraints from the full-shape analyses of BOSS DR12 and DES Year 3 measurements

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 Dark Scattering survives joint DES and BOSS full-shape constraints and can connect CMB to late-time structure measurements.

desk verdict New DS constraints are solid; the 'solution' claim is a MAP artifact that needs toning down. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03390 v2 pith:2KDHHQOC submitted 2025-02-05 astro-ph.CO

M. Tsedrik , S. Lee , K. Markovic , P. Carrilho , A. Pourtsidou , C. Moretti , B. Bose , E. Huff
show 3 more authors
A. Robertson P. L. Taylor J. Zuntz
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords darkscatteringinteractingenergyS8tensionDESY33x2ptBOSSfull-shapeBAOEFTofLSSnormalisingflowscosmicshear
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that Dark Scattering, an interacting dark energy model with pure momentum exchange between dark energy and dark matter, remains a viable explanation of the S8 tension when tested against current galaxy-survey data. Using DES Y3 3x2pt measurements, BOSS DR12 full-shape plus BAO data, and their joint analysis, it finds no significant detection of Dark Scattering but constraints consistent with the ΛCDM limit. The central result is that combining the two large-scale-structure probes reduces projection effects without needing CMB information, bringing marginalized posterior maxima closer to the best-fit values. The authors argue that Dark Scattering offers a solution that consistently connects early-time CMB measurements of matter fluctuations with late-time LSS measurements, with the ΛCDM tension reduced to about 1.3 sigma against Planck PR4. This matters because forthcoming Stage IV surveys will need to test whether momentum exchange can resolve the apparent disagreement.

What carries the argument

Dark Scattering is the central object: an interacting dark energy model in which dark energy and cold dark matter exchange momentum via elastic scattering, with no energy transfer, leaving the expansion history unchanged. The interaction appears as a drag term in the linearised Euler equation for dark matter, controlled by the combined parameter Ads = (1+w)xi, where w is the dark energy equation of state and xi is the ratio of scattering cross-section to dark matter mass; the S8-relevant regime is Ads > 0 and w > -1, which suppresses linear growth at late times. The analysis machinery combines the halo-model reaction framework for nonlinear structure growth, the EFTofLSS power-spectrum multipoles rescaled by the DS-modified growth factor and growth rate, and normalising flows for combining posterior distributions of independent probes.

What would settle it

Use Dark Scattering N-body simulations to compute the true galaxy power spectrum multipoles at the BOSS scale cuts without the rescaling approximation; if the best-fit S8 and Ads from those simulated spectra differ from the paper's constraints by more than the reported uncertainties, the central claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that joint large-scale-structure data alone can constrain Dark Scattering nearly as well as a single-probe analysis with CMB-informed priors, and that Dark Scattering remains a viable resolution of the S8 tension. The joint DES Y3 + BOSS DR12 analysis yields DS parameters w = -1.04+0.10-0.08 and Ads = -0.2+4.6-5.9 b $GeV^{-1}$, with no significant detection. The authors state that DS offers a solution that can consistently connect early-time measurements of the matter density fluctuations in the CMB with late-time LSS measurements, because the MAP values of the primordial amplitude in the joint analysis agree with Planck PR4 in DS, while in ΛCDM they do not. The combination of probes also brings marginalized posterior maxima closer to the best-fit values, indicating reduced projection effects, and weakens sensitivity to the priors of the EFTofLSS nuisance parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the effect of Dark Scattering on the mildly nonlinear galaxy power spectrum is fully captured by rescaling the standard perturbation-theory components by the DS-modified linear growth factor and growth rate, plus the halo-model reaction framework; if scale-dependent corrections are missed at the adopted scale cuts, the inferred S8 and Ads values will shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If joint LSS data can constrain Dark Scattering without CMB information, Stage IV surveys can test the model without relying on CMB assumptions.
  • The reduced projection effects in the joint analysis make the marginalized constraints more trustworthy guides to the true parameter values.
  • A non-detection of Dark Scattering with current data does not rule it out as the S8-tension resolution, since the MAP values remain consistent with the CMB.
  • The normalising-flow combination survived a stress test on highly non-Gaussian, projected posteriors, making it a viable tool for future joint analyses of extended cosmologies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the paper's rescaling assumption would be to compare EFTofLSS predictions against Dark Scattering N-body simulations at the exact BOSS scale cuts; any mismatch would shift the inferred Ads and S8.
  • The scale-dependent enhancement of structure growth inside collapsed halos predicted by Dark Scattering could show up in Stage IV cluster counts or small-scale galaxy-galaxy lensing, providing an independent probe.
  • The persistent 'butterfly' posterior in the w–Ads plane hints at a fundamental degeneracy that might only be broken by CMB lensing or peculiar-velocity data.
  • If future data push Ads away from zero with w > -1 at high significance, Dark Scattering would become a preferred resolution to S8; if not, the ΛCDM limit will hold.
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. This paper presents constraints on the Dark Scattering (DS) interacting dark energy model, characterized by parameters (w, Ads) with Ads=(1+w)ξ, using DES Y3 3x2pt measurements, BOSS DR12 full-shape power spectrum multipoles plus external BAO data, and their joint combination, with a Planck PR4 CMB analysis for comparison. The analysis uses a DS emulator and the halo-model reaction framework for nonlinear clustering, and compares a direct joint likelihood run with a normalizing-flow combination of the individual posteriors. The main quantitative results are that the joint LSS analysis yields w=-1.04+0.10-0.08 and Ads=-0.2+4.6-5.9 b GeV^-1, consistent with ΛCDM, and that the joint combination reduces projection effects relative to single probes. The authors also note that MAP-derived values of the primordial amplitude in DS are closer to the Planck PR4 value than in ΛCDM, which they interpret as evidence that DS can reconcile CMB and LSS measurements. The reported Bayes factor, however, mildly disfavors DS relative to ΛCDM in the joint analysis (ΔlnZ≈-2.7).

Significance. The paper is a competent data-analysis contribution: it provides the first DS constraints from DES Y3, the first joint DES Y3+BOSS DR12 full-shape DS constraints, and a useful stress test of normalizing-flow posterior combination for a highly non-Gaussian extended cosmology. Strengths include the use of public data and pipelines, an independent DS emulator, a halo-model reaction calibrated against DS N-body simulations, and explicit reporting of MAP versus marginalized values to diagnose projection effects. If the central 'solution to the S8 tension' claim were supported, the result would be important; however, the paper's own numbers show no significant detection of DS and negative evidence relative to ΛCDM, so the realistic significance is that DS remains a viable but unrequired extension. With the interpretation tempered, the paper is of interest to the LSS cosmological analysis community, particularly for Stage IV survey preparations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4] The sentence 'From this we see that DS offers a solution that can consistently connect early-time measurements of the matter density fluctuations in the CMB with late-time LSS measurements' is not supported by the posterior quantities in Table 1. The joint DS analysis gives Ads=-0.2+4.6-5.9 b GeV^-1, w=-1.04+0.10-0.08, and logZ=5627.8 versus 5630.5 for ΛCDM, i.e., the evidence disfavors DS; the MAP value Ads=0.0 lies at the ΛCDM limit. Comparing ln(10^10 As)=3.029 at the DS MAP to the Planck PR4 value 3.035±0.014 is a point-estimate comparison inside a non-Gaussian posterior with strong projection effects, not a posterior statement. Please replace this conclusion with a posterior-based comparison (e.g., the posterior probability of S8 or As under each model, or a profile likelihood), or explicitly downgrade the claim to a hint that is currently disfavored by the evidence.
  2. [Section 3] The statement that 'it is sufficient to re-scale the standard perturbative components of the power spectrum multipoles by the modified growth factor and rate' is an assumption about the EFTofLSS modelling for DS, and it is load-bearing for the FS+BAO and joint constraints. Because the DS modification is scale-independent at linear level but the halo-model reaction is scale-dependent, it is not obvious that a single rescaling of the one-loop EFT components absorbs all scale-dependent corrections at the k-ranges used. Please provide a validation against N-body simulations or a quantitative estimate of the systematic error this introduces in S8 and Ads; alternatively, state clearly in the conclusions that the constraints are conditional on this rescaling.
  3. [Section 4 and Table 1] For the FS+BAO DS analysis, Table 1 and Figure 2 report two MAP solutions with very similar chi2 values (e.g., Omega_m=0.309|0.311 and S8=0.711|0.864), and the text states 'the data are not constraining enough to draw any conclusion about the DS constraints in this analysis setup.' This bimodality is relevant to the joint analysis: the reported joint constraints and the reduction of projection effects may depend on which FS+BAO mode is connected to the DES posterior. Please quantify the robustness of the joint DS constraints to the choice of mode (e.g., by running the joint MCMC from both MAP solutions and reporting the resulting marginalized intervals).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'unconstrained by CMB data' is imprecise: the PR4 DS analysis in this paper shows that w and Ads are unconstrained by CMB data, while other parameters such as omega_b and n_s are constrained. Please rephrase.
  2. [Table 1] The notation '0.309 | 0.311' and the 'second-best MAP' values in Figure 2 are not defined in the text or caption; please add a note explaining that these are the two local maxima found by the minimizer.
  3. [Section 3] The paper says 'we use the same scale-cuts as in the DES Y3 ΛCDM baseline' but uses HMCode2020 for ΛCDM and the DS-emulator for DS; please state whether these scale cuts were validated for the DS-emulator or merely inherited from the ΛCDM analysis.
  4. [Section 4] In the sentence beginning 'The effects of enlarging the prior are small in ΛCDM', the quantitative claim would benefit from a reference to the contours in Figure 3 or a table; as written, the reader cannot assess the size of the shifts.
  5. [Section 4] The definition of the 'boosted posteriors' used for normalizing-flow training is only described in prose; please specify the boost factor and the number of samples used, for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the DS 'solution' claim is a MAP-based inference, not a construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against external data. DS parameters (w, Ads) are fitted to DES Y3 3x2pt and BOSS DR12 FS+BAO likelihoods, and the theoretical predictions come from an emulator (Carrion et al. 2024) and the halo-model reaction framework (Bose et al. 2020) that were validated against external DS N-body simulations (Baldi & Simpson 2015, 2017). No equation defining the DS model is constructed from the S8 value or the CMB amplitude that the paper claims to reconcile. The central 'solution' statement in Section 4 compares MAP values of ln(10^10 As) from the LSS fits with the PR4 CMB constraint; As is a fitted amplitude parameter, not an independent prediction, and the paper itself notes that the data are not constraining enough to draw conclusions about DS in the FS+BAO setup and that the w-Ads posterior is a highly non-Gaussian 'butterfly'. This is a statistical robustness concern about point estimates, not a circular reduction: the fitted parameters are not defined in terms of the claimed consistency, and the consistency is not forced by construction. The prior on Ads is motivated by earlier work from overlapping authors (Carrilho et al. 2023; Carrion et al. 2024), but it is a prior range that does not determine the posterior. The normalizing-flow combination is an independent methodological cross-check. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited with the paper's own equations, and the score is 1.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central constraints rest on standard cosmological parameters and two DS-specific parameters (w, Ads) fitted to data, plus nuisance parameters. No new particles or forces are introduced; DS is a pre-existing model. Several modelling assumptions, notably the EFTofLSS rescaling and the halo model reaction for DS, are taken from prior work.

free parameters (9)
  • Omega_m = 0.311 +/- 0.014 (joint DS)
    Matter density parameter varied in MCMC and constrained by data.
  • S8 = 0.790 +/- 0.018 (joint DS)
    Amplitude of matter fluctuations, primary target for the S8 tension.
  • w = -1.04 +0.10 -0.08 (joint DS)
    Dark energy equation of state, one of the two DS parameters.
  • Ads = -0.2 +4.6 -5.9 b GeV^-1 (joint DS)
    Interaction parameter (1+w)*xi; zero is the LCDM limit.
  • h = 0.689 +0.016 -0.020 (joint DS)
    Hubble constant, degenerate with DS parameters.
  • ns = 0.955 +0.041 -0.048 (joint DS)
    Scalar spectral index, varied with broad priors.
  • ln(10^10 As) = 3.029 at MAP (joint DS)
    Primordial amplitude; computed at MAP in the paper rather than marginalized.
  • DES Y3 nuisance parameters = not reported
    Shear calibration, galaxy bias, and intrinsic alignment parameters marginalized in the DES analysis.
  • EFTofLSS nuisance parameters = not reported
    Counterterms and bias parameters in the BOSS full-shape model; prior width tested in Figure 3.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Flat universe with Friedmann equation Eq. (1) and constant dark energy equation of state w.
    Background expansion for DS; standard assumption in the model.
  • domain assumption Dark energy speed of sound equals the speed of light, giving Euler equation Eq. (2).
    Under this condition the interaction enters only as a drag term; changing the sound speed changes the perturbation equations.
  • domain assumption Baryons and cold dark matter evolve as a single fluid.
    Assumed in the linear perturbation treatment; affects growth rate and redshift-space distortion modelling.
  • domain assumption Nonlinear DS power spectrum is described by the halo model reaction framework calibrated on DS N-body simulations.
    Relies on Cataneo et al. 2019, Bose et al. 2020, and Baldi & Simpson 2015/2017; controls small-scale shear and clustering predictions.
  • domain assumption EFTofLSS perturbative components for BOSS can be re-scaled by the DS-modified growth factor and growth rate.
    The paper states this is sufficient given Stage III uncertainties; it is a modelling shortcut rather than a derived result.
  • domain assumption Neutrino total mass fixed to M_nu = 0.06 eV.
    Fixed to avoid degeneracies and prior volume effects; can shift parameter constraints if wrong.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interacting dark energy constraints from the full-shape analyses of BOSS DR12 and DES Year 3 measurements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2KDHHQOC

@misc{pith2026250203390,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interacting dark energy constraints from the full-shape analyses of BOSS DR12 and DES Year 3 measurements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2KDHHQOC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03390}
}
abstract

Dark Scattering (DS) is an interacting dark energy model characterised by pure momentum exchange between dark energy and dark matter. It is phenomenologically interesting because it is unconstrained by CMB data and can alleviate the $S_8$ tension. We derive constraints on cosmological and DS parameters using three two-point correlation functions (3$\times$2pt) from the Dark Energy Survey third year data release (DES Y3). We then add information from the multipoles of the galaxy power spectrum combined with Baryonic Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) measurements using the twelfth data release of the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS DR12) and external BAO measurements. We compare results from the direct combination of the probes with the joint posterior distribution calculated with a normalising flow approach. Additionally, we run a CMB analysis with the Planck Public Release 4 (PR4) for comparison of the cosmological constraints. Overall, we find that the combination of probes allows minimising the projection effects and improves constraints without the need to include CMB information. It brings the marginalised posterior maxima closer to the corresponding best-fit values and weakens the sensitivity to the priors of the spectroscopic modelling nuisance parameters. These findings are highly relevant in light of forthcoming data of surveys like DESI, Euclid, and Rubin.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03390 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Marginalised posterior distribution for cosmological parameters in ΛCDM (left panel) and DS (right panel). Contours for DES Y3, BOSS DR12 and their combination are shown in blue, orange and green, respectively. Grey lines correspond to CMB constraints from Tristram et al. (2024) without lensing information [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Projection effects in 𝑆8 and the DS parameters. The error bars show the 68% marginalised posteriors, the stars denote the MAP values, the triangles denote the second-best MAP values in FS+BAO with DS. The grey shaded line corresponds to constraints on 𝑆8 from CMB data (Tristram et al. 2024). omit 𝑛s and ℎ because it shows a trend similar to the ΛCDM case. Based on 𝜒 2 statistics and comparison of the Bayes factors, … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Marginalised posterior distribution for cosmological parameters in the joint ΛCDM (left panel) and DS (right panel) analyses for three different choices for the priors on EFTofLSS nuisance parameters: baseline case (green) and the cases with standard deviations of nuisance parameters, except for 𝑏1, increased by factors of 3 (orange) and 10 (pink). Dashed black line shows baseline joint analysis with the normalising… view at source ↗

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. The simple way to measure evolving dark energy without prior-volume effects

    astro-ph.CO 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Absorbing the AP and growth amplitudes into EFTofLSS nuisance parameters removes prior-volume shifts and yields Stage III LSS-only evolving dark energy constraints aligned with DESI.

  2. Dark Energy Is Not That Into You: Variable Couplings after DESI DR2 BAO

    astro-ph.CO 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    With DESI DR2 data, one interacting dark sector model with a time-dependent coupling shows a nonzero coupling at more than 95% CL, but Bayesian evidence still favors Lambda-CDM.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [2]

    Abbott T. M. C., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023520 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhRvD.105b3520A 105, 023520

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023520

  2. [3]

    Abbott T. M. C., et al., 2023a, @doi [Open J. Astrophys.] 10.21105/astro.2305.17173 , 6, 2305.17173

    arXiv

  3. [4]

    Abbott T. M. C., et al., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.083504 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvD.107h3504A 107, 083504

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.083504

  4. [5]

    Alam S., et al., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..219...12A 219, 12

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/12 2015

  5. [6]

    Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346539 , 678, A109

    Aric\`o G., et al., 2023, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346539 , 678, A109

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346539 2023

  6. [7]

    Aver E., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/07/011 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JCAP...07..011A 2015, 011

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/07/011 2015

  7. [8]

    Baldi M., Simpson F., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv405 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.2239B 449, 2239

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv405 2015

  8. [9]

    Baldi M., Simpson F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2702 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465..653B 465, 653

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2702 2017

Show all 67 references
  1. [10]

    Baumann D., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/07/051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012JCAP...07..051B 2012, 051

    2012 doi

  2. [11]

    Beutler F., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19250.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.416.3017B 416, 3017

    2011

  3. [12]

    Beutler F., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3298 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.2242B 466, 2242

    2017 doi

  4. [13]

    Bose B., Taruya A., 2018, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/10/019 , 10, 019

    2018 doi

  5. [14]

    Bose B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/04/032 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018JCAP...04..032B 2018, 032

    2018 doi

  6. [15]

    Bose B., et al., 2020, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/staa2696 , 498, 4650

    2020 doi

  7. [16]

    Carrasco J. J. M., et al., 2012, @doi [Journal of High Energy Physics] 10.1007/JHEP09(2012)082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012JHEP...09..082C 2012, 82

    2012 doi

  8. [17]

    Carrilho P., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/10/004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021JCAP...10..004C 2021, 004

    2021 doi

  9. [18]

    Carrilho P., et al., 2022, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stac641 , 512, 3691

    2022 doi

  10. [19]

    Carrilho P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/01/028 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JCAP...01..028C 2023, 028

    2023 doi

  11. [20]

    Carrion K., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1663 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.3914C 532, 3914

    2024 doi

  12. [21]

    Cataneo M., et al., 2019, @doi [Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stz1836 , 488, 2121

    2019 doi

  13. [22]

    J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaab53 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855..102C 855, 102

    Cooke R. J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaab53 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855..102C 855, 102

    2018 doi

  14. [23]

    D'Amico G., et al., 2020, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/05/005 , 05, 005

    2020 doi

  15. [24]

    arXiv:2411.12022

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.12022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241112022D p. arXiv:2411.12022

    2024 doi arXiv

  16. [25]

    Fonseca de la Bella L., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/11/039 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JCAP...11..039F 2017, 039

    2017 doi

  17. [26]

    Friedrich O., et al., 2021, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stab2384 , 508, 3125

    2021 doi

  18. [27]

    Gil-Mar \' n H., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1096 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.4188G 460, 4188

    2016 doi

  19. [28]

    G \'o mez-Valent A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.063506 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhRvD.106f3506G 106, 063506

    2022 doi

  20. [29]

    Hadzhiyska B., et al., 2023, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.21105/astro.2301.11895 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023OJAp....6E..23H 6, 23

    2023 arXiv

  21. [30]

    J., et al., 2015, @doi [Mon

    Handley W. J., et al., 2015, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv047 , 450, L61

    2015 doi

  22. [31]

    Heymans C., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039063 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...646A.140H 646, A140

    2021 doi

  23. [32]

    James F., Roos M., 1975, @doi [Comput. Phys. Commun.] 10.1016/0010-4655(75)90039-9 , 10, 343

    1975 doi

  24. [33]

    Open Source Softw.] 10.21105/joss.04634 , 7, 4634

    Karamanis M., et al., 2022, @doi [J. Open Source Softw.] 10.21105/joss.04634 , 7, 4634

    2022 doi

  25. [34]

    arXiv:2105.13548

    Krause E., et al., 2021, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2105.13548 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210513548K p. arXiv:2105.13548

    2021 doi arXiv

  26. [35]

    C., 2017, @doi [Eur

    Kumar S., Nunes R. C., 2017, @doi [Eur. Phys. J. C] 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5334-3 , 77, 734

    2017 doi

  27. [36]

    arXiv:1910.13970

    Lewis A., 2019, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1910.13970 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv191013970L p. arXiv:1910.13970

    2019 doi arXiv

  28. [37]

    Lewis A., Challinor A., 2011, CAMB , ascl:1102.026

    2011

  29. [38]

    S., et al., 2022, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/08/075 , 08, 075

    Linton M. S., et al., 2022, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/08/075 , 08, 075

    2022 doi

  30. [39]

    arXiv:2404.07312

    Maus M., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.07312 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240407312M p. arXiv:2404.07312

    2024 doi arXiv

  31. [40]

    Mead A., et al., 2021, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stab082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.1401M 502, 1401

    2021 doi

  32. [41]

    Mootoovaloo A., et al., 2024, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stae2604 , 536, 190

    2024 doi

  33. [42]

    Moretti C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/12/025 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JCAP...12..025M 2023, 025

    2023 doi

  34. [43]

    C., et al., 2022, @doi [Phys

    Nunes R. C., et al., 2022, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.123506 , 105, 123506

    2022 doi

  35. [44]

    Oddo A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/056 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020JCAP...03..056O 2020, 056

    2020 doi

  36. [45]

    Oddo A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/11/038 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021JCAP...11..038O 2021, 038

    2021 doi

  37. [46]

    N., 2023, @doi [Mon

    Palma D., Candlish G. N., 2023, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stad2739 , 526, 1904

    2023 doi

  38. [47]

    arXiv:1912.02762

    Papamakarios G., et al., 2019, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1912.02762 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv191202762P p. arXiv:1912.02762

    2019 doi arXiv

  39. [48]

    arXiv:1610.09321

    Perko A., et al., 2016, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1610.09321 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv161009321P p. arXiv:1610.09321

    2016 doi arXiv

  40. [49]

    Philcox O. H. E., Ivanov M. M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.043517 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhRvD.105d3517P 105, 043517

    2022 doi

  41. [50]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A...6P 641, A6

    2020 doi

  42. [51]

    Porredon A., et al., 2021, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.043503 , 103, 043503

    2021 doi

  43. [52]

    Porredon A., et al., 2022, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.103530 , 106, 103530

    2022 doi

  44. [53]

    Pourtsidou A., Tram T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.043518 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PhRvD..94d3518P 94, 043518

    2016 doi

  45. [54]

    Pourtsidou A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.083505 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhRvD..88h3505P 88, 083505

    2013 doi

  46. [55]

    Raveri M., Doux C., 2021, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.043504 , 104, 043504

    2021 doi

  47. [56]

    Rizzo F., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/01/031 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JCAP...01..031R 2023, 031

    2023 doi

  48. [57]

    J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv154 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449..835R 449, 835

    Ross A. J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv154 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449..835R 449, 835

    2015 doi

  49. [58]

    Roy Choudhury S., Okumura T., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8c26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...976L..11R 976, L11

    2024 doi

  50. [59]

    S\'anchez C., et al., 2022, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.083529 , 105, 083529

    2022 doi

  51. [60]

    Sch \"o neberg N., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/10/029 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019JCAP...10..029S 2019, 029

    2019 doi

  52. [61]

    Simpson F., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.083505 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PhRvD..82h3505S 82, 083505

    2010 doi

  53. [62]

    Skordis C., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.083537 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PhRvD..91h3537S 91, 083537

    2015 doi

  54. [63]

    Spurio Mancini A., Pourtsidou A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slac019 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512L..44S 512, L44

    2022 doi

  55. [64]

    L., et al., 2024, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.33232/001c.124495 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024OJAp....7E..86T 7, 86

    Taylor P. L., et al., 2024, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.33232/001c.124495 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024OJAp....7E..86T 7, 86

    2024 doi

  56. [65]

    Tristram M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...682A..37T 682, A37

    2024 doi

  57. [66]

    Tsedrik M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad260 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.2611T 520, 2611

    2023 doi

  58. [67]

    du Mas des Bourboux H., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb085 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...901..153D 901, 153

    2020 doi

  59. [68]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

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