pith. sign in

arxiv: 2507.23355 · v2 · pith:XBBFUUN6new · submitted 2025-07-31 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc

SPT-3G D1: Axion Early Dark Energy with CMB experiments and DESI

A. R. Khalife , L. Balkenhol , E. Camphuis , A. J. Anderson , B. Ansarinejad , M. Archipley , P. S. Barry , K. Benabed
show 87 more authors
A. N. Bender B. A. Benson F. Bianchini L. E. Bleem F. R. Bouchet L. Bryant M. G. Campitiello J. E. Carlstrom C. L. Chang P. Chaubal P. M. Chichura A. Chokshi T. L. Chou A. Coerver T. M. Crawford C. Daley T. de Haan K. R. Dibert M. A. Dobbs M. Doohan A. Doussot D. Dutcher W. Everett C. Feng K. R. Ferguson K. Fichman A. Foster S. Galli A. E. Gambrel R. W. Gardner F. Ge N. Goeckner-Wald R. Gualtieri F. Guidi S. Guns N. W. Halverson E. Hivon W. L. Holzapfel J. C. Hood A. Hryciuk N. Huang F. K\'eruzor\'e L. Knox M. Korman K. Kornoelje C. L. Kuo K. Levy A. E. Lowitz C. Lu G. P. Lynch A. Maniyar E. S. Martsen F. Menanteau M. Millea J. Montgomery Y. Nakato T. Natoli G. I. Noble Y. Omori A. Ouellette Z. Pan P. Paschos K. A. Phadke A. W. Pollak K. Prabhu W. Quan M. Rahimi A. Rahlin C. L. Reichardt M. Rouble J. E. Ruhl E. Schiappucci A. Simpson J. A. Sobrin A. A. Stark J. Stephen C. Tandoi B. Thorne C. Trendafilova C. Umilta J. D. Vieira A. Vitrier Y. Wan N. Whitehorn W. L. K. Wu M. R. Young J. A. Zebrowski (for the SPT-3G Collaboration)
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 23:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qc
keywords axion early dark energyHubble tensionCMBDESIBAOcosmological constraintsSPTACT
0
0 comments X

The pith

DESI data combined with CMB observations yields mild preference for axion early dark energy and reduces the Hubble tension to 2.6 sigma.

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

The paper updates constraints on axion early dark energy by combining measurements from the South Pole Telescope, Atacama Cosmology Telescope, Planck, and baryon acoustic oscillations from DESI. CMB data alone show no significant evidence for this component and only moderate relief to the Hubble tension. Adding DESI data produces a weak statistical preference for a small positive contribution from axion early dark energy, which shifts the inferred expansion rate and brings the tension down to 2.6 sigma. A reader would care because the result illustrates how an existing mismatch between current datasets can favor a specific early-universe extension when the datasets are joined.

Core claim

Combining DESI BAO measurements with CMB data from SPT, ACT, and Planck gives f_EDE = 0.055^{+0.024}_{-0.047} at 68% CL together with a weak preference for the axion early dark energy model over Lambda CDM; this combination reduces the Hubble tension to 2.6 sigma. CMB-only analyses find no statistically significant evidence for AEDE and only moderate tension reduction, while the parameter shift upon adding DESI traces directly to the discrepancy between DESI and CMB measurements already present in the baseline Lambda CDM model.

What carries the argument

Axion early dark energy (AEDE), a model in which a light axion field contributes a fractional energy density f_EDE near matter-radiation equality and thereby alters the sound horizon scale.

If this is right

  • SPT data alone limit f_EDE below 0.12 at 95% CL and reduce the Hubble tension to 2.3 sigma.
  • The full CMB combination (SPT+ACT+Planck) limits f_EDE below 0.07 at 95% CL and leaves the tension at 3.6 sigma.
  • DESI plus SPT alone gives f_EDE = 0.081^{+0.037}_{-0.052} at 68% CL and lowers the tension to 1.5 sigma.
  • The reported shift occurs specifically because DESI and CMB disagree inside Lambda CDM.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the mild preference strengthens with future data releases, targeted axion searches in particle-physics experiments could become higher priority.
  • The same dataset tension could be tested by comparing AEDE against other early-dark-energy parameterizations to see which fits best.
  • Improved control of systematics in either DESI or CMB pipelines could remove the need for AEDE altogether.

Load-bearing premise

The discrepancy between DESI BAO measurements and CMB data in the standard Lambda CDM model is assumed to be best explained by adding axion early dark energy rather than by unaccounted systematics or other extensions.

What would settle it

A future high-precision BAO measurement that aligns DESI and CMB results inside Lambda CDM without any room for positive f_EDE would eliminate the reported preference.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23355 by A. A. Stark, A. Chokshi, A. Coerver, A. Doussot, A. E. Gambrel, A. E. Lowitz, A. Foster, A. Hryciuk, A. J. Anderson, A. Maniyar, A. N. Bender, A. Ouellette, A. Rahlin, A. R. Khalife, A. Simpson, A. Vitrier, A. W. Pollak, B. A. Benson, B. Ansarinejad, B. Thorne, C. Daley, C. Feng, C. L. Chang, C. L. Kuo, C. L. Reichardt, C. Lu, C. Tandoi, C. Trendafilova, C. Umilta, D. Dutcher, E. Camphuis, E. Hivon, E. Schiappucci, E. S. Martsen, F. Bianchini, F. Ge, F. Guidi, F. K\'eruzor\'e, F. Menanteau, F. R. Bouchet, G. I. Noble, G. P. Lynch, J. A. Sobrin, J. A. Zebrowski (for the SPT-3G Collaboration), J. C. Hood, J. D. Vieira, J. E. Carlstrom, J. E. Ruhl, J. Montgomery, J. Stephen, K. A. Phadke, K. Benabed, K. Fichman, K. Kornoelje, K. Levy, K. Prabhu, K. R. Dibert, K. R. Ferguson, L. Balkenhol, L. Bryant, L. E. Bleem, L. Knox, M. A. Dobbs, M. Archipley, M. Doohan, M. G. Campitiello, M. Korman, M. Millea, M. Rahimi, M. Rouble, M. R. Young, N. Goeckner-Wald, N. Huang, N. W. Halverson, N. Whitehorn, P. Chaubal, P. M. Chichura, P. Paschos, P. S. Barry, R. Gualtieri, R. W. Gardner, S. Galli, S. Guns, T. de Haan, T. L. Chou, T. M. Crawford, T. Natoli, W. Everett, W. L. Holzapfel, W. L. K. Wu, W. Quan, Y. Nakato, Y. Omori, Y. Wan, Z. Pan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Constraints in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Summary of the main results of this work. Shown are constraints, within AEDE, from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Same as the top plot of Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the most up-to-date constraints on axion early dark energy (AEDE) from cosmic microwave background (CMB) and baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) measurements. In particular, we assess the impact of data from ground-based CMB experiments, the South Pole Telescope (SPT) and the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT) -- both with and without $Planck$ -- on constraints on AEDE. We also highlight the impact that BAO information from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) has on these constraints. From CMB data alone, we do not find statistically significant evidence for the presence of AEDE, and we find only moderate reduction in the Hubble tension. From the latest SPT data alone, we find the maximal fractional contribution of AEDE to the cosmic energy budget is $f_{\rm EDE}\,<\,0.12$ at $95\,$% confidence level (CL), and the Hubble tension between the SPT and SH0ES results is reduced to the $2.3\,\sigma$ level. When combining the latest SPT, ACT, and $Planck$ datasets, we find $f_{\rm EDE}\,<\,0.070$ at $95\,$% CL and the Hubble tension at the $3.6\, \sigma$ level. In contrast, adding DESI data to the CMB datasets results in mild preference for AEDE and, in some cases, non-negligible reduction in the Hubble tension. From SPT+DESI, we find $f_{\rm EDE}\,=\,0.081^{+0.037}_{-0.052}$ at $68\,$% CL, and the Hubble tension reduces to $1.5\,\sigma$. From the combination of DESI with all three CMB experiments, we get $f_{\rm EDE}\,=\, 0.055^{+0.024}_{-0.047}$ at $68\,$% CL and a weak preference for AEDE over $\Lambda$CDM. This data combination, in turn, reduces the Hubble tension to $2.6\, \sigma$. We highlight that this shift in parameters when adding the DESI dataset is a manifestation of the discrepancy currently present between DESI and CMB experiments in the concordance model $\Lambda$CDM.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents the most up-to-date constraints on axion early dark energy (AEDE) using CMB data from SPT-3G, ACT, and Planck (individually and combined) together with BAO measurements from DESI. CMB data alone show no statistically significant evidence for AEDE and only moderate reduction of the Hubble tension. Adding DESI data produces a mild preference for AEDE, with f_EDE = 0.055^{+0.024}_{-0.047} at 68% CL from the full CMB+DESI combination, a weak preference over ΛCDM, and reduction of the Hubble tension to 2.6σ; the authors attribute the parameter shift to the existing DESI-CMB discrepancy in baseline ΛCDM.

Significance. If the results hold, the work is significant because it supplies timely, multi-experiment constraints on AEDE using the latest ground-based CMB and DESI BAO data. The explicit comparison across data combinations and the clear statement that the shift is a manifestation of the known ΛCDM tension between DESI and CMB are useful for the community. The analysis employs standard cosmological likelihood methods and reports both upper limits and best-fit values with credible intervals.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the reported mild preference for AEDE (f_EDE = 0.055^{+0.024}_{-0.047} at 68% CL) and the associated 2.6σ Hubble-tension reduction when DESI is added rest on the modeling choice that the DESI-CMB offset in ΛCDM is physical and best absorbed by AEDE. The abstract provides no details on priors for f_EDE or other AEDE parameters, nuisance parameters, or robustness tests against data splits or systematics; without these, it is difficult to evaluate whether the weak preference could be driven by unaccounted systematics in DESI reconstruction or CMB foregrounds instead.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Results] Ensure that all reported confidence levels (68% CL and 95% CL) and the exact data combinations are stated uniformly in the text, tables, and figure captions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive evaluation of the significance of our work and for their detailed feedback. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the reported mild preference for AEDE (f_EDE = 0.055^{+0.024}_{-0.047} at 68% CL) and the associated 2.6σ Hubble-tension reduction when DESI is added rest on the modeling choice that the DESI-CMB offset in ΛCDM is physical and best absorbed by AEDE. The abstract provides no details on priors for f_EDE or other AEDE parameters, nuisance parameters, or robustness tests against data splits or systematics; without these, it is difficult to evaluate whether the weak preference could be driven by unaccounted systematics in DESI reconstruction or CMB foregrounds instead.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. The abstract already states that the parameter shift upon including DESI is a manifestation of the existing DESI-CMB discrepancy in ΛCDM, rather than claiming AEDE as the unique physical resolution. The model is presented as one that can accommodate the offset, yielding the reported mild preference and tension reduction. Full details on the AEDE parameter priors (flat prior on f_EDE from 0 to 0.3, following standard practice), other AEDE parameters, nuisance parameters in the CMB and BAO likelihoods, and robustness tests across data splits and systematics checks are provided in Sections 2–5 of the manuscript. To improve accessibility, we will revise the abstract to include a brief statement on the f_EDE prior range. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in direct data-driven constraints on AEDE

full rationale

The paper reports Bayesian posterior constraints on AEDE parameters (f_EDE, etc.) obtained by fitting the model directly to external CMB (SPT, ACT, Planck) and BAO (DESI) datasets. The quoted results, including f_EDE = 0.055^{+0.024}_{-0.047} and the 2.6σ Hubble tension reduction, are standard outputs of likelihood sampling on independent observations. No internal equation derives a quantity that is then renamed or refit as a prediction; no self-citation chain supplies a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that the present analysis depends upon; and the abstract explicitly frames the parameter shift as a consequence of the known DESI-CMB offset in ΛCDM rather than an internal construction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central results rest on standard cosmological parameter estimation applied to the AEDE model; limited information is available from the abstract alone.

free parameters (1)
  • f_EDE
    Fractional energy density contribution of the axion field at early times, directly constrained by the data fits.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard flat ΛCDM background cosmology modified by an early axion field component
    Invoked throughout the parameter estimation to compute theoretical power spectra and BAO scales.
invented entities (1)
  • Axion early dark energy field no independent evidence
    purpose: To provide additional early-universe energy density that alters the sound horizon and eases the Hubble tension
    Postulated model ingredient without independent detection or falsifiable signature outside the cosmological fit.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6520 in / 1374 out tokens · 50045 ms · 2026-05-21T23:31:59.264137+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Double the axions, half the tension: multi-field early dark energy eases the Hubble tension

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Two-field axion-like early dark energy reduces Hubble tension to 1.5 sigma residual and improves high-ell CMB fits over single-field models.

  2. Nonlinear Matter Power Spectrum from relativistic $N$-body Simulations: $\Lambda_{\rm s}$CDM versus $\Lambda$CDM

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Relativistic N-body simulations of Lambda_s CDM produce a redshift-dependent crest in the matter power spectrum ratio, peaking at 20-25% near the transition and leaving a 15-20% uplift at z=0 on group scales.

  3. The End of the First Act: Spectral Running, Interacting Dark Radiation, and the Hubble Tension in Light of ACT DR6 Data

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Including spectral running α_s, β_s and self-interacting dark radiation relaxes the ACT DR6 bound on ΔN_eff to <0.58 and lowers the Hubble tension to 2.2σ with three extra parameters.

  4. Disentangling cosmic distance tensions with early and late dark energy

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Early dark energy resolves CMB-BAO tension and, combined with thawing quintessence, reduces overall cosmological tensions without phantom crossing.

  5. Probing Dynamical Dark Energy with Late-Time Data: Evidence, Tensions, and the Limits of the $w_0w_a$CDM Framework

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Evidence for dynamical dark energy in the w0waCDM framework is strongly dataset-dependent, driven by mismatches in low-redshift BAO distance ratios that produce divergent expansion histories and inconsistent Hubble te...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 89 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers · 10 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    SPT-3G D1: CMB temperature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observations of the SPT-3G Main field

    Camphuis, E., et al. SPT-3G D1: CMB temperature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observations of the SPT-3G Main field. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.20707

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Cosmology from CMB lensing and delensed EE power spectra using 2019–2020 SPT-3G polarization data

    Ge, F., et al. Cosmology from CMB lensing and delensed EE power spectra using 2019–2020 SPT-3G polarization data. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 083534, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.111.083534

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    TheAtacamaCosmologyTelescope: DR6 Maps

    Naess, S., etal. TheAtacamaCosmologyTelescope: DR6 Maps. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14451

    work page arXiv 2025

  4. [6]

    The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Constraints on Extended Cosmological Models

    Calabrese, E., et al. The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Constraints on Extended Cosmological Models

    work page

  5. [7]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14454

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [8]

    DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints

    Abdul Karim, M., et al. DESI DR2 Results II: Measure- ments of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14738

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [9]

    The Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI)

    The Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI). 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 57.https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.10688

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  8. [10]

    Testing the ΛCDM Cosmological Model with Forthcoming Measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background with SPT-3G

    Prabhu, K., et al. Testing the ΛCDM Cosmological Model with Forthcoming Measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background with SPT-3G. 2024, Astrophys. J., 973, 4, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5ff1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5ff1 2024

  9. [11]

    BFV quantization of the nonprojectable (2+1)- dimen- sional Hořava theory

    Karwal, T., & Kamionkowski, M. Dark energy at early times, the Hubble parameter, and the string axiverse. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 94, 103523, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 94.103523

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd 2016

  10. [12]

    Does the Hubble constant tension call for new physics? 2018, JCAP, 09, 025, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/09/025

    Mörtsell, E., & Dhawan, S. Does the Hubble constant tension call for new physics? 2018, JCAP, 09, 025, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/09/025

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/09/025 2018

  11. [13]

    L., Karwal, T., & Kamionkowski, M

    Poulin, V., Smith, T. L., Karwal, T., & Kamionkowski, M. Early Dark Energy Can Resolve The Hubble Tension. 2019, Phys. Rev. Lett., 122, 221301, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.122.221301

    work page 2019

  12. [14]

    L., & Karwal, T

    Poulin, V., Smith, T. L., & Karwal, T. The Ups and Downs of Early Dark Energy solutions to the Hubble tension: a review of models, hints and constraints circa

    work page

  13. [15]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.09032

    2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.09032

    work page arXiv 2023

  14. [16]

    Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies

    Abdalla, E., et al. Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies. 2022, JHEAp, 34, 49, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04. 002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04 2022

  15. [17]

    F., Riess, A

    Di Valentino, E., Mena, O., Pan, S., Visinelli, L., Yang, W., Melchiorri, A., Mota, D. F., Riess, A. G., & Silk, J. In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions. 2021, Class. Quant. Grav., 38, 153001, doi: 10.1088/ 1361-6382/ac086d

    work page 2021

  16. [18]

    Local determination of the Hubble constant and the deceleration parameter

    Camarena, D., & Marra, V. Local determination of the Hubble constant and the deceleration parameter. 2020, Phys. Rev. Res., 2, 013028, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevResearch.2.013028

    work page 2020

  17. [19]

    On the use of the local prior on the absolute magnitude of Type Ia supernovae in cosmological in- ference

    —. On the use of the local prior on the absolute magnitude of Type Ia supernovae in cosmological in- ference. 2021, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 504, 5164, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1200

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1200 2021

  18. [20]

    Planck and the local Universe: Quantifying the tension

    Verde, L., Protopapas, P., & Jimenez, R. Planck and the local Universe: Quantifying the tension. 2013, Phys. Dark Univ., 2, 166, doi:10.1016/j.dark.2013.09.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dark.2013.09.002 2013

  19. [22]

    Verde, L., Treu, T., & Riess, A. G. Tensions between the 10 0.0220 0.0229 Ωbh2 1 2 3 4θi 3 4log10 zc 0.1 0.2 fEDE 3.02 3.06 3.10 log(1010As) 0.90 0.95 1.00 ns 1.040 1.042 100θs 0.12 0.13 0.14 Ωch2 0.12 0.13 0.14 Ωch2 1.040 1.042 100θs 0.95 1.00 ns 3.05 3.10 log(1010As) 0.1 0.2 fEDE 3 4 log10 zc 1 2 3 4 θi CMB-SPA SPT+ACT SPT-3G D1 FIG. 4. Same as the top ...

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0902-0 2019

  20. [23]

    J., Poulin, V., & Lesgourgues, J

    Schöneberg, N., Franco Abellán, G., Pérez Sánchez, A., Witte, S. J., Poulin, V., & Lesgourgues, J. The H0 Olympics: Afairrankingofproposedmodels.2022, Phys. Rept., 984, 1, doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2022.07.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2022.07.001 2022

  21. [24]

    The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Gravitational Lensing Map and Cosmological Parameters

    Madhavacheril, M. S., et al. The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Gravitational Lensing Map and Cos- mological Parameters. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2304.05203 11 0.022 0.023 Ωbh2 1 2 3 4θi 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 log10 zc 0.1 0.2 fEDE 3.05 3.10 log(1010As) 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 ns 1.040 1.041 1.042 1.043 100θs 0.12 0.13 0.14 Ωch2 0.12 0.14 Ωch2 1.041 1.043 100θ...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [26]

    M., Romaniello, M., Murakami, Y

    Breuval, L., Riess, A.G., Casertano, S., Yuan, W., Macri, L. M., Romaniello, M., Murakami, Y. S., Scolnic, D., Anand, G. S., & Soszyński, I. Small Magellanic Cloud Cepheids Observed with the Hubble Space Telescope Provide a New Anchor for the SH0ES Distance Ladder. 2024, Astrophys. J., 973, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ ad630e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ 2024

  23. [27]

    R., Zanjani, M

    Khalife, A. R., Zanjani, M. B., Galli, S., Günther, S., Lesgourgues, J., & Benabed, K. Review of Hubble 12 dataset Link to Package SPT-3G D1 https://pole.uchicago.edu/public/data/camphuis25/ https://github.com/SouthPoleTelescope/spt_candl_data https://pole.uchicago.edu/public/data/ge25/ Planck https://github.com/benabed/clipy https://pla.esac.esa.int/ htt...

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/04/ 2024

  24. [28]

    Kamionkowski, M., Pradler, J., & Walker, D. G. E. Dark energy from the string axiverse. 2014, Phys. Rev. Lett., 113, 251302, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.251302

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.251302 2014

  25. [29]

    J., Schwindt, J., & Wetterich, C

    Doran, M., Lilley, M. J., Schwindt, J., & Wetterich, C. Quintessence and the separation of CMB peaks. 2001, Astrophys. J., 559, 501, doi:10.1086/322253

    work page doi:10.1086/322253 2001

  26. [30]

    Phenomenological parameterization of quintessence

    Wetterich, C. Phenomenological parameterization of quintessence. 2004, Phys. Lett. B, 594, 17, doi:10.1016/ j.physletb.2004.05.008

    work page 2004

  27. [32]

    Hubble constant hunter’s guide

    Knox, L., & Millea, M. Hubble constant hunter’s guide. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 101, 043533, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.101.043533

    work page 2020

  28. [33]

    K., & Wolfe, A

    Sachs, R. K., & Wolfe, A. M. Perturbations of a Cosmo- logical Model and Angular Variations of the Microwave Background. 1967, The Astrophysical Journal, 147, 73, doi: 10.1086/148982

    work page doi:10.1086/148982 1967

  29. [34]

    Hu, W., & White, M. J. The Damping tail of CMB anisotropies. 1997, Astrophys. J., 479, 568, doi:10.1086/ 303928

    work page 1997

  30. [35]

    Niedermann, F., & Sloth, M. S. Resolving the Hubble tension with new early dark energy. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 063527, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.063527

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.063527 2020

  31. [36]

    Herold, L., Ferreira, E. G. M., & Komatsu, E. New Constraint on Early Dark Energy from Planck and BOSS Data Using the Profile Likelihood. 2022, Astrophys. J. Lett., 929, L16, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac63a3

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac63a3 2022

  32. [37]

    Herold, L., & Ferreira, E. G. M. Resolving the Hubble tension with Early Dark Energy. 2022.https://arxiv. org/abs/2210.16296

    work page arXiv 2022

  33. [38]

    Isotropic cosmic birefringence from early dark energy

    Murai, K., Naokawa, F., Namikawa, T., & Komatsu, E. Isotropic cosmic birefringence from early dark energy. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, L041302, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.107.L041302

    work page 2023

  34. [39]

    R., Herold, L., Komatsu, E., Murai, K., Namikawa, T., & Naokawa, F

    Eskilt, J. R., Herold, L., Komatsu, E., Murai, K., Namikawa, T., & Naokawa, F. Constraint on Early Dark Energy from Isotropic Cosmic Birefringence. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.15369

    work page arXiv 2023

  35. [40]

    Constraining the spatial curvature with cosmic expansion history in a cosmological model with a non-standard sound horizon

    Stevens, J., Khoraminezhad, H., &Saito, S. Constraining the spatial curvature with cosmic expansion history in a cosmological model with a non-standard sound horizon. 2023, JCAP, 07, 046, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/07/ 046

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/07/ 2023

  36. [41]

    L., & Schöneberg, N

    Smith, T. L., & Schöneberg, N. Predictions for new physics in the CMB damping tail. 2025.https://arxiv. org/abs/2503.20002

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [42]

    L., Poulin, V., & Amin, M

    Smith, T. L., Poulin, V., & Amin, M. A. Oscillating scalar fields and the Hubble tension: a resolution with novel signatures. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 101, 063523, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.063523

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.063523 2020

  38. [43]

    Towards Early Dark Energy in string theory

    McDonough, E., & Scalisi, M. Towards Early Dark Energy in string theory. 2023, JHEP, 10, 118, doi:10. 1007/JHEP10(2023)118

    work page 2023

  39. [44]

    G., & Scalisi, M

    Cicoli, M., Licheri, M., Mahanta, R., McDonough, E., Pedro, F. G., & Scalisi, M. Early Dark Energy in Type IIB String Theory. 2023, JHEP, 06, 052, doi:10.1007/ JHEP06(2023)052

    work page 2023

  40. [45]

    L., Lucca, M., Poulin, V., Abellan, G

    Smith, T. L., Lucca, M., Poulin, V., Abellan, G. F., Balkenhol, L., Benabed, K., Galli, S., & Murgia, R. Hints of early dark energy in Planck, SPT, and ACT data: New physics or systematics? 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 043526, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.043526

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.043526 2022

  41. [46]

    C., et al

    Hill, J. C., et al. Atacama Cosmology Telescope: Constraints on prerecombination early dark energy. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 123536, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105. 123536

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105 2022

  42. [47]

    C., McDonough, E., Toomey, M

    Hill, J. C., McDonough, E., Toomey, M. W., & Alexander, S. Early dark energy does not restore cosmological concordance. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 043507, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.043507

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.043507 2020

  43. [48]

    Non-Gaussian estimates of tensions in cosmological parameters

    Raveri, M., & Doux, C. Non-Gaussian estimates of tensions in cosmological parameters. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 043504, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.043504

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.043504 2021

  44. [49]

    J., & Scóccola, C

    Leizerovich, M., Landau, S. J., & Scóccola, C. G. Tensions in cosmology: a discussion of statistical tools to determine inconsistencies. 2023.https://arxiv.org/ abs/2312.08542

    work page arXiv 2023

  45. [50]

    Concordance and Discordance in Cosmology

    Raveri, M., & Hu, W. Concordance and Discordance in Cosmology. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 99, 043506, doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.99.043506

    work page 2019

  46. [51]

    Improved Planck Constraints on Axionlike Early Dark Energy as a Resolution of the Hubble Tension

    Efstathiou, G., Rosenberg, E., & Poulin, V. Improved Planck Constraints on Axionlike Early Dark Energy as a Resolution of the Hubble Tension. 2024, Phys. Rev. Lett., 132, 221002, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.221002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.221002 2024

  47. [52]

    , year =

    Akaike, H. A new look at the statistical model 13 identification. 1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716, doi:10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705

    work page doi:10.1109/tac.1974.1100705 1974

  48. [53]

    2015, Bayesian Methods for the Physical Sciences Learning from Examples in Astron- omy and Physics (Springer Series in Astrostatistics)

    Andreon, S., & Weaver, B. 2015, Bayesian Methods for the Physical Sciences Learning from Examples in Astron- omy and Physics (Springer Series in Astrostatistics)

    work page 2015

  49. [54]

    1939, Theory of Probability (Oxford, Eng- land)

    Jeffreys, H. 1939, Theory of Probability (Oxford, Eng- land)

    work page 1939

  50. [55]

    Is the Jeffreys’ scale a reliable tool for Bayesian model comparison in cosmology? 2013, JCAP, 08, 036, doi: 10.1088/ 1475-7516/2013/08/036

    Nesseris, S., & Garcia-Bellido, J. Is the Jeffreys’ scale a reliable tool for Bayesian model comparison in cosmology? 2013, JCAP, 08, 036, doi: 10.1088/ 1475-7516/2013/08/036

    work page 2013

  51. [56]

    L., Poulin, V., Bernal, J

    Smith, T. L., Poulin, V., Bernal, J. L., Boddy, K. K., Kamionkowski, M., & Murgia, R. Early dark energy is not excluded by current large-scale structure data. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 123542, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103. 123542

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103 2021

  52. [57]

    La Posta, A., Louis, T., Garrido, X., & Hill, J. C. Constraints on prerecombination early dark energy from SPT-3G public data. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 083519, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.083519

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.083519 2022

  53. [58]

    J., & Cousins, R

    Feldman, G. J., & Cousins, R. D. A Unified approach to the classical statistical analysis of small signals. 1998, Phys. Rev. D, 57, 3873, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.57.3873

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.57.3873 1998

  54. [59]

    L., Grin, D., Karwal, T., & Kamionkowski, M

    Poulin, V., Smith, T. L., Grin, D., Karwal, T., & Kamionkowski, M. Cosmological implications of ultralightaxionlikefields.2018, Phys.Rev.D,98, 083525, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.083525

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.083525 2018

  55. [60]

    The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) I: Overview

    Lesgourgues, J. The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) I: Overview. 2011. https://arxiv. org/abs/1104.2932

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  56. [61]

    Konoplya, J

    Blas, D., Lesgourgues, J., & Tram, T. The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) II: Approximation schemes. 2011, JCAP, 07, 034, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2011/07/034

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2011

  57. [63]

    Cobaya: code for Bayesian analysis of hierarchical physical models

    Torrado, J., & Lewis, A. Cobaya: code for Bayesian analysis of hierarchical physical models. 2021, JCAP, 2021, 057, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/057

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/057 2021

  58. [64]

    2019, Cobaya: Bayesian analysis in cosmology, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1910.019

    —. 2019, Cobaya: Bayesian analysis in cosmology, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1910.019. http://ascl.net/1910.019

    work page 2019

  59. [65]

    Hastings, W. K. Monte Carlo Sampling Methods Using Markov Chains and Their Applications. 1970, Biometrika, 57, 97. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 2334940

    work page 1970

  60. [66]

    Metropolis, A

    Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A. W., Rosenbluth, M. N., Teller, A. H., & Teller, E. Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines. 1953, Journal of Chemical Physics, 21, 1087, doi:10.1063/1.1699114

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1699114 1953

  61. [67]

    Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences. 1992, Statisti- cal Science, 7, 457. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 2246093

    work page 1992

  62. [68]

    Improving the Flexibility and Robustness of Model-Based Derivative-Free Optimization Solvers

    Cartis, C., Fiala, J., Marteau, B., & Roberts, L. Improving the Flexibility and Robustness of Model- Based Derivative-Free Optimization Solvers. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1804.00154, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1804. 00154

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1804 2018

  63. [69]

    Escap- ing local minima with derivative-free methods: a numeri- cal investigation

    Cartis, C., Roberts, L., & Sheridan-Methven, O. Escap- ing local minima with derivative-free methods: a numeri- cal investigation. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1812.11343, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1812.11343

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1812.11343 2018

  64. [70]

    R., Lesgourgues, J., Mosbech, M

    Günther, S., Balkenhol, L., Fidler, C., Khalife, A. R., Lesgourgues, J., Mosbech, M. R., & Sharma, R. K. OLÉ– Online Learning Emulation in Cosmology. 2025.https: //arxiv.org/abs/2503.13183

    work page arXiv 2025

  65. [71]

    J., et al

    Planck Collaboration, Akrami, Y., Andersen, K. J., et al. Planck intermediate results - LVII. Joint Planck LFI and HFI data processing. 2020, A&A, 643, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038073

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038073 2020

  66. [72]

    candl: cosmic microwave background analysis with a differentiable likelihood

    Balkenhol, L., Trendafilova, C., Benabed, K., & Galli, S. candl: cosmic microwave background analysis with a differentiable likelihood. 2024, Astron. Astrophys., 686, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449432

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449432 2024

  67. [73]

    Planck 2018 results

    Aghanim, N., et al. Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936386

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936386 2018

  68. [74]

    Planck 2018 results

    —. Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833880

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833880 2018

  69. [75]

    Planck 2018 results

    —. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/ 0004-6361/201833910

    work page 2018

  70. [76]

    CMB lensing from Planck PR4 maps

    Carron, J., Mirmelstein, M., & Lewis, A. CMB lensing from Planck PR4 maps. 2022, JCAP, 09, 039, doi:10. 1088/1475-7516/2022/09/039

    work page 2022

  71. [77]

    The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods andΛCDM Parameters

    Louis, T., et al. The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods andΛCDM Parameters

    work page

  72. [78]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14452

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  73. [79]

    J., et al

    Qu, F. J., et al. The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: A Measurement of the DR6 CMB Lensing Power Spectrum and Its Implications for Structure Growth. 2024, Astro- phys. J., 962, 112, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acfe06

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acfe06 2024

  74. [80]

    S., et al

    Madhavacheril, M. S., et al. The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Gravitational Lensing Map and Cos- mological Parameters. 2024, Astrophys. J., 962, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acff5f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acff5f 2024

  75. [81]

    J., & Hu, W

    Eisenstein, D. J., & Hu, W. Baryonic features in the matter transfer function. 1998, Astrophys. J., 496, 605, doi: 10.1086/305424

    work page doi:10.1086/305424 1998

  76. [82]

    Small scale cosmological perturbations: An Analytic approach

    Hu, W., & Sugiyama, N. Small scale cosmological perturbations: An Analytic approach. 1996, Astrophys. J., 471, 542, doi:10.1086/177989

    work page doi:10.1086/177989 1996

  77. [83]

    CMB power spectra and cosmological parameters from Planck PR4 with CamSpec

    Rosenberg, E., Gratton, S., & Efstathiou, G. CMB power spectra and cosmological parameters from Planck PR4 with CamSpec. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 517, 4620, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2744

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2744 2022

  78. [84]

    2017, A&A, 607, A24, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 201730852

    Pagano, L., Delouis, J. M., Mottet, S., Puget, J. L., & Vibert, L. Reionization optical depth determination from Planck HFI data with ten percent accuracy. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 635, A99, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 201936630

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 2020

  79. [85]

    Varying Constants, Gravitation and Cos- mology

    Uzan, J.-P. Varying Constants, Gravitation and Cos- mology. 2011, Living Rev. Rel., 14, 2, doi: 10.12942/ lrr-2011-2

    work page 2011

  80. [86]

    Ade, P. A. R., et al. Planck intermediate results - XXIV. Constraints on variations in fundamental constants. 2015, Astron. Astrophys., 580, A22, doi: 10.1051/ 0004-6361/201424496

    work page 2015

Showing first 80 references.