Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 21 cited by

Cosmology alone now prefers the normal neutrino mass ordering, with the inverted ordering excluded at about 3.5 sigma.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 08:36 UTC pith:QMNHV4XP

load-bearing objection A technically strong and transparent DESI reanalysis whose headline neutrino bounds are undercut by an abstract-body mismatch and an unaddressed prior-boundary effect. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.16165 v2 pith:QMNHV4XP submitted 2026-01-22 astro-ph.CO hep-exhep-phhep-th

Reanalyzing DESI DR1: 4. Percent-Level Cosmological Constraints from Combined Probes and Robust Evidence for the Normal Neutrino Mass Hierarchy

Mikhail M. Ivanov , James M. Sullivan , Roger de Belsunce , Shi-Fan Chen , Anton Chudaykin , Mark Maus , Oliver H. E. Philcox This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO hep-exhep-phhep-th
keywords neutrino mass hierarchyeffective field theorygalaxy bispectrumcosmological parametersdark energybaryon acoustic oscillationsCMB lensinglarge-scale structure
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish that cosmology, not just particle-physics experiments, can determine how neutrinos are ordered by mass. Combining the first-year galaxy-clustering data of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument—power spectra, one-loop bispectra, photometric galaxy correlations, and CMB lensing cross-correlations—with baryon acoustic oscillations, CMB priors, and supernovae, it finds the neutrino mass sum is below 0.057 eV in ΛCDM and below 0.095 eV in a dynamical dark energy model. Those limits sit below the floor required for the inverted mass ordering, so the inverted hierarchy is disfavored at roughly 3.5 sigma (ΛCDM) and 2.4 sigma (w0waCDM). If correct, this makes the normal neutrino mass ordering the only viable option, independent of laboratory oscillation data.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, within ΛCDM, the sum of the three neutrino masses is bounded at 95% confidence to Mν < 0.057 eV, a limit that lies just below the 0.058 eV floor required for the normal mass ordering and well below the 0.098 eV floor of the inverted ordering; the inverted ordering is consequently disfavored at about 3.5σ. The preference survives when the background is relaxed to w0waCDM, where the limit loosens to Mν < 0.095 eV and the inverted ordering is disfavored at about 2.4σ. Alongside this, the analysis reports percent-level determinations of the late universe: H0 = 69.08 ± 0.37 km/s/Mpc, Ωm = 0.2973 ± 0.0050, and σ8 = 0.815 ± 0.016. This is presented as the first la

What carries the argument

The machinery is a one-loop effective field theory (EFT) model of galaxy clustering that jointly predicts the redshift-space galaxy power spectrum and bispectrum multipoles, extended to include the bispectrum quadrupole and pushed to bispectrum scales of k_max = 0.16 h/Mpc. The model carries 45 nuisance parameters per redshift bin, with specially chosen priors that suppress prior-volume effects, and a factorization scheme precomputes the expensive loop integrals so the likelihood can be scanned over cosmology in under a second. The same EFT framework consistently describes projected photometric galaxy auto-correlations and galaxy-CMB lensing cross-correlations, giving one theoretical languag

Load-bearing premise

The central result assumes the one-loop EFT model of galaxy clustering is unbiased at the chosen scale cuts; if higher-order perturbative corrections leak into the analyzed scales, the reported neutrino mass bound shifts.

What would settle it

A reanalysis that extends the bispectrum to k_max = 0.20 h/Mpc with an independently calibrated two-loop model—where the paper's own table shows σ8 shifts by −1.4σ—would settle the claim: if the 95% neutrino limit then rises above 0.098 eV, the inverted hierarchy becomes allowed and the claimed ordering preference fails.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the central bound is correct, the inverted neutrino mass hierarchy is excluded by cosmology at about 3.5σ in ΛCDM and 2.4σ in w0waCDM, leaving the normal hierarchy as the only viable ordering.
  • The combination yields percent-level constraints on the late universe: H0 = 69.08 ± 0.37 km/s/Mpc, Ωm = 0.2973 ± 0.0050, and σ8 = 0.815 ± 0.016, with the matter-density and clustering measurements competitive with or tighter than CMB-only results.
  • Including full-shape galaxy clustering sharpens the neutrino mass limit by about 25% relative to geometry-only probes such as BAO, CMB, and supernovae.
  • The dark energy figure of merit improves by 18%, and a 2.6–2.8σ preference for dynamical dark energy appears from low-redshift data alone, suggesting the signal is not purely an artifact of CMB/BAO tension.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence left implicit is that cosmology can now compete with laboratory experiments on the neutrino mass ordering, a question oscillation experiments have not yet settled; if confirmed, it would redirect model-building priorities toward normal-hierarchy scenarios.
  • The paper's own scale-cut test suggests a sharp diagnostic: if a future analysis extends the bispectrum to k_max = 0.20 h/Mpc with a calibrated two-loop model and sees the same −1.4σ shift in σ8, the neutrino bound should be treated as prior-dependent rather than physical.
  • Because the baseline omits the CMB lensing auto-spectrum for lack of cross-covariance with galaxy-lensing measurements, a full 3×2-point analysis could tighten σ8 by roughly 12%; that is a concrete target for the next data release.
  • The neutrino hierarchy conclusion may be more durable than the dark-energy conclusion: the w0waCDM neutrino bound is nearly as strong as the ΛCDM one, so if the dynamical dark energy evidence fades, the neutrino mass limit should tighten further.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper combines DESI DR1 full-shape galaxy clustering (power spectrum and one-loop bispectrum multipoles) with photometric galaxy clustering, CMB lensing cross-correlations, DESI DR2 BAO, Planck CMB primaries, and Pantheon+ supernovae. In Lambda CDM it reports H0=69.08±0.37, Omega_m=0.2973±0.0050, sigma8=0.815±0.016, and a 95% CL upper limit M_nu<0.057 eV. In w0waCDM it reports M_nu<0.095 eV at 95% CL, which formally disfavors the inverted neutrino mass hierarchy at ~2.4 sigma, while the Lambda CDM limit disfavors it at ~3.5 sigma. The central claim is that cosmology now provides background-model-independent evidence for the normal neutrino mass ordering, with substantial gains in dark-energy figure-of-merit and growth-of-structure precision.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a landmark result: cosmology would independently establish the normal neutrino mass hierarchy, and the combined-probe DESI analysis would set leading constraints on H0, Omega_m, sigma8, and the dark-energy equation of state. The paper is unusually transparent about systematic effects: scale-cut stability is explicitly investigated, prior-volume effects are discussed and mitigated, and the one-loop bispectrum machinery is described in detail. The use of the cobra factorization, quasi-optimal estimators, and simulation-calibrated nuisance priors are technical strengths. However, the hierarchy claim rests on Bayesian upper limits under the hard prior M_nu>=0, and the w0waCDM exclusion is explicitly stated to require the one-loop bispectrum likelihood. The absence of a profile-likelihood or negative-mass analysis, together with the demonstrated sensitivity of sigma8 to bispectrum scale cuts, means the word 'robust' in the title currently outruns the evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.3, Table IV, Fig. 5] The central NH evidence is reported only as Bayesian 95% upper limits under the hard prior M_nu>=0. No unphysical-prior posterior or profile likelihood for M_nu is given. This matters because the introduction itself notes that DESI and CMB data favor nonphysical negative M_nu in Lambda CDM and in A_L-related contexts. Indeed, the w0waCDM block of Table IV appears to list negative central values in the M_nu column (e.g. -0.351+/-0.022 for CMB+lens+BAO), which contradicts the table note that the physical prior M_nu>=0 is imposed in all analyses and the Sec. 4.2 statement that M_nu is fixed to 0.06 eV in the w0waCDM section. If these rows are an unphysical-prior diagnostic, that is not stated; if they are a formatting error, the table must be corrected. Without a profile likelihood or a negative-mass analysis, the boundary-driven nature of the 0.057 eV and 0.095 eV limits cannot be assessed
  2. [Sec. 4.1, Table III; Sec. 4.3; App. B, Table V] The w0waCDM hierarchy exclusion is load-bearing on the one-loop bispectrum: the text states the w0waCDM exclusion is possible 'only when including the full-shape datasets and using the one-loop bispectrum likelihood.' Yet the fiducial scale choice is justified in part by the observation that raising k_max^B from 0.16 to 0.20 h/Mpc shifts sigma8 by -1.4 sigma and Omega_m by -0.7 sigma (Table III), which the authors attribute to two-loop contamination. Since the w0waCDM limit M_nu<0.095 eV sits only 0.003 eV above the inverted-hierarchy floor, a theory truncation error of this size in the amplitude-shape sector could move the limit across the floor. The current calibration argument relies on simulation tests in ref. [50] rather than an independent reproduction. Please provide dedicated injection tests for the neutrino mass with the fiducial 45-parameter one-loop bispectrum nuisance model a
  3. [Sec. 3.4, Eq. (37)-(40)] The projected angular statistics use a phenomenological Pade-resummed model for P_mm fitted to HMcode, with alpha(z) and beta(z) parameterized by Eq. (40). The paper states this model is accurate to ~3% in P_mm on non-linear scales, but no test is shown of how this approximation affects the inferred neutrino mass or sigma8. Because the lensing cross-correlations help break the As-M_nu degeneracy through the growth amplitude, a few-percent systematic in P_mm could in principle bias sigma8 at a level comparable to the reported 0.016 error. Please quantify the sensitivity of the fiducial M_nu bounds to the Pade/HMcode choice and to the priors on alpha, beta, and c_s.
  4. [Appendix A, Eq. (A27)] The mixed counterterm B^{ctr,II}_mixed is treated with a Fisher approximation linearized around fiducial values set equal to the prior means, and the text notes that this makes Eq. (A27) vanish at the prior mean. The paper asserts that parameter constraints are insensitive to this term, but no numerical demonstration is provided. Since the one-loop bispectrum is central to the neutrino-mass claim and introduces 45 nuisance parameters per bin, please report the effect of including or omitting this term, or of updating the fiducial values to the best-fit values, on the M_nu posterior.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract vs. main text] The abstract values are internally inconsistent with the body: the abstract appears to report sigma8=0.838+/-0.017 and M_nu<0.049/0.077 eV, whereas the abstract reproduced in the main text and Table IV report sigma8=0.815+/-0.016 and M_nu<0.057/0.095 eV. The dark-energy significance also varies (2.2/2.7 sigma vs. 2.6/2.8 sigma). Please align all quoted numbers.
  2. [Table IV] The w0waCDM block in Table IV has a first column that conflicts with the stated header M_nu [eV], with the fixed-M_nu=0.06 eV statement in Sec. 4.2, and with the note that the physical prior M_nu>=0 is applied. Please relabel or correct these rows, or explicitly describe them as an unphysical-prior diagnostic.
  3. [Sec. 4.3] The text says the inverted hierarchy is 'excluded by about 4 sigma' within Lambda CDM, while the abstract and Fig. 5 caption quote ~3.5 sigma (Lambda CDM) and ~2.4 sigma (w0waCDM). Please make the significance statements consistent and specify whether they are Bayesian posterior odds, profile-likelihood sigma, or something else.
  4. [Throughout] Several typos: 'new new statistics' in Sec. 4.1; 'determinstic' in Appendix A; 'British willdlife' in the acknowledgments. Please copyedit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: neutrino-mass bounds are genuinely data-driven; self-citations support the modeling but are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—M_nu<0.057 eV (LCDM) and <0.095 eV (w0waCDM) at 95% CL, disfavoring the inverted hierarchy—is an inference from a joint fit to galaxy clustering, BAO, CMB, lensing, and supernova data. The neutrino mass sum is a free parameter in the likelihood, with a physical prior M_nu>=0; it is not a parameter fitted to a subset and then renamed as a prediction. The one-loop EFT bispectrum model and the nuisance-parameter priors are adopted from the authors' prior papers (e.g., [50], Paper 1, Paper 2), but these are theoretical/simulation-calibrated inputs with stated assumptions, not quantities derived from the target neutrino-mass result. The paper explicitly reports robustness tests, including the -1.4 sigma shift in sigma8 when k_max^B is raised from 0.16 to 0.20 h/Mpc, and labels such aggressive scale cuts as not systematically robust. It also benchmarks key results against external measurements (Planck, DES-Y6, official DESI, 3x2-point analyses), providing independent points of contact. No self-definitional step, no fitted-input-called-prediction, and no imported uniqueness theorem were found. The analysis is therefore not circular, though it does rely on internally developed modeling choices that merit external validation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its free parameters are the standard EFT nuisance parameters and a few calibration parameters (k_NL, Pade fit). The main assumptions are the validity of the one-loop EFT, the cb/EdS neutrino treatment, and the independence/negligibility of certain covariances.

free parameters (3)
  • EFT nuisance parameters (b1, b2, bG2, bGamma3, b_nabla2_delta, e1, c1, c2, c-tilde, etc.) per spectroscopic bin = marginalized, 45 per spectroscopic bin
    These are the galaxy-bias and counterterm parameters of the EFT model. They are marginalized over with hand-chosen priors. They affect the cosmological parameter inference through degeneracies, especially sigma8, and thus the neutrino-mass constraint.
  • k_NL (non-linear scale) = 0.45 h/Mpc
    Fixed fiducial choice following previous work; controls the size of counterterms and the EFT expansion. Not fitted but chosen by hand; affects the model's response to priors.
  • Matter power spectrum Pade fit parameters alpha(z), beta(z) (with f0, Nf for each) = 4 parameters fitted to HMcode
    Used for the magnification-bias and lensing contributions. Fitted to HMcode output at ~3% accuracy. This is a calibration of the nonlinear matter power spectrum model used in the 2D likelihoods.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The one-loop EFT of large-scale structure is a valid description of galaxy clustering at the adopted scale cuts and with the adopted priors.
    The entire analysis relies on this. The paper acknowledges that at k_max^B = 0.2 h/Mpc the model breaks down (Table III), and the fiducial cuts are justified by simulations from the same group. The priors on 45 nuisance parameters are tuned to avoid prior volume effects and are not derived from first principles.
  • domain assumption The 'cb' prescription and EdS approximation for massive neutrinos in nonlinear clustering are accurate enough for these constraints.
    Section 3.1 and 3.4. The paper tests only the extreme cases M_nu = 0 and 0.06 eV and finds consistency, but the actual M_nu being varied in the likelihood uses the cb approximation.
  • domain assumption The Gaussian covariance matrices for the power spectrum, bispectrum, and angular spectra are accurate; cross-covariance between P and B, and between C_kappa-kappa and [C_gg, C_kappa-g], is negligible.
    Section 2.3. The paper cites prior simulation tests for some of these, but not for the exact one-loop bispectrum covariance at the fiducial scale cuts, and it explicitly omits some cross-covariances.
  • domain assumption DESI DR2 BAO and DR1 full-shape measurements can be treated as independent.
    Section 2.1. The paper refers to Paper 1 appendices for justification. If the covariance is non-negligible, the quoted errors are underestimated.
  • domain assumption Standard LCDM/w0waCDM background, standard neutrino free-streaming, and the fiducial Planck priors on n_s and omega_b.
    These are the cosmological model assumptions. The Planck priors on n_s and omega_b are inputs, not derived from the DESI data.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 50647 in / 9733 out tokens · 78703 ms · 2026-08-03T08:36:30.474991+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present cosmological parameter measurements from the full combination of DESI DR1 galaxy clustering data, described with large-scale structure effective field theory. By incorporating photometric galaxies and CMB lensing cross-correlations, and extending the bispectrum likelihood to smaller scales with a consistent one-loop computation, we achieve substantial gains in constraining power. Combined with the latest DESI baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) data and cosmic microwave background (CMB) priors on the spectral tilt and baryon density, we find, in $\Lambda$CDM, $H_0=69.08\pm 0.37~\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$, $\Omega_m=0.2974\pm 0.0050$, and $\sigma_8 = 0.838\pm 0.017$ ($S_8 = \sigma_8\sqrt{\Omega_m/0.3} =0.834\pm 0.018$). Adding the Pantheon+ supernovae (SNe), we find a $2.2\sigma$ preference for the $w_0w_a$ dynamical dark energy model from low-redshift data alone, rising to $2.7\sigma$ when exchanging the SNe for \textit{Planck} CMB data. Combining the full-shape, BAO, CMB, and SNe likelihoods improves the dark energy figure-of-merit by $15\%$ and bounds the neutrino mass sum to $M_\nu<0.049$ eV ($\Lambda$CDM) and $M_\nu<0.077$ eV ($w_0w_a$CDM) at 95\% CL. This is the strongest $w_0w_a$CDM bound to date, $37\%$ tighter than from the background expansion data alone. The preference for the normal neutrino mass ordering thus holds regardless of the background model: the inverted hierarchy is disfavored at ${\approx}\,3.5\sigma$ in $\Lambda$CDM and ${\approx}\,2.4\sigma$ in $w_0w_a$CDM, with the latter constraint free of the geometric tension between CMB and BAO that is known to sharpen the $\Lambda$CDM bound.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.16165 by Anton Chudaykin, James M. Sullivan, Mark Maus, Mikhail M. Ivanov, Oliver H. E. Philcox, Roger de Belsunce, Shi-Fan Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. As Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 21 Pith papers

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

  1. Galaxy Power Spectrum at Two-Loop Order: Implications for Weak Lensing Surveys and New Physics

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Two-loop EFT galaxy power spectrum achieves per-mille agreement with simulations to k=0.85 h/Mpc and yields three times narrower unbiased σ8 errors than linear theory.

  2. Effective Field Theory of Large Scale Structure and Newtonian Motion Gauges

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Newtonian motion gauges extend the validity of Newtonian EFTofLSS to scale-dependent growth and GR effects by transforming linear equations to Newtonian form, computing nonlinear clustering there, and transforming res...

  3. Effective Field Theory of Large Scale Structure and Newtonian Motion Gauges

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A Newtonian Motion Gauge found via Einstein-Boltzmann solver maps linear dynamics with scale-dependent growth and GR corrections to Newtonian equations, enabling consistent nonlinear EFT calculations that are transfor...

  4. Multi-tracers, multi-surveys: a joint Fisher analysis of DESI+PFS

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Multi-tracer analysis of the PFS-DESI overlap calibrates EFT priors for DESI, improving σ(fσ8) by 8% and σ(Mν) by 54% via better b1σ8 constraints.

  5. Measuring Cosmic Neutrino Masses Independently of Dark Energy

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0

    Two dark-energy-robust cosmological routes bound ∑mν to <0.152 eV (marginalized) and <0.41 eV (late-Universe-free), with the latter independent of tested w(a) models by construction.

  6. Cosmological Concordance in an Especially Opaque Universe: A Tentative Cosmological Detection of Physical Neutrino Mass in $\Lambda$CDM

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 conditional novelty 6.0

    Assuming τ=0.11±0.006 yields a 2σ positive neutrino mass detection (Σmν=0.10^{+0.04}_{-0.05} eV) and removes CMB-DESI tensions within ΛCDM.

  7. Multi-tracers, multi-surveys: a joint Fisher analysis of DESI+PFS

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A joint multi-tracer Fisher analysis of DESI and PFS cross-spectra calibrates bias parameters from data, improving forecasted constraints on fσ8 by 33%, neutrino mass by 80%, and Ωm by 49% compared to single-tracer baselines.

  8. A sound horizon independent measurement of $H_0$ from BOSS, DESI and DES Y3

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    Combining BOSS power spectrum and bispectrum with DESI and DES lensing data yields a sound-horizon-free H0 = 70.2 ± 2.3 km/s/Mpc, with a 1.8σ BAO scale deviation that is scale-cut dependent.

  9. Reanalyzing DESI DR1: 5. Cosmological Constraints with Simulation-Based Priors

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    Simulation-based priors applied to DESI DR1 full-shape data sharpen cosmological constraints (σ8 error halved) and yield Mν<0.090 eV in w0waCDM, but the results depend on HOD modeling assumptions.

  10. An analytic approximation to the covariance between pre- and post-reconstruction galaxy two-point statistics

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    A simple analytic formula built from the Gaussian disconnected covariance and a perturbative pre-post cross-power spectrum reproduces the simulation-estimated cross-covariance well enough for cosmological inference.

  11. Inflation, Open Universes, and Dark Energy

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    A slightly open universe with Ω_k ≈ 3×10^{-3} pulls n_s down to ~0.969, reconciling plateau inflation models with combined CMB and DESI data.

  12. Are Cosmological Data Excluding Sterile Neutrinos or Only the Fully Thermalized Limit?

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Cosmological observations constrain the effective abundance of light sterile neutrinos tightly while allowing non-fully-thermalized realizations to remain viable across LambdaCDM and CPL models.

  13. Euclid preparation: Testing multi-field inflation with galaxy power spectrum and bispectrum

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 conditional novelty 5.0

    Validates redshift-space power spectrum and bispectrum analysis on Abacus-PNG mocks to recover unbiased f_NL constraints for Euclid spectroscopic sample.

  14. Measuring neutrino mass in light of ACT DR6 and DESI DR2

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    New ACT and DESI data yield model-dependent upper limits on sum of neutrino masses, with holographic dark energy giving the tightest bounds and a consistent preference for degenerate hierarchy.

  15. Joint Constraints on Neutrinos and Dynamical Dark Energy in Minimally Modified Gravity

    astro-ph.CO 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    The w†VCDM model shows a statistically significant preference for late-time quintessence-phantom crossing dark energy, raises the Hubble constant, and satisfies neutrino mass and Neff constraints from current cosmolog...

  16. Intertwined Constraints in Extended Cosmologies: Dark Energy, Curvature, Neutrinos, and Inflation

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Dynamical dark energy remains preferred across extended models while curvature, neutrino mass and inflation parameters show strong model dependence, with no resolution of the H0 tension.

  17. Neutrino mass constraints in interacting dark energy models after DESI DR2

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Upper bounds on total neutrino mass in four phenomenological interacting dark energy models are derived from DESI DR2 BAO plus CMB and SNIa data, showing strong dependence on the interaction term form and statistical ...

  18. Cosmological Concordance in an Especially Opaque Universe: A Tentative Cosmological Detection of Physical Neutrino Mass in $\Lambda$CDM

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 reject novelty 3.0

    Imposing a high prior on τ = 0.11 ± 0.006 produces a 2σ positive neutrino mass sum of 0.10 eV and restores concordance between CMB and DESI data inside ΛCDM.

  19. Dark Energy in the DESI Era: A Brief Review of Evidence, Beyond-$\Lambda$CDM Interpretations, and Tensions

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 conditional novelty 3.0

    DESI data hint that dark energy evolves (w0>−1, wa<0, phantom crossing) at 2.5–4.2σ, but the same expansion history can also be produced by interacting dark sectors, modified gravity, or non-cold dark matter.

  20. GGI Lectures on Large-Scale Structure Perturbation Theory (Effective Field Theory)

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 2.0

    Pedagogical notes derive large-scale-structure EFT from symmetries, covering SPT failures, BAO IR resummation, counterterms, galaxy bias, redshift-space distortions, and Lagrangian PT.

  21. Dark Energy in the DESI Era: A Brief Review of Evidence, Beyond-$\Lambda$CDM Interpretations, and Tensions

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 1.0

    Review of DESI evidence for dynamical dark energy, its dependence on parametrization and datasets, and alternative beyond-LambdaCDM interpretations that may address cosmological tensions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

210 extracted references · 177 linked inside Pith · cited by 17 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    J. F. Donoghue, E. Golowich, and B. R. Holstein,Dynamics of the Standard Model, 2nd ed., Cambridge Monographs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    2023

  2. [2]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. P. Pinheiro, and T. Schwetz, JHEP12, 216 (2024), arXiv:2410.05380 [hep-ph]. 32

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    +a 6(k2 1z +k 2 2z +k 2 3z)) .(A18) 29 whilst the mixed contributions include the tree-level piece of (26) plus the one-loop term B1−loop (s) mixed (k1,k 2,k 3) = 1 +P shot ¯n (P (s) 22 (k1, k2) +P I(s) 13 (k1, k2) +P II(s) 13 (k1, k2) + 5 perms), P (s) 22 (k1, k2) = 2 Z q Z2(q,k 1 −q,k 2)Z2(q,−k 1 +q)P 11(q)P11(|k1 −q|), P I(s) 13 (k1, k2) = 3Z1(k1)P11(k...

  4. [4]

    FS 3D”. Their combination (which is the fiducial set-up) will be simply referred to as “FS

    RESUL TS 4.1. DESIΛCDM results We begin by presenting constraints on ΛCDM param- eters from the various DESI datasets discussed in Sec- tion 2. Throughout this subsection, we assume a mini- mal ΛCDM model withM ν = 0.06 eV, and impose CMB priors onn s andω b from (48). Our key results are shown in Fig. 2, with marginalized constraints summarized in Table ...

  5. [5]

    improved

    DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS In this work we have presented the most complete anal- ysis of the public DESI galaxy clustering data to date, incorporating the three-dimensional galaxy power spec- trum and bispectrum multipoles, the projected angular two-point correlations of DESI photometric galaxies and the cross-correlations of both photometric and spectro...

  6. [6]

    + 2k2z(k2 2 −k 2 3) . (A25) The second type of mixed counterterms is given by Bctr (s) II mixed (k1,k 2,k 3) = 1 ¯n(b1Bshot +f µ2 1Pshot)Z ctr 1 (k1)P11(k1) + 2 cyc., (A26) where we subtracted the Poisson contribution as before. In principle, these terms are second-order in EFT parameters, which prevents them from being analytically marginalized. Since ex...

  7. [7]

    Akeret al.(KATRIN), Science388, adq9592 (2025), arXiv:2406.13516 [nucl-ex]

    M. Akeret al.(KATRIN), Science388, adq9592 (2025), arXiv:2406.13516 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Lesgourgues and S

    J. Lesgourgues and S. Pastor, Phys. Rept.429, 307 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0603494 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  9. [9]

    Hannestad, Prog

    S. Hannestad, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.65, 185 (2010), arXiv:1007.0658 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  10. [10]

    K. N. Abazajianet al.(Topical Conveners: K.N. Abazajian, J.E. Carlstrom, A.T. Lee), Astropart. Phys.63, 66 (2015), arXiv:1309.5383 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  11. [11]

    Allison, P

    R. Allison, P. Caucal, E. Calabrese, J. Dunkley, and T. Louis, Phys. Rev. D92, 123535 (2015), arXiv:1509.07471 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  12. [12]

    Lattanzi and M

    M. Lattanzi and M. Gerbino, Front. in Phys.5, 70 (2018), arXiv:1712.07109 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    Brinckmann, D

    T. Brinckmann, D. C. Hooper, M. Archidiacono, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Sprenger, JCAP01, 059 (2019), arXiv:1808.05955 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    Racco, P

    D. Racco, P. Zhang, and H. Zheng, Phys. Dark Univ.47, 101803 (2025), arXiv:2412.04959 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Archidiacono, S

    M. Archidiacono, S. Hannestad, and J. Lesgourgues, JCAP09, 021 (2020), arXiv:2003.03354 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    Palanque-Delabrouille, C

    N. Palanque-Delabrouille, C. Y` eche, N. Sch¨ oneberg, J. Lesgourgues, M. Walther, S. Chabanier, and E. Armengaud, JCAP04, 038 (2020), arXiv:1911.09073 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    M. M. Ivanov, M. Simonovi´ c, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D101, 083504 (2020), arXiv:1912.08208 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  18. [18]

    Garny, T

    M. Garny, T. Konstandin, L. Sagunski, and M. Viel, JCAP03, 049 (2021), arXiv:2011.03050 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Kumar, R

    S. Kumar, R. C. Nunes, and P. Yadav, JCAP09, 060 (2022), arXiv:2205.04292 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    D. Wang, O. Mena, E. Di Valentino, and S. Gariazzo, Phys. Rev. D110, 103536 (2024), arXiv:2405.03368 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [22]

    M. M. Ivanov, M. W. Toomey, and N. G. Kara¸ caylı, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 091001 (2025), arXiv:2405.13208 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [23]

    Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [24]

    Elberset al.(DESI), (2025), arXiv:2503.14744 [astro-ph.CO]

    W. Elberset al.(DESI), (2025), arXiv:2503.14744 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [25]

    Chebatet al., (2025), 10.5281/zenodo.15878410, arXiv:2507.12401 [astro-ph.CO]

    D. Chebatet al., (2025), 10.5281/zenodo.15878410, arXiv:2507.12401 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [26]

    Chudaykin, M

    A. Chudaykin, M. M. Ivanov, and O. H. E. Philcox, (2025), arXiv:2511.20757 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [27]

    Jiang, W

    J.-Q. Jiang, W. Giar` e, S. Gariazzo, M. G. Dainotti, E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, D. Pedrotti, S. S. da Costa, and S. Vagnozzi, JCAP01, 153 (2025), arXiv:2407.18047 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [28]

    Chudaykin and M

    A. Chudaykin and M. M. Ivanov, JCAP11, 034 (2019), arXiv:1907.06666 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  28. [29]

    I. J. Allali and A. Notari, JCAP12, 020 (2024), arXiv:2406.14554 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [30]

    Roy Choudhury and T

    S. Roy Choudhury and T. Okumura, Astrophys. J. Lett.976, L11 (2024), arXiv:2409.13022 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [31]

    Craig, D

    N. Craig, D. Green, J. Meyers, and S. Rajendran, JHEP09, 097 (2024), arXiv:2405.00836 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [32]

    Tanseri, S

    I. Tanseri, S. Hagstotz, S. Vagnozzi, E. Giusarma, and K. Freese, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics36, 1 (2022), arXiv:2207.01913 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [33]

    Herold and M

    L. Herold and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D111, 083518 (2025), arXiv:2412.03546 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [34]

    Calabrese, A

    E. Calabrese, A. Slosar, A. Melchiorri, G. F. Smoot, and O. Zahn, Phys. Rev. D77, 123531 (2008), arXiv:0803.2309 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  34. [35]

    P. A. R. Adeet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.571, A16 (2014), arXiv:1303.5076 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  35. [37]

    Green and J

    D. Green and J. Meyers, Phys. Rev. D111, 083507 (2025), arXiv:2407.07878 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [38]

    P. A. R. Adeet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.566, A54 (2014), arXiv:1311.1657 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  37. [39]

    Roy Choudhury and S

    S. Roy Choudhury and S. Hannestad, JCAP07, 037 (2020), arXiv:1907.12598 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  38. [40]

    Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), (2025), arXiv:2503.14739 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), (2025), arXiv:2503.14739 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [41]

    Loverde and Z

    M. Loverde and Z. J. Weiner, JCAP12, 048 (2024), arXiv:2410.00090 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [42]

    Elbers, C

    W. Elbers, C. S. Frenk, A. Jenkins, B. Li, and S. Pascoli, Phys. Rev. D111, 063534 (2025), arXiv:2407.10965 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [43]

    P. W. Graham, D. Green, and J. Meyers, (2025), arXiv:2508.20999 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  42. [44]

    Sailer, G

    N. Sailer, G. S. Farren, S. Ferraro, and M. White, (2025), arXiv:2504.16932 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  43. [45]

    M. M. Ivanov, M. Simonovi´ c, and M. Zaldarriaga, JCAP05, 042 (2020), arXiv:1909.05277 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  44. [46]

    D’Amico, J

    G. D’Amico, J. Gleyzes, N. Kokron, D. Markovic, L. Senatore, P. Zhang, F. Beutler, and H. Gil-Mar ´ ın, (2019), arXiv:1909.05271 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  45. [47]

    S.-F. Chen, Z. Vlah, and M. White, JCAP02, 008 (2022), arXiv:2110.05530 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  46. [48]

    Baumann, A

    D. Baumann, A. Nicolis, L. Senatore, and M. Zaldarriaga, JCAP1207, 051 (2012), arXiv:1004.2488 [astro-ph.CO]. 33

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  47. [49]

    J. J. M. Carrasco, M. P. Hertzberg, and L. Senatore, JHEP09, 082 (2012), arXiv:1206.2926 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  48. [50]

    M. M. Ivanov, (2022), arXiv:2212.08488 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  49. [51]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), (2024), arXiv:2411.12022 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [52]

    Chudaykin, M

    A. Chudaykin, M. M. Ivanov, and O. H. E. Philcox, (2025), arXiv:2507.13433 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  51. [53]

    PolyBin3D: Binned polyspectrum estimation for 3D large-scale structure,

    O. H. E. Philcox, “PolyBin3D: Binned polyspectrum estimation for 3D large-scale structure,” Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2404.006 (2024)

    2024

  52. [54]

    T. Bakx, M. M. Ivanov, O. H. E. Philcox, and Z. Vlah, (2025), arXiv:2507.22110 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [55]

    Sefusatti, Phys

    E. Sefusatti, Phys. Rev. D80, 123002 (2009), arXiv:0905.0717 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  54. [56]

    R. E. Angulo, S. Foreman, M. Schmittfull, and L. Senatore, JCAP1510, 039 (2015), arXiv:1406.4143 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  55. [57]

    Baldauf, L

    T. Baldauf, L. Mercolli, M. Mirbabayi, and E. Pajer, JCAP1505, 007 (2015), arXiv:1406.4135 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  56. [58]

    Eggemeier, R

    A. Eggemeier, R. Scoccimarro, and R. E. Smith, (2018), arXiv:1812.03208 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  57. [59]

    O. H. E. Philcox, M. M. Ivanov, G. Cabass, M. Simonovi´ c, M. Zaldarriaga, and T. Nishimichi, Phys. Rev. D106, 043530 (2022), arXiv:2206.02800 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  58. [60]

    D’Amico, Y

    G. D’Amico, Y. Donath, M. Lewandowski, L. Senatore, and P. Zhang, (2022), arXiv:2211.17130 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  59. [61]

    Spaar and P

    S. Spaar and P. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D111, 023529 (2025), arXiv:2312.15164 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [62]

    T. Bakx, N. E. Chisari, and Z. Vlah, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 191002 (2025)

    2025

  61. [63]

    Saileret al., (2024), arXiv:2407.04607 [astro-ph.CO]

    N. Saileret al., (2024), arXiv:2407.04607 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  62. [64]

    Sailer, J

    N. Sailer, J. DeRose, S. Ferraro, S.-F. Chen, R. Zhou, M. White, J. Kim, and M. Madhavacheril, Phys. Rev. D111, 103540 (2025), arXiv:2503.24385 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [66]

    Mauset al., JCAP01, 134 (2025), arXiv:2404.07272 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Mauset al., JCAP01, 134 (2025), arXiv:2404.07272 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  64. [67]

    Tsedrik, P

    M. Tsedrik, P. Carrilho, and C. Moretti, (2025), arXiv:2509.09562 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [68]

    Chudaykin, K

    A. Chudaykin, K. Dolgikh, and M. M. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D103, 023507 (2021), arXiv:2009.10106 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  66. [69]

    O. H. E. Philcox and M. M. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D105, 043517 (2022), arXiv:2112.04515 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  67. [70]

    Mauset al., (2024), arXiv:2404.07312 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Mauset al., (2024), arXiv:2404.07312 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  68. [71]

    Chudaykin, M

    A. Chudaykin, M. M. Ivanov, and T. Nishimichi, (2024), arXiv:2410.16358 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  69. [72]

    Simon, P

    T. Simon, P. Zhang, V. Poulin, and T. L. Smith, Phys. Rev. D107, 123530 (2023), arXiv:2208.05929 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  70. [73]

    Morawetzet al.(DESI), (2025), arXiv:2508.11811 [astro-ph.CO]

    J. Morawetzet al.(DESI), (2025), arXiv:2508.11811 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  71. [74]

    Chudaykin, M

    A. Chudaykin, M. M. Ivanov, and O. H. E. Philcox, (2025), arXiv:2512.04266 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  72. [75]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), (2024), arXiv:2411.12020 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  73. [76]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), (2024), arXiv:2411.12021 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  74. [77]

    Chaussidonet al., JCAP06, 029 (2025), arXiv:2411.17623 [astro-ph.CO]

    E. Chaussidonet al., JCAP06, 029 (2025), arXiv:2411.17623 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  75. [78]

    de Belsunceet al., JCAP10, 077 (2025), arXiv:2506.22416 [astro-ph.CO]

    R. de Belsunceet al., JCAP10, 077 (2025), arXiv:2506.22416 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  76. [79]

    Heydenreich, A

    S. Heydenreich, A. Leauthaud, C. Blake, Z. Sun, J. U. Lange, T. Zhang, M. DeMartino, A. J. Ross, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, D. Bianchi, D. Brooks, F. J. Castander, T. Claybaugh, A. Cuceu, A. de la Macorra, J. DeRose, A. Dey, B. Dey, P. Doel, N. Emas, S. Ferraro, A. Font-Ribera, J. E. Forero-Romero, C. Garcia-Quintero, E. Gazta˜ naga, S. G. A. Gontcho, G. Gutie...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  77. [80]

    C. Hahn, M. J. Wilson, O. Ruiz-Macias, S. Cole, D. H. Weinberg, J. Moustakas, A. Kremin, J. L. Tinker, A. Smith, R. H. Wechsler, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, S. Bailey, D. Brooks, A. P. Cooper, T. M. Davis, K. Dawson, A. Dey, B. Dey, S. Eftekharzadeh, D. J. Eisenstein, K. Fanning, J. E. Forero-Romero, C. S. Frenk, E. Gazta˜ naga, S. G. A Gontcho, J. Guy, K. Honsche...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  78. [81]

    R. Zhou, B. Dey, J. A. Newman, D. J. Eisenstein, K. Dawson, S. Bailey, A. Berti, J. Guy, T.-W. Lan, H. Zou, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D. Brooks, A. de la Macorra, A. Dey, G. Dhungana, K. Fanning, A. Font-Ribera, S. G. A. Gontcho, K. Honscheid, M. Ishak, T. Kisner, A. Kov´ acs, A. Kremin, M. Landriau, M. E. Levi, C. Magneville, M. Manera, P. Martini, ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  79. [82]

    Chenet al., (2024), arXiv:2407.04795 [astro-ph.CO]

    S. Chenet al., (2024), arXiv:2407.04795 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  80. [83]

    R. Zhou, S. Ferraro, M. White, J. DeRose, N. Sailer, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Bailey, D. Brooks, T. Claybaugh, K. Dawson, A. de la Macorra, B. Dey, P. Doel, A. Font-Ribera, J. E. Forero-Romero, S. Gontcho A Gontcho, J. Guy, A. Kremin, A. Lambert, L. Le Guillou, M. Levi, C. Magneville, M. Manera, A. Meisner, R. Miquel, J. Moustakas, A. D. Myers, J. A. Newm...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.