Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 9 cited by

The paper claims that the cosmic optical depth can be pinned down to τ=0.0552 using reionization history combined with CMB data that exclude the large-scale E-mode polarization, sidestepping the systematic worries attached to that polarizat

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 10:31 UTC pith:2PXPF3LS

load-bearing objection Useful tau from CMB-without-lowE plus reionization data, but the independence claim is weakened by a GP prior mean from Planck lowE; needs a robustness test. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.09644 v2 pith:2PXPF3LS submitted 2026-01-14 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

A New Constraint on the Optical Depth from the Reionization History Independent of CMB Large-Scale E-Mode Polarization

Yuta Kageura , Masami Ouchi , Fumihiro Naokawa , Hiroya Umeda , Akinori Matsumoto , Yuichi Harikane , Minami Nakane , Tran Thi Thai This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA
keywords cosmic optical depthreionization historyneutral hydrogen fractionGaussian process regressionCMB E-mode polarizationbaryon acoustic oscillationsneutrino mass sumdynamical dark energy
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.

The paper sets out to measure the CMB optical depth τ without relying on the large-scale E-mode polarization, which is vulnerable to foreground and instrumental systematics. It combines the latest measurements of the neutral hydrogen fraction x_HI(z) from Lyman-α forest and damping-wing absorption with CMB power spectra that exclude that large-scale polarization, and obtains τ=0.0552+0.0019−0.0026 (stat) +0.0075−0.0049 (sys). The precise τ breaks the degeneracy between τ and the matter density Ωm, exposing a 2.4σ tension with baryon acoustic oscillation results and yielding a 95% upper limit of Σmν<0.055 eV that supports normal neutrino mass ordering. A mild 2.2σ tension between that cosmological cap and the oscillation-based lower limit is presented as an independent hint of physics beyond ΛCDM.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper discovers that the optical depth to reionization can be determined to ~4% precision without any large-scale E-mode polarization data, provided the reionization history is known. Using a Gaussian-process reconstruction of x_HI(z) from z≈5 to 14 and a Thomson-scattering integral, the analysis yields τ=0.0552+0.0019−0.0026, a value consistent with (but more precise than) the result that uses the E-mode data. This τ breaks the τ–Ωm degeneracy, and the resulting (H0rd, Ωm) is in 2.4σ tension with BAO measurements, confirming the mild ΛCDM discrepancy. The same combination with BAO gives Σmν<0.055 eV at 95% confidence, which favors normal mass ordering and, combined wit

What carries the argument

The central object is the Gaussian-process reconstruction of the neutral-hydrogen fraction x_HI(z), using a sigmoid link function and a radial-basis-function kernel with hyperparameters set by marginal likelihood. A prior mean μ(z)=z−7.67 is adopted, where 7.67 is the reionization midpoint inferred from CMB analyses that include the large-scale E-mode data the paper claims to avoid; this choice imports information from those low-E data. The reconstructed history is then integrated in the Thomson-scattering formula for τ, making τ a derived parameter rather than a fitted one.

Load-bearing premise

The 'independent' τ measurement leans on a Gaussian-process prior whose mean μ(z)=z−7.67 is taken from the large-scale E-mode-derived reionization midpoint; if that prior is replaced or is wrong, the τ value and the derived tensions could shift.

What would settle it

Take the same x_HI(z) data and run the Gaussian-process reconstruction with a prior mean that contains no low-E information, such as a constant or a mean fitted from the neutral-fraction data alone; if the resulting τ moves outside 0.0552±0.0026 (or the systematic range), then the claimed independence does not hold.

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

If this is right

  • τ can be measured at ~0.002 precision without using the uncertain large-scale E-mode polarization, so any systematic bias in that polarization measurement cannot be the sole driver of the CMB–BAO tension.
  • The τ–Ωm degeneracy is broken, giving Ωm=0.3165±0.0061 and H0=67.17±0.44 km/s/Mpc, both in mild 1.8σ tension with BAO and in 2.4σ tension in the (H0rd, Ωm) plane.
  • The derived upper limit Σmν<0.0550 eV (95%) strongly favors normal mass ordering and, when combined with oscillation results, disfavors quasi-degenerate neutrino spectra.
  • The 2.2σ tension between the cosmological upper limit and the oscillation lower bound is reached without low-E data, pointing toward either BAO systematics or new physics such as neutrino decay.
  • Precision on As, ns, and σ8 also improves by factors of 3–5 because the τ degeneracies are removed.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The claim of 'independence' is only partial: the Gaussian-process prior mean encodes the low-E-derived midpoint z=7.67, so a version that conditions only on the x_HI data (e.g., with a flat or data-driven mean) would test how much of the τ constraint is actually carried by the low-E information.
  • The same pipeline is ready-made for future 21-cm reionization measurements or deeper high-redshift galaxy damping-wing samples, which would shrink the systematic uncertainty that currently dominates the error budget.
  • If the neutrino-mass tension persists with more precise BAO data, it may constrain exotic mechanisms like neutrino decay or negative-mass effective models; the paper explicitly leaves a negative-mass prior for future work.
  • The 2.4σ CMB–BAO tension and the dynamical dark energy fit (w0=−0.55, wa=−1.40) are consistent with previous results, suggesting the low-E polarization data are not responsible for the apparent ΛCDM discrepancy.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper determines the CMB optical depth τ using Planck CMB power spectra that exclude the large-scale E-mode polarization (CamSpec l≥30 TT/TE/EE, Commander low-ell TT, ACT+Planck lensing) combined with a Gaussian-process reconstruction of the reionization history x_HI(z) from Lyα forest, damping-wing, LAE, and JWST/Subaru data. The central result is τ=0.0552+0.0019−0.0026 (stat.) +0.0075/−0.0049 (sys.), which the authors claim is independent of the CMB large-scale E-mode polarization. They further use this τ to break the τ–Ωm degeneracy, report a 2.4σ tension with DESI DR2 BAO in the H0rd–Ωm plane, and derive a 95% upper limit Σmν<0.0550 eV from CMB+BAO+x_HI(z). The statistical machinery is plausible and the τ value is consistent with previous estimates, but the headline independence is weakened because the Gaussian-process prior mean is fixed to μ(z)=z−7.67, where 7.67 is the Planck TTTEEE+lowE+lensing reionization midpoint. The paper does not quantify how much of the constraining power comes from this prior, so the central claim requires a robustness test.

Significance. If the central result survives an alternative choice of the Gaussian-process prior mean, the paper would provide a valuable route to τ that does not rely on low-ell E-mode polarization, with direct implications for the CMB–BAO tension and neutrino masses. The paper has clear strengths: it carefully selects x_HI measurements to avoid duplication, incorporates recent JWST/Subaru constraints, uses publicly available CMB likelihoods, and gives an explicit Gaussian-process framework with MCMC sampling. However, because the GP prior mean imports the very lowE information the analysis claims to avoid, the strict independence claim is not established. The systematic-error treatment is also insufficiently specified to assess the robustness of the reported τ and the derived tension. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main conclusions, so the manuscript needs substantial revision rather than minor polishing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (A2)] The GP prior mean is μ(z)=z−7.67, with 7.67 explicitly the reionization midpoint from Planck TTTEEE+lowE+lensing. Through the sigmoid (A1) this is not a weak centering: it imposes a fairly specific monotonic history, strongest where x_HI data are sparse (z≳9–10). This prior enters the first term of Eq. (1) before the CMB (w/o lowE) likelihood, so the final τ=0.0552 and its uncertainty may partly inherit the lowE information the paper says it avoids. Please rerun the analysis with (i) μ=0, (ii) μ(z)=z−z_mid with z_mid marginalized over a broad prior, or (iii) z_mid constrained only from CMB without lowE, and report the shift in τ and in the BAO tension. Without such a test, the independence claim is not supported.
  2. [Sec. 4.5] The systematic-error treatment is not reproducible as written. The statement 'we propagate a ~7% modeling uncertainty in the x_HI values' does not specify whether this is a coherent shift of all points, the assumed correlation, or how the quoted τ=0.0552+0.0075−0.0049 was obtained. Since the systematic error exceeds the statistical error and the paper itself lists additional unquantified biases (e.g., intrinsic-spectrum evolution, simulation resolution), the robustness of the central τ and of the 2.4σ BAO tension is not demonstrated. Please provide the explicit propagation calculation, including the covariance matrix for the x_HI modeling uncertainty, and show its effect on the H0rd–Ωm contours.
  3. [Sec. 2.1 and Sec. 3] The adopted constraint x_HI>0.999 (1σ lower limit) at z=15 is an assumption, not a measurement, and is used to enforce a monotonic reionization history. It enters the GP posterior before the CMB fit. While its direct contribution to the τ integral is small, its role as an anchor for the GP at high redshift and for the monotonicity assumption is not tested. Please add a sensitivity test that relaxes or removes this point, or substitutes a less restrictive prior, and report the effect on τ.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The factor '×100 km/s' and the appearance of h^2 inside the redshift integral are dimensionally unconventional; a brief note explaining the unit convention would help readers verify Eq. (2).
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption says the brown dotted lines indicate 'the redshift corresponding to instantaneous reionization with τ=0.09 and τ=0.0552' and then notes z=7.73 differs from z_mid=7.19. This is confusing because z_mid=7.19 is not the instantaneous-reionization redshift; please clarify which quantity each line represents.
  3. [Sec. 4.1 and Eq. (11)] The text describes the first term of Eq. (11) as the Gaussian-process posterior, but the notation p(x_HI(z⋆)|{x_HI}) is used both for the GP posterior and for the fitted values in Eq. (1). Please distinguish the GP training posterior from the 10-point fitting variables.
  4. [Sec. 4.3] When computing χ2 with Eq. (11), please state explicitly how the DESI covariance matrix is obtained and whether it includes the BBN prior on ωb used in the reported BAO-only Ωm and H0 values.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Claimed independence from low-ell E-mode is compromised: the GP prior mean is fixed by Planck TTTEEE+lowE+lensing, and the impact is unquantified.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Appendix A, Eq. (A2) and surrounding text; enters Eq. (1) and produces Eq. (3)]
    "For the mean function of the Gaussian process prior, we adopt μ(z) = z − 7.67 to reflect the monotonically increasing nature of x_HI. The value 7.67 corresponds to the midpoint of reionization derived from the Planck TTTEEE+lowE+lensing results (Planck Collaboration et al. 2020a)."

    The GP prior mean is centered on the reionization midpoint obtained from Planck TTTEEE+lowE+lensing — the very large-scale E-mode data the paper claims to exclude. Through the sigmoid Eq. (A1), this prior fixes the midpoint of the reconstructed x_HI(z) where data are sparse. The posterior in Eq. (A5) uses this prior, Eq. (1) carries it into the CMB (w/o lowE) fit, and Eq. (2) converts it into τ. Therefore the headline τ = 0.0552 in Eq. (3), and the subsequent BAO-tension and neutrino-mass claims, partially inherit the lowE information that the paper says it avoids. The paper does not quantify how much of the constraining power comes from this prior or test robustness to removing/replacing it.

full rationale

The core derivation is not fully circular: the x_HI(z) constraints are external astrophysical measurements, and the CMB likelihood explicitly excludes low-ell EE. However, the claimed independence from low-ell E-mode polarization is partially undermined by the GP prior mean. Appendix A sets μ(z)=z−7.67, with 7.67 explicitly taken from Planck TTTEEE+lowE+lensing. This prior enters the reionization-history posterior used in the joint likelihood, then propagates through the τ integral. Because the paper presents the result as 'independent of the large-scale E-mode polarization' and does not quantify the prior's influence, this is a genuine, load-bearing circular step. Self-citations to Kageura et al. 2025, Umeda et al. 2025a,b, and Nakane et al. 2024 are data papers with independent observational content, so the overall score is moderate rather than high. The numerical impact of the prior is unknown: the x_HI data at z=5–8 are strong, so the final τ may be mostly data-driven, but the paper does not demonstrate that the prior is negligible, especially at z≳9 where the data are sparse.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central τ measurement rests on a small set of fitting parameters—GP hyperparameters, ten x_HI values, and an imported lowE-based prior offset—plus astrophysical assumptions about helium reionization and the high-z neutral fraction. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • GP hyperparameters s and r = s=0.83, r=0.076
    Fitted by maximizing the marginalized likelihood against the x_HI data; they control the amplitude and correlation length of the reconstructed reionization history.
  • GP prior mean offset 7.67 = 7.67
    Imported from Planck TTTEEE+lowE+lensing; centers the prior on a lowE-derived reionization midpoint and partially compromises the claimed independence.
  • x_HI(z1..z10) = posterior values
    Ten neutral-fraction values at log-spaced redshifts between z=5 and z=15 are direct fitting parameters in the CMB likelihood.
  • 7% systematic shift on x_HI = 7%
    Chosen from a comparison of standard versus extreme ionized-bubble models in Kageura et al. (2025) and applied coherently to all x_HI values.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Gaussian process with RBF kernel and sigmoid transform adequately represents reionization history
    The smooth, monotonic x_HI(z) curve is a modeling choice not derived from first principles; it affects the integrated τ.
  • ad hoc to paper x_HI>0.999 at z=15 (1σ lower limit)
    Assumed to anchor the high-redshift neutral fraction and ensure monotonicity, following Elbers (2025).
  • domain assumption Helium reionization schedule η=1 for z>3.5 and η=2 for z≤3.5
    Taken from Planck 2020 and used in the τ integral; alters the electron budget.
  • domain assumption CMB likelihoods excluding low-ell EE are unbiased
    The analysis relies on CamSpec, Commander low-ell TT, and ACT lensing being free of systematics that would bias τ.
  • domain assumption The literature x_HI constraints are independent and not overfit by the GP
    The GP hyperparameters are fitted to the same x_HI data used in the cosmological inference, creating a potential overfitting loop.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25556 in / 8453 out tokens · 92041 ms · 2026-08-03T10:31:10.103538+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent studies report a mild discrepancy between BAO and CMB measurements within the $\Lambda$CDM framework. This discrepancy could be explained if the optical depth $\tau$ inferred from the CMB large-scale E-mode polarization is underestimated, which may be biased by foreground-subtraction or instrumental systematics. In this work, we present a determination of $\tau$ independent of the large-scale E-mode polarization, using the latest measurements of the redshift evolution of the neutral hydrogen fraction $x_\mathrm{HI}(z)$, which is constrained by Lyman-$\alpha$ forest and damping-wing absorption measurements at $z\sim5$--$14$, based on ground-based optical and JWST observations. Combining $x_\mathrm{HI}(z)$ with the Planck CMB power spectra excluding the large-scale E-mode polarization, we obtain $\tau=0.0552^{+0.0019}_{-0.0026}(\mathrm{stat.})^{+0.0075}_{-0.0049}(\mathrm{sys.})$, where the systematic uncertainty accounts for possible absorption-modeling effects in the inference of $x_\mathrm{HI}(z)$. This constraint is consistent with previous CMB results including the large-scale E-mode polarization. With this measurement, we resolve the degeneracy in the $\tau$--$\Omega_{\rm m}$ plane and find a $2.4\sigma$ tension with the DESI DR2 BAO results, thereby confirming the claimed mild discrepancy suggestive of physics beyond $\Lambda$CDM. Finally, we derive an upper limit on the sum of neutrino masses, $\Sigma m_\nu < 0.0550\,(0.0717)\,{\rm eV}$ at the 95\%\,(99\%) confidence level. This limit favors the normal mass ordering and, when combined with the lower limits from neutrino oscillation experiments, yields a further constraint, $\Sigma m_\nu = 0.0594_{-0.0007}^{+0.0113}\,{\rm eV}$. However, the cosmological upper limit and the oscillation-based lower limit show a mild $2.2\sigma$ tension, providing an independent indication of possible physics beyond $\Lambda$CDM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.09644 by Akinori Matsumoto, Fumihiro Naokawa, Hiroya Umeda, Masami Ouchi, Minami Nakane, Tran Thi Thai, Yuichi Harikane, Yuta Kageura.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Cosmic reionization history reconstructed via Gaussian process regression. The black line represents the median reionization history, while the gray shaded regions show the 68% (dark gray) and 95% (light gray) posterior ranges. We also present xH i estimates based on various methods used in this work: Lyα damping-wing absorption of GRBs (blue squares; Totani et al. 2006, 2014; Fausey et al. 2025), QSOs (or… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Constraints on cosmological parameters and τ for the ΛCDM model. The orange contours represent constraints derived from CMB Planck TTTEEE and Planck+ACT lensing and cosmic reionization history, excluding low-l EE. The blue and black contours indicate constraints obtained from CMB (w/o lowE) and CMB (w/ lowE), respectively. The dark and light contours show the 68% and 95% regions, respectively [PITH_FULL_I… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of our τ values with those from previ￾ous studies. The orange circles show our τ values from CMB (w/o lowE) and CMB (w/o lowE)+xH i(z). The purple and blue points indicate τ values from WMAP (Spergel et al. 2003; Bennett et al. 2013) and Planck (Planck Collaboration et al. 2014, 2016b, 2020a), respectively. The cyan circles show results from ACT (Louis et al. 2025) and SPT (Cam￾phuis et al. 2025… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Constraints on H0 and Ωm for the ΛCDM model. The blue, black, and orange contours show results based on CMB (w/o lowE), CMB (w/ lowE), and CMB (w/o lowE)+xH i(z), respectively. The green region for Ωm indicates constraints from DESI DR2 BAO measurements, while the green region for H0 shows results from DESI DR2 BAO data with a BBN prior on ωb. Contours show the 68% and 95% regions. 96 98 100 102 104 H0rd [… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Constraints on H0rd and Ωm for the ΛCDM model from DESI DR2 BAO (green), CMB (w/o lowE) (blue), and CMB (w/o lowE)+xH i(z) (orange). The result including reionization history in this work is consistent with the CMB (w/ lowE) constraint and is in 2.4σ tension with the DESI DR2 BAO measurements. Contours show the 68% and 95% regions. likelihood, which combines two-point correlation func￾tions of cosmic shear… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Constraints on σ8 and S8 for the ΛCDM model from HSC-Y3 (black), KiDS-Legacy (pink), DES Y3 (green), CMB (w/o lowE) (blue), and CMB (w/o lowE)+xH i(z) (orange). The S8 value obtained from CMB (w/o lowE)+xH i(z) is 2.7σ higher than the DES Y3 constraint, while remaining consistent with the HSC-Y3, KiDS-Legacy, and CMB (w/ lowE) results. Contours show the 68% and 95% regions. key caveat is that such inferenc… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Marginalized posterior distributions of the (w0-wa) parameters from CMB (w/o lowE) (blue), +BAO (green), and +xH i(z) (orange). The dashed lines indicate w0 = −1 and wa = 0. The ΛCDM model is disfavored at 2.1σ significance by CMB (w/o lowE)+BAO+xH i(z), con￾sistent with the CMB (w/ lowE)+BAO result reported by Abdul Karim et al. (2025a). Contours show the 68% and 95% regions. and (−1, 0). With this proced… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Marginalized posterior distributions of the (Σmν-τ ) parameters from CMB (w/o lowE) (blue), +BAO (green), and +xH i(z) (orange). A 95% (99%) upper limit of Σmν < 0.0550 (0.0717) eV is obtained from CMB (w/o lowE)+BAO+xH i(z). A similar upper limit of Σmν < 0.0649 (0.0906) eV (95% (99%)) is obtained from CMB (w/ lowE)+BAO. Contours show the 68% and 95% regions. 6. SUM OF NEUTRINO MASSES The sum of neutrino … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Marginalized posterior distributions of Σmν. An upper limit of Σmν < 0.0550 (0.0717) eV (95% (99%) limit) is obtained from CMB (w/o lowE)+BAO+xH i(z) (orange). The blue (pink) line indicates the likelihood of Σmν from neutrino oscillation experiments for normal (inverted) order￾ing, providing a lower limit on Σmν. The black line shows the probability distribution of Σmν from the combination of cosmological… 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 9 Pith papers

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

  1. A self-consistent analytical model for both the photoionization rate and reionization history

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A new analytical formalism self-consistently predicts both the ionized fraction x_i(z) and photoionization rate Gamma_HI(z), achieving percent-level accuracy in x_i and 20-30% accuracy in Gamma_HI versus radiative tra...

  2. DESI DR2 Results IV: Alcock-Paczy\'nski Measurements from the Lyman Alpha Forest and Cosmological Constraints

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    The full shape of DESI DR2 Lyman-alpha forest correlations constrains the distance ratio DM/DH at z=2.33 to 1.0%, twice as precise as BAO alone.

  3. DESI DR2 Results IV: Alcock-Paczy\'nski Measurements from the Lyman Alpha Forest and Cosmological Constraints

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0

    DESI DR2 Lyman-alpha forest full-shape correlations yield a 1% Alcock-Paczyński measurement at z=2.33 and 0.8% distance ratio constraints.

  4. 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.

  5. Fireworks at Cosmic Dawn: relieving BAO-CMB tensions with the Pop III.1 Flash

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A Pop III.1-driven early ionization phase at z=20 yields τ=0.087 consistent with pkSZ and Lyα constraints, potentially resolving BAO-CMB tensions on neutrino mass.

  6. A hidden reionization prior biases cosmological inference

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    No monotonic reionization history fits Planck τ, patchy kSZ from SPT/ACT, and Lyα endpoint; an early ionization phase at z≳12 relaxes ∑mν<0.39 eV and shifts σ8 via As-τ degeneracy.

  7. The Status of Single Scalar Field Dark Energy

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.5

    Cosmological data can constrain only a handful of EFT parameters for single-scalar dark energy; extended models show modest preference over Λ but remain underdetermined and challenged by fifth forces and screening.

  8. The Lumina Project: CMB Optical Depth Fluctuations from Patchy Reionization

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    The Lumina simulation shows that explicit light-cone integrations produce a CMB optical depth 7% higher than volume-weighted ionization histories, with the excess accumulating near redshift 8 and mass-weighted estimat...

  9. 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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 7 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Abbott, T. M. C., Aguena, M., Alarcon, A., et al. 2022a, PhRvD, 105, 023520, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023520

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023520

  2. [2]

    Abbott, T. M. C., Aguena, M., Allam, S., et al. 2022b, PhRvD, 105, 043512, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.043512 Abdul Karim, M., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al. 2025a, PhRvD, 112, 083515, doi: 10.1103/tr6y-kpc6 —. 2025b, PhRvD, 112, 083514, doi: 10.1103/2wwn-xjm5

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.043512

  3. [3]

    J., Singh, P., Fan, J., & Li, L

    Allali, I. J., Singh, P., Fan, J., & Li, L. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 082, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/082

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/082 2025

  4. [4]

    A., et al

    Amon, A., Gruen, D., Troxel, M. A., et al. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 023514, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023514

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023514 2022

  5. [5]

    G., Kulkarni, G., et al

    Asthana, S., Haehnelt, M. G., Kulkarni, G., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 2968, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1387

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1387 2025

  6. [6]

    L., Larson, D., Weiland, J

    Bennett, C. L., Larson, D., Weiland, J. L., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 20, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/20

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/20 2013

  7. [7]

    C., Mason, C., et al

    Bolan, P., Lemaux, B. C., Mason, C., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 3263, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1963

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1963 2022

  8. [8]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, L100, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slae067

    Trac, H. 2024, MNRAS, 533, L100, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slae067

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slae067 2024

  9. [9]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.20707, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.20707

    Camphuis, E., Quan, W., Balkenhol, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.20707, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.20707

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.20707 2025

  10. [10]

    2022, JCAP, 2022, 039, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/09/039

    Carron, J., Mirmelstein, M., & Lewis, A. 2022, JCAP, 2022, 039, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/09/039

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/09/039 2022

  11. [11]

    2024, Journal of High Energy Physics, 2024, 97, doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2024)097

    Craig, N., Green, D., Meyers, J., & Rajendran, S. 2024, Journal of High Energy Physics, 2024, 97, doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2024)097

    doi:10.1007/jhep09(2024)097 2024

  12. [12]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 622, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w Dark Energy Survey Collaboration, Abbott, T., Abdalla, F

    Curtis-Lake, E., Carniani, S., Cameron, A., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 622, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w Dark Energy Survey Collaboration, Abbott, T., Abdalla, F. B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1270, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw641

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01918-w 2023

  13. [13]

    B., Bosman, S

    Davies, F. B., Bosman, S. E. I., D’Odorico, V., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf1862, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1862

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1862 2026

  14. [14]

    2019, A&A, 629, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834882

    Vibert, L. 2019, A&A, 629, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834882

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834882 2019

  15. [15]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.16589, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.16589

    Du, G.-H., Li, T.-N., Wu, P.-J., Zhang, J.-F., & Zhang, X. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.16589, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.16589

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.16589 2025

  16. [16]

    2021, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 4, 8, doi: 10.21105/astro.1910.00483

    Efstathiou, G., & Gratton, S. 2021, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 4, 8, doi: 10.21105/astro.1910.00483

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.21069, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.21069

    Elbers, W. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.21069, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.21069

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.21069 2025

  18. [18]

    E., et al

    Elbers, W., Aviles, A., Noriega, H. E., et al. 2025, PhRvD, 112, 083513, doi: 10.1103/w9pk-xsk7

    doi:10.1103/w9pk-xsk7 2025

  19. [19]

    C., Maltoni, M., et al

    Esteban, I., Gonzalez-Garcia, M. C., Maltoni, M., et al. 2024, Journal of High Energy Physics, 2024, 216, doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2024)216

    doi:10.1007/jhep12(2024)216 2024

  20. [20]

    M., Vejlgaard, S., van der Horst, A

    Fausey, H. M., Vejlgaard, S., van der Horst, A. J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 2839, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2757

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2757 2025

  21. [21]

    L., D’Aloisio, A., Paardekooper, J.-P., et al

    Finkelstein, S. L., D’Aloisio, A., Paardekooper, J.-P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1ea8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1ea8 2019

  22. [22]

    T., Honscheid, K., et al

    Flaugher, B., Diehl, H. T., Honscheid, K., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 150, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/5/150

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/150/5/150 2015

  23. [23]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  24. [24]

    G., & Bolton, J

    Garcia-Gallego, O., Irˇ siˇ c, V., Haehnelt, M. G., & Bolton, J. S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.00107, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.00107

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.00107 2025

  25. [25]

    B., et al

    Greig, B., Mesinger, A., Davies, F. B., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 5390, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac825

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac825 2022

  26. [26]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 3208, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1080

    Greig, B., Mesinger, A., Ba˜ nados, E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3208, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1080

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1080 2024

  27. [27]

    E., & Peterson, B

    Gunn, J. E., & Peterson, B. A. 1965, ApJ, 142, 1633, doi: 10.1086/148444

    doi:10.1086/148444 1965

  28. [28]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  29. [29]

    2012, JCAP, 2012, 027, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/04/027

    Howlett, C., Lewis, A., Hall, A., & Challinor, A. 2012, JCAP, 2012, 027, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/04/027

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/04/027 2012

  30. [30]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  31. [31]

    2018, ApJ, 854, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa544

    Ishigaki, M., Kawamata, R., Ouchi, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa544

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa544 2018

  32. [32]

    2025, PhRvD, 112, 043541, doi: 10.1103/6vd2-rbfn

    Jhaveri, T., Karwal, T., & Hu, W. 2025, PhRvD, 112, 043541, doi: 10.1103/6vd2-rbfn

    doi:10.1103/6vd2-rbfn 2025

  33. [33]

    2023, ApJ, 942, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca678

    Jin, X., Yang, J., Fan, X., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca678

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca678 2023

  34. [34]

    C., Bunker, A

    Jones, G. C., Bunker, A. J., Saxena, A., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 2355, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2670

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2670 2025

  35. [35]

    L., Dickinson, M., et al

    Jung, I., Finkelstein, S. L., Dickinson, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbd44

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbd44 2020

  36. [36]

    2025, ApJS, 278, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adc690

    Kageura, Y., Ouchi, M., Nakane, M., et al. 2025, ApJS, 278, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adc690

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adc690 2025

  37. [37]

    2025, General Relativity and Gravitation, 57, 135, doi: 10.1007/s10714-025-03470-6

    Kallosh, R., & Linde, A. 2025, General Relativity and Gravitation, 57, 135, doi: 10.1007/s10714-025-03470-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10714-025-03470-6 2025

  38. [38]

    Lattanzi, M., Gerbino, M., Freese, K., Kane, G., & Valle, J. W. F. 2020, Journal of High Energy Physics, 2020, 213, doi: 10.1007/JHEP10(2020)213

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep10(2020)213 2020

  39. [39]

    2025, JCAP, 2025, 025, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/025

    Lewis, A. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 025, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/025

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/025 2025

  40. [40]

    2000, ApJ, 538, 473, doi: 10.1086/309179 18Kageura et al

    Lewis, A., Challinor, A., & Lasenby, A. 2000, ApJ, 538, 473, doi: 10.1086/309179 18Kageura et al

    doi:10.1086/309179 2000

  41. [41]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.14957, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.14957

    Liu, R., Zhu, Y., Hu, W., & Miranda, V. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.14957, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.14957

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.14957 2025

  42. [42]

    L., et al

    Lodha, K., Calderon, R., Matthewson, W. L., et al. 2025, PhRvD, 112, 083511, doi: 10.1103/w4c6-1r5j

    doi:10.1103/w4c6-1r5j 2025

  43. [43]

    2025, JCAP, 2025, 062, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/062

    Louis, T., La Posta, A., Atkins, Z., et al. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 062, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/062

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/062 2025

  44. [44]

    S., Qu, F

    Madhavacheril, M. S., Qu, F. J., Sherwin, B. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acff5f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acff5f 2024

  45. [45]

    A., Chen, Z., Stark, D

    Mason, C. A., Chen, Z., Stark, D. P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.11702, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.11702

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.11702 2025

  46. [46]

    A., Naidu, R

    Mason, C. A., Naidu, R. P., Tacchella, S., & Leja, J. 2019a, MNRAS, 489, 2669, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2291

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2291

  47. [47]

    A., Treu, T., Dijkstra, M., et al

    Mason, C. A., Treu, T., Dijkstra, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab0a7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab0a7 2018

  48. [48]

    A., Fontana, A., Treu, T., et al

    Mason, C. A., Fontana, A., Treu, T., et al. 2019b, MNRAS, 485, 3947, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz632

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz632

  49. [49]

    P., Pezzulli, G., et al

    Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Pezzulli, G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 5960, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac801

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac801 2022

  50. [50]

    McDonough, E., & Ferreira, E. G. M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.05108, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.05108

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.05108 2025

  51. [51]

    D., Mesinger, A., & D’Odorico, V

    McGreer, I. D., Mesinger, A., & D’Odorico, V. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 499, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2449

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2449 2015

  52. [52]

    2023, PhRvD, 108, 123517, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123517

    Miyatake, H., Sugiyama, S., Takada, M., et al. 2023, PhRvD, 108, 123517, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123517

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.123517 2023

  53. [53]

    2023, PhRvD, 108, 123520, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123520 Mu˜ noz, J

    More, S., Sugiyama, S., Miyatake, H., et al. 2023, PhRvD, 108, 123520, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123520 Mu˜ noz, J. B., Mirocha, J., Chisholm, J., Furlanetto, S. R., & Mason, C. 2024, MNRAS, 535, L37, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slae086

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.123520 2023

  54. [54]

    P., Tacchella, S., Mason, C

    Naidu, R. P., Tacchella, S., Mason, C. A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7cc9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7cc9 2020

  55. [55]

    2024, ApJ, 967, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad38c2

    Nakane, M., Ouchi, M., Nakajima, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad38c2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad38c2 2024

  56. [56]

    2025, PhRvL, 135, 161004, doi: 10.1103/qgnn-6hsf

    Namikawa, T. 2025, PhRvL, 135, 161004, doi: 10.1103/qgnn-6hsf

    doi:10.1103/qgnn-6hsf 2025

  57. [57]

    $n\pi$ phase ambiguity of cosmic birefringence

    Kamada, K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.15538, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.15538

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.15538 2024

  58. [58]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.14171, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.14171

    Napolitano, L., Pentericci, L., Dickinson, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.14171, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.14171

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.14171 2025

  59. [59]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S13, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx074

    Ouchi, M., Harikane, Y., Shibuya, T., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S13, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx074

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psx074 2018

  60. [60]

    2020, A&A, 635, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936630

    Vibert, L. 2020, A&A, 635, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936630

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936630 2020

  61. [61]

    K., Finelli, F., & Smoot, G

    Paoletti, D., Hazra, D. K., Finelli, F., & Smoot, G. F. 2025, PhRvD, 111, 043532, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.043532 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321591 Planck Collaboration, Adam, R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016a, A&A, 596, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628897 Planck Collaboration, A...

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.043532 2025

  62. [62]

    2025, PASA, 42, e049, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2025.35

    Qin, Y., Mesinger, A., Prelogovi´ c, D., et al. 2025, PASA, 42, e049, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2025.35

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2025.35 2025

  63. [63]

    J., Sherwin, B

    Qu, F. J., Sherwin, B. D., Madhavacheril, M. S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfe06

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acfe06 2024

  64. [64]

    I., Costantin, L., et al

    Rinaldi, P., Caputi, K. I., Costantin, L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdc27

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acdc27 2023

  65. [65]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 4620, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2744

    Rosenberg, E., Gratton, S., & Efstathiou, G. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 4620, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2744

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2744 2022

  66. [66]

    S., Ferraro, S., & White, M

    Sailer, N., Farren, G. S., Ferraro, S., & White, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.16932, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.16932

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.16932 2025

  67. [67]

    F., Samuroff, S., Krause, E., et al

    Secco, L. F., Samuroff, S., Krause, E., et al. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 023515, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023515

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023515 2022

  68. [68]

    2025, MNRAS, 542, 3125, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1377

    Shimizu, S., Kashikawa, N., Kikuta, S., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 3125, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1377

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1377 2025

  69. [69]

    H., Bevins, H

    Sims, P. H., Bevins, H. T. J., Fialkov, A., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 3856, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1864

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1864 2025

  70. [70]

    2015, MNRAS, 453, 1843, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1751

    Sobacchi, E., & Mesinger, A. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 1843, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1751

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1751 2015

  71. [71]

    N., Verde, L., Peiris, H

    Spergel, D. N., Verde, L., Peiris, H. V., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 175, doi: 10.1086/377226

    doi:10.1086/377226 2003

  72. [72]

    2023, PhRvD, 108, 123521, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123521

    Sugiyama, S., Miyatake, H., More, S., et al. 2023, PhRvD, 108, 123521, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123521

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.123521 2023

  73. [73]

    2024, PhRvD, 109, L121305, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.L121305

    Tada, Y., & Terada, T. 2024, PhRvD, 109, L121305, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.L121305

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.l121305 2024

  74. [74]

    C., & Komatsu, E

    Tan, J. C., & Komatsu, E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.19647, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.19647

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.19647 2025

  75. [75]

    P., Topping, M

    Tang, M., Stark, D. P., Topping, M. W., Mason, C., & Ellis, R. S. 2024, ApJ, 975, 208, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7eb7 The Dark Energy Survey Collaboration. 2005, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0510346

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0510346 2024

  76. [76]

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

    Torrado, J., & Lewis, A. 2019, Cobaya: Bayesian analysis in cosmology, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1910.019. http://ascl.net/1910.019 Constraint on the Optical Depth from the Reionization History19 —. 2021, JCAP, 2021, 057, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/057

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/057 2019

  77. [77]

    2006, PASJ, 58, 485, doi: 10.1093/pasj/58.3.485

    Totani, T., Kawai, N., Kosugi, G., et al. 2006, PASJ, 58, 485, doi: 10.1093/pasj/58.3.485

    doi:10.1093/pasj/58.3.485 2006

  78. [78]

    2014, PASJ, 66, 63, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psu032

    Totani, T., Aoki, K., Hattori, T., et al. 2014, PASJ, 66, 63, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psu032

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psu032 2014

  79. [79]

    J., G´ orski, K

    Tristram, M., Banday, A. J., G´ orski, K. M., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039585 —. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 083524, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.083524

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039585 2021

  80. [80]

    J., Douspis, M., et al

    Tristram, M., Banday, A. J., Douspis, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348015

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348015 2024

Showing first 80 references.