Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

A joint CMB–Lyman-α analysis finds a ~2σ hint of nonzero running-of-the-running β_s ≈ -0.0076, tilting n_s to ~0.971 and favouring featureful inflation potentials over simple power-law ones.

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

2026-08-04 00:18 UTC pith:IBNDK5WW

load-bearing objection Useful joint constraint and a public tool, but the beta_s signal and the inflation-model 'disfavouring' both rest on compressed/likelihood-surrogate choices that need a hard look before believing. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2511.01612 v3 pith:IBNDK5WW submitted 2025-11-03 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Running of the spectral index: Reconciling the CMB with the Lyman-α Forest

Malcolm Fairbairn , Lucien Heurtier , Mar\'ia Olalla Olea-Romacho This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO hep-ph PACS 98.80.Cq
keywords primordial power spectrumspectral index runningrunning-of-the-runningLyman-α forestCMBinflation potentialsaxion monodromyslow-roll
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 combining Planck, ACT DR6, SPT-3G, and eBOSS Lyman-α forest data reveals a scale dependence in the primordial power spectrum beyond the simple power law: a preference for nonzero running-of-the-running β_s ≈ -0.0076 at about 2σ, with the spectral index shifting to n_s ≈ 0.971. If true, this is the first hint of structure in the inflaton potential between CMB and Lyman-α scales. The authors further claim that inflationary potentials with localised Gaussian bumps/dips or axion-monodromy oscillations reproduce the inferred scale dependence, while the pure power-law potential is strongly disfavoured (ΔAIC ≈ -101 when eBOSS data are included). A sympathetic reader would care because it suggests that the simplest single-field slow-roll models are incomplete and that small-scale matter power spectrum measurements can probe the shape of the inflaton potential.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that the small-scale suppression of power seen by eBOSS Lyman-α forest data, when combined with Planck, ACT DR6, and SPT-3G CMB data, is best described by a Taylor-expanded primordial power spectrum with nonzero running and running-of-the-running. In the full (α_s, β_s) analysis, the median values with eBOSS are n_s = 0.971 ± 0.004, α_s = -0.0032 ± 0.0039, and β_s = -0.0076 ± 0.0035, with β_s = 0 disfavoured at about 2σ. The paper then shows that single-field potentials with localised features—Gaussian dips/bumps or axion-monodromy modulations—can match these effective spectral parameters while keeping the Taylor expansion valid up to k ≃ 1 h Mpc⁻¹, whereas

What carries the argument

The central object is the Taylor expansion of the dimensionless primordial power spectrum, ln Δ²_R(k) = ln A_s + (n_s − 1) ln(k/k⋆) + (α_s/2) ln²(k/k⋆) + (β_s/6) ln³(k/k⋆), around the pivot scale k⋆ = 0.05 Mpc⁻¹. This expansion carries the argument by turning joint CMB and Lyman-α measurements into constraints on the spectral shape parameters (A_s, n_s, α_s, β_s). A second piece of machinery is the compressed eBOSS likelihood, which reduces the Lyman-α flux power spectrum to two numbers—amplitude Δ²_lin and tilt n_lin at a pivot redshift and wavenumber—and which, when combined with the full CMB posteriors, drives the preference for negative β_s. The paper's PIPE code then serves as the bridg

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the small-scale suppression seen in the Lyman-α forest is primordial—written into the inflationary power spectrum—rather than a late-time effect such as warm dark matter or modified small-scale clustering; if it is late-time, the inferred negative α_s and β_s are artifacts and the inflation-potential interpretation collapses.

What would settle it

Compute the full (uncompressed) Lyman-α flux power spectrum from a survey such as DESI and compare its shape to the prediction from (α_s, β_s) = (-0.003, -0.0076) over k ≈ 0.3–3 Mpc⁻¹; a significant curvature mismatch would falsify the primordial-running claim. Alternatively, a detection of a warm dark matter particle with mass below ~5 keV would provide a late-time explanation and invalidate the need for inflationary features.

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

If this is right

  • If the 2σ hint of β_s survives, the standard single-field slow-roll paradigm with negligible running is incomplete between CMB and Lyman-α scales.
  • The previously reported >5σ CMB–eBOSS tension drops to roughly 3σ once α_s and β_s are included, meaning the 'tension' may be a manifestation of higher-order scale dependence rather than a systematics failure.
  • Featureful inflation models—Gaussian dips/bumps and axion-monodromy—become concrete targets for next-generation surveys that probe k ≳ 0.1 Mpc⁻¹ with higher precision.
  • The public PIPE code lets any user test an arbitrary single-field potential against these datasets, turning the constraint into a routine check.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If confirmed by future data, the nonzero β_s would imply that the inflaton potential contains a feature on a field range of roughly Δφ ~ 0.1–1 M_Pl, corresponding to the last ~10 e-folds before the end of inflation—a scale at which particle production or monodromy effects naturally operate.
  • A direct test would be to measure the full shape, not just the compressed amplitude and tilt, of the Lyman-α flux power spectrum; if the curvature at k ~ 1 Mpc⁻¹ deviates from the power-law implied by (α_s, β_s), the primordial interpretation weakens.
  • The assumption that the suppression is primordial is itself testable: a detection of warm dark matter with m_WDM ≲ 5 keV would mimic the cutoff and remove the need for inflationary running, so the two explanations are in competition.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper combines Planck, ACT DR6, SPT-3G, and eBOSS Lyman-α data to constrain the Taylor-expansion parameters (n_s, α_s, β_s) of the primordial power spectrum around k⋆=0.05 Mpc^{-1}. With a compressed 2D Gaussian eBOSS likelihood on (Δ²_lin, n_lin), the joint MCMC analysis finds that adding eBOSS shifts n_s to ~0.971 and produces a ~2σ preference for negative β_s (−0.00755±0.00347), in addition to a negative α_s. The paper then introduces a public code, PIPE, which uses a KDE of the MCMC posterior as a surrogate likelihood to fit slow-roll potentials (monomial, Gaussian bump/dip, axion-monodromy) and reports that featureful potentials are strongly preferred over a pure power-law potential (Δχ²≈−107, ΔAIC≈−101) when eBOSS is included.

Significance. If the β_s preference survives scrutiny, it would be the first hint of running-of-running in the primordial spectrum, with implications for inflationary model building between CMB and Lyman-α scales. The MCMC pipeline is standard (Cobaya+CAMB, public likelihoods, Gelman-Rubin convergence), and the release of PIPE is a useful community resource. However, the central claim rests on a compressed eBOSS likelihood whose sufficiency for β_s is not demonstrated, and the inflation-model comparison uses an emulator likelihood rather than a direct evaluation of the CMB and Lyman-α data. These issues make the quantitative conclusions, as currently presented, not yet fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Power Spectrum Running / Likelihood; Supplemental S1] The central ~2σ preference for β_s≠0 is obtained from a compressed 2D Gaussian eBOSS likelihood (Δ²_lin, n_lin) at a single pivot. β_s is the curvature of ln P_R(k) in Eq. (1); a single tilt measurement at one pivot only senses β_s through its extrapolated contribution to n_lin. The validity check in S1 shows only that the best-fit linear power spectra lie within the eBOSS 1σ band; it does not verify that the compressed likelihood is a sufficient statistic for the full Lyα flux-power shape in the (α_s,β_s) plane. Given the strong α_s–β_s degeneracy visible in Fig. 2, a comparison with the full eBOSS likelihood (as in Ref. [7]) or a synthetic-data test is needed to show that the compressed likelihood recovers the same joint posterior. Without this, the claimed β_s detection may be an artifact of the compression.
  2. [Implications for Inflation / Likelihood; Table III] The reported Δχ²≈−107 and ΔAIC≈−101 are computed from lnL_KDE, the KDE of the MCMC posterior for (A_s,n_s,α_s,β_s), not from an evaluation of the actual CMB+Lyα likelihood. The best-fit potentials are optimized against exactly this surrogate (plus the fixed r-prior), so the agreement in Table II is a fit by construction. The statement that the power-law potential is 'strongly disfavoured' at the data level is therefore not supported as presented. Each potential's prediction should be passed through CAMB and the real likelihoods, or at minimum the KDE likelihood-ratio should be calibrated against the full likelihood on test models, before quoting model-comparison statistics.
  3. [Supplemental S2; Table III] Because the KDE likelihood depends only on the four Taylor parameters, any potential mapping to the same (A_s,n_s,α_s,β_s) receives the same lnL_KDE. The Taylor-consistency penalty in Eq. (S1) further forces bump, dip, and axion-monodromy models onto the same slow-roll branch, which explains the exactly identical likelihoods in Table III. The conclusion that 'localised structures' in the potential are required is thus not model-independent: the analysis shows only that these parametrizations can be tuned to a point in the MCMC posterior. This degeneracy should be stated explicitly, and evidence for the feature models over the monomial baseline should be quantified without relying solely on the surrogate Δχ².
  4. [Introduction; Summary and Discussion] The inflationary interpretation assumes that the eBOSS small-scale suppression is primordial. The paper states this assumption but does not quantitatively test it against late-time alternatives; warm dark matter or altered small-scale clustering could absorb the same suppression and remove the need for β_s≠0. A robustness check adding a minimal WDM-like transfer-function suppression and re-deriving (α_s,β_s) would clarify whether the claimed hint is genuinely primordial. This is not a fatal flaw given the open assumption, but it is load-bearing for the broad conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Supplemental S6] Heading 'PIMORDIAL' should be 'PRIMORDIAL'.
  2. [Title] The arXiv title and the full-text title differ ('Running of the spectral index...' vs 'Is ΛCDM on the run?...'). Please harmonize.
  3. [Power Spectrum Running / Likelihood] The claim that 'all the cosmological information in the eBOSS flux power spectrum can be compressed into two parameters' should be qualified, since the compression was not derived for the extended (α_s,β_s) parameter space used here.
  4. [Table I] Units and conventions for log10 V0, φ0 in M_Pl, and the field range are not defined in the main text; please add a sentence to the caption or text.
  5. [Summary and Discussion] Minor grammatical issues, e.g., 'none of the standard slow-roll models, including α-attractors, produce such large higher-order runnings' — suggest rewording.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: central constraints come from external likelihoods; the inflation-model comparison is an explicit fit rather than a disguised prediction.

full rationale

The paper's core result, the preference for nonzero (α_s, β_s), is obtained by an MCMC over external data likelihoods (Planck, ACT DR6, SPT-3G, and the compressed eBOSS 2D Gaussian from Goldstein et al. [14]). The Taylor expansion in Eq. (1) only parametrizes the primordial power spectrum; β_s is not an input to any of these likelihoods and is not defined in terms of the fitted result. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the authors do not cite their own prior work for any central premise, and the external references (Rogers & Poulin, Goldstein et al., ACT/SPT likelihood papers, BK18) provide independent data or methodology. The inflation-model half of the paper is a fit, not a circular derivation: PIPE constructs a KDE from the same MCMC posterior and optimizes potential parameters against it, and the paper consistently describes this as 'reproducing' or 'best-fit' behavior rather than as an independent prediction. The identical likelihoods among feature models are explicitly attributed to the Taylor-expansion consistency condition, i.e. a modeling degeneracy, and the paper acknowledges that multiple parameter combinations give nearly identical effective spectra. The compressed-eBOSS validity check in S1 is a post-hoc best-fit check rather than a comparison against the full Lyα flux-power likelihood; this is a robustness/correctness concern about loss of shape information, not a circular step. Likewise, the assumption that the small-scale suppression is primordial is stated explicitly and is an interpretive premise, not a result derived from itself. Overall, the derivation chain does not reduce any claimed prediction to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

10 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the free parameters are either the fitted spectral parameters (n_s, α_s, β_s) or the parameters of the inflationary potentials tuned with PIPE. The main burden is carried by the Taylor-expansion validity and the compressed eBOSS likelihood, both domain assumptions that are checked only partially.

free parameters (10)
  • n_s (spectral index) = 0.97101 ± 0.00391 (ACT+P+SPT+eBOSS median, Table IV)
    Baseline tilt of the primordial power spectrum at pivot k*=0.05 Mpc^-1, fitted to CMB+Lyα.
  • α_s (running) = -0.00323 ± 0.00390 (median, Table IV)
    First derivative of n_s; the main target of the CMB+Lyα analysis.
  • β_s (running-of-running) = -0.00755 ± 0.00347 (median, Table IV)
    Second derivative of n_s; the load-bearing claimed nonzero parameter (~2σ).
  • V0 (inflation potential scale) = log10 V0 ≈ -10.27 to -9.38 (Table I)
    Overall normalization of the monomial/feature potentials, fitted to the CMB amplitude A_s.
  • α (monomial exponent) = 0.03–1.64 depending on model/dataset (Table I)
    Controls the baseline spectral index and tensor ratio; fitted to the posterior.
  • A (bump/dip amplitude) = log10 A ≈ -1.09 to -1.77 (feature models, +eBOSS)
    Amplitude of the localised Gaussian or monodromy modulation, tuned to generate the running.
  • φ0 (feature position) = e.g. -8.28 M_Pl (Gaussian bump, +eBOSS, Table I)
    Field position of the feature, matched to the eBOSS scale in the potential.
  • σ (feature width) = e.g. 0.964 M_Pl (Gaussian bump, +eBOSS, Table I)
    Width of the Gaussian feature, sets the scale range of the running.
  • γ, f, p_f (axion-monodromy parameters) = e.g. γ=24.7, log10 f=-0.372, p=-0.006 (+eBOSS, Table I)
    Phase, decay constant and index of the oscillatory modulation, fitted to reproduce oscillations/running.
  • δ_thresh (Taylor validity threshold) = 1% (and 3% at kmax)
    Hand-chosen threshold used to discard potentials whose Taylor expansion deviates from the numerical slow-roll spectrum; stated not to affect the reported best fits.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Primordial origin of the eBOSS small-scale suppression
    Stated at the start of the analysis ("assuming the small-scale suppression is primordial rather than a late-time effect"); if false, the inferred α_s,β_s are late-time artifacts. Warm-DM alternatives are acknowledged in the Discussion.
  • domain assumption Taylor expansion Eq. (1) up to β_s term is valid from k*=0.05 Mpc^-1 to k~1 h/Mpc (and 3.5 h/Mpc)
    Used to define the MCMC likelihood and to compare potentials in PIPE; checked for the best-fit potentials but not for the full posterior.
  • domain assumption eBOSS compressed 2D Gaussian likelihood is a sufficient summary of the Lyα flux power spectrum
    The analysis uses only Δ²_lin and n_lin at one pivot from Goldstein et al. [14]; any curvature information in the flux spectrum is discarded, which could bias β_s.
  • domain assumption Leading-order slow-roll approximation maps potentials to (A_s,n_s,α_s,β_s) reliably
    The PPS is computed from slow-roll parameters at horizon exit [35]; localised features may violate slow roll, though the Taylor-validity penalty indirectly checks the result.
  • domain assumption Gaussian KDE with Scott's-rule bandwidth faithfully represents the MCMC posterior
    PIPE's lnL_KDE replaces the full likelihood; Fig. S2 shows good agreement, but the Gaussian approximation can smooth away non-Gaussian tails that matter for tension estimates.
  • domain assumption BK18 tensor-to-scalar ratio prior lnπ_r applies to the tested potentials
    Used as an external constraint in PIPE; standard but not re-derived.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12775 in / 21251 out tokens · 218971 ms · 2026-08-04T00:18:43.180927+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the scale dependence of the primordial power spectrum by combining \Planck, ACT DR6, SPT-3G, and eBOSS Lyman-$\alpha$ forest data, extending sensitivity to smaller comoving scales than those probed by the CMB alone. Within a parametrisation based on a Taylor expansion around the pivot scale, we constrain the running of the spectral index $\alpha_s$ and its running $\beta_s$. By using eBOSS likelihoods exhibiting a suppression of small-scale power either in amplitude or spectral index, we show that the latter can be accommodated by correlated variations of $(\alpha_s,\beta_s)$, leading to a preference for non-zero running. We show that inflationary potentials with localised features -- such as Gaussian dips, bumps, or axion-monodromy modulations -- can reproduce the inferred scale dependence while remaining compatible with current CMB constraints. We release the public {\tt PIPE} code to enable systematic tests of inflationary potentials against current CMB datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.01612 by Lucien Heurtier, Malcolm Fairbairn, Mar\'ia Olalla Olea-Romacho.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.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 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Cosmological analysis of the DESI DR1 Lyman alpha 1D power spectrum

    astro-ph.CO 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    DESI DR1 Lyman-alpha data yields Δ²★=0.379±0.032 and n★=-2.309±0.019 at k★=0.009 km⁻¹s and z=3, sharpening N_eff, α_s, and β_s constraints by factors of 1.18-1.90 when combined with other probes.

  2. 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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 35 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Consequently, CMB data collectively preferα s >0 andβ s >0, while eBOSS drives both negative. ACT and SPT therefore accentuate thePlanck–eBOSS tension, and allowing a constant negativeβ s only partially allevi- ates it—it steepens the small-scale suppression but can- not recover the positive running preferred by the CMB. Implications for Inflation —Recent...

    1951

  2. [2]

    A. R. Liddle and D. H. Lyth, Phys. Rept.231, 1 (1993), arXiv:astro-ph/9303019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  3. [3]

    Baumann,Cosmology(Cambridge University Press, 2022)

    D. Baumann,Cosmology(Cambridge University Press, 2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D23, 347 (1981)

    1981

  5. [5]

    Komatsuet al.(WMAP), Astrophys

    E. Komatsuet al.(WMAP), Astrophys. J. Suppl.192, 18 (2011), arXiv:1001.4538 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  6. [6]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Chabanieret al.(eBOSS), JCAP07, 017 (2019), arXiv:1812.03554 [astro-ph.CO]

    S. Chabanieret al.(eBOSS), JCAP07, 017 (2019), arXiv:1812.03554 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    K. K. Rogers and V. Poulin, Phys. Rev. Res.7, L012018 (2025), arXiv:2311.16377 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Louiset al.(ACT), (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro- ph.CO]

    T. Louiset al.(ACT), (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Calabreseet al.(ACT), (2025), arXiv:2503.14454 [astro-ph.CO]

    E. Calabreseet al.(ACT), (2025), arXiv:2503.14454 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Hannestad, S

    S. Hannestad, S. H. Hansen, F. L. Villante, and A. J. S. Hamilton, Astropart. Phys.17, 375 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0103047

    arXiv 2002

  12. [12]

    Camphuiset al.(SPT-3G), (2025), arXiv:2506.20707 [astro-ph.CO]

    E. Camphuiset al.(SPT-3G), (2025), arXiv:2506.20707 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A5 (2020), arXiv:1907.12875 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    Pagano, J

    L. Pagano, J. M. Delouis, S. Mottet, J. L. Puget, and L. Vibert, Astron. Astrophys.635, A99 (2020), arXiv:1908.09856 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Goldstein, J

    S. Goldstein, J. C. Hill, V. Irˇ siˇ c, and B. D. Sherwin, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 201001 (2023), arXiv:2303.00746 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, JCAP05, 057 (2021), arXiv:2005.05290 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, Astrophys. J. 538, 473 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9911177

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  18. [18]

    Raveri and C

    M. Raveri and C. Doux, Phys. Rev. D104, 043504 (2021), arXiv:2105.03324 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and D. Roest, JHEP11, 198 (2013), arXiv:1311.0472 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  20. [20]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and D. Roest, JHEP08, 052 (2014), arXiv:1405.3646 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  21. [21]

    Kallosh and A

    R. Kallosh and A. Linde, JCAP10, 033 (2013), arXiv:1307.7938 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  22. [22]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B91, 99 (1980)

    1980

  23. [23]

    F. L. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B659, 703 (2008), arXiv:0710.3755 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  24. [24]

    E. G. M. Ferreira, E. McDonough, L. Balkenhol, R. Kallosh, L. Knox, and A. Linde, (2025), arXiv:2507.12459 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Drees and Y

    M. Drees and Y. Xu, Phys. Lett. B867, 139612 (2025), arXiv:2504.20757 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    M. R. Haque, S. Pal, and D. Paul, (2025), arXiv:2505.04615 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    D. S. Zharov, O. O. Sobol, and S. I. Vilchinskii, Phys. Rev. D112, 023544 (2025)

    2025

  28. [28]

    Ye and B.-M

    Y.-Y. Ye and B.-M. Gu, (2025), arXiv:2507.20307 [gr- qc]

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Barnaby and Z

    N. Barnaby and Z. Huang, Phys. Rev. D80, 126018 (2009), arXiv:0909.0751 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  30. [30]

    Barnaby, Phys

    N. Barnaby, Phys. Rev. D82, 106009 (2010)

    2010

  31. [31]

    D. J. H. Chung, E. W. Kolb, A. Riotto, and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. D62, 043508 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9910437

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  32. [32]

    Fumagalli, S

    J. Fumagalli, S. Renaux-Petel, and L. T. Witkowski, JCAP08, 030 (2021), arXiv:2012.02761 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    S. S. Mishra and V. Sahni, JCAP04, 007 (2020), arXiv:1911.00057 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    Flauger, L

    R. Flauger, L. McAllister, E. Pajer, A. Westphal, and G. Xu, JCAP06, 009 (2010), arXiv:0907.2916 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  35. [35]

    Flauger, L

    R. Flauger, L. McAllister, E. Silverstein, and A. West- phal, JCAP10, 055 (2017), arXiv:1412.1814 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  36. [36]

    Auclair and C

    P. Auclair and C. Ringeval, Phys. Rev. D106, 063512 (2022), arXiv:2205.12608 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    Lewis, (2019), arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]

    A. Lewis, (2019), arXiv:1910.13970 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  38. [38]

    Tristramet al., Phys

    M. Tristramet al., Phys. Rev. D105, 083524 (2022), arXiv:2112.07961 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Biek¨ otter, (2025), arXiv:2507.06082 [hep-ph]

    T. Biek¨ otter, (2025), arXiv:2507.06082 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Archidiacono, D

    M. Archidiacono, D. C. Hooper, R. Murgia, S. Bohr, J. Lesgourgues, and M. Viel, JCAP10, 055 (2019), arXiv:1907.01496 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  41. [41]

    Bagherian, M

    H. Bagherian, M. Joseph, M. Schmaltz, and E. N. Sivara- jan, Phys. Rev. D111, 043513 (2025), arXiv:2405.17554 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    M.-Y. Wang, R. A. C. Croft, A. H. G. Peter, A. R. Zent- ner, and C. W. Purcell, Phys. Rev. D88, 123515 (2013)

    2013

  43. [43]

    D. C. Hooper, N. Sch¨ oneberg, R. Murgia, M. Archidia- cono, J. Lesgourgues, and M. Viel, JCAP10, 032 (2022), arXiv:2206.08188 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    Palanque-Delabrouilleet al., JCAP11, 011 (2015), arXiv:1506.05976 [astro-ph.CO]

    N. Palanque-Delabrouilleet al., JCAP11, 011 (2015), arXiv:1506.05976 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  45. [45]

    A. He, M. M. Ivanov, S. Bird, R. An, and V. Gluscevic, Phys. Rev. D112, 063540 (2025)

    2025

  46. [46]

    Chabanier, M

    S. Chabanier, M. Millea, and N. Palanque-Delabrouille, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.489, 2247 (2019), arXiv:1905.08103 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  47. [47]

    A. H. Wrightet al., (2025), 10.1051/0004- 6361/202554908, arXiv:2503.19441 [astro-ph.CO]. 1 100 k [h Mpc−1] 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 P (k, z=3) / P (k, z=3; ΛCDM) ACT+P (αs) ACT+P (αs, βs) ACT+P+SPT ( αs) ACT+P+SPT( αs, βs) ACT+P+SPT+eBOSS ( αs) ACT+P+SPT+eBOSS ( αs, βs) no running FIG. S1.Linear matter power spectrum, rescaled both in ampl...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    This package allows to calculate the statistical tension between distributions that are not necessarily gaussian, which is exactly what is needed in our case

    to estimate the statistical tension between CMB observatories and eBOSS measurements. This package allows to calculate the statistical tension between distributions that are not necessarily gaussian, which is exactly what is needed in our case. In each case, we tested that the result obtained is stable when varying internal settings used by tensiometer, s...