Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Fractional Dark Matter decay: cosmological imprints and observational constraints

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A decaying slice of dark matter is capped at 2.73 percent of the total, and the kinetic Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect gives a new way to test it.

desk verdict The central decaying-DM bound is defensible; the kSZ forecast rests on an unvalidated extrapolation and should be treated as preliminary. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02668 v2 pith:PINBUNO6 submitted 2019-08-07 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Linfeng Xiao , Le Zhang , Rui An , Chang Feng , Bin Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COhep-ph PACS 98.80.-k95.35.+d
keywords darkmatterdecayradiationcosmicmicrowavebackgroundredshift-spacedistortionskineticSunyaev-Zel'dovicheffectcosmologicalconstraintsH0tensionsigma8
topics Dark MatterThe Hubble Tension
open problems Dark MatterDark Energy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks how much of the dark matter could be an unstable component that decays into massless, invisible 'dark radiation,' and what that decay would do to the sky. Using the full Boltzmann hierarchy for the radiation produced by the decay, it computes the gravitational imprints on the CMB temperature spectrum, on the growth of structure measured through redshift-space distortions, and on the baryon velocity field that generates the kinetic Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect. Combining Planck 2015, BAO, and RSD data, it tightens the 1σ bound on the short-lived decaying fraction from $f_{\rm dcdm}\lesssim5.26\%$ to $f_{\rm dcdm}\lesssim2.73\%$; for long-lived decays the RSD data do not improve the constraint. The paper also argues that future kSZ surveys will provide a further, independent handle on the model.

What carries the argument

The engine of the calculation is a two-parameter fractional decaying-cold-dark-matter model ($f_{\rm dcdm}$, $\Gamma_{\rm dcdm}$) in which the unstable component decays into massless, collisionless dark radiation, with the full Boltzmann hierarchy for that radiation evolved alongside the standard photon, baryon, neutrino, and CDM sectors. The decay acts through source terms proportional to $\Gamma_{\rm dcdm}$ in the dark-radiation perturbation equations; physically, the decay lowers the matter density and suppresses the Weyl potential $|\Phi|$, and this suppression is what boosts the Sachs–Wolfe and integrated Sachs–Wolfe contributions to the CMB low-$\ell$ spectrum, lowers $f\sigma_8$, and reduces the baryon velocity power spectrum that enters the kSZ signal. To isolate decay-specific signatures, the illustrative calculations hold the CMB angular sound-horizon scale $\theta_{MC}$ fixed and adjust the dark-energy density accordingly, while the Monte-Carlo analysis leaves $\theta_{MC}$ free.

What would settle it

Run N-body simulations of the decaying-cold-dark-matter model with $\Gamma_{\rm dcdm}\gtrsim1\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$ and compare the resulting non-linear matter power spectrum with the fixed-rate fitting formula used here; if the mismatch exceeds the SPT kSZ measurement uncertainty, the predicted $C^{\rm kSZ}_{\ell=3000}$ suppression and the derived constraints would shift accordingly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a fractional cold dark matter component decaying into dark radiation before recombination is allowed only at a level below $f_{\rm dcdm}\lesssim2.73\%$ (68% CL) for $\Gamma_{\rm dcdm}/H_0\gtrsim10^4$, when Planck 2015 CMB + BAO + redshift-space distortion data are combined. For long-lived decays the current data do not improve the existing bound, with $f_{\rm dcdm}\lesssim0.94\%$ from the same combination, and the model can only slightly reduce the $H_0$ and $\sigma_8$ tensions, leaving them near $3\sigma$. The paper further claims, for the first time, a detailed investigation of the kinetic Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect as a probe of this model: the decay suppresses baryon peculiar velocities and therefore the kSZ power spectrum at $\ell=3000$, so the SPT measurement prefers a nonzero decaying fraction while future kSZ surveys would constrain the parameter space independently.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the non-linear clustering correction fitted from simulations for very long-lived dark-matter decay remains accurate for the much faster decay rates studied here, even though the code evaluates it at a single fixed slow rate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Short-lived decays (most DCDM gone before recombination) are pinned to $f_{\rm dcdm}<2.73\%$ at 1σ, cutting the previous bound by roughly a factor of two when RSD data are added.
  • Long-lived decays remain weakly constrained, and RSD data do not sharpen the bound; the $f_{\rm dcdm}$–$\Gamma_{\rm dcdm}$ degeneracy persists because observables respond mainly to the product $f_{\rm dcdm}\Gamma_{\rm dcdm}$.
  • The DCDM model does not substantially ease the $H_0$ and $\sigma_8$ tensions; they persist at about the $3\sigma$ level.
  • Dark-matter decay suppresses the kSZ power spectrum at $\ell=3000$, and the current SPT measurement favours a non-zero decaying fraction, implying future kSZ surveys can act as an independent test of the model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the kSZ preference for a non-zero decaying fraction is real, the same suppression should appear in other velocity-sensitive probes, such as pairwise kSZ measurements or velocity-reconstruction statistics; a cross-check with those would test the DCDM interpretation.
  • The near-degeneracy of $f_{\rm dcdm}$ and $\Gamma_{\rm dcdm}$ in long-lived models suggests that any claimed bound on the fraction depends on the assumed lifetime; reporting constraints on the product $f_{\rm dcdm}\Gamma_{\rm dcdm}$ as well would make comparisons between papers cleaner.
  • Because DCDM and a higher neutrino mass both suppress structure and kSZ, future kSZ data will need joint fits with neutrino mass to avoid misattributing one effect to the other.
  • The fixed-$\theta_{MC}$ illustrations imply that some of the low-$\ell$ CMB boost is a bookkeeping effect of adjusting $\rho_\Lambda$; model comparisons that do not fix $\theta_{MC}$ may see smaller low-$\ell$ signatures.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a cosmological model in which a fraction f_dcdm of the cold dark matter decays into invisible massless 'dark radiation' with decay rate Gamma_dcdm. Using a modified CAMB/CosmoMC pipeline, the authors compute the effects on the CMB, matter growth, the baryon velocity field, and the kinetic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (kSZ) effect. They report an updated 68% upper limit f_dcdm < 2.73% for short-lived dark matter (Gamma_dcdm/H0 > 1e4) from Planck 2015 + BAO + RSD data, a weaker limit of about 0.94% for the long-lived case, and argue that the current SPT kSZ measurement prefers a nonzero decaying fraction while future kSZ surveys would provide additional constraining power. The paper also presents physical interpretations of the signatures through the evolution of the Weyl potential.

Significance. If the main constraint result is correct, the paper provides a useful update on the allowed fraction of decaying dark matter, tightening the short-lived bound by roughly a factor of two relative to earlier work. The use of a standard MCMC pipeline with stated priors, external datasets (Planck, BAO, RSD, SPT), and convergence criteria is a strength, as is the transparent separation of the background, linear perturbation, and observational analyses. The kSZ investigation is interesting and potentially valuable, but its quantitative conclusions currently rest on an unvalidated extrapolation of a nonlinear transfer function, so the kSZ-related forecasts and the claim that SPT data 'prefer the presence of decaying DM' are not yet supported. The primary Planck+BAO+RSD bound does not depend on that assumption and remains the most robust result.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.4, Eq. (3.14) and Fig. 12] The kSZ power spectrum is computed using the nonlinear transfer function T_NL from Ref. [69], which the paper itself states is calibrated only for Gamma_dcdm <= 1/31 Gyr^-1. The calculation evaluates this function at a single fixed Gamma = 1/31 Gyr^-1 for all decay rates, including short-lived models with Gamma up to 3000 Mpc^-1. The paper calls this a 'conservative assumption' but provides no evidence that T_NL does not deviate considerably for larger Gamma. Physically, for short-lived DCDM the dark matter is essentially gone before recombination, so the late-time matter distribution should approach standard CDM plus dark radiation; using the long-lived DCDM fit likely over-suppresses small-scale power and hence over-suppresses the kSZ signal. This directly affects Fig. 12, the comparison with SPT in Sec. 4.2, and the conclusion that future kSZ measurements will tightly constrain DCDM. The authors should either validate the approximation (e.g., with N-body simulations for representative short-lived models), quantify the systematic uncertainty, or explicitly reframe the kSZ results as an idealized forecast and soften the associated claims.
  2. [Sec. 4.2, Figs. 17 and 18] The kSZ constraint analysis fixes all cosmological parameters to Planck 2015 best-fit values and varies only omega_c^ini, f_dcdm, and Gamma_dcdm. The resulting 2D/3D contours are therefore not a full posterior, and the statement that the SPT best-fit value deviates from the 'Planck2015+BAO+RSD'-inferred one at the 2 sigma level compares two very different constructions: a fixed-parameter chi-square map versus a marginalized MCMC posterior. The paper should clarify what the contours represent, avoid interpreting them as equivalent to a joint constraint, and ideally perform a full MCMC sampling including the kSZ likelihood rather than a conditional scan. This is important because the claim of a possible tension between kSZ and CMB data rests on this comparison.
  3. [Sec. 4.1, Table 4] The headline bound f_dcdm < 2.73% for the short-lived model is presented as an improvement over f_dcdm < 5.26% from Planck2015+BAO alone. This is internally consistent, but the paper does not discuss how sensitive the limit is to the assumed flat prior on log10(Gamma_dcdm/Mpc^-1) in the range 0.5-3.5. Since the posterior for Gamma_dcdm is only weakly constrained and the limit on f_dcdm is quoted as a 68% upper limit, a brief prior-sensitivity check (e.g., a wider or linear prior) would strengthen the claim that the bound is driven by the data rather than by the prior range.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 1] The text uses 'redshift distortion' where 'redshift-space distortion' (or 'redshift distortions') is standard; please correct the terminology consistently.
  2. [Sec. 2.1] The phrase 'with a considerion of DM decay' contains a typo; it should be 'with a consideration of DM decay'.
  3. [Sec. 3.4, Eq. (3.15)] The upper limit of the kSZ integral is given as z* = 12, but the text earlier refers to t* as 'before the reionization' and the paper includes contributions up to the present. Please clarify that the z* = 12 cutoff is a numerical convergence choice and that it includes the post-reionization contribution, as the sentence 'any contributions from the higher ones can be safely neglected' suggests.
  4. [Fig. 13 caption] The caption says 'bottom-left' and 'bottom-right' for panels (b) and (c); please renumber the panels or refer to them by their labels (b) and (c) to avoid ambiguity.
  5. [Sec. 3.4, around Eq. (3.13)] The transfer function W_g(k) is set to unity, but its meaning as a baryon smoothing function and the impact of this choice on the kSZ prediction should be stated explicitly, since the paper later emphasizes the importance of nonlinear corrections.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the DCDM constraints are obtained by fitting independent external data with imported equations; the kSZ transfer-function extrapolation is an acknowledged modeling limitation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The model equations (2.1)-(2.13) are imported from the independent literature [35,37,70], and the perturbed fluid equations are solved with a modified CAMB, not inferred from the data being constrained. The headline bound f_dcdm < 2.73% (Table 4) is the output of a CosmoMC likelihood analysis using Planck 2015, BAO, and external f_sigma_8 measurements; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The RSD dataset is taken from a compilation [50] that includes one of the present authors (B. Wang), but the data themselves are external measurements with published covariance, so this citation is not load-bearing and does not make the result circular. The closest issue is the kSZ computation in Sec. 3.4, where T_NL from Ref. [69] is used at a fixed Gamma = 1/31 Gyr^-1 for all decay rates even though Ref. [69] is calibrated only for that extreme long-lived case; the paper states this as a 'conservative assumption.' That is an extrapolation and a robustness concern for the kSZ forecasts in Sec. 4.2, not a definitional equivalence or a self-citation chain forcing the result. In particular, the main 2.73% bound does not use T_NL and is unaffected. Consequently, no circular step can be exhibited under the required standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on the two fitted model parameters (f_dcdm and Gamma_dcdm), the standard cosmological perturbation framework, and the kSZ non-linear modeling assumption. No new fundamental entity is proposed beyond the inherited dark radiation component.

free parameters (2)
  • f_dcdm = upper limits: 0.84% (long-lived, Planck+BAO); 2.73% (short-lived, Planck+BAO+RSD); 0.94% (long-lived, with RSD)
    Fraction of total cold dark matter that decays; free parameter in the MCMC, constrained by the data.
  • Gamma_dcdm = unconstrained (long-lived); log10(Gamma/Mpc^-1) > 2.087 at 68% (short-lived)
    Decay rate of the DCDM component; free parameter with flat prior (long-lived) or log-flat prior (short-lived).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Cold dark matter decays into massless, non-interacting dark radiation with constant decay rate Gamma_dcdm (Eqs. 2.1-2.2).
    Defines the model; if the decay products interact or are massive, the imprints and bounds change.
  • ad hoc to paper DCDM starts decaying at a = 10^-8 with no dark radiation present before that epoch (Sec 3.1).
    This initial condition is an implementation choice that avoids decays before the chosen start; for the prior range used it is numerically safe, but it is an arbitrary cut.
  • ad hoc to paper The non-linear transfer function T_NL of Ref [69], calibrated for Gamma <= 1/31 Gyr^-1, is used for all decay rates, evaluated at a fixed Gamma = 1/31 Gyr^-1 (Sec 3.4).
    This is an explicit extrapolation beyond the calibration range; it directly controls the kSZ power spectrum amplitude.
  • standard math Linear perturbation theory and the Boltzmann hierarchy, including the decay source terms, correctly describe the evolution of metric perturbations (Sec 2.2).
    Standard cosmology framework; the modifications follow Ref [37].
invented entities (1)
  • Dark radiation (DR)
    purpose: Massless invisible decay products of the DCDM fraction; their gravitational backreaction produces the cosmological signatures.
    Inherited from the DCDM model of Ref [37]; the paper provides no new particle-physics handle, and the only evidence is the cosmological fit itself.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fractional Dark Matter decay: cosmological imprints and observational constraints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PINBUNO6

@misc{pith2026190802668,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fractional Dark Matter decay: cosmological imprints and observational constraints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PINBUNO6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02668}
}
abstract

If a fraction $f_{\rm dcdm}$ of the Dark Matter decays into invisible and massless particles (so-called "dark radiation") with the decay rate (or inverse lifetime) $\Gamma_{\rm dcdm}$, such decay will leave distinctive imprints on cosmological observables. With a full consideration of the Boltzmann hierarchy, we calculate the decay-induced impacts not only on the CMB but also on the redshift distortion and the kinetic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, while providing detailed physical interpretations based on evaluating the evolution of gravitational potential. By using the current cosmological data with a combination of Planck 2015, Baryon Acoustic Oscillation and redshift distortion measurements which can improve the constraints, we update the $1\sigma$ bound on the fraction of decaying DM from $f_{\rm dcdm}\lesssim5.26\%$ to $f_{\rm dcdm}\lesssim2.73\%$ for the short-lived DM (assuming $\Gamma_{\rm dcdm}/H_0\gtrsim10^4$). However, no constraints are improved from RSD data ($f_{\rm dcdm}\lesssim0.94\%$) for the long-lived DM (i.e., $\Gamma_{\rm dcdm}/H_0\lesssim10^4$). We also find the fractional DM decay can only slightly reduce the $H_0$ and $\sigma_8$ tensions, which is consistent with other previous works. Furthermore, our calculations show that the kSZ effect in future would provide a further constraining power on the decaying DM.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Interacting dark energy in the early 2020s: a promising solution to the $H_0$ and cosmic shear tensions

    astro-ph.CO 2019-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An interacting dark energy model with coupling proportional to the dark energy density alleviates the H0 and S8 tensions in Planck 2018 data but is not preferred once BAO and supernova data are included.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [69]

    Decaying dark matter and the tension inσ8,

    K. Enqvist, S. Nadathur, T. Sekiguchi and T. Takahashi, “Decaying dark matter and the tension inσ8,”JCAP 1509, no. 09, 067 (2015), arXiv:1505.05511 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2015

  2. [1]

    Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters,

    P. A. R. Adeet al. [Planck Collaboration], “Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys. 594, A13 (2016), arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [2]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

    N. Aghanim et al. [Planck Collaboration], “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2018

  4. [3]

    A 3% Solution: Determination of the Hubble Constant with the Hubble Space Telescope and Wide Field Camera 3,

    A. G. Riesset al., “A 3% Solution: Determination of the Hubble Constant with the Hubble Space Telescope and Wide Field Camera 3,” Erratum: [Astrophys. J. 732, 129 (2011)], arXiv:1103.2976 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2011

  5. [4]

    A 2.4% Determination of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant,

    A. G. Riesset al., “A 2.4% Determination of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant,” Astrophys. J. 826, no. 1, 56 (2016), arXiv:1604.01424 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2016

  6. [5]

    A new life for sterile neutrinos: resolving inconsistencies using hot dark matter,

    J. Hamann and J. Hasenkamp, “A new life for sterile neutrinos: resolving inconsistencies using hot dark matter,”JCAP 1310, 044 (2013), arXiv:1308.3255 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2013

  7. [6]

    Evidence for Massive Neutrinos from Cosmic Microwave Background and Lensing Observations,

    R. A. Battye and A. Moss, “Evidence for Massive Neutrinos from Cosmic Microwave Background and Lensing Observations,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, no. 5, 051303 (2014), arXiv:1308.5870 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2014

  8. [7]

    Emulating the CFHTLenS Weak Lensing data: Cosmological Constraints from moments and Minkowski functionals,

    A. Petri, J. Liu, Z. Haiman, M. May, L. Hui and J. M. Kratochvil, “Emulating the CFHTLenS Weak Lensing data: Cosmological Constraints from moments and Minkowski functionals,”Phys. Rev. D 91, no. 10, 103511 (2015), arXiv:1503.06214 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2015

Show all 113 references
  1. [8]

    Where are the missing Galactic satellites?,

    A. A. Klypin, A. V. Kravtsov, O. Valenzuela and F. Prada, “Where are the missing Galactic satellites?,”Astrophys. J. 522, 82 (1999), [astro-ph/9901240]. – 27 –

    1999 arXiv

  2. [9]

    The Kinematics of the Ultra-Faint Milky Way Satellites: Solving the Missing Satellite Problem,

    J. D. Simon and M. Geha, “The Kinematics of the Ultra-Faint Milky Way Satellites: Solving the Missing Satellite Problem,”Astrophys. J. 670, 313 (2007), arXiv:0706.0516 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  3. [10]

    The Cosmological Constant Problem,

    S. Weinberg, “The Cosmological Constant Problem,”Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1 (1989)

    1989

  4. [11]

    Interacting quintessence solution to the coincidence problem,

    L. P. Chimento, A. S. Jakubi, D. Pavon and W. Zimdahl, “Interacting quintessence solution to the coincidence problem,”Phys. Rev. D 67, 083513 (2003), [astro-ph/0303145]

    2003 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Can theH0 tension be resolved in extensions toΛCDM cosmology?,

    R. Y. Guo, J. F. Zhang and X. Zhang, “Can theH0 tension be resolved in extensions toΛCDM cosmology?,”JCAP 1902, 054 (2019), arXiv:1809.02340 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Dark sector interaction: a remedy of the tensions between CMB and LSS data,

    S. Kumar, R. C. Nunes and S. K. Yadav, “Dark sector interaction: a remedy of the tensions between CMB and LSS data,” arXiv:1903.04865 [astro-ph.CO]

    1903 arXiv

  7. [14]

    TheH0 Tension in Non-flat QCDM Cosmology,

    H. Miao and Z. Huang, “TheH0 Tension in Non-flat QCDM Cosmology,”Astrophys. J. 868, no. 1, 20 (2018), arXiv:1803.07320 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Does the Hubble constant tension call for new physics?,

    E. MÃűrtsell and S. Dhawan, “Does the Hubble constant tension call for new physics?,”JCAP 1809, no. 09, 025 (2018), arXiv:1801.07260 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Early Dark Energy Can Resolve The Hubble Tension,

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, T. Karwal and M. Kamionkowski, “Early Dark Energy Can Resolve The Hubble Tension,” arXiv:1811.04083 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  10. [17]

    New physics in light of theH0 tension: an alternative view,

    S. Vagnozzi, “New physics in light of theH0 tension: an alternative view,” arXiv:1907.07569 [astro-ph.CO]

    1907 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Cannibal Dark Matter and Large Scale Structure,

    M. A. Buen-Abad, R. Emami and M. Schmaltz, “Cannibal Dark Matter and Large Scale Structure,”Phys. Rev. D 98, no. 8, 083517 (2018), arXiv:1803.08062 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Partially Acoustic Dark Matter Cosmology and Cosmological Constraints,

    M. Raveri, W. Hu, T. Hoffman and L. T. Wang, “Partially Acoustic Dark Matter Cosmology and Cosmological Constraints,”Phys. Rev. D 96, no. 10, 103501 (2017), arXiv:1709.04877 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [20]

    ExtendedΛCDM model,

    W. J. C. da Silva, H. S. Gimenes and R. Silva, “ExtendedΛCDM model,”Astropart. Phys. 105, 37 (2019), arXiv:1809.07797 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Hot Axions and theH0 tension,

    F. D’Eramo, R. Z. Ferreira, A. Notari and J. L. Bernal, “Hot Axions and theH0 tension,” JCAP 1811, no. 11, 014 (2018), arXiv:1808.07430 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Hidden Charged Dark Matter and Chiral Dark Radiation,

    P. Ko, N. Nagata and Y. Tang, “Hidden Charged Dark Matter and Chiral Dark Radiation,” Phys. Lett. B 773, 513 (2017), arXiv:1706.05605 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Large-scale structure of the universe in unstable dark matter models,

    A. G. Doroshkevich, M. Khlopov and A. A. Klypin, “Large-scale structure of the universe in unstable dark matter models,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.239, 923 (1989)

    1989

  17. [24]

    Improved treatment of cosmic microwave background fluctuations induced by a late decaying massive neutrino,

    M. Kaplinghat, R. E. Lopez, S. Dodelson and R. J. Scherrer, “Improved treatment of cosmic microwave background fluctuations induced by a late decaying massive neutrino,”Phys. Rev. D 60, 123508 (1999), [astro-ph/9907388]

    1999 arXiv

  18. [25]

    WMAP constraints on decaying cold dark matter,

    K. Ichiki, M. Oguri and K. Takahashi, “WMAP constraints on decaying cold dark matter,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 071302 (2004), [astro-ph/0403164]

    2004 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Decaying warm dark matter and neutrino masses,

    M. Lattanzi and J. W. F. Valle, “Decaying warm dark matter and neutrino masses,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 121301 (2007), arXiv:0705.2406 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Cosmological Constraints on Invisible Decay of Dark Matter,

    Y. Gong and X. Chen, “Cosmological Constraints on Invisible Decay of Dark Matter,”Phys. Rev. D 77, 103511 (2008), arXiv:0802.2296 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Cosmological Constraints on Decaying Dark Matter,

    S. De Lope Amigo, W. M. Y. Cheung, Z. Huang and S. P. Ng, “Cosmological Constraints on Decaying Dark Matter,”JCAP 0906, 005 (2009), arXiv:0812.4016 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Mapping the allowed parameter space for decaying dark matter models,

    A. H. G. Peter, “Mapping the allowed parameter space for decaying dark matter models,”Phys. Rev. D 81, 083511 (2010), arXiv:1001.3870 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Dark-matter decays and Milky Way satellite galaxies,

    A. H. G. Peter and A. J. Benson, “Dark-matter decays and Milky Way satellite galaxies,”Phys. – 28 – Rev. D 82, 123521 (2010), arXiv:1009.1912 [astro-ph.GA]

    2010 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Constraining Decaying Dark Matter,

    R. Huo, “Constraining Decaying Dark Matter,”Phys. Lett. B 701, 530 (2011), arXiv:1104.4094 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Formulation and constraints on decaying dark matter with finite mass daughter particles,

    S. Aoyama, K. Ichiki, D. Nitta and N. Sugiyama, “Formulation and constraints on decaying dark matter with finite mass daughter particles,”JCAP 1109, 025 (2011), arXiv:1106.1984 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Lyman-Îś forest constraints on decaying dark matter,

    M. Y. Wang, R. A. C. Croft, A. H. G. Peter, A. R. Zentner and C. W. Purcell, “Lyman-Îś forest constraints on decaying dark matter,”Phys. Rev. D 88, no. 12, 123515 (2013), arXiv:1309.7354 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Evolution of perturbations and cosmological constraints in decaying dark matter models with arbitrary decay mass products,

    S. Aoyama, T. Sekiguchi, K. Ichiki and N. Sugiyama, “Evolution of perturbations and cosmological constraints in decaying dark matter models with arbitrary decay mass products,” JCAP 1407, 021 (2014), arXiv:1402.2972 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Strongest model-independent bound on the lifetime of Dark Matter,

    B. Audren, J. Lesgourgues, G. Mangano, P. D. Serpico and T. Tram, “Strongest model-independent bound on the lifetime of Dark Matter,”JCAP 1412, no. 12, 028 (2014), arXiv:1407.2418 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Dark matter component decaying after recombination: Lensing constraints with Planck data,

    A. Chudaykin, D. Gorbunov and I. Tkachev, “Dark matter component decaying after recombination: Lensing constraints with Planck data,”Phys. Rev. D 94, 023528 (2016), arXiv:1602.08121 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  30. [37]

    A fresh look at linear cosmological constraints on a decaying dark matter component,

    V. Poulin, P. D. Serpico and J. Lesgourgues, “A fresh look at linear cosmological constraints on a decaying dark matter component,”JCAP 1608, no. 08, 036 (2016), arXiv:1606.02073 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Dark matter component decaying after recombination: Sensitivity to baryon acoustic oscillation and redshift space distortion probes,

    A. Chudaykin, D. Gorbunov and I. Tkachev, “Dark matter component decaying after recombination: Sensitivity to baryon acoustic oscillation and redshift space distortion probes,” Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 8, 083508 (2018), arXiv:1711.06738 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Dark Matter Self-interactions and Small Scale Structure,

    S. Tulin and H. B. Yu, “Dark Matter Self-interactions and Small Scale Structure,”Phys. Rept. 730, 1 (2018), arXiv:1705.02358 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Coupled quintessence,

    L. Amendola, “Coupled quintessence,”Phys. Rev. D 62, 043511 (2000), [astro-ph/9908023]

    2000 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Tracking and coupled dark energy as seen by WMAP,

    L. Amendola and C. Quercellini, “Tracking and coupled dark energy as seen by WMAP,”Phys. Rev. D 68, 023514 (2003), [astro-ph/0303228]

    2003 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Holographic dark energy and cosmic coincidence,

    D. Pavon and W. Zimdahl, “Holographic dark energy and cosmic coincidence,”Phys. Lett. B 628, 206 (2005), [gr-qc/0505020]

    2005 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Dynamics of dark energy with a coupling to dark matter,

    C. G. Boehmer, G. Caldera-Cabral, R. Lazkoz and R. Maartens, “Dynamics of dark energy with a coupling to dark matter,”Phys. Rev. D 78, 023505 (2008), arXiv:0801.1565 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Matter density perturbations in interacting quintessence models,

    G. Olivares, F. Atrio-Barandela and D. Pavon, “Matter density perturbations in interacting quintessence models,”Phys. Rev. D 74, 043521 (2006), [astro-ph/0607604]

    2006 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Dark Energy-Dark Matter Interaction and the Violation of the Equivalence Principle from the Abell Cluster A586,

    O. Bertolami, F. Gil Pedro and M. Le Delliou, “Dark Energy-Dark Matter Interaction and the Violation of the Equivalence Principle from the Abell Cluster A586,”Phys. Lett. B 654, 165 (2007), astro-ph/0703462 [ASTRO-PH]

    2007 arXiv

  39. [46]

    A Field Theory Model for Dark Matter and Dark Energy in Interaction,

    S. Micheletti, E. Abdalla and B. Wang, “A Field Theory Model for Dark Matter and Dark Energy in Interaction,”Phys. Rev. D 79, 123506 (2009), arXiv:0902.0318 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Coupled dark matter-dark energy in light of near Universe observations,

    L. Lopez Honorez, B. A. Reid, O. Mena, L. Verde and R. Jimenez, “Coupled dark matter-dark energy in light of near Universe observations,”JCAP 1009, 029 (2010), arXiv:1006.0877 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Quintessence with Yukawa Interaction,

    A. A. Costa, L. C. Olivari and E. Abdalla, “Quintessence with Yukawa Interaction,”Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 10, 103501 (2015), arXiv:1411.3660 [astro-ph.CO]. – 29 –

    2015 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Disformal couplings and the dark sector of the universe,

    C. van de Bruck and J. Morrice, “Disformal couplings and the dark sector of the universe,” JCAP 1504, 036 (2015), arXiv:1501.03073 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Constraints on interacting dark energy models from Planck 2015 and redshift-space distortion data,

    A. A. Costa, X. D. Xu, B. Wang and E. Abdalla, “Constraints on interacting dark energy models from Planck 2015 and redshift-space distortion data,”JCAP 1701, no. 01, 028 (2017), arXiv:1605.04138 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Dark Matter and Dark Energy Interactions: Theoretical Challenges, Cosmological Implications and Observational Signatures,

    B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela and D. Pavon, “Dark Matter and Dark Energy Interactions: Theoretical Challenges, Cosmological Implications and Observational Signatures,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 79, no. 9, 096901 (2016), arXiv:1603.08299 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Tale of stable interacting dark energy, observational signatures, and theH0 tension,

    W. Yang, S. Pan, E. Di Valentino, R. C. Nunes, S. Vagnozzi and D. F. Mota, “Tale of stable interacting dark energy, observational signatures, and theH0 tension,”JCAP 1809, 019 (2018), arXiv:1805.08252 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Interacting dark energy after the latest Planck, DES, andH0 measurements: an excellent solution to theH0 and cosmic shear tensions,

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, O. Mena and S. Vagnozzi, “Interacting dark energy after the latest Planck, DES, andH0 measurements: an excellent solution to theH0 and cosmic shear tensions,” arXiv:1908.04281 [astro-ph.CO]

    1908 arXiv

  47. [54]

    f(R) theories,

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, “f(R) theories,”Living Rev. Rel. 13, 3 (2010), arXiv:1002.4928 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Generalized curvature-matter couplings in modified gravity,

    T. Harko and F. S. N. Lobo, “Generalized curvature-matter couplings in modified gravity,” Galaxies 2, no. 3, 410 (2014), arXiv:1407.2013 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Cosmology of the Invisible Axion,

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise and F. Wilczek, “Cosmology of the Invisible Axion,”Phys. Lett. B 120, 127 (1983)

    1983

  50. [57]

    CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, “CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  51. [58]

    Constraint on the Photino Mass from Cosmology,

    H. Goldberg, “Constraint on the Photino Mass from Cosmology,” Erratum: [Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 099905 (2009)]

    2009

  52. [59]

    Supersymmetric dark matter,

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski and K. Griest, “Supersymmetric dark matter,”Phys. Rept. 267, 195 (1996), [hep-ph/9506380]

    1996 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Cosmological Lower Bound on Heavy Neutrino Masses,

    B. W. Lee and S. Weinberg, “Cosmological Lower Bound on Heavy Neutrino Masses,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 165 (1977)

    1977

  54. [61]

    Is the lightest Kaluza-Klein particle a viable dark matter candidate?,

    G. Servant and T. M. P. Tait, “Is the lightest Kaluza-Klein particle a viable dark matter candidate?,”Nucl. Phys. B 650, 391 (2003), [hep-ph/0206071]

    2003 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Kaluza-Klein dark matter,

    H. C. Cheng, J. L. Feng and K. T. Matchev, “Kaluza-Klein dark matter,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 211301 (2002), [hep-ph/0207125]

    2002 arXiv

  56. [63]

    CMB anisotropy in the decaying neutrino cosmology,

    J. A. Adams, S. Sarkar and D. W. Sciama, “CMB anisotropy in the decaying neutrino cosmology,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 301, 210 (1998), [astro-ph/9805108]

    1998 arXiv

  57. [64]

    Particle decays during the cosmic dark ages,

    X. L. Chen and M. Kamionkowski, “Particle decays during the cosmic dark ages,”Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 043502, [astro-ph/0310473]

    2004 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Constraints on radiative dark-matter decay from the cosmic microwave background,

    L. Zhang, X. Chen, M. Kamionkowski, Z. g. Si and Z. Zheng, “Constraints on radiative dark-matter decay from the cosmic microwave background,”Phys. Rev. D 76, 061301 (2007), arXiv:0704.2444 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  59. [66]

    The impacts of dark matter particle annihilation on recombination and the anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background,

    L. Zhang, X. L. Chen, Y. A. Lei and Z. G. Si, “The impacts of dark matter particle annihilation on recombination and the anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background,”Phys. Rev. D 74, 103519 (2006), [astro-ph/0603425]

    2006 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Alleviating theH0 and σ8 anomalies with a decaying dark matter model,

    K. L. Pandey, T. Karwal and S. Das, “Alleviating theH0 and σ8 anomalies with a decaying dark matter model,” arXiv:1902.10636 [astro-ph.CO]

    1902 arXiv

  61. [68]

    Late universe decaying dark matter can relieve the – 30 – H0 tension,

    K. Vattis, S. M. Koushiappas and A. Loeb, “Late universe decaying dark matter can relieve the – 30 – H0 tension,” arXiv:1903.06220 [astro-ph.CO]

    1903 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Cosmological perturbation theory in the synchronous and conformal Newtonian gauges,

    C. P. Ma and E. Bertschinger, “Cosmological perturbation theory in the synchronous and conformal Newtonian gauges,”Astrophys. J. 455, 7 (1995), [astro-ph/9506072]

    1995 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Efficient computation of CMB anisotropies in closed FRW models,

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor and A. Lasenby, “Efficient computation of CMB anisotropies in closed FRW models,”Astrophys. J. 538, 473 (2000), [astro-ph/9911177]

    2000 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Analytic study of the effect of dark energy-dark matter interaction on the growth of structures,

    R. J. F. Marcondes, R. C. G. Landim, A. A. Costa, B. Wang and E. Abdalla, “Analytic study of the effect of dark energy-dark matter interaction on the growth of structures,”JCAP 1612, no. 12, 009 (2016), arXiv:1605.05264 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Constraints on the quintessence model with Yukawa interaction from Planck 2015 and weak lensing data,

    R. An, A. A. Costa and B. Wang, “Constraints on the quintessence model with Yukawa interaction from Planck 2015 and weak lensing data,” arXiv:1809.03224 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  66. [74]

    J-PAS: forecasts on interacting dark energy from baryon acoustic oscillations and redshift-space distortions,

    A. A. Costaet al., “J-PAS: forecasts on interacting dark energy from baryon acoustic oscillations and redshift-space distortions,” arXiv:1901.02540 [astro-ph.CO]

    1901 arXiv

  67. [75]

    The growth rate of cosmic structure from peculiar velocities at low and high redshifts,

    M. J. Hudson and S. J. Turnbull, “The growth rate of cosmic structure from peculiar velocities at low and high redshifts,”Astrophys. J. 751, L30 (2013), arXiv:1203.4814 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  68. [76]

    The 6dF Galaxy Survey:z≈ 0 measurement of the growth rate andσ8,

    F. Beutler et al., “The 6dF Galaxy Survey:z≈ 0 measurement of the growth rate andσ8,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 423, 3430 (2012), arXiv:1204.4725 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Growth Rate of Cosmological Perturbations atz∼ 0.1 from a New Observational Test,

    M. Feix, A. Nusser and E. Branchini, “Growth Rate of Cosmological Perturbations atz∼ 0.1 from a New Observational Test,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, no. 1, 011301 (2015), arXiv:1503.05945 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Reconstructing the history of structure formation using Redshift Distortions,

    Y. S. Song and W. J. Percival, “Reconstructing the history of structure formation using Redshift Distortions,”JCAP 0910, 004 (2009), arXiv:0807.0810 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  71. [79]

    The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: the growth rate of cosmic structure since redshift z=0.9,

    C. Blake et al., “The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: the growth rate of cosmic structure since redshift z=0.9,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 415, 2876 (2011), arXiv:1104.2948 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  72. [80]

    The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample,

    S. Alam et al. [BOSS Collaboration], “The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 470, no. 3, 2617 (2017), arXiv:1607.03155 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  73. [81]

    The VIMOS Public Extragalactic Redshift Survey (VIPERS). Galaxy clustering and redshift-space distortions at z=0.8 in the first data release,

    S. de la Torreet al., “The VIMOS Public Extragalactic Redshift Survey (VIPERS). Galaxy clustering and redshift-space distortions at z=0.8 in the first data release,”Astron. Astrophys. 557, A54 (2013), arXiv:1303.2622 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  74. [82]

    The Observations of relic radiation as a test of the nature of X-Ray radiation from the clusters of galaxies,

    R. A. Sunyaev and Y. B. Zeldovich, “The Observations of relic radiation as a test of the nature of X-Ray radiation from the clusters of galaxies,” Comments Astrophys. Space Phys.4, 173 (1972)

    1972

  75. [83]

    Detecting Patchy Reionization in the Cosmic Microwave Background,

    K. M. Smith and S. Ferraro, “Detecting Patchy Reionization in the Cosmic Microwave Background,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, no. 2, 021301 (2017), arXiv:1607.01769 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Reionization and small-scale fluctuations in the microwave background,

    E. T. Vishniac, “Reionization and small-scale fluctuations in the microwave background,” Astrophys. J. 322, 597 (1987)

    1987

  77. [85]

    Precision era of the kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect: Simulations, analytical models and observations and the power to constrain reionization,

    P. J. Zhang, U. L. Pen and H. Trac, “Precision era of the kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect: Simulations, analytical models and observations and the power to constrain reionization,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 347, 1224 (2004), [astro-ph/0304534]

    2004 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Linear evolution of cosmic baryonic medium on large scales,

    L. Z. Fang, H. g. Bi, S. p. Xiang and G. Borner, “Linear evolution of cosmic baryonic medium on large scales,”Astrophys. J. 413, 477 (1993)

    1993

  79. [87]

    Reionization revisited: secondary cmb anisotropies and polarization,

    W. Hu, “Reionization revisited: secondary cmb anisotropies and polarization,”Astrophys. J. 529, 12 (2000), [astro-ph/9907103]. – 31 –

    2000 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Nonlinear kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect,

    C. P. Ma and J. N. Fry, “Nonlinear kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 211301 (2002), [astro-ph/0106342]

    2002 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Deconstructing the kinetic SZ Power Spectrum,

    L. D. Shaw, D. H. Rudd and D. Nagai, “Deconstructing the kinetic SZ Power Spectrum,” Astrophys. J. 756, 15 (2012), arXiv:1109.0553 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Stable clustering, the halo model and nonlinear cosmological power spectra,

    R. E. Smithet al. [VIRGO Consortium], “Stable clustering, the halo model and nonlinear cosmological power spectra,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 341, 1311 (2003), [astro-ph/0207664]

    2003 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Revising the Halofit Model for the Nonlinear Matter Power Spectrum,

    R. Takahashi, M. Sato, T. Nishimichi, A. Taruya and M. Oguri, “Revising the Halofit Model for the Nonlinear Matter Power Spectrum,”Astrophys. J. 761, 152 (2012), arXiv:1208.2701 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Cosmological parameters from WMAP 5-year temperature maps,

    A. Lewis, “Cosmological parameters from WMAP 5-year temperature maps,”Phys. Rev. D 78, 023002 (2008), arXiv:0804.3865 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  85. [93]

    A measurement of secondary cosmic microwave background anisotropies from the 2500-square-degree SPT-SZ survey,

    E. M. Georgeet al., “A measurement of secondary cosmic microwave background anisotropies from the 2500-square-degree SPT-SZ survey,”Astrophys. J. 799, no. 2, 177 (2015), arXiv:1408.3161 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Cosmological parameters from CMB and other data: A Monte Carlo approach,

    A. Lewis and S. Bridle, “Cosmological parameters from CMB and other data: A Monte Carlo approach,”Phys. Rev. D 66, 103511 (2002), [astro-ph/0205436]

    2002 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Efficient sampling of fast and slow cosmological parameters,

    A. Lewis, “Efficient sampling of fast and slow cosmological parameters,”Phys. Rev. D 87, no. 10, 103529 (2013), arXiv:1304.4473 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  88. [96]

    The 6dF Galaxy Survey: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and the Local Hubble Constant,

    F. Beutler et al., “The 6dF Galaxy Survey: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and the Local Hubble Constant,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 416, 3017 (2011), arXiv:1106.3366 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  89. [97]

    The clustering of the SDSS DR7 main Galaxy sample I. A 4 per cent distance measure atz = 0.15,

    A. J. Ross, L. Samushia, C. Howlett, W. J. Percival, A. Burden and M. Manera, “The clustering of the SDSS DR7 main Galaxy sample I. A 4 per cent distance measure atz = 0.15,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 449, no. 1, 835 (2015), arXiv:1409.3242 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  90. [98]

    The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: baryon acoustic oscillations in the Data Releases 10 and 11 Galaxy samples,

    L. Anderson et al. [BOSS Collaboration], “The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: baryon acoustic oscillations in the Data Releases 10 and 11 Galaxy samples,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 441, no. 1, 24 (2014), arXiv:1312.4877 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Reionization and dark matter decay,

    I. M. Oldengott, D. Boriero and D. J. Schwarz, “Reionization and dark matter decay,”JCAP 1608, no. 08, 054 (2016), arXiv:1605.03928 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Influence of 7 keV sterile neutrino dark matter on the process of reionization,

    A. Rudakovskiy and D. Iakubovskyi, “Influence of 7 keV sterile neutrino dark matter on the process of reionization,”JCAP 1606, no. 06, 017 (2016), arXiv:1604.01341 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Dark matter model favoured by reionization data: 7 keV sterile neutrino vs cold dark matter,

    A. Rudakovskyi and D. Iakubovskyi, “Dark matter model favoured by reionization data: 7 keV sterile neutrino vs cold dark matter,” arXiv:1811.02799 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  94. [102]

    Reionization and the Cosmic Dawn with the Square Kilometre Array,

    G. Mellema et al., “Reionization and the Cosmic Dawn with the Square Kilometre Array,” Exper. Astron. 36, 235 (2013), arXiv:1210.0197 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  95. [103]

    What Next-Generation 21 cm Power Spectrum Measurements Can Teach Us About the Epoch of Reionization,

    J. C. Poberet al., “What Next-Generation 21 cm Power Spectrum Measurements Can Teach Us About the Epoch of Reionization,”Astrophys. J. 782, 66 (2014), arXiv:1310.7031 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Constraining the epoch of reionization with the variance statistic: simulations of the LOFAR case,

    A. H. Patilet al., “Constraining the epoch of reionization with the variance statistic: simulations of the LOFAR case,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 443, no. 2, 1113 (2014), arXiv:1401.4172 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  97. [105]

    PAPER-64 Constraints on Reionization: The 21cm Power Spectrum at z =8.4,

    Z. S. Aliet al., “PAPER-64 Constraints on Reionization: The 21cm Power Spectrum at z =8.4,”Astrophys. J. 809, no. 1, 61 (2015), arXiv:1502.06016 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Science with the Murchison Widefield Array,

    J. D. Bowmanet al., “Science with the Murchison Widefield Array,”Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral. 30, e031 (2013), arXiv:1212.5151 [astro-ph.IM]. – 32 –

    2013 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Calibration of the EDGES High-Band Receiver to Observe the Global 21-cm Signature from the Epoch of Reionization,

    R. A. Monsalve, A. E. E. Rogers, J. D. Bowman and T. J. Mozdzen, “Calibration of the EDGES High-Band Receiver to Observe the Global 21-cm Signature from the Epoch of Reionization,”Astrophys. J. 835, no. 1, 49 (2017), arXiv:1602.08065 [astro-ph.IM]

    2017 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Ionization by early quasars and cosmic microwave background anisotropies,

    N. Aghanim, F. X. Desert, J. L. Puget and R. Gispert, “Ionization by early quasars and cosmic microwave background anisotropies,”Astron. Astrophys. 311, 1 (1996), [astro-ph/9811054]

    1996 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Secondary CMB anisotropies in a universe reionized in patches,

    A. Gruzinov and W. Hu, “Secondary CMB anisotropies in a universe reionized in patches,” Astrophys. J. 508, 435 (1998), [astro-ph/9803188]

    1998 arXiv

  102. [110]

    KiDS-450: Cosmological parameter constraints from tomographic weak gravitational lensing,

    H. Hildebrandt et al., “KiDS-450: Cosmological parameter constraints from tomographic weak gravitational lensing,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 465, 1454 (2017), arXiv:1606.05338 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Euclid Definition Study Report,

    R. Laureijs et al. [EUCLID Collaboration], “Euclid Definition Study Report,” arXiv:1110.3193 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  104. [112]

    Cosmology from cosmic shear power spectra with Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam first-year data,

    C. Hikage et al. [HSC Collaboration], “Cosmology from cosmic shear power spectra with Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam first-year data,”PSAJ, arXiv:1809.09148 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  105. [113]

    Large Synoptic Survey Telescope: Dark Energy Science Collaboration,

    A. Abate et al. [LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration], “Large Synoptic Survey Telescope: Dark Energy Science Collaboration,” arXiv:1211.0310 [astro-ph.CO]. – 33 –

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.