Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

Accurate method for ultralight axion CMB and matter power spectra

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper presents AxiECAMB, a Boltzmann code that computes CMB and matter power spectra for ultralight axions from 10^-33 to 10^-18 eV with errors at the cosmic variance limit.

desk verdict Solid methods paper that will become the reference ULA Boltzmann code if the empirical knobs survive a denser validation grid. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15192 v2 pith:TSJFWES2 submitted 2024-12-19 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Rayne Liu , Wayne Hu , Daniel Grin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COhep-ph
keywords ultralightaxionsBoltzmanncodeeffectivefluidapproximationtimeaveragingcosmicmicrowavebackgroundmatterpowerspectrumvariancefuzzydark
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

The paper presents AxiECAMB, the first Boltzmann code that computes cosmic microwave background and matter power spectra for ultralight axions (ULAs) accurately and efficiently across the mass range $10^{-33}$ to $10^{-18}$ eV. Until now, accurate effective treatments existed only for masses much heavier than the Hubble rate at matter-radiation equality, and previous codes made errors that could bias parameter constraints from current and next-generation surveys. The code solves the exact Klein-Gordon system until oscillations become rapid, then matches to a time-averaged effective fluid through a new effective time average that also covers the metric perturbations. If the central claim is right, AxiECAMB's default settings are accurate to the cosmic variance limit at $\ell_{\rm max}=2400$, comparable to standard $\Lambda$CDM calculations, and correct order-unity errors in the ULA-induced change from $\Lambda$CDM in some parameter regions.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a two-stage approximation: solve the Klein-Gordon system until the switch epoch $m/H_* \sim 10$, then continue with an effective fluid approximation (EFA). The bridge is the effective time average (ETA), which separates the oscillating field into cosine and sine auxiliary components whose cycle averages obey energy-momentum conservation, and which is extended to the metric perturbations $\eta$ and $\sigma$ with an empirical weight $W=(k/aH)^2/(3+(k/aH)^2)$ that removes the leading-order oscillations in whichever variable carries them. The ETA sets switch conditions for the EFA, including a pressure-matched equation-of-state parameter $A_w=(p/\rho)(m/H_*)^2$, and the CMB line-of-sight integral is augmented with boundary switch sources from the integration by parts. This combination removes $O(H/m)$ oscillations, keeps the fluid in hydrostatic equilibrium below the Jeans scale, and makes the default accuracy set by $m/H_*$ a controllable parameter.

What would settle it

Run the default AxiECAMB settings against the high-accuracy Klein-Gordon solution (switch at $m/H_*=100$) on a dense grid spanning $10^{-27.5} < m/{\rm eV} < 10^{-25}$ at $f_{\rm DM}=1$, including masses and switch phases not covered by the paper's tuning rules, and check whether the CMB $\Delta\chi^2$ at $\ell_{\rm max}=2400$ exceeds unity at any grid point; one such point would falsify the blanket cosmic-variance accuracy claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a complete prescription for switching from the Klein-Gordon equations of an ultralight axion to an effective fluid once $m/H \ge 10$, with errors of order $(H/m)^2$ in all matter and metric variables. The innovation is to construct the effective time average (ETA) of the axion and, crucially, of the metric perturbations $\eta$ and $\sigma$, using auxiliary cosine and sine field components and an empirical scale-dependent weighting, so that the leading oscillations are removed and the average is insensitive to the phase at which the switch catches the field. The effective fluid's equation of state is then matched to the ETA pressure, preserving hydrostatic equilibrium below the Jeans scale and avoiding spurious pressure-wave oscillations. Boundary terms in the CMB source function that arise from the switch are included explicitly, and the switch time and phase are chosen to avoid recombination and to minimize residual photon-baryon responses. The paper validates the method against a high-accuracy calculation that solves the Klein-Gordon system to $m/H=100$ and reports default-setting errors at the cosmic variance limit, whereas the previous axionCAMB code can be off by up to five orders of magnitude in $\Delta\chi^2$ in extreme regions.

Load-bearing premise

The accuracy guarantee rests on the assumption that truncating the photon-baryon response to unresolved axion oscillations at leading order after the switch, a residual of order $(8\pi G\rho_{\rm ax}/H^2)(H_*/m)^2$, stays below the cosmic-variance target for every parameter combination, which in the window $10^{-27.5} \lesssim m/{\rm eV} \lesssim 10^{-25}$ with $f_{\rm DM}=1$ is achieved only through case-by-case switch-time, switch-phase, and recombination-avoidance rules.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AxiECAMB attains sub-percent accuracy in CMB and matter power spectra across the $10^{-33}$ to $10^{-18}$ eV mass range, with runtimes comparable to CAMB in $\Lambda$CDM.
  • Default accuracy approaches the cosmic variance limit at $\ell_{\rm max}=2400$; the dominant error is a tiny shift in the angular sound horizon, at most $\Delta\theta_*/\theta_* \sim 9\times 10^{-4}$ even in observationally ruled-out extreme models.
  • Existing ULA constraints based on axionCAMB should be re-examined, because axionCAMB's errors can be a significant fraction of the ULA-induced change from $\Lambda$CDM and can reach $\Delta\chi^2 \sim 10^7$ in some regions.
  • Including the switch boundary terms is necessary: omitting them produces phase-dependent errors above cosmic variance at low multipoles.
  • The same effective method covers dark-energy-like ULAs down to $10^{-33}$ eV and fuzzy dark matter up to $10^{-18}$ eV, with fitting functions remaining the efficient choice at still higher masses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable implication is that the case-by-case switch-time and phase tuning, needed for $10^{-27.5} \lesssim m/{\rm eV} \lesssim 10^{-25}$ at $f_{\rm DM}=1$, may not extend to a uniform accuracy guarantee; a grid scan of untested parameter space would show where the advertised cosmic-variance accuracy breaks down.
  • The same ETA/EFA bridge could be carried to next order in $H/m$, which would likely remove the need for phase tuning and make the accuracy claim robust without case-by-case engineering.
  • Because the paper fixes $\Omega_{\rm ax}h^2$ rather than the initial field value in one part of its convention, part of the residual $\theta_*$ error is an artifact of that convention; an alternative normalization could reduce the reported $\Delta\chi^2$ even further.
  • Applying the method to isocurvature perturbations, which the paper leaves for future work, would provide a sharper test of whether the ETA partitioning of $\eta$ and $\sigma$ remains valid when the axion field carries a non-adiabatic component.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 extends the effective time-average (ETA) / effective fluid approximation (EFA) method of Passaglia & Hu (2022) to ultralight axion masses down to 10^-33 eV, where the switch from Klein-Gordon evolution to a fluid description occurs near or after matter-radiation equality. The authors derive an ETA for the metric perturbations with an empirical partitioning weight, match the EFA pressure continuously to the ETA at the switch, add boundary (switch-source) terms to the CMB line-of-sight integrals, and implement the method in a public Boltzmann code, AxiECAMB. They validate the method against a high-accuracy run that solves the KG system to m/H = 100, quantify errors with a cosmic-variance-limited Δχ² statistic at ℓmax = 2400, and compare with axionCAMB across the mass-fraction plane. The main accuracy results are presented for total dark-matter (fDM = 1), fractional dark-matter (fDM = 0.1), and total dark-energy (fDE = 1) cases.

Significance. If the accuracy claim holds, this is a substantial advance: AxiECAMB would be the first ULA Boltzmann code delivering survey-ready CMB and matter power spectra over the full mass range 10^-33–10^-18 eV, with errors below the cosmic-variance limit for observationally viable models and with order-unity corrections to axionCAMB predictions near ΛCDM. The paper includes a public code, careful internal convergence tests showing (H*/m)^2 scaling, a new iteration scheme for the ETA background, and a thorough comparison with previous codes, including identification of axionCAMB failure modes. These strengths make the paper valuable for the community regardless of the caveats below.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II D, Appendix E, Fig. 27] The switch-phase rule 2β ≈ 7.08π is calibrated on a single mode (k = 0.1 Mpc^-1) of a single model (m = 10^-26 eV, fDM = 1) and then applied to the entire range 10^-27.5 ≲ m/eV ≲ 10^-25 via Eq. (B16). Since the photon-baryon response to unresolved KG oscillations is explicitly k-dependent (as noted in Sec. II D and Appendix E), the optimal phase may depend on k and on the background parameters in the window. The paper asserts that the tuning suffices but does not show a dense grid of (m, fDM) accuracy tests in this window, particularly for the observationally relevant fDM = 0.1 case. This is load-bearing for the claim that the default settings provide uniform, survey-ready accuracy; either a denser validation or a qualifying statement limiting the guarantee to tested regions is needed.
  2. [Eq. (16), Sec. II B, Appendix C] The metric-partition weight W contains a constant 3 that is 'chosen to roughly optimize' the CMB error. Figure 24 validates the resulting amplitude ratio ΔηKG/ΔσKG against exact KG oscillations for a set of masses and fDM ≳ 0.1, which is encouraging. However, the paper does not demonstrate that the final Cℓ accuracy is insensitive to this constant across the parameter space, nor does it provide a first-principles derivation of the weight. If the optimal constant changes with m or fDM, the default choice could produce larger errors in untested regions. A sensitivity test varying the constant (e.g., 1–5) and showing Δχ² is flat, or a derivation of the partition from the KG equations, would remove this concern.
  3. [Sec. III, Table I, Figs. 13 and 14] The paper's central claim in Sec. IV that 'the default accuracy approaches the cosmic variance limit at ℓmax = 2400' is supported by Table I for fDM = 0.1 at m = 10^-28–10^-31 eV and for fDE = 1 cases, but the high-Δχ² region at m = 10^-27 eV, fDM = 1 (Δχ² = 53) is outside the observationally viable regime. The accuracy maps in Figs. 13 and 14 do not resolve, for the phase-tuned window 10^-27.5 ≲ m/eV ≲ 10^-25, whether the default settings keep Δχ² < 1 for all fDM that pass current constraints (roughly fDM ≲ 0.05 at these masses according to the cited axionCAMB limits). The statement 'default accuracy approaches the cosmic variance limit' should be qualified to distinguish the observationally viable region from the full allowed-prior space, or additional grid tests should be provided.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The first sentence states the motivated mass range as 10^-33 ≲ m/eV ≲ 10^-12, while the fourth sentence says the method covers up to 10^-18 eV; consider clarifying that the paper's range is a subset of the motivated range to avoid confusion.
  2. [Appendix E (after Eq. E1)] There is a duplicated word: 'The cancellation of the KG oscillations before the switch also requires requires very dense' should read 'also requires very dense'.
  3. [Fig. 29 caption] The caption reads 'including (including) the switch sources'; the second parenthesis should likely be '(solid)' to match the dashed/solid distinction in the text.
  4. [Sec. IV] The phrase 'in the forseeable future' contains a typo ('foreseeable').
  5. [Eq. (41) and Sec. III A] The linearized θ⋆ correction is presented as a diagnostic. It would be helpful to state explicitly that this correction is not applied in the default pipeline and is only used to identify the source of the error, to avoid a reader misunderstanding that the reported default Δχ² already includes it.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Accuracy claim partially calibrated to the paper's own benchmark, but exact-KG convergence checks keep the derivation largely independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. II B, Eq. (16)]
    "The scaling is motivated by the arguments above and the constant 3 is chosen to roughly optimize the error in evaluating the CMB power spectra and total transfer function, although the error is in fact not very sensitive to the precise value."

    Eq. (16) fixes the metric-partition weight W using a constant 3 that is 'chosen to roughly optimize the error in evaluating the CMB power spectra and total transfer function.' The paper's headline accuracy claim ('the default accuracy approaches the cosmic variance limit at lmax = 2400, comparable to LCDM calculations') is then demonstrated with exactly that C_l-error metric, comparing the default switch against a 'high accuracy' run that uses the same ETA/EFA construction and the same W. The small C_l error is therefore partly an in-sample restatement of the calibration target.

full rationale

The central ETA/EFA construction is derived from the Klein-Gordon equations plus auxiliary conditions and is tested against exact KG solutions evolved to m/H* = 100. That is a genuine convergence check, not a circular validation: the later-switch benchmark is much closer to the exact system, and the method's O(H*/m)^2 scaling is independently exhibited. The paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or rely on a load-bearing self-citation chain; Ref. [45] supplies a prior published construction that is extended here rather than assumed as the proof of accuracy. The main caveat is empirical calibration of two ingredients: the constant 3 in the metric-partition weight W (Eq. 16) and the switch phase 2 beta ~ 7.08 pi (Appendix E). Both are tuned against the paper's own benchmark, and the certification maps (Figs. 13-14, Table I) compare the default run to a later-switch run of the same code, so the benchmark cannot independently certify those empirical choices in the 10^-27.5 to 10^-25 eV window. This is a partial in-sample calibration of the accuracy claim, not a reduction of the physical spectra to the fitted inputs; the exact-KG checks and the weak sensitivity of the results to W keep the derivation substantially independent. A denser (m, fDM) grid against a fully independent exact solver would remove the residual concern, but the paper's core derivation chain is not circular by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's accuracy rests on several internal calibration choices rather than fitted physical parameters: the sound-speed constant Ac = 5/4, the pressure-matching constant Aw from Eq. (25), the constant 3 in the metric partition weight W, the switch phase 2 beta about 7.08 pi, and the switch-relocation thresholds in Sec. II D. None of these are fit to external datasets; they are calibrated against the paper's own ETA construction and its high-accuracy m/H* = 100 benchmark. Physics inputs are standard for the ULA literature: quadratic axion potential, adiabatic initial conditions, synchronous gauge, and a fluid closure Eq. (20). No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • W constant 3 = 3
    Empirical constant in the eta/sigma ETA partition weight W = (k/aH_ETA)^2 / (3 + (k/aH_ETA)^2), chosen to minimize CMB power spectrum and transfer function errors (Sec. II B, Eq. 16).
  • Ac = 5/4
    Empirical sound-speed constant taken from the ETA construction of Ref. [45], used in Eq. (20); not derived for the low-mass regime (Appendix B).
  • Aw = set from ETA pressure at the switch (Eq. 25)
    Determined by matching the EFA equation of state to the ETA pressure at the switch; not fitted to output spectra.
  • Switch phase 2 beta = approximately 7.08 pi
    Phase-tuned switch choice for m = 10^-26 eV, fDM = 1, selected to minimize CMB acoustic oscillation artifacts (Appendix E, Eq. E1).
  • Switch relocation thresholds = rho_ax/rho_r = 0.03; z* in (800, 1300]; baseline m/H* = 10
    Rule-of-thumb criteria in Sec. II D for when to raise m/H* and where to place the switch to avoid recombination artifacts.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The ULA potential is quadratic, V(phi) approximately m^2 phi^2 / 2, near the minimum.
    Invoked at the start of Sec. II A; the common assumption for ultralight axion cosmology, restricting the model to a free massive scalar field.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic initial conditions with the leading-order m/H and k tau terms of Eq. (4) describe the field at the initial time.
    Sec. II A: the field is frozen at early times and its perturbations are generated by other species; these initial conditions are used for all masses.
  • domain assumption The effective fluid is closed by the rest-frame sound speed model of Eq. (20) with the pressure perturbation of Eq. (22).
    Sec. II C: this closure defines the EFA evolution; it is motivated by ETA limits and validated only internally against the ETA/KG system.
  • ad hoc to paper The eta/sigma ETA partition follows the empirical weight W of Eqs. (15)-(16) with the constant 3.
    Sec. II B: an ansatz motivated by causality arguments in the two limiting regimes, with the constant 3 chosen to optimize CMB and transfer function errors and verified against KG oscillation amplitudes in Fig. 24.
  • domain assumption A switch at m/H* = 100 provides a sufficiently exact 'high accuracy' benchmark for all models.
    Sec. III: the benchmark solves the KG system to m/H = 100 and then uses the same EFA; residual errors are assumed to scale as (H*/m)^2 and be negligible for the accuracy claims.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Accurate method for ultralight axion CMB and matter power spectra." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TSJFWES2

@misc{pith2026241215192,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Accurate method for ultralight axion CMB and matter power spectra},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TSJFWES2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15192}
}
abstract

Ultralight axions (ULAs) with masses $10^{-33} \lesssim m/{\rm eV} \lesssim 10^{-12}$ are well motivated in string-inspired models and can be part or all of the dark energy or the dark matter in this range. Since the ULA field oscillates at a frequency $m$ that can be much larger than the expansion rate $H$, accurate and efficient calculation of cosmological observables requires an effective time averaged treatment. While these are well established for $m\gg 10 H_{\rm eq}$, the Hubble rate at matter radiation equality, here we extend and develop these techniques to cover the mass range $10^{-33} \lesssim m/{\rm eV} \lesssim 10^{-18}$. We implement this technique in a full cosmological Boltzmann code ($\text{AxiECAMB}$) with numerical precision sufficiently accurate for current and next-generation cosmic microwave background, as well as large-scale structure data analysis. New effects including the time averaging of metric perturbations and hydrostatic equilibrium of the effective fluid result in many orders of magnitude improvements for power spectra accuracy over some previous treatments such as $\text{axionCAMB}$ in some extreme regions of parameter space and order unity changes of the ULA effects near $\Lambda$CDM models. These improvements may impact the specific model parameters that have been suggested might resolve various tensions in $\Lambda$CDM at a comparable level.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15192 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Background energy density (top), pressure (mid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Metric and ULA perturbations (solid lines) and their ETA values (red points) with the same model as Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Background evolution of the full [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (23 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Perturbation evolution of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows the total source function S (0) T for m = 10−28 eV and k = 10−3 Mpc−1 with a switch after re￾combination. In ΛCDM, the source function after recom￾bination gives the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect which is negligible for this super-horizon mode at the switch 4 Int…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. ΛCDM temperature spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. ΛCDM matter transfer function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Relative transfer function (top) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Large scale structure amplitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. CMB accuracy statistic ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Relative transfer function for total dark energy cases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_18.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_20.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_19.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22. Relative transfer function in the fuzzy dark matter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FIG. 23. Prediction of temporal location of peaks the KG [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: FIG. 24. Relative KG oscillation amplitude in the metric per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: FIG. 25. Equation of state in EFA (blue dashed, switched at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_25.png]
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: FIG. 28 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_28.png]
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: FIG. 27. Photon density perturbation (top) and the dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_27.png]
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: FIG. 29 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_29.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Inflationary Axion Isocurvature in the CMB across All Ultralight Masses

    astro-ph.CO 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Accurate axion-isocurvature evolution across the full ultralight mass range converts Planck and BICEP bounds into inflation-scale limits and reveals a small discovery window near m_a ~ 10^-25 eV.

  2. Wavelet-Scattering Signatures of Fuzzy Dark Matter in Simulated 21 cm Brightness-Temperature Maps

    astro-ph.CO 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Wavelet scattering coefficients S1 and R=S2/S1 of simulated 21 cm maps distinguish fuzzy dark matter from CDM and survive SKA1-Low-style thermal noise, though abstract-level Fisher-forecast claims are absent from the body.

  3. Risk-based framework to determine climate-informed design storms for road drainage infrastructure

    physics.geo-ph 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    A risk-index method combining climate projections, physiographic hazard, and socioeconomic vulnerability scales future design storms for Ontario road drainage.

  4. A Fast and Accurate Implementation of the Effective Fluid Approximation for Ultralight Axions

    astro-ph.CO 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    An implementation of the Passaglia-Hu effective fluid approximation in CAMB achieves accurate CMB predictions for ultralight axions and yields new upper limits on their abundance from Planck PR4 and DESI BAO data.

  5. Ultralight fuzzy dark matter review

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 1.0 of 10

    A review of fuzzy dark matter that surveys the models, wave phenomenology, numerical methods, and current observational mass constraints of ultralight dark matter.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    number of ways

    and fractional errors between AxiECAMB and high accu- racy computations. number of ways. By developing the ETA of both the matter and metric variables, we achieve high accuracy for the low mass regime where the switch occurs near or after matter-radiation equality. This construction re- moves the leading order oscillations in these variables and provides ...

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Aiola et al

    S. Aiola et al. (ACT), JCAP 12, 047 (2020), arXiv:2007.07288 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  3. [4]

    Rubin et al., (2023), arXiv:2311.12098 [astro-ph.CO]

    D. Rubin et al., (2023), arXiv:2311.12098 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  4. [5]

    Ge et al

    F. Ge et al. (SPT-3G), (2024), arXiv:2411.06000 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [6]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), (2024), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [7]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES), Astrophys. J. Lett. 973, L14 (2024), arXiv:2401.02929 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [8]

    Heymans et al., Astron

    C. Heymans et al., Astron. Astrophys. 646, A140 (2021), arXiv:2007.15632 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [9]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al.(DES), Phys. Rev. D 105, 023520 (2022), arXiv:2105.13549 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 63 references
  1. [10]

    Breuval, A

    L. Breuval, A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, M. Romaniello, Y. S. Murakami, D. Scolnic, G. S. Anand, and I. Soszy´ nski, Astrophys. J. 973, 30 (2024), arXiv:2404.08038 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [11]

    Miyatake et al., Phys

    H. Miyatake et al., Phys. Rev. D 108, 123517 (2023), arXiv:2304.00704 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [12]

    Sch¨ oneberg, G

    N. Sch¨ oneberg, G. Franco Abell´ an, A. P´ erez S´ anchez, S. J. Witte, V. Poulin, and J. Lesgourgues, Phys. Rept. 984, 1 (2022), arXiv:2107.10291 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [13]

    W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, I. S. Jang, T. J. Hoyt, A. J. Lee, and K. A. Owens, (2024), arXiv:2408.06153 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Svrcek and E

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten, JHEP 06, 051 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0605206 [hep-th]

    2006 arXiv

  6. [15]

    Di Valentino, O

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess, and J. Silk, Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 153001 (2021), arXiv:2103.01183 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D81, 123530 (2010), arXiv:0905.4720 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  8. [17]

    J. P. Conlon, JHEP 05, 078 (2006), arXiv:hep- th/0602233

    2006

  9. [18]

    M. J. Stott, D. J. E. Marsh, C. Pongkitivanichkul, L. C. Price, and B. S. Acharya, Phys. Rev. D96, 083510 (2017), arXiv:1706.03236 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Cicoli, M

    M. Cicoli, M. Goodsell, and A. Ringwald, JHEP 10, 146 (2012), arXiv:1206.0819 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  11. [20]

    P. W. Graham, J. Mardon, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D 93, 103520 (2016), arXiv:1504.02102 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Gendler, D

    N. Gendler, D. J. E. Marsh, L. McAllister, and J. Moritz, (2023), arXiv:2309.13145 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [22]

    J. A. Frieman, C. T. Hill, A. Stebbins, and I. Waga, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 2077 (1995), arXiv:astro- ph/9505060 [astro-ph]

    1995

  14. [23]

    M. A. Amin, M. Jain, R. Karur, and P. Mocz, JCAP 08, 014 (2022), arXiv:2203.11935 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [24]

    D. J. E. Marsh and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D82, 103528 (2010), arXiv:1009.3501 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Choi, Phys

    K. Choi, Phys. Rev. D 62, 043509 (2000), arXiv:hep- ph/9902292

    2000

  17. [26]

    A. A. Klypin, A. V. Kravtsov, O. Valenzuela, and F. Prada, Astrophys. J. 522, 82 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9901240

    1999

  18. [27]

    D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rept. 643, 1 (2016), arXiv:1510.07633 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Boylan-Kolchin, J

    M. Boylan-Kolchin, J. S. Bullock, and M. Kapling- hat, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 415, L40 (2011), arXiv:1103.0007 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  20. [29]

    W. J. G. de Blok, Adv. Astron. 2010, 789293 (2010), arXiv:0910.3538 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  21. [30]

    W. Hu, R. Barkana, and A. Gruzinov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1158 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0003365 [astro-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  22. [31]

    J. S. Bullock and M. Boylan-Kolchin, Ann. Rev. As- tron. Astrophys. 55, 343 (2017), arXiv:1707.04256 [astro- ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [32]

    P. Fox, A. Pierce, and S. D. Thomas, (2004), arXiv:hep- th/0409059

    2004

  24. [33]

    L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D 95, 043541 (2017), arXiv:1610.08297 [astro- ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  25. [34]

    M.-X. Lin, G. Benevento, W. Hu, and M. Raveri, Phys. Rev. D100, 063542 (2019), arXiv:1905.12618 [astro- ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Poulin, T

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, D. Grin, T. Karwal, and M. Kamionkowski, (2018), arXiv:1806.10608 [astro- ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Abazajian et al., (2019), arXiv:1907.04473 [astro- ph.IM]

    K. Abazajian et al., (2019), arXiv:1907.04473 [astro- ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [37]

    K. K. Rogers, R. Hloˇ zek, A. Lagu¨ e, M. M. Ivanov, O. H. E. Philcox, G. Cabass, K. Akitsu, and D. J. E. Marsh, JCAP 06, 023 (2023), arXiv:2301.08361 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [38]

    , arXiv e-prints , arXiv:0912.0201 (2009), arXiv:0912.0201 [astro-ph.IM]

    LSST Science Collaboration et al. , arXiv e-prints , arXiv:0912.0201 (2009), arXiv:0912.0201 [astro-ph.IM]

    2009 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Ivezi´ cet al

    ˇZ. Ivezi´ cet al. (LSST), Astrophys. J. 873, 111 (2019), arXiv:0805.2366 [astro-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Amendola et al., Living Rev

    L. Amendola et al., Living Rev. Rel. 21, 2 (2018), arXiv:1606.00180 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Mandelbaum et al

    R. Mandelbaum et al. (LSST Dark Energy Science), (2018), arXiv:1809.01669 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Hlozek, D

    R. Hlozek, D. Grin, D. J. E. Marsh, and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D 91, 103512 (2015), arXiv:1410.2896 [astro- ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Aghamousa et al

    A. Aghamousa et al. (DESI), (2016), arXiv:1611.00036 [astro-ph.IM]

    2016 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Cookmeyer, D

    T. Cookmeyer, D. Grin, and T. L. Smith, Phys. Rev. D101, 023501 (2020), arXiv:1909.11094 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Ratra, Phys

    B. Ratra, Phys. Rev. D 44, 352 (1991)

    1991

  37. [46]

    Chen and J

    C.-B. Chen and J. Soda, JCAP 06, 049 (2023), arXiv:2303.00999 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Passaglia and W

    S. Passaglia and W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D 105, 123529 (2022), arXiv:2201.10238 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Baryakhtar, O

    M. Baryakhtar, O. Simon, and Z. J. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D 110, 083505 (2024), arXiv:2405.10358 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [49]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, JCAP 1107, 034 (2011), arXiv:1104.2933 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  41. [50]

    F. X. L. Cede˜ no, A. X. Gonz´ alez-Morales, and L. A. Ure˜ na L´ opez, Phys. Rev. D 96, 061301 (2017), arXiv:1703.10180 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [51]

    L. A. Ure˜ na L´ opez and A. X. Gonzalez-Morales, JCAP 1607, 048 (2016), arXiv:1511.08195 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]. 29

    2020 arXiv

  44. [53]

    L. A. Ure˜ na L´ opez and F. X. Linares Cede˜ no, (2023), arXiv:2307.05600 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Hu, C.-T

    W. Hu, C.-T. Chiang, Y. Li, and M. LoVerde, Phys. Rev. D 94, 023002 (2016), arXiv:1605.01412 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Ma and E

    C.-P. Ma and E. Bertschinger, Astrophys. J. 455, 7 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9506072 [astro-ph]

    1995 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Lesgourgues and T

    J. Lesgourgues and T. Tram, JCAP 09, 032 (2014), arXiv:1312.2697 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Hu, Astrophys

    W. Hu, Astrophys. J. 506, 485 (1998), arXiv:astro- ph/9801234 [astro-ph]

    1998

  49. [58]

    switch source

    such as CAMB [http://camb.info] where only the hyper- spherical Bessel function itself is constructed, but not in CLASS [59], where the multipole sources are directly integrated using the radial functions. 5 Technically, the derivatives of ˙µ carry the difference in the expan-...

  50. [59]

    W. Hu, U. Seljak, M. J. White, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D 57, 3290 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9709066

    1998 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Seljak and M

    U. Seljak and M. Zaldarriaga, Astrophys. J. 469, 437 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9603033 [astro-ph]

    1996 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Lesgourgues, (2011), arXiv:1104.2932 [astro-ph.IM]

    J. Lesgourgues, (2011), arXiv:1104.2932 [astro-ph.IM]

    2011 arXiv

  53. [62]

    D. J. Eisenstein, W. Hu, and M. Tegmark, Astrophys. J. 518, 2 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9807130 [astro-ph]

    1999 arXiv

  54. [63]

    K. K. Rogers and H. V. Peiris, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 071302 (2021), arXiv:2007.12705 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Amendola and R

    L. Amendola and R. Barbieri, Phys. Lett. B 642, 192 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0509257

    2006 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.