pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.21518 · v1 · pith:U6LADJJUnew · submitted 2026-06-19 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · hep-ph· hep-th

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

Artur Ladeira , Rafael C. Nunes , Eleonora Di Valentino , Stefano Gariazzo This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 13:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO hep-phhep-th
keywords sterile neutrinoscosmological constraintsCMBBAOsupernovaedark energyphase-space distributionHubble tension
0
0 comments X

The pith

Current cosmological data pressure fully thermalized sterile neutrinos but allow partially populated cases depending on production history.

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

The paper tests whether observations rule out light sterile neutrinos as a whole or only their fully thermalized versions. It compares three scenarios with different early-universe abundances and phase-space distributions against Planck CMB, DESI BAO, and supernova data in both standard and dynamical dark-energy models. The fully thermalized case shows strong tension without a local Hubble prior, while the suppressed and Dodelson-Widrow-like cases fit comfortably. This distinction arises because constraints tighten on effective abundance but loosen on the underlying physical mass. The result follows if the chosen realizations capture the main ways sterile neutrinos could have been produced.

Core claim

Current observations do not generically exclude sterile neutrinos, but rather place strong pressure on fully thermalized or highly populated scenarios, highlighting the importance of production history and phase-space distribution when interpreting cosmological constraints.

What carries the argument

Three realizations of sterile neutrinos: fully thermalized (FTS), temperature-suppressed thermal relic (DTS), and Dodelson-Widrow-like (DW) with reduced phase-space normalization.

If this is right

  • Without a local H0 prior the fully thermalized case is strongly disfavored in both LambdaCDM and CPL models.
  • Adding the local H0 prior lets the fully thermalized case accommodate higher H0 values but keeps the sterile mass consistent with zero.
  • The Dodelson-Widrow-like and temperature-suppressed cases remain compatible with current data.
  • Constraints tighten on the effective sterile abundance while remaining weaker on the physical sterile mass.
  • Phase-space distribution and production history must be accounted for to interpret limits correctly.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If partial sterile neutrinos are realized, their impact on structure growth could differ from fully thermalized expectations in ways future weak-lensing surveys might detect.
  • The viability of suppressed cases suggests that joint analyses with laboratory neutrino searches could test specific production mechanisms.
  • Extending the same logic to other beyond-Standard-Model relics would require similar case-by-case production modeling.

Load-bearing premise

The three chosen realizations cover the main early-universe production mechanisms without overlooking effects on other observables.

What would settle it

Future data showing a sterile neutrino mass near 1 eV in the fully thermalized state that fits all Planck, DESI, and supernova combinations without tension would challenge the claimed pressure on the FTS case.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.21518 by Artur Ladeira, Eleonora Di Valentino, Rafael C. Nunes, Stefano Gariazzo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Marginalized one-dimensional posterior distributions and two-dimensional credible regions at the 68% and 95% CL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Marginalized one-dimensional posterior distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Marginalized one-dimensional posterior distributions and two-dimensional credible regions at the 68% and 95% CL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Same as Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Marginalized one-dimensional posterior distributions and two-dimensional credible regions at 68% and 95% CL for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Same as Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a cosmological reassessment of light sterile-neutrino scenarios, examining whether current observations exclude sterile neutrinos as a class or primarily constrain the fully thermalized case. We consider three distinct realizations: (i) a fully thermalized sterile species (FTS), (ii) a thermal relic with a suppressed temperature relative to the active neutrino background (DTS), and (iii) a Dodelson-Widrow-like (DW) sterile neutrino with reduced phase-space normalization. Constraints are derived within both LambdaCDM and the CPL dynamical dark-energy framework using combinations of Planck CMB data, DESI DR2 BAO measurements, and the PantheonPlus and Union3 Type Ia supernova samples. For baseline data combinations without a local H0 prior, the FTS scenario is strongly disfavored in both cosmological models. Adding the local H0^DN prior allows LambdaCDM+FTS to accommodate the high local H0 value and become statistically competitive with standard LambdaCDM once SNIa data are included, although the sterile-neutrino mass remains consistent with zero. By contrast, partially populated sterile-neutrino scenarios remain viable: the DW realization is broadly compatible with current observations, while the DTS scenario yields the weakest cosmological pressure among the cases considered. Overall, cosmological data mainly require a strongly suppressed effective sterile abundance, leading to tight constraints on m_eff^sterile while allowing substantially weaker bounds on the physical sterile mass. We conclude that current observations do not generically exclude sterile neutrinos, but rather place strong pressure on fully thermalized or highly populated scenarios, highlighting the importance of production history and phase-space distribution when interpreting cosmological constraints.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that cosmological data (Planck CMB, DESI DR2 BAO, PantheonPlus/Union3 SNIa) do not generically exclude light sterile neutrinos but instead strongly constrain only the fully thermalized case (FTS). It examines three realizations—FTS, temperature-suppressed thermal relic (DTS), and Dodelson-Widrow-like (DW) with reduced phase-space normalization—within both flat LambdaCDM and CPL dynamical dark energy, with and without a local H0 prior. FTS is disfavored without the H0 prior but becomes competitive with it once SNIa are added (though m_s remains consistent with zero); DW is broadly compatible and DTS experiences the weakest pressure. The central conclusion is that data require strongly suppressed effective sterile abundance (tight bounds on m_eff^sterile) while allowing weaker bounds on physical mass, underscoring the role of production history and phase-space distribution.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the result is significant for the field: it demonstrates that standard thermalized assumptions overstate the exclusion power of current data and that non-thermal or suppressed distributions reopen viable parameter space for sterile neutrinos. This has direct implications for interpreting tensions with short-baseline anomalies and for forecasts with future surveys. The explicit comparison across production mechanisms and the use of both LambdaCDM and CPL frameworks provide a useful template, though the strength depends on whether the three chosen realizations are representative.

major comments (2)
  1. [Model realizations / abstract] The central claim that data 'do not generically exclude sterile neutrinos' but only the fully thermalized limit rests on the assertion that FTS, DTS, and DW realizations adequately span relevant early-universe production mechanisms. Other channels (resonant production, scalar decay) can produce non-thermal distributions that alter free-streaming length and small-scale power suppression at fixed m_eff^sterile, potentially changing fits to Planck lensing and DESI BAO beyond what is captured here. This assumption is load-bearing and requires explicit justification or additional tests.
  2. [Results / abstract] The statement that 'the DW realization is broadly compatible with current observations' while FTS is 'strongly disfavored' needs to be supported by quantitative posterior constraints or Delta-chi^2 values for each data combination (Planck+DESI, Planck+DESI+SNIa, with/without H0 prior). Without these numbers, the differential viability across the three cases cannot be assessed for robustness against prior volume or parameter degeneracies.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methodology] Clarify the exact parameterization of the DW phase-space normalization and the temperature ratio in DTS (e.g., explicit relation to Delta N_eff or m_eff^sterile) to allow direct comparison with other literature.
  2. [Data and priors] The abstract mentions 'baseline data combinations without a local H0 prior' and then 'adding the local H0^DN prior'; specify the exact H0 value and uncertainty adopted for the prior.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed report. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of our results and the justification for our model choices.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Model realizations / abstract] The central claim that data 'do not generically exclude sterile neutrinos' but only the fully thermalized limit rests on the assertion that FTS, DTS, and DW realizations adequately span relevant early-universe production mechanisms. Other channels (resonant production, scalar decay) can produce non-thermal distributions that alter free-streaming length and small-scale power suppression at fixed m_eff^sterile, potentially changing fits to Planck lensing and DESI BAO beyond what is captured here. This assumption is load-bearing and requires explicit justification or additional tests.

    Authors: We agree that resonant production and scalar-decay channels can generate phase-space distributions that differ from the three cases we consider. Our choice of FTS, DTS, and DW is intended to sample the principal phenomenological regimes (fully thermalized, temperature-suppressed thermal, and non-thermal with reduced normalization) that control the effective abundance and free-streaming scale. We will add a dedicated paragraph in Section 2 that explicitly justifies this selection, notes the existence of other mechanisms, and clarifies that the goal is to demonstrate that cosmological constraints are sensitive to production history rather than to exhaustively map every possible distribution. No new numerical realizations are added, but the revised text makes the scope of the claim transparent. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results / abstract] The statement that 'the DW realization is broadly compatible with current observations' while FTS is 'strongly disfavored' needs to be supported by quantitative posterior constraints or Delta-chi^2 values for each data combination (Planck+DESI, Planck+DESI+SNIa, with/without H0 prior). Without these numbers, the differential viability across the three cases cannot be assessed for robustness against prior volume or parameter degeneracies.

    Authors: We accept that explicit quantitative measures improve clarity. The manuscript already reports full posterior constraints in Figures 3–6 and Tables 2–4. To make the differential viability immediately accessible, we will insert a new summary table in Section 4 that lists, for every data combination, the best-fit Δχ^{2} relative to the baseline ΛCDM (or CPL) model together with the corresponding sterile-neutrino parameter values. This addition directly addresses the request for numerical support of the statements in the abstract and results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; constraints from independent external data

full rationale

The paper conducts standard cosmological parameter fitting of sterile-neutrino mass and abundance parameters (in FTS, DTS, and DW realizations) against independent external datasets (Planck CMB, DESI DR2 BAO, PantheonPlus/Union3 SNIa) within LambdaCDM and CPL frameworks. No derivation step reduces a reported prediction or viability statement to a fitted input by construction, nor invokes self-citations as load-bearing uniqueness theorems. The central claim that data pressure only fully thermalized cases follows from direct likelihood comparisons on those datasets, making the analysis self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard cosmological model assumptions plus the paper-specific definitions of the three sterile-neutrino production scenarios; no new particles or forces are invented.

free parameters (2)
  • sterile neutrino mass m_s
    Physical mass parameter varied and constrained in each of the three scenarios against the data
  • sterile abundance or temperature ratio parameter
    Parameter controlling the effective population level in the DTS and DW cases
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption LambdaCDM or CPL parametrization provides an adequate background cosmology for deriving sterile-neutrino constraints
    Used as the baseline framework in which the three sterile scenarios are embedded
  • ad hoc to paper The FTS, DTS, and DW realizations adequately represent the relevant range of sterile-neutrino production histories
    Introduced and analyzed separately in the paper to contrast thermalization levels

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5845 in / 1407 out tokens · 46825 ms · 2026-06-26T13:35:07.867883+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    For this purpose, we impose the Gaus- sian prior HDN 0 = 73.5±0.81 km s −1 Mpc−1,(38) motivated by the recent Local Distance Network deter- mination [75]

    Impact of the LocalH DN 0 Measurement on the ΛCDM+FTS Scenario We now assess how the FTS scenario responds to the explicit inclusion of a high local determination of the 11 Hubble constant. For this purpose, we impose the Gaus- sian prior HDN 0 = 73.5±0.81 km s −1 Mpc−1,(38) motivated by the recent Local Distance Network deter- mination [75]. This informa...

    2014

  2. [2]

    For CMB+BAO DESI DR2 alone, DTS remains disfavored, although much less severely than FTS and generally less than DW

  3. [3]

    Once supernova data are included, the Bayesian ev- idence becomes statistically inconclusive or mildly favorable, depending on the cosmological back- ground and SNe compilation

  4. [4]

    Box 1”, same as Fig. 2),L x/r0 = 20.51,L y/r0 = 82.04 (or “Box 2

    For the PantheonPlus combination, DTS is mildly favored in CPL but remains nearly neutral, though slightly negative, in ΛCDM. For the Union3 combi- nation, DTS becomes mildly favored in both CPL and ΛCDM. These results indicate that, when the sterile abundance is sufficiently suppressed through a reduced thermal tem- perature, current cosmological observa...

    work page doi:10.13039/501100011033 2022

  5. [5]

    Lesgourgues and S

    J. Lesgourgues and S. Pastor, New J. Phys.16, 065002 (2014), arXiv:1404.1740 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    A. D. Dolgov, Phys. Rept.370, 333 (2002), arXiv:hep- ph/0202122

    arXiv 2002

  7. [7]

    K. N. Abazajian, PoSTASI2020, 001 (2021), arXiv:2102.10183 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Hagstotz, P

    S. Hagstotz, P. F. de Salas, S. Gariazzo, M. Gerbino, M. Lattanzi, S. Vagnozzi, K. Freese, and S. Pastor, Phys. Rev. D104, 123524 (2021), arXiv:2003.02289 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    Di Valentino, S

    E. Di Valentino, S. Gariazzo, and O. Mena, (2024), arXiv:2404.19322 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    H. G. Escudero and K. N. Abazajian, Phys. Rev. D111, 043520 (2025), arXiv:2412.05451 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    M. A. Sabogal, R. C. Nunes, F. Avila, and A. Bernui, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 314 (2026), arXiv:2510.16141 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    Jiang, W

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

    arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Di Valentino, S

    E. Di Valentino, S. Gariazzo, and O. Mena, Phys. Rev. D104, 083504 (2021), arXiv:2106.15267 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    M. M. Ivanov, J. M. Sullivan, S.-F. Chen, A. Chu- daykin, M. Maus, and O. H. E. Philcox, (2026), arXiv:2601.16165 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    Chudaykin, M

    A. Chudaykin, M. M. Ivanov, and O. H. E. Philcox, Phys. Rev. D113, 123506 (2026), arXiv:2511.20757 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    H. E. Noriega, J. De-Santiago, G. Garcia-Arroyo, J. Ven- zor, and A. P´ erez-Lorenzana, Phys. Rev. D112, 063509 (2025), arXiv:2506.07994 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Poudou, T

    A. Poudou, T. Simon, T. Montandon, E. M. Teix- eira, and V. Poulin, Phys. Rev. D112, 103535 (2025), arXiv:2503.10485 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Tanseri, S

    I. Tanseri, S. Hagstotz, S. Vagnozzi, E. Giusarma, and K. Freese, JHEAp36, 1 (2022), arXiv:2207.01913 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Kumar, R

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

    arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Roy Choudhury, Astrophys

    S. Roy Choudhury, Astrophys. J. Lett.986, L31 (2025), [Erratum: Astrophys.J.Lett. 1001, L25 (2026), Erratum: Astrophys.J. 1001, L25 (2026)], arXiv:2504.15340 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Roy Choudhury and T

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Li, G.-H

    H. Li, G.-H. Du, T.-N. Li, H.-L. Li, L. Feng, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2026), arXiv:2606.05005 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

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

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

    arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Acharyaet al.(KATRIN), Nature648, 70 (2025), arXiv:2503.18667 [hep-ex]

    H. Acharyaet al.(KATRIN), Nature648, 70 (2025), arXiv:2503.18667 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Abratenkoet al.(MicroBooNE), Nature648, 64 (2025), arXiv:2512.07159 [hep-ex]

    P. Abratenkoet al.(MicroBooNE), Nature648, 64 (2025), arXiv:2512.07159 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    F. A. Alrahmanet al.(ICARUS), (2026), arXiv:2603.22557 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Abed Abudet al.(DUNE), (2025), arXiv:2503.23291 [hep-ex]

    A. Abed Abudet al.(DUNE), (2025), arXiv:2503.23291 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    K. N. Abazajian, Phys. Rept.711-712, 1 (2017), arXiv:1705.01837 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  29. [29]

    M. A. Aceroet al., J. Phys. G51, 120501 (2024), arXiv:2203.07323 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Gariazzo, C

    S. Gariazzo, C. Giunti, M. Laveder, Y. F. Li, and E. M. Zavanin, J. Phys. G43, 033001 (2016), arXiv:1507.08204 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  31. [31]

    Dasgupta and J

    B. Dasgupta and J. Kopp, Phys. Rept.928, 1 (2021), arXiv:2106.05913 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    Archidiacono and S

    M. Archidiacono and S. Gariazzo, Universe8, 175 (2022), arXiv:2201.10319 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Boyarsky, O

    A. Boyarsky, O. Ruchayskiy, and M. Shaposhnikov, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.59, 191 (2009), arXiv:0901.0011 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  34. [34]

    Feng, T.-N

    L. Feng, T.-N. Li, G.-H. Du, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Dark Univ.48, 101935 (2025), arXiv:2503.10423 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Du, T.-N

    G.-H. Du, T.-N. Li, P.-J. Wu, L. Feng, S.-H. Zhou, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 110 (2026), arXiv:2501.10785 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    Hu, M.-c

    R. Hu, M.-c. Chu, S. Yeung, and W. Zhang, JCAP06, 014 (2025), arXiv:2501.16908 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Di Valentino, S

    E. Di Valentino, S. Gariazzo, C. Giunti, O. Mena, S. Pan, and W. Yang, Phys. Rev. D105, 103511 (2022), arXiv:2110.03990 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    Feng, R.-Y

    L. Feng, R.-Y. Guo, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B827, 136940 (2022), arXiv:2109.06111 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Ladeira, R

    A. Ladeira, R. C. Nunes, S. Pan, and W. Yang, Phys. Rev. D113, 083503 (2026), arXiv:2601.02077 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    Feng, J.-F

    L. Feng, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 418 (2017), arXiv:1703.04884 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  41. [41]

    S. Pan, O. Seto, T. Takahashi, and Y. Toda, Phys. Rev. D110, 083524 (2024), arXiv:2312.15435 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    G. B. Gelmini, M. Kawasaki, A. Kusenko, K. Murai, and V. Takhistov, JCAP09, 051 (2020), arXiv:2005.06721 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  43. [43]

    Cuoco, J

    A. Cuoco, J. Lesgourgues, G. Mangano, and S. Pastor, Phys. Rev. D71, 123501 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0502465

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  44. [44]

    M. A. Acero and J. Lesgourgues, Phys. Rev. D79, 045026 (2009), arXiv:0812.2249 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  45. [45]

    S. Das, A. Maharana, V. Poulin, and R. K. Sharma, Phys. Rev. D105, 103503 (2022), arXiv:2104.03329 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  46. [46]

    Foot and R

    R. Foot and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D52, 6595 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9505359

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  47. [47]

    Z. G. Berezhiani and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D52, 6607 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9505385

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  48. [48]

    J. L. Feng and J. Kumar, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 231301 (2008), arXiv:0803.4196 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  49. [49]

    Das and K

    S. Das and K. Sigurdson, Phys. Rev. D85, 063510 (2012), 22 arXiv:1012.4458 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  50. [50]

    Berlin, D

    A. Berlin, D. Hooper, and G. Krnjaic, Phys. Lett. B 760, 106 (2016), arXiv:1602.08490 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  51. [51]

    Bringmann, P

    T. Bringmann, P. F. Depta, M. Hufnagel, and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, Phys. Lett. B817, 136341 (2021), arXiv:2007.03696 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  52. [52]

    Nath and J

    P. Nath and J. Li, LHEP2024, 502 (2024), arXiv:2402.04123 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    Dodelson and L

    S. Dodelson and L. M. Widrow, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 17 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9303287

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  54. [54]

    Gariazzo, P

    S. Gariazzo, P. F. de Salas, and S. Pastor, JCAP07, 014 (2019), arXiv:1905.11290 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  55. [55]

    W. Yang, R. C. Nunes, S. Pan, and D. F. Mota, Phys. Rev. D95, 103522 (2017), arXiv:1703.02556 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  56. [56]

    W. Yang, E. Di Valentino, S. Pan, and O. Mena, Phys. Dark Univ.31, 100762 (2021), arXiv:2007.02927 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  57. [57]

    Du, P.-J

    G.-H. Du, P.-J. Wu, T.-N. Li, and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 392 (2025), arXiv:2407.15640 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Akita and M

    K. Akita and M. Yamaguchi, JCAP08, 012 (2020), arXiv:2005.07047 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  59. [59]

    Froustey, C

    J. Froustey, C. Pitrou, and M. C. Volpe, JCAP12, 015 (2020), arXiv:2008.01074 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  60. [60]

    J. J. Bennett, G. Buldgen, P. F. De Salas, M. Drewes, S. Gariazzo, S. Pastor, and Y. Y. Y. Wong, JCAP04, 073 (2021), arXiv:2012.02726 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  61. [61]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10, 213 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0009008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  62. [62]

    E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 091301 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0208512

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  63. [63]

    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

  64. [64]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  65. [65]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A8 (2020), arXiv:1807.06210 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  66. [66]

    Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083514 (2025), arXiv:2503.14739 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    Broutet al., Astrophys

    D. Broutet al., Astrophys. J.938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  69. [69]

    Rubinet al., Astrophys

    D. Rubinet al., Astrophys. J.986, 231 (2025), arXiv:2311.12098 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues, and T. Tram, JCAP07, 034 (2011), arXiv:1104.2933 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  71. [71]

    Audren, J

    B. Audren, J. Lesgourgues, K. Benabed, and S. Prunet, JCAP02, 001 (2013), arXiv:1210.7183 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  72. [72]

    Brinckmann and J

    T. Brinckmann and J. Lesgourgues, Phys. Dark Univ. 24, 100260 (2019), arXiv:1804.07261 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  73. [73]

    Gelman and D

    A. Gelman and D. B. Rubin, Statist. Sci.7, 457 (1992)

    1992

  74. [74]

    Akaike, IEEE Trans

    H. Akaike, IEEE Trans. Automatic Control19, 716 (1974)

    1974

  75. [75]

    Jeffreys,Theory of Probability, 3rd ed

    H. Jeffreys,Theory of Probability, 3rd ed. (Oxford Uni- versity Press, Oxford, 1961)

    1961

  76. [76]

    R. E. Kass and A. E. Raftery, J. Am. Statist. Assoc.90, 773 (1995)

    1995

  77. [77]

    Heavens, Y

    A. Heavens, Y. Fantaye, A. Mootoovaloo, H. Eggers, Z. Hosenie, S. Kroon, and E. Sellentin, (2017), arXiv:1704.03472 [stat.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  78. [78]

    MCEvidence: A python package im- plementing the Marginal Likelihoods from Monte Carlo Markov Chains algorithm,

    Y. Fantaye, “MCEvidence: A python package im- plementing the Marginal Likelihoods from Monte Carlo Markov Chains algorithm,”https://github.com/ yabebalFantaye/MCEvidence(2026), gitHub repository, accessed 2026

    2026

  79. [79]

    Casertanoet al.(H0DN), Astron

    S. Casertanoet al.(H0DN), Astron. Astrophys.708, A166 (2026), arXiv:2510.23823 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  80. [80]

    ¨Oz¨ ulker, E

    E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, E. Di Valentino, and W. Giar` e, (2025), arXiv:2506.19053 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.