Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Prospects and Limitations for Constraining Light Relics with Primordial Abundance Measurements

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Fisher forecast over a 100-reaction BBN network shows that an order-of-magnitude helium-4 improvement could match or beat projected CMB limits on light relics, while deuterium improvements are blocked by degeneracies.

desk verdict A useful Fisher forecast showing Yp matters and D/H doesn't for Neff, but the headline numbers need an MCMC robustness check. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05291 v2 pith:ZCJVKCIF submitted 2019-08-14 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Alex Laguë , Joel Meyers This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COhep-ph PACS 26.35.+c98.80.-k
keywords BigBangnucleosynthesislightrelicseffectivenumberofneutrinospeciesprimordialhelium-4abundancedeuteriumFishermatrixforecastnuclearreactionratescosmicmicrowavebackground
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 asks whether measurements of primordial light-element abundances can keep pace with coming cosmic microwave background (CMB) constraints on light relics — extra radiation beyond standard neutrinos, which the paper tracks through the effective number of neutrino species $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$. Using a Fisher-matrix forecast over a Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) network with 100 adjustable nuclear rates, it finds that an order-of-magnitude improvement in the primordial helium-4 abundance ($Y_p$) brings $\sigma(N_{\mathrm{eff}})$ close to what next-generation CMB surveys will achieve, and that combining such a helium measurement with projected CMB priors reaches $\sigma(N_{\mathrm{eff}}) = 0.0246$. The paper finds the opposite for deuterium: because deuterium is degenerate with the baryon-to-photon ratio $\eta$ and with the rate of the reaction $^2\mathrm{H}(p,\gamma)^3\mathrm{He}$, even a tenfold better deuterium measurement gives little improvement unless those auxiliary parameters are pinned down. The authors conclude that improved helium-4 measurements are a useful complement to CMB light-relic constraints, while improved deuterium measurements are unlikely to be competitive.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a Fisher information matrix built from finite-difference derivatives of five computed primordial abundances ($^2\mathrm{H}$, $^3\mathrm{He}$, $^4\mathrm{He}$ as $Y_p$, $^6\mathrm{Li}$, $^7\mathrm{Li}$) with respect to $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$, the baryon-to-photon ratio $\eta$, and the rates of the 100 reactions in the BBN network. A publicly available BBN code is modified so each nuclear rate can be varied; the current abundance measurements and tabulated nuclear-rate uncertainties enter as Gaussian errors, and CMB priors on $\eta$ and $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$ add to the same matrix. The key diagnostic is the correlation of $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$ with each other parameter for a given abundance: for helium the dominant degeneracies are the neutron decay rate and the reaction $\mathrm{H}(n,\gamma)^2\mathrm{H}$, while for deuterium the rate $^2\mathrm{H}(p,\gamma)^3\mathrm{He}$ is the limiting degeneracy.

What would settle it

Compute the full posterior (for example with a Markov-chain Monte Carlo) for the best-ranked scenario — a tenfold helium-4 improvement with projected next-generation CMB priors — using the same BBN network and uncertainties. If the posterior sigma(Neff) differs from the Fisher forecast of 0.0246 by more than about 10 percent, the Gaussian-linear assumption fails and the quantitative conclusions are unreliable. A separate test: if an improved deuterium measurement at 0.12 percent fractional uncertainty, with current nuclear-rate uncertainties and no CMB eta prior, sharpens sigma(Neff) far below the forecast value near 0.22, then the paper's claim that deuterium is non-competitive is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is an asymmetry in the information content of the two most precisely measured primordial abundances. The primordial helium-4 mass fraction $Y_p$ responds to $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$ through the neutron-to-proton ratio at weak freeze-out, and this response survives marginalization over $\eta$ and the nuclear rates; therefore better $Y_p$ measurements consistently tighten the forecast on $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$. The deuterium abundance, in contrast, is so strongly degenerate with the reaction rate $^2\mathrm{H}(p,\gamma)^3\mathrm{He}$ and with the baryon-to-photon ratio that the current deuterium constraint already sits near a floor: without order-of-magnitude improvements in those auxiliary parameters, improved deuterium data add almost nothing for $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$. With projected next-generation CMB priors and a tenfold helium improvement, the forecast reaches $\sigma(N_{\mathrm{eff}}) = 0.0246$, enough to see a single new thermal fermion ($\Delta N_{\mathrm{eff}} \ge 0.047$) at just under 2$\sigma$.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast treats the abundance likelihood as Gaussian and assumes abundance responses are linear over the parameter ranges considered, and the paper does not check this against a full likelihood calculation; if either fails, the quantitative sigma(Neff) values in Table II could be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A tenfold helium-4 improvement combined with projected next-generation CMB priors reaches $\sigma(N_{\mathrm{eff}}) = 0.0246$, which could detect a single new thermal fermion ($\Delta N_{\mathrm{eff}} \ge 0.047$) at just under 2$\sigma$.
  • A tenfold deuterium improvement alone changes the $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$ constraint by only a few percent once nuclear-rate uncertainties are marginalized, so deuterium is not a competitive probe of the light-relic density.
  • To unlock deuterium, the rates of $^2\mathrm{H}(p,\gamma)^3\mathrm{He}$ and $^2\mathrm{H}(d,n)^3\mathrm{He}$ must improve by roughly an order of magnitude together with a CMB-quality measurement of $\eta$; with fixed rates and such an $\eta$ prior, deuterium can give about a factor-of-two better $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$ than the CMB alone.
  • The neutron lifetime is not a limiting factor at current precision, but it becomes one if $Y_p$ improves by more than an order of magnitude.
  • The rankings apply to a fixed BBN relation between $Y_p$ and $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$; physics that changes that relation is outside the forecast.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One extension the paper leaves implicit: if helium-4 systematics improve by more than an order of magnitude, the next bottlenecks are the neutron-lifetime uncertainty and the $\mathrm{H}(n,\gamma)^2\mathrm{H}$ rate, so nuclear-reaction experiments and cosmological abundance surveys would need to be planned together.
  • The same Fisher formalism could be inverted to ask how well a hypothetical light relic's spin and decoupling temperature could be distinguished from a pure density shift, using the small differences in BBN versus CMB sensitivity that the paper notes rather than only the shared parameter $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$.
  • A non-Gaussian or nonlinear test of the forecast, such as a full Markov-chain Monte Carlo over the same scenarios, would establish whether the quoted $\sigma(N_{\mathrm{eff}})$ values hold; the Fisher approximation itself is the fragile link.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper performs a Fisher-matrix forecast of how well future measurements of primordial light-element abundances, combined with Planck or CMB-S4 priors, can constrain the effective number of relativistic species Neff. The authors use AlterBBN with a 100-reaction network, treat eta and nuclear rates as nuisance parameters, and forecast sigma(Neff) for various assumed improvements in Yp, D/H, and neutron-lifetime measurements. They find that an order-of-magnitude improvement in Yp could yield sigma(Neff)=0.0246 when combined with CMB-S4 priors, whereas improved D/H measurements are not competitive because of degeneracies with eta and the 2H(p,gamma)3He rate. They also identify which nuclear-rate uncertainties limit the Yp-based constraint.

Significance. If the quantitative forecasts survive validation, the paper provides a useful mapping of where BBN abundance measurements need to go to keep pace with CMB-S4 and identifies specific nuclear rates that limit the inference. The qualitative conclusion that Yp is more promising than D/H for constraining Neff is well supported by the degeneracy argument and is likely robust. The paper's use of a full BBN network with 100 rates, external inputs from NACRE II, and the explicit ranking in Table II are strengths. The central quantitative claim, however, rests on a Fisher approximation that is not validated, which tempers the significance of the headline numbers.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (3) and Table II] The Fisher matrix forecast assumes that the abundance likelihood and all priors are Gaussian and that abundance derivatives are linear over the relevant parameter volume. For the headline case in Table II (rank 1, sigma(Neff)=0.0246) the helium measurement is very informative and the posterior is marginalized over 100 nuclear rates, several with assigned uncertainties of 15% or more; under these conditions Gaussianity and linearity are not guaranteed. I request an MCMC validation of at least the rank-1 and rank-5 cases, or a quantitative test of the linearity assumption (e.g., second-derivative terms), before the numerical constraints are quoted as forecasts.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (3)] The text does not state how the Planck and CMB-S4 priors on eta and Neff are combined with the Fisher matrix of Eq. (3). If the priors are added as inverse-variance diagonal terms, this should be written explicitly; if not, the procedure is ambiguous. Table II and Figures 1-2 depend on this step, and the current description makes the forecasts difficult to reproduce.
  3. [Section II and Table III] The nuclear rates are treated as Gaussian random parameters with fractional uncertainties. For rates with large uncertainties, most notably rate 87 with 83.7%, a Gaussian prior assigns substantial probability to negative reaction rates, which is unphysical. I recommend redoing the forecast with log-normal priors on the rates (or otherwise restricting the support) and checking whether sigma(Neff) in Table II shifts; this is also relevant to the Gaussianity assumption in Eq. (3).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (3)] Equation (3) contains a duplicated 'of' in the phrase 'abundances of of 2H'.
  2. [Figures 1 and 2] The axis labels appear to read '10 3', '10 2', and '10 1' without superscript minus signs; they should be 10^{-3}, 10^{-2}, and 10^{-1}.
  3. [Section III, discussion of Figure 4] The phrase 'the relevant unclear rates' should read 'the relevant nuclear rates'.
  4. [Figure 3 caption] The caption uses square placeholders for the nuclear reaction rate; these should be replaced with the actual rate symbols so that the four panels are interpretable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Fisher forecasts use external inputs (CMB projections, NACRE II rates, literature abundance measurements) and forecast Neff rather than fitting it; the central Yp-vs-D/H ranking is an independent derivative-based result.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a Fisher-matrix forecast (Eq. 3) in which the target parameter Neff is marginalized over eta and 100 nuclear rates. The quantities entering the forecast—abundance derivatives from a modified AlterBBN code, current and future abundance errors (Table I), CMB priors from Planck/CMB-S4, and nuclear rate uncertainties (Table III)—are all external inputs or standard public-code outputs; none are defined in terms of the claimed output sigma(Neff). The headline constraint sigma(Neff)=0.0246 in Table II is the result of combining a CMB-S4 Neff prior with an assumed improved Yp measurement through the standard Fisher combination, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The qualitative conclusion that improved Yp outperforms improved D/H follows from the computed correlation structure (e.g., D/H's degeneracy with rate 20, 2H(p,gamma)3He, and eta) rather than being asserted as an input. Self-citations (e.g., refs. [6], [26], [34]) are contextual and do not carry the argument. Footnote [44] states a scope condition (Yp fixed to be BBN-consistent), which is an explicit assumption, not a circular step. The main fragility—Gaussianity and linearity of the Fisher approximation—is a correctness risk, not circularity. No circular step was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the reliability of the AlterBBN code, the Fisher approximation, and the external nuclear-rate uncertainty assignments. No new entities or fitted parameters are introduced; the 15% uniform uncertainty is a conservative ad hoc choice for rates without tabulated values.

free parameters (1)
  • Uniform 15% uncertainty for unlisted nuclear rates = 15%
    Rates without tabulated uncertainties in Table III are assigned a 15% fractional error. The authors state none of these are currently limiting, so the choice does not drive the central conclusions.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption AlterBBN accurately computes primordial abundances for a given set of cosmological and nuclear parameters.
    The entire forecast hinges on the fidelity of the AlterBBN code, which is used without independent validation in the paper.
  • domain assumption The Fisher matrix formalism provides reliable error forecasts for the parameters of interest.
    Equation (3) assumes Gaussian likelihood and linear response; no validation against a full likelihood exploration is presented.
  • domain assumption Nuclear rate uncertainties are independent and Gaussian with the fractional errors listed in Table III.
    Some rates are taken from NACRE II, others are assigned 15%; correlations between rates are neglected.
  • domain assumption The relationship between Yp and Neff is fixed by standard BBN with the same eta and Neff driving both.
    Footnote 44 states that CMB Neff constraints assume Yp consistent with BBN; this standard-BBN relation is assumed throughout the forecasts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Prospects and Limitations for Constraining Light Relics with Primordial Abundance Measurements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZCJVKCIF

@misc{pith2026190805291,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Prospects and Limitations for Constraining Light Relics with Primordial Abundance Measurements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZCJVKCIF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05291}
}
read the original abstract

The light relic density affects the thermal and expansion history of the early Universe leaving a number of observable imprints. We focus on the primordial abundances of light elements produced during the process of Big Bang nucleosynthesis which are influenced by the light relic density. Primordial abundances can be used to infer the density of light relics and thereby serve as a probe of physics beyond the Standard Model. We calculate the observational uncertainty on primordial light element abundances and associated quantities that would be required in order for these measurements to achieve sensitivity to the light relic density comparable to that anticipated from upcoming cosmic microwave background surveys. We identify the nuclear reaction rates that need to be better measured to maximize the utility of future observations. We show that improved measurements of the primordial helium-4 abundance can improve constraints on light relics, while more precise measurements of the primordial deuterium abundance are unlikely to be competitive with cosmic microwave background measurements of the light relic density.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05291 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Forecasted 1- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Same as Figure 1 but with forecasted constraints on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Forecasted 1- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Forecasted 1- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

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. Sensitivity of Next-Generation CMB Surveys to Neutrinos and Other Light Relics

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

    CMB-S4 forecasts: the two-site design reaches sigma(Neff)=0.029 in seven years, the Chile-only revised design reaches 0.030 in nine, and a cosmic-variance-limited survey would reach 0.0073.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    R. H. Cyburt, B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive, and T.-H. Yeh, Reviews of Modern Physics 88, 015004 (2016)

    2016

  2. [2]

    Nomoto, C

    K. Nomoto, C. Kobayashi, and N. Tominaga, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 51, 457 (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    W. J. Percival et al. (2dFGRS), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 327, 1297 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0105252 [astro- ph]

    arXiv 2001

  4. [4]

    Aghanim, Y

    N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. Banday, R. Bar- reiro, N. Bartolo, S. Basak, et al. , arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.06209 (2018)

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Iocco, G

    F. Iocco, G. Mangano, G. Miele, O. Pisanti, and P. D. Serpico, Phys. Rept. 472, 1 (2009), arXiv:0809.0631 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2009

  6. [6]

    E. B. Grohs, J. R. Bond, R. J. Cooke, G. M. Fuller, J. Meyers, and M. W. Paris, (2019), arXiv:1903.09187 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Riemer-Sørensen and E

    S. Riemer-Sørensen and E. S. Jenssen, Universe 3, 44 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Lesgourgues and S

    J. Lesgourgues and S. Pastor, New Journal of Physics 16, 065002 (2014)

    work page 2014

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    K. N. Abazajian, P. Adshead, Z. Ahmed, S. W. Allen, D. Alonso, K. S. Arnold, C. Baccigalupi, J. G. Bartlett, N. Battaglia, B. A. Benson, et al. , arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.02743 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Green et al., (2019), arXiv:1903.04763 [astro-ph.CO]

    D. Green et al., (2019), arXiv:1903.04763 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Mangano, G

    G. Mangano, G. Miele, S. Pastor, T. Pinto, O. Pisanti, and P. D. Serpico, Nucl. Phys. B729, 221 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0506164 [hep-ph]. 8

    2005 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Grohs, G

    E. Grohs, G. M. Fuller, C. T. Kishimoto, M. W. Paris, and A. Vlasenko, Phys. Rev. D93, 083522 (2016), arXiv:1512.02205 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    P. F. de Salas and S. Pastor, JCAP 1607, 051 (2016), arXiv:1606.06986 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Essig et al., in Proceedings, 2013 Community Summer Study on the Future of U.S

    R. Essig et al., in Proceedings, 2013 Community Summer Study on the Future of U.S. Particle Physics: Snowmass on the Mississippi (CSS2013): Minneapolis, MN, USA, July 29-August 6, 2013 (2013) arXiv:1311.0029 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  7. [15]

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

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Alexander et al

    J. Alexander et al. (2016) arXiv:1608.08632 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

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

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Aguirre et al

    J. Aguirre et al. (Simons Observatory), JCAP 1902, 056 (2019), arXiv:1808.07445 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    M. H. Abitbol et al. (Simons Observatory), (2019), arXiv:1907.08284 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Abazajian et al

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

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Hanany et al

    S. Hanany et al. (NASA PICO), (2019), arXiv:1902.10541 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Sehgal et al., (2019), arXiv:1906.10134 [astro-ph.CO]

    N. Sehgal et al., (2019), arXiv:1906.10134 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    E. Aver, K. A. Olive, and E. D. Skillman, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2015, 011 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    R. J. Cooke, M. Pettini, and C. C. Steidel, Astrophys. J. 855, 102 (2018), arXiv:1710.11129 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Bashinsky and U

    S. Bashinsky and U. Seljak, Phys. Rev. D69, 083002 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0310198 [astro-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Baumann, D

    D. Baumann, D. Green, J. Meyers, and B. Wal- lisch, JCAP 1601, 007 (2016), arXiv:1508.06342 [astro- ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Fischler and J

    W. Fischler and J. Meyers, Phys. Rev. D83, 063520 (2011), arXiv:1011.3501 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Cadamuro, S

    D. Cadamuro, S. Hannestad, G. Raffelt, and J. Redondo, JCAP 1102, 003 (2011), arXiv:1011.3694 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  21. [29]

    J. L. Menestrina and R. J. Scherrer, Phys. Rev. D85, 047301 (2012), arXiv:1111.0605 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Hooper, F

    D. Hooper, F. S. Queiroz, and N. Y. Gnedin, Phys. Rev. D85, 063513 (2012), arXiv:1111.6599 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Millea, L

    M. Millea, L. Knox, and B. Fields, Phys. Rev. D92, 023010 (2015), arXiv:1501.04097 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    B. D. Fields, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 61, 47 (2011), arXiv:1203.3551 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  25. [33]

    F. C. Adams, S. Alexander, E. Grohs, and L. Mersini- Houghton, JCAP 1703, 021 (2017), arXiv:1701.03949 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    de Putter, O

    R. de Putter, O. Dor´ e, J. Gleyzes, D. Green, and J. Meyers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 041301 (2019), arXiv:1805.11616 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Bania, R

    T. Bania, R. T. Rood, and D. S. Balser, Nature 415, 54 (2002)

    2002

  28. [36]

    S. G. Ryan, T. C. Beers, K. A. Olive, B. D. Fields, and J. E. Norris, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 530, L57 (2000)

    2000

  29. [37]

    Asplund, D

    M. Asplund, D. L. Lambert, P. E. Nissen, F. Primas, and V. V. Smith, The Astrophysical Journal 644, 229 (2006)

    2006

  30. [38]

    Arbey, Computer Physics Communications 183, 1822 (2012)

    A. Arbey, Computer Physics Communications 183, 1822 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    Arbey, J

    A. Arbey, J. Auffinger, K. P. Hickerson, and E. S. Jenssen, (2018), arXiv:1806.11095 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    https://alterbbn.hepforge.org

  33. [41]

    We will refer throughout to uncertainties expected from CMB-S4, assuming a configuration consistent with the reference design shown in [20], though the forecasted er- rors for the relevant parameters from an experiment like PICO are similar

  34. [42]

    Y. Xu, K. Takahashi, S. Goriely, M. Arnould, M. Ohta, and H. Utsunomiya, Nuclear Physics A 918, 61 (2013)

    2013

  35. [43]

    Broggini, D

    C. Broggini, D. Bemmerer, A. Caciolli, and D. Trezzi, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    Modifications to the process of BBN or other new physics could alter the relationship between Yp and Neff, but such scenarios are outside the scope of this work

    When quoting constraints on Neff from CMB experi- ments here and elsewhere, we are assuming that Yp is fixed to be consistent with predictions of BBN (as a func- tion of η andNeff). Modifications to the process of BBN or other new physics could alter the relationship between Yp an...

  37. [45]

    Tanabashi, K

    M. Tanabashi, K. Hagiwara, K. Hikasa, K. Naka- mura, Y. Sumino, F. Takahashi, J. Tanaka, K. Agashe, G. Aielli, C. Amsler, et al., Physical Review D 98, 030001 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    Baumann, D

    D. Baumann, D. Green, and B. Wallisch, JCAP 1808, 029 (2018), arXiv:1712.08067 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    R. J. Cooke, M. Pettini, R. A. Jorgenson, M. T. Murphy, and C. C. Steidel, The Astrophysical Journal 781, 31 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    R. J. Cooke, M. Pettini, K. M. Nollett, and R. Jorgenson, Astrophys. J. 830, 148 (2016), arXiv:1607.03900 [astro- ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Maiolino et al

    R. Maiolino et al. , (2013), arXiv:1310.3163 [astro- ph.IM]

    2013 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Y. I. Izotov, T. X. Thuan, and N. G. Guseva, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 445, 778 (2014), arXiv:1408.6953 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Cooke and M

    R. Cooke and M. Fumagalli, Nat. Astron. 2, 957 (2018), arXiv:1810.06561 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Hu and M

    W. Hu and M. J. White, Astrophys. J. 479, 568 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9609079 [astro-ph]

    1997 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Z. Hou, R. Keisler, L. Knox, M. Millea, and C. Re- ichardt, Phys. Rev. D87, 083008 (2013), arXiv:1104.2333 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Tilley, H

    D. Tilley, H. Weller, and H. Hasan, Nuclear Physics A 474, 1 (1987)

    1987

  47. [55]

    Ajzenberg-Selove, Nuclear Physics A 490, 1 (1988)

    F. Ajzenberg-Selove, Nuclear Physics A 490, 1 (1988)

    1988

  48. [56]

    Ajzenberg-Selove, Nuclear Physics A 506, 1 (1990)

    F. Ajzenberg-Selove, Nuclear Physics A 506, 1 (1990)

    1990

  49. [57]

    Ajzenberg-Selove, Nuclear Physics A 449, 1 (1986)

    F. Ajzenberg-Selove, Nuclear Physics A 449, 1 (1986)

    1986

  50. [58]

    M. S. Smith, L. H. Kawano, and R. A. Malaney, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 85, 219 (1993). 9 Rate Reaction Error (%) Reference Rate Reaction Error (%) Reference 1 n↔p 0.114 [45] 2 3H→e− +ν+ 3He 0.393 [54] 3 8Li→e− +ν+ 24He 0.726 [55] 4 12B→e− +ν+ 12C 0.939 [56] ...

    1993

Pith tools

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