Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

The paper claims that a full phase-space treatment of early-universe ALP production, propagated into CMB observables, yields the tightest cosmological bounds yet on ALP-lepton and ALP-photon couplings.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 00:12 UTC pith:LF7XR4NF

load-bearing objection Solid, careful cosmology paper: the lepton-channel limits look robust and worth taking seriously; the photon bound is real but conditional on T_in, and the paper should be engaged with despite fixable presentation flaws. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2602.11100 v1 pith:LF7XR4NF submitted 2026-02-11 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Beyond thermal approximations: Precise cosmological bounds on Axion-Like Particles

Nicola Barbieri , Luca Caloni , Martina Gerbino , Massimiliano Lattanzi , Luca Visinelli This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO hep-ph
keywords axion-like particlescosmological boundsphase-space distributionthermal productionDelta N_effPrimakoff productiondark radiationBoltzmann equation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that the usual shortcut of approximating thermally produced axion-like particles (ALPs) by an equilibrium thermal distribution is no longer necessary: the exact momentum-dependent phase-space distribution can be computed from the Boltzmann equation for each production channel and carried directly into the calculation of CMB and BBN observables. With state-of-the-art CMB, lensing, and BBN data, the authors derive 95% bounds on ALP couplings: f_a > 1.63e6 GeV for electrons, 9.41e6 GeV for muons, 8.06e4 GeV for taus, and g_a_gamma < 1.98e-8 GeV^-1 for photons (the last assuming production began at 10^3 GeV). The muon and tau bounds are competitive with laboratory and supernova limits, and the thermal approximation is shown to shift current limits by only a few percent. A sympathetic reader would care because this closes the gap between field-theory input and cosmological output: if ALPs exist in this mass range, these are the sharpest cosmological handles on their lepton and photon couplings, and the exact treatment becomes essential for future experiments.

Core claim

The central claim is that the normal practice of approximating thermally produced ALPs by an equilibrium Bose-Einstein distribution can be replaced by an exact calculation: solving the momentum-dependent Boltzmann equation for each production channel, then feeding the resulting non-thermal phase-space distribution into the same Boltzmann solver used for CMB anisotropy, gives consistent and slightly different bounds. For a 10^-3 eV ALP, the authors obtain 95% limits f_a > 1.63e6 GeV (electron), 9.41e6 GeV (muon), 8.06e4 GeV (tau) and g_a_gamma < 1.98e-8 GeV^-1, the latter assuming production begins at 10^3 GeV. The muon and tau bounds are competitive with laboratory and supernova constraints,

What carries the argument

The momentum-dependent Boltzmann equation for the ALP phase-space distribution F_a(k,t), with collision integrals evaluated for 2-to-2 scatterings: lepton-antilepton annihilation, Compton-like scattering, and Primakoff conversion in a plasma with a temperature-dependent photon effective mass. The exact F_a is precomputed on a grid and interpolated into the cosmological observable computation, so spectral distortions are carried through rather than assumed away.

Load-bearing premise

The photon-channel limit rests on assuming the primordial plasma reached 10^3 GeV so ALP production could start there, and on an interpolation of the photon's effective plasma mass across the QCD transition; if reheating was cooler or that plasma-mass model is off, the bound weakens.

What would settle it

Using the same exact-PSD pipeline, compute the Primakoff bound with initial temperature 1 GeV instead of 10^3 GeV; if the 95% upper limit on g_a_gamma weakens by more than an order of magnitude, the quoted photon constraint is an artifact of the high-temperature assumption.

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

If this is right

  • The 95% lower limits on the ALP decay constant from CMB+BBN become f_a > 1.63e6 GeV (electron), 9.41e6 GeV (muon), and 8.06e4 GeV (tau); the muon and tau limits enter the same range as laboratory and supernova bounds.
  • The 95% upper limit on the ALP-photon coupling is g_a_gamma < 1.98e-8 GeV^-1 under the assumption production starts at 10^3 GeV, and would be weaker for lower reheating temperatures because Primakoff production is dominated by high temperatures.
  • Replacing the exact non-thermal distribution with a thermal one of the same Delta N_eff shifts the inferred limits by less than about 10% for current data, so the thermal approximation is adequate today but should be checked at future precision.
  • Adding BAO data from DESI relaxes the bounds slightly, consistent with previous analyses of extra relativistic degrees of freedom.
  • Future CMB surveys with percent-level Delta N_eff sensitivity would improve the tau-channel constraint by more than two orders of magnitude and the photon-channel constraint by more than an order of magnitude for a CMB-HD-like configuration.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the reheating temperature is lower than 10^3 GeV, the quoted photon bound does not apply and can weaken dramatically; the authors show curves for initial temperatures from 100 MeV to 1 TeV, so a useful extension is reporting bounds as a function of this initial temperature.
  • The same exact-phase-space pipeline could be applied to QCD axion hadronic production or to heavier ALPs where mass effects and spectral shape may matter more, likely changing current hot-dark-matter bounds.
  • Because loop-induced photon couplings from lepton couplings are small but non-zero, a combined analysis varying two couplings simultaneously may become relevant at the sensitivity of future CMB experiments, even though one-at-a-time variation is safe now.
  • The prior sensitivity finding (sampling Delta N_eff vs log10 f_a changes the inferred electron bound by more than a factor of two) suggests published cosmological limits should quote the parameterization and prior used, since quoted bounds are prior dependent.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a momentum-dependent Boltzmann treatment of ALP production from lepton and photon interactions, solves for the full ALP phase-space distribution, and propagates it through CLASS and Cobaya in an MCMC analysis of Planck, ACT, SPT, BBN, and DESI data. The main results are 95% limits on the ALP decay constant for electron, muon, and tau couplings, and on the photon coupling, together with forecasts for LiteBIRD+SO and LiteBIRD+CMB-HD. The authors emphasize that this is the first fully consistent cosmological analysis using the exact non-thermal ALP distribution, and they assess the impact of the thermal approximation.

Significance. If correct, the lepton-channel constraints are a substantial step beyond previous integrated-Boltzmann treatments, and the muon/tau limits are competitive with laboratory and supernova bounds. The numerical framework is carefully checked (Fig. 7), the freeze-in approximation is justified in the constrained regime, and the authors are explicit about the one-coupling-at-a-time assumption. The lepton-channel bounds appear robust. The photon-channel bound, however, is conditional on the assumed initial temperature and is presented in the abstract and Table 3 without that caveat, which weakens the strength of the headline claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; §2.4; Table 3; Fig. 6] The quoted photon bound gaγ < 1.98e-8 GeV^-1 is derived assuming ALP production starts at Tin = 10^3 GeV, but this assumption is not stated in the abstract or in Table 3. Section 2.4 and Fig. 6 show that Primakoff production is UV-dominated, so the bound degrades substantially for lower Tin; e.g., the same SPA-D-He ΔNeff limit gives a significantly weaker gaγ bound at Tin = 100 MeV, and reheating temperatures as low as ~5.96 MeV are allowed. Please report the Tin dependence explicitly in the abstract and Table 3, or derive a conservative limit using the lowest allowed Tin, and adjust the wording accordingly.
  2. [§2.4, eq. (2.16), Fig. 4] The photon plasma mass mγ is computed by interpolating between a leptonic low-T expression and a leptons-plus-quarks high-T expression across the QCD crossover, but no estimate is given of the systematic uncertainty of this interpolation. Since mγ regulates the t-channel Primakoff rate in the same high-temperature region that dominates the photon bound, the authors should quantify the sensitivity of the gaγ limit to plausible variations of the interpolation (e.g., bracketing between pure-lepton and full-quark prescriptions) or state why this uncertainty is negligible.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5 vs §4.2 and Table 3] The Conclusions state that the LiteBIRD+SO projected ΔNeff bound is ~0.01, whereas §4.2 and Table 3 give ~0.1 (e.g., ΔNeff < 0.100 at 95% CL). This inconsistency should be corrected.
  2. [Table 2] The prior row for ΔNeff is written as '[0,(2,0.55,0.3,0.77)]' and is difficult to parse. Please list the upper bounds separately for each channel.
  3. [General] The numerical tools are described as 'planned' to be released. Given the complexity of the PSD solver and the importance of reproducibility, the authors should make the code available at least upon acceptance.
  4. [Table 3 caption] The caption should state that the photon limits correspond to Tin = 10^3 GeV, matching the value used in the analysis, so that readers do not misinterpret the table as a Tin-independent bound.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the ΔNeff→coupling mapping is a solved Boltzmann prediction, not a fitted or renamed input; the photon-channel T_in dependence is a stated condition, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the ALP phase-space distribution is obtained by solving the momentum-dependent Boltzmann equation (eq. 2.8) with collision terms computed from the matrix elements in sections 2.3–2.4, and that this PSD is then propagated into CLASS and Cobaya (section 3.1). The MCMC samples ΔNeff, and the reported limits on fa or g_aγ are read off through the precomputed one-to-one mapping ΔNeff vs coupling (fig. 6, tables 6–9). This is not circular: ΔNeff(fa) is a physical prediction of the Boltzmann evolution, not a parameter fitted to the CMB data; the likelihood constrains ΔNeff, and the coupling bound follows from the model's mapping. The photon bound is explicitly conditional on the choice T_in = 10^3 GeV: section 2.4 states 'the Primakoff process is UV-dominated and therefore sensitive to the upper limit of integration', and section 4.2 notes 'The bound reported in table 3 is obtained for T_in = 10^3 GeV'. This is a stated assumption, not a circular reduction. Self-citations (refs. 55, 82, 84) are used for context, for the low-reheating bound, and for UV freeze-in behavior that the paper also demonstrates in its own fig. 6; none is load-bearing, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The thermal approximation is tested a posteriori (section 4.3), not assumed as an input. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or symmetries are introduced; the ALP is an existing theoretical object. The model choices (couplings, mass, initial temperature) are existing parameters, not invented entities. The free parameters listed are the main choices that affect the central limits, with T_in being the most consequential for the photon bound.

free parameters (4)
  • T_in (initial temperature for Primakoff evolution) = 10^3 GeV (representative choice)
    Primakoff production is UV-dominated, so Delta_Neff(ga_gamma) grows with T_in; the quoted limit ga_gamma<1.98e-8 GeV^-1 assumes T_in=1e3 GeV. The paper states this in section 4.2 but the abstract does not.
  • ALP mass m_a = 10^-3 eV
    Fixed by hand to be effectively massless at BBN and recombination; not fitted to data. The bounds are valid only for light ALPs in this regime.
  • coupling convention c_l = 1
    The leptonic limits depend only on the ratio f_a/c_l; setting c_l=1 is a convention without loss of generality.
  • photon plasma mass m_gamma modeling = piecewise: leptons only for T<=100 MeV; leptons+quarks for T>=1 GeV; smooth interpolation across QCD
    The functional form of m_gamma(T) is a modeling choice that regulates the Primakoff t-channel. It is not derived from first principles across the QCD crossover and affects the high-temperature production that drives the photon bound.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Freeze-in Boltzmann equation (2.8) with the detailed-balance factor (1 - F_a/F_eq) is valid; backreaction on the SM plasma and on the ALP beyond this factor is negligible.
    Section 2.2: used for all PSD computations. Justified in the dilute regime probed by the final 95% bounds, but not at the largest Delta_Neff values shown in fig. 6.
  • domain assumption The photon plasma mass from eq. (2.16) with the leptons/quarks split and interpolation across the QCD transition is a reliable regulator for the Primakoff process.
    Section 2.4 and fig. 4: the hadronic phase is nonperturbative, and the smooth interpolation plus step-function inclusion of quarks at T>=1 GeV is an approximation that affects the photon channel bound.
  • domain assumption Only one ALP coupling is active at a time; loop-induced ALP-photon couplings from leptonic operators are parametrically suppressed and negligible.
    Section 2.1: this isolates production channels and allows single-coupling limits. In a realistic model where both leptonic and photonic couplings are present, the bounds would need to be combined.
  • standard math The g_*(T) and g_*s(T) parametrization of Saikawa & Shirai [75] accurately describes the SM degrees of freedom.
    Used in eqs. (2.8), (2.9), and (2.19) to map between temperature, time, and comoving momentum.
  • standard math The quoted squared matrix elements (eqs. 2.11-2.15) from refs. [58,59,76,78] are correct, including the m_a->0 limit recovering earlier results.
    Section 2.3-2.4: the central collision integrals depend on these matrix elements; the authors verify only the massless limit consistency.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 34058 in / 13645 out tokens · 137600 ms · 2026-08-03T00:12:40.231856+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We derive updated cosmological bounds on light axion-like particles (ALPs) coupled to leptons or photons, using a full phase-space treatment of their production from the primordial thermal plasma. The ALP phase-space distribution, obtained by solving the momentum-dependent Boltzmann equation for the relevant production processes, is consistently propagated into the computation of cosmological observables, allowing us to assess the impact of non-thermal spectral distortions on the effective number of relativistic species, $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$. Using state-of-the-art measurements of the cosmic microwave background from Planck, the Atacama Cosmology Telescope, and the South Pole Telescope, complemented with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis determinations of primordial deuterium and helium abundances, we obtain the following 95\% credible limits on the ALP decay constant: $f_a > 1.63 \times 10^6 \, {\rm GeV}$, $9.41 \times 10^6 \, {\rm GeV}$ and $8.06 \times 10^4 \, {\rm GeV}$ for ALPs coupled to electrons, muons and taus, respectively. For the ALP-photon coupling we find $g_{a\gamma} < 1.98 \times 10^{-8} \, {\rm GeV}^{-1}$. Including baryon acoustic oscillation data from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument mildly relaxes the constraints, in line with previous analyses of extra relativistic degrees of freedom. Finally, we present forecasts for the LiteBIRD$+$Simons Observatory and LiteBIRD$+$CMB-HD configurations, discussing the importance of an exact phase-space treatment for robust cosmological bounds on ALP interactions.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. MeV Electrophilic Axion-like Particles from Sun

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    MeV axion-like particles could be made when 5.5 MeV solar fusion photons Compton-scatter off electrons; current LZ, PandaX-4T and Borexino data would then constrain g_ae to (1.7-3.7)e-6 in the 0.4-1 MeV window.

  2. Flavor phenomenology of light dark particles

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    Review surveying limits and prospects for flavor-violating decays of light axion-like particles, highlighting complementarity of lab, astro, and cosmo probes up to 10^12 GeV scales.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 88 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn,CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,Phys. Rev. Lett.38(1977) 1440–1443

    1977

  2. [2]

    Weinberg,A New Light Boson?,Phys

    S. Weinberg,A New Light Boson?,Phys. Rev. Lett.40(1978) 223–226

    1978

  3. [3]

    Wilczek,Problem of StrongPandTInvariance in the Presence of Instantons,Phys

    F. Wilczek,Problem of StrongPandTInvariance in the Presence of Instantons,Phys. Rev. Lett.40(1978) 279–282

    1978

  4. [4]

    Preskill, M

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise and F. Wilczek,Cosmology of the Invisible Axion,Phys. Lett. B120 (1983) 127–132

    1983

  5. [5]

    L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie,A Cosmological Bound on the Invisible Axion,Phys. Lett. B120 (1983) 133–136

    1983

  6. [6]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler,The Not So Harmless Axion,Phys. Lett. B120(1983) 137–141

    1983

  7. [7]

    R. L. Davis,Cosmic Axions from Cosmic Strings,Phys. Lett. B180(1986) 225–230

    1986

  8. [8]

    R. A. Battye and E. P. S. Shellard,Axion string constraints,Phys. Rev. Lett.73(1994) 2954–2957, [astro-ph/9403018]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  9. [9]

    D. J. E. Marsh,Axion Cosmology,Phys. Rept.643(2016) 1–79, [1510.07633]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  10. [10]

    Witten,Some Properties of O(32) Superstrings,Phys

    E. Witten,Some Properties of O(32) Superstrings,Phys. Lett. B149(1984) 351–356

    1984

  11. [11]

    Svrcek and E

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten,Axions In String Theory,JHEP06(2006) 051, [hep-th/0605206]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  12. [12]

    J. P. Conlon,The QCD axion and moduli stabilisation,JHEP05(2006) 078, [hep-th/0602233]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  13. [13]

    T. W. Grimm,Axion inflation in type II string theory,Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 126007, [0710.3883]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  14. [14]

    Arvanitaki, S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  15. [15]

    Srednicki,Axion Couplings to Matter

    M. Srednicki,Axion Couplings to Matter. 1. CP Conserving Parts,Nucl. Phys. B260(1985) 689–700

    1985

  16. [16]

    Georgi, D

    H. Georgi, D. B. Kaplan and L. Randall,Manifesting the Invisible Axion at Low-energies, Phys. Lett. B169(1986) 73–78

    1986

  17. [17]

    J. E. Kim and D. J. E. Marsh,An ultralight pseudoscalar boson,Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 025027, [1510.01701]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Giannotti, E. Nardi and L. Visinelli,The landscape of QCD axion models, Phys. Rept.870(2020) 1–117, [2003.01100]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    Cadamuro and J

    D. Cadamuro and J. Redondo,Cosmological bounds on pseudo Nambu-Goldstone bosons, JCAP02(2012) 032, [1110.2895]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  20. [20]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert and A. Thamm,Collider Probes of Axion-Like Particles,JHEP12 (2017) 044, [1708.00443]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  21. [21]

    Alonso-Álvarez, R

    G. Alonso-Álvarez, R. S. Gupta, J. Jaeckel and M. Spannowsky,On the Wondrous Stability of ALP Dark Matter,JCAP03(2020) 052, [1911.07885]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    Masso, F

    E. Masso, F. Rota and G. Zsembinszki,On axion thermalization in the early universe,Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 023004, [hep-ph/0203221]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  23. [23]

    Graf and F

    P. Graf and F. D. Steffen,Thermal axion production in the primordial quark-gluon plasma, Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 075011, [1008.4528]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  24. [24]

    Salvio, A

    A. Salvio, A. Strumia and W. Xue,Thermal axion production,JCAP01(2014) 011, [1310.6982]. – 32 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  25. [25]

    R. Z. Ferreira and A. Notari,Observable Windows for the QCD Axion Through the Number of Relativistic Species,Phys. Rev. Lett.120(2018) 191301, [1801.06090]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  26. [26]

    M. S. Turner,Thermal Production of Not SO Invisible Axions in the Early Universe,Phys. Rev. Lett.59(1987) 2489

    1987

  27. [27]

    Chang and K

    S. Chang and K. Choi,Hadronic axion window and the big bang nucleosynthesis,Phys. Lett. B316(1993) 51–56, [hep-ph/9306216]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  28. [28]

    Hannestad, A

    S. Hannestad, A. Mirizzi and G. Raffelt,New cosmological mass limit on thermal relic axions, JCAP07(2005) 002, [hep-ph/0504059]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  29. [29]

    Di Luzio, G

    L. Di Luzio, G. Martinelli and G. Piazza,Breakdown of chiral perturbation theory for the axion hot dark matter bound,Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021) 241801, [2101.10330]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    Carenza, M

    P. Carenza, M. Lattanzi, A. Mirizzi and F. Forastieri,Thermal axions with multi-eV masses are possible in low-reheating scenarios,JCAP07(2021) 031, [2104.03982]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    R. Z. Ferreira, A. Notari and F. Rompineve,Dine-Fischler-Srednicki-Zhitnitsky axion in the CMB,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 063524, [2012.06566]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    D’Eramo, E

    F. D’Eramo, E. Di Valentino, W. Giarè, F. Hajkarim, A. Melchiorri, O. Mena et al., Cosmological bound on the QCD axion mass, redux,JCAP09(2022) 022, [2205.07849]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Langhoff, N

    K. Langhoff, N. J. Outmezguine and N. L. Rodd,Irreducible Axion Background,Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022) 241101, [2209.06216]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    D’Eramo, F

    F. D’Eramo, F. Hajkarim and A. Lenoci,Dark radiation from the primordial thermal bath in momentum space,JCAP03(2024) 009, [2311.04974]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Cheng, Z

    H. Cheng, Z. Yin, E. Di Valentino, D. J. E. Marsh and L. Visinelli,Constraining exotic high-z reionization histories with Gaussian processes and the Cosmic Microwave Background, 2506.19096

    arXiv

  36. [36]

    Z. Yin, H. Cheng, E. Di Valentino, N. Gendler, D. J. E. Marsh and L. Visinelli,Constraining the axiverse with reionization,2507.03535

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    Steigman,Primordial Nucleosynthesis in the Precision Cosmology Era,Ann

    G. Steigman,Primordial Nucleosynthesis in the Precision Cosmology Era,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.57(2007) 463–491, [0712.1100]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  38. [38]

    Pisanti, A

    O. Pisanti, A. Cirillo, S. Esposito, F. Iocco, G. Mangano, G. Miele et al.,PArthENoPE: Public Algorithm Evaluating the Nucleosynthesis of Primordial Elements,Comput. Phys. Commun.178(2008) 956–971, [0705.0290]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  39. [39]

    Iocco, G

    F. Iocco, G. Mangano, G. Miele, O. Pisanti and P. D. Serpico,Primordial Nucleosynthesis: from precision cosmology to fundamental physics,Phys. Rept.472(2009) 1–76, [0809.0631]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  40. [40]

    Pospelov and J

    M. Pospelov and J. Pradler,Big Bang Nucleosynthesis as a Probe of New Physics,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.60(2010) 539–568, [1011.1054]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  41. [41]

    Consiglio, P

    R. Consiglio, P. F. de Salas, G. Mangano, G. Miele, S. Pastor and O. Pisanti,PArthENoPE reloaded,Comput. Phys. Commun.233(2018) 237–242, [1712.04378]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  42. [42]

    Pitrou, A

    C. Pitrou, A. Coc, J.-P. Uzan and E. Vangioni,Precision big bang nucleosynthesis with improved Helium-4 predictions,Phys. Rept.754(2018) 1–66, [1801.08023]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  43. [43]

    Baumann, D

    D. Baumann, D. Green and B. Wallisch,New Target for Cosmic Axion Searches,Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016) 171301, [1604.08614]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  44. [44]

    T.-H. Yeh, K. A. Olive and B. D. Fields,The impact of newd(p, γ)3 rates on Big Bang Nucleosynthesis,JCAP03(2021) 046, [2011.13874]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    T.-H. Yeh, J. Shelton, K. A. Olive and B. D. Fields,Probing physics beyond the standard model: limits from BBN and the CMB independently and combined,JCAP10(2022) 046, [2207.13133]. – 33 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  46. [46]

    Bashinsky and U

    S. Bashinsky and U. Seljak,Neutrino perturbations in CMB anisotropy and matter clustering, Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 083002, [astro-ph/0310198]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  47. [47]

    Z. Hou, R. Keisler, L. Knox, M. Millea and C. Reichardt,How Massless Neutrinos Affect the Cosmic Microwave Background Damping Tail,Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 083008, [1104.2333]. [48]Planckcollaboration, N. Aghanim et al.,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A6, [1807.06209]. [49]SPT-3Gcollaboration, E. Camphuis et al.,S...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  48. [53]

    Sehgal et al.,CMB-HD: An Ultra-Deep, High-Resolution Millimeter-Wave Survey Over Half the Sky,Bull

    N. Sehgal et al.,CMB-HD: An Ultra-Deep, High-Resolution Millimeter-Wave Survey Over Half the Sky,Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51(2019) 1–23, [1906.10134]. [54]CMB-HDcollaboration, S. Aiola et al.,Snowmass2021 CMB-HD White Paper,2203.05728

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  49. [55]

    Caloni, M

    L. Caloni, M. Gerbino, M. Lattanzi and L. Visinelli,Novel cosmological bounds on thermally-produced axion-like particles,JCAP09(2022) 021, [2205.01637]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [56]

    Melchiorri, O

    A. Melchiorri, O. Mena and A. Slosar,An improved cosmological bound on the thermal axion mass,Phys. Rev. D76(2007) 041303, [0705.2695]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  51. [57]

    Archidiacono, S

    M. Archidiacono, S. Hannestad, A. Mirizzi, G. Raffelt and Y. Y. Y. Wong,Axion hot dark matter bounds after Planck,JCAP10(2013) 020, [1307.0615]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  52. [58]

    D’Eramo, R

    F. D’Eramo, R. Z. Ferreira, A. Notari and J. L. Bernal,Hot Axions and theH0 tension, JCAP11(2018) 014, [1808.07430]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  53. [59]

    D’Eramo and A

    F. D’Eramo and A. Lenoci,Back to the phase space: Thermal axion dark radiation via couplings to standard model fermions,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 116028, [2410.21253]

    arXiv 2024

  54. [60]

    Badziak and M

    M. Badziak and M. Laletin,Precise predictions for the QCD axion contribution to dark radiation with full phase-space evolution,JHEP02(2025) 108, [2410.18186]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [61]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues and T. Tram,The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) II: Approximation schemes,JCAP07(2011) 034, [1104.2933]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  56. [62]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis,Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis of hierarchical physical models, JCAP05(2021) 057, [2005.05290]. [63]Planckcollaboration, N. Aghanim et al.,Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods,Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A5, [1907.12875]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  57. [64]

    Balkenhol, C

    L. Balkenhol, C. Trendafilova, K. Benabed and S. Galli,candl: cosmic microwave background analysis with a differentiable likelihood,Astron. Astrophys.686(2024) A10, [2401.13433]. [65]DESIcollaboration, M. Abdul Karim et al.,DESI DR2 results. II. Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 083515, [2503.14738]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [66]

    Jaeckel and A

    J. Jaeckel and A. Ringwald,The Low-Energy Frontier of Particle Physics,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.60(2010) 405–437, [1002.0329]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  59. [67]

    S. L. Adler,Axial vector vertex in spinor electrodynamics,Phys. Rev.177(1969) 2426–2438. – 34 –

    1969

  60. [68]

    W. J. Marciano and A. I. Sanda,Exotic Decays of the Muon and Heavy Leptons in Gauge Theories,Phys. Lett. B67(1977) 303–305

    1977

  61. [69]

    Gondolo and G

    P. Gondolo and G. Gelmini,Cosmic abundances of stable particles: Improved analysis,Nucl. Phys. B360(1991) 145–179

    1991

  62. [70]

    L. J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell and S. M. West,Freeze-In Production of FIMP Dark Matter,JHEP03(2010) 080, [0911.1120]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  63. [71]

    Arias, D

    P. Arias, D. Cadamuro, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo and A. Ringwald,WISPy Cold Dark Matter,JCAP06(2012) 013, [1201.5902]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  64. [72]

    Blennow, E

    M. Blennow, E. Fernandez-Martinez, O. Mena, J. Redondo and P. Serra,Asymmetric Dark Matter and Dark Radiation,JCAP07(2012) 022, [1203.5803]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  65. [73]

    G. P. Lepage,A New Algorithm for Adaptive Multidimensional Integration,J. Comput. Phys. 27(1978) 192

    1978

  66. [74]

    Hahn,CUBA: A Library for multidimensional numerical integration,Comput

    T. Hahn,CUBA: A Library for multidimensional numerical integration,Comput. Phys. Commun.168(2005) 78–95, [hep-ph/0404043]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  67. [75]

    Saikawa and S

    K. Saikawa and S. Shirai,Primordial gravitational waves, precisely: The role of thermodynamics in the Standard Model,JCAP05(2018) 035, [1803.01038]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  68. [76]

    M. Jain, A. Maggi, W.-Y. Ai and D. J. E. Marsh,New insights into axion freeze-in,JHEP11 (2024) 166, [2406.01678]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  69. [77]

    Cima and F

    F. Cima and F. D’Eramo,Probing Non-Minimal Dark Sectors via the 21 cm Line at Cosmic Dawn,2507.10664

    arXiv

  70. [78]

    Cadamuro, S

    D. Cadamuro, S. Hannestad, G. Raffelt and J. Redondo,Cosmological bounds on sub-MeV mass axions,JCAP02(2011) 003, [1011.3694]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  71. [79]

    M. Bolz, A. Brandenburg and W. Buchmuller,Thermal production of gravitinos,Nucl. Phys. B606(2001) 518–544, [hep-ph/0012052]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  72. [80]

    M. E. Carrington, D.-f. Hou and M. H. Thoma,Equilibrium and nonequilibrium hard thermal loop resummation in the real time formalism,Eur. Phys. J. C7(1999) 347–354, [hep-ph/9708363]. [81]Planckcollaboration, Y. Akrami et al.,Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation, Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A10, [1807.06211]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  73. [82]

    Barbieri, T

    N. Barbieri, T. Brinckmann, S. Gariazzo, M. Lattanzi, S. Pastor and O. Pisanti,Current Constraints on Cosmological Scenarios with Very Low Reheating Temperatures,Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025) 181003, [2501.01369]

    arXiv 2025

  74. [83]

    Carenza, G

    P. Carenza, G. Lucente, M. Gerbino, M. Giannotti and M. Lattanzi,Strong cosmological constraints on the neutrino magnetic moment,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 023510, [2211.10432]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  75. [84]

    Caloni, P

    L. Caloni, P. Stengel, M. Lattanzi and M. Gerbino,Constraining UV freeze-in of light relics with current and next-generation CMB observations,JCAP10(2024) 106, [2405.09449]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  76. [85]

    Pagano, J

    L. Pagano, J. M. Delouis, S. Mottet, J. L. Puget and L. Vibert,Reionization optical depth determination from Planck HFI data with ten percent accuracy,Astron. Astrophys.635 (2020) A99, [1908.09856]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  77. [86]

    J. M. Delouis, L. Pagano, S. Mottet, J. L. Puget and L. Vibert,SRoll2: an improved mapmaking approach to reduce large-scale systematic effects in the Planck High Frequency Instrument legacy maps,Astron. Astrophys.629(2019) A38, [1901.11386]. [87]ACTcollaboration, M. S. Madhavacheril et al.,The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Gravitational Lensing Map and...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  78. [90]

    Carron, M

    J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein and A. Lewis,CMB lensing from Planck PR4 maps,JCAP09 (2022) 039, [2206.07773]. [91]SPT-3Gcollaboration, F. Ge et al.,Cosmology from CMB lensing and delensed EE power spectra using 2019–2020 SPT-3G polarization data,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 083534, [2411.06000]. [92]DESIcollaboration, M. Abdul Karim et al.,DESI DR2 results. I. Baryon...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  79. [94]

    P. F. de Salas, D. V. Forero, S. Gariazzo, P. Martínez-Miravé, O. Mena, C. A. Ternes et al., 2020 global reassessment of the neutrino oscillation picture,JHEP02(2021) 071, [2006.11237]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  80. [95]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz and A. Zhou,The fate of hints: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations,JHEP09(2020) 178, [2007.14792]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

Showing first 80 references.