Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Allowing dark energy to cluster changes the inferred sum of neutrino masses and revives the tension between cosmological bounds and oscillation experiments.

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

2026-08-02 09:49 UTC pith:THM6C54L

load-bearing objection Plausible, honest model-dependence study; the qualitative degeneracy holds up, but the headline shift is built on scale-averaged RSD data and fixed sound-speed extremes, so the quantitative claim is illustrative rather than established. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2606.28074 v2 pith:THM6C54L submitted 2026-06-26 astro-ph.CO

Dark energy perturbations and the robustness of cosmological neutrino-mass constraints

Yu-Hang Yang , Emmanuel N. Saridakis , Yi-Fu Cai , Hao-Ran Yu This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords neutrino mass sumdark energy perturbationsclustering dark energyw0waCDMeffective field theory of dark energystructure growthdegeneracycosmological neutrino constraints
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 widely discussed easing of the neutrino-mass tension in dynamical dark-energy models is not a genuine consequence of the models: it depends on the assumption that dark energy is perfectly smooth. Using CMB, BAO, redshift-space-distortion, and supernova data, the authors show that when dark-energy perturbations are included and dark energy is allowed to cluster, the preferred neutrino mass shifts toward smaller (even negative) effective values and the 95% upper limit tightens from about 0.17 eV to about 0.11 eV. They trace this to a physical degeneracy: neutrino free-streaming and dark-energy clustering both shape structure growth, so different combinations produce nearly identical observables. The upshot is that cosmological neutrino-mass measurements are model-dependent in the growth sector, and a consistent perturbative treatment of dark energy is required before claims about resolving the tension can be trusted.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the alleviation of the neutrino-mass tension in dynamical dark-energy models is not generic. In the w0waCDM parameterization, treating dark energy as smooth (sound speed squared cs2=1) gives a 95% upper limit on the sum of neutrino masses of 0.1696 eV, consistent with oscillation lower bounds; allowing dark energy to cluster (cs2=1e-5) tightens the limit to 0.1125 eV and shifts the posterior toward negative effective masses, partially restoring the preference already present in ΛCDM (0.0634 eV). The authors attribute this to a perturbation-level degeneracy between neutrino free-streaming and dark-energy clustering in growth observables, and show that an effe

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the perturbation-level degeneracy between neutrino free-streaming and dark-energy clustering. Massive neutrinos suppress matter-power-spectrum growth below their free-streaming scale; clustering dark energy (sound speed squared cs2 << 1) modifies the evolution of gravitational potentials and, for equation-of-state parameter w < -1, suppresses structure growth. In the clustering limit the dark-energy density contrast tracks the matter contrast through δ_de = (1+w)/(1-3w) δ_m, so the two effects can compensate each other in observables such as the growth rate fσ8 and the matter power spectrum, producing nearly identical fits for very different neutrino masses.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis uses redshift-space-distortion measurements treated as scale-averaged fσ8 points, discarding the scale-dependent growth information that could in principle separate neutrino free-streaming from dark-energy clustering.

What would settle it

A full-shape galaxy-clustering analysis that measures the growth rate as a function of scale could break the degeneracy; if the inferred neutrino mass no longer shifted when the dark-energy sound speed was changed from smooth to clustering, the central claim would be falsified.

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

If this is right

  • Smooth-dark-energy assumptions can bias upper limits on Σmν by roughly a third (0.170 eV vs 0.113 eV), so published bounds derived that way are not robust determinations.
  • Claims that dynamical dark energy resolves the neutrino-mass tension are specific to the smooth case; allowing clustering restores a preference for negative effective masses.
  • The agreement of Bayesian and profile-likelihood analyses shows the shift is a real feature of the likelihood, not a prior-volume artifact.
  • Because an effective-field-theory treatment can ease the tension even in ΛCDM, the inferred neutrino mass depends as much on the assumed perturbative content of the dark sector as on the background.
  • Any forecast of neutrino-mass sensitivity from future surveys must include dark-energy perturbations, or it will overstate the constraining power of growth data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If full-shape galaxy-clustering data with scale-resolved growth were used, the degeneracy might be partially broken; the predicted shift in Σmν could shrink, providing a direct test of the paper's mechanism.
  • The same neutrino–dark-energy growth degeneracy should show up in weak-lensing and cluster observables, so combined probes could separate the two effects more cleanly than the current data combination.
  • The reappearing negative effective-mass preference could be a symptom of systematics in growth data rather than new physics; comparing constraints from CMB-only and growth-only data would help isolate its origin.
  • Allowing the sound speed to vary continuously (as in the paper's appendix) suggests the neutrino-mass posterior should interpolate smoothly between the smooth and clustering limits, a feature a future analysis with a free sound speed could verify.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper investigates whether the apparent alleviation of the neutrino-mass tension in dynamical dark-energy models survives when dark-energy perturbations are self-consistently included. Using Planck CMB, BAO, RSD, and DES-SNe data, the authors perform MCMC analyses of ΛCDM, w0waCDM, and EFTofDE variants, allowing an effective (possibly negative) neutrino mass as a diagnostic. In the effective-fluid w0waCDM model, switching the dark-energy sound speed from cs2=1 (smooth) to cs2=1e-5 (clustering) changes the 95% upper limit on Σmν from 0.1696 eV to 0.1125 eV and shifts the posterior mean from −0.01 to −0.07 eV (overlapping 68% intervals). The authors interpret this as showing that the dynamical-DE alleviation is not a generic consequence of the background, but depends on the perturbative treatment of dark energy. They corroborate the Bayesian result with profile likelihoods and show that EFT degrees of freedom can alleviate the tension even in a ΛCDM background, which they present as a demonstration of model dependence. The paper explicitly frames the negative effective mass as a diagnostic, acknowledges that RSD data are treated as scale-averaged over the observed k-range, and restricts the analysis to linear perturbations.

Significance. If the result holds, it is a useful cautionary result for interpreting DESI-favored dynamical dark energy in the context of cosmological neutrino-mass constraints. The paper's strengths include the combined Bayesian/profile-likelihood analysis, which mitigates prior-volume concerns; the explicit effective-mass diagnostic with the sgn prescription; the free-cs2 appendix; and the honest statement of the scale-averaged RSD approximation and the linear-regime limitation. The central qualitative point—that neutrino-mass inference is model dependent in the growth sector—is plausible and well motivated. However, the quantitative strength of the claimed shift and the validity of the scale-averaged RSD treatment are load-bearing and need further support before the result is fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2 / Table 2] The central quantitative claim is a shift in the preferred Σmν between smooth (cs2=1) and clustering (cs2=1e-5) w0waCDM. But the quoted marginalized means are −0.01 ± 0.11 eV and −0.07 ± 0.11 eV; these 68% intervals overlap substantially. The difference is 0.06 eV, about half of the quoted 1σ error. Thus the statement that clustering 'shifts the preferred neutrino mass toward smaller, and even more negative, effective values' is not significant at the 68% level. The 95% upper limits (0.1696 vs 0.1125 eV) do differ, but upper limits are tail- and prior-sensitive. The profile likelihood (Fig. 6) is cited as confirmation, but no Δχ2 values or best-fit χ2 values are reported. Please report the profile-likelihood peak shift and its significance (e.g., Δχ2 between the two models at their best-fit Σmν), or soften the claim accordingly.
  2. [Sec. 3 (RSD treatment)] The analysis explicitly treats RSD data as 'measurements which are scale-averaged over the observed k-range' even though fσ8 is scale-dependent in exactly the models considered: massive-neutrino free-streaming and clustering dark energy both introduce k-dependent growth. Fig. 4 shows only the compressed fσ8(z) predictions. If the RSD likelihood is constructed by comparing these scale-averaged measurements to a scale-independent prediction, the k-dependent information—which is what could distinguish neutrino free-streaming from DE clustering—is discarded. The 0.057 eV shift in the 95% upper limit, and hence the conclusion that the alleviation is non-generic, depends on this approximation. Please either construct a per-k/full-shape RSD likelihood or demonstrate (e.g., with a validation test or forecast) that the scale-averaged treatment is unbiased for the parameter ranges explored.
  3. [Appendix B / Eq. (B21)] The free-cs2 analysis reports a weak correlation between Σmν and log10 cs2 (R = 0.179), while the main argument attributes the shift to changing cs2 from 1 to 1e-5. This weak direct correlation suggests that the shift may instead be driven by the joint reconfiguration of w0 and wa (the reported correlation of Σmν with wa is −0.725) or by prior-volume/tail effects, rather than by the physical cs2–Σmν degeneracy emphasized in Sec. 2.3. The authors should quantify the relative role of the sound speed versus the equation-of-state degeneracy, and explain why fixing cs2 to two extreme values produces a large shift when the marginalized correlation is weak.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A] The sentence 'We denote the conformal Hubble parameter by H and the physical Hubble parameter by H' is self-contradictory; one symbol should be a different script (e.g., script H for conformal).
  2. [Fig. 2, left panel] The label 'c^2_s = 10 5' appears to be missing the minus sign in the exponent; it should read '10^{-5}' to match the text.
  3. [References] The entry 'Sapone, D., Kunz, M., & Kunz, M. 2009' duplicates the second author; this should be corrected.
  4. [Sec. 4] The paper appropriately notes the restriction to the linear regime. It would be helpful to state explicitly how nonlinear corrections might affect the degeneracy, even if only qualitatively.
  5. [Sec. 1] The novelty statement 'for the first time, a systematic and quantitative demonstration' is strong given the existing literature on dark-energy perturbations and neutrino-mass degeneracy (e.g., Takada 2006; Ballesteros & Lesgourgues 2010). Consider softening or situating the novelty more precisely.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central claim is a model-comparison sensitivity analysis against external data, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

This paper is a forward-model parameter-estimation exercise using external cosmological data (Planck/ACT/DES, BAO/RSD, supernovae). The central result—that the inferred neutrino-mass upper limit shifts from 0.1696 eV (smooth DE, cs2=1) to 0.1125 eV (clustering DE, cs2=1e-5) in w0waCDM—is obtained by running distinct MCMC likelihood analyses for each model and comparing the resulting posteriors. This is a sensitivity test of a model assumption, not a fit-then-predict cycle: the data are fixed and the model is changed, so the shift is not a quantity that was fitted and then re-announced as a prediction. The perturbation-level degeneracy is supported by an explicit analytic derivation in Appendix A (Eq. 5, δde = (1+w)/(1-3w) δm), which follows from the fluid perturbation equations; it is a theoretical input, not a hidden restatement of the neutrino-mass result. The EFT section is explicitly framed as a demonstration of model dependence rather than as a measurement: 'We therefore present the EFT results not as an alternative determination of the neutrino mass, but as an explicit demonstration of the degree to which neutrino-mass constraints remain model dependent,' and the paper directly attributes the ΛCDM+EFT alleviation to 'additional EFT degrees of freedom' absorbing the preference for negative effective mass. That is transparent, not circular. There is no load-bearing self-citation: none of the cited works used to justify the central premises are by the present authors; the negative-effective-mass diagnostic and the Nur adjustment are attributed to external groups (Craig et al. 2024; Green & Meyers 2025; Elbers et al. 2025a,b). The paper's statement that 'The RSD data should be understood as the measurements which are scale-averaged over the observed k-range' is a data-modeling assumption that may be a correctness risk—because both massive neutrinos and clustering DE make fσ8 scale-dependent—but it is not a circular reduction: the paper does not define the observable to equal its own prediction, and the claim is checked against independent measurements. Similarly, the restriction to linear scales is a stated limitation, not a circular step. Overall, the derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on standard cosmological perturbation theory plus two choices that carry most of the model-dependence burden: the diagnostic negative-mass prescription and the scale-averaged RSD approximation. The EFT parametrization and the fixed sound-speed values are additional modeling choices. No genuinely new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Sum m_nu (effective neutrino mass sum) = -0.032 +/- 0.057 eV (LambdaCDM); -0.07 +/- 0.11 eV (w0wa, cs2=1e-5)
    The central fitted parameter; allowed to be negative through a diagnostic sgn-prescription; prior U[-5,5] eV.
  • w0, wa = w0=-0.850 +/- 0.075, wa=-0.54 +/- 0.41 (smooth); w0=-0.870 +/- 0.068, wa=-0.37 +/- 0.38 (clustering)
    Dark-energy equation-of-state parameters in the w0waCDM background; their fitted values shift when dark-energy perturbations are switched on.
  • cB, cM (EFT braiding and Planck-mass running) = cB=0.75 +/- 0.51, cM=1.44 +/- 1.60 (LambdaCDM+EFT)
    EFT-of-DE parameters absorbing perturbation-level growth signals; priors U[-10,10].
  • log10 cs2 (free sound-speed run) = Broad posterior over U[-10,0], weak constraint
    Appendix B treatment when the dark-energy sound speed is varied; not part of the main fixed-cs2 runs.
  • N_ur (number of massless neutrino species) = 0.00441 for Sum m_nu > 0; 6.08627 for Sum m_nu < 0
    Hand-set values from Elbers et al. used to preserve the early-Universe expansion history when the effective neutrino mass changes sign; chosen, not fitted.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Linear perturbation equations for a dark-energy fluid with effective sound speed cs2 and non-adiabatic pressure, Eq. (3).
    Basis of the effective-fluid treatment of dark-energy perturbations; standard in cosmology but still a modeling assumption.
  • domain assumption Matter-dominated, constant-w, cs2=0 limit giving delta_de = (1+w)/(1-3w) delta_m, Eq. (5) and Appendix A.
    Used to argue clustering dark energy suppresses growth for w<-1 and enhances for w>-1; assumes no anisotropic stress and a specific era.
  • domain assumption EFT-of-DE parametrization alpha_i(a) = c_i Omega_de(a) with alpha_T=0, c_K=1e-2, and stability conditions.
    Chosen mapping to hi_class; not derived from a specific underlying dark-energy theory; fixes some degrees of freedom by hand.
  • domain assumption Degenerate neutrino mass approximation Sum m_nu = 3m_nu and N_eff = 3.044.
    Standard assumption in current cosmological analyses; cited to Vagnozzi et al. and Froustey et al.
  • ad hoc to paper Negative effective neutrino mass via epsilon_eff = sgn(m) sqrt(p^2 + a^2 m^2), with N_ur adjusted.
    Diagnostic parameterization allowing Sum m_nu < 0; not a physical neutrino mass and not derived within the paper.
  • domain assumption RSD data are treated as scale-averaged f-sigma-8 measurements despite scale-dependent growth.
    Explicitly stated in Sec. 3; load-bearing because the degeneracy argument relies on compressed growth observables rather than full-shape scale dependence.
invented entities (1)
  • Effective negative neutrino mass (sgn prescription) no independent evidence
    purpose: Diagnostic variable allowing Sum m_nu < 0 to expose tension and model dependence in Bayesian analyses
    Not a physical neutrino mass; it changes the sign of perturbation effects artificially and has no external falsifiable handle. Inherited from Elbers, Craig, Green & Meyers rather than introduced here, but it is central to the paper's interpretation of 'shifts toward more negative values.'

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19570 in / 15238 out tokens · 141483 ms · 2026-08-02T09:49:47.265893+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Cosmological observations are placing increasingly stringent bounds on the sum of neutrino masses, approaching the lower limits implied by neutrino oscillation experiments. Recent studies have suggested that dynamical dark energy may alleviate this apparent tension. However, these conclusions generally rely on the assumption that dark energy remains smooth, neglecting its perturbations. In this work we investigate the robustness of cosmological neutrino-mass constraints by consistently incorporating dark-energy perturbations. Using CMB, BAO, RSD, and supernova data, we show that the commonly reported alleviation of the neutrino-mass tension in dynamical dark-energy models is not generic. While smooth dark energy substantially relaxes the neutrino-mass bounds, allowing dark energy to cluster shifts the preferred neutrino mass toward smaller, and even more negative, effective values. We demonstrate that this behavior originates from a degeneracy between neutrino free-streaming and dark-energy perturbations in structure-growth observables. Different combinations of neutrino mass and dark-energy clustering can provide similarly good fits to current data while yielding significantly different neutrino-mass constraints. Our results show that cosmological neutrino-mass measurements are inherently model dependent and that reliable neutrino-mass inference requires a consistent treatment of dark-energy perturbations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.28074 by Emmanuel N. Saridakis, Hao-Ran Yu, Yi-Fu Cai, Yu-Hang Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A schematic illustration of the degeneracy between neutrino free-streaming and dark-energy perturbations. Different combinations of effective neutrino mass and dark-energy clustering can produce similar modifications to the growth of cosmic structures. The example shown corresponds to w = −0.85. This observation has direct implications for recent claims that dynamical dark-energy models alleviate the tensi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Normalized one-dimensional posterior distributions of the effective neutrino mass Pmν for the ΛCDM and w0waCDM models, obtained from the combined BAO+CMB+SNe data set. The lower bounds implied by neutrino oscilla￾tion measurements are also shown for both the normal ordering (NO) and inverted ordering (IO). The left panel presents the results for smooth and clustering dark-energy models, while the right pan… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left panel: Marginalized constraints in the (w0, wa) plane for the w0waCDM model under different perturbative descriptions. The gray line corresponds to w0 + wa = −1, while the ΛCDM point (w0 = −1, wa = 0) is located at the intersection of the axes. Right panel: Marginalized constraints in the (cB, cM) plane for the ΛCDM+EFT and w0waCDM+EFT models. The contours correspond to the 68% and 95% confidence regi… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Growth-rate measurements fσ8(z) together with the predictions of the best-fit cosmological models. Left panel: effective-fluid description. Right panel: EFT description. Despite the substantial differences in the inferred neutrino-mass constraints, the predicted growth histories remain remarkably similar, illustrating the degeneracy between neutrino free-streaming and dark-energy perturbations discussed in… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Residuals of the BAO distance measurements DM/rd (left panel) and DH/rd (right panel) relative to the Planck 2018 best-fit ΛCDM model. The curves show the predictions of the best-fit models considered in this work. Despite the different inferred neutrino-mass and dark-energy parameters, all models provide very similar BAO-distance predictions, illustrating that current observations primarily constrain dege… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Profile likelihoods for the effective neutrino mass in the ΛCDM and w0waCDM models, obtained from the combined BAO+CMB+SNe data set. The curves show parabolic fits to the profiled ∆χ 2 distributions. The shaded regions indicate the 1σ and 2σ confidence intervals, while the vertical line marks the lower bound implied by neutrino oscillation measurements for the normal ordering (NO). As shown in [PITH_FULL_… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left panel: Normalized one-dimensional posterior distributions of the effective neutrino mass Pmν in the w0waCDM model when the dark-energy sound speed is allowed to vary freely. Results are obtained from the combined BAO+CMB+SNe data set. The lower bounds implied by neutrino oscillation measurements for the normal ordering (NO) and inverted ordering (IO) are also shown. Right panel: Normalized marginalize… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Residuals of the CMB temperature power spectrum (left panel) and the matter power spectrum at z = 0 (right panel) in the ΛCDM model for different values of the effective neutrino mass. The black solid line corresponds to the massless-neutrino case, while the blue and green curves correspond to Pmν = 0.15 eV and Pmν = −0.15 eV, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Residuals of the CMB temperature power spectrum (left panel) and the matter power spectrum at z = 0 (right panel) illustrating the impact of dark-energy perturbations. The black solid line corresponds to the ΛCDM model, while the blue and green curves correspond to the w0waCDM model with smooth (c 2 s = 1) and clustering (c 2 s = 10−5 ) dark energy, respectively. For illustration, we adopt w0 = −0.7 and wa… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left panel: Normalized one-dimensional posterior distributions of the effective neutrino mass Pmν in the wCDM model, obtained from the combined BAO+CMB+SNe data set. The lower bounds implied by neutrino oscillation measurements for the normal ordering (NO) and inverted ordering (IO) are also shown. Right panel: Normalized marginalized posterior distribution of the equation-of-state parameter w. The prefer… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

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. Measuring Cosmic Neutrino Masses Independently of Dark Energy

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0

    Two dark-energy-robust cosmological routes bound ∑mν to <0.152 eV (marginalized) and <0.41 eV (late-Universe-free), with the latter independent of tested w(a) models by construction.

  2. Neutrino mass constraints in the Schwarzschild-de Sitter black-hole dark energy model with ACT DR6 and DESI DR2 data

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.5

    SdSDE dark energy yields a ~0.16–0.21 eV positive neutrino-mass preference with DESI+ACT data, but χ² strongly favors extended ΛCDM and the shift is likely compensation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 9 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J. Lett., 848, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c Abdul Karim, M., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 083515, doi: 10.1103/tr6y-kpc6

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c 2017

  2. [2]

    R., Batista, R

    Abramo, L. R., Batista, R. C., Liberato, L., & Rosenfeld, R. 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 023516, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.023516

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.79.023516 2009

  3. [3]

    Ade, P. A. R., et al. 2016, Astron. Astrophys., 594, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525814

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525814 2016

  4. [4]

    2020, Astron

    Aghanim, N., et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  5. [5]

    2019, Phys

    Aker, M., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev. Lett., 123, 221802, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.221802

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.221802 2019

  6. [6]

    2025, Science, 388, adq9592, doi: 10.1126/science.adq9592

    Aker, M., et al. 2025, Science, 388, adq9592, doi: 10.1126/science.adq9592

    doi:10.1126/science.adq9592 2025

  7. [7]

    2017, Mon

    Alam, S., et al. 2017, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 470, 2617, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx721

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx721 2017

  8. [8]

    A., Follin, J

    Alpher, R. A., Follin, J. W., & Herman, R. C. 1953, Phys. Rev., 92, 1347, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.92.1347 18

    doi:10.1103/physrev.92.1347 1953

  9. [9]

    2020, JCAP, 09, 021, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/09/021

    Archidiacono, M., Hannestad, S., & Lesgourgues, J. 2020, JCAP, 09, 021, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/09/021

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/09/021 2020

  10. [10]

    2013, JCAP, 1302, 001, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/02/001

    Audren, B., Lesgourgues, J., Benabed, K., & Prunet, S. 2013, JCAP, 1302, 001, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/02/001

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/02/001 2013

  11. [11]

    2010, JCAP, 10, 014, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2010/10/014

    Ballesteros, G., & Lesgourgues, J. 2010, JCAP, 10, 014, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2010/10/014

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2010/10/014 2010

  12. [12]

    2014, JCAP, 08, 059, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/08/059

    Barreira, A., Li, B., Baugh, C., & Pascoli, S. 2014, JCAP, 08, 059, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/08/059

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/08/059 2014

  13. [13]

    E., Hannestad, S., & Wong, Y

    Basse, T., Bjaelde, O. E., Hannestad, S., & Wong, Y. Y. Y. 2012, https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0548

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  14. [14]

    Batista, R. C. 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 89, 123508, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.123508

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.123508 2014

  15. [15]

    Batista, R. C. 2021, Universe, 8, 22, doi: 10.3390/universe8010022

    doi:10.3390/universe8010022 2021

  16. [16]

    E., et al

    Bautista, J. E., et al. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 500, 736, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2800

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2800 2020

  17. [17]

    J., Jimenez, R., & Verde, L

    Bellini, E., Cuesta, A. J., Jimenez, R., & Verde, L. 2016, JCAP, 02, 053, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/06/E01

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/06/e01 2016

  18. [18]

    2014, JCAP, 07, 050, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/07/050

    Bellini, E., & Sawicki, I. 2014, JCAP, 07, 050, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/07/050

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/07/050 2014

  19. [19]

    2020, JCAP, 02, 008, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/02/008

    Bellini, E., Sawicki, I., & Zumalac´ arregui, M. 2020, JCAP, 02, 008, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/02/008

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/02/008 2020

  20. [20]

    2015, Phys

    Bellini, E., & Zumalacarregui, M. 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 92, 063522, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.063522

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.063522 2015

  21. [21]

    J., Buldgen, G., De Salas, P

    Bennett, J. J., Buldgen, G., De Salas, P. F., et al. 2021, JCAP, 04, 073, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/04/073

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/04/073 2021

  22. [22]

    2011, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2011, 034

    Blas, D., Lesgourgues, J., & Tram, T. 2011, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2011, 034 . https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:53490516

    2011

  23. [23]

    K., Flanagan, E

    Bloomfield, J. K., Flanagan, E. E., Park, M., & Watson, S. 2013, JCAP, 08, 010, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/08/010

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/08/010 2013

  24. [24]

    2018, https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.07261

    Brinckmann, T., & Lesgourgues, J. 2018, https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.07261

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [25]

    2021, Phys

    Capozzi, F., Di Valentino, E., Lisi, E., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 083031, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.083031

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.083031 2021

  26. [26]

    2022, JCAP, 09, 039, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/09/039

    Carron, J., Mirmelstein, M., & Lewis, A. 2022, JCAP, 09, 039, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/09/039

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/09/039 2022

  27. [27]

    2026, JCAP, 01, 041, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2026/01/041

    Chebat, D., et al. 2026, JCAP, 01, 041, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2026/01/041

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/01/041 2026

  28. [28]

    2001, Int

    Chevallier, M., & Polarski, D. 2001, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 10, 213, doi: 10.1142/S0218271801000822

    doi:10.1142/s0218271801000822 2001

  29. [29]

    2024, JHEP, 09, 097, doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2024)097

    Craig, N., Green, D., Meyers, J., & Rajendran, S. 2024, JHEP, 09, 097, doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2024)097

    doi:10.1007/jhep09(2024)097 2024

  30. [30]

    2009, JCAP, 02, 018, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2009/02/018 de Mattia, A., et al

    Creminelli, P., D’Amico, G., Norena, J., & Vernizzi, F. 2009, JCAP, 02, 018, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2009/02/018 de Mattia, A., et al. 2021, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 501, 5616, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3891 de Salas, P. F., Forero, D. V., Gariazzo, S., et al. 2021, JHEP, 02, 071, doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2021)071

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2009/02/018 2009

  31. [31]

    2017, Phys

    Dirian, Y. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 083513, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.083513

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.083513 2017

  32. [32]

    Wong, Y. Y. Y. 2024, JCAP, 06, 032, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/06/032

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/06/032 2024

  33. [33]

    2019, doi: 10.21105/astro.1910.00483

    Efstathiou, G., & Gratton, S. 2019, doi: 10.21105/astro.1910.00483

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  34. [34]

    S., Jenkins, A., Li, B., & Pascoli, S

    Elbers, W., Frenk, C. S., Jenkins, A., Li, B., & Pascoli, S. 2025a, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 063534, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.063534

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.063534

  35. [35]

    2025b, Phys

    Elbers, W., et al. 2025b, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 083513, doi: 10.1103/w9pk-xsk7

    doi:10.1103/w9pk-xsk7

  36. [36]

    C., Maltoni, M., et al

    Esteban, I., Gonzalez-Garcia, M. C., Maltoni, M., et al. 2024, JHEP, 12, 216, doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2024)216

    doi:10.1007/jhep12(2024)216 2024

  37. [37]

    J., & Cousins, R

    Feldman, G. J., & Cousins, R. D. 1998, Phys. Rev. D, 57, 3873, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.57.3873

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.57.3873 1998

  38. [38]

    2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.10787

    Feng, L., Li, T.-N., Du, G.-H., Zhang, J.-F., & Zhang, X. 2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.10787

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    Froustey, J., Pitrou, C., & Volpe, M. C. 2020, JCAP, 12, 015, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/12/015 Giar` e, W., Mena, O., Specogna, E., & Di Valentino, E. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 103520, doi: 10.1103/njfc-pd1w

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/12/015 2020

  40. [40]

    2020, Mon

    Gil-Marin, H., et al. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 498, 2492, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2455

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2455 2020

  41. [41]

    2013, JCAP, 08, 025, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/08/025

    Gleyzes, J., Langlois, D., Piazza, F., & Vernizzi, F. 2013, JCAP, 08, 025, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/08/025

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/08/025 2013

  42. [42]

    2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.16277

    Gorbunov, D., & Nedelko, N. 2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.16277

    arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    2025, Phys

    Green, D., & Meyers, J. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 083507, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.083507

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.083507 2025

  44. [44]

    2013, JCAP, 02, 032, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/02/032

    Gubitosi, G., Piazza, F., & Vernizzi, F. 2013, JCAP, 02, 032, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/02/032

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/02/032 2013

  45. [45]

    2005, Phys

    Hannestad, S. 2005, Phys. Rev. Lett., 95, 221301, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.221301

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.221301 2005

  46. [46]

    Herold, L., Ferreira, E. G. M., & Heinrich, L. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 083504, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.083504

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.083504 2025

  47. [47]

    2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.12004

    Herold, L., & Karwal, T. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.12004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    2020, Mon

    Hou, J., et al. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 500, 1201, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3234

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3234 2020

  49. [49]

    2015, Mon

    Manera, M. 2015, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 449, 848, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2693

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2693 2015

  50. [50]

    2014, https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.3590

    Hu, B., Raveri, M., Frusciante, N., & Silvestri, A. 2014, https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.3590

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  51. [51]

    2025, JCAP, 01, 153, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/153 19

    Jiang, J.-Q., Giar` e, W., Gariazzo, S., et al. 2025, JCAP, 01, 153, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/153 19

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/153 2025

  52. [52]

    2024, https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.14225

    Karwal, T., Patel, Y., Bartlett, A., et al. 2024, https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.14225

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    2015, Phys

    Kunz, M., Nesseris, S., & Sawicki, I. 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 92, 063006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.063006

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.063006 2015

  54. [54]

    2006, Phys

    Lesgourgues, J., & Pastor, S. 2006, Phys. Rept., 429, 307, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2006.04.001

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2006.04.001 2006

  55. [55]

    Linder, E. V. 2003, Phys. Rev. Lett., 90, 091301, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.091301

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.90.091301 2003

  56. [56]

    2025, JCAP, 11, 062, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/062

    Louis, T., et al. 2025, JCAP, 11, 062, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/062

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/062 2025

  57. [57]

    P., & Knox, L

    Lynch, G. P., & Knox, L. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 083543, doi: 10.1103/613p-pph2

    doi:10.1103/613p-pph2 2025

  58. [58]

    2015a, Mon

    Mehrabi, A., Basilakos, S., & Pace, F. 2015a, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 452, 2930, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1478

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1478

  59. [59]

    2015b, Astrophys

    Mehrabi, A., Malekjani, M., & Pace, F. 2015b, Astrophys. Space Sci., 356, 129, doi: 10.1007/s10509-014-2185-3

    doi:10.1007/s10509-014-2185-3

  60. [60]

    2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.03284

    Montandon, T., Poulin, V., Rink, T., & Schwetz, T. 2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.03284

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  61. [61]

    2024, Phys

    Navas, S., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 030001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024

  62. [62]

    2020, Mon

    Neveux, R., et al. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 499, 210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2780

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2780 2020

  63. [63]

    2026, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19099550

    Novell-Masot, S., et al. 2026, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19099550

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.19099550 2026

  64. [64]

    2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.07517

    Popovic, B., et al. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.07517

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    2011, JHEP, 11, 156, doi: 10.1007/JHEP11(2011)156 Pulido-Hern´ andez, H., & Cervantes-Cota, J

    Pujolas, O., Sawicki, I., & Vikman, A. 2011, JHEP, 11, 156, doi: 10.1007/JHEP11(2011)156 Pulido-Hern´ andez, H., & Cervantes-Cota, J. L. 2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.13208

    arXiv 2011

  66. [66]

    2020, Mon

    Raichoor, A., et al. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 500, 3254, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3336

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3336 2020

  67. [67]

    M., & Merkel, P

    Reischke, R., Spurio Mancini, A., Sch¨ afer, B. M., & Merkel, P. M. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 482, 3274, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2919

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2919 2019

  68. [68]

    2022, Mon

    Rosenberg, E., Gratton, S., & Efstathiou, G. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 517, 4620, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2744

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2744 2022

  69. [69]

    J., Samushia, L., Howlett, C., et al

    Ross, A. J., Samushia, L., Howlett, C., et al. 2015, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 449, 835, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv154 Roy Choudhury, S., & Hannestad, S. 2020, JCAP, 07, 037, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/07/037 Roy Choudhury, S., & Okumura, T. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 976, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8c26

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv154 2015

  70. [70]

    2009, Phys

    Sapone, D., Kunz, M., & Kunz, M. 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 80, 083519, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.083519

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.80.083519 2009

  71. [71]

    2006, Phys

    Takada, M. 2006, Phys. Rev. D, 74, 043505, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.043505

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.74.043505 2006

  72. [72]

    2006, Phys

    Takada, M., Komatsu, E., & Futamase, T. 2006, Phys. Rev. D, 73, 083520, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.083520

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.73.083520 2006

  73. [73]

    2020, Mon

    Tamone, A., et al. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 499, 5527, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3050

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3050 2020

  74. [74]

    2019, JCAP, 05, 041, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/05/041

    Upadhye, A. 2019, JCAP, 05, 041, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/05/041

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/05/041 2019

  75. [75]

    2018, Phys

    Vagnozzi, S., Dhawan, S., Gerbino, M., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 083501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.083501

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.083501 2018

  76. [76]

    2017, Phys

    Vagnozzi, S., Giusarma, E., Mena, O., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 123503, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.123503

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.123503 2017

  77. [77]

    2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.15422 Zumalac´ arregui, M., Bellini, E., Sawicki, I., Lesgourgues, J., & Ferreira, P

    Pan, S. 2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.15422 Zumalac´ arregui, M., Bellini, E., Sawicki, I., Lesgourgues, J., & Ferreira, P. G. 2017, JCAP, 08, 019, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/08/019

    arXiv 2026