Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 4 cited by

With a single high prior on the optical depth to reionization, τ = 0.11 ± 0.006, the three main cosmological tensions dissolve within ΛCDM, yielding a tentative 2σ detection of positive neutrino mass.

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 09:22 UTC pith:6WDC2QU6

load-bearing objection Honest, well-executed high-τ scenario, but the 2σ neutrino-mass 'detection' is calibrated in by the prior; referee it and push for the joint τ–Σmν run and softer language. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2606.30903 v2 pith:6WDC2QU6 submitted 2026-06-29 astro-ph.CO

Cosmological Concordance in an Especially Opaque Universe: A Tentative Cosmological Detection of Physical Neutrino Mass in ΛCDM

James M. Sullivan , Roger de Belsunce , Mikhail M. Ivanov This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords optical depth to reionizationneutrino mass sumHubble tensiondark energy equation of statebaryon acoustic oscillationsCMB lensing anomalyLambda-CDM concordanceCMB polarization
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 standard cosmological model may not need rescue: a single change—taking the Universe to be significantly more opaque to the cosmic microwave background than current large-scale polarization data indicate, with optical depth τ = 0.11 ± 0.006, and setting aside that polarization measurement—simultaneously eases the Hubble tension, removes the preference for 'negative' neutrino mass, and eliminates the galaxy-clustering-based hint of evolving dark energy. In this high-τ universe, the CMB's internal lensing anomaly becomes a 2σ preference for a physical, positive neutrino mass, Σmν = 0.10^{+0.04}_{-0.05} eV, the CMB-inferred Hubble constant rises to agree with galaxy-clustering measurements, and the dark-energy equation of state returns to a cosmological constant. A sympathetic reader would care because, if true, it would mean most of cosmology's current 'tensions' are artifacts of a mis-specified optical depth, not evidence for new physics.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a single 'high-τ' prior, τ = 0.11 ± 0.006, imposed in place of the standard low-multipole CMB polarization likelihood, makes ΛCDM concordant with the full set of current distance and clustering measurements. Within this universe, the sum of neutrino masses is inferred as Σmν = 0.10^{+0.04}_{-0.05} eV (68% CL), which the authors describe as the first 2σ cosmological detection of a positive, physical neutrino mass in ΛCDM; the lensing-driven preference for 'negative' neutrino mass disappears. The same prior raises the CMB Hubble constant to H0 ≈ 68.9 km/s/Mpc, matching the galaxy-clustering value and reducing the Hubble tension to 4.4σ, and brings predicted BA

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the reionization optical depth τ—the total electron-scattering optical depth that CMB photons experience after last scattering, which suppresses CMB spectra by e^{-2τ}. The paper imposes a Gaussian prior at τ = 0.11 ± 0.006 and drops the low-multipole CMB polarization likelihood that pins τ near 0.06. Because τ and the primordial amplitude are degenerate, a higher τ raises σ8; the lensing amplitude S8 stays fixed, so Ωm drops and H0 rises along the Ωm h^3 degeneracy. This one parameter shift is what turns the lensing anomaly into a demand for positive neutrino mass and lowers predicted BAO distances into agreement with the data.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the optical depth to reionization is τ = 0.11 ± 0.006; if the true value is closer to the currently measured 0.06, the claimed neutrino-mass detection and dark-energy concordance disappear.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of τ from large-angular-scale CMB polarization with precision of about 0.003 that returns τ ≈ 0.06 would falsify the scenario; a measurement near 0.11 would validate it. A joint analysis allowing both τ and the neutrino mass sum to vary freely with galaxy full-shape data would also stress-test the result.

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

If this is right

  • A 2σ cosmological detection of a positive neutrino mass, Σmν = 0.10^{+0.04}_{-0.05} eV, becomes available within ΛCDM, ending the preference for 'negative' neutrino mass.
  • The BAO preference for evolving dark energy disappears: the dark-energy equation-of-state parameters are consistent with a cosmological constant at <1σ without supernovae and <2σ with them.
  • The CMB-inferred Hubble constant rises to ≈68.9 km/s/Mpc, matching galaxy-clustering full-shape measurements, reducing the Hubble tension to 4.4σ and leaving no tension with an alternative local distance-ladder calibration.
  • CMB lensing amplitude becomes consistent with unity once neutrino mass is free, so the long-standing CMB lensing anomaly is resolved rather than requiring new physics.
  • A CMB-independent consistency analysis using galaxy full-shape data supports an elevated τ (0.092 ± 0.013), making the high-τ prior a testable prediction rather than an ad hoc fit.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the preference for 'negative' neutrino mass and the dark-energy signal may share one origin—a too-low τ assumed from large-angle polarization—rather than requiring two independent new-physics sectors.
  • Its own τ inference from galaxy full-shape data (0.092 ± 0.013) sits 1.5σ below the adopted prior, so a simultaneous free-τ, free-Σmν analysis is the natural next test and could either confirm or close the window.
  • If the high-τ universe is correct, the residual 4.4σ Hubble tension points away from early-universe physics and toward the local distance-ladder measurements, refocusing the debate on systematic errors in Cepheid calibration.
  • The high-τ scenario predicts a specific 'reversed' lensing anomaly—A_L below unity when neutrino masses are fixed at the minimum, returning to unity when Σmν is free—which future CMB lensing measurements can check without assuming any particular τ prior.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper explores the consequences of imposing a Gaussian prior on the reionization optical depth, τ = 0.11 ± 0.006, while dropping the Planck low-ℓ EE polarization likelihood. The prior mean is chosen in §1 so that the ΛCDM CMB-inferred H0 matches the DESI full-shape value H0 = 69.08 ± 0.37 km/s/Mpc via the linear relation of Eq. (1). Under this assumption, the authors report a "first 2σ detection" of Σmν = 0.10^{+0.04}_{-0.05} eV, disappearance of the negative-neutrino-mass preference and of the DESI evolving-dark-energy hint, and a reduction of the SH0ES Hubble tension to 4.4σ. Robustness is checked across Planck/ACT/SPT/WMAP likelihood combinations, with and without supernovae, and with curvature; an upper limit on τ is established at ≈0.15 from large-scale-structure Ωm. The authors are transparent that the analysis is exploratory and that a joint free-τ + free-Σmν analysis is left for future work.

Significance. If the high-τ scenario is correct—testable by upcoming large-angular-scale polarization experiments (CLASS, LiteBIRD, PICO)—the paper's main consequences would be significant: a physical neutrino mass in ΛCDM, concordance with DESI BAO/full-shape data, and removal of the evolving-dark-energy hint, all from a single parameter shift. Strengths of the manuscript include its use of standard public likelihoods and MCMC methodology with stated convergence criteria, validation across independent CMB likelihoods (including SPT-3G), explicit Δχ² reporting, falsifiable predictions (Fig. 6, BAO distances from a CMB-only fit), and an honest demonstration that the mechanism cannot resolve the SH0ES tension and that τ ≈ 0.15 is excluded by Ωm. The central caveat is that the headline results are consequences of an assumed prior whose mean is calibrated to the DESI H0 anchor (Eq. 1), so the paper functions as a scenario analysis rather than an independent detection; its value lies in sharpening the test that future τ measurements can perform.

major comments (3)
  1. [§1 and §3.4 (Eq. 1; Eq. 3; Table IV)] The prior τ = 0.11 ± 0.006 is posterior-informed: it is fixed in §1 by requiring the ΛCDM H0 to match the DESI full-shape value 69.08 ± 0.37 (Eq. 1), so the H0 "concordance" in Table I is imposed by construction, not predicted. The Σmν = 0.10^{+0.04}_{-0.05} eV in Eq. (3) is likewise a consequence of this prior; Sec. 3.4's free-τ inference with Σmν fixed at 0.06 eV yields τ = 0.092 ± 0.013, ~1.5σ below the prior mean in posterior units (~3σ in prior units). The abstract's "first 2σ detection" therefore overstates the evidential weight of a prior-driven result. Either present the joint free-τ + free-Σmν analysis explicitly deferred at the end of §3.4, or characterize the detection as conditional on an assumed prior.
  2. [§1, Eq. (1)] The linear Δτ–ΔH0 relation is extrapolated from τ ≈ 0.06 to τ ≈ 0.11, and the slope (one unit of τ per 33 km/s/Mpc of H0) is taken from Planck base-ΛCDM chains with neutrino mass at its minimum. The paper does not test whether this correlation is linear over the extrapolated range or whether the slope is stable once Σmν is varied. Since Eq. (1) is the sole basis for the prior mean, and since the prior width (0.006, set equal to the low-ℓEE likelihood width) is much narrower than the free-τ posterior σ ≈ 0.013 from §3.4, the dependence of the Σmν result on the prior width should be demonstrated (e.g., with anchor chains at intermediate τ).
  3. [§1 vs §3.4] The text claims that a direct determination of τ "independently lands near τ ≈ 0.10–0.11, corroborating this choice." This is contradicted by the paper's own free-τ result τ = 0.092 ± 0.013 (Table IV) and by the CMB+BAO value τ = 0.090 ± 0.012 quoted in §4, both ~1.5σ below the adopted prior. The discrepancy matters because this corroboration claim is used to motivate the prior; the text should be corrected and the gap discussed explicitly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The neutrino mass sum is rendered as "P mν" and "P mν,eff" (Fig. 1; Eq. 3; Tables I, II, V, VI; Secs. 3.1.2, 3.2.1). The intended Σmν notation is clear but should be typeset consistently.
  2. [§3.2.1] Typo: "thaat" should be "that." The Type Ia sample name is spelled inconsistently: "DES Dovekie" (§2, Fig. 7), "DESY5 Doevekie" (§3.2.2), "Doevekie" (Fig. 7).
  3. [§3, §3.1] Malformed cross-references appear in the text: "Sec. 3 3.1 1," "Sec. 3 3.1 2," and "Section. 3 3.1 2" should be fixed.
  4. [References] Refs. [14] and [71] are duplicate entries for the same article (Green and Meyers, Phys. Rev. D 111, 083507); merge them.
  5. [Table III, Fig. 8] The label "v. hτ" is used without definition; spell out "very-high-τ" (τ = 0.15 ± 0.006) in the caption and text.
  6. [§3.2.1] State explicitly that the neutrino-mass result (Eq. 3) is obtained from CMB+BAO without the DESI full-shape likelihood; the reader must otherwise infer this from §2.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

High-τ prior is calibrated to the DESI H0 anchor and to positive neutrino mass; the resulting H0 agreement and 2σ Σmν detection are prior-imposed, though BAO-distance concordance retains some independent content.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 1, Eq. (1)]
    "We can estimate this “concordance” value of τ directly by requiring consistency between the H0 inferences from CMB and large-scale-structure datasets within ΛCDM. Using the correlation between τ and H0 from the Planck 2018 base-ΛCDM chains, ∆τ≈ ∆H0/33 km/s/Mpc (1), reaching the DESI full-shape value H0 = 69.1 km/s/Mpc requires τ≈0.11."

    The τ=0.11±0.006 prior is constructed from Eq. (1) to make the CMB-inferred H0 agree with the DESI-FS anchor H0=69.08±0.37. The later statement that the high-τ CMB gives H0=68.89±0.42 and “agrees perfectly with the DESI-FS value” is therefore a restatement of the calibration, not an independent prediction. The concordance is inserted through the prior mean rather than inferred from a free fit.

  2. self definitional [Abstract / Sec. 1; see also Sec. 3.4]
    "We determine the “concordance” value of τ by requiring (i) the physical masses of neutrinos to be positive, and (ii) consistency of the ΛCDM-based Hubble constant, H0, inferred from the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and that preferred by the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) and full-shape galaxy-clustering measurements."

    The prior is explicitly selected so that the posterior neutrino mass is positive, so the abstract’s “first 2σ detection of a positive neutrino mass, Σmν = 0.10^{+0.04}_{-0.05} eV” is a consequence of that selection rather than a free inference. The paper’s own free-τ consistency analysis in Sec. 3.4, with Σmν fixed at 0.06 eV, yields τ=0.092±0.013, about 1.5σ below the prior, and the authors state that “A more general analysis should include varying both τ and the neutrino mass in the CMB+FS analysis” and “We leave these investigations for future work.” Thus the 2σ detection is not an independent joint result.

full rationale

The paper is unusually transparent that τ=0.11±0.006 is not inferred from the data but is a posited “concordance” value selected to satisfy two conditions: DESI’s H0 and positive physical neutrino mass (Abstract/Sec. 1 and Eq. 1). As a result, the headline claims that the high-τ CMB gives H0 in agreement with DESI-FS and yields Σmν=0.10 eV at 2σ are conditional statements about the chosen prior, not free predictions: the H0 target is inserted through Eq. (1), and the sign of Σmν is imposed by the selection criterion. The paper’s own Sec. 3.4 free-τ analysis finds τ=0.092±0.013 with Σmν fixed at the oscillation floor, 1.5σ below the prior, and defers the joint τ+Σmν analysis to future work, so the “detection” does not stand as an independent inference. However, not everything reduces to the input: the BAO distance-ratio agreement (Fig. 6) is a non-trivial consequence of the lowered Ωm, and the w0wa dark-energy constraints are not directly inserted into the prior; the paper explicitly notes it did not adjust Ωm. That independent content prevents a score of 8–10, but the central H0 and neutrino-mass claims are prior-imposed, meriting a 6.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central free parameter is the τ prior, which is fitted to the DESI H0 value and the requirement of positive neutrino mass. The analysis depends on several modeling assumptions about the validity of ΛCDM, the linear τ–H0 relation, and the treatment of the low-ℓEE dataset. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • τ prior mean = 0.11
    Chosen in Sec. 1 to make the CMB-inferred H0 agree with the DESI full-shape value (Eq. 1) and to yield physical (positive) neutrino mass. This is the central fitted parameter.
  • τ prior width = 0.006
    Taken from the Planck low-ℓEE likelihood uncertainty. This choice makes the prior as tight as the direct measurement but shifted by ~8σ, which is an ad hoc modeling decision.
  • Δτ/ΔH0 conversion = 1/(33 km/s/Mpc)
    Eq. (1) is a linear relation extracted from Planck 2018 base-ΛCDM chains. Used to set τ=0.11. The slope is a fitted empirical correlation, not a first-principles relation.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption ΛCDM is the correct background model (flatness assumed in the main analysis; curvature checked in App. B)
    The entire analysis fits parameters within flat-ΛCDM or its minimal extensions. If the true model has new physics (evolving dark energy, curvature, etc.), the inferred τ and neutrino mass could be biased.
  • ad hoc to paper The linear τ–H0 correlation of Eq. (1) remains valid when τ is extrapolated from ~0.06 to 0.11
    Eq. (1) is used to set the prior mean. The paper provides no evidence that the correlation is linear over this range; the CMB degeneracy could bend.
  • ad hoc to paper Removing the low-ℓEE likelihood and replacing it with a Gaussian prior at τ=0.11 is a valid data treatment
    The low-ℓEE data is excluded based on the assumption that it is miscalibrated or misleading. The paper gives no external justification for this exclusion beyond the tensions it produces.
  • domain assumption The compressed Gaussian approximation to the DESI full-shape likelihood is accurate
    Used in Sec. 3.4 to infer τ from DESI FS. The authors state they checked the approximation for base ΛCDM, but it is a modeling approximation that could affect the τ inference.
  • ad hoc to paper The linear extrapolation scheme for 'negative' neutrino masses is valid
    In Sec. 3.1.2, negative effective neutrino masses are modeled via Cℓ(−|m|)=2Cℓ(0)−Cℓ(|m|), a first-order Taylor expansion. This is a non-physical device adopted from Ref. [39].

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 29426 in / 8898 out tokens · 81362 ms · 2026-08-02T09:22:01.974548+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The measurement of the sum of neutrino masses is among the primary promises of precision cosmology, achievable by combining complementary early- and late-Universe probes. However, these datasets currently exhibit mild-to-strong disagreements within $\Lambda$CDM and its simplest extensions, giving rise to multiple tensions, including the Hubble tension, the preference for "negative" neutrino mass, and indications of evolving dark energy. It has recently been shown that these tensions can be alleviated by adopting a higher value of the optical depth to reionization parameter, $\tau$, when large-scale cosmic microwave background (CMB) polarization data are ignored. We extend this proposal and show that an especially high prior on $\tau = 0.11 \pm 0.006$ simultaneously addresses all three of these tensions, significantly reducing the need for new physics beyond $\Lambda$CDM. We determine the "concordance" value of $\tau$ by requiring physical neutrino mass and consistency of the Hubble constant, $H_0$, inferred from the CMB and that preferred by the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) and full-shape measurements. Within this high-$\tau$ Universe, we obtain the first $2\sigma$ detection of a positive neutrino mass, $\Sigma m_{\nu} = 0.10^{+0.04}_{-0.05}$~eV at 68\% C.L., while restoring cosmological concordance between datasets within $\Lambda$CDM. In particular, low-redshift distance predictions are consistent with DESI BAO observations and the inferred dark-energy equation-of-state parameters are consistent with a cosmological constant, both with and without supernovae data. The concordance power of our $\tau$ prior further motivates new measurements of $\tau$, e.g., through large angular scale CMB polarization observations with the \textit{LiteBIRD}, CLASS, or proposed PICO experiments. (Abridged)

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.30903 by James M. Sullivan, Mikhail M. Ivanov, Roger de Belsunce.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: , and Tab. II. To allow for negative effective neu￾trino masses, we follow the linear extrapolation scheme of Ref. [ P 39], i.e. we evaluate all observables at two points: mν = 0 and Pmν = | Pmν,eff|. The negative￾mass prediction through Cℓ(−|m|) = 2 Cℓ(0) − Cℓ(|m|) corresponds to a first-order Taylor expansion around Pmν = 0 which is accurate enough for the small masses explored by the current data. For t… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: shows the H0 − Ωm plane, with baseline con￾straints from the CMB with low-ℓ EE data (in gray) as well as with the high-τ prior (in blue). We also con￾sider an even more extreme very (v.) high-τ prior of τ = 0.150 ± 0.006 (in red, see also Tab. III). While the CMB alone allows the v. high τ model to push up to H0 ≈ 70 km/s/Mpc along the CMB Ωmh 3 degeneracy, tantalizingly moving towards a meaningful resolut… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: shows similar contours to those presented in the right panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png] 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 4 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. Constraints on the remote quadrupole field from the polarized Sunyaev Zel'dovich effect

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A first pSZ bispectrum search with Planck/ACT and unWISE/CIB data finds no signal, giving b_q=1.02±2.64 and τ_rei=−0.01±0.14.

  3. 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.

  4. Intertwined Constraints in Extended Cosmologies: Dark Energy, Curvature, Neutrinos, and Inflation

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Dynamical dark energy remains preferred across extended models while curvature, neutrino mass and inflation parameters show strong model dependence, with no resolution of the H0 tension.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 74 linked inside Pith · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    negative

    Neutrino mass The high-τscenario allows for a tentative detection of positive neutrino mass from the combination of CMB and BAO data. Following Ref. [3], we approximate the neu- trino mass sector with three degenerate massive states when considering the ΛCDM model with varied neutrino mass P mν. In a high-τUniverse, we find evidence for the neutrino mass ...

  2. [2]

    P+ACT + low EE

    DA T A We use the following precision cosmology datasets to investigate the high-τUniverse: •P+ACT + low EE: We perform a baseline analy- sis with theSRoll2[45] 2 low-ℓEEpolarization like- lihood included. For our fiducial high-ℓTTTEEE CMB dataset, we use thePlanck2018 (PR3)plik + ACT DR6 high-ℓTTTEEElikelihoods where the Planckdata is cut at the low-ℓmul...

  3. [3]

    negative

    RESUL TS In this Section, we begin by presenting parameter con- straints from the CMB primary anisotropies and lens- ing in Sec. 3.1: we first show how the high-τprior shifts the ΛCDM parameters inferred from the CMB alone in Sec. 3 3.1 1, and then examine thePlancklens- ing anomaly in the high-τUniverse – its dependence on the choice of likelihood and it...

  4. [4]

    negative

    Lensing anomaly and “negative” neutrino mass a. Lensing anomaly:Large-scale structure gener- ates coherent deflections of CMB photons through weak lensing. CMB data is sensitive to this effect at the 2-point level (the smoothing of oscillations in the CMB scalar anisotropy spectra) and at the lensing reconstruction 10 level (reconstruction of the LSS lens...

    2018

  5. [5]

    we resolve thePlanck2018 lensing anomaly through the inference of physical neutrino mass,

  6. [6]

    very-high-τ

    Dark energy andw 0waCDM We now turn to the combination of CMB, DESI BAO, and optionally, SNe data in the context of a dynamical dark energy model. The BAO and SNe data are in some tension within ΛCDM, which might lead to some signif- icant cracks in the high-τΛCDM model. Here we show, however, that these cracks do not emerge: the addition of the SNe data ...

  7. [7]

    This suggestion is even more alarming when combining CMB data with DESI DR2 Baryonic Acoustic Oscillation distance measurements, which increases this unphysical preference

    DISCUSSION The low optical depth to reionizationτpreferred by Planck2018 data suggests unphysical cosmological neu- trino mass constraints. This suggestion is even more alarming when combining CMB data with DESI DR2 Baryonic Acoustic Oscillation distance measurements, which increases this unphysical preference. It is known that the value ofτand neutrino m...

    2018

  8. [8]

    we infer the first 2σevidence for a positive neutrino mass within ΛCDM,

  9. [9]

    we remove evidence for dynamical dark energy ob- tained from DESI BAO measurements,

  10. [10]

    we show that thePlanckCMB data (without low- ℓEE polarization) shows no preference for excess lensing amplitude,

  11. [11]

    we eliminate the preference for negative effective neutrino mass,

  12. [12]

    reversed

    N. Craig, D. Green, J. Meyers and S. Rajendran,Noνs is Good News,Journal of High Energy Physics2024 18 Dataset AL P mν,eff CS(PR4)+ACT + low-ℓEE 1.0708±0.0330 – CS(PR4)+ACT - low-ℓEE + hτ 0.9693+0.0299 −0.0303 – W+ACT + low-ℓEE 1.0161+0.0487 −0.0494 – W+ACT - low-ℓEE + hτ 0.9280+0.0440 −0.0490 – CS(PR4)+ACT + low-ℓEE –−0.170 +0.137 −0.135 CS(PR4)+ACT - lo...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    we lower the CMB-inferred value of Ω m to better agree with the value inferred from the BAO,

  14. [14]

    we reduce the Hubble tension as seen by SH0ES to ≈4σ(with respect to CCHP, there is no tension) and alleviate the disagreement between DESI full- shape + CMB lensing cross-correlation data,

  15. [15]

    nega- tive

    we perform a consistency analysis using DESI full- shape and BAO data for the first time, which sup- ports the highτUniverse. The high value ofτthat we have chosen is signif- icantly larger than not just the low-ℓEE value, but also than values found in the literature of astrophysi- cal inference ofτ, such as from Lyman-αdamping wings and high-redshift Jam...

  16. [16]

    Di Valentino, O

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri et al.,In the realm of the Hubble tension-a review of solutions,Classical and Quantum Gravity38(2021) 153001 [2103.01183]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    E. Abdalla et al.,Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies, JHEAp34(2022) 49 [2203.06142]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi et al.,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,A&A641 (2020) A6 [1807.06209]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  19. [19]

    Breuval, A

    L. Breuval, A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, M. Romaniello et al.,Small Magellanic Cloud Cepheids Observed with the Hubble Space Telescope Provide a New Anchor for the SH0ES Distance Ladder, Astrophys. J.973(2024) 30 [2404.08038]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    A. G. Riess, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, D. Scolnic, D. Brout, S. Casertano et al.,A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s −1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team,ApJ934(2022) L7 [2112.04510]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Efstathiou,To H0 or not to H0?,Mon

    G. Efstathiou,To H0 or not to H0?,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.505(2021) 3866 [2103.08723]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    M. M. Ivanov, J. M. Sullivan, S.-F. Chen, A. Chudaykin, M. Maus and O. H. E. Philcox, Reanalyzing DESI DR1: 4. Percent-Level Cosmological Constraints from Combined Probes and Robust Evidence for the Normal Neutrino Mass Hierarchy,arXiv e-prints (2026) arXiv:2601.16165 [2601.16165]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    M. Maus, M. White, N. Sailer, A. Baleato Lizancos, S. Ferraro, S. Chen et al.,A joint analysis of 3D clustering and galaxy×CMB-lensing cross-correlations with DESI DR1 galaxies,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2025(2025) 077 [2505.20656]

    arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    lite” high-ℓlikelihood forT T T EEE (“SPT-3G D1 T&E

    data as the lower multipoles are inaccessible to ACT, following the “W-ACT” analysis of Ref. [46], but where we also add the ACT DR6 +PlanckPR4 lensing data5. •SPT: Independent of bothPlanckand ACT, we also consider SPT-3G primary and lensing data [55]. We use thecandl[56] foreground- marginalized “lite” high-ℓlikelihood forT T T EEE (“SPT-3G D1 T&E”) as ...

  25. [25]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi et al.,Planck 2018 results. VIII. Gravitational lensing,A&A641 (2020) A8 [1807.06210]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  26. [26]

    A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D. M. Alexander, M. Alvarez et al.,DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 021 [2404.03002]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Abdul Karim, J

    M. Abdul Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L. Allen, C. Allende Prieto et al.,DESI DR2 results. II. Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 083515 [2503.14738]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Loverde and Z

    M. Loverde and Z. J. Weiner,Massive neutrinos and cosmic composition,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2024(2024) 048 [2410.00090]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [30]

    Elbers, C

    W. Elbers, C. S. Frenk, A. Jenkins, B. Li and S. Pascoli, Negative neutrino masses as a mirage of dark energy, Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 063534 [2407.10965]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [31]

    P. W. Graham, D. Green and J. Meyers,New interpretations of the cosmological preference for a negative neutrino mass,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 043514 [2508.20999]

    arXiv 2026

  31. [32]

    Herold and M

    L. Herold and M. Kamionkowski,Revisiting the impact of neutrino mass hierarchies on neutrino mass constraints in light of recent DESI data,Phys. Rev. D 111(2025) 083518 [2412.03546]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [33]

    Chacko, A

    Z. Chacko, A. Dev, P. Du, V. Poulin and Y. Tsai, Determining the Neutrino Lifetime from Cosmology, Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 043519 [2002.08401]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [34]

    Aghamousa, J

    DESI Collaboration, A. Aghamousa, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L. E. Allen et al.,The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design,arXiv e-prints(2016) arXiv:1611.00036 [1611.00036]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  34. [35]

    Peng and Y.-S

    Z.-Y. Peng and Y.-S. Piao,Dark energy and lensing anomaly in Planck CMB data,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 023502 [2502.04641]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [36]

    W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, T. J. Hoyt, I. S. Jang, A. J. Lee and K. A. Owens,Status Report on the Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program (CCHP): Measurement of the Hubble Constant Using the Hubble and James Webb Space Telescopes,ApJ985(2025) 203 [2408.06153]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [37]

    Sch¨ oneberg, G

    N. Sch¨ oneberg, G. F. Abell´ an, A. P. S´ anchez, S. J. Witte, V. Poulin and J. Lesgourgues,The H 0 Olympics: A fair ranking of proposed models,Phys. Rep.984 (2022) 1 [2107.10291]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [38]

    de Belsunce, S

    R. de Belsunce, S. Gratton, W. Coulton and G. Efstathiou,Inference of the optical depth to reionization from low multipole temperature and polarization Planck data,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 507(2021) 1072 [2103.14378]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  38. [39]

    C. L. Bennett, D. Larson, J. L. Weiland, N. Jarosik, G. Hinshaw, N. Odegard et al.,Nine-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Final Maps and Results,ApJS208(2013) 20 [1212.5225]. [25]Planckcollaboration,Planck intermediate results. XL VI. Reduction of large-scale systematic effects in HFI polarization maps and estimation of the re...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  39. [40]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  40. [41]

    de Belsunce, S

    R. de Belsunce, S. Gratton and G. Efstathiou,Testing for spectral index variations in polarized CMB foregrounds,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.517(2022) 2855 [2205.13968]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  41. [42]

    Lattanzi, C

    M. Lattanzi, C. Burigana, M. Gerbino, A. Gruppuso, N. Mandolesi, P. Natoli et al.,On the impact of large angle CMB polarization data on cosmological parameters,JCAP02(2017) 041 [1611.01123]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  42. [43]

    Natale, L

    U. Natale, L. Pagano, M. Lattanzi, M. Migliaccio, L. P. Colombo, A. Gruppuso et al.,A novel CMB polarization likelihood package for large angular scales built from combined WMAP and Planck LFI legacy maps,Astron. Astrophys.644(2020) A32 [2005.05600]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  43. [44]

    Genesini, G

    V. Genesini, G. Galloni, L. Pagano, P. Campeti and M. Lattanzi,Cross-spectra likelihood for robustτ constraints from all satellite polarisation data, 2603.22454. 19 [31]CLASScollaboration,A Measurement of the Largest-scale CMB E-mode Polarization with CLASS, Astrophys. J.986(2025) 111 [2501.11904]

    arXiv 2025

  44. [45]

    Kageura, M

    Y. Kageura, M. Ouchi, F. Naokawa, H. Umeda, A. Matsumoto, Y. Harikane et al.,A New Constraint on the Optical Depth from the Reionization History Independent of CMB Large-Scale E-Mode Polarization, 2601.09644

    arXiv

  45. [46]

    J. E. Gunn and B. A. Peterson,On the Density of Neutral Hydrogen in Intergalactic Space.,ApJ142 (1965) 1633

    1965

  46. [47]

    M. M. Ivanov, M. Simonovi´ c and M. Zaldarriaga, Cosmological Parameters from the BOSS Galaxy Power Spectrum,JCAP05(2020) 042 [1909.05277]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  47. [48]

    Chudaykin, M

    A. Chudaykin, M. M. Ivanov and O. H. E. Philcox, Reanalyzing DESI DR1. I.ΛCDM constraints from the power spectrum and bispectrum,Phys. Rev. D113 (2026) 063502 [2507.13433]

    arXiv 2026

  48. [49]

    Chudaykin, M

    A. Chudaykin, M. M. Ivanov and O. H. E. Philcox, Reanalyzing DESI DR1. II. Constraints on dark energy, spatial curvature, and neutrino masses,Phys. Rev. D 113(2026) 123506 [2511.20757]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  49. [50]

    I. J. Allali, L. Li, P. Singh and J. Fan,Cosmic tensions indirectly correlate with reionization optical depth, Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 083515 [2509.09678]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  50. [51]

    I. J. Allali, P. Singh, J. Fan and L. Li,Reionization and the Hubble constant: correlations in the Cosmic Microwave Background,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2025(2025) 082 [2503.05691]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [52]

    Sailer, G

    N. Sailer, G. S. Farren, S. Ferraro and M. White, Addressing Tensions inΛCDM Cosmology by an Increase in the Optical Depth to Reionization, Phys. Rev. Lett.136(2026) 081002 [2504.16932]

    arXiv 2026

  52. [53]

    Jhaveri, T

    T. Jhaveri, T. Karwal and W. Hu,Turning a negative neutrino mass into a positive optical depth, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 043541 [2504.21813]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [54]

    Calabrese, J

    E. Calabrese, J. C. Hill, H. T. Jense, A. La Posta, I. Abril-Cabezas, G. E. Addison et al.,The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 constraints on extended cosmological models,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2025(2025) 063 [2503.14454]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [55]

    Giar` e, E

    W. Giar` e, E. Di Valentino and A. Melchiorri,Measuring the reionization optical depth without large-scale CMB polarization,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 103519 [2312.06482]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [56]

    Wojtak, J

    R. Wojtak, J. Hjorth and J. O. Hjortlund, Two-population Bayesian hierarchical model of Type Ia supernovae,MNRAS525(2023) 5187 [2302.01906]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [57]

    Jhaveri, W

    T. Jhaveri, W. Hu and V. Miranda,Raising the reionization optical depth with inflationary CMB features,arXiv e-prints(2026) arXiv:2606.20795 [2606.20795]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  57. [58]

    Pagano, J.-M

    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,A&A 635(2020) A99 [1908.09856]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  58. [59]

    Louis, A

    T. Louis, A. La Posta, Z. Atkins, H. T. Jense, I. Abril-Cabezas, G. E. Addison et al.,The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 power spectra, likelihoods andΛCDM parameters,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2025(2025) 062 [2503.14452]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [60]

    M. S. Madhavacheril, F. J. Qu, B. D. Sherwin, N. MacCrann, Y. Li, I. Abril-Cabezas et al.,The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Gravitational Lensing Map and Cosmological Parameters,ApJ962 (2024) 113 [2304.05203]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  60. [61]

    F. J. Qu, B. D. Sherwin, M. S. Madhavacheril, D. Han, K. T. Crowley, I. Abril-Cabezas et al.,The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: A Measurement of the DR6 CMB Lensing Power Spectrum and Its Implications for Structure Growth,ApJ962(2024) 112 [2304.05202]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  61. [62]

    Carron, M

    J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein and A. Lewis,CMB lensing from Planck PR4 maps,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2022(2022) 039 [2206.07773]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  62. [63]

    Brout, D

    D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovic, A. G. Riess, A. Carr, J. Zuntz et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,ApJ938(2022) 110 [2202.04077]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  63. [64]

    Popovic, P

    B. Popovic, P. Shah, W. D. Kenworthy, R. Kessler, T. M. Davis, A. Goobar et al.,The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: A Reanalysis Of Cosmology Results And Evidence For Evolving Dark Energy With An Updated Type Ia Supernova Calibration,arXiv e-prints(2025) arXiv:2511.07517 [2511.07517]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  64. [65]

    H. T. Jense, M. Vi˜ na, E. Calabrese and J. C. Hill, Choice of Planck CMB likelihood in cosmological analyses,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 043551 [2510.09430]

    arXiv 2026

  65. [66]

    Rosenberg, S

    E. Rosenberg, S. Gratton and G. Efstathiou,CMB power spectra and cosmological parameters from Planck PR4 with CamSpec,MNRAS517(2022) 4620 [2205.10869]. [54]Planckcollaboration,P lanckintermediate results. L VII. Joint Planck LFI and HFI data processing, Astron. Astrophys.643(2020) A42 [2007.04997]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  66. [67]

    F. Ge, M. Millea, E. Camphuis, C. Daley, N. Huang, Y. Omori 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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  67. [68]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  68. [69]

    Camphuis, W

    E. Camphuis, W. Quan, L. Balkenhol, A. R. Khalife, F. Ge, F. Guidi et al.,SPT-3G D1: CMB temperature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observations of the SPT-3G Main field,arXiv e-prints(2025) arXiv:2506.20707 [2506.20707]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  69. [70]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis,Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis of hierarchical physical models,JCAP05 (2021) 057 [2005.05290]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  70. [71]

    Goldstein and J

    S. Goldstein and J. C. Hill,A 2% determination ofN eff from primordial element abundance, cosmic microwave background, and baryon acoustic oscillation measurements,arXiv e-prints(2026) arXiv:2603.13226 [2603.13226]

    arXiv 2026

  71. [72]

    M. W. Toomey, E. Hughes, M. M. Ivanov and J. M. Sullivan,Kinetic Mixing and the Phantom Illusion: Axion-Dilaton Quintessence in Light of DESI DR2, 2511.23463

    arXiv

  72. [73]

    Khoury, M.-X

    J. Khoury, M.-X. Lin and M. Trodden,Apparent w<-1 and a Lower S8 from Dark Axion and Dark Baryons Interactions,Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025) 181001 [2503.16415]

    arXiv 2025

  73. [74]

    C. M. Hirata and U. Seljak,Reconstruction of lensing from the cosmic microwave background polarization, Phys. Rev. D68(2003) 083002 [astro-ph/0306354]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  74. [75]

    Millea, E

    M. Millea, E. Anderes and B. D. Wandelt, Sampling-based inference of the primordial CMB and 20 gravitational lensing,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 123542 [2002.00965]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  75. [76]

    Calabrese, A

    E. Calabrese, A. Slosar, A. Melchiorri, G. F. Smoot and O. Zahn,Cosmic microwave weak lensing data as a test for the dark universe,Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 123531 [0803.2309]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  76. [77]

    Planck Collaboration, P. A. R. Ade, N. Aghanim, C. Armitage-Caplan, M. Arnaud, M. Ashdown et al., Planck 2013 results. XVI. Cosmological parameters, A&A571(2014) A16 [1303.5076]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  77. [78]

    Planck Collaboration, P. A. R. Ade, N. Aghanim, M. Arnaud, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont et al.,Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters,A&A594 (2016) A13 [1502.01589]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  78. [79]

    G. E. Addison, Y. Huang, D. J. Watts, C. L. Bennett, M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw et al.,Quantifying Discordance in the 2015 Planck CMB Spectrum,ApJ818(2016) 132 [1511.00055]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  79. [80]

    Roy Choudhury and T

    S. Roy Choudhury and T. Okumura,Updated Cosmological Constraints in Extended Parameter Space with Planck PR4, DESI Baryon Acoustic Oscillations, and Supernovae: Dynamical Dark Energy, Neutrino Masses, Lensing Anomaly, and the Hubble Tension,ApJ 976(2024) L11 [2409.13022]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  80. [81]

    Garcia-Quintero, H

    C. Garcia-Quintero, H. E. Noriega, A. de Mattia, A. Aviles, K. Lodha, D. Chebat et al.,Cosmological implications of DESI DR2 BAO measurements in light of the latest ACT DR6 CMB data,Phys. Rev. D112 (2025) 083529 [2504.18464]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.