arxiv: 2503.14744 · v3 · submitted 2025-03-18 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Constraints on Neutrino Physics from DESI DR2 BAO and DR1 Full Shape

W. Elbers , A. Aviles , H. E. Noriega , D. Chebat , A. Menegas , C. S. Frenk , C. Garcia-Quintero , D. Gonzalez

show 111 more authors

M. Ishak O. Lahav K. Naidoo G. Niz C. Y\`eche M. Abdul-Karim S. Ahlen O. Alves U. Andrade E. Armengaud J. Behera S. BenZvi D. Bianchi S. Brieden A. Brodzeller D. Brooks E. Burtin R. Calderon R. Canning A. Carnero Rosell L. Casas F. J. Castander M. Charles E. Chaussidon J. Chaves-Montero T. Claybaugh S. Cole A. P. Cooper A. Cuceu K. S. Dawson A. de la Macorra A. de Mattia N. Deiosso A. Dey B. Dey Z. Ding P. Doel D. J. Eisenstein S. Ferraro A. Font-Ribera J. E. Forero-Romero L. H. Garrison E. Gazta\~naga H. Gil-Mar\'in S. Gontcho A Gontcho A. X. Gonzalez-Morales G. Gutierrez S. He M. Herbold H. K. Herrera-Alcantar C. Howlett D. Huterer S. Juneau R. Kehoe D. Kirkby T. Kisner A. Kremin C. Lamman M. Landriau L. Le Guillou A. Leauthaud M. E. Levi Q. Li K. Lodha C. Magneville M. Manera P. Martini W. L. Matthewson A. Meisner J. Mena-Fern\'andez R. Miquel J. Moustakas S. Nadathur J. A. Newman E. Paillas N. Palanque-Delabrouille W. J. Percival M. M. Pieri C. Poppett F. Prada I. P\'erez-R\`afols D. Rabinowitz C. Ram\'irez-P\'erez M. Rashkovetskyi C. Ravoux H. Rivera-Morales J. Rohlf A. J. Ross G. Rossi V. Ruhlmann-Kleider L. Samushia E. Sanchez D. Schlegel M. Schubnell H. Seo F. Sinigaglia D. Sprayberry T. Tan G. Tarl\'e P. Taylor W. Turner M. Vargas-Maga\~na L. Verde M. Walther B. A. Weaver A. Whitford M. Wolfson P. Zarrouk C. Zhao R. Zhou H. Zou (DESI Collaboration)

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 17:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO

keywords neutrino mass sumDESI BAOLambdaCDMneutrino oscillationsdark energycosmological constraintsN_eff

0 comments

The pith

DESI DR2 BAO and DR1 full-shape data plus CMB data tighten the neutrino mass sum upper limit to 0.0642 eV at 95 percent under flat LambdaCDM.

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

The paper combines new DESI measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations from Data Release 2 and full-shape galaxy clustering from Data Release 1 with Planck and ACT cosmic microwave background observations. Under the standard flat LambdaCDM model with three degenerate neutrinos, this yields an upper bound on the sum of neutrino masses of 0.0642 eV at 95 percent . The bound sits below the minimum value required by neutrino oscillation experiments, producing roughly 3-sigma tension even after boundary corrections and use of an effective mass parameter that allows negative densities. The same data set finds the effective number of neutrino species consistent with the Standard Model value, but the neutrino-mass tension relaxes when the model is extended to allow evolving dark energy.

Core claim

Under flat LambdaCDM with three degenerate neutrinos, DESI DR2 BAO and DR1 full-shape measurements combined with CMB data give sum m_nu less than 0.0642 eV at 95 percent with a marginalized uncertainty of 0.020 eV. Accounting for oscillation constraints produces a preference for normal mass ordering and an upper limit on the lightest mass of 0.023 eV, yet frequentist and Bayesian analyses show 3-sigma tension with the oscillation lower bound. A Feldman-Cousins 95 percent upper limit of 0.053 eV still breaches the oscillation floor. In the w0waCDM model the neutrino-mass limit relaxes to less than 0.163 eV at 95 percent, removing the tension.

What carries the argument

The combination of DESI DR2 baryon acoustic oscillation measurements across 0.1 < z < 4.2 with DR1 full-shape power-spectrum data, jointly analyzed with Planck and ACT CMB spectra, to constrain the neutrino-mass sum parameter inside LambdaCDM and its extensions.

If this is right

The data prefer normal neutrino mass ordering once oscillation priors are included.
The effective number of neutrino species remains consistent with the Standard Model prediction of 3.046.
Extending to w0waCDM relaxes the neutrino-mass upper limit enough to eliminate the tension with oscillations.
The tension could indicate either unknown systematics in current data or new physics beyond neutrinos.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Future DESI releases or independent BAO measurements could test whether the tension persists or is resolved by larger samples.
The preference for evolving dark energy in the same data set suggests a joint analysis of neutrino mass and dark-energy parameters may be needed to interpret any remaining discrepancy.
Laboratory experiments that tighten the oscillation lower bound further would increase the statistical significance of the cosmological tension if it remains.

Load-bearing premise

There are no unknown systematic errors in the DESI BAO scale or full-shape measurements, and the base flat LambdaCDM model is an adequate description without needing further extensions.

What would settle it

An independent cosmological probe, such as cluster abundance or weak-lensing surveys, that measures a neutrino mass sum above 0.07 eV under LambdaCDM would remove the reported tension with oscillation data.

read the original abstract

The Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) Collaboration has obtained robust measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) in the redshift range, $0.1 < z < 4.2$, based on the Lyman-$\alpha$ forest and galaxies from Data Release 2 (DR2). We combine these measurements with external cosmic microwave background (CMB) data from Planck and ACT to place our tightest constraints yet on the sum of neutrino masses. Assuming the cosmological $\Lambda$CDM model and three degenerate neutrino states, we find $\sum m_\nu<0.0642$ eV (95%) with a marginalized error of $\sigma(\sum m_\nu)=0.020$ eV. We also constrain the effective number of neutrino species, finding $N_\rm{eff} = 3.23^{+0.35}_{-0.34}$ (95%), in line with the Standard Model prediction. When accounting for neutrino oscillation constraints, we find a preference for the normal mass ordering and an upper limit on the lightest neutrino mass of $m_l < 0.023$ eV (95%). However, we determine using frequentist and Bayesian methods that our constraints are in tension with the lower limits derived from neutrino oscillations. Correcting for the physical boundary at zero mass, we report a 95% Feldman-Cousins upper limit of $\sum m_\nu<0.053$ eV, breaching the lower limit from neutrino oscillations. Considering a more general Bayesian analysis with an effective cosmological neutrino mass parameter, $\sum m_{\nu,\rm{eff}}$, that allows for negative energy densities and removes unsatisfactory prior weight effects, we derive constraints that are in $3\sigma$ tension with the same oscillation limit. In the absence of unknown systematics, this finding could be interpreted as a hint of new physics not necessarily related to neutrinos. The preference of DESI and CMB data for an evolving dark energy model offers one possible solution. In the $w_0w_a$CDM model, we find $\sum m_\nu<0.163$ eV (95%), relaxing the neutrino tension. [Abridged]

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

DESI DR2 tightens the neutrino mass sum upper limit to 0.064 eV in LambdaCDM, below the oscillation floor and creating a reported 3 sigma tension that the paper flags as possibly due to systematics or new physics.

read the letter

The headline result is a new 95% upper bound of 0.064 eV on the sum of neutrino masses from DESI DR2 BAO plus DR1 full-shape data combined with Planck and ACT, which sits below the oscillation minimum and produces a 3 sigma tension after boundary corrections. They also get N_eff consistent with the Standard Model and show that switching to w0waCDM relaxes the bound to 0.163 eV and removes the tension. The analysis uses standard pipelines but adds both frequentist Feldman-Cousins and Bayesian treatments with an effective-mass parameterization to handle the zero boundary. This is solid incremental work that makes good use of the new DESI measurements across a broad redshift range. The numbers are presented clearly and the authors are upfront about the main caveat. The soft spot is that the tension claim depends on the DESI data having no unmodeled systematics at the 0.3-1% level that could shift the acoustic scale or growth rate in a way degenerate with lower neutrino mass. The paper notes this but does not run the quantitative marginalization over plausible fiber-assignment, redshift-error, or continuum-fitting effects that would be needed to test robustness at the precision they are claiming. Full-shape modeling uncertainties are also not explored in detail beyond the baseline choices. This paper is for people who follow DESI neutrino constraints or cross-checks between cosmology and particle physics. It deserves a serious referee because the data release is new and the result is sharp enough to matter if the systematics check out. I would send it to peer review.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper combines DESI DR2 BAO and DR1 full-shape measurements with Planck and ACT CMB data to derive constraints on the neutrino mass sum and N_eff. In flat ΛCDM with three degenerate neutrinos, it reports ∑m_ν < 0.0642 eV (95% CL) with σ(∑m_ν) = 0.020 eV, N_eff = 3.23^{+0.35}_{-0.34} (95% CL) consistent with the Standard Model, a 3σ tension with oscillation lower bounds (even after Feldman-Cousins correction and using an effective-mass parameterization allowing negative densities), and relaxation of the tension in w0waCDM where ∑m_ν < 0.163 eV (95% CL).

Significance. If the result holds, the work supplies one of the tightest cosmological neutrino-mass bounds to date and quantifies a discrepancy with oscillation data that could indicate either new physics or unaccounted systematics. The dual frequentist/Bayesian treatment and the explicit check that w0waCDM relieves the tension are useful contributions to the neutrino-cosmology literature.

major comments (2)

[neutrino-mass constraints and tension discussion] The headline 3σ tension claim (abstract and the section on neutrino-mass constraints) rests on the untested assumption that DESI DR2 BAO and DR1 full-shape measurements contain no unknown systematics at the 0.3–1% level. No quantitative marginalization over plausible DESI-specific effects (fiber assignment, redshift errors, Lyman-α continuum fitting) is presented, yet such effects are known to be degenerate with the acoustic-scale and growth-rate parameters that drive the ∑m_ν limit.
[Feldman-Cousins and effective-mass analysis] The Feldman-Cousins 95% upper limit ∑m_ν < 0.053 eV (abstract) is stated to breach the oscillation floor, but the paper does not show how this limit changes under alternative treatments of the physical boundary at zero mass or under the effective-mass parameterization; a direct comparison table of the two approaches would be required to substantiate the tension strength.

minor comments (2)

[abstract] The abstract sentence on N_eff should explicitly state whether the quoted interval is marginalized over ∑m_ν or obtained from a joint fit.
[figures] Figure captions for the posterior plots should include the exact data combination (DESI DR2 BAO + DR1 FS + Planck + ACT) to avoid ambiguity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review. We appreciate the recognition of the paper's contributions and address each major comment below, indicating revisions where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [neutrino-mass constraints and tension discussion] The headline 3σ tension claim (abstract and the section on neutrino-mass constraints) rests on the untested assumption that DESI DR2 BAO and DR1 full-shape measurements contain no unknown systematics at the 0.3–1% level. No quantitative marginalization over plausible DESI-specific effects (fiber assignment, redshift errors, Lyman-α continuum fitting) is presented, yet such effects are known to be degenerate with the acoustic-scale and growth-rate parameters that drive the ∑m_ν limit.

Authors: We agree that potential unknown systematics in the DESI measurements at the 0.3–1% level could affect the neutrino-mass constraints, given known degeneracies with the acoustic scale and growth rate. Our analysis employs the official published DESI DR2 BAO and DR1 full-shape results, which incorporate the DESI collaboration's extensive systematic validation. A full quantitative marginalization over additional DESI-specific effects (e.g., fiber assignment, redshift errors, Lyman-α continuum fitting) would require new dedicated simulations and re-processing of the DESI data, which is beyond the scope of this work. In the revised manuscript we will expand the discussion of the neutrino-mass constraints section to explicitly note these potential systematics, reference the relevant DESI systematic studies, and reiterate that the reported tension holds under the assumption of no unknown systematics (as already stated in the abstract). revision: partial
Referee: [Feldman-Cousins and effective-mass analysis] The Feldman-Cousins 95% upper limit ∑m_ν < 0.053 eV (abstract) is stated to breach the oscillation floor, but the paper does not show how this limit changes under alternative treatments of the physical boundary at zero mass or under the effective-mass parameterization; a direct comparison table of the two approaches would be required to substantiate the tension strength.

Authors: We thank the referee for this suggestion to improve clarity. The manuscript already presents both the Feldman-Cousins frequentist upper limit and the Bayesian results using the effective-mass parameterization ∑m_ν,eff (which allows negative densities to mitigate boundary effects). To better substantiate the tension, we will add a new comparison table in the revised manuscript that directly lists the 95% upper limits (and associated tension significances with the oscillation lower bound) under the standard Bayesian treatment with zero boundary, the Feldman-Cousins approach, and the effective-mass parameterization. This will allow readers to assess the robustness of the ~3σ claim across methods. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: neutrino mass limits from standard data fitting to external observations

full rationale

The paper's central derivation fits DESI DR2 BAO, DR1 full-shape, Planck, and ACT data to ΛCDM parameters including ∑m_ν using standard Bayesian and frequentist methods. The reported upper limit and 3σ tension with oscillation lower bounds follow directly from this external-data fit and independent particle-physics comparison. No self-definitional equations, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations that reduce the result to its own inputs appear in the abstract or context. The analysis remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard flat ΛCDM framework, the assumption of three degenerate neutrinos, and the absence of unmodeled systematics in the DESI measurements; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (2)

∑m_ν
Primary parameter of interest; upper limit obtained by marginalizing over other cosmological parameters in the fit to BAO and CMB data.
N_eff
Effective number of relativistic species fitted simultaneously with neutrino mass.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Flat ΛCDM cosmology with three degenerate neutrino mass states
Invoked throughout the parameter fitting sections; the paper explicitly states the assumption when reporting the 0.0642 eV limit.
ad hoc to paper No unknown systematics in DESI BAO or full-shape measurements
The tension interpretation is conditioned on this; the paper states 'in the absence of unknown systematics' when suggesting new physics.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6385 in / 1712 out tokens · 43790 ms · 2026-05-16T17:42:09.539773+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 19 Pith papers

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

Effective Field Theory of Large Scale Structure and Newtonian Motion Gauges
astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

Newtonian motion gauges extend the validity of Newtonian EFTofLSS to scale-dependent growth and GR effects by transforming linear equations to Newtonian form, computing nonlinear clustering there, and transforming res...
Peering down the barrel with DESI DR2: 10 000+ inflows at $z$ < 0.6 reveal how galaxies accrete cold gas
astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

A large DESI sample reveals thousands of infalling cold gas absorbers at low redshift, with velocity distributions indicating multiple accretion pathways including radial inflows and satellite accretion.
Kinematic Lensing Ratio: Reviving Weak Lensing Cosmography as a Geometric Dark Energy Probe
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

KiLeR combines shear ratios with kinematic intrinsic shapes to mitigate first-order lensing systematics and forecasts a 192% improvement in dark energy constraints from the Roman telescope.
Measuring neutrino mass and asymmetry through galaxy pairwise peculiar velocity
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

Galaxy pairwise peculiar velocities from Cosmicflows-4 yield M_ν = 0.24^{+0.34}_{-0.18} eV and η² = 2.14^{+0.30}_{-0.32} (7σ non-zero asymmetry) in the CMB framework, consistent with prior Planck results.
Cosmological analysis of the DESI DR1 Lyman alpha 1D power spectrum
astro-ph.CO 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 7.0

DESI DR1 Lyman-alpha data yields Δ²★=0.379±0.032 and n★=-2.309±0.019 at k★=0.009 km⁻¹s and z=3, sharpening N_eff, α_s, and β_s constraints by factors of 1.18-1.90 when combined with other probes.
DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints
astro-ph.CO 2025-03 accept novelty 7.0

DESI DR2 BAO data exhibits 2.3 sigma tension with CMB in Lambda-CDM but prefers evolving dark energy (w0 > -1, wa < 0) at 3.1 sigma with CMB and 2.8-4.2 sigma when including supernovae.
Into the Gompverse: A robust Gompertzian reionization model for CMB analyses
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

A Gompertzian reionization model with three nuisance parameters demotes optical depth to a derived quantity, reducing its uncertainty by a factor of three and revealing potential neutrino mass tension in CMB analyses.
Investigating the Neutrino Mass Ordering Problem via Ternary Plots
hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Normal and inverted neutrino mass orderings tend to occupy different regions in ternary space when supernova neutrino flavor compositions are plotted across several models.
FolpsD: combining EFT and phenomenological approaches for joint power spectrum and bispectrum analyses
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0

FolpsD combines EFT power spectrum and tree-level bispectrum with damping to enable joint analyses that improve cosmological constraints from DESI-like galaxy mocks by up to 30% on As and omega_cdm while extending the...
Measuring neutrino mass in light of ACT DR6 and DESI DR2
astro-ph.CO 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

New ACT and DESI data yield model-dependent upper limits on sum of neutrino masses, with holographic dark energy giving the tightest bounds and a consistent preference for degenerate hierarchy.
Joint Constraints on Neutrinos and Dynamical Dark Energy in Minimally Modified Gravity
astro-ph.CO 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 5.0

The w†VCDM model shows a statistically significant preference for late-time quintessence-phantom crossing dark energy, raises the Hubble constant, and satisfies neutrino mass and Neff constraints from current cosmolog...
Reanalyzing DESI DR1: 2. Constraints on Dark Energy, Spatial Curvature, and Neutrino Masses
astro-ph.CO 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Reanalysis of DESI full-shape clustering data tightens constraints on neutrino mass, spatial curvature, and dark energy equation-of-state parameters relative to BAO-only results.
Testing Scale-Dependent Modified Gravity with DESI DR1
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 accept novelty 4.0

DESI DR1 constrains the modified gravity parameter to log10 |f_R0| < -4.59 at 95% CL, implying no detectable fifth force on scales below about 18 Mpc.
Neutrino self-interactions in post-reionization era: Lyman-$\alpha$, 21-cm and cross-spectra
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

Fisher forecasts indicate that Lyα-21cm cross-spectra with PUMA and CMB data can improve constraints on neutrino self-interaction strength G_eff by 1-2 orders of magnitude over CMB alone.
Forecasting neutrino mass constraints from the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

Roman Space Telescope forecasts using Hα galaxy mocks yield m_ν < 0.276 eV (68% CL) with Planck priors via EFT of LSS, and m_ν < 0.36 eV via model-independent phenomenological analysis.
Coupled Dark Energy and Dark Matter for DESI: An Effective Guide to the Phantom Divide
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

Coupled quintessence-dark matter models can produce an apparent phantom-crossing effective equation of state matching DESI preferences if the scalar field begins frozen in the radiation era.
Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements
astro-ph.CO 2025-03 conditional novelty 4.0

Extended analysis of DESI DR2 data confirms robust evidence for dynamical dark energy with phantom crossing preference, stable under parametric and non-parametric modeling.
DESI DR2 Results I: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from the Lyman Alpha Forest
astro-ph.CO 2025-03 accept novelty 4.0

DESI DR2 delivers 0.65% precision BAO measurements from the LyA forest at z_eff=2.33, with D_H/r_d = 8.632 ± 0.098 ± 0.026 and D_M/r_d = 38.99 ± 0.52 ± 0.12.
Euclid preparation. XCVIII. Cosmology Likelihood for Observables in Euclid (CLOE). 5: Extensions beyond the standard modelling of theoretical probes and systematic effects
astro-ph.CO 2025-10

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

223 extracted references · 223 canonical work pages · cited by 19 Pith papers · 76 internal anchors

[1]

Origin of the anomaly We can trace the origin of the preference for negative effective neutrino masses from DESI BAO and CMB to a number of different effects [73]. A major contribution comes from the overall amplitude of the BAO distance measurements, which are smaller than what is allowed by CMB data for a ΛCDM model with positive neutrino masses, as sho...

work page
[2]

Indeed, du- ring inflation the standard cosmological expansionH dominates but, in light of the figure 6,Hbecomes ne- gligible in the long term compared toH Y

Relation to dark energy The same effects that are responsible for negative val- ues ofP mν,eff in ΛCDM also drive DESI and CMB data away from ΛCDM toward evolving dark energy models such as w0waCDM and mirage dark energy [73]. When the background cosmology is generalized to w0waCDM, DESI BAO and CMB data can be reconciled with posi- tive neutrino masses. ...

work page doi:10.13039/501100011033 2024
[3]

R. A. Alpher, J. W. Follin, and R. C. Herman, Phys. Rev. 92, 1347 (1953)

work page 1953
[4]

S. S. Gershtein and Y. B. Zel’dovich, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters 4, 120 (1966)

work page 1966
[5]

Cowsik and J

R. Cowsik and J. McClelland, ApJ 180, 7 (1973)

work page 1973
[6]

A. S. Szalay and G. Marx, A&A 49, 437 (1976)

work page 1976
[7]

V. A. Lubimov, E. G. Novikov, V. Z. Nozik, E. F. Tretyakov, and others, Physics Letters B94, 266 (1980)

work page 1980
[8]

J. R. Bond, G. Efstathiou, and J. Silk, Physical Review Letters 45, 1980 (1980)

work page 1980
[9]

C. S. Frenk, S. D. M. White, and M. Davis, ApJ 271, 417 (1983)

work page 1983
[10]

S. D. M. White, C. S. Frenk, and M. Davis, ApJ 274, L1 (1983)

work page 1983
[11]

Fritschi, E

M. Fritschi, E. Holzschuh, W. K¨ undig, J. W. Petersen, and others, Physics Letters B 173, 485 (1986)

work page 1986
[12]

J. F. Wilkerson, T. J. Bowles, J. C. Browne, M. P. Ma- ley, and others, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 2023 (1987)

work page 2023
[13]

A. I. Belesev, A. I. Bleule, E. V. Geraskin, A. A. Gol- ubev, and others, Physics Letters B 350, 263 (1995)

work page 1995
[14]

Weinheimer, B

C. Weinheimer, B. Degenddag, A. Bleile, J. Bonn, and others, Physics Letters B 460, 219 (1999)

work page 1999
[15]

V. M. Lobashev, V. N. Aseev, A. I. Belesev, A. I. Berlev, and others, Physics Letters B 460, 227 (1999)

work page 1999
[16]

J. Bonn, B. Bornschein, L. Bornschein, L. Fickinger, and others, Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements 91, 273 (2001)

work page 2001
[17]

M. Aker, K. Altenm¨ uller, M. Arenz, M. Babutzka, and others, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 221802 (2019), arXiv:1909.06048 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2019
[18]

The Katrin Collaboration, M. Aker, A. Beglarian, J. Behrens, and others, Nature Physics 18, 160 (2022), arXiv:2105.08533 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2022
[19]

M. Aker, D. Batzler, A. Beglarian, J. Behrens, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2406.13516 (2024), arXiv:2406.13516 [nucl-ex]

work page arXiv 2024
[20]

Esteban, M

I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, and others, Journal of High Energy Physics 2024, 216 (2024)

work page 2024
[21]

NuFIT 6.0 (2024), www.nu-fit.org

work page 2024
[22]

Capozzi, E

F. Capozzi, E. Di Valentino, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2107.00532 (2021), arXiv:2107.00532 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[23]

P. F. de Salas, D. V. Forero, S. Gariazzo, P. Mart´ ınez- Mirav´ e, and others, Journal of High Energy Physics 2021, 71 (2021), arXiv:2006.11237 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[24]

A new upper limit on the total neutrino mass from the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey

Ø. Elgarøy, O. Lahav, W. J. Percival, J. A. Pea- cock, and others, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 061301 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0204152 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002
[25]

Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WMAP

M. Tegmark, M. A. Strauss, M. R. Blanton, K. Abaza- jian, and others, Phys. Rev. D 69, 103501 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0310723 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004
[26]

C. L. Bennett, M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, and others, ApJS 148, 1 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0302207 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2003
[27]

D. N. Spergel, L. Verde, H. V. Peiris, E. Ko- matsu, and others, ApJS 148, 175 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0302209 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2003
[28]

R. A. C. Croft, W. Hu, and R. Dav´ e, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1092 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9903335 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999
[29]

Cosmological parameter analysis including SDSS Ly-alpha forest and galaxy bias: constraints on the primordial spectrum of fluctuations, neutrino mass, and dark energy

U. Seljak, A. Makarov, P. McDonald, S. F. Ander- son, and others, Phys. Rev. D 71, 103515 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0407372 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005
[30]

The neutrino mass bound from WMAP-3, the baryon acoustic peak, the SNLS supernovae and the Lyman-alpha forest

A. Goobar, S. Hannestad, E. M¨ ortsell, and H. Tu, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2006, 019 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0602155 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006
[31]

Seljak, A

U. Seljak, A. Slosar, and P. McDonald, J. Cosmol- ogy Astropart. Phys. 2006, 014 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0604335 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2006
[32]

M. Viel, M. G. Haehnelt, and V. Springel, J. Cosmol- ogy Astropart. Phys. 2010, 015 (2010), arXiv:1003.2422 30 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010
[33]

Palanque-Delabrouille, C

N. Palanque-Delabrouille, C. Y` eche, J. Baur, C. Mag- neville, and others, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2015, 011 (2015), arXiv:1506.05976 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2015
[34]

Constraints on dark radiation from cosmological probes

G. Rossi, C. Y` eche, N. Palanque-Delabrouille, and J. Lesgourgues, Phys. Rev. D 92, 063505 (2015), arXiv:1412.6763 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[35]

Constraints on neutrino masses from Lyman-alpha forest power spectrum with BOSS and XQ-100

C. Y` eche, N. Palanque-Delabrouille, J. Baur, and H. du Mas des Bourboux, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2017, 047 (2017), arXiv:1702.03314 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[36]

The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: Final data release and cosmological results

D. Parkinson, S. Riemer-Sørensen, C. Blake, G. B. Poole, and others, Phys. Rev. D 86, 103518 (2012), arXiv:1210.2130 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[37]

Unveiling $\nu$ secrets with cosmological data: neutrino masses and mass hierarchy

S. Vagnozzi, E. Giusarma, O. Mena, K. Freese, and oth- ers, Phys. Rev. D 96, 123503 (2017), arXiv:1701.08172 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[38]

Loureiro, A

A. Loureiro, A. Cuceu, F. B. Abdalla, B. Moraes, and others, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 081301 (2019), arXiv:1811.02578 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2019
[39]

S. R. Choudhury and S. Hannestad, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2020, 037 (2020), arXiv:1907.12598 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[40]

Planck Collaboration, A&A 641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020
[41]

Palanque-Delabrouille, C

N. Palanque-Delabrouille, C. Y` eche, N. Sch¨ oneberg, J. Lesgourgues, and others, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2020, 038 (2020), arXiv:1911.09073 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[42]

Di Valentino, S

E. Di Valentino, S. Gariazzo, and O. Mena, Phys. Rev. D 104, 083504 (2021), arXiv:2106.15267 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[43]

Brieden, H

S. Brieden, H. Gil-Mar´ ın, and L. Verde, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2022, 024 (2022), arXiv:2204.11868 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2022
[44]

DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, and others, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2025, 021 (2025), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[45]

DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2411.12022 (2024), arXiv:2411.12022 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[46]

DESI Collaboration, M. A. Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.14738 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[47]

Neutrino properties from cosmology

M. Gerbino, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1803.11545 (2018), arXiv:1803.11545 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[48]

Dvorkin, J

C. Dvorkin, J. Meyers, P. Adshead, M. Amin, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2203.07943 (2022), arXiv:2203.07943 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[49]

Froustey, C

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

work page arXiv 2020
[50]

J. J. Bennett, G. Buldgen, P. F. de Salas, M. Drewes, and others, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2021, 073 (2021), arXiv:2012.02726 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[51]

Drewes, Y

M. Drewes, Y. Georis, M. Klasen, L. P. Wiggering, and others, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2024, 032 (2024), arXiv:2402.18481 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[52]

M. Levi, C. Bebek, T. Beers, R. Blum, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1308.0847 (2013), arXiv:1308.0847 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013
[53]

Overview of the Instrumentation for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument

DESI Collaboration, B. Abareshi, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, and others, AJ 164, 207 (2022), arXiv:2205.10939 [astro-ph.IM]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022
[54]

The DESI Experiment Part II: Instrument Design

DESI Collaboration, A. Aghamousa, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1611.00037 (2016), arXiv:1611.00037 [astro-ph.IM]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[55]

Planck Collaboration, A&A 641, A5 (2020), arXiv:1907.12875 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020
[56]

CMB lensing from Planck PR4 maps

J. Carron, M. Mirmelstein, and A. Lewis, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2022, 039 (2022), arXiv:2206.07773 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022
[57]

M. S. Madhavacheril, F. J. Qu, B. D. Sherwin, N. MacCrann, and others, ApJ 962, 113 (2024), arXiv:2304.05203 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024
[58]

F. J. Qu, B. D. Sherwin, M. S. Madhavacheril, D. Han, and others, ApJ 962, 112 (2024), arXiv:2304.05202 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[59]

Sch¨ oneberg,The 2024 BBN baryon abundance update, J

N. Sch¨ oneberg, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2024, 006 (2024), arXiv:2401.15054 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[60]

Neutrino masses and the dark energy equation of state - relaxing the cosmological neutrino mass bound

S. Hannestad, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 221301 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0505551 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005
[61]

C. S. Lorenz, E. Calabrese, and D. Alonso, Phys. Rev. D 96, 043510 (2017), arXiv:1706.00730 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[62]

Constraints on the sum of the neutrino masses in dynamical dark energy models with $w(z) \geq -1$ are tighter than those obtained in $\Lambda$CDM

S. Vagnozzi, S. Dhawan, M. Gerbino, K. Freese, and others, Phys. Rev. D 98, 083501 (2018), arXiv:1801.08553 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[63]

Neutrino mass and dark energy constraints from redshift-space distortions

A. Upadhye, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2019, 041 (2019), arXiv:1707.09354 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[64]

Liu and H

Z. Liu and H. Miao, International Journal of Modern Physics D 29, 2050088 (2020), arXiv:2002.05563 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[65]

R. K. Sharma, K. L. Pandey, and S. Das, ApJ 934, 113 (2022), arXiv:2202.01749 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2022
[66]

Roy Choudhury and T

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

work page arXiv 2024
[67]

H. Shao, J. J. Givans, J. Dunkley, M. Madhavacheril, and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2409.02295 (2024), arXiv:2409.02295 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[68]

Yadav and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2406.18496 (2024), arXiv:2406.18496 [astro-ph.CO]

A. Yadav and others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2406.18496 (2024), arXiv:2406.18496 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[69]

Accelerating Universes with Scaling Dark Matter

M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, International Journal of Modern Physics D 10, 213 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0009008 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001
[70]

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

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003
[71]

Planck Collaboration, A&A 566, A54 (2014), arXiv:1311.1657 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[72]

S. Alam, M. Aubert, S. Avila, C. Balland, and oth- ers, Phys. Rev. D 103, 083533 (2021), arXiv:2007.08991 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
[73]

Craig, D

N. Craig, D. Green, J. Meyers, and S. Rajendran, Journal of High Energy Physics 2024, 97 (2024), arXiv:2405.00836 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[74]

Green and J

D. Green and J. Meyers, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2407.07878 (2024), arXiv:2407.07878 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[75]

Elbers, C

W. Elbers, C. S. Frenk, A. Jenkins, B. Li, and oth- ers, Phys. Rev. D 111, 063534 (2025), arXiv:2407.10965 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025
[76]

I. J. Allali and A. Notari, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2406.14554 (2024), arXiv:2406.14554 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[77]

Naredo-Tuero, M

D. Naredo-Tuero, M. Escudero, Enrique Fernandez- Martinez, X. Marcano, and others, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123537 (2024), arXiv:2407.13831 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[78]

H. E. Noriega and A. Aviles, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2407.06117 (2024), arXiv:2407.06117 [astro- ph.CO]. 31

work page arXiv 2024
[79]

Garc´ ıa Escudero and K

H. Garc´ ıa Escudero and K. N. Abazajian, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2412.05451 (2024), arXiv:2412.05451 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[80]

Jiang, W

J.-Q. Jiang, W. Giar` e, S. Gariazzo, M. G. Dainotti, and others, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2025, 153 (2025), arXiv:2407.18047 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.