Neutrino Mass Constraints from kSZ Tomography

Avery J. Tishue; Ely D. Kovetz; Mathew S. Madhavacheril; Peter Adshead; Selim C. Hotinli

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 86 references

Neutrino Mass Constraints from kSZ Tomography

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper forecasts that within Stage IV CMB and galaxy surveys, kSZ tomography adds only a few percent to neutrino-mass constraints, and that the kSZ optical depth degeneracy—modeled as a per-redshift velocity bias—controls whether the…

desk verdict Careful forecast with a robust negative result: kSZ tomography adds little to Stage IV neutrino mass constraints, and the only variant where it matters assumes the optical depth degeneracy is broken. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05260 v1 pith:YZ3HAHGC submitted 2025-02-07 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Avery J. Tishue , Selim C. Hotinli , Peter Adshead , Ely D. Kovetz , Mathew S. Madhavacheril This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.COhep-ph

keywords neutrinomasskineticSunyaev-Zel'dovicheffectkSZtomographyvelocityreconstructionFisherforecastcosmicmicrowavebackgroundlarge-scalestructureopticaldepthdegeneracy

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks whether kinetic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (kSZ) tomography—the reconstruction of radial velocities from the Doppler imprint of moving electrons on CMB temperature—can independently pin down the sum of neutrino masses with the next generation of CMB and galaxy surveys, beyond what those surveys already provide. Its answer is largely negative: in the baseline Stage IV setup, adding the reconstructed velocity power spectrum and its cross-spectrum with galaxies tightens $\sigma(\sum m_\nu)$ from 0.0318 eV to 0.0310 eV, only a 2.5% improvement. The neutrino information in kSZ comes mainly from the scale-dependent growth rate $f(k)$, but the CMB temperature and polarization spectra and the galaxy power spectrum used for the reconstruction already contain most of that information. The one lever that changes the story is the kSZ optical depth degeneracy, modeled as a per-redshift velocity bias $b_v(z)$: a 1% prior on $b_v$ raises the improvement to about 17%, yielding $\sigma(\sum m_\nu) = 0.0265$ eV, while CMB lensing erases kSZ's contribution entirely. This matters because kSZ tomography is frequently proposed as a growth probe, and the forecast identifies precisely when that probe is redundant and when it earns its keep.

What carries the argument

The central object is the quadratic velocity reconstruction estimator for the radial velocity field $\hat{v}_r$, built from the CMB temperature map and a galaxy density tracer (Ref. [54]); its reconstruction noise is set by the galaxy-electron cross-spectrum $P_{ge}$ in Eq. (2). The reconstructed velocity is related to the true velocity by $\hat{v}_r = b_v \mu v$, where $b_v(z)$ absorbs uncertainty in $P_{ge}$—this is the kSZ optical depth degeneracy. The Fisher forecasts combine three observables in each redshift bin: the galaxy power spectrum $P_{gg}$, the galaxy-velocity cross-spectrum $P_{g\hat{v}_r}$, and the velocity power spectrum $P_{\hat{v}_r\hat{v}_r}$, all written in terms of the matter power spectrum through bias parameters and the growth rate. The argument hinges on $b_v(z)$: when it is marginalized, the velocity information is mostly degenerate; when a 1% prior is imposed, the velocities contribute amplitude information until CMB lensing makes them redundant.

What would settle it

An end-to-end simulation of a Stage IV-like CMB and galaxy survey with a known neutrino mass and a realistic galaxy-electron cross-spectrum that varies with scale and redshift would settle this: reconstruct the radial velocity field, measure the galaxy-velocity cross-spectrum, and check whether the recovered $\sigma(\sum m_\nu)$ matches the forecasted 2.5% improvement (or the 17% improvement with a $b_v$ prior). If the true $P_{ge}$ mismodeling is not a pure per-redshift multiplicative constant, the predicted gain fails to appear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within Stage IV CMB and galaxy surveys, kSZ tomography contributes limited additional information for neutrino mass inference beyond the galaxy clustering and CMB data already integral to velocity reconstruction. The reconstructed velocity field does carry a genuine neutrino signal, chiefly through the scale-dependent suppression of growth $f(k)$, but the same surveys that enable the velocity reconstruction—unlensed CMB temperature and polarization plus the galaxy power spectrum—already constrain the relevant amplitude and shape so tightly that the velocity information is largely redundant. The decisive nuisance is the kSZ optical depth degeneracy, represented by a per-redshift multiplicative velocity reconstruction bias $b_v(z)$ in Eqs. (2), (6), and (7). Marginalizing over $b_v$ suppresses the kSZ gain to about 2.5% in the baseline; imposing a 1% prior on $b_v$ turns the gain into roughly 17%, because the velocities then help separate the neutrino-induced amplitude suppression from the primordial amplitude $A_s$. Once CMB lensing is included, kSZ's improvement drops to about 1% and even the $b_v$ prior no longer helps, since lensing is a more direct and unbiased growth probe.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast assumes that all uncertainty in the small-scale galaxy-electron cross-spectrum is captured by a single multiplicative velocity reconstruction bias $b_v(z)$ in each redshift bin; if the optical depth uncertainty has residual scale or redshift dependence beyond this constant, the reconstructed velocity signal and noise are misestimated and the projected kSZ improvement would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In the baseline Stage IV forecast, adding kSZ tomography to the galaxy power spectrum and CMB improves $\sigma(\sum m_\nu)$ from 0.0318 eV to 0.0310 eV, a 2.5% gain.
A 1% prior on the velocity reconstruction bias $b_v(z)$ raises the gain to about 17% ($\sigma(\sum m_\nu)=0.0265$ eV), and most of that gain is amplitude information rather than scale-dependent growth.
When CMB lensing is included, kSZ adds only about 1% and the $b_v$ prior loses its effect.
With kSZ as the sole growth probe (no CMB lensing and no BAO), it improves on galaxy clustering alone by about 10%, but adding even minimal CMB information cuts that to about 5%.
A futuristic high-resolution CMB survey paired with a spectroscopic galaxy survey would make kSZ tomography valuable again, with roughly a 25% improvement.

Reading between the lines

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

This forecast implies that Stage IV neutrino mass analyses should lean on CMB lensing and standard clustering as the primary growth probes, treating kSZ tomography as a diagnostic rather than a discovery channel.
The forecast suggests that independent optical-depth calibrators are a high-leverage investment: they convert a redundant probe into a meaningful one in the no-lensing case, which may influence how survey time is allocated.
A testable extension would be to rerun the forecast with a scale- and redshift-dependent $P_{ge}$ mismodeling instead of a constant $b_v(z)$; the paper's own setup predicts the result would depend on whether that residual structure is degenerate with the neutrino signal.
The results also imply that published claims of kSZ neutrino-mass gains should be quoted relative to the full survey baseline, since the gain over a CMB-only reference (3.5%) and the gain over a full baseline (2.5%) tell different stories.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The headline result holds up. kSZ tomography is largely redundant for neutrino mass constraints once Stage IV CMB and galaxy data are included, and the paper's one scenario where it matters—the 17% improvement under a 1% bv prior—is explicitly the optimistic case. The negative result is the contribution, and it is a useful one: survey designers should not expect kSZ to sharpen neutrino mass bounds in Stage IV, and effort on τ priors, CMB lensing, or FRB-based bv measurements is better directed.

What's new: the tomographic velocity reconstruction formalism applied to neutrino mass forecasting with realistic Stage IV specs, including per-redshift marginalization over the velocity reconstruction bias bv to handle the optical depth degeneracy. It extends the pairwise kSZ forecast of Mueller et al. 2015 and reaches a notably less optimistic conclusion, which is worth knowing. The futuristic scenario—CMB-HD plus a spectroscopic galaxy sample—gives a ~25% improvement and is the most interesting forward-looking number in the paper. The formalism comes from the authors' own earlier papers, but it is published and has been applied to data by other groups, so the self-citation pattern is not a concern in itself.

The paper is honest in the right places. It explicitly flags neutrino-induced scale-dependent galaxy bias as a potential avenue where kSZ could add value and defers it to future work. The central claim survives the robustness tests they run: simpler bias model, Planck-era data, dropping BAO. That is decent evidence the result is not an artifact of one modeling choice.

Soft spots, in proportion. The bv-prior variant is the load-bearing optimistic case, and the stress-test concern about scale-dependent Pge mismodeling lands there: bv in Eq. (7) absorbs a weighted amplitude mismatch, not shape errors, so a realistic scale-dependent residual would make the 17% number optimistic. This does not weaken the main conclusion—if Pge is less well known than assumed, kSZ helps even less. The abstract's 'does not further improve' for the lensing case is a mild overstatement; the body shows ~1%. No code or parameter files are shipped, which is common for Fisher forecasts but limits reproducibility. Minor: a units typo in Sec. IV B (0.0265 meV should be eV).

I would send this to referees. It is a careful forecast that will be the reference point for the 'does kSZ help with neutrino masses' question in Stage IV, and there is enough modeling detail to warrant expert scrutiny. The referee should focus on the bv parameterization and the reconstruction noise treatment.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents Fisher-matrix forecasts for neutrino mass constraints using Stage IV CMB and large-scale-structure surveys, focusing on the additional information provided by kSZ tomography. The baseline setup (CMB-S4 temperature and polarization without lensing, DESI BAO, LSST galaxy power spectrum, and a Planck-like tau prior) yields sigma(sum m_nu) = 0.0310 eV, and adding kSZ tomography improves this by only about 2.5%. When a 1% prior on the per-redshift velocity reconstruction bias bv(z) is imposed, the kSZ improvement grows to roughly 17%, giving sigma(sum m_nu) = 0.0265 eV. When CMB lensing is included, kSZ adds essentially no further constraining power. The authors conclude that for Stage IV surveys, kSZ tomography is largely redundant for neutrino mass inference, except in the special case where the kSZ optical-depth degeneracy is strongly constrained and lensing information is absent.

Significance. If the central forecast is correct, the paper provides an important negative result: within Stage IV CMB and galaxy surveys, kSZ tomography is unlikely to be a decisive addition to the neutrino-mass program, and CMB lensing rather than kSZ will carry the growth information. This is a useful conclusion for survey prioritization. The analysis is careful in several respects: it marginalizes over realistic nuisance parameters (galaxy biases, velocity reconstruction bias, tau), includes photometric redshift errors, foregrounds, and CMB noise models, and tests many modeling variants (bias complexity, Planck-era data, CMB-HD-like specifications). It also builds on public forecast codes, which aids reproducibility. The paper's advertised over-15% improvement from a bv prior is, however, conditional on a strong and only partially justified assumption about the galaxy-electron cross-spectrum, and this is the main load-bearing uncertainty. Overall, the manuscript is a solid and useful forecast paper, but the bv-prior scenario needs strengthening before publication.

major comments (3)

[Sec. IV B, Eqs. (6)-(8)] The forecast reduces all uncertainty in the galaxy-electron cross-spectrum Pge to a single per-redshift multiplicative bias bv(z), while keeping the reconstruction noise in Eq. (2) fixed at the fiducial Pge. This is internally consistent only if Pge_true(kS) = bv(z) Pge_fid(kS) exactly, i.e., only the normalization of Pge is uncertain. Realistic mismodeling of electron pressure, gas profiles, or redshift evolution will generically produce scale-dependent residuals. In that case the quadratic estimator is suboptimal, N_vv in Eq. (2) is underestimated, and the response of the reconstructed velocity field is not a constant bv. The headline 17% improvement from a 1% bv prior (Fig. 5 and Sec. IV B) therefore depends on an untested shape assumption. I recommend adding a scale-dependent nuisance parametrization, e.g., bv(z)[1 + alpha(z) ln(k/k_p)], and showing how the forecast changes.
[Sec. IV B, bv prior] The '1% prior on bv' is motivated by citing FRB dispersion measurements (Ref. [74]), but bv(z) is a weighted integral of Pge over the reconstruction modes kS in [0.1, 10] Mpc^-1 with weights F(kS), not the mean free-electron column. A 1% constraint on the mean optical depth does not automatically translate into a 1% prior on this weighted integral, especially if the shape of Pge is uncertain. The over-15% improvement should be described as conditional on a calibration of the full scale-dependent Pge, or the authors should demonstrate the mapping from FRB dispersion to bv(z). This is important because the paper's own variants show that the conclusion flips when a strong bv prior is imposed.
[Sec. IV A, Fig. 4] The interpretation of the 'minimal setup' comparison should be more careful. The authors state that removing DESI BAO and the tau prior from the baseline setup, and adding S4 unlensed T and E, reduces the kSZ improvement from about 10% to about 5%. The text says this is because the CMB experiment used for velocity reconstruction already contains sufficient information. That is true, but the unlensed S4 T and E spectra themselves contain neutrino-mass information through the damping tail and the overall amplitude, so the comparison does not isolate the role of 'the information used for velocity reconstruction' alone. I would like the wording to acknowledge that the minimal CMB setup is itself a neutrino-mass probe, not only a reconstruction noise source.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. IV B] The text reports 'sigma(sum m_nu) = 0.0265 meV'; this should be eV. As written it is off by three orders of magnitude and is inconsistent with the abstract and figures.
[Footnote 4] Footnote 4 contains a typo: 'reionizaiton' should be 'reionization'.
[Sec. II, Eq. (1)] The sentence introducing Eq. (1) reads 'The CMB temperature anisotropy induced by the kSZ effect due can then be written'; the stray word 'due' should be removed.
[Fig. 4 caption] The caption says the dashed green (S4+Pgg) and orange (S4+Pgg+kSZ) curves lie nearly on top of each other, while the text quotes a ~5% improvement; a zoomed inset or numerical labels on the contours would help the reader see the difference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: the forecast is an information-content calculation with fixed fiducial inputs; the kSZ estimator noise is imported from published frameworks and the target neutrino-mass constraint is not fitted or forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that kSZ tomography adds little to Stage IV neutrino-mass forecasts once the CMB and galaxy data used in the reconstruction are included, is obtained from a Fisher-matrix forecast rather than from fitting the target quantity. The inputs, such as the fiducial cosmology, survey noise, Pge, bias parameters, and the tau prior, are fixed or marginalized; bv and galaxy biases are nuisance parameters with chosen fiducial values, and no 'prediction' is statistically forced by a fit. The kSZ velocity-reconstruction noise in Eq. (2) is imported from Ref. [54], and the CMB noise and foreground model from Ref. [49]; although some authors of those references overlap with the present paper, these are published estimator frameworks that are externally usable and were not constructed specifically to produce the neutrino-mass conclusion. The 1% bv prior is explicitly labeled optimistic and linked to FRB dispersion [74], so it is a speculative variant rather than the load-bearing baseline. The main caveat, that bv absorbs only a constant multiplicative Pge error and that scale-dependent Pge mismodeling would change the prior-driven improvement, is a robustness limitation rather than a circular reduction. The paper itself states that the reconstructed-velocity information is partially redundant with the CMB and galaxy data used for reconstruction, which is a physical information-content result, not a tautology: the reconstruction uses small-scale modes outside the baseline Pgg and primary CMB observables. No equation reduces to its own input by construction, and no uniqueness claim is imported to forbid alternatives.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The forecast is a projection, not a measurement. It depends on standard cosmological perturbation theory plus a set of survey and astrophysical modeling assumptions, the most important being the bv parameterization of the kSZ optical depth degeneracy and the absence of neutrino-induced scale-dependent galaxy bias in the baseline. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (6)

bv(z) (velocity reconstruction bias, per redshift bin) = Fiducial 1; marginalized in baseline; 1% Gaussian prior in variant
Encodes the kSZ optical depth degeneracy. The paper shows a prior on bv changes the kSZ improvement from a few percent to about 17%, so this parameter is central to the claim.
b1(z) (linear galaxy bias, per redshift bin) = 1.05, 1.37, 1.79, 2.22, 2.74 (Table I)
Marginalized nuisance parameters for galaxy clustering. The forecast conclusion is insensitive to their detailed modeling.
brsd(z) (RSD and anisotropic selection bias) = 1
Marginalized to remove direct growth information from the galaxy power spectrum, isolating kSZ as the sole growth probe in the baseline.
b2(z) (gradient bias) = 0
Lowest order nonlinear galaxy bias, marginalized in the forecast.
k_S integration range for velocity reconstruction = 0.1 to 10 Mpc^-1
Integration range in Eq. (2) chosen from survey details; affects the reconstruction noise level and the final kSZ signal-to-noise.
Tau prior width = 0.0075
Planck-like prior on the reionization optical depth, included in the baseline and important when CMB lensing information is added.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The linear velocity-density relation v(k) = i(f(k,a)aH/k) delta_m(k) holds for the large-scale modes used (Eq. 5).
Standard perturbation theory assumption; the velocity field is treated as an unbiased linear tracer of the matter density on the scales considered.
domain assumption The kSZ snapshot geometry and quadratic estimator noise formula of Smith et al. describe the reconstructed velocity field (Eq. 2).
The entire kSZ signal-to-noise forecast rests on this prior framework and its modeling of the galaxy-electron cross-spectrum Pge.
domain assumption Galaxy bias is modeled as b1(z) + brsd(z) f mu^2 + b2(z) k^2, with no neutrino-induced scale-dependent bias (Eq. 12).
Explicitly discussed in Sec. V as a caveat; if neutrino-induced scale-dependent bias is present, the Pgg and cross-spectrum forecasts would change.
standard math The Fisher information matrix with Gaussian covariance and diagonal noise captures parameter constraints (Eq. 16).
Standard forecasting approximation; non-Gaussian covariance is only partially handled through the public CMB lensing codes.
domain assumption Photometric redshift errors follow the Gaussian window in Eq. (4) with shot noise 1/ng.
Used for the galaxy survey and kSZ reconstruction; the futuristic spectroscopic scenario assumes sigma_z = 0, which maximizes the kSZ gain.
domain assumption ILC foreground cleaning removes tSZ, CIB, and radio sources from the CMB temperature map used for kSZ reconstruction.
The reconstruction noise uses the cleaned CMB power spectrum; residual foregrounds would alter the noise and the kSZ improvement.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutrino Mass Constraints from kSZ Tomography." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YZ3HAHGC

@misc{pith2026250205260,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutrino Mass Constraints from kSZ Tomography},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YZ3HAHGC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05260}
}

abstract

We forecast neutrino mass constraints using Stage IV CMB and large-scale structure surveys, focusing on kSZ tomography as an independent probe of the growth of cosmic structure. We take into account several realistic factors, including the kSZ optical depth degeneracy. Our baseline setup consists of CMB S4 temperature and polarization (but not lensing) information, DESI BAO, the LSST galaxy power spectrum, and a Planck like $\tau$ prior, yielding $\sigma(\sum m_\nu) = 32\, \rm{meV}$. Adding kSZ tomography improves this by a few percent, while a kSZ optical depth prior can push this improvement to over $15\%$, giving $\sigma(\sum m_\nu) = 27\, \rm{meV}$. When CMB lensing is included in the baseline setup, kSZ does not further improve neutrino mass constraints. We find promising prospects for a scenario combining futuristic CMB and galaxy surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05260 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Neutrino mass constraints from various experimen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Forecasts for 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Effect of bias modeling on multi-tracer neutrino [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Impact of CMB lensing information on multi-tracer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Multi-tracer neutrino mass constraints with Planck [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Multi-tracer neutrino mass constraints with an HD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[74]

Cosmol- ogy with kSZ: breaking the optical depth degeneracy with Fast Radio Bursts,

Mathew S. Madhavacheril, Nicholas Battaglia, Kendrick M. Smith, and Jonathan L. Sievers, “Cosmol- ogy with kSZ: breaking the optical depth degeneracy with Fast Radio Bursts,” arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1901.02418 (2019), arXiv:1901.02418 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2019
[1]

LSST Science Book, Version 2.0,

LSST Science Collaboration et al., “LSST Science Book, Version 2.0,” ArXiv e-prints (2009), arXiv:0912.0201 [astro-ph.IM]

arXiv 2009
[2]

The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design,

Amir Aghamousa et al. (DESI), “The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design,” (2016), arXiv:1611.00036 [astro-ph.IM]

arXiv 2016
[3]

CMB-S4 Science Book, First Edition,

Kevork N. Abazajian et al., “CMB-S4 Science Book, First Edition,” arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1610.02743 (2016), arXiv:1610.02743 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2016
[4]

The Simons Observatory: science goals and fore- casts,

Peter Ade, James Aguirre, Zeeshan Ahmed, Simone Aiola, Aamir Ali, David Alonso, Marcelo A. Alvarez, Kam Arnold, Peter Ashton, Jason Austermann, and et al., “The Simons Observatory: science goals and fore- casts,” J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2019, 056 (2019), arXiv:1808.07445 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2019
[5]

The Simons Observatory,

Adrian Lee, Maximilian H. Abitbol, Shunsuke Adachi, Peter Ade, James Aguirre, Zeeshan Ahmed, Simone Aiola, Aamir Ali, David Alonso, Marcelo A. Alvarez, and et al., “The Simons Observatory,” in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51 (2019) p. 147, arXiv:1907.08284 [astro-ph.IM]

arXiv 2019
[6]

Global constraints on absolute neutrino masses and their ordering,

Francesco Capozzi, Eleonora Di Valentino, Eligio Lisi, Antonio Marrone, Alessandro Melchiorri, and Anto- nio Palazzo, “Global constraints on absolute neutrino masses and their ordering,” Phys. Rev. D 95, 096014 (2017), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 101, 116013 (2020)], arXiv:2003.08511 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2017
[7]

Review of Particle Physics,

M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), “Review of Particle Physics,” Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018)

2018

Show all 86 references

[8]

DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations,

A. G. Adame et al.(DESI), “DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations,” (2024), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[9]

No νs is Good News,

Nathaniel Craig, Daniel Green, Joel Meyers, and Surjeet Rajendran, “No νs is Good News,” JHEP 09, 097 (2024), arXiv:2405.00836 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[10]

Mas- sive neutrinos and cosmic composition,

Marilena Loverde and Zachary J. Weiner, “Mas- sive neutrinos and cosmic composition,” (2024), arXiv:2410.00090 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[11]

The Cosmological Preference for Negative Neutrino Mass,

Daniel Green and Joel Meyers, “The Cosmological Preference for Negative Neutrino Mass,” (2024), 12 arXiv:2407.07878 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[12]

Neutrino Properties with Ground-based Millimeter-wavelength Line Intensity Mapping,

Azadeh Moradinezhad Dizgah, Garrett K. Keating, Kirit S. Karkare, Abigail Crites, and Shouvik Roy Choudhury, “Neutrino Properties with Ground-based Millimeter-wavelength Line Intensity Mapping,” As- trophys. J. 926, 137 (2022), arXiv:2110.00014 [astro- ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[13]

Towards a multi-tracer neutrino mass measurement with line-intensity mapping,

Gali Shmueli, Sarah Libanore, and Ely D. Kovetz, “Towards a multi-tracer neutrino mass measurement with line-intensity mapping,” (2024), arXiv:2412.04071 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[14]

Neu- trino masses from large-scale structures: future sensitiv- ity and theory dependence,

Davide Racco, Pierre Zhang, and Henry Zheng, “Neu- trino masses from large-scale structures: future sensitiv- ity and theory dependence,” (2024), arXiv:2412.04959 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[15]

Microwave back- ground radiation as a probe of the contemporary struc- ture and history of the universe,

R. A. Sunyaev and I. B. Zeldovich, “Microwave back- ground radiation as a probe of the contemporary struc- ture and history of the universe,” ARA&A 18, 537–560 (1980)

1980
[16]

The velocity of clusters of galaxies relative to the microwave background - The possibility of its measurement

R. A. Sunyaev and Ya. B. Zeldovich, “The velocity of clusters of galaxies relative to the microwave background - The possibility of its measurement.” MNRAS190, 413– 420 (1980)

1980
[17]

The Spectrum of Primordial Radiation, its Distortions and their Signifi- cance,

R. A. Sunyaev and Ya. B. Zeldovich, “The Spectrum of Primordial Radiation, its Distortions and their Signifi- cance,” Comments on Astrophysics and Space Physics 2, 66 (1970)

1970
[18]

Extracting Primordial Non-Gaussianity without Cosmic Variance,

Uroˇ s Seljak, “Extracting Primordial Non-Gaussianity without Cosmic Variance,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 021302 (2009), arXiv:0807.1770 [astro-ph]

2009 arXiv
[19]

Testing eter- nal inflation with the kinetic Sunyaev Zel’dovich ef- fect,

Pengjie Zhang and Matthew C. Johnson, “Testing eter- nal inflation with the kinetic Sunyaev Zel’dovich ef- fect,” J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2015, 046 (2015), arXiv:1501.00511 [astro-ph.CO]

2015 arXiv
[20]

Tests of neutrino and dark radiation models from galaxy and CMB surveys,

Arka Banerjee, Bhuvnesh Jain, Neal Dalal, and Jessie Shelton, “Tests of neutrino and dark radiation models from galaxy and CMB surveys,” J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2018, 022 (2018), arXiv:1612.07126 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[21]

Parameter con- straints from cross-correlation of CMB lensing with galaxy clustering,

Marcel Schmittfull and Uroˇ s Seljak, “Parameter con- straints from cross-correlation of CMB lensing with galaxy clustering,” Phys. Rev. D 97, 123540 (2018), arXiv:1710.09465 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[22]

Mod- eling CMB lensing cross correlations with CLEFT,

Chirag Modi, Martin White, and Zvonimir Vlah, “Mod- eling CMB lensing cross correlations with CLEFT,” J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2017, 009 (2017), arXiv:1706.03173 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[23]

Reconstruction of the remote dipole and quadrupole fields from the kinetic Sunyaev Zel’dovich and polarized Sunyaev Zel’dovich effects,

Anne-Sylvie Deutsch, Emanuela Dimastrogiovanni, Matthew C. Johnson, Moritz M¨ unchmeyer, and Alexan- dra Terrana, “Reconstruction of the remote dipole and quadrupole fields from the kinetic Sunyaev Zel’dovich and polarized Sunyaev Zel’dovich effects,” Phys. Rev. D 98, 123501 (...

2018 arXiv
[24]

Towards testing CMB anomalies using the kinetic and polarized Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effects,

Juan I. Cayuso and Matthew C. Johnson, “Towards testing CMB anomalies using the kinetic and polarized Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effects,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 123508 (2020), arXiv:1904.10981 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[25]

Forecasted con- straints on modified gravity from Sunyaev-Zel’dovich tomography,

Zhen Pan and Matthew C. Johnson, “Forecasted con- straints on modified gravity from Sunyaev-Zel’dovich tomography,” Phys. Rev. D 100, 083522 (2019), arXiv:1906.04208 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[26]

Probing cor- related compensated isocurvature perturbations using scale-dependent galaxy bias,

Selim C. Hotinli, James B. Mertens, Matthew C. Johnson, and Marc Kamionkowski, “Probing cor- related compensated isocurvature perturbations using scale-dependent galaxy bias,” Phys. Rev. D100, 103528 (2019), arXiv:1908.08953 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[27]

Re- constructing large scales at cosmic dawn,

Selim C. Hotinli and Matthew C. Johnson, “Re- constructing large scales at cosmic dawn,” (2020), arXiv:2012.09851 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[28]

Probing cosmic birefringence with polarized Sunyaev- Zel’dovich tomography,

Nanoom Lee, Selim C. Hotinli, and Marc Kamionkowski, “Probing cosmic birefringence with polarized Sunyaev- Zel’dovich tomography,” Phys. Rev. D 106, 083518 (2022), arXiv:2207.05687 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[29]

Primordial trispectrum from kinetic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich tomogra- phy,

Neha Anil Kumar, Gabriela Sato-Polito, Marc Kamionkowski, and Selim C. Hotinli, “Primordial trispectrum from kinetic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich tomogra- phy,” Phys. Rev. D106, 063533 (2022), arXiv:2205.03423 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[30]

Cosmology from the ki- netic polarized Sunyaev Zel’dovich effect,

Selim C. Hotinli, Gilbert P. Holder, Matthew C. John- son, and Marc Kamionkowski, “Cosmology from the ki- netic polarized Sunyaev Zel’dovich effect,” JCAP 10, 026 (2022), arXiv:2204.12503 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[31]

Velocity re- construction with the cosmic microwave background and galaxy surveys,

Juan Cayuso, Richard Bloch, Selim C. Hotinli, Matthew C. Johnson, and Fiona McCarthy, “Velocity re- construction with the cosmic microwave background and galaxy surveys,” JCAP 02, 051 (2023), arXiv:2111.11526 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[32]

Cross-correlation of the polarizations of the 21-cm and cosmic microwave backgrounds,

Lingyuan Ji, Selim C. Hotinli, and Marc Kamionkowski, “Cross-correlation of the polarizations of the 21-cm and cosmic microwave backgrounds,” Phys. Rev. D 107, 123533 (2023), arXiv:2110.01619 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[33]

Probing helium reionization with kinetic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich tomography,

Selim C. Hotinli, Simone Ferraro, Gilbert P. Holder, Matthew C. Johnson, Marc Kamionkowski, and Paul La Plante, “Probing helium reionization with kinetic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich tomography,” Phys. Rev. D 107, 103517 (2023), arXiv:2207.07660 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[34]

Uncorrelated compensated isocurvature perturbations from kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich tomogra- phy,

Neha Anil Kumar, Selim C. Hotinli, and Marc Kamionkowski, “Uncorrelated compensated isocurvature perturbations from kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich tomogra- phy,” Phys. Rev. D107, 043504 (2023), arXiv:2208.02829 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[35]

Unveiling Neutrino Halos with CMB Lensing,

Selim C. Hotinli, Nashwan Sabti, Jaxon North, and Marc Kamionkowski, “Unveiling Neutrino Halos with CMB Lensing,” (2023), arXiv:2306.15715 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[36]

Cosmological probes of helium reionization,

Selim C. Hotinli, “Cosmological probes of helium reionization,” Phys. Rev. D 108, 043528 (2023), arXiv:2212.08004 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[37]

Probing the physics of reionization using kinematic Sun- yaev–Zeldovich power spectrum from current and upcom- ing cosmic microwave background surveys,

Divesh Jain, Tirthankar Roy Choudhury, Srinivasan Raghunathan, and Suvodip Mukherjee, “Probing the physics of reionization using kinematic Sun- yaev–Zeldovich power spectrum from current and upcom- ing cosmic microwave background surveys,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 530, 35–5...

2024 arXiv
[38]

Raghunathan et al

S. Raghunathan et al. (SPT-3G, SPTpol), “First Con- straints on the Epoch of Reionization Using the Non- Gaussianity of the Kinematic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich Ef- fect from the South Pole Telescope and Herschel-SPIRE Observations,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 121004 (2024), arXiv:2403.023...

2024 arXiv
[39]

Constraining cosmo- logical parameters using the pairwise kinematic Sunyaev- Zel’dovich effect with CMB-S4 and future galaxy cluster surveys,

E. Schiappucci et al. (CMB-S4), “Constraining cosmo- logical parameters using the pairwise kinematic Sunyaev- Zel’dovich effect with CMB-S4 and future galaxy cluster surveys,” (2024), arXiv:2409.18368 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[40]

The Interaction of Matter and Radiation in a Hot-Model Universe,

Ya. B. Zeldovich and R. A. Sunyaev, “The Interaction of Matter and Radiation in a Hot-Model Universe,” Ap&SS 4, 301–316 (1969)

1969
[41]

Gravitational instability: an approxi- mate theory for large density perturbations

Y. B. Zel’Dovich, “Gravitational instability: an approxi- mate theory for large density perturbations.” A&A 500, 13 13–18 (1970)

1970
[42]

The Observations of Relic Radiation as a Test of the Nature of X-Ray Ra- diation from the Clusters of Galaxies,

R. A. Sunyaev and Ya. B. Zeldovich, “The Observations of Relic Radiation as a Test of the Nature of X-Ray Ra- diation from the Clusters of Galaxies,” Comments on As- trophysics and Space Physics 4, 173 (1972)

1972
[43]

Microwave polar- ization in the direction of galaxy clusters induced by the CMB quadrupole anisotropy,

S. Y. Sazonov and R. A. Sunyaev, “Microwave polar- ization in the direction of galaxy clusters induced by the CMB quadrupole anisotropy,” MNRAS 310, 765– 772 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9903287 [astro-ph]

1999 arXiv
[44]

Perturbations of a Cosmo- logical Model and Angular Variations of the Microwave Background,

R. K. Sachs and A. M. Wolfe, “Perturbations of a Cosmo- logical Model and Angular Variations of the Microwave Background,” ApJ 147, 73 (1967)

1967
[45]

A test for transverse mo- tions of clusters of galaxies,

M. Birkinshaw and S. F. Gull, “A test for transverse mo- tions of clusters of galaxies,” Nature302, 315–317 (1983)

1983
[46]

Perturbation of the background radiation by a moving gravitational lens,

L. I. Gurvits and I. G. Mitrofanov, “Perturbation of the background radiation by a moving gravitational lens,” Nature 324, 349–350 (1986)

1986
[47]

Transverse Velocities with the Moving Lens Effect,

Selim C. Hotinli, Joel Meyers, Neal Dalal, Andrew H. Jaffe, Matthew C. Johnson, James B. Mertens, Moritz M¨ unchmeyer, Kendrick M. Smith, and Alexander van Engelen, “Transverse Velocities with the Moving Lens Effect,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 061301 (2019), arXiv:1812.03167 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[48]

Optimal filters for the moving lens effect,

Selim C. Hotinli, Matthew C. Johnson, and Joel Meyers, “Optimal filters for the moving lens effect,” Phys. Rev. D 103, 043536 (2021), arXiv:2006.03060 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[49]

Cosmology with the moving lens effect,

Selim C. Hotinli, Kendrick M. Smith, Mathew S. Mad- havacheril, and Marc Kamionkowski, “Cosmology with the moving lens effect,” Phys. Rev. D104, 083529 (2021), arXiv:2108.02207 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[50]

On the detectabil- ity of the moving lens signal in CMB experiments,

Selim C. Hotinli and Elena Pierpaoli, “On the detectabil- ity of the moving lens signal in CMB experiments,” JCAP 06, 076 (2024), arXiv:2401.12280 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[51]

The Moving Lens Effect: Simulations, Forecasts and Foreground Mitigation,

Ali Beheshti, Emmanuel Schaan, and Arthur Kosowsky, “The Moving Lens Effect: Simulations, Forecasts and Foreground Mitigation,” (2024), arXiv:2408.16055 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[52]

Weak gravita- tional lensing of the CMB,

Antony Lewis and Anthony Challinor, “Weak gravita- tional lensing of the CMB,” Phys. Rep. 429, 1–65 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0601594 [astro-ph]

2006 arXiv
[53]

Polarized Sun- yaev Zel’dovich tomography,

Anne-Sylvie Deutsch, Matthew C. Johnson, Moritz M¨ unchmeyer, and Alexandra Terrana, “Polarized Sun- yaev Zel’dovich tomography,” J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2018, 034 (2018), arXiv:1705.08907 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[54]

KSZ tomography and the bis- pectrum,

Kendrick M. Smith, Mathew S. Madhavacheril, Moritz M¨ unchmeyer, Simone Ferraro, Utkarsh Giri, and Matthew C. Johnson, “KSZ tomography and the bis- pectrum,” arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1810.13423 (2018), arXiv:1810.13423 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[55]

Neutrino mass and dark energy from weak lensing,

Kevork N. Abazajian and Scott Dodelson, “Neutrino mass and dark energy from weak lensing,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 041301 (2003)

2003
[56]

Neutrino Physics from the Cosmic Microwave Background and Large Scale Structure,

K. N. Abazajian et al. (Topical Conveners: K.N. Abaza- jian, J.E. Carlstrom, A.T. Lee), “Neutrino Physics from the Cosmic Microwave Background and Large Scale Structure,” Astropart. Phys. 63, 66–80 (2015), arXiv:1309.5383 [astro-ph.CO]

2015 arXiv
[57]

Neutrino mass without cosmic vari- ance,

Marilena LoVerde, “Neutrino mass without cosmic vari- ance,” Phys. Rev. D 93, 103526 (2016), arXiv:1602.08108 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[58]

Neutrino mass and dark energy con- straints from redshift-space distortions,

Amol Upadhye, “Neutrino mass and dark energy con- straints from redshift-space distortions,” JCAP 05, 041 (2019), arXiv:1707.09354 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[59]

Constraining local non-Gaussianities with ki- netic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich tomography,

Moritz M¨ unchmeyer, Mathew S. Madhavacheril, Si- mone Ferraro, Matthew C. Johnson, and Kendrick M. Smith, “Constraining local non-Gaussianities with ki- netic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich tomography,” Phys. Rev. D 100, 083508 (2019), arXiv:1810.13424 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[60]

Probing be- yond local-type non-Gaussianity with kSZ tomography,

Peter Adshead and Avery J. Tishue, “Probing be- yond local-type non-Gaussianity with kSZ tomography,” (2024), arXiv:2407.21094 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[61]

Con- straints on local primordial non-Gaussianity with 3d Velocity Reconstruction from the Kinetic Sunyaev- Zeldovich Effect,

Alex Lagu¨ e, Mathew S. Madhavacheril, Kendrick M. Smith, Simone Ferraro, and Emmanuel Schaan, “Con- straints on local primordial non-Gaussianity with 3d Velocity Reconstruction from the Kinetic Sunyaev- Zeldovich Effect,” (2024), arXiv:2411.08240 [astro- ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[62]

The ki- netic sunyaev-zel’dovitch effect as a dark energy probe,

Simon DeDeo, David N. Spergel, and Hy Trac, “The ki- netic sunyaev-zel’dovitch effect as a dark energy probe,” (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0511060

2005 arXiv
[63]

Dark En- ergy Constraints from Galaxy Cluster Peculiar Veloci- ties,

Suman Bhattacharya and Arthur Kosowsky, “Dark En- ergy Constraints from Galaxy Cluster Peculiar Veloci- ties,” Phys. Rev. D 77, 083004 (2008), arXiv:0712.0034 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[64]

Constraints on gravity and dark energy from the pairwise kinematic Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect,

Eva-Maria Mueller, Francesco de Bernardis, Rachel Bean, and Michael D. Niemack, “Constraints on gravity and dark energy from the pairwise kinematic Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect,” Astrophys. J. 808, 47 (2015), arXiv:1408.6248 [astro-ph.CO]

2015 arXiv
[65]

Constraints on mas- sive neutrinos from the pairwise kinematic Sunyaev- Zel’dovich effect,

Eva-Maria Mueller, Francesco de Bernardis, Rachel Bean, and Michael D. Niemack, “Constraints on mas- sive neutrinos from the pairwise kinematic Sunyaev- Zel’dovich effect,” Phys. Rev. D 92, 063501 (2015), arXiv:1412.0592 [astro-ph.CO]

2015 arXiv
[66]

Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” (2018), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[67]

Be- ware of fake ν’s: The effect of massive neutrinos on the nonlinear evolution of cosmic structure,

Adrian E. Bayer, Arka Banerjee, and Uros Seljak, “Be- ware of fake ν’s: The effect of massive neutrinos on the nonlinear evolution of cosmic structure,” Phys. Rev. D 105, 123510 (2022), arXiv:2108.04215 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[68]

Clustering in real space and in redshift space,

Nick Kaiser, “Clustering in real space and in redshift space,” MNRAS 227, 1–21 (1987)

1987
[69]

De- tection of anisotropic galaxy assembly bias in BOSS DR12,

Andrej Obuljen, Will J. Percival, and Neal Dalal, “De- tection of anisotropic galaxy assembly bias in BOSS DR12,” JCAP 10, 058 (2020), arXiv:2004.07240 [astro- ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[70]

Baryon acoustic oscillations in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 7 galaxy sam- ple,

Will J. Percival, Beth A. Reid, Daniel J. Eisenstein, Neta A. Bahcall, Tamas Budavari, Joshua A. Frie- man, Masataka Fukugita, James E. Gunn, ˇZeljko Ivezi´ c, Gillian R. Knapp, Richard G. Kron, Jon Loveday, Robert H. Lupton, Timothy A. McKay, Avery Meiksin, Robert C. Nichol, ...

2010 arXiv
[71]

General re- quirements on matter power spectrum predictions for cosmology with weak lensing tomography,

A. P. Hearin, A. R. Zentner, and Z. Ma, “General re- quirements on matter power spectrum predictions for cosmology with weak lensing tomography,” J. Cosmol- ogy Astropart. Phys. 4, 034 (2012), arXiv:1111.0052

2012 arXiv
[72]

The LSST Dark 14 Energy Science Collaboration (DESC) Science Require- ments Document,

The LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration, Rachel Mandelbaum, Tim Eifler, Ren´ ee Hloˇ zek, Thomas Col- lett, Eric Gawiser, and others Scolnic, “The LSST Dark 14 Energy Science Collaboration (DESC) Science Require- ments Document,” arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1809.01669 (2018), ar...

2018 arXiv
[73]

The benefits of CMB delensing,

Selim C. Hotinli, Joel Meyers, Cynthia Trendafilova, Daniel Green, and Alexander van Engelen, “The benefits of CMB delensing,” JCAP 04, 020 (2022), arXiv:2111.15036 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[75]

Halo bias in mixed dark mat- ter cosmologies,

Marilena LoVerde, “Halo bias in mixed dark mat- ter cosmologies,” Phys. Rev. D 90, 083530 (2014), arXiv:1405.4855 [astro-ph.CO]

2014 arXiv
[76]

Scale-dependent bias and bispectrum in neu- trino separate universe simulations,

Chi-Ting Chiang, Wayne Hu, Yin Li, and Marilena Loverde, “Scale-dependent bias and bispectrum in neu- trino separate universe simulations,” Phys. Rev. D 97, 123526 (2018), arXiv:1710.01310 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[77]

First detection of scale-dependent linear halo bias in N -body simulations with mas- sive neutrinos,

Chi-Ting Chiang, Marilena LoVerde, and Francisco Villaescusa-Navarro, “First detection of scale-dependent linear halo bias in N -body simulations with mas- sive neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 041302 (2019), arXiv:1811.12412 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[78]

Eliminating the optical depth nuisance from the CMB with 21 cm cosmology,

Adrian Liu, Jonathan R. Pritchard, Rupert Allison, Aaron R. Parsons, Uroˇ s Seljak, and Blake D. Sherwin, “Eliminating the optical depth nuisance from the CMB with 21 cm cosmology,” Phys. Rev. D 93, 043013 (2016), arXiv:1509.08463 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[79]

Mitigating the optical depth degeneracy in the cosmo- logical measurement of neutrino masses using 21-cm ob- servations,

Gali Shmueli, Debanjan Sarkar, and Ely D. Kovetz, “Mitigating the optical depth degeneracy in the cosmo- logical measurement of neutrino masses using 21-cm ob- servations,” (2023), arXiv:2305.07056 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[80]

CMB-HD: An Ultra-Deep, High- Resolution Millimeter-Wave Survey Over Half the Sky,

Neelima Sehgal et al., “CMB-HD: An Ultra-Deep, High- Resolution Millimeter-Wave Survey Over Half the Sky,” (2019), arXiv:1906.10134 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[81]

Astro2020 APC White Paper: The MegaMapper: a z > 2 Spectroscopic Instrument for the Study of Inflation and Dark Energy,

David J. Schlegel et al., “Astro2020 APC White Paper: The MegaMapper: a z > 2 Spectroscopic Instrument for the Study of Inflation and Dark Energy,” Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51, 229 (2019), arXiv:1907.11171 [astro- ph.IM]

2019 arXiv
[82]

Tishue et al., In prep

Avery J. Tishue et al., In prep
[83]

The Atacama Large Aperture Submillimeter Telescope (AtLAST),

Pamela Klaassen, Tony Mroczkowski, Sean Bryan, Christopher Groppi, Kaustuv Basu, Claudia Cicone, Hel- mut Dannerbauer, Carlos De Breuck, William J. Fischer, James Geach, Evanthia Hatziminaoglou, Wayne Hol- land, Ryohei Kawabe, Neelima Sehgal, Thomas Stanke, and Eelco van Kampe...

2019 arXiv
[84]

The key science drivers for the Atacama Large Aperture Submillimeter Telescope (At- LAST),

Mark Booth et al., “The key science drivers for the Atacama Large Aperture Submillimeter Telescope (At- LAST),” Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 13102, 1310206 (2024), arXiv:2405.20140 [astro-ph.IM]

2024 arXiv
[85]

AtLAST Science Overview Report,

Mark Booth et al., “AtLAST Science Overview Report,” (2024), arXiv:2407.01413 [astro-ph.IM]

2024 arXiv
[86]

Neutrino winds on the sky,

Caio Nascimento and Marilena Loverde, “Neutrino winds on the sky,” JCAP 11, 036 (2023), arXiv:2307.00049 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [74]

Cosmol- ogy with kSZ: breaking the optical depth degeneracy with Fast Radio Bursts,

Mathew S. Madhavacheril, Nicholas Battaglia, Kendrick M. Smith, and Jonathan L. Sievers, “Cosmol- ogy with kSZ: breaking the optical depth degeneracy with Fast Radio Bursts,” arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1901.02418 (2019), arXiv:1901.02418 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2019

[2] [1]

LSST Science Book, Version 2.0,

LSST Science Collaboration et al., “LSST Science Book, Version 2.0,” ArXiv e-prints (2009), arXiv:0912.0201 [astro-ph.IM]

arXiv 2009

[3] [2]

The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design,

Amir Aghamousa et al. (DESI), “The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design,” (2016), arXiv:1611.00036 [astro-ph.IM]

arXiv 2016

[4] [3]

CMB-S4 Science Book, First Edition,

Kevork N. Abazajian et al., “CMB-S4 Science Book, First Edition,” arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1610.02743 (2016), arXiv:1610.02743 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2016

[5] [4]

The Simons Observatory: science goals and fore- casts,

Peter Ade, James Aguirre, Zeeshan Ahmed, Simone Aiola, Aamir Ali, David Alonso, Marcelo A. Alvarez, Kam Arnold, Peter Ashton, Jason Austermann, and et al., “The Simons Observatory: science goals and fore- casts,” J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2019, 056 (2019), arXiv:1808.07445 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2019

[6] [5]

The Simons Observatory,

Adrian Lee, Maximilian H. Abitbol, Shunsuke Adachi, Peter Ade, James Aguirre, Zeeshan Ahmed, Simone Aiola, Aamir Ali, David Alonso, Marcelo A. Alvarez, and et al., “The Simons Observatory,” in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51 (2019) p. 147, arXiv:1907.08284 [astro-ph.IM]

arXiv 2019

[7] [6]

Global constraints on absolute neutrino masses and their ordering,

Francesco Capozzi, Eleonora Di Valentino, Eligio Lisi, Antonio Marrone, Alessandro Melchiorri, and Anto- nio Palazzo, “Global constraints on absolute neutrino masses and their ordering,” Phys. Rev. D 95, 096014 (2017), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 101, 116013 (2020)], arXiv:2003.08511 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2017

[8] [7]

Review of Particle Physics,

M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), “Review of Particle Physics,” Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018)

2018