Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Weighing neutrinos with 21cm Intensity Mapping at the SKAO

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Future 21cm intensity mapping with SKAO could push the summed neutrino mass below 0.105 eV at 95% confidence.

desk verdict Solid, honest forecast paper; the 0.105 eV headline is a fixed-nuisance, foreground-free projection, so read it as an idealized sensitivity estimate rather than a prediction for SKAO. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18625 v1 pith:WIJ4H6YG submitted 2025-04-25 astro-ph.CO

Gabriele Autieri , Maria Berti , Marta Spinelli , Balakrishna Sandeep Haridasu , Matteo Viel This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords sumofneutrinomasses21cmintensitymappingSKAOforecastscosmologicalparameterconstraintsbaryonacousticoscillationsAlcock-Paczynskieffectgalaxycross-correlationMarkovchainMonteCarlo
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

This paper forecasts how tightly the SKAO 21cm intensity-mapping survey could weigh the sum of neutrino masses, $\Sigma m_\nu$, using synthetic observations built from the SKA-Mid survey design. Its central claim is that the 21cm auto-power spectrum alone would give a 95% upper limit of $\Sigma m_\nu < 0.287$ eV, comparable to Planck CMB alone, and that adding Planck 2018 data tightens this to $\Sigma m_\nu < 0.105$ eV by breaking the CMB's degeneracy between $H_0$ and $\Sigma m_\nu$. The same combination with a DESI-like or Euclid-like galaxy survey in cross-correlation gives $\Sigma m_\nu < 0.116$ eV and $\Sigma m_\nu < 0.117$ eV, respectively, so the easier-to-detect cross-correlation route is competitive. The analysis also shows that at a fiducial mass of 0.1 eV the combined data would yield a measurement, not just an upper limit, of about $0.098 \pm 0.022$ eV.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on an extended 21cm intensity-mapping model: the anisotropic power spectrum is written in terms of the CDM and baryon power spectrum and a scale-dependent growth rate, $f(z,k)$, with beam smoothing and the Alcock-Paczynski (AP) effect folded into the observed monopole and quadrupole. The AP effect is the geometric distortion that lets the same survey measure the angular diameter distance and the Hubble parameter; it converts the 21cm baryon acoustic oscillation features into sub-percent constraints on $H_0$ and $\Omega_m$ across six redshift bins from $0<z<3$. The second carrier is the analytical mode-count covariance from the survey volume and telescope noise, which sets the error bars on each multipole. Feed the 21cm likelihood into a Markov chain Monte Carlo analysis, combine with Planck, and the sharp $H_0$ measurement breaks the CMB's $H_0$-$\Sigma m_\nu$ anti-correlation, turning a $0.285$ eV limit into $0.105$ eV.

What would settle it

Run the same likelihood pipeline on an end-to-end simulation in which the 21cm sky is generated from an independent hydrodynamical model and processed through foreground removal, with the covariance re-estimated from realizations rather than fixed to the fiducial cosmology; if the resulting 21cm-plus-Planck 95% upper limit on $\Sigma m_\nu$ comes out substantially above 0.105 eV, or the auto-spectrum alone fails to reach $\sim 0.29$ eV, the central claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery claimed is a path to sub-0.1-eV neutrino-mass sensitivity from future 21cm observations. Working in a $\Lambda$CDM plus massive-neutrino cosmology, the authors build synthetic SKA-Mid auto-spectrum and 21cm-galaxy cross-correlation data sets for three fiducial masses (0.06, 0.1, 0.4 eV), adding Planck 2018 CMB likelihoods. They report that the 21cm auto-spectrum alone gives $\Sigma m_\nu < 0.287$ eV at 95% confidence for a fiducial mass of 0.06 eV, matching Planck's $0.285$ eV; combined, the limit becomes $\Sigma m_\nu < 0.105$ eV, while the cross-correlation routes with DESI-like and Euclid-like surveys combined with Planck reach $0.116$ and $0.117$ eV. The mechanism is that the 21cm multipoles, through the Alcock-Paczynski effect, measure $H_0$ and $\Omega_m$ at sub-percent precision, which removes the strong anti-correlation between $H_0$ and $\Sigma m_\nu$ in the CMB. For a fiducial mass of 0.4 eV the combined data would measure $\Sigma m_\nu = 0.398 \pm 0.018$ eV, roughly a sixfold tightening relative to Planck alone.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast assumes the synthetic observations are drawn from exactly the same analytical power-spectrum model, with the same polynomial nuisance parameters and a covariance fixed to the reference cosmology, that the MCMC later fits, and that foregrounds leave no residual imprint; if real SKA-Mid noise, beam response, or neutral-hydrogen astrophysics differ, the tight error bars, especially the sub-percent distances that break the $H_0$-$\Sigma m_\nu$ degeneracy, will be optimistic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SKAO 21cm auto-spectrum plus Planck 2018 CMB data would set a 95% upper limit $\Sigma m_\nu < 0.105$ eV for a fiducial 0.06 eV mass, about 2.7 times tighter than Planck alone.
  • At a true mass near 0.1 eV the combined data would measure $\Sigma m_\nu = 0.098 \pm 0.022$ eV, turning a bound into a detection.
  • 21cm cross-correlation with a DESI-like or Euclid-like survey plus Planck would give limits of 0.116 and 0.117 eV, nearly matching the auto-spectrum route despite having no constraining power on $\Sigma m_\nu$ on their own.
  • The same 21cm data alone would improve the $H_0$ error by an order of magnitude and $\Omega_m$ by a factor of roughly 2 relative to CMB-only constraints, so the neutrino-mass forecast rides on a broader late-Universe gain.
  • If the true sum were 0.4 eV, the combined data would measure it as $\Sigma m_\nu = 0.398 \pm 0.018$ eV, roughly a sixfold improvement over Planck alone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The practical case for neutrino weighing may rest on the cross-correlation limits of 0.116-0.117 eV rather than the 0.105 eV auto-spectrum limit, because cross-correlations suppress foregrounds and are expected to deliver detections sooner.
  • The sub-percent Alcock-Paczynski distances are the most fragile ingredient; any residual redshift-space distortion, beam error, or scale-dependent bias that mimics them would widen $H_0$ and loosen the neutrino limit.
  • Because the synthetic data are generated from the same model, the pipeline, and the same fixed covariance that the fit later assumes, these forecasts are a best case; running the same likelihood on independent hydrodynamical mocks with foreground removal would quantify the degradation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper forecasts the sensitivity of SKAO 21cm intensity mapping (IM) observations to the sum of neutrino masses, Σmν, using synthetic data sets. The authors construct mock observations of the 21cm auto-power spectrum and of the cross-correlation between 21cm IM and DESI-like/Euclid-like galaxy surveys, for three fiducial values of Σmν (0.06, 0.1, 0.4 eV). They build a Gaussian likelihood with an analytic covariance, sample the posterior with MCMC (Cobaya), include Alcock-Paczynski distortions, a Gaussian beam, and redshift-dependent polynomial nuisance parameters, and combine the synthetic data with Planck 2018 CMB likelihoods. The main results are that the 21cm auto-spectrum alone yields a 95% upper limit of Σmν < 0.287 eV for the 0.06 eV fiducial, comparable to Planck alone, and that combining with Planck tightens the limit to Σmν < 0.105 eV when nuisance parameters are fixed (or < 0.126 eV when marginalized). The cross-correlation forecasts, when combined with Planck, give Σmν < 0.116 eV (DESI-like) and < 0.117 eV (Euclid-like). The paper presents a public likelihood code (topk) and investigates the scale dependence of the growth rate in an appendix.

Significance. If the forecast is realized, SKAO 21cm IM combined with CMB data would substantially tighten neutrino mass constraints, breaking the H0–Σmν degeneracy that limits CMB-only analyses, and would motivate early cross-correlation detections. The paper's strengths include a internally consistent MCMC pipeline with a public code, tests over multiple fiducial neutrino masses, explicit treatment of the AP effect and multipoles, and an appendix quantifying the scale dependence of the growth rate. However, the advertised headline sensitivity is conditional on the assumed analytical model and noise model, and it is not robust to the main systematic of 21cm IM, namely foreground residuals, which the paper itself acknowledges in Appendix A. The reported precision also suffers from internal inconsistencies between the summary table and the appendix tables. As an idealized forecast the work is sound, but the central claim needs to be reframed and verified before it can be taken as a prediction for SKAO.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table 4 vs Appendix B] There is an internal inconsistency in the reported 68% constraints on Σmν for the 0.4 eV fiducial between the summary table and the full tables. For example, Table 4 gives Σmν = 0.398 ± 0.018 eV for Planck + auto-spectrum with fixed nuisances, whereas Table B.5 gives 0.398 ± 0.036 eV. Similarly, Table 4 gives Σmν = 0.396+0.023−0.026 for the DESI cross-correlation, while Table B.6 gives 0.396+0.052−0.046. The same factor-of-two difference appears for the Euclid case and for the auto-only 0.4 eV results. Since Table 4 is the primary summary of the paper's findings, this is a load-bearing error that must be resolved before publication, and the correct values need to be identified and propagated consistently through the abstract, conclusions, and tables.
  2. [Abstract, Section 3.2, Section 4] The headline constraint Σmν < 0.105 eV is obtained with nuisance parameters fixed, i.e., holding Tb bHI σ8(z) and Tb f σ8(z) at their fiducial values. When these nuisance parameters are marginalized over, the limit loosens to Σmν < 0.126 eV, as shown in Table 4. The abstract and the conclusions present the fixed-nuisance number as the primary result without this qualification. Given that the paper's own analysis shows that marginalizing over HI astrophysics degrades the constraint by about 20%, the abstract should either lead with the marginalized value or explicitly state that the quoted limit assumes perfect knowledge of the HI bias and brightness temperature.
  3. [Appendix A and Section 2.3.1] The likelihood in Eq. (2.25) assumes no residual foreground contamination, and all quoted constraints are derived from synthetic data generated with that assumption. However, Appendix A states that "residual foregrounds and systematic contamination are expected to increase the measurement uncertainties" and that a comprehensive investigation is beyond the scope of the work. Foreground removal is one of the central challenges for SKA-Mid 21cm IM, and the sub-percent BAO distance errors reported in Section 3.1 (σDA ~ 0.1–0.3%, σH ~ 0.1–0.5%), which drive the H0–Σmν degeneracy breaking, come from this foreground-free model. To make the central claim robust, the authors should add an explicit foreground residual systematic term to the likelihood, or alternatively quantify how the Σmν constraints degrade for a plausible range of residual foreground levels.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2.2, Eq. (2.22)] The cross-correlation coherence r is fixed to 1, and the text asserts that possible variations of r are absorbed by the nuisance parameters. This is not demonstrated: r multiplies the cross-spectrum signal, while the noise term in Eq. (2.22) depends separately on the auto-spectrum P21 and the galaxy spectrum Pg, so the degeneracy is not exact. The authors should either sample over r or justify the assumption more carefully.
  2. [Section 3.3] There is a typo in the heading: "syntethic data" should be "synthetic data". A similar typo appears in the conclusions.
  3. [Figure 1 caption] The caption reads "left and right panel" but should be "left and right panels".
  4. [Section 2.1, Eq. (2.1)] The notation for the HI bias alternates between bHI and b HI in the text; the notation should be unified.
  5. [Section 2.3.1, footnote 4] The claim that fixing the covariance to the fiducial cosmology introduces less than one percent systematic error is only sketched. A brief quantitative demonstration, even for one representative redshift bin, would make the argument more convincing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an explicitly labeled forecast whose synthetic data and analytic covariance come from the same model, and no load-bearing claim reduces to a fit or to a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper is a forecast paper, not an empirical measurement paper. It states plainly that it 'construct[s] different synthetic data sets of observations' and then fits them with a likelihood built from the same analytical power-spectrum model (Eqs. 2.1, 2.8) and an analytic covariance matrix fixed to the fiducial cosmology (Eqs. 2.17-2.19, 2.25). This is standard forecast methodology: the quoted 95% limits on \Sigma m_\nu are conditional statements about the assumed model, noise, and survey specifications, not independent empirical detections. The paper does not fit a parameter to a subset of data and then rename that fit as a prediction; the fiducial neutrino masses are inputs, and the MCMC recovery of them is a validation of the pipeline. The key modeling ingredients come from external, independently developed tools and references (CAMB, HMcode-2020, SKAO Red Book, Planck 2018 likelihoods, Bernal et al. covariance formalism), not from a self-citation chain. The authors' earlier papers [48-50] are cited for the underlying formalism and likelihood code, but the central neutrino-mass result is not forced by those citations: the extension to massive neutrinos, the synthetic data construction, and the parameter estimation are carried out in the present work. The Appendix A caveat that residual foregrounds and systematics are expected to increase uncertainties is an acknowledged limitation of the idealized forecast, not evidence of circularity. The headline fixed-nuisance limit of 0.105 eV does become 0.126 eV when nuisances are marginalized, and the fixed covariance and foreground-free assumptions are simplifications, but these are robustness concerns rather than derivation-chain circularity. No step in the paper's derivation is equivalent to its inputs by construction, so the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The forecast rests on standard cosmological modeling (CAMB, HMcode, the neutrino free-streaming prescription), on survey assumptions from the SKAO Red Book, and on a polynomial nuisance parametrization introduced in this paper. There are no newly invented physical entities. The main ledger entries are the fiducial neutrino masses, the noise model, the polynomial nuisance forms, and the fixed fiducial covariance matrix.

free parameters (4)
  • Fiducial sum of neutrino masses, Σmν_fid = 0.06, 0.1, 0.4 eV
    Three scenarios chosen to bracket current bounds; the forecasted constraints are conditional on the fiducial value, and the 0.06 eV case sits at the prior boundary, yielding one-sided limits.
  • Survey noise parameters (Tsys, tobs, Ndish, fsky, beam size, survey areas)
    Taken from the SKAO Red Book [39]; the entire forecasted error budget scales with these choices (Eqs. 2.17-2.18), so the quoted constraints are contingent on them.
  • Nuisance polynomial degrees = 3rd degree for auto, 2nd degree for cross
    The redshift parametrization of Tb bHI σ8 and related combinations (Eqs. 2.26-2.27) is a modeling choice that reduces the number of sampled parameters and affects the marginalized constraints.
  • Prior lower bound on Σmν = 0.059 eV
    Set by the normal-hierarchy minimum mass; because the 0.06 eV fiducial is at this boundary, the results are upper limits rather than two-sided measurements.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The 21cm brightness temperature Tb(z) and HI bias bHI(z) are taken from hydrodynamical simulation interpolations of Villaescusa-Navarro et al.
    Invoked in Eq. 2.1 and Section 2.1; if these are inaccurate, the signal amplitude and forecasted errors shift.
  • domain assumption Massive neutrinos do not cluster significantly into halos, so P21 is modeled with PCDM+b computed from CDM and baryons only.
    Stated in Section 2.1, following [52,53]; this is the standard approximation for neutrino clustering.
  • standard math The non-linear matter power spectrum is computed with CAMB plus HMcode-2020.
    Used for all PCDM+b computations; the accuracy of HMcode on the scales considered is assumed.
  • domain assumption The likelihood is Gaussian with an analytic covariance matrix fixed to the fiducial cosmology.
    Section 2.3.1, Eq. 2.25; the authors estimate a sub-percent shift when the fiducial is varied, but non-Gaussian contributions and misestimation are not included.
  • ad hoc to paper Nuisance parameters evolve smoothly as low-order polynomials in redshift, and the cross-correlation coefficient r is fixed to 1.
    Eqs. 2.26-2.27; this parametrization is introduced to reduce the number of sampled nuisance parameters and is not derived from data.
  • domain assumption The scale dependence of the growth rate f(z,k) is neglected in the nuisance-marginalized analysis.
    Appendix A states this causes less than 1% differences on linear scales, but the associated systematic is not added to the likelihood.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Weighing neutrinos with 21cm Intensity Mapping at the SKAO." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WIJ4H6YG

@misc{pith2026250418625,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Weighing neutrinos with 21cm Intensity Mapping at the SKAO},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WIJ4H6YG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18625}
}
abstract

We explore the constraining power of future 21cm intensity mapping (IM) observations at the SKAO, focusing primarily on the sum of neutrino masses, $\Sigma m_\nu$. We forecast observations of the 21cm IM auto-power spectrum as well as the 21cm IM and galaxy surveys cross-correlation power spectrum. We construct different synthetic data sets of observations for the 21cm IM observables. For galaxy clustering, we consider two stage-IV surveys to mimic a DESI-like and Euclid-like cross-correlation signal. We study the impact of assuming three different fiducial values for the sum of neutrino masses, i.e. $\Sigma m_\nu = 0.06, 0.1, 0.4$ eV, in the synthetic data sets. To investigate the constraining power of the forecasted 21cm observations, we build a likelihood code. We find that the 21cm auto-power spectrum alone could provide an upper limit on the sum of neutrino masses of $\Sigma m_\nu < 0.287$ eV, at $95\%$ confidence level, for the case of the lowest fiducial value of $\Sigma m_\nu$. This result is comparable to the upper limits provided by cosmic microwave background (CMB) observations alone. When combining the 21cm auto-power spectrum synthetic data set with Planck 2018 CMB measurements, we find a tighter upper limit of $\Sigma m_\nu < 0.105$ eV, which improves on the constraints from Planck alone. We obtain a similar result with 21cm and galaxy clustering cross-correlation power spectrum, whose detection is more easily achieved as they are less affected by systematic effects. Combining with Planck 2018 data, we find the upper limits of $\Sigma m_\nu < 0.116$ eV and $\Sigma m_\nu < 0.117$ eV for the 21cm signal in cross-correlation with the DESI-like and Euclid-like surveys, respectively. These constraints are comparable to those obtained by combining Planck data with the 21cm auto-power spectrum synthetic data sets, thus supporting the case for 21cm cross-correlation detections.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Cosmology with HI Intensity Mapping

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

    SKAO HI intensity mapping forecasts yield competitive LambdaCDM constraints (e.g. H0 to ~0.3 km/s/Mpc optimistic) via power spectrum, BAO, bispectrum and stacking, complementary to CMB and optical surveys.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Detection of the free neutrino: A Confirmation

    C. L. Cowan, F. Reines, F. B. Harrison, H. W. Kruse, and A. D. McGuire, “Detection of the free neutrino: A Confirmation”,Science 124 (1956) 103–104

    work page 1956

  2. [2]

    The fate of hints: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, and A. Zhou, “The fate of hints: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations”,JHEP 09 (2020) 178, arXiv:2007.14792 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    2020 global reassessment of the neutrino oscillation picture

    P. F. de Salas, D. V. Forero, S. Gariazzo, P. Martínez-Miravé, O. Mena, C. A. Ternes, M. Tórtola, and J. W. F. Valle, “2020 global reassessment of the neutrino oscillation picture”, JHEP 02 (2021) 071, arXiv:2006.11237 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Direct neutrino-mass measurement with sub-electronvolt sensitivity

    The KA TRIN, M. Akeret al., “Direct neutrino-mass measurement with sub-electronvolt sensitivity”, Nature Phys. 18 no. 2, (2022) 160–166,arXiv:2105.08533 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Direct neutrino-mass measurement based on 259 days of KATRIN data

    The Katrin, M. Akeret al., “Direct neutrino-mass measurement based on 259 days of KATRIN data”,arXiv:2406.13516 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv

  6. [6]

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

    D. Parkinson, S. Riemer-Sørensen, C. Blake, G. B. Poole, T. M. Davis, S. Brough, M. Colless, C. Contreras, W. Couch, S. Croom, D. Croton, M. J. Drinkwater, K. Forster, D. Gilbank, M. Gladders, K. Glazebrook, B. Jelliffe, R. J. Jurek, I. h. Li, B. Madore, D. C. Martin, K. Pimbblet, M. Pracy, R. Sharp, E. Wisnioski, D. Woods, T. K. Wyder, and H. K. C. Yee, ...

    arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    Unveiling ν secrets with cosmological data: neutrino masses and mass hierarchy

    S. Vagnozzi, E. Giusarma, O. Mena, K. Freese, M. Gerbino, S. Ho, and M. Lattanzi, “Unveiling ν secrets with cosmological data: neutrino masses and mass hierarchy”,Phys. Rev. D96 no. 12, (2017) 123503,arXiv:1701.08172 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    On The Upper Bound of Neutrino Masses from Combined Cosmological Observations and Particle Physics Experiments

    A. Loureiroet al., “On The Upper Bound of Neutrino Masses from Combined Cosmological Observations and Particle Physics Experiments”,Phys. Rev. Lett.123 no. 8, (2019) 081301, arXiv:1811.02578 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2019

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Updated results on neutrino mass and mass hierarchy from cosmology with Planck 2018 likelihoods

    S. Roy Choudhury and S. Hannestad, “Updated results on neutrino mass and mass hierarchy from cosmology with Planck 2018 likelihoods”,JCAP 07 (2020) 037, arXiv:1907.12598 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Hints, neutrino bounds and WDM constraints from SDSS DR14 Lyman-α and Planck full-survey data

    N. Palanque-Delabrouille, C. Yèche, N. Schöneberg, J. Lesgourgues, M. Walther, S. Chabanier, and E. Armengaud, “Hints, neutrino bounds and WDM constraints from SDSS DR14 Lyman-α and Planck full-survey data”,JCAP 04 (2020) 038, arXiv:1911.09073 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Most constraining cosmological neutrino mass bounds

    E. Di Valentino, S. Gariazzo, and O. Mena, “Most constraining cosmological neutrino mass bounds”, Phys. Rev. D104 no. 8, (2021) 083504,arXiv:2106.15267 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Model-agnostic interpretation of 10 billion years of cosmic evolution traced by BOSS and eBOSS data

    S. Brieden, H. Gil-Marín, and L. Verde, “Model-agnostic interpretation of 10 billion years of cosmic evolution traced by BOSS and eBOSS data”,JCAP 08 no. 08, (2022) 024, arXiv:2204.11868 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations

    The DESI, A. G. Adameet al., “DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations”,JCAP 02 (2025) 021, arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    DESI 2024 VII: Cosmological Constraints from the Full-Shape Modeling of Clustering Measurements

    The DESI, A. G. Adameet al., “DESI 2024 VII: Cosmological Constraints from the Full-Shape Modeling of Clustering Measurements”,arXiv:2411.12022 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints

    The DESI, M. Abdul Karimet al., “DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints”,arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Massive neutrinos and cosmology

    J. Lesgourgues and S. Pastor, “Massive neutrinos and cosmology”,Phys. Rept. 429 (2006) 307–379, arXiv:astro-ph/0603494. – 24 –

    2006 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Neutrino mass in cosmology: status and prospects

    Y. Y. Y. Wong, “Neutrino mass in cosmology: status and prospects”,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 61 (2011) 69–98, arXiv:1111.1436 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Neutrino Physics from the Cosmic Microwave Background and Large Scale Structure

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

    2015 arXiv

  11. [19]

    VI. Cosmological parameters

    The Planck, P. . results, “VI. Cosmological parameters”,Astron. Astrophys.641 (2020) A6, arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    A New limit on the total neutrino mass from the 2dF galaxy redshift survey

    O. Elgaroyet al., “A New limit on the total neutrino mass from the 2dF galaxy redshift survey”, Phys. Rev. Lett.89 (2002) 061301, arXiv:astro-ph/0204152

    2002 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WMAP

    The SDSS, M. Tegmarket al., “Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WMAP”,Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 103501, arXiv:astro-ph/0310723

    2004 arXiv

  14. [22]

    First year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Determination of cosmological parameters

    The WMAP, D. N. Spergelet al., “First year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Determination of cosmological parameters”,Astrophys. J. Suppl.148 (2003) 175–194, arXiv:astro-ph/0302209

    2003 arXiv

  15. [23]

    First year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Preliminary maps and basic results

    The WMAP, C. L. Bennettet al., “First year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Preliminary maps and basic results”,Astrophys. J. Suppl.148 (2003) 1–27, arXiv:astro-ph/0302207

    2003 arXiv

  16. [24]

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

    The SDSS, U. Seljaket al., “Cosmological parameter analysis including SDSS Ly-alpha forest and galaxy bias: Constraints on the primordial spectrum of fluctuations, neutrino mass, and dark energy”,Phys. Rev. D71 (2005) 103515, arXiv:astro-ph/0407372

    2005 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A new bound on the neutrino mass from the sdss baryon acoustic peak

    A. Goobar, S. Hannestad, E. Mortsell, and H. Tu, “A new bound on the neutrino mass from the sdss baryon acoustic peak”,JCAP 06 (2006) 019, arXiv:astro-ph/0602155

    2006 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Cosmological parameters from combining the Lyman-alpha forest with CMB, galaxy clustering and SN constraints

    U. Seljak, A. Slosar, and P. McDonald, “Cosmological parameters from combining the Lyman-alpha forest with CMB, galaxy clustering and SN constraints”,JCAP 10 (2006) 014, arXiv:astro-ph/0604335

    2006 arXiv

  19. [27]

    The effect of neutrinos on the matter distribution as probed by the Intergalactic Medium

    M. Viel, M. G. Haehnelt, and V. Springel, “The effect of neutrinos on the matter distribution as probed by the Intergalactic Medium”,JCAP 06 (2010) 015, arXiv:1003.2422 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Neutrino masses and cosmology with Lyman-alpha forest power spectrum

    N. Palanque-Delabrouilleet al., “Neutrino masses and cosmology with Lyman-alpha forest power spectrum”,JCAP 11 (2015) 011, arXiv:1506.05976 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Constraints on dark radiation from cosmological probes

    G. Rossi, C. Yèche, N. Palanque-Delabrouille, and J. Lesgourgues, “Constraints on dark radiation from cosmological probes”,Phys. Rev. D92 no. 6, (2015) 063505,arXiv:1412.6763 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [30]

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

    C. Yèche, N. Palanque-Delabrouille, J. Baur, and H. du Mas des Bourboux, “Constraints on neutrino masses from Lyman-alpha forest power spectrum with BOSS and XQ-100”,JCAP 06 (2017) 047, arXiv:1702.03314 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

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

    The DESI, A. Aghamousaet al., “The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design”, arXiv:1611.00036 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    DESI 2024 III: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from Galaxies and Quasars

    The DESI, A. G. Adameet al., “DESI 2024 III: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from Galaxies and Quasars”, arXiv:2404.03000 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Euclid preparation. VII. Forecast validation for Euclid cosmological probes

    The Euclid, A. Blanchardet al., “Euclid preparation. VII. Forecast validation for Euclid cosmological probes”,Astron. Astrophys.642 (2020) A191, arXiv:1910.09273 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Euclid preparation - LIV. Sensitivity to neutrino parameters

    The Euclid, M. Archidiaconoet al., “Euclid preparation - LIV. Sensitivity to neutrino parameters”, Astron. Astrophys.693 (2025) A58, arXiv:2405.06047 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  27. [35]

    Using HI to probe large scale structures at z ~ 3

    S. Bharadwaj, B. B. Nath, B. B. Nath, and S. K. Sethi, “Using HI to probe large scale structures at z ~ 3”,J. Astrophys. Astron.22 (2001) 21, arXiv:astro-ph/0003200. – 25 –

    2001 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Neutral hydrogen surveys for high redshift galaxy clusters and proto-clusters

    R. A. Battye, R. D. Davies, and J. Weller, “Neutral hydrogen surveys for high redshift galaxy clusters and proto-clusters”,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.355 (2004) 1339–1347, arXiv:astro-ph/0401340

    2004 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Precise Measurement of the Cosmological Power Spectrum With a Dedicated 21cm Survey After Reionization

    A. Loeb and S. Wyithe, “Precise Measurement of the Cosmological Power Spectrum With a Dedicated 21cm Survey After Reionization”,Phys. Rev. Lett.100 (2008) 161301, arXiv:0801.1677 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Line-Intensity Mapping: 2017 Status Report

    E. D. Kovetzet al., “Line-Intensity Mapping: 2017 Status Report”,arXiv:1709.09066 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Cosmology with Phase 1 of the Square Kilometre Array: Red Book 2018: Technical specifications and performance forecasts

    The SKA, S. C. SWG, “Cosmology with Phase 1 of the Square Kilometre Array: Red Book 2018: Technical specifications and performance forecasts”, Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.37 (2020) e007, arXiv:1811.02743 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    HI intensity mapping : a single dish approach

    R. A. Battye, I. W. A. Browne, C. Dickinson, G. Heron, B. Maffei, and A. Pourtsidou, “HI intensity mapping : a single dish approach”,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.434 (2013) 1239–1256, arXiv:1209.0343 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Cosmology from a SKA HI intensity mapping survey

    M. G. Santoset al., “Cosmology from a SKA HI intensity mapping survey”,PoS AASKA14 (2015) 019, arXiv:1501.03989 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Hi intensity mapping with MeerKAT: power spectrum detection in cross-correlation with WiggleZ galaxies

    S. Cunningtonet al., “Hi intensity mapping with MeerKAT: power spectrum detection in cross-correlation with WiggleZ galaxies”,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.518 no. 4, (2022) 6262–6272, arXiv:2206.01579 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: Survey Design and First Data Release

    M. J. Drinkwateret al., “The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: Survey Design and First Data Release”, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.401 (2010) 1429–1452, arXiv:0911.4246 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  36. [44]

    The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: final data release and the metallicity of UV-luminous galaxies

    The WiggleZ, M. J. Drinkwateret al., “The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: final data release and the metallicity of UV-luminous galaxies”,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.474 no. 3, (2018) 4151–4168, arXiv:1910.08284 [astro-ph.GA]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    MeerKLASS L-band deep-field intensity maps: entering the Hi dominated regime

    The MeerKLASS, M. Barberi-Squarottiet al., “MeerKLASS L-band deep-field intensity maps: entering the Hi dominated regime”,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.537 no. 4, (2025) 3632–3661, arXiv:2407.21626 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    GAMA: towards a physical understanding of galaxy formation

    The GAMA, S. P. Driveret al., “GAMA: towards a physical understanding of galaxy formation”, Astronomy and Geophysics50 no. 5, (2009) 5.12–5.19,arXiv:0910.5123 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Galaxy and Mass Assembly (GAMA): survey diagnostics and core data release

    The GAMA, S. P. Driveret al., “Galaxy and Mass Assembly (GAMA): survey diagnostics and core data release”,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.413 no. 2, (2011) 971–995,arXiv:1009.0614 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Constraining beyondΛCDM models with 21cm intensity mapping forecasted observations combined with latest CMB data

    M. Berti, M. Spinelli, B. S. Haridasu, M. Viel, and A. Silvestri, “Constraining beyondΛCDM models with 21cm intensity mapping forecasted observations combined with latest CMB data”, JCAP 01 no. 01, (2022) 018,arXiv:2109.03256 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Multipole expansion for 21cm intensity mapping power spectrum: Forecasted cosmological parameters estimation for the SKA observatory

    M. Berti, M. Spinelli, and M. Viel, “Multipole expansion for 21cm intensity mapping power spectrum: Forecasted cosmological parameters estimation for the SKA observatory”,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.521 no. 3, (2023) 3221–3236,arXiv:2209.07595 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    21 cm intensity mapping cross-correlation with galaxy surveys: Current and forecasted cosmological parameters estimation for the SKAO

    M. Berti, M. Spinelli, and M. Viel, “21 cm intensity mapping cross-correlation with galaxy surveys: Current and forecasted cosmological parameters estimation for the SKAO”,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.529 no. 4, (2024) 4803–4817,arXiv:2309.00710 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Weighing neutrinos with cosmic neutral hydrogen

    F. Villaescusa-Navarro, P. Bull, and M. Viel, “Weighing neutrinos with cosmic neutral hydrogen”, Astrophys. J. 814 no. 2, (2015) 146,arXiv:1507.05102 [astro-ph.CO] . – 26 –

    2015 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Cosmology with massive neutrinos I: towards a realistic modeling of the relation between matter, haloes and galaxies

    F. Villaescusa-Navarro, F. Marulli, M. Viel, E. Branchini, E. Castorina, E. Sefusatti, and S. Saito, “Cosmology with massive neutrinos I: towards a realistic modeling of the relation between matter, haloes and galaxies”,JCAP 03 (2014) 011, arXiv:1311.0866 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Cosmology with massive neutrinos II: on the universality of the halo mass function and bias

    E. Castorina, E. Sefusatti, R. K. Sheth, F. Villaescusa-Navarro, and M. Viel, “Cosmology with massive neutrinos II: on the universality of the halo mass function and bias”,JCAP 02 (2014) 049, arXiv:1311.1212 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Efficient computation of CMB anisotropies in closed FRW models

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, “Efficient computation of CMB anisotropies in closed FRW models”, Astrophys. J. 538 (2000) 473–476, arXiv:astro-ph/9911177

    2000 arXiv

  47. [55]

    HMcode-2020: Improved modelling of non-linear cosmological power spectra with baryonic feedback

    A. Mead, S. Brieden, T. Tröster, and C. Heymans, “HMcode-2020: Improved modelling of non-linear cosmological power spectra with baryonic feedback”,arXiv:2009.01858 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Cross-correlating 21cm intensity maps with Lyman Break Galaxies in the post-reionization era

    F. Villaescusa-Navarro, M. Viel, D. Alonso, K. K. Datta, P. Bull, and M. G. Santos, “Cross-correlating 21cm intensity maps with Lyman Break Galaxies in the post-reionization era”, JCAP 03 (2015) 034, arXiv:1410.7393 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Ingredients for 21 cm Intensity Mapping

    F. Villaescusa-Navarroet al., “Ingredients for 21 cm Intensity Mapping”, Astrophys. J. 866 no. 2, (2018) 135,arXiv:1804.09180 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Multipole expansion for H i intensity mapping experiments: simulations and modelling

    S. Cunnington, A. Pourtsidou, P. S. Soares, C. Blake, and D. Bacon, “Multipole expansion for H i intensity mapping experiments: simulations and modelling”,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 496 no. 1, (2020) 415–433,arXiv:2002.05626 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Detecting the power spectrum turnover with H i intensity mapping

    S. Cunnington, “Detecting the power spectrum turnover with H i intensity mapping”,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.512 no. 2, (2022) 2408–2425,arXiv:2202.13828 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Power spectrum multipole expansion for HI intensity mapping experiments: unbiased parameter estimation

    P. S. Soares, S. Cunnington, A. Pourtsidou, and C. Blake, “Power spectrum multipole expansion for HI intensity mapping experiments: unbiased parameter estimation”,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.502 no. 2, (2021) 2549–2564,arXiv:2008.12102 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  53. [61]

    An evolution free test for non-zero cosmological constant

    C. Alcock and B. Paczynski, “An evolution free test for non-zero cosmological constant”, Nature 281 (1979) 358–359

    1979

  54. [62]

    User’s guide to extracting cosmological information from line-intensity maps

    J. L. Bernal, P. C. Breysse, H. Gil-Marín, and E. D. Kovetz, “User’s guide to extracting cosmological information from line-intensity maps”,Phys. Rev. D100 no. 12, (2019) 123522, arXiv:1907.10067 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019

  55. [63]

    Beyond ΛCDM: Problems, solutions, and the road ahead

    P. Bullet al., “Beyond ΛCDM: Problems, solutions, and the road ahead”,Phys. Dark Univ.12 (2016) 56–99, arXiv:1512.05356 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Constraining gravity with synergies between radio and optical cosmological surveys

    S. Casas, I. P. Carucci, V. Pettorino, S. Camera, and M. Martinelli, “Constraining gravity with synergies between radio and optical cosmological surveys”,Phys. Dark Univ.39 (2023) 101151, arXiv:2210.05705 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Covariance of cross-correlations: towards efficient measures for large-scale structure

    R. E. Smith, “Covariance of cross-correlations: towards efficient measures for large-scale structure”, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.400 (2009) 851, arXiv:0810.1960 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis of hierarchical physical models

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, “Cobaya: Code for Bayesian Analysis of hierarchical physical models”, JCAP 05 (2021) 057, arXiv:2005.05290 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  59. [67]

    V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods

    The Planck, P. . results, “V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods”,Astron. Astrophys.641 (2020) A5, arXiv:1907.12875 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Cosmological parameters derived from the final Planck data release (PR4)

    M. Tristramet al., “Cosmological parameters derived from the final Planck data release (PR4)”, Astron. Astrophys.682 (2024) A37, arXiv:2309.10034 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    High-redshift post-reionization cosmology with 21cm intensity mapping

    A. Obuljen, E. Castorina, F. Villaescusa-Navarro, and M. Viel, “High-redshift post-reionization cosmology with 21cm intensity mapping”,JCAP 05 (2018) 004, arXiv:1709.07893 [astro-ph.CO]. – 27 –

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.