Cosmological impact of $\nu$DM interactions enhanced in narrow redshift ranges

Lei Zu; Sebastian Trojanowski

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Cosmological impact of $\nu$DM interactions enhanced in narrow redshift ranges

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A narrow redshift window around z ~ 10^4–10^5 makes dark-matter–neutrino interactions look real at >3σ.

desk verdict A genuinely new redshift-window parametrization with real data work, but the headline >3σ claim does not survive the paper's own statistics; the honest significance is ~2–2.6σ, so the abstract overstates the case. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20396 v1 pith:X55PFEYK submitted 2025-05-26 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Sebastian Trojanowski , Lei Zu This is my paper

classification astro-ph.COhep-ph PACS 95.35.+d98.80.-k

keywords darkmatter-neutrinointeractionscosmicshearmicrowavebackgroundresonantscatteringneutrinoportalmattersmall-scalestructureS8tensionultralightscalarfield

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

Recent CMB, weak-lensing, and Lyman-α analyses hint that dark matter may scatter off neutrinos, but the simplest constant-cross-section reading conflicts with dwarf-galaxy and astrophysical bounds. This paper shows that the tension dissolves if the interaction is switched on only in a narrow redshift window, roughly z ~ $10^{4}$–$10^{5}$. In a toy model with constant strength inside [zmin, zmin+Δz] and zero outside, combined ACT and cosmic-shear data prefer a non-zero interaction at >3σ, with best-fit strength uνDM ~ $10^{-3}$ confined to 3.7×$10^{4}$ ≲ z ≲ $10^{6}$. The paper then constructs a neutrino-portal particle model with a resonantly enhanced scattering cross section that peaks in exactly this epoch, and shows it can match the data while evading other constraints. A narrow feature in interaction strength, normally overlooked in cosmological modeling, can therefore leave a wide observable imprint.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through the Boltzmann drag term for the CDM velocity divergence, $\dot{\theta}_\chi = k^2\psi - H\theta_\chi - K_\chi \dot{\mu}_\chi(\theta_\chi - \theta_\nu)$ with $K_\chi = (4/3)\rho_\nu/\rho_\chi$, where the interaction rate $\dot{\mu}_\chi = a n_\chi \sigma_{\nu\mathrm{DM}}$ is promoted from a constant to a top-hat function on [zmin, zmin+Δz]. For the particle model, the central identity is the resonance position $E_{\nu,\mathrm{res}} \simeq (m_\phi^2 - m_\chi^2)/(2m_\chi)$ of the s-channel mediator, whose Breit–Wigner shape is smeared by convolving with the Fermi–Dirac neutrino spectrum to give an effective $u_{\mathrm{eff},\nu\mathrm{DM}}(z)$; a field-dependent mass $m_\chi(\phi) = m_\chi(0)(1+g_\phi\phi^2/2)$ then shifts the resonance as the ultralight scalar field oscillates, cutting the interaction off at high redshift.

What would settle it

If future 21-cm or lensing measurements find no suppression of the matter power spectrum around k ≈ 1 h/Mpc, the window scenario is ruled out; if they find strong suppression at k ≈ 10 h/Mpc, the narrow best-fit BP1 window (which leaves T²(k) ≈ 0.4 at those scales) is ruled out in favor of a wider window or constant interaction. Counts of Milky Way dwarf satellites around M ≈ $10^{8}$ M_⊙, where the model predicts near-ΛCDM abundances, would also adjudicate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the observational preference for dark matter–neutrino interactions does not require the interaction to be constant in time; a localized enhancement at z ~ $10^{4}$–$10^{5}$ reproduces the preference and bypasses small-scale-structure bounds. In the windowed toy model the posterior for uνDM shifts to larger values than the constant-σ best fit, peaking near $10^{-2}$.5 with a 95% lower bound above $10^{-3}$.65, and the best-fit window (BP1) improves χ² by 16.6 over ΛCDM. The paper shows that this window lies where the neutrino energy distribution overlaps an s-channel resonance of a light scalar mediator in a neutrino portal model, and that a tiny time-dependent dark matter mass, induced by an ultralight scalar field, can suppress the interaction at z ≳ few×$10^{5}$ to satisfy Milky Way satellite constraints.

Load-bearing premise

The >3σ preference is conditional on the ad hoc assumption that νDM interactions are exactly zero outside a finite redshift window and constant inside it; the posterior tail in Δz is unconstrained because small scales are masked, and the physical model must tune a time-varying DM mass to mimic that window.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim holds, the epoch z ~ 10^4–10^5 becomes a single lever by which νDM interactions can satisfy all current bounds, so targeted CMB and lensing analyses around this epoch are the direct next test.
The windowed model strengthens the preference relative to ΛCDM (Δχ² = −16.6 for BP1) and beats the constant-cross-section model by 2.3σ, so future data that reproduce the window would disfavor the latter.
The intermediate value S8 ≈ 0.8 predicted by the windowed fits lies between the constant-νDM value (0.77) and a recent weak-lensing legacy measurement (0.815), softening the S8 tension without abandoning ΛCDM's cosmological parameters.
In the neutrino portal realization, the same resonance that produces the cosmological signal automatically suppresses the interaction at both high and low neutrino energies, keeping the model below astrophysical bounds from MeV-scale neutrinos and heavy neutral lepton searches.
Adding the 10^-8-level DM mass variation from an ultralight scalar makes the transfer function coincide with the Lyman-α best fit near k ~ 5 h/Mpc while recovering ΛCDM at dwarf-galaxy scales, a shape difference that the paper argues distinguishes it from warm dark matter.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's window is chosen partly to duck the Milky Way satellite bound; a corollary the authors leave implicit is that any observation probing z ≳ 10^5 with comparable sensitivity would close the loophole, so future experiments that map the pre-reionization epoch are the decisive test.
Because the posterior tail in Δz is driven by masked small scales, the model predicts that unmasked lensing surveys with baryonic-feedback modeling will either sharpen Δz to a narrow value or shift the preferred window to earlier times; this is a testable prediction of the analysis procedure itself.
The time-varying DM mass needed to mimic a top-hat window suggests an alternative, possibly simpler construction: a resonance whose position is set by the temperature of a dark sector bath rather than by a scalar field, which would make ueff(z) a smooth function with a similar peak; such a model could be checked for the same Δχ² while predicting distinct high-z behavior.
The paper's benchmark puts the resonance around neutrino energies of order 1–100 eV at z ~ 10^4–10^5; if that is correct, laboratory searches for MeV-scale mediators with couplings g ~ 10^-4 are near the sensitivity frontier, and null results would constrain the viable parameter region.

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

What you should know first: the redshift-window parametrization is new, and the combined ACT+DES analysis is real work. But the headline ">3σ preference" is contradicted by the paper's own Appendix A and by the Δχ2 numbers. The honest significance is around 2σ to 2.6σ, so treat the abstract with skepticism; the rest of the paper is worth engaging.

What's actually new: introducing zmin and Δz to localize νDM interactions, and showing with public CLASS/MontePython and real data that the preferred coupling shifts to larger values and can dodge small-scale bounds. The neutrino portal model with resonant scattering and a time-dependent DM mass is a plausible proof of concept. The paper is transparent about limitations: Appendix A admits a 2σ preference, and the authors flag the need for zoom-in simulations to verify the EPS-based subhalo predictions.

Soft spots: the statistical evidence is not as strong as claimed. A 95% lower bound in a log-prior that excludes uνDM=0 does not exclude the ΛCDM limit; the 1D posterior has a long tail. The benchmark BP1 improves χ2 over the constant-uνDM model by only ~9.5 with two extra parameters, which is ~2.3σ, not >3σ. The toy model is fitted to the same data, and the portal model is engineered to reproduce that fitted window, so the preference is partly by construction. The Δz posterior is poorly constrained because small-scale WL scales are masked, and the small-scale structure constraint rests on an approximate formalism. These are real but fixable issues.

Who should read it: cosmologists and particle phenomenologists working on νDM interactions and dark acoustic oscillations; for them it's a useful demonstration that narrow resonances can change the game. It deserves a serious referee, but the authors should be asked to correct the significance claim, release the chains, and strengthen the small-scale validation before publication.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper explores the cosmological consequences of dark matter-neutrino interactions whose strength is non-zero only within a narrow redshift interval, motivated by hints from CMB and weak-lensing data. Using a toy model with three new parameters (interaction strength uνDM, start redshift zmin, and duration Δz), the authors run MCMC fits to Planck, ACT DR4, DES Y3 cosmic shear, and BAO data, and report a preference for an interaction window at z ~ 10^4-10^5. They then present a neutrino-portal dark matter model with a resonantly enhanced scattering cross section, including a time-varying DM mass to suppress the interaction at high redshifts, and show that benchmark points can reproduce the transfer-function features while partially evading small-scale structure bounds. The abstract claims a >3σ preference for non-zero uνDM, but the body and appendix report only 2-2.6σ evidence.

Significance. If substantiated, the proposal that νDM interactions are enhanced only during a specific epoch would offer a way to reconcile CMB and cosmic-shear hints with otherwise stringent astrophysical and small-scale structure constraints, and would motivate resonant-scattering and DM-mass-variation physics in the dark sector. The paper uses public codes (CLASS, MontePython) and standard likelihoods, applies conservative small-scale weak-lensing masks, and explicitly reports transfer functions and subhalo mass functions for its benchmarks. However, the central statistical claim is overstated relative to the paper's own numbers, and the model-comparison framework has a boundary problem because zmin and Δz are undefined at uνDM=0. The core idea is interesting, but the evidence as presented does not support the headline significance.

major comments (4)

[Abstract; Sec. II; Appendix A; Table I] The paper's headline claim of a '>3σ preference for a non-zero interaction' is not supported by the quoted statistics. In Section II the claim is justified by the 95% lower bound log10 uνDM > -3.65 from Table I, but in a uniform prior over log10 uνDM ∈ [-8,0] this is at most a one-sided ~2σ statement, and the null value uνDM=0 lies outside the prior support (at log10 uνDM → -∞), so the interval cannot by itself exclude ΛCDM. Appendix A explicitly states that the posterior 'indicates a preference for non-zero values at the 2σ level.' Comparing BP1 to the constant-uνDM model in Table I gives Δχ² = -9.54 for two additional degrees of freedom, corresponding to roughly 2.3-2.6σ, not >3σ. The abstract and main text must be corrected, and the evidence should be quantified with a model-comparison statistic that handles the boundary at u=0.
[Sec. II; Table II; Fig. 2] The three-parameter toy model has a parameter-identification problem at uνDM=0: when the coupling vanishes, zmin and Δz drop out of the likelihood, so the posterior volume in those directions is not data-defined. The reported credible regions and χ² differences therefore do not constitute a fully valid model comparison between ΛCDM and the redshift-window model. The authors should report a profile likelihood over (zmin, Δz) with uνDM treated properly, or compute a Bayes factor with a prior that includes the null model, before claiming any preference for the window scenario.
[Sec. III; Fig. 1; Fig. 3] The neutrino-portal benchmarks are presented without full posteriors or error bars for the portal parameters, and the model is effectively engineered to reproduce the redshift window preferred by the toy-model fit: the resonance position and the time-varying DM mass are chosen to produce an enhancement around z ~ 10^4-10^5. The quoted χ² values (e.g., -12, -5) are not accompanied by a parameter-counting comparison to ΛCDM or to the toy model, so the reader cannot judge whether this is an actual preference or an existence proof. The paper should clearly label these benchmarks as illustrative and state which parameters are fixed rather than fitted.
[Appendix A; Sec. II; Fig. 3] The claim that the localized-interaction model evades small-scale structure constraints relies on (i) deliberately masking weak-lensing scales at k ≳ a few h/Mpc, which leaves the Δz posterior tail unconstrained, and (ii) converting the Milky Way satellite bound into a hard prior (Δz ≲ 10^6) rather than a likelihood. The extended Press-Schechter calculation in Sec. II is an approximation that has not been validated with N-body simulations for the specific transfer-function shapes produced by these models. The authors should include a sensitivity check of their conclusions to the assumed Δz prior and should explicitly acknowledge the approximate nature of the small-scale structure constraints.

minor comments (5)

[Introduction] The word 'schmatically' in the third paragraph should be 'schematically'.
[Eq. (1)] The Thomson cross section σT used to normalize uνDM is not explicitly defined; please give its value or a reference.
[Table I] Only two parameters (100Ωb h² and 100θs) have quoted uncertainties; the rows for Ωm, ns, τreio, S8, and others should either include 68% intervals or be explicitly labeled as best-fit values.
[Fig. 1 caption] The caption does not specify the parameter values for the three curves; in particular, the brown solid line uses g = 2.3×10^-2, while the actual benchmark uses g = 2.3×10^-4 (footnote 2). Please add a note in the caption to avoid confusion.
[References] Reference [70] (Das and Weiner) lists the arXiv identifier astro-ph/0611353, which appears to be from 2006, inconsistent with the 2011 publication year; please verify the identifier.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the narrow-redshift window is a fitted toy-model result from external data, the portal-model benchmark is explicitly fitted as an illustration, and overlapping-author citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Section II defines the toy model by adding three parameters (uνDM, zmin, Δz) and fits them to external data (DES Y3, Planck, ACT DR4, BAO). The posterior preference for z ~ 10^4–10^5 and for non-zero uνDM is the fit result itself, not a quantity derived from something that was defined in terms of that same outcome; parameter estimation from the same data is not equivalence-by-construction. Section III explicitly presents a benchmark model 'to minimize the fitted χ2', and the time-varying DM mass is introduced specifically to suppress high-redshift scattering; because the text labels this as an illustration with fitted parameters, no fitted parameter is re-branded as an independent prediction. The self-references [16] and [53] share authors with the present paper, but they are used only as comparison baselines, for the nonlinear emulator, and for previously reported hints; the central Boltzmann/ETHOS machinery is attributed to independent works [8, 44, 45]. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The main caveat is statistical, not circular: Section II claims '>3σ preference' while Appendix A admits the 1D posterior 'exhibits a long tail, indicating a preference for non-zero values at the 2σ level,' and the 95% lower bound log10 uνDM > -3.65 is in a log-prior that does not contain uνDM = 0. This overstatement is a correctness/robustness risk, not a circular reduction of the derivation to its inputs. Overall, the paper is self-contained against external datasets, so the circularity score is 1.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on the standard cosmological perturbation theory as implemented in CLASS, the validity of the nonlinear matter power spectrum emulator, the extended Press-Schechter approximation, and the assumption that a narrow time-localized interaction is a faithful proxy for a resonant cross section. The portal model adds an ultralight scalar field that changes the DM mass; this field and its couplings are introduced to produce the desired effect and have no independent evidence here.

free parameters (8)

uνDM (interaction strength) = log10 uνDM = -2.46 (credible region)
Fitted to Planck+ACT+DES+BAO data in the toy model.
zmin (start redshift of interaction) = log10 zmin = 4.58
Fitted to the same data.
Δz (duration of interaction) = log10 Δz = 5.25
Fitted; posterior tail is largely unconstrained.
mχ (DM mass in portal model) = 1 GeV
Chosen for the benchmark; determines resonance energy.
δ (relative mass splitting between mediator and DM) = 7e-8
Tuned to place the resonance at the desired neutrino energy.
g (coupling in portal model) = 2.3e-4 (and 1.5e-4 in final benchmark)
Tuned to produce the desired interaction amplitude.
mφ (ultralight scalar mass) = 2e-24 eV
Chosen so the scalar begins oscillating near z ~ 10^5.
gφ φi^2 (coupling times squared initial field value) = 1.4e-7
Tuned to set the size of the DM mass variation.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption The standard ΛCDM model is the correct baseline cosmology.
Used as null hypothesis; all fits are relative to ΛCDM.
domain assumption The CLASS implementation of νDM interactions from Stadler et al. (2019) and Mosbech et al. (2021) correctly modifies the Boltzmann hierarchy.
Adopted without re-derivation; central to all results.
domain assumption The ETHOS formalism in Eq. (6) correctly computes the low-energy νDM elastic scattering rate.
Used to convolve the resonance with the neutrino spectrum.
domain assumption The nonlinear matter power spectrum emulator based on 200 N-body simulations with dark acoustic oscillation initial conditions is accurate for the models considered.
Needed for the DES Y3 cosmic shear likelihood.
domain assumption The extended Press-Schechter formalism with the Sheth-Tormen mass function accurately predicts the subhalo mass function for νDM models.
Used to assess consistency with dwarf galaxy counts; the authors note zoom-in simulations are needed.
ad hoc to paper The ultralight scalar field evolves as in Eq. (9) with zero initial derivative and a quadratic potential.
Introduced to make the DM mass time-dependent; no independent evidence.
domain assumption The DM number density scales as nχ ∝ ρχ/mχ with no additional phase-space distortions from the DM velocity distribution.
Stated in footnote 1 that DM velocity distribution is not significantly affected.

invented entities (1)

Ultralight scalar field φ coupled to DM mass
purpose: Modulates the DM mass in time so that the resonant νDM interaction is suppressed at z ≳ few x 10^5 and enhanced around z ~ 10^4-10^5.
Introduced in Section III to make the portal model consistent with dwarf galaxy bounds; no external prediction or observable handle is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmological impact of $\nu$DM interactions enhanced in narrow redshift ranges." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X55PFEYK

@misc{pith2026250520396,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmological impact of $\nu$DM interactions enhanced in narrow redshift ranges},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X55PFEYK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20396}
}

abstract

The impact of dark matter-neutrino ($\nu$DM) interactions on cosmological perturbations has regained attention, spurred by indications of non-zero couplings from high-multipole cosmic microwave background data, weak lensing, and Lyman-$\alpha$ observations. We demonstrate that a similar observational preference is obtained if $\nu$DM interactions are primarily enhanced during a specific epoch, $z\sim (10^4-10^5)$, leading to $>3\sigma$ preference for a non-zero interaction in the combined Atacama Cosmology Telescope and cosmic shear data. This redshift-limited enhancement circumvents other cosmological and astrophysical bounds and can be achieved within a neutrino portal dark matter framework incorporating resonantly enhanced scattering rates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.20396 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. The triangle plot for the MCMC scan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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

New Constraints on Neutrino-Dark Matter Interactions: A Comprehensive Analysis
hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Most benchmark neutrino-dark matter couplings adopted in previous studies are excluded when laboratory meson and Z decay bounds are combined with cosmological and astrophysical constraints, leaving only special galact...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Boehm, P

C. Boehm, P. Fayet, and R. Schaeffer, Phys. Lett. B 518, 8 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0012504

arXiv 2001
[2]

Boehm and R

C. Boehm and R. Schaeffer, Astron. Astrophys. 438, 419 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0410591

arXiv 2005
[3]

Mangano, A

G. Mangano, A. Melchiorri, P. Serra, A. Cooray, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 74, 043517 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0606190

arXiv 2006
[4]

Constraints on neutrino -- dark matter interactions from cosmic microwave background and large scale structure data

P. Serra, F. Zalamea, A. Cooray, G. Mangano, and A. Melchiorri, Phys. Rev. D 81, 043507 (2010), arXiv:0911.4411 [astro-ph.CO]

work page Pith review arXiv 2010
[5]

I. M. Shoemaker, Phys. Dark Univ. 2, 157 (2013), arXiv:1305.1936 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2013
[6]

R. J. Wilkinson, C. Boehm, and J. Lesgourgues, JCAP 05, 011 (2014), arXiv:1401.7597 [astro- ph.CO]

arXiv 2014
[7]

Escudero, O

M. Escudero, O. Mena, A. C. Vincent, R. J. Wilkinson, and C. Bœhm, JCAP 09, 034 (2015), arXiv:1505.06735 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2015
[8]

Comprehensive Study of Neutrino-Dark Matter Mixed Damping

J. Stadler, C. Bœhm, and O. Mena, JCAP 08, 014 (2019), arXiv:1903.00540 [astro-ph.CO]

work page Pith review arXiv 2019

Show all 78 references

[9]

M. R. Mosbech, C. Boehm, S. Hannestad, O. Mena, J. Stadler, and Y. Y. Y. Wong, JCAP 03, 066 (2021), arXiv:2011.04206 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[10]

A. Paul, A. Chatterjee, A. Ghoshal, and S. Pal, JCAP 10, 017 (2021), arXiv:2104.04760 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[11]

S. Pal, R. Samanta, and S. Pal, JCAP 12, 004 (2023), arXiv:2305.12830 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[12]

D. C. Hooper and M. Lucca, Phys. Rev. D 105, 103504 (2022), arXiv:2110.04024 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[13]

P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, E. Di Valentino, W. Giar` e, and S. Trojanowski, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 527, L122 (2023), arXiv:2303.16895 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[14]

P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, E. Di Valentino, W. Giar` e, and S. Trojanowski, Phys. Dark Univ. 42, 101321 (2023), arXiv:2305.01383 [astro- ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[15]

Giar` e, A

W. Giar` e, A. G´ omez-Valent, E. Di Valentino, and C. van de Bruck, Phys. Rev. D 109, 063516 (2024), arXiv:2311.09116 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[16]

L. Zu, W. Giar` e, C. Zhang, E. Di Valentino, Y.-L. S. Tsai, and S. Trojanowski, (2025), arXiv:2501.13785 [astro-ph.CO]

2025
[17]

Farzan and S

Y. Farzan and S. Palomares-Ruiz, JCAP 06, 014 (2014), arXiv:1401.7019 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[18]

C. A. Arg¨ uelles, A. Kheirandish, and A. C. Vincent, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 201801 (2017), arXiv:1703.00451 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[19]

Pandey, S

S. Pandey, S. Karmakar, and S. Rakshit, JHEP 01, 095 (2019), [Erratum: JHEP 11, 215 (2021)], arXiv:1810.04203 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[20]

K. J. Kelly and P. A. N. Machado, JCAP 10, 048 (2018), arXiv:1808.02889 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[21]

J. B. G. Alvey and M. Fairbairn, JCAP 07, 041 (2019), arXiv:1902.01450 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[22]

K.-Y. Choi, J. Kim, and C. Rott, Phys. Rev. D 99, 083018 (2019), arXiv:1903.03302 [astro- ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[23]

Jho, J.-C

Y. Jho, J.-C. Park, S. C. Park, and P.-Y. Tseng, (2021), arXiv:2101.11262 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[24]

Ghosh, A

D. Ghosh, A. Guha, and D. Sachdeva, Phys. Rev. D 105, 103029 (2022), arXiv:2110.00025 [hep- ph]

2022 arXiv
[25]

Lin, W.-H

Y.-H. Lin, W.-H. Wu, M.-R. Wu, and H. T.- K. Wong, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 111002 (2023), arXiv:2206.06864 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[26]

J. M. Cline, S. Gao, F. Guo, Z. Lin, S. Liu, M. Puel, P. Todd, and T. Xiao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 091402 (2023), arXiv:2209.02713 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[27]

Ferrer, G

F. Ferrer, G. Herrera, and A. Ibarra, JCAP 05, 8 4 2 log10(u) 0.118 0.120 dm 0.02 0.04 0.06 reio 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 ns 2.97 3.00 3.03 3.06 ln(1010As) 1.041 1.042 100 s 2.20 2.24 2.28 100 b 0.75 0.80 8 0.29 0.30 0.31 m 2 3 4 5log10 z 4.0 4.5 5.0 log10zmin 4.0 4.5 5.0 log10zmin...

2023 arXiv
[28]

J. M. Cline and M. Puel, JCAP 06, 004 (2023), arXiv:2301.08756 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[29]

Lin, T.-H

Y.-H. Lin, T.-H. Tsai, G.-L. Lin, H. T.-K. Wong, and M.-R. Wu, Phys. Rev. D108, 083013 (2023), arXiv:2307.03522 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[30]

Fujiwara and G

M. Fujiwara and G. Herrera, Phys. Lett. B 851, 138573 (2024), arXiv:2312.11670 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[31]

Heston, S

S. Heston, S. Horiuchi, and S. Shirai, Phys. Rev. D 110, 023004 (2024), arXiv:2402.08718 [hep- ph]

2024 arXiv
[32]

Lin and M.-R

Y.-H. Lin and M.-R. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 111004 (2024), arXiv:2404.08528 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[33]

Fujiwara, G

M. Fujiwara, G. Herrera, and S. Horiuchi, (2024), arXiv:2412.00805 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[34]

G. D. Zapata, J. Jones-P´ erez, and A. M. Gago, (2025), arXiv:2503.03823 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[35]

L. P. S. Leal, D. Naredo-Tuero, and R. Z. Fun- chal, (2025), arXiv:2504.10576 [hep-ph]

2025
[36]

Chauhan, R

G. Chauhan, R. A. Gustafson, G. Herrera, T. Johnson, and I. Shoemaker, (2025), arXiv:2505.03882 [hep-ph]

2025
[37]

Boehm, J

C. Boehm, J. A. Schewtschenko, R. J. Wilkinson, C. M. Baugh, and S. Pascoli, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 445, L31 (2014), arXiv:1404.7012 [astro-ph.CO]

2014 arXiv
[38]

A. Dey, A. Paul, and S. Pal, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 524, 100 (2023), arXiv:2207.02451 9 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[39]

Akita and S

K. Akita and S. Ando, JCAP 11, 037 (2023), arXiv:2305.01913 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[40]

A. Dey, A. Paul, and S. Pal, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 527, 790 (2023), arXiv:2307.00606 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[41]

Crumrine, E

W. Crumrine, E. O. Nadler, R. An, and V. Gluscevic, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023530 (2025), arXiv:2406.19458 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[42]

Olivares-Del Campo, C

A. Olivares-Del Campo, C. Bœhm, S. Palomares- Ruiz, and S. Pascoli, Phys. Rev. D 97, 075039 (2018), arXiv:1711.05283 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[43]

Ma and E

C.-P. Ma and E. Bertschinger, Astrophys. J. 455, 7 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9506072

1995 arXiv
[44]

Cyr-Racine, K

F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, K. Sigurdson, J. Zavala, T. Bringmann, M. Vogelsberger, and C. Pfrommer, Phys. Rev. D 93, 123527 (2016), arXiv:1512.05344 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[45]

Dodelson and J

S. Dodelson and J. M. Jubas, Astrophys. J. 439, 503 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9308019

1995 arXiv
[46]

Amon et al.(DES), Phys

A. Amon et al.(DES), Phys. Rev. D 105, 023514 (2022), arXiv:2105.13543 [astro-ph.CO]

2022
[47]

Aghanim et al

N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A5 (2020), arXiv:1907.12875 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[48]

du Mas des Bourboux et al

H. du Mas des Bourboux et al. (eBOSS), As- trophys. J. 901, 153 (2020), arXiv:2007.08995 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[49]

Gil-Marin et al

H. Gil-Marin et al. (eBOSS), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 498, 2492 (2020), arXiv:2007.08994 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[50]

Neveux et al

R. Neveux et al. (eBOSS), Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc. 499, 210 (2020), arXiv:2007.08999 [astro-ph.CO]

2020
[51]

de Mattia et al

A. de Mattia et al. (eBOSS), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 501, 5616 (2021), arXiv:2007.09008 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[52]

Alam et al

S. Alam et al. (eBOSS), Phys. Rev. D 103, 083533 (2021), arXiv:2007.08991 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[53]

Zhang, L

C. Zhang, L. Zu, H.-Z. Chen, Y.-L. S. Tsai, and Y.-Z. Fan, JCAP 08, 003 (2024), arXiv:2402.18880 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[54]

E. O. Nadler et al. (DES), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 091101 (2021), arXiv:2008.00022 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[55]

W. H. Press and P. Schechter, Astrophys. J. 187, 425 (1974)

1974
[56]

J. R. Bond, S. Cole, G. Efstathiou, and N. Kaiser, Astrophys. J. 379, 440 (1991)

1991
[57]

Esteban, A

I. Esteban, A. H. G. Peter, and S. Y. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123013 (2024), arXiv:2306.04674 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[58]

R. K. Sheth and G. Tormen, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 329, 61 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0105113

2002
[59]

A. J. Benson, A. Ludlow, and S. Cole, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 485, 5010–5020 (2019)

2019
[60]

A. H. Wright et al., (2025), arXiv:2503.19441 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[61]

Di Valentino et al

E. Di Valentino et al. (CosmoVerse), (2025), arXiv:2504.01669 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[62]

Bertoni, S

B. Bertoni, S. Ipek, D. McKeen, and A. E. Nel- son, JHEP 04, 170 (2015), arXiv:1412.3113 [hep- ph]

2015 arXiv
[63]

Batell, T

B. Batell, T. Han, and B. Shams Es Haghi, Phys. Rev. D 97, 095020 (2018), arXiv:1704.08708 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[64]

Batell, T

B. Batell, T. Han, D. McKeen, and B. Shams Es Haghi, Phys. Rev. D 97, 075016 (2018), arXiv:1709.07001 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[65]

Blennow, E

M. Blennow, E. Fernandez-Martinez, A. Olivares-Del Campo, S. Pascoli, S. Rosauro- Alcaraz, and A. V. Titov, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 555 (2019), arXiv:1903.00006 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[66]

Beacham et al., J

J. Beacham et al., J. Phys. G 47, 010501 (2020), arXiv:1901.09966 [hep-ex]

2020 arXiv
[67]

Aghanim et al

N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[68]

C. A. Arg¨ uelles, A. Diaz, A. Kheirandish, A. Olivares-Del-Campo, I. Safa, and A. C. Vincent, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 035007 (2021), arXiv:1912.09486 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[69]

G. W. Anderson and S. M. Carroll, in 1st Inter- national Conference on Particle Physics and the Early Universe (1997) pp. 227–229, arXiv:astro- ph/9711288

1997
[70]

Das and N

S. Das and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D 84, 123511 (2011), arXiv:astro-ph/0611353

2011 arXiv
[71]

Davoudiasl and G

H. Davoudiasl and G. Mohlabeng, JHEP 04, 177 (2020), arXiv:1912.05572 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[72]

Boubekeur and S

L. Boubekeur and S. Profumo, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103535 (2023), arXiv:2302.10246 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[73]

A. Das, S. Das, and S. K. Sethi, Phys. Rev. D 108, 083501 (2023), arXiv:2303.17947 [astro- ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[74]

Chakraborty, A

A. Chakraborty, A. Das, S. Das, and S. K. Sethi, Phys. Rev. D 111, 063515 (2025), arXiv:2405.08476 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[75]

C. A. J. O’Hare, PoS COSMICWISPers, 040 (2024), arXiv:2403.17697 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[76]

P. R. S., E. Krause, K. Dolag, K. Benabed, T. Ei- fler, E. Ay¸ coberry, and Y. Dubois, (2024), arXiv:2410.21980 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[77]

S. K. Choi et al. (ACT), JCAP 12, 045 (2020), arXiv:2007.07289 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[78]

Audren, J

B. Audren, J. Lesgourgues, K. Benabed, and S. Prunet, JCAP 02, 001 (2013), arXiv:1210.7183 [astro-ph.CO]. 10

2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Boehm, P

C. Boehm, P. Fayet, and R. Schaeffer, Phys. Lett. B 518, 8 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0012504

arXiv 2001

[2] [2]

Boehm and R

C. Boehm and R. Schaeffer, Astron. Astrophys. 438, 419 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0410591

arXiv 2005

[3] [3]

Mangano, A

G. Mangano, A. Melchiorri, P. Serra, A. Cooray, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 74, 043517 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0606190

arXiv 2006

[4] [4]

Constraints on neutrino -- dark matter interactions from cosmic microwave background and large scale structure data

P. Serra, F. Zalamea, A. Cooray, G. Mangano, and A. Melchiorri, Phys. Rev. D 81, 043507 (2010), arXiv:0911.4411 [astro-ph.CO]

work page Pith review arXiv 2010

[5] [5]

I. M. Shoemaker, Phys. Dark Univ. 2, 157 (2013), arXiv:1305.1936 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2013

[6] [6]

R. J. Wilkinson, C. Boehm, and J. Lesgourgues, JCAP 05, 011 (2014), arXiv:1401.7597 [astro- ph.CO]

arXiv 2014

[7] [7]

Escudero, O

M. Escudero, O. Mena, A. C. Vincent, R. J. Wilkinson, and C. Bœhm, JCAP 09, 034 (2015), arXiv:1505.06735 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2015

[8] [8]

Comprehensive Study of Neutrino-Dark Matter Mixed Damping

J. Stadler, C. Bœhm, and O. Mena, JCAP 08, 014 (2019), arXiv:1903.00540 [astro-ph.CO]

work page Pith review arXiv 2019