Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Superhorizon fluctuations and the cosmic dipole problem

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A superhorizon cold dark matter isocurvature perturbation can generate an intrinsic CMB dipole that cancels part of the kinematic dipole, explaining the 4.9σ tension between CMB and galaxy number-count dipoles.

desk verdict Plausible mechanism for the dipole tension, but the continuous-spectrum version only works if the intrinsic and kinematic dipoles anti-align, and the paper never discusses that. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20462 v1 pith:6QIVZQD3 submitted 2025-07-28 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Ge Chen , Chengcheng Han , Linwei Qiu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COhep-ph
keywords cosmicdipoleisocurvatureperturbationssuperhorizonfluctuationsaxiondarkmatterCMBgalaxynumbercountscosmologicalprinciplequadrupole
topics Dark Matter
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

Quasar and radio-source catalogues show a galaxy number-count dipole roughly twice as large as the CMB dipole predicts from the measured peculiar velocity, a discrepancy now reported at the 4.9σ level and often read as a challenge to the cosmological principle. This paper tries to resolve that discrepancy without abandoning homogeneity and isotropy: it claims that a superhorizon cold dark matter isocurvature perturbation produces an intrinsic CMB dipole that partly cancels the kinematic dipole from our motion, while leaving galaxy number counts nearly unchanged. The claim is worked out for a single plane-wave mode and for a continuous spectrum, with two concrete generators of the isocurvature spectrum: a nearly scale-invariant power law with a UV cutoff, and axion dark matter whose radial mode evolves during inflation. If correct, the mechanism preserves the cosmological principle and supplies indirect evidence for axion dark matter, fixing the axion self-coupling in the window $10^{-9} < \lambda < 4\times 10^{-9}$ for a decay constant $f = 10^5 H$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the isocurvature transfer relation $D_1 = -(k\,r_{\mathrm{dec}})\cdot 0.27\,S_{\mathrm{dec}}$, which connects a superhorizon CDM isocurvature amplitude $S$ to the intrinsic CMB dipole; on top of it stands the leading-order cancellation of adiabatic modes in both CMB and number-count dipoles. For continuous spectra, the working tool is the angular power spectrum $C_l = \frac{2}{\pi}\int \frac{dk}{k} P_S(k)|F_l(k)|^2$, evaluated with transfer functions from a linear Einstein-Boltzmann solver. The axion case is carried by the isocurvature spectrum $P_S(k) = P_S(k_{\min})[\phi(k)/\phi(k_{\min})]^{-2}$, where $\phi$ is the axion radial mode (the magnitude of the Peccei-Quinn field) evolving in the potential $V(\phi) = \frac{\lambda}{4}(\phi^2 - f^2)^2$; starting displaced from the origin by about $H$ during inflation and rolling toward $f$, it produces a spectrum enhanced on superhorizon scales that decays by recombination.

What would settle it

Compute the probability, over realizations of the proposed continuous isocurvature spectra, that the intrinsic dipole has both the required amplitude and an orientation anti-aligned with the kinematic dipole to within the observed tolerance; a small probability would rule the model out. A direct observational check is to isolate the intrinsic CMB dipole direction after subtracting a kinematic dipole along the velocity implied by the galaxy number-count dipole, and to test whether the residual points opposite to that velocity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that superhorizon CDM isocurvature modes, unlike adiabatic modes, generate a leading-order intrinsic CMB dipole, and that the observed CMB dipole is the vector sum of the kinematic dipole from the observer's motion and this intrinsic dipole. Because the intrinsic contribution is negative in the relevant configuration, the observed CMB dipole appears smaller than the galaxy number-count dipole implies. The single-mode analysis gives the transfer relation $D_1 = -(k\,r_{\mathrm{dec}})\cdot 0.27\,S_{\mathrm{dec}}$, and a mode with $S_{\mathrm{dec}}\sim 1$ and $k\,r_{\mathrm{dec}}\sim 5\times 10^{-3}$ provides the required intrinsic dipole of about $1.5\times 10^{-3}$. For a continuous spectrum, the paper shows that a power-law isocurvature spectrum with amplitude $A_I \gtrsim 0.2$ and cutoff $k_{\max} < k_{\mathrm{dec}}$ works, and that axion isocurvature with $f = 10^5 H$ and $10^{-9} < \lambda < 4\times 10^{-9}$ generates the needed spectrum while evading the CMB quadrupole and isocurvature bounds.

Load-bearing premise

The resolution assumes the intrinsic CMB dipole is almost exactly anti-aligned with the kinematic dipole from our motion; for a statistically isotropic continuous spectrum that direction is random, and the paper gives no mechanism or probability ensuring the required anti-alignment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The CMB dipole can no longer be read directly as our peculiar velocity; the galaxy number-count dipole becomes the clean kinematic probe.
  • The cosmological principle is preserved: the dipole mismatch is attributed to a local superhorizon perturbation rather than a violation of large-scale isotropy.
  • Axion dark matter gains indirect support, with the self-coupling constrained to $10^{-9} < \lambda < 4\times 10^{-9}$ at $f = 10^5 H$.
  • For $f \sim 10^{11}\,\mathrm{GeV}$, the associated scalar mass is around $10^6\,\mathrm{GeV}$, beyond the LHC but potentially reachable at a future 1000 TeV collider.
  • The alternative power-law isocurvature model requires $A_I \gtrsim 0.2$ with cutoff $k_{\max} < k_{\mathrm{dec}}$, a region that future isocurvature searches can directly probe.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because a statistically isotropic spectrum almost never yields an intrinsic dipole exactly anti-aligned with the kinematic dipole, a Bayesian model comparison weighting the probability of the observed partial cancellation would sharpen the model's testability.
  • The same superhorizon perturbation should leave correlated signatures in the directions of the low CMB multipoles, so checking alignments among the dipole, quadrupole, and octopole could distinguish the isocurvature resolution from a purely kinematic explanation.
  • A concrete extension is to compute the predicted distribution of the angle between the intrinsic and kinematic dipoles for the axion spectrum and compare with the observed configuration; a statistically significant misalignment would falsify the mechanism even if the amplitude fits.
  • The mechanism predicts that the intrinsic dipole component is absent from galaxy number counts, so a cross-correlation between the residual CMB dipole and the number-count dipole could isolate the isocurvature contribution and test its direction.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether superhorizon CDM isocurvature perturbations can resolve the observed 4.9-sigma tension between the CMB dipole and the galaxy number-count dipole. After reviewing the standard result that adiabatic superhorizon modes cancel at leading order in both CMB and galaxy number counts, the authors analyze a single superhorizon isocurvature plane wave and then extend the treatment to continuous power spectra. Two concrete spectra are considered: a nearly scale-invariant power-law spectrum with a UV cutoff, and an axion-induced isocurvature spectrum in which the radial mode rolls from near the origin during inflation. Using CLASS-based transfer functions, the authors find parameter regions that produce the required intrinsic CMB dipole amplitude while satisfying CMB quadrupole and isocurvature bounds, and they quote A_I >~ 0.2 for the power-law model and 10^-9 < lambda < 4 x 10^-9 for the axion model at f = 10^5 H.

Significance. If the proposed mechanism is correct, it would provide an early-universe explanation of the cosmic dipole anomaly while preserving the cosmological principle, and it would give indirect support to an axion dark-matter scenario. The paper has genuine strengths: it reproduces the established adiabatic cancellation with explicit CLASS transfer functions, it clearly distinguishes adiabatic from isocurvature behavior, and it provides concrete, falsifiable parameter regions that can be checked against future CMB data. The axion model is admittedly specialized but concrete. However, the central explanatory claim is currently incomplete because the continuous-spectrum model fixes only the variance of the intrinsic CMB dipole, not its direction, and the paper does not quantify the probability that the intrinsic dipole is aligned so as to reduce the observed CMB dipole.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (2.12)] Equation (2.12), C1_CMB = C1_kin - C1_in, is not a valid addition rule for dipole powers. The observed CMB dipole is the vector sum of the kinematic and intrinsic dipoles, and the angular power is the variance of that sum. Even in the perfectly anti-aligned case the power is (D_kin - D_in)^2, not D_kin^2 - D_in^2. The paper must either work with dipole vectors and state the alignment assumption explicitly, or compute the distribution of |v_kin + v_int| and compare it with the observed value. This is load-bearing because the claimed cancellation is the basis for the proposed solution.
  2. [Sec. 4, continuous-spectrum models] For the continuous spectra of Sec. 4, the intrinsic dipole direction is not fixed by the model. A statistically isotropic spectrum fixes only the variance C1; the direction of the intrinsic dipole is a random realization, with no reason to be anti-parallel to the observer velocity inferred from the galaxy dipole. The paper does not quantify the probability that |v_kin + v_int| is as small as the observed CMB dipole, nor does it provide a physical alignment mechanism. Without this, the continuous-spectrum model shows that an intrinsic dipole of the required amplitude can exist, but not that it can cancel the kinematic dipole in our realization.
  3. [Secs. 4.3-4.4, Eq. (4.13)] The axion model depends on the initial condition phi = 0 and on P_S(k) = P_S(kmin)[phi(k)/phi(kmin)]^{-2}, imported without derivation from Ref. [21]. Starting the radial mode exactly at the unstable origin is a strong assumption that should be justified, and the relation between P_S and phi(k) should at least be summarized. In addition, the quoted ranges A_I >~ 0.2 and 10^-9 < lambda < 4 x 10^-9 are regions that reproduce the observed dipole amplitude, i.e., fits rather than predictions; the text should state this explicitly and, ideally, evaluate the model by a goodness-of-fit that includes the dipole direction.
  4. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3.7)] The isocurvature dipole coefficient 0.27 is said to be about 1.5 times larger than the value in Ref. [17], but no explanation is given. Since the required wavenumber krdec ~ 5 x 10^-3 is inversely proportional to this coefficient, the discrepancy should be resolved (e.g., by clarifying the normalization of S) before the quantitative parameter ranges are quoted.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.1, Eq. (4.9)] Equation (4.9) has a unit inconsistency: for T0 in kelvin the denominator 2 pi T0^2 makes the conversion off by T0^4; the T0^2 factor should be in the numerator, or the notation for C_l should be clarified. The numerical translation to Eq. (4.10) should be checked.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption uses 'f = 1 x 10^5' without units; the text specifies f = 10^5 H. Please make the units explicit, and clarify the y-axis label of the left panel, which reads 'phi x 10^5'.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] There is a typo in the caption: 'comic dipole problem' should be 'cosmic dipole problem'.
  4. [References] Refs. [17] and [20] appear to be the same paper; please merge them or clarify the intended distinction.
  5. [Sec. 2, Eq. (2.13)] The range quoted for C_in,1 should state explicitly whether it is a dipole power or a dipole amplitude and how it is derived from the required D_in ~ 1.5 x 10^-3; as written, the connection to Eq. (3.16) is not transparent.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The parameter ranges for AI and λ are fitted to the required intrinsic CMB dipole, and the axion spectrum plus target dipole window are imported from a co-author's prior paper, so the central 'constraint' is not an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.2 Eq. (3.16); Sec. 4.4 Fig. 3]
    "To reconcile this difference, an intrinsic CMB dipole contribution is required: DCMB 1,in ∼ 1.5×10−3. ... We find that explaining the dipole anomaly requires AI ≳ 0.2; otherwise, the predicted CMB dipole is too small or the quadrupole becomes too large. ... We find that the self-coupling must lie within the range 10−9 < λ < 4×10−9."

    The required intrinsic dipole is read directly from the observed mismatch between the galaxy-count velocity (797 km/s) and the CMB dipole. The model parameters (AI, kmax) and (λ, kmin) are then scanned so that C1 computed from Eqs. (4.12) and (4.15) falls inside the range (2.13) that corresponds to that same mismatch. The quoted ranges for AI and λ are therefore the locus of a fit to the input discrepancy, not independent predictions. The quadrupole and isocurvature limits only carve out parts of this fitted locus; they do not turn the fit into a forecast.

  2. self citation load bearing [Sec. 2 Eq. (2.13); Sec. 4.3 Eq. (4.13), Ref. [21]]
    "where the intrinsic dipole component is constrained by the angular power spectrum to lie within the range [21] 9.0×10−7 ≲ Cin,1 ≲ 5.6×10−6. ... The second power spectrum is given by [21] PS(k) = PS(kmin)(φ(k)/φ(kmin))^{-2} θ(k−kmin)."

    Both the target dipole window and the axion isocurvature power spectrum are imported from Ref. [21] (C. Han), a co-author of the present paper. No derivation of PS(k) or of the [21] window is reproduced here, and no independent numerical reproduction is cited. The axion-model conclusion (10^-9 < λ < 4×10^-9) is obtained by combining these two self-cited ingredients, so the central claim is load-bearing on a self-citation chain rather than on independently verified content. The Planck quadrupole and isocurvature limits are external, but they serve only as cuts on the self-cited target.

full rationale

The paper's central demonstration is a parameter-space consistency check: it takes the observed CMB-versus-galaxy dipole mismatch as the required intrinsic dipole amplitude, then scans the isocurvature spectrum parameters so that the computed C1 lands in that range. This is the main circularity: the quoted constraints on AI and λ are fitted values, not predictions from first principles. The axion-specific input is also self-cited to Ref. [21] by co-author Han, making the axion window depend on a self-citation chain. There is independent content: the CLASS-based transfer functions, the single-mode cancellation, and the external Planck quadrupole/isocurvature bounds, which can exclude parts of the fitted band. However, those external bounds do not remove the fact that the dipole target itself is an input and the parameters are chosen to reproduce it. A separate physical concern, not scored as circularity, is that Eq. (2.12) assumes the intrinsic dipole is anti-aligned with the kinematic dipole; for a continuous statistically isotropic spectrum the direction is unspecified, so the cancellation is assumed rather than derived. Overall, the dipole 'explanation' is a fit to the discrepancy, not an independent prediction, giving a partial-circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard linear perturbation theory plus a set of model choices. The axion ingredient is imported from a paper by the same co-author and its initial conditions are tuned to produce large superhorizon isocurvature that decays by decoupling. Several free parameters (A_I, kmax, kmin, lambda, f, n) are scanned or set to match the observed dipole, so the reported lambda range is a fit rather than an independent prediction.

free parameters (6)
  • A_I (power-law amplitude) = approximately 0.2 or larger, for kmax below k_dec
    Normalization of PS(k) chosen so that the intrinsic CMB dipole lands in the observed required range; not predicted from theory.
  • kmax (UV cutoff of power-law isocurvature spectrum) = scanned; restricted to kmax < k_dec
    The hard cutoff is introduced to keep small-scale isocurvature below the Planck bound; its value is chosen by hand.
  • n (spectral index of power-law model) = 1
    Set to 1 by hand in the calculation; not fitted but an ad hoc choice that simplifies the spectrum.
  • kmin (low-k onset of axion isocurvature spectrum) = 1/(kmin r_dec) approximately 30 to 70
    Varied so that the superhorizon scales contributing to the dipole lie in the observed window.
  • lambda (axion self-coupling) = 1e-9 < lambda < 4e-9 for f = 1e5 H
    Chosen so the axion radial mode reaches the vacuum at the right scale to keep C1 in the observed range while passing quadrupole and isocurvature limits; reported as a constraint but is a fitted range.
  • f (axion decay constant) = f = 1e5 H
    Adopted at the edge of the CMB isocurvature bound H/f of about 1e-5; not independently measured, and the lambda range shifts for other f.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Standard FLRW linear perturbation theory and CLASS transfer functions describe superhorizon isocurvature evolution.
    Used in Secs. 3 and 4 to compute CMB and number count multipoles; not re-derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic superhorizon modes cancel in the CMB and number-count dipoles at leading order, while CDM isocurvature modes generate a CMB dipole.
    Adopted from Refs [17,19]; central to the argument and verified numerically with CLASS.
  • ad hoc to paper The axion isocurvature power spectrum is PS(k) = PS(kmin) [phi(k)/phi(kmin)]^-2 with PS(kmin) approximately 1 (Eq. 4.13).
    Imported from Ref [21], by co-author Han; no independent derivation or observable anchor is given in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper PQ symmetry is broken during inflation with the radial mode initially near phi = 0, with phi(kmin) = H/pi and f = 1e5 H.
    This initial condition produces large superhorizon isocurvature that decays as phi approaches f; it is tuned for the dipole explanation and not independently motivated.
  • domain assumption At redshift about 1 the residual CDM isocurvature density contrast is suppressed by a0/aeq of about 1e3 and can be neglected in galaxy number counts.
    Used in Sec. 3.2 to argue the isocurvature mode does not affect the galaxy dipole; an order-of-magnitude estimate with no explicit error budget.
invented entities (1)
  • Axion radial mode with quartic potential V = (lambda/4)(phi^2 - f^2)^2, initially near the origin
    purpose: Generates large superhorizon CDM isocurvature perturbations whose amplitude decays as the field rolls toward f, providing the spectrum in Eq. (4.13).
    The initial displacement (phi(kmin) = H/pi), the coupling range lambda around 1e-9, and f = 1e5 H are chosen to fit the dipole while passing CMB bounds; the only externally checkable handle mentioned, a scalar mass O(1e6) GeV for f near 1e11 GeV, is not uniquely tied to data in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Superhorizon fluctuations and the cosmic dipole problem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6QIVZQD3

@misc{pith2026250720462,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Superhorizon fluctuations and the cosmic dipole problem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6QIVZQD3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20462}
}
abstract

Recent observations have identified a significant 4.9$\sigma$ tension between the cosmic dipole inferred from galaxy number counts and that derived from the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), suggesting a potential deviation from the cosmological principle. This work investigates whether superhorizon isocurvature perturbations in cold dark matter (CDM) can account for this discrepancy. We demonstrate that, unlike adiabatic modes which cancel at leading order, superhorizon isocurvature modes can generate an intrinsic CMB dipole without significantly affecting galaxy number counts, thereby explaining the observed mismatch. We explore both single-mode and continuous-spectrum cases, focusing on two concrete models: a nearly scale-invariant power-law spectrum with a UV cutoff and axion-induced isocurvature perturbations. For the axion scenario, we show that if the radial mode evolves during inflation, the resulting perturbations can match the required amplitude while evading current CMB constraints. Our analysis constrains the self-coupling of associated potential for the axion to the range $10^{-9} < \lambda < 4 \times 10^{-9}$. These findings offer a viable solution to the dipole tension and may serve as indirect evidence for axion dark matter.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [21]

    Han, QCD axion dark matter and the cosmic dipole problem , Physical Review D 108 (2023) 015026

    C. Han, QCD axion dark matter and the cosmic dipole problem , Physical Review D 108 (2023) 015026

    work page 2023

  2. [17]

    Dom` enech, R

    G. Dom` enech, R. Mohayaee, S. P. Patil and S. Sarkar,Galaxy number-count dipole and superhorizon fluctuations, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2022 (2022) 019

    work page 2022

  3. [1]

    G. F. R. Ellis and J. E. Baldwin, On the expected anisotropy of radio source counts , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 206 (1984) 377

    work page 1984

  4. [2]

    J. J. Condon, W. D. Cotton, E. W. Greisen, Q. F. Yin, R. A. Perley, G. B. Taylor et al., The NRAO VLA Sky Survey , The Astronomical Journal 115 (1998) 1693

    work page 1998

  5. [3]

    Maartens, C

    R. Maartens, C. Clarkson and S. Chen, The kinematic dipole in galaxy redshift surveys , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2018 (2018) 013

    work page 2018

  6. [4]

    Nadolny, R

    T. Nadolny, R. Durrer, M. Kunz and H. Padmanabhan, A new way to test the Cosmological Principle: measuring our peculiar velocity and the large scale anisotropy independently , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021 (2021) 009

    work page 2021

  7. [5]

    Gibelyou and D

    C. Gibelyou and D. Huterer, Dipoles in the Sky , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 427 (2012) 1994. – 13 –

    work page 2012

  8. [6]

    Mauch, T

    T. Mauch, T. Murphy, H. J. Buttery, J. Curran, R. W. Hunstead, B. Piestrzynski et al., SUMSS: A Wide-Field Radio Imaging Survey of the Southern Sky. II. The Source Catalogue , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 342 (2003) 1117

    work page 2003

Show all 42 references
  1. [7]

    Y. Itoh, K. Yahata and M. Takada, A dipole anisotropy of galaxy distribution: Does the CMB rest-frame exist in the local universe? , Physical Review D 82 (2010) 043530

    2010

  2. [8]

    A. K. Singal, Large peculiar motion of the solar system from the dipole anisotropy in sky brightness due to distant radio sources , The Astrophysical Journal 742 (2011) L23

    2011

  3. [9]

    Rubart and D

    M. Rubart and D. J. Schwarz, Cosmic radio dipole from NVSS and WENSS , Astronomy & Astrophysics 555 (2013) A117

    2013

  4. [10]

    Tiwari and A

    P. Tiwari and A. Nusser, Revisiting the NVSS number count dipole , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2016 (2016) 062

    2016

  5. [11]

    A. K. Singal, A large disparity in cosmic reference frames determined from the sky distributions of radio sources and the microwave background radiation , Physical Review D 100 (2019) 063501

    2019

  6. [12]

    T. M. Siewert, M. Schmidt-Rubart and D. J. Schwarz, The Cosmic Radio Dipole: Estimators and Frequency Dependence, Astronomy & Astrophysics 653 (2021) A9

    2021

  7. [13]

    Secrest, S

    N. Secrest, S. v. Hausegger, M. Rameez, R. Mohayaee, S. Sarkar and J. Colin, A Test of the Cosmological Principle with Quasars , The Astrophysical Journal Letters 908 (2021) L51

    2021

  8. [14]

    Secrest, S

    N. Secrest, S. v. Hausegger, M. Rameez, R. Mohayaee and S. Sarkar, A Challenge to the Standard Cosmological Model, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 937 (2022) L31

    2022

  9. [15]

    Secrest, S

    N. Secrest, S. von Hausegger, M. Rameez, R. Mohayaee and S. Sarkar, Colloquium: The Cosmic Dipole Anomaly, 2505.23526

  10. [16]

    A. L. Erickcek, C. M. Hirata and M. Kamionkowski, A Scale-Dependent Power Asymmetry from Isocurvature Perturbations, July, 2009. 10.48550/arXiv.0907.0705

    2009 doi arXiv

  11. [18]

    M. S. Turner, The tilted universe , General Relativity and Gravitation 24 (1992)

    1992

  12. [19]

    A. L. Erickcek, S. M. Carroll and M. Kamionkowski, Superhorizon Perturbations and the Cosmic Microwave Background, Physical Review D 78 (2008) 083012

    2008

  13. [20]

    Dom` enech, R

    G. Dom` enech, R. Mohayaee, S. P. Patil and S. Sarkar,Galaxy number-count dipole and superhorizon fluctuations, JCAP 10 (2022) 019 [ 2207.01569]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, CP Conservation in the Presence of Pseudoparticles , Physical Review Letters 38 (1977) 1440

    1977

  15. [23]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Constraints imposed by $\mathrm{CP}$ conservation in the presence of pseudoparticles, Physical Review D 16 (1977) 1791

    1977

  16. [24]

    P. J. Steinhardt and M. S. Turner, Saving the invisible axion , Physics Letters B 129 (1983) 51

    1983

  17. [25]

    Preskill, M

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise and F. Wilczek, Cosmology of the invisible axion , Physics Letters B 120 (1983) 127. – 14 –

    1983

  18. [26]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler, The not-so-harmless axion , Physics Letters B 120 (1983) 137

    1983

  19. [27]

    L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, A cosmological bound on the invisible axion , Physics Letters B 120 (1983) 133

    1983

  20. [28]

    Isothermal

    D. Seckel and M. S. Turner, “Isothermal” density perturbations in an axion-dominated inflationary universe, Physical Review D 32 (1985) 3178

    1985

  21. [29]

    D. H. Lyth, A limit on the inflationary energy density from axion isocurvature fluctuations , Physics Letters B 236 (1990) 408

    1990

  22. [30]

    M. S. Turner and F. Wilczek, Inflationary axion cosmology, Physical Review Letters 66 (1991) 5

    1991

  23. [31]

    Linde, Axions in inflationary cosmology , Physics Letters B 259 (1991) 38

    A. Linde, Axions in inflationary cosmology , Physics Letters B 259 (1991) 38

    1991

  24. [32]

    J. E. Kim and G. Carosi, Axions and the Strong CP Problem , Mar., 2009. 10.1103/RevModPhys.82.557,10.1103/RevModPhys.91.049902

    2009 doi

  25. [33]

    Wantz and E

    O. Wantz and E. P. S. Shellard, Axion Cosmology Revisited, Physical Review D 82 (2010) 123508

    2010

  26. [34]

    D. J. E. Marsh, Axion Cosmology, Physics Reports 643 (2016) 1

    2016

  27. [35]

    X. Chen, J. Fan and L. Li, New inflationary probes of axion dark matter , Feb., 2024. 10.48550/arXiv.2303.03406

    2024 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    N. A. et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters , Aug., 2021. 10.48550/arXiv.1807.06209

    2018 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    Durrer, The Cosmic Microwave Background

    R. Durrer, The Cosmic Microwave Background . Cambridge University Press, 2 ed., 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Bonvin and R

    C. Bonvin and R. Durrer, What galaxy surveys really measure , Physical Review D 84 (2011) 063505

    2011

  31. [39]

    Challinor and A

    A. Challinor and A. Lewis, The linear power spectrum of observed source number counts , Physical Review D 84 (2011) 043516

    2011

  32. [40]

    Lesgourgues, J.-P

    J. Lesgourgues, J.-P. Uzan et al., Class: The cosmological linear anisotropy solving system , Astrophysics and Space Science 334 (2011) 211

    2011

  33. [41]

    Di Dio, F

    E. Di Dio, F. Montanari, J. Lesgourgues and R. Durrer, The CLASSgal code for Relativistic Cosmological Large Scale Structure, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2013 (2013) 044

    2013

  34. [42]

    Y. A. et al., Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck , Astronomy & Astrophysics 641 (2020) A1. – 15 –

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.